This is not an American invention, nor is it interchangeable with a roundabout.
The main priority of roundabouts is safe traffic flow for cars, but they can (sometimes) still be very hostile to pedestrians. This type of intersection is meant to prioritize pedestrians as much as possible. The narrow street slows vehicles, and the sidewalk bump outs make people trying to cross the street extra visible and minimize the time they need to be vulnerable in the middle of the road.
Which isn’t to say that roundabouts are necessarily bad, they just serve different purposes
Am I the only one who thinks that the design decision to eliminate the ability for cars to both cross Dexter or make left turns anywhere is a deliberate choice to create driver frustration and reduce favorable attitudes towards building more of these?
Normal protected intersections are terrific and allow automotive traffic to flow in all directions. What was the thought process here?
Just a guess (looking at the sharrows at the end of the other street) but it's probably a deliberate design to reduce the flow of car traffic on the street.
Dumb considering Michigan also mandates dedicated left turn lanes on every small intersection.
Like okay left allowed on any road but not if it's a split avenue. Instead of making a cheap and usable roundabout or ring road, let's make you play frogger against 3 lanes of traffic so you can do a massive U turn.
I’m confused about what is street level and what is curb level but I do like how it appears to prioritize safety of pedestrians and cyclists over everything
Where I live they rarely wait for one, or even pay any attention to traffic signals at all, for that matter. They seem to have an issue with the whole “sharing the road means we have to follow the same rules, otherwise I have no idea what you’re going to do or when you’re going to do it, and that’s how accidents happen” concept.
I understand the sentiment, but I think it distracts from the urgent issue. Right now, surely the important thing is for Israel to stop massacring civilians is Gaza. People on either side are more likely to sign on to that. If you make it contingent on any particular solution to the greater conflict then you'll just make people dig in to their held opinions.
By supporting Israel, the US government lost all its credibility to talk about war crimes and human rights in the future. This has always been this way but the general public is much more aware of the hypocrisy now.
Can't win in the United States....people are complaining that the cops aren't doing shit about all these protests, and then when they do, people complain. Whatever...
yeah bud, because it’s different people complaining. it’s a country with a lot of people who all have a lot of differing opinions. most places work like that actually.
Have you not been paying attention to the news? The protests are literally disrupting normal kids from just wanting to go to school. USC cancelled graduation because of all this shit...at least Texas is nipping it before it causes any problems.
Yeah, obviously the protesters should be off in a corner where they aren't a nuisance or disturbance to anyone. I'm sure their protest would still be just as effective 🙄
The police and admin are disrupting normal kids wanting to go to school and also wanting to see other kids be allowed to go to school without being bombed
This is the same state which said it was perfectly legal for them to seize border checkpoints from the federal government. They seem to be making "states rights" arguments all over the place. So, apparently we're sliding backwards.
slrpnk.net
Hot