AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'  (Read 255463 times)

UCFKnights

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 446
  • Location: Orlando, FL
  • Last Login: Today at 10:20:00 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #725 on: August 31, 2016, 11:17:08 PM »

I was visiting someone and they drove through one of these high accident 2x2 roundabout while I was with them numerous times. The first time was actually with another person visiting driving and they were directing them back to their house and the locals weren't giving good instruction. I piped up saying "hey, you should probably get in the left lane we're making a left in the roundabout" and the local resident told the driver "no, stay on the right, we're making a right"... and then they proceeded to direct them to make a left... from the right lane. After we went through I again commented we made a left from the wrong lane and they started telling me "no, we exited the roundabout to the right, we just made the 3rd right". I tried to explain how it works but I could not explain to them which lane they should be using. We went through multiple more times with them driving incorrectly, and when I drove with them in the car, they scolded me for using the left lane to make a left in the roundabout "you can't exit the roundabout from the inside lane, if you're on that side you have to get to the right lane before you exit". I thought the signage was reasonable. It had the normal road markings and a pictogram signage, and lane usage signs posted as well, but people clearly just could not understand that you need to make a left from the left lane.

For a lot of drivers, it just is very apparent that it is not intuitive to them, even with signs and current markings, that you can exit a roundabout from the inside lane.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5124
  • Last Login: Today at 09:37:53 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #726 on: August 31, 2016, 11:34:40 PM »

I was visiting someone and they drove through one of these high accident 2x2 roundabout while I was with them numerous times. The first time was actually with another person visiting driving and they were directing them back to their house and the locals weren't giving good instruction. I piped up saying "hey, you should probably get in the left lane we're making a left in the roundabout" and the local resident told the driver "no, stay on the right, we're making a right"... and then they proceeded to direct them to make a left... from the right lane. After we went through I again commented we made a left from the wrong lane and they started telling me "no, we exited the roundabout to the right, we just made the 3rd right". I tried to explain how it works but I could not explain to them which lane they should be using. We went through multiple more times with them driving incorrectly, and when I drove with them in the car, they scolded me for using the left lane to make a left in the roundabout "you can't exit the roundabout from the inside lane, if you're on that side you have to get to the right lane before you exit". I thought the signage was reasonable. It had the normal road markings and a pictogram signage, and lane usage signs posted as well, but people clearly just could not understand that you need to make a left from the left lane.

For a lot of drivers, it just is very apparent that it is not intuitive to them, even with signs and current markings, that you can exit a roundabout from the inside lane.

That would have driven me crazy.  Sort of like Tim in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Look at the bones signs!"
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3535
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 11:05:32 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #727 on: September 01, 2016, 05:29:06 AM »

(“the circular road misconception”)
I feel that my point that roundabouts should be circular roads, so that those leaving the roundabout signal such has been overlooked thanks to my shiny picture distracting people.

Two lane roundabouts would work better if we address "the circular road misconception misconception"! We don't need to diet them - just engineer them properly and educate drivers on their usage.
Logged

kalvado

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2936
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 10:57:13 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #728 on: September 01, 2016, 08:48:01 AM »

I was visiting someone and they drove through one of these high accident 2x2 roundabout while I was with them numerous times. The first time was actually with another person visiting driving and they were directing them back to their house and the locals weren't giving good instruction. I piped up saying "hey, you should probably get in the left lane we're making a left in the roundabout" and the local resident told the driver "no, stay on the right, we're making a right"... and then they proceeded to direct them to make a left... from the right lane. After we went through I again commented we made a left from the wrong lane and they started telling me "no, we exited the roundabout to the right, we just made the 3rd right". I tried to explain how it works but I could not explain to them which lane they should be using. We went through multiple more times with them driving incorrectly, and when I drove with them in the car, they scolded me for using the left lane to make a left in the roundabout "you can't exit the roundabout from the inside lane, if you're on that side you have to get to the right lane before you exit". I thought the signage was reasonable. It had the normal road markings and a pictogram signage, and lane usage signs posted as well, but people clearly just could not understand that you need to make a left from the left lane.

