UK to get first Dutch-style roundabout in Cambridge

[Euan]

Seriously, though, how can you ensure that cyclists obey the rules, and follow the crossing precisely, rather than mixing it with cars across the junction and crossing wrong side back to the cycle lane??

We can't. But then we can't ensure drivers obey the rules about red, red/amber and amber all meaning stop (if they even know that).

I think that in general cyclists on the road might be more likely to break the rules given that most emphasis seems to be on ensuring that drivers of engined vehicles obey the rules rather than cyclists doing so. Whilst it is true that cyclists are bound by the same rules as cars while using a road, it is also true that when off road they are not bound by these rules and so it may not always be 100% clear when is the transition between the different sets of rules. You would like to think that stopping at a red light would be simple enough though...

Sticking to the same topic, I was walking in a crowd over a pedestrian crossing earlier today and was almost hit by a cyclist! There were no cars waiting at the red light but the crowd that I was part of while crossing the road was very prominent and could not have been overlooked that easily. My own conclusion is that the cyclist was probably just genuinely not paying much attention to the road (rather than intentionally ignoring a red light) and consequently ended up passing through the dense crowd of people, but fortunately nobody was injured.

[Johnathan404]

Whenever I spend too long in the UK (and Ireland) I suffer from the same scepticism that most people have: it won't work, drivers won't be looking the right way, car journeys will take too long. A quick trip to the continent is always the solution and having just got back from a weekend in Munich I am again reminded that there is no reason why we can't provide decent cycle routes that people will want to use.

I agree that there is a problem in the UK with us providing cycling infrastructure and it not getting used properly, but we can tackle that once we have some infrastructure that is actually worth using.

[Chris5156]

As I have said before, think of current cyclists as the outliers, the 1 or 2% of the population comfortable enough to ride along with vehicles much heavier and faster than themselves. The ones who will take risks. The Audi drivers of the cycling world.

These facilities are for everyone else, the people who would like to cycle but are too scared by those motor vehicles to do so. The ones we have designed out of the transport system over generations. The (law-abiding) majority, if you will.

What a brilliant analogy. I really like this way of explaining the shift that's needed. Thanks for posting it.

[Berk]

I think even with investments like this, it may take two or three generations (i.e. when I’m an old person), when the desired level of modal shift is achieved. Until then, you’ll be lucky if 10% take up the wheels, and the lanes will always appear semi-deserted.

Leaving that aside, I’m always concerned that many people want to make cycling as ‘easy’ as possible - particularly for the young; when I say that, I mean no helmet, no training, no rules etc, (within reason). I think all road users should share the same culture, and must be expected to use the Highway Code if they wish to use the same highway - and meet the same levels of enforcement too, not just on ‘days of action’. There shouldn’t be any dispensation for kids, just because they’re not adults yet (which makes me wonder if there should be a minimum age for on-road cycling).

My logic is the public should be content with ‘children’ up to the age of 14 being allowed to cycle on the pavement, or pedestrian area, because they should be being supervised, or ‘learning’ how to cycle and manoeuvre safely, and therefore not going fast enough to cause harm to others. Yes, there may be a logical flaw for some kids out there, but I am thinking of how responsible parents would expect their kids to be looked after, and behave. Cycling calmly, and appropriately and so on. Not teenage tearaways.

And if not a carrying a reg plate, some sort of officially-issued badge, and an appropriate level of insurance. Cyclists are capable of causing injury, and have killed too.

[FosseWay]

I think even with investments like this, it may take two or three generations (i.e. when I’m an old person), when the desired level of modal shift is achieved. Until then, you’ll be lucky if 10% take up the wheels, and the lanes will always appear semi-deserted.

Leaving that aside, I’m always concerned that many people want to make cycling as ‘easy’ as possible - particularly for the young; when I say that, I mean no helmet, no training, no rules etc, (within reason). I think all road users should share the same culture, and must be expected to use the Highway Code if they wish to use the same highway - and meet the same levels of enforcement too, not just on ‘days of action’. There shouldn’t be any dispensation for kids, just because they’re not adults yet (which makes me wonder if there should be a minimum age for on-road cycling).

