Described as a floating roundabout for cyclists:
Now that thinking outside the square (or circle as it maybe). We could do with something like that at Brittania.
Could have been cheaper with just a cross piece
The cicular design does make it safer by eliminating collision point that would exist in a straight cross intersection.
And they built this just for cyclists? Amazing.
My god, now that's real cycling infrastructure. The Dutchies can't complain their government are just painting lines on roads!
anti-clockwise, I like it.
looks like a nice piece of infrastructure that would have been expensive.
But there is no point on doing it here because real cyclists would not be prepared to add the 30 to 60 seconds to their journey to use it.
After all there are aready some seprate bike paths such as the Amy Gillett the Lance Armstong path near the coke factory and the path by Sir Donald Bradman Drive by the airport that are very poorly utilised it seems cyclists prefer to take their chances with the traffic.
If cyclists make such a strong statement to the government that they don't want this sort of infrastructure cyclists should hardly be suppirsed if money is spent on other things.
Not sure I agree. There is no bike path in Adelaide (or Australia) that comes close to the quality of the roundabout.
The three bike paths you mention are underutilised for three reasons. First, they are often of poor quality because they are too narrow. Second, they generally start nowhere and finish nowhere. Sooner or later, the cyclist is dumped on a busy road again. Third, it is often quicker just to stay on the road. Whenever the bike path comes to a side road, it is the cyclist who have to stop and give way. It is very different from the way that bike paths should be dealt with at side streets.
When you refer to "real cyclists", I assume you mean riders on racing bikes and wearing lycra. You will note that at least two of the cyclists depicted in the video fit that description. They use it because using the road is no faster or better but generally is slower and much more dangerous.
I don't think many people make a strong statement that they don't want this type of infrastructure. Most people do. I think it's clear though that nobody wants poor quality and unconnected infrastructure.
if you look at
There seem to be cyclists who prefer to ride on arterial roads.
if the infrastructure we have is unpopular it makes it challenging to make a case for more white elephants.
As you said it seems that Port Road where there are over 6 lanes of traffic is more popular than the Lance Armstrong bike path were it runs parallel to Port Road.
Does it seem ironic that people campaign for separated bike paths and one of the major roads that has a separate bike path still has serious cycling accidents because cyclists don't use the path provided?