5 Points intersection beacon

[marty904]

Look in street view, there are stop signs where there shouldn't be.

Roundabouts can have stop signs or stop lights or whatever.

But I was referring to the fact that it looks like a regular - as opposed to mini - roundabout. I was told by another poster (when I said American drivers didn't know how to use mini roundabouts) that there was one at that location. That does not appear to be the case, as far as I can tell.

Mini, Midi, Maxi... whatever - I've only been speaking of (a round-about) in my comments. They are all the same virtual thing so the word mini means nothing to me in the context of this discussion.

Bottom line is that the (round-abouts) all down San Marco, from European Street to the square, as well as the one in front of the Landing, all work pretty damn well and we (Americans) use them in the way they were designed.  Whether there is a solid "thing" in the middle that forces you to not drive over it or whether it's painted in the road, round-abouts work pretty well and if the engineers do a proper job, traffic will be forced to go the right way.

As far as pedestrians, there is a simple solution (IMO) - don't put the cross walks at the most congested point where 5 lanes of traffic are trying to meet and cross paths!  Put the cross walks back a little bit from the the intersection (like the one in front of the Cinema on Park in 5 Points). I'm no traffic engineer but it makes sense to me that if you bring all the pedestrians and all the vehicles (from 5 lanes) together, to try and cross at the same place, it is going to be the worst possible thing, where as if you have pedestrians crossing only a single lane, where there is only a single row of cars to stop, then that makes a lot more sense and a lot less (stopping) of vehicles for pedestrian crossings.

[Adam White]

Look in street view, there are stop signs where there shouldn't be.

Roundabouts can have stop signs or stop lights or whatever.

But I was referring to the fact that it looks like a regular - as opposed to mini - roundabout. I was told by another poster (when I said American drivers didn't know how to use mini roundabouts) that there was one at that location. That does not appear to be the case, as far as I can tell.

Mini, Midi, Maxi... whatever - I've only been speaking of (a round-about) in my comments. They are all the same virtual thing so the word mini means nothing to me in the context of this discussion.

Bottom line is that the (round-abouts) all down San Marco, from European Street to the square, as well as the one in front of the Landing, all work pretty damn well and we (Americans) use them in the way they were designed.  Whether there is a solid "thing" in the middle that forces you to not drive over it or whether it's painted in the road, round-abouts work pretty well and if the engineers do a proper job, traffic will be forced to go the right way.

As far as pedestrians, there is a simple solution (IMO) - don't put the cross walks at the most congested point where 5 lanes of traffic are trying to meet and cross paths!  Put the cross walks back a little bit from the the intersection (like the one in front of the Cinema on Park in 5 Points). I'm no traffic engineer but it makes sense to me that if you bring all the pedestrians and all the vehicles (from 5 lanes) together, to try and cross at the same place, it is going to be the worst possible thing, where as if you have pedestrians crossing only a single lane, where there is only a single row of cars to stop, then that makes a lot more sense and a lot less (stopping) of vehicles for pedestrian crossings.

Well, "we" (Americans, including me) apparently don't - because I've been advised that the 5 points beacon is a roundabout and we cannot agree on how to drive through it correctly. So at least half of us don't know what we're doing.

I'd love to see people driving through 5 points at night and encountering a small white disk painted on the road for the first time. I'm positive they'd know exactly what to do.

[RattlerGator]

Come on, Adam, give up the ghost man. You're clearly wrong on the Five Points issue and the confusing practice you and others employed doesn't change right or wrong no matter how "reasonable" the mistake was.

I did enjoy the jlmann virtue signaling, though. Few conservatives argue climate change (a long-term change in the Earth's climate, or of a region on Earth);

but knowledgeable people deny man-made global warming (the increase in Earth's average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases);

because the science (the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment) simply doesn't support the contention . . .

which is precisely why the partisan hacks have dropped the "global warming" mantra and scurried over to the "climate change" cloak. They are hoping the purposeful conflation of the two allows the ongoing scam to continue. Don't bet on it. Few true scientists scream the science is settled, the science is settled. Instead, they say: show me your work.

Because science is about observation, review and testing to prove, disprove or further question the proposition.

Which brings us back to Five Points. Adam has informally contributed to the observation, review and testing of the Five Points intersection problem and he has tended to demonstrate the need for an update. Maybe for those who are particularly anal the signs shouldn't say "Keep Right" but should instead be replaced by a two-line traffic sign saying "All Entry, Keep Right" placed both well before drivers enter the intersection *and* at the beacon itself -- would that do it for you, Adam?

[Adam White]

Which brings us back to Five Points. Adam has informally contributed to the observation, review and testing of the Five Points intersection problem and he has tended to demonstrate the need for an update. Maybe for those who are particularly anal the signs shouldn't say "Keep Right" but should instead be replaced by a two-line traffic sign saying "All Entry, Keep Right" placed both well before drivers enter the intersection *and* at the beacon itself -- would that do it for you, Adam?

