- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Dutch Style Roundabout (picture TfL)No road traffic incidents so far on Britain’s first cyclist-friendly ‘turbo roundabout’
A Bedford roundabout designed to be pedestrian and cyclist friendly has seen no road traffic incidents since it was first installed last summer, reports Bedord Today. The so-called ‘turbo roundabout’ has also won an award.
When it was first completed, critics said that the design could prove confusing for drivers, with the Motorcycle Action Group claiming it could even result in more incidents.
However, a Bedford Borough spokeswoman said that so far there had been no problems. “Between 1st April 2002 and 15th July 2014 there were 40 casualties on the roundabout as a result of 35 accidents; since the construction of the roundabout there have been no accidents.”
PTRC Education and Research Services Ltd, a firm who organise training for those involved in transport planning, have presented Bedford Borough Council with an award for best sustainable transport solution after reviewing the design of the turbo roundabout.
Councillor Charles Royden, Portfolio Holder for Environment and Transport, said:
“Bedford Borough Council is always looking for new and innovative ways to make the borough’s roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, without affecting traffic flows.
“The turbo roundabout is a fantastic example of how new ideas can make traffic-heavy junctions safer for vulnerable road users; road traffic safety will continue to be a priority for Bedford Borough Council and we welcome the roundabout’s continued success.”
Although the roundabout does not feature segregation for cyclists, the lanes of traffic have plastic separators to encourage traffic to stay in the appropriate lane and to encourage vehicles to slow down to do so.
The effect is that motorists commit to the lane corresponding to their final exit before entering the junction. By reducing weaving around and increasing the predictability of traffic movements, the roundabout is said to be safer.
Speaking before it was installed, Patrick Lingwood, Bedford’s walking and cycling officer, said: “Even though you will be sharing the lane with vehicles I’m hoping that as a cyclist you will feel this is a safe roundabout and a comfortable experience because traffic is moving more slowly.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 0 sec ago
Ridiculed or is it just jealousy?
- belugabob 10 min 58 sec ago
I had to double-take the headline... https://www.kentonline.co.uk/sandwich/news/takeaway-driver-19-who-left-e...
- Rendel Harris 25 min 55 sec ago
Thank goodness for that. I don't suppose anyone would want you to. You certainly behave like one though.
- Eton Rifle 33 min 37 sec ago
You do see some utterly ridiculous examples of car use....
- Eton Rifle 55 min 54 sec ago
Exactly. Every road death is a tragedy but this is at the "twat deserved it" end of the spectrum, looking at the state of that car.
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 3 min ago
I'm not the editor of this article, nor indeed of anything on this website. One would have thought that didn't require explaining.
- Eton Rifle 1 hour 3 min ago
I think the answer is in your question. I genuinely didn't know he was married to her. It does kinda explain it. Disappointing, nevertheless.
- Daclu Trelub 5 hours 49 min ago
In a perfect world, we'd have a measure of how easily distracted someone is, as part of their driving test....
- Sredlums 6 hours 16 min ago
These products are nothing but ridiculously expensive and superfluous, and they bring nothing but bragging rights....
Add new comment
36 comments
It's great that this roundabout is 'safe'. What pisses me off is that the cycle budget was used to fund a scheme that improves flow of motor traffic, and therefore increases danger to cyclists and pedestrians. It wouldn't surprise me if the number of cyclists using it had dropped significantly and therefore cycle/motorist accidents too. In the culture of 'road safety' that would be a big success.
It's about time we spent the cycling budget on cycling infrastructure, and concentrated on reducing danger on the roads. That means restricting the use/speed of motor vehicles and separating cyclists where there is a lot of fast traffic.
This scheme is a disaster, the fact that so much cycling money was spent uselessly should be a scandal.
It will probably be little comfort to you, but this scheme does nothing to improve the flow of motor traffic either. Speeds are reduced, which is OK, but the new lane structure puts motorists much closer together at possible conflict points and makes it much harder to be confident that you can tell where other vehicles are going. There's no space left for motorists to leave room for other people's mistakes.
Can you prove that? The funding bid claimed "the traffic capacity of the turbo roundabout is about 25 – 35% higher" as the first reason for selecting it over more appropriate dutch-style design options.
Seems like the same old story. Safety seems to be the only consideration in terms of cycling. Speed, convenience and even the old favourite 'traffic flow' don't seem to apply when talking about cycling.
Of course, this makes things very easy. Instead of having to design cycling into our transport infrastructure and make difficult decisions about the allocation of space and priority of modes they can simply maintain the status quo and design bikes out. Once bikes are out of the system cyclists are no longer in danger and the brief is fulfilled.
