Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'

[Rothman]

Then they are terrible drivers.  At one-way intersections (which is sort of what a roundabout entrance is), you should always look both ways for pedestrians.

How often you go through roundabouts?
If traffic is moderate or worse, you often have to take that gap - or wait till next gap shows up. Maybe.
A very quick glance right is the most you can do, often while already accelerating.
THat is what happens when you create race conditions, no protected phases whatsoever - and if you're in disadvantaged downstream position... Use it or loose it.

That is exactly why roundabouts may be a good idea for LIGHT traffic areas ONLY.

Concord Rotary works pretty well, despite the heavy traffic.

[kalvado]

Then they are terrible drivers.  At one-way intersections (which is sort of what a roundabout entrance is), you should always look both ways for pedestrians.

How often you go through roundabouts?
If traffic is moderate or worse, you often have to take that gap - or wait till next gap shows up. Maybe.
A very quick glance right is the most you can do, often while already accelerating.
THat is what happens when you create race conditions, no protected phases whatsoever - and if you're in disadvantaged downstream position... Use it or loose it.

That is exactly why roundabouts may be a good idea for LIGHT traffic areas ONLY.

Concord Rotary works pretty well, despite the heavy traffic.

Works pretty well meaning no fatal accidents this year?
Problem is simple: you need pretty exhaustive statistics to say "it works well". Fact that traffic is normally flowing means NOTHING in terms of safety - it takes one rare event to ruin the safety record.
Second issue is my pet issue - regular driving through smallish roundabout necessarily means you need to reduce your safety margins. Which may show up elsewhere.
Same story as posting highway at 30 MPH - and then wondering why nobody cares about any speed limits.

[tradephoric]

The pedestrian crosswalk crossing the south leg of Smith Valley Road and U.S. 31 is 180 feet long.  Assuming they are following MUTCD guidelines, when a pedestrian actuation occurs Smith Valley thru phase would need to run a minimum of 56 seconds to fit the pedestrian times...

That would be beneficial for the roundabout right? Surprised you'd bring that up.

Yes, when Smith Valley Road is green it would allow the roundabout traffic to clear which would be beneficial.  But if Smith Valley Road requires 56 seconds to run it's thru phase, then U.S. 31 (which i would consider the main-street at this intersection) would likely require the same amount of time for it's thru phase, if not more.  Add to that the NB/SB US31 left turn phase and you are looking at Smith Valley Road being red for ~90 seconds while traffic queues up between the roundabout and US 31.

It reminds me of the roundabout at 14 Mile & Orchard Lake.  It too is a triple-lane roundabout just a few hundred feet from a signalized intersection and I've often observed Orchard Lake Road traffic backing up through the roundabout as they hit a red light at the signal just north of the roundabout.  The signals surrounding that roundabout are simple 2-phase signals and only run max 70 second cycle lengths.  The cycle length at the new Greenwood, Indiana roundabout would likely have to run 140 second cycles just to fit the peds. 

[tradephoric]

Greenwood roundabout at Smith Valley and Madison Ave opens early
https://www.wthr.com/article/greenwood-roundabout-smith-valley-and-madison-ave-opens-early

Looks like they are opening the roundabout early.  Here is a simulation of the roundabout in action.  If you notice in the model, WB Smith Valley Road is utilizing all 3-lanes equally as traffic queues up between U.S. 31 and the roundabout.  Even with traffic utilizing all 3-lanes perfectly, traffic is not that far from queuing up through the roundabout.  But in the real world drivers aren't going to want to utilize that far right lane.  Smith Valley Road merges back down to 2-lanes just past the intersection and unless if you are entering a drive just past the intersection, there's no reason to get over into the far right lane.  The first 8 or 9 vehicle who queue up between U.S. 31 and the roundabout have no incentive to get over because they know they will easily make it through the green light.  Drivers are selfish... as long as they aren't the ones queuing up through the roundabout, they aren't going to pull into that far right lane and force themselves to merge over past the intersection.  No, only when you are the driver blocking the roundabout would you want to get over into that third lane and at that point you can't because the road only widens out to 3 lanes just past the roundabout.  This model clearly doesn't come close to matching real-world conditions and traffic backing up through the roundabout will be a real problem.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gaIwj8P-nI

EDIT:  There will be some selfish drivers who get into that right most lane who want to be that first car in line and gun it when the light turns green, but that's only the case with a couple cars.  The next selfish driver who was thinking of doing the same thing already sees a few cars in that right most lane, and may assume they are going to be turning into a drive past the intersection - so they don't bother getting over (since by doing so it would quite possibly slow down their drive, not make it faster.. they don't want to get stuck behind that guy turning into a driveway past the intersection). 

