A community campaigner asked Labour to distance itself from claims that the Aquarium roundabout was the most dangerous in Brighton and Hove.
Adrian Hart, who stood for the Brighton and Hove Independents at the local elections in May, called on the new team in charge of the council to “set the record straight”.
Mr Hart called on Labour’s transport chief to offer a different response from his Green predecessor about safety levels at the roundabout outside the Palace Pier and Sea Life Centre.
He said that there were relatively few accidents – not least considering that the traffic flow amounted to more than 18 million journeys a year.
His question came after Labour paused a major project to revamp the road layout in the area after repeated concerns were raised during the recent local election campaign.
Perhaps the most controversial part of the scheme – the Valley Gardens project – was the plan to replace the roundabout with a T-junction controlled by traffic lights.
One reason given for scrapping the roundabout as part of Valley Gardens Phase Three – the final stage of the redesign of the area from St Peter’s Church to the sea – was to make the junction safer for cyclists.
The roundabout has been described as “the most dangerous junction in the city” during previous debates about the Valley Gardens project.
Mr Hart spoke when Brighton and Hove City Council’s Transport and Sustainability Committee met at Hove Town Hall this afternoon (Thursday 6 July).
He said: “Danger to road users at a particular junction cannot be reduced to the number of accidents and then compared with other junctions without factoring in flow rate.
“The Aquarium roundabout handles a massive flow rate of over 18 million journeys a year, with relatively few accidents—just a handful – none fatal.
“This makes it one of the safest junctions. Roundabout junctions process traffic flow efficiently. Removing this one would be a folly.”
He asked the new Labour council to look again at the relevant safety – or danger – calculations and urged them to consider a report by the council’s specialist consultant Mott McDonald.
The consultant’s report said that removing the roundabout would increase congestion, delays and pollution.
Mr Hart’s question followed similar questions in June last year when Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Bridget Fishleigh challenged the “most dangerous” roundabout label at a similar town hall meeting.
At the time, Councillor Fishleigh said that the Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, had asked the Transport Secretary whether his department produced a list of dangerous roundabouts. The response was that it did not.
She was removed from the meeting after repeatedly challenging Green councillor Steve Davis, who was chairing the meeting. He said that he had spoken with a national newspaper journalist about the list.
But the Department for Transport provides data for the Crash Map UK website which shows six serious accidents and 12 slight accidents involving “pedal cycles” from 2017 to 2021 at or near the roundabout.
Over the same five years there were 42 accidents involving all types of vehicle and, of these, 13 were rated as “serious”, out of more than 90 million traffic movements.
The figures were similar for 2012 to 2016, with 41 accidents, of which nine were rated as serious.
Labour councillor Trevor Muten, who chairs the council’s Transport and Sustainability Committee, said: “We set out to review this junction as part of the Valley Gardens Phase Three work to make sure that it is the best option we can possibly get for this.
“There has been a lot of work to establish a design for this. We need to check this and make sure it works for all constituencies, providing safe access and crossings for cyclists and pedestrians.
“It is a busy traffic intersection of two major A roads on the seafront and there is a call and reasonableness to make sure this junction works and is made safer.”
In terms of the massive amount of traffic that uses this roundabout, it is indeed safe. (If you go and sit and watch there, it can be busy but, actually, it’s obviously safe).
The fake-Green approach was to claim there have been lots of accidents – like more than on a quiet country road, or like more than in a lay by.
In fact the accidents that have happened, are mostly down to careless drivers looking at the sea, as they first arrive in the city, and the accidents are relatively few, in relation to the high traffic flow.
The real underlying decision here, from a locals point of view, is that many people have to cross the city from west to east, or from east to west. And so how best do we do that, and safely, and when allowing tourism and commerce to continue?
The key issue here is then that the seafront A259 road is the last cross city route we have – for buses and local motorists and commuters and taxis, and for day trippers, and for emergency vehicles.
Do you want a city, or do you want a commercial backwater? Can all visitors and locals really live here without a car or without smooth running public transport?
For those already in the city centre area, lucky enough not to need a car: If you need a plumber in a hurry, how does he or she get to you? How do you get deliveries?
