Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'

[kalvado]

I assume you will continue to report on all collisions that occur at roundabouts, because it can be assumed that the circular nature of the junction is the main cause?

There were a string of posts about the Malta roundabout (not brought up by me i'll add) and someone had mentioned that they haven't heard complaints about accidents at them.  Three months ago a truck tips over, spills over 2000 gallons of liquefied asphalt additive, creates a hazmat situation that shuts the roundabout for 12 hours, and a 6-year old boy is transported to the hospital after he cuts his head open... and nobody is complaining about accidents?  This became an event for the town of Malta that day.

So...one recent accident...and we are certain the roundabout is to blame.

Here is another Malta roundabout melee from 2016.  According to Police a Mack dump truck failed to yield and drove over the center median and into a tractor-trailer headed south on Round Lake Road in the roundabout.  These roundabouts are causing a lot of excitement for the good people of Malta.

Police: Overweight truck caused Malta roundabout crash
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Police-Overweight-truck-caused-Malta-roundabout-6871246.php#photo-9504846

Frankly speaking, that is almost a non-event compared to what could happen. That roundabout is a route for hazmat trucks going to GF. If a truckload of something like RFNA or TMAH is spilled, now that would make CNN headlines..
The only hope is that those drivers are better trained - I talked to someone who was almost sidesweeped by the same truck on a highway few minutes before the accident..

[kalvado]

I assume you will continue to report on all collisions that occur at roundabouts, because it can be assumed that the circular nature of the junction is the main cause?

There were a string of posts about the Malta roundabout (not brought up by me i'll add) and someone had mentioned that they haven't heard complaints about accidents at them.  Three months ago a truck tips over, spills over 2000 gallons of liquefied asphalt additive, creates a hazmat situation that shuts the roundabout for 12 hours, and a 6-year old boy is transported to the hospital after he cuts his head open... and nobody is complaining about accidents?  This became an event for the town of Malta that day.

So...one recent accident...and we are certain the roundabout is to blame.

Here is another Malta roundabout melee from 2016.  According to Police a Mack dump truck failed to yield and drove over the center median and into a tractor-trailer headed south on Round Lake Road in the roundabout.  These roundabouts are causing a lot of excitement for the good people of Malta.

Police: Overweight truck caused Malta roundabout crash
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Police-Overweight-truck-caused-Malta-roundabout-6871246.php#photo-9504846

That isn't the roundabout's fault.

Of course, 99.999% of drivers can make it safe through roundabout. Actually, even 99.999% correspond to quite high accident rate of 10 MEV.
It is that remaining 0.001% that need to be taken into account by design to be truly safe. And that 0.001% also includes drunk, sick, distressed, distracted... Designers must take them into account as well...

[jeffandnicole]

I have been wondering if tradephoric has been keeping track of roundabouts that he has highlighted over time.

Pretty sure incidents drop off on a lot of them just like engineers say they do.

I'm afraid it is more difficult than it sounds. Full statistics is not easy to come across, and not all accidents get into the news.
Ones in Malta seems to come up once in a while in mostly negative light. Those are what, 10+ years old? No real improvement... 

So, trade is able to find and download statistics on every intersection throughout an entire region whenever it shows a roundabout is at the top of the list, but once those accidents go down suddenly the statistics can't be found?

And as far as accidents getting into the news, from my experiences almost no accident makes it in the news.  If a roundabout accident is in the news, there's probably a hundred others at normal intersections that didn't make the news.

[kalvado]

I have been wondering if tradephoric has been keeping track of roundabouts that he has highlighted over time.

Pretty sure incidents drop off on a lot of them just like engineers say they do.

I'm afraid it is more difficult than it sounds. Full statistics is not easy to come across, and not all accidents get into the news.
Ones in Malta seems to come up once in a while in mostly negative light. Those are what, 10+ years old? No real improvement... 

So, trade is able to find and download statistics on every intersection throughout an entire region whenever it shows a roundabout is at the top of the list, but once those accidents go down suddenly the statistics can't be found?

And as far as accidents getting into the news, from my experiences almost no accident makes it in the news.  If a roundabout accident is in the news, there's probably a hundred others at normal intersections that didn't make the news.

That is the problem - sometimes data slips out, but I - as a regular driver - have little ways to know actual numbers. Trade may be able to find those numbers somewhere, but there is no go-to place for all the data - at least in NY. Many states have traffic count data available, but accident rates seem to be not published. Probably something can be FOILed, but that seems too much effort..

