Safer roundabouts are replacing traffic signals (2023)
urbanismspeakeasy.com
urbanismspeakeasy.com
Most American drivers are familiar with slip lanes, which allow drivers to make a right-hand turns without necessarily coming to a stop. (Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_lane. Note that the diagram shows an example from a country where they drive on the left side of the road.) They're convenient for drivers, but dangerous for anyone on foot or a bike. This is because a driver in a slip lane is looking for an opening in traffic in the direction opposite of the direction they're traveling.
A roundabout is basically an intersection made up of nothing but slip lanes. So they're fundamentally dangerous to pedestrians in the same way that a slip lane is, but the fact that vehicles are moving slower means that they're still safer than typical American intersections.
However, if I remember correctly (it's been over 20 years ago), in the UK they don't mix roundabouts and crosswalks. They'd put crosswalks (called "Zebra crossings": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_crossing) between intersections, where drivers aren't distracted by other things. I think we need to do that in the US as well if we're going to adopt roundabouts.
Surprise! I'm going to walk in front of you.
However, in my experience, pedestrians still cross at them all the time because an intersection (whether it's a roundabout, red lights, etc.) is always going to be the most convenient place to cross if you are trying to walk down a road for several blocks.
I have been living in a rural area of Australia now for over 10 years, and while I do think roundabouts are great, they should not be used where there are a lot of pedestrians. They get WAY overused in small rural towns here, leading to a high rate of rural pedestrian deaths.
Nowadays I often see the designers making conscious decisions like:
* what radius?
* what angle do we need so it doesn't even make sense to try to turn left?
* hard curb or drivable curb?
* central pit, flat center, or raised center?
* full roundabout, or teardrop-shaped (common on both sides of a highway bridge)? Apparently peanut-shaped is also a possibility though I haven't seen one.
* one-lane, two-lane, or a mixture (potentially including partial three-lane) depending on what part of the circle (common when there's a "major" road meeting a minor one)?
This is all of course ignoring the fact that drivers are also more aware of how to use them nowadays.
Anecdotally, they’re converting a number of intersections here in rural, Northern MN to roundabouts and they are _very_ effective at reducing fatalities and injuries.
But hey, I'm down for more to be built in the USA and let's give it a shot.
You know what else saves lives? Outlawing the use of cars entirely. Why aren't you arguing for that?
If left to voting instead of public policy, we will pick "feels safe but isn't" over "doesn't feel safe but is" which is why someone has to put their big boy pants on and build them anyway.
There are design standards for them… now(?). There may not have been in the past, or they were not as good given the lack of experience.
See also perhaps "International comparison of roundabout design guidelines":
People (education), process (implementation plan), technology (implementation).
(my motivation is more roundabouts)
This baffles me. It's not like T-boning someone is good for your car either.
Only thing I can imagine is they think it will operate like getting on a freeway, where you have some time in a dedicated lane before you have to merge?
- give priority to traffic approaching from your right, unless directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights
- watch out for all other road users already on the roundabout; be aware they may not be signalling correctly or at all
The second rule means if you have already entered the roundabout you have right of way over traffic yet to enter the roundabout to your right. What can happen in practice is that people to your right rock on and beep you out for the temerity of getting there first.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-...
There was a recent event where the interstate was closed (accident or something) and everyone had to re-route on those highways resulting in chaos at those intersections.
And there's a roundabouts database! Of course there is!
https://roundabouts.kittelson.com/Roundabouts/Search?sortOrd...
The thing is, I like roundabouts, but I'm somehow not surprised that the metrics focus on accidents involving death or injury. I think that because people have to slow down, it must improve those metrics. But there's a particular glut of bone-headed people who power right into the roundabout without anything resembling yielding, to the point where I would legitimately not be surprised if there were actually more accidents overall. That may still be better, but it's incredibly frustrating how badly people handle roundabouts given their simplicity.
