Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'

[cjw2001]

On September 21st Ventura County firefighter Ryan Osler died in a rollover crash at the Highway 246 roundabout east of Lompoc.  He was on his way to fight the Canyon fire at Vandenberg Air Force Base.   Are you going to take the opportunity to call Ryan an "idiot" ?

Why would I call the passenger an idiot?  That makes no sense at all.   The driver is a separate question.

And I wouldn't come to any conclusions without knowing the full facts of the case.   I've never said that I don't value lives lost -- I've said that people have to be responsible for their own actions.

[tradephoric]

^^^
Now you are only questioning whether the driver of the water tender truck, who was also injured, was an idiot.  That's a step up from disparaging a dead firefighter.  Before the 246 roundabout was built there was a lot of opposition from Buellton City Council and the Santa Barbara County Supervisor Joni Gray.  Say what you want about before/after public perception about roundabouts, but building a roundabout on a 55 mph road in a valley next to the Pacific Ocean prone to morning fog may not be the best spot.

Buellton City Council members have joined their counterparts in Lompoc and Santa Barbara County Supervisor Joni Gray in opposing a Caltrans plan to install a roundabout at West Highway 246 and Purisima Road.

A unanimous council agreed Thursday to send a letter to the Sacramento-based state agency in favor of what Lompoc Mayor John Linn has proposed and called a cheaper and safer alternative.

In his presentation Thursday to the Buellton council, Linn said Caltrans' plan would cost about $2.5 million to build a single-lane roundabout to improve circulation at the T intersection of Highway 246 near La Purisima Mission.

Linn, who has publicly stated his objections to the Caltrans traffic engineers' plan, has proposed that rerouting the right-turn lane from Highway 246 to Purisima Road would be much less expensive (about $250,000) and safer than the traffic circle that he said would slow traffic to between 15 and 17 mph in an area posted as 55 mph.

Over the past few years, Caltrans, the lead agency on the project, has been planning to modify the intersection, based on the rate of accidents there, which was found to be four times the national average.

According to studies cited by Caltrans, roundabouts prove to be cheaper and safer options for intersections, even in rural areas, than signal lights.

In December 2010, the Lompoc City Council voted 3-2 to send a letter to Caltrans telling the agency to drop its  traffic circle plans.

After the 4-0 vote Thursday in Buellton, with Councilman John Connolly absent, Linn thanked the council for their support and the letter to be sent to Caltrans.

"We'll see if it does some good,"  he said.

Councilwoman Judith Dale described Caltrans' plan as "ludicrous"  based on Linn's presentation.

Mayor Pro Tem Holly Sierra, who represents the city at the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, where the Caltrans plan has been discussed, said the Buellton California Highway Patrol office opposes the roundabout plan, instead wanting to block Purisima Road and sending drivers to nearby Mission Gate Road.

Councilman Dave King said it appears Caltrans is in a hurry to spend the money for the project.

"It almost seems like Caltrans wants to waste $2.5 million before they lose it,"  he said.

.http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/city-joins-opposition-to-hwy-roundabout/article_b7808306-7df2-11e0-8f55-001cc4c03286.html

The fact is there has been a fatal crash at the roundabout within 4 years of being built.  Maybe there would have been a fatal crash if the intersection was a traffic signal.  Who knows.  But Caltran assured the local leaders who opposed the roundabout that it would be safer.

[DaBigE]

Can we at least wait for the full crash report to be released before making judgement? It was foggy and someone had a fatal crash. It doesn't have to be a roundabout for such an occurrence to happen. We don't know if there were mechanical issues with the vehicle, electrical malfunctions, etc. Had it not been a roundabout, we may be talking more fatalities, because the likelihood of a high-speed t-bone collision are that much greater with other intersection types. No intersection control is fog-proof or human-proof.

Further, just because there's opposition, doesn't mean those opposing the idea are correct. Google Glens Falls, NY roundabout.

