This is oddly timely. I'm travelling in Europe at the moment and have been covering a lot of area with a lot of roundabouts where they would be signaled or signed intersections in the US. They definitely make traffic flow smoothly and I've noticed a few areas where they are used to eliminate dangerous left turns at places like parking lots, you leave turning right, hit the next roundabout to "uturn" then head back the way you wanted to go. As a traffic device they really have lots of different kinds of use cases beyond just an alternative for a 4way.
Where I grew up in a rural part of the US, we had one terrible 4-way intersection between two undevided highways. Over time they added lights, then experimented with different signaling systems, but every day it would back up for several miles in a couple directions, and add up to 30 minutes to some commutes. Then there were the inevitable accidents as people tried to rush it, making things worse all around.
They replaced it with a roundabout about a decade ago, the population in the area also has increased dramatically in those years as farms turned into suburbs, but the backup is entirely gone. Theres no need any longer to maintain lights and switching systems, and the accidents are almost nil. Nobody has died there in years. People complained at first because it was "weird" then they realized they were complaining at home a half hour ealier than they would have been, so they stopped.
They've since added a few more in the area and have even gotten very experimental with a double diamond interchange that's also done a lot of good. There's something in the water at the planners office. Seeing that transformation though and the immediate benefits has turned me into a lifetime fan of the roundabout.
I'm living in Germany, where roundabouts are very popular with planners recently. I would say they definitely have their place, but they are also overused. The (smallish) city where I live has a bypass road where for some reason it was decided to use roundabouts (I suspect the same reason why it has so many tight curves - not wanting to purchase too much land). With the result that using the bypass is not much faster than driving through the town, so barely anyone uses it.
Sometimes roundabouts are used to limit traffic speed, since you MUST slow down, while keeping the same flow (for the calculated traffic throughput). Maybe that was the purpose. Roundabouts are generally more expensive than intersections due to needing more land works and more land than a normal cross intersection.
We love a good roundabout in the UK, however it can be taken to extremes. The Magic Roundabout[1] in Hemel Hempstead is basically a roundabout made up of 6 mini-roundabouts. When it was first built locals used to sit in the middle watching the crashes.
You're the 6th person so far to mention Hemel Hempstead; but it's a poor choice for a comment, because it's an extreme case. The normal and far more common occurrences of roundabouts in the U.K. support bane's point.
Indeed, the junction in the headlined article is a slight variation on a quite common U.K. junction type: the double mini-roundabout. We can point to loads of them, such as this one in Bridgeyate (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.457696/-2.462268) for just one random example.
All of the WSDOT's points, about how large vehicles traverse them and how they are shaped like that because the staggered junction or slightly askew cross-roads that they replaced has space restrictions, apply to double mini-roundabouts.
And as bane said, the research in the U.K. back in the 1970s when double mini-roundabouts were a new thing showed a significant reduction in accidents over the prior staggered junctions and askew crossroads, at less cost than enlarging the junctions.
So the response is not to perplex the United Statians with Hemel Hempstead, but to welcome them to the shiny new future of 1970s road systems. And perhaps warn them that by the 1990s the road markings will have become a bit worn and scuffed by all of the HGVs driving over the centre. (-:
Yep, in my city we have a roundabout with 4 cardinal directions, roughly aligned with compass directions.
The West connection is to/from highway, so it has most traffic. People arriving from North/East/South want to leave on the West. And this causes massive jams, as the constant supply of traffic going from South entry to the West exit (i.e. doing left turn, and passing all ramps) essentially blocks all the other traffic.
Roundabout are great, they increase safety of dangerous intersections. But sometimes a controlled intersection is just a better idea.
the UK has traffic lights on certain heavily used roundabouts - sometime the lights will be temporary and only turn on once the throughput hits a certian level
I believe that I've read that elsewhere. They allow for better and higher flow than an intersection, but have a weird failure mode at very high rates where the circle gets loaded and all directions thus stop.
The preference for 4 way stops in a country that otherwise prioritises traffic flow so much is really jarring. Traffic lights too to some extent.
About 5 years ago my wife an I were doing a California road trip. At one point on a relatively rural road -- I think it might have been Dry Creek road heading into Napa but cannae mind exactly -- we got stuck in traffic for around 45 minutes. We thought there must have been some huge accident or roadworks closing the road. But got the the end and nope... 4 way stop essentially letting one. car. through. at. a. time.
I distinctly remember exclaiming "why the f wasn't that a roundabout" after clearing. Funny that it is now one of my strongest memories of that trip haha.
4-way stops are bizarre to me having grown up in the UK where roundabouts/intersections with priority given for one direction are trusted and reliable traffic-calming measures.
I think one of the reasons a 4-way stop might be introduced is to improve safety where there was previously a 2-way stop (that people would blow through). I came across this in Canada recently. All I can say is the UK has drastically lower traffic-related deaths than Canada [0] and I think I've seen 2-3 stop signs in my entire life. I imagine North America's pedestrian hostility is a piece of this puzzle.
Don't get me started on North American highway interchanges. The UK's roundabout junction system is far superior, in my opinion.
90% of stop signs in the US/Canada should actually be yield signs. Stop signs are reserved for "dangerous" intersections, ie spots where a driver can't safely see or make a decision without first stopping.
