"Dutch Roundabouts" could we get them here?

dixiefly

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22347184

30 April 2013 Last updated at 05:08


'Dutch roundabouts' could be seen in London next year

Trials of a Dutch-style roundabout have taken place at a research centre

Continue reading the main story Related Stories'Crossrail for bikes' set for London [/news/uk-england-london-21697423] Is bike plan 'bonkers' or brilliant? [/news/uk-england-london-21699623] Plan for fifth cycle superhighway [/news/uk-england-london-20579632]
Roundabouts like the ones used in the Netherlands separating cars from cyclists could be used in London as early as next year, the city's cycling commissioner has said.

Senecio

I agree with the segregation of cyclists from vehicles, but I don't agree with prioritisation being given to cyclists. If a car can't exit a round about it will stall traffic on the round about leading to tail enders. There is a round about in Coolock on the Malahide Rd where there is a set of pedestrian lights on one exit just 10-15M after the exit. I've seen many accidents and near accidents there due to traffic backing up when the lights turn red.

slap/dash

ooof that looks very dangerous. id much rather be on the road. cyclists would be in severe danger if they assumed that they could rely on this novel way to catch on.

dixiefly

It does seem to work well in Holland.

As a parent of children that probably will be going to college in some of the bigger cities in the next few years, anything that will make cycling safer in urban areas will get my support.

Beasty

This seems pretty similar to the Killiney Towers roundabout that has created all sorts of problems over here

Seaneh

Beasty wrote: »

This seems pretty similar to the Killiney Towers roundabout that has created all sorts of problems over here

They are actually two very different examples of how proper markings and segregation can work or fail.

The Killiney Towers roundabout is just a few lines on the road, makes it easy to ignore/miss it.

The dutch system actually separates the cyclists from the motorised traffic.

rob w

Dont think id feel too safe taking priority and possibly cycling out in front of a motorist who may not be aware he/she has to give way, i think it would take a while to catch on!

Seaneh

rob w wrote: »

Dont think id feel too safe taking priority and possibly cycling out in front of a motorist who may not be aware he/she has to give way, i think it would take a while to catch on!

If they don't understand road markings, they shouldn't be driving.

rob w

Seaneh wrote: »

If they don't understand road markings, they shouldn't be driving.

Completely agree, think I just have trust issues! :pac:

Seaneh

rob w wrote: »

Completely agree, think I just have trust issues! :pac:

Ah yeah, so do I, but I do genuinely think that in city centers dutch roundabouts can work really well.

BostonB

I take the idea of separated lanes. But seems to me here to turn right you have to cross a lot more lanes of traffic than simply taking the lane like a car. Perhaps the example here isn't great as a single lane. On a multi-lane roundabout this dutch style would make more sense.

Cienciano

I definitely wouldn't drive out in front of a car like that.

Seaneh

BostonB wrote: »

I take the idea of separated lanes. But seems to me here to turn right you have to cross a lot more lanes of traffic than simply taking the lane like a car. Perhaps the example here isn't great as a single lane. On a multi-lane roundabout this dutch style would make more sense.

Somewhere like the Bodkin roundabout in Galway, which has 3 fecking lanes, and scares the bloody bejaysus out of me, this would be a great idea, on a normal 1 lane roundabout, it's not really needed.

dave_o_brien

dixiefly wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22347184

30 April 2013 Last updated at 05:08


'Dutch roundabouts' could be seen in London next year

Trials of a Dutch-style roundabout have taken place at a research centre

Continue reading the main story Related Stories'Crossrail for bikes' set for London [/news/uk-england-london-21697423] Is bike plan 'bonkers' or brilliant? [/news/uk-england-london-21699623] Plan for fifth cycle superhighway [/news/uk-england-london-20579632]
Roundabouts like the ones used in the Netherlands separating cars from cyclists could be used in London as early as next year, the city's cycling commissioner has said.

