Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

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

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby mjr » 14 Aug 2020, 2:42pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:That would be this one?
https://goo.gl/maps/Hf8JsSV1NstJbYMn6
Speaking just from the photo, never having been there, the geometry looks good, the shared use ("ride on the pavement") stuff looks useless. But it does look decent to ride round on carriageway, as the woman with the white bag is doing.

Yes, that's the earlier roundabout, and if you follow the Google car sequence forward a few steps to https://goo.gl/maps/ffjxM6z6dS3NmwMd9 you see that woman become yet another example of a cyclist being squeezed by a motorist using the slack geometry offered by the large lorry overrun area to overtake.
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.

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 » 14 Aug 2020, 2:52pm

atlas_shrugged wrote: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.

Putting the cycle lanes under a rbt creating false uphills/downhills plus sharper angles to entry and exit and dingy/dark uninviting underpasses even on a good day is in part why the lanes at St.Evanage (to give it's correct modern gentrification name :lol: ) are barely used.
That and the fact that it's far easier to just drive, which is what segregation does, it pushes people on bikes out the way of drivers, just as they do in NL and again is another part of the whole segregation problem because drivers-cyclists is out of sight, out of mind. Come to cycle infra crossing and it's like people on bikes never existed for some, this is why they have such a massive death toll in NL despite all those lanes keeping the nasty cyclists out the way of the those that drive.
200 deaths a year in a country with so much seperation and so few drivers, and people say that segrgeation is a good thing, not in my book it isn't, because it does lots of damage/harm that people won't talk about because of the huge flaw in segregation, never mind the absolutely horrendous cost and the timescale to complete it, that's before you even get to the amount of land needed so that motons can keep their share :evil:

Segregation means not joined up (as per NL and everywhere else in the world), indirect which flies in the face of the desire lines that humans much prefer, this then means longer journey times/inconvenience at almost every avenue, add in narrow lanes and you have the full house of everything you don't want so that people of all types on a cycle want, particularly the majority type that use the roads currently.

Even the most recent developments in NL like Houten, a suburb of Utrecht, they built a lovely dual carriageway for the motorists around the suburb that go all the way to Utrecht itself, the saving grace is that it has a direct cycle path, one of the few direct from a suburb, try getting to Central Amsterdam from the South East, it's not remotely joined up and crosses many motor roads which exposes people to high speed cars, vans, HGVs etc.
The difference in journey time to central Utrecht from Houten is almost double for the person on a bike compared to car, it has a railway line straight down the centre of the suburb which is also well used, but still why would you build wide roads if not to aid transporting people by car?
Stop up lanes to motor traffic, make roads one way for motors, bi directional for people on bikes, zero need to 'build' anything, more focius on making driving as difficult as possible to force people out of cars at the same time making cycling massively easier and safer with much fewer conflict points whilst giving enough space for faster cyclists to get past a parent and small child cycling side by side, for someone on a modified cycle (which can be much wider than an ordinary) to have space so they feel safe and go at a speed they enjoy whilst others can chat or overtake with that extra space a full lane of a road would give, on segregated for the most part that is not possible.

There's a reason why this works to encourage all types of cycling
closed roads LA.jpg

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

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby mjr » 14 Aug 2020, 5:29pm

The utility cyclist wrote:[various stuff I agree with] is why they have such a massive death toll in NL despite all those lanes keeping the nasty cyclists out the way of the those that drive.
200 deaths a year in a country with so much seperation and so few drivers,

Nope, you lost me there. The death toll you call "massive" is against an even larger proportion of cyclists, which I guess must be "houmungous" or something. They also don't have "so few drivers": the Netherlands has 0.49 vehicles per capita, slightly higher than GB's 0.47.

[...] that's before you even get to the amount of land needed so that motons can keep their share :evil:

They don't need to keep their share. In fact, it should be reduced in line with the expected shift to cycling, in line with traffic induction/evaporation theory.