For a lot of drivers, it just is very apparent that it is not intuitive to them, even with signs and current markings, that you can exit a roundabout from the inside lane.
I would ask a simple question: who should be using the left lane then? it is there, it is built for a reason (although I wouldn't bet my life on a "reason" part)
Logged

UCFKnights

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 446
  • Location: Orlando, FL
  • Last Login: Today at 10:20:00 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #729 on: September 01, 2016, 11:45:18 AM »

Oh I did ask exactly that. There answer to that was its fine to use both lanes when everyone is going straight through the intersection. I then tried to explain what if the car on the right was gonna continue in the circle like you always do and the car on the left decided to go straight, wouldn't there be a collision? And they then proceeded to complain that roundabouts don't make any sense... I didn't manage to convince them to do it right, just that what they're doing is dangerous, but perhaps there is nothing they could do about it.

If you sit at these multilane roundabouts, regardless of the signage, it is clear people just flat out do not understand the lane usage in them more then any others. I was interested to watch it for a little while and the number of vehicles making a left from the right lane is very high. I'd venture to guess that the cause of a lot of the accidents even classified as other things like failure to yield really is improper lane usage. I forgot to mention the other out of town friend who was driving was an out of town cop, who does accident reports and whatnot and he was very unsure what lane he should have been in.

The lack of education on it is just the lack of people understanding and willing to follow the lane markings because they think they're exiting to their right and its unnatural to turn right over another lane that continues on (although they're obviously required to exit as well)

I think to some extent, we see this phenomenon on other roadways too. On highways exits with both an option use lane and a dedicated exit lane, probably 80% of the vehicles exiting are in the right lane, even when there is traffic. Many times when I'm driving with others in the car who are trying to give me directions, they'll say get off next exit, and if I don't get all the way over to dedicated exit lane, they'll start insisting I'm going to miss the exit if I'm using the option lane, I need to be in the exit only lane. Obviously in this case there is no danger to what they're doing and the lane still helps for those who do use it.

I know Orlando put large arrows right at the gore points indicating what each lane must do on the highways  I'd like to see that tried on some of these high accident roundabouts to help both those in the roundabout really visualize what they can do in their lane as well as making vehicles entering the intersection cross over the arrow so they understand what they are yielding too. The standard size arrows prior to the gore point just flat out do not get the message across to a significant number of people.
Logged

tradephoric

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1958
  • Last Login: Today at 09:46:32 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #730 on: September 01, 2016, 01:49:18 PM »

I feel that my point that roundabouts should be circular roads, so that those leaving the roundabout signal such has been overlooked thanks to my shiny picture distracting people.

Two lane roundabouts would work better if we address "the circular road misconception misconception"! We don't need to diet them - just engineer them properly and educate drivers on their usage.

Consider these two extreme examples.  The Arc De Triomphe is a large circulating road with T-intersections branching out in all directions.  Drivers instinctively know that once they enter the Arc De Triomphe that it becomes the main circulating roadway (and they must merge to the outer edge of the circle when wanting to make an exit).  The opposite extreme is a little planter island in the middle of an intersection.  To drivers this is a standard intersection with a traffic calming device in the middle.  No driver would view the “planter island” as the main circulating road.

I guess my point is for a circle to function as a circulating road doesn’t the circle have to be sufficiently large?  A prominent traffic circle in the heart of Paris or Manhattan isn’t really problematic (since traffic is traveling at parking lot speeds to begin with).  However, plopping a large circle in the middle of suburbia isn’t going to solve any problems.  America already has experience with these large traffic circles and by and large they have been a failure.  That’s why most of them have being converted to modern roundabouts, signalized intersections, or full blow interchanges. 

In regards to using a signal indication when exiting a roundabout... that was actually being discouraged by the roundabout expert in the Minnesota webinar:
Quote
“We also would never tell a driver to use a right turn signal to exit a roundabout.  Again, that’s a through movement and we don’t wan to create the impression that it’s a right turn.”
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10421
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:56 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #731 on: September 01, 2016, 02:13:37 PM »

Speaking of roundabouts not actually being a circle here in North America (but rather a series of one-way roads crossing at key points), we ought to look into misleading GPSs: "take the second exit at the roundabout" -- you mean go straight? Even if "straight" is in fact the second exit, might it be wiser to say "continue straight at the roundabout" (especially if, on approach, you see two straight arrows on the pavement)?

