rekmeyata

good point about the cost to construct, but unskilled labor cost in a government operated construction does not exist, they must pay prevailing wages, which in my area for unskilled, which they don't use to build streets, but for the sake of argument I'll go with the unskilled wording you used, the cost of that per hour is $25.50, but unskilled doesn't cover all the other workers classifications needed to do a job like that not to mention engineering.

Kaze6

Around here, nearly every position on a road crew is considered unskilled labor by the unions to which government street crews belong to. You can go straight from high school onto a road crew, learning on the job. No positions are reserved for seniority.

The guys putting in and maintaining traffic lights are trained and certified before they touch a wire on the street. They are paid more than just about anyone else in the Highway Department, and they spend a lot more man-hours taking care of any particular intersection's lights than anyone spends taking care of a traffic circle.

She Who Must Be Obeyed was watching over my shoulder just now, and reminded me that there is a lot more overtime cost for traffic light repairs. It's rare to have someone called out at 2 AM on Sunday to fix a traffic circle, but someone has to respond to every incident involving traffic lights which can't be temporarily resolved by setting the computer to all-ways flashing red. In some areas, the union won't allow anyone but their members (above a certain grade) to even flip that one switch!

Maelochs

Another issue with lights vs roundabouts is heavy equipment. Picks and shovels are cheap ... paying someone to operate the machinery to drill, cut trenches, sink poles ... And as the Queen of Kaze-land points out, roundabouts don't break or burn out.

rekmeyata

Eventually, like all roads, roundabouts will need to be resurfaced. But I hear both of you on this subject and I'm not disagreeing by any stretch of the imagination.

rekmeyata

I have ridden my bike several times on a multi lane roundabout, and I quickly learned the first time to take the lane, which is what I do 90% of the time anyways. But it safer if you take the lane, however since we are a much smaller profile you do have to keep your eyes open at all times for the merging car, it's gets more difficult on a bike on a multi lane roundabout due to cars swish wash in back and forth all over the lanes, but a single lane isn't a big deal at all.

rumrunn6

I've got a "rotary" in one of my summer joy ride routes. I've had good luck with it but I definitely rely on driver courtesy. I use some hand signals so ppl know what the heck I'm doing

SkyDog75

Everything I've read from various transportation agencies cites safety as the primary factor in switching to roundabouts from traditional light- or sign-controlled intersections. I haven't read anything that indicates liability concerns are even a secondary factor, so I'd be interested to read your source(s).

Maelochs

Not the kind of thing you are Ever going to find in any official document. maybe call Wikileaks.

GhazanfarKhan

Thanks for all the input guys, i am going to seek for biking clubs to hitch or simply pay further further attention on the road since I have already got everything that may build Pine Tree State stand out on the road. you are all nice assistance on explaining the law associated giving recommendation to new an inexperienced street wheeler.

Stucky

Even in a single lane circle, someone who hugs the curb/doesn't take the lane, is asking for trouble- what with drivers looking to their left when entering, and then feeling no need to check their blind spot when exiting the circle, they truly may never even see the cyclist.

In my opinion, any circle with more than two lanes is definitely going to increase accidents, for the reasons you mention. I've seen pictures/videos of some that were 3 or 4 lanes (I think they were all in Europe), and it was utter chaos! I can't even imagine... Having to constantly monitor your blind spot and see what's going on behind you, so that you can merge into the proper lane, while not running into the car in front of you... Yikes!

Stucky

Eminent domain is not free or nearly free...they have to pay the owner market value (sometimes more, for the cost/inconvenience/business losses of having to move/reduced parking/access, etc.) for that land. Acquiring the land is often the single biggest cost when doing road construction or redesigns.

Zix

Hey I was just looking for advice on the road , I'm pretty confident of my reflexes on the road now

linberl

Find an experienced rider to follow. Ask them to ride the route you usually take (buy 'em a beer and pizza if you have to). Follow and watch what they do, where they ride, and where they look. Do it a few times at different times of the day. Then reverse. Have them follow you and critique your riding and awareness. Part of it is confidence, part is skill.

