Dutch Roundabout

tailwindhome

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Where's the evidence that shows when you transplant to England an idea that works in the Netherlands, it will still work, I wonder.

Take Mr Chasey as an example.....



*awaits Ban Hammer

DonDaddyD

Serious question, are roundabouts really the priority in terms of improving cycling safety?

I always thought it was left turning vehicles at traffic light controlled junctions. Most collisions I've read about or nearly encountered have very rarely been at roundabouts. Honestly, how many accidents have their been at roundabouts compared to (normal) junctions?

cookeeemonster

DonDaddyD wrote:

Serious question, are roundabouts really the priority in terms of improving cycling safety?

I always thought it was left turning vehicles at traffic light controlled junctions. Most collisions I've read about or nearly encountered have very rarely been at roundabouts. Honestly, how many accidents have their been at roundabouts compared to (normal) junctions?

No but if you're redesigning one anyway, then you may as well go the whole hog.

The lambeth one is in the middle of a busy cycle lane so its a good one to start with I suppose, though I've never had any problems with it myself even as a newbie...but for many people it will seem like a massive improvement

kurako

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

This was TFL's plan:



The orange bits are mixed use - cyclists and peds. So to cross the rdbt, you hit the ramp before the zebra, peel onto the mixed use pavement, toddle to the next zebra, cross it, continue on the mixed use pavement to the next rdbt, and exit back onto the road.

I had read earlier today that that has been adopted. But this: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/street ... ridgenorth from TFL suggests it has not been adopted and instead TFL are looking at the trials of the Dutch rdbt in the OP's BBC link.

This evidence-based approach: someone decides that the Dutch experience provides evidence that the Dutch designs of rdbts works. Where's the evidence that shows when you transplant to England an idea that works in the Netherlands, it will still work, I wonder.

That proposed design doesn't look too bad although... The CS logos on the road are a bit pointless in the grand scheme of things but I think the intention is to show that cyclists may be there. They use those logos when there isn't space for a seperate cycle lane. The shared use bit I suppose is supposed to be for the less confident but could be a pain in the arse for peds but they probably get the odd pavement hopper anyway so probably not much change.

So all in all a big spend not to change very much so why not just improve the road surface and paint new markings. Then they can take the money saved to fill all those holes that have appeared by Clapham Common.

phy2sll2

DonDaddyD wrote:

Serious question, are roundabouts really the priority in terms of improving cycling safety?

Actual or perceived safety?

I imagine we all have partners / parents / friends who refuse to cycle because of (things like) roundabouts which seem scary, irrespective of how dangerous they are.

bails87

I don't think this should be viewed simply as solving the 'problem' of RABs. It's one part of a continuous infrastructure. The problem is in getting a bike lane around/through a RAB without making it a huge PITA for the person on the bike.

At the moment we just say ride on the road (98% of people simply don't want to do that), get off and walk round (as per the Highway Code) or use the shared use pavement we've put in and give way at 2 'traffic flows' to go straight on, or 4 to turn right, and that's before you try to rejoin the road, because you're on a bike and therefore less important than cars.

Look at it as one piece of the puzzle that allows the high quality separated bike lanes that have been promised*, if you build them, you have to get them through junctions. Subjective safety is important. Most people would be happier using a cycle lane and ASL amongst traffic that might turn left than they would be turning right at a multilane RAB. (EDIT: Beaten to it)

*Us poor sods in the provinces can only dream of stuff like that, we've has recently been given £9m of cycle project funding, it's all being used to put shared use signs on the pavements and produce a map that designates residential roads as 'cycle routes', with no changes to the roads themeselves.

greg66_tri_v2.0

pangolin wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

This was TFL's plan:This evidence-based approach: someone decides that the Dutch experience provides evidence that the Dutch designs of rdbts works. Where's the evidence that shows when you transplant to England an idea that works in the Netherlands, it will still work, I wonder.

Well surely that's why they're trying it on one roundabout first? To get evidence? I'm not saying it's ideal but what other way of testing it do you see?

I don't. I'm being slightly facetious at the current obsession with evidence-based justification for doing anything. Experimentation is sometimes a good thing, and there's no shame in calling something an experiment if that's what it is.

It just seems that no one really wants to say that they are experimenting with traffic measures, lest someone ends up injured and the allegations of "experimenting with human lives" start flying around. So things gets jammed inside an "evidence based" wrapper.

Somehow, I don't think the volume of traffic in the BBC video piece is really representative of LBR...

sketchley

That lambeth design "proposed area... to enable cyclists to access zebra crossing" is interesting as highway code says you must dismount to use a zebra crossing. There's a RB like this near me, cycle lanes everywhere leading to multiple zebra and cyclists dismount signs. I just use the road, total waste of money and effort.