[kphoger]

From the previous page, this looks incredibly dangerous.

A pedestrian standing at the star needs to monitor 4 lanes of traffic before they can cross safely. Worse, the drivers at 1 and 2 will be looking only left and will take the first clear slot the accelerate straight into the crosswalk before confirming it is clear.

The crosswalk with the arrow has a triple threat, and the straight exit means vehicles will be accelerating quickly out of the circle.

Worse, the roundabout is designed so bicyclists exit the lane and use the crosswalks (note the ramps). Thats incredibly dangerous at the speeds this is designed for.

Incredibly irresponsible design.

[in reply to the highlighted portion]

Then they are terrible drivers.  At one-way intersections (which is sort of what a roundabout entrance is), you should always look both ways for pedestrians.

Aren't you supposed to design for how people actually behave, and not how in a perfect world you would want them to behave?

By your logic, then, all one-way roads should be eliminated because cross-traffic won't be looking for pedestrians in the other direction.  But that's ludicrous.  In the roundabout example pictured above, a pedestrian wouldn't even be out the side window but rather in full view of the windshield.

Then they are terrible drivers.  At one-way intersections (which is sort of what a roundabout entrance is), you should always look both ways for pedestrians.

How often you go through roundabouts?
If traffic is moderate or worse, you often have to take that gap - or wait till next gap shows up. Maybe.
A very quick glance right is the most you can do, often while already accelerating.
THat is what happens when you create race conditions, no protected phases whatsoever - and if you're in disadvantaged downstream position... Use it or loose it.

That is exactly why roundabouts may be a good idea for LIGHT traffic areas ONLY. 

I go through roundabouts somewhat regularly, although there aren't any multi-lane ones in my area.

And no, you never "have to take that gap" with disregard for any pedestrians.  It's the same as if you're waiting to turn right on a red light (or a slip lane with a YIELD sign, to be more comparable) with steady traffic from your left.  You don't get to just GO when a short break in traffic appears without first checking for pedestrians on your right.  If there are pedestrians crossing the street, then there is no gap.

[kphoger]

selfish responsible drivers who get into that right most lane who want to be that first car in line and gun it when the light turns green understand the importance of not letting a whole lane of storage space lie empty

FTFY.

Of course, that doesn't actually negate your assertion, because I agree that a large majority of driver's won't use the lane for precisely the reason you've outlined.  I just think it's foolish to call people who use a road as it was designed to be used, thereby helping to avoid the exact tailback situation you've described, as "selfish".

[kalvado]

I go through roundabouts somewhat regularly, although there aren't any multi-lane ones in my area.

And no, you never "have to take that gap" with disregard for any pedestrians.  It's the same as if you're waiting to turn right on a red light (or a slip lane with a YIELD sign, to be more comparable) with steady traffic from your left.  You don't get to just GO when a short break in traffic appears without first checking for pedestrians on your right.  If there are pedestrians crossing the street, then there is no gap.

I do also compare roundabouts with right on red. And while similarity is clear, there is one fundamental difference: if the traffic is heavy, you can wait for green - but at roundabout you cannot just wait until protected phase. That basically reduces the threshold of what is acceptable and what is not - it is not MAY turn on red, it is MUST turn on red. That, of course, affects overall safety. In this case, pedestrians are just least visible and most vulnerable road users. I do not advocate running over them or demanding right of way on a crosswalk, I just say that probability of accident is at stake.
And apparently you don't see the fun of driving through complex roundabouts and roundabout clusters. I do 7 circles per round trip commute - and 4 of those are multilanes, so I have my opinion based on my own experience.

[kphoger]

it is not MAY turn on red, it is MUST turn on red.

FYI, New Jersey is literally a "MUST turn on red" state.

39:4-115
Making right or left turn

The driver of a vehicle or the motorman of a streetcar ... intending to turn right at an intersection where traffic is controlled by a traffic control signal shall, unless an official sign of the State, municipality, or county authority having jurisdiction over the intersection prohibits the same, proceed to make the turn upon a "stop" or "caution" signal with proper care to avoid accidents after coming to a full stop, observing traffic in all directions, yielding to other vehicular traffic traveling in a direction in which the turn will be made, and stopping and remaining stopped for pedestrians crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk, or at an unmarked crosswalk, into which the driver is turning.

