- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Dutch-style roundabout, Cambridge (picture via Cambridgeshire County Council)Dutch research finds cyclists increasingly at risk at roundabouts
Dutch-style roundabouts are gradually being introduced in the UK – but new research from the Netherlands has found that roundabouts in general, and not just ones designed specifically for cyclists, are becoming increasingly unsafe for people on bikes, with a rise in collisions at them attributed to greater complexity not only in the design of such junctions, but also the means people use to navigate them.
Road safety expert Erik Donkers of the traffic consultancy VIA examined all reported collisions involving cyclists in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2021, and discovered that roundabouts especially were less safe for people on bikes than previously assumed, reports Het Parool.
Nearly one in eight reported road traffic collisions, 12 per cent, involving someone riding a pedal cycle or an e-bike happened at a roundabout, although they only account for 0.6 per cent of the country’s 575,000 junctions.
“The bicycle has been experiencing a revival in recent years,” he said. “There are a lot of cyclists and different types of cyclists – from e-bikes to cargo bikes, racing bikes and speed pedelecs.”
And it is that mix of different kinds of bikes, and especially the speed differential between a traditional bicycle and an e-bike, that Donkers says explains why roundabouts are becoming increasingly hazardous for people on two wheels, in part because motorists now find it more difficult to judge their speed.
“A roundabout is more complicated anyway,” he said. “As a road user you have four conflict points. If a car hits a bicycle on a roundabout, even at low speed, things quickly go wrong.”
He believes that cyclists need more protection – 150 cyclists are killed in the Netherlands each year, accounting for one in four road deaths – but says the solution lies in changing current rules regarding priority at roundabouts, which currently favour those on bicycles.
“Reversing the right of way gives the cyclist more responsibility and possibly prevents a false sense of safety,” he said, adding that in some municipalities that was already the case.
The Dutch national cyclists’ organisation, Fietsersbond, said that inconsistency in who has priority at roundabouts, depending on the municipality did not help the situation.
“In some local councils cars have priority and in others it’s cyclists. That is confusing,” a spokesperson said.
In common with a number of other European countries – notably, France – the Netherlands has witnessed an explosion in the number of roundabouts in recent years.
At the turn of the Millennium, there were between 1,500 to 1,800 in the country but now, a little more than two decades later, that has risen more than threefold to nearly 5,600.
Not everyone is in agreement with Donkers, however. Traffic engineer Robert Louwerse of the Foundation for Road Safety Research (SWOV) said earlier this year: “The roundabout is the very best invention ever in infrastructure. If you convert an intersection into a roundabout, the number of accidents decreases by 70 percent. They are proven to be safer.”
But Donkers insisted: “Empirical research shows that the road safety of cyclists at intersections – especially on roundabouts – is a problem.”
The world’s first roundabout, according to Het Parool? The Circus in Bath, dating back to 1768 – and which happens to be a couple of doors along from road.cc’s first home back when the site was founded in 2008.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 54 sec ago
I said it appears to on the basis of the graph you shared, I was at pains to point out that I hadn't read the article. Thanks for sharing the blog,...
- john_smith 5 hours 14 min ago
Straight into the sun is perhaps an exaggeration, but at that time it would be about ESE, and there are bits of the road which head roughly SSE, so...
- john_smith 5 hours 23 min ago
7 October was just a bit of harmless fun until the "msm" ramped it up.
- hawkinspeter 5 hours 23 min ago
It's not censored if you just pirate it
- stonojnr 6 hours 28 min ago
an example of Kesgraves "best cycling infrastructure in the country" https://maps.app.goo.gl/GsCMbzDUTPdq59qS9
- wookey 6 hours 36 min ago
It turns out that that is national police policy. We found out from this process that there is national 'secured by design' policy which causes...
- mtbtomo 7 hours 15 min ago
Been available for quite a while, full GRX mechanical 12 speed. Probably around the same time as 105 mechanical 12 speed if I were to guess.
- TheBillder 7 hours 21 min ago
Less harmful citrus degreaser is easy to find at £8 or less for 5 litres. Works ok for me, even diluted up to 4:1. Both paraffin and white spirit...
- Veganpotter 7 hours 27 min ago
Nope, it's to keep your straps down and quieter. Plus most sunglasses are polycarbonate and aren't going to shatter like glass anyway
- Steve K 7 hours 58 min ago
And, more seriously, where's the coverage of the closure of the cycle lane which forces you to cycle on the Totton bypass.
Add new comment
31 comments
The world’s first roundabout, according to Het Parool? The Circus in Bath, dating back to 1768 – and which happens to be a couple of doors along from road.cc’s first home back when the site was founded in 2008.
