Cycle Roundabouts

[Lickashot]

Coould this neoliberal think of a better scheme to demonstrate being more out of touch with the country as a whole? Or perhaps spending hundreds of millions converting roundabouts in greater London is something the whole country will get behind? Either way, you should check out the killing zone new roundabout.

The PM announced three outer boroughs in the capital are to be 'mini-Hollands' in a scheme costing Transport for London £90million.

The areas - Enfield, Kingston and Waltham Forest - were chosen for having low levels of cycling.

There will be 'intensive, transformational spending on their roads and streetscapes to make them, over time, as cycle and pedestrian-friendly as their Dutch equivalents'.

There are already segregated lanes on main roads for bikes and pedestrians have been given 'thousands of metres' more space.

The government is also looking to roll this out across the country, with 12 non-London local authorities to take part in a similar scheme.

UK gets first Dutch-style roundabout that gives priority to cyclists

Cyclists have an outer ring on the Cambridge roundabout, with cycle crossings over each of the four approach roads in a contrasting red surface.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Dalua]

Interestingly. for the full North European experience you need not just cyclists with priority over motorists all the way round, but trams with supreme priority going straight across the middle.

On the face of it, giving way to traffic approaching from the right is hardly a novelty to those of us who negotiate roundabouts either by bike or motor.
I wonder whether the concern raised by motorists about 'cyclist killing zones' is more to do with the clarity about whose fault such deaths will be if they squash a cyclist on the cycle-path, rather than on the general carriageway. 'I just didn't see him - he just came out of no-where: I didn't stand a chance, officer' won't work as well if you kill one on a dedicated and clear cycle-path.

That said, as someone who does most of his commuting by bike, I am not keen on separate carriageways for cyclists, though bus/cycle lanes and marked-off edges of roads for bikes are helpful.
My feeling is that motor and cycle traffic should be broadly together, in town at least, so that the two groups learn to look out for, expect and respect each other as (hopefully) cycle-traffic increases relative to motor.

The free-market economic policies usually associated with neoliberalism are not immediately apparent in these roundabouts?

 

[Lickashot]

The free-market economic policies usually associated with neoliberalism are not immediately apparent in these roundabouts?

Indeed. I meant to imply he should consider spending his time on economic policy, rebuilding our decimated public finances under a conservative mandate, rather than wasting time, effort and hundreds of millions of pounds rebuilding perfectly good roundabouts; however, I appreciate that was not clear.

 

[kes]

The first change should involve cycle insurance but that would mean societal responsibility and cost probably drop the cycling numbers to zero. I can see the prime ministers co-habitee behind this rather liberal initiative.

 

[bluesako]

yeah spend all this money on cyclists and they will still ride there trendy eco machines on the pavements, and knock me over on my ass, and laugh then run my border terrier over, they have a new saying, save the planet kill a pedestrian, i hate the feck**rs bs RIDE ON THE ROAD you morons bs

 

[Dalua]

The first change should involve cycle insurance but that would mean societal responsibility and cost probably drop the cycling numbers to zero. I can see the prime ministers co-habitee behind this rather liberal initiative.

Would the next change be pedestrian insurance?

Why do people keep using 'liberal' in this way, which seems a usage better left to certain sections of the American right, to mean socialist-lefty? I find it culturally distressing - our own liberals are historically not necessarily like that at all, and are now so few that it seems unlikely they'd be able to influence road planning anywhere?

 

[Lickashot]

No, because pedestrians use the pavement. If they disobey the highway code when crossing the road and get hurt, sympathy may be hard to come by. Cyclists however, in the main it appears to me, consider themselves the only road users to whom no laws apply and when they inevitably get injured are instantaneously outraged without exception. I have no wish to rebuild our roads to accommodate more of them and in truth it is not realistically possible in a country with poor public transport and dissected by narrow, frequently single lane, A roads with high hedgerows which drivers bat along at 60mph.

Just my thoughts as we plough a few more billion into another pointless vanity project.

 

[kes]

Would the next change be pedestrian insurance?

Why do people keep using 'liberal' in this way, which seems a usage better left to certain sections of the American right, to mean socialist-lefty? I find it culturally distressing - our own liberals are historically not necessarily like that at all, and are now so few that it seems unlikely they'd be able to influence road planning anywhere?

