A driving instructor in Cambridge has branded a new roundabout layout in the city, which features dedicated crossing facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, “chaotic” and “too distracting” – after residents complained that the recently upgraded junction, which features 36 traffic lights, was increasing congestion and leaving “long queues of cars standing on idle”.
Earlier this month, the signalised roundabout at the junction of Milton Road, Elizabeth Way, and Highworth Avenue in Cambridge officially opened, as part of the final phase of a wider £31.9m safety improvement scheme on the Milton Road, where 90 cyclists were involved in collisions between March 2013 and April 2018.
Launched in 2022 and set to be fully completed this month, the Greater Cambridge Partnership, a collaborative body in charge of the scheme made up of local businesses, the city and county councils, and academics, says the project “aims to improve public transport, cycling, and walking infrastructure to make these sustainable travel options a more attractive alternative to the car”.
Improvements have included the installation of continuous protected cycleways and footpaths, 14 new Copenhagen crossings to provide priority for cyclists and pedestrians, a new CYCLOPS junction (the second of its kind in the city) at King’s Hedges, and other footpath and cycleway upgrades.
(Greater Cambridge Partnership)
According to the Greater Cambridge Partnership, the layout at the roundabout linking Milton Road with Highworth Avenue and Elizabeth Way has been altered to “accompany different users of Milton Road to ensure everyone can move freely and securely in buses, cars, on bicycles, wheels, or on foot”.
The new layout features dedicated and separate crossing facilities for those walking and cycling, “ensuring people can safely cross the road, even during the busiest times”. There are two crossings at the Milton Road junction, one at Highworth Avenue, and one at Elizabeth Way, along with dedicated cycle lanes circling the roundabout.
“These features will mean parents, children and commuters can have the confidence to cycle along Milton Road, whether they are heading to the shops, school, or work,” the partnership said.
However, since its opening, the scheme has come in for criticism from local motorists, who claim the increased number of lights – prompting locals to brand it “Blackpool Illuminations” and the “birthday cake roundabout” – have led to longer queues of traffic.
“There were long queue of cars standing on idle because the red light is there for an incredibly long time while there is zero traffic on the roundabout itself. Besides, don’t traffic lights defeat the purpose of a roundabout?” one local asked on social media.
“There was never a problem in the first place!” Cambridge resident Penelope claimed.
“It is ridiculous, I have lived here for over 20 years right near the roundabout,” another added. “Cars are now unnecessarily stopped and sirens from emergency vehicles due to the lights late at night. I struggled to get out my driveway as no one wanted to let me out due to having to queue up themselves.”
Meanwhile, Cambridge-based driving instructor Sue Papworth also told the BBC that the roundabout’s “complicated” layout was causing congestion and a “lot of anger” among locals.
“There are too many distractions by way of traffic lights,” she said. “We’ve now got cycle lanes that are going both ways round the roundabout [and] because of the confusion you’ve really got to expect the unexpected.
“We’ve got a signalised parallel crossing that allows people to walk and cycle across the road separately, special paved and coloured surfaces that separate the crossings, and it’s just too distracting. There’s too much to look at.”
“It’s a place where they can ride safely and let their children ride independently too”
Nevertheless, Camcycle, the Cambridge Cycling Campaign, has praised the new layout, which it claims has opened up the junction to children and less confident cyclists who had previously claimed that they would take longer detours to avoid the roundabout and that it was “only traversable by the brave”.
“When we launched our campaign for Safe Junctions back in 2021, many people told us this was one of the junctions they avoided,” Camcycle said.
“Now, many who were put off cycling here feel it’s a place where they can ride safely and let their children ride independently too. It’s an important part of the protected route down Milton Road rather than a broken link in the cycle network.”
(Camcycle)
Echoing Camcycle’s comments, the Greater Cambridge Partnership responded to complaints from drivers by saying: “Our challenge has been to develop a scheme so parents, children and commuters can have the confidence to walk and cycle along Milton Road, as well as to manage traffic flow along the road.
“There will be a period of on-site monitoring in order to make adjustments to ensure both the traffic flows smoothly, and the new pedestrian and cycle crossing points have adequate time to accommodate the many movements made at certain times of the day.”
This isn’t the first time, of course, that aspects of the Milton Road improvement scheme have come in for criticism.
In October 2023, parts of the project’s protected cycleways and footpaths were reworked after users of the route pointed out how narrow the pavement is in places, raising concerns about access for disabled people and risk of collisions involving cyclists using the adjacent cycle lane.