Throwing a red octagon at every single intersection of two roads is lazy and absurd. It encourages people to break the rules (just run the stop sign) and cause accidents (zone out, stop and go without actually looking).
I like 4-way stops as a pedestrian because I can actually cross the road there. With roundabouts it's impossible to cross without asking really nicely or risking my life. US drivers do not stop for pedestrians so crossing that kind of infrastructure is often taking your life into your hands.
I live in the US now, but originally from Ireland. My least favourite part of US road infrastructure is the 4 way stop. They are just not good compared to a roundabout. Half the time the only way you can tell it’s an all way stop is by looking for the back of the stop signs on the perpendicular road.
With a roundabout, you only have to look in one direction, and if it’s clear, you don’t even have to stop.
Online I see this mentality that roundabouts are great no matter what and it seems really strange to me. It really depends on the design of the roundabout and the traffic conditions. Where I grew up there are a lot of roundabouts, but many of them are so dangerously designed I started actively avoiding them. It’s not that you can’t poorly design a four way stop, but it seems to be much less common, for whatever reason.
I see people complain about roundabouts with traffics lights and how it negates some of the reasons for the roundabout. The thing is, these aren’t just put in for fun, usually they’re in areas with extremely heavy traffic where merging can get extremely difficult which leads to long backups (or in cities, accidents that can shut down traffic).
Roundabouts can be great when used well, but they’re hardly the silver bullet that online discourse often portrays them as.
They absolutely are. Even if they don't prevent all collisions, they turn T-bones into glancing hits and so save a lot of lives. The worst roundabout beats the best 4-way stop any day of the week. Sometimes there really are easy answers.
My experience driving in rural France was that nearly every intersection was a roundabout and it slowed things down dramatically. Many, many times I was the only driver within sight. Surely one of the two directions is more used and a couple of putting stop signs the other way would make more sense.
Roundabouts are great sometimes, but they aren’t a magic bullet.
That said we have a nasty intersection in the area on a highway that they’re going to redo, which absolutely no one could have foreseen 10 years ago when they first put it in.
The 3 options were j-turn or roundabout soon, or a full on overpass type system in another 10 years.
J-turns are awful, so while that was their first idea it was thankfully put down. It would have been even worse as it leads into a school and most buses in the area would have needed to do U-turns on the highway, as well as new teen drivers. In Minnesota.
Old people complained about roundabouts because even though they’re used quite a bit in the area apparently they don’t drive and don’t understand them.
So, 10+ million dollar overpass for a town of 2,000 it is, in 10 years. Let’s hope not too many more people die before then, eh?
You can mess roundabouts, but it requires a sever lack of competence that we rarely see TBH, and it can be progressively improved (signage, better visibility, lines etc)
I'm with you on how some will still be dangerous, and can require traffic stops. But it's still better than going back to a plain stops IMHO, and it's usually in portions where it was already dangerous before putting in the roundabout. In practice I've never seen a reversal of a roundabout to get back to a plain intersection.
The biggest problem with a 4-way stop in a busy city is that it can be easy to miss the stop sign which makes it easy to cause an accident, which could kill someone.
No matter how terribly designed, it's hard to entirely miss a roundabout. You basically need to be incoherent.
Yep. Canada suburbs here. We're starting to see roundabouts used more often for what would be higher traffic four-ways or inconvenient lights. They're great, both as a driver and as a cyclist. Lower conflict risk, simple rules to proceed.
IMO all smaller 4 way stops should become what I've described as trash can roundabouts. Small island to circle around. So much better than stop signs.
In Seattle, we have trash can roundabout (really just round traffic calming islands, we don’t consider them roundabouts) and stop signs at the same intersections.
Unfortunately, most drivers I've observed in the US seem utterly confounded by roundabouts, particularly the yielding part. The roundabouts I've experienced - there are several where I live - are mostly single-lane, and are still very nerve wracking to drive around because other drivers behave very unpredictably. Then again, I also see folks struggling with (or intentionally ignoring) queuing for 4+ way stops.
That said, I agree with your points, and I personally prefer roundabouts to queuing stops. They flow so much better, and really help to improve congestion/bottlenecking.
The state put in a roundabout in my town last year on an a relatively busy county road with a turn towards a new elementary school. While a lot of people had big opinions on it before it was built they figured it out pretty quickly, to the point that it's a non-issue. My manager, who is kind of a crank, noted the first day he used it to drop his kid off that he didn't expect it to work but it ended up being really smooth. In my experience drivers now are more consistent at navigating the roundabout correctly than at following right of way at any of the 4-way stops in town.
Truthfully I'd say about 60% of drivers in the States have no business behind the wheel of anything, much less the mammoth pedestrian-devouring SUVs and trucks we're such fans of. It is shocking how BAD it is getting.
I think COVID really kicked the enshittification of drivers here into a new realm. That spat where driving tests were suspended in so many places and driving school wasn't workable has let a couple years worth of drivers onto the road who had almost no practical instruction, and it fucking shows. And it's not like most people were good before that. For the vast majority, driving is a chore and you can tell that by the absolutely bare-minimum efforts put into it.
> With a roundabout, you only have to look in one direction
When being taught how to ride a motorcycle, one of the lessons is a series of extra checks that you're not taught when learning to drive a car. These are known as lifesaver checks.
Entering a roundabout is a left turn in Ireland (right turn in right hand drive countries) so you would check over your left shoulder to make sure nothing was on your left. This is performed after doing a normal right and ahead check for traffic already on the roundabout.
