TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 82nd Annual Meeting 12-16 January 2003 Session 801 Roundabouts and Low-Vision Pedestrians ROUNDABOUTS AND PEDESTRIANS WITH VISUAL DISABILITIES: How Can We Make Them Safer? Lal C. Wadhwa Head, Civil and Environmental Engineering JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY Townsville Queensland Australia P03-6042 Thursday 16 January 2003 8:00 am - 9:45 am - Marriott ROUNDABOUTS AND PEDESTRIANS WITH VISUAL DISABILITIES: How Can We Make Them Safer? Lal C. Wadhwa James Cook University Abstract Roundabouts are a common feature in Europe and Australia. They are becoming increasingly popular in the United States. Their wide-spread use is credited to increased safety, higher vehicle flow capacity and reduced delay to motorists at roundabouts compared to traditional signalised intersections. However, certain physical and operating characteristics of roundabouts such as continuous flow, curvilinear layout, longer paths for pedestrians and no stopped phase at roundabouts give rise to problems for pedestrians with vision impairment. Possible solutions include improved design procedures relating to the location of cross walks, use of traffic signals, provision of detectable warnings, etc. as well as the development of mobility and orientation aids designed to help find and pursue a safe path through the roundabouts. Roundabouts The era of modern roundabouts began in the United Kingdom in 1956 with the construction of the first "yield-at-entry" roundabout. In 1966, a nationwide yield-atentry rule launched the modern roundabout revolution. Australia and most other British-influenced countries soon built modern roundabouts. Countries such as the United States, where people drive on the right side of the road, were slower to follow, but many of these countries including France, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland have been rapidly catching up since the eighties. For example, roundabouts have greatly increased in number in France since the adoption of the yield-at-entry rule on national routes in 1983. There are an estimated 40,000 modern roundabouts worldwide and over 250 in the U.S. (with many more planned or proposed). The greatest roundabout ever built in the US. is in Clearwater Beach, Florida. It carries up to 58,000 vehicles and 8,000 pedestrians per day. Each roundabout has been an outstanding success. Roundabouts have been described as “the safest, most efficient and attractive form of traffic control in the world”. (http://www.roundabouts.net/newpage3.htm) Roundabouts slow all vehicles, provide refuges for pedestrians, and are the only traffic control device in which trees can be planted, fountains can bubble or spray, statutes can sparkle into the next century. When constructed as part of new road construction they are cheaper to build than signalised intersections. If used instead of traffic signals they save money. Their maintenance cost is almost zero. They require no electricity, no regular tuneups, no annual replacements of parts, suffer no blackouts and cannot be blown away. Modern American roundabouts have produced remarkable safety records. Since this experience is similar to the roundabout experience reported in other parts of the world, the safety of roundabouts compared to other forms of control has been well established. As a result, the number of roundabouts in the United States is expected to increase geometrically in the next decade. Physical characteristics of roundabouts Roundabouts typically feature a circulatory roadway around a central island. The centre island is raised and landscaped Roundabouts have raised or painted splitter islands at each approach that separate the entry and exit lanes of a street. These splitter islands are designed to deflect traffic and thus reduce vehicle speed. Splitter islands also provide a pedestrian refuge between the inbound and outbound traffic lanes A roundabouts is a substitute for signalisation, as well as a traffic calming device Entering traffic yields to vehicles already in the circle. Operational characteristics of roundabouts A roundabout is a form of intersection design control that accommodates traffic flow in one direction around a central island operates with ‘give way’ or ‘yield’ control at the entry points, and gives priority to vehicles within the roundabout Other operating characteristics include i. continuously moving traffic in clockwise direction (anticlockwise in US, Canada, and other right-side driving countries). ii. vehicles yield at the edge of the circulating roadway until a gap in the circulating traffic flow