I use my signal at a roundabout, but only to indicate a left or right movement (i.e. third exit or first exit). I always indicate before entering the roundabout, disabling the left turn indication after passing the "top" of the roundabout (if the entry is the bottom).
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3535
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 11:05:32 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #732 on: September 01, 2016, 02:22:56 PM »

No driver would view the “planter island” as the main circulating road.
They would if it was signed as a roundabout, and the drivers were told to treat roundabouts in that way (though judging by the 'expert' who understands how turbo-roundabouts work, and thinks that's how all roundabouts work, they are being told the opposite).
Quote
I guess my point is for a circle to function as a circulating road doesn’t the circle have to be sufficiently large?
Just as they do at, say, Here?. OK, some people don't indicate leaving the roundabout every time, but it works fine. I doubt there's a 2-lane roundabout in America that has a smaller central island, but certainly roundabouts in England that have smaller islands also work like this.
Quote
In regards to using a signal indication when exiting a roundabout... that was actually being discouraged by the roundabout expert in the Minnesota webinar:
Quote
“We also would never tell a driver to use a right turn signal to exit a roundabout.  Again, that’s a through movement and we don’t wan to create the impression that it’s a right turn.”
Fecking eejit!

 :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Logged

kalvado

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2936
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 10:57:13 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #733 on: September 01, 2016, 03:12:26 PM »

Speaking of roundabouts not actually being a circle here in North America (but rather a series of one-way roads crossing at key points), we ought to look into misleading GPSs: "take the second exit at the roundabout" -- you mean go straight? Even if "straight" is in fact the second exit, might it be wiser to say "continue straight at the roundabout" (especially if, on approach, you see two straight arrows on the pavement)?
The way I give directions is "make 270 on first roundabout, then 180 on the second one, and 90 on the last one".
Yes, those are actual directions....
Logged

tradephoric

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1958
  • Last Login: Today at 09:46:32 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #734 on: September 01, 2016, 08:02:48 PM »

A double-lane roundabout in Cheyenne that had 88 crashes in 2015 got some new pavement markings and signage.  They are going from the fish-hook style to the standard arrows.  It’s very likely this change is directly due to the Richfield study.  The problem with the Richfield study is that they made multiple changes to the 66th & Portland roundabout and it’s very hard to know for sure what measures actually worked.  Minnesota is currently reviewing 4 additional 2x2 roundabouts and making changes more incrementally to get a better feel to what changes really provide the greatest reduction in crashes. 

http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/pershing-boulevard-roundabout-gets-new-striping-arrows/article_f7a32b38-5df7-11e6-b1f4-9b36ab4ec578.html

The new pavement markings in Cheyenne may temporary reduce the number of crashes moving forward.  But consider this.  Simply re-striping existing faded markings inside a roundabout can reduce the number of crashes because they stick out better to drivers.  But they will eventually fade and the crashes will go back up.  Researchers may contribute a temporary reduction in crashes and contribute it to whatever “tweak” they are analyzing (when in fact crashes went down simply because the pavement markings were clearer).  Do these studies consider that the before conditions may be when the roundabout had faded markings and the after was when the pavement markings were new and fresh?  Take a look at the quality of the markings at the Richfield roundabout:

2010



2015



Agencies spend all this time researching these little roundabout “tweaks”.  Does it really matter though when the pavement markings they decided were so much safer fade to nothing?   If Richfield was so concerned about the crashes at their multi-lane roundabouts they may want to lay down some fresh paint every once and a while.
Logged

tradephoric

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1958
  • Last Login: Today at 09:46:32 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #735 on: September 03, 2016, 10:35:30 AM »


Quote
The modern roundabout design is more efficient than the existing signalized intersection, increasing traffic capacity in the I-35 at 51st Street intersection by 30 to 50 percent, resulting in reduced travel time for motorists. In fact, it is anticipated that once the project is complete, drivers will travel through the 51st Street intersection on average almost four minutes faster than they do today. In addition, the new roundabout design is much safer and expected to reduce the overall crashes by about 35 percent, injury crashes by about 75 percent, and fatal crashes about 90 percent when compared to a traditional signalized intersection.

