New design for roundabouts

[Dr Zoidberg]

So, what do you think of this arrangement?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22347184

I can see that as you go round the sections behind the island on a bike you
are protected from traffic, but when you have to go past an exit at right
angles to the traffic leaving it looks more than a little hazardous to me.

Even if you have priority there's a very obvious risk of cars not realising
this and hitting you side on.

--
Alex

[Owen Dunn]

Mm. Also, I don't like the narrow `walled off' cycle lane design. It
seems to me it could clog up with very slow uncertain cyclists (not to
mention broken glass etc) but now the rest of the roundabout is
smaller and more hostile to cyclists in general...

(S)

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Owen Dunn" <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:83bo8vq...@chiark.greenend.org.uk...

I'm not so sure that cyclist congestion is going to be much of an issue in
all but the busiest places.
For the scale of the roundabout, I guess that depends on whether it's a
fresh installation or a conversion, and if it's the latter whether they have
room to expand out or have to trim the existing design to fit the islands.

Either way, I can't see it being widely adopted.

--
Alex

[Alex Potter]

I've had experience of this roundabout, in NL near a friend's place, in
all kinds of traffic conditions. It's always felt perfectly safe

http://goo.gl/maps/gT0t7

--
Alex

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

In article <klqorm$8d1$1...@dont-email.me>,

Catastrophic, as with 90% of all psychle farcilities. It would
work if either giving way to cyclists is the social norm or in
slow-moving, light-traffic areas. The first is not true in the
UK, and the requirement isn't for the second.

As always, the danger is not from the 99% of drivers that most
people judge farcilities by, but the 0.1% who either negligently
or deliberately drive straight through cyclists.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Brendan Halpin]

On Wed, May 01 2013, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

> It would
> work if either giving way to cyclists is the social norm or in
> slow-moving, light-traffic areas. The first is not true in the
> UK, and the requirement isn't for the second.

Exactly. These work in NL only because drivers expect to have to stop.
It's a big cultural difference.

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F1-009 x 3147
mailto:brendan...@ul.ie ULSociology on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/fjIK9t
http://teaching.sociology.ul.ie/bhalpin/wordpress twitter:@ULSociology

[Peter Clinch]

It works for the Dutch...

... but of course they know what to expect.

It would have to be rolled out with quite a fanfare and publicity so
people here would know what to expect, but once you've got the message
through then the clear priority for bikes over traffic on the roundabout
is a Good Thing.

It's all very well for established "vehicular cyclists" to take on
roundabouts as if they were in a car but the fact is a great many
wannabe riders are very scared of them. They don't come in to
Bikeability until level 3 so it'd be a while before people doing
training had the instruction to deal with them.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[- .. -- Tim .-.]

On 01/05/2013 10:59, Dr Zoidberg wrote:

Clear signs that cyclists have priorioty will be essential.

However, as one who believes cyclists, and even pedestrians, should have
priority in towns, I'm all for it. Rather like the river code "Give way
to sail", those of us proceding under our own power ought to be able to
procede without being expected to stop for every motor vehicle that
comes along.

Once established as a principle, I think it would work. The danger is
in getting the motorists used to it.

Tim.

[Peter Keller]

That is an unfortunate follow-on from the fact that bicycling is still
not very common in UK, compared to the Netherlands. At least there
motorists realise that bicyclists exist!
I tend to assume that I have not been seen, even if I do have the right-
of-way!

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:auc9uk...@mid.individual.net...

> On 01/05/2013 10:59, Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>> So, what do you think of this arrangement?
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22347184
>>
>> I can see that as you go round the sections behind the island on a bike
>> you are protected from traffic, but when you have to go past an exit at
>> right angles to the traffic leaving it looks more than a little
>> hazardous to me.
>>
>> Even if you have priority there's a very obvious risk of cars not
>> realising this and hitting you side on.
>
> It works for the Dutch...
>
> ... but of course they know what to expect.
>
> It would have to be rolled out with quite a fanfare and publicity so
> people here would know what to expect, but once you've got the message
> through then the clear priority for bikes over traffic on the roundabout
> is a Good Thing.
>
> It's all very well for established "vehicular cyclists" to take on
> roundabouts as if they were in a car but the fact is a great many wannabe
> riders are very scared of them.