I have never caught anything with a roundabout lifesaver (I have in other situations) but I can see how it's useful on roundabouts with multiple entry lanes, or if something like a bicycle had appeared on your right.
I've lived with both roundabouts and 4-way stops, I think they both have their places (and also if you haven't lived with them both are hard to pick up on) 4-way stops are great for slowing traffic in neighbourhoods (you have to stop at every block), roundabouts better on faster mid level roads
There's one four-way stop I pass regularly in Ireland [0].
I suspect there isn't enough room for a roundabout, and we also don't tend to construct roundabouts on hills (I'm not sure why they're any worse than other junctions there). There's a steep gradient going uphill from South to North.
Normally it would be a two way stop, and I sometimes wonder why that wasn't chosen here. Likely because visibility is bad (trees, walls, curves - it's worse than it looks in the satellite image) and cars coming from the east and west can't completely tell that it's safe to enter the junction.
A four-way stop would be confusing for me, those don't exist in my country as far as I'm aware. I was also thought that a stop or yield sign means I'm on the side road and the other road implicitly has priority.
> Half the time the only way you can tell it’s an all way stop is by looking for the back of the stop signs on the perpendicular road
The other side may have a stop sign, but are they stopping?
Its sort of useless to know if you have the right of way or not when you drive defensively. Just assume you don't and only go if you actually see someone yielding/preparing to yield to you.
Too many people remain at the stop sign until the roundabout completely clears, so it becomes an excruciatingly slow 4-way stop. And there's not much traffic there.
A few miles from that one, there's a high traffic roundabout that works very well. The heavily used right turn lanes are divided and don't enter the roundabout. There are very clear markings on the ground. And there are yield signs at the entrances, so people know what to do. Traffic flows great through it, with the heaviest direction of travel naturally getting more throughput.
Or two near me have traffic lights very near (1/4 block or so) from the exit, meaning that traffic will inevitably back up into the roundabout, locking it up.
> Half the time the only way you can tell it’s an all way stop is by looking for the back of the stop signs on the perpendicular road.
Your state is doing it wrong then. Almost every four way stop I've ever seen in the US has a little sign beneath the big octagon which says "4-way".
Anyways, I have nothing against roundabouts. But I do have issue with some states (looking at you, Wisconsin) which are obsessed with tearing out perfectly good stop signs (as in, it's a low volume intersection or it's only a two way stop with a highway going through) and replacing them with roundabouts. It's just a waste of taxpayer money.
That is a good way to have an accident - I know since I've done it. While "looking one way" on a USA counterclockwise roundabout you are looking left to see traffic already on the roundabout and if clear you go and run smack into the back of the vehicle ahead of you who for some reason stalled or hesitated or just judged the traffic differently. However it will be a low speed accident.
As a general rule, one should be looking in the direction in which the vehicle is traveling.
It's easily done though, if rushing, or if the vehicle in front pulls away slightly but stops again.
Apparently I'm sticking my neck out here, but it really doesn't seem that hard. Overhead, I can intuit the path I would take, and if I imagine it first-person, it seems even more obvious.
It's frustrating riding with certain other American drivers in other countries. I've met numerous folks now that seem upset that they have to actually pay attention to their driving and the traffic. Meanwhile I'm horrified that they're apparently just ... completely on auto-pilot in the US.
No, you're definitely not the only one who likes them. Some folks complain about them when they first go in, but they tend to figure it out.
WSDOT has been encouraging them for a few years now, and my town has several new roundabouts as a result -- and lots of other cities across the state are using them. They've made navigating those intersections way easier, reduced traffic "waiting times", and generally improved safety versus a lighted intersection. I'm glad they're continuing to find ways to make them work.
It seemed when I was growing up in NJ, the state DOT was taking out the giant roundabouts that they were famous for, and now in Washington, they're having a huge resurgence.
Huge roundabouts are very dangerous; the safety factor in the modern ones WA installs is that they are tight and slow, which reduces the severity of any crashes.
It also does not help that NJ is the only state in the US that does not have a consistent rule about roundabout traffic priority.
I agree, Washington does seem to at least aspire to better roundabouts than some places I've heard of. The one rule I see to be truly necessary is "yield to oncoming traffic from the left."
I still get confused at the big roundabout in Kent, after coming off Highway 167 at Willis Street, but most others I've encountered are fine, despite the drivers who still want to stop before proceeding onto them even when there's no other traffic.
I'm ok with most roundabouts. However, there is one near me that everyone complains about. There are 3 of them right in a row, but even that isn't the main issue. There is one with 5 places to turn out, which is relatively small and confusing. If you get it wrong it dumps you out on the expressway and it's an almost 9 mile trip to get back to where you originally wanted to go with no other option than to drive the 9 miles. I have yet to talk to a single person who hasn't made this mistake at least once. A little "oops" road to connect the expressway on-ramp with the road people intended to take would go along way and save hundreds, if not thousands, of wasted miles each year. Many people avoid the area completely because they don't want to deal with it.
Don't the exits have signs to say where the exit takes you? In Europe they'd be labeled, and highway onramps will have a different background color to indicate a highway..
Also, keeping your navigation display "north up" is much better than having one that will probably be laggy in a roundabout, confusing you on which exit to take.
