Poor road design

[Pica-Pica]

Darkslider said:

A recent housing estate near me has a similarly designed roundabout with the addition of some off camber chicanes on all the entrances and seemingly pointless kerbstones jutting out into the space that a nearside front wheel would enter were you to dare straight lining it.

I can only assume road planners have failed their driving tests multiple times and have a hatred of all motorists as a result or something.

I assume the approach has been altered and angled to stop people straightlining it, in order that that route does not become the dominant one, and that all approaches get an equal opportunity to enter the roundabout.

[Evanivitch]

Same issue as the roundabout on the eastern side of the Chartist Bridge, Blackwood A4048. 2 lanes enter from the South, most road users use left hand lane for left and ahead.

As others have said, you use either lane is a compromise because road markings are not present.

So simple answer is straddle the lane dividing line on approach to the roundabout and watch for bikes.

[joshcowin]

Pica-Pica said:

Darkslider said:

A recent housing estate near me has a similarly designed roundabout with the addition of some off camber chicanes on all the entrances and seemingly pointless kerbstones jutting out into the space that a nearside front wheel would enter were you to dare straight lining it.

I can only assume road planners have failed their driving tests multiple times and have a hatred of all motorists as a result or something.

I assume the approach has been altered and angled to stop people straightlining it, in order that that route does not become the dominant one, and that all approaches get an equal opportunity to enter the roundabout.

Sounds great in theory, in practise the artics flatten the curbs and damage the roads in about 3 days!

[stogbandard]

Oh don’t get me started with roundabouts. Designed in by computer software and not idiotproofed.

I really don’t get why entry angles have to be so sharp on new designs - supposedly it’s supposed to stop people entering at speed onto the roundabouts when you can slow people down by having a deflection before the entry point not on the entry point itself - the latter makes straight lining more attractive.

Lincoln bypass - old school decent geometry: https://maps.app.goo.gl/G6Hq2iSTH7HUGm2Z7?g_st=ic

Lincoln Eastern bypass - new crap geometry: Dropped pin
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ptSrZX2gZEMDKvPv6?g_st=ic

Can any engineers tell us why the latter is better than the former?

[col711]

I might be able to help with roundabout design if you have a specific question rather than a generalisation that a design is poor. Bear in mind that highway design standards are amended in light of feed back from consultants, local authorities, the public and Highways England. The Lincoln Road roundabout would appear to have been constructed some time ago. Rounabout design depends, among other things, on the volume of traffic.

On the design of the roundabout in Haverhill: the development would appear to be quite substantial and therefore there may be considerable traffic generation at peak times. A roundabout on A143 Haverhill Road is probably the best solution to minimise delays to all road users. T-junctions usually cause long delays to the traffic minor road during peak times have a worse safety record compared with roundabouts.

[Miserablegit]

I can see that as a reason but there is a large roundabout a few hundred metres further up.

My main issue is why no signposting/road markings - that would be a simple fix- left for estate, right for Haverhill road

Edited by Miserablegit on Monday 14th November 18:59

[waremark]

Purely coincidentally while out for a drive with a friend today we were entering Haverhill at lunchtime on the A143. My friend was supposed to be following the signs into Haverhill and I was not concentrating on the road. I looked up to see that we were driving into Meadowview and we had to turn round. This thread was not in my mind at all, and I have no idea what it may have been about the road layout or signage to cause my friend (a very advanced driver, by the way) to turn into a housing estate. A pity I did not associate it with this thread at the time or I would have gone back to look at the signage etc.

[stogbandard]

waremark said:

Purely coincidentally while out for a drive with a friend today we were entering Haverhill at lunchtime on the A143. My friend was supposed to be following the signs into Haverhill and I was not concentrating on the road. I looked up to see that we were driving into Meadowview and we had to turn round. This thread was not in my mind at all, and I have no idea what it may have been about the road layout or signage to cause my friend (a very advanced driver, by the way) to turn into a housing estate. A pity I did not associate it with this thread at the time or I would have gone back to look at the signage etc.

More easily done these days as a lot of so called “bypasses” are only being funded through housing growth funding. So rather than doing what bypasses should do - i.e. go around towns, they’re now built to serve new developments with a million roundabouts and typically a 40 mph speed limit - and they’re usually rebranded “link roads” or “development routes”.

