...the concept can most certainly be overdone (http://g.co/maps/m3xwm).
I mean, seriously, WisDOT? FOUR consecutive roundabouts? Please put down the crack pipe.
Discuss.
Much better than four consecutive stoplights. :nod:
Quote from: kphoger on May 01, 2012, 08:29:11 AM
Much better than four consecutive stoplights. :nod:
:pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan:
Ow, my head
If you don't like what WisDOT is doing, I'd suggest never getting off the highway when going thru Carmel, IN (aka the Roundabout Capital of the US).
Even if I wasn't one many engineers on the 41 corridor project, I'd still have no problem with four or more in a row (as I'm sure you're aware that this isn't the only location along the 41 corridor with more than two roundabouts in a series). When properly designed, roundabout corridors are very effective (see Vail, CO or Avon, CO). As kphoger also said, IMO, they're MUCH better than consecutive traffic signals. The only problem I have is with the drivers who don't know what a YIELD sign means.
The original concept for the US 41 corridor expansion (a copy of which I downloaded about eight years ago) called for traffic signals instead of roundabouts. I think the current one is an improvement.
Quote from: kphoger on May 01, 2012, 08:29:11 AM
Much better than four consecutive stoplights. :nod:
Not if they are timed correctly.
The issue with stoplight timing is that progression is attainable only in certain limited cases.
BTW, if you count the roundabout along Breezewood Lane just to the east of the US 41 interchange, there are actually five roundabouts in total.
Was it ever seriously considered at one point to combine the ramp terminal and frontage road roundabouts so that there would be just two roundabouts associated with the US 41 interchange? The real difficulty with this interchange (at least for traffic crossing US 41) is not that roundabouts are used instead of traffic signals, but rather that the frontage roads and ramps intersect separately.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 01, 2012, 09:50:59 AM
Quote from: kphoger on May 01, 2012, 08:29:11 AM
Much better than four consecutive stoplights. :nod:
Not if they are timed correctly.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Yeah, WisDOT probably realized after doing their studies that timed lights would be better, but than said, 'Eyaahh, what the heck, we'll just throw the roundabouts in there anyway for the fun of it, because, you know, we get a good chuckle when people blame us for traffic problems'.
:pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan:
Roundabouts offer increased capacity and safety compared to traffic signals.
Respectfully, I have found that the only people who seem to have a problem with roundabouts are those who either can't figure out how to drive through them, or those who fear any kind of change.
*LET A LOCAL CHIME IN HERE, OK?*
The US 41/Breezewood-Bell interchange in Neenah, WI (about ten minutes south of Appleton) was a total clusterf*** in its previous life. Four signalized intersections in very close proximity, two frontage roads and the two interchange ramps. Breesewood Ln/Bell St (the street changes its name at the interchange) is a very busy street. The intersections ALL had very high numbers of vehicles making turns and traffic backups were very common, even after midnight. Often, to go from SB US 41 to NB Harrison St (the east frontage/access street), I had to stop twice at red lights in that mess and to turn onto NB Harrison St often required waiting two and even three cycles.
Since the rebuild, even though traffic counts are about the same as before, it is like 'where did all of the traffic congestion go?'. About four out of every fives times that I go through there now, I get though with zero stops and delays, only having to slow down to make the turns. The difference is like that between night and day and it is working well beyond anyone's wildest dreams..
There is also an older roundabout on Breezewood Ln at a local street intersection several blocks west of the interchange area.
BTW, before WisDOT decided to go with the roundabouts there, their favored concept was for the interchange ramp intersections to be redone as a SPUI.
Also, last year, WisDOT redid US 41/9th Ave in Oshkosh with a similar four roundabouts - and with similar results.
Mike
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on May 01, 2012, 11:21:06 AM
Respectfully, I have found that the only people who seem to have a problem with roundabouts are those who either can't figure out how to drive through them, or those who fear any kind of change.
or those who drive in the vicinity of those who can't figure out how to drive through them. so many times people either do not put their turn signal on when exiting, or worse, they put their turn signal on as though to exit and then keep going ... so basically one has to
guess if you're going to intersect or not with traffic already in the roundabout. so either you risk getting plowed, or you wait at the entrance forever.
Yeah, I lived in Waterloo, ON which has tons of roundabouts, and honestly, that wasn't really a problem here. Generally, people figured them out pretty quickly. I did once watch someone go 'round the wrong way once. But I have seen some pretty terrible behaviour at traffic signals and stop signs as well.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 01, 2012, 12:08:53 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on May 01, 2012, 11:21:06 AM
Respectfully, I have found that the only people who seem to have a problem with roundabouts are those who either can't figure out how to drive through them, or those who fear any kind of change.
or those who drive in the vicinity of those who can't figure out how to drive through them. so many times people either do not put their turn signal on when exiting, or worse, they put their turn signal on as though to exit and then keep going ... so basically one has to guess if you're going to intersect or not with traffic already in the roundabout. so either you risk getting plowed, or you wait at the entrance forever.
Correct signalling procedures:
To turn right, use your right signal.
To go straight through, do not signal upon entry, but use your right signal to exit the roundabout.