If all else fails, look at the signage; I remember driving and a passenger not sure if the roundabout exit I was taking was correct, I said "Well there's a big sign there that says this way to our destination."
I genuinely cannot read that roundabout from overhead, and I am not a person who has trouble with roundabouts. I think it would benefit greatly from an explanatory diagram. I do hope that it would be more obvious while on the ground, like you said.
Unfortunately, it's not. Driving from right-to-left (in the first picture) requires drivers to enter the roundabout twice, then leave once. Judging by the amount of vehicle debris generally present and the additional "Yield" markings and signage that have been added to the second yield point since the construction was completed, it's been confusing from the ground as well.
I'll take a traditional cross with traffic signals or stop signs on all sides, it's simple and effective.
Roundabouts are a waste of space, disrupt traffic, and take more brain processing than I care to afford if I can help it. This particular example isn't even round.
I vastly prefer roundabouts, with a single exception. If traffic is heavy and dominated by the same entry and exit points, it can be hard to get a turn if you're coming from the side. Our nearest roundabout is this way.
I once saw a roundabout with stop signs. I assume it was an attempt to address this situation.
If your stop signs don't disrupt traffic then they're not working properly. Roundabouts are designed to efficiently weave traffic streams together instead.
Your opinion here is at odds with the record for higher traffic throughput and better safety for roundabouts. They are better in pretty much every way, for appropriate situations.
Here the situation is uneven road size, through traffic on the highway and odd angles. Perfect roundabout application.
Roundabouts are faster, safer and more convenient. It sometimes needs additional traffic lights, since heavily congested roundabouts lose their effectiveness.
The picture of the roundabout from above at the beginning of the article is extra confusing because it doesn't have the final lane markings yet and the ones you can see are misleading.
The (presumably) final markings[0] make things less confusing.
I was looking at the markings that are there, and they made it seem like traffic approaching the roundabout would have priority over traffic already on it.
What the hell is that "dump truck with trailer" on a really long connector at 3:50? Is that a thing in some parts? How does that navigate almost any kind of roadway safely?
Keep in mind that a lot of these traffic devices look way more confusing from above than they actually look while on the ground. From above you can see the whole device at once, and trying to trace a path through it can feel overwhelming, but when you're actually going through it your view is usually restricted in ways that limit your perceived choices at any point in time.
I'd say just the opposite. Indeed, in the UK it's normal for the signs leading up to a roundabout to include an overhead map view, since that's often the easiest way to understand what you need to do to get where you want to.
Agreed. I use to not pay attention to the layout at all. Instead, I resorted to counting down the exits I was moving past them, whilst remembering myself to gradually changing lanes to the left, paying attention to cars on the adjacent lanes. Because of this, I forget to look and plan ahead--almost like tunnel vision. Suffice to say, it was--and still is--stressful, especially at those roundabouts with which I'm not familiar.
Then I started paying attention to the displayed layout. This helped me with the bearings and lane positioning. At least, that's one item off my list when I'm in the roundabout.
Ideally the sign would be 1) Rotated so that the driver proceeds from the base towards the top or sides. 2) Clearly depict the LOGICAL layout (bent slightly towards the physical) of what flow patterns _do_ during the roundabout from that input. 3) Also clearly depict which exits go where.
There should really be two signs actually, one before the diagram that lists (locally relevant roads / landmarks) by lane for sorting (if there's more than one lane in).
PS: The route map should also add a YIELD sign in mini next to the entrance with an according broken line. The interior lanes of roundabouts always have priority and all inputs are yield merges in.
Never underestimate how confused people can get with the unfamiliar. I live a couple of blocks from a fairly standard roundabout and see people trying to exit the roundabout through an entrance to the roundabout or try to go clockwise in the roundabout (this is in Canada) several times a year. This happens even though the design of the roundabout, the road markings, and the signage make it perfectly clear how you are supposed to go through it.
Then there is the less obvious stuff that happens multiple times per hour, like entering in the wrong lane given the desired exit (even though it is marked), vehicles inside the roundabout yielding to vehicles entering the roundabout (even though there is signage), or vehicles entering the roundabout failing to yield to vehicles inside of it (same signage).
As for non-standard roundabouts, those can confuse just about anyone since people often don't realize that it is a roundabout.
No discussion about roundabouts can be complete without a mention of the (mostly) Dutch "turbo roundabout", where the lane you take going into a multi-lane roundabout depends on where you want to exit, and you can't / are not allowed to switch lanes while on it:
This is literally just how you're supposed to go round any roundabout. Right lane if you're going straight ahead or right (to any extent), left lane otherwise. Anything else _will_ cause crashes, because vehicles will necessarily have to cut across each other to exit the roundabout.
The "turbo roundabout" might make this explicit, but it's not different.
This is hugely oversimplified and doesn't really correspond to real life. Not all roundabouts are symmetric and not all have four entry-exit pairs. Many roundabouts have two lanes on some entries, but a single lane on others, similarly for exits. In scenarios like this you will inevitably have to switch lanes in some scenarios. It isn't really as big of a problem as you make it sound though, since roundabouts naturally have everyone go slow, crashes are very rare so long as the layout is clear.
A turbo roundabout is directionally biased while "any roundabout" doesn't have to be. A turbo roundabout also does not allow u-turns which becomes quite the limitations for road systems wanting to utilize medians for left turn control.