DonDaddyD

phy2sll2 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Serious question, are roundabouts really the priority in terms of improving cycling safety?

Actual or perceived safety?

I imagine we all have partners / parents / friends who refuse to cycle because of (things like) roundabouts which seem scary, irrespective of how dangerous they are.

Both actually, I don't have any trouble with roundabouts. The only one I do take issue with is Elephant and Castle Northbound. However, and ironically, this was after they redesigned it and changed it from a dual roundabout into the monstrousity it is now.

My point is that whatever they are trying to achieve with this, I think the energy and time would be better spent improving junctions with a left turn/ASLs.

What is being proposed wouldn't even work for all roundabouts only the very large ones and (thankfully if this experiment becomes reality) there are only a few.

bails87

DonDaddyD wrote:

phy2sll2 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Serious question, are roundabouts really the priority in terms of improving cycling safety?

Actual or perceived safety?

I imagine we all have partners / parents / friends who refuse to cycle because of (things like) roundabouts which seem scary, irrespective of how dangerous they are.

Both actually, I don't have any trouble with roundabouts. The only one I do take issue with is Elephant and Castle Northbound. However, and ironically, this was after they redesigned it and changed it from a dual roundabout into the monstrousity it is now.

My point is that whatever they are trying to achieve with this, I think the energy and time would be better spent improving junctions with a left turn/ASLs.

In, say, 7 years time, would you be happy with DDDjr riding around these roundabouts that you think are fine?

DonDaddyD wrote:

What is being proposed wouldn't even work for all roundabouts only the very large ones and (thankfully if this experiment becomes reality) there are only a few.

I still don;t see what the fundamental flaw is? Why do they work in other countries but would fail here? what do you even mean by 'wouldn't work'?
In, say, 7 years time, would you take DDDjr out around these roundabouts that you think are fine?

DonDaddyD

bails87 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

phy2sll2 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Serious question, are roundabouts really the priority in terms of improving cycling safety?

Actual or perceived safety?

I imagine we all have partners / parents / friends who refuse to cycle because of (things like) roundabouts which seem scary, irrespective of how dangerous they are.

Both actually, I don't have any trouble with roundabouts. The only one I do take issue with is Elephant and Castle Northbound. However, and ironically, this was after they redesigned it and changed it from a dual roundabout into the monstrousity it is now.

My point is that whatever they are trying to achieve with this, I think the energy and time would be better spent improving junctions with a left turn/ASLs.

In, say, 7 years time, would you be happy with DDDjr riding around these roundabouts that you think are fine?.

I think that is actually an unfair question. Anyway, assuming my 8 year old son has the abilities and road sense of his father, yes. I don't see roundabouts, in their current format, as a unworkable danger for cyclists.

Junctions and left filtering lanes too a non-existant ASL are far more dangerous.

DonDaddyD wrote:

What is being proposed wouldn't even work for all roundabouts only the very large ones and (thankfully if this experiment becomes reality) there are only a few.

I still don;t see what the fundamental flaw is? Why do they work in other countries but would fail here? what do you even mean by 'wouldn't work'?
In, say, 7 years time, would you take DDDjr out around these roundabouts that you think are fine?

I said it wouldn't work for all roundabouts.

Think this through very carefully:

Would this new layout work for all roundabouts or the very big and busy ones?

There are few very big roundabouts in London that are on commuter routes that present a huge danger compared to the number of traffic light controlled junctions that are clearly dangerous. Therefore I'd have prefered time and effort being spent on those. Or I would have preferred time and effort being spent on a awareness campaign that would attempt to change motorists attitudes towards cyclist.

I think any problem encountered on roundabouts (as with junctions and other roads in general) is that some motorists don't perceive cyclists as having priority on the roads regardless of where they are positioned. Addressing that attitude might do more for cycling safety than even more traffic calming/control measures.

You may disagree, but that is my opinion.

pangolin

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Somehow, I don't think the volume of traffic in the BBC video piece is really representative of LBR...

Hehe, that's true. If cars had to give way to cyclists the cars would just never move.

dondare

Law enforced - new roundabouts not necessary.
Law not enforced - new roundabouts won't help.

bails87

DDD; I don't see how it's an unfair question. I think we tend to look at stuff through our own eyes and don't look at how it will affect the 90+% of people who don't want to ride a bike on the road with cars. How about Mrs DDD, say she had to get somewhere that involved a RAB. With DDDjr in a trailer/baby seat, would she rather ride on the road with all the cars and buses or use a kerb separated route that offers the same level of subjective safety as walking on a pavement?

