CTC capitulation?

[Flying Dodo]

I notice you can't actually back up your assertion that traffic speed through the roundabout is reduced. It looks to me like the complete opposite would be true. There's a reason why in the Netherlands, cycling routes completely bypass these turbo roundabouts - because they are provision for motorised traffic and not cycling.

As I've made clear, I was merely quoting the Bedford Council Officer and provided the link to his explanation about why vehicular speeds should be lower. As I've already stated, I have to assume he knows about traffic.

 

[oldstrath]

I'd agree - that would be lovely................in theory.

However, as stated previously, you'll know that sadly there isn't space to install that type of roundabout in Bedford. I took part in the TRL trials of this type of roundabout last summer, and used the exact one shown above, and so I can assure you it would be absolutely lethal to cyclists. You'll note that for the exit for vehicles from the roundabout, there are shark's teeth markings and then square blocks of paint. These are not current road markings - drivers will have no experience or knowledge about what they mean. Cyclists going round on the segregated track are supposed to have priority, meaning vehicles will be expected to stop on the roundabout, to give way to a cyclist. Do you think that will happen?

Well, it happens in NL - I don't remember any problem with this system over there. I don't actually think Dutch drivers are any pleasanter, kinder or more intelligent than ours, so I suppose education and enforcement are the solutions?

 

[benb]

As I've made clear, I was merely quoting the Bedford Council Officer and provided the link to his explanation about why vehicular speeds should be lower. As I've already stated, I have to assume he knows about traffic.

That's a rather massive assumption. I'm unconvinced.

 

[Danny]

However, there is a general rule in the Netherlands that cyclists using a cycle track adjacent to carriageway will usually have priority over vehicles turning across them, the opposite way round to normal UK practice. Clearly it would make it easier to implement designs such as the one TfL is trialling if such a rule were adopted in the UK.

Which I presume requires a national change in the traffic regulations. If so, people can hardly expect the CTC to abstain from involvement in schemes to improve cycling until we have the perfect legal framework in place.

 

[ComedyPilot]

I have driven cars and ridden bicycles in the Netherlands.

With VERY LITTLE thought (or inconvenience to me WHATSOEVER) I managed to drive without incident and give way to cyclists/vulnerable road users in the NL at ANY junction I came to

If I can change my driving to suit the legal framework of the country I happen to be in so easily (and trust me, I'm as thick as they come) then how come our 'great' British public can't/won't do the same?

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point.[1] The question, a rhetorical device, is posed not to elicit a specific answer, but rather to encourage the listener to consider a message or viewpoint. Though classically stated as a proper question, such a device may be posed declaratively but implying a question, and therefore may not always require a question mark when written. Though a rhetorical question does not require a direct answer, in many cases it may be intended to start a discussion or at least draw an acknowledgement that the listener understands the intended message.

 

[oldstrath]

Which I presume requires a national change in the traffic regulations. If so, people can hardly expect the CTC to abstain from involvement in schemes to improve cycling until we have the perfect legal framework in place.

We might, however, expect them to campaign for such changes, possibly even to make agreement conditional on such changes, instead of simply accepting the rather unconvincing " changes in 12 to 15 months" that Chris Peck has been quoting for at least half that time already.

 

[srw]

http://departmentfortransport.wordp...ople-wonder-what-is-being-done-in-their-name/

Anyone who can write a blog post with the title

Bedford Borough Council traffic department, you are a bunch of cretins

isn't going to get anywhere with whatever they're campaigning for. The response next time from any council traffic department, quite rightly, will start with "f" and end with "off".

 

[Flying Dodo]

I have driven cars and ridden bicycles in the Netherlands.

With VERY LITTLE thought (or inconvenience to me WHATSOEVER) I managed to drive without incident and give way to cyclists/vulnerable road users in the NL at ANY junction I came to

If I can change my driving to suit the legal framework of the country I happen to be in so easily (and trust me, I'm as thick as they come) then how come our 'great' British public can't/won't do the same?

You can drive and give way to cyclists because you're a cyclist and a decent human being. Sadly, here in the UK, most people just don't seem to have the same respect for those on 2/3 wheels.

 

[Flying Dodo]

That's a rather massive assumption. I'm unconvinced.

