Dutch roundabouts, now Dutch junctions

[Sam Wilson]

A friend pointed this out to me, describing Dutch thinking about 4-way
junctions.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA>

A more discursive presentation of the same stuff.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBwMRGxtZ9k>

Sam

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

[Kim Bolton]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 17:47:11 +0100, Sam Wilson wrote:

> A friend pointed this out to me, describing Dutch thinking about 4-way
> junctions.
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA>
>
> A more discursive presentation of the same stuff.
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBwMRGxtZ9k>
>
> Sam

I watched the second of these videos.

I formed the impression that there was some over-egging of the case made against normal junctions. For
example, where the video shows two UK cyclists performing a right turn, the commentary mentions how
dangerous this manoeuvre was. Yet everyone obeyed the Highway Code and all passed as it should.

In the cycle-friendly Dutch junction, a cyclist is seen using one of these to perform a left turn, the equivalent of a
right turn in the UK. He has lanes, a refuge, and cycle lights, yet as he completes his left turn in the proper
manner, he is narrowly missed by a car performing a right turn. The road he crosses still has moving vehicular
traffic on it, but it is out of his vision and thus removes his ability to cycle defensively.

As a result, I can't see how the alleged 'danger' in the first instance is eliminated by the junction design in the
second. It could be said the the UK method was better, judging by the evidence mentioned in this video, as the
right-turning cyclist can see oncoming traffic whereas the Dutch cyclist can't see traffic intending to use his
crossing-lane.

An alternative way, as I think was shown in a video some weeks ago in this group(?), would be to remove all
road markings. Traffic travels slower but proceeds faster, and everyone is on 'best behaviour'.

--
Kim Bolton

[Mark]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 10:33:14 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
wrote:

>On Thu, 09 May 2013 17:47:11 +0100, Sam Wilson wrote:
>
>> A friend pointed this out to me, describing Dutch thinking about 4-way
>> junctions.
>>
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA>
>>
>> A more discursive presentation of the same stuff.
>>
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBwMRGxtZ9k>
>>
>> Sam
>
>I watched the second of these videos.
>
>I formed the impression that there was some over-egging of the case made against normal junctions. For
>example, where the video shows two UK cyclists performing a right turn, the commentary mentions how
>dangerous this manoeuvre was. Yet everyone obeyed the Highway Code and all passed as it should.
>
>In the cycle-friendly Dutch junction, a cyclist is seen using one of these to perform a left turn, the equivalent of a
>right turn in the UK. He has lanes, a refuge, and cycle lights, yet as he completes his left turn in the proper
>manner, he is narrowly missed by a car performing a right turn. The road he crosses still has moving vehicular
>traffic on it, but it is out of his vision and thus removes his ability to cycle defensively.
>
>As a result, I can't see how the alleged 'danger' in the first instance is eliminated by the junction design in the
>second. It could be said the the UK method was better, judging by the evidence mentioned in this video, as the
>right-turning cyclist can see oncoming traffic whereas the Dutch cyclist can't see traffic intending to use his
>crossing-lane.

I agree. And in the first video it shows green painted lanes around
the junction with them continued around the corners. I could predict
a lot of drivers encroaching on this space to cut the corner. In
addition it would mean drivers turning right could approach cycles
going straight on in a way that the cyclists won't easily see.

>An alternative way, as I think was shown in a video some weeks ago in this group(?), would be to remove all
>road markings. Traffic travels slower but proceeds faster, and everyone is on 'best behaviour'.

I wonder whether this behaviour would only last a short time. Once
people get used to the new layout old bad habits would probably
return.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

[Tom Gardner]

Kim Bolton wrote:
> An alternative way, as I think was shown in a video some weeks ago in this group(?), would be to remove all
> road markings. Traffic travels slower but proceeds faster, and everyone is on 'best behaviour'.

Not far from me there was an experiment to remove traffic
lights at a junction in a town to see what would happen
with the traffic flows. Fairly sensible stuff in that
the junction wasn't fast and IMHO a mini-roundabout would
be just as effective.

Unfortunately they didn't paint a mini-roundabout, nor
markings indicating which traffic now had right of way.
They did leave the old "stop" painted lines for traffic
lights.

I've seen "odd" "careless" behaviour there on more than
one occasion.

After a year or so they did paint a "proper" mini-roundabout
and I haven't seen such "careless" behaviour since.

Conclusion: people expect certain markings, and usually
obey them, whereas if there are no markings there are
more near (and probably actual) collisions.

