ADUK Archive

Oh God, it's the dreaded Junction 11. What's the point in going like manure off a spade, you'll just be in time for the next red lights ...

Well, if you have a few leaves stuck to your numberplate, and it's 3:00 am in the morning with nobody about, I would just, perhaps just ignore the rules, a tiny bit.

triquet wrote:Technically correct methinks, but irrespecitive of radius to try and get round even the largest roundabout at the NSL is asking for trouble ...

Really?, approach and it's clear, especially late at night or early morning and it's just a high speed chicane, within NSL, assuming we want to exit at 12 o' clock from our entrance.

WhoseGeneration wrote:

triquet wrote:Technically correct methinks, but irrespecitive of radius to try and get round even the largest roundabout at the NSL is asking for trouble ...

Really?, approach and it's clear, especially late at night or early morning and it's just a high speed chicane, within NSL, assuming we want to exit at 12 o' clock from our entrance.

And halfway around see a pedestrian crossing at your exit...


and you're at 70mph...

Ancient wrote:And halfway around see a pedestrian crossing at your exit...
and you're at 70mph...

Remember the rule about braking?
Otherwise, how do members of the ESs often proceed at high speeds through large NSL roundabouts?
Think about it, a pedestrian is a small object, so an alert attentive driver should be able to just brake down to a lower speed and pass behind that pedestrian.
Or, we could just go with "20 is plenty" on all roads.
Some want that.

Ye gods. As a motorist [driving for a living] and cyclist, I find this thread symptomatic of the issues that cause me grief. Once upon a time, roundabouts were sedate affairs, where angles were sharp and speeds were slow. Over time, the desire to 'make progress' has led to shallower angles, open approaches, and overt encouragement to drive through it with as little reduction in speed as possible. This makes them death traps for cyclists, given the consequent speed differential. Compare with roundabouts in France, where by and large the older design of sharp angles is still followed, leading to much reduced speeds and a better chance of cyclists and vehicles sharing the road.

Prior to retirement I worked on a business park, with a 30 mph limit. The two roundabouts on the park were wide, open and shallow-angled. As a a result they were taken at 30 mph by default. Walking or cycling near them was a hideous experience. Should road design be solely about 'making progress'?

ericonabike wrote:Ye gods. As a motorist [driving for a living] and cyclist, I find this thread symptomatic of the issues that cause me grief. Once upon a time, roundabouts were sedate affairs, where angles were sharp and speeds were slow. Over time, the desire to 'make progress' has led to shallower angles, open approaches, and overt encouragement to drive through it with as little reduction in speed as possible. This makes them death traps for cyclists, given the consequent speed differential. Compare with roundabouts in France, where by and large the older design of sharp angles is still followed, leading to much reduced speeds and a better chance of cyclists and vehicles sharing the road.

Prior to retirement I worked on a business park, with a 30 mph limit. The two roundabouts on the park were wide, open and shallow-angled. As a a result they were taken at 30 mph by default. Walking or cycling near them was a hideous experience. Should road design be solely about 'making progress'?

I can understand the concern - but a road's design doesn't force a driver to take any style / speed / choice in using that piece of road - it is still incumbent upon the driver to be aware of pedestrians / cyclists / etc. and to drive appropriately...

the correct answer isn't to change the road to deal with the rarity of a bad driver, but to educate drivers - if a roundabout allows high speed in safety and there are no cyclists within 10 miles then is it not okay for a driver to take that roundabout at speed if safe and legal? Put a cyclist into the scene and I would expect that same driver to be cautious and much slower...

Sadly this perspective is increasingly a part of our life - there is a 0.0x% risk of something here - lets legislate against it for everyone - our society / democracy is / was based on the concept that we have brains and the ability to act maturely - legislation should be to set the boundaries, not force everyone into acting as controlled cattle.

If the roundabouts on your business park were in a 30mph zone and could be driven around at 30mph how did those roundabouts make any difference in walking or cycling near them? the traffic up to them and away from them was also at 30mph, cyclist travel with far faster traffic all the time, pedestrians walk next to faster traffic all the time - I don't see how a roundabout at the same speed as the rest of the road suddenly becomes a vortex of death!