It’s proper piss poor planning - using housing to pay for watered down former bypasses because that’s the only way that authorities get any money out of government to pay for any infrastructure.

[Boxster5]

I think we need a thread started on the lines of “Ask a road planner/highway design engineer anything” paraphrased with something along the lines “Which idiot designed that?”
I could write a book on the idiotic roundabout designs, “cycle lanes” at the expense of safety for motorists, loading bays/disabled bays on B category roads (not lay-bys but actually on the highway causing congestion) all courtesy of Durham County Council!
Show me your worst!!

[Trif]

Boxster5 said:

“cycle lanes” at the expense of safety for motorists

I think that needs explaining with examples. Complaints against cycle lanes at the expense of traffic flow I can understand as a view point, but safety to drivers leaves me confused.

[Boxster5]

Trif said:

Boxster5 said:

“cycle lanes” at the expense of safety for motorists

I think that needs explaining with examples. Complaints against cycle lanes at the expense of traffic flow I can understand as a view point, but safety to drivers leaves me confused.

OK so here goes - a 2 lane public highway with plenty of space for cyclists then the local authority decide to divide off the highway on either side with plastic cones (thousands of them) narrowing the road. Any oversize vehicles have no chance of getting through. Not only that but the new cycle lanes have hardly ever been used as road sweepers cannot clear the drains (another bugbear) so cyclists either cycle on the footpaths or ride on the public highway blocking motorists (I’ve seen both).
The local highways authority need their arses kicking!

[stogbandard]

Traffic calming build outs - those random bits of kerb filled with tarmac that narrow the road. Why do they taper so sharply which makes it impossible for a street sweeper to clean the debris? You’d thing they would design them with curves instead of angles so that street sweepers can follow them.

[stogbandard]

Traffic calming build outs - those random bits of kerb filled with tarmac that narrow the road. Why do they taper so sharply which makes it impossible for a street sweeper to clean the debris? You’d thing they would design them with curves instead of angles so that street sweepers can follow them.

[Trif]

Boxster5 said:

OK so here goes - a 2 lane public highway with plenty of space for cyclists then the local authority decide to divide off the highway on either side with plastic cones (thousands of them) narrowing the road. Any oversize vehicles have no chance of getting through. Not only that but the new cycle lanes have hardly ever been used as road sweepers cannot clear the drains (another bugbear) so cyclists either cycle on the footpaths or ride on the public highway blocking motorists (I’ve seen both).
The local highways authority need their arses kicking!

Streetview? But what you have described is not affecting your safety in a 2tonne metal box. I've worked with an oversized vehicle delivery previously, the route was planned meticulously and wouldn't go down unsuitable roads.


The detest of cyclists runs deep in councils, including the maintenance departments. There needs to be more work to build complete routes that cyclists (and those who currently drive short distances) want to use, are maintained to a good standard and don't leave cyclists stranded in tricky positions at the start and finish of the route. My experience is they fail regularly on all points. This should be every drivers complaint, as why would a cyclist chose to use the road if there was a cycle lane?

[Armchair_Expert]

Its just another example of pis poor design, with nobody caring or thinking things through which is normal these days. There are a load of roundabouts near us that are equally as flawed, one of them pictured below. It permits by road signage that the outermost left lane can be used to navigate to the 4 o'clock exit, which is the final exit before the recip. This means those waiting at the 1st exit to merge are suddenly met with traffic that looks like it will exit where they are sat, but then sweep round and into their path. Literally every time I use the roundabout I witness some sort of near miss.

There are a few identical ones nearby to this too, so basically the planners are clueless. There are 2 lanes, and 2 exits, common sense dictates one lane would be used for each. However because of the pis poor signage it is a free for all.

[Boxster5]

Trif said:

Boxster5 said:

OK so here goes - a 2 lane public highway with plenty of space for cyclists then the local authority decide to divide off the highway on either side with plastic cones (thousands of them) narrowing the road. Any oversize vehicles have no chance of getting through. Not only that but the new cycle lanes have hardly ever been used as road sweepers cannot clear the drains (another bugbear) so cyclists either cycle on the footpaths or ride on the public highway blocking motorists (I’ve seen both).
The local highways authority need their arses kicking!

