Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Roundabouts - aka Traffic Circles - vs Traffic: Winning?

Roundabouts - aka Traffic Circles - vs Traffic: Winning? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2019, 06:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Roundabouts are awesome. Except when you start incepting them.

You see the ladder fire engine outside the fire station top rightish?

My house is about three doors further up just out of shot. (really)

I get a lot of practise on that roundabout. It works a lot better than you would think.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2019, 06:46 PM
 
Also
https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/videos...gic-roundabout
Unbelievably I entirely missed it. Slept right through the filming!!
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2019, 06:47 PM
 
Changing lanes in an intersection is not mentioned anywhere in the Uniform Vehicle Code, going back as far as 1965.

I too was taught that this wasn’t kosher, but I can’t find any solid reference that says it’s illegal.

Here is the complete Texas statute, remarkably similar to the UVC except for a few areas where Texas is “different” (toll roads, etc.). There is quite a bit about roundabouts (rotary roadways), and the usual stuff about speeding, yielding, seat belts, and so on, but nothing about changing lanes in an intersection. Unless it’s worded so obscurely that I just couldn’t see it...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2019, 10:27 PM
 
Some googling indicates it is indeed not listed as illegal in CA, though I could swear my original Drivers' Ed class said it was. Beware that "Unsafe Lane Change" is a catchall ticket, and you're likely to get one if there's any other traffic in the intersection. The local cop revenue officer will be happy to pull you over.

It does vary by state. Ohio is specifically listed as being illegal. Apparently others too, though I didn't find a list.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2019, 11:02 PM
 
All lane changes must be done “safely,” and I think this is the key for driver training courses banning lane changes in an intersection.

For a new driver, intersections can be pretty confusing, so forbidding lane changes in an intersection does two things. First, it takes away the option to make a major error while trying to make sense of the intersection. Then it emphasizes getting into the right lane for what you plan to do well before the intersection.

Clearly, the idea of “planning ahead” has fallen out of favor in most driver training lately....

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2019, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Easier, because cars have to slow down anyway. In a rural and suburban setting, they are great: they are cheaper than traffic lights, little maintenance, and if you space them closely enough, they act as speed bumps (which can be desirable in suburbia).
At a traffic light, motorized traffic is instructed to come to a complete stop. If reduction of speed makes yielding to pedestrians easier, a speed of zero is easiest.

Other things which make it harder to yield are the increased attention required to make a turn versus traveling straight, the increased attention it takes to deal with a more complex street pattern (like a roundabout), and that people accelerate out of a turn.

Further, a motorist will be less inclined to yield if there’s another motorist behind them. The chief feature of roundabouts is they cause this very scenario.


I went through the links. Were they intended as general data on roundabouts? Very little had to do with pedestrians.
( Last edited by subego; Dec 15, 2019 at 05:04 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2019, 12:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
At a traffic light, motorized traffic is instructed to come to a complete stop. If reduction of speed makes yielding to pedestrians easier, a speed of zero is easiest.

Other things which make it harder to yield are the increased attention required to make a turn versus traveling straight, the increased attention it takes to deal with a more complex street pattern (like a roundabout), and that people accelerate out of a turn.
But motorists don't always come to a stop for many reasons (perhaps because they are inattentive or they think they can make a yellow by flooring it. In any case, the data I have linked to seems to bear out my arguments very well, that roundabouts are safer in general and in particular for pedestrians.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I went through the links. Were they intended as general data on roundabouts? Very little had to do with pedestrians.
It was supposed to be general, but a few dealt with pedestrians explicitly (including 40 % reduction of accidents with pedestrians and 90 % less fatalities in accidents).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2019, 08:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
But motorists don't always come to a stop for many reasons (perhaps because they are inattentive or they think they can make a yellow by flooring it.
If the traffic light is yellow, pedestrians won't be attempting to cross in that direction, that's not an issue.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2019, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
It was supposed to be general, but a few dealt with pedestrians explicitly (including 40 % reduction of accidents with pedestrians and 90 % less fatalities in accidents).
Since it was posted in direct reply to a question about pedestrians, it leads to the conclusion they’ve been posted to support an argument about pedestrians, which forces the polite debater to go through link after link, spending large amounts of time searching for buried or non-existent data about pedestrians.