Likewise dondare, you say "won't help", but won't help who? Regardless of the law the vast majority of people just don't want to ride in amongst traffic, parents don't let kids ride to school because they don't want them on the road. If you build a separate bike lane you have to get it through junctions. Are you saying it's better to dump everyone back on the road for the roundabout then have them rejoin a protected bike lane once they've dealt with it and are back on normal road?

bompington

Here in Dundee (you may be interested to know that there are cyclists outside London) my local roundabout (Myrekirk on the Kingsway, Dundee's bypass) is getting "upgraded" to traffic light controlled.
Now previously, it would have fitted into the category of "scary but safe" - only one slight injury to a cyclist in the last ten years, despite the disturbing "will he stop?" feeling as you ride across the front of trucks and buses hurtling down the hill towards you - but now it has grown cyclist-crusher fences at all entries and exits, and a few places in between.
Which means that the vast majority of cyclists will cross at the pedestrian lights, which will hold up traffic more, and the congestion vicious circle takes another loop...

dondare

bails87 wrote:

DDD; I don't see how it's an unfair question. I think we tend to look at stuff through our own eyes and don't look at how it will affect the 90+% of people who don't want to ride a bike on the road with cars. How about Mrs DDD, say she had to get somewhere that involved a RAB. With DDDjr in a trailer/baby seat, would she rather ride on the road with all the cars and buses or use a kerb separated route that offers the same level of subjective safety as walking on a pavement?

Walking on the pavement isn't as safe as cycling on the road. Pedestrians get killed crossing roads at junctions and cyclists who behave like pedestrians risk the same fate. Segregated cycle paths could therefore lead to more collisions between cyclists and cars, at roundabouts and everywhere else.

dondare

DonDaddyD wrote:

Serious question, are roundabouts really the priority in terms of improving cycling safety?

I always thought it was left turning vehicles at traffic light controlled junctions. Most collisions I've read about or nearly encountered have very rarely been at roundabouts. Honestly, how many accidents have their been at roundabouts compared to (normal) junctions?

A roundabout works by turning any junction into a series of left turns.

DonDaddyD

bails87 wrote:

DDD; I don't see how it's an unfair question. I think we tend to look at stuff through our own eyes and don't look at how it will affect the 90+% of people who don't want to ride a bike on the road with cars. How about Mrs DDD, say she had to get somewhere that involved a RAB. With DDDjr in a trailer/baby seat, would she rather ride on the road with all the cars and buses or use a kerb separated route that offers the same level of subjective safety as walking on a pavement?

I think the above is an example of irresponible parenting. Any roundabout large enough to warrant this change in my mind is not a suitable road to ride a bike with a trailer/baby seat and said parent should really be looking at using a different route.

London is already congested and slow enough. There has to be roads with junctions/roundabouts designed with commuting (making it easier/marginally quicker and dare I say cars) in mind and other routes that are 'pedestrian friendly'. The type of roundabouts that would warrant this sort of change I see as doing more to hinger the car and slow ambient traffic speed even further. Honestly, for those of you in Croydon, and who drive, would you like to see this change at Lombard roundabout? Tibbets roundabout in Wimbledon or Waterloo where the IMAX is?

phy2sll2

bompington wrote:

Here in Dundee (you may be interested to know that there are cyclists outside London) my local roundabout (Myrekirk on the Kingsway, Dundee's bypass) is getting "upgraded" to traffic light controlled.
Now previously, it would have fitted into the category of "scary but safe" - only one slight injury to a cyclist in the last ten years, despite the disturbing "will he stop?" feeling as you ride across the front of trucks and buses hurtling down the hill towards you - but now it has grown cyclist-crusher fences at all entries and exits, and a few places in between.
Which means that the vast majority of cyclists will cross at the pedestrian lights, which will hold up traffic more, and the congestion vicious circle takes another loop...

That sounds like bad news.

DonDaddyD

dondare wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Serious question, are roundabouts really the priority in terms of improving cycling safety?

I always thought it was left turning vehicles at traffic light controlled junctions. Most collisions I've read about or nearly encountered have very rarely been at roundabouts. Honestly, how many accidents have their been at roundabouts compared to (normal) junctions?

A roundabout works by turning any junction into a series of left turns.

I'm sorry that's too simplistic IMO, not least of which, I turn my steering wheel right when driving around a roundabout and turn left to exit it. As a cyclist I find roundabouts give me the opportunity to take up abetter position than at junctions.

sketchley

As a cyclist I want the quickest, shortest route in and out the junction, I don't want to slow down and go round the edge out of the way of the traffic so why not make the middle a cycle track and force the cars round the outside, single file, between curbs with speed bumps and clear giveways at the points it crosses the cycle track?