E.g. a standard 2-lane by 2-lane roundabout intersection may just as well look like this https://i.imgur.com/jqhMxW4.jpeg. Note the entrance markings allowing all lanes to go straight with 1 alternative turn direction per lane choice, the exit markings allowing dual lane exits in all directions, and internal markings allowing u-turns (the roads in this case have medians farther out). It has some of the downsides you mention but also some upsides in exchange for allowing slightly more lane flexibility. Regardless, you're definitely not supposed to follow the turbo's rules in that roundabout.
Now you could "no true Scotsman" it and say all the other roundabout types aren't roundabouts because they are supposed to be like turbo roundabouts to be so... but that still leaves needing the distinction in types, for which everyone calls one a turbo roundabout and other variations different types of roundabout.
It's only the difference between CI enforcing code style vs manual PR reviews that have a checkbox for code style. They accomplish the same, but one is infinitely better.
I live near this roundabout and drive through it almost daily.
> Drivers going northbound on SR 203 traffic may need to yield twice – once when entering the roundabout and again if traffic is passing between the two islands. If you think about it, that’s just following the same rules a second time.
The one key difference from the average (American) roundabout is the second yield. After you've waited your turn and entered the roundabout, you're required to yield again within a few feet. Obviously this is not an impossible task, but the signage leading up to the roundabout from northbound SR 203 doesn't at all indicate the shape of the roundabout. The navigation sign at the entrance only shows a single roundabout.
The second yield point is indicated with the standard yield sign and triangle markings on the road. But judging by the amount of detritus scattered on the ground, as well as the recent addition of "YIELD" text painted on the road and orange flags attached to the yield sign (both not present at any other entrance to the roundabout), the yield-twice pattern is not obvious to everyone.
Plus, the topology of the roundabout isn't conducive to seeing this from the ground, either; the relatively sharp right turn leading into the roundabout places the second yield sign out of your forward vision when you're approaching the roundabout, and the whole intersection itself is very slightly tilted away from the northbound entrance, making it really tricky to see and understand it when approaching.
---
Anecdotally, almost every time I've driven through here while there is simultaneous traffic from northbound SR 203 and northbound 203rd St. SE, the northbound 203rd St. SE traffic ends up being cut off by drivers failing to yield at the second entrance.
Roundabouts get a lot of praise whenever they're mentioned, and from a traffic flow perspective that's understandable - if by traffic you mean motorised traffic. For pedestrians and cyclists they are worse than the alternative (lights - or even a simple intersection) in my opinion.
Citation needed. As a cyclist I prefer roundabouts: they're faster than lights and don't rob my momentum, and they're safer than uncontrolled intersections/4-way stops because all the cars are coming from the same direction.
Caveat: this is for simple, single-lane roundabouts. Multi-lane roundabouts are gnarly for cars and worse for cyclists.
Apologies. A bit of a blanket statement on my part. There are definitely examples of roundabouts built properly (where cyclists and pedestrians are considered first-class users). Sadly not that common in my experience.
As you can see, they are building a pedestrian overbridge on the north side, but consider what you would have to do to traverse in any other place as a pedestrian (or get across anywhere currently). Here's a suggestion from Google (i.e. just pretend you're a car): https://maps.app.goo.gl/AiBoyWk4Z7bFr21z5
The above is in one of the busiest parts of this city. It's not like there are no people wanting to walk. In fact I found myself in exactly this position here not too long ago. I wanted to get from the mall side to a cafe on the opposite side. I gave up and ate a sad meal in the mall :(
In my experience[1], if there’s no bike path roundabouts are better, in particular for left turns. But on a bike path they are usually not much fun, basically requiring negotiating with drivers 270 degrees apart at the same time.
My preferred roundabout is separate bikepath that joins the road just before and is a part of the same surface, usually found in bike friendly places.
I do agree that the roundabout pictured in the article does not seem to include any considerations towards non car traffic, but at least in Germany the vast majority of roundabouts have seperate bicycle lanes and zebra crossings on all entrances, meaning foot and bicycle traffic has right of way. As a pedestrian I vastly prefer these to intersections in nearly every situation.
> For pedestrians and cyclists they are worse than the alternative (lights - or even a simple intersection) in my opinion.
As a cycling Dutch I prefer a roundabout to a traffic light. As a roundabout doesn't force a fullstop and takeoff again.
Also because stopping/get going again is more difficult for elderly/injured people.
I agree they're a pain for pedestrians (cars are faster, drivers too busy looking at every other car entering the intersection to look at pedestrians) the Dutch do car and bike roundabout well (embedding the car one in a bike one)
Elevated pedestrians crossing (which means the crossing is a speed bump for drivers_ is the solution because roundabouts are actually safer than regular intersections once drivers are forced to slow down.
I know all those speed bumps are annoying when you are driving but elevated crossings and bike paths are great traffic calming solution as screaming your engine between speed bumps soon gets very old and tiring and even the most aggressive drivers just end up staying between 12 and 20mph (20-35kph) in the sections that involve pedestrians and cyclists.
The Dutch roundabout design is amazing for cyclists. See here [0] for a more detailed explanation, but the tl;dr is: Second, outer ring that's a bike lane - motorized traffic has to yield so bikes never have to stop and lose momentum.
