The road works at the Wootton Road Roundabout were finished a couple of months ago. The intention was to make the roundabout safer for cyclists, after a number of accidents involving cyclists. There was also a campaign by parents and schools three or four years ago to make the Dunmore Road Crossing safer at this roundabout .
But the orange bags remain.
Training material about ‘Crossing the road safely at a Puffin crossing’ is still being displayed.
I did see a car slow down and wave a parent and child across even though the lights are not yet turned on.
This roundabout has been made a lot worse. The new solid white line with block paving inside causes confusion as drivers have differing opinions as to whether this is now a single lane roundabout or still acts as a dual lane roundabout – and this is because some of the approach roads are now single lanes while some have been left as double. I hope it’s not actually finished and that the contractors are just having a break! I can see a few scraps and near misses happening here…
Having used it as a cyclist and driver and seen how other people use it, I think it’s actually become more confusing. The roundabout itself is now a single lane, as marked by the inside solid white line, but some of the approach lanes are two-lane (or wide enough for drivers to make them two lanes). This then leads to problems on the roundabout as some people use it as a two-lane roundabout and those turning right use it as a single lane, leading to some scarey “merging”. Add cyclists to this confused mix, whether on the roundabout or trying to cross blind-bend approach corners, and it just doesn’t work,
Does anyone know when this highly controversial piece of road planning is to go active? Have the highway authority forgotten about it?
Not sure that there was much “planning” involved. I know that those with Degrees in Traffic Engineering have to find employment, but where is the logic in placing traffic lights that choke the exit from a busy junction ??
There is also a surfeit of markings, signs and other visual distractions for road users, especially visitors, unfamiliar with this stretch of tarmac.
Do pedestrians really need a page of text with three ‘Janet & John’ pictures to know how to cross the road ? That falls short of the basic Safety test of being intuitive.
Strangely this roundabout is surrounded by cycle lanes so there is absolutely no need for cyclists to be on the road at all.
With only just over a month until the schools break for summer it seems a shame that the work was completed 2 months ago and not implemented. Added to that the number of drivers that undertake using the ‘inside lane’ …
I agree, this is the most bonkers of schemes, apparently the white line around the yellow brick road is broken (it has about 4 small gaps in it) and as such drivers are allowed to cross it and use the paved area, what’s so stupid about this is that its meant to aid cycle safety, but coming from Wootton the cycle path is on the other side of the road, these lights are the wrong side of the roundabout, cyclist come down from Wootton on the right and would cross the junction the Copenhagen side of the round-about joining the existing cycle path on the other side, now they’re expected to cross the road north of the junction, then use this new crossing to the other side, then use another crossing further down Wotton road to take them back over again to the existing cycle path, beggars belief !
Agreed it’s on the wrong side of the road for Wotton, all the pavement is on the other side. What fool thought what they have done was a good idea, who wants to cross the road to cycle into a field!
I have to say that this redevelopment of the roundabout confuses me. Nothing to say one can’t use the inner paved bit. Or am I just being dumb?
I just cannot understand why the lights are not yet working. I have seen a Siemens van parked near or on the side several times, with workmen in attendance, covers off, then back on. It is just ridiculous. Is the problem technical, political or are they just waiting for an accident to happen?
I’m not at all impressed with it, particularly the point Steve makes about the cycle crossing being on the wrong side.
On 21/5/14 we posted an article on http://www.abingdon-first.btck.co.uk/LatestNews with an email that we received from Thames Valley Police regarding this roundabout. In the reply to our email to them, they state:- “Dear Abingdon First
I have been asked to respond to your e-mail dated 20 May 2014 regarding the white line surrounding the imprint surface on this roundabout.
From your own description of the road marking it is clearly not a solid line intended to prohibit overtaking.
Although intended to discourage traffic entering the area covered by the imprint surface, the line is intended to delineate the edge of carriageway, but still allowing some vehicles to encroach.
I am aware that in the coming weeks Oxfordshire County Council will carry out a full Safety Audit of this whole scheme when any design/safety issues can be addressed.”.
So, it would appear that you CAN cross the line as it is “clearly”(???) not a solid white line….but it has been done to confuse (sorry…discourage!) you from doing so. And while you are looking at the line, worrying whether the person in the lane next to you is suddenly going to swerve into you because they think they may be breaking the law, please look out for the cyclists that it is supposed to protect.
