Bedford turbo roundabout - it is done

[RickH]

Can anybody say what arrangements have been made for cyclists at the pedestrian crossings? I ask because it seems that pedestrian crossings with an adjacent cycle path are being installed elsewhere. Earlier in the thread there was a link to the CTC website where it said something along the lines that the regulations would be changed but not in time for this scheme.

I've tried to check if there are new regultions or amendments to the 1997 regs and I've been unsuccessful.

I found a PDF (draft?) of the TSRGD 2015 (here - cycling stuff sstarts on p36). There is more detail (& pictures ) in the consultation document (link to PDF) dating from May 2014. Cycling stuff is from p22 & p27 shows a proposed pedestrian & cycle crossing layout illustration which appears to be have been accepted from my reading of the wording of the 2015 document.

Hope that is of help.

Rick.

[thirdcrank]

RickH

Thanks for that. I've just got home from child care duties (who says shift work ends when you retire? ) so I've not got time to read it now. I've a feeling it's been mentioned earlier in ths thread but I didn't have time to plough through all 20+ pages earlier.

Anyway, it looks as though the draft regulations are being anticipated elsewhere. I see you are up late too. I was going to post about your link on that other thread but you beat me to it.

[mjr]

We've a similar "ready to convert" crossing planned for King's Lynn bus station next year. I wonder if there has been some guidance to designers.

[PaulCumbria]

I see the job is done. Anyone got any detail on whether it's any good in practice? All I've seen is a picture on Twitter, from @hesterkw, of a particularly naff transition from footway to carriageway via an angled kerb - didn't fill me with confidence that the rest of the execution would be much good.

[squeaker]

I see the job is done. Anyone got any detail on whether it's any good in practice?

Comment from a CTC 'Right to Ride' rep on another board (apologies if he's on here too):

I spent half an hour or so watching the traffic flow in the "rush hour" around this roundabout last time I was in Bedford and it seemed to be working quite well - traffic was flowing calmly, unlike the rest of the road system, and cyclists were either using the shared used pavement or turbo-ing it around the roundabout according to their predeliction.

I take on board the criticism that this was a general road safety scheme that took advantage of cycling safety money but I don't see how you can improve cyclist's safety without addressing road safety in general.

[PaulCumbria]

I spent half an hour or so watching the traffic flow in the "rush hour" around this roundabout last time I was in Bedford and it seemed to be working quite well - traffic was flowing calmly, unlike the rest of the road system, and cyclists were either using the shared used pavement or turbo-ing it around the roundabout according to their predeliction.

I take on board the criticism that this was a general road safety scheme that took advantage of cycling safety money but I don't see how you can improve cyclist's safety without addressing road safety in general.

Hmm, damning with faint praise? That last sentence in particular seems to suggest it doesn't really improve cycling safety at all.

I've now found the report that the tweeted picture came from. It can be found as a downloadable file in a link from an update to this July 2014 story by David Hembrow: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/20 ... l.html?m=1

To be honest, I'm aghast that what was already looking like averagely rubbish British infrastructure has been executed totally pathetically - as the report writer demonstrates, it's simply incompetent.

[reohn2]

.........I've now found the report that the tweeted picture came from. It can be found as a downloadable file in a link from an update to this July 2014 story by David Hembrow: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/20 ... l.html?m=1

To be honest, I'm aghast that what was already looking like averagely rubbish British infrastructure has been executed totally pathetically - as the report writer demonstrates, it's simply incompetent.

Worse than bad
An absolute pigs ear of a job,why am I not surprised

[Pete Owens]

I see the job is done. Anyone got any detail on whether it's any good in practice? All I've seen is a picture on Twitter, from @hesterkw, of a particularly naff transition from footway to carriageway via an angled kerb - didn't fill me with confidence that the rest of the execution would be much good.

Whatever has been done - it is now most certainly NOT a turbo roundabout. The cycle friendly geometry that got the angry bloggers into a lather was ditched at the behest or the motor lobby. So, of course it now looks like a conventional UK design. This should have been welocomed by those who spent most of this thread arguing that the proposed turbo design would have been cycle hostile.