[tradephoric]

I have been wondering if tradephoric has been keeping track of roundabouts that he has highlighted over time.

Pretty sure incidents drop off on a lot of them just like engineers say they do.

I'm afraid it is more difficult than it sounds. Full statistics is not easy to come across, and not all accidents get into the news.
Ones in Malta seems to come up once in a while in mostly negative light. Those are what, 10+ years old? No real improvement... 

So, trade is able to find and download statistics on every intersection throughout an entire region whenever it shows a roundabout is at the top of the list, but once those accidents go down suddenly the statistics can't be found?

State and Ellsworth crash history:
2012:  16 crashes (#6,321 most crashes in Michigan... give or take).
2013:  Roundabout constructed
2014:  168 crashes (#1 most crashes in Michigan)
2015:  114 crashes (#7 most crashes in Michigan)
2016:  120 crashes (#7 most crashes in Michigan)

You can look at this two ways.  A roundabout proponent can argue that crashes have dropped nearly 30% since the roundabout opened in 2013.  But if you compare the post-roundabout crashes to the pre-roundabout crashes, then crashes have increased by over 650%.  Also accidents increased from 2015 to 2016 suggesting a plateau in the reduction of crashes moving forward.  Does it really matter that there has been a drop off in crashes at the roundabout and it's no longer the most crash prone intersection in Michigan?  Now it's only the 7th most crash prone intersection in Michigan (where before it was 6,321st on the list).  Time to celebrate how safe roundabouts are!  WOOHOO!

A newly constructed roundabout at 14 Mile and Orchard Lake has earned the #1 spot as the most crash prone intersection in Michigan.  That roundabout saw 146 crashes in 2016 — with 27 causing injury.  Just because the accidents will likely drop in the coming years doesn't mean it's not problematic.

[Rothman]

I have been wondering if tradephoric has been keeping track of roundabouts that he has highlighted over time.

Pretty sure incidents drop off on a lot of them just like engineers say they do.

I'm afraid it is more difficult than it sounds. Full statistics is not easy to come across, and not all accidents get into the news.
Ones in Malta seems to come up once in a while in mostly negative light. Those are what, 10+ years old? No real improvement... 

So, trade is able to find and download statistics on every intersection throughout an entire region whenever it shows a roundabout is at the top of the list, but once those accidents go down suddenly the statistics can't be found?

State and Ellsworth crash history:
2012:  16 crashes (#6,321 most crashes in Michigan... give or take).
2013:  Roundabout constructed
2014:  168 crashes (#1 most crashes in Michigan)
2015:  114 crashes (#7 most crashes in Michigan)
2016:  120 crashes (#7 most crashes in Michigan)

You can look at this two ways.  A roundabout proponent can argue that crashes have dropped nearly 30% since the roundabout opened in 2013.  But if you compare the post-roundabout crashes to the pre-roundabout crashes, then crashes have increased by over 650%.  Also accidents increased from 2015 to 2016 suggesting a plateau in the reduction of crashes moving forward.  Does it really matter that there has been a drop off in crashes at the roundabout and it's no longer the most crash prone intersection in Michigan?  Now it's only the 7th most crash prone intersection in Michigan (where before it was 6,321st on the list).  Time to celebrate how safe roundabouts are!  WOOHOO!

A newly constructed roundabout at 14 Mile and Orchard Lake has earned the #1 spot as the most crash prone intersection in Michigan.  That roundabout saw 146 crashes in 2016 — with 27 causing injury.  Just because the accidents will likely drop in the coming years doesn't mean it's not problematic.

But such cases do not support a blanket condemnation of roundabouts.

[kalvado]

I have been wondering if tradephoric has been keeping track of roundabouts that he has highlighted over time.

Pretty sure incidents drop off on a lot of them just like engineers say they do.

I'm afraid it is more difficult than it sounds. Full statistics is not easy to come across, and not all accidents get into the news.
Ones in Malta seems to come up once in a while in mostly negative light. Those are what, 10+ years old? No real improvement... 

So, trade is able to find and download statistics on every intersection throughout an entire region whenever it shows a roundabout is at the top of the list, but once those accidents go down suddenly the statistics can't be found?