I think the belief that infrastructure alone can make a difference without a major change in the way a culture relates to how roads are used is a bit naive. The best designed Dutch roundabout in the world transplanted into Dublin (or Cork, Belfast, London, Cardiff, hell, even Rome or Barcelona) with no change in driver and law enforcement attitude will lead to conflict, as highlighted by the first reaction:

Senecio wrote: »

I agree with the segregation of cyclists from vehicles, but I don't agree with prioritisation being given to cyclists. If a car can't exit a round about it will stall traffic on the round about leading to tail enders. There is a round about in Coolock on the Malahide Rd where there is a set of pedestrian lights on one exit just 10-15M after the exit. I've seen many accidents and near accidents there due to traffic backing up when the lights turn red.

In other words, get the cyclists out of my way, as they are a nuisance. Totally different scenario to what you would find in the Netherlands. We have a different problem here with respect to road use; it demands a different solution.

Seaneh wrote: »

If they don't understand road markings, they shouldn't be driving.

Shouldn't. And yet, many do. Blinkering yourself to that again fails to address the problem that faces us. By reframing the question of "why are roundabouts difficult for cyclists in Ireland?" to "why don't roundabouts in Ireland (which are difficult for cyclists) look more like Dutch ones (which are easier for cyclists)?", you ignore the plethora of differences between the culture of road use between the two systems.

In short, OP, it won't work in the UK or here.

BostonB

Well I think it would work if it was designed right.

Seaneh

dave_o_brien wrote: »

Shouldn't. And yet, many do. Blinkering yourself to that again fails to address the problem that faces us.

No, I don't blinker myself. Drivers who ignore road markings are breaking the law. If they fail to give way, give them a fine and penalty points, police the law properly, by being bad drivers they endanger lives, if they continually endanger lives, get them off the ****ing road.

Simples.


In an urban setting, where traffic is stop start anyway, giving way to a cyclist at a junction in the bbc link doesn't really cost you any more time.

Once road laws are properly policed, people will conform with them.

Big Eejit

dave_o_brien wrote: »

I think the belief that infrastructure alone can make a difference without a major change in the way a culture relates to how roads are used is a bit naive. The best designed Dutch roundabout in the world transplanted into Dublin (or Cork, Belfast, London, Cardiff, hell, even Rome or Barcelona) with no change in driver and law enforcement attitude will lead to conflict, as highlighted by the first reaction:



In other words, get the cyclists out of my way, as they are a nuisance. Totally different scenario to what you would find in the Netherlands. We have a different problem here with respect to road use; it demands a different solution.



Shouldn't. And yet, many do. Blinkering yourself to that again fails to address the problem that faces us. By reframing the question of "why are roundabouts difficult for cyclists in Ireland?" to "why don't roundabouts in Ireland (which are difficult for cyclists) look more like Dutch ones (which are easier for cyclists)?", you ignore the plethora of differences between the culture of road use between the two systems.

In short, OP, it won't work in the UK or here.

Education and proper enforcement is a big problem here - for cyclists, motorists and gardai. I wouldn't be at all confident that some eejit wouldn't run me over if I acted like I would in Holland (where people by and large stop when the should). Personally, I'd love if they'd introduce Dutch rules wholesale (and get rid of the idiotic provisional licencing system etc).

dave_o_brien

BostonB wrote: »

Well I think it would work if it was designed right.

Good design is about the relationship between user and the design. If users don't have a frame of reference from which they can interpret the design, it's not successful. Here, road user behaviour is such that giving way to cyclists at the exit of a roundabout would require much, much more than to be simply designed correctly.

Seaneh wrote: »

No, I don't blinker myself. Drivers who ignore road markings are breaking the law. If they fail to give way, give them a fine and penalty points, police the law properly, by being bad drivers they endanger lives, if they continually endanger lives, get them off the ****ing road.

Simples.


In an urban setting, where traffic is stop start anyway, giving way to a cyclist at a junction in the bbc link doesn't really cost you any more time.

Once road laws are properly policed, people will conform with them.

Don't get me wrong, I agree.

Unfortunately, road users who ignore road markings and signs are rarely punished here. Cyclists are treated as second class roads users here. Penalties for endangering peoples lives with a vehicle here are pretty lax. The logic involved in acknowledging that giving way in an urban setting won't cost time, as there's a red up ahead anyway, is not a part of our general thought process when using the roads. Police enforcement on these issues is not the same here as it is in the Netherlands.

All of these need to change before a Dutch roundabout could work here.

