Why do they deliberately obscure vision at roundabouts?

[anonymous-user]

Jagmanv12 said:

TurboHatchback said:

Bennet said:

If they are spending money doing it, it will have been shown to work. They don't spend money just because someone once had a hunch that it might help.

Too many people: "This doesn't imediately make sense to me, therefore it's stupid."

I'm afraid I don't share your fundamental faith in organisations only doing things because they make sense. I see countless examples of quite the opposite.

You are not going to be able to convince me that these make sense. This road is a 30mph limit and would flow freely and safely except some cretin though it would be a good plan to introduce extra traffic jams, contention/danger and pollution for absolutely no benefit to anyone.

At M25 J9 the fencing comes almost to the roundabout so causes a lack of visibilty worse than the OP's example.

The councils/DOT do make mistakes.

Here is an example. There was a bus layby. Some council/DOT idiot decides to get rid of it, so now when a bus stops it blocks the road. The tailback reaches the bridge as the vehicles can't pass the bus as the traffic approaching the bridge is stopped. Gridlock ensues. This is one of the major roads into the Brooklands estate where thousands of people work everday so it is a busy road.

Authorities always go on about recycling, pollution, etc but as previously posted these hairbrained schemes cause more pollution.

Not sure the link to the location is correct, but the bus companies are generally pushing for removal of layby bus stops, and for the installation of on-road (in-lane) bus stops, because their buses are not let out of the laybys during peak periods. If the onus is on the car driver to overtake the bus, then when the bus is ready to pull away, it's a lot easier for it to do so.

Not saying it's right or I agree with it, but bus companies are "Statutory Objectors", have a big voice and can make life very difficult for councillors - they only have to say "no" to a proposed Traffic Regulation Order and the Order gets sent to Public Enquiry (v expensive and takes forever). I know because I'm in a battle with a bus company who are doing exactly that right now.

[Hangcheck]

Rick Cutler said:

Yep I know these were installed a few years ago near Cheltenham on the M5 junction. I have to stop, check then go again. You did have a very good view before plenty of time to work out if you could make it.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.8895,-2.153844,3...

And don't get me started on the traffic lights on that same roundabout at the exit of the M5 Northbound that are permanently enabled so you have usually have come to a halt at them in the middle of the night with no traffic around.

[Toltec]

Gatsods said:

robinessex said:

Aw come on guys. Stop complaining. We all know speed kills, so slowing everyone down is obviously going to help.

"Speed doesn't kill, it's suddenly becoming stationary - that's what gets you" (Clarkson, 2007)

If anyone bothered doing an analysis I am 80% sure they would find that 90% of ksi incidents are preceded by heavy braking. On the basis of this correlation we could state

Braking kills

In reality it is the inattention leading to the need to brake heavily, but a two word catch phrase is much snappier.

[Gixer]

DMN said:

Is it still only installed on the one entry to the roundabout?

If so, I would guess its there to help break up the flow from that entry a little more, and give drivers waiting at the other entries more of a chance.

Yes on the entry to roundabouts, all about making the approach as blind and as dangerous as possible.

They are into putting pedestrian crossings right on the exits of roundabouts these days another great idea.

[Sonic]

OpulentBob said:

I design roads for a living.

I grew-up playing Transport Tycoon as well

[mybrainhurts]

OpulentBob said:

Paragraph 8.8

http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol6/secti...

"Excessive visibility to the right can result in high entry speeds, potentially leading to accidents. On dual carriageway approaches where the speed limit is greater than 40mph, limiting visibility to the right by screening until the vehicle is within 15 metres of the give way line can be helpful in reducing excessive approach speeds. The screening should be at least 2m high, in order to block the view of all road users. Screening can also be used on flared approaches on high speed single carriageway roads where there is a long splitter island."

Dear DfT....

So, what are you now going to do about the crap drivers who don't realise they're joining a roundabout, because they can't see it, and enter the roundabout right in front of the truck they didn't see?

[Alucidnation]

This exit and the one directly across the other side is not controlled by traffic lights, however, only this one has a screen.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Castle+Lane+West,...


https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Castle+Lane+West,...

[HertsBiker]

Bob, interesting stuff you write. Tell us more of this bus company.. I see buses as a rolling road block anyway, and this latest tactic of theirs really suck!