Segregation means not joined up (as per NL and everywhere else in the world), indirect which flies in the face of the desire lines that humans much prefer, this then means longer journey times/inconvenience at almost every avenue, add in narrow lanes and you have the full house of everything you don't want so that people of all types on a cycle want, particularly the majority type that use the roads currently.

Indirect and narrow are not necessary parts of that. I hope you were happy to see in "Gear Change" that gov.uk cries out against it and says they won't fund such routes.

Even the most recent developments in NL like Houten, a suburb of Utrecht,

Isn't that like calling Abingdon a suburb of Oxford? It seems a bit insulting. While it may have lots of people who go to Utrecht, Houten is a distinct municipality with its own centre and a green area between them.

FWIW, I've been to Utrecht but not Houten. I've been to both Abingdon and Oxford. You wouldn't say you'd been to Oxford if you'd only been to Abingdon, would you?

try getting to Central Amsterdam from the South East, it's not remotely joined up and crosses many motor roads which exposes people to high speed cars, vans, HGVs etc.

Following the signs for A'Dam Centrum seem to take you along Weesperzijde then the Amstel OK. There's a crap junction by the Intercontinental but I don't see what's "not remotely joined up" about most of the route.

but still why would you build wide roads if not to aid transporting people by car?

Trucks.

Stop up lanes to motor traffic, make roads one way for motors, bi directional for people on bikes, zero need to 'build' anything, more focius on making driving as difficult as possible to force people out of cars at the same time making cycling massively easier and safer with much fewer conflict points

Those are all good things to do too, but you do realise that all except the focusing are forms of segregation? :lol:

There's a reason why this works to encourage all types of cycling
closed roads LA.jpg

A few closed-road festivals is not a sustainable increase in mass cycling. They are fun, though.
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.

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

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby Cyril Haearn » 14 Aug 2020, 5:50pm

Maybe Abingdon is a dormitory settlement for Oxford, but is there any country left separating them? :?
Entertainer, intellectual, idealist, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies

Jdsk
Posts: 2497
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby Jdsk » 14 Aug 2020, 6:00pm

There's green belt between Oxford and Abingdon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Green_Belt

Jonathan

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

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby Bmblbzzz » 14 Aug 2020, 10:54pm

mjr wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:That would be this one?
https://goo.gl/maps/Hf8JsSV1NstJbYMn6
Speaking just from the photo, never having been there, the geometry looks good, the shared use ("ride on the pavement") stuff looks useless. But it does look decent to ride round on carriageway, as the woman with the white bag is doing.

Yes, that's the earlier roundabout, and if you follow the Google car sequence forward a few steps to https://goo.gl/maps/ffjxM6z6dS3NmwMd9 you see that woman become yet another example of a cyclist being squeezed by a motorist using the slack geometry offered by the large lorry overrun area to overtake.

I can't really see that, no. In fact I can't even see the same woman in that link you've given. I can see two other cyclists on the roundabout and one other on the pavement ahead. I can see the original woman I was referring to again here: https://goo.gl/maps/YgXSsdKdcWb4nYZLA having just exited the roundabout, about to be overtaken by a black car, while another cyclist in hi-viz (and sort of zebra-stripe tights :D ) waits to join the roundabout.

But streetview can be jumpy like that. What I can see is that comparing this roundabout to similar ones I've seen in those there continental parts, the radius is similar, the approach and exit angles similar - maybe a bit more flared but only very slightly - but that overrun area looks very smooth. Others I've seen have much rougher paving and/or higher kerbs, so that they can be used by a large vehicle such as an HGV if necessary but you really wouldn't drive in them.