But was it a roundabout – with traffic circulating in one direction only – when it was built? (I've probably ridden round it the wrong way myself, just for gitz and shissles)
Yes, I wondered that; as there were effectively no real traffic laws back then - it wasn't until 1835 that it was even made mandatory to drive on the left - I'd imagine people just circulated in whichever direction was most convenient, I doubt folks delivering to a house two doors to the right of the Brock Street entrance would turn left and go round the entire circle to get there.
Anyone claiming expertise in 'road safety' sets alarms ringing for me. The problem is road danger and how to reduce it. The term 'road safety' implies there's something aberrant about the UK's 150,000 road casualties per year, rather than death and injury being baked into the transport system and just accepted as 'one of those things'.
Any alleged expert using the term 'accident' needs to be taken out and shot.
Might not be disingenuous at all. As I learned on road.cc "road safety expert" means "expensive self-publicist lawyer".
+1 for "road danger" BTW - the Road Danger Reduction Forum introduced me to that better usage.
Cyclists. Be careful at those roundabouts where there is little cornering resistance to the driver position and exit through a straight line. Cars do accelerate through the roundabout because its an easy manoeuvre with little or no traffic calming practices.
Made to move motor vehicles as fast as possible.
There's a mini-roundabout on my commute that's really bad. I honestly think that 90% of drivers dont realise it's a roundabout (though, as you can see, it very obviously is). I approach from Sandford Mill Road and use the right-hand lane to go straigh over to College Baths Road. It's a little blind, so I always come to a complete stop to check that Old Bath Road is clear, then enter the roundabout. 3-4 times a week, there'll be screaching tyres and honking horns as a car skids onto the roundabout from my left, its driver totally refusing to admit that I have right of way. I've started giving way both directions now, because it's just too dangerous.
Of course, according to Ashley Neal, if I report these drivers, I'm making the roads less safe...
Please report them. I do this route once a week but around 11:30 so not rush hour. I too am very careful but I have found most drivers are aware and they do stop. PS if you do report I would be very interested in the outcome. I recently reported a fail to give way at a different mini roundabout and I got a reply saying that a NIP had been sent. This is in stark contrast to my two previous reports which have appeared on NMOTD (674 and 763) and resulted in NFA.
As the vehicle already on a roundabout I am meant to have priority over vehicles approaching the roundabout from the left. (UK)
But of course I don't truly believe this, I'm looking for everything, trusting nothing, constantly turning my head, covering my brakes, ready both to push on or stop, whichever might be necessary and that keeps me uninjured/alive.
Priority means nothing.
Roundabouts are where I have been hit too many times.
There are a couple on Readings wonderful urban dual carriageway IDR right near me that I have figured out ways around so I don't cross entrances, even getting off and pushing across led crossing and along pavements going one way. They really aren't designed for cyclists in mind.
Something for me, the kut expat living in the Netherlands to comment on!
I read this article in the press here today, and I've been thinking about it a bit since. I'm still not sure where I really sit with this, but there are a couple of things I'll mention.
The design of roundabouts here isn't standard. As has been mentioned, in cities/towns the bicycle has priority. In rural areas, it tends to be the car. As I understand, this is actually set at municipality level...so one region will have one style, and the next region another. Adding in a tram line, which may circulate the roundabout or cross straight through it only makes it even more complicated.
As to the remark about e-bikes/pedalecs making it difficult for drivers to judge speed...bullshit. Most drivers manage perfectly well to judge the speed of deristricted scooters. That's just poor driving.
Whatever they decide, which will be a long time in the distant future, even if I have right of way, this kut expat won't assume that a driver will stop/slow-down for him on his stadfiets/e-fiets/racefiets...assuming I haven't been squashed by a tram already (come close once, and once is definitely enough).
"motorists now find it more difficult to judge their speed."
Not if they pause and look for the 1 or 2 seconds required.
Timely article: https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/20163601.cyclist-seriously-injured...
That looks UK standard (Streetview) - a busy multi-lane roundabout on an "urban motorway" with no cycle infra at all. No- that's not true - someone has created cycle infra by putting a few blue "share the pavement" signs up. Clearer in the OSM version.
Sadly "cyclist injured at junction on UK roads designed for motor vehicles" is no news at all.
Another hit and run driver who will suffer no extra consequences for leaving an injured person in the road without offering assistance. And still parliament refuses to do anything about this loop hole in the law.