Did you watch the pedestrians crossing in front of the Pier or the crossing in front of Harry Ramsdens?
I have several times, lights go red, traffic stops, people cross. Simple.
I certainly have.
There are pedestrian crossings set back for the main junction, with is exactly were they should be, and planners have long established this as the safest option, whilst not disrupting cross-city traffic flow too much.
The crossing you pick as a pedestrian (like me) depends on where your intended destination is.
Obviously when we head to the seafront, there are so many attractions now, and not just the Palace Pier.
As it happens, I work on the seafront.
The most stupid idea from the VG3 plans is that it assumes everyone arriving from Valley Gardens wants to cross the beachfront road and head directly to the pier, when in fact the seafront has a long beach and several other commercial attractions and eating venues.
Indeed, why would you choose to direct cyclists and pedestrians towards the busiest road junction in the city?
The grid lock created for commuter and visitor transport and for our bus services would do nothing to help the climate crisis and would be a further blow to the tourism economy. There is zero logical argument for removing the Palace Pier roundabout.
It’s like the Green approach is to turn Brighton back into a sleepy seaside fishing village with all transport gone to hell in a handcart. A modern city needs an integrated transport strategy, and with vision.
Just because there is no budget for a tram service or underground doesn’t mean we have to mess up what we do have.
A turbo roundabout, Billy.
It is perfectly safe. The proposed change was driven by the greens desire to raise the NOX levels in the area so giving them an excuse to introduce congestion charging. They did this on the Vogue Gyratory on the Lewes Rd while at the same time removing the pollution monitors. You are well rid of these toxic ‘green’ facists.
18 million journeys a year and so few accidents the roundabout is not dangerous and has worked effectively for decades. Any redesign of VG3 must include the roundabout.
I thought Adrian Hart was the expert on how Critical Race Theory was taking over schools. He seems to have branched off into road traffic statistics
The Greens lied about the roundabout being dangerous – just to forward their car-hating agenda . Cllr Steve Davis is not very good when it comes to telling the truth
Can we compare this “dangerous” roundabout to one that the Greens redesigned? They “fixed” Seven Dials. A much lower traffic area. That new design has already killed people.
Road design should not be political.
I suggest Adrian Hart try cycling it himself for a few weeks and then comment. A tiny but vocal minority of car drivers often seem to have immense difficulty imaging what life is like for people other than themselves. I understand that this lack of empathy is not their fault. Maybe the solution is to make part of the driving test having to pass a cycling or motorcycle test which involves experiencing roads from a different perspective. However I do acknowledge that this seems excessive for the majority of drivers who are careful, empathetic and considerate of others.
There is a thought that the driving exam should be to the advanced driving standard following The System of Car Control. The retort to it is typically that lots of people would not be able to pass this higher standard of driving.
Being in the driver training business there is no such ‘thought’ the driving TEST should be to the advanced driving test standard.
A driver just passing their test would not have gained the experience needed to gain an advanced qualification.
New drivers can do the pass plus course to help them develop and enhance their skills.
The system of car control is just as it implies, and is 1. Position. Taught anyway at basic stage of training but getting into position earlier.
2. Speed – The alter speed according to the situation. Taught at basic stage of training.
3. Gear – Once in the right position at the right speed, you can change gear, block changing! Most instructors teach block gear changing when learners are most advanced.
4. Acceleration – Once past the hazard, you can accelerate away. Taught at early stages of training.
This advanced driving takes observations and planning well in advance to effectively keep the vehicle moving where possible. Learners can achieve the basic skills and are taught the system basics but lack the experience.
Might be the 16 or so BL driving instructors that I’ve had this conversation with are biased. Sounds like you put forward a good advocation for a two-stage test. A basic test, then after a driver has achieved a certain amount of experience, a secondary test or mandatory lesson to advanced driving.
As you mentioned earlier, there’s only so much one can do to the road themselves to make them safe and easy to navigate, beyond that it is down to upskilling the driver.
Hi Benjamin.
There’s plenty of Instructors who have different views on driver training and that of the driving test. The driving test in my view only gives an indication that the pupil is at a minimum standard.