In Cambridge we have recently had both our first Dutch roundabout and our first few Cyclops [0] junctions and I have to say I actually prefer the cyclops. Yes, you lose momentum if you want to turn and the throughput doesn’t match a roundabout but you can use it as a normal cross roads if you want or use the protected turn with lights around the ring without worrying about whether cars have actually seen you and understood that it’s your right of way. My opinion might change if I lived somewhere where people were used to Dutch roundabouts.
Strong disagree, a well designed roundabout is both safer and faster for both pedestrians and cyclists. See this roundabout [0] from Delft, Netherlands for a good example. Pedestrians have right of way over everyone, then cyclists, and lastly there's a set of traffic lights to give trams and buses right of way when they come by. Cars come last and traffic flows smoothly and safely.
I like the order of priority here. It's as if the designers ranked travellers by the magnitude of their kinetic energy, and forced the highest-energy travellers to exercise most caution. How sensical!
Readit News
Where I grew up in a rural part of the US, we had one terrible 4-way intersection between two undevided highways. Over time they added lights, then experimented with different signaling systems, but every day it would back up for several miles in a couple directions, and add up to 30 minutes to some commutes. Then there were the inevitable accidents as people tried to rush it, making things worse all around.
They replaced it with a roundabout about a decade ago, the population in the area also has increased dramatically in those years as farms turned into suburbs, but the backup is entirely gone. Theres no need any longer to maintain lights and switching systems, and the accidents are almost nil. Nobody has died there in years. People complained at first because it was "weird" then they realized they were complaining at home a half hour ealier than they would have been, so they stopped.
They've since added a few more in the area and have even gotten very experimental with a double diamond interchange that's also done a lot of good. There's something in the water at the planners office. Seeing that transformation though and the immediate benefits has turned me into a lifetime fan of the roundabout.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Hemel_Hempst...
Indeed, the junction in the headlined article is a slight variation on a quite common U.K. junction type: the double mini-roundabout. We can point to loads of them, such as this one in Bridgeyate (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.457696/-2.462268) for just one random example.
All of the WSDOT's points, about how large vehicles traverse them and how they are shaped like that because the staggered junction or slightly askew cross-roads that they replaced has space restrictions, apply to double mini-roundabouts.
And as bane said, the research in the U.K. back in the 1970s when double mini-roundabouts were a new thing showed a significant reduction in accidents over the prior staggered junctions and askew crossroads, at less cost than enlarging the junctions.
So the response is not to perplex the United Statians with Hemel Hempstead, but to welcome them to the shiny new future of 1970s road systems. And perhaps warn them that by the 1990s the road markings will have become a bit worn and scuffed by all of the HGVs driving over the centre. (-:
They make slow or medium traffic flow smoothly. If the traffic is heavy, roundabouts make everything worst.
The West connection is to/from highway, so it has most traffic. People arriving from North/East/South want to leave on the West. And this causes massive jams, as the constant supply of traffic going from South entry to the West exit (i.e. doing left turn, and passing all ramps) essentially blocks all the other traffic.
Roundabout are great, they increase safety of dangerous intersections. But sometimes a controlled intersection is just a better idea.
About 5 years ago my wife an I were doing a California road trip. At one point on a relatively rural road -- I think it might have been Dry Creek road heading into Napa but cannae mind exactly -- we got stuck in traffic for around 45 minutes. We thought there must have been some huge accident or roadworks closing the road. But got the the end and nope... 4 way stop essentially letting one. car. through. at. a. time.
I distinctly remember exclaiming "why the f wasn't that a roundabout" after clearing. Funny that it is now one of my strongest memories of that trip haha.
I think one of the reasons a 4-way stop might be introduced is to improve safety where there was previously a 2-way stop (that people would blow through). I came across this in Canada recently. All I can say is the UK has drastically lower traffic-related deaths than Canada [0] and I think I've seen 2-3 stop signs in my entire life. I imagine North America's pedestrian hostility is a piece of this puzzle.
Don't get me started on North American highway interchanges. The UK's roundabout junction system is far superior, in my opinion.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
Throwing a red octagon at every single intersection of two roads is lazy and absurd. It encourages people to break the rules (just run the stop sign) and cause accidents (zone out, stop and go without actually looking).
Dead Comment
With a roundabout, you only have to look in one direction, and if it’s clear, you don’t even have to stop.
I see people complain about roundabouts with traffics lights and how it negates some of the reasons for the roundabout. The thing is, these aren’t just put in for fun, usually they’re in areas with extremely heavy traffic where merging can get extremely difficult which leads to long backups (or in cities, accidents that can shut down traffic).
Roundabouts can be great when used well, but they’re hardly the silver bullet that online discourse often portrays them as.
Roundabouts are great sometimes, but they aren’t a magic bullet.
That said we have a nasty intersection in the area on a highway that they’re going to redo, which absolutely no one could have foreseen 10 years ago when they first put it in.
The 3 options were j-turn or roundabout soon, or a full on overpass type system in another 10 years.
J-turns are awful, so while that was their first idea it was thankfully put down. It would have been even worse as it leads into a school and most buses in the area would have needed to do U-turns on the highway, as well as new teen drivers. In Minnesota.
Old people complained about roundabouts because even though they’re used quite a bit in the area apparently they don’t drive and don’t understand them.
So, 10+ million dollar overpass for a town of 2,000 it is, in 10 years. Let’s hope not too many more people die before then, eh?