[mjr]

This should have been welocomed by those who spent most of this thread arguing that the proposed turbo design would have been cycle hostile.

It's lovely when one side invents and misrepresents their opposition, isn't it? I guess it's just too difficult for 1930s throwbacks to argue against protected space for cycling.

I drove through the roundabout twice on the same day (Tavistock to Roff and Clapham to Union I think) and stopped a short way away to watch it, but didn't have time to ride it. It looked like a typically-awful UK spiral roundabout with some extra barriers and zebra crossings off the desire line a few car lengths up each side street. It's better than my local spirals because at least the crossings are zebras but it wasn't worth the cycling money.

[AlaninWales]

It's lovely when one side invents and misrepresents their opposition, isn't it?

Agreed.
I love the way the whole thing has been built to create not only dangerous infrastructure and conflict for cyclists and pedestrians, but dangerous for motor vehicles too! No warning of the carriageway intrusions, they'll be driven over pretty soon (destroying those wavy wands and potentially damaging any car doing so).

Incompetent planning, incompetent design and incompetent installation: It was never going to be anything to help anyone when that all comes together (and they stole the cycle safety money to do this).

[Psamathe]

Comment from a CTC 'Right to Ride' rep on another board (apologies if he's on here too):

I spent half an hour or so watching the traffic flow in the "rush hour" around this roundabout last time I was in Bedford and it seemed to be working quite well - traffic was flowing calmly, unlike the rest of the road system, and cyclists were either using the shared used pavement or turbo-ing it around the roundabout according to their predeliction.

I take on board the criticism that this was a general road safety scheme that took advantage of cycling safety money but I don't see how you can improve cyclist's safety without addressing road safety in general.

Trouble is, I can't respond to this without being critical to CTC staff (disagreeing with their actions/policy) and from experience only the other day, this gets posts deleted (no insults, no nastiness, just disagreeing with what a specific CTC staff member has done and how they did it.

So much for debate in this age of censorship.

Ian

[PaulCumbria]

So, of course it now looks like a conventional UK design. This should have been welocomed by those who spent most of this thread arguing that the proposed turbo design would have been cycle hostile.

That really is a most disgraceful suggestion. Is this really your idea of adult debate? To suggest that anyone who criticises one particular sack of excrement should therefore welcome an alternative, equally noisome sackful?

[thirdcrank]

I've just had a look at this on streetview and the new roundabout is in the current image capture.

As far as I can see, the only "provision" for cyclists is shared-use signs on the pavements. I can't see any other concession to, or acknowledgment of the needs of cyclists anywhere in the images. I can't see any evidence of the intention to modify the pedestrian crossings to accommodate cycling they look like plain zebras (perhaps that should be stripey zebras ) and down at least one of the approach roads which is divided by an island/ refuge, that's so narrow it looks as though anybody waiting there with a bike to cross the second part of the crossing, whether mounted or not, would have to turn it sideways to avoid it overhanging into the traffic flow.

Looking on the bright side, I didn't spot any CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs which is something.

Are there any locals to that area who still post on here? Any comments after quite a long period of operation?

Does anybody know if CyclingUK / CTC are still muddling through with this or has everybody moved on?
=========================================================
PS

The local highwaymen are very pleased with themselves.

Multi Award Winning Turbo Roundabout wows judges

https://www.bedford.gov.uk/council_and_ ... about.aspx

[Pete Owens]

The cycle freindly design features (tight low-speed geometry with lane dividers) were stripped out from the design at the behest of the motorcyclists. What has been installed is not recognisable at a turbo roundabout but a bog standard UK style multi-lane spiral roundabout, with high speed tangential entry and exit arms and the ability for drivers to take a racing line through the junction.

[Psamathe]

The cycle freindly design features (tight low-speed geometry with lane dividers) were stripped out from the design at the behest of the motorcyclists. What has been installed is not recognisable at a turbo roundabout but a bog standard UK style multi-lane spiral roundabout, with high speed tangential entry and exit arms and the ability for drivers to take a racing line through the junction.

Presumably still using cycle funding money as agreed to and approved by the CTC/CUK ?

Ian