UK to get first Dutch-style roundabout in Cambridge

[Bryn666]

It is more about risk aversion. I had tried to get rid if it!

[Owain]

As for blocking the cycle tracks to maintain visibility... why would you need to do that? The envelopes all work from the zebras and this is a low speed junction due to the design.

Signals would increase speeds here and be infinitely worse for cyclists thus defeating the entire purpose of the scheme.

You know British drivers still will block the cycle bits though, as British drivers wont have been trained to use such a junction.
To prevent it an enforced yellow box would have to be drawn in the crossover space, with warning signs that its enforced with cameras or such like.

Indeed, there are plenty of drivers in Britain who don't seem to have the foresight not to drive onto a crossing if their exit isn't free. As a pedestrian, I find this annoying, but it can quite easily be remedied by walking around their car. Even where a pedestrian is less inclined to do this, or perhaps where a cyclist finds it too difficult, I'd imagine that it won't be long before another driver in the queue acts more considerately and allows them to cross instead of mowing them down or attempting to block their passage.

No you misunderstood, it wasnt that people wouldnt know that they shouldnt stop over the zebra crossing, its that people might just ignore the fact it is because they are looking for the best view of the roundabout, which is right next to the roundabout which ironically is where the zebra crossing is!

Perhaps they should drive a bit more cautiously when approaching a roundabout that has lots of painted markings and signage telling them that there is a zebra crossing as well as a roundabout?

On top of that Im sure many experienced drivers get confused at complex junctions they arent used to, even if all features are well know and recognised ones. Even simple junctions that drivers are unfamiliar with can be a little confusing sometimes, it depends how the layout is.

Of course even the most experienced driver can sometimes get it wrong. Even me! My particular forte is getting lost in service areas while trying to find the exit. And Bristol, even though I was born there.

However, as somebody who has driven all over Europe and encountered a wide variety of traffic systems which I have not been trained to use, I have managed to avoid having any accidents by being sensible and approaching with more caution than I would use in Britain, on roads that I know well. This seems to me to be common sense.

I knew somebody in Lancaster who was opposed to a new-build housing estate on the grounds that 'people were used to the road as it was'. In particular, he seemed to be opposed to the installation of this mini-roundabout, and this double mini-roundabout, and - to my astonishment - he excused the appalling driving that took place on them (such as cars overtaking slowing traffic by straight-lining to the right of the traffic islands!) on the grounds that the drivers 'were probably used to what the road used to be like when it was straight'.

I'm sorry, but if a driver cannot read road signs that provide advance warning of what is going to happen ahead, and then approach a junction without a certain degree of caution, it's probably time for them to surrender their driving licence and get off the roads so that the rest of us can use them in relative safety.

[Glen]

Can I ask why one exit has "give way" markings before the crossing point and the others don't? I can't see from the plan what makes that one different.

Isn't it because of the gap between the cycle crossing and the zebra crossing, whereas on the others they are together?

[FosseWay]

I haven't come across something quite like this in Sweden, but the concept of having a cycle path that has priority over traffic entering/leaving a roundabout is common. The idea that cycles on paths parallel to the mainline (which for the purposes of roundabouts means cycles coming from the right) having priority over turning traffic - whether turning off from or on to the mainline - is also standard. The speed limit on roads where such setups occur tends to be lower in Sweden, too (typically 40 km/h).

Nevertheless, conflicts occur which are not simply the result of motorists not looking or people behaving aggressively. (You can never engineer away these particular problems, which is why I tend to agree with Bryn's sentiment about idiots and the desirability of removing the idiot from the road rather than modifying the road ad absurdum to cope with the idiot.)

On such cycle paths, I generally find that averagely competent and observant drivers who are several metres behind the give way line for the cycle crossing when they see me, stop and let me cross without a problem. Those who can clearly pass the potential conflict point way before I get there do so harmlessly. The problem lies in between, in situations where the car could continue at a normal speed for the road (40 or 50 km/h, say) perfectly safely, but where it will get in my way if it slows down. Obviously when you're approaching a roundabout you are going to slow down, so it happens quite often that cars will slow down markedly as they cross the cycle path, thus getting in my way, or (especially wrt larger vehicles) will stop with their rear end blocking the cycle path.

