On 04/05/2019 11:52 p.m., Joy Beeson wrote:

When the first roundabout in town was built, there was much fuss and
feathers over how confusing it would be until people learned the
arcane new rules.

But roundabouts function by exactly the same rule as everywhere else:
if there is no "yield" sign, the vehicle in the road and moving has
right-of-way over the vehicle that wants to enter.


The issue comes when there is no opening to get into the roundabout.
when I first moved to Boston, I remember a comedian Lenny Clarke doing a
routine about his battlecar galactica. He was talking about the Route 1
rotary (roundabout in Boston speak) and he advised to wait until you
have a car coming that's way more expensive than yours and then pull
out. Seemed to work for me. Though I would not ride my bike through
that rotary at rush hour.



I will confess that the first time I encountered the roundabout, I
pulled into a parking lot and studied it for a while before I
re-entered the roadway and went through.

And a couple of years later, I felt rather queer again the first time
I went through it in a car.

And now, every time I stop at the light at the intersection of Park,
Winona, Argonne, and King's Highway, I shout "Come on, Roundabout!"
It's on the town's to-do list, but it's going to take a while to raise
the money.



They converted a 4-way stop on my commute to a roundabout. When driving
I prefer that but on a bike, the 4-way stop was a lot simpler. They
have a tendency to "beautify" them here with trees and things in the
center so you can't see across. Driving at a normal speed the line of
sight is enough. On a bike, not so much.


Whenever people get confused over the rules of the road for bicycles,
it's because they are trying to make it too complicated. A bike is a
vehicle, and it follows vehicle rules: slower traffic keep right,
turn left from the left-turn lane, be alert at intersections and don't
enter when it isn't your turn, get out of the way of emergency
vehicles, don't zig-zag, don't ride into the side of a moving train.

We really, really need signs up saying that there is a fine for
crashing into the side of a train. The last time this happened, the
newspaper actually referred to the miscreant as "the victim" of the
"accident"!

And, as far as the Time-Union knows, all he's going to be charged with
is public intoxication.