Big Eejit wrote: »

Education and proper enforcement is a big problem here - for cyclists, motorists and gardai. I wouldn't be at all confident that some eejit wouldn't run me over if I acted like I would in Holland (where people by and large stop when the should). Personally, I'd love if they'd introduce Dutch rules wholesale (and get rid of the idiotic provisional licencing system etc).

And therein lies the problem. Education, enforcement, cultural habits, and learned behaviour.

BostonB

if you out that roundabout where there's a high volume of cyclists it would work. Put it where there isn't and it wouldn't be that successful.

On a smaller roundabout in an area with few cyclists taking the lane would work much better as a means of controlling cars

Common sense would tell you that.

check_six

There's a roundabout with a raised cycle track around the outside beside the bridge over the M50 that leads to Carrickmines in Dublin. I made the mistake of going on to it while towing a bike trailer. Couldn't get off it because of the constant flow of traffic, couldn't get past the first exit I came to either! Felt pretty stupid waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to let me cross. It seemed like a looong time, but was probably only about 5 minutes. Still, it wasn't a very effective way of negotiating a roundabout!

Not convinced the separated lane will work without some serious attitude readjustment/brainwashing here.

mossym

don't we already have something similar?

https://maps.google.com/?ll=52.855948,-8.959404&spn=0.004282,0.011169&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=52.855951,-8.959571&panoid=A0G1K35rnh6iutWQUO5zzQ&cbp=12,270.35,,0,16.52

i know it doesn't give right of way to the cyclist though. this one even has two cycle lanes, one seperated, one not

OssianSmyth

Example of a standard Dutch roundabout in operation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEXD0guLQY0

notice that no cyclist opts to use the road or wears a helmet

features

• separate circulation ring for cyclists
• one way circulation - in the same direction as the cars
• protective grass verge shoulders
• where bikes cross the road, the angle allows easy eye contact between cyclist and driver
• bike way is circular so no sharp turning angles for bikes
• bike/car crossing junction set back a few metres from the car circulation
• central island much smaller than Irish roundabouts
• cycle lane coloured separately to road surface
• whole thing seems to work very smoothly

el tel

Here that roundabout style would probably mean less chance of being filleted, but more chance of being T-boned.

yer man!

I think it could work if it was done properly and had the likes of flashing amber lights at points where cars cross a cyclists path like on zebra crossings. I can't see it happening for quite a while however, in Galway anyway the council are implementing more traffic light junctions and getting rid of roundabouts. Where we do have zebra crossings at roundabout exits, there doesn't seem to be any problems with drivers complying to the rules of yielding as they path is raised relative to the road, it's well lit and there's flashing amber lights, works quite well, I believe it could work well for a bike lane too. Also as someone else remarked, it helps when the angle of the car is almost 90 degree to the pedestrian crossing at the exit, gives full visibility.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Pillo+Hotel+Galway,+Galway+City,+Ireland&hl=en&ll=53.286624,-9.044677&spn=0.000914,0.002411&sll=53.3834,-8.21775&sspn=7.474556,19.753418&oq=pillo+&t=h&hq=Pillo+Hotel&hnear=Galway,+County+Galway,+Ireland&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.286813,-9.044727&panoid=swWbmV7rOnbGv9xgs59jOg&cbp=12,162.22,,1,5.94

Chips Lovell

No thanks.

Don't think they'd work for driving/cycle cultural reasons outlined.

And in terms of spending priorities, they'd be way down my list. With the massive potholes littering the roads at the moment, resurfacing would make a much more significant difference to cyclists.

galwaycyclist

yer man! wrote: »

I think it could work if it was done properly and had the likes of flashing amber lights at points where cars cross a cyclists path like on zebra crossings. I can't see it happening for quite a while however, in Galway anyway the council are implementing more traffic light junctions and getting rid of roundabouts. Where we do have zebra crossings at roundabout exits, there doesn't seem to be any problems with drivers complying to the rules of yielding as they path is raised relative to the road, it's well lit and there's flashing amber lights, works quite well, I believe it could work well for a bike lane too. Also as someone else remarked, it helps when the angle of the car is almost 90 degree to the pedestrian crossing at the exit, gives full visibility.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Pillo+Hotel+Galway,+Galway+City,+Ireland&hl=en&ll=53.286624,-9.044677&spn=0.000914,0.002411&sll=53.3834,-8.21775&sspn=7.474556,19.753418&oq=pillo+&t=h&hq=Pillo+Hotel&hnear=Galway,+County+Galway,+Ireland&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.286813,-9.044727&panoid=swWbmV7rOnbGv9xgs59jOg&cbp=12,162.22,,1,5.94

Ok I fully agree with the idea of raised zebra crossings on all urban roundabouts. This would be a key measure for making them safer for cyclists since it would stop cars driving straight on or straight off the junction.

