Gullixson: Traffic circles have county tied up in 'nots'

What is it about roundabouts that cause so many to get into a tizzy?

They’ve become the centrifuge of local politics, the place where otherwise grounded individuals go to lose their bearings and their balance - and say things that just don’t make sense.

And there’s evidence of it throughout the county - from Petaluma to Healdsburg, from Glen Ellen to Forestville - and in our letters to the editor.

“Roundabouts are confusing and dangerous,” wrote a Petaluma resident last week, encouraging Healdsburg folks to reject a roundabout south of downtown. “Come to Petaluma and ask the men and women on the street what they think of the city’s many turning circles. I have yet to meet a Petaluman who likes them.”

Really?

“This is a waste of government money,” said a west county woman in opposition last year to a roundabout being built in Forestville at Highway 116 and Mirabel Road. “It will ruin this little town.”

Ruin? Honestly?

“I hate it,” flatly stated a resident of Glen Ellen in a PD story about a roundabout installed on Arnold Drive outside the Hanna Boys Center.

It’s an issue that just seems to have many tied up in “nots” - as in “not in my city,” “not in my back yard,” “not in my way.”

Of course, the most egregious example of this dead-end thinking was in progressive, open-minded Cotati, where city planners and transportation experts had developed an attractive plan for calming traffic on Old Redwood Highway through the center of town by installing a couple of roundabouts and crosswalks. But the fear-mongers came out in force making the whole proposal into a three-ring circus. And in the end, Cotati not only overturned the plan, it banned roundabouts - forever. The approval of Measure U two years ago also cost the city more than $1 million in federal grant money targeted for the project.

All of this is so silly.

These arguments also have come up in our editorial endorsement interviews with city council candidates running in the Nov. 4 election. In particular, the debate is simmering in Windsor, where roundabouts are going in on Old Redwood Highway as part of the new Oliver’s grocery store, and in Healdsburg, where one is targeted for the five-way stop where Healdsburg Avenue, Mill and Vine streets all converge with the railroad tracks.

“It is the fear of the unknown,” summarized Eric Ziedrich, a former Healdsburg City Council member and roundabout supporter who is looking to regain a seat at the dais. “I just wish there was some way to drop one in so that they could experiment with it.”

That would certainly be a solution. But I’m not sure even that would get some people to yield to common sense.

Opponents get themselves wrapped up in circular reasoning - arguments that keep coming back to the same axiom that because we’ve never had roundabouts before, therefore, we don’t need them.

The standard rebutal, of course, is the European one - as in go there and see for yourself. Roundabouts work fine abroad, so why are Americans so afraid? Having driven in Europe - and survived several rounds, most of them intentional, with that Hydra of all roundabouts known as the Arc de Triomphe - I certainly would agree with this argument. Traffic circles are plentiful in Europe. Plentiful, easy and sensible. If you’re opposed to them, my recommendation is to stay away from the Netherlands and Belgium - and Spain, Ireland and Germany.

Also, don’t drive in Italy, Israel, Australia, China, Hungary, Indonesia, Malaysia and Morocco either. And while you’re at it, check Poland, New Zealand, South Africa and Trinidad and Tobago off your list. And for heaven’s sake, forget about France. There are more traffic circles in France than there are residents in Windsor. No joke.

Hey, even the Brits have figured out roundabouts without killing themselves, and they don’t even drive on the right side of the road.

But one doesn’t have to cross an ocean to see that roundabouts function well. There are plenty of examples nearby from Berkeley and Oakland down to the South Bay. The fact is roundabouts are no more difficult to manage than merging onto a highway. And the upsides are many. They speed up traffic flow. They reduce idling. They often allow for pedestrian traffic where none would be sanely considered, and they don’t go dark when the power goes out.

But here’s the best argument. No T-boning. When accidents occur at roundabouts, the worst are side-swipes, fender-benders and people losing tempers. At other intersections, the worst is people lose something far greater such as their lives or those of their loved ones.

When traffic lights turn green these days, I regularly count how many cars go through before it’s safe for me to pull out. One day recently at a crossroads on Highway 12 in Santa Rosa, I got to five. By the time the fifth car came through, my light had been green for some time.

So I’m left to ask, what is it about the status quo that makes roundabouts too much of a risk?

A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that roundabouts reduced injury accidents by?75 percent at intersections that previously had stop signs or signals. Traffic deaths declined 90 percent.

Sometimes change is a good thing, and what should be clear is that we aren’t going to change people like that fifth driver. But, hopefully, we can lessen the impact of their stupidity. Roundabouts are one way to do that.

So let’s put aside some of these loopy arguments - and move on.