Sorry - personal experience. A liberal politician (several in fact) attempted to force locally the philosophy of '20 is plenty', ostensibly to reduce the severity of cycling casualties, The fact there were no cycling accidents and the speed reduction would have been a further and unnecessary restriction on motorised traffic which was already suffering severe delays, did not seem to matter. Therefore, for me, cycling is a Liberal (large L) agenda.

 

[Dalua]

)

No, because pedestrians use the pavement. If they disobey the highway code when crossing the road and get hurt, sympathy may be hard to come by. Cyclists however, in the main it appears to me, consider themselves the only road users to whom no laws apply and when they inevitably get injured are instantaneously outraged without exception. I have no wish to rebuild our roads to accommodate more of them and in truth it is not realistically possible in a country with poor public transport and dissected by narrow, frequently single lane, A roads with high hedgerows which drivers bat along at 60mph.

Pedestrians don't always use the pavement - they're out in public, passing and repassing footpaths and carriageways. They're generally allowed to cross the road wherever they like. Use of road, rather than pavement, is not the reason why motor vehicles need road tax, licensed drivers and insurance - IMO the first is because of the infrastructure they require and then wear out, and the second and third because of the massively-increased risk to third parties of their improper use compared to non-motor vehicles and pedestrians.

I'm not surprised that you've experienced law-breaking cyclists - so have I both when cycling and driving. As a cyclist, though, I am probably more aware of and more at risk from law-breaking motorists than another motorist would be - so I think there might be a little bias (and bile? ) in your assessment?

 

[Dalua]

Sorry - personal experience. A liberal politician (several in fact) attempted to force locally the philosophy of '20 is plenty', ostensibly to reduce the severity of cycling casualties, The fact there were no cycling accidents and the speed reduction would have been a further and unnecessary restriction on motorised traffic which was already suffering severe delays, did not seem to matter. Therefore, for me, cycling is a Liberal (large L) agenda.

I think it just depends where the speed is dropped from 30 to 20. Obviously, as shooting folk we know energy increases with the square of speed - so slower collisions will be less-damaging, as well as drivers having more time to react at lower speeds.

A lot of the time around town, motorists seem to like to get up to 30mph as soon as possible so they can join the queue at the next lights or junction a bit quicker. I suppose this allows them more quality-time to post about the queue on Facebook? In many circumstances they'd get to where they were going no later if their speed were capped at 20mph; but they'd be moving, rather than stationary, for more of the journey and probably would save a drop of fuel.

Anyhow...

 

[VSS]

Any initiative that:

a) slows traffic down
and
b) encourages more people to cycle or walk rather than drive

is nothing but a good thing in my opinion, and quite frankly I don't care how much it costs to achieve it.

 

[willie_gunn]

Any initiative that:

a) slows traffic down
and
b) encourages more people to cycle or walk rather than drive

is nothing but a good thing in my opinion, and quite frankly I don't care how much it costs to achieve it.

I would also add:

c) improves the respect between different road users

Having lived and worked in countries where there is a far more harmonious relationship, it never ceases to amaze me how downright aggressive UK car drivers are - to each other, as well as to those other users unfortunate enough to have to share the roads with them.

So whilst I have no problem with bringing in a cycling test and cycling insurance I'd also like to see car drivers forced to re-take their driving test every couple of years. There are too many idiots on the road in charge - at least nominally - of several hundredweight of lethal metal.

 

[Apthorpe]

I think it just depends where the speed is dropped from 30 to 20. Obviously, as shooting folk we know energy increases with the square of speed - so slower collisions will be less-damaging, as well as drivers having more time to react at lower speeds.

A lot of the time around town, motorists seem to like to get up to 30mph as soon as possible so they can join the queue at the next lights or junction a bit quicker. I suppose this allows them more quality-time to post about the queue on Facebook? In many circumstances they'd get to where they were going no later if their speed were capped at 20mph; but they'd be moving, rather than stationary, for more of the journey and probably would save a drop of fuel.

Anyhow...

Well, large areas where I live are 20 zones now and whatever they might save, it isn't fuel. My car emits about 50% more emissions in a 20 zone than a 30. A fact that would have been obvious to the council if they had a brain cell on the team. It's no safer either. Not least because the council vehicles and buses all routinely ignore the limit so have disproportionately high closing speeds and of course are not what pedestrians expect.

Slower collisions are less damaging, but more of them tend to outweigh that. The extra noise, pollution, congestion and irritation are also all negatives.

