Roundabout Revolution Sweeping US 1173
chrb writes "BBC News reports that U.S. cities are installing more roundabouts than ever before. The first British-style roundabout appeared in the U.S. in 1990, and now some cities — such as Carmel in Indiana, are rapidly replacing intersections with roundabouts. Supporters claim that roundabouts result in increased traffic flow, reductions in both the severity and incidence of accidents, and fuel savings. Critics say that roundabouts are more difficult to navigate for unfamiliar American drivers, lead to higher taxes and accidents, and require everyday acts of spontaneous co-operation and yielding to others — acts that are 'un-American.'" As a driver who's hit all of the continental U.S. states except North Dakota, I dread roundabouts and rotaries for all the near accidents (and at least one actual accident) I've seen them inspire, and have been unhappy to see them spread. Spontaneous driver cooperation doesn't necessarily need the round shape, either.
Re:Way before 1990 (Score:3, Informative)
Washington DC has rotaries [wikipedia.org], not roundabouts [wikipedia.org].
Check the road fatalities per 100k vehicles (Score:5, Informative)
here [wikipedia.org]
The US is conveniently located close to the UK.
Notice twice as many fatalities per 100000 vehicles in the US (15) than the UK (7).
It's a similary picture in most of Western Europe and there are plenty of roundabouts all over Europe.
Doesn't really prove anything, but it seems unlikelly that roundabouts significantly increase the number of traffic accidents. Even if they do, they certainly do not increase the number of deaths.
Re:Pedestrian problems? (Score:5, Informative)
Zebra crossing.
Roundabouts are much safer (Score:5, Informative)
Would you rather be t-boned by an idiot driver who runs a stop sign or hit in a glancing blow by an idiot driver who can't navigate a roundabout? A good roundabout where the curbing forces tangential entry is safer.
Re:Wow.... (Score:4, Informative)
I think the "spontaneous co-operation and yielding to others" varies a lot with location. I live in Texas, and once you get out of the city, it's quite common. On small roads, the people will even move over to the shoulder to let you pass. In the city (well Houston at least), it's not as common, but it still happens. I generally try to do this out of enlightened self-interest. Better to avoid an accident than be in one. Especially with 18 wheelers, where, right or wrong, if I get in an accident with them, I lose bigtime. I'd rather the lane change be controlled than become a pancake.
But when I recently drove to California (Long Beach in particular), I noticed such actions were unknown. When I stopped to let a guy out of a parking lot (it was a red light anyway), he looked at me like I was some kind of weirdo. The whole time I was there, I never saw any sort of cooperation. But I did have to play chicken almost daily. Made me appreciate Texas drivers.
Re:Higher taxes? (Score:1, Informative)
In America, criticism no longer has to be based on actual reality, but instead on the pseudo-reality built by the Republican party. Things that Republicans don't like cause higher taxes, this is one of the fundamental rules of the Republican States. Things they do like cause lower taxes, again, by definition. Also, since roundabouts come from Europe they are infected with European cooties, which, as previously noted cause higher taxes. You should be warned, that questioning these pronouncements is severely disliked, and thus could cause severely higher taxes. The Republican party recommends you stop trying to think about things, and simply nod along to everything they say, that way they can go back to lowering taxes.
Re:I love roundabouts in low traffic areas (Score:2, Informative)
We recently discussed round-abouts in my city, where I'm on the planning commission.
I like them, but didn't advocate them as they are so unpopular. Instead I pushed for the narrowing of roads at intersections. If a road narrows (by, for example, bringing in the curbs that were set back to allow for on-street parking), then drivers naturally slow. It's a means of traffic control that doesn't require A) roundabouts, B) speedbumps, or C) stop signs.
Of course I was totally against another proposed option, which was to make a street artificially curvy within a straight corridor. That stinks. And kids will just drive right down the center ignoring all the curves if they can, which makes it more dangerous than it would have been.
Re:Really bad idea. (Score:5, Informative)
You're either trolling or ignorant... Many places I need to ride, there either are no sidewalks or they're incomplete and only exist in segments or at intersections. You'll also find that in some areas of the US it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. I have personally been ticketed in the past for this in my home town.
Re:Really bad idea. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it is not LEGAL to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk You're part of the problem that Bing is referring to. A bicycle isn't just a toy, it is a vehicle, subject to vehicle laws in each state.
Re:Really bad idea. (Score:5, Informative)
You might try taking the TS101 class offered nationwide by the League of American Bicyclists. Your local class will be tailored to your state and local laws -- but one thing they all teach is accident statistics. Riding on the sidewalk, even when legal, entails far more risk than riding in the street (being one of the top 3 causes of cyclist-at-fault accidents -- the other two being riding at night without lights and riding the wrong way on the street). [Another useful thing to come out of those accident statistics -- all but ~3% of accidents have avoidance or mitigation mechanisms available. Proper lane positioning, signalling, emergency manoeuvring, and simply following traffic laws all do a world of good].
When you're on the sidewalk, folks pulling in and out of driveways aren't generally looking for anything faster than a pedestrian. The advice you give could get people killed.
Re:Really bad idea. (Score:5, Informative)
However, as other posters have pointed out, there are several kinds of intersection, each with their own factors that must be accounted for, (traffic volume, etc.) and it is unclear if the studies have taken into account the differing characteristics of the intersections that were replaced.
Additionally, the IIHS, for one, considers roundabouts distinct from rotaries. Since many others do not make this distinction, it is difficult to tell what kind of traffic circles were studied, and what kind of traffic circles are being installed in the US's "roundabout revolution."
Either way, the knee-jerk reaction of "rotaries are dangerous" at the least needs a conditional and at best is quite false.
Re:Really bad idea. (Score:5, Informative)
There is a federal guideline for this and most states and cities follow it. It's the federal guideline known as the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ [dot.gov]. Where it provides guidance, most follow it exactly, with exceptions being rare. However there are often local situations not covered precisely in the MUTCD.
Roundabouts, including their markings, are covered in Chapter 3C http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part3/part3c.htm [dot.gov].