TRB

16-0648

Safety of roundabouts: an international overview

by
Werner Brilon

Prof. Dr. Werner Brilon

Ruhr-University Bochum
Universitaetsstr. 150
D-44780 Bochum / Germany
Tel.: +49 72439242344
Fax: + 49 72439242345
e-mail: werner.brilon@rub.de

submitted: July 9st, 2015

resubmitted July 27th, 2015

5500 Words (including: abstract: 177 words, references: 750 words)

7 figures
1 table

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 1
2 ABSTRACT
3
4 Roundabouts have an excellent reputation in traffic safety. This is based on investigations with
5 smaller sample sizes from the initial stage of modern roundabouts. In our days many countries
6 operate a larger number of roundabouts. This is the fundament for safety research with larger
7 samples in recent years in many countries. As a conclusion from all studies, there is no doubt that
8 roundabouts are the safest type of intersection. Especially the single-lane roundabouts reveal the
9 highest level of safety. Also Mini-roundabouts have an extraordinary good safety record. Turbo-
10 roundabouts - regarding safety -are on the same level as the single-laned. This high degree of
11 traffic safety is strictly depending on the speed-reducing design of the whole intersection. In
12 comparison to conventional types of intersections like signalized or 2-way-stop intersections, the
13 car occupants and the pedestrians enjoy the highest gains from roundabout safety. On the other
14 hand bicyclists can become a problem for traffic safety at roundabouts. However, also cyclists
15 can be operated with a sufficient degree of safety – but only if the requirements for a safe design
16 are strictly obeyed.

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Brilon 3

2 Introduction
3 Town planning in the 19th century favoured large circular places as elements of agreeable city
4 design. With increasing city traffic at the beginning of the 20th century these locations were the
5 first where roundabouts (which just means one-way direction of traffic on the circle) were
6 established like Columbus Circle in New York (1905) or Place Etoile in Paris (1907) (Todd,
7 1988). This happened in many countries around the world. In consequence most of the large
8 cities in the 20th century had their monumental large traffic circles.
9 However, the conditions of operation, i. e. the traffic rules, were quite different. E.g. in Germany
10 circulating traffic had priority since ever whereas in other European countries the entering traffic
11 had the right-of-way (i.e. “priority to the right”) with the consequence that under high traffic
12 demand these intersections became gridlocked. In the US a variety of rules had been tested over
13 the years (Todd, 1988), e.g. “fist in”, “priority for east-west”, until “priority to the right”, i.e. to
14 the entering traffic. The UK had no explicit priority rule (except to take “due care”) until the mid
15 1960ies (Todd, 1991). However, in 1966 the UK , as the country with the largest number of
16 roundabouts, performed a renovation of their roundabout operation rules introducing the “off-site
17 priority rule”. This rule means: a) the circular traffic has priority over the entering vehicles and b)
18 the vehicles on the inner lanes are privileged in a conflict over vehicles travelling further outside
19 (GOV.UK). This rule is the background of the great success of roundabouts in the UK and it is
20 the causation for exceptionally high capacities at large roundabouts which can only be observed
21 in the UK.
22 Meanwhile, outside the UK only part a) of the “off-site priority rule” is valid in most countries;
23 i.e.: traffic on the circular roadway of the roundabout has priority over the approaching traffic.
24 This rule has been adopted by the highway code in most countries of the Western Hemisphere
25 during the last three decades.
26 The acceptance and application of the valid traffic rules are the key for traffic safety of
27 roundabouts. In the Western countries the acceptance of these rules, usually, is quite good.
28 Speaking about safety, thus, organization and acceptance of the traffic rules is a significant basic
29 condition for all conclusions about traffic safety.

30 Classification of roundabouts
31 Also the styles of roundabout design are specific to different countries. The traditional layout of
32 roundabouts in the early 20th century involved large multi-lane circles. These, however, were not
33 successful regarding safety. Especially two-lane exits emerged as a major source of severe
34 accidents. Thus, in the 1950ies and the 1960ies the larger circles were no longer favoured in most
35 countries on the European continent or in the US. Later in 1980ies, the big success of
36 roundabouts in the UK incited planners and researchers in several European countries to study
37 and experiment with roundabouts.
38 These studies unveiled unexpected gains in traffic performance and safety, however, only for the
39 single-lane roundabouts. These compact intersections were found to be able to carry up to
40 25000 veh/day combined with rather low delays for road users and with the highest potential to
41 prevent accidents. Also in our days, they are still the most favoured type of roundabouts - and
42 moreover of intersections at all in European countries.