I speak also as a cyclist, but around here, the cyclists are the hazard, not the roads or drivers - they sweep through villages in packs, they ignore the highway code, they will deliberately block you from overtaking, swerving out into the middle of the road (and not due to road surface), they run races on the public road (really?! how lacking in safety is that!) you might come around a corner and find one wobbling along in the middle of the road with race number on the back ignoring the traffic - the other day I saw one overtake another, on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend - he was only just past when a lorry cane around the corner, probably 10seconds later and he would have been dead. Running a race and putting up signs calling it a cycle event fools no-one! And lets not start on cyclists in London!

So I think we need a balanced view - yes there are drivers who are a hazard to cyclists - yes there are cyclists who are a hazard to themselves / others - but in both cases they are in a minority... and the design of the roundabout as you describe it is not the influencing factor in making it more hazardous...

Alasdair

akirk wrote:

ericonabike wrote:Ye gods. As a motorist [driving for a living] and cyclist, I find this thread symptomatic of the issues that cause me grief. Once upon a time, roundabouts were sedate affairs, where angles were sharp and speeds were slow. Over time, the desire to 'make progress' has led to shallower angles, open approaches, and overt encouragement to drive through it with as little reduction in speed as possible. This makes them death traps for cyclists, given the consequent speed differential. Compare with roundabouts in France, where by and large the older design of sharp angles is still followed, leading to much reduced speeds and a better chance of cyclists and vehicles sharing the road.

Prior to retirement I worked on a business park, with a 30 mph limit. The two roundabouts on the park were wide, open and shallow-angled. As a a result they were taken at 30 mph by default. Walking or cycling near them was a hideous experience. Should road design be solely about 'making progress'?

I can understand the concern - but a road's design doesn't force a driver to take any style / speed / choice in using that piece of road - it is still incumbent upon the driver to be aware of pedestrians / cyclists / etc. and to drive appropriately...

the correct answer isn't to change the road to deal with the rarity of a bad driver, but to educate drivers - if a roundabout allows high speed in safety and there are no cyclists within 10 miles then is it not okay for a driver to take that roundabout at speed if safe and legal? Put a cyclist into the scene and I would expect that same driver to be cautious and much slower...

Sadly this perspective is increasingly a part of our life - there is a 0.0x% risk of something here - lets legislate against it for everyone - our society / democracy is / was based on the concept that we have brains and the ability to act maturely - legislation should be to set the boundaries, not force everyone into acting as controlled cattle.

If the roundabouts on your business park were in a 30mph zone and could be driven around at 30mph how did those roundabouts make any difference in walking or cycling near them? the traffic up to them and away from them was also at 30mph, cyclist travel with far faster traffic all the time, pedestrians walk next to faster traffic all the time - I don't see how a roundabout at the same speed as the rest of the road suddenly becomes a vortex of death!

I speak also as a cyclist, but around here, the cyclists are the hazard, not the roads or drivers - they sweep through villages in packs, they ignore the highway code, they will deliberately block you from overtaking, swerving out into the middle of the road (and not due to road surface), they run races on the public road (really?! how lacking in safety is that!) you might come around a corner and find one wobbling along in the middle of the road with race number on the back ignoring the traffic - the other day I saw one overtake another, on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend - he was only just past when a lorry cane around the corner, probably 10seconds later and he would have been dead. Running a race and putting up signs calling it a cycle event fools no-one! And lets not start on cyclists in London!

So I think we need a balanced view - yes there are drivers who are a hazard to cyclists - yes there are cyclists who are a hazard to themselves / others - but in both cases they are in a minority... and the design of the roundabout as you describe it is not the influencing factor in making it more hazardous...

Alasdair

+1

It is the resposibility of all road users to act in a responsible manner, and particularly around vulerable road users, but it is only reasonable to expect the vulnerable who are capable of looking after their own safety, to do so, and not act in a manner that portrays the "I'm a vulnerable road user so I can do what ever I like and it will be youre fault if I'm injured."

You may gather from this post that I'm not a fan of "Presumed guilt"

fungus wrote:It is the resposibility of all road users to act in a responsible manner, and particularly around vulerable road users, but it is only reasonable to expect the vulnerable who are capable of looking after their own safety, to do so, and not act in a manner that portrays the "I'm a vulnerable road user so I can do what ever I like and it will be youre fault if I'm injured."

You may gather from this post that I'm not a fan of "Presumed guilt"

Nor am I, but I could make an exception in the case of politicians.

Anyhow I completely agree with what you say in your main paragraph; and that's a splendid post by Alasdair, so thanks for that.

Best wishes all,
David.