Why not a Roundabout?

The most direct route from Dublin, in the east, to Sligo in the northwest of Ireland begins with the M4, a fast, modern motorway much like Interstate 95 (except for the terrors of entering and exiting and driving on the left).  Then to state highway N4, much like Massachusetts Route 140, sometimes four lanes, but mostly two. In less than three hours, one can transit from the shores of the Irish Sea to the North Atlantic, traversing verdant farm fields, rolling hills, and charming villages in between. This is Ireland.

There are a few traffic signals (red lights), in the larger towns, but mostly you will encounter roundabouts at intersections.

To the typical New Englander, this reference to circular intersections raises horrific specters of Neponset Circle and the Sagamore Rotary. But rotaries and traffic circles are not roundabouts.

Traffic circles and rotaries (we will say rotary from here on) tend to be very large – several hundred feet in diameter. And because of their relatively large size, the speed of traffic into and through the rotary tends to be fairly high. Couple this with drivers unfamiliar with rotary etiquette and you have a recipe for disaster. No wonder that we hate things circular.

But roundabouts are different. The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) likes roundabouts.  According to them, “A roundabout is a type of circular intersection, but is quite unlike a neighborhood traffic circle or large rotary.  Roundabouts have been proven safer and more efficient than other types of circular intersections.”

Roundabouts are safer because they are smaller. A roundabout can fit in the space of many existing intersections, requiring little if any additional land. Very importantly, the speed through the roundabout is low, 15-20 miles per hour.  The FHA, again, says that “roundabouts REDUCE the types of crashes where people are seriously hurt or killed by 78-82% when compared to conventional stop-controlled and signalized intersections.”

According to the experts, roundabouts are safer and more esthetically pleasing than signalized intersections. What else might they offer?

In addition to safety, roundabouts improve traffic flow and reduce delays . According to Wikipedia, “Under many traffic conditions, a roundabout operates with less delay than signalised or all-way stop approaches. Roundabouts do not stop all entering vehicles, reducing both individual and queuing delays. Throughput further improves because drivers proceed when traffic is clear without waiting for a signal to change.”

Now we can add ecological benefits – roundabouts reduce delays and wasted emissions significantly. When considering all of these benefits, (by the way including increased pedestrian safety), why aren’t roundabouts more widely used?  In New England, certainly, part of the problem is that we have been traumatized by horrific rotaries and traffic circles, tainting the reputation of any circular traffic control approach.

And in addition, there is simply a great amount of ignorance regarding how to negotiate a roundabout. The FHA, again: “Still, because they may be unfamiliar to most people, successful implementation of a roundabout requires extra outreach and education.” This is a problem that can be solved.

With all of this in mind, it makes one wonder why the Southeast Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SPREDD) is recommending adding traffic signals to the intersection of Route 123 and North and South Worcester streets in Norton (Attleboro Sun Chronicle, September 9). Traffic is heavy enough, and dangerous enough, that some improvement is required. But let’s compare, for a moment, the relative merits of a traffic signal versus a roundabout.

A traffic signal would have the following characteristics:

-          More dangerous than a roundabout (additional and more serious accidents)

-          Higher risk to pedestrians

-          Poorer traffic flow; greater delays

-          Worse ecological impact; greater emissions

Why in the world would we intentionally choose such a solution? Building a roundabout instead would offer the opposite of each of the above ills. Safer to all, improved traffic flow, reduced delays, and more friendly to the environment. Global warmists would rejoice. Roundabouts should be at the top of the list for all of our intersection improvement projects.

But perhaps, at root, Massachusetts progressives are not so progressive after all.

Human lives, intersected

On Sunday, a jogger running on Route 44 was struck and seriously injured by an Attleboro woman. Here is a pertinent passage in the Sun Chronicle’s story:  “…the jogger was running westbound when he was struck. The vehicle that struck him was also traveling west.”

