Taking the lane, roundabout version

On 24/05/14 09:52, Duane wrote:
James wrote:
On 24/05/14 07:11, AMuzi wrote:


They're the latest trend around here. Hugely expensive, use more land,
everyone's friend or brother gets a cut and the 'designers' get to feel
smug about 'improving America'.

Oh, in the whipped cream on poop department, they now add sculpture,
stonework, trees or such impedimenta in the middle so there are no clear
sight lines.

I just hate them and ride well out of my way to avoid the damned
pernicious things.


Sounds like they are poorly designed, or you're not using them well.

I'm happy to ride through some here that have 3 roundabouts merged into one ...

http://goo.gl/maps/SbhDO

Like I said I think it depends on the traffic speed and congestion. Having
them is series like that probably slows the cars down some.


I think all roads are a 60km/h limit in the area.

Adds a good measure of confusion ;-)

The tangent design for high speed use is dangerous because it doesn't
slow the approaching traffic sufficiently. The radial approach is best,
and is talked about in the link Frank posted. I read it a few days ago.

--
JS

James wrote:
On 24/05/14 09:52, Duane wrote:
James wrote:
On 24/05/14 07:11, AMuzi wrote:


They're the latest trend around here. Hugely expensive, use more land,
everyone's friend or brother gets a cut and the 'designers' get to feel
smug about 'improving America'.

Oh, in the whipped cream on poop department, they now add sculpture,
stonework, trees or such impedimenta in the middle so there are no clear
sight lines.

I just hate them and ride well out of my way to avoid the damned
pernicious things.


Sounds like they are poorly designed, or you're not using them well.

I'm happy to ride through some here that have 3 roundabouts merged into one ...

http://goo.gl/maps/SbhDO

Like I said I think it depends on the traffic speed and congestion. Having
them is series like that probably slows the cars down some.


I think all roads are a 60km/h limit in the area.

Adds a good measure of confusion ;-)

The tangent design for high speed use is dangerous because it doesn't
slow the approaching traffic sufficiently. The radial approach is best,
and is talked about in the link Frank posted. I read it a few days ago.

The link also talks about traffic speed being an issue and for me that's
the main thing. You have cars entering into a turn at speed. As they're
coming around you're trying to merge in on a bike. Even if they're coming
at 60 and you humping at 30 it's a stretch. And around here speed limits
are a suggestion.

There's not really an issue if the traffic is slow enough and the point
about radial entrance is a good one. But when the traffic is rolling at 60
or 70 coming up on a merging cyclist is not going to be fun for anyone. I
try to avoid these.

--
duane

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/23/2014 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote about roundabouts:


They're the latest trend around here. Hugely expensive, use more land,
everyone's friend or brother gets a cut and the 'designers' get to feel
smug about 'improving America'.

Oh, in the whipped cream on poop department, they now add sculpture,
stonework, trees or such impedimenta in the middle so there are no clear
sight lines.

I just hate them and ride well out of my way to avoid the damned
pernicious things.

Wow. I've found them to work really well. Besides the many we used
in France, there's an ancient one in one of my favorite "ride there
for lunch" towns, and they've just begun construction on the first one
in my county. It happens to be on the road that used to be my
commuting route.

That last one is an intersection between two collector streets, each
with just two lanes. It now has a traffic light, but eastbound
traffic regularly backs up for three light cycles, corked by motorists
wanting to turn left.

North- or southbound traffic (the way I'd normally ride) gets loop
detectors to trigger a green. I've had to phone to get them adjusted
to detect my bike; and sometimes the loops failed due to being severed
by potholes.

I look forward to the roundabout. I think traffic flow will be much
better. And I've never liked stopping for a red light (car,
motorcycle, bike, whatever) when there's nobody using the
other-direction green light.

I don't mind reasonably small, one lane rotaries. As has been
mentioned, the thing to do is to ride well to the left, so as not to be
cut off by exiting drivers. Two-lane rotaries, however, I try to avoid,
even when driving.

