Template:FAOL

Just edited this page to add more detail on different types of roundabout. Not sure if the through-about roundabout really qualifies though, as it needs traffic lights. I was also tempted to add some words about the benefit or otherwise of adding traffic lights to roundabouts, but decided against in the interests of impartiality (unless anyone has some stats as evidence?). IMO traffic lights on roundabouts are one of the great evils. Woo yay! for the HH magic roundabout, my home town...

--Rtuck99 22:44, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The picture of the roadsign has the arrows pointing in the wrong direction! Here is the British Government's Highway Code site with a picture of the road sign. I don't know what the rules on copyright are for this - can someone check out if it's OK to upload this official picture? I imagine that it's copyright held by the UK Government, but since it's a roadsign it would be fair use, or something.

Alternatively, the picture on the article now looks homemade, someone could just reverse it... -- PaulHammond 14:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Checked the current image. Apparently it's German, which explains the arrows being reversed and the lines being thinner than on the British sign. Still think that the British sign is more appropriate for an article in English mostly written by Brits. PaulHammond

I was the one who changed that sign, since the German version has slightly larger arrows and is a bit more appealing to the eye, in my opinion. I wouldn't object to the change being reversed, however keep in mind that 80% of the world drive on the right, so having an arrow arrangement suited for right-hand traffic _is_ contributing to the international scope of Wikipedia. Nevermind that there's a lot of Americans on en: as well. :) --Doco 01:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the graphic looks more like a traffic circle than a roundabout (per the definition in the article). --mav 21:48 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

That's because none of the cars in tha nimation are shown needing to yield -- the road markings look right for a roundabout though. -- Tarquin 21:56 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

Having read this article and a couple of others about road junctions etc I am now quite confused about:

• what's a traffic circle? (I note the article does not yet exist hint hint)
• how does it differ from a roundabout?
• does it matter to the two questions above and the clarity of the encyclopedia that the UK does not use the expression "traffic circle" at all?
• is there a risk then that US and UK roundabouts and those in other English-speaking countries are not precisely the same thing?

Yours, up the Elephant and Castle,
Nevilley 08:50 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
PS Next we need an animation of one of those Mother of All Roundabout things (eg Swindon) - that should freak people out completely!

My understanding is that roundabouts are smaller versions of traffic circles that have yield control to enter them and pedestrian islands (not shown in illustration) between lanes of traffic right before those lanes enter the circle. These islands are wedge shaped so that they direct the drivers in the right direction before they enter the circle. The illustration is of a very primative roundabout that is really little more than a small traffic circle. --mav

My two cents:

• the graphic looks to be a roundabout to me. Although it lacks geometric detail, the traffic flow is correct for a multi-lane roundabout.
• All roundabouts are traffic circles, but not all traffic cirles are roundabouts.
• As far as I can tell, the word 'roundabout' means the same thing everywhere. "Traffic circle" could mean a lot of different things, which is probably why that term is not used in the UK. Many proponents of roundabouts in the US also avoid the term "traffic circle" like the plague, because most early designs were total failures. If the the term is used, it is preceeded by the word "modern': "modern traffic circle"

Roundabouts differ from other kinds of traffic circles by

• relatively low absolute speeds
• relatively small speed differntials between users
• no pedestrian access except on the approaches, behind the yield line

Low absolute speeds and speed differentials are dictated by the geomety of the roundabout, especially

• deflection at entry
• small diameter central island

But, to confuse things further, there are different kinds of roundabouts. For example, a mini-roundabout, has a mountable central circle. A larger roundabout may have a truck apron, while even larger roundabouts have multiple lanes in the cirulatory roadway, flared entries and no truck apron.