becomes available. iii. design speeds at the entry throat range from 25-35 km/h while the circulating flow speed are typically below 50 km/h Capacity and safety of roundabouts 1. Increase in vehicle flow capacity The primary objective of using roundabouts against other forms of intersection control is increasing the capacity of an intersection. The reasons for increase in capacity are the following: Since traffic yields rather than stops, smaller gaps can be accepted. Omission of lost time (yellow and red) results in higher capacity compared to signalised intersections, especially at isolated locations. The maximum daily service volume of a single-lane roundabout varies between 20,000 and 26,000 vehicles depending on the % of right turns and the distribution of traffic between minor and major roads. A double-lane roundabout may service 40,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day. 2. Reduction in incidence of serious vehicle crashes Roundabouts achieve crash reductions of 50 to 90 percent when compared to two and four-way stop control and signalised intersections and greatly reduced severity on those few crashes that do occur. Factors contributing to higher level of safety at roundabouts include single lane roundabouts result in increased safety because crossing distances are shortened lower overall speeds result in lesser severity pedestrian have to cross one direction of traffic at a time at each approach overall number of conflict points is reduced when compared to a traditional intersection treatment. At a four-way intersection there are 32 possible conflict points between vehicles and only eight at roundabouts. Pedestrians face six conflicts when crossing only one leg of the road whereas at a roundabout they only have two. more defined path for potentially conflicting vehicles 3. Reduction in delay and concomitant emissions Signalised intersections with no retiming during off-peak period produce unnecessary delays to stopped traffic when gaps on the other flow are available. Roundabouts have lower delays than for equivalent volume signalised intersection. Factors which contribute to increase in flow capacity also contribute to shorter delays. Analysis of Safety at Roundabouts a. Factors contributing to increased safety Vehicle safety Modern roundabouts deflect and slow entering traffic. There are a reduced number of conflict points compared to uncontrolled intersection. Lower operational speeds yield fewer and less severe accidents. Slower speeds because of intersection geometry reduce accidents Netherlands achieved 95% reduction in injuries to vehicle occupants with roundabouts. Pedestrian safety A splitter island provides a refuge for pedestrians that will increase safety. Low speeds reduce frequency and severity of pedestrian-vehicle accidents. b. Factors contributing to reduced safety for pedestrians and cyclists Difficult for visually impared pedestrians to interpret vehicle-pedestrian priority. No stopped phase for pedestrians who want security of a signal. Tight dimensions of roundabouts may create an uncomfortable feeling to bicyclists. Longer paths increase travel distances for both pedestrians and bicyclists. Roundabouts may increase delay for pedestrians seeking acceptable gaps to cross. Safety record for bicycles and motorcycles has been mixed. According to one study in the United Kingdom, the percentage of accidents involving cyclists was higher in roundabout accidents compared to other forms of intersection (Layfield and Maycock, 1986). Another survey in 1989 of mini-roundabouts in England, Scotland, and Wales found that the crash-involvement rates of motorcycles and bicycles in 50-km/h speed zones was about the same for four-leg mini-roundabouts as for four-leg signalised intersections. However, the rate for cars at the mini-roundabouts was much lower than at the intersections. International Comparison Causes of accidents at roundabouts The relative frequency of the different causes of accidents at roundabouts is shown in Table 1. In 1990, 202 accidents were investigated at 179 urban roundabouts in France. In Australia, the analysis is based on 492 roundabout accidents in Queensland. The U.K. data is from four-way roundabouts and single vehicle accidents not distinguished. Type of accident Single vehicle - entry Single vehicle - circulating Single vehicle - exit Rear end - entry Rear end - circulating Rear end - exit Multiple vehicles – entry, circulating Multiple vehicles – circulating, exiting Side-swap (multi-lanes) – entry, exit Side-swap - weaving (circulatory) Pedestrian on circulatory roadway Others Queensland Australia 5.2 10.4 2.6 16.9 1.2 0.2 50.8 6.5 2.0 1.7 -2.4 France 10.0 16.3 2.5 7.4 0.5 1.0 36.6 5.9 5.9 2.5 5.9 U.K.