Bedford turbo roundabout - it is done

[mjr]

I'd give that a go. With a single clearly defined lane I could hold that lane in primary no problem.

Yeah, I can just about do it with a fairly small spiral roundabout near me where the arms are 3 A-roads and a B-road, but I didn't convince some fairly experienced CTC and CN members to give that a go. On another larger spiral roundabout (5 A-road arms and a U), I can't do it and I think that's because the radiuses are too slack and vehicle speeds and volumes are too high, so it's basically a racetrack. The Goldington Road gyratory that Mick F mentions is even bigger, so probably even more racetrack-like.

The frequent shunts and worse on spiral-laned roundabout adds to the scary feeling: there have been 24 reported collisions of any type on the small and 47 on the large in 8 years between 2005 and 2012 incl - both worse than the Bedford location's 27 in 10 years. I'm sure a lot of failed-merge shunts where 2 lanes become 1 are unreported, as I often have to pick a line through the headlight glass. Never mind there's only 1 reported cycling collision on each (probably because both are bypassed on one side by substandard crossings and cycle routes only run through each in one direction so it's no surprise to drivers where cycles want to go) - maybe that wouldn't have disqualified them, if only the highways authorities had bid!

But this is all well and good for the fast veterans. What about the cargo carriers, the children, the tourers and so on? Condemned to get nowhere fast?

[Bicycler]

That said, thank you Chris for an interesting insight into the procedure and reasons behind the decisions made.

[squeaker]

Drivers often just plough through zebra crossings without a hint of stopping for pedestrians, that is why traffic light controlled crossings are so much more common and popular with pedestrians.

You get the odd idiot but they're mostly okay, always faster than waiting forever for signalled crossings to change. There does seem a big difference between different signals so I'm sure there is much room for improvement if priorities were changed. But no, I'm a big fan of zebras but they aren't much good for cyclists.

Tend to agree: I've always thought that signal controlled crossings are for the benefit of motorists.....

Surely if the pot is indeed small, it could be spent on a few important locations with high quality infrastructure which could act as a showcase for what could be done with future funding.

<Sound of air sucking past teeth> Can't do that, everyone would want one

And I do think that CTC hasn't done cycling any favours with it's endorsement, regardless of the caveats stated by Chris Peck. (And if Patrick Linford is "one of the most experienced and sensible cycle planners in the country" then it certainly explains a lot )

[kwackers]

The biggest issue I can see is the lanes coming up to the roundabout that have a single lane before the zebra and two lanes after.

I can imagine coming up to the zebra and stopping to let peds across, in the meantime Mr Motorist is going to come alongside in a bid to get in front before the island.

Certainly it doesn't look like you could 'hold the lane' before the zebra since it's too wide and if you pick a side in readiness then the driver will probably pick the other side and then try to get in front before the island.

(I'd also imagine the more aggressive drivers will simply use the zig zags as a overtaking/undertaking lane anyway.)

[drossall]

I've been trying to get my head round this. Bedford is quite local for me, so I could find myself riding through this...

There's quite a lot of emotive stuff in and linked to this thread, and yet, in principle, I accept that it's better to spend significant amounts on a few junctions where accidents happen than mess around with cycle lanes that disappear at the junctions where the real risk is.

I found the Bicycle Dutch blog helpful, and especially the video that shows a Dutch town-centre roundabout in action. That does seem quite different from the Bedford design posted by ChrisPeck on page 2 of this thread. It does look rather like a Dutch design intended for out-of-town situations with cycle underpasses is being plonked in Bedford where a town-centre Dutch design is needed.

Of course, the Dutch town-centre design depends on motorists being prepared to give way to cyclists, as the motorists exit from the roundabout. That will be novel for most British motorists - but it was novel once for Dutch drivers too.

Convention that I'm aware of does say that cyclists are better not going around the outside of roundabouts (as the Dutch video shows them doing), for precisely this reason that they are vulnerable to exiting drivers.

In summary, then, I'm pretty unsure.

