Fendon Road, Cambridge, Dutch roundabout (Cambridgeshire County Council)
More collisions at UK's first Dutch-style roundabout than old layout, figures reveal
There have been 10 collisions, three of them serious, since the infrastructure opened in 2020, however Cambridgeshire County Council also noted that cycling levels have risen by almost 50 per cent and pedestrian use is up 30 per cent
Collision figures from the UK's first Dutch-style roundabout show that there have been more reported collisions in the three years since it was installed than in the three years prior in its old layout.
A report by the BBC, using figures provided by Cambridgeshire County Council, showed that there have been 10 reported collisions, three of which were serious, at the Fendon Road roundabout in Cambridge since the new layout giving priority to cyclists and pedestrians was introduced in 2020, more than the six minor incidents that were reported between 2017 and 2019 with the old layout.
However, the council was keen to point out that the number of cyclists using the roundabout had also increased, by almost 50 per cent since 2017, meaning those on bicycles accounted for 11.4 per cent of all traffic users last year. Equally, pedestrian usage has also risen by about 30 per cent.
The roundabout has undergone three road safety audits since its installation and was forced to temporarily close within a few days of opening when a hit-and-run driver crashed into a zebra crossing beacon.
The infrastructure offers priority to cyclists and pedestrians, with motorists asked to give way to those more vulnerable than themselves on entering and exiting the roundabout, a style made popular in the Netherlands.
Between 2012 and 2017, the previous layout saw 12 collisions between drivers and cyclists, with eight involving cyclists since July 2020 and two involving a pedestrian being hit by a driver. Three of the collisions were described as serious.
With increased numbers of people using the roundabout by bike or on foot, one regular user told the BBC the roundabout is "very hazardous" for cyclists and pedestrians, suggesting motorists "use it at quite high speed" and "it's too much for even an experienced driver to take in".
Cambridgeshire County Council released a tutorial when the roundabout was installed and stress it is "designed to encourage motorists to drive at a slower speed".
"To me it is safe overall. I think it's an asset"
However, in contrast to the driver who told the report he thinks the design lacks "safety features for the people it was intended to be safe for", one local cyclist, 69-year-old Peter French, said the roundabout is "very safe".
"All of the traffic is watchful, everyone is on the lookout and stops for you," he said. "As a cyclist, as long as you approach with caution yourself and are watchful it's fine. To me it is safe overall. I think it's an asset."
The county council's chair of the highways and transport committee, Alex Beckett, said they have "received compliments on its layout" and "recently commissioned a study to look at the nature of the incidents which will help inform any changes we might wish to make to this roundabout or any future roundabouts with similar design characteristics."
The roundabout was installed after a 2015 consultation showed that 67 per cent of respondents felt the route needed improvements for walking and cycling, with the old roundabout layout attracting concern. A second consultation in 2016 then showed that 433 people supported the Dutch-style proposal versus 115 people who opposed it.
Its installation was welcomed by the Cambridge Cycle Campaign (Camcycle) who said it is "a joy to ride" but added that "it may take a while for everyone to get used to the new design so take care as you travel through the area".
"I'm absolutely delighted with the new roundabout," Camcycle's executive director Roxanne De Beaux said at the time. "It feels like a small piece of Dutch cycling heaven. I feel very safe with this layout, the geometry made it easy to see the cars leaving and approaching the roundabout and the people driving were all giving way to the people cycling and walking.
"This is a historic and internationally significant day for active travel and how wonderful for Cambridge, the cycling capital of the UK to be leading the way."
Have you used the roundabout? How did you find it? Would you like to see similar infrastructure built where you ride?
Help us to fund our site
We’ve noticed you’re using an ad blocker. If you like road.cc, but you don’t like ads, please consider subscribing to the site to support us directly. As a subscriber you can read road.cc ad-free, from as little as £1.99.
If you don’t want to subscribe, please turn your ad blocker off. The revenue from adverts helps to fund our site.