I’d like to see where the figures in that WDOT bar graph came from. It cites the FHWA and the IIHS. The FHWA appears to have a single, 20 year old, 400 page doorstopper, with no pedestrian data of its own, just cites from even older European studies. The IIHS’ own studies are strictly comparisons between single and multi-lane roundabouts. They come to the conclusion multi-lane is worse for pedestrians. The IIHS has a web page where they make some claims about pedestrian safety, but those are based on European studies, most of which aren’t in English.

Going through all this data, I have absolutely no idea how the WDOT came up with that 40% number.

If accurate, I’m not sure the 90% number applies to pedestrians. Most roundabout studies are about vehicles. I can’t assume it’s applying to all users unless it explicitly states it is.

I’m a little busy today, but when I have a chance I’ll dig up some links which specifically deal with pedestrians.


Edit: to be clear, the number for pedestrians could be better than 40%. The FHWA seemed to have evidence of this. I’m not saying I’m right, that’s for the data to say, but I can’t attach that number to either of the sources they cited... I should say numbers. I couldn’t get any of them out that source material, though I didn’t read all 400 pages of the FHWA doc.
( Last edited by subego; Dec 17, 2019 at 01:30 AM. )
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2020, 05:13 AM
 
An example roundabout in a town nearby. This used to be a normal intersection of 4-lane roads. With signal lights. Some misguided person changed it to a 1-lane roundabout, and narrowed both roads to 2-lane, by giving both roads wide bike lanes. Which I have yet to see any bicycles in. There are cross walks, but no stop signs to protect pedestrians. Or buttons to push, for the missing signal lights to protect them.



Note the elevated whatsit in the center, blocking driver view across. When I first approached it after the downgrade, I thought the road was closed with a barrier. Driving across that could cause serious suspension damage. Now I just see the fail.

The message seems to be: stay off the roads around here. It's worked too - I won't go that way unless I'm taking a picture. That thing is dangerous, and may be a deliberate choke point.

I'd be fine with a state proposition banning construction of new roundabouts.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2020, 12:07 PM
 
The new trend in traffic calming seems to be reducing lanes and adding bike lanes. And for some roads thats the only way to add bike lanes, so I get it... If you build it, they will come. We want fewer cars, which means encouraging bikes more... but the bike people ddon't feel safe.

We had a 4 lane road that turned into a 3 lane road with bike lanes. So one way only has one car lane, and if someone is turning it blocks up everything down the line.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2020, 12:36 PM
 
The safest design seems to be a “protected” bike lane, where the bike lane is between the sidewalk and parked cars instead of parked cars and the street. The only problem I can see with it is I’m sure there’s a much higher incidence of cyclists getting “doored”, since passengers don’t have any experience having to check for cyclists before opening the door.

It’s not like drivers are great about that either, but at least some learn they should check for oncoming cars, which tangentially benefits the cyclists.

As far as roundabouts are concerned, I get the impression the best practice is also some form of “protected” option, but I didn’t see an example of how that’s implemented.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2020, 11:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
The new trend in traffic calming seems to be reducing lanes and adding bike lanes. And for some roads thats the only way to add bike lanes, so I get it... If you build it, they will come. We want fewer cars, which means encouraging bikes more... but the bike people ddon't feel safe.
And it could also improve the flow of cars, because bicycles take up a lot less space per person than cars.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The safest design seems to be a “protected” bike lane, where the bike lane is between the sidewalk and parked cars instead of parked cars and the street.
Yes. Here in Sendai, the “bike lane” that I am supposed to use is a complete joke: half of it is on the side walk, the other on the sidewalk, and in the middle it is riddled with utility poles, sign posts, trees and the like.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The only problem I can see with it is I’m sure there’s a much higher incidence of cyclists getting “doored”, since passengers don’t have any experience having to check for cyclists before opening the door.
In Groningen (The Netherlands), the bike lanes were in between parking spots and the sidewalk, but clearly separated from the sidewalk by either a barrier or being recessed. This eliminates the problem of dooring — and of a*holes parking on bike lanes.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
An example roundabout in a town nearby. This used to be a normal intersection of 4-lane roads. With signal lights. Some misguided person changed it to a 1-lane roundabout, and narrowed both roads to 2-lane, by giving both roads wide bike lanes. Which I have yet to see any bicycles in.
Sounds like a chicken-and-egg problem to me: you have to build the infrastructure first.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
There are cross walks, but no stop signs to protect pedestrians. Or buttons to push, for the missing signal lights to protect them.
Depending on the amount of traffic you get, you don't need traffic lights for pedestrians, just like a regular intersection with Stop signs does not need traffic lights for pedestrians to cross safely. By default I would expect the same traffic rules to hold as at intersections with stop signs: pedestrians have the right of way.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Note the elevated whatsit in the center, blocking driver view across. When I first approached it after the downgrade, I thought the road was closed with a barrier. Driving across that could cause serious suspension damage. Now I just see the fail.
I think only few people would get confused and insist on plowing into the barrier.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2020, 01:25 AM
 
Street View image of the intersection before the downgrade. The side street was just as wide. Bike lanes were already present.



