nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Traffic Lights vs Roundabouts at busy urban junctions

veryangryman

Just wanting to see others take on these.

Personally, i think that if space is not an issue, roundabouts (even mini ones) should be placed at every current traffic light junction.

Some examples...

1) Athlone Crescent Junction. Formerly a roundabout that flowed quite well (save the buses going around it). Junction changed to traffic light with traffic islands when shopping centre opened. People (clearly p1ssed off with the junction) started using Mels Terrace as rat run, which was then closed. SAKE! Its the one bottleneck for me. Usually when going into town from Monksland, i take bypass to N55 exit and straight on, but this almost makes it worth using the old road in through the medieval town bridge.

2) Approach roads to Galway junctions (M6 to Headford Rd/Browne Roundabout). All roundabouts which could likely be improved with freeflow, but in lieu of that it beats the crap out of traffic lights. Browne roundabout can be busy so the lights are probably right there. Should shut them off outside of peak hours though

3) Newbridge in general. Stupid town traffic management system. Installing traffic lights like its going out of fashion. More roundabouts please!!

As per the recent replies by ATC on the proposals on alternatives to traffic lights at N6 J9, it seems like the lights are favoured to be more pedestrian friendly.

Pedestrians should not be given priority - the roads are paid for by car owners. Id even allow this if the lights only changed by request - some traffic lights let pedestrians go without pressing button - such a joke.

Id imagine most other roadwatchers here will favour the roundabouts - remember subject title - urban roads (so freeflow in this case is assumed not an option). Let me know what ye think anyway :pac:

Find more posts tagged with

traffic lights

roundabouts

Quick Links

Comments

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. Re "theoretical figures". Luckily motorists' anecdotes and perceptions are not the principal bases for traffic management and transport planning..

Theory is all well and good, but some of us have to live in the real world where theory often falls down due to the practices of mere mortals.

Scientific observation of all the behaviours and not skewed analysis to support an agenda (e.g. the ludicrous 30km limit in Dublin city center and the arguements both for and against - the taxi lobby's reaction was very as funny they largely ignored the 50km limit if they got the chance) should be used as the basis of said policy.

In this case one's observations tell one that the theoretical figures are not supported by said observations, hence one finds the conclusions based on such theoretical figures to be somewhat suspect.

One must wonder just how scientific the analysis of traffic light controlled junction are when one often observes:

tw*ts that stop in the middle of a junction when turning right for a red light on the exit (lights prevent entry not exit)

amber gamblers

the green light sleeping beauty

the slowcoaches that can't/won't use the accelerator to keep up with traffic moving off, causing several vehicles less than the theoretical limit to get through (closely related to the green light sleeping beauty)

pedestrians & cyclists that just ignore the blasted things and do what they like, putting themselves in more danger

people that ignore lane markings and filters and not to forget

the people who think that the red light is a suggestion that they might have to stop, but don't really have to

All of these nullify the supposed (and per one's observations unsupported) safety and throughput advantages of lights over roundabouts.

Wait - several of these sound suspiciously similar to the complaints about roundabouts? Small bit of pot kettle black going on from the traffic light brigade one thinks.

AugustusMinimus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You seem to care about the USA, though, for some reason.

I mentioned the USA once. You on the other hand seem to have a Swedish obsession and think that traffic management in Stockholm has rung the deathknell of roundabouts in this country.

I really can't see how any of the anti-roundabout points you put to me outweight the positives I've posted. If a roundabout manages to save a few lives compared to a signalised junction then surely it is all worth it.

Iwannahurl

veryangryman wrote: »

Maybe hes been there? Or knows alot more about it than Sweden (most do), hence the caring

Knowing about and caring about are two quite different things.

I know only a little of Sweden, and less about the US, though I have visited both countries.

However, I care a lot about what we in Ireland can learn -- good and bad -- from the two countries. Among other things I care about road safety, urban planning, transport policy and sustainability.

The statement "I don't care about Stockholm" suggests an unwillingness to know more about how a progressive European country manages its traffic and develops its transport policy.

Ireland has a lot to learn from best practice in European urban planning and transport policy, and from the car-dependent urban sprawl that is so typical of many areas in the US.

The possibility, or the fact, that most people in Ireland know more about the US than a much nearer European neighbour is depressing, IMO.

It was Mary Harney who said that "geographically we are closer to Berlin than Boston, spiritually we are probably a lot closer to Boston than Berlin." I believe she saw this as a good thing.