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
It's 20mph zone yet one person suggests motorists "use it at quite high speed"
The driver uncannily spots the problem "the design lacks "safety features for the people it was intended to be safe for"". I'm sure he is refering to speed cameras followed with FPNs
I haven't used this roundabout since it was upgraded so will reserve judgement to a degree. I would also be interested to know the results of the aforementioned "study to look at the nature of the incidents".
My hunch would be the incidents are mostly the results of drivers failing to give way either on the approach to or exit from the roundabout. It would be entirely the driver's fault, but it is an unusual layout and not one that drivers encounter often, so they may not be looking for cyclists or expecting to give way. If this style roundabout was more common, that may reduce the incidents that result from ignorance.
My other more general comment is that one roundabout by itself achieves very little - it needs to be part of a coherent network of good infrastructure. Assuming it hasn't improved since Google Street View last visited, none of the surrounding roads have good infrastructure, and heading westbound on Queen Edith's Way appears particularly bad, with the cycle lane ending and the road narrowing. https://goo.gl/maps/7BWLsFAXbqN6sh6b6
When I read KDee's comment about the one in NL, I did wonder if the accidents were largely the fault on non-locals who may have never encountered this type of infra before. It would be interesting to drill in to the statistics, although I suspect they lack any real detail.
If anything, I would expect non-locals to be less likely to be at fault as when presented with something strange and new, you tend to approach with more caution. Over here, you really have to pay attention to the road markings to see whether cars or bikes have right of way at these roundabouts (it varies, not standardised across NL). But, as always, if in doubt, best to assume that bikes have right of way, even it annoys the driver behind you. Driving over here can be terrifying
Edit: Come to think of it, I remember years ago that it was said that as a driver, you were more likely to be involved in an RTC within X miles of home. Can't remember what the figure was, or where there's evidence to back it up. I suspect the cause would be familiarity leading to loss of full attention (I know this road like the back of my hand).
No surprises there. Ridiculous shoehorned half thought out nonfunctional infrastructure here is nothing compared to cyclists taking the initiative and riding in the middle of the lane where it's safer. More accidents prove this.
I'm sure per thousand members of the general public, the Dutch have more cycling crashes than the British. That's a measure of how many Dutch cycle however, not a measure of the safety of their infrastructure. The same thing applies here.
Yes! IIRC, a minister a few years back (Camero or May government, can't recall), responded to criticism of the government's record on cycling by pointing out that we have fewer cyclist deaths and serious injuries than the Dutch, adjusted for population. They were then slapped down by the official statistics watchdog for not adjusting for prevalence of cycling within the population, which revealed to no-one's surprise that british cyclists are at much greater risk than their Dutch counterparts.
The roundabout about 500m from my apartment here in NL is similar in design. There are several collisions per year...base cause is drivers not paying attention (or more accurately, not bloody looking and going too fast).
If anything this highlights that its not infrastructure that is at fault, it is purely down to bad driving. There needs to be harsher sentencing and larger fines for poor and dangerous driving. This and better education are the only way people will learn to drive safer. Cars are bigger, faster and much more imposing on the road. The mean quality of driving ability has not kept up.
I get what you're saying, but if infrastructure relies on all road users being completely careful and competent in order to function safely, then that's not good infrastructure. Infrastructure needs to be designed around real human behaviour - it often aims to modify behaviour (for example tighter turn radii in order to reduce speeds) and also reduce harm in the event of a mistake (e.g. physical separation with kerbs or barriers).
This roundabout appears to have incorporated some of that - for example building out to narrow the carriageway around the roundabout, although presumably more could be done. In the extreme, you could entirely separate vulnerable road users and motor vehicles - although clearly such a design is impractical at every roundabout.
