Concerned residents are calling on the local council to introduce safety measures at a notoriously dangerous roundabout – where over 70 crashes have been recorded in 25 years – after a cyclist was killed in a collision with a driver last month.
A cyclist was left with serious injuries and later died after a collision with the driver of a grey Hyundai i20 on August 29, at Shepherds Hill Roundabout, Woodley, Berkshire.
A 24-year-old man from Slough has been released on police bail after he was arrested on suspicion of causing serious injury by careless driving, reports The Reading Chronicle.
The police have no further updates, but are encouraging anyone who may have been a witness to come forward.
The roundabout has seen over 70 incidents between 1999 and 2023, according to crashmap.co.uk. It is only surrounded by 16 houses, a BP fuel station, an M&S Food Hall, beauty businesses, a gym, a bakery and a pub.
Peter Wheat, who lives near the site of the collision, criticised the council for the large number of incidents in the area.
“During the time I have lived near Shepherds Hill Roundabout, London Road, on the edge of Woodley, there have been 77 accidents, including seven serious accidents,” he told The Reading Chronicle.
“What is the council doing to improve public road safety at this accident hotspot?”
He plans to ask Wokingham Borough Council this question on Thursday, 25 September. Councillor Adrian Betteright, the executive member for active travel, transport and highways, is expected to respond.
Other residents have pointed out that the roundabout is dangerous for vulnerable road users, as if “pedestrians and cyclists are an afterthought.”
“I had a VERY near miss myself the other week,” commented Elizabeth Downing on Berkshire Live’s Facebook post.
“I went into the right-hand lane and someone I think didn’t see me, and thankfully the BP slip road was there as I had to quickly swerve and brake.
“I’ve even seen people going around it the wrong way more than once! And this isn’t including all of the roads within the roundabout itself.”
James Webb also commented: “Definitely, road design plays a huge role here, not just drivers. UK roundabouts are designed to let cars drive through at high speed; pedestrians and cyclists are an afterthought.
“Look at how the Dutch build their roundabouts.”
Investigating officer Police Sergeant Matthew Cadmore, of the Serious Collision Investigation Unit, said: “Firstly, I would like to share my sincere condolences to the family of the man who has sadly died in hospital as a result of his injuries.
“I am re-appealing to anyone who witnessed this collision to please get in touch. I am also appealing to anyone who was driving in the area in the moments leading up to the collision to please check their dash-cam for any footage.
“Footage can be uploaded to our dedicated online portal , and anyone with information can call 101 or make an online report via our website, quoting reference number 43250442717.
“If you don’t want to speak directly with police, you can also call the independent charity Crimestoppers 100% anonymously on 0800 555 111.”
18 thoughts on “Residents call for road safety action after cyclist dies in collision on “accident hotspot” roundabout that has seen over 70 crashes in past 25 years”
Very sad. This roundabout is
Very sad. This roundabout is a dangerous mess.
The only “Dutch roundabout”
The only “Dutch roundabout” they’d consider here (5-arm multi-lane one on what appears to be a major through-route) would be a turbo- roundabout (so no vulnerable road users allowed). Either way I’m sure that nothing less than accessible grade-separated routes for walking and cycling would be considered.
…But I think they’d first go “why are we effectively running a motorway with such traffic through a built-up area? Why are roads being asked to perform incompatible functions? What is the network here? “
because it’s the A4 and
because it’s the A4 and straight as a die. ironically it becomes single carriageway in the Maidenhead direction shortly afterwards.
The sole purpose of
The sole purpose of roundabouts is to keep traffic moving, and most people don’t even slow up if they give a quick glance and don’t see anything coming. The layout of this particular example seems to deliberately encourage high speed entry and exit, and the number of incidents shows how safe that is.
Best thing to do would be to put up screens to prevent drivers seeing the traffic on the roundabout as they approach, so that they have to slow down in case something is coming. Not perfect, but in the places where it has been used it has cut the collision rate dramatically.
eburtthebike wrote:
That would almost certainly increase the casualty rates for any remaining vulnerable road users foolhardy enough to use it.
I am aware that sometimes “it works” but I think this approach is probably 2nd rate compared with something like a turbo-roundabout (no lane changing on the roundabout).
Of course *that* would require completely separate provision for walking, wheeling and cycling…
Multi- lane roundabout screams “motor vehicle throughput at the expense of safety”.
chrisonabike wrote:
Best thing to do would be to put up screens to prevent drivers seeing the traffic on the roundabout as they approach, so that they have to slow down in case something is coming. Not perfect, but in the places where it has been used it has cut the collision rate dramatically.