Therefore, every stoplight intersection in New Jersey is just like a roundabout during its red phase wrt the situation you describe.

[kalvado]

it is not MAY turn on red, it is MUST turn on red.

FYI, New Jersey is literally a "MUST turn on red" state.

39:4-115
Making right or left turn

The driver of a vehicle or the motorman of a streetcar ... intending to turn right at an intersection where traffic is controlled by a traffic control signal shall, unless an official sign of the State, municipality, or county authority having jurisdiction over the intersection prohibits the same, proceed to make the turn upon a "stop" or "caution" signal with proper care to avoid accidents after coming to a full stop, observing traffic in all directions, yielding to other vehicular traffic traveling in a direction in which the turn will be made, and stopping and remaining stopped for pedestrians crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk, or at an unmarked crosswalk, into which the driver is turning.

Therefore, every stoplight intersection in New Jersey is just like a roundabout during its red phase wrt the situation you describe.

I wonder if that "shall" is ever enforced...

[jeffandnicole]

it is not MAY turn on red, it is MUST turn on red.

FYI, New Jersey is literally a "MUST turn on red" state.

39:4-115
Making right or left turn

The driver of a vehicle or the motorman of a streetcar ... intending to turn right at an intersection where traffic is controlled by a traffic control signal shall, unless an official sign of the State, municipality, or county authority having jurisdiction over the intersection prohibits the same, proceed to make the turn upon a "stop" or "caution" signal with proper care to avoid accidents after coming to a full stop, observing traffic in all directions, yielding to other vehicular traffic traveling in a direction in which the turn will be made, and stopping and remaining stopped for pedestrians crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk, or at an unmarked crosswalk, into which the driver is turning.

Therefore, every stoplight intersection in New Jersey is just like a roundabout during its red phase wrt the situation you describe.

I wonder if that "shall" is ever enforced...

I recall one news story from years ago where someone was pulled over for failing to turn right on red, and it was upheld in court.

Why was it newsworthy?  Because it was basically the only ticket ever written for it.  I seriously doubt if anyone else has been pulled over for failing to turn right on red.  If anything, it appears people tense up and won't turn right on red when there's a cop behind them.

[jakeroot]

I wonder if that "shall" is ever enforced...

Though I think we're on the same side here, this is the first time I've seen you unable to come up with a proper response.

[kalvado]

I wonder if that "shall" is ever enforced...

Though I think we're on the same side here, this is the first time I've seen you unable to come up with a proper response (no matter how badly worded they often are lol).

Thing is, the way I read NJ law it indeed requires a turn on red. No common prohibitions like hazmat or school bus as well.
I suspect it was supposed to be "driver making such turn SHALL exercise caution etc", but it morphed into SHALL turn.

My root argument still holds, IF you feel unsafe, you can (should) wait until green light - the option which is not available for roundabouts.

[kphoger]

I wonder if that "shall" is ever enforced...

Though I think we're on the same side here, this is the first time I've seen you unable to come up with a proper response (no matter how badly worded they often are lol).

Thing is, the way I read NJ law it indeed requires a turn on red. No common prohibitions like hazmat or school bus as well.
I suspect it was supposed to be "driver making such turn SHALL exercise caution etc", but it morphed into SHALL turn.

My root argument still holds, IF you feel unsafe, you can (should) wait until green light - the option which is not available for roundabouts.

I've been thinking about this, and I thought it would be easy to discredit by posting an example of a stoplight intersection with splitter islands and YIELD signs controlling right turns.  However, all the examples I can find of that setup have the pedestrian crossing through the slip lanes onto the splitter islands themselves–not downstream of the intersection, which is where they are typically placed at roundabouts.  Contrast this pedestrian crossing at such a stoplight intersection with this pedestrian crossing at a multi-lane roundabout.  In essence, by putting the routing pedestrians through the splitter islands, the stoplight configuration presents right-turning traffic with only one crosswalk instead of the two crosswalks said traffic encounters at a roundabout:  the upstream and downstream crosswalks are combined into one midpoint crosswalk.  Furthermore, that midpoint crosswalk is no less visible than the upstream one at a roundabout, and it is arguably more visible than the downstream one.  Exactly how much more visible would be speculation, and I still assert that those pedestrians would still be quite visible through the windshield.  But I concede that there is certainly a disadvantage, however small, to the roundabout setup.

