If this roundabout is so safe and meets all the relevant guidelines, etc, why has the council just moved the roundabout to a more sensible location in the road?

Time for a follow up EP?

   Holmium.........you use the phrase commonsense in abundance while having,it would seem, liitle idea of it's meaning...... To return to your original comment that "reducing speed limits will also save drivers money due to increased fuel efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions".....this statement makes no sense in as much that driving in a lower gear is somehow going to save both money and 'the planet'? Your follow up comment "unfortunately many people are of the opinion that they have a right to drive their vehicles aggressively and at speed" is what led me to assume that you were not a motorist,and perhaps someone connected to the 'climate change religion' as this is the sort of comment associate with such folk. Motorists can hardly be described like total nutters for cutting accross a mini roundabout! I see lots of bad driving , and a fair amount of the most dangerous incidents that I witness involve dangerous overtaking manouvers where speed limits are too low. One route I know well and use a lot is the road from Reading to Henley which has far too much of it with a 30mph limit on open country roads!

   Holmium - I agree. Speed is a contributor (not a cause) to the severity of accidents, and in some part to the number (if you were slower you may have stopped in time to avoid a collision). However, the other aspects of dangerous driving also need to be there to cause the accident.

People need to slow down in advance for roundabouts etc, which they are not doing, and instead trying to speed over it which is dangerous.

   @ Howard Thomas Common Sense party.

Your insistence on sticking to your argument intrigues me; you have also accused me of knowing nothing about the issue.

Within your first comment you assumed I was a non driver. Most people in the UK do drive; given this it is likely that someone you know nothing about is likely to be a driver. Your opening sentence implies a lack of common sense.

Within your second comment, you make further assumptions about me. Your say, “but then why would I expect you to say anything different?” Your know nothing about me; it would appear that you have formed an opinion of me from a position of ignorance. Again, this implies a lack of common sense and a little bigotry.

I like evidence, I often review evidence within my professional role as an engineer. When attempting to draw conclusions from evidence it is good practice to draw from as many sources as possible. Again, your over reliance on one source of evidence implies a lack of common sense.

The AA data you refer to was published in 1999 and concluded; “The AA accepts that targeted 20 mph speed limits in residential areas are popular and improve safety. Along shorter roads with junctions and roundabouts, limiting acceleration to up to 20 mph reduces fuel consumption. However, a 30 mph limit on local distributor roads may be more environmentally-friendly.”

In contrast to the AA, you reported in your first comment that, “Reducing speed limits has absolutely no effect on the workings of a roundabout. And when limits are too low on a given stretch of road they lead to impatience in drivers following behind a slow vehicle ,to the point where risky overtaking can occur out of frustration” you went on to conclude “A vehicle travelling at 20 mph creates more,not less, emissions than one travelling at 30 mph due to the fact that the vehicle needs to be in a lower gear and therefore the engine will need more revolutions to travel a set distance.....thats a "no brainer".

I would have thought it was common sense to read and understand a report which you attempt to use in defense of your opinion.

Furthermore, note the caveat “may” within the AA conclusion. More recent research published by the EA, EPA and Honda all conclude reduced vehicle speeds results in reduced emissions. I could go into detail but the research is both long and complex.

Finally, I must point out that common sense is a very tricky thing to sell. Those who have it don’t need it, those who don’t have it don’t know they need it and those who claim to have it in abundance rarely have any at all.

@ CMA. Thank you for your comment, I agree, poor road markings and signs make driving conditions more dangerous however; speed remains a major contributor to the number and severity of accidents.

   Holmium.......I am not talking about driving at 90 mph being fuel efficient, I am talking about the difference between 20 mph and 30 mph. It might suit you in your quest to not approve of the AA study, but then why would I expect you to say anything different? There will be a most efficient speed for fuel consumption and emission levels , but it is most certainly not less than 30 mph!

   @ Holmium, "The speed limit is not just designed for your safety; it is also for the safety of other road users such as cyclists and pedestrians"

I agree, which is why I slow down when there are cyclists or pedestrians around, and speed up when the road is clear.

Don't forget some of the blame can also lie with the cyclist or pedestrian in an accident if, for example, they run/cycle across the road without looking. You can't drive everywhere at 5mph because someone might rush out into the road from a concealed location.

As for blaming bad driving on road markings - it has some truth to it. Some people are just bad drivers who ignore lanes and seem to go wherever they want without indicating.

However, in some cases, road markings/signs are so poor that it's difficult to know which lane to be in (especially where there are many exits on a roundabout) and this causes confusion, which can lead to bad driving as someone has to switch at the last minute when they realise they're not in the right lane - instead of being prepared well in advance.

That doesn't really apply to this mini-roundabout though - drivers should go AROUND it and not over.

   Looks like I have a lot of replies to make, I will try and be succinct.

@ Take a Chill Pill Your contribution has added nothing to the debate.

@ Fred Bloggs “what's the point in having a car if you can't get somewhere at a reasonable speed?” Good point, but remember, reducing speed limits reduces the number and severity of accidents which cause congestion and delays. Lets look at speed in a little more detail. Take a suburban journey of say 3 miles including 5 junctions. At 30mph allowing 30 seconds waiting at each junction plus 20 seconds at each junction for accelerating and breaking that journey will take 9 mins 50 secs. Same journey at 20mph but allowing 15 seconds for breaking and accelerating to and from a reduced speed will take 12 mins 25 seconds. (No doubt I will get lots of abuse if my back of the envelope calculation is wrong). I think 2 mins 25 seconds isn’t much to ask for improved road safety. That 2mins 25 secs will also encourage people to walk which is good for local communities.