My logic is the public should be content with ‘children’ up to the age of 14 being allowed to cycle on the pavement, or pedestrian area, because they should be being supervised, or ‘learning’ how to cycle and manoeuvre safely, and therefore not going fast enough to cause harm to others. Yes, there may be a logical flaw for some kids out there, but I am thinking of how responsible parents would expect their kids to be looked after, and behave. Cycling calmly, and appropriately and so on. Not teenage tearaways.

I (as a frequent urban cyclist) agree with the general thrust of what you say, with some modification.

1. Making it easy for people to cycle is not mutually exclusive to ensuring people behave socially. The biggest hurdles are the perception of danger when sharing major roads with large/fast vehicles (as discussed above), and overcoming the sheer inertia of getting on your bike at all, especially if it's dark, wet or cold (it's usually all three here). Compared to those, increasing the emphasis on not behaving like a knob is an insignificant hurdle. Consequently, we should not corporately view attempts to make those big hurdles more manageable as allowing cyclists to short-circuit basic road traffic law. Providing better cycling facilities is the equivalent of building a motorway or providing more parking, not of relaxing the rules on overtaking on solid lines because we want to make it "easier" for motorists to get where they're going ASAP, but one can be forgiven for wondering otherwise sometimes.

2. All of what you say about behaving sensibly also needs to apply to pedestrians. Increasingly I am encountering the attitude from pedestrians that they expect to be warned by cyclists if they (the peds) are in the way of cyclists behaving legitimately. A worryingly large subset of pedestrians is simply unwilling to take responsibility for such basic things as noting whether the path they're on is shared use, or whether the tarmac alongside is a cycle path, or how visible they are to other legitimate road users.

3. Same levels of enforcement - I don't agree with this as an end in itself, because it sounds like an "it's not fair" argument from motorists. All road users should be subject to the enforcement needed to ensure safety and reasonable traffic flow in the circumstances relevant to those road users. There are considerably greater problems with poor/absent lighting on cycles than on motor vehicles, and conversely considerably greater problems with speed in motor vehicles than cycles. Enforcement should take such differences into account.

[Debaser]

2. All of what you say about behaving sensibly also needs to apply to pedestrians. Increasingly I am encountering the attitude from pedestrians that they expect to be warned by cyclists if they (the peds) are in the way of cyclists behaving legitimately. A worryingly large subset of pedestrians is simply unwilling to take responsibility for such basic things as noting whether the path they're on is shared use, or whether the tarmac alongside is a cycle path, or how visible they are to other legitimate road users.

Problem is peds aren't cars. In a car you're likely going to be on a route for a certain amount of time/distance, constrained by the number of junctions available to change route and it's easy to sign say, a change in speed limit, at its beginning and end and where necessary at intervals along the route. Peds can (and will) join, leave and re-join a route as the fancy (and desire line) takes them and to delineate, particularly a shared route, without introducing clutter is difficult. 'Properly' segregated pedestrian/cycle routes on the other hand are a different matter, and by 'properly' I mean the entire cycle track being a different coloured surface to the footway.

[Chris5156]

I think even with investments like this, it may take two or three generations (i.e. when I’m an old person), when the desired level of modal shift is achieved. Until then, you’ll be lucky if 10% take up the wheels, and the lanes will always appear semi-deserted.

London's experience with the provision of dedicated, segregated cycle routes says otherwise. There's plenty who grumble about them (including on here), but stand beside one of the "cycle superhighways" in the rush hour and you'll see they're packed. Parliament Square is now running over capacity with queues of cyclists two or three abreast where a single cycle of the lights fails to clear the backlog. Blackfriars Bridge now carries more people on bicycles in the rush hour than people in motor vehicles, buses excluded.

I don't know if that's modal shift of 10% - it's probably not - but it's still more than enough to make the facilities worthwhile.