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 » 15 Aug 2020, 1:42pm

mjr wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:[various stuff I agree with] is why they have such a massive death toll in NL despite all those lanes keeping the nasty cyclists out the way of the those that drive.
200 deaths a year in a country with so much seperation and so few drivers,

Nope, you lost me there. The death toll you call "massive" is against an even larger proportion of cyclists, which I guess must be "houmungous" or something. They also don't have "so few drivers": the Netherlands has 0.49 vehicles per capita, slightly higher than GB's 0.47.

[...] that's before you even get to the amount of land needed so that motons can keep their share :evil:

They don't need to keep their share. In fact, it should be reduced in line with the expected shift to cycling, in line with traffic induction/evaporation theory.

Segregation means not joined up (as per NL and everywhere else in the world), indirect which flies in the face of the desire lines that humans much prefer, this then means longer journey times/inconvenience at almost every avenue, add in narrow lanes and you have the full house of everything you don't want so that people of all types on a cycle want, particularly the majority type that use the roads currently.

Indirect and narrow are not necessary parts of that. I hope you were happy to see in "Gear Change" that gov.uk cries out against it and says they won't fund such routes.

Even the most recent developments in NL like Houten, a suburb of Utrecht,

Isn't that like calling Abingdon a suburb of Oxford? It seems a bit insulting. While it may have lots of people who go to Utrecht, Houten is a distinct municipality with its own centre and a green area between them.

FWIW, I've been to Utrecht but not Houten. I've been to both Abingdon and Oxford. You wouldn't say you'd been to Oxford if you'd only been to Abingdon, would you?

try getting to Central Amsterdam from the South East, it's not remotely joined up and crosses many motor roads which exposes people to high speed cars, vans, HGVs etc.

Following the signs for A'Dam Centrum seem to take you along Weesperzijde then the Amstel OK. There's a crap junction by the Intercontinental but I don't see what's "not remotely joined up" about most of the route.

but still why would you build wide roads if not to aid transporting people by car?

Trucks.

Stop up lanes to motor traffic, make roads one way for motors, bi directional for people on bikes, zero need to 'build' anything, more focius on making driving as difficult as possible to force people out of cars at the same time making cycling massively easier and safer with much fewer conflict points

Those are all good things to do too, but you do realise that all except the focusing are forms of segregation? :lol:

There's a reason why this works to encourage all types of cycling
closed roads LA.jpg

A few closed-road festivals is not a sustainable increase in mass cycling. They are fun, though.

Just keep ignoring the facts, you're wrong on so many of your responses, the actuality shows us that you're wrong and that segregation is not just failing people on bikes, it's actually failing society as a whole, it cannot work, we know this because the Dutch have failed to stem the tide of increasing cyclist deaths despite more investment year on year in segregated lanes and against fewer people cycling.

You continue to ignore that the motor traffic in NL is hugely lower than the UK - 81billion motoring miles in NL, 322Billion miles GB (excl NI), that's 4x more motoring miles (comparing motorvehicle ownership per capita is laughable!), then you have twice the number of cyclist deaths, that's 8x equivalent compared to 7x more cycling miles (per person) in NL compared to UK cyclists.

That proves without a doubt that it is more dangerous for people on cycles in NL regards deaths even before you get to the fact that the majority of the Dutch cycling has little exposure to those motoring miles compared to the UK equivalent cyclist.
As I've said before, either the Dutch motorists are worse than those in the UK, the Dutch cyclists act more dangerously than their UK counterparts, or the infra isn't up to scratch, which is it?
Routes across Netherlands are often not joined up/direct, admit that this is tru, clearly some areas have joined up infra but many areas do not and what is joined up has to cross motor roads doesn't it? To deny this is simply ignoring the truth and frankly sticking your head in the sand! I made the Houten comparison because it's a later development and yet they built wide dual carriageways that offer motorists the chance to drive far easier/quicker than to cycle to the main centre, that's not good is it for the premier cycling nation? Huten compared to other parts of NL is good, it at least has a direct route to the city centre, many towns don't from suburbs.