This isn't a case of pure idiocy. Sure, in some circumstances a bit of advanced thought would lead the driver to letting the cycle through because they can see that they're not going to be able to progress beyond the crossing anyway due to traffic on the roundabout. But if you're driving a vehicle that is too long to fit between the cycle crossing and the give way marking at the entrance to the roundabout, you've either got to block the cycle path or sit a long way back where your view of incoming vehicles may be compromised. From the pictures in the OP it's hard to say whether this is a problem in the case in Cambridge. But broadly you do need to be able to fit a vehicle between the two give ways (cycle path and roundabout) without it obstructing either, or the cycle path must be essentially part of the roundabout's road surface, which may reduce cyclists' safety if drivers on the roundabout are physically able to impinge on the cycle path without having to e.g. mount a kerb.

[M19]

A design like this is fine for single lane entry and exit roundabouts. I just hope no-one contemplates doing this with multi entrances and exits, because the geometry, particularly the entry angles means that left turning vehicles will move towards the centre of the roundabout to make a left turn in a single arc sweep, instead of following the sharp left entry, right sweep and sharp left exit.

That would be a recipe for disaster.

[A9NWIL]

On such cycle paths, I generally find that averagely competent and observant drivers who are several metres behind the give way line for the cycle crossing when they see me, stop and let me cross without a problem. Those who can clearly pass the potential conflict point way before I get there do so harmlessly. The problem lies in between, in situations where the car could continue at a normal speed for the road (40 or 50 km/h, say) perfectly safely, but where it will get in my way if it slows down. Obviously when you're approaching a roundabout you are going to slow down, so it happens quite often that cars will slow down markedly as they cross the cycle path, thus getting in my way, or (especially wrt larger vehicles) will stop with their rear end blocking the cycle path.

This isn't a case of pure idiocy. Sure, in some circumstances a bit of advanced thought would lead the driver to letting the cycle through because they can see that they're not going to be able to progress beyond the crossing anyway due to traffic on the roundabout. But if you're driving a vehicle that is too long to fit between the cycle crossing and the give way marking at the entrance to the roundabout, you've either got to block the cycle path or sit a long way back where your view of incoming vehicles may be compromised. From the pictures in the OP it's hard to say whether this is a problem in the case in Cambridge. But broadly you do need to be able to fit a vehicle between the two give ways (cycle path and roundabout) without it obstructing either, or the cycle path must be essentially part of the roundabout's road surface, which may reduce cyclists' safety if drivers on the roundabout are physically able to impinge on the cycle path without having to e.g. mount a kerb.

Very good point! how long is the longest vehicle? Thats the distance that should be between the ordinary roundabout and the cycle roundabout.
I would say that car drivers are going to behave more sensibly in that situation too even the silly ones!

Of course this would then take up a lot of land! I guess that the bits of land created between both roundabouts could be resold for properties, meaning the properties would be on the inside of the cycle roundabout.

[Bryn666]

Blocking by a HGV for a few seconds whilst it enters is a different scenario entirely; this is unavoidable. However, if there is likely to be a long wait then the HTC should be waiting at the zebra.

@M19 - these roundabouts are explicitly low speed and single lane designs. Anyone trying to scale one up is indeed a Muppet asking for disaster.

[andrewwoods]

If you push the cycle or pedestrian crossing too far from the roundabout then you’re asking NMUs to divert quite significantly from their desire line, and they’re more likely to stick to the road and not use the cycle path at all.

[Debaser]

If you push the cycle or pedestrian crossing too far from the roundabout then you’re asking NMUs to divert quite significantly from their desire line, and they’re more likely to stick to the road and not use the cycle path at all.

Off the top of my head the Dutch Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic aka the CROW manual - regarded as the gold standard for designing cycle infrastructure - suggests there is a gap of 6 to 10m between the crossing and ICD, enough to allow all cars and some LGVs to wait clear of the crossing. This design looks like it will satisfy that minimum value.

