CTC capitulation?

[Flying Dodo]

Not wishing to appear cynical, but what evidence is there that traffic will slow down for a turbo roundabout? Since this is the fist one in the UK I guess there is no precedent but they are used in the Netherlands - do they slow down cars there?

From the reports I have seen a turbo roundabout increases vehicular capacity. This doesn't necessarily mean an increase in speed but it definitely means an increase in traffic flow which I would have thought might make it more difficult to move to the right lane on the approach.

As far as I was aware a turbo roundabout was a sort of semi slip road concept where, because the lanes were more segregated motorists taking a first (or second?) turnoff would be able to progress more quickly onto the roundabout even if there was traffic already on it but going round to another exit. None of this seems to me to indicate that a turbo roundabout would be kind to cyclists.

The actual designer of the junction, Patrick Lingwood, who is the Walking & Cycling Officer at Bedford Borough Council explains the details here.

based on the radius of curvature of vehicular paths, ..... this will reduce motorised vehicle speeds from current 25mph to around 10-15mph, approximating much more to cycling speeds.

A detailed analysis of the accidents suggests a 75% reduction in serious accidents and 40% reduction in slight accidents for all modes, including cyclists.

As I've already stated, sadly it won't help off road cyclists partly because there's no space to put in fully segregated cycle paths all the way round. It's also due to the fact that toucan crossings are the only crossings that traffic will stop for. Here in the UK we haven't got anything like a zebra crossing for cyclists.

 

[totallyfixed]

Oh FFS! the whole crux of the problem is in this paragraph
Secondly, you cannot legally create a non-signalised annular cycle track and a pedestrian crossing in the UK context. This is the significance of the TRL work. It is the first stage in seeking a change in Government regulations to allow this. So either pedestrians get priority at a Zebra or cyclists have priority using Give Way markings (not a feasible option in this context).
In a nutshell, the reason there are always problems in implementing anything in this car-centric excuse for a country that will benefit cyclists is simply that. We are a nation of fat couch potatoes who think it is normal to drive a few hundred metres to the shop, our priorities are so twisted that even if fuel doubled in price it wouldn't change the average British person's "right" to drive ludicrously short distances.
I cycle to the local store, the car park is full, there are three bikes in the cycle parking area which when full will cater for a massive 12 bikes, 2 of them belong to staff, the third is mine. I go to the store in the Netherlands and the car park is deserted, there are innumerable bikes parked there.
The system in the Netherlands works simply because every driver is also a cyclist, there is no issue in giving way to a bike, and because there are so many bikes there are fewer cars and because there are fewer cars there is less pollution and a fitter healthier population.
Is this so f*****g difficult to understand? Chip away all you like, put sticking plasters on here and there but it is not the answer and never will be until the law and attitudes are changed.
I despair.

 

[StuartG]

... even if fuel doubled in price it wouldn't change the average British person's "right" to drive ludicrously short distances.

The shorter the distance the less relevant the fuel price. Since the rest is sink cost the trip to the corner shop is effectively free. Its only lunatics who would cycle and if they have to fork out for helmets and hi-viz than the motorist is quids-in. People are just reacting naturally to the market.

The only way I can think of to change that is to raise the fixed costs and have an aggressive car share scheme (basically only club cars can park anywhere useful). When the user has to fork out dosh for every journey however short the real cost might just register and some modes change. But that has nothing to directly do with cycling and as cyclists I would hope the CTC would back an expansion of club car parking. Its going to be a guerilla war.

Ignoring car culture will mean we will not influence. Expecting immediate car culture capitulation is also a waste of time. Revolutions are not our thing and if we had them then should they be better concentrated on Westminster than roundabouts?

I suppose the best the CTC could have done is campaigned to get the £20 million spent on decent road surfaces. That might be as effective in safety terms and kept the motoring lobby onside instead of getting even more pi**ed off with us.

 

[benb]

What you might, or might not think is irrelevant as you've not bothered to read any of the technical analysis and have shown you don't know anything about this, other than speculation and comments from other armchair critics.

If you think this travesty is a positive step for cycling provision, then you are deluded.
Why do you think that in the Netherlands, turbo roundabouts like this always take the cycling route away from it - they never expect the cyclist to travel through the roundabout.

This is motoring provision, not cycling provision, and taking cycle safety money to pay for it is an outrage.

