A Dutch-style roundabout designed to boost safety has been “given the seal of approval” by residents in Chichester, according to the BBC, the positive reception following weeks of pre-completion fears, fury and concerns in the local press and online.
Just three weeks ago we reported that some in the West Sussex community had even claimed the “nightmare” project is wasting taxes, that despite the £950,000 project being fully paid for by Miller Homes and Vistry Southern, two property companies who have funded the roundabout as part of a major new housing development.
Likewise, headlines were made when another resident claimed the roundabout had already caused two crashes despite it, at that point, not yet being open and still surrounded by roadworks.
Now the roundabout is officially in use — the design giving priority to cyclists and pedestrians — the BBC visited to gauge public opinion and today published a piece stating the residents spoken to had “backed” the roundabout and “given their seal of approval”.
One Chichester resident Roger Mallock said: “It’s so great, there’s space and a feeling that it’s safe when you cross this which actually wasn’t the case [before]. It’s really important to have opportunities for people to travel in a safe and controlled manner and this offers that.”
Another, Sophie Cotton, added: “It’s good if you’re prioritising cyclist and pedestrians. It’s a good step forward for the environment and people in general.”
Louise Simpson added: “I think it looks really smart but I do think we will need our wits about us with the new layout.”
The positive reaction comes just three weeks after the final days before the roundabout’s construction was completed were dominated by local outrage and claims the new Dutch-style design would be a “nightmare”.
It has been built as part of a major new property development in Chichester which requires a programme of local highway improvements to meet the demand that 750 new homes being built brings. Consequently, the developers responsible, Miller Homes and Vistry Southern, have taken on “all costs [believed to be £950,000] associated with the design and construction of the Dutch-style roundabout” and not one penny is coming from West Sussex County Council, the local authority says.
Ultimately the aim of this roundabout design, which has also been built in other parts of England in recent years, is to improve safety and prioritise those on foot, cycling or wheeling. Traffic is slowed via a 20mph speed limit and decreased lane widths, while there is a ring of unbroken cyclist and pedestrian priority around the exterior, requiring motorists to give way to more vulnerable road users.
Project manager Andrea O’Shea explained: “The concept comes from the Netherlands and has been brought across to try and improve cycle facilities in the UK. The completed scheme should actually not have a significant impact on traffic.
“We looked at a signalised crossroads but that didn’t work with the traffic flow, so we developed the Dutch-style roundabout to address the concerns for traffic flows but also provide improvements for cyclists and pedestrians.”
17 thoughts on ““There’s space and a feeling it’s safe”: New cycling roundabout impresses drivers and cyclists, weeks after furious locals claimed “nightmare” project is wasting taxes”
#norfolkcountycouncil …
#norfolkcountycouncil … read and learn.
One concern: have they set it
One concern: have they set it up to fail by accepting current levels of motor traffic?
“We looked at a signalised crossroads but that didn’t work with the traffic flow, so we developed the Dutch-style roundabout to address the concerns for traffic flows but also provide improvements for cyclists and pedestrians.”— Project manager Andrea O'Shea
I don’t know what the current flows are – they may be fine. AFAIK in NL there are fairly low limits for the maximum motor traffic flow and speed on these – and if flows are going to be higher they either don’t use a cycling priority roundabout OR (perhaps increasingly) look at why traffic flow is that high (in an urban location) and whether it’s suitable for that place (e.g. this article not about roundabouts per se but reducing motor traffic).
One other benefit is that
One other benefit is that there is only one vehicle lane, all the way round. This avoids the cutting up at exits that can result from folks using the roundabout as an overtaking opportunity
It offers some left-hook
It offers some left-hook prevention (good) and they have put some physical dividers in at the entrances / exits (also good) – but not everywhere. That is also less good in combination with cycle lanes not separate cycle paths leading into the roundabout.
Wonder if the actual road space at the centre is perhaps a little wide? (Dutch one I posted also has a fair bit of space there, but should have “adverse camber” which I’m not sure is in the UK design?
Kerb nerdery (image of real
Kerb nerdery (image of real Dutch example attached – this one even has a bi-directional cycle path around 3/4 of it!): the “overrun” area around the centre in the visualisation is perhaps a bit small. The general size seems OK (these *should* be small so the turning radius is tighter, to keep speeds down). Is the carriageway around the centre build up towards the middle (“adverse camber” – again provides feedback to drivers to keep speed down)? (The council visualisation video seems to say there are “raised tables” where the pedestrians and cyclists cross – which is how it should be for yet more “tactile feedback” for drivers)?