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Brilon 4

1 Later on also slightly larger - but also smaller - roundabouts were studied in many countries. As a
2 consequence we now have a whole toolbox of different types of roundabouts (see also graphical
3 illustration in Brilon (2014, there: fig. 1):
4  mini roundabout with a traversable central island and a diameter between 13 m and 23 m
5  single-lane roundabouts with a diameter between 26 m (minimum required for European
6 trucks to make a full turn) and 35 m (urban) or 40 m (rural) and only single-lane entries and
7 exits
8  Semi-two-lane roundabouts with a diameter of 45 m to 60 m, a lane widths of 8 m to 10 m
9 (no lane marking on the circle) and single lane exits but 1- or 2-lane entries
10  larger two-lane roundabouts (which are banned e.g. by German guidelines due to their bad
11 accident experience)
12  Turbo-roundabouts with 1- or 2-lane segments on the circle. The entries and exits may have
13 1 or 2 lanes where the two-lane solution needs a specific design to avoid undesired lane
14 changes.
15 This is the kind of classification how it is used in Germany. But in most countries on the
16 European continent the view on roundabouts is quite similar. It should be emphasized that all
17 rules in design guidelines of the continental European countries are governed by a maximization
18 of traffic safety as the first target. Capacity is only of secondary importance. Less safe
19 roundabout constructions are not treated as state-of-the-art.
20 In the UK the situation seems to be different. There the design is not so much oriented in lanes.
21 Instead, if capacity makes it necessary, the lanes are flared out near the roundabout to increase
22 capacity. This is supported by the results of capacity investigations (Kimber, 1979). This leads to
23 a design which can differ considerably from European continental solutions.
24 The US started rather late in the 1990s with experiments in modern roundabouts. They
25 discovered the benefits of this type of intersection and meanwhile there are many of them.
26 However, as everything, also the roundabouts in the US are larger than in Europe.

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Brilon 5

a)

b)
1 Figure 1 Typical example for a) an urban single-lane roundabout and b) a mini-roundabout
2

3 Some words regarding accident statistics

4 An international comparison of traffic safety leads to some complications regarding accident
5 statistics. Already the identification of an accident differs from country to country. Some
6 countries count all accidents (including property damage only) which were reported to the police.
7 Other countries take only account of accidents with personal injuries. Another difference
8 concerns fatalities, e.g. in Germany a fatality is classified if the victim dies within 30 days after
9 the accident. Other countries apply completely different definitions.
10 Also the researchers use different methods of evaluation. E.g. the distance on the approaching
11 arms where accidents are treated as intersection-related varies and is not explained in most of the
12 publications. The most serious way in intersection accident analysis is to define useful parameters
13 to measure traffic safety like:
number of accidents
14 accident rate 
NT
damage by accidents
15 accident cos t rate 
NT

16 where NT = no. of vehicles travelled through the intersection,

17 usually estimated by the average daily traffic (ADT)
18 damage by accidents: evaluated in currency units

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Brilon 6

1 For the calculation of accident cost rates the damage caused by accidents must be evaluated in
2 currency units where the figures used are standardized on a national basis (e.g. in Germany:
3 BAST 2014).
4 These measures of accident occurrence are relative to the exposure to risk as it is represented by
5 the number of vehicles travelling through the intersection. These parameters allow a more
6 meaningful interpretation than absolute figures.
7 Unfortunately all the publications on traffic safety apply different methods of analysis. Therefore,
8 a definitive comparison of the results from different investigations is not easy.