[tradephoric]

Here's another article involving the Lompoc roundabout.  Mayor Linn was completely opposed to the roundabout but Caltran got their way.  The article also indicates that before the roundabout there were no fatal crashes at the intersection dating back to 1998.  Many of the comments involve approaching the roundabout at night and how dangerous it feels.. it almost "sneaks up"  on you.

http://lompocrecord.com/news/local/round-n-round-about-the-roundabout/article_a83f1bde-cfcf-11e1-90d3-0019bb2963f4.html

Lefty Jul 17, 2012 8:36am - I have to agree with Mayor Linn on this one. What an absolute waste. ZERO fatalities there? Yet they build a $2.5 million interchange that causes more trouble than it is worth? Someone needed a project to work on while they golfed at La Purisima.

So You Say Jul 17, 2012 11:51am - I am used to roundabouts but this one is an accident waiting to happen.. your forced to slow down to an almost stop in order to round about it successfully...anyone who is not aware its there is going to skid or go over it... everytime I use it I feel like its such a tight squeeze....and feel fortunate when I made it through safely....this is dumb.. really dumb.

Sam C Jul 17, 2012 12:36pm - I know of two crashes happening here already. This is a very dangerous roundabout, and I agree with So You Say on slowing down there. Especially at night, it sneaks up on you. To go from 55 to 25 in just a couple seconds is obviously very dangerous. There could have plenty of other solutions to the high speeds on that road, but this seems like the biggest waste of money.

AF Squaw Jul 17, 2012 1:13pm - We moved away about 6 six years ago and we were back visiting our family and we drove in at 11pm and yes, we almost had an accident because we were not prepared to stop that fast. Over the next few days we used the round about and the more we used it the more I thought "This is the biggest waste of California dollars". Money California does not have!

BeanieNCecil Jul 17, 2012 5:29pm - We came through there yesterday and saw two cars come together and a third car- a truck- almost smash into the first two who had stopped - When you have to drive through this thing, you notice that half the people are reading the signs and trying to figure out what happened to the road instead of watching the road. Very treacherous at night. We got hit in the rear end by some little old ladies from Solvang who were completely confused by the roundabout...John Linn is right-but of course, this is California-so common sense counts for nothing.

Of course you also had ScottRAB, a total roundabout shill, regurgitating FHWA safety statistics. 

ScottRAB Jul 18, 2012 11:13am - Increase the size and you increase the speed of traffic going around and what those entering have to drive. This would make the driver interactions unsafe and result in injury crashes. This is known because when the US first began building circular intersections they were designed to freeway standards. They still exist on the east coast and are properly named rotaries.  Modern roundabouts are the safest form of intersection in the world. Search IIHS for FAQs and safety facts.  If you want to see the difference between a traffic circle, a rotary (UK roundabout) and a modern roundabout, search www.k-state.edu to see pictures. The FHWA has a video about modern roundabouts that is mostly accurate.  IMO, If you can't handle slowing down to go around a modern roundabout, maybe you're part of the problem.

ScottRAB disregards the experiences of the local community and automatically assumes the Lompoc roundabout is safer because the FHWA says so.  You got to look at roundabouts on a case by case basis but ScottRAB is too biased to do that.  I've stated several times that single lane roundabouts for the most part have good safety records... but that doesn't mean every single-lane roundabout is going to have a good safety record.  ScottRAB seems totally biased and will support every and all roundabouts ever constructed, regardless of the actual crash data or local experiences. 

[tradephoric]

Had it not been a roundabout, we may be talking more fatalities, because the likelihood of a high-speed t-bone collision are that much greater with other intersection types. No intersection control is fog-proof or human-proof.

How is a driver blowing through a roundabout any safer than a driver blowing through a red light?  Aren't other drivers at risk in both scenarios?  In the case of the fatal firefighter crash in Lompoc we know that the firetruck took the roundabout too fast (regardless of the reason why).  It's almost a certainty that a driver is putting their life in danger when they blow through a roundabout at high speed because they can hit a curb causing their vehicle to flip over, catch on fire, etc. etc.  A driver who blows through a red light is really only putting their life in danger when another vehicle is present in the intersection.  Drivers do blow through roundabouts/circles on occasion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6plangUrO0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8I8MhNUrn4

[US 81]

...
How is a driver blowing through a roundabout any safer than a driver blowing through a red light?  Aren't other drivers at risk in both scenarios?  In the case of the fatal firefighter crash in Lompoc we know that the firetruck took the roundabout too fast (regardless of the reason why).  It's almost a certainty that a driver is putting their life in danger when they blow through a roundabout at high speed because they can hit a curb causing their vehicle to flip over, catch on fire, etc. etc.  A driver who blows through a red light is really only putting their life in danger when another vehicle is present in the intersection.  Drivers do blow through roundabouts/circles on occasion.
...

