Bedford turbo roundabout - it is done

[TonyR]

To see the danger of orbital cycle tracks in action take a look at this BBC video of the TRL trial. The drivers know they are being observed so they are on their best behaviour. They know they are in a trial of cycle infrastructure so they know to look out for cyclists. It is a simplified arrangement, with no distractions, pedestrians, heavy traffic, busses and so on. All the cyclists are also on their best behavour, riding very slowly and carefully (fortunately as it turns out). And yet even in an afternnon of filming - scroll the video forwards to 2 minutes - it is a good job she had her wits about her and was covering her brakes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22350776
It would be really good to see a re-run of that trial with cyclists riding on the carriageway.

The real danger of this roundabout starts at 50 seconds in with the TfL bod saying the advantage of the roundabout is the car driver does not get affected by the cyclists.

[thirdcrank]

It seems a while now since we heard from the CTC on this. ...

It really would be good to have some sort of an update, especially a brief summary of what has been achieved on behalf of cyclists.

[reohn2]

It seems a while now since we heard from the CTC on this. ...

It really would be good to have some sort of an update, especially a brief summary of what has been achieved on behalf of cyclists.

But then again if nothing's been achieved there's nothing to report

Cue for a song:-
Roll me over in the clover,do it again......

[[XAP]Bob]

To see the danger of orbital cycle tracks in action take a look at this BBC video of the TRL trial. The drivers know they are being observed so they are on their best behaviour. They know they are in a trial of cycle infrastructure so they know to look out for cyclists. It is a simplified arrangement, with no distractions, pedestrians, heavy traffic, busses and so on. All the cyclists are also on their best behavour, riding very slowly and carefully (fortunately as it turns out). And yet even in an afternnon of filming - scroll the video forwards to 2 minutes - it is a good job she had her wits about her and was covering her brakes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22350776
It would be really good to see a re-run of that trial with cyclists riding on the carriageway.

The real danger of this roundabout starts at 50 seconds in with the TfL bod saying the advantage of the roundabout is the car driver does not get affected by the cyclists.

To be fair he says that there is no affect *on the roundabout* but once they leave the roundabout the interaction takes place then.\\Of course that requires some awareness before leaving the roundabout...

[Tonyf33]

I guess this is THE perfect roundabout for a very large % of cyclists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEXD0guLQY0
Can we order some of these for every town and city thanks very much

[beardy]

Yes but we need the Dutch drivers to go with it!

[Bicycler]

Even there the cyclists priority layout is associated with higher rates of collisions: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/20 ... lists.html

[mjr]

Not perfect: there's no policeman stood on it the road angles don't look like they slow traffic much and the approaches to where the cycleway crosses the road aren't perpendicular (so low intervisibility so riders don't see so easily if a motorist is failing to stop) but it's much better than the Bedford or Cambridge ones.

(If you'd like a more amazing video, try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-L-B1aH8AE but it's nothing to do with roundabouts... except that I know an English council that proposed a mini-roundabout for that sort of junction! Thankfully, it failed the laugh test with local residents.)

[thirdcrank]

Yes but we need the Dutch drivers to go with it!

It needs an even more universal package. The long-forgotten (by everyone except me) Notional Cycling Strategy recognised eg the need for highwaymen to be trained to provide for cyclists. Almost two decades on, their entire offering is restricted to shabby farcilities such as shared-use pavements and CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs. The fact that they can get away with this - continuing to smirk and preen as they do so - merely illustrates the almost total absence of any political will to promote cycling, rather than pay lip-service to it. From a distance of 200 miles, Bozzer Jozzer seems to be the only politician in a position of authority who's prepared to upset drivers to provide anything for cyclists. Whether the result is any sort of improvement, I can't judge from this distance.

[mjr]

From a distance of 200 miles, Bozzer Jozzer seems to be the only politician in a position of authority who's prepared to upset drivers to provide anything for cyclists. Whether the result is any sort of improvement, I can't judge from this distance.

I ride there sometimes (I'll be riding to the funeral on Saturday - see other topics), so ask away if you want (maybe in another topic?). It feels like an improvement, but it's not really right yet. The biggest improvements so far were the congestion charge and hire scheme, which were both started pre-Boris but credit to him for keeping them going. Both of those caused noticeable surges in cycling in the areas they serve... which probably highlighted how inadequate the streetscapes had become.