Strangely enough, when I rode over it last night on the way home, I did actually see someone doing what they were "supposed" to do from Union St, off the road onto the path, over the Clapham Road crossings, by which time I was over it so not sure where they were heading.
You hit the nail right on the head about getting cyclists off the road being the council's primary objective. Which doesn't explain Park and De Parys Avenue which I think are really good. For non-locals, it's a wide road, recently properly resurfaced , with cycle lanes painted on it. It's like a different country, let alone town.
below from the previous story on this here on road.cc when a lot of the discussion focussed on the description as "Dutch style" - it's a Dutch style "turbo" roundabout that would only be used on Dutch roads with high traffic volumes and separate dedicated cycleways (not crappy shared pavements)
"The upgrading of the roundabout will cost £490,000, which is largely funded by a £420,000 grant from the DfT’s Cycle Safety Fund" so if the council or designer can't confirm increased use by cyclists will the DFT claw the cycling money back?
Pour encourager les autres?
They got an award for this??
https://departmentfortransport.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/bedfordturbor...
Whoever gave the award is an idiot!
This looks to me like an exercise in trying to remove cyclists from the road without even the courtesy to provide a decent alternative!
I'm pleased this appears to be working to make for an all round safer roundabout despite not being totally committed to a really cycle friendly design.
But road.cc come on! That's poor and lazy journalism. The site image for this article shows a Dutch roundabout and although the caption underneath the image does say as much it's faint and easily missed. And your twitter feed has a larger image of the same Dutch roundabout.
Your readers managed to produce a correct image so stop being sloppy.
Inverted commas around "turbo roundabout" but not around "cyclist-friendly"?
love when motoring bodies, in this case the Motorcycle Action Group are proved wrong.
Bit soon to tell. Wait until the leaves fall all over it and a superbike with a less than super rider skids into a lane kerb.
The MAG has done a lot of campaigning for safety for motorcyclists as it happens. But does have rather backward views in other respects. I'm not a member.
I also live in Bedford and use it more days than not.
As you can see from the drawing, there are no cycle lanes on it. There are no cycle lanes leading to it. I think I'm supposed to use the shared use paths, which I don't and won't as they're even less safe with sign and bollard obstacles. Clowns like councillor Royden think this is great, but as portfolio holder he can get the blame for some real abominations of suggested cycle routes.
The A6 trunk road dissects the town, north to south yet there is no provision other then using the road, so I do, every day. The A4280 goes east to west. That has a limited and not joined up amount.
If the money wasted on the improvements to this junction had been used for slapping cycle lanes on these and other roads, it would be a better all round experience for commuting through the town everyday.
If it's so good will we see all roundabouts in the borough converted?
I'd love to take a ride around town with Mr Royden and Mr Lingwood, but somehow feel they'd be busy that day.
Every morning, 7:15 top of the high street if you want to make a date!
Patrick Lingwood and Bedford Council have form on this. It's not the first time they've raided the cycling budget to provide a scheme that's primarily for the benefit of motorists. The Dame Alice Street contraflow was done mainly to use the cycling budget for resurfacing work. Neither of these schemes offer anything for cyclists. They, along with many other cycle 'facilities' in Bedford, work by first getting cyclists off the road onto the pavement. Once he has managed to get the cyclists off the road, Patrick Lingwood then seems to forget about the need for any signage to tell the cyclists when they have to give way or rejoin the road, or to warn pedestrians that they are entering a shared use facility. For Patrick, what he then seems to like to do is to get the cyclists off their bikes altogether and the turbo-roundabout is a prime example of this. All of the direction arrows for cyclists lead them off the carriageway and to zebra crossings where they are supposed to dismount and walk across.
they actually put in Tiger Crossings... cyclists are able to ride across, but not on the Zebra stripes...
See the image on page 22 of this pdf file:
https://departmentfortransport.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/bedfordturbor...
they really stuffed up on the 'tactiles' though, rantyhighwayman would have a fit here... the lead in tactiles on the far side of that crossing are leading blind pedestrians right onto the cycle part of the Tiger...
Paul C wrote: " they actually put in Tiger Crossings... cyclists are able to ride across, but not on the Zebra stripes... "
So far as I can tell, tiger crossings have no legal effect. The cyclist can use the zebra part or the plain part, but he gets priority at neither. The only way to get priority is to get off and push. According to some, even that's debatable.
What I wonder about is whether the cycle route along the pavement and then across the carriageway makes the tiger part in effect an uncontrolled junction, where neither motorist nor cyclist would have priority.
