The Islamic University Gaza

Research & Graduate Affairs

Faculty of Engineering
Master of Civil Engineering - Infrastructure

Driver Behavior at Roundabouts

Gaza City as a Case Study
--
Submitted by
Abdullah Ahmed Ewaida
Supervised by

Dr. Essam Almasri

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Degree of Master in Civil Engineering- Infrastructure
The Islamic University of Gaza, Palestine

January, 2015

DEDICATION

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First and foremost I would like to thank God for giving me

inspiration, ability, and discipline to make it through.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to Dr.
Essam Almasri, for his unconditional guidance, patience, and
encouragement at each step of this research.
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation also to
lecturers at the Islamic University from whom I learned much and
developed my skills during my study period.

II

ABSTRACT
The traffic capacity of the roundabout depends on several factors which include the
geometry of the roundabout, the diversity of vehicles, and driver behavior. This
research focuses on the study of driver behavior at roundabout and the influencing
factors, especially the behavior of giving priority right. Usually, the priority right is
for vehicles inside the roundabout, while the vehicles on the roads leading to it have
to wait and look for accepted gap. However, the driver behavior in Gaza is different.
The driver is more reckless; it was noted that a large proportion of drivers in the
approaching traffic does not give priority to the circulating flow and in many cases
circulating flow is forced to stop and wait for a gap to move; where this behavior
affects the performance of the roundabout.
The main objectives of the study are to identify the percent of drivers who are familiar
with traffic law at the roundabout especially priority right rule, as well as the percent
of the drivers real application of the priority rule and analyze the reasons behind that.
The study also aims to develop solutions and recommendations may lead to increase
awareness and improve the behavior of drivers at roundabouts.
To achieve these goals, two main roundabouts in Gaza City were selected for the
study (ALjala and Ansar), and a questionnaire was utilized to drivers after crossing the
roundabout. At the same time, video was recorded by a camera placed in a suitable
location near the roundabout to monitor the real driver behavior and to find out his/her
application extent for the priority right rule. Several driver characteristics (such as
age, gender, monthly income, level of education, years of experience - etc.) were
linked to the knowledge of the driver about traffic laws and his/her behavior at
roundabouts to determine the possible impact of that factors on drivers familiarity
with traffic laws and their behavior. Two questionnaires were also designed for traffic
police and driving schools to check their support and acceptance of the advantages of
the roundabout. These questionnaires also aim to know the factors affecting the driver
behavior and the best ways to improve the awareness and the traffic culture of drivers.
After analyzing driver survey data, results showed that 88% of the study sample(390)
knows the base of priority right, while the practical results obtained from video
analysis proved that only about 30% of the sample gave priority right at the
roundabout. This may be due to several reasons such as lack of strict measures against
violators; a small diameter of central island; a number of drivers have obtained their
driving license since a long time; and media don't make its role in awareness of
drivers with roundabout traffic laws. When characteristics of drivers were linked to
their familiarity and knowledge of roundabout traffic laws and their real behavior, the
relationship was weak and not more than 13.4%. About 95% of the traffic police
sample supported the benefits of the roundabout when compared to other types of
intersections. Approximately 98% of respondents confirmed that there is an urgent
need to pass messages to increase awareness and improve driver traffic culture
through media and social networking sites.
Based on the results of this research, it is recommended that the traffic police must
take strict measures against violators; the media should take its role in improving
awareness of drivers with traffic laws at the roundabout; the municipality should work
to improve the geometry of the roundabout; and to increase the means of safety by
applying proper road markings and traffic signs at the intersection.
III

. (

---

.


(390



.


%.

13.4 %95
. 98%

.





.

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION .... I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .... II
ABSTRACT ... III

ABSTRACT (ARABIC).... IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS............V
LIST OF FIGURES....IX
LIST OF TABELS....XII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.........XIII

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .....1

1.1 Background ...1
1.2 Problem Statement .1
1.3 Research Objectives ...2
1.4 Research Significance ...2
1.5 Research Scope .....2
1.6 Research Methodology ..2
1.7 Thesis Organization ...3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1 Introduction ..4
2.2 History and Evolution of Roundabouts ....4
2.3 The Beginnings of the Modern Roundabout 5
2.4 The Difference Between Roundabouts and Traffic Circle/ Rotaries ......... 5
2.5 Types of Roundabouts ......6
2.6 Operational and Physical Characteristics of Roundabouts.............................................8
2.7 Appropriate Sites for Roundabouts ...12
2.8 Roundabouts Advantages .12
2.9 How to Use Roundabout .13
2.10 Methods of Roundabout Capacity Evaluation .15
V

2.10.1 Empirical Method .15

2.10.1.1 The UK Capacity Formula 15
2.10.1.2 Germanys Capacity Formula ...17
2.10.2 Analytical Method ....17
2.10.2.1 Tanner's Basic Capacity Equation ....................................................18
2.10.2.2 aaSIDRA Gap-Acceptance Method .18
2.11 Previous Studies...19
2.12 Summary .....23
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...24
3.1 Introduction ..24
3.2 Stages of the Study ....25
3.2.1 Design of Initial Questionnaire .25
3.2.2 The Preparatory Stage or Pilot Study ....25
3.2.3 Analysis of Pilot Study 25
3.2.4 Design of Final Questionnaire ..25
3.2.4.1 Driver Questionnaire ..25
3.2.4.2 Traffic Police Questionnaire ......26
3.2.4.3 Driving School Questionnaire 27
3.2.5 Sample Size Determination ..27
3.2.6 Selection of Study Site .27
3.2.7 Data Collection Stage ...30
3.2.7.1 Driver Questionnaire .30
3.2.7.2 Traffic Police Questionnaire ...31
3.2.7.3 Driving School Questionnaire .31
3.2.8 Linking the Required Variables with Driver Questionnaire Data ..31
3.2.8.1 Vehicle Variables 31
3.2.8.2 Driver Characteristics ..31
3.2.8.3 Video Analysis ..32
3.2.9 Statistical Analysis for Data and Information Obtained
VI

..32

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS &ANALYSIS .33

4.1 Introduction ....33
4.2 Data Description .....33
4.3 Driver Questionnaire Analysis .33
4.3.1 Vehicle Questions 33
4.3.2 Driver Characteristics ..35
4.3.3 The First Field: The Knowledge about Traffic Laws at Roundabout.40
4.3.4 The Second Field: Behavior at Roundabout...47
4.3.5 The Third Field : The Awareness and Satisfaction ..47
4.3.6 The Difference in Answers Between the Two Roundabouts ...57
4.4 Video Analysis........58
4.4.1 Data Description .....58
4.4.2 Data Analysis...58
4.4.3 Wrong Behaviours at Roundabout .61

4.5 Linking of Driver Characteristics to Questionnaire and Video Data .63

4.6 Traffic Police Questionnaire...70
4.6.1 The First Field: The knowledge about Traffic Laws at Roundabout..70
4.6.2 The Second Field: The Factors Affect Driver Behaviour at
Roundabout . 71
4.6.3 The Third Field: The Reasons of Accidents at Roundabout ..72
4.6.4 The Fourth Field: Awareness and Satisfaction...72
4.7 Driving Schools Questionnaire 73
4.7.1 The First Field: Training ....73
4.7.2 The Second Field: The Reasons of Accidents at roundabout.74
4.7.3 The Third Field: Awareness and Traffic Culture....74
4.7.4 The Fourth Field: The Practical Test .75
4.8 Summary

.75

VII

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ..76

5.1 Summary ...76
5.2 Conclusions ...76
5.3 Recommendations .79
5.4 Further Study .79
References ...80
APPENDIXES 82
ANNEX1: Questionnaires in Arabic...82
ANNEX2: Questionnaires in English .....93
ANNEX3: Data linking .....103

VIII

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure (2.1): Compact roundabout ..7
Figure (2.2): Normal roundabout .7
Figure (2.3): Double roundabout with central Link ....8
Figure (2.4): Physical characteristics of roundabouts ...11
Figure (2.5): Conflict points comparison between roundabout and normal intersection
(FHWA,2013) .13
Figure (2.6): Conflict points comparison between roundabout and T intersection
(FHWA,2013) .13

Figure (2.7): Roundabout safety features ..14

Figure (3.1) : General Location for Gaza City ..28
Figure (3.2) : ALjala roundabout ...29
Figure (3.3) : Ansar roundabout ...30
Figure (4.1): Vehicles types & its percentages34
Figure (4.2):Transmission types & its percentages.34
Figure (4.3): Manufacture year & its percentages...35
Figure (4.4): Male & female Percentages .35
Figure (4.5): Drivers age percentages ...36
Figure (4.6): Driver experience years & their percentages..37
Figure (4.7): Educational level percentages for drivers...37
Figure (4.8): Year of getting driving license for drivers 38
Figure (4.9): Drivers job & their percentages.39
Figure (4.10): Drivers salary & their percentages ..40

Figure (4.11): Priority right answers & their percentages ...41

Figure (4.12): The desired speed (km/h) for drivers & their percentages41
Figure (4.13): Direction of movement sign .42
Figure (4.14): The desired speed (km/h) for drivers & their percentages42
Figure (4.15): U-turn before the roundabout ...42
IX

Figure (4.16): Answers percentages about U-turn before roundabout.43

Figure (4.17): Lane selection43

Figure (4.18):
Figure (4.19):
Figure (4.20):
Figure (4.21): Lane change ...45
Figure (4.22): Changing lane answers percentages inside the roundabout..46
Figure (4.23): Missed exit answers percentages 46
Figure (4.24): Number of crossing times for roundabout .....47
Figure (4.25): The preferred media for awareness & their percentages 48
Figure (4.26): Answers for written examination & their percentages ...49
Figure (4.27): Answers for practical test & their percentages ...49
Figure (4.28): Drivers satisfaction percentages about traffic police 50
Figure (4.29): Drivers satisfaction percentages about traffic signs ..50
Figure (4.30): Drivers satisfaction percentages about media role ....51
Figure (4.31): Drivers satisfaction percentages about roundabout role in slowing the
drivers...51

Figure (4.32): Drivers satisfaction percentages about roundabout aesthetic shape 52

Figure (4.33): Safety comparison between roundabout & traffic signal ...52
Figure (4.34): Congestion comparison between roundabout & traffic signal ...53
Figure (4.35): Safety comparison between roundabout & stop sign .53
Figure (4.36): Congestion comparison between roundabout & stop sign .54
Figure (4.37): Drivers satisfaction on municipal role ..54
Figure (4.38): Drivers opinion about improving their behavior with bigger island 55
Figure (4.39): Drivers opinion about the first reason ..56
Figure (4.40): Drivers opinion about the second reason ..56
Figure (4.41): Drivers opinion about the third reason ...57