To turn left, use your left signal to enter the roundabout, turn it off at the first leg, then use your right signal to exit.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on May 01, 2012, 11:21:06 AM
Roundabouts offer increased capacity and safety compared to traffic signals.
Respectfully, I have found that the only people who seem to have a problem with roundabouts are those who either can't figure out how to drive through them, or those who fear any kind of change.
I fully understand why they are used. As a driver, I would rather go through four timed stop lights than four straight traffic circles.
And I most certainly know *how* to use them.
Quote from: kphoger on May 01, 2012, 02:27:02 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 01, 2012, 12:08:53 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on May 01, 2012, 11:21:06 AM
Respectfully, I have found that the only people who seem to have a problem with roundabouts are those who either can't figure out how to drive through them, or those who fear any kind of change.
or those who drive in the vicinity of those who can't figure out how to drive through them. so many times people either do not put their turn signal on when exiting, or worse, they put their turn signal on as though to exit and then keep going ... so basically one has to guess if you're going to intersect or not with traffic already in the roundabout. so either you risk getting plowed, or you wait at the entrance forever.
Correct signalling procedures:
To turn right, use your right signal.
To go straight through, do not signal upon entry, but use your right signal to exit the roundabout.
To turn left, use your left signal to enter the roundabout, turn it off at the first leg, then use your right signal to exit.
It really bugs me how many people don't know this, but in at least some states the DOTs don't advocate this practice–Virginia's DOT, for example, says not to signal until you signal right to exit. Problem is, that leaves the entering motorist guessing as to your intentions. I learned to drive through roundabouts in the UK, so I learned the method you describe (flip-flopped for left-side driving, of course), and it quickly made me appreciate the benefit of the roundabout as working at its best when nobody has to guess at what anybody else is going to do. If used properly, the signal from the driver already on the roundabout tells you whether you need to yield or whether you can go. Problem is, the average American driver doesn't think about such things and likely doesn't care.
Roundabouts aren't hard to deal with at all, but they're an example of one of the reasons why I often think states ought to require that people re-take the knowledge test every ten years or so. There are enough changes in recommended safe-driving practices, vehicle technology, etc., that a refresher is useful (I'm amazed how many people I know think that when the antilock brakes start pulsing it means that something's wrong, for example), and I also think that nowadays people move around enough that it might be beneficial to re-test them on local laws. For example, I know a guy whose high-school age daughter is learning to drive in California. Their DMV's instructional book apparently teaches that the left lane is the "fast cruising" lane. WTF!!! My friend tried to tell me that that's a "national standard," to which I replied "BS."
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 01, 2012, 02:32:06 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on May 01, 2012, 11:21:06 AM
Roundabouts offer increased capacity and safety compared to traffic signals.
Respectfully, I have found that the only people who seem to have a problem with roundabouts are those who either can't figure out how to drive through them, or those who fear any kind of change.
I fully understand why they are used. As a driver, I would rather go through four timed stop lights than four straight traffic circles.
And I most certainly know *how* to use them.
But this is not a thread about four consecutive "traffic circles."
A roundabout is a type of traffic circle.
Good tribute to Clark Griswold
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgX6qlJEMc
Or Yes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xql99I1VSdI
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 01, 2012, 02:42:34 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 01, 2012, 02:32:06 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on May 01, 2012, 11:21:06 AM
Roundabouts offer increased capacity and safety compared to traffic signals.
Respectfully, I have found that the only people who seem to have a problem with roundabouts are those who either can't figure out how to drive through them, or those who fear any kind of change.
I fully understand why they are used. As a driver, I would rather go through four timed stop lights than four straight traffic circles.
And I most certainly know *how* to use them.
But this is not a thread about four consecutive "traffic circles."
Thanks...sorry to misspeak.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 01, 2012, 02:42:09 PM(I'm amazed how many people I know think that when the antilock brakes start pulsing it means that something's wrong, for example)
there is something wrong. you're losing traction. when you regain it, evaluate what happened, and possibly change your driving behavior to accommodate the road conditions.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 01, 2012, 02:42:34 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 01, 2012, 02:32:06 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on May 01, 2012, 11:21:06 AM
Roundabouts offer increased capacity and safety compared to traffic signals.
Respectfully, I have found that the only people who seem to have a problem with roundabouts are those who either can't figure out how to drive through them, or those who fear any kind of change.
I fully understand why they are used. As a driver, I would rather go through four timed stop lights than four straight traffic circles.
And I most certainly know *how* to use them.
But this is not a thread about four consecutive "traffic circles."
Going to be slightly off topic but:
Actually, about 4 years ago here in Illinois, the "Left Lane Law" was signed into law. The law was specific about the traffic in the farthest left lane needed to be faster than the traffic in the center or right lanes on the expressways and tollways. Which means that if you are going the speed limit in the left lane but cars are passing you on the right, YOU are at fault not the cars passing you. I have this argument with my mother all the time. Left lane IS for passing safely. Yes there are morons who drive recklessly in the left lane but the slow driver in the left lane is just as much a hazard. A bit of a side note. I have yet to see the Left Lane Law enforced by state police.