Has to be a deliberate choke point. 8 lanes of traffic (4 on each road) choked down to a 1-lane roundabout.

If the future really is bicycles, we'd better unload our Tesla stock while it's still worth something.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2020, 03:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Street View image of the intersection before the downgrade. The side street was just as wide. Bike lanes were already present.
While I can't see how the bike lanes are routed through the roundabout, unprotected bike lanes on regular roads are semi-useful. Let's say, you want to take a left turn, then you first have to leave your semi protected zone and — fairly or not — you'd be considered an obstacle by most motorists.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Has to be a deliberate choke point. 8 lanes of traffic (4 on each road) choked down to a 1-lane roundabout.
Slowing down traffic near the roundabout is part of the concept, yes. I do not know why in this specific instance this layout was chosen, there are roundabouts with more than one lane after all. But the studies I have linked to show that this improves safety for motorists and dramatically improves safety for non-motorists. Nevertheless, if done right, the roundabout will have roughly the same or better traffic flow than the old intersection. (Of course, that really depends on the details, i. e. the traffic patterns and such.)
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
If the future really is bicycles, we'd better unload our Tesla stock while it's still worth something.
Follow Horace Dediu from Apple analyst fame, he is all about that these days. Many cities in Europe switch their transportation infrastructure from a car-centric system to a pedestrian-bicycle-public transportation-centric system. Bikes are the fastest mode of transportation for short(er) distances. Bike traffic has increased steadily in many parts of the world, but the planners of the transportation infrastructure have, by and large, not taken this into account.

IMHO self-driving cars and electric cars are for the majority of people useless gadgets. That is because most people live in urban centers, and cars are extremely inefficient at moving humans about. They are expensive, take up loads of space and spend most of their time doing nothing. Whether or not the car is self-driving doesn't change anything. I'd be poor if I had to buy and maintain a car. Even friends of mine who work for big German car companies have kept their cars until they essentially fell apart. (One of them did way more than 500,000 km.) In contrast, you can get a decent commuter bike for the price of the wheels or pain upgrade on your car. And for the price of two, three option packages on a BMW, I can probably get a pro-level road or mountain bike. Precisely because bikes are so much cheaper, the bike industry will never be as big as the car industry. But that's a feature, not a bug.

Just to be clear: if I were independently wealthy, I'm quite sure I'd own a car or two (Porsche 911 4S with a proper manual and a station wagon). I'm not against cars, because I hate cars, quite the contrary. Some are beautiful machines of art and just awesome. But on the list of priorities in my life — and the lives of many people I know, it is near the bottom. I know cars are a necessity for others, but the number of those people will decrease.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2020, 04:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
IMHO self-driving cars and electric cars are for the majority of people useless gadgets. That is because most people live in urban centers, and cars are extremely inefficient at moving humans about. They are expensive, take up loads of space and spend most of their time doing nothing.
Europe must not have our housing problems. Many people commute up to 100 miles to reach work each day.

I've read that ~70% of the Los Angeles area is zoned for single-family housing, and no one wants their neighborhood re-zoned for denser housing. ie - condominiums, apartments, etc. So when city housing density cannot increase, people live on average farther and farther away from their work. Telecommuting helps for some people. It would help more if we didn't have our overpriced and underspeed internet service, from the cable company monopolies.

Anyone who has a house is unlikely to sell it lightly (or cheaply), so it's difficult to find housing close to work. Hence all the multi-kilometer commuting.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2020, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Depending on the amount of traffic you get, you don't need traffic lights for pedestrians, just like a regular intersection with Stop signs does not need traffic lights for pedestrians to cross safely. By default I would expect the same traffic rules to hold as at intersections with stop signs: pedestrians have the right of way.
I hate to keep banging on this point but I feel like there's some sort of disconnect here.