I have for several years liaised with DSA on certain driving matters. One of my concerns is allowing a 17 year old who has just passed their test in a 1.3, the licence to drive any CC vehicle. It’s my view, licences should be restricted to say 1.8, similar to Motorbikes. I remember a lad who passed in my 1.3 Fiesta in the morning and in afternoon had wrapped his dads Sierra Cosworth around a tree. It wasn’t that he was showing off, just wasn’t experienced enough to handle the power and got caught out.
It is what it is. The driving test is okay, but many think that is it. I know of Instructors who just do enough to get pupils through the test and generally stay on known test route roads. My argument is that once they’ve passed, they won’t be driving on test route roads.
I think after the driving tests, they should be given additional training and take advanced tests perhaps say after six months up to two years. Just a thought.
There’s nothing wrong with roundabouts it’s just some don’t know how to do it correctly, both drivers and riders.
In the main, you should always give way to traffic coming from your right, some cyclists seem to think those on the roundabout have to give way and pull out.
It’s swings and roundabouts (pun not intended), more education needed at all levels.
A puzzle to me is why when a vehicle is going straight ahead they give a misleading right turn signal, you are not going right, but straight on so left signal to come off the roundabout.
Ron
I note you criticise motorists as if they are solely the cause of any incidents that may occur on our roads. You make the suggestion that drivers should take a cycling or motorcycle test. I wasn’t aware that there was such a thing as an official cycling test. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that.
As for a Motorcycling test, personally, I don’t wish to motorcycle so a test for that qualification wouldn’t be of any use to me.
Cycling and Motorcycling is covered in great depth for the theory test so the knowledge to look out for vulnerable road users is well in place.
Now lets look at a cyclist.
Anyone can jump on a bicycle without any training at all and ride where ever they like. Having no knowledge of how they should negotiate a roundabout correctly or what a NO Entry sign means is often the downfall of some cyclists.
Cyclists should in my opinion, take some form of training and a basic theory test. Training as such can be done on line where basic procedures can be covered and a simple theory test at the end and could be open for all ages.
Thinking it’s just motorists at fault is imo, a bias one sided view.
We know some motorist display some terrible standards, but cyclists do as well. The more training and more awareness all road users have the better for all round.
Safe for who?
Perfectly safe and has been forever. Don’t change what works even though they are not experienced enough to handle it!
Why does cllr Davis’ nose keep growing?
Several busy cycle lanes lead to it yet there are no cyclists riding on it because it is obviously suicide to do so.
Simply saying it’s safe because the vulnerable are excluded is completely missing the point: cyclists pay council tax and deserve a road network they can use.
A recent article showed that the majority of renters in the city don’t have a car.
Why should we continue paying for this?
Actually cyclists use the roundabout trust me I see them every single day. And I’ve never seen one get hurt personally.
Also cyclists put their own lives in danger a hell of a lot in this town.
I was driving from East to west along the seafront and just coming up to the roundabout and a cyclist came flying around the aquarium and straight towards me going the wrong way into traffic I managed to stop as I do drive sensibly but if I had hit her guess who would of got the blame…..oh yeah me eventhough it was 100% her fault. So how was she making it safe for herself? But I just feel like in this town cyclists can do no wrong and they are all perfect according to some people.
This roundabout is not unsafe what is unsafe is how some idiots including car drivers use it.
I was waiting for a bus on Marine Parade yesterday. Quite a nice day if a bit bracing. Looking down there was no-one on the Madeira Drive cycle lanes. Meanwhile two cyclists passed me, riding on the pavement. ‘Several busy cycle lanes’ – you must be having a laugh
Hmm,
You obviously haven’t been anywhere near this location to make a statement like that.
Cyclists have managed this roundabout without incident everyday for decades.
The weak mind will say suicide, dangerous because of their own weaknesses and lack of knowledge and skills.
The weak minded will use such words as ‘vulnerable are excluded’ when the statement isn’t factually true and can not be backed up with any data to prove it.
There are things called traffic monitors, 50,000 vehicles use the junction every day with around a few hundred cyclists.
Cyclist involved in crashes at or close to this roundabout have been few and far between, just read the article for data giving the exact numbers.
Cyclist pay council taxes and deserve a road network they can use.