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 01, 2012, 05:51:59 PM
Going to be slightly off topic but:
"Left Lane Law
Read: Completely off topic, not the slightest bit related.
Or am I missing something?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 01, 2012, 03:49:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 01, 2012, 02:42:09 PM(I'm amazed how many people I know think that when the antilock brakes start pulsing it means that something's wrong, for example)
there is something wrong. you're losing traction. when you regain it, evaluate what happened, and possibly change your driving behavior to accommodate the road conditions.
Fair enough. You know what I meant–they think something's wrong with their brakes and they release the pedal, which is exactly the wrong thing to do.
Quote from: kphoger on May 01, 2012, 05:58:50 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 01, 2012, 05:51:59 PM
Going to be slightly off topic but:
"Left Lane Law
Read: Completely off topic, not the slightest bit related.
Or am I missing something?
Yes you missed something. read the end of Reply post 16 by 1995hoo.
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 01, 2012, 06:30:48 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 01, 2012, 05:58:50 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 01, 2012, 05:51:59 PM
Going to be slightly off topic but:
"Left Lane Law
Read: Completely off topic, not the slightest bit related.
Or am I missing something?
Yes you missed something. read the end of Reply post 16 by 1995hoo.
Ah, yes, I had read that post. But, since you didn't quote it in your post, I assumed your post was not related to it. So the inference is that left-lane hogging being bad is a new phenomenon, just as the use of roundabouts is a new phenomenon. It's all gelling together in my head now. :nod:
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 01, 2012, 06:13:59 PM
Fair enough. You know what I meant–they think something's wrong with their brakes and they release the pedal, which is exactly the wrong thing to do.
good grief! I've never known anyone who did that. ABS has been mandatory for over 20 years.
kp, my bad. I did use A quote from 1995hoo. Just the wrong one. That would have cut the confusion out. :confused:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 01, 2012, 06:43:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 01, 2012, 06:13:59 PM
Fair enough. You know what I meant–they think something's wrong with their brakes and they release the pedal, which is exactly the wrong thing to do.
good grief! I've never known anyone who did that. ABS has been mandatory for over 20 years.
Well, if they learned to drive without ABS, and have never had the ABS kick in since the change.....then, yeah, I could see that. I remember the first time I felt ABS kick in; I freaked out a little bit at first, but it only took about two seconds to figure out what I was hearing and feeling. That 1999 Stratus's ABS was so good that I used to TRY and get it to spin out in the snow, and it just wouldn't do it.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 01, 2012, 06:43:25 PMgood grief! I've never known anyone who did that. ABS has been mandatory for over 20 years.
Actually, no: ABS is still not mandatory for private passenger cars in the US and it has been so in the EU only since 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilock_brakes#Regulation
It has been difficult to find a new car in the US
without ABS since about 1992, but I don't think that development has been driven (except indirectly) by passenger car safety standards.
I've had it kick in several times. the fun part is when it fails to kick in (likely because all four wheels are skidding). I had to manually pump my brakes to stop in Fairbanks about a month ago. Went about 10 feet into the intersection. Luckily, it was red southbound (me) and green arrow turning from eastbound to northbound, so I had that 10 feet to give.
I hate antilock brakes. It assumes I'm too stupid to know how to use my brakes. Many a time I almost hit someone because I needed my full brakes, not brakes that stopped working halfway through.
QuoteIt has been difficult to find a new car in the US without ABS since about 1992, but I don't think that development has been driven (except indirectly) by passenger car safety standards.
Two of the three post-1992 cars I've driven regularly have been minus ABS (1997 Jeep Wrangler, 1997 Ford Escort)
QuoteI hate antilock brakes. It assumes I'm too stupid to know how to use my brakes. Many a time I almost hit someone because I needed my full brakes, not brakes that stopped working halfway through.
This. Worse is traction control, where if you already know how to correctively maneuver and do it, the car will also do it and overcorrect. I remember nearly driving a rental Malibu into the ditch a couple years ago- I was driving up an uphill icy ramp onto a dry freeway in Colorado Springs, so needed to get up to speed even though it was icy. The plan was to gas, gas, gas to get up to speed and let my foot off for a second and correct whenever I started to lose traction- gravity would take care of the rest since I was going up hill. I've done similar maneuvers dozens if not hundreds of times.
Of course the dashboard starts flashing a "WARNING YOU HAVE NO TRACTION" light, which is distracting when you assume the dashboard was flashing an actual problem (if you don't realize you don't have traction, you really shouldn't be driving), and then the thing starts corrective braking the opposite direction from how I was trying to corrective steer, making life a real pain in the butt. I ended up merging onto the freeway just fine...at 35. I could have easily been doing 60-65 if the car would have let me just drive. I turned off traction control for the remainder of the wintery trip and the Malibu did just fine.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on May 01, 2012, 11:21:06 AMRoundabouts offer increased capacity and safety compared to traffic signals.
Respectfully, I have found that the only people who seem to have a problem with roundabouts are those who either can't figure out how to drive through them, or those who fear any kind of change.
I know how to use roundabouts just fine and dandy, living in New England with its traffic circles for 15 years. Roundabouts are the same concept, just smaller.
