Page 23 of 29

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout - BMF wades in

Posted: 23 Jul 2014, 9:52am
by [XAP]Bob
Pete Owens wrote:
AlaninWales wrote:I would like to see proof that use of sswear words has any correlaion with (let alone being an indicator of) IQ.

The foul langauge gives an intitial impression. I agree that this alone is not proof of the stupidity, which is confirmed by the self contradictory contents.
Meanwhile the attacks on this scheme by some cyclists stem largely from the fact that it is using 'Cycle Safety Fund' money to implement what was never a good option for cyclists;
[/qoute]
He went further than that he argued that the scheme was positively dangerous.
now it has become a worse option for cyclists

And the way he now claims it has become worse is by removing the very design features he was angry about in the first place. You really couldn't make it up.


Erm - except that the bad design features were hiding an awful design.

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout - BMF wades in

Posted: 15 Aug 2014, 12:19pm
by mjr
The Vulnerable Road User Audit has finally been published at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... udits_clap and it contains such gems as “Toucan Crossing not deemed appropriate for area given potential delays caused by signals on roundabout. Modeling confirms”, “Zebra crossings proposed for cyclists to dismount and safely cross road” and “Capacity is to be maintained”. There’s also the oft-made error of claiming that shared use is a cycling-specific facility. So please be in no doubt that cyclist safety is being sacrificed to avoid delaying motorists. Riders get to choose between slow or dangerous - the classic "dual network dilemma".

It’s no better for pedestrians, with a bizarre claim that the zebra “crossings will be on desire lines”. They’re blatently not. They’re shunted up the side roads to provide space for the large roundabout.

So what next? The VRUA contains claims that black is while, just like the funding bid. Who polices these things anyway?

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout - BMF wades in

Posted: 15 Aug 2014, 1:03pm
by AlaninWales
The RSA makes interesting reading, clearly the auditors understood many of the problems this would cause and why.
Turbo Roundabouts in the Netherlands increase capacity by over
40% but are always installed where there are no cyclists on the route as there are separate
cycle facilities.

Paid for by cycle safety funding :twisted:

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout - BMF wades in

Posted: 15 Aug 2014, 1:59pm
by PaulCumbria
Alan in Wales has said it - the auditors understood this better than the council. Again from the RSA:
Image

M J Ray (@mjray on Twitter) deserves a medal for his FOI request.

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout - BMF wades in

Posted: 15 Aug 2014, 2:38pm
by mjr
To be fair, the design team do slap the audit team about in their response to that, pointing out that - unlike such designs on high-speed non-urban junctions in the Netherlands - cycles will be allowed on it.

Actually I feel more credit should go to Kevin Hickman (a campaigner for another cyclenation local group) for knowing that those audits should exist and suggesting the request that I made. I just persevered when they sent different audits (and incomplete ones at that).

If only our colleagues at Cycling Campaign for North Bedfordshire would reconsider their apparent wholesale acceptance of Bedford Borough Council's confusing and self-contradicting justifications for what I fear is a damaging and dangerous dual-network design. The structure of cyclenation has an even weaker national office than CTC, so it is rather difficult for us to convince a sibling local group to stop doing something.

Ultimately, it looks like we'll only know for sure who was correct after this thing is built and we see whether cycling rises or falls and whether casualties rise or fall... and I don't think any of the critics will be happy about saying "told you so" if people are injured unnecessarily - or worse.

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout - Safety Audit Published

Posted: 15 Aug 2014, 2:47pm
by gaz
PaulCumbria wrote:Alan in Wales has said it - the auditors understood this better than the council.


No, the auditors didn't understand it at all. So the Design Team and Project Sponsors responded to the concerns raised.

APPENDIX 4
2.3 PROBLEM

...
Project Sponsor Comment
Auditors have misunderstood the proposed working of the roundabout and assume that cyclists will be required to not use the roundabout, whereas it is the opposite, the design is to make the roundabout safer for cyclists (and other road users) to use. Happy with Design Team response except for the omission of this point.


Having then considered the response of the Designers and Project Sponsor they've signed it off.

5.0 Conclusions and recommendations

...

However, the benefits to vulnerable road users, in giving pedestrians safe priority crossing points and cyclists a choice of how they navigate the roundabout whilst providing a safer environment for all road users in reducing speeds and conflict points, cannot be ignored.