* 8.2 7.0 71.1 3.5 10.2 Source: B. Guichet (1992), Arndt (1998), Maycock and Hall (1984). The single largest cause of roundabout accidents is the failure to yield at entry to circulating vehicles. The other major types are single vehicle crashes including vehicle running-off the circulatory roadway. As shown in Table 1, three major crash types have been observed at roundabouts 1. entering-circulating crashes as a result of drivers failing to give way at entry. 2. rear-end collisions 3. single vehicle crashes Together these three types constitute 75-95% of all roundabout crashes and are shown as the first seven categories of accidents at roundabouts. Table 2: Proportion of major crash types at roundabouts Country Enteringcirculating Australia 51 France 37 Germany 30 Switzerland 46 UK 20-71 Rearend 22 13 28 13 7-25 Single vehicle 18 28 17 35 8-30 Subtotal 91 78 75 94 80 Crash types All injury all all injury Type of Roundabout Single & multilane Single & multilane Single lane Single & multilane Single & multilane Source: Brilon and Bondzio, 1998 in Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, FHWA, 2000 Crash rates Crash rates are expressed as average annual number of injury crashes per roundabout and per million entering vehicles. Table 3: Average annual injury crashes per roundabout and per million entering vehicles Country Australia France UK Crash frequency per roundabout million entering vehicles 0.6 0.15 0.045 3.31 0.275 US 1.5 0.08 Remarks Many high volume, multi-lane roundabouts Maryland, Florida, single-lane roundabouts Source: Various Reduction in crashes: Relative safety of roundabouts Studies have conclusively shown that there is significant reduction in the frequency of crashes on roundabouts compared to other types of intersections. In other words, roundabouts are safer as shown in Table 4. Table 4: Crash reduction: mean % reduction Country All crashes Australia 41-61 France Germany 36 Netherlands 47 UK US** 37 ** limited data Source: Guichet (1997), Garder (1998) Injury crashes 45-87 57-78 25-39 51 Since roundabouts may have been constructed to replace problem intersections with bad accident history, the rate of reduction may be overstated. It may be possible to improve the design of some roundabouts and further reduce the crash frequency. Pedestrian crashes at roundabouts The risk of pedestrians being involved in a severe collision is low because of reduced speeds at roundabouts. U.K. studies have shown a 50% reduction in crashes at roundabouts compared to other forms of intersections (Maycock and Hall, 1984, Crown, 1998). Analysis of Crash Data at Roundabouts in Queensland Australia, 1997-2002 There may be variations in the accident reporting processes and/or definition of an accident in different countries. In Queensland Australia, to qualify as valid, crashes must meet the following criteria: the crash occurs on a public road, and a person is injured, or the value of the property damage is: (a) $2500 to property other than vehicles (after 1 December 1999) (b) $2500 damage to vehicle and property (after 1 Dec. 1991- 30 Nov. 1999) or at least one vehicle was towed away. Analysis of Queensland crash data for 1997-2002 has been analysed with particular attention to pedestrians at roundabouts. However, information on visual disability is not available. It was thought that contributing circumstances might provide some insight into pedestrian disability but this has not been very revealing. Table 5 shows the number of annual pedestrian crashes by severity levels at roundabouts in Queensland for the period 1997-2002. The number of roundabouts in the State road system is shown in Table 6. Number of crashes per roundabout is shown in Table 7 Table 5: Number of Pedestrian Crashes at Roundabouts by Severity, Queensland, 1997-2002 Severity Fatal Hospitalisation Medical treatment Minor injury Total 1997 1 0 7 2 10 1998 0 6 2 6 14 1999 0 5 6 3 14 2000 0 3 8 2 13 2001 1 8 10 2 21 2002 0 4 5 6 15 Table 6: Roundabouts in Queensland, Australia Roundabouts 3-way 4-way 5- & 6- way Total 1997 69 90 11 170 1998 72 115 14 201 1999 74 119 15 208 2000 87 123 12 222 2001 88 126 11 225 2002 92 131 10 233 Table 7 : Number of Crashes by Severity per Roundabout in Queensland Severity Fatal Hospitalisation Medical treatment Minor injury Total 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.024 0.014 0.036 0.017 0.041 0.010 0.029 0.036 0.044 0.021 0.012 0.030 0.014 0.009 0.009 0.026 0.059 0.070 0.067 0.059 0.093 0.064 Total number of crashes by severity level for the period 1997-2002 