Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'

[tradephoric]

Two motorcyclists were killed after striking a newly constructed roundabout in Manteca, California.  These street outlaws definitely picked the wrong drag strip to race down. 

Witnesses said the trio was racing in an easterly direction on Woodward between Union Road and Airport Way at about 4:15 p.m. when they collided with the roundabout, leaving more than 100 feet of skid marks before they struck the circular traffic directional barrier leaving pieces of motorcycles scattered about the roadway and then flying more than 100 feet beyond.

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/38/article/139257/

[kphoger]

Two motorcyclists were killed after striking a newly constructed roundabout in Manteca, California.  These street outlaws definitely picked the wrong drag strip to race down. 

Witnesses said the trio was racing in an easterly direction on Woodward between Union Road and Airport Way at about 4:15 p.m. when they collided with the roundabout, leaving more than 100 feet of skid marks before they struck the circular traffic directional barrier leaving pieces of motorcycles scattered about the roadway and then flying more than 100 feet beyond.

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/38/article/139257/

Is that troll bait?

[tradephoric]

The multiple fatalities at the Manteca roundabout highlight how dangerous roundabouts can be when approaching them at high speeds.  It's putting things into perspective, not troll bait.   Just consider why the IIHS believes roundabouts are safer:

Roundabouts are a safer alternative to traffic signals and stop signs. The tight circle of a roundabout forces drivers to slow down, and the most severe types of intersection crashes – right-angle, left-turn and head-on collisions – are unlikely.http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/roundabouts/topicoverview

It's an absurd statement if you think about it.  How do roundabouts "force"  drivers to slow down?   Drivers can either slow down or come to a "dead stop".   Of course this is the same agency that claims roundabouts reduce fatal crashes by 90%... there is no limit to the IIHS absurdity.

[english si]

Is that troll bait?

Looks more like goat feed to lure people onto the bridge.

[tradephoric]

Is that troll bait?

Looks more like goat feed to lure people onto the bridge.

[jakeroot]

The tight circle of a roundabout forces drivers to slow down, and the most severe types of intersection crashes – right-angle, left-turn and head-on collisions – are unlikely.

It's an absurd statement if you think about it.  How do roundabouts "force"  drivers to slow down?   Drivers can either slow down or come to a "dead stop".

It's not "force" in the sense that a roundabout will stomp on the brakes for you. It's "force" in the sense that, if you choose to not slow down, you'll probably bin it.

[kalvado]

The tight circle of a roundabout forces drivers to slow down, and the most severe types of intersection crashes – right-angle, left-turn and head-on collisions – are unlikely.

It's an absurd statement if you think about it.  How do roundabouts "force"  drivers to slow down?   Drivers can either slow down or come to a "dead stop".

It's not "force" in the sense that a roundabout will stomp on the brakes for you. It's "force" in the sense that, if you choose to not slow down, you'll probably bin it.

From my experience, it is either full stop to let traffic pass, or step on throttle for extra 10 MPH to fit into that gap...

[jakeroot]

The tight circle of a roundabout forces drivers to slow down, and the most severe types of intersection crashes – right-angle, left-turn and head-on collisions – are unlikely.

It's an absurd statement if you think about it.  How do roundabouts "force"  drivers to slow down?   Drivers can either slow down or come to a "dead stop".

It's not "force" in the sense that a roundabout will stomp on the brakes for you. It's "force" in the sense that, if you choose to not slow down, you'll probably bin it.

From my experience, it is either full stop to let traffic pass, or step on throttle for extra 10 MPH to fit into that gap...

Okay then.

[DaBigE]

It's an absurd statement if you think about it.  How do roundabouts "force"  drivers to slow down?   Drivers can either slow down or come to a "dead stop".   Of course this is the same agency that claims roundabouts reduce fatal crashes by 90%... there is no limit to the IIHS absurdity.

Similar arguments could be made for speed bumps, speed tables, chicanes, or more simply, designing any roadway with unnecessary curves (the later making up many of the modern subdivision layout principles of the late 1990s and early 2000s).

[6a]

Two motorcyclists were killed after striking a newly constructed roundabout in Manteca, California.  These street outlaws definitely picked the wrong drag strip to race down. 

Witnesses said the trio was racing in an easterly direction on Woodward between Union Road and Airport Way at about 4:15 p.m. when they collided with the roundabout, leaving more than 100 feet of skid marks before they struck the circular traffic directional barrier leaving pieces of motorcycles scattered about the roadway and then flying more than 100 feet beyond.