[deanogtv]

[quote=TurboHatchback]If one has a good early view of the roundabout it allows one to plan the approach, minimise unnecessary braking or stopping and maximise traffic flow. Obscuring the approach just creates the opposite of the above, it increases unnecessary braking and stopping, reduces traffic flow, wastes fuel etc etc.
[quote]

or give little jonny in his saxo vtr enough distance to see there isn't anything coming around the roundabout, give it a little more beans to see if he can take a racing line through the roundabout, clip a kerb and roll his car over and over and then theres no more little jonny.

[deanogtv]

[quote=OpulentBob]

Not sure the link to the location is correct, but the bus companies are generally pushing for removal of layby bus stops, and for the installation of on-road (in-lane) bus stops, because their buses are not let out of the laybys during peak periods. quote]

Not totally true, the reason bus lay-by are being phased out is because a bus finds it hard to pull parallel alongside a kerb to disabled access, on short layby a bus will struggle to even get the front doors near the kerb. This is why a raised kerb flanking the carriageway will now be the preferred option. Sorry folks!

[anonymous-user]

deanogtv said:

OpulentBob said:

Not sure the link to the location is correct, but the bus companies are generally pushing for removal of layby bus stops, and for the installation of on-road (in-lane) bus stops, because their buses are not let out of the laybys during peak periods. [quote]

Not totally true, the reason bus lay-by are being phased out is because a bus finds it hard to pull parallel alongside a kerb to disabled access, on short layby a bus will struggle to even get the front doors near the kerb. This is why a raised kerb flanking the carriageway will now be the preferred option. Sorry folks!

True. Couple of bus stops around here have been ttted by buses pulling in to the laybys as they try to get right up close to the kerb.

[g3org3y]

Bennet said:

If they are spending money doing it, it will have been shown to work. They don't spend money just because someone once had a hunch that it might help.

One of the most delightfully optimistic posts I've ever read on Pistonheads.

[Censorious]

Mastodon2 said:

The most annoying for me is when they build the big banked sides and put bushes and trees on top, so you can't get a view of the road ahead on the other side to help plan ahead. It's probably done to stop people racing over the roundabout and off down the road, but it just causes more problems than it solves.

I agree it does.

It's made even worse if the traffic to your right does have a good view ahead and to their right on larger roundabouts as they can often go straight across without slowing.

This makes moving off from a standstill across the path of them much harder.

[anonymous-user]

HertsBiker said:

Bob, interesting stuff you write. Tell us more of this bus company.. I see buses as a rolling road block anyway, and this latest tactic of theirs really suck!

Pick a bus company! One typical one rhymes with WageRoach. I've worked in 4 different counties and the bus companies generally are all the same. They will look for any minor infrastructure criticism to blame for running late/rising costs/reducing services. Near me, a 20mph limit is coming in. Bus companies are objecting as they say it will slow them down. Their average speed as surveyed? 19mph. And they're threatening withdrawal of service. Go figure.

It's rather

[Dodsy]

Purity14 said:

If everyone decided not to look to the right until they are the lead car at the entrance to the roundabout, there wouldn't be as many rear end shunts at roundabouts.

Im guessing you are female, this is something that mostly women do and its veey annoying. Clear roundabout, no reason to stop but car in front pulls up for no reason then sets off again. Its that stopping for no reason that probably causes the rear end shunts.

Poor driving skills from driver in front who stops for no reason coupled with poor observation skills from driver behind=rear end shunt.

My Mrs stops at every roundabout and junction to 'have a good look' before moving off even if you can see the toads are empty for miles around. Other than that she is an excellent driver so i just dont understand it.

[TurboHatchback]

deanogtv said:

or give little jonny in his saxo vtr enough distance to see there isn't anything coming around the roundabout, give it a little more beans to see if he can take a racing line through the roundabout, clip a kerb and roll his car over and over and then theres no more little jonny.

Trying to protect people from their own stupidity never leads to good legislation though. The situation you describe could be considered natural selection in action. These obstructions won't actually make anyone drive round the roundabout slower, just pointlessly stop then waste fuel getting going again and accelerating up to the same speed they would have been doing anyway. One also needs a larger gap to pull into from stationary than with a rolling start (which one usually has if there is sufficient advanced visibility) so I'm still pretty unconvinced by the argument that it somehow increases traffic flow.

[Censorious]

OpulentBob said:

Paragraph 8.8

http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol6/secti...

