Bedford turbo roundabout - it is done

reohn2
Posts: 36712
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout

Postby reohn2 » 7 Mar 2014, 7:04pm

mjr wrote:I agree. How many of you are going to vote to change this, though? I will, but that's through the Cycle Nation system, rather than CTC.


I'm a member of neither these days so can't help,good luck though,you'll need it!
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14160
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout

Postby mjr » 7 Mar 2014, 7:08pm

reohn2 wrote:
mjr wrote:I agree. How many of you are going to vote to change this, though? I will, but that's through the Cycle Nation system, rather than CTC.


I'm a member of neither these days so can't help,good luck though,you'll need it!

Then you've agreed to the support of this sort of rubbish getting funded by default, by failing to even attempt to control the cyclist organisations. ;-) But I can see why you might give up while us younger idealists keep trying to fix stuff and hopefully learn from history.
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.

Edwards
Posts: 5978
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout

Postby Edwards » 7 Mar 2014, 8:25pm

mjr wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
mjr wrote:I agree. How many of you are going to vote to change this, though? I will, but that's through the Cycle Nation system, rather than CTC.


I'm a member of neither these days so can't help,good luck though,you'll need it!

Then you've agreed to the support of this sort of rubbish getting funded by default, by failing to even attempt to control the cyclist organisations. ;-) But I can see why you might give up while us younger idealists keep trying to fix stuff and hopefully learn from history.


Quite the contrary some of us did not find the reassurances believable when the CTC charity thing started.
So we withdrew our financial support at that time thus supporting something by default is the wrong thing. We are not financialy supporting an organisation that does not listen to the members.

Personally I would be glad of the crossings and would be happy to use them instead or trying to ride around any roundabout. So for me cycle money spent for me to cross a road is good. But please remember I have a different need to most.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

User avatar
PaulCumbria
Posts: 461
Joined: 23 Mar 2012, 1:52pm
Location: Kendal

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout

Postby PaulCumbria » 7 Mar 2014, 9:47pm

When I started this thread I asked whether anyone else was alarmed by this spend of cycling safety funding. I also intimated why it (obviously) alarms me - apparent misapplication of the Turbo design, in a manner that may do little or nothing to improve cycle safety.

From the ensuing debate (not all of which I've followed closely, or even fully understood), it's very clear that I'm not alone in my concerns.

I'm sure there will be much more discussion of this prior to installation, but I reckon we are unlikely to shed much more light on the topic until we get the chance to experience Turbogate for real. Or rather, you get the chance - I'm not coming down to Bedford from Cumbria just to walk my bike round a roundabout, and I'm certainly not cycling round the damn thing until hundreds of others have done so, successfully or otherwise.

Ron
Posts: 1189
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 9:07pm

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout

Postby Ron » 7 Mar 2014, 11:47pm

PaulCumbria wrote:When I started this thread I asked whether anyone else was alarmed by this spend of cycling safety funding. I also intimated why it (obviously) alarms me - apparent misapplication of the Turbo design, in a manner that may do little or nothing to improve cycle safety..


A bit of "alarm" at any variation from the norm is healthy, but as you say this new design may or may not improve cycle safety and it is only a trial that will prove the point one way or the other. With so many user groups involved there can never be one solution to fit all, we can only hope for some improvement for all.
Having read the comments of one whose expertise on such matters has always impressed me, I am relaxed about the design and look forward to hearing how it works out with real, rather than imagined, traffic.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1583
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout

Postby Pete Owens » 8 Mar 2014, 1:39am

Tonyf33 wrote:
Pete Owens wrote:Have you ever driven a car?

To take a 15m radius bend at 20mph involves a lateral acceleration of about half g. That is almost as much as the emergency braking deceleration used to calculate stopping distances in the highway code. And it is not just one bend but a left-right-left combination within a constrained lateral space. 25mph would be out of the question - you would need to be pull 0.8g - ie beyond the ability of your tyres to grip the road!

Here's a short tutorial from a numerate biker:
http://www.stevemunden.com/leanangle.html

it is the left turns and straight ons that are the problem here with regard to speed as you full well know

And the roundabout will imposes 15m radius turns on straight on and left turning vehicles (as I explained above) then it will achieve greatly reduced speeds.
, the constrains of the lanes don't make enough if any difference. I know from experience of having driven through similar & despite high density traffic the speeds are hardly effected and are far above average cycling speeds.