I'm with you on how some will still be dangerous, and can require traffic stops. But it's still better than going back to a plain stops IMHO, and it's usually in portions where it was already dangerous before putting in the roundabout. In practice I've never seen a reversal of a roundabout to get back to a plain intersection.
No matter how terribly designed, it's hard to entirely miss a roundabout. You basically need to be incoherent.
All four way stops are badly designed. Roundabouts are not always the best options, but they're always better than four ways stops.
IMO all smaller 4 way stops should become what I've described as trash can roundabouts. Small island to circle around. So much better than stop signs.
That said, I agree with your points, and I personally prefer roundabouts to queuing stops. They flow so much better, and really help to improve congestion/bottlenecking.
I think COVID really kicked the enshittification of drivers here into a new realm. That spat where driving tests were suspended in so many places and driving school wasn't workable has let a couple years worth of drivers onto the road who had almost no practical instruction, and it fucking shows. And it's not like most people were good before that. For the vast majority, driving is a chore and you can tell that by the absolutely bare-minimum efforts put into it.
When being taught how to ride a motorcycle, one of the lessons is a series of extra checks that you're not taught when learning to drive a car. These are known as lifesaver checks.
Entering a roundabout is a left turn in Ireland (right turn in right hand drive countries) so you would check over your left shoulder to make sure nothing was on your left. This is performed after doing a normal right and ahead check for traffic already on the roundabout.
I have never caught anything with a roundabout lifesaver (I have in other situations) but I can see how it's useful on roundabouts with multiple entry lanes, or if something like a bicycle had appeared on your right.
I suspect there isn't enough room for a roundabout, and we also don't tend to construct roundabouts on hills (I'm not sure why they're any worse than other junctions there). There's a steep gradient going uphill from South to North.
Normally it would be a two way stop, and I sometimes wonder why that wasn't chosen here. Likely because visibility is bad (trees, walls, curves - it's worse than it looks in the satellite image) and cars coming from the east and west can't completely tell that it's safe to enter the junction.
[0] https://maps.app.goo.gl/i5pezayHLJEDPEPLA
The other side may have a stop sign, but are they stopping?
Its sort of useless to know if you have the right of way or not when you drive defensively. Just assume you don't and only go if you actually see someone yielding/preparing to yield to you.
Too many people remain at the stop sign until the roundabout completely clears, so it becomes an excruciatingly slow 4-way stop. And there's not much traffic there.
A few miles from that one, there's a high traffic roundabout that works very well. The heavily used right turn lanes are divided and don't enter the roundabout. There are very clear markings on the ground. And there are yield signs at the entrances, so people know what to do. Traffic flows great through it, with the heaviest direction of travel naturally getting more throughput.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7004641,-120.976448,3a,75y,1...
Your state is doing it wrong then. Almost every four way stop I've ever seen in the US has a little sign beneath the big octagon which says "4-way".
Anyways, I have nothing against roundabouts. But I do have issue with some states (looking at you, Wisconsin) which are obsessed with tearing out perfectly good stop signs (as in, it's a low volume intersection or it's only a two way stop with a highway going through) and replacing them with roundabouts. It's just a waste of taxpayer money.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5SiJhyQREhNSN8PJ9
It's frustrating riding with certain other American drivers in other countries. I've met numerous folks now that seem upset that they have to actually pay attention to their driving and the traffic. Meanwhile I'm horrified that they're apparently just ... completely on auto-pilot in the US.
WSDOT has been encouraging them for a few years now, and my town has several new roundabouts as a result -- and lots of other cities across the state are using them. They've made navigating those intersections way easier, reduced traffic "waiting times", and generally improved safety versus a lighted intersection. I'm glad they're continuing to find ways to make them work.
It seemed when I was growing up in NJ, the state DOT was taking out the giant roundabouts that they were famous for, and now in Washington, they're having a huge resurgence.
It also does not help that NJ is the only state in the US that does not have a consistent rule about roundabout traffic priority.
I still get confused at the big roundabout in Kent, after coming off Highway 167 at Willis Street, but most others I've encountered are fine, despite the drivers who still want to stop before proceeding onto them even when there's no other traffic.
Also, keeping your navigation display "north up" is much better than having one that will probably be laggy in a roundabout, confusing you on which exit to take.
If all else fails, look at the signage; I remember driving and a passenger not sure if the roundabout exit I was taking was correct, I said "Well there's a big sign there that says this way to our destination."
Roundabouts are a waste of space, disrupt traffic, and take more brain processing than I care to afford if I can help it. This particular example isn't even round.
I once saw a roundabout with stop signs. I assume it was an attempt to address this situation.
In terms of brain processing, you get used to it and it becomes second nature. It is a skill.
Here the situation is uneven road size, through traffic on the highway and odd angles. Perfect roundabout application.
The (presumably) final markings[0] make things less confusing.
[0]: https://www.google.com/maps/place/High+Rock+Rd,+Washington+9...
I was looking at the markings that are there, and they made it seem like traffic approaching the roundabout would have priority over traffic already on it.
[1]: https://youtu.be/07_m7HHiZRw
Then I started paying attention to the displayed layout. This helped me with the bearings and lane positioning. At least, that's one item off my list when I'm in the roundabout.
Ideally the sign would be 1) Rotated so that the driver proceeds from the base towards the top or sides. 2) Clearly depict the LOGICAL layout (bent slightly towards the physical) of what flow patterns _do_ during the roundabout from that input. 3) Also clearly depict which exits go where.