I wouldn't say I'm scared, but I'm not keen on them. It's a bit of luck
whether you happen to come to one just as there's a sensible sized gap, or
if you get there when there's several inconvenient vehicles.

--
Alex

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Roger Bell_West" <roger+ur...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote in message
news:20130501120438....@firedrake.org...
> The best roundabout arrangement I've seen, as a driver and as a
> cyclist, is the one that has lanes spiralling out from the centre:
> once you get into the lane appropriate for your exit, you can simply
> stay in it and you'll be fed off at the right point. None of that
> outward lane-crossing you get with a right turn on a standard
> roundabout.
>
I totally agree. If the island is large enough to accommodate this they can
work very well, though I know of at least one where the markings seem to
confuse at least 25% of the drivers, causing them to try and barge back into
the correct lane.

--
Alex

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-01, - .. -- Tim .-. wrote:

> However, as one who believes cyclists, and even pedestrians, should have
> priority in towns, I'm all for it. Rather like the river code "Give way
> to sail", those of us proceding under our own power ought to be able to
> procede without being expected to stop for every motor vehicle that
> comes along.

I agree, although I'd start with "pedestrians, and even cyclists...".
;-)

[Dave Larrington]

I use one of these daily and it seems to confuse about 80% of the
drivers. Even coppers...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Give the anarchist a cigarette.

[Mark]

I'd argue it's a lot more than 0.1%.

This roundabout design would be disasterous, IMHO. IME few drivers
can cope with normal roundabouts and this would tax their tiny minds
even further. I would predict that many cyclists be taken out as cars
join or leave the roundabout just because they're not looking (the
drivers).
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Mark" <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message
news:rin4o892psc6v5qrc...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:03:15 +0100, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
the second.
>>
>>As always, the danger is not from the 99% of drivers that most
>>people judge farcilities by, but the 0.1% who either negligently
>>or deliberately drive straight through cyclists.
>
> I'd argue it's a lot more than 0.1%.

And I'd argue that it's less than that, as that would mean one in a thousand
drivers drives through cyclists

>
> This roundabout design would be disasterous, IMHO. IME few drivers
> can cope with normal roundabouts and this would tax their tiny minds
> even further.

Eh? The vast majority of motorists manage to negotiate roundabouts
successfully.
I'm also not sure why you think drivers have tiny minds? What about people
who drive and ride?
That seems to be exactly the same type of stereotyping as the UKIP candidate
who thinks that all cyclists are freeloading scum, just coming from the
opposite direction.

> I would predict that many cyclists be taken out as cars
> join or leave the roundabout just because they're not looking (the
> drivers).

As I've said, that's what I think would happen, because it's design seems to
run counter to what we are conditioned to expect to see and happen on the
roads.

--
Alex

[Peter Ford]

On Thursday, 2 May 2013 15:14:29 UTC+1, Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> "Mark" <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:rin4o892psc6v5qrc...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:03:15 +0100, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>
> the second.
>
> >>
>
> >>As always, the danger is not from the 99% of drivers that most
>
> >>people judge farcilities by, but the 0.1% who either negligently
>
> >>or deliberately drive straight through cyclists.
>
> >
>
> > I'd argue it's a lot more than 0.1%.
>
>
>
> And I'd argue that it's less than that, as that would mean one in a thousand
>
> drivers drives through cyclists
>
> >
>
> > This roundabout design would be disasterous, IMHO. IME few drivers
>
> > can cope with normal roundabouts and this would tax their tiny minds
>
> > even further.
>
>
>
> Eh? The vast majority of motorists manage to negotiate roundabouts
>
> successfully.

