Britain's First 'Dutch-Style' Roundabout Closed 10 Days After Opening When Car Ploughed Into Beacon

[flecc]

The Dutch go with fitness for purpose and increase the separation of cycles from motor traffic where motor traffic speed is higher.

While true, they are still experimenting and have yet to find definitive solutions. Despite all of their separation of bicycles from motor vehicles, they still suffer 200 cyclist deaths per year, almost double ours, though admittedly with far more cycling.

Astonishingly an average of 80 of those 200 annual deaths (40%) are with no other person or vehicle involved, somehow managing to kill themselves!
.

 

[Swizz]

While true, they are still experimenting and have yet to find definitive solutions. Despite all of their separation of bicycles from motor vehicles, they still suffer 200 cyclist deaths per year, almost double ours, though admittedly with far more cycling.

Astonishingly an average of 80 of those 200 annual deaths (40%) are with no other person or vehicle involved, somehow managing to kill themselves!
.

Well yes but as you allude, 200 deaths in the context of how many of them cycle is actually a tiny percentage. The 40% of those with know one else involved may be due to medical reasons rather than an accident.

The numbers themselves in context are unremarkable.

In contrast our numbers of people who actually get around by bicycle are almost too small to be a useful comparison on almost any level.

 

[Swizz]

While true, they are still experimenting and have yet to find definitive solutions.

Not true. Like all aspects of highway design they are continuously evolving, anything but experimental!

 

[flecc]

I honestly don't understand the kickback from cyclists with this roundabout. The safety issue is entirely around the speed of motor traffic, and infrastructure like this is designed to reduce that. What needs to change is the 'rush rush' selfish culture of people sat behind a steering wheel and observing any regular UK roundabout will confirm that. Am genuinely sorry if some find this offensive but we cyclists in the UK have nothing positive to teach the Dutch about designing public highways. And yes, reducing the aggressive nature of motorists does have to begin with changing the infrastructure, by making the infrastructure more democratic for everyone.

It's a matter of proportions Swizz. Equally the Dutch have nothing to teach us with our traffic levels which they have never experienced in their whole roads history.

That roundabout simply will not work here at our present proportions of cyclists, motor traffic and pedestrians. Indeed when the Dutch started their program in 1972 they didn't attempt anything like it, despite still having over 40% of their country still cycling daily and far fewer cars.

Yes we need to have big improvements in our infrastructure for cyclists, but they will physically they have to keep pace with the changes achieved, just as the Dutch did it.

The start is separation. Once that encourages more to cycle, then some more advanced measures like cycle bypasses and more restriction on motor vehicles. Then as the number cycling grows again and there's less car use, more land can be taken for sophisticated measures leading to such as this roundabout once the proportions justify it.

We are a democracy, so it's impossible to say to the majority motoring that we are taking away their road space and their taxation money, employing it all for the tiny minority of cyclists who mainly only cycle when it suits anyway.

We can do it when the numbers justify it, as London has shown now that cyclists on some commuting routes are approaching one third of the vehicles. That's led to the West-East segregated commuter route enabling West London residents to cycle right through to the City only in the company of cyclists, apart from a little patch in front of Buckingham Palace.

But we can't do that in much of the country where only 3% cycle, and then only some of the time.
.

 

[flecc]

The 40% of those with know one else involved may be due to medical reasons rather than an accident.

The Dutch who are far from stupid list them as accidents. I'm quite sure they know how to do post mortems.

In contrast our numbers of people who actually get around by bicycle are almost too small to be a useful comparison on almost any level.

Precisely, so no possible justification or anything like that roundabout at present.
.

 

[flecc]

Not true. Like all aspects of highway design they are continuously evolving, anything but experimental!

Playing with words., evolving/experimenting. Both indicate they have no definitive answers, and the huge variation in schemes there shows it only too clearly.
.

 

[Swizz]

It's a matter of proportions Swizz. Equally the Dutch have nothing to teach us with our traffic levels which they have never experienced in their whole roads history.

That roundabout simply will not work here at our present proportions of cyclists, motor traffic and pedestrians. Indeed when the Dutch started their program in 1972 they didn't attempt anything like it, despite still having over 40% of their country still cycling daily and far fewer cars.

Yes we need to have big improvements in our infrastructure for cyclists, but they will physically they have to keep pace with the changes achieved, just as the Dutch did it.

The start is separation. Once that encouragers more to cycle, then some more advanced measures like cycle bypasses and more restriction on motor vehicles. Then as the number cycling grows again and there's less car use, more land can be taken for sophisticated measures leading to such as this roundabout once the proportion justify it.

We are a democracy, so it's impossible to say to the majority motoring that we are taking away their road space and their taxation money, employing it all for the tiny minority of cyclists who mainly only cycle when it suits anyway.

We can do it when the numbers justify it, as London has shown now that cyclists on some commuting routes are approaching one third of the vehicles. That's led to the West-East segregated commuter route enabling West London residents to cycle right through to the City only in the company of cyclists, apart from a little patch in front of Buckingham Palace.