Streetview? But what you have described is not affecting your safety in a 2tonne metal box. I've worked with an oversized vehicle delivery previously, the route was planned meticulously and wouldn't go down unsuitable roads.


The detest of cyclists runs deep in councils, including the maintenance departments. There needs to be more work to build complete routes that cyclists (and those who currently drive short distances) want to use, are maintained to a good standard and don't leave cyclists stranded in tricky positions at the start and finish of the route. My experience is they fail regularly on all points. This should be every drivers complaint, as why would a cyclist chose to use the road if there was a cycle lane?

So here is the ridiculous plastic cones at Pity Me - have absolutely no issue with the painted lines separating cyclists (trust me they are hardly ever used - I can count one one hand how many times I’ve seen a cyclist). The next photo is the A177 near Maiden Castle where the local authority have left the uphill section narrower than a vehicle to accommodate cyclists (at least there aren’t any plastic cones)

[col711]

Armchair_Expert said:

Its just another example of pis poor design, with nobody caring or thinking things through which is normal these days. There are a load of roundabouts near us that are equally as flawed, one of them pictured below. It permits by road signage that the outermost left lane can be used to navigate to the 4 o'clock exit, which is the final exit before the recip. This means those waiting at the 1st exit to merge are suddenly met with traffic that looks like it will exit where they are sat, but then sweep round and into their path. Literally every time I use the roundabout I witness some sort of near miss.

There are a few identical ones nearby to this too, so basically the planners are clueless. There are 2 lanes, and 2 exits, common sense dictates one lane would be used for each. However because of the pis poor signage it is a free for all.

I have had a look at this junction on Google Maps and Streetview. I cannot see any signage that indicates that both lanes should be used only road markings. However, that should not pose a problem for anyone. Provided drivers on the A331 overbridge indicate their intention before entering the roundabout, traffic from Frimley should give way. It would be drivers who don't indicate that they are taking the A331 onslip from the left hand lane that may cause drivers from Frimley to proceed.

As far as the design is concerned, it doesn't look bad. I don't know how old it is but presumably it was designed in accordance with the standards of the time. The probable reason that two lanes of traffic are required from the overbridge to the onslip is to satisfy the demand. The surrounding area is heavily built-up and this route gives convenient access to the A331 dual carriageway.

[Trif]

Boxster5 said:

Trif said:

Boxster5 said:

OK so here goes - a 2 lane public highway with plenty of space for cyclists then the local authority decide to divide off the highway on either side with plastic cones (thousands of them) narrowing the road. Any oversize vehicles have no chance of getting through. Not only that but the new cycle lanes have hardly ever been used as road sweepers cannot clear the drains (another bugbear) so cyclists either cycle on the footpaths or ride on the public highway blocking motorists (I’ve seen both).
The local highways authority need their arses kicking!

Streetview? But what you have described is not affecting your safety in a 2tonne metal box. I've worked with an oversized vehicle delivery previously, the route was planned meticulously and wouldn't go down unsuitable roads.


The detest of cyclists runs deep in councils, including the maintenance departments. There needs to be more work to build complete routes that cyclists (and those who currently drive short distances) want to use, are maintained to a good standard and don't leave cyclists stranded in tricky positions at the start and finish of the route. My experience is they fail regularly on all points. This should be every drivers complaint, as why would a cyclist chose to use the road if there was a cycle lane?

So here is the ridiculous plastic cones at Pity Me - have absolutely no issue with the painted lines separating cyclists (trust me they are hardly ever used - I can count one one hand how many times I’ve seen a cyclist). The next photo is the A177 near Maiden Castle where the local authority have left the uphill section narrower than a vehicle to accommodate cyclists (at least there aren’t any plastic cones)

So this has nothing to do with the fact it went from a NSL road to 30mph? It looks to me that the council wanted to narrow the road in response to the lower speed limit to help with natural enforcement of the slower speed (the narrower the road, the more aware of your speed you are). Their method of choosing to narrow it was by installing a cycle path with deformable bollards which presents no danger to you inside your vehicle. I am however not in favour of the bollards being used to stop right turns by the hotel, normally you would see a raised kerb with a lit up keep left bollard here.

