Dutch Roundabout

bails87 wrote:

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?

Yes, I get that too, it is design that way. I'm not convinced that it'll work in UK, jury is out so to speak. as I said above.

Sketchley wrote:

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......

As to your other question about segregation on an RAB. Ignoring the fact that I'm not a big fan of segregation as it can lead to a false sense of security, entitlement and a lack of observation. I'd like to see the design flipped so that cars go round the outside, bikes through / round the middle, as I think a car on the outside of the roundabout is more likely to give way instinctivly if they do not feel they are on the RAB.

However all this is just me looking at it on paper, if I rode it I may feel different. I'm not opposed to this design I just have reservations.

pangolin wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

I'd like to see the design flipped so that cars go round the outside, bikes through / round the middle, as I think a car on the outside of the roundabout is more likely to give way instinctivly if they do not feel they are on the RAB.

The problem would be that leading up the the RAB, most cyclists are on the left. They then need to swap with cars just beforehand. Rightly or wrongly, many would leave it too late and it would end up messy.

you may have a point there. The cycle lanes leading up to and from the RAB would need to be down the middle. This isn't necessarly a bad idea. I've cycled up superhighways many a time thinking if the cycle lanes ran up the middle it would be safer. Sure you have "danger zone" getting to and from the middle, but you cut out lots of danger zone from left turns and right turns across you by being in the middle.

Sketchley wrote:

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.

Fair enough to the first bit. But IMO this is leading to a situation where roadusers are segregated i.e. where bikes have their routes and roads are for cars and never the twain shall meet. My local council are planning a massive town building strategy with "traffic-free" cycle routes, bus-only lanes etc. And its all very seductive - what's not to like. But will the cyclist get the direct route. You already know the answer to that one.
It's as though all we want is traffic-free routes. I'm all for them, but not if I have to add five miles to my journey along glass-strewn "paths" through urban housing. They might be fine for a Sunday outing with the kids, but not for getting anywhere.

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.

I get that, I do. Have they listed what roundabouts this bit of genius will be used on?

On my commute/s of which has involved: Wimbeldon to Camberwell/Chancery Lane/Ilford/Ealing/Tooting I cannot think of a single roundabout where this would improve things - more hinderance than anything else. But I'm a 'hardened commuter' so what do I know...

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

hardened commuters

You say that as if the views of such group would have little weight when addressing how best cycles and cars/motor traffic can best rub along together. Rather the opposite, I would have said.

I use this term for three reasons.
1. Because many of the objections listed above point are anecdotes of London roundabouts. This scheme could be ideal for housing estates on the edge of market towns, for those Sustrans type routes that stop and start, and for use in new build areas (like bypasses or those big Barrat type developments) and yet we keep talking about existing roundabouts. We (on this forum) keep banging on about a congested world city as if that were the entire country

2. The main reason; we are already on the roads with the current infrastructure, but we are a minority. Of the millions of journies done a day, how many are cycling?

Catering to us is largely pointless, we are already out there cycling. If the aim is to increase the numbers then you need to study the next group along the bell curve, people that could cycle, but aren't at the moment and address their needs. When they are solved, then look at the next segment of people.

3. My bug bear. It seems that whenever a solution is proposed, lots of people throw in endless tangential issues and objections essentially along the lines of; unless idea X solves every single possible problem then it is a waste of time and shouldn't be done at all. There's little pragmatism, little idea of solving percentages of a problem and quite frankly of change.

I take your point TGOTB.

The BBC article is badly written as well as they mix in general opinion with statements from campaigners to make it more of a London news story. The roundabout kind of stole the show too, when its only one of many research items.

Other news sites say that TfL organised the research, but its application would be wider.

davmaggs wrote:

Here's the form to take part in the trial:

http://www.trl.co.uk/transport_research ... ipants.htm

Done

I have to say this looks barking mad to me, the drivers leaving the roundabout have to stop and give way to traffic (bikes) coming from the left!

First the cars will be looking to escape up the road and not looking left, second I can't think of a single other case in the UK where you give way to the left, third in effect the bikes have left the road and are rejoining it which I think is about as dangerous as it gets on a bike.

Too complicated and can anyone say exactly what problem it is trying to solve?

I'm not reading the whole thread, but I ll just mention that they work very well in Holland...The vast majority are like that.

You could try this approach, build a roundabout for cyclists over the road roundabout.

Very expensive, unpopular and only works if you already have segregated cycle paths. Plus I can imagine that if there were a lot of cyclists using the roundabout, it would be tricky to join and leave.

well, I use the LBR roundabout everyday to and from work via Lambeth Bridge and Horseferry Road, as already pointed out elsewhere I can only imagine it will create larger jams, jams at rush hour already caused by the high volume of pedestrians at some of the crossings, especially the one across the entrance/exit to Horseferry road, so traffic already 'pushes' through the zebra crossing with people still on it. Add in the large volume of cycling commuters criss-crossing there will only make it worse, and lanes will get blocked by the traffic anyway (a high volume of buses and trucks) as already happens to the zebra crossings. Maybe adding traffic lights to the current layout might help as one problem is crossing the roundabout in the gaps between fast moving traffic?