But we can't do that in much of the country where only 3% cycle, and then only some of the time.
.

Totally disagree Fleck.

Build it an they will come, it is that simple.

That is the reason why motoring has come to be so convenient and using a bicycle so unsafe - because the building and continuous upgrading of public highways with a heavy bias towards motor traffic has made it so. That is an elitist situation, not a democratic one.

 

[Swizz]

Playing with words., evolving/experimenting. Both indicate they have no definitive answers, and the huge variation in schemes there shows it only too clearly.
.

Not at all Flecc. You used 'experimental'. Evolving is way more accurate.

 

[Scorpio]

Different parts of the uk have very different attitudes about bikes, trying to improve things in popular cycling areas makes sense - but be realistic. From personal experience:
Cambridge & Fens : good weather, very flat - lots of bikes, mixed abilities.
North Devon & South West : good weather, big hills - cycling is hard work hence not common.
Northumberland & Lakes: often poor weather, big hills - cycling is rare even in summer.

 

[flecc]

Totally disagree Fleck.

Build it an they will come, it is that simple.

That is the reason why motoring has come to be so convenient and using a bicycle so unsafe - because the building and continuous upgrading of public highways with a heavy bias towards motor traffic has made it so. That is an elitist situation, not a democratic one.

All democracy is elitist because the majority get their way! What you are advocating is a dictatorship where to solve their roads problem the powers enforce against the interests of the majority.

"Build it and they will come", isn't only simple, it's simplistic. Any government taking your line against the over 80% of this country who are car dependent in favour of the miniscule number who are bicycle dependent would be finished. That's what democracy means.

Yes by all means do what the Dutch did, but do it sensibly the way they are doing it. They started 48 years ago with cycling facilities and motor vehicle restrictions, doing it gradually. In 2018 they said there's still at least a third to do yet, making it a 72 year program!

Remember they started with over 40% still cycling, so don't kid yourself that we can do it any quicker. Starting with well under 10% cycling ours looks like a 100 year program!

Fortunately it won't be that bad, simply because there will be many other things substantially reducing motor traffic over that time scale, but of course that doesn't mean cycling will replace it or even exist to any extent.
.

 

[flecc]

Not at all Flecc. You used 'experimental'. Evolving is way more accurate.

It's the same thing! Evolution derives from nature's DNA experiments.

The Dutch are still experimenting, mainly in smaller towns and village with many variations, trying to find what is best, not just for cycling in isolation but for all ways of living including cycling and motor traffic integration.

We've even dabbled with it here, including with the estate where I live. What we've got we very much like, but it will never be repeated because experience reveals how it seriously inconveniences others.
.

 

[RossG]

All this is old hat. Fifty odd years ago when I lived in the City of Portsmouth at my parents place the local Council decided to turn a number of roads in the centre of town into Cyclist priority routes.
This involved marking a strip of the roadway straight through the middle where cyclists could ride but motor vehicles couldn't pass them !
Visualize the scenario ... children would cycle up and down slowly in the middle to annoy drivers who couldn't overtake, it led to all sorts of problems and needless to say was scrapped luckily before anyone was killed.
Personally I don't see drivers & cyclists ever sharing, after all why should they .. two different means of transport.

 

[Swizz]

All democracy is elitist because the majority get their way! What you are advocating is a dictatorship where to solve their roads problem the powers enforce against the interests of the majority.

People outnumber Motor Vehicles. What I advocate is that Public Highways are realigned to reflect that. We are at the point where pavements are routinely blocked by parks cars and where traffic makes our built environment a hazardous place to be. Please note that I also rely on a car, have a van to use at work, and neither of those vehicles gets to vote in an election.

"Build it and they will come", isn't only simple, it's simplistic. Any government taking your line against the over 80% of this country who are car dependent in favour of the miniscule number who are bicycle dependent would be finished. That's what democracy means.

As a result of the pandemic that has possibly been worsened by poor air quality we are entering what is being billed as an unprecedented deep recession. During lockdown though a lot more people have been rediscovering bicycles.
What is simplistic is accepting the status quo. BTW I really...really...dislike this government.

Yes by all means do what the Dutch did, but do it sensibly the way they are doing it.

Yay, totally this. More of what the Dutch do please

 

[Swizz]

It's the same thing! Evolution derives from nature's DNA experiments.

The Dutch are still experimenting, mainly in smaller towns and village with many variations, trying to find what is best, not just for cycling in isolation but for all ways of living including cycling and motor traffic integration.

We've even dabbled with it here, including with the estate where I live. What we've got we very much like, but it will never be repeated because experience reveals how it seriously inconveniences others.
.

People lucky enough to live in Leicester are currently seeing their built environment be transformed pretty quickly. Lucky them. It can be done and still is.

Edited to add, Evolution is not the same. But hey ho it does not matter so much, whatever we call it, they are still a helluva lot better at it than we are.

 

[RossG]

People lucky enough to live in Leicester are still in lockdown, when they sort that out they can be even more lucky.