Great comment, but you already have the whole road network to use already with the exception of Motorways and have the luxury of having cycle lanes too.
So a recent article shows that the majority of renters in the city don’t have cars, so what?
That statement is relevant to this in what way ?
Why should we pay for this you ask.
We shouldn’t, leave it as it is, would be my answer.
Unfortunately this roundabout is a part of my commute, unless it’s empty I get off and walk.
I have been on during busy hours and had everything from mopeds to SUVs enter the roundabout driving directly at me while looking past me.
Such a busy roundabout seems to tax the motorist mind to the point they go onto autopilot and forget to see anything that isn’t on at least four wheels.
Yes there is such a thing as traffic counters, just not at the roundabout. The closest ones are the DFT’s estimates from 2014-2017 and the council’s cycle counter showing an average of 1919 cyclists per day last July. Has anyone seen these hundreds of cyclists on the roundabout?
Everything else you said is just blatant victim blanking nonsense.
Cyclists need dedicated infrastructure for safety from motor vehicles and from riding over the potholes made by heavy vehicles.
Car Delenda Est
Thanks for the reply.
I’m sorry but your statement just doesn’t ring true to me. Everything driving at you from SUV ‘s to mopeds, sounds more likely you’ve just pulled straight out and not given way to your right. Vehicles on the roundabout have priority and your comments indicating it taxes the motorists minds indicates to me your implying it’s the motorist fault and never yours. While motorists do make mistakes and errors, cyclists do as well and some ride as we know without lights and wear dark clothing making it difficult for other road users to see them.
You tell us 1919 per day, then ask if anyone has seen these on the roundabout. Being myself and other posters have already said we’ve seen cyclist on the roundabout answers your question.
You say victim blaming, who’s victim blaming, I’ve indicated an opinion of you based on what you’ve written.
You claim no cyclist use it, but that isn’t factually correct and provide the data that confirms 1900 odd do.
You say saying the road is safe because it excludes the valurnerable isn’t factually correct. The crash data shows overwhelmingly that the road isn’t dangerous or a crash black spot. Study in fact of roundabouts shows overwhelmingly that seven dials is the most dangerous and crash generating roundabout in Brighton.
Yes I agree, cyclists do need safe lanes, but at the same time, need to understand they can’t have everything they want.
More can be done in education, cyclists need to take some basic training, perhaps a basic theory test as some just don’t have a clue. Equally, motorists need more education and awareness of what’s going on around them and I would like to see drivers take another theory test after five years to retain their licence’s.
I take road safety very seriously and think the standard of cycling and driving is generally very avarage . There are very poor cyclist along with poor drivers. I think lockdown has caused peoples standards to have been forgotten tbh.
I am always confused why we want to put cyclists on the road when there is a massively wide seafront that means we can keep them segregated from the road, at least West to East and vice versa, for the entire length of Brighton.
I’d also like to see an overhead crossing for that area to help traffic flow and remove the risk of pedestrians attempting to cross.
T junction seems a silly choice when turbo roundabouts exist.
Agreed on this one Ben.
Have the Greens been lying about the roundabout? Well i never.
Who’d have thought it!?
It should be removed and replaced with cycling lanes. Less pollution and more pathways to the beach and sea which will enhance mindfulness during this rough time.
😹 Bwaaahahaha!
So should your brain imo.
People are going East to West out of the city in both directions doing things like work, not spending time on the beach being lazy trying to work out how to be more Ani-car.
If you like dangerous roundabouts, hit up the amazingly badly redesigned 7 dials where people actually die due to the pedestrian railings being removed. It’s now an oval so regularly confuses traffic entering from Vernon terrace. I’ve had several near misses where people have almost driven into me as for some reason people forget what indicators mean. They should put the railings back up and stop cars entering the 7 dials from Vernon road. It will actually save lives.
One problem I see is difficulty seeing traffic from the other side when on the A259. Those black go left directions get in the way and restrict visibility. This is part of the problem. Visibility is clearer on a bus, but in a car, not as easy.
Interesting comment.
Sorry Keith, you should give way to traffic on the roundabout coming from your right.
Nothing wrong with the signs imo, you can see clearly if there’s anything coming round.