BTW, it has been suggested on some cycling advocate blogs that, until these roundabouts become more common in the UK, priority is given to drivers of motor vehicles purely because their selfishness and lack of awareness could lead to them failing to give way to cyclists (and pedestrians).

[wallmeerkat]

How are these concerns different from a roundabout surrounded by zebra crossings?

This used to be a simple traffic light crossroads with those W-N and E-S sliproads. When it was converted there were a few pedestrians getting knocked down. It is a busy route as a back road betwen Belfast and the commuter town of Carrickfergus.

[Graham]

I'm sorry, but if a driver cannot read road signs that provide advance warning of what is going to happen ahead, and then approach a junction without a certain degree of caution, it's probably time for them to surrender their driving licence and get off the roads so that the rest of us can use them in relative safety.

I am reminded of a similar situation a few years back. A number of towns created cycle paths parallel to busy suburban roads, in which the cyclists were given priority over motorists at side junctions. The one I am most familiar with is Princess Elizabeth Way in Cheltenham. The problem with this design was that it is a death trap when the motorist is unfamiliar with the design. There were several cyclist fatalities in Cheltenham alone, typically caused by drivers turing right off the main road. These drivers were concentrating on looking for gaps in the traffic ahead, and were not looking out for cyclists on the cycle path (many of which were approaching through the motorist's blind spot). The end result - drivers pulled out into the side turning, not expecting a cyclist to cycle straight into their path, with fatal consequences.

There were plenty of people who looked for easy answers - it was all the motorists' fault, and the motorists involved were all obviously idiots. Nobody stopped to think that the designers of the cycle path could and should have done more to increase the awareness of motorists. My view is different - the designers of the cycle path should have anticipated the problems, and done something about them. At the very least, there should have been large signs at every side junction informing the motorist of the potential issue.

Fast forward to 2018, and I ask myself, have we learnt anything?

[FleetlinePhil]

There were plenty of people who looked for easy answers - it was all the motorists' fault, and the motorists involved were all obviously idiots. Nobody stopped to think that the designers of the cycle path could and should have done more to increase the awareness of motorists. My view is different - the designers of the cycle path should have anticipated the problems, and done something about them. At the very least, there should have been large signs at every side junction informing the motorist of the potential issue.

Fast forward to 2018, and I ask myself, have we learnt anything?

I'm sure that when I was learning to drive in 1980 (and when I'd been a cyclist prior to that), the priorities were the other way round on these 1930's-vintage cycle lanes https://goo.gl/maps/x2aLiU3Kadn.
Coming out of a side road, there were two sets of give-way lines. I can't remember ever having an issue when turning in, but I rarely had reason to do so once I had passed my test. Presumably others did have problems, hence the change to the current markings, although I don't know when this happened.

[AndyB]

There are still plenty of roundabouts with zebra crossings on multiple entrances one car length from the give way line... I live half a mile from one.

It's hard to miss the Belisha beacons and the zig zags for a start. How is this different apart from the addition of give way lines for the cycle crossings?

[Bryn666]

There were plenty of people who looked for easy answers - it was all the motorists' fault, and the motorists involved were all obviously idiots. Nobody stopped to think that the designers of the cycle path could and should have done more to increase the awareness of motorists. My view is different - the designers of the cycle path should have anticipated the problems, and done something about them. At the very least, there should have been large signs at every side junction informing the motorist of the potential issue.

Fast forward to 2018, and I ask myself, have we learnt anything?

I'm sure that when I was learning to drive in 1980 (and when I'd been a cyclist prior to that), the priorities were the other way round on these 1930's-vintage cycle lanes https://goo.gl/maps/x2aLiU3Kadn.
Coming out of a side road, there were two sets of give-way lines. I can't remember ever having an issue when turning in, but I rarely had reason to do so once I had passed my test. Presumably others did have problems, hence the change to the current markings, although I don't know when this happened.

The Highway Code has always been clear that you give way to anyone/thing crossing when entering a side road - changing the priorities like that has all been about speeding up traffic flow at the expense of any other legitimate road users.