By the way...  The below relates to this sub-topic.
Click on the GSV link and zoom in on the sign

I suppose when you really get down to it, not making the turn if you have any doubt is the prudent way to proceed, especially if there's a cop around and you're concerned that he might ticket you if you turn and it's not allowed.

In other words, you're never required to turn on red if you don't want to do so, even if it bugs the crap out of the people waiting on line behind you. I can think of times when I haven't turned on red simply because I felt I couldn't see well enough to be able to determine whether the road was clear.

Something I've wondered: can you wait here for eight hours until the light turns green? http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=35.218759,-80.835364&spn=0.007284,0.020599&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=35.218616,-80.835317&panoid=XtfTmHxSq9fhdRrxL_1Luw&cbp=12,280.33,,1,-6.94

[kalvado]

I wonder if that "shall" is ever enforced...

Though I think we're on the same side here, this is the first time I've seen you unable to come up with a proper response (no matter how badly worded they often are lol).

Thing is, the way I read NJ law it indeed requires a turn on red. No common prohibitions like hazmat or school bus as well.
I suspect it was supposed to be "driver making such turn SHALL exercise caution etc", but it morphed into SHALL turn.

My root argument still holds, IF you feel unsafe, you can (should) wait until green light - the option which is not available for roundabouts.

I've been thinking about this, and I thought it would be easy to discredit by posting an example of a stoplight intersection with splitter islands and YIELD signs controlling right turns.  However, all the examples I can find of that setup have the pedestrian crossing through the slip lanes onto the splitter islands themselves–not downstream of the intersection, which is where they are typically placed at roundabouts.  Contrast this pedestrian crossing at such a stoplight intersection with this pedestrian crossing at a multi-lane roundabout.  In essence, by putting the routing pedestrians through the splitter islands, the stoplight configuration presents right-turning traffic with only one crosswalk instead of the two crosswalks said traffic encounters at a roundabout:  the upstream and downstream crosswalks are combined into one midpoint crosswalk.  Furthermore, that midpoint crosswalk is no less visible than the upstream one at a roundabout, and it is arguably more visible than the downstream one.  Exactly how much more visible would be speculation, and I still assert that those pedestrians would still be quite visible through the windshield.  But I concede that there is certainly a disadvantage, however small, to the roundabout setup.

By the way...  The below relates to this sub-topic.
Click on the GSV link and zoom in on the sign

I suppose when you really get down to it, not making the turn if you have any doubt is the prudent way to proceed, especially if there's a cop around and you're concerned that he might ticket you if you turn and it's not allowed.

In other words, you're never required to turn on red if you don't want to do so, even if it bugs the crap out of the people waiting on line behind you. I can think of times when I haven't turned on red simply because I felt I couldn't see well enough to be able to determine whether the road was clear.

Something I've wondered: can you wait here for eight hours until the light turns green? http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=35.218759,-80.835364&spn=0.007284,0.020599&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=35.218616,-80.835317&panoid=XtfTmHxSq9fhdRrxL_1Luw&cbp=12,280.33,,1,-6.94

If you will, you're looking for some rare and marginal examples to counter comparison of mainstream design features. Which would only mean that fundamentally good designs can be ruined - which is often not that difficult to achieve.
Since there are many situations where some adjustment of baseline is required, you can find examples of anything designed well and poorly - even when it seems impossible to mess things up. Add individual designer's preferences, non-trivial streets layout, poorly worded laws... All that doesn't change basic principles, though.

[jakeroot]

Thanks for bring up slip lanes, kphoger. One of the reasons those are so often failures when it comes to pedestrians is that, much like at roundabouts, drivers know that the movement does not require waiting for a green light, or stopping and giving way due to a red light (slip lanes with stop signs, from my experience, have high rates of disobedience, so I prefer not to mention them differently than slip lanes with yield signs). When drivers approach a road situation in which they are able to keep going without stopping, they will look for other cars, and keep going.

