Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kirkland Roundabouts

kirklandroundabouts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 159 posts

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#101

Post by CGMthrowaway »

KennedyHere wrote: post #64

Hey all, I'm the author of this game. I didn't expect to see it on HN! I wrote it to add some fun to all the conversations happening in the local forums about this roundabout. They've been heated at times. And, yes, this roundabout is right next to the Kirkland Costco. I definitely agree with all the critiques of the gameplay - and I have about 100 more. I cut it down to the bare essentials to get it done while it's…

My "solution" was to treat every roundabout like a stop sign.

This would work, except that it exposed flaws in the controls/ etc and also sometimes the other cars would not yield. But not my fault! :)

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#102

Post by dwroberts »

throwaway173738 wrote: post #35
Freedom2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking to my American colleagues, they're often perplexed by roundabouts and don't really understand how they fundamentally work. They're also incredibly stubborn when it comes to convincing them that it helps with traffic flow immensely versus a 4 way stop sign.

When you’re walking the stop sign stops traffic for you so it’s a lot nicer. I’ve found that even with a marked crosswalk people ignore you if they’re not forced to stop.

I guess jaywalking stuff makes this harder? Because in the UK for example, roundabouts will often be surrounded by marked areas for pedestrians to cross, but they are not proper crossings. You don't have to wait or expect traffic to stop for you, you just walk across when it's clear.

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#103

Post by shaftway »

Jblx2 wrote: post #96
gs17 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more a poor place for a roundabout. It was a very busy intersection in one direction, where the switch to roundabouts meant there was no longer a break in traffic. What it needed was a light with a sensor to let the very sporadic side traffic through (technically, a roundabout can have this, but the 3/4-way intersection that's always green except when someone needs it to not be is better), what we got was an end…

>If you pull in after the car already in the roundabout passes by, you get hit by the next one. Yes, that seems like a roundabout design defect. Seems like the radius of the circle is too large, so cars aren't slowing down enough.

How large is too large?

I'm American with a roundabout very close to my house. The inner radius is 10 meters with an island in the middle, and single lanes in all directions. I have witnessed it successfully navigated at well over 100 kph.

Also, it's not a speed thing. I've seen this at another roundabout near my house. There's a school dropoff near it, so in the morning traffic backs up through the roundabout onto one of the entrances. The rules are that traffic in the roundabout has the right of way, so nobody lets anyone from one of the side streets in.

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#104

Post by TulliusCicero »

Jblx2 wrote: post #86
gs17 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost like them, but my commute long ago involved one that revealed a frustrating pathological case. Constant traffic flow in one direction can make an entrance entirely unusable. It makes the average trip more efficient, but the worst case becomes dramatically worse.

>Constant traffic flow in one direction can make an entrance entirely unusable. Seems like a poorly designed roundabout then. You should just pull into the roundabout, right after the car already in the roundabout passes by. Something is wrong if one direction of traffic can block the flow from other directions.

> You should just pull into the roundabout, right after the car already in the roundabout passes by.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious: the issue is that there's another car right there, when traffic is heavy.

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#105

Post by TulliusCicero »

drnick1 wrote: post #84
daveguy wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roundabouts are almost always a good idea, assuming there is sufficient traffic. They keep traffic flowing faster, more predictably, and with fewer accidents.

No, they just interrupt the flow of traffic by slowing it down. The classic pattern of side roads with less traffic yielding to incoming traffic on the main road carrying more traffic is the correct road layout that minimizes frustration and confusion. Roundabouts are the favorite tool of left-leaning, anti-car, vanilla soy latte-sipping urban planners.

No, they reduce the number of accidents, and also reduce the severity of accidents.

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#106

Post by TulliusCicero »

cloverich wrote: post #33

I love this roundabout, we live down the street from it. People around here drive comically bad, mostly from what i suspect is simple inexperience (many new drivers), with a surprising side of entitlement (super rich area). Together, its become my favorite experience to see all the ways people fail to navigate this wild "roundabout". And yet it still mostly works, and is loads faster than the former lights that were…

It's been not so great for me so far, but I think that's because the street I often take before getting into the roundabout is still reduced to one lane each way due to construction; once it's back to two lanes each way, I think it'll be fine.

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#107

Post by fermentation »

I love roundabouts. I have no clue what on Earth compelled them to design the 85th st interchange this way, but they took maybe the most dangerous intersection I have ever seen and made it maybe twice as dangerous.

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#109

Post by blt »

faxmeyourcode wrote: post #40

A town I grew up in went absolutely crazy with roundabouts over the last 10 years or so. They built them everywhere. Most are pretty straightforward and they simplify traffic a ton but there were some bad design choices made. Take this similarly confusing double-roundabout for example https://maps.app.goo.gl/VTSrSWsBGnsYyzKU6 There are accidents here almost every week and when an out of towner comes off the interstat…

I have a conspiracy theory that these unnecessary projects to replace intersections with roundabouts in small/midsize towns are driven by kickbacks from the contractor to the city council.

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#110

Post by lokar »

munificent wrote: post #98
com2kid wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They exist so people cannot run through the stop sign. Their only connection to a round about is the shape.

It's more complex than that. I live in Seattle near a street that has these traffic circles. The design is: * There is a round obstruction in the middle of the intersection like a roundabout. * The street going north-south through the intersection does not have a stop sign. * The street going east-west has stop signs on both sides. * But the north-south street which doesn't have to stop also has speed humps on it to…

Seems reasonable. Of course there are really good (true) roundabout designs that are great of cycling (and walking), but without understanding the space it's hard to know if they would fit / work well.
Post reply on HN