Instead of a 35% reduction in total crashes there will probably be a 335% increase.  Don't worry though.  After there is a big spike in crashes TxDOT will increase the width of the roundabout striping by 0.5 inches and it will magically solve the crash problem!

Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10421
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:56 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #736 on: September 03, 2016, 12:45:44 PM »

Instead of a 35% reduction in total crashes there will probably be a 335% increase.  Don't worry though.  After there is a big spike in crashes TxDOT will increase the width of the roundabout striping by 0.5 inches and it will magically solve the crash problem!

You do understand that the overwhelming amount of data available at this time still supports the construction of large, multi-lane roundabouts, yes? While some northern agencies (and you personally) have begun preliminary investigations as to the safety of multi-lane roundabouts, the FHWA's official stance on roundabouts is that they are still much safer than traditional signalized intersections. You can bitch all you want about the continued construction of these roundabouts, but there's no official wording that condemns them.
Logged

tradephoric

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1958
  • Last Login: Today at 09:46:32 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #737 on: September 03, 2016, 02:30:44 PM »

You do understand that the overwhelming amount of data available at this time still supports the construction of large, multi-lane roundabouts, yes? While some northern agencies (and you personally) have begun preliminary investigations as to the safety of multi-lane roundabouts, the FHWA's official stance on roundabouts is that they are still much safer than traditional signalized intersections. You can bitch all you want about the continued construction of these roundabouts, but there's no official wording that condemns them.

The FHWA seems well aware that there is a PDO crash problem at these roundabouts with 2x2 and 2x3 configurations.  Hillary Isebrands from the FHWA gave a presentation at the 4th Annual International Conference on Roundabouts titled “The Multi-lane Roundabout PDO Dilemma”.  In it she discussed many of the roundabouts that have been discussed on this thread:

http://teachamerica.com/RAB14/RAB1410AIsebrands/index.htm

The FHWA knows there is a crash problem at these 2x2 and 2x3 configuration roundabouts.   Yet that doesn't stop TxDOT from suggesting that the I-35 & 51st Street roundabout will see a 35% reduction in total crashes.  Either TxDOT officials are being misleading to the public or they are ignorant to the latest research on roundabouts.
Logged

UCFKnights

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 446
  • Location: Orlando, FL
  • Last Login: Today at 10:20:00 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #738 on: September 03, 2016, 03:44:58 PM »


Quote
The modern roundabout design is more efficient than the existing signalized intersection, increasing traffic capacity in the I-35 at 51st Street intersection by 30 to 50 percent, resulting in reduced travel time for motorists. In fact, it is anticipated that once the project is complete, drivers will travel through the 51st Street intersection on average almost four minutes faster than they do today. In addition, the new roundabout design is much safer and expected to reduce the overall crashes by about 35 percent, injury crashes by about 75 percent, and fatal crashes about 90 percent when compared to a traditional signalized intersection.

Instead of a 35% reduction in total crashes there will probably be a 335% increase.  Don't worry though.  After there is a big spike in crashes TxDOT will increase the width of the roundabout striping by 0.5 inches and it will magically solve the crash problem!
The traffic exiting off of I-35 there is 2 lanes and it enters a 3 lane portion of the roundabout, with it being unclear which lane traffic entering the roundabout are supposed to be in (I can tell, but I could easily see people getting confused). As no traffic is entering the roundabout into that third lane, it seems like that is just going to do more harm then good. It seems like if the 51st st to i35 right turn entrance got its own right turn lane as well to help remove that triple lane it wouldn't decrease capacity at all (perhaps increase it) and help make sure it doesn't end up on the list of crash prone roundabouts. I wouldn't be surprised with the current design to see it needing modification, but it seems like such an easy one to solve.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10421
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:56 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #739 on: September 03, 2016, 06:37:41 PM »

You do understand that the overwhelming amount of data available at this time still supports the construction of large, multi-lane roundabouts, yes? While some northern agencies (and you personally) have begun preliminary investigations as to the safety of multi-lane roundabouts, the FHWA's official stance on roundabouts is that they are still much safer than traditional signalized intersections. You can bitch all you want about the continued construction of these roundabouts, but there's no official wording that condemns them.