The paved area on the inside of the white line is to allow lorries, buses and the like to manoeuvre what would otherwise be too tight a radius. It is a standard practice in recent (ie the past 10/15 years!) roundabout design.
This is not to say that the roundabout on Wootton Road is a good piece of road layout – previous contributors have pointed out the defects! Some of the road layouts in South Oxfordshire (roundabouts, pedestrian crossings, etc) are distinctly odd.
It’s one thing being odd/quirky, (Swindon magic roundabout springs to mind) but to be downright dangerous to users defies logic?!!
If the crossing had been put on the opposite side of the roundabout then it might have made some sense. The idiot/s that designed this have not thought it through at all and just ‘ticked the box’ to say that they have put a crossing in place. Doesn’t matter if it doesn’t get used (because kids will still cross on the other side, and cyclists won’t bother crossing from the cycle track to get to it!), the highways planners have fulfilled their remit.
Also why is there not a crossing by (ex) Dunmore shooting centre to allow anyone from that way to cross that road safely?
Of course one could be really cynical and suggest that this crossing is part of the planning process of preparing the fields next to it for housing, but considering this crossing was started way before the Vales new draft plan was revealed would suggest some “jigory-pokey” from the inside? surely not !
Talking about Swindons ‘Magic Roundabout’ in relation to the Abingdon on Thames – yellow brick circle/roundabout- My relatives live in Wiltshire, and driving a lorry round the roundabout, took the attitude go for it and take the line of least resistance!!…
The look of confusion on some drivers, not sure if they should cross the line or not, tend to take the line of least resistance and ‘straddle’ the line. I have not yet tried it as a cyclist….
Steve – i thought that the development and houses on the ‘circus’ field was a foregone conclusion – as such, yes…this crossing etc is indeed there for that!
The lights are working now… Wait for the first accident!
“Strangely this roundabout is surrounded by cycle lanes so there is absolutely no need for cyclists to be on the road at all.”
Thanks Andrew for pointing out the error of my ways in cycling on a road, how foolish of me….. NOT. Cycle paths could best be described as completely bloody useless to any fit adult cyclist and suitable only for grannies and children. Whether “shared use” (which tree hugging muppet came up with that one) or not they are inevitably infested with headphones in joggers, weaving mobility scooters and the ever classic old bat walking her turd factory dog with 14 foot lead deployed so as to take you out like a Nazi motorcyclist.
This whole scheme is just a another pointless example of tokenism and the positioning of the crossing is a masterpiece of stupidity… essentially it guarantees someone will get run over by a driver who has barely had time to see the crossing as they come off the roundabout.
Just fix the damn potholes so we don’t have to weave round them.
Pete, your ignorance and arrogance defies belief! Thousands of pounds are spent on cycleways but morons like you think that they are too good or too fast to use them! I bet you wear lycra too! The only sensible point you made is that the crossing is a masterpiece of stupidity!
Sorry Guido but you obviously don’t cycle any significant mileage and are the “ignorant moron” here, also your fear of Lycra and anyone who can go faster than you really needs attending to… seriously, see a specialist.
Cycle paths are a complete waste of money for REAL actual everyday cyclists who actually want to go somewhere and not just 80 metres round a corner to a school crossing. Why the heck would I ride down a wildly undulating, narrow and poorly surfaced path whipped by overgrown shrubbery and made to stop every 20 metres for a side road or one of the aforesaid human obstacles then inevitably find it terminates on the wrong side of the road or in the most dangerous point on the actual road. Witness the “ramp of death” by Macdonalds or the truly bottom loosening actual marked end of the cycle path coming towards Abingdon from Culham (you’ll note cyclists generally ignore that suicide opportunity and carry on down the raised causeway path towards the bridge) and certainly don’t mention the tour of every sunken drain cover and botched manhole installation that is the “lane” along Ock Street… it actually effectively designates the area of the road least suitable or safe to cycle !
Cyclists are perfectly entitled by law to cycle on the road and in fact the tarmac surface that is now the standard was actually originally conceived for bicycles as a replacement for cobbled streets. It is useless hippies like Sustrans with their “lets all pedal down an abandoned railway cutting surfaced with mud & gravel” that perpetuate the myth that cyclists should be elsewhere other than the road.