The fact that most drivers navigate roundabouts without being involved in a crash doesn't mean that they "cope" with them, if coping ought to include indicating and maneuvering correctly. IME few drivers or riders signal accurately (or at all) on roundabouts, and a small minority neither signal nor indicate their intentions with their vehicle positioning. Generally this just means no-one can enter a roundabout or cross one of its exits with any confidence if there are any vehicles on it, but occasionally this combines with an unexpected action to cause a near miss or accident.

Peter

[John Benn]

"Mark" <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message
news:rin4o892psc6v5qrc...@4ax.com...

I find that many cyclists can't cope with existing roundabouts. They
frequently enter roundabouts without looking, swerve from lane to lane
without looking or signalling once they're on the roundabout and then fail
to signal which exit they're taking. If cyclists took more care on
roundabouts, they would suffer fewer accidents.

And I don't understand your comment about drivers having "tiny minds". Are
you saying that most are stupid? A few may be but in general, drivers are
no more stupid than other road users.

[Mark]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 15:14:29 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
<AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Mark" <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message
>news:rin4o892psc6v5qrc...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:03:15 +0100, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>the second.
>>>
>>>As always, the danger is not from the 99% of drivers that most
>>>people judge farcilities by, but the 0.1% who either negligently
>>>or deliberately drive straight through cyclists.
>>
>> I'd argue it's a lot more than 0.1%.
>
>And I'd argue that it's less than that, as that would mean one in a thousand
>drivers drives through cyclists

Cyclists learn to recognise such drivers and get out of their way
quickly.

>>
>> This roundabout design would be disasterous, IMHO. IME few drivers
>> can cope with normal roundabouts and this would tax their tiny minds
>> even further.
>
>Eh? The vast majority of motorists manage to negotiate roundabouts
>successfully.

As another poster said many break the rules but manage to avoid an
accident. Most don't indicate, many use the wrong lanes, don't look,
don't observe priorities and drive erratically. I wouldn't like to
describe this as successful.

>I'm also not sure why you think drivers have tiny minds? What about people
>who drive and ride?

I'm not singling out drivers as having tiny minds. I'd also give that
label to a large proportion of non-drivers ;-) However I do despair
that there are so many people who seem unaware of the correct way to
drive. There really is no excuse.

>That seems to be exactly the same type of stereotyping as the UKIP candidate
>who thinks that all cyclists are freeloading scum, just coming from the
>opposite direction.

No.

>> I would predict that many cyclists be taken out as cars
>> join or leave the roundabout just because they're not looking (the
>> drivers).
>
>As I've said, that's what I think would happen, because it's design seems to
>run counter to what we are conditioned to expect to see and happen on the
>roads.
--

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-03, Mark wrote:

> On Thu, 02 May 2013 15:14:29 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
><AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mark" <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:rin4o892psc6v5qrc...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:03:15 +0100, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>>the second.
>>>>
>>>>As always, the danger is not from the 99% of drivers that most
>>>>people judge farcilities by, but the 0.1% who either negligently
>>>>or deliberately drive straight through cyclists.
>>>
>>> I'd argue it's a lot more than 0.1%.
>>
>>And I'd argue that it's less than that, as that would mean one in a thousand
>>drivers drives through cyclists
>
> Cyclists learn to recognise such drivers and get out of their way
> quickly.

I'm not convinced you can identify them well in advance.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-02, Dr Zoidberg wrote:

> "Mark" <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message
> news:rin4o892psc6v5qrc...@4ax.com...

>> This roundabout design would be disasterous, IMHO. IME few drivers
>> can cope with normal roundabouts and this would tax their tiny minds
>> even further.
>
> Eh? The vast majority of motorists manage to negotiate roundabouts
> successfully.
> I'm also not sure why you think drivers have tiny minds? What about people
> who drive and ride?

Drivers who are also cyclists or have cyclists among their family &
close friends are probably the best kind, but they are a minority of
drivers.

[Andy Morris]

I've just watch the video and they look scary.