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/38/article/139257/

Is that troll bait?

Nooooooooo, this is troll bait

[tradephoric]

Roundabout crash makes car airborne, leaves two dead
http://www.krcrtv.com/north-coast-news/fatal-crash-on-roundabout-leaves-two-dead/189582788

Another incident where a vehicle slams into the center median of a roundabout.  Both the driver and passenger were killed.




 

[tradephoric]

Vehicle bursts into flames after woman hits roundabout while lost in Washington County
http://fox6now.com/2016/11/28/vehicle-starts-on-fire-after-woman-hits-roundabout-while-lost-in-washington-county/

[cjw2001]

So if you are going to google every serious roundabout accident in the USA and report on a regular basis, you need to also report on all the serious non roundabout collisions so we can have a fair feel for the ratio of roundabout collisions to non roundabout collisions in each locality.    I think you will be far busier reporting on all the non roundabout crashes.   In my metro area there are many serious accidents reported every day, often with fatalities, and with it being a quite rare occasion that one involves a roundabout (maybe once every year or so for the ones you've already reported for us).

[kalvado]

So if you are going to google every serious roundabout accident in the USA and report on a regular basis, you need to also report on all the serious non roundabout collisions so we can have a fair feel for the ratio of roundabout collisions to non roundabout collisions in each locality.    I think you will be far busier reporting on all the non roundabout crashes.   In my metro area there are many serious accidents reported every day, often with fatalities, and with it being a quite rare occasion that one involves a roundabout (maybe once every year or so for the ones you've already reported for us).

Well, first of all - there are far less roundabouts than normal intersections. Being as advertised as super-duper safe, I expect roundabouts to be immune to driver mistakes. And given roundabouts are far and few in between and so safe, I expect only a tiny share of twice-an-hour urban fatalities to be on roundabouts. Hard to say, but my first impression is that rate of posts tradephoric writes here is disproportionally high.
And, interestingly enough, if you look at the thread carefully, you may get an idea about roundabout major failure mode for fatal accidents. Which, if you look even more carefully, may not be a major failure mode in UK due to differences in design approaches
But, who cares - pray The Safest Roundabout! FWHA got no money or time to learn - only money for new projects!

[jeffandnicole]

Being as advertised as super-duper safe, I expect roundabouts to be immune to driver mistakes.

That's where most people get it wrong. Roundabouts don't make people immune to mistakes...but they normally reduce the severity of people's mistakes.

Btw, please show where they have been advertised as such.  Even the world's safest roads will have an accident or fatality on occasion.

[kalvado]

Being as advertised as super-duper safe, I expect roundabouts to be immune to driver mistakes.

That's where most people get it wrong. Roundabouts don't make people immune to mistakes...but they normally reduce the severity of people's mistakes.

Btw, please show where they have been advertised as such.  Even the world's safest roads will have an accident or fatality on occasion.

OK,  lets start from the beginning.
There is a concept in general safety called "hierarchy of controls". Usually 5 levels are defined:
Elimination; Substitution; Engineering; Administration; Personal protective equipment. Higher in the list is preferable; for example moving work from the roof to ground level, if possible, is much more efficient in eliminating hazard of falling. Much better that safety belts, which must be worn when working up there.

We're talking here about Engineering vs Administrative levels, since Eliminating intersections (or prohibiting driving) is not an option; and Substitution - say with public transportation and specially trained drivers - is a big can of worms.
Administrative is basically all the regulations - speed limit, don't drink and drive, read the effing driver manual one in a while etc. Try to avoid mistakes.
Engineering is about making sure mistakes have minimal consequences - which is better than administrative. Use of railings along the road an divider between oncoming lanes, for example.

And this is where roundabouts fail miserably - approaching them at excessive speed leaves no chance. For regular intersection, I can pray hard and blow horn if traffic light jumps in front of me; for US designed roundabout this is a guaranteed accident. See the problem?

I believe it was our friend @english_si who posted a picture of roundabout with a through ramp for runaway traffic; I cannot find that at the moment. Which can be slightly improved - for example entire island may be paved; once that is done -  some ways of sequencing traffic to further improve safety may be implemented to further improve safety..

But this requires safety-minded engineering, not spending-driven approach..

[kphoger]

And this is where roundabouts fail miserably - approaching them at excessive speed leaves no chance. For regular intersection, I can pray hard and blow horn if traffic light jumps in front of me; for US designed roundabout this is a guaranteed accident. See the problem?