As with health, social and fiscal policies, so also with transport and urban planning. Despite the best efforts of the EU, we continue to emulate the worst of what the US has to offer (land-wasting, energy-inefficient, car-dependent urban sprawl being just one example). I seem to recall it being suggested some years ago that the greater Dublin area, and the 'commuterland' around it, was heading for a degree of sprawl comparable with LA but with a smaller population. No surprise, therefore, that the recently released preliminary Census figures "show Ireland heading inexorably towards a suburban future and locking itself into long-term car dependency".

Let's see "traffic circles" -- as the Americans like to call roundabouts -- fix that particular problem we are bequeathing to our children and grandchildren...

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Theory is all well and good, but some of us have to live in the real world where theory often falls down due to the practices of mere mortals.

Only some of us?

Iwannahurl

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I mentioned the USA once. You on the other hand seem to have a Swedish obsession and think that traffic management in Stockholm has rung the deathknell of roundabouts in this country.

I really can't see how any of the anti-roundabout points you put to me outweight the positives I've posted. If a roundabout manages to save a few lives compared to a signalised junction then surely it is all worth it.

You quoted the USA as a positive example, and dismissed Stockholm.

I have no obsession with Sweden. It just happens to be the civilised European country I visited most recently.

I would also cite Denmark (specifically Copenhagen) and the Netherlands (numerous cities) as positive examples of how to manage traffic, promote road safety and prioritise sustainability. Other EU cities worth learning from include Barcelona, Munich, Graz, Ghent and probably many more. Why look to the US when we are members of the EU and inextricably linked with its policies?

The Netherlands, as it happens, is quite positive about roundabouts. Their national road safety research institute, SWOV, states that there were about 3500 roundabouts in the country in 2008. There are key differences, however, between Ireland and the Netherlands in terms of roads engineering, roundabout design, road traffic law, road safety culture, modal split in means of travel etc. Dutch roundabouts do not endanger, intimidate and deter cyclists, for example.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I would venture to suggest that the principle reason you regard Irish roundabouts in a positive light (and traffic signals negatively) is that you do not regularly cycle, walk, push a buggy, manoeuvre a wheelchair or try to access a bus through such uncontrolled junctions.

.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Dutch roundabouts do not endanger, intimidate and deter cyclists, for example

They're just horrifically dangerous for car drivers instead. Try diving on a "turbo roundabout" and come back to me. I'd hazard a guess you've never been to the Netherlands, or if you have, you never left Amsterdam and certainly never drove there. Blathering off statistics when you have zero actual experience is an incredibly bad idea.

Methinks you like traffic lights as they slow cars down, for that is the sole purpose you ever wrap up in other posts.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

They're just horrifically dangerous for car drivers instead. Try diving on a "turbo roundabout" and come back to me. I'd hazard a guess you've never been to the Netherlands, or if you have, you never left Amsterdam and certainly never drove there. Blathering off statistics when you have zero actual experience is an incredibly bad idea.

Methinks you like traffic lights as they slow cars down, for that is the sole purpose you ever wrap up in other posts.

"Horrifically dangerous"? High injury and fatality rates then? Source?

I cited SWOV and linked to one of their publications. If there's any blathering it's their blathering.

I've been to the Netherlands quite a few times (several cities, not just the 'Dam), and drove, walked any cycled there. What's an incredibly bad idea, IMO, is jumping to conclusions.

I'm a motorist, a cyclist, a pedestrian and a bus user. I have no problem with traffic signals in any of those modes, though of course some traffic lights are better set up than others.

Bullseye1

IMO traffic lights on a roundabout is proof that the roundabout has been inadequently designed. Roundabouts without traffic lights are the way to go every time. Don't treat people like they are idiots.

Also introduce flashing Amber arrow lights to allow people take left hand turns at junctions on red lights like they have in the US.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"Horrifically dangerous"? High injury and fatality rates then? Source?

High accident rates. Wouldn't be many injuries or deaths at the low speeds involved, and you know this.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I've been to the Netherlands quite a few times (several cities, not just the 'Dam), and drove, walked any cycled there. What's an incredibly bad idea, IMO, is jumping to conclusions.
.

I don't believe you. You have clearly never actually seen or driven through the "Dutch roundabouts" you're claiming are somehow safer for pedestrians and cyclists. You're fed by statistics, selective ones at that, and when anything is provided contrary to what you want to believe you make grand claims about there being too much data to read.

You really, really are not worth the time of day at this stage. One sided, anti-car campaigner and nothing more.

