[Closed] Good idea or not? Dutch roundabouts

Cycling confidence and capability is a big issue.

You know how people talk about minimum safe speed on motorways for cars? Would you drive at 30mph on one? Of course not, it'd be madness.

Similarly (but not exactly the same of course!) it's a lot easier and probably safer to be doing a confident 20mph in 30mph traffic than it is a nervous 10mph.

It's perfectly possible for all cars to be doing the same speed in urban areas, not so with cyclists.

it's a lot nicer riding where the limit is 20mph for that very reason.
and 20mph isn't much slower for cars than 30mph given all the traffic calming, lights and volume of traffic on UK roads.

Molgrips - are you suggesting the solution is to teach cyclists to ride at 20mph?

That's fine for the Mamils who are riding already. Not a lot of use for the young, the old, or those who want to cycle in normal clothes without getting sweaty.

Reducing traffic speeds, and speed limits, is a good idea but being big by a bus is being hit by a bus even if its only travelling a few miles an hour faster than you. I suspect the speed difference between me and the bus that put me in hospital when it forced its way through a gap that wasn't there (I was in primary, there was a vehicle coming the other way) was well under 10 mph.

Molgrips - are you suggesting the solution is to teach cyclists to ride at 20mph?

No of course not.

It was in response to people saying 'I don't see why people think it's so dangerous'. I was pointing out that if you aren't already a capable confident rider it is quite scary, for the reasons I stated.

My focus would be on education. Cyclists get basically none, which is utter madness. Cycling education should be compulsory in schools (and lots of it), with the added bonus that drivers would also be trained cyclists by the time they get to pass their test.

simons_nicolai-uk - Member

Molgrips - are you suggesting the solution is to teach cyclists to ride at 20mph?

'seems to me that he's supporting the idea of segregated cycle lanes, i could be wrong tho...

edit: 6 seconds too slow.

Sorry. Misunderstood.

Not really sure that's true though - [url= https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cycle+proficiency&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari ]loads of training[/url] about

My generation everyone did it at school and a lot of schools still seem to from what I hear. Just kids aren't then allowed to ride because its not safe. There are a lot of idiots on bikes but then every driver you see has passed a test. Very few continue to drive at a standard that would see them pass on a daily basis.

I don't need lion taming lessons - keep the lions away from me.

I get what Molgrips is saying.

If you can ride at a good speed and keep up with the traffic flow then riding unsegregated is fine - maybe even preferable.

I suffered a mechanical halfway through a commute once that meant I couldn't really pedal hard, so I just pootled along as best I could. It was a total nightmare. It made me realise how intimidating the roads must feel to slower and less confident riders.

Busy routes need proper segregation

Segregated facilities in some places, where it's needed, but most definitely NOT as an excuse not to bother with education and training.

The right of cyclists to choose either option is vital (apart from exceptional circumstances with difficult roads/junctions).

Unfortunately up to now education and training used as a (cheap, uncontroversial and imv ineffective) alternative to infrastructure. Much of superhighway budget was training.

No amount of cycle training will make Londons roads safe for a 10 year old to ride unaccompanied.

You and I don't agree on this. No sense arguing.

What kind of training though?

I'm not talking about cycling profficiency (whihc I never did incidentally). That's one thing for kids.

I'm talking about training to actually train people how to ride in traffic, and making it regular throughout school. Road laws, road craft, and all the stuff we've learned as regular cyclists. Like motorcyclists get, for example.

it could be part of company H&S policy to teach employees who commute to work (and others who want to learn) how to behave on the roads.

it could be part of company H&S policy to teach employees who commute to work (and others who want to learn) how to behave on the roads.

You can safely predict much gnashing of teeth and anti-cyclist propaganda from the motoring lobby, tabloids and various other haters of cycling that 'taxpayers money is being wasted etc etc...'

Similarly (but not exactly the same of course!) it's a lot easier and probably safer to be doing a confident 20mph in 30mph traffic than it is a nervous 10mph.

Indeed. I'm unusual in actually having current regular experience of this from the granny and kids perspective. I've got lots of experience of riding in traffic and am very confident and assertive - for example I'll happily take my son in a trailer over a major roundabout which a lot of you lot wouldn't, being assertive with my line and accelerating up to 20mph+.

However I also use a unicycle for transport (I know I probably bore you lot going on about that, but in this case it's very relevant). My top speed flat out on that is ~16mph, and a comfortable speed is only 12-13mph. Therefore whilst on a bike I'd be on the road, on the unicycle I prefer to use cycle routes, only using lightly trafficked roads. On my unicycle I'm very much a fan of segregation on major routes, in the same way an awful lot of ordinary people would be if they were riding bikes. Some of the specific cycle provision on the routes I use is pretty awful, and a lot slower than being on the road, but it's what I'll use out of preference every time.

Interestingly, there is also an example of something very similar in concept to that roundabout on my most regular route - a cycle path with priority over side roads http://goo.gl/maps/lJupe . The last time I used that a driver turned off the main road into the side road as I was on the red painted bit (not the bit they actually drove over), forcing me to stop and give way to them. Make of that what you will.

Joining it late but not convinced unless it came with a massive amount of other measures. Forcing people off roads just before a "special" roundabout won't work. If the cycle paths around it don't work you won't be on them.

That lick of red paint is very much an standard UK half-arsed attempt tbh. Both the shared use path, and the barely visible road markings.

In holland, for starters, the foot and bike paths would be different (usually bike is red, foot is paved with a small step between the two), and would NOT drop down to road level. Instead there'd be a raised bit across the junction, and proper give way paint (twice in fact).