[Andy Morris]

On 09/05/2013 17:47, Sam Wilson wrote:
> A friend pointed this out to me, describing Dutch thinking about 4-way
> junctions.
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA>
>
> A more discursive presentation of the same stuff.
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBwMRGxtZ9k>
>
> Sam
>

FFS!

Years ago we had no cycle lanes, then they decided to put cycle lanes
down the side of the road to keep the bikes out the way, then they try
to solve problems with that by moving the cycle lane out into the
traffic flow, across the turning lane, then solve the problems with that
but putting in a sort of bike only slow speed roundabout around the lot.

Each 'improvement', needs extra rules to be signposted and learnt by
users of the roads.

These won't bloody work, because the rules are getting more and more
complicated, with more and more exceptions depending and what type of
vehicle your are driving, what type of vehicle you are interacting with
and what generation of junction you are crossing.

Should keep MacApline in work for decades to come.


The basic rules are not difficult:

(In an RHS driving context)

First come, first served: each vehicle driver has the right to the space
he is occupying, a safe buffer to each side, behind and in front of him.
Any vehicle driver wishing to use that space, must first yield to the
one who is using it.

Always ride on the right side of the road with traffic.

Yield to traffic on more important roads.

Yield to traffic when moving laterally across a road.

Use the proper lane, and position within that lane, to move through
intersections.

Between intersections, position according to speed � slower traffic to
the right (but not on the edge of the road or against the curb!), faster
traffic to the left.

Obey all traffic control devices.

If we teach and enforce this, for all vehicles, there is no need for
these ever more barque facilities


--
Andy Morris
Andy dot Jinkas at Googlemail

[davethedave]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 19:48:14 +0100, Andy Morris wrote:

> Obey all traffic control devices.
>
> If we teach and enforce this, for all vehicles, there is no need for
> these ever more barque facilities

Jesus! If they are putting barque facilities on the roads there won't be
any room left. Will brigantines also be able to use the barque facilities
too?
--
davethedave

[Adam Lea]

Although isn't part of the idea of 'naked roads' that all signage and
markings are removed and it is left up to everybody to use initiative
and negotiate their way through? Aren't these roads promoted as being
safer than standard roads?

[Adam Lea]

If you are an experienced cyclist that doesn't mind interacting with
faster motor traffic then that may be true. Problem is, there are a lot
of people who may like the idea of cycling but hate the idea of cycling
on the roads having to deal with motor vehicles. It is frightening for
them, even when the drivers are well behaved and courteous. Even I, who
cycles on everything from urban roads to NSL A-roads finds it annoying
when cars come right up behind just when I get to the twisty uphill
section (when on the straight flat section there hasn't been another
vehicle in sight), or when I need to move right to turn right or pass an
obstruction.

I think some people have been cycling for so long they have forgotten
how intimidating the roads are when you are just starting out.

[Adam Funk]

Don't panic, they'll only be near waterways.

[Tom Gardner]

Obvious point: "promoted" and "reality" are often different.
But you knew that :(

My view: people will usually "do the right thing",
particularly when gently reminded what the right thing
actually is.

Of course there are the sociopaths, but they aren't
going to be deterred by mere signs. OTOH, they might
be deterred by a (near certainty that transgressions
would be punished, and won't be deterred by severe
penalties if they think they aren't going to be caught.

"Everything in moderation", including signs.

[Tom Gardner]

Andy Morris wrote:
> If we teach and enforce this, for all vehicles, there is no need for
> these ever more barque facilities

That's barquing madness :)

[Paul Luton]

I think that "naked roads" work where pedestrians are encouraged to
wander across the road at will. The worst situation is pedestrians
behind barriers and cyclists mixing it with HGVs.

[Adam Lea]

Promoted is usually reinforced by KSI statistics in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

[Tom Gardner]

Not in Bristol city centre.

The accident rate went *up* where the road and pavement
were re-worked to have the same surface and a very low curb.
Peds didn't realise they were stepping into the road because the
normal subliminal clues weren't there (by design).

<http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=bristol&hl=en&ll=51.453083,-2.5978&spn=0.00075,0.002064&sll=52.8382,-2.327815&sspn=11.865163,33.815918&t=h&hnear=Bristol,+City+of+Bristol,+United+Kingdom&z=20&layer=c&cbll=51.453083,-2.5978&panoid=Mn530Xr4bDnCjeHDIJ9MzQ&cbp=12,95.87,,0,20.36>

I wonder what the experience is in Poynton, which is potentially
different since it is a suburban "village" not a busy city centre.
Also ought to consider whether the scheme has "merely" pushed
traffic into other routes.

