You think round-de-bouts are bad. Wait untill you see this.

[Caveman_Charlie]

They are building a new type of intersection near me that they are calling "Reduced Conflict Intersection". There going to do it on a intersection that I have to pull loads through with our semi hauling grain. It looks like a nightmare to me. To go straight across the road coming from the north and heading south I will have to turn right (west) and dive into the left lane slowing down two lanes of traffic. Then get into the left turn lane. Then I will have to do a complete 180 degree turn across 2 lanes of traffic (to head back east) and then dive into the right turn lane on the right side on the other side of the highway . Stopping or slowing cars that are coming at me at 70 MPH. Then I can turn right heading back south. All of this to simply cross the divided highway to continue south. Love to see you guys with your great big RV's do this pulling a toad. Here is a article explaining the thing.

http://www.cross-countiesconnect.com/2014/01/reduced-conflict-intersection-could-be-part-of-highway-...

[Jarlaxle]

Caveman Charlie wrote:

Jarlaxle wrote:

bid_time wrote:

TOMMY47 wrote:
Easy to do in a car or motorcycle. Not so easy in a semi.

Actually it makes it easier for the semi also, you only have to wait for one direction of traffic to clear instead waiting for two directions of traffic to clear. Did you notice all the people that think they are stupid are from places that don't have them and all the people that say they work are from places like Michigan that do have them.

I question the ability of a loaded semi (especially the OP's grain truck, which I recall can gross over 100K) to manage to move over 2 lanes in heavy traffic! Considering that they must slow to a crawl to make the turn, they can EASILY take a quarter mile (or more) to hit even 50MPH. Even 600HP isn't much when moving 50 tons!

I suspect a semi will need both lanes to make any of those turns.

It's 80K not 100K and yes, it takes more then 1/4 mile to get up to 50MPH. In fact I can't get up to 50 if it's a uphill climb up to speed. And, the Cummins M-11 in our truck only makes 500HP .

No, SOME semis are 100K or more. (Offhand, a dump trailer can gross 104,500 here.) I recall grain trucks are one of the types allowed to exceed 80K.

[mich800]

CA Traveler wrote:
The video indicates that the most dangerous situation is the T bone on the far side of the intersections. Perhaps correct?

But then why are vehicles allowed to turn left and cross oncoming traffic (T bone potential) vs no left turn requiring them to continue on to the U turn and then turn right? Is the U turn and then right turn more dangerous than the left turn?

I thought the same thing. I do not have an issue with the "Michigan Left" but their design still has the left turn crossing traffic.

[CA_Traveler]

The video indicates that the most dangerous situation is the T bone on the far side of the intersections. Perhaps correct?

But then why are vehicles allowed to turn left and cross oncoming traffic (T bone potential) vs no left turn requiring them to continue on to the U turn and then turn right? Is the U turn and then right turn more dangerous than the left turn?

[CA_Traveler]

When crossing straight across in the OPs diagram is there adequate room for a big rig to stop in the center? With the toad I'm about 63'.

I have no hesitation to use 2 lanes if required in whatever situation. It's also common to see large rigs that are making a tight right turn to first swing left before turning right.

Only one time at my daughters CA house did I try to turn around at the end of the street and while successful I did jump the curb. From then on I backed down the street.

[Ski_Pro_3]

The accident at 40 seconds is the EXACT same action in the illistration at time stamp 1:28 with the red car!!! Nothing changed for that situation; still crossing at 90* from a stop or rolling stop...

Then this 'improvement' has so many lane changes and merges in so little distance, it's bound to cause accidents.

Who ever did the 'study' is so full of ****, they have GOT to hurt!

[bgum]

That is what the state of LA proposes rather than a traffic signal.

[Caveman_Charlie]

CA Traveler wrote:
The simple answer is that big rigs of all types have more limited traveling options than a car and if a particular area is inadequate then the driver should be alert enough to avoid the area.

I don't know if the OPs "Reduced Conflict Intersection" is one of those for large RVs, semis, etc or not. I do know that that I would not use it if there was any doubt.

I also suspect that if this setup is not adequate for for large rigs there will be large signs to that effect (or there will soon be signs).

It's a intersection where the DOT know trucks and tractors with wagons are going to be crossing the road to get to the plant where we dump our corn. So yes, we have to assume that they will make it bigger with trucks in mind. I'm still going to be blocking 2 lanes of traffic when I do that left U turn though.

[down_home]

Veebyes wrote:
After looking at the video, if people use those Michigan traffic circles as they should, by entering in the proper lane, everything should flow smoothly.

It has been many years but I recall some of the really big round abouts in England being over 4 lanes wide & speeds around them could be 45mph.

I'll give something else to the British, their roads are signposted far better than America.

You mean the road just about middle of London with 27 signs and several different colored striped lanes with their own signs painted on the road? 🙂

[Veebyes]

After looking at the video, if people use those Michigan traffic circles as they should, by entering in the proper lane, everything should flow smoothly.

It has been many years but I recall some of the really big round abouts in England being over 4 lanes wide & speeds around them could be 45mph.

I'll give something else to the British, their roads are signposted far better than America.

[CA_Traveler]

The simple answer is that big rigs of all types have more limited traveling options than a car and if a particular area is inadequate then the driver should be alert enough to avoid the area.

I don't know if the OPs "Reduced Conflict Intersection" is one of those for large RVs, semis, etc or not. I do know that that I would not use it if there was any doubt.

I also suspect that if this setup is not adequate for for large rigs there will be large signs to that effect (or there will soon be signs).

[martipr]

And to think his parents worked and slaved all their lives to send this engineer to school so he could create nightmares like this!

[nomad297]

Horizon170 wrote:
My first experience with a roundabout was in NC when I reported to a new job (actually same job, different location) and I asked a local girl where was a good place for lunch. She proceeded to tell me and got me on a particular street and said to go through the first Whoop-de-do and to turn right at the second Whoop-de-do. I was totally puzzled but proceeded and soon discovered that a Whoop-de-do was her name for a Roundabout.
This was years ago in NC, but we got one in my town about 6 months ago and it really saves time.

Horizon170 wrote:
Not wanting to be sour grapes but why do Moderators let this garbage that has nothing to do with General RV'ing be posted?

[Caveman_Charlie]

mlts22 wrote:
Even more funny is that in some states, U turns are illegal, so I can see a municipal area making one of these and just parking an officer nearby to rake in the funds.

Here in MN U turns may be illegal at some intersections. If they are there is a sign telling you about it.

[Caveman_Charlie]

JJBIRISH wrote:
Maybe its not the size of the truck but more the experience of the driver…

click

The roundabouts in the video are bigger then the ones they have put in around here. And, none of the ones I've been through have a truck apron. That being said a normal length truck can get through our local roundabouts and if he is careful probably do it without hitting the curb. But, they do have to use both lanes.