Four roundabouts in a row are better than four stoplights in a row
at peak traffic time. At all other times, all the signalling and weaving back and forth is extremely irritating. And you have to signal properly even at 3AM, because as soon as you don't, right there just out of your obvious view will be sitting the cop who had a bad shift and wants to take it out on someone...bam!...your failure to signal is his probable cause for a traffic stop.
It seems to me that most of the roundabouts could have been avoided and the intersection count on Breezewood could have been cut in half with the use of slip ramps and one new ramp, but what do I know? I'm just a lowly
road user... I smell traffic calming in this.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 01, 2012, 07:06:03 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 01, 2012, 06:43:25 PMgood grief! I've never known anyone who did that. ABS has been mandatory for over 20 years.
Actually, no: ABS is still not mandatory for private passenger cars in the US and it has been so in the EU only since 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilock_brakes#Regulation
It has been difficult to find a new car in the US without ABS since about 1992, but I don't think that development has been driven (except indirectly) by passenger car safety standards.
My 2009 Scion doesn't have them, which is fine by me. Most new vehicles over $20k have ABS, but lots of econoboxes and base-model trucks don't. Traction / Stability Control is almost good as mandatory, although also not ubiquitous. However, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems have been required since the 2009 model year.
Roundabouts and traffic circles are more fun, to me.
I don't mind them too much, as long as their use isn't excessive. They're fun to drift around at 3AM as long as the cops aren't looking.
Back to the notion of Carmel, Indiana being the Roundabout capital, consider this new rendering for the 136th Street interchange at US 31 being built.
http://us31hamiltoncounty.in.gov/assets/images/maps/b_136th-roundabout.jpg (http://us31hamiltoncounty.in.gov/assets/images/maps/b_136th-roundabout.jpg)
If you are coming in from the east along 136th Street (Smokey Row Road) and want to continue on 136th Street west of US 31, you will have to pass FIVE roundabouts to get there. If you're coming in from St. Vincent Hospital (lower left of the picture) to head west on 136th Street west of US 31, you will have to pass six. I personally have nothing against roundabouts and I like them better than four way stops and stoplights, as long as they are on good roads and not expressways, but this may be a little overkill even for Carmel's standards. Just something to consider.
The two roundabouts under US31 there would function like one roundabout, just elongated and squished in the middle. See this (http://g.co/maps/9nfrk) as an example of what such a 'dogbone' roundabout looks like.
Part of the problem in the US is the, number of entries, exits and lanes, and the diameter of, modern roundabouts. In the UK, we have no beef with 5 roads on a roundabout. That straight line of 4 roundabouts, would be two roundabouts (or perhaps one dogbone) in the UK, because we'd have bigger roundabouts, with 5 exits and 5 entrances. Also, that junction has a lot of little slip roads to turn right avoiding the motorway.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on May 02, 2012, 03:22:29 PM
And you have to signal properly even at 3AM, because as soon as you don't, right there just out of your obvious view will be sitting the cop who had a bad shift and wants to take it out on someone...bam!...your failure to signal is his probable cause for a traffic stop.
This being Wisconsin, any trouble a driver has negotiating a roundabout at 3 AM is a pretty good indication that they are coming from a bar.
Actually, that's a pretty good reason to have more roundabouts in Wisconsin. After all, I'm pretty sure we still lead the nation in per capita OWI. It's a lot harder to get T-boned by a drunk in a roundabout.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 01, 2012, 07:06:03 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 01, 2012, 06:43:25 PMgood grief! I've never known anyone who did that. ABS has been mandatory for over 20 years.
Actually, no: ABS is still not mandatory for private passenger cars in the US and it has been so in the EU only since 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilock_brakes#Regulation
It has been difficult to find a new car in the US without ABS since about 1992, but I don't think that development has been driven (except indirectly) by passenger car safety standards.
You are correct. However, Electronic Stability Control (based on anti-lock brakes) was mandated on all 2012 model year vehicles in the United States. This means all 2012 and newer vehicles come with anti-lock brakes by default.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control#Regulation
Quote from: texaskdog on May 02, 2012, 10:29:56 AM
I hate antilock brakes. It assumes I'm too stupid to know how to use my brakes. Many a time I almost hit someone because I needed my full brakes, not brakes that stopped working halfway through.
Austin, TX, huh? The closest thing you have to a slick road there is after a rain storm. ABS is invaluable in the frozen north, where ice and snow are commonplace.
I've never encountered the issue you describe on dry pavement. Then again, you generally have to be in a full-on panic stop to ever set off the ABS in those conditions. If you're setting off the ABS, you're not getting more braking anyway.
Quote from: JREwing78 on May 03, 2012, 05:40:27 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 02, 2012, 10:29:56 AM
I hate antilock brakes. It assumes I'm too stupid to know how to use my brakes. Many a time I almost hit someone because I needed my full brakes, not brakes that stopped working halfway through.
Austin, TX, huh? The closest thing you have to a slick road there is after a rain storm. ABS is invaluable in the frozen north, where ice and snow are commonplace.