Worryingly the CTC seems to be keen on them

http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/dutch-style-roundabouts-and-low-level-signals-tested

http://tinyurl.com/bthzxso

It think the CTC guys line is pretty much "they are dutch so they are good"

On 01/05/2013 10:59, Dr Zoidberg wrote:

Andy Morris
Andy dot Jinkas at Googlemail

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

In article <kltqd5$nb3$1...@dont-email.me>,

Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>"Mark" <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message
>news:rin4o892psc6v5qrc...@4ax.com...
>>>

>>>As always, the danger is not from the 99% of drivers that most
>>>people judge farcilities by, but the 0.1% who either negligently
>>>or deliberately drive straight through cyclists.
>>
>> I'd argue it's a lot more than 0.1%.
>
>And I'd argue that it's less than that, as that would mean one in a thousand
>drivers drives through cyclists

I estimated such occurrences at one time, using a reasonable if
inaccurate methodology (sad, aren't I?) and it was within an order
of magnitude of 0.1%.

Note that I said "either negligently or deliberately", and it
includes the drivers who do not look out for cyclists coming from
directions that cars cannot come from. That's "negligently".
And this sort of roundabout will increase that sort of incident.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Paul Luton]

The markings seem to have an English version of Dragon's Teeth to make
it pretty clear that they have to give way. As they are approaching at
right angles there is no way that they can legitimately claim not to
have seen cyclists either.

[Tom Gardner]

Paul Luton wrote:
> On 04/05/2013 08:51, Andy Morris wrote:
>> I've just watch the video and they look scary.
>>
>> Worryingly the CTC seems to be keen on them
>>
>> http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/dutch-style-roundabouts-and-low-level-signals-tested
>>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/bthzxso
>>
>> It think the CTC guys line is pretty much "they are dutch so they are good"
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/05/2013 10:59, Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>>> So, what do you think of this arrangement?
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22347184
>>>
>>> I can see that as you go round the sections behind the island on a bike
>>> you are protected from traffic, but when you have to go past an exit at
>>> right angles to the traffic leaving it looks more than a little
>>> hazardous to me.
>>>
>>> Even if you have priority there's a very obvious risk of cars not
>>> realising this and hitting you side on.
>>>
>>
>>
> The markings seem to have an English version of Dragon's Teeth to make it pretty clear that they have to give way.

Maybe, but not the first time people come across it. The first reaction
will be "What The F Is That", followed by "What should I have done?"
or "Pffft" depending on the drivers' mentality at the time.
(Much the same as when someone is tootling down the fast lane of a
motorway, and it "suddenly" ceases to exist, thus forcing a merge
into the slower lane)

I wonder what will be done to publicise and educate people about
this new phenomenon?

I know I'd be scared that any driver wouldn't know how to
use it, therefore I'd tend to stop "unnecessarily", thereby
giving drivers the idea that cyclists will always stop.

> As they are approaching at right angles there is no way that they can legitimately
> claim not to have seen cyclists either.

That depends on whether they are looking where they
will be in 1 second or 10 seconds time. Arguably the latter
is at least as important.

One of my pet hates when driving is pedestrian crossings
round the outside of roundabouts. While I haven't had any
near misses yet, I'm always concerned that my eyes are
looking 5 seconds ahead.

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Paul Luton" <pa...@pluton.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message news:ONmdnT-

> The markings seem to have an English version of Dragon's Teeth to make it
> pretty clear that they have to give way. As they are approaching at right
> angles there is no way that they can legitimately claim not to have seen
> cyclists either.

At the point of any hypothetical collision, that's likely to be correct,
*but* modern cars often have very large A-Pillars that can create some
pretty substantial blind spots. It's worse on the right of a driver as you
are closer to the pillar but not out of the question that a bike on the left
could be largely hidden.

--
Alex

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <km6c38$624$1...@dont-email.me>

It's not just the A pillar but also the fact that many drivers seem to
have a large sat nav stuck to their windscreen generating yet another
blind spot.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

[Dr Zoidberg]

<mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a050114853....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...