Figure (4.42): Drivers opinion about the fourth reason ...57

Figure (4.43): Questionnaires percentages at ALgla and Ansar ............................58
Figure (4.44): Video analysis for giving priority right59

Figure (4.45): No opposing vehicles .59

Figure (4.46): True action (waiting) ..59
Figure (4.47): Wrong action (crossing) .59
Figure (4.48): Vehicle forced to give the priority right .60
Figure (4.49): Video analysis for drivers speeds when approaching roundabout ..60
Figure (4.50): Video analysis for changing lanes inside the roundabout 61

Figure (4.51): Wrong U-turn 62

Figure (4.52): Pedestrian behavior ..62
Figure (4.53): Wrong passenger downloading 63
Figure (4.54): Wrong behavior .63

XI

LIST OF TABLES
Table (4.1): Vehicles types & its percentages ...33
Table (4.2): Transmission types & its percentages ...34
Table (4.3): Manufacture year & its percentages 34
Table (4.4): Male & female percentages ...35
Table (4.5): Drivers Age & their percentages ..36
Table (4.6): Driver experience years & their percentage 36
Table (4.7):

Educatio

Table (4.8):

Year of g

Table (4.9): Drivers job & their percentages ..39

Table (4.10): Drivers salary & their percentages 39
Table (4.11): Priority right answers & their percentages .40
Table (4.12): The desired speed for drivers & their percentages .............................41
Table (4.13): Counter clockwise sign meaning 42
Table (4.14): Driver behavior at roundabout when facing an emergency
Vehicle ...45
Table (4.15): The preferred media for awareness .48
Table (4.16): Data of questionnaire and video to be linked with driver
Characteristics 64
Table (4.17): Analysis of questionnaire data

...65

Table (4.18): Analysis of videos questions 68

Table (4.19): Relations between driver characteristics and questionnaire .69

Table (4.20): Traffic police knowledge about traffic laws at roundabout...70
Table (4.21):Traffic police acceptance degree about roundabout advantages ..71
Table (4.22): Traffic police answers about factors affecting driver behavior.71
Table (4. 23):Degree of contribution of factors in occurring accidents .72
Table (4.24):Degree of contribution of media in increasing driver traffic
Awareness72
Table (4.25): Percent of theoretical and practical training materials provided to
student .73
Table (4.26): Degree of contribution of factors in occurring accidents .74
Table (4.27): Degree of contribution of media in increasing driver traffic
awareness ...74
Table (4.28): Wrong behaviors contribution in student failure in practical test.75

XII

Symbol
PCBS
FHWA
NCHRP
SPSS
C /W
VPH
UK
DST
DOT
HCM
AWSC
TWSC

XIII

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background
2

Gaza strip is about 1.35 % of the area of Palestine, which is 365 km . It consists of
five governorates which are; Northern, Gaza, Middle, Khanyounis, and Rafah
governorate. Gaza city is considered the biggest city in the strip. According to the
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS); the total number of population of
Gaza strip at the mid 2014 is 1.76 million.
At the beginning of the last century, the problems of traffic were not obvious, but at
the end of it, many problems start to appear, like capacity, safety, and accidents. This
occurs because of the increasing of road users which results from high population in
Gaza Strip.
Some of traffic problems occur as a result of poor dealing with roundabouts, the
driver's behavior at roundabouts is considered as one of the main factors that the
roundabout performance and capacity depend on.
"A Roundabout is generally a circular shaped intersection where traffic travels in a
counterclockwise direction around a center island. Vehicles entering the circulating
roadway must yield to vehicles already circulating. Roundabouts have specific design
elements that require vehicles to approach and proceed through the intersection at
slow speeds, increasing safety and efficiency". (Lively, et.al., 2006)
The main types of roundabouts are Mini, Grade Separated, Compact, Normal,
Signalized, and Double Roundabouts (the last being a combination of Mini, Compact
or Normal Roundabouts).
1.2 Problem Statement
The traffic capacity of the roundabout depends on several factors which include the
geometry of the roundabout, the diversity of vehicles, and driver behavior. Usually,
the priority of movement at roundabouts is for the circulating flows; therefore the
approaching traffic must wait and look for a gap in the circulating flow. In developing
cities such as Gaza, the driver behavior is different. He /She is more aggressive so that
gap acceptance behavior is rather uncommon. It is observed that a big percentage of
drivers in the approaching traffic do not give priority to the circulating flows. In many
cases drivers who are already on the roundabout are forced to stop and look for a gap
to move. This behavior affects the traffic performance at the roundabout.
Some drivers got a driving license before the construction of the new roundabouts in
Gaza strip, so they probably did not receive enough practice on roundabouts. Other
drivers who received practice on roundabouts do not fully comply with traffic laws,
and this might be because of the absence of strict measures taken by traffic police
against violators.
1

1.3 Research Objectives

The main aim of this research is to study the driver behavior at roundabouts in Gaza
city and the influencing factors. The objectives of this study are summarized as
follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.

To specify the percentage of drivers who know the laws of using roundabouts.
To determine the percent of real application of the priority rule at roundabout.
To analyze reasons behind that and make drivers not to follow the priority rule.
To propose solutions and recommendations that might lead to increase traffic
awareness and improve the behavior of drivers.

1.4 Research Significance

1. Studying a realistic problem of traffic performance at roundabouts which is very
important for efficient and safe performance.
2. Finding out the problems and mistakes committed by drivers at roundabouts, it is
through the knowledge of these wrong behaviors and problems, appropriate solutions
will be developed, and thus improve the behavior of drivers and the roundabouts
traffic performance.
1.5 Research Scope
The study will be limited to Gaza city roundabouts.
1.6 Research Methodology
There are seven stages of work for this study as follows:
First Stage: conducting literature review on driver behavior at roundabout
intersections and the influencing factors. The literature review is to include case
studies that have similar conditions to our area and environment.
Second Stage: Selection of roundabouts that are similar in topographic and geometric
design properties in Gaza city.
Third Stage: Making pilot study and questionnaire design.
Fourth Stage: Data collection by conducting interviews with drivers, recording
videos, and making interviews with concerned authorities (traffic police) for
collecting information about vehicles, driver characteristics, their familiarity with
traffic laws, and drivers behavior during crossing the roundabout.
Fifth Stage: Making statistical analysis for data and information obtained and
discussing the obtained results.
Sixth Stage: Summarizing the main results and conclusions of the study.
Seventh Stage: proposing solutions and recommendations.
2

1.7 Thesis Organization

This thesis consists of five chapters as follows:
i.

Chapter One represents the introduction which includes background, problem

definition, objectives, scope of the study, significance of the study, and research
methodology.

ii.

Chapter Two reviews briefly the literature related to roundabouts, history, the
beginning of modern roundabouts, the difference between roundabouts and traffic
circles, operational and physical characteristics of roundabouts, appropriate sites
for roundabouts, roundabouts advantages, how to use roundabouts, driver behavior
at roundabouts, previous studies, and methods of roundabout capacity evaluation.

iii.

Chapter Three describes the methodology and approach for the analysis of the
results. It shows the structure of the questionnaires for drivers, traffic police, and
driving schools.

iv.

Chapter Four shows the results of the analysis of the questionnaires as well as the
relations between driver's behavior and some factors.

v.

Chapter Five concludes the study with main findings, and how the objectives of
the study have been addressed. This chapter includes conclusions and
recommendations in addition to some thoughts of future research.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction
Roundabouts are considered an integral part in the design of roads, where its great
importance in solving the problems of capacity and safety. This chapter reviews
briefly the literature related to roundabouts. The literature reviewed in Section 2.2
includes history and evolution of roundabouts. Section 2.3 shows the beginnings of
the modern roundabout. Section 2.4 discusses the difference between roundabouts and
traffic circle/ rotaries according to FHWA-2000 information guide, roundabouts have
five main characteristics that identify them when compared to traffic circles. Section
2.5 illustrates operational and physical characteristics of roundabouts, which can be
summed up in yield at entry, deflection, and flare. Section 2.6 presents the appropriate
sites for roundabouts and where to build roundabouts to have full operational power.
Section 2.7 shows roundabouts advantages, which focus on safety, capacity,
performance, and cost. Section 2.8 illustrates how to use roundabouts if you were a
driver and want to pass it. Section 2.9 summarizes driver behavior at roundabouts.
Section 2.10 discusses some methods of roundabout capacity evaluation. These
methods are classified as either empirical like (Kimbers capacity formula and
Germanys capacity formula) or analytical like (Tanner's basic capacity equation and
aaSIDRA gap-acceptance method). Section 2.11 presents some previous studies for
roundabout. Section 2.12 summarizes literature review in some points.
2.2 History and Evolution of Roundabouts
The history of roundabout, and in particular its evolution from the old traffic circles
and rotaries built in the first half of the 20th century is summarized below :

The idea of a one-way rotary system was first proposed in 1903 for Columbus
Circle in New York City by William Phelps Eno, "the father of traffic control".
Other circular places existed prior to 1903; however, they were built primarily as
architectural features and permitted two-way circulation around a central island.
One-way circulation was implemented around Columbus Circle in November
1904.

In 1906, Eugene Henard, the Architect for the City of Paris, proposed a gyratory
traffic scheme (one-way circulation around a central island) for some major
intersections in Paris.
In 1907 the Place de lEtoile became the first French gyratory, followed by
several others built in 1910. In general, the right-of-way rule was not too critical
in the early days because traffic volumes were fairly low.

Wisconsin, in 1913, was the first state to adopt the yield to right rule, meaning
entering vehicles had the right-of-way. The yield sign, however, was unknown in
the United States until the early 1950s.

In 1929, Eno pointed out the main drawback of the yield to right rule (i.e., that
traffic locks up at higher volumes) and recommended changing to the yield-to-left
rule.

In the 1950s, traffic circles fell out of favor in the United States largely because of
the locking problem. In many cases they were replaced with signalized
intersections, or signals were simply added to the circle.

