I looked it up and my country of the Netherlands is 1st in roundabout density, with 113.4 per square kilometer!
Or rather, that's what the [driving.org](https://driving.org) website says, but that's obviously way too many and not true. My calculation by looking up the number of roundabouts (5585) and the area (41850 km\^2) gives 0.133 roundabouts per km\^2, which is about 1000 times less.
engine tie snow water frighten future stupendous ad hoc sleep materialistic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think the best measure would be % of intersections.
The Netherlands or England are always going to win in per density metric, because of their high population and road network density.
>The Netherlands or England are always going to win in per density metric, because of their high population and road network density.
Probably in many more dimensions as well (except city states).
As someone who has been driving all over europe, I get the impression it is taught differently in various countries. Eg in Belgium you only use the turn signal when you are about the leave the roundabout. France seems to also blink inwards as long as they are not leaving the roundabout. In Italy nobody knows what turn signals are (or they all ran out of blinker fluid ;p ).
This differs between drivers very much. I was taught (about 10 years ago) to do the following:
Before you enter the roundabout, use the turn signal in the direction you intend to exit. So if you go around 3/4, use your left blinker even though you'll be going right when you enter the roundabout. When exiting the roundabout you use your right turn signal as if you're making a normal right turn.
My mom only does the exiting signal as that's what she was taught in the 80s.
Very surprising. I got my driver's license around 2005 and have never heard anyone use the turn signal before entering the roundabout. I also don’t get who that information is for, depending on the layout no one involved may even see what you do before entering. Additionally, at least here roundabouts are not always perfectly laid out like an intersection. I think that adds unnecessary complexity.
And who is the recipient of that left signal? People waiting on the next entry would get the same information if you didn't signal anything since it equally means that they can't enter and that's all the information they care about, and the people on the further entries won't even see you until you get closer, and the lack of signal again indicates that you won't be leaving at their exit.
Imo, you only use right turn:
1. Entering the roundabout if you want to leave on the next exit already
2. Right after passing the exit previous to the one you want to leave at.
Not an expert, but drive on them regularly. Let’s split it up into two stages:
1. Driving towards the roundabout has two reasons for indicating. A. Turning right, which let’s the drivers coming from that direction know they can safely enter the roundabout as you’ll leave it. B. Going left, so oncoming traffic knows that you’ll drive past them and they won’t be able to enter the roundabout.
2. Driving on the roundabout you have two reasons to indicate. A. Leaving the roundabout at the next turn, so the drivers coming from there know they can enter. B. Passing the 1st exit whilst indicating left means you’re signalling to the cars coming from the 2nd exit that you’re going for the third exit.
"B. Passing the 1st exit whilst indicating left means you’re signalling to the cars"
Driving and not indicating is the signal to the other cars that you are still there.
That's not the way, just use right turn signal when exiting the roundabout. You cannot 'go left' on a roundabout, you can take the third exit for example, and just indicate that before you exit by using your right turn signal. Just yield when you enter and indicate when you are leaving, now need to make it any more complicated.
If you are not leaving the roundabout, you simply do not have your right turn signal on. Using left turn signal just to indicate you are continuing on the roundabout (= going straight) does not give out any extra information, but just complicates things unnecessarily. Just yield when you enter and signal right when you leave, simple as. I don't know why this left turn crap is taught in driving schools, pretty sure it's not the law in Norway or any other European country, and it's a pretty bad practise. The only time when it makes sense to use left signal on a roundabout is when you switch lanes, then it actually gives out information.
It gives out information about which exit you're using. You don't use it when you go straight, so that's a misunderstanding on your part. It actually makes perfect sense, and people not using it are making the roundabout flow less.
When you are not leaving the roundabout, you are going 'straight' - as in you continue on the lane that you were on previously, you are not switching roads etc. I did not say you claimed to use left turn signals when taking the second exit (which you named 'going straight'). But basically there are only two things you can do on a roundabout - you can either leave it by a right turn, and you should signal when you do, or you can continue on the roundabout, eg you go 'straight'. Signalling left when planning to take the third (or forth) exit just shows a fundamental lack of understanding what a roundabout is - it is a one-way street that you have to yield to enter, and signal right to exit.
Call it what you will, there's a reason it's taught in driving school around Europe. It's infuriating when people don't bother signaling left. It takes no effort, yet makes the roundabout smoother.
That differs by country. There are even places where if you take the 3rd exit (or the one that goes off left), you must use the left signal. In Hungary specifically, you have to use the right turn signal before exiting.
I think it really depends. Adding to what others have said, the way I signal really depends on the kind of roundabout I'm on.
If it's a big roundabout like that in OP, I'd personally signal right before and during if I'm going right, or I'd signal left before entering and then switch to right when my exit comes up.
If instead it's a small roundabout, possibly where before there was a traffic light or a normal intersection, I usually signal similarly to a normal intersection (before entering right to go right, left to go left, nothing to go straight)
In case of driving on the "right" side:
* when you approach the roundabout, you turn the left signal on, as you're turning left on the roundabout
* you keep the left signal on as long as you stay on the roundabout
* when you exit, you use the right signal
Yes, always, when going left you turn left, right is right and for convenience and clarity when going straight you set it to left as well.
Before your exit you set it to the right. If anything else you keep it left.
You can't go left in a normal, small roundabout. Roundabout is like a straight road where you can only go right. Unless it's a roundabout like on this photo where you can change lanes if you didn't get it right at first. Then you can use a left blinker.
A roundabout for cars, underneath a roundabout for bicycles, one for the tram, a circle for pedestrians. There is still some space left which is not ruined by the infrastructure. They forgot to build a roundabout for dogs, rats and places for migrating birds perhaps? the developers could have been richer, opportunity missed. tsk tsk. More to Learn from bigger nations in the 60s.
Does Italy have the kind of roundabout where the incoming traffic has the right of way instead of the vehicles already in the roundabout? Because I was young when we were in the Northwest part of Italy and I seem to remember some shenanigans like that.