I've never encountered the issue you describe on dry pavement. Then again, you generally have to be in a full-on panic stop to ever set off the ABS in those conditions. If you're setting off the ABS, you're not getting more braking anyway.
When some idiot cut in front of me and I had to brake to not hit him. Would have been far easier without them.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 01, 2012, 07:06:03 PMIt has been difficult to find a new car in the US without ABS since about 1992...
In 08 I purchased a used 06 Chevy Impala that turned out to not have ABS. I learned that the first time I locked up the brakes on an icy road. I didn't even know any US cars were being manufactured without it. I looked up the specs online and sure enough, one of the variations of the Impala that year (with a particular engine and sport package) intentionally had no ABS. I couldn't find the rationale for the exclusion, though.
It was a little tough retraining myself. I had learned to drive without ABS of course, but got used to not pumping the brakes of late.
Lesson learned: assume nothing.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 02, 2012, 10:29:56 AM
Many a time I almost hit someone because I needed my full brakes, not brakes that stopped working halfway through.
Sounds like you didn't need your full brakes, since you were able to stop in time.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 02, 2012, 08:03:26 PM
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on May 02, 2012, 03:22:29 PM
And you have to signal properly even at 3AM, because as soon as you don't, right there just out of your obvious view will be sitting the cop who had a bad shift and wants to take it out on someone...bam!...your failure to signal is his probable cause for a traffic stop.
This being Wisconsin, any trouble a driver has negotiating a roundabout at 3 AM is a pretty good indication that they are coming from a bar.
Actually, that's a pretty good reason to have more roundabouts in Wisconsin. After all, I'm pretty sure we still lead the nation in per capita OWI. It's a lot harder to get T-boned by a drunk in a roundabout.
There was a case here in Wisconsin about two or three years ago where a drunk hit a roundabout (IIRC, in Kiel, WI) at night at about 95 MPH/150 km/h. He almost cleared the ditch on the opposite side.
Mike
Quote from: qguy on May 03, 2012, 10:06:24 AM
I looked up the specs online and sure enough, one of the variations of the Impala that year (with a particular engine and sport package) intentionally had no ABS. I couldn't find the rationale for the exclusion, though.
Likely a former rental car; GM has been known to do up cheaper specials for fleets that are missing equipment which any consumer-bound model would have standard.
Quote from: NE2 on May 03, 2012, 10:08:31 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 02, 2012, 10:29:56 AM
Many a time I almost hit someone because I needed my full brakes, not brakes that stopped working halfway through.
Sounds like you didn't need your full brakes, since you were able to stop in time.
I am a pretty good driver, no thanks to my brakes
Quote from: mgk920 on May 03, 2012, 12:18:26 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 02, 2012, 08:03:26 PM
This being Wisconsin, any trouble a driver has negotiating a roundabout at 3 AM is a pretty good indication that they are coming from a bar.
Actually, that's a pretty good reason to have more roundabouts in Wisconsin. After all, I'm pretty sure we still lead the nation in per capita OWI. It's a lot harder to get T-boned by a drunk in a roundabout.
There was a case here in Wisconsin about two or three years ago where a drunk hit a roundabout (IIRC, in Kiel, WI) at night at about 95 MPH/150 km/h. He almost cleared the ditch on the opposite side.
Mike
There was another two years ago at a new roundabout associated with the US 12 reconstruction in the Dells/Lake Delton area. A motorcyclist tried to pull an Evil Knievel (not necessarily on purpose) and launched himself over the central island and smack into a YIELD sign.
http://scanner.channel3000.com/4232/ (http://scanner.channel3000.com/4232/)
Quote from: JREwing78 on May 03, 2012, 08:49:49 PM
Quote from: qguy on May 03, 2012, 10:06:24 AM
I looked up the specs online and sure enough, one of the variations of the Impala that year (with a particular engine and sport package) intentionally had no ABS. I couldn't find the rationale for the exclusion, though.
Likely a former rental car; GM has been known to do up cheaper specials for fleets that are missing equipment which any consumer-bound model would have standard.
Anything's possible, I suppose, but according to the documentation I obtained independently, the car was privately owned by only one prior owner, a middle-aged single guy (in the neighborhood, as it turns out) who routinely purchases new cars, owns them for two years, and trades them in for a new another new car. (Expensive as all get-out, but whatever floats your boat if you can afford it...)
I just looked it up; I had the LS base model. All the Impalas that year had ABS except the LS base model. (Who knew?) Of course, as you say, GM may have manufactured the LS base model mostly for the rental market. I'll go with you on that.
Anyway, I guess we've pretty much exhausted what anyone may have *possibly* wanted to know about some car I once owned and the brakes it did or didn't have.
Even with "properly timed" signals, the roundabouts will flow far quicker and easier for all directions of travel...
*ALSO A LOCAL*
once people get used to the roundabouts, they are great...there is certainly a learning curve (pun intended) with them, but they cut travel time significantly, improve safety, and move traffic more efficiently in almost all ways.(there are some problems with people turning right , and having to switch lanes to make a quick left turn after the roundabout, like entering pick 'n save in oshkosh turning right from jackson to murdock)other than that, roundabouts, including the consecutive ones have really had a positive impact onh the city, and i hope that the city decides to replace many more signalized intersections with them as part of general road reconstruction.