9 Some early findings for traffic safety

10 Starting modern roundabouts in the 1980ies, studies about safety effects generated by this type of
11 intersection have been performed in many countries. Each of these studies revealed a large
12 potential of safety emerging from modern roundabouts. Among these early studies we see e.g.
13 investigations from France. Gambard (1988) found in a before/after study where conventional
14 intersections had been converted into a roundabouts a reduction of fatalities by 88%. Alphand e.a.
15 (1991) studied more than 500 roundabouts. 90% of these remained without any personal injury
16 for the year of investigation. Here roundabouts experienced only half the number of accidents as
17 signalized intersections. Also 2-wheelers had 77% les accidents at roundabouts than at signalized
18 intersections. These analyses are based on a report by CETE (1986). Here we can also find that
19 large roundabouts had a significantly higher accident rate. The results also supported higher
20 safety for circles with a cross-fall (slope) to the outside.
21 Also Switzerland started experiments with modern roundabouts in the 1980ies. Several studies by
22 Buehlmann (1994, 1997) testified the high level of traffic safety at roundabouts. In a before/after
23 study at 113 intersections, most of them in urban environment, he found significant
24 improvements in safety by converting intersections into a roundabouts - especially at single-lane
25 roundabouts. Multilane roundabouts, however, did also lead to worse safety conditions compared
26 with the previous situation. The most important effect was the significant reduction in accident
27 severity. The largest gains in safety were achieved for pedestrians.
28 Reports on roundabout safety in the Netherlands had been published by vanMinnen (1992, 1995,
29 1998). The study included 46 (1990) and 177 (1995) roundabouts - most of them in urban areas.
30 Also here roundabouts turned out as much safer than other types of intersections. After
31 converting conventional intersections into roundabouts the number of recorded accidents
32 decreased by 47%, the number of victims by 71%. The biggest reduction was achieved for car
33 passengers (-95 %) and pedestrians (-89 %) whereas cyclists benefited only by -30 %. In
34 consequence, the detriment due to accidents was considerably reduced by converting
35 intersections into roundabouts. Especially the amount of personal injury was significantly
36 reduced. The similar results were reported by Schoon e.a. (1994) on the basis of 201 places which
37 were converted into roundabouts. Here the number of accidents per intersection was cut into half
38 and the number of injury accidents was reduced by 70 %.
39 Several studies - however with a rather small sample - had also been made in Germany. Brilon,
40 Stuwe (1993) report about their studies showing the advantage of single lane roundabouts.
41 Results from before/after studies can be summarized as following:

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Brilon 7

Roundabouts conventional intersections

size AR ACR MC AR ACR MC

large 6.6 24.9 3.8 with traffic signal 3.6 21.7 6.5

1-lane 1.2 4.7 3.8 2-way stop 1.0 12.0 12.0

6
1 AR = accident rate in acc./10 veh
2 ACR = accident cost rate in DM/103 veh (DM = German mark = valid currency until 2002)
3 MC = mean costs per accident in 103 DM/acc.
4 The before/after comparison showed a reduction of accident costs from 34.5 DM/103veh to
5 5.1 DM/103veh (i.e. -88 %) as a consequence of intersection conversions into single-lane
6 roundabouts. This effect is achieved by a strong reduction in the number of severe injuries. These
7 results were a clear indication of an unexpected high level of traffic safety at small roundabouts.
8 Other reports providing very similar results come from Norway (Giaever 1991), Denmark
9 (Jorgensen, 1994), USA (Flannery, 1999), or Australia (Tudge, 1990, Troutbeck, 1993). A good
10 international overview on roundabout safety in the earlier times is also given by Jaquemart
11 (1998).

12 Elvik (2003) has reviewed results from 28 roundabout safety studies by a meta-analysis. By this
13 technique he concluded that, on average, roundabouts reduce injury accidents by 30 to 50 % and
14 the amount of fatal accidents by 50 to 70 % whereas the results for property-damage-only
15 accidents varied quite a lot. Overall, also this study underlines the significant improvement of
16 traffic safety by roundabouts.
17 All these former findings of positive safety effects obtained from roundabouts are the basis for
18 the extreme dissemination of modern roundabouts in many countries of the world.

19 Current research results on roundabout safety

20 The number of roundabouts has exploded in many countries during the last three decades.
21 Reports estimate the numbers in France above 30000, in the UK above 30000, in the USA 3200
22 (Rodegerdts), in Denmark 1450 (in 2010; Underlien-Jensen, 2013) and in Germany a count in the
23 summer of 2014 revealed 12500. As a consequence, on this broader background most countries
24 have updated their experiences with modern roundabouts. Among the wide diversity of reports
25 the following text is concentrated only on some characteristic results.
26 USA:
27 Bill e.a. (2014) report about accident research at 30 roundabouts in Wisconsin over 3 to 4 years
28 each before and after a conversion of conventional intersections into roundabouts. Although the
29 effects were not always as good as expected the general conclusion was positive. E.g. the total
30 number of crashes increased by 12 %. The crash severity, however, did significantly decrease.
31 The number of accidents with personal injuries decreased by 38 % and no fatality had to be
32 bewailed. The best effects were achieved at unsignalized intersections.
33 An investigation about roundabout safety on a national platform had been performed by
34 Rodegerdts e.a. (2007) which is also documented in the 2nd US-roundabout-guide (Rodegerdts,
35 2010). 55 sites at different locations in the US had been investigated in a before and after study.
36 The conversion into roundabouts achieved a reduction in the number of all accidents of 35 % and