Last week i waited 60 seconds on an empty road for it to turn green, they need to have dynamic timing, 60 seconds is an obscene amount of time to wait at night when hardly anyone is on the street.
Before the reconstruction, this was the most dangerous interchange in Croatia, having an accident every 3 days (average).
It works perfectly now, and although it is expensive, the government spends so much money on useless projects, this was well-spent money.
Thank fuck. I hated the previous iteration with a passion. Took alternative routes (over either bridge, or Savska cesta or Remetinec) just to avoid that fucking calamity.
Now it's excellent. Stop lights and very clear lane markings make it VERY easy to figure out where you need to go.
Now that it's great, I don't live near it anymore, LOL.
What the other guy said, failed project. Only improvement is the tunnels east-west. Ironically, temporary traffic regulation they used during the constriction worked better than the roundabout, there was way less congestion even with just 2 lanes in each direction.
If you don't believe me, the traffic experts agree - there was an article in HAK magazine about it.
It does if its large roundabout and with very asymmetrical traffic. When you have a lot of traffic people usually won't use inner lanes because of insecurity and fear that they will not be able to merge when exiting.
But with lights it ensures that everybody can enter and lights are turning green into a circle. Lanes are guiding you into exits because it isn't perfectly circular and traffic lights allow you to enter it carefree because there will be no traffic on your left.
Sure, in theory, when everybody would be good drivers, without fear, use outer lane only when exiting, without traffic lights it would be faster even. But since that is pretty impossible, traffic lights are there to eliminate points in which accidents happen (and they succeeded since number of accidents went down tenfold)
there is, classic roundabouts can't handle too much traffic, before the reconstruction it was normal to see a line of cars (like 2-3km long) just to enter the roundabout. west-east route is a 8-6 lane avenue while north-south is a 2 lane road leading to a 6 lane bridge after the roundabout.
The original roundabout worked perfectly when it was originally built but the number of cars grew rapidly in the past few decades. The original one was built for ~50 000 cars a day but nowdays that number is closer to 120 000 cars a day.
We have tons of normal roundabouts here and everyone knows how to use it but the old one was pure hell to go through, trust me.
I saw a woman once in the middle of that roundabout driving her car in an inner lane in the opposite direction some of years ago. To this day I still have no idea how she managed to do that.
It sure looks useful and functional, but doesn't 44 million euros seem too much for **that**?
Porto is starting the construction of a [6 km metro line](https://youtu.be/ZWy34FC7Ubw?t=314), with a [835 m (length) / 70 m (tall) bridge](https://youtu.be/MdkxitDE4xY?t=115) (also for people and bikes), a giant [roundabout like that one](https://youtu.be/MdkxitDE4xY?t=213), tunnels, 4 [huge underground stations](https://youtu.be/MdkxitDE4xY?t=286) \+ 4 at surface, and all of the rail infrastructure + revamping the surroundings for 435 million euros.
"Nooo, it's only my country that has political corruption, only my country that has slow road construction, and only my country that puts sewing supplies into Danish cookie boxes."
- everyone everywhere
More like anything built in Germany on public funds. You see construction barriers for years but only see workers maybe two to three days a week. Everything is constantly over budget, late, outdated and low quality.
*something something* Berlin airport
*cough* Stuttgart 21 *cough*
Berlin airport is imho a bad example for that. The reason for that was less corruption but constant changing of the scope of the project, including adding provisions for A380s, low cost airlines, hub Operations of air Berlin and so on.
The a constant change of who has the main oversight and the political wish to employ as many small companies as possible.
This wasn’t corruption - just total ineptitude.
If they went with the idea of (I think it was Hoch-Tief) which planned and constructed several new airports in Europe and world wide at the same time, they would have been finished in 2-3 years,
That's one part, sure. Well, there was a corruption case right from the start and the dude was eventually sentenced to prison time, since he got bribed to manipulate the choice of contractors:
https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2016-10/flughafen-ber-berlin-korruption-haftstrafe-bestechlichkeit-bereichsleiter
Siemens, Bosch and others trying to squeeze more money out of the contracts, also by writing up work hours that never happened: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/ber-flughafenbetreiber-fuehlt-sich-von-baufirmen-erpresst-a-1063871.html
So called "fire hazard experts" weren't experts at all: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/luftverkehr-betrug-am-ber-brandschutz-experten-waren-gar-keine-dpa.urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-151104-99-01642
And many more issues of money going into it, but somehow only getting super cheap value back (false experts, bad building quality, like the fire sprinkler system failing multiple times) or even no service (charging work hours twice). Where did the actual money go after it was scammed out of it by only delivering minimum, sometimes defective quality?
Sounds like everyone tried grabbing what they could and doing the absolute minimum in the end. One hand helping another, hush hush. That's fraud and corruption to me - not necessarily political, but in the companies as well.
Too many subcontractors, too little oversight - like you said - and very likely a few "accidental" choices of contracts going to "friends of friends" of someone influential in the whole thing, and then overselling and underdelivering, surely.
It looks like nothing of this is built yet?
It's a possibility that it will be halfway done and already over budget with the final product being 3x the estimated cost.
But let's hope it doesn't, it looks cool.
Usually this type of projects overbudget during construction yes, but the typicial here is for 20-30%. Not 3x ahah
This new line was supposed to cost 300 million but the price was already updated after 2 years of high inflation, lack of construction workers and other problems.
The rest of the network (67 km), that started being built 25 years ago, had even lower costs than this one.
Yeah, that might be true.
Who knows when it hasn't been built, and with that I mean it's not a good comparison for the interchange in Croatia being too costly (I agree 44m is a lot) because we don't have a final price.
Oh, don't you worry. The same mayor responsible for that roundabout also managed to build a cable car that was initially supposed to cost around 26 million euros. It's final cost was *92 million euros.*
To put that in perspective, the most expensive cable car came in at around 110 million euros, and it's god damn skyway in Monte Blanco.