Confident riders will cope by taking the lane, I'm sure, though the approach lanes do look awkward. I have to confess, though, to not being convinced that the money is being substantially spent to benefit cyclists. Is there an official comment from the CTC anywhere?

[PaulCumbria]

Poynton

What is depressing about this issue is that, as Squeaker has pointed out, we CAN deliver genuinely bold, innovative work in the UK. Poynton is a spectacular example of this.
I'm very proud to have been involved in the Poynton scheme (in a very small way). The key difference there was that the project was headed up by a local councillor with huge determination, real vision and the willingness to stand nose-to-nose, facing down the motoring lobby.
He did it, not because he's a walking or cycling campaigner, but simply because he loves Poynton.
The fire and determination to initiate the step-change in street design we so desperately need in the UK seems to be woefully missing within those organisations with the specific remit to fight our corner.
That's why Chris Boardman sticks out like a sore thumb right now. Until we have campaigners of his calibre, people who make me punch the air and say "Yesss!" when they speak out, we'll continue to see disasters like Bedford, actually DESIGNED to increase motor traffic capacity, to the detriment of cycling - yet paid for out of cycling budgets.
What suckers we are.

[RickH]

Poynton

What is depressing about this issue is that, as Squeaker has pointed out, we CAN deliver genuinely bold, innovative work in the UK. Poynton is a spectacular example of this.
I'm very proud to have been involved in the Poynton scheme (in a very small way). The key difference there was that the project was headed up by a local councillor with huge determination, real vision and the willingness to stand nose-to-nose, facing down the motoring lobby.
He did it, not because he's a walking or cycling campaigner, but simply because he loves Poynton.
The fire and determination to initiate the step-change in street design we so desperately need in the UK seems to be woefully missing within those organisations with the specific remit to fight our corner.
That's why Chris Boardman sticks out like a sore thumb right now. Until we have campaigners of his calibre, people who make me punch the air and say "Yesss!" when they speak out, we'll continue to see disasters like Bedford, actually DESIGNED to increase motor traffic capacity, to the detriment of cycling - yet paid for out of cycling budgets.
What suckers we are.

Poynton seems to have been a win-win. I don't think the traffic flow has a changed much, it is just passing through at a slower steadier pace that average cyclists can cope with plus the pedestrian space is doubled & folk can get across the road without one or more "run the green man gauntlet" sessions across 4 lanes of revving traffic. The town centre seems to have been revitalised to boot.

Could we not campaign going to get the councillor who championed things in Poynton a job as Chris Boardman's sidekick promoting this sort of scheme at local & national government levels?

Rick.

[drossall]

That was really interesting. Before I lived near Bedford, I lived near Poynton, so I know the junction, but I hadn't seen it since the changes. I'm impressed. It should be known more widely - that's a major intersection and a really daring scheme.

[gaz]

Is there an official comment from the CTC anywhere?

Here is an attempt at an explanation what the Cycle Safety Fund is and why CTC was on a panel that supported it:

https://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/cycle-safety-fund-and-bedford-turbo-roundabout-some-facts

Convention that I'm aware of does say that cyclists are better not going around the outside of roundabouts (as the Dutch video shows them doing), for precisely this reason that they are vulnerable to exiting drivers.

In Kent the highwaymen know how to defy convention : https://www.google.co.uk/maps?q=Dartfor ... m&t=h&z=19

I can't recall how old that particular scheme is, Kent have achieved a number of successful shared space schemes in Ashford.

[ChrisPeck]

Is there an official comment from the CTC anywhere?

Yes - I linked to it earlier, but here it is again: https://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/cycle-safety-fund-and-bedford-turbo-roundabout-some-facts

Chris claimed future funding may be cut if it went unspent; others feel future funding may be cut because it was spent largely ineffectively.