The accident occurred in the late afternoon. Perhaps the sun was in the driver’s eyes. She was allegedly drunk, so maybe she just strayed out of her lane. And, unfortunately, all this occurred behind the jogger’s back. He was blissfully unaware until struck, when he “was thrown through the air and then struck a utility pole.” Ouch.

Like the great majority of accidents, two human live intersected, and both made mistakes. The driver clearly shouldn’t have left her lane of travel, whatever the reason. And the jogger was wrong in blindly turning his back to a source of danger.

It is not a trivial problem. While our Attorney General obsesses over “assault rifles,” the odds of a pedestrian dying  in an accident are 20 times greater than those of anyone being killed by any sort of rifle, “assault” or otherwise. Twenty times.

The statistics are gripping: nearly 5,000 pedestrians killed and 65,000 injured every year. With school now back in session, it behooves us to review what we can do to keep our kids, and us, safer.

There is a lot that government can do to promote pedestrian safety.  Investing in sidewalks, crosswalks, signal lights. Even more important, rigorous enforcement of traffic codes, keeping drivers in line with the intent of safety legislation. Too often, citations for rolling through a stop sign or not yielding to a pedestrian waiting to cross are issued only after an accident, not preemptively, regularly, and often enough to actually change and maintain safer driver behavior.

Here are some things that pedestrians can do to help themselves.

1. Pay attention to your surroundings. Don’t text and walk. Wait to play Pokemon until you are in the park or somewhere safely away from traffic.
2. Always prefer to walk facing traffic, even on a sidewalk. If you see a distracted or impaired driver about to leave his lane, you have a chance to do something about it. (But see number 1 – only if you are paying attention).
3. Don’t trust crosswalks. Carefully watch that traffic is clear in all directions. Once a driver has stopped for you, watch out for another cutting around her from behind.
4. Before stepping in front of a stopped car, make eye contact with the driver. A driver will often slow down for a stop sign, but only glance quickly left for oncoming traffic. Without pausing to look right, he will bang the right turn. If you, trusting or texting, distracted or dancing, step from the curb, you are now a statistic.

Now as a driver, you must realize that striking a pedestrian is a life changing event for both you and the victim. There are a few tactics you can engage to minimize the odds of such a terrible outcome.

1. Don’t be in a hurry. Often, accidents are caused by the unrelenting pressure of making up lost time. Risks are taken. Mistakes are made. But whose fault is it, really, that you are late? Show some discipline and make it a habit to leave early.
2. Pay attention. Your car, travelling at 60 miles per hour, has over 1,000 times the energy of a .357 Magnum bullet. Be a careful steward of that awesome energy.
3. When approaching a controlled intersection, come to a complete stop behind the stop line. Then creep out and look both ways before continuing. Many drivers roll right through the crosswalk and, never stopping, bang their turn if oncoming traffic permits. But here is the logical fallacy. Oncoming traffic is an independent event. It doesn’t care if you rolled or stopped or aren’t even there at all. So stopping short, looking both ways, and then proceeding when safe has no effect whatsoever on when oncoming traffic will allow you to merge. So cool your jets and take pity on those poor mothers just trying to safely cross with their baby strollers.
4. When stopping prior to turning right, ALWAYS LOOK BOTH WAYS. This cannot be overemphasized. Many a pedestrian or (wrong-way) bicyclist have been mowed down by a driver who glanced left, then banged his right turn. It is extremely dangerous to human and companion animal life forms.  

We see here a national tragedy, thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries, all avoidable. We see here a nexus of government investment and enforcement, pedestrian care, and driver caution that could reduce this awful carnage.

But perhaps we prefer to obsess about “assault rifles.”

The numbers argue, strongly, otherwise.

The romance of the open road still beckons us

Imagine this.

A line of cars is stopped at a red light. Everyone’s chatting or surreptitiously glancing at their phone, or watching a jogger pass by. The light turns green. Car number one hesitates as the driver struggles to return from Pokemon world. Oncoming traffic takes advantage and two cars bang a quick left. Car number two honks and number one wakes up – they both begin to move, and further back in the line, drivers stir to life and slowly tap the gas as the car immediately in front of them begins to move. Like a loose-jointed snake, the conga line finally progresses, but not many make it through before the next red. The guys in the rear are disgusted.