The magic roundabout of Swindon may be a modern roundabout, but it is a very complex one. (it's a bunch of mini-roundabouts surrounding one large roundabout) It's a one-of-a-kind oddity. Bluelion

Wouldn't it be more correct to say it's a bunch of mini-roundabounds surrounding one large traffic-circle? -- Ch'marr 23:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I hope the new gif illustrates how a UK roundabout functions better than the old one. Please let me know if i've made any mistakes. Mintguy 12:10 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Nice gif. Swindon isn't a one off, there's one in Hemel Hempstead too. Is a traffic circle just a large N. Am roundabout? Incidently, are there any roundabouts in N Am. I can't remember any in Ontario or Florida? jimfbleak 12:26 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think I'd make the GIF a bit slower, myself. It's easy enough to follow if you're used to roundabouts, but I'm not sure how good it is as a teaching tool at this speed. --rbrwr

I've slowed it to almost half the speed it was. Better? Mintguy 17:09 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think so. It's easier to see (for example) the cyan and yellow cars waiting for the blue one. --rbrwr

There's another Magic Roundabout on the A13 in Essex, at the Sadlers Farm interchange with the A130. -- Heron

ISTR there being one in Colchester, too. Or is that different? It's a series of 5 mini-roundabouts in a circle, allowing movement in either direction about the central island. Darac 09:47, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bugger me, they're breeding! When the Hemel one opened in 1973, I think it was the first of its kind. The local paper rented a chopper and filmed the traffic chaos from the air - every exit/approach to the roundabout was backed up for several miles, with those at the roundabout gingerly trying to work out what the hell they were supposed to do. Soon it all settled down of course, though minor collisions are probably still an everyday occurrence. GRAHAMUK 10:04, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There's more yet. There's a list at [1]. I live quite near High Wycombe and Denham and I can confirm that they can be quite fun to navigate: Wycombe more so for the lack of traffic lights. --Phil 14:16, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

UK Rule of thumb: Give way to the right, driving on the left side of the road.

Following this rule of thumb, driving in UK's roundabouts didn't needed any special regulation, you just have to follow this rule before, in, or after the roundabout.

The problem was in the continental Europe “driving on the right and giving priority to the right” as well, the roundabouts, this way, they become “centripetal” -easy in/hard out– (When I arrived place d’Etoile (Charles Degaulle) for the first time in 1970, I ended up in the center of the “rond point”, giving my best wishes to the unknown soldier monument, I had to give away the “priority to the right”, to get out of there)

On the other hand in the UK “driving on the left and giving priority to the right”, the roundabouts they become “centrifugal” -hard in/easy out- (hard to get into them and easy to get out of them)…

I don’t see the need to adopt in 1966 in UK a mandatory “give way” rule at all circular intersections wich was already set by default, by the english way of driving (driving on the left and giving priority to the right), unless before 1966 you were giving priority to the left…

Anyone can tell me since what date the rule “give priority to the right”, was applied in UK?

Thanks

Manuel Capdevila

I have come across the article "Roundabouts: A Direct Way to Safer Highways" from what I'm sure is the regularly enthralling U.S. Federal Highway Administration magazine Public Roads. Some of its information may be useful here. The article goes into some detail about the differences between traditional traffic circles and roundabouts, provides some details about the use of roundabouts in the United States over time, and has lots of safety statistics about their use throughout Europe (such as a comparison of traffic intersection accidents in the UK, where roundabouts are common, versus France, where they are not nearly so common).

To be honest, I had never really put much thought into these before moving from Virginia to Vermont some months ago. Virginia has done away with nearly all old-style traffic circles and has no roundabouts that I know of, whereas both are relatively often found around New England, and I've rather come to like them when they're implemented correctly and the other drivers don't freak out at the sight of one. --Scott Dellinger 20:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Roundabouts are best at replacing traffic lights at intersections where the floe of traffic is greatly enhanced rather than having to wait pointlessly at a red light when there is no other traffic Dainamo 00:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Roundabouts are statistically safer than both traffic circles and traditional intersections, though they do not cope with the traffic on motorways or similar fast roads.