We're talking totals here. It's not the driver blowing through the intersection, it's the other vehicles which may be struck by that driver.  T-bone collisions have the highest mortality/morbidity for the occupants of the car being struck. The striking car hits "head-on" and its occupants are relatively protected. The goal is lowering total mortality and morbidity, not just protecting the life and health of the careening driver.

[tradephoric]

We're talking totals here.

If we are keeping track of totals, there were zero fatal crashes before the Lompoc intersection was a roundabout (dating back to 1998) and 1 fatal crash since it was converted to a roundabout.

The roundabout is in the lead, 1 death to zero.

[DaBigE]

Had it not been a roundabout, we may be talking more fatalities, because the likelihood of a high-speed t-bone collision are that much greater with other intersection types. No intersection control is fog-proof or human-proof.

How is a driver blowing through a roundabout any safer than a driver blowing through a red light?  Aren't other drivers at risk in both scenarios?

Where did I (or anyone else, for that matter), ever say there was zero risk? NO INTERSECTION CONTROL IS IMMUNE FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF CRASHES AND/OR FATALITIES. However, even your statistics prove that the LIKELIHOOD of a fatality is FAR LESS in a roundabout, provided people stay between the curbs.

It's almost a certainty that a driver is putting their life in danger when they blow through a roundabout at high speed because they can hit a curb causing their vehicle to flip over, catch on fire, etc. etc.

That risk is present wherever curb is present, and that's not just limited to roundabouts. Drivers still have the legal obligation to keep their vehicle on the roadway, just as they are similarly obligated to reduce their speed in less than optimal driving conditions (fog, rain, snow, etc., etc., etc.). Those operating tanker trucks need to be especially aware of this, as their loads make their vehicles even more prone to tipping. A ramp in a cloverleaf interchange near where I work had 3 trucks tip over within a couple months of each other. The ramp is post with an advisory speed of 40. Each driver was cited for excessive speed. The Lompoc roundabout had more signs than required by the MUTCD, including a 15 mph advisory speed, and also a flashing beacon to aid in visibility. Since you appear to blame the roundabout in the case of the Lompoc crash, do you blame the interchange ramp in my example? Where does the line end for responsible driving?

[kalvado]

Where did I (or anyone else, for that matter), ever say there was zero risk? NO INTERSECTION CONTROL IS IMMUNE FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF CRASHES AND/OR FATALITIES. However, even your statistics prove that the LIKELIHOOD of a fatality is FAR LESS in a roundabout, provided people stay between the curbs.

Would be interesting to see a larger statistics set. Since fatal accidents are not very common, they need to be analyzed on large datasets. Each fatal accident would be a one-off, and you need a big picture to look at.
Anecdotally, roundabout I endure 10+ times a week had 0 fatalities in 10 years before construction per project narrative, and 1 in several - 5 I believe, years since then.

[cjw2001]

^^^
Now you are only questioning whether the driver of the water tender truck, who was also injured, was an idiot. 

No I did not say that the driver was an idiot.   I said that was a separate question after you incorrectly implied that I would say the passenger was an idiot.   I even added a second line saying it was too soon to come to conclusions to make it clear that I didn't think that.   The separate question comment was simply an attempt to demonstrate your tendencies to jump to conclusions, and you didn't disappoint.

[tradephoric]

No I did not say that the driver was an idiot.

I said you were questioning whether the driver was an idiot.

I said that was a separate question...

I know.

[tradephoric]

Permanent signs are up at the 161/Riverside Drive roundabout.  There's something i don't like about this sign but i can't put my finger on it...

[6a]

It's not three lanes all the way around, if that's what you're referencing.

[jakeroot]

It's not three lanes all the way around, if that's what you're referencing.

The sign correctly displays the number of lanes approaching the roundabout from the north (eastbound along route 33). Unless you're being cheeky, referring to tradephoric's dislike for triple-lane roundabouts.

Permanent signs are up at the 161/Riverside Drive roundabout.  There's something i don't like about this sign but i can't put my finger on it...