The scheme’s issues were highlighted by locals who pointed out the placing of lampposts on the already narrow footpath, plus other narrow sections, made the route dangerous for pedestrians, with particular concerns that users could be hit by cyclists using the cycle lane that runs next to it.
In places the footway was just 90cm wide, prompting Conservative councillor Delowar Hossain to label the path “too narrow and dangerous” and accusing the partnership of wasting money.
The chief executive of “everyday walking charity” Living Streets also criticised the lack of consideration for pedestrians, particularly those with mobility issues or young children.
“It is vital that people walking or wheeling have enough space to do so safely – we want to see paths at least 1.5-2m wide. This allows for wheelchairs or buggies to pass safely,” Stephen Edwards said.
“It is important to ensure that people walking have adequate safe space, free of clutter, and aren’t forced to put themselves into the potentially dangerous way of oncoming cyclists.”
49 thoughts on ““You’ve really got to expect the unexpected”: Driving instructor says “chaotic, distracting” new roundabout with cycle lanes, 36 traffic lights, and coloured surfaces has “too much to look at””
Quote:
Isn’t that just a general guideline for being on the roads?
Along with “There are too
Along with “There are too many distractions by way of traffic lights … There’s too much to look at.”
Yes, and if it makes drivers
Yes, and if it makes drivers feel a little uncomfortable and hesitant that’s almost certainly safer than a ‘don’t stop me now’ attitude.
I would have thought that Ms
I would have thought that Ms Papsworth, as a driving instructor, would already know that driving requires full alertness of ALL possible distractions at all times! Her statement sounds like it’s coming from a mediocre instructor.
Didn’t the old Advanced
Didn’t the old Advanced Drivers Course literally train Drivers in observation and expecting the unexpected. Perhaps she’s failed to spot a business opportunity. As already commented, it sounds like she’s teaching to pass the test not teaching to be a good driver.
Just pile on through: you’re
Just pile on through: you’re with the AA.
But it doesn’t mean anything.
But it doesn’t mean anything.
Should I expect a falling engine off a passing plane ? Someone to drive through the railings above me ? Someone to have a heart attack at the wheel just as we meet ?
Hirsute wrote:
Welcome to the opposite side of the bell curve…
Hirsute wrote:
Not just off passing planes!
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/flimsy-strap-secured-50m-jet-engine-which-fell-from-a-truck-in-arncliffe/news-story/e9c209911d5c00d0cf334448aac65ff3
When I was about 1yrs old,
When I was about 1yrs old, the cargo door of a jet plane landed beside me where I was sitting in my rear garden.
I remember a report in the paper a few years ago, where a body of a person who was stowing away in the undercarriage of a plane, landed in the garden near where the resident was sunbathing.
I can recall three incidents of Police helicopters crashing. First was a Bell 222 crashing in Clissold park, North London. The next was a Twin Squirrel landing on a house in Wales. The third was the nightclub crash in Glasgow.
I think you have totally under estimated the perils from above.
Mr Anderson wrote:
Paging Hawkinspeter…
I feel like Commissioner
I feel like Commissioner Gordon when Batman doesn’t answer the call.
quiff wrote:
Sorry, I’d gone to see Goat play.
Ever reliable! That canopy /
Ever reliable! That canopy / rotor intersection probably explains how it crashed into a house.
quiff wrote:
They likely need a few more lessons before identifying as a flying squirrel
Quote:
Wait until they hear what many cycle lanes are like…
I’ve been on many walks where
I’ve been on many walks where the footpath is less than 90cm width running alondside of busy through routes (In fact some roads I’ve walked along didn’t even have a footpath). I’m ptretty sure that Cambridge and certainly wider Cambridgeshire has plenty of these. I wonder if Mr Hossein is equally concerned about these.
The village I live in has
The village I live in has many narrow paths so most residents use the road instead. Where the path is wider, residents still use the road because of all the vehicles pavement parking.
We can’t accept that drivists will do the right thing which is why we need more controls, and more traffic lights.
90cm is below requirements
90cm is below requirements for “absolute minumum past a physical obstacle” in Inclusive Mobility.
That – if it exists – is not acceptable.
Got to be an improvement from
Got to be an improvement from how it was before, but:
Hmm… I read “Copenhagen crossings” and immediately get twitchy (Copenhagen – lots of cycling, a lot better than the UK but generally 2nd rate infra) – however that apparently is a synonym for “continuous footway“. That is generally poorly implemented in the UK, so let’s see.