DonDaddyD

Sketchley wrote:

As a cyclist I want the quickest, shortest route in and out the junction, I don't want to slow down and go round the edge out of the way of the traffic so why not make the middle a cycle track and force the cars round the outside, single file, between curbs with speed bumps and clear giveways at the points it crosses the cycle track?

The logic behind the suggestion is really the issue.

The 'Dutch road system' works on the principle that accomodating the car through road design is secondary to accomodating pedestrians and cyclist, which take priority. I can imagine people are taught to drive in Holland with the attitude to give greater priority to cyclists and pedestrians and this is, in part, why their systems works for them.

Transplanting the same system over here is all well and good in some - mostly residential - areas, but not along major commuting routes that are shared by cars and other road users and where motorised vehicles do not have the mentality to think cyclists/pedestrians first.

In any case, I want to see traffic speeded up in London with less traffic lights as oppose to slowed down by complex road layouts and junctions.

davmaggs

I've come back to this after a day, and I still see this idea being put down based on hardened commuters experience (for which this isn't intended) and anecdotes pointing to examples of particular roundabouts as 'proof' that this concept would fail.

They aren't to rip up and replace every roundabout in the nation with this, they aren't even claiming that it could be done. As with all these bits of engineering they will only work in certain places and the engineers are fully aware of this.

sketchley

I want to see the dangerous cars, lorries etc move out of the way of the cyclists, leaving the cyclist clear to take uninterupted, direct routes. Most currenly planning seems to focus on moving the cyclist away from the danger even if that leads to indirect, slower start stop routes.

sketchley

davmaggs wrote:

I've come back to this after a day, and I still see this idea being put down based on hardened commuters experience (for which this isn't intended) and anecdotes pointing to examples of particular roundabouts as 'proof' that this concept would fail.

They aren't to rip up and replace every roundabout in the nation with this, they aren't even claiming that it could be done. As with all these bits of engineering they will only work in certain places and the engineers are fully aware of this.

The concern is not the design itself, which probably models well and certainly work in NL. The concern is ingrained driver behavour. My big concern is that it will test well because testers are expecting something (even if they have not been told what) so are more alert. I will keep my reservations until one is actually deployed and we see how driver react. The simple fact that many ignore ASL and mandatory cycle lanes already, plus left hook frequently make me skeptical they will behave well on this design. I certainly wouldn't have the balls to ride flat out round it hoping the cars will give way......

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

As a cyclist I want the quickest, shortest route in and out the junction, I don't want to slow down and go round the edge out of the way of the traffic so why not make the middle a cycle track and force the cars round the outside, single file, between curbs with speed bumps and clear giveways at the points it crosses the cycle track?

These types of infrastructure do not cater for the 'vehicular cyclist' like you and me, nor is it designed to.

It's designed, in theory, to be safer and less intimidating for the casual cyclist, not for thr boy racer lycra clad cyclist to get there asap and have a better time on strava.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

As a cyclist I want the quickest, shortest route in and out the junction, I don't want to slow down and go round the edge out of the way of the traffic so why not make the middle a cycle track and force the cars round the outside, single file, between curbs with speed bumps and clear giveways at the points it crosses the cycle track?

These types of infrastructure do not cater for the 'vehicular cyclist' like you and me, nor is it designed to.

It's designed, in theory, to be safer and less intimidating for the casual cyclist, not for thr boy racer lycra clad cyclist to get there asap and have a better time on strava.

I get that but this is not just about the faster cyclists. If you are trying to encourage people to cycle to work, say for journeys between 5 and 10 miles. Then you build an infastructer that while safe, makes the cyclist start and stop, dismount, give way, take the long way round etc like most infastructure in the uk does, then while being safer this takes away some of the benefit of cycling by slowing them down and they are discouraged from cycling. Utimately you can carry the safer and less intimidating argument on and on and on to the point where it safer for the casual cyclist not to cycle.

bails87

get that but this is not just about the faster cyclists. If you are trying to encourage people to cycle to work, say for journeys between 5 and 10 miles. Then you build an infastructer that while safe, makes the cyclist start and stop, dismount, give way, take the long way round etc like most infastructure in the uk does, then while being safer this takes away some of the benefit of cycling by slowing them down and they are discouraged from cycling.

And this design AVOIDS that! Bikes have priority, there is no 'stop starting' which would make it slow, and there is no riding on the road with cars which would make it (feel) dangerous.

Once again, how else do you get a segregated cycle lane around a RAB?

pangolin

bails87

Let's be honest, that would STINK in the summer!