Roundabouts are a benefit for traffic flow because, ideally, no car ever has to stop, so you don't get cars stopped at signs or lights, impeding the flow for no reason and wasting time.

Pedestrian crossings can ONLY happen safely when cars are stopped.

Traditional intersections require cars to stop, sometimes for no good reason. But built into that is a safe time for pedestrians to cross.

Roundabouts are designed so that, ideally, no one ever stops, so there's never a built-in safe time for pedestrians to cross.

With a roundabout, traffic doesn't stop due to a road sign or light. Cars have to specifically recognize a pedestrian waiting to cross, and they have to make the specific choice to stop for the pedestrian, and 99.99% of the time there's no downside to not stopping for a waiting pedestrian - "Let someone else stop for them, I'm busy and important and need to get home so I can kick my dog."

Plus the cars are likely looking for a gap in the traffic in the roundabout, not for one person patiently waiting to cross on the side of the road. It's a system that relies on the attentiveness and goodwill of the average driver, which is not a safe bet.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2020, 07:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Europe must not have our housing problems. Many people commute up to 100 miles to reach work each day.
Many European cities have housing shortages, some of them (e. g. Berlin, Munich) are extremely severe. But there is also public transportation, and you don't need to commute by car. I'd say 100 mile/160 km commutes are rare, but more important than distance is IMHO time. Because you can spend a long time in a traffic jam and not move much.

In big cities in Europe, a lot of people cycle to train stations and then take trains. These are often faster than or as fast as cars. In Groningen, they have guarded bike garages with a total capacity of easily over 10,000 just to give you an idea. The space required is a fraction of a parking garage for even a moderate number of cars.
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I hate to keep banging on this point but I feel like there's some sort of disconnect here.

Roundabouts are a benefit for traffic flow because, ideally, no car ever has to stop, so you don't get cars stopped at signs or lights, impeding the flow for no reason and wasting time.
I don't understand the disconnect, you cogently summarize the main advantage of rounabouts yourself:
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Traditional intersections require cars to stop, sometimes for no good reason.
As a corollary, you only stop at roundabouts, because there is a reason, be it other cars or pedestrians. Plus, if you have a heavily trafficked roundabout intersection, you can add on-demand traffic lights to let pedestrians cross. I've seen those in the UK quite a bit, and one of the documents I linked to earlier in this thread was from the UK and mentioned that one disadvantage of roundabouts is that they can be less safe for people with disabilities.

This should address this point, too:
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Roundabouts are designed so that, ideally, no one ever stops, so there's never a built-in safe time for pedestrians to cross.
On to this one:
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
With a roundabout, traffic doesn't stop due to a road sign or light. Cars have to specifically recognize a pedestrian waiting to cross, and they have to make the specific choice to stop for the pedestrian, and 99.99% of the time there's no downside to not stopping for a waiting pedestrian - "Let someone else stop for them, I'm busy and important and need to get home so I can kick my dog."
I think this hypothetical is quite removed from reality. People's adherence to traffic rules is no different on average when it comes to roundabouts than other aspects of the rules of the road. In Rome, drivers often disregard traffic lights altogether and I was taught to make eye contact with drivers and gauge whether they were willing to stop for me. No joke. In other places, people usually respect traffic lights, but disregard them “if there are no cars”. Germans on average will wait at traffic lights, even if it is 2 am in the country side and there is nary a car in sights.

But roundabouts are not special in this respect, me thinks.
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Plus the cars are likely looking for a gap in the traffic in the roundabout, not for one person patiently waiting to cross on the side of the road. It's a system that relies on the attentiveness and goodwill of the average driver, which is not a safe bet.
Look at the data: roundabouts on average significantly reduce the total accidents, accidents with pedestrians and lethal accidents. So while I could speculate why, the data seems clear cut to me.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2020, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think this hypothetical is quite removed from reality. People's adherence to traffic rules is no different on average when it comes to roundabouts than other aspects of the rules of the road.
Stopping at a traffic light is seen as a law. If an officer saw me do it, I'd expect a ticket for running a red light 100% of the time. Stopping to let a waiting pedestrian cross is seen as a courtesy the driver extends to the pedestrian. I'd expect a ticket for continuing through a crosswalk in front of a stopped, waiting pedestrian maybe...like...1% of the time? The officer would have to be bored and looking for trouble. Maybe this is a regional thing, but it's reality.

And like I said before - stopping for a pedestrian requires active attentiveness and an active choice in behalf of the driver to yield to a pedestrian. This is not the case with a traditional intersection.