This is true of every curve in existence (which means it's true of every skewed intersection at which one road S-curves to make the angles closer to 90°.  It's also true of every three-way intersection and every intersection with five or more connecting roads.

Drivers running into things while traveling at stupidly excessive speeds should not be our primary concern here.  A punk driver might do substantial damage to those in the vehicle and the roundabout island.  As @tradephoric has pointed out, it's even possible that serious damage be done to other vehicles.  However, I'd say the likelihood of stupid speed-punk behavior doing damage to multiple vehicles is less at a roundabout than at a red light.  Running a red light, you have the substantial risk of T-boning another vehicle at speed.

I recently T-boned a car at less than 30 mph because I was lost in thought and blew a red light, and you should have seen the wreck my Pathfinder made of that Honda Accord; now imagine the carnage if the speed had been 50 mph instead.  But, with a roundabout, something about them makes everyone else already be on the lookout for traffic entering the intersection, not simply assuming everyone else will stop.  That other driver, I'm sure, would have seen me coming in time to stop short of the accident–because he would have, by virtue of the roundabout's design–been made to slow down and become cautious.  I would have too, of course, but I'm still assuming stupid behavior on my part.

At a stoplight, all it takes is one inattentive driver to cause some carnage.  At a roundabout, it seems to take either more than one inattentive driver or some seriously excessive speed (or both).

[cjw2001]

And this is where roundabouts fail miserably - approaching them at excessive speed leaves no chance. For regular intersection, I can pray hard and blow horn if traffic light jumps in front of me; for US designed roundabout this is a guaranteed accident. See the problem?

This is true of every curve in existence (which means it's true of every skewed intersection at which one road S-curves to make the angles closer to 90°.  It's also true of every three-way intersection and every intersection with five or more connecting roads.

Drivers running into things while traveling at stupidly excessive speeds should not be our primary concern here.  A punk driver might do substantial damage to those in the vehicle and the roundabout island.  As @tradephoric has pointed out, it's even possible that serious damage be done to other vehicles.  However, I'd say the likelihood of stupid speed-punk behavior doing damage to multiple vehicles is less at a roundabout than at a red light.  Running a red light, you have the substantial risk of T-boning another vehicle at speed.

I recently T-boned a car at less than 30 mph because I was lost in thought and blew a red light, and you should have seen the wreck my Pathfinder made of that Honda Accord; now imagine the carnage if the speed had been 50 mph instead.  But, with a roundabout, something about them makes everyone else already be on the lookout for traffic entering the intersection, not simply assuming everyone else will stop.  That other driver, I'm sure, would have seen me coming in time to stop short of the accident–because he would have, by virtue of the roundabout's design–been made to slow down and become cautious.  I would have too, of course, but I'm still assuming stupid behavior on my part.

At a stoplight, all it takes is one inattentive driver to cause some carnage.  At a roundabout, it seems to take either more than one inattentive driver or some seriously excessive speed (or both).

Exactly on target with those comments.   I had an idiot blindly follow the large dump truck in front of them into the roundabout near my home last night (the dump trunk had plenty of time and correctly entered the roundabout, the following driver wasn't paying attention and should have yielded to oncoming traffic in the circle [me]).  Because I'm paying full attention in the roundabout, I'm able to apply the brakes and easily avoid the idiot (while blowing my horn and making some unfriendly hand gestures on the side).  So other than some ruffled feathers and the clueless driver needing new underwear, there was no collision.

[Mr_Northside]

Being as advertised as super-duper safe, I expect roundabouts to be immune to driver mistakes.

With all due respect, this is the dumbest thing I've read or heard in at least a month.

[kalvado]

And this is where roundabouts fail miserably - approaching them at excessive speed leaves no chance. For regular intersection, I can pray hard and blow horn if traffic light jumps in front of me; for US designed roundabout this is a guaranteed accident. See the problem?

Drivers running into things while traveling at stupidly excessive speeds should not be our primary concern here.  A punk driver might do substantial damage to those in the vehicle and the roundabout island.  As @tradephoric has pointed out, it's even possible that serious damage be done to other vehicles.  However, I'd say the likelihood of stupid speed-punk behavior doing damage to multiple vehicles is less at a roundabout than at a red light.  Running a red light, you have the substantial risk of T-boning another vehicle at speed.

