I drive through Carmel frequently and love the efficiency of their roundabouts. Anecdotally, I haven't had significant issues with other drivers not using them effectively. Meanwhile in Indianapolis, I often find myself stopped at a stoplight with no cross traffic, wishing that we would invest more in roundabouts like Carmel has. Granted, Indy is much larger, older, and more dense than Carmel, but there are still plenty of locations where roundabouts would be a good fit.
Roundabouts reduced accidents and are environmentally friendly
21–30 of 40 posts
Re: Roundabouts reduced accidents and are environmentally friendly
#22I drive through Carmel frequently and love the efficiency of their roundabouts. Anecdotally, I haven't had significant issues with other drivers not using them effectively. Meanwhile in Indianapolis, I often find myself stopped at a stoplight with no cross traffic, wishing that we would invest more in roundabouts like Carmel has. Granted, Indy is much larger, older, and more dense than Carmel, but there are still ple…
Also, in case anyone's interested, Freakonomics did an episode on Carmel's roundabouts last year. The discussion with the mayor of Carmel starts at 7:33:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/should-traffic-lights-...
Re: Roundabouts reduced accidents and are environmentally friendly
#23Not sure if this is also the case with roundabouts, but traffic circles are significantly more hazardous for cyclists than intersections.
https://cyclingincities-spph.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2018/06/...
Re: Roundabouts reduced accidents and are environmentally friendly
#24They put two roundabouts in here on a state highway. I've never talked to anyone who had good things to say about them. The main problems IMO are: - you can just go around again if you aren't sure which exit you need; you are forced into taking an exit, right or wrong - the radius is too small so there is not much time to make a complex decision, especially if you aren't already familiar with the exits - it's hard to…
I think the problems above are mostly for new users. Those unfamiliar with their way. But... lots of this is solved via navigation apps and even proper signage. On there other hand they have a maximum throughput and that can only be alleviated by an interchange --even modest ones.
My experience with roundabouts is they work wonderfully in some places, and horribly in others. I feel like at least where I am, because they work so perfectly and elegantly in certain situations, better than other solutions, they then get overapplied, in situations where they are horrible.
It's a variant of the "when you only have a hammer" analogy: when you first learn how great a hammer can be, everything looks like a nail.
Re: Roundabouts reduced accidents and are environmentally friendly
#25My city has a lot of roundabouts, some are quite big (~150m diameter) as they are used where two or more main roads meet. When I first came here they usually had three lanes, with the idea that you change lanes as you move through the roundabout - this meant almost daily you would see a minor RTI on a roundabout, which would cause large queues of traffic. Some roundabouts also had three lanes where you enter and exit…
RTI: Road Traffic Incident, an updated term for a "car accident" or "motor vehicle collision". From a quick search, I think it's British. As an American, I'd never encountered either the acronym or the expanded form.
There was some discussion about how accident carried some implication of 'no ones fault' that that didnt quite cover all the incidents. If someone tried to run your child over intentionally, it would be somewhat annoying if the police and legal system kept referring to it as an 'accident'
Re: Roundabouts reduced accidents and are environmentally friendly
#26They put two roundabouts in here on a state highway. I've never talked to anyone who had good things to say about them. The main problems IMO are: - you can just go around again if you aren't sure which exit you need; you are forced into taking an exit, right or wrong - the radius is too small so there is not much time to make a complex decision, especially if you aren't already familiar with the exits - it's hard to…
how is 1 negative? And how is 2 not solved by 1.
I think there's a missing negative from point 1, it sounds like they can't just go round again which is the default of most things I'd describe as roundabouts.
At least I think so, they might be complaining that you aren't forced to take an exit.
Re: Roundabouts reduced accidents and are environmentally friendly
#27Not sure if this is also the case with roundabouts, but traffic circles are significantly more hazardous for cyclists than intersections. https://cyclingincities-spph.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2018/06/...