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Brilon 8

1 for injury accidents of 77 % - which again provides an indication that especially the severe
2 accidents are avoided by roundabouts. The study did also demonstrate that the single-lane
3 accidents provide a better level in safety than the 2-lane circles.
4 Denmark:
5 One rather careful investigation on roundabout safety has been performed in Denmark
6 (Underlien-Jensen 2015). He has analysed 332 sites which were converted from conventional
7 intersections into roundabouts during a period from 1995 until 2009. Empirical data were
8 corrected for general trends and for “regression to the mean”. As the central result, the number of
9 injury crashes was reduced by 47 % with a decrease of injuries by 60 %. The estimate is that the
10 conversions prevented 20 fatalities. The improvements, regarding all accidents, were better at
11 single-lane roundabouts than at multilane circles. Safety effects were the largest at 4-arm
12 intersections, for a large percentage of left-turning traffic, and when the approach speeds were
13 high. However, at 3-arm intersections under urban speed conditions the accident number did also
14 increase. Special attention was directed on bicycles. Most spectacular: The number of cycle
15 accidents increased by 113 % to 246 % if the new roundabout had a cycle lane at the outer
16 margin of the roundabout – a clear indication that this facility is extremely dangerous – what has
17 also been found in other countries years ago. On the other side, roundabouts with separate cycle
18 paths and no priority to cyclists at the crossings lead to a reduction in the number of accidents by
19 -81 %. The study could also demonstrate that the long term improvement effects were even better
20 than the improvements in the first years. A problem of this study is that all investigated
21 roundabouts were treated in the same sample regardless if they are designed in line with the valid
22 guidelines or if they suffered from known errors in design (e.g. bicycle lanes).
23 Germany
24 The general situation regarding roundabouts in Germany has been described by Brilon (2014).
25 Moreover, recently a rather well sophisticated accident analysis at roundabouts was published in
26 Germany (Bondzio e.a. 2012). The investigation is concentrated on 100 single-lane urban
27 roundabouts which comply with the current design guidelines. These sites were distributed over
28 10 of the German states in towns and cities of all sizes. The traffic volumes were between 5000
29 and 25000 veh/day, 0 to 800 pedestrians/2 hours, and 0 to 7000 cycles/day . The basis of the
30 research are accident data from the police records from 2008 until 2010 (3 years). Figure 2 as an
31 example shows a plan from one of the investigated roundabouts with an inscribed diameter of
32 35 m, 24000 veh/day, 720 cycles/day, and 120 ped/2 hours. The circular roadway consists of a
33 4.5 m wide asphalted roadway and an inner 3 m wide truck apron. Bicycles run on the circular
34 roadway.
35 Regarding personal injuries there was no fatality in the sample, 8 hospitalized injured (here 5
36 were pedestrians), and 92 slightly injured persons. Cars were mostly involved into the accidents
37 (80 %), cyclists with 10%, and pedestrians only with 1 % (see Figure 4). The picture of
38 involvement becomes different if we analyse the traffic involvement of different road users only
39 for accidents with personal injuries. Then we see the higher vulnerability of motor cyclists,
40 bicycle users, and pedestrians. From the rather low involvement of pedestrians we can obtain the
41 high degree of safety of all roundabouts for pedestrians. Here it should also be noted that on total
42 15 accidents involved pedestrians with 5 severely injured persons and 11 slight injuries. 9 from
43 11 accidents on crosswalks happened on zebra crossings (zebra crossing gives an absolute
44 priority to pedestrians).
45

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Brilon 9

1 Figure 2 Plan of one of the roundabouts

2

3 Figure 3 Distribution of accident cost rate over the 100 roundabouts under investigation
4 (Bondzio e.a. 2012)(vertical lines: individual values of accident cost rate at the 100
5 sites in the study; horizontal green line: average)
6

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Brilon 10

% of all involved road users
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