AugustusMinimus

Bullseye1 wrote: »

IMO traffic lights on a roundabout is proof that the roundabout has been inadequently designed. Roundabouts without traffic lights are the way to go every time. Don't treat people like they are idiots.

Also introduce flashing Amber arrow lights to allow people take left hand turns at junctions on red lights like they have in the US.

It depends.

Roundabout inherently have a traffic flow limit after which they simply cannot cope.

Introducing traffic lights to a roundabout can greatly aid it's capacity at peak times. IMO, some sort of a system where traffic levels can be monitored and where flashing ambers can be introduced when traffic levels are low would be a good way to go.

Dunkettle Interchange in Cork is a good example. An absolute nightmare before they introduced the lights about 5 or 6 years ago. However, there's no need for the lights between 10 at night and 7 in the morning.

L1011

NI often has part-time signals on roundabouts for situations such as that, IIRC the A26/M2 roundabout has them for one. Think the old end of the Ballymen BP did too.

niloc1951

MYOB wrote: »

High accident rates. Wouldn't be many injuries or deaths at the low speeds involved, and you know this.

I don't believe you. You have clearly never actually seen or driven through the "Dutch roundabouts" you're claiming are somehow safer for pedestrians and cyclists. You're fed by statistics, selective ones at that, and when anything is provided contrary to what you want to believe you make grand claims about there being too much data to read.

You really, really are not worth the time of day at this stage. One sided, anti-car campaigner and nothing more.

MODERATOR where are you, I know of no other forum where such behavior towards other posters is tolerated. Is there a 'jail' facility on BOARDS ?

A poster with a similar attitude was permanently banned a couple of years ago from another forum I am active on.

I am not very interested in contributing to the topic of this thread as drawing from my own personal experience of extensive travel, which extends over 40 years, in the UK and mainland Europe much of the contributions appear very subjective and some of the contributors appear to have little actual experience of driving conditions and road infrastructure design in Europe.

corktina

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

It depends.

Roundabout inherently have a traffic flow limit after which they simply cannot cope.

Introducing traffic lights to a roundabout can greatly aid it's capacity at peak times. IMO, some sort of a system where traffic levels can be monitored and where flashing ambers can be introduced when traffic levels are low would be a good way to go.

Dunkettle Interchange in Cork is a good example. An absolute nightmare before they introduced the lights about 5 or 6 years ago. However, there's no need for the lights between 10 at night and 7 in the morning.

it ,and others , are (or were) nightmares because of bad drivers. Sticking traffic lights up on them means those bad drivers will never learn how to get round a roundabout effiecntly.

L1011

niloc1951 wrote: »

MODERATOR where are you, I know of no other forum where such behavior towards other posters is tolerated. Is there a 'jail' facility on BOARDS ?

I know of no other forum where a troll would be allowed last as long as IWH has on here.

veryangryman

niloc1951 wrote: »

MODERATOR where are you, I know of no other forum where such behavior towards other posters is tolerated. Is there a 'jail' facility on BOARDS ?

A poster with a similar attitude was permanently banned a couple of years ago from another forum I am active on.

Im not a mod but i dont see anything wrong with the guy forming an opinion on you based on your posts. I cant spot a single insult in it; he just thinks your ill informed.

I do too for what its worth.

Iwannahurl

Bullseye1 wrote: »

IMO traffic lights on a roundabout is proof that the roundabout has been inadequently designed. Roundabouts without traffic lights are the way to go every time. Don't treat people like they are idiots.

Also introduce flashing Amber arrow lights to allow people take left hand turns at junctions on red lights like they have in the US.

IMO the retrofitting of traffic signals to a roundabout proves nothing of the sort. It's a belated acknowledgment that roundabouts cease to function when traffic loads get too heavy.

"People"? What people? There is a strong tendency in this forum (and country, possibly) when discussing roads infrastructure and traffic to use the word "people" when the word "motorists" would be more accurate. Pedestrians, cyclists and bus users are people too.

In fact the closest synonym to "people" in this context is "pedestrians". A large part of the problem with transport policy and traffic management in this country, IMO, is the strong tendency to think primarily about providing for vehicles rather than people.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

High accident rates. Wouldn't be many injuries or deaths at the low speeds involved, and you know this.

I don't believe you. You have clearly never actually seen or driven through the "Dutch roundabouts" you're claiming are somehow safer for pedestrians and cyclists. You're fed by statistics, selective ones at that, and when anything is provided contrary to what you want to believe you make grand claims about there being too much data to read.

