Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

freeflow
Posts: 1377
Joined: 29 Aug 2011, 1:54pm

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby freeflow » 11 Aug 2020, 5:25pm

This is why they were able to reliably compare the safety performance of the different priority arrangements and found that it is significantly more dangerous when the cycle path has priority.


That was an inappropriate conclusion. It should have been there is a safety issue when the drivers are asked to do more thinking than they are expecting. The lack of safety is nothing to do with cyclists being present.

pwa
Posts: 12735
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby pwa » 11 Aug 2020, 6:44pm

Very late to this discussion, but having looked at images of the roundabout I'd quite like to try it in a motor vehicle to see how it looks from behind a steering wheel. Especially if you are new to the area and not expecting it. Looking down on it from above, it looks simple enough. But I'm curious about how good the sight lines are, and whether turning angles are natural or awkward. But six months down the line, if it hasn't seen a lot of accidents it could be a template for others to follow.

Postboxer
Posts: 1687
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby Postboxer » 11 Aug 2020, 6:53pm

What are you meant to do if you crash into some street furniture? Exchange details with it? It's strange being described as a hit and run. I'm surprised if there isn't CCTV covering the junction, if only to monitor how it goes, it cost enough.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3492
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby Bmblbzzz » 11 Aug 2020, 8:03pm

Yes, you're meant to leave your name and address and insurance details with the owner of the roadside property you've damaged. Possibly notify the police as well, I'm not sure about that bit.

thirdcrank
Posts: 29481
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby thirdcrank » 11 Aug 2020, 8:12pm

The driver's duties are covered under s 170 of the RTA 1988

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... ection/170

I'd summarise that as Stop; give details to anybody who asks; report to police "as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, within twenty-four hours."

Pete Owens
Posts: 1894
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby Pete Owens » 12 Aug 2020, 12:27am

freeflow wrote:
This is why they were able to reliably compare the safety performance of the different priority arrangements and found that it is significantly more dangerous when the cycle path has priority.


That was an inappropriate conclusion. It should have been there is a safety issue when the drivers are asked to do more thinking than they are expecting. The lack of safety is nothing to do with cyclists being present.

No it is a straight forward empirical observation - give priority to the cycle path and more cyclists get squished. If your aim is to minimise the number of squished cyclists then avoid design features that are proven to result in more crashes.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3411
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby The utility cyclist » 12 Aug 2020, 1:10am

I can't believe people are backing this garbage, a narrow lane that exposes you many times over to being hit, you couldn't make this shizzle up!
In NL they already found out that even with far fewer motorists more than 60 people die a year where cycle infra meets motor roads.
This is a failure, and an expensive failure at that, it won't d squat for safety or increasing cycling/decreasing motor use!

Pete Owens
Posts: 1894
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby Pete Owens » 12 Aug 2020, 1:24am

Don't judge the whole thing just by the red nonsense round the edge. The basic geometry of the carriageway is good and will slow traffic to cycle friendly speeds. It is that geometry that is the radical design feature in this case; unfortunately peripheral cycle paths are very common.

Cyril Haearn
Posts: 14180
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Location: Leafy suburbia

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby Cyril Haearn » 12 Aug 2020, 4:47am

Separation is the thing
The majority of drivers do not give a *** about the law or about the safety of others
Entertainer, intellectual, idealist, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3492
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby Bmblbzzz » 12 Aug 2020, 10:15am

Yep, angles and radius good.

drossall
Posts: 4945
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby drossall » 12 Aug 2020, 9:16pm

Cyril Haearn wrote:The majority of drivers do not give a *** about the law or about the safety of others

I think that's unfair. The vast majority of drivers take care, and some go out of their way to be helpful. Some make mistakes. A minority are aggressive and unwilling to obey significant numbers of rules.

Cyril Haearn
Posts: 14180
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Location: Leafy suburbia

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby Cyril Haearn » 12 Aug 2020, 9:26pm

drossall wrote:
Cyril Haearn wrote:The majority of drivers do not give a *** about the law or about the safety of others

I think that's unfair. The vast majority of drivers take care, and some go out of their way to be helpful. Some make mistakes. A minority are aggressive and unwilling to obey significant numbers of rules.