[Johnathan404]

Very good point! how long is the longest vehicle? Thats the distance that should be between the ordinary roundabout and the cycle roundabout.
I would say that car drivers are going to behave more sensibly in that situation too even the silly ones!

Of course this would then take up a lot of land! I guess that the bits of land created between both roundabouts could be resold for properties, meaning the properties would be on the inside of the cycle roundabout.

You may wish to try using a bicycle before making these suggestions about how you feel cycle infrastructure would be improved.

[Chris5156]

I am reminded of a similar situation a few years back. A number of towns created cycle paths parallel to busy suburban roads, in which the cyclists were given priority over motorists at side junctions. The one I am most familiar with is Princess Elizabeth Way in Cheltenham. The problem with this design was that it is a death trap when the motorist is unfamiliar with the design. There were several cyclist fatalities in Cheltenham alone, typically caused by drivers turing right off the main road. These drivers were concentrating on looking for gaps in the traffic ahead, and were not looking out for cyclists on the cycle path (many of which were approaching through the motorist's blind spot). The end result - drivers pulled out into the side turning, not expecting a cyclist to cycle straight into their path, with fatal consequences.

There were plenty of people who looked for easy answers - it was all the motorists' fault, and the motorists involved were all obviously idiots. Nobody stopped to think that the designers of the cycle path could and should have done more to increase the awareness of motorists. My view is different - the designers of the cycle path should have anticipated the problems, and done something about them. At the very least, there should have been large signs at every side junction informing the motorist of the potential issue.

I'm not much of a believer in the doctrine of Sign Make It Better. Looking at Princess Elizabeth Way on Google Streetview, the side turnings that cross the cycle path have space for a car to wait between the road and cycle path, and the crossing point is marked by Give Way markings, a Give Way triangle painted on the road and an upright, illuminated Give Way sign. I don't know what sort of competent driver could see all the usual things that instruct them to Give Way and fail to understand that they need to Give Way.

There may well have been more the designers could have done - one thing might be to have one-way cycle tracks on both sides of the road, running in parallel with traffic flow, which eliminates the potential for a cyclist to be approaching from behind a right-turning vehicle. I think on balance, where such a thing is possible, that is a better design. But just as we should not rule out the idea that the design could have been better, we should also consider whether drivers who plough through a clearly marked Give Way line and kill someone are demonstrating sufficient wit to be allowed to drive a motor vehicle unsupervised.

[M5Lenzar]

You may wish to try using a bicycle before making these suggestions about how you feel cycle infrastructure would be improved.

So in that case, only drivers should be allowed to suggest/implement changes to road infrastructure if cars are likely to be affected?

[c2R]

You may wish to try using a bicycle before making these suggestions about how you feel cycle infrastructure would be improved.

So in that case, only drivers should be allowed to suggest/implement changes to road infrastructure if cars are likely to be affected?

Any designer needs to have an appreciation for the sorts of vehicles that are going to use any junction design; and the idea of having either a super-deep roundabout at this suburbuan location, or to demolish half of the surrounding properties in order to fit an HGV with drag trailer as a minimum spacing between the roundabout and the cycle crossing are quite frankly both laughable.

[A9NWIL]

You may wish to try using a bicycle before making these suggestions about how you feel cycle infrastructure would be improved.

So in that case, only drivers should be allowed to suggest/implement changes to road infrastructure if cars are likely to be affected?

Good point! In fact it should be a pre-request for road designers to perhaps have all categories of driving licence, along with a cycle proficiency course and at least 3 months experience driving each type of vehicle before they are allowed to sign off on a road design project!

[Johnathan404]

So in that case, only drivers should be allowed to suggest/implement changes to road infrastructure if cars are likely to be affected?

I said "improved", you substituted that for "changed".

If I were to suggest the M1 could be improved for car drivers with a few more roundabouts - which is the level of ridiculousness that has been suggested so far - you would be entitled to say that I need to spend more time driving on motorways.

Nb: Something can be spun as an "improvement" overall without needing to benefit your favourite mode of transport specifically.