Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjs_ac | Hacker News Reader

All of that is user error. The roads themselves might be in disrepair, but are otherwise well-designed.

It may be user error, but that doesn't mean roundabouts aren't a footgun. It only takes one driver who doesn't do everything correctly to cause problems. It's not much fun driving around in the correct lane, only for someone to pull alongside you to the left (equivalent of "right" in the US, of course!). I failed a driving test because someone cut across me on a roundabout.

"I failed a driving test because someone cut across me on a roundabout." That driver may have cut across you on that roundabout but that doesn't mean roundabouts are a footgun.

When comparing two interfaces and one allows a larger amount of user error that interface is inferior.

The point is roundabouts require more work to navigate correctly than a four way intersection with traffic lights. Thus drivers are more likely to navigate incorrectly.

> When comparing two interfaces and one allows a larger amount of user error that interface is inferior.

Seeing a safety issue and ignoring all other considerations is an excellent example of the ‘overarching theory and imposed order’ I argued that Britain rejects in my first comment.

I’d rather have more small non-injury accidents if it means fewer injury accidents

If a given tool tends to have a high amount of user error, odds are there's a problem with the tool

I mean, what you're trying to minimise is (frequency of misuse x consequences of misuse). signalised intersections target the frequency element, roundabouts target the consequences.

Yes, we're discussing how the users change the way traffic flows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com