https://www.youtube.com/embed/UEIn8GJIg0E?rel=0

harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/embed/UEIn8GJIg0E?rel=0

They clearly do fine without one.

It would be interesting to know if they do any worse
traffic movement wise without one. Bet they dont.

On 03/01/17 10:03, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UEIn8GJIg0E?rel=0

TIA

"This Is Africa".

Its a favourite saying round the southern continent.

On 03/01/2017 08:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/01/17 10:03, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UEIn8GJIg0E?rel=0

TIA

"This Is Africa".

Its a favourite saying round the southern continent.


But this is state of the art traffic management.

http://www.pps.org/reference/hans-monderman/

On 03/01/17 11:04, GB wrote:
On 03/01/2017 08:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/01/17 10:03, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UEIn8GJIg0E?rel=0

TIA

"This Is Africa".

Its a favourite saying round the southern continent.


But this is state of the art traffic management.

http://www.pps.org/reference/hans-monderman/


well its de facto traffic management in most third world countries.

On 03/01/2017 09:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/01/17 11:04, GB wrote:
On 03/01/2017 08:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/01/17 10:03, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UEIn8GJIg0E?rel=0

TIA

"This Is Africa".

Its a favourite saying round the southern continent.


But this is state of the art traffic management.

http://www.pps.org/reference/hans-monderman/


well its de facto traffic management in most third world countries.


That just shows that "progress" isn't.

En el artículo , GB
escribió:

http://www.pps.org/reference/hans-monderman/

Great article. Thanks for the link.

"When you treat people like idiots, they'll behave like idiots". Quite.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , GB
escribió:

http://www.pps.org/reference/hans-monderman/

Great article. Thanks for the link.

"When you treat people like idiots, they'll behave like idiots". Quite.

Shared space is all very well in theory until they do it in your local town.
Our small town centre is essentially a roundabout (Squareish with a
statue in the middle) with three roads joining and the first road has
been converted and the second one starts soon.
No Thank you. It was a lot better when pedestrians, motorists and
delivery trucks knew which was their "bit" to use.
Heaven knows how the partially sighted manage.

En el artículo , Bob Minchin bob.minchinREM
escribió:

Shared space is all very well in theory until they do it in your local town.

I don't think it is a universal panacea, but would only work in certain
situations. Britain's crowded, narrow streets probably wouldn't be
suitable.

Heaven knows how the partially sighted manage.

aye. I have nothing but respect for those that go out with a white
stick (and no dog). Brave people.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 03-Jan-17 8:03 AM, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UEIn8GJIg0E?rel=0


It works mainly because the traffic density is relatively low for that
width of road. The crossing traffic also gets occasional periods when
the junction is completely clear since the up/down traffic arrives in
waves. A set of traffic lights are obviously controlling its arrival
from the distant junction and the same is probably true for the traffic
travelling up the screen.

--
--

Colin Bignell

In article , Bob Minchin
writes
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , GB
escribió:

http://www.pps.org/reference/hans-monderman/

Great article. Thanks for the link.

"When you treat people like idiots, they'll behave like idiots". Quite.

Shared space is all very well in theory until they do it in your local town.
Our small town centre is essentially a roundabout (Squareish with a
statue in the middle) with three roads joining and the first road has
been converted and the second one starts soon.
No Thank you. It was a lot better when pedestrians, motorists and
delivery trucks knew which was their "bit" to use.
Heaven knows how the partially sighted manage.
Badly
--
bert

On 04/01/2017 23:26, bert wrote:

Heaven knows how the partially sighted manage.
Badly

Monderman's party trick was to walk backwards across one of the
junctions he had created. Until it was turned into shared space, it was
a notorious accident spot.

On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 10:01:47 UTC, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Bob Minchin bob.minchinREM
escribió:

Shared space is all very well in theory until they do it in your local town.

I don't think it is a universal panacea, but would only work in certain
situations. Britain's crowded, narrow streets probably wouldn't be
suitable.