I blundered into Poynton in my car, and had to do a double take
to check I was still on the main road and hadn't wandered into
a carpark or onto the pavement. If a car driver was as inattentive
as peds in Bristol, I have a horrible suspicion that they might
"be encouraged to wander across the pavement at will".

[Please spare us comments along the lines of "if 'They'
aren't paying attention 'They' should be banned from
driving/walking". I prefer to deal with the world as it is,
not as I'd like it to be.]

> The worst situation is pedestrians behind barriers
> and cyclists mixing it with HGVs.

I don't think many will argue against that.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:02:20 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>I wonder what the experience is in Poynton, which is potentially
>different since it is a suburban "village" not a busy city centre.
>Also ought to consider whether the scheme has "merely" pushed
>traffic into other routes.

We had a thread about this the other month after someone found the
documentary on Youtube, and one of the architects posted up links in
the Youtube comments to show the traffic levels dipped for a while and
within a couple of months were back up to pre-reconstruction levels.

>I blundered into Poynton in my car, and had to do a double take
>to check I was still on the main road and hadn't wandered into
>a carpark or onto the pavement. If a car driver was as inattentive
>as peds in Bristol, I have a horrible suspicion that they might
>"be encouraged to wander across the pavement at will".

Other car drivers will have exactly the same double-take as you did,
and I have no doubt at all that your alertness and care shot right up
as you were out of your 'normal roads' comfort zone. Right? You didn't
smash into a granny because you were confused, did you? You slowed
down and went through safely in high-observation mode.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do." -- Steven Brust

[Owen Dunn]

Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> writes:

> Other car drivers will have exactly the same double-take as you did,
> and I have no doubt at all that your alertness and care shot right
> up as you were out of your 'normal roads' comfort zone. Right? You
> didn't smash into a granny because you were confused, did you? You
> slowed down and went through safely in high-observation mode.

The problem probably comes when you do that route every day and are
completely familiar with it. You become blase and comfortable, and
grannies on two wheels or none are suddenly no better off than they
were before...

(S)

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

According to the (highly biased, but easily fact-checked) chap on the
Youtube comments, accidents involving all classes of transport were
still well down on what they were a year on. With single lane traffic
and mobile bollards with right of way (ie pedestrians) there's not
much you can do to screw up, I guess.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
What part of
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"
don't you understand?

[Tom Gardner]

Precisely.

That's my fear.

We've evolved to spot changes, not things that are familiar.

[Tom Gardner]

What's the "half-life" for such things? I've no idea, but I'm
sure comparisons could be drawn with previously novel traffic
features that have now blended into the background.

Conceivably many people have encountered it once and
then stayed away - so only "new" people blunder into
the unfamiliar territory.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sat, 11 May 2013 21:40:45 +0100

I believe the key to this design is that things aren't the same.

Different people and cars and timing.

I think it is more likely that people will get used to the work to be
done and feel more relaxed but will manage.

Consider a busy pedestrian precint. Yes there's the occasional bump
and more than occasional annoyance but count the number of
interactions (not just the ones you personally remember) and see that
people manage it quite well.

I expect that these designs only work in relatively high traffic areas
with a good mix of traffic. Like most designs the problem will be at
the edges, in this case I think it would be time edges: when there are
fewer people and the speeds creep up. The first few peds in the
morning when the trucks are rumbling through for example.


Zebee

[Zebee Johnstone]

In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sat, 11 May 2013 23:10:17 +0100

Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> What's the "half-life" for such things? I've no idea, but I'm
> sure comparisons could be drawn with previously novel traffic
> features that have now blended into the background.

Haven't heard that has happened in the Dutch situation.

How do you see that playing out? Can you describe what you think a
common scenario would be?

>
> Conceivably many people have encountered it once and
> then stayed away - so only "new" people blunder into
> the unfamiliar territory.

But wouldn't that mean traffic volumes would drop significantly?
Which hasn't happened.


Zebee

[Tom Gardner]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sat, 11 May 2013 23:10:17 +0100
> Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> What's the "half-life" for such things? I've no idea, but I'm
>> sure comparisons could be drawn with previously novel traffic
>> features that have now blended into the background.
>
> Haven't heard that has happened in the Dutch situation.

There's a difference between "early adoption" and "widespread
availability". The difficulty of moving people and societies
from early adoption of novel better solutions to majority
adoption and acceptance thereof is sufficiently difficult that
there's a cottage industry describing "crossing the chasm".

The Dutch are already on "the other side of the chasm" where
the entire country is more attuned to cycles and widespread
different road structures. I'd like to be on the other side
of that chasm too, but we aren't.

