New 'Dutch-style' cycle roundabouts

[pboyd]

Disco You said:

I cycled a little in Holland and thought they worked well. I don't know what they're like as a motorist though.

Works fine

[MC Bodge]

pboyd said:

miniman said:

So, the whole point of roundabouts - i.e. to keep traffic moving rather than having to stop - is totally defeated. What a fking stupid idea.

Works in Netherlands

I'm amazed that these UK drivers are able to stop for pedestrian zebra crossings. Then again, maybe they don't?

It presumably couldn't possibly work here due to the IMPORTANCE of driving.

Why do people hate other people riding bicycles?

[cptsideways]

Might I point you in the direction of this

http://www.autoglassnews.co.uk/index.php?id=killer...

[clarkey540i]

I think that looks pretty dangerous to be honest. There's a roundabout on one of the A3 junctions going into New Malden which has a zebra crossing on every exit, and I always see plenty of crashes there. Cyclists travel faster than pedestrians, meaning that there's less time to spot them. Yes, it would be the car driver's fault, but the cyclist would still be in hospital. There are already enough hazards on multi-lane roundabouts without adding stationary cars on the exits.
Furthermore, I don't even see how this separates cyclists? They are most at risk of being hit when crossing an exit as it is anyway, so this system removes none of that hazard, and means that they cannot take 'primary position' to ensure that they are seen.

[pboyd]

MC Bodge said:

I'm amazed that these UK drivers are able to stop for pedestrian zebra crossings. Then again, maybe they don't?

It presumably couldn't possibly work here due to the IMPORTANCE of driving.

Why do people hate other people riding bicycles?

They do stop in UK, mostly.

I don't know. I don't mind

[Erwin1978]

I'm from the Netherlands and actually drive more miles in the UK then km in NL. And I feel the safety of cyclists in the UK to be non existent... I was truly shocked when I noticed and learned that cyclists and drivers are allowed to use the same roads bar the highways. The difference in speeds is absolutely scary. Having dedicated cycling paths and granting cyclist right of way when meeting with cars is the only safe thing to do. After all, a cyclist has no protection when colliding with a car and therefore a car driver should do his utmost to take care. Just my opinion based upon experience in both the UK and NL. Cheers, Erwin

[MC Bodge]

clarkey540i said:

Yes, it would be the car driver's fault, but the cyclist would still be in hospital.

fewer than if they were to ride on the main roundabout though, possibly....


How many of you people have actually cycled on busy roads? The bad attitude/seeming lack of care of many drivers is astounding.

[TheHeretic]

Why can't these discussion not go directly to "why does everyone hate cyclists" angle every time? If you can't discuss simple road layouts, and possible repercussions without getting yourselves into hysteria, then don't bother in the first place.

[All that jazz]

lindrup119 said:

Sorry if pea-roast...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-223507...

Okay, at first I thought yeah that's a great idea, but what made me click was first a) £100 million? Get fked please and b) safer for cyclists....?

Now I have nothing against improving the safety of cyclists obviously, but not if there is the potential to reduce safety for other groups, like perhaps, car drivers.

I don't know any real figures on accidents at normal roundabouts, but add in a cyclist bombing across with his 'right-of-way' and you will get some dozy fkers slamming on the brakes and causing a rear-end or similar if people aren't paying proper attention.

Now I am genuinely not trying to blow smoke here and have a go at cyclists, as of course not all of them are like the cyclist featured in the 'White-van man' video a few days back. I think the idea has potential, just not sure where.

Edit: it could even be a better system than we already have as cyclists and drivers are separated, but I can't see it working too well. A lot of the people (read 'morons') out on the road don't even know how to get round a normal roundabout/junction...

Stupid idea and it'll never work because as usual the cyclists will whinge and whine that the lanes are full of microscopic pebbles that hurt their sponge when they ride over them so they'll just continue to ride on the main road and it'll be a complete waste of £100m (which will be more like £500m in reality after all the budget overruns).

[MC Bodge]

TheHeretic said:

Why can't these discussion not go directly to "why does everyone hate cyclists" angle every time? If you can't discuss simple road layouts, and possible repercussions without getting yourselves into hysteria, then don't bother in the first place.

On the other hand, why do people instantly oppose anything that tips the balance in favour of people in the vulnerable position of riding a bike?

This roundabout is not "dangerous", but it might slightly inconvenience the tutting masses. People driving cars should look out for other people, not blame their A-Pillars if they knock somebody over.

If the roads are made more suitable for cycling, then more people may use bikes. This would be a good thing.

[clarkey540i]

MC Bodge said:

clarkey540i said:

Yes, it would be the car driver's fault, but the cyclist would still be in hospital.

fewer than if they were to ride on the main roundabout though, possibly....


How many of you people have actually cycled on busy roads? The bad attitude/seeming lack of care of many drivers is astounding.

The point I was trying to make was that at least if they are on the main roundabout they are visible. Usually, people will check their nearside mirror before exiting a roundabout, especially on multi-lane ones. That split second of looking in the mirror could be all it takes to miss a cyclist crossing the exit. I just don't have enough faith in most drivers to react quickly enough. I mean, I see enough near misses with the zebra crossings I mentioned earlier, so increasing the speed at which people (now on bicycles) are crossing the road isn't going to end well, in my opinion.
The reality is that most car drivers are only aware of what is on the road, and adding further complexity to roundabouts is a recipe for disaster, again in my opinion.

[All that jazz]

MC Bodge said:

If the roads are made more suitable for cycling, then more people may use bikes. This would be a good thing.