Incidentally, one complaint I've heard is that roundabouts are more
difficult for blind or handicapped pedestrians. But that intersection
doesn't even have sidewalks, so if true, it may not be a problem
there.

Rotaries are more difficult for all pedestrians, because there is never
even a short time when they clearly have the right of way.

--

On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:10:33 PM UTC-4, Radey wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

I look forward to the roundabout. I think traffic flow will be much
better. And I've never liked stopping for a red light (car,
motorcycle, bike, whatever) when there's nobody using the
other-direction green light.

I don't mind reasonably small, one lane rotaries. As has been
mentioned, the thing to do is to ride well to the left, so as not to be
cut off by exiting drivers. Two-lane rotaries, however, I try to avoid,
even when driving.

I recall reading somewhere that single lane roundabouts are safer for cyclists
(and motorists ) than ordinary light-controlled intersections; but that
two-lane roundabouts tend to be more dangerous for cyclists.

I'd guess that the main difference is speed. And I think a roundabout can't be
considered well-designed unless it forces incoming motorists to adopt a pretty
low speed - perhaps 20 mph max.

- Frank Krygowski

On 5/23/2014 5:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/23/2014 5:11 PM, AMuzi wrote about roundabouts:


They're the latest trend around here. Hugely expensive,
use more land,
everyone's friend or brother gets a cut and the
'designers' get to feel
smug about 'improving America'.

Oh, in the whipped cream on poop department, they now add
sculpture,
stonework, trees or such impedimenta in the middle so
there are no clear
sight lines.

I just hate them and ride well out of my way to avoid the
damned
pernicious things.

Wow. I've found them to work really well. Besides the many
we used in France, there's an ancient one in one of my
favorite "ride there for lunch" towns, and they've just
begun construction on the first one in my county. It
happens to be on the road that used to be my commuting route.

That last one is an intersection between two collector
streets, each with just two lanes. It now has a traffic
light, but eastbound traffic regularly backs up for three
light cycles, corked by motorists wanting to turn left.

North- or southbound traffic (the way I'd normally ride)
gets loop detectors to trigger a green. I've had to phone
to get them adjusted to detect my bike; and sometimes the
loops failed due to being severed by potholes.

I look forward to the roundabout. I think traffic flow will
be much better. And I've never liked stopping for a red
light (car, motorcycle, bike, whatever) when there's nobody
using the other-direction green light.

Incidentally, one complaint I've heard is that roundabouts
are more difficult for blind or handicapped pedestrians.
But that intersection doesn't even have sidewalks, so if
true, it may not be a problem there.


It now has a traffic
light, but eastbound traffic regularly backs up for three
light cycles, corked by motorists wanting to turn left.

The usual answer to traffic stacking up for a left is a left
green arrow. Surprised no one thought of that. Hard to rake
off a piece of such a small contract I suppose.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

AMuzi wrote:

:The usual answer to traffic stacking up for a left is a left
:green arrow. Surprised no one thought of that. Hard to rake
ff a piece of such a small contract I suppose.

Requires much more space, and it's typically more expensive to rebuild an
intersection to add turn signals than it is to build a roundabout,
particularly if you have to acquire the property that the turn lanes
require. A roundabout might look bigger, but there's no need for
extra lanes outside of the intersection itself. The long term costs
of running a traffic light are around $10K a year, the cost of a
roundaobout is close to zero.

--
sig 23

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:10:33 PM UTC-4, Radey wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

I look forward to the roundabout. I think traffic flow will be much
better. And I've never liked stopping for a red light (car,
motorcycle, bike, whatever) when there's nobody using the
other-direction green light.

I don't mind reasonably small, one lane rotaries. As has been
mentioned, the thing to do is to ride well to the left, so as not to be
cut off by exiting drivers. Two-lane rotaries, however, I try to avoid,
even when driving.

I recall reading somewhere that single lane roundabouts are safer for cyclists
(and motorists ) than ordinary light-controlled intersections; but that
two-lane roundabouts tend to be more dangerous for cyclists.