Quote from: Jordanah1 on May 07, 2012, 06:03:19 PM
*ALSO A LOCAL*
once people get used to the roundabouts, they are great...there is certainly a learning curve (pun intended) with them, but they cut travel time significantly, improve safety, and move traffic more efficiently in almost all ways.(there are some problems with people turning right , and having to switch lanes to make a quick left turn after the roundabout, like entering pick 'n save in oshkosh turning right from jackson to murdock)other than that, roundabouts, including the consecutive ones have really had a positive impact onh the city, and i hope that the city decides to replace many more signalized intersections with them as part of general road reconstruction.
Replacing signals for roundabouts really only makes sense if it is a major intersection. For instance, I would not put one at Oshkosh Ave and Westfield St (nearest signal to my grandmother's) but putting one at Sawyer and Witzel would make sense. BTW, my grandmother, who is originally from Vienna Austria and lived in England and France, absolutely despises the roundabouts in Oshkosh.
Roundabouts don't belong on major routes. (US 9 at NY 43 jumps immediately to mind, but also the NY 85 Slingerlands bypass.) Once you're about 45 mph I would rather see a signalized intersection - you start to run into problems caused by failing to slow in time, unexpected nature of encountering a roundabout in an otherwise open road.
Quote from: Steve on May 07, 2012, 08:39:20 PM
Roundabouts don't belong on major routes. (US 9 at NY 43 jumps immediately to mind, but also the NY 85 Slingerlands bypass.) Once you're about 45 mph I would rather see a signalized intersection - you start to run into problems caused by failing to slow in time, unexpected nature of encountering a roundabout in an otherwise open road.
That's what makes me say Hmm about the new IN 25 tying into the old road at a roundabout just short of the I-65 interchange. I could swear that's what I read they were doing....is that right? Why would a 60 mph four-lane divided highway end at a roundabout when just past that is a pair of signals at a diamond interchange with an Interstate, which I recall was staying as is?
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 07, 2012, 08:52:23 PM
That's what makes me say Hmm about the new IN 25 tying into the old road at a roundabout just short of the I-65 interchange. I could swear that's what I read they were doing....is that right? Why would a 60 mph four-lane divided highway end at a roundabout when just past that is a pair of signals at a diamond interchange with an Interstate, which I recall was staying as is?
That's still the plan. I've been scratching my head at that move too. I suppose with traffic heading toward Lafayette through the roundabout, they just want to make sure that they are going slow approaching the diamond interchange. They just want to slow the traffic down with
style I suppose.
Construction has finally started on the SR 25/SR 225 (?) roundabout. Hopefully by this fall we'll see how it works.
Construction is now under way on the two additional planned parking lot entrance roundabouts on Green Bay Rd, located on either side of the fairly new one on Green Bay Rd at Winneconne Ave (WI 114), just east of US 41.
Mike
Quote from: Steve on May 07, 2012, 08:39:20 PM
Roundabouts don't belong on major routes. (US 9 at NY 43 jumps immediately to mind, but also the NY 85 Slingerlands bypass.) Once you're about 45 mph I would rather see a signalized intersection - you start to run into problems caused by failing to slow in time, unexpected nature of encountering a roundabout in an otherwise open road.
I'd much rather know ahead of time that I need to slow down to 20 mph every time I make a drive, even in a rural area, than either of these situations:
(a) Find myself looking at a green light for a mile while doing 60 mph, then have to slam on my brakes because one car on the crossroad made my light turn red right at the last minute (a few examples in rural Minnesota come to mind);
(b) Have a turning car from a side road dart out in front of me such that I nearly rear-end him (Fredonia, KS, is a perfect example of this one, and the junction now has a roundabout).
Quote from: mukade on May 07, 2012, 09:36:05 PM
Construction has finally started on the SR 25/SR 225 (?) roundabout. Hopefully by this fall we'll see how it works.
Interesting--I hadn't noticed that before. Old 25 from the new roundabout to existing 225 is going to become part of 225?
Quote from: kphoger on May 07, 2012, 10:16:52 PM
(a) Find myself looking at a green light for a mile while doing 60 mph, then have to slam on my brakes because one car on the crossroad made my light turn red right at the last minute (a few examples in rural Minnesota come to mind);
Indiana has plenty of those--the "end" of I-469 at the GM plant (where an END 469 assembly is posted, despite it officially ending at the centerline of I-69) where traffic coming from 469 sees a green light, is rolling along coming down from 70 mph on 469 to theoretically the 50 mph limit on Lafayette Center Road, and if one vehicle pulls up to their red light from the plant or the road across from it, boom! Light changes instantly. All it does is make you step on it on 469 to make sure you don't get hit by that. Yikes, INDOT better not see this and get an idea for a roundabout at the end of 469!