State and Ellsworth crash history:
2012:  16 crashes (#6,321 most crashes in Michigan... give or take).
2013:  Roundabout constructed
2014:  168 crashes (#1 most crashes in Michigan)
2015:  114 crashes (#7 most crashes in Michigan)
2016:  120 crashes (#7 most crashes in Michigan)

You can look at this two ways.  A roundabout proponent can argue that crashes have dropped nearly 30% since the roundabout opened in 2013.  But if you compare the post-roundabout crashes to the pre-roundabout crashes, then crashes have increased by over 650%.  Also accidents increased from 2015 to 2016 suggesting a plateau in the reduction of crashes moving forward.  Does it really matter that there has been a drop off in crashes at the roundabout and it's no longer the most crash prone intersection in Michigan?  Now it's only the 7th most crash prone intersection in Michigan (where before it was 6,321st on the list).  Time to celebrate how safe roundabouts are!  WOOHOO!

A newly constructed roundabout at 14 Mile and Orchard Lake has earned the #1 spot as the most crash prone intersection in Michigan.  That roundabout saw 146 crashes in 2016 — with 27 causing injury.  Just because the accidents will likely drop in the coming years doesn't mean it's not problematic.

But such cases do not support a blanket condemnation of roundabouts.

Actually they may.
If this is statistics for one in a group of 10 similar roundabouts constructed in the city, and others demonstrated 3x reduction of accidents - we're still in the red.

Or, to put it in perspective.. you went to a shop to get new tires. Mechanics did a great job.. mostly great job - just one of the wheels fell off on your way home. Are you going to return to that shop for future service?

[jeffandnicole]

But such cases do not support a blanket condemnation of roundabouts.

Actually they may.
If this is statistics for one in a group of 10 similar roundabouts constructed in the city, and others demonstrated 3x reduction of accidents - we're still in the red.

Or, to put it in perspective.. you went to a shop to get new tires. Mechanics did a great job.. mostly great job - just one of the wheels fell off on your way home. Are you going to return to that shop for future service?

Based on that perspective, and comparing it to the very previous sentence, we would need to compare that shop to 10 other similar shops in the city.  Your first paragraph appears to say that if 4 out of 10 of something doesn't work right, then we need to get rid of all of them.  Your second paragraph alludes to just avoiding one shop, not writing off all mechanics.

[kalvado]

But such cases do not support a blanket condemnation of roundabouts.

Actually they may.
If this is statistics for one in a group of 10 similar roundabouts constructed in the city, and others demonstrated 3x reduction of accidents - we're still in the red.

Or, to put it in perspective.. you went to a shop to get new tires. Mechanics did a great job.. mostly great job - just one of the wheels fell off on your way home. Are you going to return to that shop for future service?

Based on that perspective, and comparing it to the very previous sentence, we would need to compare that shop to 10 other similar shops in the city.  Your first paragraph appears to say that if 4 out of 10 of something doesn't work right, then we need to get rid of all of them.  Your second paragraph alludes to just avoiding one shop, not writing off all mechanics.

Nope. I compare project results: roundabout vs traffic light on one hand and ABC mechanics vs XYZ car service on the other. 
In both cases I compare quality of batch of deliverables - 5-pc roundabout project in Malta vs 4-pc tire project for license plate XXXABC. Failing one roundabout in a batch is pretty much the same as failing one wheel in a batch.   
Of course, changing vendor can come into play in roundabout case; but replacing unionized NYSDOT staff along with FHWA crew is a mission impossible, akin of suggesting buying a new car not to deal with tire shop.

[jakeroot]

I do think, the more roundabouts we have, the less stupid or inattentive drivers can get away with. But, unfortunately for us who believe "stupid is as stupid does", the government does have an obligation to ensure the safety of all drivers, the smart ones and the retards alike.

For this reason, unless collisions drop significantly over the next 10 years, I'm not sure the roundabout has a future in this country.

[kalvado]

I do think, the more roundabouts we have, the less stupid or inattentive drivers can get away with. But, unfortunately for us who believe "stupid is as stupid does", the government does have an obligation to ensure the safety of all drivers, the smart ones and the retards alike.

For this reason, unless collisions drop significantly over the next 10 years, I'm not sure the roundabout has a future in this country.

As my driving instructor told me - remember, you're not the only idiot who drives here!

As for roundabouts, most likely we're going through standard Gartner hype cycle. We're somewhere close  to the peak right now. Once some understanding of roundabouts drips down to state DOTs, we may see more roundabout built with some understanding of where they are appropriate and how to make them safe - not just for the sake of building cool innovative thingy. Once that happens, many of existing ones would have to meet bulldozer, meaning $$$ wasted. Human nature is hard to change, though...