Look at the data: roundabouts on average significantly reduce the total accidents, accidents with pedestrians and lethal accidents. So while I could speculate why, the data seems clear cut to me.
I acknowledge data shows that they're safer. I'm saying there's more to it than just plopping a roundabout in place of an intersection and basking in all of the benefits. Whether it's design, implementation, driver training, driver attentiveness, or a complete cultural shift, there are instances where roundabouts are less safe. I'm sure I've said it before - 99% of my close calls and near-accidents while driving happen at the two roundabouts near my house. It's to the point where if I'm approaching a roundabout side-by-side with another car, my heart rate automatically increases because my body is getting ready for evasive maneuvers after having so many people try to smash into my car.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2020, 09:59 PM
 
FYI a striped crosswalk or Zebra Crossing in the UK, pedestrians have right of way. You are obliged by law to stop, though you probably won't get pulled by a watching cop unless they are in a bad mood already.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2020, 12:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
FYI a striped crosswalk or Zebra Crossing in the UK, pedestrians have right of way. You are obliged by law to stop, though you probably won't get pulled by a watching cop unless they are in a bad mood already.
Yup, same in Germany.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2020, 01:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Stopping at a traffic light is seen as a law. If an officer saw me do it, I'd expect a ticket for running a red light 100% of the time. Stopping to let a waiting pedestrian cross is seen as a courtesy the driver extends to the pedestrian.
It is seen as a courtesy, but it could actually be the law. Ditto for traffic laws regarding cyclists, too many drivers just don't know what the law is and/or prefer not to stick to the law.
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
And like I said before - stopping for a pedestrian requires active attentiveness and an active choice in behalf of the driver to yield to a pedestrian. This is not the case with a traditional intersection.
At ordinary traffic lights, you need to always be on the lookout for pedestrians as well: for most traffic lights, not just cars get a green light, but also the pedestrians traveling in the same direction. So if you take a turn, you of course have to actively look out for pedestrians, and also here they have, in all jurisdictions I am aware of, the right of way. (There are traffic lights that operate with three phases: cars in one direction, cars in the perpendicular direction and then all pedestrians.)
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I acknowledge data shows that they're safer. I'm saying there's more to it than just plopping a roundabout in place of an intersection and basking in all of the benefits. Whether it's design, implementation, driver training, driver attentiveness, or a complete cultural shift, there are instances where roundabouts are less safe. I'm sure I've said it before - 99% of my close calls and near-accidents while driving happen at the two roundabouts near my house. It's to the point where if I'm approaching a roundabout side-by-side with another car, my heart rate automatically increases because my body is getting ready for evasive maneuvers after having so many people try to smash into my car.
As usual, familiarity and proper driver's ed is crucial. But also that traffic laws are enforced. And not all intersections should become roundabouts or are safer. I just don't like arguments that are a version of “being opposed to doing things differently than people are used to”. When roundabouts were a new thing, they were weird, and I thought they were not a good idea either. Then I tried them for a bit, and got to like them a lot — as a motorist, as a cyclist and as a pedestrian alike.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2020, 06:50 AM
 
In illinois it’s the law to stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk.

So few people pay attention to it they put up signs in the middle of the road at crosswalks, reminding drivers it’s the law.

Most of those signs have been run over.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2020, 10:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I just don't like arguments that are a version of “being opposed to doing things differently than people are used to”.
Good thing I wasn't making one of those.

When roundabouts were a new thing, they were weird, and I thought they were not a good idea either.
Either? You're not putting me in the group that doesn't think they're a good idea are you?

This whole thing got started when I was defending the idea that it's counterintuitive that roundabouts would be safer for pedestrians.

That's it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2020, 11:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Either? You're not putting me in the group that doesn't think they're a good idea are you?
It seems we got our wires crossed here, and I am sorry if we did and are not really disagreeing about anything. I propose we just drop it and let the discussion continue (in case anyone else wants to add to it).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2020, 09:31 AM
 
Here's a thought - what if roundabouts exchanged 2 accidents for 100 close calls? From the traffic data, it'd be a huge win with a reduction in accidents. From a driver experience standpoint, it'd be terrifying, as you were unlikely to be in an accident before, but now you're very likely to have a close call.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2020, 11:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Here's a thought - what if roundabouts exchanged 2 accidents for 100 close calls? From the traffic data, it'd be a huge win with a reduction in accidents. From a driver experience standpoint, it'd be terrifying, as you were unlikely to be in an accident before, but now you're very likely to have a close call.
I don't think your hypothetical works out on a statistical level.

