drossall wrote:Presumably, a PR officer who is paid to put a good spin on things has come up with the "goes Dutch" heading, and Patrick Lingwood, who does actually explain the true Dutch approach in his interview, isn't allowed to undermine it. Thus, a less than accurate picture is spread across his colleagues nationally, and if that is repeated then "Dutch" infrastructure here may become something unrecognisable by our friends across the water.
...
I was interested that the Poynton video mentions fears of reducing capacity at that busy intersection, by reducing the approach lanes to one, which seems comparable to Bedford. However, in Poynton they went ahead, knowing that reduced speeds would allow vehicles to be closer to each other, and so compensate by increasing capacity. Overall, the video suggests that the effect has been neutral, as intended. Anyone know whether this was considered?
Indeed, Patrick Lingwood was using the turbo roundabout only in as much as it would still work for the 60% of cyclists who are choosing the use the road at present. As I explained, the priority cycle track option (which would have been used in NL and could accommodate all users if well designed) was contemplated, but was ruled out for traffic capacity reasons: this is a crucial point. In most Dutch towns there are very few two-lane entry roundabouts because traffic levels are lower (often because so many trips are being made by bike!). Politically, it is difficult for a cycling officer in Bedford to persuade his colleagues (let alone councillors!) to remove one lane from a roundabout which has 25,000 vehicles a day using it in favour of bikes, of which there are currently around 500.
So we are left with the infamous dual network, but a dual network which is a bit better for both: pavement cyclists now share legally, and test the resolve of drivers at zebras until the regs change, while on-road cyclists get slower speeds and a clearer indication of how to 'take the lane'. Not, by any means perfect, but a reasonable interim measure given regs and restrictions.
On Poynton, yes, this is a fascinating scheme but:
a) it cost £4m - this one is costing 10% of that
b) the benefits for cyclists are far from clear cut, with evidence that many children are still using the pavement, and that the critical width approach lanes are uncomfortable for cyclists to use.