Between 1950 and 1977, eight jurisdictions passed laws to reverse the right-ofway rules that gave priority to the vehicles in the circle, But signals generally
were not removed from traffic circles. (NCHRP,1998)

After that, roundabouts began to spread in many countries, When the benefits of
roundabouts started evident in solving many of traffic problems, the state of Palestine
had a share in the presence of a number of roundabouts and Gaza Strip has a good
number of roundabouts, such as (Ansar, Al-jala, Abu Hmaid, Al-Negma, Al-Sheikh
Redwan, etc. ..)
2.3 The Beginnings of the Modern Roundabout
Progress in roundabout design began early in Great Britain, where one-way streets
and gyratory systems had existed since the mid-1920s, partially as the result of the
consulting work by Eno. It was also in Great Britain where the term "roundabout" was
officially adopted in 1926 to replace the term "gyratory." In the 1950s, British traffic
engineers started questioning the American practice of large circles, arguing that long
weaving sections, combined with the higher speeds made possible with the larger
radii, were detrimental to high capacities.The American view that weaving volumes in
excess of 1,500 hourly vehicles were impractical was challenged in Great Britain,
although British traffic engineers continued analyzing roundabout capacity in terms of
weaving capacity.The off-side priority rule was officially adopted for roundabouts in
Great Britain in 1966. From then on, roundabout design changed from larger circles to
smaller roundabouts where the drivers task was to accept a gap in the circulating
flow. Capacities of large roundabouts were increased by 10 to 50 percent by reducing
the size of the central island, bringing the yield line closer to the center of the circle,
and widening the entries to the roundabout. (NCHRP,1998)
2.4 The Difference Between Roundabouts and Traffic Circle/ Rotaries
Roundabouts are often confused with traffic circles or rotaries and it is important to be
able to distinguish between them. According to FHWA-2000 information guide,
roundabouts have five main characteristics that identify them when compared to
traffic circles:
1. Traffic control: Yield control is used in all entries at roundabouts.The circulatory
roadway has no control.
2. Priority to circulating vehicles: Circulating vehicles have the right of way in
roundabouts. Some traffic circles require circulating traffic to yield to entering
traffic.

3. Pedestrian access: Pedestrian access is allowed only across the legs of the
roundabout, behind the yield line. Some traffic circles allow pedestrian access to
the central island.
4. Parking: No parking is allowed within the circulatory roadway or at the entries at
roundabout.Some traffic circles allow parking within the circulating roadway.
5. Direction of Circulation: All vehicles circulate counter-clockwise and pass to the
right of the central island of the roundabout. Some neighborhood traffic circles
allow left-turning vehicles to pass to the left of the central island.
(Solomon, 2007)
Roundabouts are increasingly popular due to their performance and advantages in
terms of safety, capacity, and cost. Roundabouts have the potential to reduce accident
risks because of low speeds and small angles of merging and diverging for traffic
flows. Under certain conditions, roundabouts also improve the flow of traffic at the
intersection, compared to other choices. Roundabout capacity depends on a number of
factors, including the total traffic flow rate from each approaching arm that can join
the circulatory traffic during the analysis period, geometry, vehicle mix, and driver
behavior. Usually, the circulatory traffic has priority, while the approaching traffic has
to yield and look for an acceptable gap to enter the circulating flow. The minimum
accepted gap (critical gap) is different from driver to driver, since each driver has his
own considerations for safety, urgency, vehicle type, etc (Kusuma and
Koutsopoulos, 2011).
2.5 Types of Roundabouts
Mini-roundabout in its place there is a flush or domed circular solid white road
marking more than 1 meter & less than 4 meter in diameter and does not have a
curbed central island. Capable of being driven over where unavoidable.
Grade separated roundabout has at least one approach coming from a road at a
different level. This type of roundabout is frequently employed at motorway junctions,
but can also be used to link underpasses, flyovers and other multiple level
intersections.
Compact roundabout (Figure 2.1) has single lane entries and exits on each arm. The
width of the circulatory carriageway does not allow for two cars to pass one another.
On roads with a speed limit of 40mph (64.36 km/h) or less within 100m of the give
way line on all approaches, Compact Roundabouts may have low values of entry and
exit radii in conjunction with high values of entry deflection.
This design has less capacity than that of Normal Roundabouts, but is particularly
suitable where there is a need to accommodate the movement of pedestrians and
cyclists. The non-flared entries or exits give the designer flexibility in siting
pedestrian crossings.

Figure 2.1: Compact roundabout in an urban area- Germany

(FHWA, 2014)
Normal roundabout has a curbed central island at least 4 meters in diameter; this
makes difference between normal & mini roundabouts (Figure 2.2). Its approaches
may be dual or single carriageway roads. Usually, a Normal Roundabout has flared
entries and exits to allow two or three vehicles to enter or leave the roundabout on a
given arm at the same time. If so, its circulatory carriageway needs to be wide enough
for two or three vehicles to travel alongside each other on the roundabout itself. If a
Normal Roundabout has more than four arms, it becomes large with the probability
that higher circulatory speeds will result; the solution is Double Roundabout or a
Signalized Roundabout in this case.

Figure 2.2: Normal roundabout (SCOTLAND TRANSPORT, 2007)

Signalized roundabout has traffic signals on one or more of the approaches and at
the corresponding point on the circulatory carriageway itself.
7

Installing traffic signals, with either continuous or part-time operation, at some or all
of the entry points can be appropriate where a roundabout does not naturally selfregulate. This may be for a combination of reasons such as:
a) A growth in traffic flow;
b) An overloading or an unbalanced flow at one or more entries;
c) High circulatory speeds;
d) Significantly different flows during peak hour operation.
Double roundabout is a junction consists of two roundabouts separated by a short
link (see Figure 2.3).The roundabouts may be Mini, Compact or Normal
Roundabouts. Double Roundabouts can be particularly useful:
a) For improving an existing staggered junction where they avoid the need to realign
one of the approach roads and can achieve a considerable construction cost saving
compared with a larger, single island roundabout;
b) For joining two parallel routes separated by a feature such as a river, a railway line
or a motorway;
c) At overloaded single roundabouts where, by reducing the circulating flow past
critical entries, they increase capacity;
d) At junctions with more than four entries, where they may achieve better
capacity and make more efficient use of space with better safety characteristics
compared with a large roundabout which may generate high circulatory speeds
which result in a loss of capacity and safety.

Figure 2.3: Double roundabout with central link

(SCOTLAND TRANSPORT, 2007)
2.6 Operational and Physical Characteristics of Roundabouts
Modern roundabouts have a number of operational and physical characteristics that
make them unique, and functional as a traffic control device/ intersection
configuration. Modern roundabouts have three primary differences from the old style
roundabout:
8

1. yield at entry,
2. deflection,
3. And flare.
Yield to circulating traffic: Modern roundabouts operate on the yield to circulating
traffic rule. The old method of operation was for drivers in the roundabout to yield to
vehicles on the right. This resulted in traffic locking up the roundabout when volumes
were heavy. By operating under the yield to circulating traffic rule, vehicles only
enter the circulating stream when there is a suitable gap. This allows the modern
roundabout to continue to flow even at relatively high traffic volumes. Modern
roundabouts also have properly designed deflection of the entering traffic. The old
designs treated roundabouts as weaving sections and were built to facilitate high
vehicle entry and circulating speeds.
Deflection: slows approaching vehicles down to a speed where the safety of the
roundabout is greatly enhanced. Operation speeds of modern roundabouts should be
kept below 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour). Adequate deflection through
roundabouts is the most important factor influencing their safe operation. The
deflection through the roundabout is created by both the diameter of the Center Island,
and entrance angle created by the splitter island.
Flare: Modern roundabouts can have flared approaches. The widening of the
approach road to allow for additional entrance lanes increases the flexibility of the
operation for drivers and enhances the capacity of modern roundabouts.
Theoretically the operation of a roundabout is similar to a series of linked T
intersections. As such, an approaching driver can check for pedestrian/ bicycle traffic
as they approach the intersection, then they have to deal with conflicting traffic from
only one direction' the left'. Once in the roundabout, the driver continues around until
making a right turn to exit the intersection.
Central island: The central island should be circular; however, other round shapes
are acceptable. In general, roundabout center islands should have a diameter of 5 to 30
meters (15 160 feet). Modern roundabouts often have beautified center islands; state
guides for roundabouts provide directions on how to safely landscape the center island
so as not to compromise visibility. The landscaping of the center island allows the
roundabout to function as an urban design element. When trucks need to be
accommodated at a roundabout, the design usually includes a truck apron, this is a
part of the center island that is not fully raised above the circulating roadway
pavement. Rather it is raised 5 to 10 cm (2 4 in). Truck aprons are most often
constructed of a contrasting material to help differentiate them from the circulating
roadway. The purpose of a truck apron is to provide an area where the rear wheels of a
large vehicle can be accommodated while keeping the central island small (and
therefore maintaining the needed travel path deflection). (Russell, 2000)

Splitter islands: The splitter island is placed within the leg of a roundabout to
separate entering and exiting traffic and provide vehicle deflection prior to entering
the roundabout.
They are generally raised median islands that serve many functions. While some older
roundabouts were constructed with painted splitter islands, non-raised, a splitter island
negates many of their advantages. Splitter islands guide vehicles into the circulating
roadway of the roundabout, initiating the vehicle s deflection from the approach roadway.
As such, they should be designed in conjunction with the vehicles curved
The path so that traversing vehicles have a smooth path through the roundabout.
deflection curve establishes the horizontal path of a vehicle going through the
roundabout and defines the design speed of the roundabout. Therefore, the tighter the
deflection curve, the slower the design speed of the roundabout. Splitter islands also
serve to prevent wrong way movements; they create physical barriers whereby a
vehicle wishing to traverse the roundabout the wrong way would have to travel over
or through the splitter island. The approach ends of splitter islands can provide a
physical narrowing of the approach roadway prior to the flare area. This narrowing of
the approach road tends to slow vehicle approach speeds and alerts drivers to the
upcoming roundabout. Splitter islands have a tendency to change driver expectancy as
they approach the roundabout.
Finally, on arterial road roundabouts, the splitter island should be of sufficient size to
shelter a pedestrian (at least 2.4 meters wide) and be a reasonable target to be seen by
approaching traffic. A minimum total area of (8 to 10) should be provided on arterial
road approaches. Therefore, the splitter islands also act as pedestrian refuge islands;
this allows a pedestrian to cross one direction of traffic, reach the splitter island, then
cross the other. Separation of the crossing movement enhances pedestrian safety at
roundabouts. The use of splitter islands for pedestrian refuge requires that they be
designed to meet all applicable requirements relating to pedestrian activity.