It also seems – like so many things in the UK – that this isn’t … Dutch? In such a location the Dutch would likely have a) reduced the traffic volumes (if not they would probably have proper grade-separation for cyclists and pedestrians). b) if traffic volume was low there would be a roundabout with cycling priority – not this neither-fish-nor-fowl thing.
Certainly when you see multiple lanes for drivers it’s not a “Dutch cycling roundabout”. So if traffic really was high they’d likely have some kind of “turbo-roundabout” for motorist safety and completely separate walking and cycling provision.
Having said that, I don’t get
Having said that, I don’t get why drivers would complain. Almost every feature that I can see is making it easier and safer for drivers! Roundabouts allow higher flows for motorists without reducing safety. There are lanes on the roundabout so it should be clear where everyone is going and people shouldn’t be cutting across each other (… shouldn’t…). Separate marked areas for cycling and walking (so they can deal with the other car traffic, then deal with any cyclists / walkers). Traffic lights (really for drivers).
chrisonabike wrote:
Are you quite mad, sir? Are you anti-growth or something?? 😉
Aren’t the safest
Aren’t the safest intersections in the world those where the people in control of dangerous weapons are trained to “expect the unexpected” and avoid it?
(Possibly quibbling over
(Possibly quibbling over definitions but) I think the safest “intersections” in the world are ones where people don’t even notice there’s an intersection…
(Here’s a before and after example. Here are some roundabouts – the best of course being where the powered vehicles are the ones which change level, or have to change level the most.)
Given that the overwhelming
Given that the overwhelming majority of drivers aren’t in control of dangerous weapons, your question seems irrelevant, to say the least.
john_smith wrote:
All drivers are at the controls of dangerous weapons – it’s just a matter of which of them exercise the expected level of control.
Its does seem a bit over
Its does seem a bit over-engineered. I dont recall seeing such excess in the junctions of the NL, or elsewhere in mainland europe for that matter. Perhaps for some junctions like the one above, it should just be returned to a cross-roads, with traffic lights and segregation. Why add the roundabout and traffic lights? just seems to make it worse. Peoples tax is not being efficiently spent here. If this, is what cycle safety will cost at every roundabout – we’re doing something seriously wrong.
I rather agree with you on
I rather agree with you on over-engineered. Or perhaps we can say “over-engined”? Look at this location on streetview – it is the usual UK nonsense of a busy “route” for motor traffic which is also a “place” (residential “street”, shopping street etc.)
I suspect the folks tasked with implementing this are trying to square the circle of “implement ‘Dutch’ cycling facilities and make it safer for vulnerable road users – BUT motor vehicle speeds and traffic volumes have to stay the same”. Or perhaps they’re sneakily trying to discourage drivers with all those traffic lights?
Anyway I’d say this location calls for some motor traffic volume reduction. Then remove the extra motor vehicle lanes, make the roundabout smaller, add an outward slope (“adverse camber”) to provide feedback for faster vehicles and put in proper cycle-paths around it. Either standard Dutch urban “with priority” design or – if you’re a fan of the other side of the “priority or not” debate, the design less commonly used in urban areas but used in e.g. Assen.
“But this is a major motor traffic artery – all these people have to drive!” OK – but in that case you absolutely should be providing fully separate walking and cycling infra, with grade-separated crossings… Or ensuring there’s are parallel safe, convenient routes for active travel and this “urban motorway” doesn’t interrupt networks for people who aren’t driving.
These types of roundabouts
These types of roundabouts ARE abundant in NL. Especially in bigger cities.
Geordiepeddeler wrote:
You’d be broadly right but actually alexuk is correct on the details – as shown above this is not a “Dutch” design (or certainly none that I’ve seen). The UK seems to specialise in these “not Dutch” designs. Most are frankly cargo-cult grade – they “look like” if you squint but miss the key features and don’t do what the Dutch ones are designed to. Some manage to make things more dangerous and less convenient for cycling!
This one looks something between a standard Dutch signalised junction, an urban roundabout and possibly a “turbo-roundabout” (because multiple lanes for traffic). It might not be terrible; it ain’t Dutch.
This is particularly concerning in Cambridge since they have already managed a “almost standard Dutch roundabout” with cycling priority over at Fendon Road. Again I suspect those charged with implementation were presented with a set of impossible-to-fulfil specifications (e.g. keep the same volume of motor traffic).