It's certainly non-standard in a number of ways. Lots of people will dislike the Clearview in the route shield (I don't hate this at all). The Helvetica looks nice, with the different weights. And the white-on-grey lane-usage sign is nice as well. So, I quite like this sign.

[tradephoric]

Another crash happened at the Main Street & Scioto Darby Rd roundabout in Hilliard, Ohio.  From 2013-2015 there were 119 crashes at the roundabout and is one of the most dangerous intersections in the state:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufr5sbCmmpA
http://branlawfirm.com/most-dangerous-intersections-in-ohio/

[jakeroot]

Another crash happened at the Main Street & Scioto Darby Rd roundabout in Hilliard, Ohio.  From 2013-2015 there were 119 crashes at the roundabout and is one of the most dangerous intersections in the state.

I'd be more persuaded by an additional collision if it was the result of genuine confusion on the part of the motorist. Drunk drivers can just as easily run into a signal pole or median.

[kalvado]

Another crash happened at the Main Street & Scioto Darby Rd roundabout in Hilliard, Ohio.  From 2013-2015 there were 119 crashes at the roundabout and is one of the most dangerous intersections in the state.

I'd be more persuaded by an additional collision if it was the result of genuine confusion on the part of the motorist. Drunk drivers can just as easily run into a signal pole or median.

A very significant portion of accidents is due to alcohol. That is why drunk driving is such a concern. But is you want to push down accident number - you have to take into account accidents due to driver impairment, because there will be significant number of drunks, no matter what. You can say that drunk lives matter.. If not - remember, that drunk driver can crash  into perfectly sober guy...

[jakeroot]

Another crash happened at the Main Street & Scioto Darby Rd roundabout in Hilliard, Ohio.  From 2013-2015 there were 119 crashes at the roundabout and is one of the most dangerous intersections in the state.

I'd be more persuaded by an additional collision if it was the result of genuine confusion on the part of the motorist. Drunk drivers can just as easily run into a signal pole or median.

A very significant portion of accidents is due to alcohol. That is why drunk driving is such a concern. But is you want to push down accident number - you have to take into account accidents due to driver impairment, because there will be significant number of drunks, no matter what. You can say that drunk lives matter.. If not - remember, that drunk driver can crash  into perfectly sober guy...

I totally understand that. You can't completely eliminate drink/driving collisions (though I suspect that, like most collisions, there are fewer year-over-year as cars become more advanced, ride sharing use increases, and people become generally more responsible). But, I'd rather a central roundabout island stop a drunk driver, instead of another driver at a four-way intersection. The only loss in the collision above is the driver's car, and a bit of vegetation.

[US 41]

I'm sure the answer to this is yes, but are you supposed to use a turn signal in a roundabout? No one around Terre Haute or Bloomington ever uses one.

[tradephoric]

I totally understand that. You can't completely eliminate drink/driving collisions (though I suspect that, like most collisions, there are fewer year-over-year as cars become more advanced, ride sharing use increases, and people become generally more responsible). But, I'd rather a central roundabout island stop a drunk driver, instead of another driver at a four-way intersection. The only loss in the collision above is the driver's car, and a bit of vegetation.

The drunk driver in the video could have t-boned a circulating vehicles inside the roundabout.  You are quick to suggest that the drunk driver could hit a signal pole or median - but never another driver.  Are roundabouts so safe in your mind that they only endanger drunk drivers?   

The main argument that roundabouts are safer is based on the assumption that drivers will slow down when approaching them.  That's not always a safe assumption.  When a driver fails to slow down when approaching a roundabout they are endangering themselves and others. 

[jakeroot]

I totally understand that. You can't completely eliminate drink/driving collisions (though I suspect that, like most collisions, there are fewer year-over-year as cars become more advanced, ride sharing use increases, and people become generally more responsible). But, I'd rather a central roundabout island stop a drunk driver, instead of another driver at a four-way intersection. The only loss in the collision above is the driver's car, and a bit of vegetation.

The drunk driver in the video could have t-boned a circulating vehicles inside the roundabout.  You are quick to suggest that the drunk driver could hit a signal pole or median - but never another driver.  Are roundabouts so safe in your mind that they only endanger drunk drivers?   