You really, really are not worth the time of day at this stage. One sided, anti-car campaigner and nothing more.

1. So "horrifically dangerous" equates with "high accident rates" and "[not] many injuries or deaths" in your book? I doubt that's what they teach on the UK Advanced Driving courses.

2. Suit yourself.

Iwannahurl

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

It depends.

Roundabout inherently have a traffic flow limit after which they simply cannot cope.

Introducing traffic lights to a roundabout can greatly aid it's capacity at peak times. IMO, some sort of a system where traffic levels can be monitored and where flashing ambers can be introduced when traffic levels are low would be a good way to go.

Dunkettle Interchange in Cork is a good example. An absolute nightmare before they introduced the lights about 5 or 6 years ago. However, there's no need for the lights between 10 at night and 7 in the morning.

That's the point. Roundabouts as uncontrolled junctions cease to operate properly under congested traffic conditions.

But why the need for a hybrid signal-controlled roundabout? Why not fully signalise the junction and actively manage it with an AUTC according to peak traffic flows, time of day, unexpected events etc?

What is the evidence that roundabouts -- of the design typically used in Ireland -- are better for all road users?

And what is the evidence that Irish roundabouts, with or without signals, are better than an AUTC designed with the needs of all road users in mind?

AugustusMinimus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That's the point. Roundabouts as uncontrolled junctions cease to operate properly under congested traffic conditions.

But why the need for a hybrid signal-controlled roundabout? Why not fully signalise the junction and actively manage it with an AUTC according to peak traffic flows, time of day, unexpected events etc?

What is the evidence that roundabouts -- of the design typically used in Ireland -- are better for all road users?

And what is the evidence that Irish roundabouts, with or without signals, are better than an AUTC designed with the needs of all road users in mind?

A signalised roundabout will inherently have more capacity that a standard signalised junction as the traffic on a roundabout can only move in one direction, clockwise around the roundabout.

On the other hand, a signalised junction must cater for various overlapping movements which means that the junction has less capacity than a roundabout.

I would mind, but with a signalised roundabout, you can easily have pedestrian crossings on each arm with a path around the ouside of the roundabout. With roundabouts without traffic lights, you can easily have a pelican crossing on each arm.

This isn't rocket science.

AugustusMinimus

Bullseye1 wrote: »

IMO traffic lights on a roundabout is proof that the roundabout has been inadequently designed. Roundabouts without traffic lights are the way to go every time. Don't treat people like they are idiots.

No, traffic lights on a roundabout indicates that a roundabout is not a suitable junction for the location.

Once you are forced to put lights on a junction, the junction should be replaced by a fully free flow junction. Lights on a junction should only be a temporary measure. However, as temporary as they should be, they do work.

AugustusMinimus

corktina wrote: »

it ,and others , are (or were) nightmares because of bad drivers. Sticking traffic lights up on them means those bad drivers will never learn how to get round a roundabout effiecntly.

There is certainly a point to be made that a lot of drivers can't use unsignalised roundabouts to their maximum efficiency.

However, in my mind, signalising a roundabout increases it's capacity past that of a unsignalised roundabout where every driver is using it to maximum efficiency.

You just can't get cars merging and leaving the roundabout as efficiently as having cars bumper to bumper enter a roundabout when it is signalised.

Iwannahurl

So, any examples of such signalised, pedestrian-friendly, cycle-friendly, bus-friendly roundabouts? Links, reports, StreetView, YouTube or whatever. I'd like to see how they look, and preferably work, in practice.

It appears, then, that traffic signals are not a problem in themselves, despite the title of this thread and subsequent comments.

Is it more a matter of junction capacity then?

If so, are there other ways of increasing effective junction capacity -- or decreasing waiting times -- while also facilitating pedestrians, cyclists and bus users (as per national policy and international trends)? Ways other than bunging in loads of new roundabouts or signalising existing ones, that is.

AugustusMinimus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So, any examples of such signalised, pedestrian-friendly, cycle-friendly, bus-friendly roundabouts? Links, reports, StreetView, YouTube or whatever. I'd like to see how they look, and preferably work, in practice.

Has your arguement moved so from roundabouts are bad, to the design of roundabouts in Ireland, not catering for pedestrians adequately are bad ?

Funnilly enough, there was a roundabout with pelican crossing on each arm outside of St Finbarr's GAA Club in Togher in Cork. It worked perfectly. They then decided to get rid of the roundabout and replaced it with a standard junction. Traffic there is now a mess.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It appears, then, that traffic signals are not a problem in themselves, despite the title of this thread and subsequent comments.

