this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2026
866 points (99.3% liked)

News

39325 readers
2232 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Piggies are getting scareddddd

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 31 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

I’m with you on everything except roundabouts. For moderate traffic intersections, they are more efficient than stoplights and stop signs. Opposition to them seems largely confined to those who regard wide arcs and looking left for other traffic as unreasonable demands against their intellect.

[–] innermachine@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

Roundabouts are also better for the environment because they reduce fuel usage, and are better for people because they reduce accidents by a non insignificant amount! Not to mention less time stopped looking at brake lights. The only reason to stick with stop lamps is ignorance / space restraints, as I believe the main draw back to rotary intersections is they require a bit more real estate. But then u can put cute planters and shit in the middle so 🤷

[–] QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I found roundabouts a bit scary when I was a new driver, but now I think they're fun! Quite a brilliant architectural solution, I think.

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 days ago

You are 100% correct in your evaluation.

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

Opposition lies in last years $2M roundabout now choosing $10M fort the next 4 they now need to build in a wooded area they want to clearcut for new mcmansions as a giveaway to local demo/construction kickbacks and large out of state homebuilder orgs

[–] kestrel7_7@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Opposition to them seems largely confined to those who regard wide arcs and looking left for other traffic as unreasonable demands against their intellect.

Honestly, I like a roundabout and I can handle them just fine. However. Most of my fellow drivers cannot. There's a couple near my house. When they were newly installed I was like, OK, people suck at using these things now, but they're new. That was 15 years ago. People still suck just as much at using them.

If it requires special training and awareness, it's not a good solution for American traffic patterns.

[–] ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

If it requires special training and awareness, it’s not a good solution for American traffic patterns.

I think the issue you're pointing to is that some drivers aren't good at driving, and that puts others at risk. If that's the case, I agree; there are a lot of bad drivers on the road, but that's a problem everywhere, not just in America. I'd say that overall American drivers are, excuse the pun, middle-of-the-road when it comes to safety. Addressing the claim that if something takes special training and awareness then it's not a good solution: driving in itself requires special training and awareness. Every driver on the road is required to have taken a driving test and receive a state-issued license. But that doesn't stop people from disregarding rules and breaking laws. Even great drivers will make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes will have deadly consequences.

We cannot eliminate driver error without removing drivers, which will never happen in places with car-centric infrastructure and culture. What we can do is mitigate risks and reduce the severity of collisions when they inevitably occur. The data show that roundabouts are safer and more efficient than other forms of traffic control, and when collisions do happen, they happen at much lower speeds and oblique angles, which lowers the risk of injury and reduces cost of repairs.

The argument that roundabouts are bad because it means learning how to use them is an indictment against drivers, not roundabouts.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 0 points 3 days ago

Most accidents happen on straight roads, not roundabouts. My statistics are made up, but they're probably not wrong.