I'd guess that the main difference is speed. And I think a roundabout can't be
considered well-designed unless it forces incoming motorists to adopt a pretty
low speed - perhaps 20 mph max.

That has not been my experience. Higher speed does make life more
difficult for cyclists, but more lanes is qualitatively different.

The multiple lane rotaries with which I am familiar are located on large
wanna-be divided highway arterials. Drivers on the inside lane tend to
assume that those on the outside lane will follow their lead in taking
the most common exit. Which means that to safely cross the rotary from
one minor road to another requires crossing the outside lane, moving as
fast as possible in the inside lane, then crossing the outside lane
again before one's exit. I haven't tried that on a bicycle, nor will I.



--

On Fri, 23 May 2014 12:10:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

More benefits of being visible, at lane center:

A paper from Australia notes that car-bike crashes in roundabouts seem
to occur mostly when cyclists stick to the edge and aren't noticed by
motorists. They recommend that any bike lanes end well before the
roundabout, and that cyclists ride in a very visible position, near the
center of the roundabout. (They're talking about single-lane
roundabouts, I'm sure.)

The abstract link came from a friend in Oz. Full disclosu I haven't
yet read the paper itself.

https://www.onlinepublications.austr...ems/AP-R461-14

In France, we bicycled (and drove) through many, many roundabouts
without problems. Only in Troyes did we see bike lanes painted in the
outer edge of roundabouts. Troyes also had many other hare-brained
"innovative" bike facilities. I'm sure the town was very proud of them.


I'm in different about bikers, but when I see one encroaching on the white line, I will encroach
right back. You're risking my life by being a road hazard. I don't take that lightly. You're not a
motor vehicle, so don't expect to be treated like one. You're road debris in the way.

100% stay out of the way because you don't own the road, nor do you pay any taxes on your cycle to
suggest you have a right to drive on the inside of the white line. You're not doing anyone a favor,
other than yourself, by riding your bike.

Don't expect me to feel that I have to recognize you as anything other than a self entitled ninny.

THE ROUNDBOUT

late braking is crucial

outbrake going down the inside then move slightly left, intimidating the outside traffic

then turn in sliding rear outwar again toward the outside. be smooth.

ACCELERATE !

On 7/27/2014 5:07 AM, Tremayne A Higby wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 12:10:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

More benefits of being visible, at lane center:

A paper from Australia notes that car-bike crashes in roundabouts seem
to occur mostly when cyclists stick to the edge and aren't noticed by
motorists. They recommend that any bike lanes end well before the
roundabout, and that cyclists ride in a very visible position, near the
center of the roundabout. (They're talking about single-lane
roundabouts, I'm sure.)

The abstract link came from a friend in Oz. Full disclosu I haven't
yet read the paper itself.

https://www.onlinepublications.austr...ems/AP-R461-14

In France, we bicycled (and drove) through many, many roundabouts
without problems. Only in Troyes did we see bike lanes painted in the
outer edge of roundabouts. Troyes also had many other hare-brained
"innovative" bike facilities. I'm sure the town was very proud of them.


I'm in different about bikers, but when I see one encroaching on the white line, I will encroach
right back. You're risking my life by being a road hazard. I don't take that lightly. You're not a
motor vehicle, so don't expect to be treated like one. You're road debris in the way.

100% stay out of the way because you don't own the road, nor do you pay any taxes on your cycle to
suggest you have a right to drive on the inside of the white line. You're not doing anyone a favor,
other than yourself, by riding your bike.

Don't expect me to feel that I have to recognize you as anything other than a self entitled ninny.



You "encroach right back" while riding your bicycle? I've
done that too, especially for wrong-way riders in my lane
while sporting locked elbows and my icy stare of death.

Doing that to a cyclist while in your car is highly
irresponsible to the point of possible criminality. You
ought to ponder the catastrophic effects of minor errors
before doing that again.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971