Near my house are roundabouts that I have to drive in all the time. My number of near-collisions from people barreling through is ridiculous. Now if I'm in the roundabout I lay on my horn if I see cars approaching because they just don't pay attention.
It's sad they're so dangerous because of oblivious idiots. Those intersections are so much more efficient as roundabouts than if they were traditional four way stops.
And most of all, they're texting ALL THE TIME. They kill pedestrians, kill other drivers, and steal thousands if not millions of hours from the rest of us every day. This is actively abetted by politicians, who refuse to impose any significant penalties for texting while driving. It should be a DUI-level offense, with the same penalties... ruthlessly enforced.
I have written to my state senators more than once about this issue... to no response at all. None.
What do you mean by block it?
I can't recall the last time I saw someone in the passing lane that was driving under the speed limit (or prevailing speed when there's traffic) except when preparing to turn left.
Some states have laws saying so. Illinois law says it's illegal to block the passing lane for more than half a mile at ANY speed.
Now states need to take the next step and paint "passing only" in the left lane. We spend trillions on highways, and then let one jagoff waste it all by blocking traffic.
It appears that Illinois law also has an exception for traffic congestion, but not for speed limits.
Not that we'll ever see such a thing enforced. We can't even get a legitimate anti-texting law passed.
The metrics show improvement for all kinds, it's just not as dramatic for lesser accidents. Typically it's something like (very roughly):
* ¼ less accidents total
* ½ less accidents with minor injury
* ¾ less accidents with major injury or death
That's possible, but people causing frequent fender-benders pay dearly for the privilege, so there's at least non-lethal feedback forcing them to improve.
It is a skill, it requires some practice. It's similar to math in that regards. And once you learn it you'd love them.
But for a pedestrian in a populated area, roundabouts are not an improvement.
Quick, how does a pedestrian safely cross a lane of traffic? Is it while dodging moving traffic, or does it involve traffic coming to a stop?
If you said the first, I hereby revoke your license to design public infrastructure. For pedestrians to safely cross a lane of traffic, cars need to come a stop, period.
And the whole selling point of a roundabout is that cars don't come to a stop. This is fine for rural areas or large interchanges. But for anywhere that pedestrians are expected to be, roundabouts make the environment more hostile.
And this is before we consider that to cross a roundabout requires setting the pedestrian crossings back from the intersection, forcing pedestrians to zig-zag in order to use them.
And this is also before we consider that we know for a fact that shallower turns (which allow cars to retain more speed) are less safe than sharper turns (which require cars to shed speed), which further exacerbates the pedestrian safety issue.
To say nothing of the fact that roundabouts preclude implementing pedestrian scrambles, which are the safest and most efficient form of pedestrian crossing.
Roundabouts are a solution to a problem of making roads safer for cars, at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists. They exacerbate the problem of our depressingly car-oriented infrastructure. "But the stats say they're safer!" Yeah, and when Google reduced page sizes they saw their average latencies increase. This is a fun way of lying with statistics. Sure, fatalities from roundabouts go down when you create such a human-hostile environment that every pedestrian and cyclist goes out of their way to avoid it, or just throws their hands up in despair and buys a car, since it's a signal that car owners are the only thing people worth optimizing for.
I'm actually fond of rotaries in general. But especially for newer smaller ones, it feels like the gradual turning of your path is much worse for keeping a walking pedestrian within your recently-created front blind spot as you're merging in, just when your attention is focused on other cars. I counter by bobbing my head left and right to see around the post, but I don't think most drivers do this.
I obviously can't argue with the statistics, but I also have to wonder if they're telling the whole story.
The weirdest thing we have here (unrelated to roundabouts) is the hook turn which cars must obey at many intersections in the city:
The Wikipedia article doesn't even give any explanation as to why.
Why on earth did they build a circle of six roundabouts, rather than simply a single roundabout with six entrances/exits?
I'm baffled.