When we first learn to drive a car we take driving lessons - no reason to assume you don't need to learn how to operate a bike in traffic. Actually, lots of cyclists could benefit from this. Where I live, the East Bay Bicycling Coalition offers safety classes (classroom lecture and video with actual riding afterwards). Contact your local bike community resources and see what they offer to help you feel comfortable.

Don't assume bright clothing will keep you safe (but do wear it anyway). Get an Air Zhound horn (sounds like a Mac truck) so you can blast it if someone starts backing out and maybe doesn't see you. ALWAYS make eye contact with drivers making turns. And remember, it may cost you a few extra seconds to yield to a car but it won't cost your life. Use hand signals - 99% of drivers do NOT want to hit you and will appreciate knowing your intentions. And, finally, if you feel unsure in a situation, you can get off and walk the bike. After 40+ years of riding, I still find myself dismounting sometimes in badly designed intersections.

Kaze6

The only traffic circles I've seen were done during initial development, so they only had to take bare land, or tell the developers that they won't accept intersections where they want traffic circles instead.

I can see how expanding existing intersections would require knocking down structures (and a lot of expense), but can't think of any time this has been done around here just to put in a circle.

Kaze6

Of course they're going to tell you that. If cost saving is mentioned, it follows the phrase "and another reason to do this is . . ." But, really, the bean-counters tell the rest of the government what they may and may not do.

Maelochs

Because Of Course the government is interested in Our safety and well-being over all other issues .... right?

That's why they vote themselves pay raises even during recessions .... to Keep Us Safe .....

SkyDog75

Of course there's a fiduciary benefit to keeping the public safe. It's not just the right thing to do; it's the cheaper thing. If a highway department improves the safety of a highway, there'll be fewer major accidents, which will result in fewer potential lawsuits against the city/state/whatever for things like negligent, unsafe highway design.

I'm still skeptical about claims the government has some interest in civil liability cases and assigning clear fault in accidents as suggested above. Especially when considering that some states with the highest prevalence of roundabouts are "no fault" insurance states.

Stucky

Very true! I had thought that your earlier comment was in regard to adding new traffic circles to existing roads.


Me too! I've never heard of such a thing in my life. Although the insurance lobby does have a huge sway over anything to do with transportation, determining liability really doesn't affect the industry as a whole, because in the end, some insurance company has to pay. It is also not uncommon in an accident, for both parties to have the same insurance company. So in the end, if there are accidents, insurance companies are going to pay-out. The only thing that saves them money, is to reduce the overall frequency and/or severity of accidents....and that's what traffic circles can do, and it works out nicely for everyone.

The "no fault" thing really doesn't come into play, as no fault merely means that your insurance company will cover your medical bills, without reagrd to who was at-fault -but in the end, fault will be determined, and the monies paid out, both for medical and property damage, will be collected by your insurance company from that of the at-fault driver (Or the other driver's insurance co. collects from yours if you were at fault.)

SkyDog75

New York State has converting a number of traditional intersections to traffic circles, but most of the ones I've seen are on rural highways where land's pretty easily available to make the conversion.

Here's an example:
https://goo.gl/maps/CQFA4qFsmPw

rumrunn6

interesting that's a 1 lane rotary, but they provide an inside elevated, but smooth area, maybe in case someone has to use it to avoid an accident?

SkyDog75

The curb for the center section is beveled, so it seems whoever planned the traffic circle -- or rotary for my Massachusetts friends -- foresaw the possibility of driving up onto it for some reason... Maybe to avoid an accident or if you didn't slow down enough to make the curve (possibly in slippery winter conditions).

Stucky

There have been a few on Long Island for half a century or more. I've never understood why they didn't continue incorporating them into new roads, as they've always worked really well. Things that don't work seem to proliferate; things which DO work...not so much.

I'm thinking maybe the reasoning is that if some tool tries to drive straight across from one of the access points, he won't crash into a hard-edged curb?