 

[Flying Dodo]

If you think this travesty is a positive step for cycling provision, then you are deluded.
Why do you think that in the Netherlands, turbo roundabouts like this always take the cycling route away from it - they never expect the cyclist to travel through the roundabout.

This is motoring provision, not cycling provision, and taking cycle safety money to pay for it is an outrage.

If you'd bothered to read any of my comments, you'll see I have made it quite clear that the solution arrived at is far from ideal, and is definitely a compromise, which does nothing much for off road cyclists (although that's mainly due to the lack of space around the roundabout). It is however better than nothing, because if monies from the Cycle Safety Fund hadn't been used, then nothing would have altered on this roundabout at all. It would have remained a dangerous roundabout. With the changes, it becomes a bit less dangerous.

Sadly, in the real world, as UK cyclists we're not going to get perfect, safe conditions anytime in the near future. So in the short term we either negotiate and try and get small improvements, or not bother. I vote for small improvements.

 

[benb]

If you'd bothered to read any of my comments, you'll see I have made it quite clear that the solution arrived at is far from ideal, and is definitely a compromise, which does nothing much for off road cyclists (although that's mainly due to the lack of space around the roundabout). It is however better than nothing, because if monies from the Cycle Safety Fund hadn't been used, then nothing would have altered on this roundabout at all. It would have remained a dangerous roundabout. With the changes, it becomes a bit less dangerous.

Sadly, in the real world, as UK cyclists we're not going to get perfect, safe conditions anytime in the near future. So in the short term we either negotiate and try and get small improvements, or not bother. I vote for small improvements.

Fine, you keep telling yourself that.

If we accept crap, we will continue to get crap.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The challenge of striking the balance between opposing stakeholder views is what has caused me to suspend my own campaigning and membership of our local cycling forum. The circle cannot be squared. The unspeakable are chasing the uneatable. Or something.

Still, the GrumpyGregry Memorial ASL's are going in to Da 'sham over the next few weeks so I have something to show for the most recent five-years-worth of wasted time in meetings I won't ever get back. My former colleagues are now destined to drive themselves into a fury of frustration, and see all county council/central govt cycling funds get spent elsewhere in the county, as they push their pipedream of separate infrastructure

@benb and @Flying Dodo are each, in their own way, 100% right.

 

[Flying Dodo]

Fine, you keep telling yourself that.

If we accept crap, we will continue to get crap.

Two different points there. You're not aware of any facts concerning Bedford at all - it is the case that unless that money was used, NOTHING would have been done to the roundabout.

On your other statement, if cyclist pressure groups walk away from everything and just say "No" which is what you're advocating, then how will things ever change? You'll just be ignored completely, rather than having some of your views taken into account.

I'll give you another example why engaging and trying to change things helps. Here in Luton, they've just started work on "improvements" to Junction 10A of the M1, which basically means the M1 spur road carries onto a dual carriageway towards the airport, rather than ending in a roundabout which is jammed solid with traffic. I'm part of the local cycling campaign group and we could see that although something was being done to improve access for cyclists (as the current roundabout is a nightmare to cycle across), it wasn't particularly good. We suggested a number of changes, which also involved moving one of the proposed replacement roundabouts on the road underneath the M1 spur which would also mean less land being taken up by the project. Guess what - they amended the plans! Still not perfect, as they ignored some of our other suggestions, but much better than their original proposal.

If our group had looked at the original plans and just said "they're crap, we're not accepting that", do you really think they'd have changed things? If they consult and no-one objects, they'll just go ahead. Of course they're not obliged to consider recommendations, but turning your back doesn't do cyclists any favours at all.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

If you accept crap that's all you'll ever get.

 

[Flying Dodo]

If you accept crap that's all you'll ever get.

And your response is crap, in implying we should reject everything which isn't perfect.

 

[snorri]

If you accept crap that's all you'll ever get.

These (short) one liners are really not cutting the mustard, why not throw modesty to the winds and tell us how to achieve successful outcomes following deliberations with road transport design engineer types?

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

I set out my position earlier.
It was crap. Not even a "second best" option; crap.

 

[stowie]

The actual designer of the junction, Patrick Lingwood, who is the Walking & Cycling Officer at Bedford Borough Council explains the details here.