I recently T-boned a car at less than 30 mph because I was lost in thought and blew a red light, and you should have seen the wreck my Pathfinder made of that Honda Accord; now imagine the carnage if the speed had been 50 mph instead.  But, with a roundabout, something about them makes everyone else already be on the lookout for traffic entering the intersection, not simply assuming everyone else will stop.  That other driver, I'm sure, would have seen me coming in time to stop short of the accident—because he would have, by virtue of the roundabout's design—been made to slow down and become cautious.  I would have too, of course, but I'm still assuming stupid behavior on my part.

Well, most accidents we have are preventable ones. People do make mistakes, and that is the major source of traffic problems.
To put things in perspective - 1/3 of all trafic deaths is caused by alcohol. That is 1 person per hour in US.
You don't care about that problem?.. Well, let's mirror that: Too bad you survived your accident, we don't need idiots on the road.

Harsh? Sure. So try to be nice guy for once.

This is true of every curve in existence (which means it's true of every skewed intersection at which one road S-curves to make the angles closer to 90°.  It's also true of every three-way intersection and every intersection with five or more connecting roads.
[....]
At a stoplight, all it takes is one inattentive driver to cause some carnage.  At a roundabout, it seems to take either more than one inattentive driver or some seriously excessive speed (or both).

Well, that is why mountain roads are often seen as dangerous, that is why curve radius is regulated. Message is, there is no reason to deliberatly create such hazards.

And there are many scenarios when single mistake results in  a serious accident  on roundabout, as shown above.  I have hard time tying to think of single-person mistake on a traditional intersection without other  traffic. Even crashing into a pole involves both loss of directional control and failure to brake properly

Being as advertised as super-duper safe, I expect roundabouts to be immune to driver mistakes.

With all due respect, this is the dumbest thing I've read or heard in at least a month.

Oh, this must be your first time reading about roundabouts?

[jakeroot]

Being as advertised as super-duper safe, I expect roundabouts to be immune to driver mistakes.

With all due respect, this is the dumbest thing I've read or heard in at least a month.

Oh, this must be your first time reading about roundabouts?

Your expectation of "immun(ity)" is ridiculous. The FHWA's initial study never concluded that any sort of collision would be eliminated entirely. Just reduced.

[kalvado]

Being as advertised as super-duper safe, I expect roundabouts to be immune to driver mistakes.

With all due respect, this is the dumbest thing I've read or heard in at least a month.

Oh, this must be your first time reading about roundabouts?

Your expectation of "immun(ity)" is ridiculous. The FHWA's initial study never concluded that any sort of collision would be eliminated entirely. Just reduced.

Usual wording is "virtually eliminated".
Check it out:
https://www.google.com/search?q=roundabout+virtually+eliminate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[jeffandnicole]

Being as advertised as super-duper safe, I expect roundabouts to be immune to driver mistakes.

With all due respect, this is the dumbest thing I've read or heard in at least a month.

Oh, this must be your first time reading about roundabouts?

Your expectation of "immun(ity)" is ridiculous. The FHWA's initial study never concluded that any sort of collision would be eliminated entirely. Just reduced.

Usual wording is "virtually eliminated".
Check it out:
https://www.google.com/search?q=roundabout+virtually+eliminate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

As shown in the very first google link: "virtually eliminate high- speed right-angle and head-on crashes"

And that, it does do.

When you provide a link, and you're going to quote a line and even provide a link to such quotes, at least quote the entire sentence, not just two words. 

[kalvado]

Being as advertised as super-duper safe, I expect roundabouts to be immune to driver mistakes.

With all due respect, this is the dumbest thing I've read or heard in at least a month.

Oh, this must be your first time reading about roundabouts?

Your expectation of "immun(ity)" is ridiculous. The FHWA's initial study never concluded that any sort of collision would be eliminated entirely. Just reduced.

Usual wording is "virtually eliminated".
Check it out:
https://www.google.com/search?q=roundabout+virtually+eliminate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

As shown in the very first google link: "virtually eliminate high- speed right-angle and head-on crashes"

And that, it does do.

When you provide a link, and you're going to quote a line and even provide a link to such quotes, at least quote the entire sentence, not just two words.

When I quote something, I expect people to actually read it - and that is exactly why I didn't bother quote FHWA. Let me reconstruct entire dialog for you:

-Your expectation of "immun(ity)" is ridiculous. The FHWA's initial study never concluded that any sort of collision would be eliminated entirely. Just reduced.
-Usual wording is "virtually eliminated" (link).

[jeffandnicole]

I'm confused.  So you're agreeing with us that they never concluded that any sort of collision would be eliminated entirely.