However, the zebra crossing you have highlighted in Galway is not raised. People who live out there tell me that this crossing is notorious for cars not stopping. It is also quite close to a traffic light crossing near Dunnes that is notorious for cars running the red light and knocking down pedestrians.

rollingscone

Speaking about Dublin, I have an easier solution. Introduce a fat tax and restrict motorised access to the city centre so that it's largely commercial (including taxis).

Central Dublin is too small to justify more than a fraction of its current motor traffic, and endless millions are pumped into trying to improve the situation for motor traffic (and around it in the case of cyclist/pedestrian provision) when the problem is motor traffic.

Irish people act horrendously on roads, no matter what their means of propulsion so trying to modify the behaviour of motor traffic is trying to lift the elephant by its tail.

valleyoftheunos

I've driven in the Netherlands and Belgium a bit where they use these Roundabouts and the rules of the road there are entirely different. Its entirely normal there to stop on roundabouts to give way to pedestrians, trams and cyclists.

Here of course the golden rule is never stop on a roundabout and that you should speed off it as fast as possible. I for one would expect many close calls and perhaps accidents where these roundabouts were used in this country.

enas

What I find strange with the whole cultural argument is that it's used with such a strength that one would imagine that we're talking of a strong cultural trait of the Irish people, that has been there for centuries and centuries, and therefore that will take at least as much time to change, if at all possible. Of course, such is not the case, and I would assume that the current designs of streets are 10 to 20 years old (how old are roundabouts in Ireland anyway? Probably a bit older, but still.). So we're not talking of something that cannot be changed (for God's sake, they almost removed the Irish language from this country, but I'm slightly off-topic here, if not slightly trolling).

I think this argument is simply indicating laziness: it's always so much easier to maintain the status quo, and refuse progress.

To answer the original question, yes, Dutch roundabouts would work very well here, as well as any piece of proper Dutch infrastructure. Of course, we have to ensure that what we have is actually what Dutch have. People who claim that the Killiney Towers roundabout was effectively an implementation of Dutch roundabouts show their ignorance of what makes a Dutch roundabout, which may explain their scepticism. Good design is not only to make user's expected behaviour more obvious, it's also to make it more tolerant to errors (even in an ideal world with only good drivers, people still make sometimes errors). That contributes to increased levels of subjective safety, which in turn leads to increased levels of cycling.

One final note on Dutch drivers being culturally good drivers: even in the Netherlands, not everything is perfect. On any bit of road that looks more "conventional" to us, you will see the same pattern of behaviour emerge (close and/or pointless overtakes, speeding, failing to yield, etc.). And surely, whether in Ireland, France, Spain, or UK, I've never observed that cars with Dutch registrations drive at any outstanding standard. They're just in the average, like anyone else.

monument

dave_o_brien wrote: »

I think the belief that infrastructure alone can make a difference without a major change in the way a culture relates to how roads are used is a bit naive. The best designed Dutch roundabout in the world transplanted into Dublin (or Cork, Belfast, London, Cardiff, hell, even Rome or Barcelona) with no change in driver and law enforcement attitude will lead to conflict, as highlighted by the first reaction:



In other words, get the cyclists out of my way, as they are a nuisance. Totally different scenario to what you would find in the Netherlands. We have a different problem here with respect to road use; it demands a different solution.



Shouldn't. And yet, many do. Blinkering yourself to that again fails to address the problem that faces us. By reframing the question of "why are roundabouts difficult for cyclists in Ireland?" to "why don't roundabouts in Ireland (which are difficult for cyclists) look more like Dutch ones (which are easier for cyclists)?", you ignore the plethora of differences between the culture of road use between the two systems.