The FHWA seems well aware that there is a PDO crash problem at these roundabouts with 2x2 and 2x3 configurations.  Hillary Isebrands from the FHWA gave a presentation at the 4th Annual International Conference on Roundabouts titled “The Multi-lane Roundabout PDO Dilemma”.  In it she discussed many of the roundabouts that have been discussed on this thread:

http://teachamerica.com/RAB14/RAB1410AIsebrands/index.htm

The FHWA knows there is a crash problem at these 2x2 and 2x3 configuration roundabouts.   Yet that doesn't stop TxDOT from suggesting that the I-35 & 51st Street roundabout will see a 35% reduction in total crashes.  Either TxDOT officials are being misleading to the public or they are ignorant to the latest research on roundabouts.

Hillary Isebrands fully admits to the situation being a dilemma: on one hand, multi-lane roundabouts do improve traffic flow, and decrease severe injuries, but they generally see a bump in overall collisions. If the situation wasn't a dilemma, and multi-lane roundabouts universally saw a jump in generic injuries, severe injuries, fatalities, and a decrease in overall traffic flow, then it would be a no-brainer: stop building these things. But, it's not that clear cut. Multi-lane roundabouts have pluses and minuses, and they always will. Every form of traffic control does.

As to the studies that TxDOT cites, while those are, apparently, being proven false by the day, it's simply the most solid data available to them. If the FHWA wants to decrease the amount of multi-lane roundabouts being built, they ought to release a new study that isn't just a bunch of loose data.
Logged

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: March 28, 2019, 10:31:40 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #740 on: September 06, 2016, 01:01:08 AM »

The Arc de Triomphe circle (technically, Place Charles de Gaulle) still follows "priorité à droite," with drivers in the circle required to yield to entering traffic, so it's not a circulating roadway at all.

I think a lot of the issue we're seeing was inadvertently identified by english si upthread: American drivers don't know how to properly signal in roundabouts (and in general don't signal as much as they should anyway). Your direction of exit is supposed to be indicated when entering the circle (if you are not going straight), and you're supposed to indicate exiting as you approach your exit leg.
Logged

kalvado

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2936
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 10:57:13 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #741 on: September 06, 2016, 01:12:48 AM »

The Arc de Triomphe circle (technically, Place Charles de Gaulle) still follows "priorité à droite," with drivers in the circle required to yield to entering traffic, so it's not a circulating roadway at all.

I think a lot of the issue we're seeing was inadvertently identified by english si upthread: American drivers don't know how to properly signal in roundabouts (and in general don't signal as much as they should anyway). Your direction of exit is supposed to be indicated when entering the circle (if you are not going straight), and you're supposed to indicate exiting as you approach your exit leg.
With tight roundabouts being built today, signalling exit seem meaningless. Blinker interval is too long, and visibility of blinker on the side of a car is limited for downstream traffic. Besides, with fairly large steering inputs, both hands on a wheel at all times seem like a good idea.
Logged

Tarkus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 351
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Oregon
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 06:02:31 AM
    • SimCity 4 Devotion
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #742 on: September 06, 2016, 01:55:25 AM »

I think a lot of the issue we're seeing was inadvertently identified by english si upthread: American drivers don't know how to properly signal in roundabouts (and in general don't signal as much as they should anyway). Your direction of exit is supposed to be indicated when entering the circle (if you are not going straight), and you're supposed to indicate exiting as you approach your exit leg.

The lack of signaling is one of the things that really drives me batty with going through roundabouts here.  It dramatically decreases the efficiency of the intersection and causes it to act more like an expensive all-way stop (albeit with fewer conflict points).  My method is for signaling in roundabouts is as follows:

  • If immediately exiting at first leg on right: Turn on right turn indicator.
  • Otherwise: Turn on left turn indicator to indicate that I intend to continue circulating, and then turn on the right indicator upon reaching the intended exit point.

I've heard the theory of "not signaling if going straight" (i.e. the second leg in a standard 4-way roundabout, or the "180" in kalvado's description), but with the way roundabouts are supposed to be designed (with the center island sufficiently obstructing the "straight through" view), and the almost 100% reliable assumption that vehicles on that side have no idea of my intent in that case, it seems like it's as bad as not signaling.  In my experience, there is enough time to react generally with the signals, even with smaller roundabouts, though it can require good reflexes.