Depends on the design. Roundabouts decrease speed (good) but if the cyclists follow the same path as cars they are more difficult to see in mirrors (bad). The Dutch solution is having cyclists follow a route about 1-2m from the main roundabout, which means cars and cyclists intersect at a near-90° angle again.
Re: Roundabouts reduced accidents and are environmentally friendly
#28They put two roundabouts in here on a state highway. I've never talked to anyone who had good things to say about them. The main problems IMO are: - you can just go around again if you aren't sure which exit you need; you are forced into taking an exit, right or wrong - the radius is too small so there is not much time to make a complex decision, especially if you aren't already familiar with the exits - it's hard to…
In the UK there are signs at each exit that do their best to ensure you're clear that you're about to take the right one.
When we're not sure that we're about to come off at the right exit, we just go around again. I find myself doing this in unfamiliar places occasionally.
Not sure what your first point is saying, but the fact you can just go around again until you're sure you're going the right way is a great feature, IME.
I think the reason that introducing roundabouts somewhere where people aren't used to dealing with them all the time is ... well, just that. There needs to be enough of them for people to be comfortable with the right way to approach them - and not just them, but others using them, before they work as intended.
In summary: Roundabouts are a really good way of managing a junction, but - like most road features - they need to get to a point of being familiar to most road users before they're as effective as they can be.
Re: Roundabouts reduced accidents and are environmentally friendly
#29They put two roundabouts in here on a state highway. I've never talked to anyone who had good things to say about them. The main problems IMO are: - you can just go around again if you aren't sure which exit you need; you are forced into taking an exit, right or wrong - the radius is too small so there is not much time to make a complex decision, especially if you aren't already familiar with the exits - it's hard to…
[1] is a typical sign in Britain. The green sign (hopefully in my link) shows the main destinations, e.g. Warwick, since this is a long distance road. The white sign 200m further along the road shows more local destinations.
There are then large signs at every exit on the roundabout.
Sometimes (not here) the approach lanes have giant letters/numbers painted in each lane, even if it's crushed so Warwick is written "Wa'ck" or something.
Nothing prevents you going around a second time if you need to. Your satnav will have said something like "In 500m, at the roundabout, take the second exit to Warwick" and then "Take the second exit to Warwick".
On this road (which is typical) there's the confirmation-of-route sign very soon after exiting the roundabout towards Warwick, or (third exit) to the village.
> you can just go around again if you aren't sure which exit you need; you are forced into taking an exit, right or wrong
...doesn't make sense?
> the radius is too small so there is not much time to make a complex decision, especially if you aren't already familiar with the exits
Ideally, you should know what exit you need from the signs you saw approaching the roundabout. If not, slow down and go around again.
> it's hard to monitor traffic entering the roundabout to make sure I don't get hit by someone having a harder time navigating this than me, while at the same time trying to figure out what the crazy sign diagrams mean.
This is why the signs were 100-200m before the roundabout. It sounds like you are approaching the roundabout too fast.
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1980889,-1.6002025,3a,75y,23...
Re: Roundabouts reduced accidents and are environmentally friendly
#30They put two roundabouts in here on a state highway. I've never talked to anyone who had good things to say about them. The main problems IMO are: - you can just go around again if you aren't sure which exit you need; you are forced into taking an exit, right or wrong - the radius is too small so there is not much time to make a complex decision, especially if you aren't already familiar with the exits - it's hard to…
[1] is a typical sign in Britain. The green sign (hopefully in my link) shows the main destinations, e.g. Warwick, since this is a long distance road. The white sign 200m further along the road shows more local destinations. There are then large signs at every exit on the roundabout. Sometimes (not here) the approach lanes have giant letters/numbers painted in each lane, even if it's crushed so Warwick is written "Wa…
> you can just go around again if you aren't sure which exit you need; you are forced into taking an exit, right or wrong
> ...doesn't make sense?
It's supposed to be "you can't just...", it also means your solution of slowing down and going around again doesn't work.