In short, OP, it won't work in the UK or here.

From twitter today in response to UK comments like yours:

@amsterdamized re comments in UK. "They should get off the road" was widely used in 1970's... in NL, when policies were very car-centric.

I've seen a fair few images of Dutch roads from the 70s and they look a lot like our roads now.

Beasty wrote: »

This seems pretty similar to the Killiney Towers roundabout that has created all sorts of problems over here

It's quite different. Sight-lines, marked priority, and a key amount of space between the main circle and the cyclist circle.

The UK trail is closer to the general Dutch design and the UK one is the design used at larger roundabouts in the NL. One Dutch expert told me that the Killiney Towers type design is not used on such large roundabouts over there and all of the Dutch examples I found like the Killiney Towers design were all notably smaller.

rollingscone wrote: »

Speaking about Dublin, I have an easier solution. Introduce a fat tax and restrict motorised access to the city centre so that it's largely commercial (including taxis).

Central Dublin is too small to justify more than a fraction of its current motor traffic, and endless millions are pumped into trying to improve the situation for motor traffic (and around it in the case of cyclist/pedestrian provision) when the problem is motor traffic.

Irish people act horrendously on roads, no matter what their means of propulsion so trying to modify the behaviour of motor traffic is trying to lift the elephant by its tail.

Roundabouts are not really a problem in central Dublin, it's the outer areas.

check_six wrote: »

There's a roundabout with a raised cycle track around the outside beside the bridge over the M50 that leads to Carrickmines in Dublin. I made the mistake of going on to it while towing a bike trailer. Couldn't get off it because of the constant flow of traffic, couldn't get past the first exit I came to either! Felt pretty stupid waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to let me cross. It seemed like a looong time, but was probably only about 5 minutes. Still, it wasn't a very effective way of negotiating a roundabout!

Not convinced the separated lane will work without some serious attitude readjustment/brainwashing here.

The Dutch approach around motorways or larger roads is traffic lights or full serration (cyclists go under or over the road).

monument

This page by @BicycleDutch links to few blog posts detailing roundabout solutions used in the Netherlands:

http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/tag/roundabout/

OssianSmyth

Floating segregated cycle track suspended from a central pole over a large junction in Eindhoven.



Another, similarly sized floating cycle ring in Norway:

Captain Havoc

rollingscone wrote: »

Speaking about Dublin, I have an easier solution. Introduce a fat tax and restrict motorised access to the city centre so that it's largely commercial (including taxis).

Central Dublin is too small to justify more than a fraction of its current motor traffic, and endless millions are pumped into trying to improve the situation for motor traffic (and around it in the case of cyclist/pedestrian provision) when the problem is motor traffic.

Irish people act horrendously on roads, no matter what their means of propulsion so trying to modify the behaviour of motor traffic is trying to lift the elephant by its tail.

In Kilkenny we've a bad problem with traffic. 80% of car journeys that end in the city also start in the city. Kilkenny is relatively small, an average person using a heavy bicycle with a shopping basket could make it from the furthest suburb to the city centre in ten or so minutes. It would require higher numbers of cyclists in Kilkenny to make these roundabouts work. When I drive in Dublin I do tend to get caught out a little by cyclists as I'm not used to dealing with so many and it seems different in Dublin as you've more free-flowing lanes for cyclists. Would this type of roundabout assists in the popularity of cycling? Maybe, I do see a lot of cyclists using the shared walk/ cycling track on the ring road in Kilkenny. I absolutely detest the current system there (KK ring road) though for cyclists, it's very annoying.

Seweryn

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I do see a lot of cyclists using the shared walk/ cycling track on the ring road in Kilkenny. I absolutely detest the current system there (KK ring road) though for cyclists, it's very annoying.

The ring road and surrounded roads (i.e. from Lidl / Watershed :eek:) is such a mess with the cycle tracks that is not even funny. I never use it, as it would put me off cycling. Take the bridge on the ring road pass the Thomastown roundabout as an example - what should you do there to continue cycling? Should you walk or get on the road, which is now dangerous to join? If they are going to build the new section in the same manners, that will be some money wasted. OK..., I see some people use these tracks in fairness.

dave_o_brien

monument wrote: »

From twitter today in response to UK comments like yours:

@amsterdamized re comments in UK. "They should get off the road" was widely used in 1970's... in NL, when policies were very car-centric.

