Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'

[kphoger]

It's more of a launch pad than a modern roundabout.

Wow!  How many crashes have there been?

[tradephoric]

This is the aerial of the roundabout the guy hit.  He was driving along Quai Jules Destree N617 which is a limited access roadway with a 90 kph speed limit.

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.6034457,5.4862863,96m/data=!3m1!1e3

[kphoger]

This is the aerial of the roundabout the guy hit.  He was driving along Quai Jules Destree N617 which is a limited access roadway with a 90 kph speed limit.

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.6034457,5.4862863,96m/data=!3m1!1e3

Does not answer the question that was asked.

[kalvado]

It's more of a launch pad than a modern roundabout.

Wow!  How many crashes have there been?

Sofian Kiyine, a 25 year old midfielder for OH Leuven, blasted through a roundabout in Liege, Belgium on Thursday smashing through the wall of a sports hall at high speed landing on the gymnasium floor where it was reported children were playing just moments before the crash.  The video is absolutely wild.

Is this a crash prone modern roundabout?

A better question:
How many crashes this guy has on his record?

[algorerhythms]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

[thspfc]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

[kalvado]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

[thspfc]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

[kalvado]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

[SEWIGuy]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

I've seen some absurd analogies before, but this...this... is a piece of art.

[thspfc]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

What are some legitimate differences you notice between the roundabouts in this thread and roundabouts that are not crash-prone?

[Scott5114]

It's more of a launch pad than a modern roundabout.

You should probably post it in "Crash prone 'launch pads'" then.

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

What are some legitimate differences you notice between the roundabouts in this thread and roundabouts that are not crash-prone?

None of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone. In fact, I haven't seen any roundabouts crashing in this thread at all. Maybe it should be renamed to "Crash prone modern cars", because none of the roundabouts have crashed.

[tradephoric]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

What are some legitimate differences you notice between the roundabouts in this thread and roundabouts that are not crash-prone?

Triple-lane or complex double-lane roundabouts are the types where you can see 4X increases in crashes.  The roundabouts with triple-digit annual crashes documented in this thread are exclusively these multi-lane variety.   

[thspfc]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

What are some legitimate differences you notice between the roundabouts in this thread and roundabouts that are not crash-prone?

Triple-lane or complex double-lane roundabouts are the types where you can see 4X increases in crashes.  The roundabouts with triple-digit annual crashes documented in this thread are exclusively these multi-lane variety.   

Are the majority of roundabouts not at least double-lane? All of them around here are double-lane. They're not crash-prone. Triple-lane is a different discussion - once you get to the point of needing a triple-lane roundabout, alternative options should be considered - but double lane roundabouts are extremely common and the majority of them have no issues with crashes.

[kalvado]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

What are some legitimate differences you notice between the roundabouts in this thread and roundabouts that are not crash-prone?

Some of the things which often considered for design are traffic counts, %% of traffic to secondary road compared to throughfare, %% of left turns, %% of trucks, all that preferrably in 15 min increments as morning rush hour and evening rush hour may have different patterns.
Design for the loop itself determines number of lanes, radius of inscribed circle, approach positioning and curvature, pavement grade, apron width and grade.  These are just a few parameters from the top of my head.
Overall, I am not the one with most respect to traffic engineers on this forum - but even I am totally flabbergasted that someone thinks that traffic engineer's job is nothing beyond Ctrl-C Ctrl-V...   

[SEWIGuy]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

What are some legitimate differences you notice between the roundabouts in this thread and roundabouts that are not crash-prone?

Triple-lane or complex double-lane roundabouts are the types where you can see 4X increases in crashes.  The roundabouts with triple-digit annual crashes documented in this thread are exclusively these multi-lane variety.   

Are the majority of roundabouts not at least double-lane? All of them around here are double-lane. They're not crash-prone. Triple-lane is a different discussion - once you get to the point of needing a triple-lane roundabout, alternative options should be considered - but double lane roundabouts are extremely common and the majority of them have no issues with crashes.

I live in Green Bay and drive through double lane roundabouts regularly. They aren't a problem at all. There are a couple triple lane ones around here, and they are the ones even I struggle with.

[kalvado]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

What are some legitimate differences you notice between the roundabouts in this thread and roundabouts that are not crash-prone?