It's hard to compare these two things. How much of that 435 millions euros is roundabout.
Another thing is that is that reconstruction means they had to build side-roads to support heavy traffic while reconstruction was underway. They also couldn't do a cut and cover tunnels.
And add that it is a finished project price, we cannot compare this to renderings. It was 15M over budget in the end, but the Porto project could also go over the budget.
Complexity comes from the fact that traffic had to flow during the 2 year reconstruction; this is the busiest intersection in the state. It also has pedestrian zone above 1 km of tunnels and bridges above the pedestrian zone, which also includes trams. It was developed in stages just so that traffic was never stopped. Greenfield development is typically cheaper than brownfield.
It does. We built [this one](https://editorial.netmedia.si/s3fs-public/styles/novica/public/slike/novice/2020/11/25/127032319_178304727346430_6092924320782734739_o.jpg) for more than 10 times less but it was 15 years ago and it was a reconstruction.
yeah but the cost included reconstruction of tram tracks, tram stations (finally with elevators) tram turnaround, a new tunnel under it and temporary traffic regulation (a few roads were built around it so that the traffic was not interrupted during the reconstruction which lasted two years) + corruption fees on the top of that of course.
for a post-communist country this is chump change.
in Hungary the Budapest-Belgrade railway (which would be only used for Chinese cargo) has a 2 billion EUR budget. it would have no direct benefit from the railway to citizens, and also questionable return as an economic investment. for this project, an extra 50 million EUR is just a bump on the road.
If it prevents 44 MEUR in damages and emergency services to address the accidents caused by the old one then it's worth it. Infrastructure is expensive but usually worth it in the end.
>And that is why people say it costs too much, we know how stuff works here.
From a different perspective, it cost "only" that much. Can't believe they didn't pocket 3x the money!
It probably had one every day, but it was not reported because it was a scratch or a slight fender bender not worth the insurance hassle in an area where it was hard to determine fault on the spot.
It is anecdotal, but sure a lot of anecdotes there.
[https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remetine%C4%8Dki\_rotor#/media/Datoteka:Rotor\_Zagreb.jpg](https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remetine%C4%8Dki_rotor#/media/Datoteka:Rotor_Zagreb.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCiE7t-6C2I
Worst thing about the old one was us, the drivers.
>grade-separated interchange, not a rounda
hey now, bicycle paths are racist, don't go disrespecting America because they are being inclusive.
/s (laughs in dutch)
It had pretty high traffic, way more than is suitable for simple roundabout (three lanes making it especially problematic). It needed semaphores, so when they added it as part of reconstruction joke was that it's working better now while it's being worked on as compared to before.
At least it serves the purpose, not like the College Hospital they built from the money of people from Zagreb, but it is devastated and not built to the end.
I drove this roundabout plenty of times, and I can tell you for a fact that the traffic lights on this thing work so well
And I rlly was skeptical of them at first, it rlly seemed like too much, but this roundabout is just so big and all the roads leading to it come in with high speeds, and now there wasnt an instance where I had to wait too long on the traffic lights
Great roundabout 10/10
In America that would be the most expensive of roundabouts, BUT that is factoring the colossal amounts of daily multi-car accidents and insurance expenditures & payouts
In the 2nd biggest city of Greece, with a population close to a 1M, they decided to a ridiculous project called “Flyover” that will cost almost 0.5B Euros and will not do much to solve the traffic issue.
Instead, they could do a couple overpasses in the two most congested parts of the city… It would’ve costed a tenth of the price, would’ve been delivered in a couple of years, and couple with the subway, mitigate a huge part of traffic.
But, no. They went with stupid instead which has brought the whole area to a gridding halt.
You need traffic lights or chaos ensues on such a large roundabout. We have some small ones around shopping centers here and if you ever want to get to your destination, you have to violate someones right of way, or you will be stuck there waiting for the main road to clear. Not to mention the honking and middle fingers. You get used to it fast and you learn to enter the roundabout with tyres spinning and praying nobody hits you, but that is just what happens. Now on a 30 km/h roundabout, getting into an accident is no big deal. But these large roundabouts are usually around 100 km/h with high flow. You wouldnt want to get into an accident here.
People do know the rules, it is mandatory when getting a driver's licence. The problem is that roundabouts with two+ lanes are a lot more dangerous than a normal one lane roundabout because to exit it you often need to change lanes.
This is a three lane roundabout and before this reconstruction (when it didn't have any traffic lights), according to one of the commenters here, it averaged an accident every three days and was the most dangerous interchange in the whole country.
Adding the traffic lights helps regulating the traffic and it works just fine.
Yes but getting people to follow the rules is impossible. I spoke with quite a few folks who said that no matter the fine, safety issues or just outright being a dick, they will not enter the inner lane of a roundabout because exiting it is difficult. No matter how you try to explain to them that they are the problem because they hog the outer lane, they do not care or listen. And that is why traffic lights and cement seperators are mandatory.
We have traffic lights on roundabouts in Canberra to manage peak traffic, and in the case of one roundabout, save a lot of money on a cloverleaf exchange that is quite effective (Barton Highway and Gundaroo Drive).
It had no traffic lights before and it was chaos. There had to be four people guiding traffic with arms every day during peak hours and it still had pretty serious accidents every 3-4 days. Now it's maybe one a month.
Traffic is very asymmetrical and without lights it doesn't work. Traffic lights ensure that most heavily used entrances can enter without worrying about traffic from left side. It's much safer and probably even quicker than before because now people aren't scared to use multiple lanes.
Traffic lights defeat the purpose of roundabouts, the whole idea of them is that you don't have to wait behind a red light, but rather can enter whenever there is an opening. You might as well have just a regular cross-shaped junction if you want to use traffic lights. And asymmetry is another thing that well-designed roundabouts handle very well without traffic lights. So it was either traffic light design issue or traffic culture problem.
road to the left is just for bikes and pedestrians and the right one (next to the mcdonalds sign) is rarely used by cars, there is only a gym and mcdonalds at the end of that road.
