Huh? That’s only OK if it’s a mini-roundabout, where you’ll be the only car on it due to size and there’s no point or time to changing indications once you’re on it. On a full size one you should both indicate before entering and once on it in the UK.
On entering a full-size roundabout, you indicate left if you’re taking the first turning, you don’t indicate if you’re taking the second, and you indicate right if you’re taking the 3rd or higher. Once on the roundabout, you then follow the same logic, so no indicators for next-but-one turn, then indicate left once yours is the next turn.
I drive through a minimum of 7 of the things each way on my daily commute, depending on route albeit including at least one mini one and one that’s part light controlled, but often including one 6-lane chaotic beast. I’ve also visited Milton Keynes, which is a selection of roundabouts loosely connected by houses.
No, what you said is that you would indicate right on approach to the roundabout, which is correct, but you should then change that and indicate left while on it when your junction’s next as you go round it- by your description, you’d still be indicating right at that point.
Mini: (Often referred to as “dots”). Usually on four-way intersections, they are a simple white circle, often mounded, in the middle of the junction. The usual rule applies: give way to the car on the right, but if several cars arrive at the same time, eye contact will usually break the jam.
Standard: These are bigger, sometimes much bigger, and on the approach, you are expected to filter into the traffic. There may be two or three lanes, and changing lanes requires a high level of spatial awareness. The most common collisions are caused by people cutting across lanes without checking. On very busy junctions, they are sometimes controlled by traffic lights. Very annoying when traffic is light.
Gyratory: These are really just very big roundabouts, or mini one-way systems, often with buildings in the middle.
Spiral: Large roundabouts with five or six exits are sometimes laid out so that if you start off in the correct lane, you won’t have to change lanes to reach your exit. They confuse some drivers who fail to follow the signs and may find themselves going round more than once or cutting across, risking a collision and annoying other drivers.
There is a spiral in California. It looks like the first in the USA. Without changing lanes, it looks impossible to go around it more than once. A driver who misses the signs and starts off in the wrong lane would just wind up getting spit out on the wrong road.
I believe you’re talking about the turbo roundabout near Hollister. That one was the second turbo in the US. The first was in Jacksonville FL. There’ve been several others in the US since.
BTW, they’re called “turbo” because the central island usually resembles a part of turbines. Nothing to do with the speed cars go around them. They have raised lane separators, making it very difficult to change lanes in the circle. They were invented in Netherlands.
Yes, that is the one. From google earth, it looks bigger, with more lanes, than the one in Jacksonville.
Since the lanes spiral, it looks impossible to stay in it circling endlessly. Unavoidably coming out on the wrong road looks quite possible, if you get started in the wrong lane.
Those may be spirals, but they aren’t turbos. Turbos definitely have raised lane separators. There have been some turbos built in the UK; I’ve seen complaints about them in my googling.
I went thru one of the above circles last night, I was going N & wanted to go W, so about 270° around the right side; however, it’s actually a 180° & then a 90° right as it’s more of an oval than a circle. Southbound traffic (coming from the north) has the right of way entering the circle so I was looking to my right to see if there was any traffic coming south that I needed to yield to even though I was already in the circle as I’m simultaneously changing from the inner lane to the outer lane (yes, I checked my right side mirror, I was the only car) when all of a sudden there’s headlights in my face. Someone, whether idjit, drunk, or confused (looking at Google Maps, drive view I do see not one but two yellow signs showing an upcoming circle; don’t know if they were there last night, though) took the 90° from West to North, against the flow of traffic.
If I had the right of way in the circle I would have seen him much sooner as that’s where my eyes would have been & not so narrowly missed an accident.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the only viable way to compete with a roundabout would be dynamic “intelligent” traffic signals, which as part of a network would communicate with other traffic lights and optimize for flow (i.e. minimizing stopped time waiting at the lights). But that of course is super-expensive.
I think that perhaps part of the problem is that you have round-abouts at places that have really difficult traffic problems anyway. 99% of the round-abouts I go through are just simple intersections where they replace uncontrolled intersections or 4-way stops.
Those difficult roundabouts with multiple lanes, odd angles, and offset feeders are unsafe, but so are wide light-controlled intersections with 7 minute waits, multiple lanes, odd angles, and offset feeders.
(Writing as a driver, and as person who’s been a passenger in a taxi going the wrong way up a road after the driver misunderstood a wide light-controlled intersection)
I find this to be occasionally true. There are bad roundabout implementations. Ones without clearly marked yield signs, ones that don’t make sense (a low-traffic three-way yield that was working just fine). And my personal bugbear, the double-lane roundabout. We know people struggle with new driving habits, and now we’re going to throw in the complexity of a lane change? Why? In case someone needs to pass during the 20 seconds they’re transiting this 50-meter circle?
Most roundabouts I’ve seen are fine, but occasionally you see one that leaves the impression that the local roadway authority is just doling them out for shits and giggles. Your average citizen tends to see one dumb thing in new technology or practice and presume that all of it is dumb forever.
Kind of sums up traffic engineering as a whole in my area. My husband and I frequently speculate as to what drugs were involved, and could someone possibly either get the committee in question onto the same drugs?
You’re not supposed to change lanes in a roundabout. The idea is to get in the correct lane before entering the circle. Well, there is one circumstance, that is if you’re making a complete U-turn. That’s usually legal to do, but it should be fairly rare.
None of this makes remotely any sense at all. What does it mean to “get in the correct lane before entering the circle?” In this case all the lanes entering the roundabout were one lane in either direction, so you’re already in the same lane. Having a 4-lane feeding a roundabout would be certifiably insane.
If you’re not supposed to change lanes in the roundabout, then that means the inner lane can’t legally be reached, so why is it there? If it’s somehow about throughput, let me say that this was not even a secondary roadway, just a residential side street connecting to a tertiary artery. It doesn’t have the traffic to justify two lanes.
I’m sure there’s some complicated traffic-theoretic explanation as to why this is perfectly fine, but a non-intuitive thing like this seems like a really bad choice for a new type of traffic management structure in places where they’re entirely new and possibly seen with suspicion.
Pretty much all the double-lane roundabouts I’ve seen (and I’ve seen a huge number of them) have the approach lane split into two lanes if the road wasn’t already two lanes in that direction. The traffic in the left lane does have to cross a lane to get into the inner lane of the circle, but once there, should not change lanes. Outer lanes will be exit-only at some point, so the inner lane becomes the outer one.
Sorry, missed omitted words and the edit window. The end of this sentence was meant to be “could someone possibly either get the committee in question onto the same drugs, get them to lower the dosage, and/or quit mixing whatever incompatible things they’re mixing?”
At least in US residential areas, many of the retrofit roundabouts are actually speed control devices, not traffic flow improvement devices.
Folks can get to driving stupid fast on residential streets and blowing through stop signs. Or worse yet, if the more major street has no stop signs and the more minor cross streets have stop or yield signs. Speeds build and woe betide the person on a side street who misjudges the speed of an approaching car or simply fails to look. instant high speed T-bone into someone’s front yard.
Once a material fraction of the public refuses to obey the law and becomes a safety hazard, the next step is to impose physical barriers that make it impractical / impossible for them to achieve stupid speeds.
Speed bumps, speed tables, and roundabouts are all ways to force people down to ~20 mph every quarter mile or so. So they’re not driving 40 through there all day and 60 late at night.
IMO roundabouts are by far the most “polite” of the three. Once folks have some familiarity with them.