No-one gets priority at zebras these days. There are no traffic police. So we may as well be discussing how many angels dance on the head of a pin. The main reason that red traffic lights work is that motorists think they may get smashed into by cross traffic if they continue.
The traffic signs regulations consultation included changes to enable tiger crossings, but it's not yet been acted upon.
Live in Bedford and go through this roundabout on a fairly regular basis.
The main issue with it is a combination of fast outside lane straight ahead/left traffic, and having nothing else to rely on except indicators to determine if the left turners really are. Well, as you might imagine this makes for a frustrating and scary joining experience, particularly if you're brave and wish to turn right.
Saying that though, it is definitely better than what was there before ... provided you don't get yourself killed getting onto it in the first place.
Live in Bedford and go through this roundabout on a fairly regular basis.
The main issue with it is a combination of fast outside lane straight ahead/left traffic, and having nothing else to rely on except indicators to determine if the left turners really are. Well, as you might imagine this makes for a frustrating and scary joining experience, particularly if you're brave and wish to turn right.
Saying that though, it is definitely better than what was there before ... provided you don't get yourself killed getting onto it in the first place.
No collisions between cyclists and motorists - because no cyclists travel on it. IIRC it was designed to 'keep the motor traffic moving' (tm) and the cyclists were relegated to shared-use paths around the side.
It's like saying that motorways are perfectly safe for cyclists because no cyclists have ever been killed on one.
Absolutely.
Why do people keep doing this?
You can't judge success purely on accident rates. Not just for this, for any number of things (it came up in a discussion on a 'shared space' scheme, where the council spokesperson declared there were no accidents so it was a triumph, but local blind people pointed out they now all avoid the area because its terrifying for them).
Maybe the roundabout is working out, maybe it isn't, but simply saying 'no accidents' demonstrates nothing at all, other than that the person boasting about it has trouble with logical reasoning.
It also says nothing about what could have been achieved with the same funds.
First year figure (not not even full year) are usually favorable especially when the geometry of an intersection has been changed as people tend to be more cautious of it and people are often still avoiding the location because of the memory of the delays associated with the road works to implement the design.
I'm not sure pushing cycles onto shared use paths is really the gold standard we are after.
I attended a presentation by the designer of the roundabout (Patrick Lingwood) recently. Despite the fact that one of the stated aims of the design was to make the roundabout less offputting to cyclists, the council doesn't have any data on whether the numbers of cyclists using it have increased since the redesign.
How can the council claim that their 'cycle friendly' design has been a success if they can't measure whether use has increased? And presumably when it comes to the safety record, they're only counting collisions (note - collisions, not 'accidents') which have been reported to the police, rather than near misses or collisions which went unreported.
Frankly, I don't think the designer has really understood what makes roundabouts safer for cyclists in the Netherlands, and has just created a design that works for cyclists like himself, to smooth the traffic flow, rather than creating safe, inviting conditions for everyone to cycle.
that isn't what they built...
https://departmentfortransport.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/bedfordturbor...
Why has the article got a picture of a non-turbo roundabout? If
Could the story not be illustrated with a picture of the roundabout?
An interesting result, given the level of criticism. I think there is a level of truth to the argument that roundabouts with clear lane markings may be safer than those in which traffic will often cross lanes.
However, the danger is that is the only lesson that other towns will take from it, and ignore the criticism about speed and radius.
If I was given a direct choice between this "turbo" design and the newly opened Queen's Circus Roundabout in Battersea, with its festival of traffic lights, I suspect I might actually pick the turbo.
They work fine (for cars) until its dark and raining... when all the markings disappear!
I hate them touting its cycling friendly properties, its just isn't. It might be easier for current confident cyclists but the reality is that its design has nothing to do with cycling and everything to do with vehicle capacity. Dutch turbo roundabouts exist because the cyclists have been separated, they aren't mixed with the cars.
Seconded. That new roundabout just seems to have slowed down the flow of traffic coming from Prince of Wales Drive/going onto Queenstown Rd... Most of the other cyclists I've seen there so far haven't been paying attention to the lights anyway. To me it seems to be a waste of time & money. The one in Bedford looks interesting though.
Seconded. That new roundabout just seems to have slowed down the flow of traffic coming from Prince of Wales Drive/going onto Queenstown Rd... Most of the other cyclists I've seen there so far haven't been paying attention to the lights anyway. To me it seems to be a waste of time & money. The one in Bedford looks interesting though.
Bedford turbo.
Which is nothing like that good looking Dutch design that actually seems to treat cyclists as cyclist and not pedestrians.
Pages