Most of the roads in this country simply don't have enough pedestrian activity for the idea of "yield to pedestrian" to be an active, continuous thought for most drivers. At roundabouts, it's like having 8 different slip lanes, each requiring drivers to watch for pedestrians. If slip lanes don't work, I don't see how roundabouts could possibly be any good at accommodating pedestrians. At least modern slip lanes, like those used in Australia, have changed the design to be more of a right-angle turn, to improve pedestrian visibility, and cut-down on drivers just flying through the turn without yielding at all. Many new roundabouts have angles like this (the one above in Carmel has it for the right turns), but the real issue is when peds are crossing the exit legs.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

Most of the roads in this country simply don't have enough pedestrian activity for the idea of "yield to pedestrian" to be an active, continuous thought for most drivers. At roundabouts, it's like having 8 different slip lanes, each requiring drivers to watch for pedestrians. If slip lanes don't work, I don't see how roundabouts could possibly be any good at accommodating pedestrians. At least modern slip lanes, like those used in Australia, have changed the design to be more of a right-angle turn, to improve pedestrian visibility, and cut-down on drivers just flying through the turn without yielding at all. Many new roundabouts have angles like this (the one above in Carmel has it for the right turns), but the real issue is when peds are crossing the exit legs.

It is definitely easy to understate the importance of basic geometry decisions on driver behavior, e.g. pedestrian yield rates. Putting multilane monstrosities aside, look at the Dutch best practice for roundabout geometry compared to the FHWA best practice, which would be considered unacceptable in the Netherlands.

The radial Dutch design uses just as sharp an angle for exits as in does for entrances, where the more tangential American design prioritizes maximum exit speed. Add raised crosswalks to the Dutch design and you will get excellent safety results anywhere, regardless of pedestrian volumes.

[kalvado]

Most of the roads in this country simply don't have enough pedestrian activity for the idea of "yield to pedestrian" to be an active, continuous thought for most drivers. At roundabouts, it's like having 8 different slip lanes, each requiring drivers to watch for pedestrians. If slip lanes don't work, I don't see how roundabouts could possibly be any good at accommodating pedestrians. At least modern slip lanes, like those used in Australia, have changed the design to be more of a right-angle turn, to improve pedestrian visibility, and cut-down on drivers just flying through the turn without yielding at all. Many new roundabouts have angles like this (the one above in Carmel has it for the right turns), but the real issue is when peds are crossing the exit legs.

It is definitely easy to understate the importance of basic geometry decisions on driver behavior, e.g. pedestrian yield rates. Putting multilane monstrosities aside, look at the Dutch best practice for roundabout geometry compared to the FHWA best practice, which would be considered unacceptable in the Netherlands.

The radial Dutch design uses just as sharp an angle for exits as in does for entrances, where the more tangential American design prioritizes maximum exit speed. Add raised crosswalks to the Dutch design and you will get excellent safety results anywhere, regardless of pedestrian volumes.

You're comparing apples with oranges in many aspects. Dutch structure is an old-style traffic circle, FHWA is more like what we call "modern roundabout".
Those "modern" ones are seriously optimized for vehicle throughput - well, at a cost for other users.
Now second apple to orange comparison is Dutch to US.
Not sure where dutch example would be located, likely a street with 40 km/h speed limit and 2-3k daily traffic.  US example is likely on a minor arterial with 10k+ traffic count and 45-50 MPH speeds, and throttling that street with Dutch style feature would kill the commute flow.
There is a lot one can say about general traffic architecture in US, but moral of the story is that dutch-style circles are appropriate where 2-way stop or simple 2-phase traffic light would work fine.
Extending the concept of circle to higher volumes, beyond the usable range, is the key problem. But looks like its a much deeper problem with traffic engineering workforce in US.  So it wouldn't be any better until it becomes much worse.

[jakeroot]

Even the Dutch provide multi-lane roundabouts with right-angle entries: https://goo.gl/6bQDGN. They do prefer signals though.

I don't necessarily see how these are worse than American roundabouts. They slow the speed of entering vehicles but could seriously improve crosswalk obedience.

[kphoger]

the real issue is when peds are crossing the exit legs.

That sums up what I was getting at.  For a stoplight or STOP-controlled intersection with slip lanes, there is no "exit leg" crosswalk because both entry and exit leg crossings are combined into one.  kalvado seems to have missed that I was generally agreeing with him about that, but it's probably because I was so wordy.

One solution to that is to use mid-block crosswalks near roundabouts rather than crosswalks nearer the roundabout.  However, assuming that pedestrians will walk half a block to cross a street when no actual law prohibits them from doing so nearer the roundabout is... unrealistic and would require fencing.  (The states whose laws I'm familiar with only prohibit crossing the street outside of crosswalks if there is a stoplight within a block of that location.)