Quote from: kphoger on May 07, 2012, 10:16:52 PM
(a) Find myself looking at a green light for a mile while doing 60 mph, then have to slam on my brakes because one car on the crossroad made my light turn red right at the last minute (a few examples in rural Minnesota come to mind);
That's why you have 1 second of yellow per 10 mph of side road speed, and why you use 85th percentile instead of speed limit for that calculation. There's no slamming of brakes - either you slow down acceptably or have enough time to run through on yellow.
Quote
(b) Have a turning car from a side road dart out in front of me such that I nearly rear-end him (Fredonia, KS, is a perfect example of this one, and the junction now has a roundabout).
That would happen at every single intersection regardless of signalization. Do you want every intersection to be a roundabout?
Quote from: Steve on May 07, 2012, 10:51:39 PM
That would happen at every single intersection regardless of signalization. Do you want every intersection to be a roundabout?
No, at most intersections, traffic is light enough that it's not a major issue. US-400 outside of Fredonia is an example where side traffic was constant enough that collisions were becoming a problem. KsDOT chose to go with a roundabout rather than a stoplight, even in this rural setting. I find it less annoying to slow down to 15 or 20 mph every time than to wonder who's going to cut out in front of me (as I used to every time I'd drive through there) or whether the light's going to be green or red (as I would every time if they had gone with a light).
Well I don't care about US 400 (or 412, 425, 437) so fine.
Quote from: Steve on May 07, 2012, 10:51:39 PM
That's why you have 1 second of yellow per 10 mph of side road speed, and why you use 85th percentile instead of speed limit for that calculation. There's no slamming of brakes - either you slow down acceptably or have enough time to run through on yellow.
except you don't
know if a yellow light is a correctly engineered 7-seconds-at-70mph or a badly fucked up (hello Texas state route 71!) 3-seconds-at-80-mph.
because the MUTCD refuses to permit countdown timers, but apparently allows TXDOT to do as they wish.
Quote from: Steve on May 07, 2012, 11:44:12 PM
Well I don't care about US 400 (or 412, 425, 437) so fine.
what is the proposed routing of US 437 anyway?
Quote from: Steve on May 07, 2012, 11:44:12 PM
Well I don't care about US 400 (or 412, 425, 437) so fine.
Yes, thank you for that. So, what I hear you saying is:
A roundabout may be a great feature on a 4xx US Highway that I don't drive on, but it will perform poorly on any other highway, especially one I drive on.
...because, apparently, a green light changing to red is less unexpected than a permanent, lit, landscaped, roundabout with warning signs.
(If said roundabout is not lit, landscaped, and posted with warning signs, then we have other problems to address.)
Kentucky has successfully implemented "Prepare to Stop when Flashing" assemblies with yellow beacons in a lot of places in advance of traffic signals on rural routes. The beacons flash when the signal is in a yellow or red phase. Ofttimes they activate while the light is still green, but a vehicle on the intersecting road has triggered the change. Very handy and they certainly tell you when you need to start slowing down, eliminating the need for slamming on the brakes.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 08, 2012, 09:10:06 AM
Kentucky has successfully implemented "Prepare to Stop when Flashing" assemblies with yellow beacons in a lot of places in advance of traffic signals on rural routes. The beacons flash when the signal is in a yellow or red phase. Ofttimes they activate while the light is still green, but a vehicle on the intersecting road has triggered the change. Very handy and they certainly tell you when you need to start slowing down, eliminating the need for slamming on the brakes.
I love those. Around here (and there aren't many anyway) they prefer the ones that just flash all the time. Fat lot of good that does me. A flashing yellow light on the side of the road isn't going to catch my eye any more than an actual stoplight above my lane.....
But that's all about rural situations. Let's get the thread back to urban roundabouts in series.
Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2012, 09:05:47 AM
Quote from: Steve on May 07, 2012, 11:44:12 PM
Well I don't care about US 400 (or 412, 425, 437) so fine.
Yes, thank you for that. So, what I hear you saying is:
A roundabout may be a great feature on a 4xx US Highway that I don't drive on, but it will perform poorly on any other highway, especially one I drive on.
I think Steve was making a tongue-in-cheek crack at US 400's nonstandard designation, which 412 and 425 share.
Quote from: Steve on May 07, 2012, 08:39:20 PM
Roundabouts don't belong on major routes. (US 9 at NY 43 jumps immediately to mind, but also the NY 85 Slingerlands bypass.) Once you're about 45 mph I would rather see a signalized intersection - you start to run into problems caused by failing to slow in time, unexpected nature of encountering a roundabout in an otherwise open road.
I don't see the problem. I've encountered roundabouts in the UK on dual-carriageways with 70-mph speed limits and there was never any problem. Here's one I encountered in Scotland on the way to St Andrews. (http://g.co/maps/j95ag) Here's the approach to another going the other way (I used a different road going back to Edinburgh). (http://g.co/maps/2h2gr) They have these big signs in advance that warn you of the roundabout and tell you which exit to use for which destination. Seems simple enough to me. True, in the USA you'd have the situation of people not necessarily being used to encountering a roundabout on a rural road of that sort, but that's what the signage is for. If the "people aren't used to it" argument were so convincing, we wouldn't have diverging diamonds or SPUIs or HOV lanes or electronic toll lanes or any number of other things that have come to be considered routine.
