Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
Please don’t reinvent the weel and just install a Turbo Roundabout. It’s much safer for everyone, incuding cars.
Turbo-roundabouts aren't really urban infrastructure though, nor are they are one size fits all solution to traffic.
They take significantly more space than an intersection would, and are generally used to improve traffic flow for cars, not bikes. Even in the Netherlands they are generally only used outside of cities on main routes for cars, with segregated bike infrastructure to keep cyclists out of the roundabout.
It's car infrastructure, not bike infrastructure.
Edit: I also feel the need to point out that this intersection is not reinventing any wheels.
Protected intersections for cyclists like this are common all over the Netherlands, and are a proven piece of infrastructure when used in the appropriate way.
All bike infrastructure is car infrastructure.
We wouldn't need any bike infrastructure if we just limited all roads to 30kph.
They also get bad when placed on truck routes. Mankato, MN put a bunch in and didn't think about how semis would get around them.
And yes, they're for cars, not bikes.
If the roundabout is properly designed, and the space needed for turning trucks is taken into account, then a truck should be fully capable of navigating a turbo roundabout as well.
Those turbo-roundabouts that are common in the Netherlands are also commonly used by trucks without problem.
That looks more complicated then the average U.S.A. driver can navigate. Hell they struggle with bike lanes and stop signs. We need more stringent driving tests
They are easier to navigate than a regular multi-lane roundabout. The only thing you need to take into account is to sort into the right lane before the roundabout (which requires proper signage) and then it reduces risk on the roundabout itself by eliminating the possibility for lane changes.
It helps keep the flow of cars going smoothly, which is their main benefit.
Source: I live in the Netherlands and turbo-roundabouts are all over the place here.
Easier than a regular roundabout and they looks wonderful. The problems are not its design. The average intelligence of people in the U.S.A. is a bewildering thing. So many people truly and well do not understand traffic rules. They do not understand whay should be basic understanding. I have had people argue with me how stop signs work, how lane end merges work, Ive had people argue to me that it is mean to teach children not to randomly touch people.
The turbo roundabout looks amazing and I would love the opertunity to experience it, many Americans ar incapable of using it. They will blame thier ineptitude on it. We are still fighting for pedestrian walkways, maybe bike accessible infrastructure in more liberal left cities. The people allowed in cars right now are not all ready for a roundabout, no matter how good it is. It is so sad I know they cannot drive in a circle that is too advanced...
People ignore stop signs and bike lanes not because they don't understand them, but because they willfully ignore them (and the bike lanes are not physically separated). There would be a learning period, but if they were common enough, Americans would learn to use a turbo roundabout, though the same conditions that make them blow through stop signs (or red lights!) would also affect turbo roundabouts some way. I have been in regular roundabouts in the US that people seemed to understand just fine.
Certainly there are people that willfully ignore them which is a big problem. There also alot who actually do not understand stop signs. 10% of the time there is at least one person seemingly mystified on how to proceed through a stop sign. And 50% of the time a lane beside me ends I have to be careful not to get sideswiped.
These two groups of idots are why protected bike and pedestrian lanes are essential and why roundabouts will be difficult.
Those people that blow through stop signs and lights will do so in roundabouts and then blame the roundabouts for thier idiocy. Then other idots will nod along saying its the roundabouts fault.
Perhaps with an adjustment period it can work but any politician greenlighting one will get attacked and once there are accidents any politician still supporting them will be attacked.
The idiots are loud and sway way too much politicians, like gestures vaguely at current USA federal administration
The average US driver can't navigate anything and is crashing at signaled intersections all the time already. This at least gives them more guardrails and contains the carnage better.
They just put in like six of these on the main street of my parent's town in Washington. For a route that would otherwise be a stroad they beat the heck out of a traditional signaled intersection, but do little to make the area any more hospitable for biking and walking as they still take up so much space and feature continuous traffic. So, quite good for through routes but not great for density or street "completeness".
When built correctly, the roundabouts mean you only have to cross lane(s) of one-way traffic, with the same sort of safety islands as in the pictured signalized intersections.
Then again with places that are adding roundabouts for the first time, it's hard enough getting people to yield to other drivers let alone bikes and pedestrians.
My complaint isn't that they're impassable for pedestrians and cyclists, it's their sheer size. They're every bit as big as a 5 x 5 lane signaled intersection despite servicing a 2 x 2. And I've yet to see anywhere in the US that has implemented them figure out that they can still put buildings next to them, so they're always occupying the middle of a goofy-wide strip of undeveloped land that functions as a "natural buffer" between the road and the inevitable wall around an adjacent sub-development or big box parking lot. My complaint is just that they're not urban infrastructure, just an improved suburban exchange still in no man's land, and as such don't really improve the land use of an area.
That's true, they do take up more space. That's the trade-off. Sacrificing compactness for the sake of safety. There are fewer conflict points and they remove the chance of getting t-boned. Collisions in a roundabout are less deadly.