To say that roundabouts "do not cope" with traffic on motorways/freeways and other fast roads is simply incorrect. Roundabouts are a reasonably common kind of junction/intersection on British dual carriageways (fast laned roads with a central reservation separating traffic streams) including some motorways. I'll change the text to "do not cope as well". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this was probably originally making the point that they don't usually cope well with large amounts of traffic (something that often goes hand-in-hand with motorways/dual carriageways). Also, I'm pretty certain that motorways cannot have roundabouts (other than past/at the end of the designated motorway - which is reasonably common). zoney ♣ talk 21:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The designated motorway ends a distance from where the slip road meets the roundabout (to make sure you're not breaking the law by being stationary on the carriageway of the motorway) Chris 02:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The M27/M271 interchange near Southampton is a non-grade-separated normal roundabout, with traffic lights at that. And since the whole interchange is (obviously) subject to motorway regulations, when the lights are red you have no choice but to be stationary on the carriageway! Actually, The Pathetic Motorways site has a good page on the M271, with plenty of photos. [2] Loganberry 14:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have information on capacity (for instance, if this is possible to figure out, that a one-lane roundabout will be able to handle an intersection of two two-lane (one in each direction) roads with a certain speed limit)? I may try to find this, but if someone has it, that would be nice. --SPUI (talk) 19:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Parliament Square and Clock Tower (Leicester) both claim this honour. Would be good to dig and settle this? Morwen - Talk 14:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions some of the general advantages and disadvantages of roundabouts and traffic circles, but does not clearly lay these out or go into detail. I know that different people have different feelings about them too. I'd be interested to see statistics of the public response to their use (what percentage likes them, and what percentage dislikes them?). I know some people, and especially a lot of road geeks, are quick to state their advantages. Also people who live in areas with these are usually complacent to their existence. However, I know that some people (myself included) hate them. Perhaps because for people who learn to drive in places without traffic circles, the first encounter with one is often complete unfamiliarity and confusion. I know a lot of people who really despise them... perhaps something should be added to the article highlighting the public debate over their use? Thelastemperor 12:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety conducted a before-and-after study on the subject. They state, "The proportion of drivers in favor doubled overall, from 31 percent before construction to 63 percent after. Those who were strongly opposed dropped from 41 percent to 15 percent." ('Status Report', July 2001, http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3607.pdf, page 2).

I'll add this to the main article sometime soon when I have time, unless someone beats me to it. Triskele Jim 16:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an example here (Perth, Western Australia. Morley Drive (east-west), Alexander Drive (north-south), The Strand (NW-SE). The existing roundabout was bisected some time in the 1980's. --michael 07:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the merge as it there is a section Difference between roundabouts and traffic circles and it is not being discussed here, feel free to add it back if this is a mistake. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 11:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they should not be merged because they are quite different. --Coolcaesar 17:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are only different in advertising for the "modern roundabouts". Roundabouts in the UK are equivalent to traffic circles in the US. --SPUI (T - C) 22:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also the caption on traffic circle - "This traffic circle in front of the county courthouse in Angola, Indiana, would be considered a roundabout in the UK." --SPUI (T - C) 22:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then that should be moved to roundabout. Ohh and no merge. Jooler 07:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also against the merge. Circles typically have very large radii and are, nowadays: being replaced with tighter-radii roundabouts; realigned as T-intersections and signalised on the approaches; bisected through the middle and forming a central plus-intersection with the circle serving as auxiliary lanes or parking. Roundabouts are very compact and will typically fit within the existing right-of-way for a signal. --Thisisbossi 11:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI, could you explain why the "Difference between roundabouts and traffic circles" is not adequate in explaining that the two terms are linked but have differences? It looks like there is a case for merger but the two articles could continue to develop separately which might be better Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 23:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not necessarily merge them-but keep a link at the top for 'see also 'traffic cirlce'Mcode

Isn't this a traffic circle, since the traffic on the circle stops at traffic lights and some entrances appear to flow straight onto the circle? If it is, that just adds to the confusion, but I don't think the article has done a good enough job making the difference clear enough to be sure! BigBlueFish 11:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put that picture on. In England this is definitely a Roundabout simply because we don't use the term Traffic Circle in England (at least not in Bristol where I live). So the pic can't be a Traffic Circle because it's a Roundabout! (Its full name is the "Old Market Roundabout" because its in the Old Market district of Bristol) - Adrian Pingstone 12:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is starting to read like a pro-cyclist propaganda article. There is a heavy proportion of cycling related matter in this article, and while i appreciate cyclists are road users too, and that roundabouts can be dangerous for those cyclists that cut across lanes, launch themselves from or to pavements, fail to yield (or give way) and ignore traffic lights and one way streets, there is a lot of unnecessary chaff that could do with being edited out. 212.159.16.124 09:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]