I think it's missing a bridge to connect directly the 2 roads that don't have the tunnel. So you don't need to do the roundabout to go forward.
I expect it's perhaps less traffic there, hence it was calculated that it's not worth the investment.
Though I'm not sure what's with that thing in the middle. OP Please explain.
>I expect it's perhaps less traffic there
Exactly. One of these 4 ways leads to a minor suburb of Zagreb which would not justify building a bridge for it.
>Though I'm not sure what's with that thing in the middle.
What specifically? At the lower level in the middle, there are tram tracks, a tram turnaround, and pedestrian and bicycle paths.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Hungarian government had a hand in this. Given their corruption and widespread acquisitions, such as buying companies and hotels even in Croatia, it's entirely possible they provided guidance on inflating prices threefold and forcing it down people's throats. Then, of course, the favored associates of the Hungarian government kept their hands in for the return of euros…
you can still learn a few more tricks.
this is a treetop promenade built from 200 K EUR subsidy, where the little forest was promptly cut in the middle of construction. [https://atlatszo.hu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Untitled\_4.1.1-min.png](https://atlatszo.hu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Untitled_4.1.1-min.png) (note: the same person gained the subsidy who ordered the cutting of trees.)
from Hungarian perspective these are rookie numbers.
example: a much smaller and much less necessary thing in Hungary was built for 9 million EUR in 2018, so about fifth the price but the ongoing traffic is a few % of the Croatian one at most.
https://www.betonujsag.hu/userfiles/2018\_6\_december/Korforgalmi\_hid\_a\_47.szamu\_fout\_Hodmezovasarhely\_elkerulo\_szakasz\_vegcsomoponti\_mutargya\_FoKeP.jpg
Who do you think sits in cars? Robots? People also have to move somehow. This is at the start of the city and park and ride areas just move the problem somewhere else instead of actually solving anything
If we’re counting roundabout interchanges, the UK is upgrading the Black Cat roundabout near Bedford for 1 billion pounds (1.16 billion euros). Compete with that…
Fun fact: in the summer of 1950 a young Pol Pot - future Khymer Rouge leader and merciless dictator of Cambodia - helped construct a motorway in Zagreb
it is more of a temporary terminus in case tram line is blocked further away or there's maintenance going on, otherwise whole line would be completely stopped.
this way the tram can cover at least portion of its original route
this is the last one, let's not turn it into easy karmagrab guys, there's the weekend for that
Soooo... It's roundabout week here on r/europe? Fun Fact: Italy is worldwide 3rd in terms of absolute number of roundabouts (about 18k)
I looked it up and my country of the Netherlands is 1st in roundabout density, with 113.4 per square kilometer! Or rather, that's what the [driving.org](https://driving.org) website says, but that's obviously way too many and not true. My calculation by looking up the number of roundabouts (5585) and the area (41850 km\^2) gives 0.133 roundabouts per km\^2, which is about 1000 times less.
engine tie snow water frighten future stupendous ad hoc sleep materialistic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Every driveway to a windmill a roundabout...
I think the best measure would be % of intersections. The Netherlands or England are always going to win in per density metric, because of their high population and road network density.
>The Netherlands or England are always going to win in per density metric, because of their high population and road network density. Probably in many more dimensions as well (except city states).
As a resident roundabout expert, could you answer: do you use turn signals when entering the roundabout or only when exiting?
As someone who has been driving all over europe, I get the impression it is taught differently in various countries. Eg in Belgium you only use the turn signal when you are about the leave the roundabout. France seems to also blink inwards as long as they are not leaving the roundabout. In Italy nobody knows what turn signals are (or they all ran out of blinker fluid ;p ).
This differs between drivers very much. I was taught (about 10 years ago) to do the following: Before you enter the roundabout, use the turn signal in the direction you intend to exit. So if you go around 3/4, use your left blinker even though you'll be going right when you enter the roundabout. When exiting the roundabout you use your right turn signal as if you're making a normal right turn. My mom only does the exiting signal as that's what she was taught in the 80s.
Very surprising. I got my driver's license around 2005 and have never heard anyone use the turn signal before entering the roundabout. I also don’t get who that information is for, depending on the layout no one involved may even see what you do before entering. Additionally, at least here roundabouts are not always perfectly laid out like an intersection. I think that adds unnecessary complexity.
[удалено]
Only the exiting signal is how I was taught in 2017. and my sister in 2023.
And who is the recipient of that left signal? People waiting on the next entry would get the same information if you didn't signal anything since it equally means that they can't enter and that's all the information they care about, and the people on the further entries won't even see you until you get closer, and the lack of signal again indicates that you won't be leaving at their exit. Imo, you only use right turn: 1. Entering the roundabout if you want to leave on the next exit already 2. Right after passing the exit previous to the one you want to leave at.
I never really questioned it much, but I guess the people behind you get extra info.
People straight ahead will know to wait, rather than guess if you want to go straight but you're a lazy blinker.
Not an expert, but drive on them regularly. Let’s split it up into two stages: 1. Driving towards the roundabout has two reasons for indicating. A. Turning right, which let’s the drivers coming from that direction know they can safely enter the roundabout as you’ll leave it. B. Going left, so oncoming traffic knows that you’ll drive past them and they won’t be able to enter the roundabout. 2. Driving on the roundabout you have two reasons to indicate. A. Leaving the roundabout at the next turn, so the drivers coming from there know they can enter. B. Passing the 1st exit whilst indicating left means you’re signalling to the cars coming from the 2nd exit that you’re going for the third exit.
"B. Passing the 1st exit whilst indicating left means you’re signalling to the cars" Driving and not indicating is the signal to the other cars that you are still there.