So, since this is a first ever conversion on UK soil you presumably mean you road tested 2-lane Dutch urban roundabouts before and after conversion, measured your before and after speeds and found a different result to the Dutch engineers who monitored the performance of hudreds of such conversions and discovered a huge safety improvement due to the reduced speeds.

Or are you thinking that looks vaguely like a large UK spiral roundabout so seriously overestimating the size of the roundabout and hence your experience is irrelevant.

Perhaps you could show as a google earth link to the situation that you claim is as tightly constrained as this proposal.

Whatever your experience, it will certainly not involve exceeding the physical capability of rubber to grip the road - so if you are claiming that you can handle a 15m radius bend at 25mph without breaking sweat then you are seriously exaggerating your driving ability.
Last edited by Pete Owens on 8 Mar 2014, 11:45pm, edited 2 times in total.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28683
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout

Postby thirdcrank » 8 Mar 2014, 7:59am

I still can't see what the people representing cyclists' interests gained here, in the sense of what difference did they make by taking part. :? A further quote from Chris Peck's statement:

We were faced with dozens of low quality pavement conversions and fiddly toucan crossings.


While I can see the selection process may have ensured that the Bedford scheme received the funding ahead of others, it's a pavement conversion with yet-to-be-decided use of zebra crossings.

Talking of funding reminds me that there was reportedly a pot of £20M for cycling safety schemes. Does anybody know what happened to the other £19,700,000? I hope it didn't go on dozens of low quality pavement conversions and fiddly toucan crossings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: There's a link on here to the highway authority's submission to Sustrans for £££ for this scheme. Presumably there's a list somewhere of all the successful schemes. Let's see it - a simple list of the locations would do. Then local riders can comment on what's been done for cyclists with the £20M. If £300K is a typical scheme, then this one must be one of perhaps 70. Perhaps there have been a couple of biggies coming in at several milliuons, or lots of smaller schemes. Apart from anything else, how does this scheme compare with the rest? It seems to be the only one provoking such heated debate. Does that mean that the others are all a lot better, or just that nobody else has made the connection with the irony of a cycling safety fund being used to promote farcilities elesewhere?

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14160
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout

Postby mjr » 8 Mar 2014, 9:53am

One spreadsheet is mentioned in https://twitter.com/nuttyxander/status/ ... 4583528448 but none of the links to it work for me - all just show a Google login page. The official government one is https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... of-schemes and several of the others have already provoked heated debate, such as the mostly-for-cars Catholic Church and roundabout-shared-use Perne Road schemes in Cambridge or Baldwin Street in Bristol.

I feel it's also telling that some troubled areas that I know (North Somerset, Somerset County...) got nothing and others (Norfolk) got only one vaguely-named project in.

IMO all that the cycling organisations got out of this is that they hopefully prioritised the list and prevented even worse schemes getting built. I still feel it would have been better to recommend a few best ones, then draw a red line and refuse to prioritise the substandard or overpriced ones, recommending to DfT that the fund is rolled forwards with a stiff "please try harder" message to applicants.
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.

reohn2
Posts: 36712
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout

Postby reohn2 » 8 Mar 2014, 9:58am

:cry:
Ron wrote:
A bit of "alarm" at any variation from the norm is healthy, but as you say this new design may or may not improve cycle safety and it is only a trial that will prove the point one way or the other.

Trials have a nasty habit being ''made to work'' especially when they have a pro motor vehicle bias .
If you think cyclists are being catered for in any real sense,take a look at our roads and how little cycling provision there is of any real use to cyclists and of which there is there is little or no maintenance carried out.
Take look at the attitude a significant minority of motorists,indeed society as a whole,have toward cycling.
Speak to anyone on the street about cycling and they'll tell you how dangerous they perceive it,how cyclists should wear helmets and Hi Viz to even hope of ever being seen and steered around by motor traffic whilst carrying out this dangerous activity.
Take look at the number of motorists who have literally got away with manslaughter of cyclists by claiming not to have seen them or being distracted whilst driving or having a(now get this)''momentary lack of concentration''
Cyclists are third class citizens,who are either stupid or poor or both,in the eyes of the law and society in general.
With so many user groups involved there can never be one solution to fit all, we can only hope for some improvement for all.