If we are talking about the placement of the cycle lane in general, I also mostly agree it was misguided as they haven't taken into account where people are and where they want to go. They should connect Durham University through to the Hospital via the train station with a segregated cycle lane. Plus Front Street and Old Pit Lane to the Hospital. And Sunderland Road and Gilesgate to the town centre, these are all densely populated areas with busy roads and are short distances perfect for cycling.


For the A177, I just see that as clearly showing that cyclists have the right to be in front. I'd have expected to see solid white lines to stop overtakes around the bend. But the cyclists and line of paint are again presenting no danger to you in your car, just don't overtake on a blind bend and you'll be fine.

[Armchair_Expert]

col711 said:

I have had a look at this junction on Google Maps and Streetview. I cannot see any signage that indicates that both lanes should be used only road markings. However, that should not pose a problem for anyone. Provided drivers on the A331 overbridge indicate their intention before entering the roundabout, traffic from Frimley should give way. It would be drivers who don't indicate that they are taking the A331 onslip from the left hand lane that may cause drivers from Frimley to proceed.

As far as the design is concerned, it doesn't look bad. I don't know how old it is but presumably it was designed in accordance with the standards of the time. The probable reason that two lanes of traffic are required from the overbridge to the onslip is to satisfy the demand. The surrounding area is heavily built-up and this route gives convenient access to the A331 dual carriageway.

That's all largely irrelevant when you have road markings encouraging people to behave in opposition of what is advised within the highway code. The left lane of two lanes being used to take an exit past 12 o'clock is against the grain, but to then use it to take a 4 o'clock exit is madness. And of course, nobody indicates. Exits up to and including 12 o'clock, left lane or lanes, past 12 o'clock right lane or lanes.

[Solocle]

Trif said:

Boxster5 said:

Trif said:

Boxster5 said:

OK so here goes - a 2 lane public highway with plenty of space for cyclists then the local authority decide to divide off the highway on either side with plastic cones (thousands of them) narrowing the road. Any oversize vehicles have no chance of getting through. Not only that but the new cycle lanes have hardly ever been used as road sweepers cannot clear the drains (another bugbear) so cyclists either cycle on the footpaths or ride on the public highway blocking motorists (I’ve seen both).
The local highways authority need their arses kicking!

Streetview? But what you have described is not affecting your safety in a 2tonne metal box. I've worked with an oversized vehicle delivery previously, the route was planned meticulously and wouldn't go down unsuitable roads.


The detest of cyclists runs deep in councils, including the maintenance departments. There needs to be more work to build complete routes that cyclists (and those who currently drive short distances) want to use, are maintained to a good standard and don't leave cyclists stranded in tricky positions at the start and finish of the route. My experience is they fail regularly on all points. This should be every drivers complaint, as why would a cyclist chose to use the road if there was a cycle lane?

So here is the ridiculous plastic cones at Pity Me - have absolutely no issue with the painted lines separating cyclists (trust me they are hardly ever used - I can count one one hand how many times I’ve seen a cyclist). The next photo is the A177 near Maiden Castle where the local authority have left the uphill section narrower than a vehicle to accommodate cyclists (at least there aren’t any plastic cones)

So this has nothing to do with the fact it went from a NSL road to 30mph? It looks to me that the council wanted to narrow the road in response to the lower speed limit to help with natural enforcement of the slower speed (the narrower the road, the more aware of your speed you are). Their method of choosing to narrow it was by installing a cycle path with deformable bollards which presents no danger to you inside your vehicle. I am however not in favour of the bollards being used to stop right turns by the hotel, normally you would see a raised kerb with a lit up keep left bollard here.

If we are talking about the placement of the cycle lane in general, I also mostly agree it was misguided as they haven't taken into account where people are and where they want to go. They should connect Durham University through to the Hospital via the train station with a segregated cycle lane. Plus Front Street and Old Pit Lane to the Hospital. And Sunderland Road and Gilesgate to the town centre, these are all densely populated areas with busy roads and are short distances perfect for cycling.


For the A177, I just see that as clearly showing that cyclists have the right to be in front. I'd have expected to see solid white lines to stop overtakes around the bend. But the cyclists and line of paint are again presenting no danger to you in your car, just don't overtake on a blind bend and you'll be fine.

All purpose trunk dual carriageways.

That's it, that's my entry.