I've seen a fair few images of Dutch roads from the 70s and they look a lot like our roads now.

I know. It took huge political will, effective law enforcement and legislation to change before the infrastructure became worthy of investment.

If we want a similar infrastructure, the first thing to do is not build the infrastructure, it's deal with those issues. A Dutch roundabout without the Dutch legal/road culture is not an improvement.

enas

dave_o_brien wrote: »

I know. It took huge political will, effective law enforcement and legislation to change before the infrastructure became worthy of investment.

If we want a similar infrastructure, the first thing to do is not build the infrastructure, it's deal with those issues. A Dutch roundabout without the Dutch legal/road culture is not an improvement.

How do we deal with those issues? What does it even mean to "deal with those issues" without changing our roads at the same time? Do we spend the next ten years making people get used to the idea of Dutch roundabouts (to continue with this example), and then, once we're sure the idea has settled in, then we start building them for real? That doesn't make much sense to me. Of course, it requires huge political will, and of course, there will be a period of adaptation until we obtain the full benefit, when mentalities will have changed indeed (although people overestimate the time it takes to adapt -- take the Luas for example, or indeed any other new tram system in a city that wasn't used to it, you always hear people claim it won't work in their particular city because of the culture, people are too stupid etc., however, it hardly takes more than a few months of adjustment after the system is put in place until a new equilibrium is reached).

No, that's not an excuse for not doing things. Law enforcement/legislation and change in road design go hand in hand, they're not opposing alternatives, or things that come one after the other.

buffalo

enas wrote: »

No, that's not an excuse for not doing things. Law enforcement/legislation and change in road design go hand in hand, they're not opposing alternatives, or things that come one after the other.

But changing legislation and design won't make a difference without enforcement - that's the key for me. If we had an active traffic corps that could hammer home the point that the laws are there to be obeyed - more on the spot fines being issued (and I'm including RLJers along with moronic drivers), and harsher driving-related punishments for bigger offences - then we'd see a culture change.

Legislation won't matter a bit without enforcement. And nor will road design like these roundabouts. I certainly wouldn't have the confidence to use them as intended at present.

enas

buffalo wrote: »

But changing legislation and design won't make a difference without enforcement - that's the key for me.

Again, I'm not opposing this view. I'm opposing the view that says that this type of infrastructure is just not worth considering in Ireland because we would need them to be properly enforced. So what? Let's do both then. That's my simple point, and it's common sense really. Which is why I can't understand why some people oppose, sometimes very vehemently (not in this thread), any sort of infrastructure because of those "fundamental cultural issues".

I'm also arguing, but that's just a personal opinion, that you greatly overestimate the obstacle. Believe it or not, Irish people are not more stupid than anyone else. People tend to react in the same way given the same circumstances.

dave_o_brien

enas wrote: »

How do we deal with those issues? What does it even mean to "deal with those issues" without changing our roads at the same time? Do we spend the next ten years making people get used to the idea of Dutch roundabouts (to continue with this example), and then, once we're sure the idea has settled in, then we start building them for real? That doesn't make much sense to me. Of course, it requires huge political will, and of course, there will be a period of adaptation until we obtain the full benefit, when mentalities will have changed indeed (although people overestimate the time it takes to adapt -- take the Luas for example, or indeed any other new tram system in a city that wasn't used to it, you always hear people claim it won't work in their particular city because of the culture, people are too stupid etc., however, it hardly takes more than a few months of adjustment after the system is put in place until a new equilibrium is reached).

No, that's not an excuse for not doing things. Law enforcement/legislation and change in road design go hand in hand, they're not opposing alternatives, or things that come one after the other.

Despite your patronising opening statement, I largely agree with you. Maybe I'm not being clear enough in what I'm saying:

The problems that we have in Ireland with respect to cycle usage on the roads cannot be solved by copying the infrastructure used in other countries only. If we are to copy infrastructure, we also need to be conscious of the differences in legislation and enforcement regarding these pieces of infrastructure, and prepared to be firm on the issue for long enough that it becomes accepted. This could be lengthy, and would be extremely costly in altering our existing infrastructure. It would require incredibly strong and confident political backing, that would not go back on the decision in the face of objections. It would require a consistent effort on law enforcers to ensure the hierarchy of roads was respected everywhere, until such a time as it became accepted.