Try plotting some routes from those suburbs outside traditional centres and see how indirect these routes are, do you think that this is better than direct routes which motorists often get, this is in part why Stevenage's cycle lanes don't work to attract decent numbers, convluted, not properly joined up and easier to drive.
The amount of motorvehicle space taken away by segregation is tiny, it still leaves bi directional for motorists and now you have uninterrupted with fewer people cycling so when you get the junction between the cycling infra and the motor road you have far more incidents, again, the death toll in NL at these junctures - circa 60 deaths per year, shows us that this is lethal and not remotely close to being acceptable. Taking whole lanes away from motoring is the only way to resolve this, not only does it resolve this conflict it also resolves the narrow lane issue, it solves the non joining up issue, the direct route issue, it resolves the cost issue and it also means time is reduced hugely as it an be done virtually overnight.

'Festivals' as you call them is incorrect, places around the world are seeing the benfits of closing down roads to motorists as a solution to reducing motor traffic, it IS sustainable if you pick and choose which roads/lanes to give over to cyclin.

it comes across that you aren't actually interested in reducing motoring and improving cycling numbers/safety at all because your and others head in the sand ignorance of the facts/reality of the failure of segregation over shutting down roads completely to motor traffic.

Segregation is outmoded and a very poor second to removing motors from whole lanes if not whole roads on strategi parts of the network. it's a poor second because it's factually LESS safe overall when comparing correctly the exposure of people on bikes to motor traffic as I prved above. It's a poor second because it takes huge resources and would take over half a century even IF we matched the Dutch in spend, which is never going to happen. it's a poor second because narrow lanes are not appealing to most of the existing UK cyclists, it's not appealing to most others either because you increase the exposure to motor traffic as seen in the so caled 'Dutch' rbt.

Carry on flying the flag for segregation because it will fail, just as it has in NL, or are you going to ignore that cycling modal share has continued to fall since the 70s despite the tens of billions spent 9since then) and deaths of people cycling increasing in the last 5-6 years with fewer people cycling and more motoring year on year?

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

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby Bmblbzzz » 15 Aug 2020, 2:09pm

The utility cyclist wrote:There's a reason why this works to encourage all types of cycling
closed roads LA.jpg

Great photo! Looks like a fun day.

amaferanga
Posts: 240
Joined: 31 Oct 2008, 7:03pm

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby amaferanga » 15 Aug 2020, 2:45pm

The utility cyclist wrote:Even the most recent developments in NL like Houten, a suburb of Utrecht, they built a lovely dual carriageway for the motorists around the suburb that go all the way to Utrecht itself, the saving grace is that it has a direct cycle path, one of the few direct from a suburb, try getting to Central Amsterdam from the South East, it's not remotely joined up and crosses many motor roads which exposes people to high speed cars, vans, HGVs etc.
The difference in journey time to central Utrecht from Houten is almost double for the person on a bike compared to car, it has a railway line straight down the centre of the suburb which is also well used, but still why would you build wide roads if not to aid transporting people by car?
Stop up lanes to motor traffic, make roads one way for motors, bi directional for people on bikes, zero need to 'build' anything, more focius on making driving as difficult as possible to force people out of cars at the same time making cycling massively easier and safer with much fewer conflict points whilst giving enough space for faster cyclists to get past a parent and small child cycling side by side, for someone on a modified cycle (which can be much wider than an ordinary) to have space so they feel safe and go at a speed they enjoy whilst others can chat or overtake with that extra space a full lane of a road would give, on segregated for the most part that is not possible.


I guess you've never been to Houten then? Driving through it is impossible and driving in general there (expect around it) is inconvenient - is that not what you want? You can't tell everything about a town from just looking at a map.