To me a close call is an even where an accident was quite likely. We can argue about the numbers, but for the sake of argument, let's define a close call as an event where the probability of an accident is 5 %. And let me assume that for the sake of consistency, we use the same threshold of what a close call is for both types of intersections.

If you exchanged 2 accidents (which must have been close calls, too, but with different probabilities), then you expect 5 accidents in case there were 100 close calls. (Of course, we could be more fancy and give a range of expected outcomes under the assumptions all these events are independent. However, if you wait long enough, you should expect 5 accidents on average for 100 close calls.) So in your example whatever the probability of a close call was before (at a traditional intersection), it has to be lower with a roundabout, because you reduced the number of accidents.

Another possibility is that what are perceived as close calls are not in fact close calls. Also here, I think the logical conclusion is that the roundabout is safer statistically, and it is a lack of familiarity. “Feeling unsafe” is real — many people who happily go by car so that they don't have to fly — so perceptions matter to a degree. But that changes with familiarity.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2020, 03:09 PM
 
This is a good point, but I don’t think the perceptions of the pedestrian can be removed from the equation. I’ll use extreme examples to make my point.

Let’s say with the 100 close calls at the roundabout, every pedestrian involved was aware they were in a close call.

What if at the traditional intersection, of the 100 close calls, only 10 pedestrians realized they were in a close call? In other words, what if the roundabout is scaring the shit out of 10 times as many people?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2020, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What if at the traditional intersection, of the 100 close calls, only 10 pedestrians realized they were in a close call? In other words, what if the roundabout is scaring the shit out of 10 times as many people?

Let’s say with the 100 close calls at the roundabout, every pedestrian involved was aware they were in a close call.
Ignorance is bliss. I live in Japan, which is generally quite safe on the road, but pedestrians and especially casual cyclists can be quite horrible. They will cross the road even though it is red, read messages on their cell phones, switch between sidewalk and road without looking, etc. Nevertheless, I'd say there are fewer accidents on average, because these people tend to be slow and cars are very careful.

My perception was quite different at times, because I almost got side swiped a few times by a cyclist, for example, and my risk was higher as I was going much faster. In some situations I feel less safe in Japan even though on average I am much safer in my experience than in cities in Germany, the US or Canada.

But generally people tend to feel safer*, because they are safer and they are more familiar with something. They think they know they don't need to worry about cars at intersections. And if you are not used to something new yet, I think most people will generally feel less safe, independently of whether they are or are not safer.

I completely agree that making all participants feel the right degree of safety is an important goal. I can see where Laminar is coming from: it could very well be that people think there are more close calls, but the calls are not as close as people think, not least because all participants move much more slowly, which gives everyone more time to react. And I think this is the point I think he was trying to make — and it is a valid one.


* E. g. some people refuse to wear seat belts because in some very low probability freak accident, not wearing a seat belt had made a difference.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2020, 12:32 PM
 
I can see familiarity with roundabouts being an issue for drivers, but how is this the case for pedestrians? It’s an uncontrolled crosswalk. Who isn’t familiar with those?

What makes me feel safer at a stoplight over an uncontrolled crosswalk is unambiguous delegation of responsibility.

What if uncontrolled crosswalks are safer because if my life depends on playing Frogger, I get really good at playing Frogger?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2020, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
read messages on their cell phones
To me, this is suicide. I’ll walk on the sidewalk doing it, but the phone goes down in the street. I think my life total is 5.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2020, 07:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I can see familiarity with roundabouts being an issue for drivers, but how is this the case for pedestrians? It’s an uncontrolled crosswalk. Who isn’t familiar with those?
I was thinking of drivers. But for pedestrians, you are right, it works just as any other crosswalk.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What if uncontrolled crosswalks are safer because if my life depends on playing Frogger, I get really good at playing Frogger?
That depends on the traffic, no? If this is a quieter backroad, you don’t need a traffic light. In medium traffic, you can add on-demand traffic lights. Or for major arteries, you just use regular traffic lights.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To me, this is suicide. I’ll walk on the sidewalk doing it, but the phone goes down in the street. I think my life total is 5.
Same here. Some have children in the back even. Just seeing this really makes me uneasy.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:23 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,