Is it more a matter of junction capacity then?

If so, are there other ways of increasing effective junction capacity -- or decreasing waiting times -- while also facilitating pedestrians, cyclists and bus users (as per national policy and international trends)? Ways other than bunging in loads of new roundabouts or signalising existing ones, that is.

That's fine, but where is the money to come from to do this. Can you also tell me what sort of a junction should replace standard roundabouts in a non motorway/dual carriageway settings which would improve on a signalised junction/roundabout.

[Deleted User]

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

No, traffic lights on a roundabout indicates that a roundabout is not a suitable junction for the location.

Once you are forced to put lights on a junction, the junction should be replaced by a fully free flow junction.

This is true, but "should be" doesn't cut any mustard in terms of road expenditure in Ireland.

In an Ideal world (which our road network most definitely is NOT) once a junction is over capacity, an automated predictive analytics traffic management solution would manage the traffic signals over a wide area (not just the junction in question, but many junctions around it and leading up to it) in real time, changing light timings on the fly in an integrated fashion, and ensuring that any traffic buildup is mitigated or diverted as much as possible and the build up is dissipated.

This is the state of the art of traffic management technology and predictive analytics at the moment, it's different to systems which rely on historical data and patterns, and is more like a live brain, reacting to situations as they happen and predicting what it might mean for traffic in a certain sector in say 5 or 10 minutes time. I know because i work for one of the world leaders in the back end technology for those kinds of systems (not saying which one) and have seen infrastructure and solutions in this area in action, and they are amazing to watch. Think of the M50 toll cameras, but on every major road, all over the city, keeping an eye on traffic flows, speeds, and vehicle counts, and managing ALL local traffic light timings automatically to ensure everywhere is kept flowing as freely as possible, and you'll get the idea.

Aside from that kind of system (which would be waay out of our budget) the next best option would be full scale free-flow junctions replacing the existing lighted junctions or roundabouts where problems of capacity occur, but as we know, despite having an extremely high level of motor and roads taxation in Ireland, very little of it is ringfenced for infrastructural investment in the roads network, and even if we had the cash, major refits like this would be an engineering nightmare because of lack of proper foresight, planning, and provision for expansion which has been rife in Ireland for half a century or more.

Case in point. Look at the Newland's Cross junction in Dublin, a mile or so from the Red Cow interchange on the M50. A standard crossroads type traffic light junction, managed by static pattern traffic lights, a mile from the busiest interchange on the busiest motorway in the busiest city in the country. All the major surrounding road infrastructure has been retrofitted in recent years and has seen massive traffic spikes over the last decade or two, but this junction, an integral part of that area's system, has remained relatively unchanged. It was not built to withstand anything close to the volume of traffic it now holds, and as anyone who uses it regularly will tell you, it is backed up in all directions most of the time, but is particularly severe during peak hours, as it is fed from all sides by heavy private & commercial traffic from motorways office parks, and various industrial and residential areas.

Look at the problem it poses from a traffic management infrastructure point of view. its surrounded on all sides by thriving businesses and premises, so there is no further physical space to expand it's capacity, a roundabout in it's place would cause complete pandemonium and probably wide scale murder, road rage, and gridlock on a daily basis, and due to the lack of integrated spatial planning, a freeflow junction at the location would necessitate multiple compulsory purchase orders and the leveling of many thriving commercial properties, hotels, restaurants, and residences around it to make space for the build. Tunneling to create underpasses would run into the same issues and would be prohibitively expensive in the current economic situation. So what's the solution? The only way to fix newlands cross is to rip it up and start again from scratch, which would itself cause traffic pandemonium while it was happening.

My point, after all that, is that we have to start looking at these problems from an integrated perspective. It's not good enough to fix a single junction or a crossroads or a roundabout, as we have always done. We have to look at the whole system, because every time we don't plan properly, a retrofit later on when we can't ignore the problem anymore costs ten times as much and works half as well as it should.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So, any examples of such signalised, pedestrian-friendly, cycle-friendly, bus-friendly roundabouts? Links, reports, StreetView, YouTube or whatever. I'd like to see how they look, and preferably work, in practice.

It appears, then, that traffic signals are not a problem in themselves, despite the title of this thread and subsequent comments.

Is it more a matter of junction capacity then?