[jakeroot]

Once some understanding of roundabouts drips down to state DOTs, we may see more roundabout built with some understanding of where they are appropriate and how to make them safe - not just for the sake of building cool innovative thingy. Once that happens, many of existing ones would have to meet bulldozer, meaning $$$ wasted.

I think we're more likely to see them signalised, instead of bulldozed. That's what the UK has been doing for the last couple decades.

[kalvado]

Once some understanding of roundabouts drips down to state DOTs, we may see more roundabout built with some understanding of where they are appropriate and how to make them safe - not just for the sake of building cool innovative thingy. Once that happens, many of existing ones would have to meet bulldozer, meaning $$$ wasted.

I think we're more likely to see them signalised, instead of bulldozed. That's what the UK has been doing for the last couple decades.

Whatever. I bet 20 years from now these early designs would look like 2 lane undivided road posted at 90 MPH. It is all about understanding and quality engineering...

[jakeroot]

Once some understanding of roundabouts drips down to state DOTs, we may see more roundabout built with some understanding of where they are appropriate and how to make them safe - not just for the sake of building cool innovative thingy. Once that happens, many of existing ones would have to meet bulldozer, meaning $$$ wasted.

I think we're more likely to see them signalised, instead of bulldozed. That's what the UK has been doing for the last couple decades.

Whatever. I bet 20 years from now these early designs would look like 2 lane undivided road posted at 90 MPH. It is all about understanding and quality engineering...

Even some of the early ones built maybe a decade ago are starting to show their age. Many of the early roundabouts in Maryland and Colorado have massive path overlap issues.

[tradephoric]

The Northland and Richmond roundabout in Appleton opened on September 1.  According to Appleton Police there have been 25 reported crashes between August 31st and October 10th.  At the current crash rate, there will be 228 crashes at the roundabout in the first year of operation.  Compare that to 27 crashes in all of 2014 when it was a signalized intersection (the highest crash intersection in Appleton that year).  On the project website, the stated reason the roundabout was selected was to address the high rate of crashes that were occurring at the signaled intersection.  This is the design they came up with.



So after 25 crashes in just 40 days, does anyone still think the roundabout will do a good job at reducing crashes at the intersection moving forward?  While there probably won't be 228 crashes per year, this roundabout could easily see 100+ crashes per year.  Their baseline is 27 crashes, and 100+ crashes is about 4X worse than that.  As long as this roundabout remains a complex 3x2 roundabout next to a busy commercial district, crashes will remain a problem.  But fear not, they will study the roundabout and throw hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to "fix"  the roundabout that they just completed.  Good job.

Crash numbers increase in new roundabout
http://fox11online.com/news/local/crash-numbers-increase-in-new-roundabout

[tradephoric]

A previous article indicated that the intersection averaged about 26 crashes/year between 2004 and 2012 (ie. a crash every two weeks).  Now that the roundabout is opening, you are more likely to see a crash every two days. 

That was my prediction before the Appleton roundabout even opened.  At 25 crashes in 40 days, that is a crash every 1.6 days.  When will we return to a crash every 2 weeks?  Probably never as long as it remains a complex 3x2 roundabout. 

[kphoger]

I've never driven through a 3-lane roundabout, but I can easily imagine making a dangerous maneuver at one.  And I'm a relatively young guy who likes roundabouts; first-time drivers, the elderly, people distracted by something else...  I tell you what, I'm coming around more and more to the turbo roundabout concept.  I wasn't thrilled at first, but I think I'm starting to get it.

[kalvado]

I've never driven through a 3-lane roundabout, but I can easily imagine making a dangerous maneuver at one.  And I'm a relatively young guy who likes roundabouts; first-time drivers, the elderly, people distracted by something else...  I tell you what, I'm coming around more and more to the turbo roundabout concept.  I wasn't thrilled at first, but I think I'm starting to get it.

There are many great concepts floating around which never got past the concept stage, and quite a few which failed in production and were successfully abandoned.
Nuclear powered cars and planes come to mind as most relevant to this forum - although nuclear warships are out there.. Fuel cell powered everything as a more recent example. I even touched fuel cell powered car (I could get a ride if I wanted) - but didn't see any lately.

[kphoger]

I've never driven through a 3-lane roundabout, but I can easily imagine making a dangerous maneuver at one.  And I'm a relatively young guy who likes roundabouts; first-time drivers, the elderly, people distracted by something else...  I tell you what, I'm coming around more and more to the turbo roundabout concept.  I wasn't thrilled at first, but I think I'm starting to get it.

