CTC capitulation?

[dellzeqq]

people meet there. They converse. It's part of their geography.

 

[Fab Foodie]

people meet there. They converse. It's part of their geography.

Mostly they talk about how to escape Balham ....

 

[Fab Foodie]

The gateway to the south

The Jewel of the East ....

 

[stowie]

asking and spending twenty million quid on an ideological totem are two very different things.

Let's be clear about this - the roundabout in Bedford has nothing to do with anything other than the kind of instrumental thought that holds conceptualising dear. Somebody decided this was a good idea, and they decided on the basis of a conceptualised model of movement that has diddlysquit to do with placemaking and everything to do with a cast of mind. And, actually, it's not a very nice cast of mind.

It what happens when all roads are treated as an engineering issue where the frame of reference is maintaining, or increasing, motorised traffic flow.

The turbo roundabout is an elegant solution when viewed from this perspective. Within the terms of traffic flow, the objective of reducing the chance of drivers hitting stuff is resolved by slowing down traffic whilst allowing density to increase. It is a pity that from every other perspective it sucks.

 

[benb]

So it turns out it's going to be even worse that I feared.
They are taking out the lane dividers from the design, so it's now: just a roundabout.
And this is something that got money from the cycling safety fund. How do we get a refund?
http://departmentfortransport.wordp...dfords-turbo-roundabout-plans-get-even-worse/

Anyone still willing to defend this use of money specifically designated for cycling safety infrastructure?

 

[Pete Owens]

So it turns out it's going to be even worse that I feared.
They are taking out the lane dividers from the design, so it's now: just a roundabout.

Sadly, the motor loby is rather more powerful than us so will tend top put a stop any measure that genuinely benifits cyclists should tis impose any restriction on motors.

And this is something that got money from the cycling safety fund. How do we get a refund?
http://departmentfortransport.wordp...dfords-turbo-roundabout-plans-get-even-worse/

It is pretty laughable that the angry bloggers who spent so much effort complaning how dangerous the proposal would have been are now complaining that it has been scrapped.

Anyone still willing to defend this use of money specifically designated for cycling safety infrastructure?

Well since the cycling element of the scheme has been scrapped presumably there won't be any requirement to spend that money.

As one who thought the original scheme was probably the best and most genuinely innovative proposal of the lot I certainly don't welcome its cancelation. I do find it odd to discover that those who opposed the scheme and were arguing against the design in this very thread seem to consider it is somehow worse that the design they opposed will not be implemented!

 

[benb]

I think that's an odd way of putting it.

I was against it when cycle-safety money was used to create a roundabout that, IMO, would do nothing for the safety of cyclists.

Now they've done away with even the lane dividers, so it is even worse for cyclists, I am even more against using cycling money to build it.

 

[oldstrath]

@Pete Owens
Insofar as there was ever a justification for spending cycle safety money on this, it was that the division into lanes would force a reduction in traffic speed. Now that even this minimal justification has been removed, there is clearly no benefit to safety, despite Sustrans' continuing press puffery (http://www.sustrans.org.uk/press-releases/new-roundabout-bedford-improve-cycle-safety). I can't speak for others, but the continuing unwillingness of those who allegedly represent cyclists' interests actually to do so is the most annoying aspect of this.

 

[Pete Owens]

I think that's an odd way of putting it.
I was against it when cycle-safety money was used to create a roundabout that, IMO, would do nothing for the safety of cyclists.

You went rather further than that - you have made several posts claiming that the design was dangerous to cyclists.
Well if you or ADT actually meant what you said then you should welcome the dropping of a scheme you were actively opposing, rather than express anger.

Now they've done away with even the lane dividers, so it is even worse for cyclists,

But the lane dividers were the key to the design - the feature that distinguishes a turbo roundabout and the key to why it would have been such a worthwhile scheme. (along with the tight geometry that is also being scrapped). You repeatedly argued against this design and took issue with those of us who explained the benefits. Heck, even your first sentence of this post still denies there would have been any safety benefit in the scheme, yet you complain at the loss of that very safety benefit.

I am even more against using cycling money to build it.

So you were opposed the building of a turbo roundabout.
Now you are opposed to not building a turbo roundabout.

Those of us who have long campaigned for cycle freindly changes to the geometry to roundabouts to slow traffic are entitled to feed dissapointed that the scheme has been dropped. The sheer hypocricy of those who campaigned against the scheme complain that it has been dropped defies belief.

 

[BSRU]

I think you have missed the point, people were against using money designated for cycling to pay for a roundabout that benefited car drivers.
Now the lane dividers are gone it is even more car friendly.

 

[benb]

I think you have missed the point, people were against using money designated for cycling to pay for a roundabout that benefited car drivers.
Now the lane dividers it is even more car friendly.

Yes, what he said.

If they want to build a roundabout that has little or no benefit to cyclists, fine. Just don't steal cycling money to do it!

Anyway, this is a pretty good post about how something being merely "better than nothing" is simply not good enough: http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/better-than-nothing/

 

[dellzeqq]

As one who thought the original scheme was probably the best and most genuinely innovative proposal of the lot I certainly don't welcome its cancelation. I do find it odd to discover that those who opposed the scheme and were arguing against the design in this very thread seem to consider it is somehow worse that the design they opposed will not be implemented!

Chichester. Northern approach to. Give it a go. And weep.

 

[StuAff]

Chichester. Northern approach to. Give it a go. And weep.

I go through Chichester on a regular basis. I try not to weep. I just try to get through it ASAP.....
It's not just the northern approach (I assume you mean via the A286, agreed that's nasty). The least horrible route in/out to the north or west, via the B2178, still involves one or two roundabouts best approached with caution. Via the A259 (itself OK for the most part) involves either another scary roundabout or fiddly twiddly footbridges etc at Fishbourne. Going south towards Bognor involves either yet another footbridge or your choice of one of two busy roundabouts, depending which road you want to take. A259 going towards Bognor is generally unpleasant with only sporadic and somewhat bumpy bike paths if you don't want to mix it with the traffic. And as for the A27.....been there, done that, not doing it again......

 

[dellzeqq]

Stu - there is one way in to Chichester that's just fine. Oving Road has a revolutionary traffic-calming device that allows cyclists to cross the six lanes of the A27 in comfort, and, dare I say it, style. It's called a traffic light.

 

[StuAff]

Stu - there is one way in to Chichester that's just fine. Oving Road has a revolutionary traffic-calming device that allows cyclists to cross the six lanes of the A27 in comfort, and, dare I say it, style. It's called a traffic light.

Oh yes, that seems to work OK....used it on Tuesday. Of course, one still has to get to that point.......