A big part of the problem is that several DOTs and agencies that are installing and promoting roundabouts give terrible advice in their little "instructional videos" (and I'll admit--I'm kind of skeptical of building a bunch of intersections that still require instructional videos for the general public).  WSDOT is among the worst offenders.
Logged

kalvado

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2936
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 10:57:13 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #743 on: September 06, 2016, 07:03:50 AM »

In my experience, there is enough time to react generally with the signals, even with smaller roundabouts, though it can require good reflexes.
Well.. tiny problem is that we're not talking about NASCAR track, this is all about general purpose road. And it has to accomodate not only men in their top shape, but everyone with a license. Including that grey-haired lady in her 70s...
Logged

Mrt90

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 112
  • Location: Kenosha County, WI / Lake County, IL
  • Last Login: November 18, 2019, 02:36:41 PM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #744 on: September 06, 2016, 01:11:46 PM »

I was visiting someone and they drove through one of these high accident 2x2 roundabout while I was with them numerous times. The first time was actually with another person visiting driving and they were directing them back to their house and the locals weren't giving good instruction. I piped up saying "hey, you should probably get in the left lane we're making a left in the roundabout" and the local resident told the driver "no, stay on the right, we're making a right"... and then they proceeded to direct them to make a left... from the right lane. After we went through I again commented we made a left from the wrong lane and they started telling me "no, we exited the roundabout to the right, we just made the 3rd right". I tried to explain how it works but I could not explain to them which lane they should be using. We went through multiple more times with them driving incorrectly, and when I drove with them in the car, they scolded me for using the left lane to make a left in the roundabout "you can't exit the roundabout from the inside lane, if you're on that side you have to get to the right lane before you exit". I thought the signage was reasonable. It had the normal road markings and a pictogram signage, and lane usage signs posted as well, but people clearly just could not understand that you need to make a left from the left lane.

For a lot of drivers, it just is very apparent that it is not intuitive to them, even with signs and current markings, that you can exit a roundabout from the inside lane.
Your post reminded me of something that I had previously posted, turns out that it was almost one year ago. I think you have a different perception of this now, but your point seems to be that people will do what they think is right, despite the rest signage/road marking, which is basically what I was trying to get across last year. Some people think the outside (and only the outside) lane is for exiting despite what the signs/marking might show, and some people remember that they could "go straight" from the left lane in the last roundabout they went through so they think they can "go straight" from the left lane all the time.  For some reason many folks don't pay attention to the signs/markings, they think every roundabout is the same.

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15546.msg2093533#msg2093533

Logged

DaBigE

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1749
  • Following the LEGO® brick road

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Southcentral Wisconsin
  • Last Login: Today at 08:52:45 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #745 on: September 06, 2016, 02:30:33 PM »

...I think you have a different perception of this now, but your point seems to be that people will do what they think is right, despite the rest signage/road marking, which is basically what I was trying to get across last year. Some people think the outside (and only the outside) lane is for exiting despite what the signs/marking might show, and some people remember that they could "go straight" from the left lane in the last roundabout they went through so they think they can "go straight" from the left lane all the time.  For some reason many folks don't pay attention to the signs/markings, they think every roundabout is the same.

^^ This. I was almost hit in this roundabout by some moron attempting to make a right turn from the left lane. :rolleyes:  In the process, they ignored: a large overhead sign, two regulatory lane signs, two sets of pavement marking arrows, and a sign on the left side specifically prohibiting right turns from the left lane. :pan:
« Last Edit: September 06, 2016, 02:36:01 PM by DaBigE »
Logged
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

cjw2001

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 191
  • Location: Indianapolis area
  • Last Login: November 10, 2019, 09:16:44 PM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #746 on: September 06, 2016, 06:28:47 PM »

Assume other drivers are morons and you won't be disappointed.  And by having that assumption up front it's usually easy to take evasive action.   Even with the occasional moron (they show up at non roundabout intersections too) I far and away prefer the efficiency of a roundabout over other intersection types.
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3535
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 11:05:32 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #747 on: September 07, 2016, 02:46:43 PM »

Well.. tiny problem is that we're not talking about NASCAR track, this is all about general purpose road. And it has to accomodate not only men in their top shape, but everyone with a license. Including that grey-haired lady in her 70s...
In my experience, grey haired ladies in their 70s (and 80s) tend to be those who are most consistently good at signalling at roundabouts. And I'm thinking about ladies that are not spritely (though aren't infirm) and probably shouldn't be on the road due to other issues (vision in the dark, not caring about dints and stuff, etc).