"Excessive visibility to the right can result in high entry speeds, potentially leading to accidents. On dual carriageway approaches where the speed limit is greater than 40mph, limiting visibility to the right by screening until the vehicle is within 15 metres of the give way line can be helpful in reducing excessive approach speeds. The screening should be at least 2m high, in order to block the view of all road users. Screening can also be used on flared approaches on high speed single carriageway roads where there is a long splitter island."

A diabolical idea if it is only applied to one exit at a roundabout.

The effect is bringing 2 cars together to emerge but at very different speeds, one with no idea that the other is approaching quite fast to emerge at speed whilst they are trying to set off from a standstill.

An accident waiting to happen!

[icepop]

Up here in South Cumbria, they have jusr removed all the green-stuff from several r'bouts, and landscaped them with chippings and flower beds. Far better, and can't say I've noticed higher entry speeds, makes you realise just how awkward it was previously.

[HorneyMX5]

Centurion07 said:

OpulentBob said:

TurboHatchback said:

OpulentBob said:

How has that created danger? Is it not big enough and illuminated enough to see?!

Because now you have cars travelling in opposite directions on the same piece of tarmac. Only the other day I saw a learner driver get a priority wrong and go when they should have waited. The car going the other way also went and they nearly had a head-on collision followed by a long stand off whilst they both waited for each other to reverse. People are constantly speeding up just to fit through before someone else and cutting it finely. It also moves attention away from the surroundings and watching out for hazards and onto navigating these obstacles.

OpulentBob said:

I'll bet there was a speeding/rat running issue down there, and kids (?) use the park on the left? Lots of old duffers live on the right (they look like retirement homes)?
Speed humps are a no-no due to houses. Schools, shops, churches etc all down there, which bring substantial problems at their various kicking-out times.

It doesn't actually slow anyone down though, those that sped before do so even more to fit through the gaps and make up time lost, those that didn't still don't. It is a hugely wide road with a very slow limit, when obeying the limit there is practically no risk of people/things jumping out in front of you.

OpulentBob said:

Stop looking for people to blame, because I'd bet a penny to a pound there are serious underlying issues with drivers taking the piss along there.

Not really no but if there were then these do nothing to help the problem.

OpulentBob said:

Nice attitude though, calling the planners cretins. If the scheme doesn't make sense to you, then maybe, just maybe, YOU'RE the thicko.

I would hazard a guess that the actual road planners were told to do something by the council and this was the least intrusive option they could come up with, hence why they are so far apart and serve no purpose at all in actually slowing anyone down. I would honestly rather see speed cameras every 50ft than these things.

BTW, insulting people on the internet doesn't tend to help your argument.

Pot/kettle. Who used the word "cretin" first? You're happy to sling it in the direction of the highway designers, well guess what I do? So, I levelled it back at you.

When you say people speed up to get through the gaps, do you really mean YOU speed up to get through the gaps? Have you sat there observing driver behaviour in the medium-to-long term?

Rather than whinging, have you not asked the question of your local highway department?

Because they will NOT have been put in for fun.

I thought I recognised that pic as soon as it came up!

These pinch points are all over Basingstoke and are a fking menace. They deliberately place traffic into conflict with traffic coming in the opposite direction and somebody thought this was a good idea?! People DO speed up to make a gap that isn't really there creating danger where previously there was none. As has been said, the ONLY time these serve to slow speeders down is when there's something coming in the opposite direction, and only then when it's at precisely the right time. Speed-triggered traffic lights with a camera on them would do a far better job.

That particular road is long and straight and easy to speed down, however, the visibility along there, as is obvious in the pic, is fantastic.

Those ones are a pain but the ones in Hatch Warren are brilliant little chicanes. What with lots of roundabouts it's like a kart circuit!

[RenesisEvo]

rallycross said:

its completely stupid - based on having to dumb everything down to cope with the dumbest people on the road.

Sadly, this seems to be the case in many aspects of modern society.

heebeegeetee said:

Faster traffic on roundabouts actually impedes traffic flow. By slowing the traffic down gaps are created which allows more traffic onto the roundabout. I guess it's the last resort before putting traffic lights on the roundabout.

Ah yes - traffic lights on roundabouts. If ever there was something more pointless I'm not aware of it. I thought roundabouts were supposed to replace traffic light junctions to allow traffic to flow more smoothly, especially during off-peak times. So introducing lights seems oxymoronic. Admittedly there are cases where part-time lights do have a benefit, when the traffic is such that everyone is hardly moving. One roundabout on the A1306 that has traffic lights on it - and they've been covered up, out of use, for longer than I can remember - over four years. Clearly installing those was a waste of money.