Houten town centre prioritises walking and cycling so even though its not car free, it certainly feels that way a lot of the time. Cycle streets all through the town, beautiful peaceful streets that anyone would feel safe to cycle on, inclusive routes suitable for all, etc. Roads that go round the town, not through help create this environment because no matter how much many of us would like to see whole towns turned over to walking and cycling, there's simply no way that will happen in the UK on the scale needed to create joined up, direct routes. Where I live our local authority is resisting even installing a pedestrian phase at a major junction because that'd reduce motor traffic capacity. No way are they going to go from their current car-centric thinking to closing whole areas to cars.

I really enjoyed cycling to Houten from Utrecht. Yes, less direct than main roads, but if I had a commute like Utrecht-Houten here in the UK I'd be ecstatic. I'd also rather live in Houten than anywhere in the UK.

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

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby mjr » 15 Aug 2020, 5:45pm

The utility cyclist wrote:Just keep ignoring the facts, you're wrong on so many of your responses,

And yet, you ignore most of my responses (do you think Abingdon is a suburb of Oxford then?) and the few you do pick like:
You continue to ignore that the motor traffic in NL is hugely lower than the UK - 81billion motoring miles in NL, 322Billion miles GB (excl NI), that's 4x more motoring miles (comparing motorvehicle ownership per capita is laughable!), then you have twice the number of cyclist deaths, that's 8x equivalent compared to 7x more cycling miles (per person) in NL compared to UK cyclists.

That proves without a doubt that it is more dangerous for people on cycles in NL regards deaths even before you get to the fact that the majority of the Dutch cycling has little exposure to those motoring miles compared to the UK equivalent cyclist.

is simply so wrong it's painful to read. As we've discussed before, you're ignoring that NL counts a shipload of mounting/dismounting crashes that would simply not appear in Reported Road Casualties GB, along with many smaller differences which make international comparisons difficult and more than negate the 14% increase you describe.

And then you come out with the 4x motoring miles without any comment as to why that may be! Have you not noticed that GB is an island with much less through freight traffic than NL, for example?

As I've said before, either the Dutch motorists are worse than those in the UK, the Dutch cyclists act more dangerously than their UK counterparts, or the infra isn't up to scratch, which is it?

No, it's really not limited to those three explanations.

Routes across Netherlands are often not joined up/direct, admit that this is tru, clearly some areas have joined up infra but many areas do not and what is joined up has to cross motor roads doesn't it? To deny this is simply ignoring the truth and frankly sticking your head in the sand!

They have to cross motor roads, sure, but often with priority or passing above or below. I've rarely encountered routes not being joined-up or direct except when roadworks have disrupted them. Even then, diversions are clearly signed, with massive black-on-yellow bike-symbol arrows, or lettered arrows when you need different diversions for different destinations.

I'm not going to comment on Houten too much because I don't know it. Out of interest, when did you cycle there last?

Try plotting some routes from those suburbs outside traditional centres and see how indirect these routes are, do you think that this is better than direct routes which motorists often get,

Of course not, but I don't find such routes often. If you're using a computerised route plotter, they're often a bit too keen to prioritise distance over simplicity or signposting and sadly the signage info usually isn't as good as for motorist route plotters yet, so they often make decisions that seem strange to me on the ground - but this may be because I grew up with such systems, so I find navigating them second nature and much easier than the disjointed crap we often suffer in England.

What did you think of my suggested Weesperzijde/Amstel route into Amsterdam from the SE? Which way had you tried to go?
this is in part why Stevenage's cycle lanes don't work to attract decent numbers, convluted, not properly joined up and easier to drive.

Yes, I agree but we must remember Stevenage and MK are experimental layouts from decades ago (and MK was designed with bikes as third-class from the outset: cars first, buses second, bikes third - and even the bus system didn't work!) and it doesn't have to be that way.

Taking whole lanes away from motoring is the only way to resolve this, not only does it resolve this conflict it also resolves the narrow lane issue, it solves the non joining up issue, the direct route issue, it resolves the cost issue and it also means time is reduced hugely as it an be done virtually overnight.

