Work has begun on a new Dutch-style cycling roundabout in Hertfordshire, the council celebrating the scheme and promising improved safety and reduced congestion as more people are encouraged towards cycling — however, some residents have been outspoken in their opposition to the project, which they claim will "cause carnage" and "undoubtedly disrupt our lives in significant ways".
Hertfordshire County Council's highways contractor began work on Monday (6 January) to build a "first-of-its-kind" Dutch-style roundabout on Boundary Way in Hemel Hempstead. While it may be a first for the county, similar designs have been proposed and implemented elsewhere in the country in recent years.
The design, which is "safer for those walking and cycling" will see a dedicated space for people cycling to pass the whole way around the roundabout while protected from traffic, in theory removing the danger from the route. It also will include widened footways and new pedestrian crossings, the council's executive member for highways and transport telling the BBC it will "increase access, improve health and air quality, and help to reduce congestion".
> Dutch research finds cyclists increasingly at risk at roundabouts
"Our aim is to offer all residents a cleaner, greener, healthier Hertfordshire," he said. "The Dutch-style design will be a first-of-its-kind in Hertfordshire and offer residents more freedom and choice when travelling on foot or on their bike. By increasing access to walking and cycling initiatives, we'll improve health and air quality, as well as helping to reduce traffic congestion."
Construction is expected to be completed in the summer, the roundabout remaining open via temporary traffic lights for the first week of works, before it will be closed and a diversion route in place. A consultation was held in 2020/21 and following concerns from local residents and businesses, one-way access on Three Cherry Trees Lane will be maintained during the first few months of the scheme.
A petition has been launched by a portion of the community who have claimed the project will "dramatically affect a large proportion of Hemel Hempstead residents who utilise this key road daily for access" and the works will "undoubtedly disrupt our lives in significant ways for six months".
"Roadworks are essential, but the planning must consider the impact on the residents it is set to affect. According to the Department for Transport, in 2019 there were 4 million miles of roadworks in the UK, causing a total delay of 53.6 million hours — a colossal waste of time for the public.
"Rather than closing Three Cherry Trees Lane entirely, we must find a solution that enables roadworks to happen and allows us to continue with our lives with minimal disruption. How? One possible solution is to carry out roadworks only during off-peak hours.
"Hemel Hempstead and Woodhall Farm residents cannot afford the time and anxiety wasted on diversion and disruption due to road closure. We respectfully petition for the proposed plan to be reconsidered urgently. Let us unite to keep Three Cherry Trees Lane open during these planned roadworks. Help ensure our concern is heard: Sign this petition!!"
Despite the change that Three Cherry Trees Lane is now to remain open in one direction, the petition's founder has still asked locals to "document the increase time to your journey and take photos of congestion".
> These controversial cycle lanes caused uproar — but what actually happened once infrastructure was installed?
"Please send these via Facebook," a petition update states. "This evidence will be passed onto the Hertfordshire Highways in the next few weeks to aid their review."
The comments from those who have signed the petition take a similar stance, one claiming the roadworks will "cause carnage" and a second claiming they "won't be able to get my child from nursery".
Another wrote: "The length of time from the disruption is inconsistent with benefits, we have already seen the huge delays and environmental impact the four-week closure caused to thousands of road users. A six-month closure would be chaotic."
One commenter called the roundabout "a total waste of time and money" and said "nobody" had seen the consultation as it "was slipped into a lengthy local plan". "Why is the council run by idiots?" the comment ended.
The council's line is clear — that the roundabout will boost safety, reduce congestion in the long-term and improve air quality, all while linking other active travel projects.
"We are introducing a 'Dutch-style' roundabout at Boundary Way to make it safer for those walking and cycling," Hertfordshire County Council stated. "The improvements include a dedicated space for people cycling around the entire junction, separated from vehicle traffic, as well as pedestrian crossings and widened footways."
Similar designs have been introduced in Cambridge, Sheffield and other UK towns and cities in recent years. In 2023, a cycling campaign group in Harrogate bemoaned a "huge disappointment" as cycle lane and Dutch-style roundabout plans were scrapped from an £11.2m 'Station Gateway' project.
However, the Sheffield roundabout has, like the Hemel Hempstead plan, been subject to outspoken criticism from sections of the community. Last month it was branded an "expensive disaster area" by some drivers who bizarrely claimed it was "pandering to the few that don’t even pay to be on the roads".
> "Good to see those who don't pay road tax getting priority": New "unsafe" Dutch-style roundabout will add 45 minutes to journeys in hilly city where "most people can't cycle", confused drivers say
Sheffield City County responded to the comments by insisting the roundabout will manage the speed of traffic and "increase safety for everyone".
Add new comment
44 comments
This is a good design which will likely be subverted by an unholy alliance between UK police officers and UK drivers. The police would have to take action against the drivers speeding up to frighten people on foot or on bikes from daring to set foot on the crossings, in order for the design to work.I can't make out any traffic lights to protect the crossings, and I suspect the design would fail if there were. The standard police 'get yourself KSI'd and we'll see what we can do' attitude will deter cyclists from using it unless there's no alternative - I would avoid it if I had to wait begging for someone to let me me risk the crossings
But... at current standard UK roundabouts and junctions, that is the situation for cyclists vs. drivers, no? Joining a roundabout you have to wait for a gap and hope that drivers don't drive into the "gap" where you are. And while on the roundabout hope that people don't forget about you and hook you when they turn off, or not see you and pull out on you when they join, and nobody nudges you as you're going round...
But yes - the original design makes things safer and more convenient but is not entirely free from "depending on driver behaviour" (e.g. it is designed for low speeds / traffic volumes and obviously in NL "everyone knows what to do" partly because "training" and partly because everyone will experience these quite often). However such a completely safe design is possible (just much more expensive / needs more space). In the UK with our traffic volumes and speeds these ones might be more appropriate.