80
Pass. cars
55

4
trucks 3

motor cycle 4
11
all accidents
10
bicycle injury accidents
28

pedestrian 1
3

1
others 0

1 Figure 4 Involvement of different road users into all accidents and into injury accidents (in %)
2 The average accident cost rate was 6.3 €/1000 veh which is much lower than the 10 €/1000 veh
3 which are treated as a good result for an intersection. Therefore, on average these roundabouts
4 proofed to be a very safe solution for an intersection. The accident cost rate as it is distributed
5 from extremely low up to rather high values is illustrated in Figure 3. We see that the average of
6 6.3 included points with an extremely low figure, but also roundabouts with intolerable severe
7 accident occurrence. This picture of a concentration of severe accidents on few sites was even
8 worse when focusing on bicycle accidents. The reasons for these differences have not been
9 analysed.
10 Looking on the influence of design parameters: In a range from 25 m until 50 m the diameter did
11 not influence the accident risk. However, a number of arms larger than 4 had a negative effect on
12 safety.
13 Table 1 provides a view on the distribution by types of accidents. We see that the most frequent
14 type was a collision of an entering vehicle with a circulation road user (31 %). Looking on
15 accident severity we see, however, also the important role of bicycle accidents.
16 A special focus was set on bicycles at these roundabouts. The designs under test were: A) cycles
17 mixed with other traffic on the circle (e.g. Figure 2), B1) bicycle paths with priority to cyclists at
18 the crossings (e.g. Figure 5), B2) bicycle paths together with pedestrian facilities, B3) bicycle
19 paths with no priority to cyclists at the crossings. In Figure 6 we see that the safest solution is to
20 provide separate paths guiding cyclists around the roundabout where the cyclist have to care for
21 the priority of motor vehicles at the crossings. The two solutions with priority to cyclists were
22 associated with a larger accident cost rate. The answer was the same when also the exposure of
23 the intersection to cyclists was taken into account. This result is well in line with results from
24 other countries like Denmark (see above).

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Brilon 11

1 Figure 5 Sketch of a roundabout with cycle paths which cross the entries and exits next to the
2 pedestrian crossings (here with zebra marking). This site has also a bypass lane (on
3 the top of the picture).

4 Table 1: Frequency of different types of accidents.

all injury
accidents accidents
collision of approaching with circulation vehicle 34 31
single vehicle accident 13 10
rear end collision on the approach 17 7
rear end collision on the circle 19 8
collision of an entering vehicle and a bicycle (on the cycle path crossing)
7 10
at the entry
collision of an exiting vehicle and a bicycle (on the cycle path crossing)
5 15
at the exit
5

6 Figure 6 Accident cost rates for the various designs for cyclists (Bondzio e.a. 2012; types A,
7 B1,… see text)
8 A comparison to other types of intersections or with prior situations was not a topic in this
9 investigation. It was, however, complimented by an observation of road user behaviour at some

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Brilon 12

1 of the analyzed intersections. Here, among others it was found that at cycle paths (see e.g. Figure
2 5) the bicyclists to a large percentage of up to 50 % use the crossings in the wrong direction
3 which imposes a significant risk.
4 Mini roundabouts
5 Mini-roundabouts are small circular junctions with a traversable central island (see Figure 1 b).
6 Small cars have to drive around the central island whereas trucks are forced to cross this island
7 with their rear wheels. These types have first been introduced in the UK in 1968. Other countries
8 have imitated this example rather late; e.g. Germany started to experiment with this form in 1997
9 (see Brilon, Bondzio 1999).
10 The safety of mini roundabouts in Germany has been studied first by Brilon, Bondzio (1999) and
11 recently by Baier e.a.(2014). Brilon, Bondzio report on the pioneering (for Germany) experiment
12 of a conversion of 10 intersections into mini-roundabouts. As a result the accident risk was
13 significantly reduced (accident rate from 0.8 to 0.4 acc./106 veh and accident cost rate from 29.3
14 to 3.5 DM/1000 veh). The accident cost rate was much lower than what could be expected from
15 an very safe intersection (i.e.  10 DM/1000 veh in 1999).
16 Also the analysis by Baier e.a. of 26 mini roundabouts and 309 conventional intersections
17 confirmed an extraordinary low accident cost rate:
Mini roundabout unsignalized intersection signalized intersection
3 arms 2.02 4.68 6.60
4 arms 5.66 13.39 8,40
18 Of course, mini-roundabouts are only allowed in urban areas with a general speed limit of
19 50 km/h. Details of a reasonable design are described in the guidelines (FGSV 2006) and in the
20 report by Baier e.a. (2014). The most important aspect is that the central island should consist of
21 a paved circle which must be elevated by 4 or 5 cm above the asphalted circle.
22 Turbo-roundabouts
23 A turbo-roundabout is a kind of circular intersection where the number of lanes on the circle
24 varies between 1 and 2 and where the traffic through the intersection is strictly channelized by
25 lanes (Figure 7). This type does also allow a safe operation of 2-lane exits. Usually such a
26 roundabout has a diameter of 50 m or more. Application is useful if one or two of the movements
27 have periods with very large traffic volumes. In Germany traffic guidance is achieved just by lane
28 markings whereas in the Netherlands vertical lane dividers (similar to kerbs in the middle of the
29 roadway) are in use. Even if these circles are quite space-consuming their capacity is limited to
30 around 35000 veh/day.
31 Traffic safety of turbo-roundabouts has recently been investigated by Brilon, Geppert (2015),
32 however, based on a limited sample size. The accident rate on average was 1.0 acc/106 veh and
33 the accident cost rate was 7.7 €/1ooo veh which corresponds to the level of single-lane
34 roundabouts and is even better that the risk at conventional intersections.
35 Therefore, also this type of roundabout provides an adequate level of traffic safety and, thus, is a
36 useful instrument of traffic design in urban areas. However, it is not compatible with any kind of
37 bicycle operation which means that for bicycles other kinds of traffic guidance (e.g. bridges)
38 must be applied at the relevant sites.

