My best friend is a highly experienced civil engineer, specialized in designing intersections. His take on roundabouts:
- They are adored by urban planners because they look nice and you can put a statue or fountain in the middle
- They reduce T-bone collisions
However:
- Small fender benders and sideswipes are much more frequent
- They use way more area
- They work where each direction has an approximately equal amount of traffic. However, usually, one direction (north/south, say) has a larger share of the traffic. In those cases, the bulk of traffic all needs to slow down, downshift, turn a bit in one direction and then turn a bit in the other direction for the minority of traffic that's bleeding on or off the main artery. In those cases, a traffic light is better because the timing can be adjusted to the proportion of traffic from each direction (and more flexible since it can be adjusted over time).
- Finally, they're also (mostly) worse for cyclists and pedestrians.
Essentially, they have use cases, especially in small towns, and they're pretty, but they're usually not the right engineering solution.
> the bulk of traffic all needs to slow down, downshift, turn a bit in one direction and then turn a bit in the other direction for the minority of traffic that's bleeding on or off the main artery.
Slowing/calming traffic like this is a good thing. Make it impossible to speed. Enforce the existing 35mph speed limit via concrete rather than allowing cars to rip through a yellow light at 70mph. You're also ignoring this aspect when you call roundabouts "(mostly) worse for cyclists and pedestrians".
A place where traffic slows down, without actually stopping, and becomes congested with no time/space gaps between vehicles, is worse for pedestrians.
> becomes congested with no time/space gaps between vehicles, is worse for pedestrians
Why? This feels like it's assuming pedestrians share the street with vehicles, but besides the US and some other places, don't most "modern" countries have separate pavements/streets for pedestrians? Besides in the country-side, vehicles and pedestrians don't generally share the road in populated areas here in Spain. For crossing roads outside cities, building a pedestrian tunnel below or a bridge above seems to preferred here, except in the cases where it isn't possible, and in cities obviously.
Right, you're talking about "traffic participant", are you including pedestrians or not? Because as I said, in many places, "vehicles" and "pedestrians" are well-separated and don't impact/affect each other, so not sure what cluster-fuck could be created there. Seems less of a cluster-fuck than relying on cross-walks and stop-lights?
propter_hoc · · focus · HN ↗
- They are adored by urban planners because they look nice and you can put a statue or fountain in the middle
- They reduce T-bone collisions
However:
- Small fender benders and sideswipes are much more frequent
- They use way more area
- They work where each direction has an approximately equal amount of traffic. However, usually, one direction (north/south, say) has a larger share of the traffic. In those cases, the bulk of traffic all needs to slow down, downshift, turn a bit in one direction and then turn a bit in the other direction for the minority of traffic that's bleeding on or off the main artery. In those cases, a traffic light is better because the timing can be adjusted to the proportion of traffic from each direction (and more flexible since it can be adjusted over time).
- Finally, they're also (mostly) worse for cyclists and pedestrians.
Essentially, they have use cases, especially in small towns, and they're pretty, but they're usually not the right engineering solution.
pkamb · · focus · HN ↗
Slowing/calming traffic like this is a good thing. Make it impossible to speed. Enforce the existing 35mph speed limit via concrete rather than allowing cars to rip through a yellow light at 70mph. You're also ignoring this aspect when you call roundabouts "(mostly) worse for cyclists and pedestrians".
kazinator · · focus · HN ↗
embedding-shape · · focus · HN ↗
Why? This feels like it's assuming pedestrians share the street with vehicles, but besides the US and some other places, don't most "modern" countries have separate pavements/streets for pedestrians? Besides in the country-side, vehicles and pedestrians don't generally share the road in populated areas here in Spain. For crossing roads outside cities, building a pedestrian tunnel below or a bridge above seems to preferred here, except in the cases where it isn't possible, and in cities obviously.
cucumber3732842 · · focus · HN ↗
embedding-shape · · focus · HN ↗
cucumber3732842 · · focus · HN ↗
embedding-shape · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
dang · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html