at roundabouts and intersections are shown in Table 8. The data in this Table shows the relative proportion of fatal and severe injury (hospitalisation) accidents based on the type of intersection. Table 8: Queensland Data Analysis (1997-2001) Severity No. of crashes % No. of crashes % No. of crashes % fatal hospital medical minor pdo total roundabouts 8 436 898 638 1509 0.2293 12.4964 25.7380 18.2860 43.2502 controlled 196 4670 8006 4733 12616 0.6486 15.4528 26.4915 15.6613 41.7458 uncontrolled 1226 13785 16613 9481 29017 1.7484 19.6586 23.6916 13.5207 41.3807 3489 100 30221 100 70122 100 The proportion of fatal crashes at roundabouts is only 0.23% compared to 0.65% at controlled intersections and about 1.75% at uncontrolled intersection. Therefore, compared to roundabouts, the probability of a crash resulting in a fatality is 3 times greater at controlled intersection and about 8 times higher at uncontrolled intersection. The effect of speed and the number of lanes (single-lane and multiple-lane roundabouts) on the relative level of severity of accidents is shown in Table 9. Special attention is paid to the accident severity and frequency in zones with speed below and above 60 km/h. Table 9: Effect of number of lanes, 2000 and 2001 Speed zone km/h fatal Proportion of hospital medical minor pdo total fatal accidents, % single lane 63 68 27 94 255 1.1765 137 202 111 299 755 0.7947 200 270 138 393 1010 0.8911 0-50 51-60 0-60 3 6 9 61-80 81-100 >100 >60 12 29 1 42 58 226 5 289 38 176 1 215 77 206 322 845 6 14 405 1065 5.8252 3.432 7.1429 3.9437 0-50 51-60 0-60 18 84 102 479 2193 2672 multilane 647 379 1036 2559 3329 1914 4753 12273 3976 2293 5789 14832 0.7034 0.6844 0.6877 61-80 81-100 >100 > 60 63 790 897 509 1406 3665 170 1436 1218 614 2263 5701 19 103 82 49 187 440 252 2329 2197 1172 3856 9806 1.719 2.9819 4.3182 2.57 21 92 1 114 The above Table shows that Less than 1% of all crashes at roundabouts in speeds upto 60 kmph are fatal crashes. This proportion increases to 4 times in higher speed zones. The proportion of fatal crashes is slightly lower on multi-lane roundabouts. Statement of the problem: Implications for vision impaired Since crossing a roundabout requires a pedestrian to visually select a safe gap between cars that may not stop, accessibility for people with vision impairment has been problematic. Specific problems that exist for the visually impaired pedestrians trying to cross roundabouts include 1. continuously moving traffic may reduce the pedestrian crossing opportunities 2. traffic may block the cross walk 3. visually impaired pedestrians relying upon their hearing to detect gaps in traffic may have difficulty crossing roadway approaches 4. vision-impaired pedestrians listen for gaps in traffic to detect when it is safe to cross an entry or exit lane. These pedestrians may be unable to detect gaps with constantly moving traffic as traffic noise may never abate. Traffic in the circulating lane of the roundabout may mask other noises. 5. there is no stopped phase for pedestrians who want the security of a signal. 6. longer paths increase travel distances for both pedestrians and cyclists. 7. pedestrians seeking acceptable gaps to cross face increased delays. With traffic signals and stop sign intersections, break in traffic flow provide identifiable and predictable periods (gaps) during which pedestrians can cross. Such breaks usually do not occur at roundabouts. Research suggests that selection of appropriate gaps at roundabouts is problematic for visually impaired at roundabouts. Circulating vehicles can mask the sounds of entering or exiting traffic making it difficult to identify an appropriate time to cross. At entry leg, it may not be clear from auditory information whether a driver intends to yield to a waiting pedestrian. Yielding behaviour may be difficult to detect. At exit legs, auditory information may not be adequate to reliably convey whether circulating vehicles will exit or continue around the circulatory roadway. The curvilinear layout of roundabouts poses difficulty in obtaining information about the location and direction of the crosswalk. Sidewalks (footpaths) often curve in large arcs and seldom lead directly to crosswalks. Different sources of information are required to locate crosswalk. 