10

Figure (2.4): Physical characteristics of roundabouts

Truck apron: A truck apron is a traversable portion of the raised center island to
accommodate the wheel path of oversized vehicles.
Bypass lane: A bypass lane may be warranted for heavy right turn vehicles as it
allows traffic to bypass the roundabout.
Approach width: The approach width refers to the width of the entering lanes
before flaring or any other influence from the roundabout.
Exit width: The exit width is the perpendicular distance from the right curb line
of the exit to the intersection of the left edge line and the inscribed circle.
Departure width: The departure width refers to the width of the lanes departing
from the roundabout at a point where the width is no longer influenced by the
roundabout.
Effective flare length: A flare may be used to increase the entry width and
capacity of a roundabout by providing additional lanes at the entry. The effective
flare length is equal to the distance from the entry width to a point where the
approach width is equal to half the sum of the entry width and the approach
traveled way width prior to influence from the roundabout.
Entry radius: The entry radius is the minimum radius of curvature for the
compound curve measured along the right curb at entry beginning before the yield
line.
11

Approach stopping sight distance: The approach stopping sight distance is the
minimum stopping sight distance to the back of queue or yield line at the
roundabout entry.
Circulating roadway width: The width of the circulatory roadway depends
mainly on the number of entry lanes and the radius of vehicle paths.
(Solomon, 2007)
2.7 Appropriate Sites for Roundabouts
1. Heavy delay on minor road.
2. Traffic signals result in greater delay.
3. Intersection with heavy left turning traffic.
4. Intersection with more than four legs or unusual geometry.
5. At rural intersections (including those in high speed areas) at which there is an
accident involving crossing traffic.
6. Where major roads intersect at Y or T junctions.
7. At locations where traffic growth is expected to be high and where future traffic
patterns are uncertain or changeable.
8. At intersections where U-turns are desirable.
9. At Freeway Interchange Ramps.
10. High accident intersection where right angle accidents are prominent.
(DOT, 2014)
2.8 Roundabouts Advantages
Using the roundabout has several advantages.
1. It has less traffic conflicts, Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 shows a comparison of the
conflict points between a conventional intersection and a modern roundabout. The
lower number of conflict points translates to less potential for accidents.
2. It has greater safety, primarily because of slower speeds and elimination of left
turns when using roundabouts, greater safety is achieved. Design elements of
roundabouts cause drivers to reduce their speeds.
3. It has efficient traffic flow; up to 50% increase in traffic capacity.
4. It reduces pollution and fuel usage because it causes fewer stops, shorter queues
and no left turn storage.
5. It saves money as no signal equipment is installed or maintained, plus savings in
electricity use, Furthermore it has community benefits due to traffic calming and
enhancing aesthetics by landscaping.
12

Figure (2.5): Conflict points comparison between roundabout and normal intersection
(FHWA,2000)

Figure (2.6): Conflict points comparison between roundabout and T intersection

(FHWA,2000)
2.9 How to Use Roundabouts
To use roundabout, the next process of driving a car is followed:
1. Slow down as you approach the intersection;
2. Yield to pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the roadway;
3. Watch for signs and pavement markings.
13

4. Enter the roundabout if gap in traffic is sufficient;

5. Drive in a counter-clockwise direction around the roundabout until you reach your
exit;
6. Do not stop or pass other vehicles.
7. If you miss your exit, continue around until you return to your exit. If you within a
roundabout when an emergency vehicle approaches, exit the roundabout and pull
over to the right. If you outside the roundabout, immediately pull over to the right.
When driving a truck or large vehicle, you may need to use the full width of the
roadway, including the mountable concrete truck apron around the central island.
Take in consideration location of all other users of the roundabouts. Proceed like
any other vehicle. (U.S.DOT, 2014).
Driver Behavior at Roundabouts
Drivers approaching roundabouts have two options to make: select the correct lane for
their intended destination, and yield to those who have priority of movement. Drivers
must adjust to the decisions that in roundabouts are generally more complex than for
other intersection types, mainly because drivers typically must yield and give priority
to those who have the right-of-way and the drivers may not always be able to see their
exit or destination, possibly disorienting or confusing the driver. The geometric design
of roundabouts also has a positive influence on driver behavior. As seen in Figure 2.7,
roundabouts have many design features that improve driver behavior. It forces drivers
to operate at slower speeds, yield to oncoming traffic and be aware enough to accept
gaps in traffic large enough to enter the flow of traffic.

Figure 2.7: Roundabout safety features (McIntosh, 2011)

14

2.10 Methods of Roundabout Capacity Evaluation

Capacity is the main determinant of the performance measures such as delay, queue
length and stop rate. The relationship between a given performance measure and
capacity is often expressed in terms of degree of saturation (demand volume- capacity
ratio).
Capacity is the maximum sustainable flow rate that can be achieved during a specific
time period under prevailing road, traffic and control conditions.
The proviso "prevailing conditions" is important since capacity is not a constant
value, but varies as a function of traffic flow levels. Capacity represents the service
rate (queue clearance rate) in the performance (delay, queue length, stop rate)
functions, and therefore is relevant to both under saturated and over saturated
conditions. Conceptually, this is different from the maximum volume that the
intersection can handle which is the practical capacity (based on the a target degree of
saturation) under increased demand volumes, not the capacity under prevailing
conditions.
There are two distinct theories or methodologies to assess the capacity of the
roundabouts. These theories are:

The empirical method

Kimbers capacity formula
Germanys capacity formula
The analytical or gap acceptance based method

Tanner's basic capacity equation

A aaSIDRA gap-acceptance method

2.10.1 Empirical Method

2.10.1.1 The UK Capacity Formula
The UK roundabout capacity formula is based on Kimbers study in 1980. The first
approach is a linear approximation used to determine the entry capacity of a
roundabout.
Kimbers capacity formula is :
Qe = F- fc* Qc
Where
Qe = Entering capacity (vph)
Qc = Circulating flow (vph)
F, fc = Parameters defined by roundabout geometry.
Kimbers equation could be used for both large and small roundabouts. Kimber used
a number of parameters to describe the geometry, which are( the entry width, the
circulation width, the inscribed diameter, the effective length, the approach road half
width, the entry radius, and the angle of entry.
15

S = (e- v)/l or S = 1.6(e-v)/l

Where:
S = the sharpness of the
flare e= entry width
v = the approach road half width (m)
l'= the effective flare length
The ranges of the geometric parameters in the tested database were
e : 3.6 m - 16.5 m
v : 1.9 m - 12.5 m
l: 1- m
S : 0-2.9m
D : 13.5 m - 171.6 m
: 0 - 77
r : 3.4m - m
Kimber continued to use a passenger car unit (pcu) of heavy vehicles like 2 in the
analysis. Kimber regressed the number of entry lanes, n, with the effective entry
width, X2 , given by the equation:
= v + ((e-v)/ (1+2S))
He then sought equations for the slope and intercept of the entry/circulation flow
formula by linear regression of F and as a function of X2. Although the inscribed
diameter largely distinguished the larger conventional roundabouts from the smaller
off-side priority ones, the entry capacity was greater on larger roundabouts with the
same entry flow and geometry. Hence, the magnitude of the slope fc decreased as the
diameter increased since the factor decreased as the diameter increased and is directly
propotional to fc as shown in eq. (2-4) In addition, Kimber esablished the following
equations:
fc = 0.210 (1+ 0.2 )
For the slope, and the equation
F = 303
For the intercept, where
= e ^(D-60)/10

Values of
were equal to 1.0 for large
For all but the largest roundabouts (D>30 m)
that the angle of entry , and the radius r, have a slight effect on the capacity. As their
effect was small, Kimber decided to modify the equation 2-1 by including a correction
factor to equation 2-8 such that:
= k (F- fcQc)
Where k = 1.151 - 0.00347f - 0.978/r
16
and

r = the entry radius (m)

= the angle of entry (degree)
For Kimbers typical sites, was about 30, r was about 20 m and under these
conditions k was equal to 1. Values of k can be generally expected to be within 0.9 to
1.1. Kimber tested for linearity, concluding that a parabolic function did not
significantly improve the predictive ability and he decided to accept the linear
approximation. The resulting standard error of prediction for a typical site for which
Qe = 1300 pcu/h or so is about 200 pcu/h or about 15 percent of the entry capacity.
2.10.1.2 Germanys Capacity Formula
In Germany, they use an approach similar to that of the UK. German researchers
investigated both regression and gap theory and decided to utilize the UK regression
analysis. However, in contrast with the UK linear approximation, an exponential
regression line was used to describe the entry/circulating flow relationship because of
the better agreement with the gap acceptance capacity formula developed by Siegloch
in 1973. In England, drivers use the full width of the lane marking, May give a
limitation in Germany (and Scandinavia) the vehicles will follow the road marking. If
there is one lane marked there will be only one line of cars. If there are two marked
lanes, there will be two lines of cars, etc. Thus Kimber's formula did not fit very well
outside the UK.
Germanys Formula:
Qe= A * e (-BQc/1000)
Where:
Qe = entering capacity (vph)
Qc = circulating flow (vph)
A, B = defined parameters
Several types of roundabouts were investigated. The parameters A and B in this
equation have been determined separately from the measurements by regression
calculation for different number of entries.
2.10.2 Analytical Method

Tanner's basic capacity equation

A aaSIDRA gap-acceptance method

The empirical formulation has some drawbacks, for example, data has to be collected
at over saturated flow (or at capacity) level. It is a painstaking task to collect enough
amounts of data to ensure reliability of results, and this method is sometimes
17

inflexible under unfamiliar circumstances, for example, when the value is far out of
the range of regressed data. Consequently, researchers looked for other reliable
methods of determining roundabout capacity. Many researchers agree that a gap
acceptance theory (Analytical Method) is a more appropriate tool. An advantage of
this method is that the gap acceptance technique offers a logical basis for the
evaluation of capacity.
Secondly, it is easy to appreciate the meaning of the parameters used and to make
adjustments for unusual conditions. Moreover, gap acceptance conceptually relates
traffic interactions at roundabouts with the availability of gap in the traffic streams
2.10.2.1 Tanner's Basic Capacity Equation
Tanner (1962) analyzed the delays at an intersection of two streams in which the
major stream had priority. He assumed that both major and minor stream arrival are
random, but that a major stream vehicle cannot enter the intersection sooner than D
seconds after the preceding major stream vehicle. The minor stream vehicle then
enters when any available gap is greater than T seconds. If the chosen gap is large
enough, several minor streams vehicles then follow each other through the
intersection at intervals of T0 seconds. Tanners equation would then be:
qe =qc(1-Dqc)e qc(T-D) / 1-e qcT0
where
qe = Entering capacity (veh/sec)
qc = Circulating flow (veh/sec)
T = Critical gap
T0 = Follow-up time
D = Minimum headway
2.10.2.2 aaSIDRA Gap-Acceptance Method
In aaSIDRA, the roundabout capacity is estimated from:
Q = s u = (3600 / b) u
Where
s = 3600 / b is the saturation flow rate (veh/h),
b is the follow-up headway (saturation headway)
and u is the unblocked time ratio.
The maximum capacity is obtained under very low circulating flow conditions (for
example, b0 = 3.0 s means a maximum capacity of 3600/3.0 =1200 veh/h). The
follow-up headway and unblocked time ratio decrease with increasing circulating
flow rate. The net result is decreased capacity with increasing circulating flow rate.
All roundabout capacity models predict decreased capacity with increased circulating
flow. In gap-acceptance modeling, this is due to the blocked periods that result when
18