“The current strategy of reducing speed limits (normally because councils can't be bothered to repair the road or engineer out problems) is not achieving anything except adding increased danger because people dawdling cause overtaking.” If councils were of that opinion all suburban roads would have a 20mph speed limit, as in this case, rather than reducing the speed limit the council has spent a lot of money designing and installing a roundabout. Furthermore, reduced speed limits do not encourage dangerous driving; it reduces the number and severity of incidents.

@CMA The speed limit is not just designed for your safety; it is also for the safety of other road users such as cyclists and pedestrians. I am sure that every driver travelling a 35mph who hits and kills a child thought they were driving safely. If you exceed the speed limit, especially on a suburban road, you are a dangerous driver, try telling a Judge otherwise.

@ Howard Thomas Common Sense party I drive in excess of 40,000 miles a year in this country and abroad. I am an engineer and am very aware of the AA data which is poorly presented and easily misrepresented. Engine revs may be greater in a lower gear but fuel consumption at lower speed is less than fuel consumption at higher speed (unless you are a very bad driver), as such fuel consumption and emissions are greater at higher speed than at lower speed. Are your really trying to suggest otherwise? Tell me, when you are running low on fuel with the fuel warning light on and you are not to sure how far away the next petrol station is do you speed up or slow down to conserve fuel?

Is it the position of the Common Sense party that increased vehicle speed results in lower fuel consumption and emissions?

@ Silver Royal Woodley I suspect you are right.

@ ray northstander I whole heartedly agree. The word accident implies that no one is to blame. If there has been an accident someone has been driving without due care and attention.

   MIllicent

Nope. I thought the same as you until my sister in law got a ticking off from the police for driving over a min-iroundabout. The Highway Code states that you should go round them just like a normal roundabout even if they are just a painted circle in the road. The only time you are allowed to encroach on it is if you are driving a large vehicle or pulling a trailer which won't otherwise make the turn.

   Clearly, if the town is having problems when drivers ignore mini roundabouts and drive over them then there are two answers:

Police enforcement of the highway rules applying to use of mini-roundabouts.

Construct the mini roundabouts with a high shoulder curb and a central embedded solid concrete column in the middle of the roundabout topped by a directional arrow sign.

This will reduce the right turn risk takers depicted in your photo and make drivers think twice before driving over mini roundabouts

   It is remarkable that people seem to think that they can simply ignore the rules of the road and they can justify themselves by saying 'I drive at a safe speed' or 'its not my fault, the road markings are wrong'. If you do not want to obey the rules of the road then stop, get out of your car and give the roads back to those with a professional enough attitude to use it properly.

   The headline is fundamentally untrue Mini roundabouts DO NOT cause accidents

Roads DO NOT cause accidents

Potholes DO NOT cause accidents

Speed limits DO NOT cause accidents

Cars DO NOT cause accidents

DRIVERS cause accidents

   Okay, so the residents coming out of Nightingale Road wanted greater priority - so they've got it - at the expense and safety I would suggest of those travelling along Crockhamwell Road. All the bull about increased safety is likely to prove just that. The roundabout is set some way back into Nightingale Road, so coming down Crockhamwell Road from the shops (the way that most accidents occurred as people rushed out of Nightingale Road ahead of you) means you've got to look so far right to see if anyone is coming down Nightingale Road that you lose sight of the road in front of you, and the road is straight ahead so you speed up to get through as quick as you can. Coming back up Crockhamwell Road towards the shops, I've always found very safe, since you slow for the cars in front turning left. But people now 'bomb' across the wrong side of the roundabout having priority (you don't even need to weave to do this) so the roundabout has increased speed. I assumed it was designed this way to allow buses to turn. They have attempted to construct a large roundabout but using a mini roundabout blob of paint. All I've talked to think it badly designed except those who live on the Nightingale Road estate who are fortunate in not having to drive straight across it.

   Holmium.........spoken like a true non driver who has no idea of the workings of a car! Reducing speed limits has absolutely no effect on the workings of a roundabout. And when limits are too low on a given stretch of road they lead to impatience in drivers following behind a slow vehicle ,to the point where risky overtaking can occur out of frustration. As to your comments about reduced speeds saving drivers money and reducing CO2 emissions you quite clearly have lost your way! A vehicle travelling at 20 mph creates more,not less, emissions than one travelling at 30 mph due to the fact that the vehicle needs to be in a lower gear and therefore the engine will need more revolutions to travel a set distance.....thats a "no brainer". Doubt what I say, then look up the AA report on their study into just that!

   Richiecola: This roundabout is so badly positioned that if you're travelling along Crockhamwell Road then it is easier to go across the roundabout on the wrong side than to try and drive around it. Surely any roundabout should encourage drivers to go around it and not to try and cut it?

As for the Black Boy, this is just bad design:

- 4 lanes and only 3 exits (other than the one where you've just joined from) - Which lane you need to be in depends on the direction you are travelling from. - Lane markings that are not visible at night or in poor weather. - 2 lane exits onto single carriageway roads which encourages racing between cars and therefore log jams at times of high traffic volume.

   IF roundabout Then give way to the right

Where's the problem?

Fed-Up: The road markings on the Black Boy roundabout are ignored because they are not logical and often merge where they shouldn't....and more often than not, people coming from Reading to go to the Black Boy start in the left hand lane when they should be in the middle lane.

Remember: Left lane = Turn left / Middle Lane = Straight over / Right lane = Turn right.