The main argument that roundabouts are safer is based on the assumption that drivers will slow down when approaching them.  That's not always a safe assumption.  When a driver fails to slow down when approaching a roundabout they are endangering themselves and others.

Okay. Are roundabouts then equally as safe as signals, when a drunk driver runs straight through one? That's not a very good defence of regular signalized intersections. You're just bringing roundabouts down to their "level".

Further, how many drunk driving collisions at roundabouts result in full-on, t-bone collisions, where the driver hops the median (instead of a failure to yield, side-swiping a car already in the roundabout)? Such is only a possibility at a roundabout, but nearly a guarantee at a signal.

Honestly, we should be celebrating the roundabout in Hilliard. It captured yet another drunk driver. Hooray..!?

[jakeroot]

I'm sure the answer to this is yes, but are you supposed to use a turn signal in a roundabout? No one around Terre Haute or Bloomington ever uses one.

Apparently to turn left and right, but not go straight. American engineers tend to view roundabouts as traditional intersections with a central island, where there's a left, right, and straight movement. Other countries tend to see roundabouts as a single, circular road (usually with spiralling lane lines) with multiple exits. In those cases, you signal right (or left in RHD) when you go to exit.

[kalvado]

I totally understand that. You can't completely eliminate drink/driving collisions (though I suspect that, like most collisions, there are fewer year-over-year as cars become more advanced, ride sharing use increases, and people become generally more responsible). But, I'd rather a central roundabout island stop a drunk driver, instead of another driver at a four-way intersection. The only loss in the collision above is the driver's car, and a bit of vegetation.

The drunk driver in the video could have t-boned a circulating vehicles inside the roundabout.  You are quick to suggest that the drunk driver could hit a signal pole or median - but never another driver.  Are roundabouts so safe in your mind that they only endanger drunk drivers?   

The main argument that roundabouts are safer is based on the assumption that drivers will slow down when approaching them.  That's not always a safe assumption.  When a driver fails to slow down when approaching a roundabout they are endangering themselves and others.

Okay. Are roundabouts then equally as safe as signals, when a drunk driver runs straight through one? That's not a very good defence of regular signalized intersections. You're just bringing roundabouts down to their "level".

Further, how many drunk driving collisions at roundabouts result in full-on, t-bone collisions, where the driver hops the median (instead of a failure to yield, side-swiping a car already in the roundabout)? Such is only a possibility at a roundabout, but nearly a guarantee at a signal.

Honestly, we should be celebrating the roundabout in Hilliard. It captured yet another drunk driver. Hooray..!?

Then I would rather have a T-bone, so that another driver unable to look around would leave the road. And it would be even better if there are some underage passengers in a car, because.. Hmm, can you think of something yourself - I am not cynical enough today...

[tradephoric]

I'm sure the answer to this is yes, but are you supposed to use a turn signal in a roundabout? No one around Terre Haute or Bloomington ever uses one.

Apparently to turn left and right, but not go straight. American engineers tend to view roundabouts as traditional intersections with a central island, where there's a left, right, and straight movement. Other countries tend to see roundabouts as a single, circular road (usually with spiralling lane lines) with multiple exits. In those cases, you signal right (or left in RHD) when you go to exit.

I agree with Jake on this.  Here's a direct quote from Joe Gustafson who is a roundabout expert out of Minnesota.  It was taken from the "Evaluation of Safety and Mobility of Two-Lane Roundabouts"  webinar: 

"We also would never tell a driver to use a right turn signal to exit a roundabout.  Again, that's a through movement and we don't want to create the impression that it's a right turn."

[jakeroot]

Then I would rather have a T-bone, so that another driver unable to look around would leave the road.

Here's my theory:

At a traditional signal, the driver either misses you, or t-bones you. There's no "angle" crashes. At roundabouts however, assuming the drunk driver might follow the channelisation of the lane, but does not properly yield, there can be more of an angle crash. Or, they can drive straight over the channelising island, and t-bone you, just like at a signal. Or, they might miss you entirely.

Thusly, there's less of a chance of a t-bone collision at a roundabout, because it's one of three options, instead of two. A study would need to be done as to which type of crash is more common at roundabouts, however.

And it would be even better if there are some underage passengers in a car, because.. Hmm, can you think of something yourself - I am not cynical enough today...