> In message <km6c38$624$1...@dont-email.me>
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Paul Luton" <pa...@pluton.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message news:ONmdnT-
>> > The markings seem to have an English version of Dragon's Teeth to make
>> > it
>> > pretty clear that they have to give way. As they are approaching at
>> > right
>> > angles there is no way that they can legitimately claim not to have
>> > seen
>> > cyclists either.
>>
>> At the point of any hypothetical collision, that's likely to be
>> correct, *but* modern cars often have very large A-Pillars that can
>> create some pretty substantial blind spots. It's worse on the right
>> of a driver as you are closer to the pillar but not out of the
>> question that a bike on the left could be largely hidden.
>>
>
> It's not just the A pillar but also the fact that many drivers seem to
> have a large sat nav stuck to their windscreen generating yet another
> blind spot.
>

Mine is tucked down in the bottom right corner, but I've seen more than one
with it pretty much central on the windscreen. Most bizarre.

--
Alex

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

In article <a050114853....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,

<mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In message <km6c38$624$1...@dont-email.me>
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Paul Luton" <pa...@pluton.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message news:ONmdnT-
>> > The markings seem to have an English version of Dragon's Teeth to make it
>> > pretty clear that they have to give way. As they are approaching at right
>> > angles there is no way that they can legitimately claim not to have seen
>> > cyclists either.
>>
>> At the point of any hypothetical collision, that's likely to be
>> correct, *but* modern cars often have very large A-Pillars that can
>> create some pretty substantial blind spots. It's worse on the right
>> of a driver as you are closer to the pillar but not out of the
>> question that a bike on the left could be largely hidden.
>
>It's not just the A pillar but also the fact that many drivers seem to
>have a large sat nav stuck to their windscreen generating yet another
>blind spot.

I doubt that actual visibility is a major factor here. The problems
are almost certainly 90% in the human factor.

People simply do not perceive objects in their peripheral vision that
are outside their perceptive domain. I have sometimes commented to
drivers that they passed very close to pedestrians or cyclists on
pavements and got the response "But there wasn't a ...." Well, I saw
the person because it was within my domain; the solution is appropriate
training and reeducation, by which I mean more than you might expect.

The second factor is the assumption that the cyclist is going to give
way (i.e. the peasant factor overrides the right of way). Until you
can reverse that in all involved parties (the DafTies, courts, drivers,
pedestrians and cyclists), it will continue.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Tom Gardner]

The bottom right position would be dangerous for me in
my car; the best^H^H^H^H least bad position depends on
the geometry.

[Alistair Gunn]

mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk twisted the electrons to say:

> It's not just the A pillar but also the fact that many drivers seem to
> have a large sat nav stuck to their windscreen generating yet another
> blind spot.

The Vauxhall Combo van (as derived from the Corsa) managed to make the A
pillar problem worse for small drivers by fitting large square wing
mirrors. Now if you're >172cm in height this isn't a major problem as
you can see over the top of the mirrors (obviously the taller you are the
better in this scenario), but for people noticably shorter than that you
end up with a A pillar that's about 20cm wide!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Scion]

nmm1 put finger to keyboard:

DafTies?

Oh, these.
www.tbfshop.com/store/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=120

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

In article <kmcudl$kl6$1...@dont-email.me>, Scion <a...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> The second factor is the assumption that the cyclist is going to give
>> way (i.e. the peasant factor overrides the right of way). Until you can
>> reverse that in all involved parties (the DafTies, courts, drivers,
>> pedestrians and cyclists), it will continue.
>
>DafTies?
>
>Oh, these.
>www.tbfshop.com/store/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=120

Not quite. That's a harmless lunacy. I am talking about those
responsible for turning the Highway Code into anti-walking and
anti-cycling legislation.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Andy Morris]

On 08/05/2013 08:58, Scion wrote:
>> The second factor is the assumption that the cyclist is going to give
>> way (i.e. the peasant factor overrides the right of way). Until you can
>> reverse that in all involved parties (the DafTies, courts, drivers,
>> pedestrians and cyclists), it will continue.

I think by then we'll have peace, justice and universal brotherhood

[Adam Lea]

On 08/05/13 09:49, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> anti-walking and
> anti-cycling legislation.
>

What would that be then?