[FosseWay]

2. All of what you say about behaving sensibly also needs to apply to pedestrians. Increasingly I am encountering the attitude from pedestrians that they expect to be warned by cyclists if they (the peds) are in the way of cyclists behaving legitimately. A worryingly large subset of pedestrians is simply unwilling to take responsibility for such basic things as noting whether the path they're on is shared use, or whether the tarmac alongside is a cycle path, or how visible they are to other legitimate road users.

Problem is peds aren't cars. In a car you're likely going to be on a route for a certain amount of time/distance, constrained by the number of junctions available to change route and it's easy to sign say, a change in speed limit, at its beginning and end and where necessary at intervals along the route. Peds can (and will) join, leave and re-join a route as the fancy (and desire line) takes them and to delineate, particularly a shared route, without introducing clutter is difficult. 'Properly' segregated pedestrian/cycle routes on the other hand are a different matter, and by 'properly' I mean the entire cycle track being a different coloured surface to the footway.

We don't need to treat peds as cars. It doesn't matter if peds follow desire lines that don't coincide with where the council thinks they ought to be going. It doesn't even matter that which side of a shared-use path peds walk on is inconsistent except in really heavy traffic. What is required is that pedestrians are aware of who else can legitimately use the path they're on, and that they behave in a social and logical fashion. It's perfectly possible for someone to deviate up a grass bank, first crossing the cycle path to do so, and not get in anyone's way, if they first look around them.

Most pedestrians most of the time won't just walk straight out into a live general traffic lane. A significantly larger number will do just that in a public transport-only lane despite the size of the vehicles they may conflict with. From personal observation, the proportion who do it on a cycle path is approaching a majority. It's entitlement syndrome pure and simple - those other users will stop for me so why do I have to bother about them? Every so often, the tram network grinds to a halt because a pedestrian (more rarely a cyclist or a driver) is hit by a tram. Except at signalised junctions, trams have priority over all other modes. Their position on the roadway is also 100% predictable - they can't deviate from the tracks. So unless the tram has run a red light (or more accurately a white S), if a collision occurs it is because the other person or vehicle is in the wrong place. But, especially with pedestrians, you NEVER hear about anyone being investigated for offences or being made to pay any form of compensation.

I know I sound like a broken record, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you travel on public roads, you must take responsibility for your own actions and your own and others' safety. If you fail in that duty you should be held to account. It's as simple as that.

[trickstat]

2. All of what you say about behaving sensibly also needs to apply to pedestrians. Increasingly I am encountering the attitude from pedestrians that they expect to be warned by cyclists if they (the peds) are in the way of cyclists behaving legitimately. A worryingly large subset of pedestrians is simply unwilling to take responsibility for such basic things as noting whether the path they're on is shared use, or whether the tarmac alongside is a cycle path, or how visible they are to other legitimate road users.

Problem is peds aren't cars. In a car you're likely going to be on a route for a certain amount of time/distance, constrained by the number of junctions available to change route and it's easy to sign say, a change in speed limit, at its beginning and end and where necessary at intervals along the route. Peds can (and will) join, leave and re-join a route as the fancy (and desire line) takes them and to delineate, particularly a shared route, without introducing clutter is difficult. 'Properly' segregated pedestrian/cycle routes on the other hand are a different matter, and by 'properly' I mean the entire cycle track being a different coloured surface to the footway.

We don't need to treat peds as cars. It doesn't matter if peds follow desire lines that don't coincide with where the council thinks they ought to be going. It doesn't even matter that which side of a shared-use path peds walk on is inconsistent except in really heavy traffic. What is required is that pedestrians are aware of who else can legitimately use the path they're on, and that they behave in a social and logical fashion. It's perfectly possible for someone to deviate up a grass bank, first crossing the cycle path to do so, and not get in anyone's way, if they first look around them.