Triple-lane or complex double-lane roundabouts are the types where you can see 4X increases in crashes.  The roundabouts with triple-digit annual crashes documented in this thread are exclusively these multi-lane variety.   

Are the majority of roundabouts not at least double-lane? All of them around here are double-lane. They're not crash-prone. Triple-lane is a different discussion - once you get to the point of needing a triple-lane roundabout, alternative options should be considered - but double lane roundabouts are extremely common and the majority of them have no issues with crashes.

I live in Green Bay and drive through double lane roundabouts regularly. They aren't a problem at all. There are a couple triple lane ones around here, and they are the ones even I struggle with.

Again, what do you define as "problem"? Crash rates are measured in crashes per million entering vehicles. Well-designed intersection should have months, if not years,  between  crashes. So your anecdotal experience of gong through specific roundabout few thousand times isn't a good basis for the judgement.
Now if you have some access to DOT data showing crash locations...   

[SEWIGuy]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

What are some legitimate differences you notice between the roundabouts in this thread and roundabouts that are not crash-prone?

Triple-lane or complex double-lane roundabouts are the types where you can see 4X increases in crashes.  The roundabouts with triple-digit annual crashes documented in this thread are exclusively these multi-lane variety.   

Are the majority of roundabouts not at least double-lane? All of them around here are double-lane. They're not crash-prone. Triple-lane is a different discussion - once you get to the point of needing a triple-lane roundabout, alternative options should be considered - but double lane roundabouts are extremely common and the majority of them have no issues with crashes.

I live in Green Bay and drive through double lane roundabouts regularly. They aren't a problem at all. There are a couple triple lane ones around here, and they are the ones even I struggle with.

Again, what do you define as "problem"? Crash rates are measured in crashes per million entering vehicles. Well-designed intersection should have months, if not years,  between  crashes. So your anecdotal experience of gong through specific roundabout few thousand times isn't a good basis for the judgement.
Now if you have some access to DOT data showing crash locations...   

I wasn't stating any sort of claim regarding the number of accidents at roundabouts.

[kalvado]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

What are some legitimate differences you notice between the roundabouts in this thread and roundabouts that are not crash-prone?

Triple-lane or complex double-lane roundabouts are the types where you can see 4X increases in crashes.  The roundabouts with triple-digit annual crashes documented in this thread are exclusively these multi-lane variety.   

Are the majority of roundabouts not at least double-lane? All of them around here are double-lane. They're not crash-prone. Triple-lane is a different discussion - once you get to the point of needing a triple-lane roundabout, alternative options should be considered - but double lane roundabouts are extremely common and the majority of them have no issues with crashes.

I live in Green Bay and drive through double lane roundabouts regularly. They aren't a problem at all. There are a couple triple lane ones around here, and they are the ones even I struggle with.

Again, what do you define as "problem"? Crash rates are measured in crashes per million entering vehicles. Well-designed intersection should have months, if not years,  between  crashes. So your anecdotal experience of gong through specific roundabout few thousand times isn't a good basis for the judgement.
Now if you have some access to DOT data showing crash locations...   

I wasn't stating any sort of claim regarding the number of accidents at roundabouts.

You did. Highlighted above for your convenience.

[SEWIGuy]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

What are some legitimate differences you notice between the roundabouts in this thread and roundabouts that are not crash-prone?

Triple-lane or complex double-lane roundabouts are the types where you can see 4X increases in crashes.  The roundabouts with triple-digit annual crashes documented in this thread are exclusively these multi-lane variety.   

Are the majority of roundabouts not at least double-lane? All of them around here are double-lane. They're not crash-prone. Triple-lane is a different discussion - once you get to the point of needing a triple-lane roundabout, alternative options should be considered - but double lane roundabouts are extremely common and the majority of them have no issues with crashes.

I live in Green Bay and drive through double lane roundabouts regularly. They aren't a problem at all. There are a couple triple lane ones around here, and they are the ones even I struggle with.

Again, what do you define as "problem"? Crash rates are measured in crashes per million entering vehicles. Well-designed intersection should have months, if not years,  between  crashes. So your anecdotal experience of gong through specific roundabout few thousand times isn't a good basis for the judgement.
Now if you have some access to DOT data showing crash locations...   

I wasn't stating any sort of claim regarding the number of accidents at roundabouts.

You did. Highlighted above for your convenience.