Like all the applications to the 'Cycle Safety Fund', this scheme is designed to improve 'safety', not volumes of cyclists, thus if any monitoring takes place it will be focused on safety. Reducing speeds will make this junction safer for all, including cyclists. I have little doubt that if the funding had been recommended by the panel to be turned down the Department would either have a) simply allocated it themselves or b) cancelled future funding schemes, such as the Cycle Cities funding.

You also questioned the speeds associated with the curve radius, quoting p 66 of Manual for Streets.

Bedford CC say that reducing the deflection curve radii to 15m (from 20m) will reduce speeds, making priority crossings easier to achieve as and when they come along. Note that deflection curve radius (although no longer used for calculating roundabout speed) is different from t-junction kerb radius.

"an idealist with a keyboard" who doesn't get out on the streets...

A flippant comment not aimed at you

Chris Boardman

Chris Boardman is a brilliant speaker and articulates well what needs to change. However, British Cycling were also involved in the Cycle Safety Fund and cleared this scheme - as well as dozens more that are far ropier - for funding.

[drossall]

gaz and Chris - thanks. That was the CTC statement I was looking for, and apologies to Chris Peck for missing it first time, when it was perfectly obvious.

It does seem a fair assessment of the position in which the CTC found itself. I'm a bit more sympathetic to the compromise approval than some on that page, though it seems that the CTC faced two equally high-risk alternatives - lose funding long term, or undermine the British understanding of the Dutch approach.

There's an example of that in the article that's linked from somewhere in the chain. 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?

What a pity that newspapers don't investigate this stuff, but instead print one side. After all, the CTC statement is on the Web for all to see.

[ChrisPeck]

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.

[honesty]

Im guessing with the new layout, when (if) the law gets changed it is a lot cheaper to turn the zebras on the new layout into proper cycle paths with give way lines on either side than it would be to change to this layout from the original one. So its an incremental step. Ok its the best straight away, but if the final step is only a few years a way its a good one. If its going to stay like this for 20 years its not great.

[mjr]

You also questioned the speeds associated with the curve radius, quoting p 66 of Manual for Streets.

Bedford CC say that reducing the deflection curve radii to 15m (from 20m) will reduce speeds, making priority crossings easier to achieve as and when they come along. Note that deflection curve radius (although no longer used for calculating roundabout speed) is different from t-junction kerb radius.

Sure, it's probably different, but t-junction radius was all I found. I know what Bedford BC's bid says, but what's the evidence that 15m will bring speeds of 15mph? Like the claim that this roundabout is the "highest concentration of cyclist accidents" in Bedford that seems to contradict the DfT collisions map, this speed claim looks like it's been pulled from thin air.

It also contradicts my local experiences that spiral-laned roundabouts have faster motor traffic speeds than unmarked ones, which seems consistent with the related-but-different situation tested in Sweden by http://www.vti.se/en/publications/the-e ... pectively/ that found roads with less visible markings had up to 10km/h lower speeds.

[Psamathe]

You also questioned the speeds associated with the curve radius, quoting p 66 of Manual for Streets.

Bedford CC say that reducing the deflection curve radii to 15m (from 20m) will reduce speeds, making priority crossings easier to achieve as and when they come along. Note that deflection curve radius (although no longer used for calculating roundabout speed) is different from t-junction kerb radius.

Sure, it's probably different, but t-junction radius was all I found. I know what Bedford BC's bid says, but what's the evidence that 15m will bring speeds of 15mph?

Quite a few years ago I did a driving course at Lotus. It was on their test track (and thus somewhat safer) and one of the exercises was to drive round and round this small roundabout that have, the instructor going "come-on, faster, faster ..." and even when the steering was hard over, wheels squealing, etc., he was still saying "faster, faster" (and then, when you lost your nerve and eased back on the accelerator ... predictable outcome - which was the point of it all so next go ...). Anyway, my point is that it is really quite amazing how fast you can actually go round a roundabout and how most people don't. But my own (in-experienced) thoughts are that it is not most cars you are worried about; just the one or two who are not paying proper attention or are driving like hooligans, etc.. And those few will also not be aware of Bedford's speed/curve radius guidelines.

Ian