Roundabouts have turned a corner
economist.com
economist.com
BUT now look at the "primitive" roundabout. It wins. Something thats simpler, won't fail, and actually keeps people safer.
This is the dilemma I always fight with myself when I build tech solutions to problems: Does this really make it better? Just because I think its cool, or even that I am proud of it, doesn't mean its good for people to use. For me it always comes down to what is the best. I believe the best in anything is very objective, and that can often lead to very existential questions...
I make software that replaces paper tickets. The battle is always there when someone will say they just want to stick to paper tickets. Sometimes, its hard to disagree with them.
but when a customer pays me money, I start to feel better for awhile. Then the thought is not: 'is this the best solution to this problem'... but rather: 'is this the best thing I am capable of'
My take on them is that they probably do make traffic flow faster, but I was always a bit scared to enter them whilst driving as almost no one seemed to understand the rules. i.e. If you're taking the first exit of the rotary, you should be in the right hand lane, if your not, you should be in the left hand lane. As a result there was a lot of awkward lane changing by people whilst at high turn angles, which was messy, mostly folks in the right hand lane of the rotary going multiple exits and ultimately cutting off someone in the left hand rotary lane on the way to a single lane exit.
"Most common in the New England region of the United States, a rotary is primarily a mid 20th century roadway design defined as a circular, one way, often multi-lane roadway, similar to a traffic circle or a roundabout, but with key differences. They are often found as overpasses or underpasses to highways. Usually traffic already in the rotary has the right-of-way as in a modern roundabout and opposite of a traffic circle, although there are exceptions. The difference in design of a rotary versus a roundabout or a traffic circle, is such that rotaries tend to be quite large and there is little deflection around the central circle (meaning traffic coming on or off does so primarily in a straight line, not a curve). These two factors mean that rotary traffic often travels at speeds in excess of 30 miles per hour, leading to confusion and accidents, and the resulting unpopularity, that the modern roundabout does not suffer from. Although this is a traffic engineering definition, many rotaries are called traffic circles or simply circles, such as the Portsmouth Traffic Circle, in naming."
It makes complete sense: when rules are based on other people's behavior rather than mindlessly following rules (that others might not, for various reasons), everyone watches out more.
Edit: to be clear, as a cyclist, roundabouts (and zebra crossings, for that matter) scare the hell out of me precisely because the rules are less explicit, and one dumb driver who doesn't stop for me might cost me my life. But I still prefer a roundabout that results in me being overly cautious, to traffic lights that I and my fellow commuters mindlessly follow where there is still the same risk of a dumb or distracted driver going through red. I'm probably safer off with roundabouts.
France has 30000 roundabouts. Your theory is nonsense.
> The anti-clockwise flow of cars on right side drive might be more difficult for the brain to comprehend, leading to confusion and panic.
It's not, it's only difficult for the brain to comprehend when you don't know what roundabouts are and how they work, as with any other somewhat complex road structure.
It would be interesting to see accident statistics comparing left and right side roundabouts. Maybe there is a difference.
People do not respect the flow of traffic here, being the major issue. It is hard to get people to use R/As properly if they do not understand intent. Traffic frequently grinds to a halt as people cut-across, going from the most inner lane out of the roundabout, or circle around in the outer lane and continue to the next exit. It is so common it is the common cause of accidents in the country's capital of Doha. Since the R/A is the nexus of the major chokepoints, an accident causes more severe traffic. The massive traffic is now compounded by the fact they must build intersections inside the center of the R/A, and tear up the road to properly re-align. This never goes smoothly, and the countries traffic has become worse over the last few months as people continue to do this.
So, perhaps the cost is lower, but traffic dynamics are terrible in large cities where the rules are misunderstood, which I assume to be all of them.
They work simply: each car entering the roundabout must yield. I've never had a problem.
I have had issues in the roundabouts in Seattle. Partly because they inexplicably put a left turn lane in them. The other reason is most Americans are not familiar with the concept and balk when using them.
It's really not difficult, at least when there are only two lanes:
* If you're going to travel for less than half the roundabout (going right), stay on the outer lane
* If you're going to travel for more than half the roundabout (going left), go on the inner lane
* If you're going straight, you can do either (it's mostly a question of traffic, if there's no traffic you can cut through the inner lane)
The second is more risky as not all drivers use their signals, let alone correctly, but normally you give your output direction when entering the roundabout (so use left signals if going left and right when going right), then cut off the signals when on the roundabout and signal right when you're between the exit you want to take and the previous one.
If you fear multi-lane roundabouts or are lost, just stay on the outer lane and do not use your turn signals. People will get slightly annoyed when they gave way and you were turning before them, but nothing more.
I am not a fan of 2-3 lane roundabout / traffic circles which try to use signal-less operation, because right of way becomes intractable and lane changes difficult.
Boston may have a few that aren't completely Euclidian.
I think the problem is as mentioned, often American ones are much different. It seems more like a free for all circle with a random bunch of roads exiting and entering, with no lanes marked. Also construction obscured the view to the left.
I did come across a few "normal" roundabouts at least, but they either don't exist or are terrible.
However, fundamentally it is a self-regulated mechanism where you need to follow rules like allow merging from left, etc. Traffic signals have more simplistic rules and can be more strictly enforced. The problem happens in heavy traffic when you are literally fighting for your exit - there is no way that you can claim to have been following the rules.
In India, a lot of roundabouts are being converted to traffic signals to save time and safety.
Considering traffic lights don't work either (unless there are a few cops looking for coffee money under the light), that's not exactly surprising.
Might make people actually pay attention to their driving if there were more in the USA.
Do other countries have a similar text-while-driving problem?
Depends on the size of the roundabout, on some of them you can more or less go straight through (the bends can be smaller than a chicane).
> Do other countries have a similar text-while-driving problem?
Yes. A number of countries have laws against operation of a mobile phone while driving (be it texting or calling).
If you're caught there's a small fine, but a comparatively large number of demerit points are applied to your license (after sufficiently many of which your license can be revoked).
Nevada built America’s first in 1990
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!q=orinda&data=!1m4!1m3!...
That's how most of industrial America (and the world) works. Competition breeds innovation, or something like that.
http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/a-modern-amster...