Nope. You ignored the context. I claimed they aren't a problem for me to drive through. Never claimed anything about how crash prone they are.

[ET21]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

I've seen some absurd analogies before, but this...this... is a piece of art.

Should be framed and hung in the Louvre

[kalvado]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

What are some legitimate differences you notice between the roundabouts in this thread and roundabouts that are not crash-prone?

Triple-lane or complex double-lane roundabouts are the types where you can see 4X increases in crashes.  The roundabouts with triple-digit annual crashes documented in this thread are exclusively these multi-lane variety.   

Are the majority of roundabouts not at least double-lane? All of them around here are double-lane. They're not crash-prone. Triple-lane is a different discussion - once you get to the point of needing a triple-lane roundabout, alternative options should be considered - but double lane roundabouts are extremely common and the majority of them have no issues with crashes.

I live in Green Bay and drive through double lane roundabouts regularly. They aren't a problem at all. There are a couple triple lane ones around here, and they are the ones even I struggle with.

Again, what do you define as "problem"? Crash rates are measured in crashes per million entering vehicles. Well-designed intersection should have months, if not years,  between  crashes. So your anecdotal experience of gong through specific roundabout few thousand times isn't a good basis for the judgement.
Now if you have some access to DOT data showing crash locations...   

I wasn't stating any sort of claim regarding the number of accidents at roundabouts.

You did. Highlighted above for your convenience.

Nope. You ignored the context. I claimed they aren't a problem for me to drive through. Never claimed anything about how crash prone they are.

Oh, you know, you think  you're totally healthy until your primary care says "you may want to talk to oncologist about it",  you're doing great at your job until HR wants to see you at 9.00 sharp, you're a great driver until the day your car is totaled... 
That's the way things work, and good engineer or doctor always has to look at those one-off events because everyone gets a one-off eventually. The difference between professional statistics and anecdotal evidence can be stark. . 

[Rothman]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

I've seen some absurd analogies before, but this...this... is a piece of art.

Should be framed and hung in the Louvre

Viewed through a loupe.

[SEWIGuy]

That seems like a case where the driver is the problem...

That's basically this entire thread.

That's shitty engineer idea of any crash. "99.99% drivers had no problems there!"

Almost none of the roundabouts in this thread are crash-prone due to poor design. They're just standard roundabouts that, for whatever reason, are the sites of frequent crashes. If these roundabouts are truly crash-prone due to poor design, then why are there thousands of US roundabouts that are the exact same, but not crash-prone?

Try telling that to your doctor - there are thousands healthy people which look exact same - 2 hand, 2 legs, 1 head... So why do you think I need that treatment?

What are some legitimate differences you notice between the roundabouts in this thread and roundabouts that are not crash-prone?

Triple-lane or complex double-lane roundabouts are the types where you can see 4X increases in crashes.  The roundabouts with triple-digit annual crashes documented in this thread are exclusively these multi-lane variety.   

Are the majority of roundabouts not at least double-lane? All of them around here are double-lane. They're not crash-prone. Triple-lane is a different discussion - once you get to the point of needing a triple-lane roundabout, alternative options should be considered - but double lane roundabouts are extremely common and the majority of them have no issues with crashes.

I live in Green Bay and drive through double lane roundabouts regularly. They aren't a problem at all. There are a couple triple lane ones around here, and they are the ones even I struggle with.

Again, what do you define as "problem"? Crash rates are measured in crashes per million entering vehicles. Well-designed intersection should have months, if not years,  between  crashes. So your anecdotal experience of gong through specific roundabout few thousand times isn't a good basis for the judgement.
Now if you have some access to DOT data showing crash locations...   

I wasn't stating any sort of claim regarding the number of accidents at roundabouts.

You did. Highlighted above for your convenience.

Nope. You ignored the context. I claimed they aren't a problem for me to drive through. Never claimed anything about how crash prone they are.

Oh, you know, you think  you're totally healthy until your primary care says "you may want to talk to oncologist about it",  you're doing great at your job until HR wants to see you at 9.00 sharp, you're a great driver until the day your car is totaled... 
That's the way things work, and good engineer or doctor always has to look at those one-off events because everyone gets a one-off eventually. The difference between professional statistics and anecdotal evidence can be stark. . 

Right. Which is why I never claimed my statements were based on "professional statistics."

[Rothman]

I like the idea of amateur statistics and semi-pro statistics.