 

[Apthorpe]

I would also add:

c) improves the respect between different road users

Having lived and worked in countries where there is a far more harmonious relationship, it never ceases to amaze me how downright aggressive UK car drivers are - to each other, as well as to those other users unfortunate enough to have to share the roads with them.

So whilst I have no problem with bringing in a cycling test and cycling insurance I'd also like to see car drivers forced to re-take their driving test every couple of years. There are too many idiots on the road in charge - at least nominally - of several hundredweight of lethal metal.

List the countries you consider more harmonious, then think about whether they are as crowded, have such poor and deliberately car-unfriendly infrastructure and urban design. Then you are likely to find you are no longer amazed.

 

[Apthorpe]

Coould this neoliberal think of a better scheme to demonstrate being more out of touch with the country as a whole? Or perhaps spending hundreds of millions converting roundabouts in greater London is something the whole country will get behind? Either way, you should check out the killing zone new roundabout.

The PM announced three outer boroughs in the capital are to be 'mini-Hollands' in a scheme costing Transport for London £90million.

The areas - Enfield, Kingston and Waltham Forest - were chosen for having low levels of cycling.

There will be 'intensive, transformational spending on their roads and streetscapes to make them, over time, as cycle and pedestrian-friendly as their Dutch equivalents'.

There are already segregated lanes on main roads for bikes and pedestrians have been given 'thousands of metres' more space.

The government is also looking to roll this out across the country, with 12 non-London local authorities to take part in a similar scheme.

UK gets first Dutch-style roundabout that gives priority to cyclists

Cyclists have an outer ring on the Cambridge roundabout, with cycle crossings over each of the four approach roads in a contrasting red surface.

www.dailymail.co.uk

As a habitual cyclist, I'd like to point out that this is an example of a recent outbreak of ****ing stupid policy. Who in their right minds wants to imitate the road design of a country with more dangerous roads than we have? It irritates motorists, which is its main virtue in the minds of the cretinous civil servants who dreamt this up.

 

[kes]

I think it just depends where the speed is dropped from 30 to 20. Obviously, as shooting folk we know energy increases with the square of speed - so slower collisions will be less-damaging, as well as drivers having more time to react at lower speeds.

A lot of the time around town, motorists seem to like to get up to 30mph as soon as possible so they can join the queue at the next lights or junction a bit quicker. I suppose this allows them more quality-time to post about the queue on Facebook? In many circumstances they'd get to where they were going no later if their speed were capped at 20mph; but they'd be moving, rather than stationary, for more of the journey and probably would save a drop of fuel.

Anyhow...

If you recall it was a nationwide campaign and thus seen by cyclists to be worthwhile everywhere - it wasnt.

 

[kes]

I would also add:

c) improves the respect between different road users

Having lived and worked in countries where there is a far more harmonious relationship, it never ceases to amaze me how downright aggressive UK car drivers are - to each other, as well as to those other users unfortunate enough to have to share the roads with them.

So whilst I have no problem with bringing in a cycling test and cycling insurance I'd also like to see car drivers forced to re-take their driving test every couple of years. There are too many idiots on the road in charge - at least nominally - of several hundredweight of lethal metal.

See the dutch Woonerf system - you have to design it to make it work. Simply grafting speed limits on to existing roads not designed for peds/cyclist/motorists to mix doesnt work and casualties increase. Shared surfaces need to be made inimical to the car to force speeds lower. Which is why 20 mph zones needed to have speed reduction features like sleeping policemen. 20 is plenty was a massively stupid idea if all it did was reduce speed limits with no engineered reduction in vehicle transit speeds. Plenty of papers on this and the DOT required to approve each designed scheme.

 

[Stalker62]

... inimical to the car to force speeds lower...

Late contender for word of the week...

 

[hoodwink]

Just had one open in Cambridge, took a year to build, I haven’t been on it yet but the locals apart from the liberal elite were incredulous at this total waste of money on an experiment that will probably kill students. They have no idea what planet there on never mind what part of the road they should cycle without lights or a care in the world.

 

[FrenchieBoy]

Surely there are many more and far more important things for the government to spend money on rather than letting the lycra clad loonies take over the roads while they do not pay for road tax, insurance, MOTs or even need to have any sort of a license! I doubt if most of the "cyclists" we see racing about and thinking they own the roads have never even heard of the Cycling Proficiency Test.