the approach vehicles cannot find an acceptable gap in the circulating stream.
Unblocked periods occur when queued or unqueued vehicles can enter the circulating
road when a gap is available in the circulating flow. Blocked and unblocked periods
are like effective red and green times at signals. And the sum of blocked and
unblocked times can be called the gap-acceptance cycle time. Thus, roundabout gapacceptance capacity can be expressed in the same way as capacity at traffic signals.
Many different forms of the roundabout capacity formula based on gap acceptance
method that exist, including the HCM capacity formula, can be explained in terms of
the concept expressed by (Equation 2-12). (Solomon,2007)
2.11 Previous Studies
Many studies have been applied on driver behavior with factors that affect driver
behavior, like gap time, geometry of intersection, and pedestrains.
a- Al-Masaeid and Faddah (1997)
In Jordan, Al-Masaeid and Faddah (1997) developed an empirical model for
estimating entry capacity as a function of circulating traffic and geometric
characteristics. Ten roundabouts located throughout Jordan were studied.
Regression analysis was used to develop the entry-capacity model and its
performance was then compared with results of German, Danish, and French capacity
models.
The study sites experienced light pedestrian traffic despite their urban locations; no
Interference from pedestrians was encountered during data collection. Entry capacity
was defined as the maximum traffic entering a roundabout during times of saturated
demand. Circulating traffic flow and entry capacity data were collected manually for
each roundabout entry at 1-min intervals during periods of continuous and stable
queuing. Geometric variables were obtained through field measurements.
Their analyses indicate that the circulating traffic flow, widths of entry and circulating
roadway, central island diameter, and distance between an entry and a near-side exit
all have a significant influence on entry capacity.
b- Polus and Shmueli (1999)
Polus and Shmueli (1999) further examined and evaluated the capacity Model
previously developed in their 1997 study. In addition, the study estimated a gap size
above which gaps are not relevant to the gap acceptance process and evaluated the
gap acceptance behavior of drivers entering roundabouts as their waiting time on the
approach leg increased. Two relatively busy urban roundabouts in Israel were
videotaped and data consisting of gaps, waiting times on the approach road, and
circulating and entry volumes were collected.
They found that the entry capacity did not approach zero in reality at high circulating
flows. Some minimum entry capacity on the approach leg is still available even at
higher circulating flows, because smaller gaps will generally be accepted by waiting
vehicles after a long wait.
19

c- Al-Suleiman et al. (2006)

The main objectives of this research were to investigate traffic accidents problem at
roundabouts in Jordan, and to explore possible relationships between traffic accidents
and traffic, geometric and planning variables. Thirty roundabouts were selected from
different cities as a case study. Traffic and geometric variables were measured through
field survey. The results indicated that vehicle-vehicle accidents constitute the major
portion of accidents pattern (94.2%). The analysis showed that roundabouts with three
or four legs resulted in lower accidents rate than roundabouts with five legs. Traffic
accidents at roundabouts were found strongly correlated with peak-hour volume, landuse type and presence of traffic calming measures. The correlation coefficients
between geometric variables and traffic accidents were found relatively small. The
developed statistical regression models can be used by traffic engineers to assess the
impact of implementation of roundabouts on reducing traffic accidents at
intersections.
d- Al-Omari et al. (2004)
Al-Omari et al. (2004) developed a model for estimating roundabout delay as a
function of traffic and geometric factors.
A total of twenty hours of field traffic and geometric data were collected from
fourteen roundabouts located throughout Jordan. Data were collected on sunny days
from locations with good pavement conditions and during times when there were no
policemen in the area. It was not possible to collect data during congested conditions
because traffic police control roundabouts at these times. Circulating volume, entry
volume, and entry delay were measured during peak and non-peak periods using video
cameras. Geometric design elements such as entry width and roundabout diameter
were obtained through field measurements.
The model included five variables and predicted a positive relationship between the
predicted delay time and the volume of the circulating roadway, the volume of the
entering roadway, and the width of the circulating roadway. The model predicted a
negative relationship between delay time, diameter of the roundabout, and width of
the entering roadway.
e- Mandavilli et al. (2003)
Mandavilli et al. (2003) studied the impact of modern roundabouts on reducing
vehicular emissions at intersections. The study sites consisted of six sites,
experiencing different traffic conditions, at which single-lane modern roundabouts
replaced stop-controlled intersections. Five of the sites were located in Kansas and
one was located in Nevada. Prior to installation of the roundabouts, four of these sites
were under two-way stop control and two sites were under all-way stop control.
Data collection consisted of two phases. The first phase consisted of videotaping
intersection traffic movements for two six-hour sessions from 7:00 AM to 1:00 PM
and from 1:00 PM to 7:00 PM on normal weekdays before and after the installation of
the roundabouts. This study defines a normal weekday as a day having no inclement
20

weather or other external factors, such as nearby events that would affect the traffic
flow to the intersection. The second phase of data collection consisted of reviewing
the videotapes to obtain AM and PM traffic counts for the before and after conditions.
Data were recorded in 15-minute periods and the hourly data were then analyzed with
the software aaSIDRA, version 2.0. All measures of effectiveness obtained from the
SIDRA analysis were statistically compared with the software Minitab 13 using
standard statistical procedures.
Statistical tests showed that the decrease in CO, CO2, NOx and HC emissions after a
roundabout was installed is statistically different from the emissions that occurred in
case of AWSC (all-way stop control) for both AM and PM conditions.
The results from SIDRA analysis also showed that there was a statistically significant
decrease in delay, queuing and stopping after the modern roundabout was installed
when compared to the before (AWSC/TWSC) because, as previous studies have
concluded, the modern roundabouts have less delay, queuing and stopping than an
AWSC/TWSC. This is reflected in the decrease in vehicular emissions.
f- Jie et al.( 2008)
Jie et al.( 2008) showed that on the weekday the critical gaps were 4.15 s during the
peak hour and 4.38 s after the peak hour. The critical gap during the peak hour is
shorter than that after the peak hour, but the difference is small. There are two reasons
for the similarities. Reviews of the tapes showed that although the traffic during 9:009:40 a.m. was less intense than during8:00-8:40 a.m., the traffic conditions did not
improve much. Additionally the impact of pedestrians and bicycles on the driver s
gap acceptance must also be considered. At peak hour, many pedestrians and bicycles
pass through the intersection, which increases the difficulties for drivers to accept
smaller gaps. The critical gaps on this test roundabout in China are in the range of the
critical gap given in HCM 2000 which listed critical gaps in the USA of 4.1-4.6 s.
The study also reveals that on the weekend, the critical gaps are 5.40 s during 8:008:40 a.m. and 5.05 s during 9:00-9:40 a.m., much larger than on the weekday. Thus,
on the weekends, drivers are less aggressive and pay more attention to safety.
Interestingly the critical gap for 8:00-8:40 a.m. is much larger than for 9:00-9:40 a.m.
Perhaps because the traffic conditions at 9:00-9:40 a.m. have more pressure for
drivers who travel later on weekends.
Several studies have suggested that the entry capacity of roundabouts depends on the
critical gap. Accordingly, the assumption in calculating the capacity is that all drivers
are homogeneous and consistent; i.e., their behavior is the same over time.
g- Polus et al.(2003)
Polus et al.(2003) examined the accuracy of this assumption; in particular, it evaluates
the effect of waiting times on drivers critical gaps .He presented a new behavioral
approach to estimate the impact on critical gaps of waiting time prior to entry into a
roundabout. A detailed log it model is developed to study the effect of waiting time at
an approach to a roundabout on the likelihood of accepting different gaps and,
21

therefore, on the critical gap. The estimated model showed that the waiting time has a
significant effect on the critical gap, particularly on gaps in the range of 2 to 5
seconds. The significance of this model shows quantitatively the reduction in the
critical gap with the increase in waiting time. Because of this, roundabout capacity for
this range of critical gaps is higher than that currently proposed by the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM 2000).

h- Mahmassani and Sheffi (1981)

Mahmassani and Sheffi (1981) on the specific topic of gap acceptance used a probit
model to investigate gap acceptance and showed that while drivers are waiting for an
acceptable gap the critical gap of drivers is decreasing on the average.

i- Daganzo (1981)
Daganzo (1981) used the probit model in order to determine at the same time the
mean critical gap and the mean critical lag which is the first gap considered by a
driver and the variance of these and found that the mean critical gap was clearly
smaller than the mean critical lag, as one might expect.
j- Teply et al. (1997)
Teply et al. (1997) in a two part article used a binary logit model to investigate driver
gap-acceptance behavior at an un-signalized intersection. The analysis process
considered some factors and elements such as the nature of opposing traffic, including
time gap, space gap, speed and type of opposing vehicle, delay to vehicles turning
across the traffic, including queue delay and front-line delay. The process also
considered driver characteristics (gender and age), acceleration capability of the
turning vehicle, and the presence of vehicles behind the turning vehicle. The results
showed that using the time gap alone might yield a reasonable practical
approximation in an engineering analysis of entry behavior at Un-signalized
intersections, including roundabouts.

k- Kusuma and Koutsopoulos ( 2011)

Kusuma and Koutsopoulos ( 2011) assumed that the critical gap has a lognormal
distribution among the driver population with a mean value that is a function of a
number of explanatory variables based on these assumptions the critical gap and its
distribution can then be estimated by using maximum likelihood. A case study in a
dual lane roundabout in Stockholm is used to illustrate the proposed methodology
using video and other data. The results show that the critical gap depends, among
other factors, on the target lane (near or far) and the type of the vehicle.
Because of the importance of gap-acceptance and its impact on the capacity of
roundabouts, a large number of studies have been conducted. Earlier efforts for
modeling gap acceptance, in general, were based on the distribution of the critical gap
which is defined as the un observable minimum gap a driver is willing to accept in
order to merge in the circulating flow with no attempt to explain the underlying
22

behavior .Finally, regarding critical gaps at roundabouts, a number of studies have

been conducted but focused mostly on one lane intersections.
l- Polus et al. (1996)
Polus et al. (1996) discussed the possible reduction in critical gaps since drivers
becoming impatient as waiting time increase. An s-shaped model was developed to
show gap deterioration over time; the critical gap was defined as the intersection of
the accumulated distribution of accepted and rejected gaps.
m- Taylor and Mahmassani (1998)

Taylor and Mahmassani (1998) developed probit models for both motorists and
cyclists gap-acceptance behavior and found that if the gap was closed by a large
vehicle (e.g. a bus), both cyclists and motorists required a longer gap, and both would
accept a shorter gap if the gap was closed by a bicycle, relative to a gap closed by a
private car.

2.12 Summary
Modern roundabouts have become a subject of great interest and attention over the
Last few years in many countries. This interest is partially based on the great success
of roundabouts in these countries, where intersection design practice has changed
substantially as the result of the good performance of roundabouts and their
acceptance by the public.
There is a trend to convert many of the intersections into roundabouts, this trend is
after the work of many of the required studies, to see if the performance of
roundabout best of the intersection or not.
Based on the literature reviewed, different countries have their own methods of
Capacity Analysis, which is forwarded by different researchers, these methods can be
categorized into totally roundabout geometry dependent approach that is the
Empirical Method. Gap acceptance approach that incorporate driver behavior and
familiarity, type of vehicle, the circulating and entering splits and conflicting
circulating flow are included in Analytical Method.

23

Chapter 3: Research methodology

3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the most important steps of the research mechanism since it
includes data collection process and the sites will be selected for the study.The main
objective of this research is to study the behavior of drivers at the roundabouts and
their familairity with the principles of roundabouts, also to determine the extent of the
driver real application to these rules.
To achieve these goals, a questionnaire was utilized to drivers after crossing the
roundabout. At the same time, video was recorded by a camera placed in a suitable
location near the roundabout to monitor the real driver behavior and to find out his/her
application and respect for the priority right rule.
Several driver characteristics (such as age, gender, monthly income, level of
education, years of experience - etc.) were linked to the knowledge of the driver about
traffic laws and his/her behavior at roundabouts to determine the probability of a
relationship between these factors and the drivers familiarity with traffic law and the
impact on their behavior.
Two questionnaires were also designed for traffic police and driving schools to check
their support and acceptance of the advantages of the roundabout. These
questionnaires also aim to know the factors affecting the driver behavior and the best
ways to improve the driver traffic awareness at roundabouts .
Flowchart of Research Methodology

24

3.2 Stages of the Study

The study process has gone through several stages as follows:
3.2.1 Design of Initial Questionnaire
The questionnaire should be designed to include questions regarding vehicle and
driver characteristics, also questions showing the experience and familarity of drivers
with the traffic laws at roundabout and the factors or variables that affect the driver
behavior at roundabout.
Regarding traffic police and driving schools questionnaires, they included questions
shpwing the traffic police opinions about the roundabout such as, its advantages
compared with other intersections, the reasons of accidents at roundabout, the factors
that may influence driver behavior, and questions dealing with how to improve &
increase the driver awareness and knowledge in using the roundabout correctlly and
safely.
3.2.2 The Preparatory Stage or Pilot Study
The aim of this stage is mainly to find out the best formula for a questionnaire, which
will be through the collection of data from previous studies, the objectives of this
research, and through problems that may be experienced by drivers on the
roundabouts. Also this stage included to assess the questionnaire and taking notes and
modifying it by adding & omitting some questions. To acheive this goal it is important
to select ahigh good place near the roundabout to fix the video camera for showing
the vehicles passing the roundabout clearly and monitoring the behavior of drivers.
3.2.3

Analysis of Pilot Study

After making interviews with drivers to answer the initial questionnaire with a sample
size (10), and recording video showing the driver behavior at a selected roundabout
for ashort period of time (30 minutes), a comparison between data and information
obtained from questionnaire answers and recorded video was made in order to know
the real percentages of drivers who are not following or respecting the traffic rules at
roundabouts and measure the experience, knowledge, and familiarity of driver with
these rules since this result is considerd as one of the main objectives of the study.
3.2.4 Design of Final Questionnaire
3.2.4.1 Driver Questionnaire
This phase includes the most important topics and an issue concerning the
questionnaire which was developed in order to collect the data required for analyzing
the factors affecting driver behavior at roundabouts and consisted of four parts as
follows:

25

The First Part: The Knowledge of Traffic Laws at Roundabout

Questions regarding the extent of the driver's knowledge and familiarity with the laws of
traffic (giving priority at the roundabout, the best speed at the roundabout, the meaning of
the yield sign at the roundabout, the direction of movement inside the roundabout, the
appropriate lanes for turning right &left, the driver behavior when emergency vehicle is
approaching, the behavior when loosing the required exit ,pedestrian passing the
roundabout, and changing lanes on the circulating carriageway
.... etc.).

The Second Part : The Behavior at Roundabout

Questions concerning the behavior of the driver at the roundabout (giving the right of
priority for vehicles inside roundabout, slower speed when approaching the
roundabout, using the suitable lane before entering, giving the right of priority for
pedestrians, changing lanes on the circulating carriageway .... etc.).
The Third Part : Awareness and Satisfaction
Questions relating to educate drivers and the extent of their satisfaction with the
roundabout (the best way to raise awareness, practical and written exam license, the
aesthetics of the roundabout, satisfaction with the traffic police, compared the
roundabout with traffic signal and stop control in terms of safety and congestion,
advantages of roundabouts compared with other intersections, and the presence of
sufficient signals at roundabout , .... etc.).
The Fourth Part: Questions about the Video
This phase also included the preparation of some questions showing the behavior of
the driver at the roundabout.These questions will be answred by the researcher after
playing the video recording which include the following:
1-Does the driver give priority to the vehicle on the circulating carriageway ?
2- Does the driver slow down before entering the roundabout ,or increase speed or
keep it as it is ?
3-Does the driver use the suitable lane before entering the roundabout ?
4 Does the driver change lane without need on the circulating carriageway ?
3.2.4.2 Traffic Police Questionnaire
The aim of this questionnaire was to know the experience extent of traffic police
about rules of roundabout, its advantages compared with other intersections, reasons
of accidents, the factors that affect on driver behavior at roundabouts, and the best
method to improve the awareness for using the roundabout. The questionnaires were
conduted with 20 persons from traffic police having different levels of work
responsibility at site and office, then data collected were analyzed by exel programme
and answers percentages of questionnaire content were shown in details in Chapter 4.

26

3.2.4.3 Driving School Questionnaire

The purpose of this questionnaire was to determine if the schools of driving are giving
the students practical & theoritical materials about roundabout traffic rules and how to
use it correctlly and safely.The questionnaire contains questions dealing with training
materials, the reasons of accidents at roundabout, awareness & traffic culture about
using the roundabout, and the practical test violations that may lead to failure in
getting driving licence.
3.2.5

Sample Size Determination

There are many mathematical equations to determine statistical sample size. Among
these equations, equation of Robert Mason period:

N=

(Mason, 2002)

Where:
M: the size of the population and here represent the number of drivers
During conducting the interviews and recording video (12000 Driver).
S : dividing the error rate of 0.05 by standard degree corresponding to the level
of significance that is equal (1.96) and thus the value of S is equal to 0.0255.
P : proportion of the availability of property which is 0.50.
q : the remainder of the property which is 0.50.
N: sample size, statistical.
When applying the equation of Robert Mason, it was found that the lowest value for
the sample size is (372). Sample consists of 390 questionnaire for data collection was
taken.
3.2.6

Selection of Study Site

The choice of the site is an important element of the study because it must be
appropriate to the subject of the study.It must also contain features and specifications
of roundabouts.
Criteria for selecting study site of roundabout :
A- Contains dynamic traffic size and relatively high to study and collect good data.
B- Connects between different intersections and should be near them in order to have
high traffic volume during the study.
C- Contains three or more arms as a minimum to have good results.
D- Achieves specifications of roundabouts, such as island diameter, lane width, and
speed of movement permitted inside the roundabout.
E- There is a sufficient distance and enough space to conduct interviews.
F- The existence of buildings are relatively high so that the camera can be placed on a
high place to monitor the roundabout.

27

After examining a number of roundabouts, ALjala and Ansar roundabouts in Gaza

City have been chosen for the study, and are classified as main roundabouts. The two
sites acheived the required specifications to a large extent, and the traffic flow is high
and dynamic. At these sites it was possible to monitor the movement of vehicles with
high accuracy and clear vision.

Figure (3.1): General Location for Gaza City (Google earth)

28

Description of Selected Roundabouts

1- (ALjala) roundabout : It is located on Aljala street which is a main road in Gaza
City. It is located at the intersection between ALjala street (north south) and Kamal
Naser street (east-west). The intersection has four arms, and each approach to the
roundabout has three lanes. The circulating carraigeway has two lanes, and the central
island has adiameter of 16 m.

Figure (3.2): Aljala Roundabout (Gaza Municipality)

2- (Ansar) roundabout: It is located on Jammal Abed ALnaser street which is a main
road in Gaza City. It is located at the intersection between Jammal Abed ALnaser
street (east-west) and Sharl Degoul street (north) and ALguds street(sout). The
intersection has four arms, and each approach to the roundabout has three lanes. The
circulating carraigeway has two lanes, and the central island has adiameter of 16m.

29

Figure (3.3): Ansar Rondabout (Gaza Municipality)

Two periods were chosen for every roundabout for data collection process, the first
period was during a heavy flow period which was on Thursday in 11/9/2014 between
(1.00 and 2.00) pm for Ansar roundabout and from (4:30 to 5:30) pm at the same day
was for Aljala roundabout. The second period was during off peak period which was
on Friday 12/9/2014 from (9:30 to 10:30) am for Aljala roundabout and from (2:30 to
3:30) pm for Ansar roundabout.
3.2.7

Data Collection Stage

3.2.7.1 Driver Questionnaire:

Data Collection Team
Data collection team consists of five people (engineers) in addition to 3 persons for
video camera; the team also included two traffic policemen to help in stopping the
vehicles and conducting interviews.

30

Data Collection Methodology

The data collection process was carried out by conducting interviews with drivers to
be asked about questionnaire content after crossing the roundabout, and using the
video camera located in suitable place to monitor the movement of vehicles on the
roundabout at the same time. A random sample of drivers consisting of 390 was taken
for both two roundabouts .The focus was only on studying the movement of vehicles
in one direction (south-north).Then information from the video and the questionnaires
were compared and analyzed.
3.2.7.2 Traffic Police Questionnaire
Data Collection Methodology
Interviews were conducted with 20 persons from traffic police working at site and
office. They had been asked about roundabout traffic rules, reasons of accidents,
factors that may influence driver behavior, and methods of improving traffic
awareness at roundabout. Then obtained data were analyzed.
3.2.7.3 Driving School Questionnaire
Data Collection Methodology
Interviews were conducted with 20 driving trainers and managers working at driving
schools and were asked about questionnaire content then data were analyzed by exel
programme. Results are shown in details in Chapter 4.
3.2.8 Linking the Required Variables to Driver Questionnaire Data
3.2.8.1 Vehicle Variables
Vehicle variables will be linked to driver questionnaire data such as (vehicle type,
type of transmission, and manufacture year of vehicle).
3.2.8.2 Driver Characteristics
Questions especially for the driver characteristics which include (gender, age,
experience of driving, the profession, monthly income, year of obtaining the license,
and level of education .... etc.).
This is the introduction of data analysis stage, where the most important factors
regarding driver characteristics were chosen to be linked to driver questionnaire data
(familiarity of driver with traffic laws and his/her behavior) in order to clarify the
possible impact of these characteristics on the driver behavior and his/her familiarity
with traffic laws at roundabout.
The questionnaire data proposed to be linked to vehicles and driver characteristics are:
1. Right of priority at roundabout.
2. The best speed on roundabout.
3. The direction of movement on roundabout.
4. Clockwise u- turn at the roundabout.
31

5. The Appropriate lane to turn right.

6. The Appropriate lane to turn left.
7. The driver behavior when an emergency vehicle was close to him/her.
8. Changing the lane on the roundabout.
9. Driver behavior when he/she misses the required exit.
3.2.8.3 Video Analysis
The recorded video will be analyzed in order to answer the following questions:
Va- Does the driver give priority to the vehicle on circulating c/w of the roundabout ?
Vb- Does the driver slow down before entering the roundabout, increase speed or
keep it as it is ?
Vc- Does the driver change lane without need on circulating c/w of the roundabout ?
Vd- Does the driver use the suitable lane when entering the roundabout ?
3.2.9 Statistical Analysis for Data and Information Obtained
Exel and spss programs will be used to analyze the questionnaires and statistically
represent the results by tables and figures. Spss program can be used to find out the
possible relationships between the driver characteristics and the questionnaire data.
Showing these results and relations will be with more details in Chapter 4.

32

Chapter 4: Results and Analysis

4.1 introduction
This chapter describes the analysis and results of the three questionnaires (driver,
traffic police, and driving schools). The concentration was on driver questionnaire
because it describes the theoretical and practical behavior of drivers. Section 4.2
presents the information about the roundabouts which used in the research. Section
4.3 discusses driver questionnaire analysis with its four parts. Section 4.4 shows the
video analysis and wrong behaviors at roundabout. Section 4.5 presents the relation
between questionnaire and video data by linking them with the help of SPSS
program. Section 4.6 and Section 4.7 discuss a traffic police and driving schools
questionnaires.
4.2 Data Description
The data collected in this research were obtained in September 2014, two roundabouts
were used, the first is ALjala roundabout which is an intersection consists of four
arms, from (north-south) ALjala Street and from (east-west) Kamal Naser Street. The
second is Ansar roundabout which is an intersection consists of four arms, from north
Sharl Degol Street, from (south) ALguds street, and from (east west) Jamal Abed
Naser Street. Two periods were chosen for every roundabout, the first period was at
the peak hour on Thursday 11/9/2014 at (1:00-2:00) pm for Ansar roundabout & from
(4:30-5:30) pm for ALjala roundabout. The second period was at the off peak period
on Friday 12/9/2014 at (9:30-10:30) am for ALjala roundabout and from (2:30-3:30)
pm for Ansar roundabout. According to sample size determination equation, the
minimum number of questionnaires is 372 questionnaires where 390 questionnaires
were used in this research.
4.3 Driver Questionnaire Analysis
4.3.1 Vehicle Questions
There is a considerable variation in the types of vehicles in the study sample where
the private cars are the most type which are about 41.90 % of the total number of
sample. Taxis represent about 39.8 % of the total number of sample. The other types
of vehicles represent small percentages as shown in Table & Figure 4.1.
Table (4.1): Vehicles types & percentages
Vehicle type

Personal
Taxi
Bus (20-50) passengers
Truck
Motorcycle
Other
33

4.10%

personal

0.30%

2.90%
bus (10) passengers
39.80%
-bus (2050)
passenge
rs

truck

Figure (4.1): Vehicles types & percentages

Type of transmission (gear) in the vehicle may affect driver behavior, so there was a
classification for the gear if it was manual or automatic. Table & Figure 4.2 show the
results of this classification for gear.
Table (4.2): Transmission types & percentages
Type of
Transmission
Manual

20.40%
automatic

79.60%

Figure (4.2): Transmission types & percentages

Manufacture Year of vehicles may affect driver behavior. The years were divided as
stages, as shown in Table & Figure 4.3 below.
Table (4.3): Manufacture year of registered vehicles and percentages

34

29.65%
21.22%

1991-2000
2001-2007
2008-2014

Figure (4.3): Manufacture year of registered vehicles and percentages

About 40% of the vehicles are considered modern vehicles, and about 21%
considered closed for modern vehicles. The vehicles which made from (1980-1990)
are considered old vehicles & the vehicles which made from (1991-2000) are closed
for old vehicles.
4.3.2 Driver Characteristics
Driver questions were directed for both, males & females, where the percentage of
male was the dominant, since the percentage of male is about 99 % of the sample, this
percentage is high because most of drivers in the society in Gaza are male. Table &
Figure 4.4 show the percentages of male & female graphically.
Table (4.4): Male & Female percentages

1.20%

male
female
98.80%

Figure (4.4): Male & Female percentages

Table & Figure 4.5 represent age percentages for the sample. The higher percentages
were for drivers whose ages between (18-40) years, where the percentage is about
35

68%, this means that most of the sample is Youth. The percentage of drivers whose
ages between (41-60) years is about 30%. The other percentages are so small which
represent the percentage of drivers whose ages 18 year or less and more than 60 year.
Table (4.5): Driver age percentages

30.81%

Figure (4.5): Drivers age percentages

No one can deny that, the driver experience plays an important role on his/her
behavior, so it was taken into account. The years of experience for drivers were
divided into groups as shown in Table & Figure 4.6. We can note that the highest
percentage of driver experience years is the second group from (5-15) years. The
percentage of drivers who have experience less than 5 years is about 17%, while the
drivers who have experience more than 25 years is about 10 % of the sample.
Table (4.6): Driver experience years & percentages

36

Figure (4.6): Driver experience years & percentages

The educational level may effects driver behavior, so it should be taken into account
to determine the potential effect on driver behavior. The educational level was
various, since the percentage of drivers for primary level is only 4.65%, & the
percentages of drivers for middle level is about 15%, but the percentage of drivers for
the secondary level is about 38%, and for drivers who were or finished the college
level is about 42%. Table & Figure 4.7 show these percentages clearly.
Table (4.7): Educational level percentages for drivers

Figure (4.7): Educational level percentages for drivers

37

Only 3.8% of drivers dont have a driving license, while 96.2% have, it is very
important for driver since its the leader which guides him for the correct behavior
while driving.
The year of getting the driving license may affect driver behavior, and the driver who
have an old driving license doesnt remember the rules or he didn t take some of new
rules, so it should be taken into account. Later, the relationship between the year of
getting driver license & driver behavior will be shown if the analysis prove that there
is a relationship. The year of getting driving license was divided into classes as shown
in Table & Figure 4.8.
Table (4.8): Year of getting driving license of drivers
Year of getting driving
license
1993 or less
1994-2000
2001-2007
2008-2014

Figure (4.8): Year of getting driving license of drivers

The goal of knowing the drivers job & salary is to know if the drivers behavior is
differ from one to one according to their standard of living, its thought that the driver
who have a job of high salary behaves correctly on driving more than who have a low
salary. later at the end of this chapter, the relationship will be shown between driver
job and his behavior. Table & Figure 4.9 represent drivers job & their percentages
while Table & Figure 4.10 represent drivers salary.

38

Table (4.9): Drivers job & percentages

As it is clear from Table 4.9 the most percentage was for taxi drivers which is about
42.5%. The employees were about 23% of the sample and the other as shown in Table
& Figure 4.9.
4.94%
12.79%
1.45%5.52%
0.29%
22.97%

9.59%
42.44%

others
unemployed

Figure (4.9): Drivers job & their percentages

Most of drivers their salary ranging from (1000-2000) NIS which represents about
59% of the sample where a percentage of 27% was for drivers of salary ranging from
(2000-3000) NIS & the other percentages are shown in Table & Figure 4.10.
Table (4.10): Drivers salary & percentages

39

more than 4000

Figure (4.10): Drivers salary & percentages

4.3.3

The First Field: The Knowledge about Traffic Laws at Roundabouts

Large percentage of drivers dont know many of traffic laws at roundabout, especially
old drivers who have taken their license since a long time. This is because
roundabouts werent famous in our area and no data about roundabouts were given to
students at that time.
Most of drivers know where the vehicle must wait when pedestrian & bicycles want
to cross the roundabout, their answers were almost unified before stop lines.
Yield sign is famous sign which means he/she should slow & give the right of priority
for pedestrian, vehicles, the other users of streets, intersections, and other components
that have a yield sign.
The drivers were confused when they asked about the priority right, if it s for the
vehicles which are inside the roundabout or for the vehicles approaching to the
roundabout.
87.8% percentage of answers were correct, the drivers know that the priority right is
for the vehicles which are inside the roundabout.
Table and Figure 4.11 show the results of the answers about priority right at
roundabout.
Table (4.11): Priority right at roundabout & percentages
Priority right
For the vehicle inside the roundabout
For the vehicle approaching to roundabout

40

12.21%

the vehicle inside the roundabout

87.79%

the vehicle which is want to cross

the roundabout

Figure (4.11): Priority right at roundabout & percentages

The best speed to cross the roundabout is 30 km/h or less, about 96.5% of the drivers
answered that, and the others answered as shown in Table & Figure 4.12.
Table (4.12): The desired speed of answers & percentages

96.51%

Figure (4.12): The desired speed (km/h) answers & percentages

The movement on the central c/w of the roundabout must be known by drivers if it s
counterclockwise or clockwise. In our area the circulation is counterclockwise inside

the roundabout, this means that the circulation clockwise is Prohibited inside the
roundabout . When the drivers were asked about the counterclockwise sign shown in
Figure 4.13 below, about 52% of them answered correctly, but there was about 46%
answered that the sign means be careful you are facing a roundabout & about 2%
41

answered that the circumvent is clockwise and this is a wrong answer. Table 4.13 and
Figure 4.14 show these results .

Figure (4.13): Direction of movement sign

Table (4.13): Counter clockwise sign meaning
Counter clockwise sign meaning
Be careful you are facing roundabout
The circulation is clockwise
The circulation is counterclockwise

Figure (4.14): Direction of movement answers at roundabout & percentages

The sample confirmed that the driver is not allowed to make clockwise U-turn before
the roundabout. About 99% of the sample confirmed that as shown in Figure 4.15.

Figure (4.15): Clockwise U-turn before the roundabout

42

1.45%

yes
no
98.55%

Figure (4.16): Clockwise U-turn before roundabout answers & percentages

If you want to turn right when you are facing a roundabout as shown in Figure 4.17,
you should drive in the right lane. If you want to turn left, you should drive in the left
lane beside the island.

Figure (4.17): Lane selection

When the drivers were asked about the appropriate lane to drive if he/she wants to
turn right, about 99% answered correctly that the appropriate lane is the right lane.
The percentages are shown in Figure 4.18.