I think in my mind the real question on a roundabout versus a traffic light is two-fold: (a) Are the traffic volumes balanced enough to allow people on both roads reasonable access to the roundabout without long tailbacks? (If "No," then a roundabout is inappropriate.) (b) Is there a particular feature of that intersection that would create a compelling reason to require drivers to stop every time? (If "Yes," then a roundabout is inappropriate. An example might be if there were obstructed visibility to one side even if you did some reconfiguring.) What frustrates me about stop signs and red lights and the like is that so often you have to sit there waiting even though you can see that the other road is clear and that it would have been perfectly safe to go. I don't see why the authorities in this country are so fascinated with the idea that "you might have to stop sometime, so we'll make you stop every time."
70mph roads don't need roundabouts or traffic signals - they need grade separations!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2012, 10:56:13 AM
70mph roads don't need roundabouts or traffic signals - they need grade separations!
I'd think that would be a question of traffic volume and whether it's high enough to justify the added expense of a grade separation.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2012, 10:56:13 AM
70mph roads don't need roundabouts or traffic signals - they need grade separations!
Now, I know you wouldn't want those rural Texas FM routes to lower their speed limits, so are you really advocating grade separation at those intersections? :cool:
Wait! We never got back on track!
Urban roundabouts in series. Urban stoplights timed in series. Does anyone have any arguments against the situation that started this whole thread that don't sound something like, 'I don't like roundabouts, therefore it's a bad design' or 'I don't like having to steer very much, therefore it's a bad design' or 'Drunk drivers might hit the center island, therefore it's a bad design'? Because, you know, I don't like sitting in a line of traffic at a red light, and I don't like accelerating only to have to stop again, and drunk drivers might hit cross traffic, so I might as well call a series of stoplights a bad design based on that.
Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2012, 11:14:47 AM
Now, I know you wouldn't want those rural Texas FM routes to lower their speed limits, so are you really advocating grade separation at those intersections? :cool:
leave it to Texas to get that done.
a roundabout, or even just a pair of yield signs for one direction or the other, sure beats a traffic light. especially, as I mentioned, the way Texas does their traffic lights: 3 second yellow regardless of approach speed.
The choice between roundabouts and traffic signals can be settled by cost-benefit analysis (whether it is in fact so settled in any given case is another matter entirely). Cost-benefit analysis is comparison of time streams of consumption gained with time streams of consumption foregone, ignoring transfer payments within society (such as fines and taxes).
For isolated rural intersections of state highways which do not otherwise carry enough traffic to warrant widening and are not close enough to a populated area to justify conversion to an urban section, there is no opportunity to offset the delays associated with signalization by imposing progression on a set of signals in sequence. In rural locations traffic volumes tend to be steady through the day, with little periodicity of the kind that would allow signals to be operated part-time only. So in this case the choice of a roundabout versus a signal involves a tradeoff in delay, the details of which vary according to the traffic volumes on the intersecting roads since it is rarely the case that a two-lane rural state highway carries enough traffic for the propensity of a roundabout to "lock up" to be a relevant consideration (normally around 20,000 VPD, IIRC). Roundabouts tend to impose delay in small lumps on the entire population of vehicles progressing through the intersection while traffic signals impose delay in large lumps on a smaller share of this population.
Experience in Kansas has generally been that a roundabout at a high-speed rural intersection is a safety improvement, defined in economic terms as an improvement whose capital cost is justified principally (if not almost entirely) by the expected reduction in accidents, in contradistinction to other forms of highway investment where the justification comes principally from reductions in delay.
One of the earliest examples of rural roundabout projects of this type in Kansas was the intersection of US 50 and US 77 near Florence, done about ten years ago. US 77 was formerly subject to stop control at US 50, and neither road carried enough traffic to warrant signals; queues at the US 77 stop signs were short if they existed at all. However, this intersection had a bad reputation for side-impact collisions (many fatal) which prompted KDOT to install flashing red lights and "US-50 DOES NOT STOP" supplementary plates under the US 77 stop signs.
In this case doing nothing would have had the lowest cost (essentially zero), but also the highest cost in terms of accidents and their collateral consequences. A traffic signal would have had approximately the same capital cost as a roundabout (say about $500,000), but significantly higher recurrent expenses (say about $10,000 for electricity), and would not have removed the mechanism underlying the fatal side-impact collisions (i.e., failure to obey traffic control devices at a right-angle crossroads). The outcome in terms of delay might very well have been worse than with a roundabout even after full optimization and sophisticated actuation (such as additional loops designed specifically to register large trucks and allow them to be given added priority).
The roundabout imposes about 20 seconds of delay for traffic using US 50 that was not there before with the stop-sign installation, but for about 5000 VPD the added delay cost per year is about $100,000 (assuming $10/hour cost of time lost in delays). This is quite a lot less than the $3 million estimated economic value of each life lost (calculated using hedonic pricing methods), of the same order of magnitude as the $500,000 capital cost of the roundabout conversion, and much cheaper than $1 million to $2 million for an isolated grade separation and about $10 million to $15 million per mile for the Cadillac solution of full freeway conversion.