Circles work well as long as people drive courteously. As soon as an aggressive driver comes to a circle, it becomes dangerous. I was fully in a circle in my neighborhood when someone approached the circle and tried to cut in front of me. I slammed on my brakes and almost hit her. I’m sure I would have but she slammed hers on too and stopped before entering the circle. She started shouting at me like I did something wrong. Fortunately, mast of the neighbors aren’t like her.
I guess the thought is; when the accidents slow down traffic more then a traffic light, maybe, it’s time to reconsider the circle.
It seems to me that the person on the inside lane should make his move in two stages; providing a signal before each one.
Now that Fantasy Island is out of the way, traffic roundabouts are nothing but state sanctioned chaos.
I can think of two here in OK; one in OK City and the other in Tulsa. The volume of traffic makes them a madhouse even on weekends.
I used to work next to the one in OKC and avoided it like the plague. As bad as that one is the one in Tulsa trumps it.
To me the “acid test” for whether rotaries (or whatever you choose to call them) are inherently safe or inherently dangerous is a new driver trying to negotiate them. Intersections (rotaries are a type of intersection) should be intrinsically simple to use. The “new driver test” IMHO shows whether an intersection is so. Rotaries are not.
A rotary was built in Goffstown some years ago that had to be removed because there were so many accidents. A rotary was built by Nashua North High School and it’s been a constant source of accidents ever since.
I have no doubt that in lightly traveled intersections where everyone can take their time and think rotaries can work. But IMHO the safety is in spite of the rotary rather than because of it.
That’s only my opinion folks, nothing more. But if you like being terrified, ride with a new driver through a busy rotary. Horror films will seem mild after. If you still doubt that they’re intrinsically dangerous, you’re a tougher man than I.
One point to note accidents in roundabouts have less fatalities and damages than a typical 4 way stop.
Inside driver was wrong to believe he could turn from an inside lane, if that is actually what he was honking about.
You were wrong to flip the other driver off.
If you were talking to me I never flipped the other driver off. and it was a she.
A rotary was built in Goffstown some years ago that had to be removed because there were so many accidents.
The one they built near the center of town was a nightmare. I golf several times a year Stonebridge in Goffstown. I didn’t know they removed it. Haven’t been in that side of 114 in a while.
But the circle they built on Goffstown Backroad - that’s not bad. But it doesn’t get a lot of traffic - especially from the road that connects to the Woman’s prison.
I haven’t been there for a long time myself, but I remember reading that it had been removed.
Haven’t been down the backroad I many years. Where’s the rotary? By the old store where the prison road connects to the back road?
I first experience was in London of course going the wrong way. They have started to have them in Minnesota and I do have to admit, the can work reasonably well. Sometimes they are dangerous when they have one out in the middle of no where and the weather is bad and you just run up on one where you think you should be going straight. So I would rather they would use them in the city and forget the rural areas.
At any rate the Minnesota Patrol or Public Safety, one of the two, is now doing a public information series on how to drive with them. I’d have to look and see if I can find it.
I guess it was Minnesota DOT. If you’re interested: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roundabouts/
Seems to me the simplest and safest roundabout would be a large single lane one with all approaching roads reduced to single lane before entering.
Another issue (especially in Florida) might be older drivers with reduced neck mobility trying to keep track of cars around them.
As is so often the case with situations involving congested traffic, when impatient locals who are familiar with the situation meet timid drivers who are not familiar with it a great deal of angst ensues.
Insightful, as an older driver with reduced neck mobility I can testify to the truth of what you say.
When one considers that almost 6% of the U.S. population is over 60 (2011 figures, that’s 18 million drivers by the way) the danger of roundabouts becomes a bit more obvious.
. Where's the rotary? By the old store where the prison road connects to the back road?
Yup…that’s exactly where it is. I still own a couple of income properties in Goffstown, so I have to go to the Goffstown dump every once in a while. That Rotary works nice. But it doesn’t get a lot of traffic.
As for older drivers, here’s a quote:
“By 2025, a quarter of all drivers in the United States will be over the age of 65. Intersections are the single most dangerous traffic environment for drivers of any age with left-hand turns being the single most dangerous traffic maneuver that any of us can make. Forty percent of all crashes that involve drivers over the age of 65 occur at intersections. This is nearly twice the rate of experienced younger drivers. AARP would like to see more roundabouts constructed because of the many safety benefits that they present for drivers of all ages.” - Jana Lynott, AARP Public Policy Institute
Even after having lived here for 13 years now, the heavily traveled rotaries still induce a lot of anxiety. I still recall how dumbfounded I was when I encountered one for the first time. People who said that inexperienced drivers really exacerbate the problems were spot on. It’s information overload and the GPS can really complicate things. As you approach- enter roundabout and take fourth exit…aiiieee! It may add a bit of time to the commute but I prefer the relative predictability of a controlled intersection.
@ScottRAB I don’t understand the reasoning behind Jana’s statement. Intersections with traffic lights are for the most part very easy. Green means go, red means stop. Rotaries on the other hand require constant awareness of other cars.
Assuming laws are being obeyed, it is always safe to go straight or turn right at a green light. The only time that awareness of surroundings is important is when turning left and there isn’t a protected green arrow.
Rotaries always require attention.
“Assuming laws are being obeyed…”
Based on what I see, that’s a pretty big (unsafe) assumption. I see a lot of people running red lights where there are no red light cameras, not to mention all the people who run red lights when they turn right on red without stopping first.
Intersections are dangerous places where most collisions occur. The statistics don’t lie.
I could easily find video evidence of times when it is not “always safe to go straight or turn right at a green light,” like when an emergency vehicle is approaching or someone is running a red light.
Assuming other drivers are going to follow the rules is dangerous.
In NJ, where Routes 202, 206, & 28 meet, there has been a traffic circle since I was a kid…and that is a very long time. The accident rate on that circle was so bad that the State of NJ finally rebuilt it, with a flyover for through-traffic.
However, even without through-traffic on the circle, the confluence of local traffic on and off 3 highways plus a couple of local streets that intersect the circle means that the accident rate on the “new” circle is still ridiculously high. The biggest problem is that all too many of the people using that circle don’t plan their route across the circle properly, and they change lanes–with inevitable collisions daily.
The traffic circle actually spans two municipalities, and the problems with getting the correct PD to respond–based on exactly where on the circle the collision occurred–has resulted in at least one of the municipalities keeping a patrol car stationed at the circle during heavy commuting times. This way, if the PD on duty doesn’t have jurisdiction, at least they can radio for response from the other PD.
Of course, none of this would be necessary if people actually stayed in their lane, and if they looked over their shoulder before changing lanes. I guess that is just too challenging for some people…
The lady’s conclusion cannot be drawn from the data in her statement. Without statistics about roundabouts, it sounds like she’s just using unrelated data to justify supporting a political agenda.
Although I’m sure the head of a “public policy institute” would NEVER be politically oriented…