As I've already stated, sadly it won't help off road cyclists partly because there's no space to put in fully segregated cycle paths all the way round. It's also due to the fact that toucan crossings are the only crossings that traffic will stop for. Here in the UK we haven't got anything like a zebra crossing for cyclists.

Is the estimate of speed reduction to 10-15mph backed up by data from existing turbo roundabouts? I would imagine that there would be turbo roundabouts in the Netherlands with approximately the same dimensions that could be a yardstick to at least give some validation to the assertion.

The assertion of no space is valid if one accepts the requirement that motorised traffic capacity on the roundabout must be maintained at the same level. Otherwise the roundabout could be reduced to one lane with space left for whatever is desired to be implemented. But of course, the DfT guidelines are so motor centric anyway that priority would be ceded if the cyclist wasn't part of traffic flow, as you say, and I doubt many cyclists would be happy at waiting considerable lengths of time to cross especially if the traffic flow density is higher than now.

I have only slight exposure to traffic engineering but have gained an understanding of the considerable challenges to convince any council of the merits of catering for anything other than traffic flow. On the other hand spending cycling money on what looks like very marginal improvements seems a sorry compromise. Could the money not have been used elsewhere?

 

[Flying Dodo]

These (short) one liners are really not cutting the mustard, why not throw modesty to the winds and tell us how to achieve successful outcomes following deliberations with road transport design engineer types?

That's the whole problem here in the UK, as I and others on here have stated. Everything does revolve around the car, and the main theme of any road related works is always on the basis of planning ahead for increased vehicular traffic, without radical thoughts that there is a better way, and that we should, for a variety of reasons, be looking at ways of discouraging motorised traffic.

So unless Government and more importantly, the general public have a sudden conversion, collectively, we as cyclists are not going to get truly successful outcomes overnight or even in the short to medium term. It's only by highlighting the discrepancies and flaws in schemes that slowly that message will get through and some improvements are made. Something is better than nothing. The CTC and Sustrans have all along stated that they're not happy with what's been arrived at in Bedford, having previously put forward a number of solutions with better cycling based outcomes, and Bedford Council and the DfT know that. But those other solutions weren't going to happen. Rejecting everything as suggested by Marmion and Benb won't get us anything. And the more little improvements occur in schemes, then gradually more people will see it's safe to cycle - take for example, the steady increase in cycling in London in recent years. It's all about trying to build up a critical mass, so that road planners will increasingly take into account the traffic flow of cyclists and their requirements.

Going back to the Bedford example, in the explanation I'd linked to the planner's comments, he discussed the numbers of cyclists using the roundabout and the split of the type of cyclists, in order to try and take some of their needs into account. 15-20 years ago, I shouldn't think they'd have even mentioned cyclists in any consultations. Unless we as cyclists engage in the process and try and get things improved, then nothing will happen to make any improvements occur.

 

[Flying Dodo]

Is the estimate of speed reduction to 10-15mph backed up by data from existing turbo roundabouts? I would imagine that there would be turbo roundabouts in the Netherlands with approximately the same dimensions that could be a yardstick to at least give some validation to the assertion.

The assertion of no space is valid if one accepts the requirement that motorised traffic capacity on the roundabout must be maintained at the same level. Otherwise the roundabout could be reduced to one lane with space left for whatever is desired to be implemented. But of course, the DfT guidelines are so motor centric anyway that priority would be ceded if the cyclist wasn't part of traffic flow, as you say, and I doubt many cyclists would be happy at waiting considerable lengths of time to cross especially if the traffic flow density is higher than now.

I have only slight exposure to traffic engineering but have gained an understanding of the considerable challenges to convince any council of the merits of catering for anything other than traffic flow. On the other hand spending cycling money on what looks like very marginal improvements seems a sorry compromise. Could the money not have been used elsewhere?

Re the speed reduction, I'd have to assume the Bedford Council Officer knows how the figures were arrived at unfortunately. It was Bedford Council's insistence that vehicular traffic capacity couldn't be reduced, which again is evidence of the wider problem in the UK. And that's the nub of the whole issue - it is a compromise. Having said that, I have cycled around that roundabout a few times and once the changes are made, personally I'd feel safer compared with before, on the basis I'm less likely to get cut up.

As to whether or not the money could have been used elsewhere, then yes, I'm sure there are other proposed road improvements elsewhere where the local councils have suggested better outcomes for cyclists. I've no idea though if the Cycle Safety Fund is underspent though (like TfL in London).