CTC capitulation?

[benb]

Two different points there. You're not aware of any facts concerning Bedford at all - it is the case that unless that money was used, NOTHING would have been done to the roundabout.

IMO, nothing would have been better than this half-arsed bodge.
This "solution" benefits motor vehicles, not cyclists.

You keep saying we should support, or at least accept, this change on the basis that it's better than doing nothing. I'm unconvinced of that.

I notice you can't actually back up your assertion that traffic speed through the roundabout is reduced. It looks to me like the complete opposite would be true. There's a reason why in the Netherlands, cycling routes completely bypass these turbo roundabouts - because they are provision for motorised traffic and not cycling.

I am not saying we should reject anything that isn't perfect, but we should certainly reject anything as crap as this.

This roundabout will do nothing to improve cycling conditions, and that's why CTC and Sustrans should have rejected it.

 

[jonesy]

Tighter geometry will reduce traffic speeds, that isn't even controversial. And that will make cyclists safer. There is no doubt that this is a compromise which raises legitimate concerns, but let's see how it works in practice.

 

[benb]

Don't you think there's a pretty good reason why almost no one is supportive of this?

 

[benb]

As long as cycle campaign groups “welcome” this kind of rubbish and then play along with the resulting mess, cycling will continue to receive the same kind of dismissive treatment.

http://departmentfortransport.wordp...ople-wonder-what-is-being-done-in-their-name/

 

[stowie]

Tighter geometry will reduce traffic speeds, that isn't even controversial. And that will make cyclists safer. There is no doubt that this is a compromise which raises legitimate concerns, but let's see how it works in practice.

When my residential road became 20mph and one way the residents - who aired concerns that one-way traffic would speed through what can be used as a rat-run - were assured that the speed bumps would naturally bring down speeds to less than 20mph. Of course, the bumps are simply ridden over at speeds of 30mph + by those who want to speed. The lane dividers at the Bedford roundabout will be able to be crossed by motorvehicles (although apparently the driver would feel a "bump"). If a driver wants to flatten out the curves they can.

While accepting I am naturally pessimistic, I don't think it unreasonable to say that the scheme could end up with cyclists still be cut up as motorists bump over the dividers to overtake / undertake them on the roundabout and that getting in lane for a cyclist could be worse with this scheme if cars don't slow down to the speeds envisiged (say they slow to 20mph instead of 10-15mph) but the design allows cars to bunch up and flow more freely thus making asserting road position for a cyclist worse.

My cynicism is based on several things. Firstly, the speed reduction seems an "aspiration", I am concerned why no-one has said "actually we measured speeds on existing turbo roundabouts and believe speeds will be reduced from Y to X because this is what we see at turbo roundabouts at these locations". Secondly that the scheme uses the buzz words "dutch infrastructure" and the documentation alludes strongly to taking this "best practice" and yet I don't think the dutch have one instance of a turbo roundabout without separate cycle provision - most provision would have priority for cyclists in town roundabouts as well. So they have taken the "dutch model", stripped out all the cycle specific stuff and assumed that the change in vehicular flow will aid cyclists.

Finally, we know if these schemes are bad for cycling then they don't get changed. If motor traffic was hindered then money would be found to alter it to suit, but if the scheme makes cycling worse then the council will shrug their shoulders and say that it was signed off by the cycling organisations.

The money comes from £20M allocated nationally for cycle safety. I would contend that this scheme is marginal at absolute best and money better allocated to another area who may have better schemes. Doing nothing would lose the money for Bedford on this scheme, but if this is the best they can do then I would look to other councils and other plans.

 

[Danny]

Tighter geometry will reduce traffic speeds, that isn't even controversial. And that will make cyclists safer. There is no doubt that this is a compromise which raises legitimate concerns, but let's see how it works in practice.

Indeed.

The scheme is a compromise, but considerably better than having no facilities for cyclists at all at this roundabout. Having read through the five pages of posts I can't see that anyone has come up with a realistic alternative.

And going back to the OP, this seems an odd reason for not taking out membership. I would personally rather see the CTC engage with planners overs schemes like this, than adopt lofty purists positions which might delight some members but would exclude it from any influence at all.

 

[oldstrath]

Tighter geometry will reduce traffic speeds, that isn't even controversial. And that will make cyclists safer. There is no doubt that this is a compromise which raises legitimate concerns, but let's see how it works in practice.