I think the "keep right" signs make perfect sense - one must "keep right" when passing the bollard. There is no instruction to circle the bollard (such as would be present in the event it was a roundabout).

I am going to be in Jax in a few weeks' time. If I see a cop in Riverside, I will ask him/her what the protocol is for the intersection and report back (regardless of whether he/she agrees with my understanding of the rules).

In response to your query - it's a moot point now anyway, as I understand that the bollard is to be moved to the centre of the intersection. I do think signage instructing drivers how to navigate the "roundabout" is necessary.

[acme54321]

I think the "keep right" signs make perfect sense - one must "keep right" when passing the bollard. There is no instruction to circle the bollard (such as would be present in the event it was a roundabout).

If you can only keep right of the beacon you have to circle it.  There doesn't need to be any instruction. 

[Adam White]

I think the "keep right" signs make perfect sense - one must "keep right" when passing the bollard. There is no instruction to circle the bollard (such as would be present in the event it was a roundabout).

If you can only keep right of the beacon you have to circle it.  There doesn't need to be any instruction.

Not true. If, for example, you are traveling down Park towards Five Points and wish to turn left onto Margaret, you can do so without circling the bollard - because you pass Margaret Street before you ever get to the bollard. That's because the bollard is not in the middle of the intersection.

There was a graphic that was circulated a while ago about this, which makes it abundantly clear.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Jacksonville,+FL+32204,+USA/@30.3138338,-81.6814261,3a,75y,62.23h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIvV2FcS71kuxLJ6cOiR2Bw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DIvV2FcS71kuxLJ6cOiR2Bw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D58.618324%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x88e5b77c0876b6ff:0xbd6bd3cededebcee!8m2!3d30.3152434!4d-81.6856808

[Josh]

I think this aerial photograph with the overlaid street center lines make it clear that this "not a roundabout" is in fact, not a roundabout.

[Adam White]

I think this aerial photograph with the overlaid street center lines make it clear that this "not a roundabout" is in fact, not a roundabout.

And if you decided to circle the "roundabout" to turn left onto Margaret from Park, you'd run the risk of causing a collision when you whip back around and hit someone who thought you were traveling to Five Points.

[Sonic101]

Roundabouts with a pedestrian crosswalk signal are  relatively common in Michigan, like this one in Rochester Hills:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6952796,-83.1532738,3a,35.6y,271.23h,88.63t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sO7nIY7BRTPBF6e-Tc4uBiw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DO7nIY7BRTPBF6e-Tc4uBiw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D24.384514%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm sure you could modify that idea into a smaller size fit for Five Points than the suburbs of Rochester Hills.

[blfair]

Careful, make too big of a deal out of this and JTA will build an overpass.

[johnnyliar]

I think this aerial photograph with the overlaid street center lines make it clear that this "not a roundabout" is in fact, not a roundabout.

I'd hardly call those lines the "street center." The line for Lomax goes over a curb and hits a parked car.

[Adam White]

I think this aerial photograph with the overlaid street center lines make it clear that this "not a roundabout" is in fact, not a roundabout.

I'd hardly call those lines the "street center." The line for Lomax goes over a curb and hits a parked car.

Yeah, it would be easier to actually see the streets without the lines.

[lowlyplanner]

Whether 5 Points is a roundabout or not, I hope everyone can agree that it ought to be easier for pedestrians to cross these streets than it is now.

The question is how do we make that happen?

[Adam White]

Whether 5 Points is a roundabout or not, I hope everyone can agree that it ought to be easier for pedestrians to cross these streets than it is now.

The question is how do we make that happen?

Is that a Lowly Worm avatar? Nice!

I agree - Five Points should be more pedestrian-friendly.  Not that it's terrible now, but it should be better. I think zebra crossings would be good - and I'd be loath to suggest Americans don't know how to deal with those. So it just makes sense, really.

[Adam White]

Whether 5 Points is a roundabout or not, I hope everyone can agree that it ought to be easier for pedestrians to cross these streets than it is now.

The question is how do we make that happen?

Is that a Lowly Worm avatar? Nice!

I agree - Five Points should be more pedestrian-friendly.  Not that it's terrible now, but it should be better. I think zebra crossings would be good - and I'd be loath to suggest Americans don't know how to deal with those. So it just makes sense, really.

While it is a clusterfuck for traffic, I think the traffic actually yields to pedestrians pretty well and as a matter of course.  I have never felt unsafe crossing and I walk in that area a lot.

The only times I really recall it being an issue for me was at night. But during the days it's not too bad - the only real issue is probably the lack of crossings. You have to wait for a break in traffic to leg it across in some spots.