In london we slow trafic by puttiing cycle highways in.

replying to harry, ScottRAB wrote:
Modern roundabouts are the safest form of intersection in the world (much
more so than comparable signals). Visit
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/ro.../topicoverview for modern
roundabout FAQs and safety facts. Modern roundabouts, and the pedestrian
refuge islands approaching them, are two of nine proven safety measures
identified by the FHWA, http://tinyurl.com/7qvsaem
The FHWA has a video about modern roundabouts on YouTube, or check out the
IIHS video (iihs dot org).

http://priceonomics.com/the-case-for...c-roundabouts/
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersect...e/roundabouts/


--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...t-1180813-.htm

On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 21:14:01 GMT, ScottRAB
m wrote:

replying to harry, ScottRAB wrote:
Modern roundabouts are the safest form of intersection in the world (much
more so than comparable signals). Visit
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/ro.../topicoverview for modern
roundabout FAQs and safety facts. Modern roundabouts, and the pedestrian
refuge islands approaching them, are two of nine proven safety measures
identified by the FHWA, http://tinyurl.com/7qvsaem
The FHWA has a video about modern roundabouts on YouTube, or check out the
IIHS video (iihs dot org).

http://priceonomics.com/the-case-for...c-roundabouts/
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersect...e/roundabouts/

I think that qualifies for a WHOOSH!


--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"Graham." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 21:14:01 GMT, ScottRAB
m wrote:

replying to harry, ScottRAB wrote:
Modern roundabouts are the safest form of intersection in the world
(much
more so than comparable signals). Visit
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/ro.../topicoverview for modern
roundabout FAQs and safety facts. Modern roundabouts, and the pedestrian
refuge islands approaching them, are two of nine proven safety measures
identified by the FHWA, http://tinyurl.com/7qvsaem
The FHWA has a video about modern roundabouts on YouTube, or check out
the
IIHS video (iihs dot org).

Roundabouts are great until the road planners make one of three silly design
decisions:

- Placing high barriers, hedges or signs on the central reservation as you
approach the roundabout, so you lose sight of traffic coming from your right
at the critical time when you need to see it, only regaining sight of it
again when you are virtually at the give way line.

- Placing new roundabouts off-axis of the major road so traffic on the road
with greatest flow has to deviate from the straight ahead route that it used
to take before the roundabout was there. https://goo.gl/maps/yVwWuTRgU4R2 is
an example: this shows the road before a new roundabout was put in.
https://s29.postimg.org/j24hmuymf/edencamp.jpg shows the new roundabout (in
red) and a new road to serve a large development near there. The green
circle shows where (IMHO) the roundabout ought to be. There seems to be a
tendency with modern roundabouts to direct traffic towards the centre of the
roundabout, with a tight left-curve in the last few feet, instead of
splaying the entry and exit lanes slightly to direct traffic tangentially
towards the outside of the central disc.

- Placing *raised* mini-roundabouts at junctions which used to be T
junctions, such that traffic turning right has to make a very exaggerated
left turn first of all to get onto the roundabout and to negotiate it
without the rear wheels bumping over the hump. If there is insufficient
space, the roundabout should be a painted disc so traffic can drive over the
middle, once the roundabout has done its primary job of establishing equal
priority to all the roads that lead into it.


But leaving those niggles aside, roundabouts are better than traffic lights
at busy times, though worse at quiet times when lights would give a
straight-through, no-need-to-slow-down-as-much route as long as you are
going straight on. With good sensors, lights can even give a quick route on
the road that has a red light, as long as the sensor temporarily turns the
lights green to let you through because there's no-one on the other road.

They are infinitely better than American four-way-stop junctions which make
everyone stop even if you can see that there is no traffic coming from any
other direction that you would need to give way to. I don't like junctions
which rely on order of arrival to determine priority, rather than according
to position on the road, ie priority to traffic on major road (at a
conventional major/minor crossroads) or to traffic coming from right
(roundabout). Priority determined by position is better than priority
determined by time of arrival. Any junction should have only one "winner"
(according to well-known rules) rather than ever giving the same priority to
two roads and relying on all the "I was here first / No *I* was here first /
OK, after you / No, after *you*" faffing about that you get with a
four-way-stop, which either leads to time-wasting stalemate or else crashes
:-)

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , NY
wrote:


(roundabouts)
are infinitely better than American four-way-stop junctions which make
everyone stop even if you can see that there is no traffic coming from any
other direction that you would need to give way to.