Add new comment
43 comments
It's 20mph zone yet one person suggests motorists "use it at quite high speed"
The driver uncannily spots the problem "the design lacks "safety features for the people it was intended to be safe for"". I'm sure he is refering to speed cameras followed with FPNs
Could do with sharper corners on the exits and speed bumps before the pedestrian and cycle crossings.
I haven't used this roundabout since it was upgraded so will reserve judgement to a degree. I would also be interested to know the results of the aforementioned "study to look at the nature of the incidents".
My hunch would be the incidents are mostly the results of drivers failing to give way either on the approach to or exit from the roundabout. It would be entirely the driver's fault, but it is an unusual layout and not one that drivers encounter often, so they may not be looking for cyclists or expecting to give way. If this style roundabout was more common, that may reduce the incidents that result from ignorance.
My other more general comment is that one roundabout by itself achieves very little - it needs to be part of a coherent network of good infrastructure. Assuming it hasn't improved since Google Street View last visited, none of the surrounding roads have good infrastructure, and heading westbound on Queen Edith's Way appears particularly bad, with the cycle lane ending and the road narrowing. https://goo.gl/maps/7BWLsFAXbqN6sh6b6
When I read KDee's comment about the one in NL, I did wonder if the accidents were largely the fault on non-locals who may have never encountered this type of infra before. It would be interesting to drill in to the statistics, although I suspect they lack any real detail.
If anything, I would expect non-locals to be less likely to be at fault as when presented with something strange and new, you tend to approach with more caution. Over here, you really have to pay attention to the road markings to see whether cars or bikes have right of way at these roundabouts (it varies, not standardised across NL). But, as always, if in doubt, best to assume that bikes have right of way, even it annoys the driver behind you. Driving over here can be terrifying
Edit: Come to think of it, I remember years ago that it was said that as a driver, you were more likely to be involved in an RTC within X miles of home. Can't remember what the figure was, or where there's evidence to back it up. I suspect the cause would be familiarity leading to loss of full attention (I know this road like the back of my hand).
No surprises there. Ridiculous shoehorned half thought out nonfunctional infrastructure here is nothing compared to cyclists taking the initiative and riding in the middle of the lane where it's safer. More accidents prove this.
The point is that there are fewer accidents when adjusted for the prevalence of cyclists.
'vehicular cycling' is a dead joke.
Nobody is forcing you to use the infrastructure you don't like so return the favour and let us have the infrastructure we know we need.
I'm sure per thousand members of the general public, the Dutch have more cycling crashes than the British. That's a measure of how many Dutch cycle however, not a measure of the safety of their infrastructure. The same thing applies here.
Yes! IIRC, a minister a few years back (Camero or May government, can't recall), responded to criticism of the government's record on cycling by pointing out that we have fewer cyclist deaths and serious injuries than the Dutch, adjusted for population. They were then slapped down by the official statistics watchdog for not adjusting for prevalence of cycling within the population, which revealed to no-one's surprise that british cyclists are at much greater risk than their Dutch counterparts.
The roundabout about 500m from my apartment here in NL is similar in design. There are several collisions per year...base cause is drivers not paying attention (or more accurately, not bloody looking and going too fast).
If anything this highlights that its not infrastructure that is at fault, it is purely down to bad driving. There needs to be harsher sentencing and larger fines for poor and dangerous driving. This and better education are the only way people will learn to drive safer. Cars are bigger, faster and much more imposing on the road. The mean quality of driving ability has not kept up.
I get what you're saying, but if infrastructure relies on all road users being completely careful and competent in order to function safely, then that's not good infrastructure. Infrastructure needs to be designed around real human behaviour - it often aims to modify behaviour (for example tighter turn radii in order to reduce speeds) and also reduce harm in the event of a mistake (e.g. physical separation with kerbs or barriers).
This roundabout appears to have incorporated some of that - for example building out to narrow the carriageway around the roundabout, although presumably more could be done. In the extreme, you could entirely separate vulnerable road users and motor vehicles - although clearly such a design is impractical at every roundabout.
Pages