LOL. When was the last time you saw ANY cyclist obeying or following any cycle lane markings on the road?

[scenario8]

clarkey540i said:

I think that looks pretty dangerous to be honest. There's a roundabout on one of the A3 junctions going into New Malden which has a zebra crossing on every exit, and I always see plenty of crashes there. Cyclists travel faster than pedestrians, meaning that there's less time to spot them. Yes, it would be the car driver's fault, but the cyclist would still be in hospital. There are already enough hazards on multi-lane roundabouts without adding stationary cars on the exits.
Furthermore, I don't even see how this separates cyclists? They are most at risk of being hit when crossing an exit as it is anyway, so this system removes none of that hazard, and means that they cannot take 'primary position' to ensure that they are seen.

Now imagine being a pedestrian attempting to walk from the Worcester Park side of that roundabout to the New Malden side (not a particularly contentious thing for a person not in a car to want to do). Imagine for a moment if there weren't any zebra crossings. Do you think it would be easy? Do you think there would be some near misses and accidents? Do you imagine they might be fatal or life changing accidents (to the pedestrian)?

That roundabout has zebra crossings on all approaches and exits. All are well lit and well signposted. As a driver you are either in a 30 zone approaching a major hazard (a roundabout), leaving a roundabout with a 30 limit giving way to other road users or leaving a major road using a large slip road and have already been slowed to 30. Were a driver to scream around that roundabout and then be perplexed that the car in front might slow for the zebra would surely only highlight their own shortcomings, wouldn't it?

[paranoid airbag]

lindrup119 said:

I don't know any real figures on accidents at normal roundabouts, but add in a cyclist bombing across with his 'right-of-way' and you will get some dozy fkers slamming on the brakes and causing a rear-end or similar if people aren't paying proper attention.

Revolutionary idea: people should drive so that they can stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

If people can't do that, then how is anyone in the least bit suprised that the road users most under threat from dozy idiots are getting their own infrastructure, that prioritises their safety and convenience above ours?

Do people actually struggle to understand that logic?

[pboyd]

All that jazz said:

LOL. When was the last time you saw ANY cyclist obeying or following any cycle lane markings on the road?

Every day

[clarkey540i]

scenario8 said:

clarkey540i said:

I think that looks pretty dangerous to be honest. There's a roundabout on one of the A3 junctions going into New Malden which has a zebra crossing on every exit, and I always see plenty of crashes there. Cyclists travel faster than pedestrians, meaning that there's less time to spot them. Yes, it would be the car driver's fault, but the cyclist would still be in hospital. There are already enough hazards on multi-lane roundabouts without adding stationary cars on the exits.
Furthermore, I don't even see how this separates cyclists? They are most at risk of being hit when crossing an exit as it is anyway, so this system removes none of that hazard, and means that they cannot take 'primary position' to ensure that they are seen.

Now imagine being a pedestrian attempting to walk from the Worcester Park side of that roundabout to the New Malden side (not a particularly contentious thing for a person not in a car to want to do). Imagine for a moment if there weren't any zebra crossings. Do you think it would be easy? Do you think there would be some near misses and accidents? Do you imagine they might be fatal or life changing accidents (to the pedestrian)?

That roundabout has zebra crossings on all approaches and exits. All are well lit and well signposted. As a driver you are either in a 30 zone approaching a major hazard (a roundabout), leaving a roundabout with a 30 limit giving way to other road users or leaving a major road using a large slip road and have already been slowed to 30. Were a driver to scream around that roundabout and then be perplexed that the car in front might slow for the zebra would surely only highlight their own shortcomings, wouldn't it?

I agree, the zebra crossings certainly have to be there, but what I'm getting at is that pedestrians are quite slow, so the driver has plenty of time to see them. If they don't, a pedestrian has a stopping distance of practically nothing, which cannot be said for bicycles travelling at 4 times the speed.
Let's face it, most drivers are crap, so if they can barely spot a pedestrian, they aren't going to spot a cyclist going much, much faster.

[Baryonyx]

Pesty said:

Hmmm yes


My money is on more accidents at these roundabouts

Indeed. Most drivers struggle with a standard roundabout! These also look pants for drifting.

[SystemParanoia]

look how far round the cyclists will have to go...

they wont bother and will just straightline the now single lane roundabouts slowing everything down

[s p a c e m a n]

But a large proportion actively use the road rather than cycle lanes when they are provided, so why is more money being spent on other things that will not be used? If the shorter, quicker route is in the lane with the cars they will just use that regardless, until a completely separate route is made for cyclists in a public footpath style way that doesnt follow the road system then it will achieve little.

[scenario8]

clarkey540i said:

I agree, the zebra crossings certainly have to be there, but what I'm getting at is that pedestrians are quite slow, so the driver has plenty of time to see them. If they don't, a pedestrian has a stopping distance of practically nothing, which cannot be said for bicycles travelling at 4 times the speed.
Let's face it, most drivers are crap, so if they can barely spot a pedestrian, they aren't going to spot a cyclist going much, much faster.

Indeed.

I'll be dumbstruck if attempts were made to impose this type of layout on that specific roundabout (without the addition of speed humps or something). Roundabouts at motorway junctions (or near enough in this case) where some drivers seem to want to better their 0-60 records or explore their maximum grip would appear daft places to implement this sort of thing. presumably they would be better suited to urban 30mph smallish junctions (with lightish traffic). I can't think of many in SW London with the space. Or any borough with the cash. Still, tfl seem to spunk money up the wall all over the place...