 

[flecc]

People outnumber Motor Vehicles. What I advocate is that Public Highways are realigned to reflect that. We are at the point where pavements are routinely blocked by parks cars and where traffic makes our built environment a hazardous place to be. Please note that I also rely on a car, have a van to use at work, and neither of those vehicles gets to vote in an election.


As a result of the pandemic that has possibly been worsened by poor air quality we are entering what is being billed as an unprecedented deep recession. During lockdown though a lot more people have been rediscovering bicycles.
What is simplistic is accepting the status quo. BTW I really...really...dislike this government.


Yay, totally this. More of what the Dutch do please

I agree with all of this post, but comment as follows:

People outnumber Motor Vehicles: This isn't relevant though, what is relevant is the over 80% who are in some way car dependent and almost the whole population who are dependent on cars, vans, buses and trucks. Act against them and you act against everyone.

a lot more people have been rediscovering bicycles: Due as much so our good fortune of the time of year that Lockdown has occurred and the good weather that most of us have enjoyed during it. Just watch how many of them vanish as they have to return to work when the cash support ends, and most of the rest vanish when the weather worsens in Autumn and Winter.

Yay, totally this. More of what the Dutch do please: We're doing it already at the pace the Dutch first did it 48 years ago, and in some places much faster now with the Covid impetus. But in our physically old country we quickly hit the space barrier, only soluble by bulldozing homes and business premises which seems to annoy. Just look at the vast width of many of the main roads in Dutch and Danish cities and towns compared with most here.

Years ago we tried here in London with the series of urban motorway boxes to take the motor vehicles off the roads where we live to segregate them. There was such a huge storm of protest from the Homes before Roads campaign that the schemes had to be scrapped, despite many parts already built, starting nowhere and ending nowhere like our cycle lanes. So you see it's usually the people who stop things improving, not government.
.

 

[Swizz]

People outnumber Motor Vehicles: This isn't relevant though, what is relevant is the over 80% who are in some way car dependent and almost the whole population who are dependent on cars, vans, buses and trucks. Act against them and you act against everyone.

Flecc, we may not agree but I think it is relevant. For all the reasons given against the things we are discussing, public highway evolution in favour of motor vehicles has managed to continue for decades whilst all the same reasons which are just as applicable have been conveniently ignored. We are years behind as a result.

 

[flecc]

For all the reasons given against the things we are discussing, public highway evolution in favour of motor vehicles has managed to continue for decades

Which is arguably as it should be for the following reasons;

First the only reason we have the vast roads network with made up surfaces, mostly quite good, is due the the huge number of motor vehicles. Without them we cyclists would have nothing like that provision. Before motor vehicles a large proportion of our roads were unmade tracks and pavements scarcely existed, so both cyclists and pedestrians have good reason to be grateful to motor vehicles.

Second, it's the vast exchequer income from driving's exorbitant fuel taxes, new car tax, VAT, VED etc. that has built the roads, not a penny from cyclists or pedestrians related to their roads usage.

So to be democratic and fair, we should continue as we are.

Alternatively to provide very much better for cyclists, we will have to be very unfair to drivers and/or pedestrians, the former at huge cost to our economy.
.

 

[Swizz]

Which is arguably as it should be for the following reasons;

First the only reason we have the vast roads network with made up surfaces, mostly quite good, is due the the huge number of motor vehicles. Without them we cyclists would have nothing like that provision.

Not true.

...so both cyclists and pedestrians have good reason to be grateful to motor vehicles.

Absolutely not.

Second, it's the vast exchequer income from driving's exorbitant fuel taxes, new car tax, VAT, VED etc. that has built the roads, not a penny from cyclists or pedestrians related to their roads usage.

Again, absolutely not. Neither did Smokers fund the NHS.

So to be democratic and fair, we should continue as we are.

* Facepalm *

Alternatively, to provide very much better for cyclists, we will have to be very unfair to drivers and/or pedestrians, the former at huge cost to our economy.
.

Pedestrians are our friends.

 

[flecc]

Which is arguably as it should be for the following reasons;

First the only reason we have the vast roads network with made up surfaces, mostly quite good, is due the the huge number of motor vehicles. Without them we cyclists would have nothing like that provision. Before motor vehicles a large proportion of our roads were unmade tracks and pavements scarcely existed, so both cyclists and pedestrians have good reason to be grateful to motor vehicles.

Second, it's the vast exchequer income from driving's exorbitant fuel taxes, new car tax, VAT, VED etc. that has built the roads, not a penny from cyclists or pedestrians related to their roads usage.

So to be democratic and fair, we should continue as we are.

Alternatively to provide very much better for cyclists, we will have to be very unfair to drivers and/or pedestrians, the former at huge cost to our economy.
.

. Iknew this post would make me wildly popular, sure enough two dislikes in an instant!

It's what comes of being realistic.

I wonder if the dislikers can tell me how to provide the huge space needed for cyclists to be physically segregated without paralysing lots of roads, or stealing lots of pavements or bulldozing lots of buildings. The government would also like to know.
.