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

121–130 of 159 posts

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#121

Post by gs17 »

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…

I live by a bunch of these, but worse IMO is the "four way intersection with no signs or circle or anything" where you just kind of hope no one comes fast and hits you (I imagine on a bike where you wouldn't stop if there was a sign this is even more dangerous). Seattle is weird. Traffic circle with stop signs is fine by me, they don't really function well as roundabouts for most cars, anyways, some of them are too cramped to actually go all the way around smoothly.

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#122

Post by gs17 »

lokar wrote: post #110
munificent wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What they're talking about is basically a small concrete circle (sometimes it's not a circle, but a round-ish shape vaguely near the center) plopped down in a standard residential intersection (sometimes with a lot of stuff in it that blocks the view in case you were worried about knowing if someone is crossing the street on the other side). Better designs likely wouldn't fit without raising the cost a huge amount.

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#123

Post by gs17 »

dwroberts wrote: post #102
throwaway173738 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's much better when there's no traffic. When there's traffic, it often doesn't stop for you when it exits the roundabout (even if it technically should) because everyone is busy going around the circle as fast as possible (and driving in a circle means they might not have been looking at where you crossed). Sometimes they move the pedestrian crossings way back to give people more of a chance to stop, but that still requires drivers to stop when they don't feel forced to.

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#124

Post by gs17 »

brewdad wrote: post #112
gs17 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that at intersections the normative behavior of American drivers is to queue and wait for your turn. Roundabouts assume a different behavior based on jumping the line. I don't think it's that different from turning right on red, or left without an arrow, or even merging on to the highway from an onramp (maybe that's the most similar, traffic in the others aren't flowing the same direction as you).

There is a roundabout near me that gets quite low traffic volume. I probably only have to even slow below 20mph about 10% of the time. The bigger risk is that the car in front of me is going to come to a complete stop at the yield sign despite the fact that you can see any potential conflicts at least 100 feet before the roundabout. American drivers don’t know that a yield doesn’t require a stop and can’t think more…

"American drivers are too safe" is a new complaint to me.

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#125

Post by tmathmeyer »

agwa wrote: post #100

What's particularly crazy about this interchange is that there is going to be a second, elevated peanut roundabout that's rotated 90 degrees, for buses to use: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg...

I think the "peanut" shape of the transit roundabout is not final. They're going to straighten the sides to make it more of a race-track shape. Having straight sides allows the busses to align themselves better with the curbs for passenger access. That rendering is a bit nonsense, its outright missing the 85th/114th intersection

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#126

Post by tmathmeyer »

tomfakes wrote: post #61
geephroh wrote: post #55

The best part about Kirkland Roundabouts is that they come in a handy family-size 24 pack. I'll let myself out.

The original Costco HQ building overlooks this new intersection, so this is almost a relevant comment

Not quite. The old corporate HQ was located at 10809 120th ave NE, which is up at exit 21 and currently being redeveloped into a townhome complex: https://www.google.com/maps/place/10809+120th+Ave+NE,+Kirkla...

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#127

Post by gs17 »

dwd wrote: post #50
2bitencryption wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live moments away from this roundabout. It's confusing. Single-lane roundabouts are really straightforward. You're either clear to enter, or you're not. Adding lanes makes it far more confusing. I consider myself, you know, pretty smart. Not stupid, at least. But I almost sideswiped someone in this roundabout the other day. Years of driving experience gave me an intuition that the middle lane would not cross over t…

> Single-lane roundabouts are really straightforward Like the Arc de Triomphe roundabout? :) If it had lane marking there would apparently be 10 tracks around the circle. What makes it seem crazy is cars entering have right of way. The reason it works seems to be French attitude. Cars entering do their thing, and cars already going around do their thing (and just have to avoid anyone on their right).

> What makes it seem crazy is cars entering have right of way.

I saw that on either Top Gear or The Grand Tour and was convinced they were just making fun of the French. It's really odd to not have changed it when everyone else learned that lesson already.

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#128

Post by brewdad »

gs17 wrote: post #124
brewdad wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a roundabout near me that gets quite low traffic volume. I probably only have to even slow below 20mph about 10% of the time. The bigger risk is that the car in front of me is going to come to a complete stop at the yield sign despite the fact that you can see any potential conflicts at least 100 feet before the roundabout. American drivers don’t know that a yield doesn’t require a stop and can’t think more…

"American drivers are too safe" is a new complaint to me.

Stopping at yield signs when there is no other traffic is the opposite of safe.

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#129

Post by dwd »

gs17 wrote: post #62
throwaway173738 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And as a pedestrian, drivers going around a circle aren't necessarily going to see you until they're already exiting, even if the city didn't put something large in the center that entirely blocks their vision. Plus, you lose the ability to know which way a car is likely to go until it's already too late. When I lived in Nashville, I spent a lot of time near a roundabout, and even after they redid it to be a bit bett…

The rule in Australia for roundabouts is that you give way to anyone already on a roundabout.

From an advanced driving course I got to do years ago (for free), I learnt that the pedestrian island counts as part of the roundabout, so a pedestrian crossing or on the island should be given way to finish crossing when entering the roundabout [1].

Doesn't always happen in reality.

There is also this idea in Australia that you always give right of way to cars entering on your right (left for US) which is not an actual rule; as in if you are waiting at the line you count as being on the roundabout.

Unfortunately, you will often see cars on the major road blast through a small roundabout with no regard to anyone waiting to enter from the lesser road, making entering the roundabout from that side a stop rather than an equal give way.

[1] Edited for clarity

Re: Kirkland Roundabouts

#130

Post by KennedyHere »

agwa wrote: post #100

What's particularly crazy about this interchange is that there is going to be a second, elevated peanut roundabout that's rotated 90 degrees, for buses to use: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg...

That's a fantastic rendering. I hadn't seen it.
Post reply on HN