A roundabout way to address traffic problems

I realize that the roundabout is the latest fad in traffic control, and that it presents a low maintenance way to avoid accidents at intersections. Unfortunately, in practice they are being used in places and ways which don't seem appropriate, if benefit to to motoring public, the taxpayers, the voters, are taken into account.

In places where the traffic is light, is roughly the same from all incoming roads, a roundabout is just a really annoying way to cause traffic delays as people slow down to negotiate the turn, coming to a full stop or crawling pace when there is snow or ice on the road. In bad weather it presents the winter motorist a fine chance to slide off the road negotiating a turn which has been introduced into an otherwise safe straight road.

At heavy traffic times such as rush hour, as volume increases people coming from one road and going to another half or three quarters of the way around the circle will occasionally dominate the circle and enter the roundabout in a steady stream of traffic with no gaps for access by motorists entering from other roads. If this persists briefly it's intended behavior, but if it lasts for minutes it results in a backup on those other roads, sometimes all the way back to another roundabout, which in turn becomes totally deadlocked.

Eventually the driver at the front of one of the backlogged roads gets frustrated, perhaps urged on by the people behind leaning on their horns, and that front driver tries to pull into a small or nonresistant gap, which at best means a driver in the roundabout, who has the right of way, will have to brake and give every car behind a chance to have a rear end accident. At worst, the non-gap will be occupied by several cars proving the law of impenetrability, that two objects can not occupy the same space at the same time. This doesn't seem to bother traffic engineers, one was quoted in local news coverage saying that "accidents are usually harmless fender benders with no injuries." If accidents actually at the roundabout are not higher, I have to wonder how many drivers frustrated by a long wait try to "make up the time" and drive aggressively for the remainder of their trip while doing so.

In most fields of engineering there is a technique called "worst case analysis," which would predict behavior in the worst possible case and the worst case which occurs regularly, such as twice a day in morning and evening rush hour. That might lead to some better choices of where to use a roundabout, spacing between roundabouts, and where a signal is a better choice. Since removing under-performing roundabouts would be an expensive solution to an occasional but frequent problem, perhaps augmenting the roundabouts in problem locations with a traffic signal, controlled by backlog sensors and active only at problem times, to prevent prolonged exclusive flow from any one source.

In a perfect world motorists would note a backlog problem and take action on their own to allow smooth traffic flow. In the real world, particularly at the end of the work day when people are tired and want to get home, motorists don't care if someone waits a long time to proceed, as long as it is someone else.  Proponents claim that roundabouts work fine if drivers only knew how to use them. This is somewhat like a software package with a poor user interface and a vendor suggesting training the users instead of fixing the problem. Users will turn to other software, and I know from discussions I have heard, drivers state that they are already taking alternate routes to avoid roundabouts. Shifting the traffic from main roads to neighborhoods and secondary roads is not the solution, it's time to rethink and improve the "user interface" of problem intersections

The Nanny State is trying to strike again

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is recommending that states ban all use of cell phones and other hand held devices while driving, including hands free operation. This is largely due to an accident in which a pickup slammed into the back of a large truck, and the driver had sent ten or so texts in the past few minutes. Then not one but two school buses full of kids crashed into the back of the pickup. Several people were killed, many were injured.

The NTSB recommendations seem to be an overreaction coupled with questionable evaluation of the causes of the accident and some really odd exceptions added for unknown reasons. Let's look at why I think that, bearing in mind that I have only news reports for data.

What part did texting play?

Assuming that the pickup driver sending a text a minute or so was distracted seems to be reasonable. But it appears that the bus which then hit the pickup so hard it rode right over the top of the pickup and ended up on top of the semi must have been tailgating, and as my mother used to say "going like the clappers of Hell." And the second school bus which ran into the back of the first at the very least was following far too closely. So while texting by the pickup driver could be assumed to have contributed to the initial accident, and he might or might not have survived hitting the back of the larger truck, the two school buses involvement was unrelated to texting, based on all reports.

Strange recommendations

I fully support banning texting while driving, as well as any other activity which takes the hands and attention off the road (I'm talking to you, guy with the shaver in one hand looking at yourself in the mirror on the back of your sun visor). The NTSB would ban the use of all cell phones, including hands free phones, unless they are built into the car. Why is a phone built into the car any less distracting then one in your ear? Why is a hands free conversation worse than talking to the passengers? NTSB mentions a study which says passengers in the car keep quiet when traffic is heavy, is there somewhere the public can see that study? Is a conversation more distracting than talk radio or screaming kids??

Finally, the NTSB suggests an exception for use of a GPS. Even those which talk to the driver are distracting, and there's always the temptation to sneak a peek at the map, so you are in the correct lane for the next turn. Why is a GPS safe and my smart phone, which has the same features and as good or better directions, unsafe?

While I'm asking "why" about NTSB suggestions, why no suggestion for stronger laws about speeding and following too closely for school buses? If the existing laws governing all vehicles are not enough, perhaps stronger penalties for both the driver and operator of school buses would improve safety.

A suggestion for lawmakers: The distracted driving law should stop trying to ban this and allow that, because as technology improves and devices change,  any specific device law will become obsolete. We need to ban any activity which requires the ongoing use of one or both hands, which requires taking the eyes off the road, and any media device which doesn't leave at least one ear free to hear sirens, horns, or other alert signals. Additionally ban any activity which can reasonably be expected to distract the driver's attention from the road.

That last may seem vague, but after one of our local Congressmen was stopped driving with a woman on his lap I don't think we want to be too specific about what are prohibited activities. A general prohibition of distracting activities would also cover painting fingernails, reading the newspaper, tying a necktie, or putting on a fresh blouse, all of which I saw on I90 coming into Albany from the Thruway when I was commuting.

I agree with the NTSB that a better and more inclusive distracted driving law is appropriate, but that's really not what they proposed. I'm tired of bad legislation justified by "It's better than what we have" excuses. Only if a new law addresses behaviors rather than devices will it work properly and not need tinkering again in a few years. Now is a good time to rip out the old laws and put in a good new law, rather than putting band-aids on the laws we have.

 Edited 12-16-2011 to reflect the claim of a study on cell conversation vs. in-car conversation.

Road hazard warning

If you are a news junkie as I freely admit I am, you know that in California cutting someone off or making the wrong hand gesture on the freeway can result in disproportionate retaliation. Even locally, a few years ago on one of the bridges over the Hudson, either mid-Hudson or Rip Van Winkle, a tailgating disagreement lead to a shooting. And although the victim called 911 and reported the incident, including the license of the shooter's car according to news reports, the shooter was not found and the victim died. If the shooter was ever identified and caught that information didn't reach any news program I heard.

But when I heard that someone had yelled "Slow down!" at a passing motorist on Bader St in Schenectady and been fired upon multiple times in return, I was sad and a little surprised to hear that this mentality has become more common in our region. Glad no one was hurt, and I hope this was an aberration and not the start of a new trend

The old saying was "Drive safely, the life you save may be your own," it seems that we might consider the general case of safely interacting with drivers, even if we aren't in a car. Some people just don't take suggestions well.