Bedford turbo roundabout - it is done

[Mick F]

Pedestrians don't have priority crossing zebra crossings, they have precedence.
Small point, I know.

I wrote precedence and then edited it because it's a less clear word. I feel it's ambiguous out of its legal context - actually, I looked at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997 ... tents/made and it's not exactly great there.

Precedence comes from precede, meaning come before something in order or time, or to go in front of.

[PaulCumbria]

Well Bedford's cycling officer was right - the turbo-roundabout will indeed be constructed in July. It appears that the problems have been 'solved'!

http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/ ... um=twitter

They've obviously had a quick word with the Dutch following the intervention of the bikers:
"Do you have and problems with motorcycles coming a cropper on these turbo roundabouts of yours?"
"No, we have found they improve safety"
"OK, in that case well crack on with it"

Err, no.

It seems the design has been changed, removing the oh-so-important lane dividers, in agreement with a motorcycling body (BMF) which hadn't been disputing the design in the first place.

Interestingly Graeme Hay, the BMF's head of press releases (I think that's his job title), in-post less than a fortnight when he gave the redesign the nod, has understood at least some of the danger to cyclists better than the cycling bodies involved:

”Hay [said] the designs he examined showed two lengths of raised concrete... lane dividers. “Motorcyclists were very worried about the risks of a rider contacting these 75mm high lane dividers, thinking that this may result in a fall into the path of another vehicle. When I looked at this design I was very surprised that cyclists were not worried about these lane dividers as well. Any contact with these lumps would almost certainly result in a fall.”

Leon Mannings of MAG, the motorcycling lobby group that did complain, has responded:

"This scheme is crazy. If the BMF continues to support it, I have to assume they simply haven’t understood the basic dangers of it.” 

[PaulCumbria]

Here's more. From the BMF, in favour:
http://www.ridermagazine.co.uk/the-bedf ... oundabout/

and from MAG, against:
http://invictamoto.blogspot.co.uk/2014/ ... t.html?m=1

[mjr]

It seems the design has been changed, removing the oh-so-important lane dividers, in agreement with a motorcycling body (BMF) which hadn't been disputing the design in the first place.

I didn't think this would get any worse, but it has. So basically we've ended up with Yet Another Spiral-laned Blender, part-funded by a cycling safety budget

Does the change in a core design element allow DfT to withdraw the cycling safety funding? It was tenuous to spend it on that junction rather than the areas of Bedford with more cycle collisions, even before this latest change.

[[XAP]Bob]

Has the CTC been raising objections - given that it's cycling budget being used - why are the only parties being quoted motorcyclists?

[gaz]

Cycling Organisation Quote: http://www.sustrans.org.uk/press-releas ... cle-safety

[squeaker]

Cycling Organisation Quote: http://www.sustrans.org.uk/press-releas ... cle-safety

[Richard Fairhurst]

and from MAG, against:
http://invictamoto.blogspot.co.uk/2014/ ... t.html?m=1

"Contact either Lembit Öpik or Leon Mannings via MAG Central Office." ???!

[mjr]

and from MAG, against:
http://invictamoto.blogspot.co.uk/2014/ ... t.html?m=1

"Contact either Lembit Öpik or Leon Mannings via MAG Central Office." ???!

They're worried that bikes will become Unidentifiable Flying Objects after being hit by cars or lorries?

[[XAP]Bob]

The work is being part-funded by a grant of £420,000 from the department for Transport Cycle Safety Fund. The total scheme cost is estimated at £490,000.

That's a hell of a "part" to be funding.

Why is this going ahead again?

[squeaker]

Why is this going ahead again?

Support from Sustrans?!?

[Pete Owens]

Well Bedford's cycling officer was right - the turbo-roundabout will indeed be constructed in July. It appears that the problems have been 'solved'!

http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/ ... um=twitter

They've obviously had a quick word with the Dutch following the intervention of the bikers:
"Do you have and problems with motorcycles coming a cropper on these turbo roundabouts of yours?"
"No, we have found they improve safety"
"OK, in that case well crack on with it"

Err, no.

It seems the design has been changed, removing the oh-so-important lane dividers, in agreement with a motorcycling body (BMF) which hadn't been disputing the design in the first place.

Actually it is very much worse than that. It is not just the lane dividers, but ALL the cycle-freindly design features appear to have gone. If the drawing in the article is genuine, the perpendicular approach arms, the tight geometry and the constained lanes have also been removed. The cycling ellement of the plan has basically been stripped out in its entirety. Pedestrians have also lost out with the zebra crossings pushed further away from the junction - presumably on the grounds of safety as modified design no longer has the speed reducing effect of the original plan.

Sadly the motor lobby is much more powerful than we are so they can be trusted to attempt to kill off any genuinely innovative scheme that benefits us by restricting motors.

[reohn2]

................Sadly the motor lobby is much more powerful than we are so they can be trusted to attempt to kill off any genuinely innovative scheme that benefits us by restricting motors.

That's de'mock' 'crass'y for you,he who has the biggest toys wins.
You couldn't make it up .

[PaulCumbria]

Actually it is very much worse than that. It is not just the lane dividers, but ALL the cycle-freindly design features appear to have gone.

Ah no, fair's fair. Presumably they'll still be installing eight dropped kerbs to give access onto pavements, and eight 'Cyclists Dismount' signs, perhaps...

[AlaninWales]

blog with swear words in it
Says it all really