What's Up Oroville: Roundabout Opinion
- From: "BlindNews Mailing List" <BlindNews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <BlindNews@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:05:03 -0400
Mercury Register, California USA
Monday, October 15, 2007
What's Up Oroville: Roundabout Opinion
By Mary Weston
Article Launched: 10/15/2007 08:31:33 PM PDT
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion, the former begets
knowledge, the latter ignorance." Hypocrites
The difference between fact and opinion not based upon evidence is nowhere more
apparent than on the roundabout issue in Oroville.
People who are against installing a roundabout state opinions not related to
facts and cite rumors they have heard about roundabouts in other areas that
have caused everything from traffic problems to deaths.
So far, I have not been able to confirm any of these rumors, as they are always
something like someone knows someone who knows someone in the Bay Area who said
they finally had to rip out the roundabouts in a San Francisco neighborhood.
Then there are the people who inaccurately cite research, like the person who
wrote a letter to the editor last week. The person claimed that a study by the
North Carolina State University research team determined roundabouts are more
dangerous to pedestrians than signalized intersections because vehicles have
the right-of-way.
The university (NCSU) in conjunction with Western Michigan University is in
fact looking for treatments for roundabouts to make safer crossings for
visually impaired pedestrians, which would also help older pedestrians and
pedestrians with physical disabilities, said Bastian Schroeder, a Ph.D student
at the Institute for Transportation Research and Education at North Carolina
State University.
""The study (NCHRP3-78) is not because roundabouts are more dangerous to
pedestrians, but to find safer treatments for visually impaired pedestrians,"
Schroeder said.
The language on the Web site announcing a study states that designers were
concerned about pedestrian safety at continuous flow intersections, not that
there was a problem with pedestrian safety.
Schroeder said roundabouts pose a problem to the visually impaired, and audible
signals can't be installed at these intersections like at signalized
intersections. Audible signals can be installed at lights to signal visually
compromised people when to cross the intersection. The intersection on
Washington and Montgomery where the roundabout is proposed, however, does not
have such a device. Nor do the majority of signaled intersections in town.
Additionally, Schroeder said he didn't know of any research that determined
roundabouts are more dangerous for pedestrians, but there is research that they
are safer because of slower traffic speeds, including the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety study, a study from an independent agency.
"From my experience, if a roundabout is designed properly, in general, the
slower speeds in single-lane roundabouts make it safer for pedestrians,"
Schroeder said.
He said the problems in the past were with circular intersections that were
large with faster traveling speeds and without features such as yield signs.
Professor Dr. Joe Hummer, of NCSU, said the consensus seems to be that
roundabouts and signalized intersections provide about the same levels of
safety for pedestrians.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concluded roundabouts reduce
injuries and accidents.
"A 2001 Institute study of 23 intersections in the United States reported that
converting intersections from traffic signals or stop signs to roundabouts
reduced injury crashes by 80 percent and all crashes by 40 percent," according
to results from the study at iihs.org.
Another letter writer bemoaned the scuffs and scrapes on roundabouts in Chico.
I have personally driven though the roundabouts on 8th Avenue in Chico many
times, as I used to live near there.
I have not seen nor had any problems while driving through these small
roundabouts, and the cars travel at very slow speeds.
But since the letter writer said Eric Teitelman can't recommend a roundabout
because he lives in Chico, I supposed I can't talk about my experiences either
because I used to live in Chico. That seems to be the logic. Still, I drive
through the intersection at Washington and Montgomery four to six times a day.
This same individual stated that the people don't want a roundabout. Does he
speak for all the people of Oroville or just those coerced into signing a
petition because they were hungry and wanted a hamburger and fries? No one
wants to tick off the person who is preparing their food.
Still I talk to and hear from many people who think a roundabout is a good
idea.
An anonymous high-level employee at Oroville High School thought a roundabout
would work well at that intersection when I asked their opinion a few months
back. That person had worked at a school near a roundabout in the past.
I think we need to separate fact from opinion. Now if you just say, I don't
want a roundabout, because I am not familiar with them, and I am afraid it
won't work here, or I once drove through a roundabout and got stuck for half a
day, or I've driven through roundabouts and like them, that's our opinion, and
we are all welcome to an opinion-even people who live in Chico.
Let's just recognize the difference between fact and opinion.
Mary Weston is the city reporter for the Oroville Mercury-Register
http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_7188355
BlindNews Mailing List
Subscribe: BlindNews-Request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" as subject
Unsubscribe: BlindNews-Request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" as subject
Moderator: BlindNews-Moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Archive: http://GeoffAndWen.com/blind
RSS: http://GeoffAndWen.com/BlindNewsRSS.asp
More information about RSS feeds will be published shortly.
Other related posts:
- » What's Up Oroville: Roundabout Opinion