Of course “UK” so instead of cycle paths seamlessly continuing with priority around the roundabout we have cycle lanes leading in to it. In the UK a bit of extra protection / separation from motor vehicles at the “pinch point” would be particularly welcome (UK drivers seem to do weird things at these…)
Cyclists are expected to give way to pedestrians at the crossings – not usual on a real Dutch roundabout. Perhaps necessary at this stage in the UK to give “reassurance” to people on foot (likely to be the majority currently) but likely just because we’re not providing separated cycle paths. The Dutch leave space for pedestrians to cross the cycle lane, then wait before dealing with the motor lane. (Looks like Westgate / Wall Cottage Drive could also do with a protected spot in the middle of the two lanes for crossing pedestrians, but presumably “no space…” again)
Sorry, but the BBC is
Sorry, but the BBC is definitely tilting towards cycling after the Panorama debacle.
This is at least the second story in two weeks which hasn’t actively trashed cycling, so that’s two more than the past forty years.
There’s a programme on Radio
There’s a programme on Radio 4 today at 13.30 entitled “Road Wars: Cycling in Paris”. This is part of the text from BBC Sounds describing the programme:
On 15th Oct 2024, a 27-year-old cyclist was killed in a bike lane in Paris. His name was Paul Varry. He was run over by a car after an argument with a driver. What happened to Paul was extreme, but it resonated with many Parisians.
Doesn’t seem very promising for an unbiased programme, does it? As ever, substitute “a gay man” or “a black man” for “cyclist”, would they even think for a second of saying “A black man was killed after an argument. What happened to him was extreme but it resonated with many Parisians”?
Thanks, I’ll give it a listen
Thanks, I’ll give it a listen.
EDIT: Well, that was slightly strange, and I’m sure I’ve heard that presenter on the World Service being rather more positive about cycling. Very little mention of the benefits, lots from people opposed who were not challenged, and a focus on the dangers, ironically all from cars, but that was never pointed out. I’ll listen to it again, but it wasn’t very impressive.
Better thanNot as bad as Panorama, but still nowhere near what it could have been.While you’re on BBC Sounds,
While you’re on BBC Sounds, you could download the play Pilgrims – a hilarious classic of the genre where the playwriter clearly knows nothing, beyond I’m a cyclist myself, of the ostensible topic- in this case it’s cycle touring, although the hidden agenda is romance
Yes, I felt it lived down to
Yes, I felt it lived down to the expectations the description had provided.
Agreed, but … perhaps we
Agreed, but … perhaps we should expect this. To a first approximation “news” is “bad news” – at least for others. Like much human story-telling what makes it salient to people is the conflict.
chrisonabike wrote:
But it is the BBC’s sworn duty to inform and educate the public, not to make everything “news”. They’ve had hundreds, if not thousands of articles about electric cars without descending to sensationalism.
Yes… and they’re a *bit*
Yes… and they’re a *bit* insulated from the “must grab attention” imperative
… but they are still reliant on the government keeping them in post (via maintaining the licence fee).
And most folks would see “bikes are perfectly normal transport – and we could have more / pethaps less driving” as partisan / activism?
The trail article on the
The trail article on the website leans more on him having been a cycling activist, rather than just a cyclist, and the contrast between what he was campaigning fire against what happened.
Also, the use of the ‘resonated with’ phrase there is more unambiguously saying that it resonated with those trying to cycle and facing similar threats every day. In that context, I kind of can see an incident in which the colour of someone’s skin may have been a factor in their being” the receiving end of violence might be reported as ‘resonating with’ others who face the threat of similar violence.
Actually I think you’re right
Actually I think you’re right there, I misread it as resonated with anti-cycling Parisians rather than cyclists. The programme itself though was definitely more focussed on the antis.
Is the issue in “car” /
Is the issue in “car” / “active travel” stories in general 1) explaining why the status quo is a problem – when people see this as “the way things are” / no alternative – or even identify with the activity
2) … and that those causing the problem (collectively) already feel they’re hard-done by – so maybe primed to see any challenge to this view as a personal attack?
It’s all tricky because how
It’s all tricky because how do you square that? Collectively we have gone all-in on a really problematic transport mode * – but of course for individuals they didn’t set the system up. And if anything they will see motoring as a source of wealth, or social empowerment. A swiss-army-knife for transport issues (our tools shape our thinking).
And – if you’re somewhere there isn’t lots of congestion you can look around and say “what’s the problem”?
And if there is – you’ll see the solution as “remove the congestion (more space for motoring)”.
*space- and resource- inefficient, suppresses other modes, dangerous and damaging, polluting, unhealthy…