I know it’s been a very long
I know it’s been a very long time since I passed my car test and almost as long since I passed my motorcycle test but instructors for both encouraged me to expect the unexpected at all times while driving or riding. Have driving instructors changed that much that they tell trainees to expected the expected only?
Wasn’t there a US politician
Wasn’t there a US politician who said there are known knowns, known unknowns, but that you really have to be careful of the unknown unknowns…? This is the same principle, I suppose?
That was Donald Rumsfeld. Who
That was Donald Rumsfeld. Who was a neo con war profiteer, a liar and an enabler of an illegal war and massive destruction in the Middle East. But compared to today’s batch he is a bleeding heart liberal.
36 sets of lights? It would
36 sets of lights? It would be interesting to see what effect a power outage would have. I wouldn’t be surprised if the traffic flowed much more smoothly.
Very likely, but the rate of
Very likely, but the rate of drivers crashing into vulnerable road users (and other motorists) would go up – until people grew leery of walking or cycling on the junction…
(This is the road network in miniature – private motor traffic effectively suppresses other modes. And the naysayers are delighted: “see? It got safer without the infra!” )
Depends what you mean by
Depends what you mean by traffic. Before the lights turned on it was much smoother for cars, but then I, as a confident cyclist, would use the main carriageway rather than the bike lane because crossing the roundabout meant a lot of waiting around. Yes the lights make it less smooth for car traffic but much better for other kinds of traffic
I live on the next road along
I live on the next road along from this roundabout, I go over it everyday with my child in a bike trailer. It’s much safer now to the point where my 3 year old can cycle up and down Milton road (likely by herself but I won’t test that). With that said there is a lot more traffic queued up since the lights came on, and in fact this morning it was a red light for a queue of cars and green for empty roads. I absolutely love any infrastructure that reduces car culture but I do think some drivers have a point; it’s currently causing congestion.
Though the driving instructor; what is she on? She should NOT be in charge of teaching people how to drive! It’s simple, you drive when your light is green, how do you get that wrong?!
Isn’t this an agument for
Isn’t this an agument for something better than standard UK “not smart” signals? And the “causing congestion”? If traffic lights are the proximate cause, then “lots of (and/or fast) motor traffic” is the ultimate cause. No – or few, very slow – motor vehicles: no need for traffic lights…
Totally agree. I got run off
Totally agree. I got run off my bike waiting at a set of traffic lights in Lincoln a few years ago by a learner with a driving instructor. I was then shouted at by the instructor and accused of road rage when I questioned her on what the hell she was playing at. These roundabouts are prolific in the Netherlands and having lived there for over 5 years these can only be a good thing. People are ignorant and don’t like change.
This is what happens when a
This is what happens when a group has their privilege withdrawn, it feels like discrimination to them when they have to drive safely. For all their lifetimes, drivers have been able to impose risk on vulnerable users, literally frightening them off the roads, but when they are forced to drive considerately, the drivers feel their rights have been taken away.
Quote:
I’m not sure I want a roundabout accompanying me – it sounds rather intimidating.
Did they perhaps mean ‘accommodate’?
Don’t worry, you can keep it
Don’t worry, you can keep it in your Acme (pot)hole.
I suppose it all depends on
I suppose it all depends on which instrument you play. A “Yes” Roundabout accompaniment would surely be a rousing thing, no?
Be sure to wear bone induction earphones though, it would not do to miss the “Traffic” backing track.
Do we have a Daily Mail rant
Do we have a Daily Mail rant or a Telegrunt grunt about this yet?
If there are 90cm wide footway pinch points, then that is a real problem. That would be a surprise for Cambridge, as I would expect Camcycle to catch it.
How is an 85cm wide mobility scooter supposed to get through?
Have they left the roads or something else too wide?
Yes we do. It’s quite funny.
Yes we do. It’s quite funny.
They even call a toucan crossing with a cyclist on it a “pedestrian crossing”. Admittedly it is on red.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13997659/Expect-unexpected-Britains-hated-roundabout-driving-instructor-warns-Birthday-cake-junction.html
Can anyone pinpoint that oak
Can anyone pinpoint that oak post blcoking the footway?
It’s meaningless without context.
I think it’s also shown in
I think it’s also shown in the more contextual image above it. Oak post in middle of footway where adjacent cycle track also narrows to accommodate bus stop.
Why is it even there?
Why is it even there?
What does it do?
“There was never a problem in
“There was never a problem in the first place!” Cambridge resident Penelope claimed…