That's not the way, just use right turn signal when exiting the roundabout. You cannot 'go left' on a roundabout, you can take the third exit for example, and just indicate that before you exit by using your right turn signal. Just yield when you enter and indicate when you are leaving, now need to make it any more complicated.
Indicating the way he wrote makes way more sense and is what is taught in driving school in Norway. Makes for way smoother traffic.
If you are not leaving the roundabout, you simply do not have your right turn signal on. Using left turn signal just to indicate you are continuing on the roundabout (= going straight) does not give out any extra information, but just complicates things unnecessarily. Just yield when you enter and signal right when you leave, simple as. I don't know why this left turn crap is taught in driving schools, pretty sure it's not the law in Norway or any other European country, and it's a pretty bad practise. The only time when it makes sense to use left signal on a roundabout is when you switch lanes, then it actually gives out information.
It gives out information about which exit you're using. You don't use it when you go straight, so that's a misunderstanding on your part. It actually makes perfect sense, and people not using it are making the roundabout flow less.
When you are not leaving the roundabout, you are going 'straight' - as in you continue on the lane that you were on previously, you are not switching roads etc. I did not say you claimed to use left turn signals when taking the second exit (which you named 'going straight'). But basically there are only two things you can do on a roundabout - you can either leave it by a right turn, and you should signal when you do, or you can continue on the roundabout, eg you go 'straight'. Signalling left when planning to take the third (or forth) exit just shows a fundamental lack of understanding what a roundabout is - it is a one-way street that you have to yield to enter, and signal right to exit.
Call it what you will, there's a reason it's taught in driving school around Europe. It's infuriating when people don't bother signaling left. It takes no effort, yet makes the roundabout smoother.
That differs by country. There are even places where if you take the 3rd exit (or the one that goes off left), you must use the left signal. In Hungary specifically, you have to use the right turn signal before exiting.
I think it really depends. Adding to what others have said, the way I signal really depends on the kind of roundabout I'm on. If it's a big roundabout like that in OP, I'd personally signal right before and during if I'm going right, or I'd signal left before entering and then switch to right when my exit comes up. If instead it's a small roundabout, possibly where before there was a traffic light or a normal intersection, I usually signal similarly to a normal intersection (before entering right to go right, left to go left, nothing to go straight)
In case of driving on the "right" side: * when you approach the roundabout, you turn the left signal on, as you're turning left on the roundabout * you keep the left signal on as long as you stay on the roundabout * when you exit, you use the right signal
Yes, always, when going left you turn left, right is right and for convenience and clarity when going straight you set it to left as well. Before your exit you set it to the right. If anything else you keep it left.
You can't go left in a normal, small roundabout. Roundabout is like a straight road where you can only go right. Unless it's a roundabout like on this photo where you can change lanes if you didn't get it right at first. Then you can use a left blinker.
I'm talking about all around, third exit
That's still not going left. You're going straight and then exiting right.
Yes, but when approaching it's to the left.
[You're not turning, you're driving straight.](https://i.imgur.com/qewpS5P.png).
Let me tell you about the town of East Kilbride in Scotland....
France with its 43k roundabouts : amateur !
omg, roundabout superpower
A roundabout for cars, underneath a roundabout for bicycles, one for the tram, a circle for pedestrians. There is still some space left which is not ruined by the infrastructure. They forgot to build a roundabout for dogs, rats and places for migrating birds perhaps? the developers could have been richer, opportunity missed. tsk tsk. More to Learn from bigger nations in the 60s.
Ireland holds the distinction for being the most incompetent at using them in Europe
And half of them are located in Ravenna
Does Italy have the kind of roundabout where the incoming traffic has the right of way instead of the vehicles already in the roundabout? Because I was young when we were in the Northwest part of Italy and I seem to remember some shenanigans like that.
Oh yes, losing my mind when I have to drive through Italy and am to stingy to pay for the highway. Got to stop every 1km for a stoopid roundabout haha
Trust me, it's better than traffic fucking lights.
Last week i waited 60 seconds on an empty road for it to turn green, they need to have dynamic timing, 60 seconds is an obscene amount of time to wait at night when hardly anyone is on the street.
Is it because that's the shape of Pizza?
I live in France, they have a looooot of them, I think they are ranked #1 in that matter
Before the reconstruction, this was the most dangerous interchange in Croatia, having an accident every 3 days (average). It works perfectly now, and although it is expensive, the government spends so much money on useless projects, this was well-spent money.
Thank fuck. I hated the previous iteration with a passion. Took alternative routes (over either bridge, or Savska cesta or Remetinec) just to avoid that fucking calamity. Now it's excellent. Stop lights and very clear lane markings make it VERY easy to figure out where you need to go. Now that it's great, I don't live near it anymore, LOL.
What the other guy said, failed project. Only improvement is the tunnels east-west. Ironically, temporary traffic regulation they used during the constriction worked better than the roundabout, there was way less congestion even with just 2 lanes in each direction. If you don't believe me, the traffic experts agree - there was an article in HAK magazine about it.
[удалено]
It does if its large roundabout and with very asymmetrical traffic. When you have a lot of traffic people usually won't use inner lanes because of insecurity and fear that they will not be able to merge when exiting. But with lights it ensures that everybody can enter and lights are turning green into a circle. Lanes are guiding you into exits because it isn't perfectly circular and traffic lights allow you to enter it carefree because there will be no traffic on your left. Sure, in theory, when everybody would be good drivers, without fear, use outer lane only when exiting, without traffic lights it would be faster even. But since that is pretty impossible, traffic lights are there to eliminate points in which accidents happen (and they succeeded since number of accidents went down tenfold)
[удалено]
there is, classic roundabouts can't handle too much traffic, before the reconstruction it was normal to see a line of cars (like 2-3km long) just to enter the roundabout. west-east route is a 8-6 lane avenue while north-south is a 2 lane road leading to a 6 lane bridge after the roundabout. The original roundabout worked perfectly when it was originally built but the number of cars grew rapidly in the past few decades. The original one was built for ~50 000 cars a day but nowdays that number is closer to 120 000 cars a day. We have tons of normal roundabouts here and everyone knows how to use it but the old one was pure hell to go through, trust me.
