Talk:Magic Roundabout (Swindon)

Why was this constructed? Someone enlighten the readers? —Home Row Keysplurge 08:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To ease traffic flow, as all 5 roads leading to it are very busy at peak times, and a normal roundabout can't handle the volume. Apparently it works quite well, although I don't know enough about it myself. --Beeurd 02:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's obvious, but why so complicated and bizarre? Why did they choose a design like this? —Home Row Keysplurge 14:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think because it allows more traffic onto the road surface at any given moment. If you compare it with the roundabout at the Elephant and Castle in Londonwhich, if memory serves, covers about the same area but only handles traffic from three roads, you can see that the Magic Roundabout utilizes more of the available surface area, and thus (potentially) improves throughput. I don't know if anyone has undertaken a comparative study to see whether the intention was fulfilled :) AncientBrit 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In answer to your question why this design was chosen, it wasn't done on a whim; they tried various layouts over several months to determine which was the most efficient. I remember when it was built; the previous roundabout was a conventional design, covering a large area and with a lot of dead space in the middle. It was always busy, and very congested at peak times ( it handles traffic from 5 main roads, plus traffic from industrial sites and the football stadium) The old roundabout was demolished and the area tarmacked, then various designs were laid out with strings of tyres. There was an old bus in the middle which was used as an observation post, and I remember one time they stopped the traffic till queues had built up on all the roads, then let everyone go at once, to test what would happen. (A nostalgic Moonraker, 12 October 2006}

One thing that confuses me about it is that judging by the diagram, it seems that it is possible to take more than one route across the roundabout to get to the road you want to get to. If you are travelling 'straight on' you can either go clockwise or anticlockwise and still travell roughly the same distance. Can anyone confirm this? Joe 1987 01:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks that way from the diagram. Assuming there are two possible routes then traffic on each one would be halved, although how much that would be offset by traffic on other routes I couldn't imagine.

On another subject, there needs to be a link to The Magic Roundabout to explain the source of the name.Lee M 13:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To confirm; yes, there are at least 2 routes across from anywhere to anywhere else (Moonraker 12 Oct 2006)

All I know is that I had to use this roundabout once, and now if I have to go through Swindon I find alternative routes. It's just about the scariest experience I've ever faced on the road.(Daz)

I've used it many times. Once you get used to the counterintuitive logic of the possible flows (yes, it is possible to go round counterclockwise) it becomes something of an intellectual challenge to find the quickest (not necessarily shortest) route open to you at the time. It's more motorcycle friendly than car or truck friendly :) AncientBrit 22:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with a normal 5-road roundabout is this: If there's a lot of traffic wanting to go 3 or 4 stops around, that traffic will show up on most of the ring and thus interfere with all the other traffic, whereas traffic going only 1 stop uses only one part of the ring. The MR allows the 'long way' traffic to use a shorter route around, thus less interference. And traffic going CCW around does not interfere with traffic going CW; only when someone wants to get off or on is there an issue. (BTW, I speak not from experience in negotiating roundabouts -- of which I have relatively little -- but in designing and analyzing data packet-switching networks, some of which closely resemble the Magic Roundabout). So yes, of course you can go around either way - that's the point.

It's often said that this is a clockwise roundabout inside five normal roundabouts, but that's stretching the definition of roundabout a long way: on a roundabout you have right-of way once you are in the ring, whereas if you are travelling CW around the MR, you need to yield at each mini-roundabout as you go around. This thing really is 5 separate 3-road roundabouts joined by 5 normal two-way roads (as shown on the sign), albeit these roads are reduced to a very short length.

Good or bad?
62.219.112.249 (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The article gives a few bad comments about this roundabout but no good comments. Does nobody think it's good?
 * 2) Also it would be nice to have a link to an aerial photo of this place. Maybe this link: ?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magic Roundabout (Swindon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6NkY9lX3I?url=http://www.roundabout.net/DIBcounterflow.html to http://www.roundabout.net/DIBcounterflow.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Anticlockwise or not?
The intro was recently edited to say:


 * The central circle is not, as often claimed, an anticlockwise roundabout (there is no such thing), the size and shape of the central circle lead to this confusion.

Previously, it said:


 * … consisting of five mini-roundabouts arranged around a sixth central, anticlockwise roundabout.

The remainder of the article seems to flatly contradict the new version:


 * Traffic flow around the inner circle is counterclockwise…




 * The inner circle carries traffic in an anticlockwise direction…

If the inner circle really isn't anticlockwise but is often mistakenly claimed to be, then someone needs to find a citation for that, and also correct the body of the article, not just the intro.

Or, if this is making some subtle point that, even though traffic flows around the inner roundabout in an anticlockwise direction, that doesn't technically make it an anticlockwise roundabout… then that needs to be explained, and probably cited. (And also, it probably belongs in the body, not the intro.) --157.131.170.189 (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

A4259 or B4259?
The picture of the sign at the intersection says the highway is A4259 but the OpenStreetMap inset shows the route as B4259. Which is correct? 2603:6081:8703:EF00:6C98:EE4D:32AB:8759 (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like both are the case; if you make OpenStreetMap full screen it shows both A4289 and B4289. I don't actually see 4259 on either of them.  File:Swindon, The Magic Roundabout, traffic sign - geograph.org.uk - 1096630.jpg shows both of them, and there seem to be other signs and diagrams in commons:Category:Magic Roundabout, Swindon too showing a few other identifiers.  I don't really know anything about this myself though. --Pokechu22 (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)