What is needed to encourage cycling and keep cyclists safe is proper road maintenance i.e. fill all the pot holes not just the ones that’ll take the wheel off a car, junction refinements with clear & respected cycle priority and appropriate sentencing of drivers who cannot cope with anything else on the road and think 2″ is a safe gap to pass a cyclist by.
Finally. It is worth noting that while a six figure sum was sunk into this pointless cycle path, the appalling and very highly dangerous potholes on the approach to the self same school that this scheme was dreamt up for have been nothing more than partially and shoddily infilled. Another puffed up local planner gets his vanity project whilst real simple & cost effective solutions are ignored.
Baffles me that the county council can spend so much on the whole hair brained scheme but cant stretch to a bag of grass seed. The town council have placed a wonderful floral display there but its lost amongst weeds that the district council grass cutters seem to be avoiding. It makes me wonder if our local authories actually talk to each other about projects like this?
Pete…A 2″ safe gap?? If there’s a cycle track built and you’re not using it you’ll get half that from me.
And yes I am a cyclist, a responsible one, who doesn’t think that I’m entitled to the road, just because I am on two wheels! and you are correct…I do have a fear of lycra…because 9 times out of ten it turns wearers into total pr&ts! (As you have proven beyond a shadow of doubt with your inconsideration of other pavement users, and your disrespect to people older than yourself). BTW if I see a cyclist on a road where there ISN’T a cyclepath I give them about a cars width of space (EVEN if they are wearing lycra!)
As a regular cycle commuter I have to say I agree with Pete (although wouldn’t have put it over like that). The cycle paths in Abingdon tend to suit leisurely cycling, actually I do use them when out cycling at a slower pace with my son (although the reduced risk by being off the road is almost negated by having to cross the road all the time – or in the case of the Abingdon ring road one cross the entrance / exit to the estates).
However when I’m cycling 10 miles to work I want to go at a good pace and not stop every hundred meters hence most of the cycle paths in Abingdon and surrounding area are not much use (there are a couple of exceptions). Such a shame that its not possible to build dedicated cycle paths like other European countries (that run for several miles and are not crossed by roads all the time) … oh and no, I don’t wear Lycra.
Cycling to work keeps you fit, saves you a lot of fuel or cost of public transport not to mention its good for the environment … give it a go 🙂
PS Guido … I’ve just read your earlier comment “A 2″ safe gap?? If there’s a cycle track built and you’re not using it you’ll get half that from me.”
I hope you are not being serious? If you are – stop and have a think. If you pass someone leaving only a foot and the cyclist has to swerve to miss a pothole, dog cat etc you may have just killed another human being, with partner and children etc etc.
Yes it does happen, even in Abingdon … just have a think about that before you get in your car tomorrow morning.
Thanks for revealing your true colours Guido…. i.e. that its okay to risk the life of others by dangerous driving just because you have a fascist obsession that all cyclists should be on cycle paths regardless of their suitability for purpose or state of repair. Added to your twisted fixation with Lycra you clearly have even more problems than I thought. Cyclist of all types deserve respect and space on the road not just those you approve of.
OutOfTown…no wasn’t being serious, thinking about it I would make it 2 1/2″? I have had a think about it, and why should I leave room for a cyclist to “swerve”?! Remember your cycling proficiency test? Always look over your shoulder and indicate before you make any adjustment to your line of travel. And please don’t say that you HAVE to swerve to avoid the potholes…there is such a simple solution to that…if you used the cycle paths then you wouldn’t need to worry about them and could swerve to your hearts content.
I have just returned from Holland where they DO use the cycleways, (they still have to cross roads though, not quite sure how you would build a cycle network without that?)
I have to say that here though, if I were in charge of the purse strings, I would not spend a penny more on cycle paths as there always seems to be this core of arrogant “boy” racers who are trying desperately to break the sound barrier, who believe that they are too good to use the purpose built track made at great expense just for them! In Holland I didn’t see one cyclist on a road where there was a cycle way, (I don’t know if there’s a law against it over there?) What is the point of building a cycle network as you say you would like to see, when certain people will not use them however good they are, because it is their “divine right” to use the road!