— chrisonabike That would almost certainly increase the casualty rates for any remaining vulnerable road users foolhardy enough to use it.— eburtthebike
The evidence is that it is safer: why do you think that it would increase the risk to peds/cyclists?
Because presumably the
Because presumably the cyclists would also have their vision blocked? I know that doing so for drivers does motivate many to slow (but see also “overtake on a ‘blind bend’ “…) but as a vulnerable road user I want to have maximum visibility of motorists I may be in conflict with.
Again almost all roundabouts like this to me say “needs fully separate access for walking and cycling”. Ideally look at whether the motor traffic can be sent elsewhere! But sometimes it’s possible to duck the problem by improving routes in the immediate neighbourhood so people don’t have to cycle there. Otherwise under/ overpasses.
I understand the ideaology
I understand the ideaology but it’ll take a lot more than that with the current long straight multi-lane entries. I was nearly taken out by an idiot undertaking a long line of traffic at a smaller dual lane entry roundabout. He had no visibility at all that didn’t stop him undertaking at speed. Fortunately the main carriageway goes down hill to the entry so I could just see his roof!
The problem is drivers who
The problem is drivers who think that “seeing no danger” is the same as “seeing that there is no danger” – I don’t believe that blinding these drivers further is going to improve anything.
The simplest, easiest and cheapest thing to do, would be to reduce the speed limit on the gyratory from 40 mph to 30 mph (or better 20 mph). The next thing it needs reducing from two lanes to a single lane, but with protected lanes/slip roads for at least some of the entrances from the middle onto the gyratory, i.e. from Shepherds Hill and from small retail park housing Majestic Wine
A big problem with the current 40 limit is the speed that motorists carry when they exit the gyratory onto Reading Road, Bath Road or Pitts Lane. I know someone who has managed to write off two cars (in two single vehicle collisions), exiting the gyratory onto Bath Road. I often have to take evasive action when approaching the gyratory from Reading Road, as drivers come round the bend so fast they swerve into the oncoming lane (even buses).
Probably the scariest thing I’ve ever seen on this gyratory was one evening at about 7pm, I exited round the blind bend onto Reading Road and found two unsupervised children, under the age 2, in the middle of the road – thankfully I was travelling at a sensible speed and was able to stop easily. I shudder to think what might have happened if they had met the 70-80% of drivers who don’t drive round the blind bend at a sensible speed.
I cycle through this
I cycle through this roundabout frequently – and carefully. The through route is the A4 on the east side of Reading so yes, there’s plenty of traffic. It has multiple lanes all the way round which encourages fast driving. There is very little in the way of pedestrian provision and nothing at all for cyclists. It’s not a relaxing place for a cyclist, I don’t like it much as a driver either.
That’s not quite correct, it
That’s not quite correct, it’s badly marked and substandard but the pavement all around it is shared usage. I always cross the A4 by the pub at Shepherd Walk and proceed down the pavement past Wenzels.
Badly marked and substandard
Badly marked and substandard would cover that, yes. And having to cross the busy entrance to M&S.
It’s a shared use pavement –
It’s a shared use pavement – but I wouldn’t call it a shared use path. Much of it is barely suitable for pedestrian only use, let alone shared with cyclists. I pity the unwitting (visiting?) cyclist that tries to cross London Road here (and it is a very popular route with visiting bike packers, being on the N4)
A point I have made
A point I have made consistently about the roundabout that has the highest cycle casualty rate in all of #Glasgow
“motorway junction-style flares encourage drivers to maintain high speeds rather than slow down”
https://glasgowcycleman.wordpress.com/2022/11/08/deconstructing-the-auldhouse-roundabout-cycle-collisions-1999-2020/
I have had a few near misses
I have had a few near misses on this roundabout when coming past the Majestic wine place. Cyclists on the roundabout are all too easily hidden by window pillars of cars being driven onto the roundabout from the London Road (A4). The angle of intersection makes it more likely. I take it really careful round there.
In the byline: “…surrounded
In the byline: “…surrounded by just 16 houses…”; then, in the article itself, “It is only surrounded by 16 houses…”
What am I missing here – what’s the purpose of “just” and “only” here? Would the high collision rate be more acceptable if there were more houses by the roundabout?
smallbeer wrote:
Also, the gyratory isn’t surrounded by 16 houses, it surrounds 16 houses.
I wouldn’ call it a
I wouldn’ call it a roundabout more of a high speed gyratory. Its unfortunately predictable that it’d lead to numerous collisions (too many long straights, no deflection, two lane entries etc) its in desperate need of being signalised or replaced!