Now imagine this.

  

A platoon of Marines, at ease. The drill sergeant calls them to attention, then issues a command: “Platoon, forward… March!”

All of the Marines, from the front of the ranks to the rear, step off smartly, simultaneously. Each Marine in the column trusts that his or her fellow, directly in front, will step off as commanded. The entire platoon moves as a single unit. It is a beautiful sight to behold.

The behavior of the slovenly, civilian cars and that of the polished Marines could not be more different. The difference is that the drivers do not implicitly trust those in front to move immediately when the green light lights. Lack of trust begets sloppy performance.

Meanwhile, last week, Ford Motor Company announced that they will be delivering “fully driverless cars,” with no steering wheel or pedals, within the next five years.

Now reimagine that intersection. It is 2021, and a line of odd, bulbous cars are all waiting for the light. Each contains one or more passenger and no driver. Everyone is chatting or overtly glancing at their phones, or watching a jogger pass by. While waiting, the vehicles communicate with each other to verify that there are no substandard (human guided) cars present. The light turns green, and the entire line instantly begins to move, accelerating smoothly, akin to a platoon of Marines doing close order drill.

Longer term, all of the traffic lights will have disappeared, replaced with more efficient and fluid roundabouts. Traffic will flow though cities and across the land in electric silence, with the ease of corpuscles in our veins.

Why should we want to do such a thing?

Because vehicles are very deadly, accounting for 33 thousand deaths and over two million injuries each year. Stop and reread those statistics.  The odds of being injured in a motor vehicle accident are enormous, many orders of magnitude greater than that of winning the lottery. While this carnage has been gradually reduced by safer vehicles, increased seatbelt use, and improved roadways, the human and economic cost is still enormous.

And while an occasional blown tire or faulty ball joint or failed brake may cause an accident, the great majority are the result of one thing – operator error. Robots offer great promise in reducing these driver-induced accidents.

Another good reason – because today, drive time is often among our least productive. If your time spent in a wifi-connected, driverless vehicle could be as productive as your home office, multiplied by millions of journeys, every day, the productivity boost to our economy would be huge.

What might stand in the way of this vision? The technology? No, advances in sensors and computing and artificial intelligence are already capable of basic driverless vehicles. Indeed, Google and Tesla have both fielded vehicles capable of high degrees of autonomous operation. Five years from now, those capabilities will have doubled, or tripled, or more.

No, the major impediment to autonomous vehicles will be regulatory and legal. Will autocar developers have a level playing field in all fifty states, or will they have to deal with a patchwork of local regulations? When the inevitable accidents occur, who will be at fault? Will you sue Ford Motor Company, or the laser sensor vendor, or the artificial-intelligence software developer who built and enabled your car? The specifics of autonomous vehicle law and insurance protocols will need to be developed.

There is one regulatory tic which must be avoided at all cost – the demand for 100% perfection. We must be prepared to accept the occasional autocar accident, without flinching, in the face of fierce media barrages. Say that autocars are only 90% effective, but reduce the human carnage to 10,000 deaths, and one million injured. While the carnage is still significant, the human and economic costs will have been reduced enormously.  We cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

In the end, shall we ban human operators? After all, we are proven imperfect and dangerous.

I think not. The romance of the open road still beckons us. The beauty of a downshift and acceleration through an ascending curve should not be lost.

Robots are OK when we just want to go somewhere. But we need to be able to express ourselves, to control our trajectory on the road and in life.

Don’t let that spark be stamped out.

At the Edge of the Sea

Cuttyhunk inner harbor from Lookout Hill

Rhode Island ranks worst among the fifty states for business in a recent CNBC poll. Perhaps the result of over eighty years of one party rule along with a touch of organized crime and more than a whiff of corruption. But in spite of the awful business climate, other surveys rank her relatively high in quality of life.