> When the bell rings at Carmel High School, parents race in from all directions to create a zoo of cars, students, and tired teachers all try to use the road at the same time. How a city's failed attempt to build two roundabouts to fix the problem led to an addition.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZUZA76L09M
Related, "Roads don't have to be FAT to be FAST":
> Red lights ruin perfectly good highways and make them grow wider than they really need to be. How a town got a highway moving fast again without adding a single new lane.
They are a liability when traffic levels are high enough - say during peak times - when one inbound direction is blocked by another.
Wondering why Americans loathe them?
The rule should be that when traffic is bumper to bumper, the "zip" is made mandatory. That rule already supersedes the normal rule on, say, many (all?) european highways when the highway goes from, say, 3 lanes to 2 lanes and in case that creates a traffic jam: people in "their" lane doesn't have the right of way anymore. It's one car from one lane, one car from another lane: the "zip".
People in a roundabout should lose their right of way when traffic is bumper to bumper.
Where I live people are extremely polite on the road so I don't even know if the zip it's mandatory: people shall simply act that way.
In countries where road rage is common and people misbehave, like France, just make it mandatory by law.
What is actually super dangerous are the non-standard 2/3 lane roundabouts where the first lane gets "ejected" at the next/second exit forcibly, while the 2nd lane can either exit or continue on the roundabout, so many lorries in the 1st lane try to runover those in the 2nd lane trying to exit.
It is possible to add traffic signals to roundabouts (in the UK the standard is TD 50 (DMRB 6.2.3)):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout#Signalised_roundabo...
* http://www.jctconsultancy.co.uk/Consultancy/roundabouts.php
* https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e81b669e90e0...
If one direction dominates, you can stop it and then let the others have a turn.
As soon as you overcomplicate it, like adding lanes, lights, 5+ exits at different angles, I would bet the advantages mostly disappear.
Multi-lane roundabouts, though, freak me out when they're really tight, have a lot of lanes or don't have lane markers (e.g. Place Charles de Gaulle in Paris).
I have had to go through a few that feel extremely dangerous compared to having all cars stop for me. So I know I must be missing something.
Edit: Also, I see a lot of comments on yield. I'm probably confused too, but how do they work when traffic is non-stop? Is there a specific traffic rate beyond which roundabouts become less safe?
While in a roundabout, there's no passing permitted so you're essentially moving at the slowest vehicle's speed (which can be you). This rule can cause a problem if you're in the inner lane or a multilane roundabout and want to exit when a car is to your right when people don't choose their lanes properly when entering.
Highway merges have somewhat different rules in that you must be at or near the speed of traffic when merging instead of slowing down and you're not permitted to stop unless absolutely necessary.
The movement around Carmel is remarkable compared to driving next cities (Indy, Fishers, etc). Fishers and Westfield are building more roundabouts as well.
As for one person who commented about high traffic locations - Carmel would make an overpass for those intersections though they are not many.
https://www.carmel.in.gov/government/departments-services/en...
https://www.carmel.in.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/21496/6...
https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/ite-talks-transporta...
They intend to replace the last 14 of 15 traffic signals remaining with roundabouts, leaving the last one (located at Main and Range Line) for historical purposes, as it was the first in the state and one of the first in the country.
https://readthereporter.com/the-first-will-soon-be-the-last-...
https://web.archive.org/web/20240713203110/https://www.youar...
It's always someone else's daughter who will be killed in a car accident.
Add traffic signals:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout#Signalised_roundabo...
* http://www.jctconsultancy.co.uk/Consultancy/roundabouts.php
* https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e81b669e90e0...
If one direction dominates, you can stop it and then let the others have a turn.
If congestion occurs only at "peak" time(s) (e.g., rush hour(s)) then that's when you are stop/go with signals, whereas the rest of the time the signals are set to the 'traditional' roundabout way (perhaps flashing yellow?), then it could still mean that for (say) 20 hours of the day you still have the benefits (plus also during weekends).
And even during peak time(s) you probably get reduced collision rates and collision intensities.
Some will 'get it', most will not.