+1 to that, having suffered from them for 12 years. They have lousy
throughput. And what's more, you'd better stop, otherwise a praying
mantis aka cop car will appear from nowhere and give chase.

And they put stop signs in dopey places, too. Like, you're driving
along, and suddenly there's a stop sign. No roads off in any direction,
just the klod living at that spot got fed up with people barrelling
through.

They also measure distances in strange units: temporary roadworks often have
signs giving the distance to the speed restriction or single-alternate-line
working... measured in feet, rather than yards or fractions of a mile. A
sign saying "Roadworks in 1300 feet" means a lot less that "Roadworks in 500
yards" or "Roadworks in 1/4 mile" (I've rounded the numbers). Maybe it's
because I always think in the largest unit that expresses the quantity
without losing too much precision - hence human weights in stones, not
pounds, and road distances in yards or miles rather than feet. The largest
distance that I saw expressed in feet on a sign was (I think) 10,500 feet
which is two miles :-)

The most incomprehensible sign that I say said

PED
XING

Uh? Then I realised that it was for a pedestrian crossing :-)

On 11/01/2017 14:57, NY wrote:

Roundabouts are great until the road planners make one of three silly
design decisions:

- Placing high barriers, hedges or signs on the central reservation as
you approach the roundabout, so you lose sight of traffic coming from
your right at the critical time when you need to see it, only regaining
sight of it again when you are virtually at the give way line.

Though you think it's a bad idea, actually it's a sensible response to
people thinking they can see enough and hence approaching the roundabout
too fast, then crashing. If you can't see, you have to slow down. If
people didn't overestimate their abilities coming into roundabouts, this
wouldn't be necessary, but they do so it is.

- Placing new roundabouts off-axis of the major road so traffic on the
road with greatest flow has to deviate from the straight ahead route
that it used to take before the roundabout was there.
https://goo.gl/maps/yVwWuTRgU4R2 is an example: this shows the road
before a new roundabout was put in.
https://s29.postimg.org/j24hmuymf/edencamp.jpg shows the new roundabout
(in red) and a new road to serve a large development near there. The
green circle shows where (IMHO) the roundabout ought to be. There seems
to be a tendency with modern roundabouts to direct traffic towards the
centre of the roundabout, with a tight left-curve in the last few feet,
instead of splaying the entry and exit lanes slightly to direct traffic
tangentially towards the outside of the central disc.

Same game - it's about slowing you down.

- Placing *raised* mini-roundabouts at junctions which used to be T
junctions, such that traffic turning right has to make a very
exaggerated left turn first of all to get onto the roundabout and to
negotiate it without the rear wheels bumping over the hump. If there is
insufficient space, the roundabout should be a painted disc so traffic
can drive over the middle, once the roundabout has done its primary job
of establishing equal priority to all the roads that lead into it.

You are allowed to drive over the raised bit of a mini-roundabout -
that's why the edges are gentle, not kerbed. On the one near us, pretty
much everybody turning right does it, and it's fine.


They are infinitely better than American four-way-stop junctions which

Isn't almost anything better than those?

"NY" wrote in message
...
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , NY
wrote:


(roundabouts)
are infinitely better than American four-way-stop junctions which make
everyone stop even if you can see that there is no traffic coming from
any other direction that you would need to give way to.

+1 to that, having suffered from them for 12 years. They have lousy
throughput. And what's more, you'd better stop, otherwise a praying
mantis aka cop car will appear from nowhere and give chase.

And they put stop signs in dopey places, too. Like, you're driving
along, and suddenly there's a stop sign. No roads off in any direction,
just the klod living at that spot got fed up with people barrelling
through.