Very many exceed maximum speed limits, very many use the telephone, very many follow too close*, most ignore stop signs (nearly all, I have observed)

* observed this a lot lately in town, following so closely that when the vehicle in front turns off they have to brake hard, or swerve onto the other side of the road
Entertainer, intellectual, idealist, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies

atlas_shrugged
Posts: 411
Joined: 8 Nov 2016, 7:50pm

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby atlas_shrugged » 13 Aug 2020, 4:28pm

This roundabout cost 3 times the initial 800k pounds estimate - moving the utilities caused more trouble than expected. The design also consumed much planning effort.

Will this new design save lives is a key question? If the design saves even 1 life then maybe it has safety benefits and can claim a cost benefit tick. One life costs the country around a million pounds but I would make this higher at around 10 million pounds. Cranebridge cyclists and pedestrians are the new labrats for the rest of the UK it seems.

My own interest is how much more expensive would it be to have provided full grade segregation for pedestrians and cyclists? In other words full Stevenagize the roundabout. Place the cycle and pedestrian paths in an underpass. Using the 3rd dimension especially would help with designs where there is very little room. So what would be the benefits of a Stevenage style roundabout:

* Enhanced safety especially for vulnerable users e.g. school pupils and hospital patients
* Vision zero definitely achieved at this dangerous roundabout for pedestrians and cyclists
* Under-road ducting for utilities available so no need to continually dig up the road/roundabout
* The route could be used by young children and vision impaired people

I note the design for cyclists involves some tight turns and I estimate some of these are 2 meters turning radius. Is 2 meters compatible with LTN 1/20? Table 5-1 is not that clear about tuning radius. Is 2 meters OK or not?

I have to say I felt reasonably safe on the roundabout on a bike. I was constantly looking right then left then right then left etc. But this was better than having to check 180 degrees behind while negotiating 2 lanes of busy roundabout traffic. So my guess is this is safer, but the statistics will speak for themselves.

Jdsk
Posts: 2499
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby Jdsk » 13 Aug 2020, 4:35pm

atlas_shrugged wrote:Will this new design save lives is a key question? If the design saves even 1 life then maybe it has safety benefits and can claim a cost benefit tick. One life costs the country around a million pounds but I would make this higher at around 10 million pounds.

Yes, it should boil down to cost-effectiveness. And the same threshold should be used across all areas of public spending.

But the current UK Government "Value of a Prevented Fatality" is £1.83M (2016 £s).
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/policybristol/policy-briefings/opinion-polls/

Jonathan

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16095
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby mjr » 13 Aug 2020, 4:45pm

atlas_shrugged wrote:One life costs the country around a million pounds but I would make this higher at around 10 million pounds.

Where are you getting that from? I'm sure Norfolk's public health department told me a road death cost the economy £14m. Interesting how that differs from the "Value of a Prevented Fatality" but I guess it may have something to do with how you can prevent the same fatality lots of times, whereas a death normally only happens once.

I'm not sure Cambridgers are high risk lab rats when they seem to be simply importing known-good treatments from abroad.

So what would be the benefits of a Stevenage style roundabout:

* Enhanced safety especially for vulnerable users e.g. school pupils and hospital patients

Sadly, that wouldn't be the perception, especially if "Stevenage style" means not being able to see through the underpass from a good distance back. I'm sure I don't need to list examples of underpasses filled in and replaced by push-and-beg traffic light crossings because people were scrambling over the carriageway rather than risk finding out who was lurking under it.

* Vision zero definitely achieved at this dangerous roundabout for pedestrians and cyclists
* Under-road ducting for utilities available so no need to continually dig up the road/roundabout

Won't that just mean they continually dig up the underpass cycleway or footway instead? I'm not sure that's a good thing because cycleway/footway repairs always seem to be done worse than carriageway ones.

* The route could be used by young children and vision impaired people

Why can't the current one?

I note the design for cyclists involves some tight turns and I estimate some of these are 2 meters turning radius. Is 2 meters compatible with LTN 1/20? Table 5-1 is not that clear about tuning radius. Is 2 meters OK or not?

Not really. Table 5-1 is for "low speed manoeuvres such as access to cycle parking" and even that says 2.5m minimum not to exclude tricycles. The relevant table is 5-7 which gives a minimum radius of 4m for a 10kph transit and 15m for 20kph.

I have to say I felt reasonably safe on the roundabout on a bike. I was constantly looking right then left then right then left etc. But this was better than having to check 180 degrees behind while negotiating 2 lanes of busy roundabout traffic. So my guess is this is safer, but the statistics will speak for themselves.

Do you know what the past injury record was?

Thanks for posting some practical experience. All my appointments in Cambridge keep getting converted into telemeetings.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.