Most pedestrians most of the time won't just walk straight out into a live general traffic lane. A significantly larger number will do just that in a public transport-only lane despite the size of the vehicles they may conflict with. From personal observation, the proportion who do it on a cycle path is approaching a majority. It's entitlement syndrome pure and simple - those other users will stop for me so why do I have to bother about them? Every so often, the tram network grinds to a halt because a pedestrian (more rarely a cyclist or a driver) is hit by a tram. Except at signalised junctions, trams have priority over all other modes. Their position on the roadway is also 100% predictable - they can't deviate from the tracks. So unless the tram has run a red light (or more accurately a white S), if a collision occurs it is because the other person or vehicle is in the wrong place. But, especially with pedestrians, you NEVER hear about anyone being investigated for offences or being made to pay any form of compensation.

I know I sound like a broken record, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you travel on public roads, you must take responsibility for your own actions and your own and others' safety. If you fail in that duty you should be held to account. It's as simple as that.

A couple of points occur to me here:

1) Are there are any actual offences the pedestrian might be guilty of? I'm not condoning people ignorantly or carelessly ambling into a bus or cycle lane but I am unaware of any particular laws that could be applied.

2) I suspect in many incidents the injuries incurred by the pedestrian are quite enough punishment. Obviously this doesn't apply in a situation where evasive action leads to the ped being unharmed but leads to an injury for the cyclist or passengers on a bus or tram.

[FosseWay]

A couple of points occur to me here:

1) Are there are any actual offences the pedestrian might be guilty of? I'm not condoning people ignorantly or ambling into a bus or cycle lane but I am unaware of any particular laws that could be applied.

2) I suspect in many incidents the injuries incurred by the pedestrian are quite enough punishment. Obviously this doesn't apply in a situation where evasive action leads to the ped being unharmed but leads to an injury for the cyclist or passengers on a bus or tram.

I deliberately avoided words like "offence", "guilty" and "punishment". It's neither workable nor desirable to introduce a framework of legally enforceable behaviour for pedestrians, and as I said, pedestrians can perfectly safely take shortcuts without inconveniencing anyone. Even when pedestrians do cause injury or loss by their own irresponsible behaviour, I am not suggesting criminal charges. No criminal charges result in the majority of car-on-car collisions either, but there is a clearly established mechanism by which the injured party gets some form of recompense, and the person responsible for the problem pays in some way. Either the parties come to an agreement directly or their respective insurers are involved.

I can imagine two scenarios where perhaps criminal responsibility could be considered for pedestrians. Firstly, the equivalent of a hit-and-run. If you're involved in a traffic accident, you must stop and exchange details with the other(s) involved. There's no very good reason why that shouldn't apply to pedestrians and cyclists as well. Secondly, if, having caused an accident through inattention, you then start to get lippy with the person you've caused to crash. Road rage is a thing, and it's an aggravation when it occurs among drivers but is apparently perfectly OK for pedestrians.

There's a good reason for that latter observation - we have been drip-fed for generations the idea that the pedestrian is always in the right. Under the 1960s car-is-king transport infrastructure philosophy, the idea was to prevent contact between motorists and pedestrians as much as possible. There should be physical barriers to stop people interacting with traffic except where crossings were provided, and in these cases it was possible to say the pedestrian is always right: a collision "could only" occur either on a crossing (clearly the pedestrian is right) or where a driver is so out of control that they leave the road and hit someone on the pavement (ditto). Quite reasonably, these days we want to ensure that the roadway in general is a space that all can use in a reasonable way, and we want to get away from muggers' paradise concrete alleys and underpasses vs. soulless, barricaded expressways with no pavements. But the flip side of that is that everyone using those more communal spaces follows the same basic requirements of (a) being aware of what's going on around them, (b) not interfering with someone else's priority - regardless of mode - in a way that makes them change direction or speed, and (c) taking responsibility for their own actions if they get it wrong (which we all do from time to time, regardless of mode).