Armchair pundit who doesn't want to do anything for cyclists unless it's 100% perfect v Local Government Walking & Cycling Officer.

It's a tricky one to decide who might know more about traffic.

 

[jonesy]

But, as I've already pointed out, this is not a generalisation that can fairly be applied to Patrick Lingwood, who has been working and studying in the field of cycling and walking for years, as well as being involved in green politics more generally. Google if you don't want to take my word for it

 

[oldstrath]

But, as I've already pointed out, this is not a generalisation that can fairly be applied to Patrick Lingwood, who has been working and studying in the field of cycling and walking for years, as well as being involved in green politics more generally. Google if you don't want to take my word for it

That is clearly all true, but he has still designed a roundabout whose first goal is to increase motorised traffic capacity, and happily ignored the needs of "not yet cyclists", which hardly makes him a reasonable hero figure for cyclists.

 

[jonesy]

If its primary objective is to increase traffic capacity I doubt it would be designed like that. High capacity roundabouts have lots of lanes and large turning radii. As for the needs of 'not yet cyclists', well unfortunately an awful lot of the rubbish segregation we've been inflicted with over the last few decades, including on national 'flagship' schemes like the NCN, was done in the name of the new or inexperienced cyclist, to the very significant detriment of existing cyclists. So if a local authority, faced with conflicting pressures and constraints, tries something out that is intended to make conditions safer for existing cyclists then that strikes me as a good start. As to how well it will actually work in practice, let's see. I'm certainly not going to dismiss something in advance on the word of some rather offensive bloggers who will get angry about any cycling scheme that isn't segregated.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Given some of the local government Walking & Cycling Officers I've met (two of whom have never cycled and most of whom drove everywhere - including two who wanted to drive round a CRISP route), that could be a tough call....

apropos of nothing the old WSCC one, before she was let go as part of the cuts, was a former CTC employee and had three different Enigma's and used to get very sniffy when folk turned up by car. The new Travelsmart chap drives everywhere including between County Hall, Chicester and County Hall North, Horsham which are joined by a fine and fast mainline railway service. But then the reception at County hall North tried to tell me I couldn't take my Brommie in the building and at another evening meeting I was detained and almost arrested by some child protection plod who had a meeting on site at the same time and clearly think people who cycle are just 'odd'. The privatised pothole repair service "surveyors" drive to a central location and then trundle around on a pair of three speed Brommie's as they reckon they are more effective that way.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

That is clearly all true, but he has still designed a roundabout whose first goal is to increase motorised traffic capacity, and happily ignored the needs of "not yet cyclists", which hardly makes him a reasonable hero figure for cyclists.

Heretically, when campaigning, I prioritise the needs of existing cyclists over the "not yets". ime too many of the "not yets" turn out to be "never ares". Within the existing cyclists I prioritise the needs of those who use their bikes for transport over those who use them solely for leisure.

I am anathema to Sustrans, large chunks of the CTC, local authorities, et cetera, and nowadays the cycling forum I helped set up, who see the way forward as building seperate infrastructure that young families can use on a Sunday afternoon and then trumpeting that as some kind of success for cylcing. Because, obviously, that leisure provision translates into increased modal share eventually doesn't it? Doesn't it?

 

[oldstrath]

Heretically, when campaigning, I prioritise the needs of existing cyclists over the "not yets". ime too many of the "not yets" turn out to be "never ares". Within the existing cyclists I prioritise the needs of those who use their bikes for transport over those who use them solely for leisure.

I am anathema to Sustrans, large chunks of the CTC, local authorities, et cetera, and nowadays the cycling forum I helped set up, who see the way forward as building seperate infrastructure that young families can use on a Sunday afternoon and then trumpeting that as some kind of success for cylcing. Because, obviously, that leisure provision translates into increased modal share eventually doesn't it? Doesn't it?

Agreed, it clearly doesn't. But in part surely this is because such separated infrastructure as is built has almost no utility for anyone commuting to work, shopping, ot doing any other ordinary things. Certainly round here the cycle paths don't go anywhere useful, don't add to anyone's convenience or actual safety, and aren't well maintained. But it doesn't actually have to look like that, and doesn't in NL, or in Bayern, where paths generally do useful things, and get well used, often I suspect by the kind of peple who wouldn't cycle on road here.