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Brilon 13

a)

b)

1 Figure 7 Typical exit (a) and entry (b) of a turbo-roundabout in Germany

2 Accident prediction
3 Accident prediction at roundabouts has first been proposed by Maycock, Hall (1984). Based on
4 the analysis of 84 4-arm at-grade roundabouts they developed a linear model to predict the
5 number of accidents (frequency of all crashes + pedestrian accidents) based on the entry path
6 curvature, the roundabout diameter, entry width, angle of the approach relative to the circle, and
7 traffic volumes. The equations can primarily be used to compare alternative designs according to
8 the British style of roundabout design.
9 For the US an accident prediction model has been formulated by the NCHRP 572-report
10 (Rodegerdts e.a. 2007) which is also mentioned in the US roundabout guide (Rodegerdts 2010;
11 Exhibit 5-19, 5-20). Here the expected number of crashes per year is estimated by an exponential
12 function of the ADT (=annual average daily traffic), e.g.
13 crashes / year  0.0038  ADT 0.749 for a 2-lane 4-arm roundabout
14 (see cited literature for other parameters)
15 Other parts of the model concern accident prediction for each approach. Here the ADTs of the
16 approach, of the circle, and of the exit are of predominant importance. In addition geometric
17 parameters like entry radius, entry width, diameter, and others are used for accident prediction.
18 These models estimate the number of accidents on the approach, entering-circulating, and
19 exiting-circulating separately. These equations provide the potential to compare several
20 alternatives for the geometric design regarding safety. It must, however, be confined that the

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Brilon 14

1 equations have a relatively small empirical background and that they are only based on the US
2 background (e.g. definition of crashes, design style).

3 Cyclists at roundabouts
4 All investigations underline that cyclists at roundabouts constitute a specific problem. Usually
5 they also get some improvement in safety by a roundabouts. However, these improvements are
6 not as significant as for of the other road uses like car passengers or pedestrians. In consequence
7 cyclists at roundabouts bare the largest risks.
8 All the studies come to very similar conclusions. They distinguish between the following kinds of
9 bicycle treatment. Moreover, the reports propose the following actions. These points do only
10 apply for single lane roundabouts.
11  Bicycles in mixed traffic on the circular roadway together with cars: this is a very safe
12 solution for lower traffic volumes. It should be favoured up to a total traffic volume of
13 15000 veh/day (Germany, FGSV 2006 and Haller e.a. 2000) or 8000 veh/day (Netherlands,
14 vanMinnen, 1995).
15  Bicycling lane on the outer margin of the circular roadway. This is the most dangerous
16 solution. It must be absolutely banned (see e.g. Brilon e.a. 1993; Schoon e.a. 1994; Daniels
17 e.a., 2009; Underlien-Jensen 2013).
18  Bicycle paths separated from the roundabout. This is the recommended solution for larger
19 traffic volumes. The crossings of the exits and the entries must be separated from the circle
20 by 4 m, better by 1 car length, i.e. 5 m. The cycle paths should approach the crossings
21 vertical to the direction of the roadway. It is evident that a priority for cyclists at these cross
22 points induces a higher risk than a regulation where cyclist have to yield to motor vehicles
23 (vanMinnen, 1998, Bondzio, e.a. 2012, Underlien-Jensen, 2013).
24 These recommendations apply for single-lane roundabouts. At multilane roundabouts cyclists
25 cannot be allowed on the same roadway as motor vehicles. Also bicycle crossings at multilane
26 entries - and especially exits - are a significant risk. Thus, multilane roundabouts should only be
27 implemented where the occurrence of cyclists can be completely excluded. Tunnels or bridges for
28 cyclists would be a must at these larger roundabouts.
29 For the mini-roundabouts separate cycle facilities are not recommended. Here, if cyclists cannot
30 be operated on the roundabout itself, then a mini is not a good solution for the relevant situation.

31 Conclusion
32 As a conclusion from all studies, there is no doubt that roundabouts are the safest type of
33 intersection. Especially the single-lane roundabouts reveal the highest level of safety. Also Mini-
34 roundabouts have an extraordinary good safety record. Turbo-roundabouts - regarding safety -are
35 on the same level as the single-laned. This high degree of traffic safety is strictly depending on
36 the speed-reducing design of the whole intersection.
37 In comparison to conventional types of intersections like signalized or 2-way-stop intersections,
38 the car occupants and the pedestrians enjoy the highest gains from roundabout safety. On the
39 other hand bicyclists can become a problem for traffic safety at roundabouts. However, also
40 cyclists can be operated with a sufficient degree of safety – but only if the requirements for
41 design are strictly obeyed.

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Brilon 15

1 It should be emphasized that the high degree of safety is coherent to road user discipline and to
2 the acceptance of the existing traffic rules. This acceptance should be strengthened by an
3 adequate intersection design. Therefore, the favourable safety effects of roundabouts can only be
4 achieved if the rules for modern roundabout design, as they are documented in many national
5 design guidelines, are strictly applied.
6 It must also be ascertained that roundabouts are not the optimal solution in each situation.
7 Following the continental European guidelines there are limits in capacity (cf. Figure 1) which in
8 detail have to be figured out for each single case by adequate capacity models (see e.g. Brilon
9 2014).

10 References
11 Alphand, F., Noelle, U., Guichet, B. [1991] : Roundabouts and safety – state of the art in France.
12 In Intersections without traffic signals (II), p. 107 – 125, Springer publication. ISBN 3-540-
13 54180-2
14 Baier, R., Leu, P., Klemps-Kohnen, a. Reinartz, A., Maier, R., Schmotz, M. [2014]:
15 Minikreisverkehre – Ableitung ihrer Einsatzbereiche und Einsatzgrenzen. Berichte der BASt, no.
16 V240 (free download)
17 BASt [2014]: bast-info: Volkswirtschaftliche Kosten durch Strassenverkehrsunfaelle in
18 Deutschland 2005 - 2012. Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt), Germany. (free
19 download) (see also: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfallkosten)
20 Bill, A., Khan, G. [2014]: Safety Evaluation of Wisconsin Roundabouts. 4th International
21 Roundabout Conference, Seattle, TRB
22 Bondzio, L., Ortlepp, J., Scheit, M., Voss, H., Weinert, R. [2012]: Verkehrssicherheit
23 innerörtlicher Kreisverkehre. (Traffic safety of urban roundabouts). Report no. VI05 of the
24 association of German insurance companies GDI (free download)
25 Brilon, W. Stuwe, B. [1993]: Capacity and design of traffic circles in Germany. Transportation
26 Research Record 1398, pp. 61 – 67, TRB, Washington D.C.
27 Brilon, W., Bondzio, L. [1999]: Untersuchung von Mini-Kreisverkehrsplätzen in Nordrhein-
28 Westfalen. (Investigations on mini-roundabouts) Straßenverkehrstechnik, no 9, pp. 428 - 434
29 Brilon, W., Geppert, A.: Kapazitaet von großen Kreisverkehren: Turbo-Kreisverkehre (Capacity
30 of larger roundabouts: turbo-roundabouts) Strassenverkehrstechnik, no. 2 / 2015, pp. 81 - 90
31 Brilon, W. [2014]: Roundabouts: a state of the art in Germany. 3rd international roundabout
32 conference, Seattle (free download)
33 Buehlmann, F.; Huber, C.A. [1994]: Sicherheit von Kreiselanlagen – Erfahrungen und vorläufige
34 Empfehlungen. Bfu-Bericht. Bern.
35 Buehlmann, F.; Spacek, P. [1997]: Unfallgeschehen und Geometrie der Kreiselanlagen.
36 Forschungsauftrag Nr. 17/93 des Eidgenossischen Verkehrs- und
37 Energiewirtschaftsdepartementes. Zurich.
38 Buehlmann, F. [2005]: Kreisel sind nicht immer sicher. In: Strasse und Verkehr 11 / 2005, S. 6 -
39 9.
40 CETE [1986]: Evolution de la securite sur les carrefours giratoires. CETE-Ouest, Nantes, France