The CS routes so far seem a very mixed bag - with too many junctions where designers seem to have chickened out, leaving a lot of problems that still need fixing - and I've not really got an overview of what's working and not there. The new NS and EW ones look better but seem to be getting bogged down over concerns from groups caricatured as "old bankers in limos" despite surprisingly wide mass support.

Like with Bedford and Cambridge, whatever we think will happen, we'll only be able to tell what's really worked or not after it's built: monitoring is key. Please, even if you're sceptical, push for monitoring if it goes ahead - if they fail to do so, go out and count in a systematic way if you can, then be honest and report the news, regardless of whether it's good or bad.

I agree that Boris seems better than most, but even he has his bad motorists-friend moments, like going on about headphone-wearing when he shouldn't have. Ultimately, it probably helps that he's a rider but not much of a racer so seems like he should have a bit more idea of what would help mass cycling... but then the same seemed true of Dave, who seems to have given up cycling since election rather than deal with Westminster's car culture (almost half a million on limos for Minister Pickles, I read this week), and whose government keeps sacrificing cyclists on the altar of motor vehicles, coming up with half-baked short-notice funding rounds like the one which has given us these roundabouts.

[Psamathe]

It seems a while now since we heard from the CTC on this. ...

It really would be good to have some sort of an update, especially a brief summary of what has been achieved on behalf of cyclists.

A bit off-topic but this illustrates a big issue I have with the CTC. They regard themselves (employees) as campaigning on behalf of cyclists, but not accountable to their membership. Membership fees seem to be regarded as a source of income; take for money and then they use it for what they consider important without much consideration of the wishes and input from those who are paying their bills.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

The point I'm trying to make about Bojo is that what's always conspicuously lacking from policies to promote cycling is genuine political commitment. No politician, no matter what their clout, can retrain generations of highwaymen overnight. All that a politician can provide is that commitment, but it has to be seen to be genuine because, frankly, officials have seen it all before. This is why I ramble on so much about the Notional Cycling Strategy. For the first two or three years of the Blair govt - ie the fag end of the last millennium - there was a feeling among these people that the govt really meant what it said about promoting cycling. Then it began to dawn on them that Blair was obsessed by his own place in history and mundane domestic matters didn't figure in that vision. There was a palpable collective sigh of relief when things like targets to increase cycling and some of the means of achieving it eg Cycle Audit and Review were kicked into the long grass. The big misters were able to concentrate on planning for motor traffic and the task of getting cyclists up onto the pavement was left to the junior underlings AKA cycling officers.

And the CTC just rolled over to be tickled.

[reohn2]

A bit off-topic but this illustrates a big issue I have with the CTC. They regard themselves (employees) as campaigning on behalf of cyclists, but not accountable to their membership. Membership fees seem to be regarded as a source of income; take for money and then they use it for what they consider important without much consideration of the wishes and input from those who are paying their bills.

Ian

I doesn't surprise me in the least,how can an organisation do anything productive for it's 'cause' and membership,if the ones who are by track record dead against that cause,and paying that organisation to campaign against them.
Who is going to kill the goose the keeps [naughty word removed ] gold?

[mjr]

A bit off-topic but this illustrates a big issue I have with the CTC. They regard themselves (employees) as campaigning on behalf of cyclists, but not accountable to their membership.

If you are a CTC member, please use the membership processes to call them to account. While I'm sure readers here would love to read about the experience and some may be able to offer helpful tips, this forum is not currently a way to hold CTC to account.

Unlike certain other cycling organisations, who you can flame on their website (as long as it's not abusive) and they'll try to explain their actions, or you can go to their ordinary membership meetings and many of their delegates/representatives will actually be there in person.

[reohn2]

A bit off-topic but this illustrates a big issue I have with the CTC. They regard themselves (employees) as campaigning on behalf of cyclists, but not accountable to their membership.

If you are a CTC member, please use the membership processes to call them to account. While I'm sure readers here would love to read about the experience and some may be able to offer helpful tips, this forum is not currently a way to hold CTC to account.

Unlike certain other cycling organisations, who you can flame on their website (as long as it's not abusive) and they'll try to explain their actions, or you can go to their ordinary membership meetings and many of their delegates/representatives will actually be there in person.

Or you can be a member for 25+years vote against the club being hijacked and it won't matter a jot.After which you can,because you've now lost say in the matter of that same club(which has now become a charity) say sod it,and stop paying your membership fee