> How do you see that playing out? Can you describe what you think a
> common scenario would be?

"Familiarity breeds contempt" is a sufficiently
common occurrence that it has spawned that aphorism.
I'm sure we could both invent plausible hypotheses that
cannot be proven nor disproven by mere discussion.

>> Conceivably many people have encountered it once and
>> then stayed away - so only "new" people blunder into
>> the unfamiliar territory.
>
> But wouldn't that mean traffic volumes would drop significantly?
> Which hasn't happened.

I have zero information about either before or after in Poynton.

[Tom Gardner]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sat, 11 May 2013 21:40:45 +0100
> Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> writes:
>>
>>> Other car drivers will have exactly the same double-take as you did,
>>> and I have no doubt at all that your alertness and care shot right
>>> up as you were out of your 'normal roads' comfort zone. Right? You
>>> didn't smash into a granny because you were confused, did you? You
>>> slowed down and went through safely in high-observation mode.
>>
>> The problem probably comes when you do that route every day and are
>> completely familiar with it. You become blase and comfortable, and
>> grannies on two wheels or none are suddenly no better off than they
>> were before...
>>
>
> I believe the key to this design is that things aren't the same.
>
> Different people and cars and timing.
>
> I think it is more likely that people will get used to the work to be
> done and feel more relaxed but will manage.

I think that /will/ happen.

However, with any change you need to consider not only
how it will succeed (as you have done), but also how it
fails and what happens when it fails.

Because everything will fail some of the time.

A lack of subliminal cues (different surfaces and height)
/does/ exacerbate the failures due to inattention.

A lack of a high kerb will mean that, in marginal cases,
drivers hitting the kerb aren't bounced back into the
road but continue onto the pavement.

> I expect that these designs only work in relatively high traffic areas
> with a good mix of traffic.

That's not what happened in Bristol. It is a high
traffic area with many different types of traffic.

> Like most designs the problem will be at
> the edges, in this case I think it would be time edges: when there are
> fewer people and the speeds creep up. The first few peds in the
> morning when the trucks are rumbling through for example.

The "edge" or marginal cases are, of course, the ones that will
be affected by changes.

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <2icto8hfgtv9gna8v...@4ax.com>,

Well, those of us with free bus passes who lived in the country
will remember that almost all roads through rural villages and
were 'shared space'. I would expect that the system works very
well, provided that there are only a few motor vehicles that
need to use is as a through route, and not too high a proportion
of any medium or long routes are through shared spaces.

For the Cambridge contingent: i.e. it might well work in Great
Shelford, though there might be problems at rush hour, but it
wouldn't work in Hauxton. Nor would it work on the 'southern
ring road' between Newmarket Road and Trumpington.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Tom Gardner]

Those conditions are similar to the Bristol city
centre conditions, where it did cause problems.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <2icto8hfgtv9gna8v...@4ax.com>,
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:

>According to the (highly biased, but easily fact-checked) chap on the
>Youtube comments, accidents involving all classes of transport were
>still well down on what they were a year on. With single lane traffic
>and mobile bollards with right of way (ie pedestrians) there's not
>much you can do to screw up, I guess.

One thing they never seem to measure is time taken for a pedestrian to
cross the road. That's what really tells you whether the thing is
friendly or hostile.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Sam Wilson]

In article <av3phi...@mid.individual.net>,

Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 09 May 2013 17:47:11 +0100, Sam Wilson wrote:
>
> > A friend pointed this out to me, describing Dutch thinking about 4-way
> > junctions.
> >
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA>
> >
> > A more discursive presentation of the same stuff.
> >
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBwMRGxtZ9k>
> >
> > Sam
>
> I watched the second of these videos.
>
> I formed the impression that there was some over-egging of the case made
> against normal junctions. For
> example, where the video shows two UK cyclists performing a right turn, the
> commentary mentions how
> dangerous this manoeuvre was. Yet everyone obeyed the Highway Code and all
> passed as it should.

What? The second cyclist definitely didn't obey the highway code,
moving right from the left hand side of the left hand lane, without
apparently looking, and overtaking on the left the traffic already
waiting to turn right. It's not a good example for the video and it's
an appalling example in general.

> In the cycle-friendly Dutch junction, a cyclist is seen using one of these to
> perform a left turn, the equivalent of a
> right turn in the UK. He has lanes, a refuge, and cycle lights, yet as he
> completes his left turn in the proper
> manner, he is narrowly missed by a car performing a right turn. The road he
> crosses still has moving vehicular
> traffic on it, but it is out of his vision and thus removes his ability to
> cycle defensively.