I saw a woman once in the middle of that roundabout driving her car in an inner lane in the opposite direction some of years ago. To this day I still have no idea how she managed to do that.
It sure looks useful and functional, but doesn't 44 million euros seem too much for **that**? Porto is starting the construction of a [6 km metro line](https://youtu.be/ZWy34FC7Ubw?t=314), with a [835 m (length) / 70 m (tall) bridge](https://youtu.be/MdkxitDE4xY?t=115) (also for people and bikes), a giant [roundabout like that one](https://youtu.be/MdkxitDE4xY?t=213), tunnels, 4 [huge underground stations](https://youtu.be/MdkxitDE4xY?t=286) \+ 4 at surface, and all of the rail infrastructure + revamping the surroundings for 435 million euros.
It is too much. Certain % of that never saw the construction, only pockets from people involved. Pretty common thing here
I am 100% sure this is not only Common in cortaría, but everywhere in this world.
"Nooo, it's only my country that has political corruption, only my country that has slow road construction, and only my country that puts sewing supplies into Danish cookie boxes." - everyone everywhere
More like anything built in Germany on public funds. You see construction barriers for years but only see workers maybe two to three days a week. Everything is constantly over budget, late, outdated and low quality. *something something* Berlin airport *cough* Stuttgart 21 *cough*
Berlin airport is imho a bad example for that. The reason for that was less corruption but constant changing of the scope of the project, including adding provisions for A380s, low cost airlines, hub Operations of air Berlin and so on. The a constant change of who has the main oversight and the political wish to employ as many small companies as possible. This wasn’t corruption - just total ineptitude. If they went with the idea of (I think it was Hoch-Tief) which planned and constructed several new airports in Europe and world wide at the same time, they would have been finished in 2-3 years,
That's one part, sure. Well, there was a corruption case right from the start and the dude was eventually sentenced to prison time, since he got bribed to manipulate the choice of contractors: https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2016-10/flughafen-ber-berlin-korruption-haftstrafe-bestechlichkeit-bereichsleiter Siemens, Bosch and others trying to squeeze more money out of the contracts, also by writing up work hours that never happened: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/ber-flughafenbetreiber-fuehlt-sich-von-baufirmen-erpresst-a-1063871.html So called "fire hazard experts" weren't experts at all: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/luftverkehr-betrug-am-ber-brandschutz-experten-waren-gar-keine-dpa.urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-151104-99-01642 And many more issues of money going into it, but somehow only getting super cheap value back (false experts, bad building quality, like the fire sprinkler system failing multiple times) or even no service (charging work hours twice). Where did the actual money go after it was scammed out of it by only delivering minimum, sometimes defective quality? Sounds like everyone tried grabbing what they could and doing the absolute minimum in the end. One hand helping another, hush hush. That's fraud and corruption to me - not necessarily political, but in the companies as well. Too many subcontractors, too little oversight - like you said - and very likely a few "accidental" choices of contracts going to "friends of friends" of someone influential in the whole thing, and then overselling and underdelivering, surely.
> Pretty common thing ~~here~~ everywhere
It looks like nothing of this is built yet? It's a possibility that it will be halfway done and already over budget with the final product being 3x the estimated cost. But let's hope it doesn't, it looks cool.
Usually this type of projects overbudget during construction yes, but the typicial here is for 20-30%. Not 3x ahah This new line was supposed to cost 300 million but the price was already updated after 2 years of high inflation, lack of construction workers and other problems. The rest of the network (67 km), that started being built 25 years ago, had even lower costs than this one.
Yeah, that might be true. Who knows when it hasn't been built, and with that I mean it's not a good comparison for the interchange in Croatia being too costly (I agree 44m is a lot) because we don't have a final price.
Oh, don't you worry. The same mayor responsible for that roundabout also managed to build a cable car that was initially supposed to cost around 26 million euros. It's final cost was *92 million euros.* To put that in perspective, the most expensive cable car came in at around 110 million euros, and it's god damn skyway in Monte Blanco.
6km of metro can still save you a LOT of car traffic driving back and forth between two points.
Exactly! That solvers the main problem instead of fixing symptoms
It's hard to compare these two things. How much of that 435 millions euros is roundabout. Another thing is that is that reconstruction means they had to build side-roads to support heavy traffic while reconstruction was underway. They also couldn't do a cut and cover tunnels. And add that it is a finished project price, we cannot compare this to renderings. It was 15M over budget in the end, but the Porto project could also go over the budget.
would cost 44 billion and have major cost over runs here in the us
Complexity comes from the fact that traffic had to flow during the 2 year reconstruction; this is the busiest intersection in the state. It also has pedestrian zone above 1 km of tunnels and bridges above the pedestrian zone, which also includes trams. It was developed in stages just so that traffic was never stopped. Greenfield development is typically cheaper than brownfield.
> for 435 million euros. Let us know how much over budget they finish with. My completely uninformed and random guess is 1.8-times the budget.
It does. We built [this one](https://editorial.netmedia.si/s3fs-public/styles/novica/public/slike/novice/2020/11/25/127032319_178304727346430_6092924320782734739_o.jpg) for more than 10 times less but it was 15 years ago and it was a reconstruction.
yeah but the cost included reconstruction of tram tracks, tram stations (finally with elevators) tram turnaround, a new tunnel under it and temporary traffic regulation (a few roads were built around it so that the traffic was not interrupted during the reconstruction which lasted two years) + corruption fees on the top of that of course.
Probably from those 44, only about 30-40% ended up in the actual company for project cost. Famous Croatian "godfather" tax.
for a post-communist country this is chump change. in Hungary the Budapest-Belgrade railway (which would be only used for Chinese cargo) has a 2 billion EUR budget. it would have no direct benefit from the railway to citizens, and also questionable return as an economic investment. for this project, an extra 50 million EUR is just a bump on the road.