There are many great concepts floating around which never got past the concept stage, and quite a few which failed in production and were successfully abandoned.
Nuclear powered cars and planes come to mind as most relevant to this forum - although nuclear warships are out there.. Fuel cell powered everything as a more recent example. I even touched fuel cell powered car (I could get a ride if I wanted) - but didn't see any lately.

Turbo roundabouts exist in reality, though, and have since the turn of the century.

[tradephoric]

Arguably the most famous "circle" in America is the Columbus Circle in NYC.  If you take a look at the lane markings of the Columbus Circle, a "straight arrow" is directing drivers to continue circulating the circle road (ie. the circle is the main road).  With modern roundabouts the circle is viewed as an intersection and a "straight arrow" is directing drivers to EXIT the circle.  To your average driver a circle is a circle.  Instinctively how are drivers to know if they are driving on a circle road (like the Columbus Circle in NYC) or a modern roundabout that is functioning as an intersection?  In each instance the "straight arrow" means two totally different things.  You can have very clear signage at roundabouts including the use of overhead signs, but if drivers fundamentally don't understand the meaning of a "straight arrow" then we may be doomed.

[jakeroot]

What's your thoughts on the Long Beach/Los Alamitos Circle (if you haven't addressed it before)? It doesn't really look like anything else in the US.

According to this LA Times article from 2006, lane lines were considered, but eventually dropped, to more closely conform to the British standards of the time: https://goo.gl/n99389

[kphoger]

Arguably the most famous "circle" in America is the Columbus Circle in NYC.  If you take a look at the lane markings of the Columbus Circle, a "straight arrow" is directing drivers to continue circulating the circle road (ie. the circle is the main road).  With modern roundabouts the circle is viewed as an intersection and a "straight arrow" is directing drivers to EXIT the circle.  To your average driver a circle is a circle.  Instinctively how are drivers to know if they are driving on a circle road (like the Columbus Circle in NYC) or a modern roundabout that is functioning as an intersection?  In each instance the "straight arrow" means two totally different things.  You can have very clear signage at roundabouts including the use of overhead signs, but if drivers fundamentally don't understand the meaning of a "straight arrow" then we may be doomed.

Hmm.  I interpreted the arrows in the picture above to mean "don't go the wrong way around this thing"–or, better, "You're going the wrong way" if you happened to turn left.

[jakeroot]

Arguably the most famous "circle" in America is the Columbus Circle in NYC.  If you take a look at the lane markings of the Columbus Circle, a "straight arrow" is directing drivers to continue circulating the circle road (ie. the circle is the main road).  With modern roundabouts the circle is viewed as an intersection and a "straight arrow" is directing drivers to EXIT the circle.  To your average driver a circle is a circle.  Instinctively how are drivers to know if they are driving on a circle road (like the Columbus Circle in NYC) or a modern roundabout that is functioning as an intersection?  In each instance the "straight arrow" means two totally different things.  You can have very clear signage at roundabouts including the use of overhead signs, but if drivers fundamentally don't understand the meaning of a "straight arrow" then we may be doomed.

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/FCHJ4A/looking-down-at-columbus-circle-time-warner-center-central-park-trump-FCHJ4A.jpg

Hmm.  I interpreted the arrows in the picture above to mean "don't go the wrong way around this thing"–or, better, "You're going the wrong way" if you happened to turn left.

Much like these arrows often seen at off-ramps (at least out west): https://goo.gl/buBTvN.

[MNHighwayMan]

What's your thoughts on the Long Beach/Los Alamitos Circle (if you haven't addressed it before)? It doesn't really look like anything else in the US.

According to this LA Times article from 2006, lane lines were considered, but eventually dropped, to more closely conform to the British standards of the time: https://goo.gl/n99389

Fascinating. I'd never even thought about having circles/roundabouts without lane lines. Could that be a better, less-confusing solution for problematic two/three-lane roundabouts?

[kphoger]

What's your thoughts on the Long Beach/Los Alamitos Circle (if you haven't addressed it before)? It doesn't really look like anything else in the US.

According to this LA Times article from 2006, lane lines were considered, but eventually dropped, to more closely conform to the British standards of the time: https://goo.gl/n99389

Fascinating. I'd never even thought about having circles/roundabouts without lane lines. Could that be a better, less-confusing solution for problematic two/three-lane roundabouts?

My suspicion is that it might reduce one problem and augment another.  But that's just a hunch.

The famous one in Towson (MD) used to have no lines, but that's no longer the case.


(Google imagery here)