Without all of this, a Dutch roundabout won't work.

Chips Lovell

Cycling infrastructure can often serve to further marginalise cyclists. There is enough motorists on the road who think we shouldn't be there and by segregating cyclists further, you're only going to encourage that belief, that bikes shouldn't be there.

valleyoftheunos

My point wasn't that we shouldn't attempt to change attitudes and culture towards cyclists and the roads generally, my point was that a lot of people are going to get knocked off their bikes at these roundabouts during the change.

buffalo

enas wrote: »

Again, I'm not opposing this view. I'm opposing the view that says that this type of infrastructure is just not worth considering in Ireland because we would need them to be properly enforced. So what? Let's do both then. That's my simple point, and it's common sense really. Which is why I can't understand why some people oppose, sometimes very vehemently (not in this thread), any sort of infrastructure because of those "fundamental cultural issues".

I'm also arguing, but that's just a personal opinion, that you greatly overestimate the obstacle. Believe it or not, Irish people are not more stupid than anyone else. People tend to react in the same way given the same circumstances.

I would love to see both enforcement and design. And legislation for a written safe overtaking distance, and strict liability. But there's no political will to do both right now - there's not even political will or financial ability to do either afaics. And I for one would prefer to see - and think it would be more constructive in general - enforcement to be emphasised over Dutch roundabouts.

And I'm not saying that Irish people are stupid. But if the likelihood of being fined or penalised for an offence is quite low, anyone's mindset would be that you'd be stupid not to speed/nip through that just-gone-red light/etc.

enas

dave_o_brien wrote: »

Despite your patronising opening statement, I largely agree with you. Maybe I'm not being clear enough in what I'm saying:

Sorry if that sounded patronising, such was surely not my intention. I just wanted to underline what was in my view a paradox in your reasoning (should have put a smiley ).

dave_o_brien wrote: »

The problems that we have in Ireland with respect to cycle usage on the roads cannot be solved by copying the infrastructure used in other countries only. If we are to copy infrastructure, we also need to be conscious of the differences in legislation and enforcement regarding these pieces of infrastructure, and prepared to be firm on the issue for long enough that it becomes accepted. This could be lengthy, and would be extremely costly in altering our existing infrastructure. It would require incredibly strong and confident political backing, that would not go back on the decision in the face of objections. It would require a consistent effort on law enforcers to ensure the hierarchy of roads was respected everywhere, until such a time as it became accepted.

Without all of this, a Dutch roundabout won't work.

I agree with all you say here. Building cycling infrastructure is just one element of the greater plan (improving transport by making journeys less dependent on cars, improving the quality of cities by making streets safer, both effectively and subjectively, and more pleasant, etc.), and one has to get a good understanding of that full picture before committing to building Dutch-style cycling infrastructure, is we want a good result. But my feeling is that this realisation is slowly coming in Ireland anyway.

Concerning the cost, yes, we have to realise we're talking of a big investment. This is why is won't happen overnight, but it will take several decades. But we have to start from somewhere. Also, one of the reasons Dutch invested so much in cycling as a mode of transport is simply because they found that as a transport investment, its gives the best return (quite intuitively, €100M for a tram won't bring you very far, but you can build very decent stuff in terms of cycling infrastructure for that money). They found that it would cost more not to invest in cycling than to invest in cycling.

I'm not saying that it's sufficient to say this should happen for it to happen. But at least, we have to agree about the vision we want to achieve. If cycle campaigners themselves are sceptical about cycling infrastructure and have low aspirations, why would decision makers, who are hardly known to pay excessive attention to cycle campaigners, do anything in this direction?

enas

buffalo wrote: »

And I for one would prefer to see, and think it would be more constructive in general, for enforcement to be emphasised, over Dutch roundabouts.

I think this statement reflects a typical misunderstanding of what we're talking about. What you say reflects what you, as an existing cyclist, would like to improve. What I'm talking about is what we should do to get masses of people cycling.