Pete..the only thing I will say to you is this. And I will say it slowly and loudly as you do seem to have a few comprehension problems…I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH LYCRA, BUT 9 OUT OF 10 WEARERS ARE TURNED INTO TOTAL PR&TS AS SOON AS THEY SQUEEZE THEMSELVES INTO IT. I do not have problems unlike yourself, who seems to have a problem with old ladies, dogs, shrubs, tree huggers, hippies, children,……the list goes on and on? Go and lie down in a darkened room Dear and wait for the men in white coats to come and take you back to your safe padded room.
Its totally obvious Guido that you know nothing about the reality & hazards of cycling in the real world and your total disregard for people’s safety evidenced by “why should I leave room for a cyclist to “swerve”?” says it all. In your world I guess it would be okay for 40 tonne trucks to regard your car with similar disdain. How the heck you think people huffing and puffing to get to 23mph are somehow “arrogant boy racers”… what with so much power at their disposal i.e. two legs. I can only assume you are one of the world’s losers by your comments.
No Pete, I wouldn’t swerve erratically in the first place, and IF I did I would expect something to hit me… Also I don’t get many 40 tonne trucks overtaking me because I have the wherewithal to keep up with the flow of traffic. Something which you, with your “huffing and puffing” at 23mph, cannot possibly do, thus causing long hold-ups on already congested roads! Just stick to the cycle-ways that have been created especially for that purpose, at a vast cost to taxpayers, and stop thinking that you have a God given right to own the road!
Ps, Pete, Don’t bother to post a reply, because I am totally bored with your selfish attitude now, and cannot be bothered to read any more of your spoutings. (And certianly won’t waste anymore of my valuable time replying to you).
Good day.
Obviously Guido you think you are the perfect driver when in fact you are obviously barely competent to steer a vehicle down a road given as you find it so extraordinarily difficult to deal with anything else on the road. Doubtless your incompetence will have you foaming at gills at horses, tractors and anything else that may hold up your self entitled majestic passage.
Cyclists have every legal right to use any road (except a motorway) whether you like it or not and remember that the next time you try and use your car as a weapon that your comments here can be traced back to you.
Hello people –
Firstly I’ve just used the roundabout mentioned in this post (on my bicycle) and was overtaken on the inside by a Transit Van well into the paved area – is that legal?
Guido – I detected a bit of tongue in cheek 🙂 Couple of serious points though:
* its been many decades since I did my cycling proficiency but I assure you it is necessary to swerve on occasion when you cycle along the nearside. Let me see – in the last few months a couple of things that spring to mind are 1. a drunk man stumbling out of a betting shop into the road 2. a dog on a 10 foot lead that wanted to cross the road 3. the good old unexpected pothole (I didn’t swerve for a new pothole today, I hit it so hard my glasses fell on the floor and my chain came off!)
* You mentioned cycling proficiency, I suggest you pick up a copy of the highway code – it says “give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car” have a look on the Gov website, it gives you a nice little picture to go by too!!
* Oh and someone passed me so close this evening they almost clipped my handlebars (you don’t drive a red astra do you :-), at this point there isn’t a cycle path in miles … actually there’s only about a mile of any cycle path on my 10 mile commute – I use the section that is half decent.
* another thought (I’m on a roll), you were talking about cyclists causing delays (I can understand that – I drive too) but just a moment, how do you think most towns would look at rush hour if all those who cycled drove in to work.
OutOfTown, As I said, I really haven’t got a problem with people cycling to work, if i worked closer to Abingdon then I would do so myself. I used to either cycle or run to work when I worked at Cowley and also Nr Botley. The ONLY problem I have is when there is a perfectly good cyclepath but it doesn’t get used.
You quote the highway code, which is saying about normal road use, which as I stated in (one) earlier post, I always do leave a good cars width, but they are not talking about when there is a purpose built cycle route. In fact if you go to section 61 Cycle Routes and Other Facilities, it states: “Use cycle routes”, In section 62, in answer to your problem with drunks, dogs, etc. it states: “Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary.” Something which some of your comrades on wheels seem unwilling to acknowledge?
No i don’t drive a red Astra, and if I passed you on a stretch of road with no cycle track in sight then I would have afforded you at least a cars width of space, and been wary that there may have been a pothole that you may need to swerve around.
It is legal for the transit to be on the inside paved area, (see post above from Abingdon First), as the white line is actually a broken white line and the police have said that it’s a broken white line intended to discourage people from crossing it. (I have looked and they’re right, it IS a broken white line!).