Not exactly. People don't want to ride alongside motoring if they don't need to. Taking away lanes is not "the only way" - as you mention later, you can also take whole roads away from cars and give them to buses, bikes and walking, which is what gov.uk have instructed councils to do, but I bet few of them do it quickly, instead hoping that UK government policy changes before they are forced to.

it comes across that you aren't actually interested in reducing motoring and improving cycling numbers/safety at all because your and others head in the sand ignorance of the facts/reality of the failure of segregation over shutting down roads completely to motor traffic.

It comes across that you don't remember what I write, because you keep reposting your mistakes in analysing NL and comparing it with GB — and now you accuse me of being against removing motors from lanes or roads, which is flabbergastingly untrue.

It's a bit sad because I think our main difference is only that I'm much more relaxed than you about whether lanes are reallocated or built new - why should we be limited to drivers' hand-me-downs? Sometimes we can go where they can't: a cycling bridge is much cheaper than a motoring one. Why does it matter if a lane is reallocated or built new, as long as it's designed properly?
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.

amaferanga
Posts: 240
Joined: 31 Oct 2008, 7:03pm

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby amaferanga » 16 Aug 2020, 10:22am

I've cycled from Utrecht to Houten. It was a really pleasant ride - if I had a commute like that here in the UK I'd be over the moon about it. 100% safe streets and well surfaced cycle tracks with zero conflict.

Houten is also incredible - cycle streets, cycle priority, a beautifully quiet town centre (the only thing disturbing the peace when I was there was a road sweeper), an environment that anyone would feel safe cycling in (including the lady I saw cycling on a 4 wheel bike with her disabled passenger), etc.

Before judging Houten I'd recommend a visit since looking at a map and street view really doesn't portray how beautifully peaceful it is. Anyone using it as an example of how bad the Netherlands is for cycling really is way off the mark.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10767
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby Cunobelin » 16 Aug 2020, 10:49am

Navara wrote:Not a good start!
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/britains-firs ... 25386.html
Closed after a driver hits a beacon and drives off :roll:


A Driver couldn't cope with a pedestrian crossing.... says more about the driver than the roundabout design!

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10767
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby Cunobelin » 16 Aug 2020, 10:52am

Plymouth for many years has had a roundabout at the top of the shopping centre St Andrews Cross) that had pedestrian crossings as part of the design, never caused any problems.

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

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby atlas_shrugged » 16 Aug 2020, 10:58am

I agree about how good the cycling is in NL and how safe it feels. I have only approached Amsterdam from Hook of Holland from the SE so cannot comment on a SW approach to Amsterdam. What I would say is that a Garmin route may get you there but I found it better in retrospect to study a detailed map and choose a route that made navigation in the city easy, and I then followed a natural waterway to get to Sloten Park each day. That was nice.

Back onto roundabouts the best one ever for me was one approaching Dornbirn. This was a route I had never cycled. I was on a cycle track like the one shown in the video, approaching the roundabout. Then reassured by the road sign that Dornbirn was straight on. Then I was led gently to the right, then a *slight dip* under a major road, then out the other side and straight on the cycle path to Dornbirn. Absolute bliss, no loss of speed, no navigation or safety worries, and very good sightlines.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... EmuSD.webm
Last edited by atlas_shrugged on 16 Aug 2020, 11:07am, edited 1 time in total.

Navara
Posts: 169
Joined: 29 Jun 2020, 11:38pm

Re: Fendon Road Roundabout, Cambridge.

Postby Navara » 16 Aug 2020, 11:04am

Cunobelin wrote:
Navara wrote:Not a good start!
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/britains-firs ... 25386.html
Closed after a driver hits a beacon and drives off :roll:

A Driver couldn't cope with a pedestrian crossing.... says more about the driver than the roundabout design!

You're obviously reading between the lines and deciding what you think I meant!
There is no between the lines I wasn't pointing the finger at anything.I was merely stating a fact.....ie "Not a good start" :wink: