On 10/7/2015 11:25 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Don Y
writes




Don't (some) UK roundabouts have these little "posts" in the center of each
arterial *feeding* the roundabout? So, you can essentially make a U turn
and head back out the way you came -- *or* enter the roundabout?

ISTR some such things but decades since I was there (Manchester/Lpool).

I can't say I recognise these little 'posts'.

Sorry, they;re not really "posts" in the sense of a pole sunk
into the ground. Rather, a "roundabout" of practically ZERO radius!
(we called these "rotaries" growing up; "traffic circles for
much larger diameters). Often, there would literally be a sign set
in a block of cement sitting in the middle of the intersection
around which traffic flowed

In urban areas, just before a
road enters the roundabout, there's often a small 'island' in the centre of the
road where there's an illuminated rectangular 'bollard' with a blue 'keep left'
arrow. There might also be a pedestrian crossing there, so that the island is
half-way across, and serves a half-way refuge for pedestrians. However, I don't
know of any facility for doing a U-turn before the roundabout. If you did that,
you might get arrested for driving while your brain was disengaged!

Took a bit of head scratching to remember *where*, but I think this
is what I was talking about:

,125m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en

(watch the wrap)

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 9:38:00 AM UTC-4, Moe DeLoughan wrote:

The ones who drive me mad are those who simply will not merge until
the merge lane ends. They don't look, they don't try to fit in, they
just follow the white line on the right until there ain't no merge
lane anymore. Doesn't matter that the other drivers already made an
opening for them, they're just following the white line.

My husband and I call them "oozers". They ooze into traffic.
They're a heck of a lot more common than the ones who stop at
the end of the ramp, so yeah, they are more annoying.

Cindy Hamilton

On 10/6/2015 2:35 AM, The Peeler wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:52:31 -0700, The Rectum, the resident psychopath of
sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, FAKING his time zone again,
farted:

The USA finally takes to roundabouts.
http://nyti.ms/1N3v0tI

When I was visiting some friends in Sandy Eggo, they took me down to
Tijuana where they have these traffic circles. It was a fun time to sit
and watch the cars on the merry-go-round. ;-)

You need roundabouts like the Magic Rpundabout in Hemel Hemptsead!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVeAhmvNFIU

You need psychiatric treatment, like every miserable pathological troll who
forgot that there is still a life outside Usenet! BG


Miss Recktum could use a "roundabout" to clean her colostomy hole.
LOL

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 6:59:03 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 10/06/2015 01:13 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Even though the drivers were allowed a 30 minute warm-up session before
the roundabout test, some might still not have been as comfortable with
them as they might have been. Given a bit more time to get used to them,
the roundabout throughput could well have be even higher. It stands to
reason that they will usually be more efficient then 4-way stops. Aren't
the Americans to know the phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident"?

That 30 minute warmup utterly defeats the test. What you need is a mix
of drivers, some of whom will come to a dead stop as they try to figure
out what they're supposed to do next. Roundabouts are scarce enough in
this city that a goodly percentage of the drivers have never encountered
them on their usual routes.

I respectfully disagree with your use of the "utterly", for a couple of
reasons, with #2 being the more important one.

1 - Yes, the warm up may have altered the results to some extent, but
not "utterly". Even if some of the drivers stopped, I'm confident in
saying that it wouldn't be enough to wipe out the entire 20% of
improved efficiency. There is no also guarantee that every of those
drivers have encountered - or properly deal with - 4 way stops.

2 - What exactly were they testing? They were testing the "myth" that
roundabouts are more efficient than 4-way stops. They weren't testing the
myth that some percentage of drivers don't know that to do when they
encounter a roundabout. In order to make that one-to-one comparison, you
are better off having 100% of the drivers know exactly what to do at
both types of intersections. As another example, you can't determine
whether hand brakes on a bicycle are safer than foot brakes unless the
testers know how to ride a bike. For a simple "throughput" comparison, the
fewer the variables the better.

We have both roundabouts and 4 way stops in my area. At both types of
intersections I see drivers getting it wrong (or not trusting the other
drivers to get it right.) However, having to deal with both, I'll take
roundabout every time.

In message , Don Y
writes
On 10/7/2015 11:25 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Don Y
writes




Don't (some) UK roundabouts have these little "posts" in the center of each
arterial *feeding* the roundabout? So, you can essentially make a U turn
and head back out the way you came -- *or* enter the roundabout?

ISTR some such things but decades since I was there (Manchester/Lpool).

I can't say I recognise these little 'posts'.

Sorry, they;re not really "posts" in the sense of a pole sunk
into the ground. Rather, a "roundabout" of practically ZERO radius!
(we called these "rotaries" growing up; "traffic circles for
much larger diameters). Often, there would literally be a sign set
in a block of cement sitting in the middle of the intersection
around which traffic flowed

In urban areas, just before a
road enters the roundabout, there's often a small 'island' in the
centre of the
road where there's an illuminated rectangular 'bollard' with a blue
'keep left'
arrow. There might also be a pedestrian crossing there, so that the island is
half-way across, and serves a half-way refuge for pedestrians.
However, I don't
know of any facility for doing a U-turn before the roundabout. If you
did that,
you might get arrested for driving while your brain was disengaged!

Took a bit of head scratching to remember *where*, but I think this
is what I was talking about:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/51...0%C2%B055%2757.
,125m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en

(watch the wrap)

If you mean the blue sign with three white circulating arrows, that's
just one of the signs for a mini-roundabout.
http://bit.ly/1Rua3a9
--
Ian

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 11:14:20 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| I've driven in CA all my life and have never seen a roundabout
| ....until about 10 yrs ago. Whatta nightmare! I saw a 3 lane
| roundabout in Boston about 35 yrs ago and it was a complete
| clusterf*ck.

They've always existed in New England. Here it's
called a rotary. Roundabout is the British term. They
may take some getting used to, but they keep traffic
moving at intersections of major roads where lights
would cause massive backups. It's very simple: People
in the rotary have right of way. People entering must
wait for a clearing. The result is like lights or stop signs
but with no wasted time. No one ever waits if it's
clear to go.

There is one problem now, though: With the epidemic
of phone addicts who don't signal, we end up with
rotary traffic where many or most of the drivers are not
signalling their intention to leave the rotary. Fortunately,
in VT/NH handheld devices are now banned. It's being
talked about in MA but so far there's no limitation on
out-to-lunch phone addicts. Not paying attention in
the middle of a rotary, and doing things like exiting
from the inside lane, do make it a risky scenario.

The Google Map app on my smartphone (and my town) calls them Traffic
Circles.

I forget what my Garmin GPS used to call them because I edited some of
the terms that it speaks. They are now called "the thing that goes around
in a circle", as in:

"At the thing that goes around in a circle take the 2nd exit"

"Recalculating" is heard as "Damn! Lost again."

Instead of saying "Make a U-Turn", it channels Mr. T and says "Turn around, fool!"

My ego is reinforced every time I reach my destination when I hear:

"Ya da man...You made it to..."

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 3:48:34 PM UTC-4, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Don Y
writes
On 10/7/2015 11:25 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Don Y
writes




Don't (some) UK roundabouts have these little "posts" in the center of each
arterial *feeding* the roundabout? So, you can essentially make a U turn
and head back out the way you came -- *or* enter the roundabout?

ISTR some such things but decades since I was there (Manchester/Lpool).

I can't say I recognise these little 'posts'.

Sorry, they;re not really "posts" in the sense of a pole sunk
into the ground. Rather, a "roundabout" of practically ZERO radius!
(we called these "rotaries" growing up; "traffic circles for
much larger diameters). Often, there would literally be a sign set
in a block of cement sitting in the middle of the intersection
around which traffic flowed

In urban areas, just before a
road enters the roundabout, there's often a small 'island' in the
centre of the
road where there's an illuminated rectangular 'bollard' with a blue
'keep left'
arrow. There might also be a pedestrian crossing there, so that the island is
half-way across, and serves a half-way refuge for pedestrians.
However, I don't
know of any facility for doing a U-turn before the roundabout. If you
did that,
you might get arrested for driving while your brain was disengaged!

Took a bit of head scratching to remember *where*, but I think this
is what I was talking about:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/51...0%C2%B055%2757.
,125m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en

(watch the wrap)

If you mean the blue sign with three white circulating arrows, that's
just one of the signs for a mini-roundabout.
http://bit.ly/1Rua3a9
--
Ian

We have roundabouts that are so small that there is a sign instructing
18 wheelers to go all the way around the roundabout to make a right hand
turn.

https://www.halifax.ca/roundabouts/i...turntrucks.jpg

DerbyDad03 posted for all of us...


Yeah, we get them on occasion in our roundabouts. Sometimes you can't tell
if they don't understand the ROW process or if they do but they don't trust
the incoming driver. Sometimes it's obvious. You are stopped to give them
the ROW and then they stop and look at you. All you can do is shake your
head and wave them on.

The other situation is when you are in the roundabout and a driver is
approaching too fast. You know that in order for them to give you the ROW
they are going to have to brake hard. The trick there is to keep your speed
up in the roundabout but still leave yourself room to brake and let them
go by if they don't stop.

I get a strong sense of satisfaction when I know that the incoming driver
was trying to bully me by not slowing down and I time it just right so
he has to brake hard. You can tell by their eye


A little competition aye? What happens when you both lose?

--
Tekkie

rbowman posted for all of us...



On 10/06/2015 11:17 AM, Don Y wrote:
Ha! Entirely different experience for me (East coast). There, the
trick was to master the art of "not noticing" the other guy! If
you made eye contact, he *knew* you saw him and, as such, immediately
assumed the upper hand! :

That's the east coast for you. During my trucking days I was always
amazed when some Master of the Universe in his Merc or Bimmer thought he
could really force his way in front of a semi.

+1

--
Tekkie

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 4:56:51 PM UTC-4, Tekkie® wrote:
DerbyDad03 posted for all of us...


Yeah, we get them on occasion in our roundabouts. Sometimes you can't tell
if they don't understand the ROW process or if they do but they don't trust
the incoming driver. Sometimes it's obvious. You are stopped to give them
the ROW and then they stop and look at you. All you can do is shake your
head and wave them on.

The other situation is when you are in the roundabout and a driver is
approaching too fast. You know that in order for them to give you the ROW
they are going to have to brake hard. The trick there is to keep your speed
up in the roundabout but still leave yourself room to brake and let them
go by if they don't stop.

I get a strong sense of satisfaction when I know that the incoming driver
was trying to bully me by not slowing down and I time it just right so
he has to brake hard. You can tell by their eyes.


A little competition aye? What happens when you both lose?

--
Tekkie

Dunno...That's never happened to me. (Yet)

On 10/07/2015 02:37 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Do you remember anything from your college days a half century ago? ^_^

I remember when the physics professor fired up a model pulse jet in the
lecture hall. Sadistic *******.

On 10/07/2015 09:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
People are frequently getting in accidents in these lanes. It seems a
no-brainer: the lanes are NOT for "travel"; yet one driver will be
in the lane waiting for a break in oncoming traffic to turn and some
other idiot will plow into him (from either direction).

Those can get interesting. Driver A wants to make a left into a side
street and pulls into the center lane. Meanwhile Driver B is already
past the side street A wants to turn onto but pulls into the center lane
to make his left onto the side street A has already passed. Chaos ensues.

On 10/07/2015 07:37 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:

The ones who drive me mad are those who simply will not merge until the
merge lane ends. They don't look, they don't try to fit in, they just
follow the white line on the right until there ain't no merge lane
anymore. Doesn't matter that the other drivers already made an opening
for them, they're just following the white line.

Better than that are the construction areas where one lane is closed
ahead and the signs give everyone time to merge into the remaining two.
Some idiots always go as far as they can on the closed lane figuring
they can force their way in. With a little coordination truckers can
create their own rolling roadblocks to put an end to that game.

On 10/07/2015 01:36 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
1 - Yes, the warm up may have altered the results to some extent, but
not "utterly". Even if some of the drivers stopped, I'm confident in
saying that it wouldn't be enough to wipe out the entire 20% of
improved efficiency. There is no also guarantee that every of those
drivers have encountered - or properly deal with - 4 way stops.

If you design an experiment where you train the Group B participants
before hand and ignore Group A, you're not proving much other than
people perform better in an environment that they're familiar with.

Take 5 rats and train them on a maze, then introduce 5 rats to a maze of
equal complexity that they haven't seen before. Who gets the cheese?

On 10/7/2015 6:14 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/07/2015 09:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
People are frequently getting in accidents in these lanes. It seems a
no-brainer: the lanes are NOT for "travel"; yet one driver will be
in the lane waiting for a break in oncoming traffic to turn and some
other idiot will plow into him (from either direction).

Those can get interesting. Driver A wants to make a left into a side street and
pulls into the center lane. Meanwhile Driver B is already past the side street
A wants to turn onto but pulls into the center lane to make his left onto the
side street A has already passed. Chaos ensues.

Pull into the lane immediately before the turn you want to make. I.e.,
if someone is there, pull *past* them. Or, pull in front of them and wait
for them to clear the lane.

Here, they seem to be the source of frequent (often serious/fatal) accidents.
Hence my confusion: don't you *see* the guy stopped in the middle of the
road ahead of you? (how else can you get into an "accident"?)

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 9:17:00 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 10/07/2015 07:37 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:

The ones who drive me mad are those who simply will not merge until the
merge lane ends. They don't look, they don't try to fit in, they just
follow the white line on the right until there ain't no merge lane
anymore. Doesn't matter that the other drivers already made an opening
for them, they're just following the white line.

Better than that are the construction areas where one lane is closed
ahead and the signs give everyone time to merge into the remaining two.
Some idiots always go as far as they can on the closed lane figuring
they can force their way in. With a little coordination truckers can
create their own rolling roadblocks to put an end to that game.

You don't need truckers. I do the road block thing all the time. I just hang out in the closed lane next to the spot where I belong in the open lane and move along with the traffic. No one gets past me. 99%+ of the drivers in the open lane know exactly what I'm doing and keep my spot open for me.

They don't even need to be trained.

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 9:24:00 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 10/07/2015 01:36 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
1 - Yes, the warm up may have altered the results to some extent, but
not "utterly". Even if some of the drivers stopped, I'm confident in
saying that it wouldn't be enough to wipe out the entire 20% of
improved efficiency. There is no also guarantee that every of those
drivers have encountered - or properly deal with - 4 way stops.

If you design an experiment where you train the Group B participants
before hand and ignore Group A, you're not proving much other than
people perform better in an environment that they're familiar with.


What group was trained/ignored in the Mythbuster's experiment? They gave
time to all drivers to familiarize themselves with both the 4-way stop
intersection and the roundabout. Who was Group A and who was Group B?

In addition, I see that you snipped my #2, which I stated was even more
important than my #1: They were testing the *efficiency* of a roundabout
over a 4-way stop. The only way to do a valid comparison is to have all
participants trained in order to eliminate the "What the heck do I do now?"
variable.

If you want to complain about the testing method, complain about the
randomness of the left and right turn variable. In both tests they
used operators to randomly tell the drivers which way to turn (or not).
For a valid one-to-one comparison, they should have used the exact same
drivers, in the exact same positions, executing the exact same turns.
That method would have eliminated many variables, most importantly how
long each vehicle was in the intersection, thereby forcing other drivers
to wait.

On 10/08/2015 07:05 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
In addition, I see that you snipped my #2, which I stated was even more
important than my #1: They were testing the*efficiency* of a roundabout
over a 4-way stop. The only way to do a valid comparison is to have all
participants trained in order to eliminate the "What the heck do I do now?"
variable.

Real world efficiency assumes a real world population. At least one new
roundabout here usually becomes a 4 way stop with added confusion.

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 06:05:14 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 9:24:00 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 10/07/2015 01:36 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
1 - Yes, the warm up may have altered the results to some extent, but
not "utterly". Even if some of the drivers stopped, I'm confident in
saying that it wouldn't be enough to wipe out the entire 20% of
improved efficiency. There is no also guarantee that every of those
drivers have encountered - or properly deal with - 4 way stops.

If you design an experiment where you train the Group B participants
before hand and ignore Group A, you're not proving much other than
people perform better in an environment that they're familiar with.


What group was trained/ignored in the Mythbuster's experiment? They gave
time to all drivers to familiarize themselves with both the 4-way stop
intersection and the roundabout. Who was Group A and who was Group B?

In addition, I see that you snipped my #2, which I stated was even more
important than my #1: They were testing the *efficiency* of a roundabout
over a 4-way stop. The only way to do a valid comparison is to have all
participants trained in order to eliminate the "What the heck do I do now?"
variable.

If you want to complain about the testing method, complain about the
randomness of the left and right turn variable. In both tests they
used operators to randomly tell the drivers which way to turn (or not).
For a valid one-to-one comparison, they should have used the exact same
drivers, in the exact same positions, executing the exact same turns.
That method would have eliminated many variables, most importantly how
long each vehicle was in the intersection, thereby forcing other drivers
to wait.

Since both the roundabout and the 4 way stop usually are installed to
slow traffic down (in the US) , not to make it go faster, I am not
sure what myth busters proved.
The most efficient traffic movement in high traffic areas is obviously
vertical separation but the next choice is a system of well timed
lights.

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 10:08:30 AM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 10/08/2015 07:05 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
In addition, I see that you snipped my #2, which I stated was even more
important than my #1: They were testing the*efficiency* of a roundabout
over a 4-way stop. The only way to do a valid comparison is to have all
participants trained in order to eliminate the "What the heck do I do now?"
variable.

Real world efficiency assumes a real world population.

Then throw away the results every lab test done with rats, rabbits, pigs,
etc. None of those use a "real world population".

At least one new roundabout here usually becomes a 4 way stop with
added confusion.

For how long? Once the initial confusion passes, which type of intersection
is more efficient? That was the Mythbusters test: Which type of intersection
is more efficient? In a one-to-one comparison, with short-term variables
removed by a training period for both styles, the roundabout proved to be
more efficient.

In *my* real world experience, I have both roundabouts and 4 way stops in
my area. I typically have 4 roundabout experiences on a daily basis, a 4 way
stop experience at least twice a week. I lived through the construction of
the roundabouts so I have experienced/witnessed the learning curve for
myself.

I can unequivocally state that the roundabouts have been more efficient
during heavy traffic periods and an absolute joy when there is little to
no traffic.

They are better for our cars (less braking and accelerating) and better for
our environment (less idling as we inch towards the stop sign).

On 10/6/2015 12:27 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-4, notbob wrote:
On 2015-10-06, Moe DeLoughan wrote:

The joke here in Minnesota: What do you get when you have four drivers
at a four-way? Answer: A picnic. That's 'cause we'll spend an
eternity trying to out-polite the others:

"After you."
"No, after you."
"Oh, no, really. I'm in no hurry. You go first."
"But I'm afraid of looking rude. You first."
"Are you sure? Really, you first."
"Actually, I think that guy gets to go first."

And on and on and on and on...cheesus, I could scream. Just GO already.

LOL!.....

Reminds me of an episode of Portlandia (S1:E9?). The two ppl come to
a stop and start that very same "you go" silliness. It runs on
endlessly, even past the point where an ancient Yugo automobile slips
through the same intersection while the original two are still
out-politing each other.

You go.
No. You go.
No. You go......

I've experienced the same thing, here, in the rural CO Rockies. As a
CA native, it drives me crazy when a local gets to an intersection
before I do, then starts with those "you go" hand signals. Arrghh!!
Still, it's better than being center-punched by a stop sign/light
runner.


nb

I recall a story about a set of very polite twins that weren't born until
they were in their mid-twenties.


Ha! I'll have to share that one with my twin. The one I usually use
is, "When *I* was your age (ten minutes ago)..."

On 10/7/2015 8:18 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/07/2015 07:37 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:

The ones who drive me mad are those who simply will not merge until the
merge lane ends. They don't look, they don't try to fit in, they just
follow the white line on the right until there ain't no merge lane
anymore. Doesn't matter that the other drivers already made an opening
for them, they're just following the white line.

Better than that are the construction areas where one lane is closed
ahead and the signs give everyone time to merge into the remaining
two. Some idiots always go as far as they can on the closed lane
figuring they can force their way in. With a little coordination
truckers can create their own rolling roadblocks to put an end to that
game.

Actually, you're screwing up traffic when you do that. To maximize
traffic flow, everyone's supposed to use all open lanes as far as they
can, and then perform what's called a zipper merge, where the cars in
the lane next to the closed lane take turns letting the cars in the
closed lane merge. When people are accustomed to doing that, it goes
very smoothly. There's a left-hand zipper merge spot on my evening
commute, and it's no trouble. If you resent other drivers merging in
ahead of you, move into their lane and move on up.

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 04:14:08 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 9:17:00 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 10/07/2015 07:37 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:

The ones who drive me mad are those who simply will not merge until the
merge lane ends. They don't look, they don't try to fit in, they just
follow the white line on the right until there ain't no merge lane
anymore. Doesn't matter that the other drivers already made an opening
for them, they're just following the white line.

Better than that are the construction areas where one lane is closed
ahead and the signs give everyone time to merge into the remaining two.
Some idiots always go as far as they can on the closed lane figuring
they can force their way in. With a little coordination truckers can
create their own rolling roadblocks to put an end to that game.

You don't need truckers. I do the road block thing all the time. I just hang out in the closed lane next to the spot where I belong in the open lane and move along with the traffic. No one gets past me. 99%+ of the drivers in the open lane know exactly what I'm doing and keep my spot open for me.

They don't even need to be trained.

All you're doing is creating a different merge point. Once traffic is
heavy enough to start backing up, the logical and safe way is fill
both lanes and take turns merging where the lane ends.
But if you want to be the traffic cop, have at it.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 10:07:46 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 04:14:08 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 9:17:00 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 10/07/2015 07:37 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:

The ones who drive me mad are those who simply will not merge until the
merge lane ends. They don't look, they don't try to fit in, they just
follow the white line on the right until there ain't no merge lane
anymore. Doesn't matter that the other drivers already made an opening
for them, they're just following the white line.

Better than that are the construction areas where one lane is closed
ahead and the signs give everyone time to merge into the remaining two.
Some idiots always go as far as they can on the closed lane figuring
they can force their way in. With a little coordination truckers can
create their own rolling roadblocks to put an end to that game.

You don't need truckers. I do the road block thing all the time. I just hang out in the closed lane next to the spot where I belong in the open lane and move along with the traffic. No one gets past me. 99%+ of the drivers in the open lane know exactly what I'm doing and keep my spot open for me.

They don't even need to be trained.

All you're doing is creating a different merge point. Once traffic is
heavy enough to start backing up, the logical and safe way is fill
both lanes and take turns merging where the lane ends.
But if you want to be the traffic cop, have at it.

On the road to Ft Myers beach where they have a 2 lane to one lane
merge, they put a light in that open each lane in turn. It seems to
work OK.
Usually where I see the truckers blocking the closed lanes is at
construction sites.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 10:29:21 -0400, wrote:



Since both the roundabout and the 4 way stop usually are installed to
slow traffic down (in the US) , not to make it go faster, I am not
sure what myth busters proved.
The most efficient traffic movement in high traffic areas is obviously
vertical separation but the next choice is a system of well timed
lights.

I was surprised last week when I had to make 3 trips to Palatine from
Morton Grove to feed my sons cats.
Only waited for a few lights - out of about 50.
Quick trips. Left home at 7 PM, so traffic was fairly light.
I still remember driving there from Chicago about 30 years ago, and it
was a nightmare. But I probably took the wrong route then.

In message ,
writes


Since both the roundabout and the 4 way stop usually are installed to
slow traffic down (in the US) , not to make it go faster, I am not
sure what myth busters proved.
The most efficient traffic movement in high traffic areas is obviously
vertical separation but the next choice is a system of well timed
lights.

Yes, when your reach a roundabout, it does temporarily slow you down
(even when the traffic is flowing well) - but with luck, nobody actually
stops.

However, even the best system of well timed traffic lights is almost
certain to bring someone to a stop. That's what the lights are there
for!
--
Ian

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 10:29:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 06:05:14 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 9:24:00 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 10/07/2015 01:36 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
1 - Yes, the warm up may have altered the results to some extent, but
not "utterly". Even if some of the drivers stopped, I'm confident in
saying that it wouldn't be enough to wipe out the entire 20% of
improved efficiency. There is no also guarantee that every of those
drivers have encountered - or properly deal with - 4 way stops.

If you design an experiment where you train the Group B participants
before hand and ignore Group A, you're not proving much other than
people perform better in an environment that they're familiar with.


What group was trained/ignored in the Mythbuster's experiment? They gave
time to all drivers to familiarize themselves with both the 4-way stop
intersection and the roundabout. Who was Group A and who was Group B?

In addition, I see that you snipped my #2, which I stated was even more
important than my #1: They were testing the *efficiency* of a roundabout
over a 4-way stop. The only way to do a valid comparison is to have all
participants trained in order to eliminate the "What the heck do I do now?"
variable.

If you want to complain about the testing method, complain about the
randomness of the left and right turn variable. In both tests they
used operators to randomly tell the drivers which way to turn (or not).
For a valid one-to-one comparison, they should have used the exact same
drivers, in the exact same positions, executing the exact same turns.
That method would have eliminated many variables, most importantly how
long each vehicle was in the intersection, thereby forcing other drivers
to wait.

Since both the roundabout and the 4 way stop usually are installed to
slow traffic down (in the US),

....and safety and efficiency. 4-ways and roundabouts are often used at
fairly high-volume intersections with fairly equal volumes in "all"
directions over the course of a normal day. Take an intersection where
most of the traffic is headed south and west to get downtown in the morning
and north and east in the evening, with a smattering of traffic in the other
directions at all times. 4-ways and roundabouts keep traffic flowing in a
safe and efficient manner. 2 way stops would mean that some direction of
travel would be seriously hampered.

At night and on weekends, when you don't have the rush hour volumes, they
allow for easy and safe travel.

not to make it go faster, I am not sure what myth busters proved.

They proved that between those 2 methods of slowing traffic/making it safer/
more efficient, the roundabouts were more efficient. Yes, the roundabouts
may increase the "throughput speed" over a 4-way, but the initial goal of
a slower/safer/efficient-er intersection is still accomplished.

We recently had a couple of 3-way stops at T intersections replaced with
3-exit roundabouts. These were out in the country where real estate is
not an issue and there is a lot of visibility. The "horizontal" section
of the T is a truck route and the vertical typically has less volume.
The roundabout means that the trucks can *usually* roll through it by
just slowing down, instead of having to come to a full stop and then
get the heavy trucks rolling again.

They're not something I've used very often, but a co-worker who lives
nearby says she likes the roundabouts much better than the 3 way stop,
especially when traveling on the "horizontal" road. That's where most of
the traffic is, so she rarely has to stop (for no reason) like she used to.

As I've said before, less wear and tear on the cars and the environment if
vehicles are constantly moving than if they're stopped, especially for no
reason.

The most efficient traffic movement in high traffic areas is obviously
vertical separation but the next choice is a system of well timed
lights.

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:28:56 AM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 4:37:26 AM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 12:03:11 AM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 10/06/2015 09:28 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Back in college the local rock station considered Zappa to be too weird for much airplay except late at night when a lot of my contemporaries were stoned out of their minds which allowed them to grok Zappa's music.

I don't recall my consciousness ever being warped enough to get into Zappa.

Do you remember anything from your college days a half century ago? ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Demented Monster

I joined the USCG right out of High School, so my college days are a bit less than half a century ago, but I do have many vivid college memories. The best memory is about the nice young lady that I met on the bus and who helped me find the Admin building on my first day.

Last night we celebrated her birthday by Skyping with our four kids who are scattered across the country.

You're a very lucky man. I've never found a woman I could stand or one who could stand me for very long. ^_^

Me and my brother were in college during the Vietnam War and dropped out to join the Air Force because they had the best computer and electronics toys.. We failed the physical and wound up being 4F. It was 30 years before either of us found out why. I met a guy who was a top Army recruiter and he told me that the big secret to avoiding military service during the Vietnam War was,"allergies".
It was a big secret because if it got out, lots of guys would get a draft notice and claim they had allergies during the physical. On top of that we're both very nearsighted. Our oldest brother joined The Army, did two tours in Nam and came back a Green Beret. At least we tried. Gosh, think of all the guys who injured themselves, consumed a lot of dope, claimed to be queer or ran away to Canada to avoid The Draft. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Draft Monster

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 11:07:43 AM UTC-4, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 04:14:08 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 9:17:00 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 10/07/2015 07:37 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:

The ones who drive me mad are those who simply will not merge until the
merge lane ends. They don't look, they don't try to fit in, they just
follow the white line on the right until there ain't no merge lane
anymore. Doesn't matter that the other drivers already made an opening
for them, they're just following the white line.

Better than that are the construction areas where one lane is closed
ahead and the signs give everyone time to merge into the remaining two..
Some idiots always go as far as they can on the closed lane figuring
they can force their way in. With a little coordination truckers can
create their own rolling roadblocks to put an end to that game.

You don't need truckers. I do the road block thing all the time. I just hang out in the closed lane next to the spot where I belong in the open lane and move along with the traffic. No one gets past me. 99%+ of the drivers in the open lane know exactly what I'm doing and keep my spot open for me.

They don't even need to be trained.

All you're doing is creating a different merge point. Once traffic is
heavy enough to start backing up, the logical and safe way is fill
both lanes and take turns merging where the lane ends.
But if you want to be the traffic cop, have at it.

Picture a left entrance onto a highway. The highway is backed up but the
entrance ramp is not. Is it fair to the drivers that are already on
the highway and who have experienced the back up for a while to be further
impacted by someone entering the highway and passing 20, 30 or more of the
backed up cars? I think not.

So, as I approach the early merge point, I hang to the left and move with
the traffic next to me. I do this enough during our morning "rush minutes"
that I know the impact:

Rarely do I end up with anyone behind me, so I am not "creating a
different merge point". In most cases, I'll see someone begin to creep
up, then realize that they aren't going to get past me, and then typically
slide over way before they even get close. In other cases, when they keep
on coming, I've seen drivers a few or more cars back move left and take
up the same position as me.

When there is heavy traffic in both lanes, then a merge point closer to
end of the disappearing lane makes perfect sense. It's those one or two
drivers that aren't courteous enough to wait like everyone else that
I object to.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 11:04:10 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 10:29:21 -0400, wrote:



Since both the roundabout and the 4 way stop usually are installed to
slow traffic down (in the US) , not to make it go faster, I am not
sure what myth busters proved.
The most efficient traffic movement in high traffic areas is obviously
vertical separation but the next choice is a system of well timed
lights.

I was surprised last week when I had to make 3 trips to Palatine from
Morton Grove to feed my sons cats.
Only waited for a few lights - out of about 50.
Quick trips. Left home at 7 PM, so traffic was fairly light.
I still remember driving there from Chicago about 30 years ago, and it
was a nightmare. But I probably took the wrong route then.


They have done that here in Ft Myers too. Usually I can get from my
house in Estero to the beach in the morning when I am taking in my
water samples and only stop at a few lights, usually the ones on the
beach road. That is 18-19 miles
US 41 is set up pretty well if everyone goes at the speed limit

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:18:54 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message ,
writes


Since both the roundabout and the 4 way stop usually are installed to
slow traffic down (in the US) , not to make it go faster, I am not
sure what myth busters proved.
The most efficient traffic movement in high traffic areas is obviously
vertical separation but the next choice is a system of well timed
lights.

Yes, when your reach a roundabout, it does temporarily slow you down
(even when the traffic is flowing well) - but with luck, nobody actually
stops.

However, even the best system of well timed traffic lights is almost
certain to bring someone to a stop. That's what the lights are there
for!

Would you have a roundabout at every intersection?

On 10/8/2015 9:04 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
I was surprised last week when I had to make 3 trips to Palatine from
Morton Grove to feed my sons cats.
Only waited for a few lights - out of about 50.
Quick trips. Left home at 7 PM, so traffic was fairly light.
I still remember driving there from Chicago about 30 years ago, and it
was a nightmare. But I probably took the wrong route then.

There's no easy/quick way from the city out to palatine. Most of
the folks who made the commute when I lived there took the
train into the city (then back out at night)

In chitown, you're either a city liver or a suburbanite -- the two
places don't tend to mix, well.

[My best friend lived in the city while I was in the burbs. I can
count the number of times we'd see each other in a given year on
a few fingers!]

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 2:41:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:18:54 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message ,
writes


Since both the roundabout and the 4 way stop usually are installed to
slow traffic down (in the US) , not to make it go faster, I am not
sure what myth busters proved.
The most efficient traffic movement in high traffic areas is obviously
vertical separation but the next choice is a system of well timed
lights.

Yes, when your reach a roundabout, it does temporarily slow you down
(even when the traffic is flowing well) - but with luck, nobody actually
stops.

However, even the best system of well timed traffic lights is almost
certain to bring someone to a stop. That's what the lights are there
for!

Would you have a roundabout at every intersection?

We have 4 in a row.

There used to be traffic lights at each intersection along a 4 lane, fairly
straight, 55 MPH road. Now it's a curvy 2 lane road with a wide grassy
medium, 45 MPH between roundabouts (but nobody drives that fast), walkways
on both sides and gardens or flags or other design features at each
roundabout.

Traffic through the area is much smoother and quieter. I would never walk
my dogs along the old road, now it's fine. A lot more mellow, prettier,
etc. I still prefer the woods, but for our before bed mile or so walks, it's
fine.

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 2:40:42 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 11:04:10 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 10:29:21 -0400, wrote:



Since both the roundabout and the 4 way stop usually are installed to
slow traffic down (in the US) , not to make it go faster, I am not
sure what myth busters proved.
The most efficient traffic movement in high traffic areas is obviously
vertical separation but the next choice is a system of well timed
lights.

I was surprised last week when I had to make 3 trips to Palatine from
Morton Grove to feed my sons cats.
Only waited for a few lights - out of about 50.
Quick trips. Left home at 7 PM, so traffic was fairly light.
I still remember driving there from Chicago about 30 years ago, and it
was a nightmare. But I probably took the wrong route then.


They have done that here in Ft Myers too. Usually I can get from my
house in Estero to the beach in the morning when I am taking in my
water samples and only stop at a few lights, usually the ones on the
beach road. That is 18-19 miles
US 41 is set up pretty well if everyone goes at the speed limit

We have one (1!) section of road in my area, about 3 miles long, with signs
that read "Signals Timed For 35 MPH"

It works, except when there is a lot of traffic and 35 is hard to maintain.

In message ,
writes
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:18:54 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message ,
writes


Since both the roundabout and the 4 way stop usually are installed to
slow traffic down (in the US) , not to make it go faster, I am not
sure what myth busters proved.
The most efficient traffic movement in high traffic areas is obviously
vertical separation but the next choice is a system of well timed
lights.

Yes, when your reach a roundabout, it does temporarily slow you down
(even when the traffic is flowing well) - but with luck, nobody actually
stops.

However, even the best system of well timed traffic lights is almost
certain to bring someone to a stop. That's what the lights are there
for!

Would you have a roundabout at every intersection?

In the UK, many of the older main roads that have been gradually
upgraded do indeed have roundabouts at most of the major intersections.
Where necessary, some have triggered traffic lights (hopefully part-time
- but often not!). While roundabouts go a long way to keep the traffic
flowing, they cannot alone cure all ills.

Where a minor road crosses, the crossing is often staggered, where you
cross in a zig-zag fashion - first across one carriageway, stop (if
necessary) in the central reservation, and then continue across the
other carriageway.

Many lesser main roads and downright small roads also have roundabouts
(often minis). The latter may simply consist of a solid round circle (3'
or 4' diameter, and sometimes slightly domed so that traffic can pass
over it if necessary), painted in the centre of the junction
(intersection). In all cases, you give way to traffic which would
otherwise hit you from the right (as we drive on the left here). It's
second-nature to do so, and there are no ifs or buts.

Don't forget that, over here, many roads date back to Roman times, or
even earlier!
--
Ian

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:58:51 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Would you have a roundabout at every intersection?

We have 4 in a row.

There used to be traffic lights at each intersection along a 4 lane, fairly
straight, 55 MPH road. Now it's a curvy 2 lane road with a wide grassy
medium, 45 MPH between roundabouts (but nobody drives that fast), walkways
on both sides and gardens or flags or other design features at each
roundabout.

Traffic through the area is much smoother and quieter. I would never walk
my dogs along the old road, now it's fine. A lot more mellow, prettier,
etc. I still prefer the woods, but for our before bed mile or so walks, it's
fine.

Again, you are repeating what I have been saying all along. This has
nothing to do with making traffic moving more efficiently, it is just
to "calm" it (AKA slow everything down)

Great for the neighbors but they suck for drivers who are trying to
pass through.

Roundabouts are basically flat speed bumps.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 11:52:14 -0700, Don Y
wrote:

On 10/8/2015 9:04 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
I was surprised last week when I had to make 3 trips to Palatine from
Morton Grove to feed my sons cats.
Only waited for a few lights - out of about 50.
Quick trips. Left home at 7 PM, so traffic was fairly light.
I still remember driving there from Chicago about 30 years ago, and it
was a nightmare. But I probably took the wrong route then.

There's no easy/quick way from the city out to palatine. Most of
the folks who made the commute when I lived there took the
train into the city (then back out at night)


There's an easy way if you're willing to brave the Kennedy and you
know the ins and outs of route 53. I didn't want to take the Kennedy
and didn't know 53. Besides, it was different road then.
I think I took Milwaukee, then Rand, but won't swear to it.
All I remember was that it seemed interminable, and I promised myself
to never go to Palatine again. The promise lasted 30 years.

In chitown, you're either a city liver or a suburbanite -- the two
places don't tend to mix, well.

[My best friend lived in the city while I was in the burbs. I can
count the number of times we'd see each other in a given year on
a few fingers!]

I've been on both sides of that.
And took the train for 5 years when I worked downtown.
15 minute trip, long enough to have a beer on the way home.

In message ,
writes
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:58:51 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Would you have a roundabout at every intersection?

We have 4 in a row.

There used to be traffic lights at each intersection along a 4 lane, fairly
straight, 55 MPH road. Now it's a curvy 2 lane road with a wide grassy
medium, 45 MPH between roundabouts (but nobody drives that fast), walkways
on both sides and gardens or flags or other design features at each
roundabout.

Traffic through the area is much smoother and quieter. I would never walk
my dogs along the old road, now it's fine. A lot more mellow, prettier,
etc. I still prefer the woods, but for our before bed mile or so walks, it's
fine.

Again, you are repeating what I have been saying all along. This has
nothing to do with making traffic moving more efficiently, it is just
to "calm" it (AKA slow everything down)

It seems to me that you don't believe the results of the Mythbusters
test - or you believe the results but distrust the test conditions - or
you believe the results but don't believe they would apply real life.

I am VERY used to uncontrolled roundabouts (of all types), and believe
me - unless there's a traffic jam, they are better than often
unnecessary traffic lights, or "After you, Claude" 4-way stops (which,
thank heavens, we don't have here).

Great for the neighbors but they suck for drivers who are trying to
pass through.

Do you really get the green light all the way through (say
north-to-south?) So do those trying to 'get through' east-to-west ALSO
get the green light all the way?

Roundabouts are basically flat speed bumps.

And the roads leading up to the red traffic lights are basically
temporary carparks!



--
Ian

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 3:35:31 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:58:51 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Would you have a roundabout at every intersection?

We have 4 in a row.

There used to be traffic lights at each intersection along a 4 lane, fairly
straight, 55 MPH road. Now it's a curvy 2 lane road with a wide grassy
medium, 45 MPH between roundabouts (but nobody drives that fast), walkways
on both sides and gardens or flags or other design features at each
roundabout.

Traffic through the area is much smoother and quieter. I would never walk
my dogs along the old road, now it's fine. A lot more mellow, prettier,
etc. I still prefer the woods, but for our before bed mile or so walks, it's
fine.

Again, you are repeating what I have been saying all along. This has
nothing to do with making traffic moving more efficiently, it is just
to "calm" it (AKA slow everything down)

The comparison that the Mythbusters were doing was 4-ways vs. roundabouts.

That's what you asked about before when you said you didn't know what the
Mythbusters were proving. They were proving that one method to calm
traffic was more efficient than the other.

Let's try another example. The purpose of insulation is to "calm" the
transfer of heat through walls and ceilings. Is it wrong for someone to
test one type of insulation vs. another to see which is more "efficient".

The initial purpose is served by both types, but one type does it with
greater benefit than the other.


Great for the neighbors but they suck for drivers who are trying to
pass through.

Roundabouts are basically flat speed bumps.

It seems like you are talking about going from nothing to roundabouts.
That is not what I am talking about and not what the Mythbusters tested.

If they replace a 4-way stops with a roundabout, then roundabouts are an
upgrade because they are more efficient. i.e. *great* for drivers who are
trying to pass through.

If they are replacing traffic signals (like in my neighborhood) they are
once again an upgrade because they are more efficient (at least in my
neighborhood). i.e. *great* for drivers who are trying to pass through.

There is no way to get in or out of my neighborhood without using at least
1 of 3 out of the 4 intersections that used to have signals. (There are
three roads that enter my neighborhood, one each at the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th
roundabout as you head north.) In the old days you would often get stuck
at at least one of the traffic signals, sometimes more than one. Yep, they
sure slowed you down. Now, the vast majority of the time, you can cruise
right through, especially during non-rush minute periods.

Once again, my point is that roundabouts are more efficient than 4 way stops
and sometimes more efficient than traffic signals.

DerbyDad03 posted for all of us...



On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 10:08:30 AM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 10/08/2015 07:05 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
In addition, I see that you snipped my #2, which I stated was even more
important than my #1: They were testing the*efficiency* of a roundabout
over a 4-way stop. The only way to do a valid comparison is to have all
participants trained in order to eliminate the "What the heck do I do now?"
variable.

Real world efficiency assumes a real world population.

Then throw away the results every lab test done with rats, rabbits, pigs,
etc. None of those use a "real world population".

At least one new roundabout here usually becomes a 4 way stop with
added confusion.

For how long? Once the initial confusion passes, which type of intersection
is more efficient? That was the Mythbusters test: Which type of intersection
is more efficient? In a one-to-one comparison, with short-term variables
removed by a training period for both styles, the roundabout proved to be
more efficient.

In *my* real world experience, I have both roundabouts and 4 way stops in
my area. I typically have 4 roundabout experiences on a daily basis, a 4 way
stop experience at least twice a week. I lived through the construction of
the roundabouts so I have experienced/witnessed the learning curve for
myself.

I can unequivocally state that the roundabouts have been more efficient
during heavy traffic periods and an absolute joy when there is little to
no traffic.

They are better for our cars (less braking and accelerating) and better for
our environment (less idling as we inch towards the stop sign).

We are getting to the truth in a roundabout matter.

--
Tekkie