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Brilon 16

1 Daniels, S.; Brijs, T., Nuyts, E.; Wets, G. [2009]: Injury crashes with bicyclists at roundabouts:
2 Influence of some location characteristics and the design of cycle facilities. In: Journal of Safety
3 Research 40 (2009), S. 141 - 148.
4 Eckstein, Meewes [2002]: Sicherheit von Landstrassen-Knotenpunkten. Mitteilungen Nr. 40 des
5 Institutes fuer Strassenverkehr, Cologne
6 FGSV (2006): Merkblatt fuer die Anlage von Kreisverkehren. Forschungsgesellschaft fuer
7 Strassen- und Verkehrswesen, Cologne.
8 Flannery, A., Elefteriadou, L. [1999]: A review of roundabout safety performance in the United
9 States. ITE International Conference, March 28 – 31, 1999. (free download)
10 Gambard, J.M. [1989]: Safety and design of unsignalized intersections in France. In Intersections
11 without traffic signals (I). Springer publication. ISBN 3-540-18890-8
12 Giaever, T. [1992]: Application, design, and safety of roundabouts in Norway. Proceedings of the
13 roundabout conference in Nantes, France, Oct. 1992, p. 83 - 92, published by CETE, 92220
14 Bagneux, France
15 GOV.UK: Highway Code, here: rules 184 – 190. see: https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-
16 203/roundabouts-184-to-190
17 Haller, W.; Lange, J.; Alrutz, D.; Stellmacher-Hein, J. [2000]: Fusgaenger- und
18 Radverkehrsfuehrung an Kreisverkehrsplaetzen. Schriftenreihe Strassenbau und Strassen-
19 verkehrstechnik, no. 793. Bonn.
20 Jaquemart, P.E. [1998]: Modern roundabout practice in the United States. Synthesis of Highway
21 Practice 264, National Academy Press Washington D.C. (free download)
22 Jorgensen, E.; Jorgensen, N.O. [1994]: Traffiksikkerhed I 82 danske rundkoersler - anlagt efter
23 1985. Institut forVeje, Trafik og Byplan.
24 Kimber, R. [1979]: The traffic capacity of roundabouts. TRRL-report LR942, Crowthorne
25 Maycock, G., Hall, R.D. [1984]: Accidents at 4-arm roundabouts. TRRL Report LR1120,
26 Crowthorne, UK
27 Minnen, J. van [1992]: Experiences with new roundabouts in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the
28 roundabout conference in Nantes, France, Oct. 1992, p. 153-162, published by CETE, 92220
29 Bagneux, France
30 Minnen, J. van [1995]: Rotondes en voorrangsregelingen. R-95-58. Stichting Wetenschappelijk
31 Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid SWOV. Leidschendam.
32 Minnen, J. van [1995]: Rotondes en voorrangsregelingen II. R-98-12. Stichting Wetenschappelijk
33 Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid SWOV. Leidschendam.
34 Rodegerdts, L. and many other authors (2007): Roundabouts in the United States. NCHRP
35 Report 572, TRB, Washington D.C. (free download)
36 Rodegerdts, L. and many other authors (2010): Roundabouts: an informational guide, 2nd edition.
37 NCHRP Report 672, TRB, Washington D.C. (free download)
38 Schoon, C., vanMinnen, J. [1994]: The safety of roundabouts in The Netherlands. Traffic
39 Engineering and Control, March 1994, p. 142 - 148
40 Troutbeck, R. [1993]: Capacity and design of roundabouts in Australia. Transportation Research
41 Record 1398, Washington D.C.

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Brilon 17

1 Todd, K. [1988]: A history of roundabouts in the United States and France. Transportation
2 Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 599 - 623
3 Todd, K. [1991]: A history of roundabouts in Britain. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 1,
4 pp. 143 - 155
5 Tudge, R.T. [1990]: Accidents at roundabouts in New South Wales. 15th ARRB Conference,
6 proceedings, pp. 341 - 349
7 Underlien-Jensen, S. [2013]: Safety Effects of converting intersections to roundabouts. Trans-
8 portation Research record 2389, pp. 22 - 29
9 Underlien-Jensen, S. [2015]: Safety Effects of height of central islands, sight distances, markings,
10 and signage on single-lane roundabouts. unpublished paper
11

TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.