This disparity explains why residents hang in there and tourists continue to visit. Rhode Island is indeed the Ocean State, and that contributes to way-above-average livability. Her towns and cities, reaches and beaches, have a lot to offer.

Take Bristol, for instance, which we visited recently on an organized cruise of private craft exploring New England waters, which is our summer wont.

Founded in 1680, the town was originally part of the Plymouth colony, hence Massachusetts, until it was transferred by the  British crown to Rhode Island in 1747. Although over 12 miles north of the sea, Bristol was a deep water port and contributed mightily to the commerce of the colonies.

We docked at the Herreshoff Museum, staying several days, and explored the history and bounty of this historic town. The Herreshoffs were a family of remarkable marine designers and engineers, responsible for a series of huge, graceful racing yachts which defended, undefeated, the America’s Cup with five yachts between 1893 and 1920.

These boats, built for capitalists and bankers, may have seemed extravagant and wasteful at the time. But they employed many hundreds of Herreshoff craftsmen and supported their families and the town in which they lived. And brought some great measure of pride to many Americans thrilled to see the Americas Cup won year after year.

Later, the Herreshoffs retooled and built patrol torpedo boats and minesweepers for the U.S. Navy during World War II.  Their nautical engineering abilities were nearly endless, including all the above, sweet daysailers for children, and the hulls of flying boats. The museum is well worth a visit.

After enjoying the tree-lined streets, restaurants, and water views of historic Bristol for several days, we slipped into the top of the Sakonnet River and made our way, amongst angry, swirling tidal currents, into the broader, calmer waters below, headed for Sakonnet Point.

Technically in Little Compton, Sakonnet Point rests on the southeastern point of Rhode Island, where one may look north, reassuringly to land, or south to the open expanse of the North Atlantic. The small harbor there contains a mix of pleasure and working craft. Working boats bring back the bounty of the sea, their success witnessed by rows of seagulls in close ranks on the peaks of nearby buildings. And while the pretty sailing and motor craft of the leisure class adorn the docks, we are awakened by the deep throb of a heavy diesel engine, a working boat headed to sea at three a.m., her crew ready to labor as we drift back to sleep.

That morning, rain threatens, but we batten hatches and don foulies as we head out into the swells, turn east, destination Cuttyhunk, across nearly 20 miles of lumpy, windy, rainy seas.

Cuttyhunk is at the tail of the Elizabeth Islands, separating Buzzard’s Bay from Vineyard Sound. Part of the Massachusetts town of Gosnold, Cuttyhunk was originally occupied in 1602 for the purpose of harvesting sassafras. Today, she is a tourist mecca for boaters desiring a quiet sojourn. No bars. No liquor stores. No fancy restaurants.

One comes to Cuttyhunk to contemplate the views of the distant mainland and Martha’s Vineyard from Lookout Hill. To run on scimitar beaches and swim in friendly surf. To enjoy the fruits of the sea, delivered to moored craft by the “Raw Bar Boat.” To lie in the cockpit of their vessel and see the nighttime grandeur of the Milky Way, undimmed by city lights. The solitude, the beauty that is Cuttyhunk, reverently worshiped by the visiting boats who fill the inner harbor and overflow into the outer.

Grudgingly, the next day, we slip the mooring lines and turn west, sailing on a strong reach as the southerlies build. By midday, we are off the coast of Rhode island again. Past Newport, we turn up into the west passage of Narragansett Bay. Around the Beavertail light, we take shelter in Dutch Harbor. From here, we can hike the island of Jamestown or take the ferry to Newport. No shortage of bars or liquor stores here. And we are only a half day sail from our start, all protected, up the bay to our original departure point. A week well and truly spent.

But still, while glad to be home with all its familiarity and hustle and bustle, we do miss the limitless views of the sea. And that broad-stroke, bold, bright, beautiful Milky Way. Those are views your camera cannot properly capture.

Venture forth.