[jeffandnicole]

the real issue is when peds are crossing the exit legs.

That sums up what I was getting at.  For a stoplight or STOP-controlled intersection with slip lanes, there is no "exit leg" crosswalk because both entry and exit leg crossings are combined into one.  kalvado seems to have missed that I was generally agreeing with him about that, but it's probably because I was so wordy.

One solution to that is to use mid-block crosswalks near roundabouts rather than crosswalks nearer the roundabout.  However, assuming that pedestrians will walk half a block to cross a street when no actual law prohibits them from doing so nearer the roundabout is... unrealistic and would require fencing.  (The states whose laws I'm familiar with only prohibit crossing the street outside of crosswalks if there is a stoplight within a block of that location.)

Many people are going to walk wherever they feel like walking.  Fencing definitely helps prevent people from walking where they shouldn't.

You mention will pedestrians walk a half-block to the midblock crosswalk.  Well, let's look at it another way: They're probably already walking down the block towards the roundabout, so they're going to pass that crosswalk enroute.  It may actually be more convenient for them. Or, maybe they have to walk past that one, around the corner, go a half block, and then cross at the next one because they were walking straight to the next block.  It pretty much depends where their origin and destination is as to whether the midblock crosswalk is more or less convenient.

Whenever I read about a ped accident in the news I wonder about that.  If they crossed away from the light, often times people say that the crosswalk is too far away and there's too few intersections.  But...if the jaywalker had passed the intersection, or would be passing the intersection anyway, then it's a moot point because the jaywalker wasn't taking a shortcut...he/she was just crossing where he/she shouldn't have been crossing in the first place.

[kphoger]

Many people are going to walk wherever they feel like walking.  Fencing definitely helps prevent people from walking where they shouldn't.

You mention will pedestrians walk a half-block to the midblock crosswalk.  Well, let's look at it another way: They're probably already walking down the block towards the roundabout, so they're going to pass that crosswalk enroute.  It may actually be more convenient for them. Or, maybe they have to walk past that one, around the corner, go a half block, and then cross at the next one because they were walking straight to the next block.  It pretty much depends where their origin and destination is as to whether the midblock crosswalk is more or less convenient.

Whenever I read about a ped accident in the news I wonder about that.  If they crossed away from the light, often times people say that the crosswalk is too far away and there's too few intersections.  But...if the jaywalker had passed the intersection, or would be passing the intersection anyway, then it's a moot point because the jaywalker wasn't taking a shortcut...he/she was just crossing where he/she shouldn't have been crossing in the first place.

If I'm simply walking down the street for a mile, and there's a roundabout along my path, then I sure won't feel like walking a half-block out of my way to a crosswalk, then a half-block  back again just to pick up my original course.

↓↓  Like hell I'm going to walk the path shown below if I've got a train to catch.  ↓↓

[tradephoric]

The number one traffic congested area in Brown County, Wisconsin is the roundabout on the east side of the Claude Allouez bridge in De Pere.   This federally mandated study into congestion found that the De Pere roundabout was the biggest problem for motorists back in 2013.  The roundabout was originally constructed as a 2x2 roundabout in 2007 but was reconfigured and had a circulating lane removed back in August, 2012.  Crashes did go down... from 89 between 2007-2009 to 45 between 2013-2015... but now congestion is a problem.  There's really no fix... add more lanes to the roundabout and you have an excessive number of crashes... take lanes out and you have excessive congestion.

FOX 11 Investigates: Traffic congestion in Brown County
https://fox11online.com/news/fox-11-investigates/fox11-investigates-traffic-congestion-in-brown-county

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

Whenever I read about a ped accident in the news I wonder about that.  If they crossed away from the light, often times people say that the crosswalk is too far away and there's too few intersections.  But...if the jaywalker had passed the intersection, or would be passing the intersection anyway, then it's a moot point because the jaywalker wasn't taking a shortcut...he/she was just crossing where he/she shouldn't have been crossing in the first place.

There are thousands of sections of arterial highways in dense areas of the US with mile-long or greater distances between marked crosswalks; i.e., a pedestrian in the middle of this section would have to make a .5 mile or ~20 minute detour each way to get to the direct opposite side of the highway using marked crosswalks. It is not an uncommon sight in the least to see housing developments and grocery stores (or really usually convenience stores in food deserts) divided this way.