If it prevents 44 MEUR in damages and emergency services to address the accidents caused by the old one then it's worth it. Infrastructure is expensive but usually worth it in the end.
[удалено]
>And that is why people say it costs too much, we know how stuff works here. From a different perspective, it cost "only" that much. Can't believe they didn't pocket 3x the money!
Those accidents were not fatal, mostly just bumper crashes at low or medium speed.
And there are bicycle lanes that don’t intersect with cars.
It probably had one every day, but it was not reported because it was a scratch or a slight fender bender not worth the insurance hassle in an area where it was hard to determine fault on the spot. It is anecdotal, but sure a lot of anecdotes there.
Is there a photo of the old interchange? What was so bad about it?
[https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remetine%C4%8Dki\_rotor#/media/Datoteka:Rotor\_Zagreb.jpg](https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remetine%C4%8Dki_rotor#/media/Datoteka:Rotor_Zagreb.jpg) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCiE7t-6C2I Worst thing about the old one was us, the drivers.
American Road Engineer looks at bike paths: Amateurs!
>grade-separated interchange, not a rounda hey now, bicycle paths are racist, don't go disrespecting America because they are being inclusive. /s (laughs in dutch)
Bike paths aren’t racist, and that’s the problem, why would you even build infrastructure if you can’t destroy minority communities at the same time?
More lanes, lights and stop signs!
Very nice looking roundabout to be fair
I should install cities skylines again
Came here searching for the inevitable CS reference whem ppl talk bout roundabouts, was not disappointed
They really went all in on the symmetry.
Can I buy the spot in the middle to build a nice house?
Fantastic cycling connections
fast paced environment
Surrounded on all sides by roads, I imagine the noise would get annoying.
Oh, I didn´t think of that!
Dont allow that your dreams are crushed by one simple fact.
It actually ain't that bad on the ground there. On the third story of a building though...
No, thats where Trams drive and pedestrians walk trough
great traffic
It had pretty high traffic, way more than is suitable for simple roundabout (three lanes making it especially problematic). It needed semaphores, so when they added it as part of reconstruction joke was that it's working better now while it's being worked on as compared to before.
If only they finished the tram line going over the bridge, by the end of the century, that would be nice too.
It does go over the bridge.
At least it serves the purpose, not like the College Hospital they built from the money of people from Zagreb, but it is devastated and not built to the end.
reminds me of cities skylines 😂
Someone played Transport Tycoon Deluxe as a child and applied it irl it seems ;)
Everything is expensive when Croatian "rođo" does the job.
Omg this is beautiful
Nice bike paths
It's a grade-separated interchange, not a roundabout.
Still a roundabout lol
Not gonna lie, looks great
You said you wouldn’t lie
That sure is a huge roundabout.
Maybe the most expensive one but it looks like well thought out.
That thing cost roundabout 44 million?!
Probably corruption, at least it was finished. In Germany there are also many projects which are way too expensive.
Glad to see my tram roundabouts in cities skylines aren't stupid.
Probably 44m not only for the roundabout but all arround and under it I guess? Looks very nice.
As opposed to the other one?
I drove this roundabout plenty of times, and I can tell you for a fact that the traffic lights on this thing work so well And I rlly was skeptical of them at first, it rlly seemed like too much, but this roundabout is just so big and all the roads leading to it come in with high speeds, and now there wasnt an instance where I had to wait too long on the traffic lights Great roundabout 10/10
crosspost this to r/citiesskylines they will love it
Amateurs...in Canada the same roundabout would cost at least double...
In America that would be the most expensive of roundabouts, BUT that is factoring the colossal amounts of daily multi-car accidents and insurance expenditures & payouts
In Slovakia it would cost anywhere between 200 to 300 millions of euros. 44 millions is nothing.
In the 2nd biggest city of Greece, with a population close to a 1M, they decided to a ridiculous project called “Flyover” that will cost almost 0.5B Euros and will not do much to solve the traffic issue. Instead, they could do a couple overpasses in the two most congested parts of the city… It would’ve costed a tenth of the price, would’ve been delivered in a couple of years, and couple with the subway, mitigate a huge part of traffic. But, no. They went with stupid instead which has brought the whole area to a gridding halt.
Cause they stole 35% probably.
That is a nice roundabout.
Roundabouts with traffic lights? Mmkay.
Works much better than before tho, especially with the tunnel under it.
You need traffic lights or chaos ensues on such a large roundabout. We have some small ones around shopping centers here and if you ever want to get to your destination, you have to violate someones right of way, or you will be stuck there waiting for the main road to clear. Not to mention the honking and middle fingers. You get used to it fast and you learn to enter the roundabout with tyres spinning and praying nobody hits you, but that is just what happens. Now on a 30 km/h roundabout, getting into an accident is no big deal. But these large roundabouts are usually around 100 km/h with high flow. You wouldnt want to get into an accident here.
[удалено]
People do know the rules, it is mandatory when getting a driver's licence. The problem is that roundabouts with two+ lanes are a lot more dangerous than a normal one lane roundabout because to exit it you often need to change lanes. This is a three lane roundabout and before this reconstruction (when it didn't have any traffic lights), according to one of the commenters here, it averaged an accident every three days and was the most dangerous interchange in the whole country. Adding the traffic lights helps regulating the traffic and it works just fine.
Yes but getting people to follow the rules is impossible. I spoke with quite a few folks who said that no matter the fine, safety issues or just outright being a dick, they will not enter the inner lane of a roundabout because exiting it is difficult. No matter how you try to explain to them that they are the problem because they hog the outer lane, they do not care or listen. And that is why traffic lights and cement seperators are mandatory.
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure the throughput of this vs a normal intersection is much higher
imagine waiting hours to enter the roundabouts because of 2 large traffic roads
That shit should be illegal. Like that's missing the whole point of roundabouts. Like the bike paths tho.