Though the visibility is much better than if the cyclist is trying to
travel alongside the cars.

> As a result, I can't see how the alleged 'danger' in the first instance is
> eliminated by the junction design in the
> second. It could be said the the UK method was better, judging by the
> evidence mentioned in this video, as the
> right-turning cyclist can see oncoming traffic whereas the Dutch cyclist
> can't see traffic intending to use his
> crossing-lane.

Those, surely, are different things. I'm finding it quite a mental
effort to transpose the left- and right-side driving examples to compare
them.

Sam

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

[Sam Wilson]

In article <3ukpo8d4e9ltrlo4c...@4ax.com>,

The idea is that there are islands outside the corner lanes to protect
the cyclist. The second video shows this much more clearly.

[Kim Bolton]

The point I was making was not so much concerned with the cyclist refuges at each corner of the junction, but
that when a cyclist has committed to the crossing, vehicles can (and did, in the video) perform a right turn
across the path he is taking; but as this happens *behind* the cyclist, he can't see the vehicles concerned and
has no chance of taking any defensive action should it be called for. Note that this doesn't happen in the case of
the UK-style right-turn (also shown in the video) - all the vehicles crossing the turning cyclists' path are clearly
visible to him.

--
Kim Bolton

[Kim Bolton]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:25:57 +0100, Sam Wilson wrote:

> In article <av3phi...@mid.individual.net>,
> Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> wrote:

>>
>> I formed the impression that there was some over-egging of the case
>> made against normal junctions. For example, where the video shows two
>> UK cyclists performing a right turn, the commentary mentions how
>> dangerous this manoeuvre was. Yet everyone obeyed the Highway Code and
>> all passed as it should.
>
> What? The second cyclist definitely didn't obey the highway code,
> moving right from the left hand side of the left hand lane, without
> apparently looking, and overtaking on the left the traffic already
> waiting to turn right. It's not a good example for the video and it's
> an appalling example in general.

Unfortunately, we can't see the full history for the second cyclist, but certainly the first cyclist was text-book.

>> In the cycle-friendly Dutch junction, a cyclist is seen using one of
>> these to perform a left turn, the equivalent of a right turn in the UK.
>> He has lanes, a refuge, and cycle lights, yet as he completes his left
>> turn in the proper manner, he is narrowly missed by a car performing a
>> right turn. The road he crosses still has moving vehicular traffic on
>> it, but it is out of his vision and thus removes his ability to cycle
>> defensively.
>
> Though the visibility is much better than if the cyclist is trying to
> travel alongside the cars.

Not if the danger of collision arises from the limited visibility caused by the Dutch junction design.

>> As a result, I can't see how the alleged 'danger' in the first instance
>> is eliminated by the junction design in the second. It could be said
>> the the UK method was better, judging by the evidence mentioned in this
>> video, as the right-turning cyclist can see oncoming traffic whereas
>> the Dutch cyclist can't see traffic intending to use his crossing-lane.
>
> Those, surely, are different things.

I don't see that at all, in both countries cyclist are trying a right-angle turn at a junction against oncoming traffic, it
just so happens that in one case the cyclist is riding on the left, and in the other he rides on the right - but both
need to traverse the lane with oncoming traffic.

> I'm finding it quite a mental
> effort to transpose the left- and right-side driving examples to compare
> them.

Well, I'm not finding it difficult at all, and I would have to say that on the basis of the second video, the UK
junction appears safer than the example of the Dutch one due at least in part to the better visibility available to
the cyclist.

--
Kim Bolton

[almo...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 5:47:11 PM UTC+1, Sam Wilson wrote:
> A friend pointed this out to me, describing Dutch thinking about 4-way
>
> junctions.
>
>
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA>
>
>
>
> A more discursive presentation of the same stuff.
>
>
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBwMRGxtZ9k>
>
>
>
> Sam
>
>
>

> --
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

The first video is actually describing how an American road junction (presumably with right-turns allowed on red) could be improved. The method described is not in fact the standard Dutch layout (which is briefly shown in the video at 2:05.). It would appear to be an improvement on the current one which, as is pointed out, relies on cars and cycles crossing each other at an oblique angle.

The second video shows how the Dutch do it in the Netherlands. I take the point about the right-turn in London not looking too bad. This is partly because the traffic is slow and the cyclist with the trailer is shielded by a stationary car. He would not enjoy being there with fast traffic coming either side.

The second video does show how the system works in the Netherlands. It is a real pleasure to be used in towns.