There should really be two signs actually, one before the diagram that lists (locally relevant roads / landmarks) by lane for sorting (if there's more than one lane in).
PS: The route map should also add a YIELD sign in mini next to the entrance with an according broken line. The interior lanes of roundabouts always have priority and all inputs are yield merges in.
Then there is the less obvious stuff that happens multiple times per hour, like entering in the wrong lane given the desired exit (even though it is marked), vehicles inside the roundabout yielding to vehicles entering the roundabout (even though there is signage), or vehicles entering the roundabout failing to yield to vehicles inside of it (same signage).
As for non-standard roundabouts, those can confuse just about anyone since people often don't realize that it is a roundabout.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:roundabout%3Dturbo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout#Turbo_roundabouts
https://www.arcadis.com/en-us/knowledge-hub/blog/united-stat...
The "turbo roundabout" might make this explicit, but it's not different.
E.g. a standard 2-lane by 2-lane roundabout intersection may just as well look like this https://i.imgur.com/jqhMxW4.jpeg. Note the entrance markings allowing all lanes to go straight with 1 alternative turn direction per lane choice, the exit markings allowing dual lane exits in all directions, and internal markings allowing u-turns (the roads in this case have medians farther out). It has some of the downsides you mention but also some upsides in exchange for allowing slightly more lane flexibility. Regardless, you're definitely not supposed to follow the turbo's rules in that roundabout.
Now you could "no true Scotsman" it and say all the other roundabout types aren't roundabouts because they are supposed to be like turbo roundabouts to be so... but that still leaves needing the distinction in types, for which everyone calls one a turbo roundabout and other variations different types of roundabout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Hemel_Hempst...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon)
> Drivers going northbound on SR 203 traffic may need to yield twice – once when entering the roundabout and again if traffic is passing between the two islands. If you think about it, that’s just following the same rules a second time.
The one key difference from the average (American) roundabout is the second yield. After you've waited your turn and entered the roundabout, you're required to yield again within a few feet. Obviously this is not an impossible task, but the signage leading up to the roundabout from northbound SR 203 doesn't at all indicate the shape of the roundabout. The navigation sign at the entrance only shows a single roundabout.
The second yield point is indicated with the standard yield sign and triangle markings on the road. But judging by the amount of detritus scattered on the ground, as well as the recent addition of "YIELD" text painted on the road and orange flags attached to the yield sign (both not present at any other entrance to the roundabout), the yield-twice pattern is not obvious to everyone.
Plus, the topology of the roundabout isn't conducive to seeing this from the ground, either; the relatively sharp right turn leading into the roundabout places the second yield sign out of your forward vision when you're approaching the roundabout, and the whole intersection itself is very slightly tilted away from the northbound entrance, making it really tricky to see and understand it when approaching.
---
Anecdotally, almost every time I've driven through here while there is simultaneous traffic from northbound SR 203 and northbound 203rd St. SE, the northbound 203rd St. SE traffic ends up being cut off by drivers failing to yield at the second entrance.
Deleted Comment
> Making a roundabout for everyone
ctrl-f "walk", "cycl", pedes". Nothing.
Caveat: this is for simple, single-lane roundabouts. Multi-lane roundabouts are gnarly for cars and worse for cyclists.
Here is an example of the kind of thing I had in mind: https://maps.app.goo.gl/mexZWJ9ZP1yvEJ7k7
As you can see, they are building a pedestrian overbridge on the north side, but consider what you would have to do to traverse in any other place as a pedestrian (or get across anywhere currently). Here's a suggestion from Google (i.e. just pretend you're a car): https://maps.app.goo.gl/AiBoyWk4Z7bFr21z5
The above is in one of the busiest parts of this city. It's not like there are no people wanting to walk. In fact I found myself in exactly this position here not too long ago. I wanted to get from the mall side to a cafe on the opposite side. I gave up and ate a sad meal in the mall :(
Edit: Here's another example (with Google's hilariously impractical suggestion): https://maps.app.goo.gl/pati5dBBTnSgxZ1m9
My preferred roundabout is separate bikepath that joins the road just before and is a part of the same surface, usually found in bike friendly places.
[1] 60000+ km throughout Europe
Although ideally the crossing on a roundabout should be set back so far they arguably aren't even on the roundabout... so space is an issue.
As a cycling Dutch I prefer a roundabout to a traffic light. As a roundabout doesn't force a fullstop and takeoff again. Also because stopping/get going again is more difficult for elderly/injured people.
Cars turning right at an intersection are an order of magnitude more dangerous.
Deleted Comment
I know all those speed bumps are annoying when you are driving but elevated crossings and bike paths are great traffic calming solution as screaming your engine between speed bumps soon gets very old and tiring and even the most aggressive drivers just end up staying between 12 and 20mph (20-35kph) in the sections that involve pedestrians and cyclists.
[0] https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/explaining-the...
[0] https://cities-today.com/uks-first-cyclops-junction-opens-in...
The roundabout forces drivers to slow down in any case, so they are already reducing speed.
Social norms is another thing, but if every driver is in asshat mode you are going to have traffic problems regardless of infrastructure.
Want to see it work? Visit Carmel, Indiana.
[0] https://www.google.com/maps/@51.9970826,4.3550136,195m/data=...