Surely, I am, like most in this forum, happy enough to cycle on Irish roads as they are, even in the absence of Dutch roundabouts or anything similar. Surely enough, I would like that cars pass me widely, and be fined when they don't, and I see no reason why a change in legislation and stricter enforcement shouldn't happen.

But that just won't bring new cyclists, not in massive numbers anyway. You could manage to get all drivers become perfect, and yet, for the vast majority of people, cycling between fast moving cars, large HGVs and buses stopping and starting all the time just doesn't feel right. You can convince them it's safe, they will still find it highly unpleasant, and they won't do it. You won't see 80-year-old grandmas with their groceries taking the lane on a dual carriageway. You won't see an 8-year-old boy cycle alone on a large roundabout by correctly cycling in the centre of the inner lane to turn right. I for sure would like my daughters to be able to cycle wherever they want, on their own, from as young as 6 or 7 years old. That's standard in the Netherlands. That's something I could never contemplate here -- I would feel extremely nervous even to have her cycle with me at that age.

The main mental obstacle we have to overcome is to convince existing cyclists, such as you and me, that good quality infrastructure won't be a downgrade in comparison with our current conditions (quite the opposite in fact). But with existing cyclists seeing first-hand how the current bad infrastructure is an impediment to their progress more than anything else, a lot of effort has to be put to change that perception.

markpb

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Cycling infrastructure can often serve to further marginalise cyclists. There is enough motorists on the road who think we shouldn't be there and by segregating cyclists further, you're only going to encourage that belief, that bikes shouldn't be there.

Why do you think countries like the Netherlands spend so much money on off-road cycle lanes and continue to attract large numbers of cyclists? Surely they all feel marginalised in that case?

Chips Lovell

markpb wrote: »

Why do you think countries like the Netherlands spend so much money on off-road cycle lanes and continue to attract large numbers of cyclists? Surely they all feel marginalised in that case?

I don't know if they do or not. But the amount of motorists here who seem to think that just because there's an off-road cycle track you should get bawled out for being on the road leads me to believe that adding even more would just heighten the divide.

Besides, pouring money into new infrastructure makes little sense when we can't even maintain our existing infrastructure.

markpb

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I don't know if they do or not. But the amount of motorists here who seem to think that just because there's an off-road cycle track you should get bawled out for being on the road leads me to believe that adding even more would just heighten the divide.

Besides, pouring money into new infrastructure makes little sense when we can't even maintain our existing infrastructure.

I only spent a small amount of time in Amsterdam but the off-road cycle lanes there were so good that I didn't see any cycles feeling the need to use the road. Surely that's a model we could aim for?

enas

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

But the amount of motorists here who seem to think that just because there's an off-road cycle track you should get bawled out for being on the road leads me to believe that adding even more would just heighten the divide.

Would that be a problem if cycling on the "off-road cycle track" was the place you preferred to be cycling anyway?

To make my point, I like to refer to that post.

This explain how the now largely artificial distinction between light and heavy mopeds in the Netherlands is used as a loophole for people to be legally allowed to ride their scooter on cycle paths as opposed to the main road. Do they do that to marginalise themselves, or because the find the quality of the cycle paths much more attractive than the road itself?

Chips Lovell

You want to create an cycling infrastructure that would enable cyclists to never use the road? You realise how much that would cost?

And the fact that it would be a complete pain in the arse to use because of the constant intersections with roads and footpaths?

It's unrealistic to expect to be able to put cyclists in their own little bubble where they never have to interact with motorists.

Roads a shared space for all vehicle types. Let's focus on a.) maintaining them properly and b.) making sure that each road user is treated with the same respect, rather than wasting money trying to build two parallel road networks.

petethedrummer

http://thebikeshow.net/what-it-really-means-to-go-dutch/

monument

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You want to create an cycling infrastructure that would enable cyclists to never use the road? You realise how much that would cost?

And the fact that it would be a complete pain in the arse to use because of the constant intersections with roads and footpaths?

It's unrealistic to expect to be able to put cyclists in their own little bubble where they never have to interact with motorists.

Roads a shared space for all vehicle types. Let's focus on a.) maintaining them properly and b.) making sure that each road user is treated with the same respect, rather than wasting money trying to build two parallel road networks.

Why is what the Dutch or Dainish do so unrealistic for us?