[multiraider2]

We moved our office a year ago to Fenchurch Street from its previous location in Edgware Road. Therefore, I walk from London Bridge Station rather than jumping on the tube. My observations over the last year lead me to think that I am much more likely to be hurt in the city (though admittedly not killed) by a bicycle than any motor vehicle.

There are an awful lot of pedestrians around here, particularly at arrival and home time and during the lunch period. However, because of roadworks and restrictions around the city, not so many cars or where there are, they seem to be always stationary. Pedestrians on London Bridge itself are kept away from vehicular traffic thanks to the exploits of the terrorists last year and at the end of the bridge is effectively a grade separation from the cycle superhighway.

Otherwise on the route: Tooley Street, Eastcheap and Fenchurch Street seem to be a favourite of the type of cyclist who considers that they need to race at full speed along unsegregated roads, ringing their bell as a way to warn. Now as far as I was aware, there is no automatic right of way on the roads. There isn't for cars over cycles and there isn't for cycles over pedestrians. So if a pedestrian steps out into the road or as is often the case, avoids other pedestrians on the sometimes narrow pavement, is he or she responsible or should the cyclist have been moving at a speed to suit the road conditions and presence of multiple people?

Something similar to my experience has been mentioned earlier on this thread: Three times in the last year I have been using a pedestrian crossing on a green man on Tooley Street with others, only to have a cycle come through the crossing at speed, or swerving to avoid those crossing. The last time, the cyclist was so close; I could have swung my bag and knocked him off. I do use the best Anglo Saxon on these people, but I don't think they give two hoots. This is not a general go at cyclists; they are still in much greater danger from motor vehicles, than pedestrians are from them. It just seems to me that the slowness of the motor traffic does on occasions bring out perhaps a perceived right to go very quickly for some of the inconsiderate. Or is it, as suggested on another thread, that we are now descending into the pit of social chaos, whilst our politicians fiddle.

[Enceladus]

These types of roundabouts are great for cyclists and I really hope they are introduced in Ireland before long.

[FosseWay]

Otherwise on the route: Tooley Street, Eastcheap and Fenchurch Street seem to be a favourite of the type of cyclist who considers that they need to race at full speed along unsegregated roads, ringing their bell as a way to warn. Now as far as I was aware, there is no automatic right of way on the roads. There isn't for cars over cycles and there isn't for cycles over pedestrians. So if a pedestrian steps out into the road or as is often the case, avoids other pedestrians on the sometimes narrow pavement, is he or she responsible or should the cyclist have been moving at a speed to suit the road conditions and presence of multiple people?

Both, I would say.

Stepping off the pavement into the roadway is the equivalent of changing lanes on a multilane road. There is nothing wrong with doing it, but you must be aware of whether there is anything in the lane you're intending to move to and you must not cause it to change speed or direction involuntarily through your movement. Just stepping off the pavement without looking is asking for a rear-end collision. It's more likely to be a cyclist that hits you because cyclists are more likely to be cycling right next to the kerb and if there is passing motor traffic they will be less able to swerve out of your way.

But on the other hand, any road user must "drive" to the conditions. If the pavements are clearly overloaded and pedestrians are spilling onto the roadway, or if there clearly are a lot of people crossing the road for whatever reason, you don't just blat through at 30, regardless of what vehicle you are piloting.

But the key thing is that these are two separate things. If you're a cyclist and you get inconvenienced/endangered by a pedestrian suddenly walking into the roadway, that does not excuse your behaviour if you then continue at an unsafe speed given that that's what peds are doing just there. Conversely, if you're a ped and feel that cyclists are going too fast and not taking account of the weight of traffic in adjacent "lanes" (i.e. the pavement), that doesn't give you carte blanche to just walk out into the roadway without looking. There is a bit too much "whataboutery" around on this subject tbh (not specifically on here, I mean in life in general).

[cb a1]

Speaking as a cyclist, I feel it would be helpful to provide guidance to cyclists and pedestrians on how to interpret the environment in the same way that we expect motorists to. It would also, I think, be helpful in also explaining to motorists why not all cyclists will use some dedicated cycle facilities (and pedestrians use dedicated pedestrian facilities).