To this end it is recommended that the scheme is taken forward to construction in its original form and with the signing originally proposed and all designer comments are accepted in response to those problems raised within the Stage 2 Safety Audit Report.

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout - BMF wades in

Posted: 15 Aug 2014, 6:45pm
by PaulCumbria
gaz wrote:No, the auditors didn't understand it at all.

I'm sorry, but in my option, they DID.

The auditors understood that, with the originally proposed lane dividers, the only safe way for it to function was for cyclists to be forced off the carriageway.

That the designers were originally, erroneously suggesting that it would be fine, even advantageous, for cyclists to use the original, highly hazardous design, shows that there was a major failing of comprehension on the designers' part of theit OWN design!

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout - BMF wades in

Posted: 15 Aug 2014, 7:04pm
by SA_SA_SA
mjr wrote:The Vulnerable Road User Audit has finally been published ... and it contains such gems as “Toucan Crossing not deemed appropriate for area given potential delays caused by signals on roundabout. Modeling confirms”...

Are the zebra crossings magic? Why would they not reduce capacity too? Or at peak periods, do the authorities just expect vehicles to fail to stop for pedestrians waiting on the pavement to cross, thus making the zebras a waste of paint from a pedestrian's point of view? :(

If the zebra crossings work as they should i.e. vehicles stop for waiting pedestrians at kerb, how can that not affect the roundabout's capacity? Do they show the modeled capacity reduction from toucans in any documents? Perhaps either lowered capacity might actually be similar to the better single lane roundabout design.

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout - BMF wades in

Posted: 15 Aug 2014, 7:27pm
by mjr
I have been told by another highway authority that walkers and riders are modelled only on signalised crossings by the common software and does not model freeflow crossings. VISSIM does but that has not been used here has it?

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout - BMF wades in

Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 1:16am
by Tonyf33
two weeks in and two incidents already including a hit and run at the new Cambridge 'turbo' roundabout... http://road.cc/content/news/133372-cycl ... ent-297312

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout - BMF wades in

Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 9:01am
by mjr
To be fair, that Cambridge fraud is only labelled as "Dutch" rather than turbo. It does share the refusal to build proper cycleways with the Bedford one, with a choice between a crap road and crap shared use paths around the edge.

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout - BMF wades in

Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 2:25pm
by thirdcrank
It seems a while now since we heard from the CTC on this.

It's hard to escape the feeling that we have a familiar story: highway authority successfully bids for govt funds earmarked for cycling; in due course, the big misters at the highway authority who do the important job of providing for traffic decide to have a look and reject any cycle-friendly provision which interferes in any way with motor traffic; cyclists end up with standard shoddy farcilities.

I hope somebody can reassure me that I've got this completely wrong. :?:

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout - BMF wades in

Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 2:46pm
by mjr
thirdcrank wrote:It's hard to escape the feeling that we have a familiar story: highway authority successfully bids for govt funds earmarked for cycling; in due course, the big misters at the highway authority who do the important job of providing for traffic decide to have a look and reject any cycle-friendly provision which interferes in any way with motor traffic; cyclists end up with standard shoddy farcilities.

I hope somebody can reassure me that I've got this completely wrong. :?:

Yes, you've got this completely wrong. According to the spreadsheet "PROJECT LIST CYCLE SAFETY FUND (DECEMBER 2013)", Perne Road (bid X001) was funded from the same pot as Bedford turbogate (bid X068), so the story is: government earmarks a pittance for cycling; highway authorities put forward various projects which have some cycling element but not any cycle-friendly provision (I suspect because that's always been good enough to win cycling funding in the past, which is why we've got so many shoddy farcilities); then the least bad of an awful cohort get funded because a majority of CTC and others considered it better to fund yet more shoddy farcilities than to fail to spend the cycling budget, apparently based on the idea that if a budget isn't spent then it will be cut in future.

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout - BMF wades in

Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 4:02pm
by RickH
mjr wrote:...apparently based on the idea that if a budget isn't spent then it will be cut in future.

It may seem daft but that is a quite common thing in the public sector - if you don't spend the budget you obviously didn't need it so won't get it in the future - money is rarely allowed to be "carried forward". So stand to you lose it multiple times - once by not spending it and again by not getting that amount of money again in subsequent years.

Rick.

Re: Bedford turbo roundabout - BMF wades in

Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 6:49pm
by reohn2
What a backward nation we are :?
What is the CTC.BC,etc, doing about it? :roll: