This actually makes quite a lot of sense even if it takes longer to get around. My guess is it significantly reduces accidents because you are only crossing/joining one direction of travel at a time instead of two.
The Michigan left would still allow traffic to go straight at the intersection with a wide median (where a freeway was planned). This requires the sidestreet to redirect to the u-turn even if going straight.
These prevent people from having to take a dangerous left turn across multiple lanes of traffic on a wide road with fast-moving traffic. It allows them to turn right first, then do a U-turn
Yeah, I can't see how this is in any way safer than a standard intersection with a turn lane. For what it cost to build you could easily have put in a traffic signal if you are worried about safety. I think this is a solution looking for a problem.
@@steveb9151rather than looking traffic in both directions mainly (constantly turning the head left and right), the driver has to just look left when making a right turn. Then just has to look at oncoming traffic making the u-turn.
Traffic lights are insanely dangerous on high-speed rural expressways. Having to stop at high speeds increases red light running and angle crashes. And the volumes here are likely too low to warrant a signal.
This actually makes quite a lot of sense even if it takes longer to get around. My guess is it significantly reduces accidents because you are only crossing/joining one direction of travel at a time instead of two.
Accident prevention is one reason for using these.
Please explain, why am I watching this?
Thats a michigan left..... what you yall saying?
The Michigan left would still allow traffic to go straight at the intersection with a wide median (where a freeway was planned). This requires the sidestreet to redirect to the u-turn even if going straight.
This looks 1937.
Why? An explanation would be helpful.
These prevent people from having to take a dangerous left turn across multiple lanes of traffic on a wide road with fast-moving traffic. It allows them to turn right first, then do a U-turn
@@homuraakemi9556 I'm sorry...I still don't get it. Motorists are still making a dangerous left turn across multiple lanes of traffic.
Yeah, I can't see how this is in any way safer than a standard intersection with a turn lane. For what it cost to build you could easily have put in a traffic signal if you are worried about safety.
I think this is a solution looking for a problem.
This has drivers dealing with only one direction of traffic at a time instead of looking for an opening both ways at once. A unique approach.
@@steveb9151rather than looking traffic in both directions mainly (constantly turning the head left and right), the driver has to just look left when making a right turn. Then just has to look at oncoming traffic making the u-turn.
they're called traffic lights, ever heard of 'em?
Traffic lights are insanely dangerous on high-speed rural expressways. Having to stop at high speeds increases red light running and angle crashes. And the volumes here are likely too low to warrant a signal.
@@traffic.engineer fair enough
This looks wholly and completely unnecessary.
If you do not believe in safety and efficiency.