There are three user groups involved,one(motors) of which is being given presidence over the other two in the name of speed(throughput).
The second,pedestrians,are well catered for by zebra crossings at all four exits/entrances to the r/about.
The third group,cyclists,are left with ambiguity both in law on those zebras and actually,having a choice of using the road where motorists will either grudgingly accommodate them or seek to bully them when they realise there is a pavement option,whether that provision be optional or not,they will see it as where cyclists should be however wrong their assumptions,the shared use pavements where pedestrians(rightly so) take presidence.
It only serves to cause more friction between motors and cyclists IMHO.
Picture this:- A cyclist is SMIDSYed,and knocked off his bike by a car, the case comes to court and the defence for the motorist claims his client wasn't even expecting to see a cyclist on the r/about as there's perfectly adequate provision on the shared use pavement and should by any reasonable assumption the cyclist in question should have been using it.What do you think the verdict of the never-can-be-wrong jury will return in the motors-have-presence UK climate?
.......... I am relaxed about the design and look forward to hearing how it works out with real, rather than imagined, traffic.

I wish I were as optimistic.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Ron
Posts: 1189
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 9:07pm

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout

Postby Ron » 8 Mar 2014, 10:37am

reohn2 wrote:There are three user groups involved,

There may be three main groups, but there are many sub groups, and any solution can only be a compromise for each.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28683
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout

Postby thirdcrank » 8 Mar 2014, 2:02pm

Ron wrote: ... any solution can only be a compromise for each.


Compromise is an interesting word in connection with this scheme - it's already been used in the CTC's statement. In one sense of the word, there obviously have to be decisions over the treatment of competing interests and as cyclists, it's only normal that we hope to see the interests of cyclists favoured, even if we interpret those interests differently. As used in the CTC statement, I took compromise to mean that the parties ie the "official" side on the one hand and the cycle groups on the other, both made concessions in reaching agreement over the final plan. If that's the correct interpretation of what was meant - and in the other meaning the word is redundant in the context - I'd be encouraged to hear what concessions the authorities made to cycle campaigners here, because I can't see any. I fear that once this scheme had been selected from a reportedly rubbish range of offerings, then all the decisions were made by the authorities and the only contribution from the CTC was to endorse the scheme to the extent of defending it on here. Highwaymen disregarding the views of cyclists and their representatives is hardly something new.

Psamathe
Posts: 10607
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout

Postby Psamathe » 8 Mar 2014, 2:50pm

thirdcrank wrote:... and the only contribution from the CTC was to endorse the scheme to the extent of defending it on here.


And giving their "green light" to the use of funds for cycle safety to be used on the scheme.

Ian

reohn2
Posts: 36712
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout

Postby reohn2 » 8 Mar 2014, 5:21pm

Ron wrote:There may be three main groups, but there are many sub groups, and any solution can only be a compromise for each.

TBH,I think you're nitpicking.
Categories as I see it are as follows:-
Motorised,includes cars three or four wheeled.HGVs,PSVs,M/cycles.
Cyclists,includes bicycles,and trikes,'bent or upwrong,tandems,triplets,hand or foot cranked,pedelecs makes no odds,all are cyclists.
Pedestrians,include walkers,with or without dogs,prams or buggies,invalid scooters(for want of a better term)of the various types.
Horses with or without carriages would be a rarity in the location and on such a main thoroughfare,can we agree on that? if not they'd be a fourth category.

My point is,the least compromised group are the ones who in any situation due to their ability to return to their previous cruising speed,are the motorised category.
And that monies earmarked for cycling provision are used to help the least inconvenienced group, whilst the most inconvenienced group are the ones who the monies were intended to help!
Furthermore instead of the cycling groups being informed well in advance,they were the last to be consulted how the money was to be spent!
It reeks of a set up to me and once done in the way it's been done,will be done again in a similar fashion,because everyone now knows that the cycling organisations will go belly up and agree to anything on the table,if they don't know until the last minute!

BTW I'd be interested to read your thoughts on this thread:- viewtopic.php?f=7&t=84501
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Ron
Posts: 1189
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 9:07pm

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout

Postby Ron » 8 Mar 2014, 8:15pm

reohn2 wrote:BTW I'd be interested to read your thoughts on this thread:- viewtopic.php?f=7&t=84501

I can't think why you would ask, but I continue to hold the view I expressed on Friday regarding the Bedford roundabout.

reohn2
Posts: 36712
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout

Postby reohn2 » 8 Mar 2014, 8:32pm

Ron wrote:
reohn2 wrote:BTW I'd be interested to read your thoughts on this thread:- viewtopic.php?f=7&t=84501

I can't think why you would ask............

You can't,I'm surpised :shock:
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.