If you can't react quickly enough to signal your exit, then - to put it bluntly - you are a car crash waiting to happen and shouldn't be on the road. If the car in front stops suddenly, you'd be going into the back of it!

The big issue with signalling is that 'expert' engineers want turbo roundabouts, but then stripe them like regular 2-lane roundabouts and wonder why people, after they go "don't signal your exit", get confused as to whether a car is exiting and so are unsure and have crashes. But lets go with this idea that drivers are incompetent morons who shouldn't be thought of as capable of doing simple driving tasks unless they are professionals, so why inform them how to use junctions safely. I mean that can't lead to trouble...  :banghead:
Assume other drivers are morons and you won't be disappointed.
Ah, the American way, sadly you will be disappointed as your fatalities per billion km is nearly twice that of the UK (and the UK has stagnated in road safety since it started treating drivers as morons) where they (used to) assume drivers are able to drive cars in a way that doesn't create crashes if they were told how to do so.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2016, 02:49:28 PM by english si »
Logged

kalvado

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2936
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 10:57:13 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #748 on: September 07, 2016, 07:38:09 PM »

Well.. tiny problem is that we're not talking about NASCAR track, this is all about general purpose road. And it has to accomodate not only men in their top shape, but everyone with a license. Including that grey-haired lady in her 70s...
In my experience, grey haired ladies in their 70s (and 80s) tend to be those who are most consistently good at signalling at roundabouts. And I'm thinking about ladies that are not spritely (though aren't infirm) and probably shouldn't be on the road due to other issues (vision in the dark, not caring about dints and stuff, etc).

If you can't react quickly enough to signal your exit, then - to put it bluntly - you are a car crash waiting to happen and shouldn't be on the road. If the car in front stops suddenly, you'd be going into the back of it!

The big issue with signalling is that 'expert' engineers want turbo roundabouts, but then stripe them like regular 2-lane roundabouts and wonder why people, after they go "don't signal your exit", get confused as to whether a car is exiting and so are unsure and have crashes. But lets go with this idea that drivers are incompetent morons who shouldn't be thought of as capable of doing simple driving tasks unless they are professionals, so why inform them how to use junctions safely. I mean that can't lead to trouble...  :banghead:
I just did some timing on my favorite roundabout. It took me 4.7 second to make a 270 on a circle. That basically stands for 2 seconds between exits - and that is the maximum time for the signal to operate. Given that it takes some time to actually switch the signal on, and 60/minute blink rate, we're talking about less than 2 flashes going out before exiting - and probably about 1 before commiting to exit. Do you think it is actually helpful for an observer? Even assuming interested party can actually see the signal (hint - they don't) 

Quote
Assume other drivers are morons and you won't be disappointed.
Ah, the American way, sadly you will be disappointed as your fatalities per billion km is nearly twice that of the UK (and the UK has stagnated in road safety since it started treating drivers as morons) where they (used to) assume drivers are able to drive cars in a way that doesn't create crashes if they were told how to do so.
As for fatal crash rate... You may want to look at the numbers a little bit deeper. Simpliest division of numbers is rural vs urban areas. If you look at urban numbers, they are just a bit higher than UKs, while rural are 2.5x higher than urban.
Thinking about it, what does rural stands for? lower population density, longer trips, more fatigue per driver. Unfortunately detailed statistics on smaller than country basis is not really available with per-km rates. But, if you think about it, Scotland has a notably higher accident rate than England - again for lower population density.
With longer drives in UK - such as London-Glasgo being on par with what some people drive to work in US - that looks like a fairly reasonable thought.
As for drivers being treated as morons.. If you're a more or less typical representative of UK driving public, looks like that was, sadly, an unavoidable move.. 
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10421
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:56 AM
Re: Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'
« Reply #749 on: September 07, 2016, 07:59:37 PM »

With longer drives in UK - such as London-Glasgow being on par with what some people drive to work in US - that looks like a fairly reasonable thought.

What the fuck? No one drives 7 hours to work.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.