So where are the empirical data to demonstrate that 'tighter geometry will reduce vehicle speeds'? Currently this seems more an unsupported hope than an observed fact.

 

[StuartG]

When my residential road became 20mph and one way the residents - who aired concerns that one-way traffic would speed through what can be used as a rat-run - were assured that the speed bumps would naturally bring down speeds to less than 20mph. Of course, the bumps are simply ridden over at speeds of 30mph + by those who want to speed.

And you are both probably right.

Bumps can and will be ridden at 30+ mph. Some may even get a thrill from it before their undercarriage collapses - but the evidence is the average speed across all vehicles does drop dramatically. And with it both collisions and severity of injury. One has to remember it isn't only bad drivers who kill or fail to compensate for errors by other road users.

Hence, on the face of it a reduction of speed and consequently a reduction in KSI risk would make the Bedford plan better than nothing. If the forecast is wrong - and it is important to insist on recording behaviour both before and after the change we will have learnt something to be applied (or not) elsewhere.

This really is a depressing thread of prejudice over fact.

 

[theclaud]

So where are the empirical data to demonstrate that 'tighter geometry will reduce vehicle speeds'? Currently this seems more an unsupported hope than an observed fact.

If Jonesy says that tighter geometry will reduce vehicle speeds, then tighter geometry will reduce vehicle speeds. He will be sitting on a mountain of data to demonstrate it, but I prefer simply to believe him, and it certainly accords with both expectation and observation. This lousy roundabout is still a colossal waste of money, though. I see where @Flying Dodo is coming from, and I respect his position, but with other organizations queuing up to rubber-stamp duff infrastructure in return for largely pointless concessions, CTC in my view needs to distinguish itself with a more robust campaigning approach, not to mention a less expensive portfolio of demands.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

In order to get the money someone from the County Highways submitted a bid to someone in Central government.

The trick, and I've been unable to pull it off consistently, is to ensure that the highway engineers speak to you, and are completely conversant with your local "wish list" of your top 10 desired improvements, before the bid gets submitted. At least that way there is a chance that when they rock up all labrador-like, at no-minutes-notice, with "We are on a deadline, of Friday, here's what we are proposing, do we have your support?" you can respond "Doesn't work for me/us, we'd rather a see Project X implemented from the current list" and then they sometimes go away and revise their bid accordingly.

The ASL's in da 'sham currently being installed got cooked up during a lunch-time conference call between me and the county Cycling Officer whilst she was working her redundancy notice. "I'm ringing you" she said "because none of the others' suggestions (separate infrastructure) will get into the bid and unless you and I come up with something the engineers can support and which is affordable Horsham will get nothing. Again." and I said "What's on the list that will float their boat?" and she said "Your ASL's in the town centre" and "Let's 'ave 'em!" was my reply.

It really is often as unscientific and hurried and unplanned as that.

Now I'd love perfect infrastructure; but my CC won't build it, and my ASL's will be crap and a are only bit of tokenism but they are a sign. And signs are important. They will say "Cyclists have a place right here in front of your car so get over it."

EDIT: And the Local CTC have been, and remain, nowhere to be seen throughout the piece. Their inept bureaucracy has failed three times to get a local RtR rep appointed and they keep telling us we have one in Crawley. Yep. He's interested in Crawley, funnily enough.

 

[benb]

Indeed.

The scheme is a compromise, but considerably better than having no facilities for cyclists at all at this roundabout. Having read through the five pages of posts I can't see that anyone has come up with a realistic alternative.

This isn't a facility for cyclists, so there were no facilities for cyclists before this scheme, and there are still no facilities for cyclists.
Nothing I have read has convinced me that this is an improvement.

 

[summerdays]

I fall into the group that would rather have a half measure than nothing at all. I think I would like to give it a chance, and hope that it does deliver the slower speeds. Apart from the angles the zebra's on all the arms will also have an effect in slowing the traffic down, if it is in an area with reasonable pedestrian footfall.

 

[totallyfixed]

Compromise and half measures, twas ever thus in the UK.

 

[Danny]

This isn't a facility for cyclists, so there were no facilities for cyclists before this scheme, and there are still no facilities for cyclists.
Nothing I have read has convinced me that this is an improvement.

So what would you have wanted to see instead?

 

[benb]

So what would you have wanted to see instead?

A proper Dutch style cycling roundabout, along these lines: