Counting Conflict Points

Intersection safety

Counting conflict points

A conflict point is a place where two vehicle paths cross, merge or split, or where a vehicle path meets a crosswalk. Crashes at an intersection happen at these points. A single-lane compact roundabout cuts them from 32 to 8 and removes every crossing conflict.1

328
Vehicle conflict points
Four-leg intersection · compact roundabout
Show conflicts
Follow one trip from the south

Four-leg intersection

Stop or signal control · one lane each way

32
conflict points
start ↑

Compact roundabout

Single lane · entering traffic yields · counter-clockwise

8
conflict points
start ↑
Point at any symbol
Hover or tap a conflict point to see which movements meet there. Solid highlighted paths are the movement named first; dashed paths are the traffic it meets.

Schematic plans: lane widths and turning paths are drawn for legibility, not to scale. Counts assume one lane on each approach and follow FHWA's Roundabouts: An Informational Guide (Exhibits 5-2, 5-5, 5-6). Pedestrian conflicts at the intersection use FHWA's signalized-intersection count: four per crosswalk.1

The type matters as much as the count

Red crossing conflicts are where right-angle and left-turn crashes happen, at whatever speed drivers arrive. A roundabout has none. Its merges and diverges happen at low speed and at shallow angles, which lowers the relative speed when a crash does happen.1

Follow a left turn above: the count only drops from 8 to 6, but 4 of the intersection's 8 are crossings.

82%from two-way stop
78%from signal

Fewer fatal and injury crashes after converting an intersection to a roundabout. FHWA lists roundabouts as a Proven Safety Countermeasure.2

FHWA-SA-21-042, citing Highway Safety Manual crash modification factors.

−72%injury crashes, all users
−89%pedestrians
−30%cyclists

181 Dutch intersections converted to roundabouts. Cyclists gained the least. Part 2 looks at why, and what Dutch designers changed.4

Schoon & van Minnen (SWOV, 1993), as reported in FHWA (2000), Exhibit 5-16.

Sources

  1. FHWA (2000). Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, FHWA-RD-00-067. Ch. 5: Exhibits 5-2 (32 vs. 8 vehicle conflicts), 5-5 and 5-6 (pedestrian conflicts), p. 121 (European bicycle practice). Ch. 1: Exhibit 1-7 and §1.6.3 (urban compact roundabouts).
  2. FHWA (2021). Proven Safety Countermeasures: Roundabouts, FHWA-SA-21-042, citing AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (2010) CMFs 211 and 226. FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures.
  3. Daniels, S., Brijs, T., Nuyts, E., & Wets, G. (2009). Injury crashes with bicyclists at roundabouts: influence of some location characteristics and the design of cycle facilities. Journal of Safety Research, 40(2), 141–148. Table 10.
  4. Schoon, C., & van Minnen, J. (1993). Accidents on Roundabouts II, SWOV R-93-16; van Minnen, J. (1996), SWOV. Both as reported in FHWA (2000), Exhibit 5-16 and p. 121. Figures taken from FHWA's summary, not the SWOV originals.
  5. National Academies (2023). Guide for Roundabouts, NCHRP Research Report 1043; summarized in Pochowski, A., & Nan, R. (2024), New guidance paves the way for better bicyclist experiences at roundabouts, Kittelson & Associates.
  6. Andersen, T. (2019). Roundabouts in urban and rural areas, and mini-roundabouts. Cycling Embassy of Denmark.
  7. Siegel, R., Groot, T., & Andriesse, R. De rotonde van de toekomst. Goudappel (Dutch; cites CROW guidance on priority and cycle-track distance).
  8. City of Bend (2024). Roundabout Design Manual. §2.1.2 and Table 1 (compact roundabouts), §2.1.6 (separated roundabouts), §10.3.4 (splitter islands).
  9. Active Travel England. Introduction to roundabouts (refers to LTN 1/20, §10.7).
  10. Essex, S. (2024). Dutch Style Roundabouts Briefing Note. Transport Initiatives.
  11. U.S. Access Board (2023). Notable changes in the PROWAG final rule, R306.4.2.