They also measure distances in strange units: temporary roadworks often
have signs giving the distance to the speed restriction or
single-alternate-line working... measured in feet, rather than yards or
fractions of a mile. A sign saying "Roadworks in 1300 feet" means a lot
less that "Roadworks in 500 yards" or "Roadworks in 1/4 mile" (I've
rounded the numbers). Maybe it's because I always think in the largest
unit that expresses the quantity without losing too much precision - hence
human weights in stones, not pounds, and road distances in yards or miles
rather than feet. The largest distance that I saw expressed in feet on a
sign was (I think) 10,500 feet which is two miles :-)

The most incomprehensible sign that I say said

PED
XING

Uh? Then I realised that it was for a pedestrian crossing :-)

And it obviously did that because of the length of those two
words which is a problem for most signs of reasonable size.

On 11/01/2017 16:19, NY wrote:
"Roadworks in 500 yards" or "Roadworks in 1/4 mile" (I've rounded the
numbers). Maybe it's because I always think in the largest unit that
expresses the quantity without losing too much precision

How far is that in furlongs?

Andy

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 11/01/2017 16:19, NY wrote:
"Roadworks in 500 yards" or "Roadworks in 1/4 mile" (I've rounded the
numbers). Maybe it's because I always think in the largest unit that
expresses the quantity without losing too much precision

How far is that in furlongs?

He's not on a horse and it's not a horserace, so that is not relevant.

I think it is related to ploughing with horses.. 220 yards x 22 yards =
1 acre. (10x1 chains)


--
Tim Lamb

On Thursday, 12 January 2017 23:20:01 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 11/01/2017 16:19, NY wrote:
"Roadworks in 500 yards" or "Roadworks in 1/4 mile" (I've rounded the
numbers). Maybe it's because I always think in the largest unit that
expresses the quantity without losing too much precision

How far is that in furlongs?

Andy

Two. Or twenty chains.

On Friday, 13 January 2017 11:58:18 UTC, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 11/01/2017 16:19, NY wrote:
"Roadworks in 500 yards" or "Roadworks in 1/4 mile" (I've rounded the
numbers). Maybe it's because I always think in the largest unit that
expresses the quantity without losing too much precision

How far is that in furlongs?

He's not on a horse and it's not a horserace, so that is not relevant.

I think it is related to ploughing with horses.. 220 yards x 22 yards =
1 acre. (10x1 chains)


--
Tim Lamb

Peasants were given apiece of land one furrow long and one chain wide in medieval times.
So they were decimal even back then.
An acre is 4840 squ yards

On 13/01/2017 18:29, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 12 January 2017 23:20:01 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 11/01/2017 16:19, NY wrote:
"Roadworks in 500 yards" or "Roadworks in 1/4 mile" (I've rounded the
numbers). Maybe it's because I always think in the largest unit that
expresses the quantity without losing too much precision

How far is that in furlongs?

Andy

Two. Or twenty chains.

whoosh (three times)

Furlongs are "the largest unit that expresses the quantity without
losing too much precision"

Andy

Vir Campestris wrote:

On 13/01/2017 18:29, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 12 January 2017 23:20:01 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 11/01/2017 16:19, NY wrote:
"Roadworks in 500 yards" or "Roadworks in 1/4 mile" (I've rounded the
numbers). Maybe it's because I always think in the largest unit that
expresses the quantity without losing too much precision

How far is that in furlongs?

Andy

Two. Or twenty chains.

whoosh (three times)

Furlongs are "the largest unit that expresses the quantity without
losing too much precision"

Andy

ITYM furlongs are "the largest unit that expresses the quantity without
losing too much precision" if you are only allowed to use integer
numbers of them

--

Roger Hayter

Tim Streater wrote:
One number suffices. The metre, however, is poor in this regard, since
everyone is 1.xx metres tall. The 1 is necessary but effectively
useless.

Not everyone! Both my son and my daughter's partner are 2.xx metres
tall. When they're both around I feel like a midget but I'm not
particularly short.

--
Chris Green
·