Could you imagine if we routinely forced drivers to make a similarly inconvenient detour for short trips like this for a tiny improvement in service for other modes? Keep in mind, not only are pedestrians inconvenienced by the increased trip distance, but they are actually put in danger when they are forced to cross many times more side streets and driveways than they would have to if a more direct route were available.

Walking should be the most convenient for short trips, not the least.

"Jaywalker" is also an imprecise and legally meaningless term that is easily thrown around by police departments and local media to shift blame onto the pedestrian. We frequently hear people who cross midblock or outside marked crosswalks called "jaywalkers," where these actions are usually completely legal, and in the case of unmarked crosswalks, where pedestrians actually have the right of way.

[kphoger]

You mention will pedestrians walk a half-block to the midblock crosswalk.  Well, let's look at it another way: They're probably already walking down the block towards the roundabout, so they're going to pass that crosswalk enroute.  It may actually be more convenient for them. Or, maybe they have to walk past that one, around the corner, go a half block, and then cross at the next one because they were walking straight to the next block.  It pretty much depends where their origin and destination is as to whether the midblock crosswalk is more or less convenient.

There are thousands of sections of arterial highways in dense areas of the US with mile-long or greater distances between marked crosswalks; i.e., a pedestrian in the middle of this section would have to make a .5 mile or ~20 minute detour each way to get to the direct opposite side of the highway using marked crosswalks. It is not an uncommon sight in the least to see housing developments and grocery stores (or really usually convenience stores in food deserts) divided this way.

Could you imagine if we routinely forced drivers to make a similarly inconvenient detour for short trips like this for a tiny improvement in service for other modes? Keep in mind, not only are pedestrians inconvenienced by the increased trip distance, but they are actually put in danger when they are forced to cross many times more side streets and driveways than they would have to if a more direct route were available.

Walking should be the most convenient for short trips, not the least.

I'm still trying to picture an example of how a mid-block crosswalk could be more convenient than one at the intersection itself.  Other than, of course, merely crossing the street mid-block (say from a restaurant to a laundromat across the street).  In my thinking, any walking trajectory either straight through or turning at an intersection would either be more convenient with the crosswalk as near the intersection as possible or else not affected by its placement.

If I'm going straight through and staying on my side of the street, then a mid-block crossing point to the right of the intersection is less convenient:  a total of one extra block I have to walk.  If I'm going straight through and then crossing to the other side of my street later, then it's just as inconvenient.

If I'm turning right and staying on my side of that street, then my route is not affected at all.  If I'm turning right and then crossing to the other side of that street later, then the location of the crosswalk doesn't affect me:  I have to cross the street at some point anyway.

If I'm turning left and staying on my side of that street, then I have to know in advance to cross the first street a half-block early but my route is otherwise unaffected.  If I'm turning left and then crossing to the other side of that street later, then I still have to know in advance to cross the first street a half-block early but then the location of the second crosswalk doesn't affect me:  I have to cross the street at some point anyway.

Whenever I read about a ped accident in the news I wonder about that.  If they crossed away from the light, often times people say that the crosswalk is too far away and there's too few intersections.  But...if the jaywalker had passed the intersection, or would be passing the intersection anyway, then it's a moot point because the jaywalker wasn't taking a shortcut...he/she was just crossing where he/she shouldn't have been crossing in the first place.

"Jaywalker" is also an imprecise and legally meaningless term that is easily thrown around by police departments and local media to shift blame onto the pedestrian. We frequently hear people who cross midblock or outside marked crosswalks called "jaywalkers," where these actions are usually completely legal, and in the case of unmarked crosswalks, where pedestrians actually have the right of way.

For reference, here is what the Uniform Vehicle Code says on the matter.  (Not all states use the UVC wording, including jeffandnicole's state, but many states do.)

§ 11-503–Crossing at other than crosswalks

(c) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.

In NJ, I don't even see such a restriction codified at all:  just that you have to use the crosswalk if there is one, nothing mentioned about proximity.  It's possible I missed something.

[kalvado]

In NJ, I don't even see such a restriction codified at all:  just that you have to use the crosswalk if there is one, nothing mentioned about proximity.  It's possible I missed something.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-39/section-39-4-33/
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-39/section-39-4-34/
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-39/section-39-4-36/
Something similar to NY. Right of way within crosswalk, yield to vehicles elsewhere - but otherwise cross anywhere except if explicitly prohibited.