Plus as mentioned before, it;s the mentality. In pretty much everywhere I've driven (and lived) in Europe, it's normal to give way (or at least look) to turn OFF a street for anything coming on the inside (even if it's a light-controlled junction and bike/pedestrian crossing!)

and the barely visible road markings.

Now far worse than in the picture, but after the incident with the car I've reported them to the council as needing fixing.

STATO - Member
The one advantage of this system, it will turn large multi-lane roundabouts into slow, small, single-lane roundabouts with surrounding cycle lane. This leaves the roundabout itself perfectly safe to cycle on, negating the need for the surrounding cycle lane.

i believe french roundabouts are deliberately built with the roads entering square on and the roundabout space restricted as this forces drivers to slow at the entry and not accelerate hard out - unlike many uk roundabouts which are designed with "traffic flow" AKA speed and throughput as a priority

as to the netherlands - worked there for a while and in residential /shopping/industrial areas lower traffic speeds are the norm along with a culture that expects drivers to give way to more vulnerable road users so ped/cycle crossings without lights work

The slowest parts of my commute are all cycle lanes which just seems crazy really, if they're going to exist they should at least be as fast as the road?

Having to choose speed or safety seems a pretty rum deal really, surely the whole point is that cycles can just travel anywhere safely rather constrained in little strips at 8mph.

It won't work.

Lorries and coaches are why.

Think about a long vehicle leaving the roundabout. When they have to pause in the exit zone to give way to cyclists, their arse is left out in the roundabout. All traffic flow stalls behind them.

Dumb idea.
Next.

As aracer says above ^^, speed is critical.

When I'm commuting or riding on my own on the road bike, my average speed is somewhere between 16-20mph (depending on traffic, wind etc). I'm quite happy taking primary position on busy A-roads, mixing with the traffic and filtering.

Riding with my gf however is a whole different game. Average speed on a road ride then is about 12-14mph and although it's only 4-5mph slower, that is enough to make me terrified on some roads. Strangely it doesn't seem to bother her as much but I hate it: I'm much more concious of the fact that we're definitely holding traffic up, drivers are more tempted to do stupid overtakes and we're put in a postion where we have to defend our space rather than it being given to us.

I'm not a fan of segregation at all, I think in many ways (possibly becasue it's so badly done in this country) it's more dangerous than nothing at all. Done properly, it has potential to be very good but as others have mentioned, the last thing I want is to be forced to use a cycle path if one is available.

The problem with segregated paths is they dont always lead to more cyclists. I grew up in Cramlington in Northumberland, as a 'new-town' it has a superb network of cyclepaths throughout the whole town, does anyone use them? hardly.

[url= http://karlmccracken.sweat365.com/2011/08/04/it-got-built-why-didnt-they-come/ ]it-got-built-why-didnt-they-come[/url]

I think the issue with Cramlington is that it appears to also be quite easy to travel around by car. The thing about people using the car for trips which would be quicker and easier on foot or by bike isn't just an urban myth. This morning I watched a kid get in a car parked a couple of hundred metres from the school gate, get driven down to a bus stop (where cars aren't supposed to stop, and have been told not to by the school numerous times) the far side of the school gate so saving him about 100m of walking, and arriving at school after kids who were walking past the car when he got in (I shouldn't be rude, but I will be - his mum who I think was driving is overweight and he's probably the most overweight kid at the school - though to be fair most kids are very healthy so that's not saying a lot). Anyway, back to the point, where cycling infrastructure is well used is generally in places where the car really doesn't make sense as a form of transport, like in London. There's some quite decent infrastructure here (it could be a lot better, as in places it's far from the most direct route) which is also very lightly used - it needs a culture change.

STATO see also [url= http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/ ]stevenage[/url], the writer says you need to make cycling [i]easier[/i] than driving ie intentionally gimp the road network. Obviously this is would be a contentious move, but the population as a whole really doesn't seem to want to give up it's love affair with the car, everyone on here seems to have stories of workmates with ridiculously short car commutes or nipping to the corner shop in the car (and leave the engine running while they go inside)

Is there a way to make short journeys by car more difficult than by bike without totally screwing up longer less bike friendly journeys?

Molgrips

I'm not talking about cycling profficiency (whihc I never did incidentally).

To be honest I don't really disagree that this is a fine idea. I just think it's complete sideshow to making the roads safe in the first place using infrastructure so that people, whether on bikes or in cars, can make mistakes without the consequences being so extreme.

When you call for training as a priority you start to sound more like this lot than a cyclist - "they shouldn't be on the road - they're not trained/taxed/licenced/etc"

The training will happen anyway - it's easy and relatively cheap. It's the safer roads that need fighting for.

[url= http://blog.cycleinjury.co.uk/2013/05/best-of-worst-comments-on-dutch-style.html ]http://blog.cycleinjury.co.uk/2013/05/best-of-worst-comments-on-dutch-style.html[/url]

Good post on [url= http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/why-do-the-dutch-cycle-more-than-the-british/ ]'why people cycle more in Netherlands than UK'[/url] from a few days ago

It won't work. Lorries and coaches are why.

Of course. [url= http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/we-dont-need-innovative-solutions-copy-what-works/ ]This design when implemented in the Netherlands completely failed. No-one's managed to make any of this cycle infrastructure stuff work - we really need to find something completely new and innovative[/url].

To be honest I don't really disagree that this is a fine idea. I just think it's complete sideshow to making the roads safe in the first place using infrastructure so that people, whether on bikes or in cars, can make mistakes without the consequences being so extreme.

+1

When you call for training as a priority you start to sound more like this lot than a cyclist - "they shouldn't be on the road - they're not trained/taxed/licenced/etc"

+1000