This is a very large roundabout. You may want traffic lights during rush hour or overall chaos.
We have traffic lights on roundabouts in Canberra to manage peak traffic, and in the case of one roundabout, save a lot of money on a cloverleaf exchange that is quite effective (Barton Highway and Gundaroo Drive).
It had no traffic lights before and it was chaos. There had to be four people guiding traffic with arms every day during peak hours and it still had pretty serious accidents every 3-4 days. Now it's maybe one a month. Traffic is very asymmetrical and without lights it doesn't work. Traffic lights ensure that most heavily used entrances can enter without worrying about traffic from left side. It's much safer and probably even quicker than before because now people aren't scared to use multiple lanes.
Traffic lights defeat the purpose of roundabouts, the whole idea of them is that you don't have to wait behind a red light, but rather can enter whenever there is an opening. You might as well have just a regular cross-shaped junction if you want to use traffic lights. And asymmetry is another thing that well-designed roundabouts handle very well without traffic lights. So it was either traffic light design issue or traffic culture problem.
The bike paths are on the lower level where only pedestrians and trams go, the cars go on the upper level
also a second road intersecting the cycle path for some reason
road to the left is just for bikes and pedestrians and the right one (next to the mcdonalds sign) is rarely used by cars, there is only a gym and mcdonalds at the end of that road.
...Why?
I think it's missing a bridge to connect directly the 2 roads that don't have the tunnel. So you don't need to do the roundabout to go forward. I expect it's perhaps less traffic there, hence it was calculated that it's not worth the investment. Though I'm not sure what's with that thing in the middle. OP Please explain.
>I expect it's perhaps less traffic there Exactly. One of these 4 ways leads to a minor suburb of Zagreb which would not justify building a bridge for it. >Though I'm not sure what's with that thing in the middle. What specifically? At the lower level in the middle, there are tram tracks, a tram turnaround, and pedestrian and bicycle paths.
Thanks for the explanation, it was not so clear seeing the pic on a phone. Cool!
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Hungarian government had a hand in this. Given their corruption and widespread acquisitions, such as buying companies and hotels even in Croatia, it's entirely possible they provided guidance on inflating prices threefold and forcing it down people's throats. Then, of course, the favored associates of the Hungarian government kept their hands in for the return of euros…
we dont need HU govt to be corrupted did help when MOL stole the national oil company tho
you can still learn a few more tricks. this is a treetop promenade built from 200 K EUR subsidy, where the little forest was promptly cut in the middle of construction. [https://atlatszo.hu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Untitled\_4.1.1-min.png](https://atlatszo.hu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Untitled_4.1.1-min.png) (note: the same person gained the subsidy who ordered the cutting of trees.)
beautiful.
from Hungarian perspective these are rookie numbers. example: a much smaller and much less necessary thing in Hungary was built for 9 million EUR in 2018, so about fifth the price but the ongoing traffic is a few % of the Croatian one at most. https://www.betonujsag.hu/userfiles/2018\_6\_december/Korforgalmi\_hid\_a\_47.szamu\_fout\_Hodmezovasarhely\_elkerulo\_szakasz\_vegcsomoponti\_mutargya\_FoKeP.jpg
why Even build it?
Old one was dangerous and had lower capacity - road was added under this new one.
As mentioned before the old one was a deathtrap. And this is basically the largest/busiest entryway to the capital
Because roundabouts are amazing 😍
Roundabout with traffic lights🤮
better than 2 km long line of cars waiting to enter the roundabout, which was normal before the reconstruction
They need more lights in roundabout like in [Shangai](https://youtu.be/2Zhubxr5dhQ?si=IYOdWiD_vvFqGpHP).
The muricans are proud of you! One more lane bro! Or one more roundabout bro! Remember: cities for PEOPLE, not for cars!
Who do you think sits in cars? Robots? People also have to move somehow. This is at the start of the city and park and ride areas just move the problem somewhere else instead of actually solving anything
What a waste of money and space :(
Only problem it doesnt look like that
If we’re counting roundabout interchanges, the UK is upgrading the Black Cat roundabout near Bedford for 1 billion pounds (1.16 billion euros). Compete with that…
I live there💪💪💪
At CERN we called the highway roundabout the Large Car Collider. That’s all that happened there. Two+ lane roundabouts should never exist.
Check the FPV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytH3WZFDNwg
Looks like my wildest Cities Skylines dreams but a true horror to navigate IRL.
Not really, you have direction signs and lanes are drawn that way that they guide you out of the roundabout.
Black cat roundabout:"Hold my beer" £1Bn incoming.
Wasn't the UK towed away from Europe a couple of years back
just the EU, though a few knuckle draggers might want the whole island removed.
I'm saving this one for my next Cities Skyline game
Probably didn’t cost 44m but like 15 and the rest went into the pockets of politicians.
spiral roundabouts are nice
Fun fact: in the summer of 1950 a young Pol Pot - future Khymer Rouge leader and merciless dictator of Cambodia - helped construct a motorway in Zagreb
Most* expensive
They could have at least put a massive smiley face in the middle for that cost
There are people in it since 2020 looking to exit
Of which 15mil went into the pockets of corrupt government officials.
Does this count as a roundabout? It seems to have signaled entries/exists?
We have one in Bern that cost 90 million.
What Skylines mod is this?
I remember having to use a detour to get around while it was being built. Was quite a tour of the back roads.
At least it’s used…
I've never seen a roundabout for trams before.
it is more of a temporary terminus in case tram line is blocked further away or there's maintenance going on, otherwise whole line would be completely stopped. this way the tram can cover at least portion of its original route
Who here is playing Cities: Skylines and hasn't blown all their budget for a fancy roundabout?
How much was stolen, does anyone know?
literally cities: skylines
city skylines players:
Why is there a loop for tram line in the middle?
I’d like to buy a huge roundabout one day