In the Netherlands the urban standard design is priority for bicycles. That seems to have become a touchstone for many. In non-urban areas motor vehicle priority is the norm. There are a few contrary opinions e.g. David Hembrow has been suggesting for ages that cyclists not having priority is always safer - and also recommending a slightly different design. The difference may be close enough to just say "it's a trade off". That might indeed change with e-bikes though - the cyclist priority design is older than the widespread use of e-bikes.
P.S. Roundabouts are motor vehicle infra - cycle-only ones would be silly.
Meanwhile iN ThE uK wE hAvE wOrLd BeAtInG cYcLiNg InFrA (Google Streeview of the Edinburgh Silverknowes Parkway roundabout, see if you can spot the deliberate mistakes)...
My apologies - you forget things when you get old...
To be fair, given the severe physical constraints I really don't see any way to put in cycling infrastructure at that roundabout or any of the roads leading to it.
That was the argument... and that argument is used almost everywhere. "Our streets are not too narrow, your minds are too narrow..." It really is about our wider societal choices and priorities. If you rule out ever reducing capacity or changing access for motorists before you even start then yes - give up.
However I agree - in some places we need to solve these issues at a network level. So rather than simply "how do we bolt on cycling to this road" look at where our cycling flows / main routes will go and then take space (from cars!) elsewhere to make a genuinely safe and convenient alternative.
Interestingly the Dutch have followed this approach for a while (various UK translations but "unbundling" / "unravelling" modes is the one I know). In Amsterdam there is a system of "priority corridors / routes" ( "plusnet / hoofdnet") for different modes (maps in Dutch here).
Is that really what he said? It seems like preventing a false sense of safety ought to be a good thing, no?
There seems to be a bit of a flaw here, in that roundabouts presumably aren't just being installed at random, but will be targeted where the intersections are already complicated and / or traffic interactions are higher. So they can be safer than the junctions they're replacing, whilst still remaining more prone to collisions than other simpler junctions.
I'm a bit confused - why wouldn't that be what he said?
Currently, cyclists (in the Netherlands) have right of way at (most?) roundabouts, which gives them a sense of safety (because motor vehicle drivers should give way), but it is a false sense of safety because a motor vehicle driver might drive into the cyclist nonetheless.
If cyclists had to give way to motor vehicles at roundabouts, it would prevent the (false) sense of safety because cyclists would know full well someone might drive into them as they cross.
And he is arguing that is a good thing (you may or may not agree).
That all sounds reasonable, but the quote, as presented, appears to be suggesting that the existing situation 'prevents a false sense of safety', which is the opposite of what you're saying.
Maybe I need more coffee (or is it gin o'clock yet?) but isn't the quote saying reversing the current situation would prevent the [existing] false sense of safety?
Possibly - it may just be the rather contorted structuring of the article that's confusing things.
I think that means what he wants. He's saying "at the moment the 'usual' in towns in most places is 'priority for bikes' but this means they're a) relying on the motorists to stop and b) assuming they can breeze through because it's their right of way. By reversing that so cyclists are expected to give way to any motor vehicles the cyclists will be primed to look out for cars and expect to stop if needed. So no "false sense of safety" and no "just go and expect / hope the motorists stop".
But how will cyclists get across the traffic if they don't have priority? In the Netherlands they pay attention to checking vehicle flows (average and peak) and have low maximum limits for where traffic modes interact. If there are too many vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians must be grade-separated.
The main reason for roundabouts as I understand it is "higher motor vehicle throughput" than other junction types. That's the priority of the design - with "safer than other high-capacity junction types e.g. an unsignalised junction" coming second. I suspect roundabouts may be slighly worse for cyclists' safety than other kinds of junctions. In many cases cyclists can bypass a Dutch junction like it's not there without interacting with motor traffic at all.
Yes - after re-reading it a few times, I think you and OnYerBike are probably right - it's just that the rather awkward way the article introduces the quote makes it hard to parse what it's getting at.
In the UK the problem is the "Dutch-style" bit. Read "cargo cult". The appearance of the real thing but - due to lack of understanding - missing some crucial features. It is possible to do it properly in the UK. Even allowing for some very fussy UK road regulations. We're experts at screwing it up though (because we just can't inconvenience motor traffic or because "not invented here"): [1] [2].
Yes, 'Dutch-style' roundabout/cycle lanes. A watered-down, inferior version of the tried and tested originals commonplace throughout the Netherlands.
See also: 'Cornish-style' pasties 🤢
Not a carrot fan then? I think a better analogy might be a Hershey's chocolate-style bar. It's a similar colour and shape to e.g. one of these...
They seem OK to me and I use dozens every week. Its often speeding drivers that cause the most problems at roundabouts as they dont want to stop and give way at the signs for the cycle paths.
Pages