1. Key problems faced by visually impaired pedestrians wishing to cross a roundabout. The key street-crossing tasks for the visually impaired include: a. detecting the intersection b. locating the crosswalk and aligning the body in the direction of the crosswalk c. detecting an appropriate break in traffic flow d. orienting or aligning body to the crossing direction These are shown in Figure 1. Key problem areas detecting the intersection (roundabout) locating the crosswalk and splitter island detecting an appropriate break in traffic flow – safe crossing opportunity Orienting or aligning the body – crossing direction In spite of the increasing popularity and safety benefits of roundabouts, visually impaired pedestrians face serious access problems due to difficulties experienced in determining appropriate times to begin crossing, locating cross walks, aligning to cross the street and maintaining their heading while crossing. It has been suggested that pedestrians are discouraged from manoeuvring roundabouts but the degree to which pedestrian volume (specially vision impaired pedestrians) changes when an intersection with signals or stop sign control are converted to roundabouts is unknown. The problems faced by visually impaired pedestrians are the result of inherent characteristics of roundabouts, as shown in Figure 2. 2. Inherent roundabout characteristics causing problems. Inherent characteristics of roundabouts Curvilinear layout – difficulty in detecting location and direction of crosswalk At entry, yielding behaviour difficult to detect from auditory info. - difficulty in identifying appropriate time to cross Circulating traffic masks sounds of entering/exiting vehicles difficulty in identifying appropriate time to cross At exit, difficult to detect continuing or exiting – difficulty in identifying appropriate time to leave splitter island Analysis of problem: Requirements for Safe Crossing by Visually Impaired Pedestrians The visually impaired pedestrian embarking on manoeuvring a roundabout needs information about a. the location of cross walk which may be provided by landscaping, pedestrian barriers and other architectural features standardised detectable strip across the sidewalk kerb ramps with returned edges aligned with crosswalk direction sufficiently steep kerb ramp slope to be detected underfoot aligning the slope of the ramp with the crosswalk b. the location of splitter island signal the presence of a pedestrian refuge detectable warnings mark the beginning and end of a safe pedestrian area about 60 cm of detectable warning surface is required c. crossing direction remaining in the crosswalk ultra-high contrast marking raising or otherwise marking the crosswalk edges to provide a boundary providing a raised guide strip at the centreline of the crosswalk constant-contact cane technique d. safe crossing opportunities likelihood of drivers giving way to pedestrians crossing in front of stopped vehicle stop bars and LED in-roadway warning lights signals may be necessary to provide street crossing opportunities signals must optimise roundabout operations for both pedestrians and drivers Possible design solutions Approaches to making roundabouts safer for pedestrians with visual disabilities should aim towards making them accessible. An accessible intersection is a street crossing that is usable by pedestrians who have mobility, cognitive, and/or sensory impairments. Intersection accessibility can be evaluated in a new or altered facility by a comparison to accessibility standards for new construction and alterations promulgated under several Federal statutes or adopted by a State or local government. Design Issues safety and accident prediction capacity and delays location design considerations: design vehicle, design speed, sight distance, deflection, central island, circulating roadway, entries and exits, splitter islands, signing, and landscaping bicycle considerations pedestrian considerations. Consistency in Design Features Similar design and operational features are highly desirable. These include consistency in location of crosswalks design of splitter islands use of bollards and pedestrian barriers use of landscaping features Some Possible Solutions 1. consider using an ‘all red’ pedestrian-actuated signal to stop traffic on demand. 2. a pedestrian-activated signal equipped with locator tones can also assist people with visual disabilities. 3. minimise crossing distances by making crosswalks as straight as possible 4. cues used for identifying that a street is just ahead and for determining when to cross include a. traffic sounds b. orientation and slope of kerb ramps c. textural differences between the street and sidewalk d. detectable warning underfoot e. locator tones at pedestrian pushbuttons f. audible or vibrotactile information from accessible pedestrian signals (APS) 5. other design elements to be considered for improving safety of low-vision pedestrians may include a. stop lines set back from cross walks b. providing two wheelchair ramps per corner c. defining sidewalk edges d. uniform placement of pedestrian push buttons e. reducing corner radii f. extending medians into crosswalks g. eliminating merge lanes and left turn lanes as far as possible Roundabouts may be unsuitable where there are large numbers of pedestrians. The major design recommendations derived from the studies are: Ensure motorists recognize the approach to the roundabout. Avoid entries and exits with two or more lanes except for capacity requirements. Separate the exit and entry by a splitter (ghost) island. Avoid perpendicular entries or very large radii. Avoid very tight exit radii. Avoid oval-shaped roundabouts. Technologies "Wayfinding" refers to the techniques used by people who are blind or visually impaired as they move from place to place independently. The techniques are commonly divided into skills concerning orientation and mobility. Technologies designed to assist the visually impaired persons in orientation enhance the ability to monitor one’s position in relationship to the environment. These technologies help the visually impaired in identifying the directionality and distance of objects. The mobility aids are designed to help find and pursue a safe path through the environment. These technologies improve the ability to travel safely by detecting and avoiding obstacles and other potential hazards. Long canes and guide dogs are commonly used by people who are totally blind, and optical systems are generally used by people with low vision. Technologies Mobility - aids designed to help find and pursue a safe path through the environment Ultrasonic devices: SonicGuide Sonic Pathfinder Mowat sensor Nurion Polaron Laser Cane Orientation and navigation – aids designed to identify directionality and distance of objects Infrared technologies: Talking signs electronic and talking compasses improved tactile maps virtual reality maps GPS remote sighted guide concept smart vision Mobility Aids The SonicGuide consists of a wide bandwidth FM sonar transmitter and two receiver transducers mounted on eyeglasses. Audio feedback provided range information coded as pitch and direction coded as an interaural amplitude difference. The timbre of the signal indicated the texture or characteristics of the object being detected. A refinement of this approach is the Kaspa system. The Sonic Pathfinder is a head-mounted, pulse-echo sonar system controlled by a microcomputer that utilizes a musical scale tone progression as the user approaches an object. The microcomputer supplies intelligence which presents only the most important/closest target to the user at one time. The Mowat sensor is a hand-held ultrasonic obstacle detector that gives vibratory codes according to range. The Nurion Polaron is another hand-held ultrasonic device based on the Polaroid camera rangefinder sensor, and can be hand-carried or worn around the neck. The Laser Cane, with laser sensors built into the cane and auditory and vibratory feedback, is also designed to indicate approaching obstacles. This device can also detect dropoffs. Orientation Aids Talking Signs, developed at Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, are permanently installed infrared transmitters communicating human voice messages to a hand-held receiver carried by the user. The directionality of infrared beams helps the user locate the source of the message from a distance. 1,000 Talking Signs have been installed in San Francisco, including in a three-level transit station, bus stops, buses, public buildings, private businesses, and traffic intersections. Other remote signage systems have been proposed and developed using infrared or other technologies. Some emerging orientation innovations include: electronic and talking compasses, improved methods of producing tactile maps, development of virtual reality maps allowing the capability to pan and zoom and overcoming some of the limitations of tactile materials, and use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) Future technological development may lead to the "remote sighted guide concept" whereby a user could transmit a picture of the scene to a sighted person for interpretation. Computer vision or "smart vision" techniques also hold out the prospect of sophisticated software allowing analysis of pictures taken by a camera in order to find the object or information the user is looking for. Some organisations dealing with problems related to visually impaired National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research NCHRP ADA The Access Board American Council of the Blind Interagency Committee on Disability Research (ICDR) Accessible Design for the Blind, Inc The Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER) The seeing Eye References (1) E.J. Myers. Press release on Lisbon, Md., roundabout; Hurst-Rosche Engineers, Cockeysville, Md., April 13, 1995. (2) P. Wessel. Information transmittal from Santa Barbara Public Works Department to Peter I. Doctors, March 16, 1995. (3) J. Goodway. Report by the Las Vegas Public Works Department, May 4, 1995. (4) L. Ourston. "Nonconforming Traffic Circle Becomes Modern Roundabout," Unpublished report to Caltrans, October 1994. (5) P. DeAragao. "Circles and Roundabouts: An Historic Review," Actes du Seminaire "Giratoires 92," Nantes, France, Oct. 14-16, 1992. Research conducted by the Institute of Transportation and Planning, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland. (6) P.H. Bovy. "Spectacular Growth of Roundabouts in Switzerland: From 19 to 720 Roundabouts in 15 Years," Actes du Seminaire "Giratoires 92," Nantes, France, Oct. 14-16, 1992. Research conducted by the Institute of Transportation and Planning, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland. (7) A. Dagersten. "Roundabouts in Switzerland and Sweden, Thesis 72," Department of Traffic Planning and Engineering, Institute of Technology, University of Lund, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1992. (8) T. Giaever. "Application, Design, and Safety of Roundabouts in Norway," Actes du Seminaire "Giratoires 92," Nantes, France, Oct. 14-16, 1992. Research conducted by the Foundation for Scientific and Industrial Research at the Norwegian Institute of Technology. (9) F. Nunes da Silva. "The New Roundabouts in Portugal," Actes du Seminaires "Giratoires 92," Nantes, France, Oct. 14-16, 1992. Research conducted by the Graduate Technical Institute, Lisbon, Portugal. (10) C. Shoon and J. Van Minnen. "The Safety of Roundabouts in the Netherlands," Traffic Engineering and Control, March 1994, pp. 142-148. (11) Lauer. Center for Urban Transportation Studies, France. (12) T. Brenac. "Roundabouts in France: Development, Level of Safety," Actes du Seminaire "Giratoires 92," Nantes, France, Oct. 14-16, 1992. Research conducted at the National Institute of Research on Transportation and Safety, Provence, France. (13) W. Brilon and B. Stuwe. "Roundabouts in Germany: Recent Results Regarding Capacity and Safety," Actes du Seminaire "Giratoires 92," Nantes, France, Oct. 1416, 1992. (14) G. Maycock and R.D. Hall. Accidents at 4-Arm Roundabouts , Transport and Road Research Laboratory, United Kingdom, 1984. (15) P. DeAragao. "Mini-Roundabouts in Switzerland," Actes du Seminaire "Giratoires 92," Nantes, France, Oct. 14-16, 1992. Research conducted at the Institute of Transportation and Planning, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland. (16) B. Guichet. "Mini-Roundabouts in France," Actes du Seminaire "Giratoires 92," Nantes, France, Oct. 14-16, 1992. Research conducted by the Center for Technical Studies of the Western Facilities, Nantes, France. (17) R.E. Layfield and G. Maycock. "Pedal-Cyclists at Roundabouts," Traffic Engineering and Control, June 1986, pp. 343-349. (18) B. Guichet. "Classification of Accidents on Urban Roundabouts," Actes du Seminaire "Giratoires 92," Nantes, France, Oct. 14-16, 1992. Research conducted by the Center for Technical Studies of the Western Facilities, Nantes, France. (19) J. Menard. "Lighting of Roundabouts," Actes du Seminaire "Giratoires 92," Nantes, France, Oct. 14-16, 1992. Research conducted by the Center for Technical Studies of Facilities, Normandie, France (20) http://www.access-board.gov/news/roundabouts-bulletin.htm (21) Jacquemart, G., “Modern Roundabout Practice in the United States” Transportation Research Board, Washington DC 1998; NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 264 (22) Robinson, Bruce W.; Rodegerdts, Lee; Scarborough, Wade; Kittelson, Wayne; Troutbeck, Rod; Brilon, Werner; Bondzio, Lothar; Courage, Ken; Kyte, Michael; Mason, John; Flannery, Aimee; Myers, Edward; Bunker, Jonathan; Jacquemart, Georges “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide” Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, McLean VA 2000, FHWA-RD-00-067 (23) Bared, J.G.; Prosser, W.; Esse, C.T., “State-of-the-Art Design of Roundabouts” Transportation Research Record, No. 1579, 1997, pp. 1-10 (24) Interagency Committee on Disability Research (ICDR), Interagency Subcommitee on Technology, Wayfinding Technology Workshop, September 28, 1999, National Science Foundation Board Room, Arlington, Virginia (25) http://www.apbp.org/rid2001.pdf