If so, are there other ways of increasing effective junction capacity -- or decreasing waiting times -- while also facilitating pedestrians, cyclists and bus users (as per national policy and international trends)? Ways other than bunging in loads of new roundabouts or signalising existing ones, that is.

Explain this one to me so please.

I (used to and plan to again) cycle to work in Dublin. My route to is 5km down hill, with a bus/cycle lane for the entire length of the journey, with 3 left turns (one of which is not at lights) and 1 right turn (and no RAB). There are 9 sets of traffic lights on this route. The average observed time (via bike computer) was 15 minutes.

My route home is slightly different taking 5.25 km (uphill obviously), with no bus/cycle lane for at least 3km of the trip. There are 6 sets of traffic lights on this route, I take 3 right turns (2 at lights) and 1 left turn (not at lights). Average observed time is 14 minutes.

How does a longer, (slightly) more physically demanding trip (the vertical elevation change is approx 35m) with significantly less cycle friendly facilities take longer to do?

No it's not rhetorical - I really want you to explain this.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. So "horrifically dangerous" equates with "high accident rates" and "[not] many injuries or deaths" in your book? I doubt that's what they teach on the UK Advanced Driving courses.

so you don't consider something dangerous until the accidents are fatal then? And you consider yourself to be some form of road safety guru. I despair sometimes.

corktina

antoobrien wrote: »

Explain this one to me so please.

I (used to and plan to again) cycle to work in Dublin. My route to is 5km down hill, with a bus/cycle lane for the entire length of the journey, with 3 left turns (one of which is not at lights) and 1 right turn (and no RAB). There are 9 sets of traffic lights on this route. The average observed time (via bike computer) was 15 minutes.

My route home is slightly different taking 5.25 km (uphill obviously), with no bus/cycle lane for at least 3km of the trip. There are 6 sets of traffic lights on this route, I take 3 right turns (2 at lights) and 1 left turn (not at lights). Average observed time is 14 minutes.

How does a longer, (slightly) more physically demanding trip (the vertical elevation change is approx 35m) with significantly less cycle friendly facilities take longer to do?

No it's not rhetorical - I really want you to explain this.

Obvious really...you dont want to go to work and therefore are slower than the evening trip where the pub is open/dinner on the table/corrie on the telly.

dubhthach

Mod

Folks if you have issues with posts please hit the Report button. Tbh from looking over last page or two of this topic there is way too much in way of personal jibes going on then talking about the topic of Busy urban junctions and wether Round abouts or traffic lights suit them. I'll lock the thread if there isn't a return to some civility.

Also I don't appreciate posters describing other posters as Trolls etc. As mentioned if you have an issue report it.

Iwannahurl

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Has your arguement moved so from roundabouts are bad, to the design of roundabouts in Ireland, not catering for pedestrians adequately are bad ?

Funnilly enough, there was a roundabout with pelican crossing on each arm outside of St Finbarr's GAA Club in Togher in Cork. It worked perfectly. They then decided to get rid of the roundabout and replaced it with a standard junction. Traffic there is now a mess.

That's fine, but where is the money to come from to do this. Can you also tell me what sort of a junction should replace standard roundabouts in a non motorway/dual carriageway settings which would improve on a signalised junction/roundabout.

I don't believe my argument has moved at all.

I believe that most Irish roundabouts are pedestrian-hostile and cycle-hostile, and that at least some of them are also failing to facilitate motorised traffic which is why they are being signalised or replaced.

If you know of well-designed roundabouts that facilitate, indeed prioritise, the safety and convenience of pedestrians, cyclists and bus users then please provide some links, photos, videos, reports etc. I'd like to see what they look like and how they operate.

Has your argument now moved to 'how can we design junctions that facilitate cars on the cheap"? I'm not saying it has, but if that is the objective of Irish roads engineers then I think these state employees paid out of the public purse represent very poor value for money.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

so you don't consider something dangerous until the accidents are fatal then? And you consider yourself to be some form of road safety guru. I despair sometimes.

Your desperation is obvious. You are jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth, again. Please desist. BTW, I'm not even claiming Advanced Driving qualifications, as some are wont to do on Boards in order to imply superior knowledge and ability.

Your original description of Dutch "turbo roundabouts" was that they are "horrifically dangerous", yet your later comments seemed to imply not much more than fender benders, moderate material damage to cars or occasional casualties.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect there, or at least a touch of hyperbole.

If Dutch-style roundabouts really are dangerous, horrifically or otherwise, please provide evidence for that claim.

I would be very interested in such evidence, especially since SWOV seems to be stating the contrary.