I do have to ask though, why are you cycling on the roundabout when ÂŁ320,000 has just been spent on these “improvements” specifically so that you do not have to risk life and limb on it??? (You even have a working toucan crossing!).
And me tongue in cheek…???!! Never! 🙂
If you actually bothered to take in the contents of the Highway code Guido instead of selectively quoting to prop up your feeble prejudices you’d have noticed it says after cycle routes “Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills”. So there you go, not required and since I’ve been riding unaided by stabilisers for pushing 50 years now and have covered up to 19,000 miles by bike in a year (yes, for real) I think I’m experienced enough to be let loose on the road now and don’t need safety rails to guide me along an obstacle strewn granny track. Obviously that’s a driving skill level you’ve never achieved as you seem somewhat bemused as to the function of the that big round thing in front of the picture window and pedally thing in the middle. I do suggest you get used to cyclists on the road as there are more of us every year gaining the benefits of fitness and health while you choose to fume away in your little tin box at a hundred imagined delays caused by us… NOT. On the other hand with a bit of luck you’ll simply spontaneously combust with your puffed up indignant rage on the ring road one day… :O)
And just for the avoidance of doubt, regarding cyclists legitimately on the road…
Highway code
163.
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
…
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213) and 214 to 215).
212
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.
213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
Andy, same thing applies…if there’s a cycle track put in at vast expense to taxpayers, have the decency to use it? No problem then?
Guido, I see that we agree that the new crossing in question here, has significant issues.
It is often the case that many so called cycle facilities do have problems. Not only this, but the junctions encountered by cyclists on cycle lanes, are often the most dangerous sections of the journey. Part of my bike commute is between Abingdon and Drayton, where there is a reasonable cycle path (on Eastern side only), which I choose to use in both directions. On the return, accessing this cycle path involves stopping in the middle of the road to turn right, and if busy, waiting for oncoming traffic, while holding up traffic waiting behind. I am confident enough to do this. The alternative, for this stretch – heading back into Abingdon is to cycle on the road quite legitimately, but have bus drivers and the like using their vehicle horns to express their displeasure that I have no business being in ‘their’ way. Speaking as a motorist and cyclist, I have absolutely no problems, when in the car, waiting patiently to pass a cyclist safely. It’s just a question of attitude, and even goes as far as respect for a fellow human being doing something quite within the law; and in actuality – in the case of a cyclist on road, not in the grand scheme of things impeding on the life of the motorist at all really. Cycle facilities, especially in urban areas, often inserted retrospectively, are quite often not the best option at all, and in many, if not most cases it is safer for the cyclist to cycle ‘with the traffic’. Some are not confident enough to do this, and will primarily use cycle paths – such as they are. The freedom to choose is there.
“if there’s a cycle track put in at vast expense to taxpayers, have the decency to use it”… a facility neither asked for nor fit for purpose Guido but obviously your only interest is that cyclists get out of your regal way… you sad, sad, sad little man.
Pete. As per usual your pathetic non-helpful comments do far more harm to the cycling fraternity than good. I think it is you that is the sad little individual (clad in your figure hugging fluorescent lycra!), thinking you’re 25 when actually you’re nearer to 65. Sad! As i told you NUMEROUS times, I cycle as well as drive, but if someone has gone to the trouble of putting a cycle track in I’ll use it. Unlike you i don’t believe the road is mine and mine alone!
Oh and for your information, i used to cycle everyday to work, rain snow and shine, built 3 ‘special’ bikes for charity bike rides (2 four man bikes), 2 of the rides were London to Oxford.
Do everyone a favour please, and either shut up now or at least take a leaf out of (or should that be spoke out his wheel) Andy’s book and say something constructive rather than your usual rant and drivel. Oh and please watch out for old ladies, children, and defenceless animals that you are so scathing of?! Goodnight all.
Guido you are damned by your own words as you do quite obviously “believe the road is mine and mine alone!” for you to dictate who may use it and when. Thankfully the law is against you and will remain so.
There is not one properly designed, constructed or maintained cycle path in the county. Cycling should not just be about pottering along barely above walking speed whilst negotiating the various human obstacles and yappy mutts that the hippy fraternity and yourself consider it should (and, dear Lord, spare us from tedious “chaaaaarrrrrrrrittttyyyyy” riders and their tales…). Frankly you haven’t a clue.