And in fact examples of this design exist right now (one of several in Edinburgh here)! Albeit most were made for pedestrians rather than cycling. Our ones tend to be less convenient (the cars stay on the level while vulnerable road users have to descend then ascend - often via stairs or ramps with tight turns). They are also often grubby, get flooded or make people fear muggers or worse.
The issue thats going to happen with that design is what happens at this one. As circulating cyclists are not within the ICD of the roundabout but are on the outside of the roundabout you're essentially making an immediate 90 degree right turn to cross an arm. vehicles exiting the roundabout are not expecting you too (I even make a right turn signal) and vehicles approaching the roundabout have target fixation on the circulatory traffic looking for a gap and don't see you because they are not looking for you. Probably enhanced as you;re not on the zebra thay they may have given a cursory glance to. I always assume I'm not getting right of way and pause and have taken to 'appearing out of nowhere' and making it look like I'm about to cross from the middle and cause them to slam on the brakes to hopefully 'correct' future behaviours.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.0239365,-1.4805192,3a,32.8y,179.5h,84.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1smndCMLEfsxZ0Yot7FNWg6Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D5.989721515229107%26panoid%3DmndCMLEfsxZ0Yot7FNWg6Q%26yaw%3D179.49544883441715!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEwMS4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExMjMzSAFQAw%3D%3D
Ah yes, that one, I remember!
In fact - the two designs are substantially different (or are based on rather different designs, for different situations).
I do agree that in the UK things can be spoiled by bad design (compromise, tweaks) or construction. Or simply plonking these in situations which are not (yet) suitable e.g. too many vehicles at peak flow, or speeds too great.
That then means cyclists act as mobile traffic calming and or "crash test dummies" for driver training, at best. Sadly that may be the only practical way in the UK (because money and politics and far more people driving than cycling).
However - from the design (can't see all details and who knows what will actually be built) the Hertfordshire one does look quite Dutch in the plans. A roundabout with cycling priority - very common in NL.
The North Shields one is more like a non-urban Dutch design (without cycling priority). Here's a somewhat similar real Dutch example (except it's more of a junction).
The sharp turns for cyclists are deliberate in this kind of design. Some even advocate for a bi-directional version of this within urban areas on the grounds of statistics showing safety. The majority Dutch view seems to favour priority ones in urban areas though.
The one you show is far too big to be a successful cycling priority design anyway. The "waiting" areas for cars are too long (the set-backs for the cycle / pedestrian crossing is too great). Of course in the UK that set back is likely - as you say - to see drivers accelerating ... OTOH by making the crossing at right-angles it gives cyclists and drivers the best possible mutual visibility. Although as you point out - drivers need retraining to actually look. But the intent of the design is it doesn't suggest to cyclists "just go and the drivers ought to stop for you", so it's putting responsibility for safety back into your hands.
Of course it's going to cause disruption, it's less than 200m from the dead centre of Hemel Hempstead!
"cause carnage" - bit of hyperbole, methinks?
yes yes, but we all know that "success" can only be measured in reducing or maintaining exsiting (short) car journey times. Anything the average NIMBY conspiracy theorist perceives as a potential detriment to that is absolutely "carnage" or an "unfair war on motorists". Whether founded in reality or not.
The roadworks will not cause carnage but the road users might.
"cause carnage" - bit of hyperbole, methinks?
There is potential carnage about, in areas where the driving schools (I only have evidence on this one, so far) are even teaching learners to overtake cyclists while staying in the left lane throughout, in order to avoid crossing the unbroken white line. This one is Green Pass BMW Mini Cooper EJ65 PFF, and the close passing is worse than on the previous Green Pass offence (naturally, they ignored my email). The big sign on the roof declares that the instructor is Carl
https://upride.cc/incident/yx74soj_greenpass_closepass/
Have you tried the DVSA, who regulate driving instructors?
Here are a couple of Ashley Neal's of him discussing this route.
We won't all agree with all he says of course, but it's useful background imo. Two somewhat different views from him, so ideally watch both:
Close overtake on cyclist sent in. Ashley agrees it's poor, but does not thing dangerous. Short.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moxmCehP7dM
Comment on a very poor driving instructor attitude. Quite long. Ashley reports her himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=313-VXHlSUY&t=108s
Every roundabout "discussion" should be prefixed with "the main purpose of roundabouts are improving the flow of motor vehicles while being as safe or safer than other types of junction. Cyclists and pedestrians and horsists and mobility vehicles do not need roundabouts".
So the actual "choice" or justification for roundabouts over other junction types then involves one of: a) "there are and will be no vulnerable road users at all at this location", or b) the UK's "like the last answer, but that's because we've decided non-motorists are of low importance and can get stuffed, we'll just let the traffic do that though" OR c) "we want a roundabout so we need to make this safe AND convenient for non-motorists too".
After that - if c) the question is simply "what maximum motor traffic volume / speeds are we designing for?" If either of those is higher than a rather low floor the answer is "provide a completely separate (but convenient and socially safe) junction for vulnerable road users". Otherwise you can can do "cycling priority" or "without priority" but either way the motorists have to be strictly controlled e.g. low speeds (via small size / tight radius / "adverse camber", no overtaking, single lanes only etc.
Local residents? It's in the middle of a massive industrial zone. What would cause carnage would be if the oil terminal next door blew up... Wait a minute it actually did, closing the entire area, yet I have seen no petitions from the locals living 3/4 mile away to have that permanently closed.
Ah yes. I remember that explosion. Or at least the insurance claim for it, which I worked on.
That was the one which inspired the excellent News Quiz joke, "The explosion was heard as far away as Kent and even across the channel in Calais, where the French immediately surrendered just to be on the safe side."
Pages