If I'm travelling from city to city, I expect to find and drive appropriately in a hierarchy something like: residential / car park -> local road -> local distributor -> major distributor -> motorway / DC -> major distributor -> local distributor -> local -> residential / car park. I don't expect to drive in the same way in a car park to how I do on a motorway.

Something like:

Footways (colloquially pavements) and Pedestrian areas where cycling is permitted. As a cyclist you are in an area that you should be prepared to give way to anyone and anything on foot and should travel at a speed which allows you do this.

Off-road shared pedestrian and cycle routes which are unsegregated. As a cyclist you proceed at a suitable speed in acknowledgement that you are sharing the environment with people and very often animals who will and should be able to behave unpredictably. [c.f. A 20mph zone is somewhere that you should be comfortable in letting young children (>5 years old) play outside].

Off-road shared pedestrian and cycle routes with paint demarking who should be where. As a cyclist, you should be able to proceed unimpeded but this is an area where you are sharing with people and animals who may act unpredictably. [c.f. A 20mph limit is somewhere that you should be comfortable in letting reasonably young children (>8 years old) play outside].

On-road advisory cycle lane.

Shared bus and cycle lane.

General traffic lane on 30mph road

On-road physically segregated cycle lane.

etc.

There are, unfortunately, road users in all categories (pedestrian, equestrian, cyclist, car driver, etc.) who think that they should be able to do what they want, where they want, when they want. We spend a lot of time, money and effort in engineering, educating and enforcing the system to car drivers. Not surprising as this is the dominant mode in terms of vehicles travelled and injuries caused. I'd like to see something similar promoted for cyclists. It may be that publications like Cyclecraft has this information in it, but as I'd need to buy it to find out it fails to be useful guidance that is easily obtained and distributed.

[MotorcyclesFish]

Have they built this yet?

[Euan]

Have they built this yet?

No, it has not been built yet. There are still concerns being raised about the safety of the planned cycle roundabout and much of the concern comes from recommendations from research that has taken place in the Netherlands:

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/c ... d-15395063

[MotorcyclesFish]

Cheers, good info.

Nice to see some shift towards multi-modal travel priorities in urban areas tbh.

[nearM65]

I was born in Cambridge in 1974 and I remember the best and cheapest roundabout on Newmarket road it was a old tyre from a farm tractor I think the council just slaped some white stripes on it. I returned to Cambridge 25 years later It's just 24/7 rush hour. . Live in Lancashire now and will never go back.

[ais523]

As a pedestrian, on off-road unsegregated cycle lanes, I give way to cyclists (although I appreciate it when I get a bell ring so that I can find a safe place to get out of the way well in advance; many of the lanes I use are too narrow for a cyclist to pass a pedestrian unless the pedestrian is waiting at a particularly wide region).

I don't know whether this is a requirement, but it would make sense to have such a requirement on lightly trafficked routes. (Of course, when the traffic levels get higher, this sort of route becomes unsuitable in general, and proper segregated cycle routes would be preferable.)

I suspect that a large reason for the typical misuse of segregated pedestrian/cycle paths is that most of them are insufficiently wide to use in the intended way (ideally, it would be possible for two cyclists to pass each other in opposite directions while a pedestrian walks alongside them, but that rarely seems to be possible in practice), so the behaviour seen in practice is a mix of improvising and not bothering.

[Debaser]

I suspect that a large reason for the typical misuse of segregated pedestrian/cycle paths is that most of them are insufficiently wide to use in the intended way (ideally, it would be possible for two cyclists to pass each other in opposite directions while a pedestrian walks alongside them, but that rarely seems to be possible in practice), so the behaviour seen in practice is a mix of improvising and not bothering.

Unfortunately, Sustrans are still seen by many LAs as the experts and it's they who have a preference for shared surfaces. In many ways they've been left behind by the state of the art.