43

1.16%

the lane which is beside the curb

the lane which is beside the island

98.84%

Figure (4.18): Appropriate lane answers to turn right & percentages

When the drivers were asked about the appropriate lane to drive if he/she wants to
turn left, they answered as shown in Figure 4.19.

2.62%
the lane which is beside the curb
the lane which is beside the island
97.38%

Figure (4.19): Appropriate lane to turn left answers & percentages

If an emergency vehicle was close to you when you are driving on the central c/w of
the roundabout, you must complete your turn and then stop out of the roundabout
beside the curb exit. Most drivers were having different answers; about 62% of them
answered that he/she must stop inside and waiting on the roundabout till the
emergency vehicle leave the roundabout. About 9.6% answered that he/she must go
out from the next exit & stop beside the curb. And about 28.5 % answered that he/she
should move through the roundabout till arriving the required exit and then stop.
Table 4.14 & Figure 4.20 show these results accurately.
44

Table (4.14): Driver behavior at roundabout when facing an emergency vehicle

What are you going to do if you were inside the
roundabout and an emergency car was close to you?
Keep moving through the roundabout till arriving the
required exit
Stopping inside the roundabout beside the curb
Going out from the next exit & stopping beside the curb
away from the roundabout

go out from the

next exit & stop
beside the curb
away from the
roundabout

Figure (4.20): Drivers answers when facing emergency vehicle & percentages
Its not allowed to change the lane while you are inside the roundabout as shown in
Figure 4.21. 95% of the drivers confirmed that as shown in Figure 4.22.

Figure (4.21): Lane change

45

4.94%

yes
no
95.06%

Figure (4.22): Changing lane inside the roundabout answers percentages

It is not allowed to change lanes on the central c/w of the roundabout.
If the driver missed his/her exits, he/she must keep moving till arriving the required
exit. When the drivers were asked about this, 90% confirmed that the driver must
keep moving in circulating c/w till arriving the required exit & there are other answers
as shown in Figure 4.23.

6.10%

go back till arriving the required exit

2.91%

keep moving in circumvent till arriving

the required exit
choose the closer exit & use another
ways

90.99%

Figure (4.23): Missed exit answers

46

4.3.4

The Second Field: Driver Behavior at Roundabout

Repeated driving at roundabout can affect driver behavior, more repeated driving
means more correct behavior. Figure 4.24 represents how many times drivers cross
the roundabout daily, some of them cross it one time & some more than once, more
crossing could correct the behavior with time.

Figure (4.24): Number of crossing times at roundabout

Three questions their answers were yes with 100% percentage, the questions are:
Have you given the priority right to vehicles thats within the roundabout?
Did you slow the speed when you arriving the roundabout?
Have you given the priority right for pedestrian at pedestrian crossings ?
This means that, the drivers dont make traffic mistakes at roundabout, if we want to
confirm their answers, but we must be sure before confirm their answers, so a camera
were installed up at roundabout to monitor driver behavior at roundabout to know the
real percentage of answers for these questions & other questions.
100% of drivers answered that they dont change the lane inside the roundabout
during their crossing & never made any accident at roundabout.
4.3.5

The Third Field : The Awareness and Satisfaction

Drivers preferred radio as media to increase their awareness about roundabouts with
61% percentage. On the other side, they preferred TV, internet, and social network
sites with percentages shown in Table 4.15 & Figure 4.25. The high percentage is for

radio media because most of the sample are taxi drivers & dont have a time to see or
to hear from other media.

47

Table (4.15): Preferred media for traffic awareness

Media
TV
Radio
Internet
Social network sites

Figure (4.25): Preferred media for traffic awareness & percentages

The written examination and practical test of license are very important. Some drivers
who had the license recently, have been examined theoretically and tested practically
about roundabout, but drivers who had the license from a long time, they were not
tested and asked about roundabout .
When the driver was asked about the written examination if it has a questions about
roundabout, some of them answered yes & some answered no, and the others were not
sure, the percentages of these answers are shown in Figure 4.26 below.
Also, some of them were tested at roundabout at practical test, others were not, or not
sure if the practical test contained driving at roundabout, the percentages of these
answers are shown in Figure 4.27.

48

14.20%

20.54%

65.26%

Figure (4.26): Answers for written examination & percentages

5.74%

26.59%
yes
67.67%

no
not sure

Figure (4.27): Answers for practical test & percentages

When the drivers were asked about traffic police, 84.6% of them were satisfied about
police work. About 8% were not satisfied & about 7% were hesitater, their answers
were according traffic police dealing with them. Figure 4.28 shows the percentages of
drivers satisfaction about traffic police dealing.

49

7.85%
7.56%
Agree
Hesitater

84.59%

Figure (4.28): Drivers satisfaction percentages about traffic police

Traffic signs are very important, when the drivers were asked about their satisfaction
about traffic signs at roundabout, large percentage were not satisfy about signs, some
of them said that the signs are not enough & the others said that the signs are not clear
as it should be. About 49 % were not satisfied, 37.5% were satisfied, and the others
were hesitaters. Figure 4.29 shows these results precisely.

37.50%
48.84%

13.66%

Figure (4.29): Drivers satisfaction percentages about traffic signs

Media is very important in drivers awareness about driving at roundabouts,
intersections, and other traffic components. About 52% were satisfied about media

role in awareness them, 35% were not satisfied, and the others were hesitaters. Figure
4.30 presents these results graphically.

50

35.47%

51.74%

12.79%

Figure (4.30): Drivers satisfaction percentages about media role

Roundabouts forced the drivers to slow their speeds when entering it, some factors
helps to achieve this goal like the central island & traffic signs, especially yield signs
which installed at the entrances of the approaches. The objectives of installing
roundabouts are forcing the drivers to slow their speeds & prevent traffic congestion.
When the drivers were asked if the roundabouts forced them to slow their speeds, 93
% were agree with this, and the others as shown in Figure 4.31.

4.36%

2.62%

Agree
Hesitater

93.02%

Figure (4.31): Drivers satisfaction percentages about roundabout

role in slowing the speed of drivers
Aesthetic shape of roundabout contributes in psychological comfort & this reflects
positively on driver behavior. 85 % of the drivers were confirmed with that, the

roundabout increases the aesthetics of the intersection, others have a different opinion
as shown in Figure 4.32.

51

6.98%
8.14%

Agree
Hesitater

84.88%

Figure (4.32): Drivers satisfaction percentages about

roundabout aesthetic shape.
When the roundabout compared with traffic signal in terms of safety & congestion,
63% confirmed that the traffic signal is safer than the roundabout, 32 % confirmed the
inverse, and others were hesitater as shown in Figure 4.33.

32.27%
Agree

63.37%
Not Agree
4.36%

Figure (4.33): Safety comparison between roundabout & traffic signal

According to drivers answers about congestion, about 61% of the sample support the
roundabout, they confirm that the roundabout decrease the congestion more than
traffic signal, but 33% were not agree with this opinion, percentages are shown
precisely in Figure 4.34 below.

52

33.43%

61.34%

5.23%

Figure (4.34): Congestion comparison between roundabout & traffic signal

But, when the roundabout was compared with stop sign according to safety & congestion,
58% of the sample were agree that the roundabout is safer than the stop sign, but 36%
were not agree with. Figure 4.35 presents the results of this comparison.

36.34%

58.43%

5.23%

Figure (4.35): Safety comparison between roundabout & stop sign

71.5% of the sample support roundabout in decreasing the congestion when compared
with stop sign, 22.5% were not agree, and 5.8% were hesitaters. The results are shown
precisely in Figure 4.36 below.

53

22.67%
Agree

5.81%

Hesitater
71.52%

Not Agree

Figure (4.36): Congestion comparison between roundabout & stop sign

The municipal maintain the roundabout, these maintenance include signs, shape
modification, and aesthetic shape of the roundabout. When the drivers were asked
about their satisfaction on municipal role in maintenance, some were satisfied, some
were not, and others were hesitaters. The percentages of these opinions are shown in
Figure 4.37 .

14.83%
15.70%

69.47%

Figure (4.37): drivers satisfaction on municipal role

Some drivers think that, Whenever the central island at roundabout is bigger, their
behavior is improving, 70% of them were think that, but about 20% were not agree,
and the others were hesitaters, These percentages are shown precisely in Figure 4.38.

54

19.77%

10.17%

70.06%

Figure (4.38): Drivers opinion about improving their

behavior with bigger island

No one can deny the role of signs and ground markings in helping drivers to behave
well at driving. it improve the behavior of drivers at roads, intersections, and other
traffic components. The drivers almost were agree that the signs and ground markings
improve their behavior. This means that they are Indispensable.

The drivers were asked about the reason of not giving the priority right at roundabout,
and there were 4 options explaining that behavior which are:
1. laws Ignorance of the roundabout.
2. Unrespect of traffic laws.
3. The lack of strict measures against violators.
4. The central island is small & dont obstruct the movement.
63% of the drivers were agree with the first reason, laws ignorance of the roundabout,
which means 37% were not agree or hesitater as shown in Figure 4.39.
92% of the drivers were agree with the second option, unrespect of traffic laws, 8%
were not agree or hesitater as shown in Figure 4.40.
83% of drivers were agree with the third reason, the lack of strict measures against
violators, 17% were not agree or hesitater as shown in Figure 4.41.
39% of drivers were agree with the fourth reason, the central island is small and dont
obstruct the movement, 61 % were not agree or hesitater as shown in Figure 4.42.

55

Not Agree

Figure (4.39): Drivers opinion about the impact of laws ignorance on

giving priority right at roundabout.

5.23%

2.91%

91.86%

Figure (4.40): Drivers opinion about the impact of unrespect of traffic

laws on giving priority right at roundabout.

56

6.69%

10.47%

82.84%

Figure (4.41): Drivers opinion about the impact of lack of strict measures
against violators on giving priority right at roundabout.

Agree
Hesitater
Not Agree
14.24%

Figure (4.42): Drivers opinion about the impact of central island

size on giving priority right at roundabout.
4.3.6

The Difference in Answers Between the Two Roundabouts

About 51% of questionnaires were at ALjala roundabout & the other percentage was
at Ansar roundabout as shown in Figure 4.43. It is noted that when data for both
roundabouts were separated, no difference in answers at the two roundabouts. The
answers percentages for all questions were so closely, so the study location didnt
affect drivers answers, behavior, and the analysis of data when it was separated.

57

48.26%

Figure (4.43): Percentage of responded questionnaires at the two roundabouts

ALgala & Ansar
4.4 Video Analysis
4.4.1

Data Description

Video camera was installed near the roundabouts to monitor drivers behavior at
roundabout. The main objective of the camera is to monitor the practical driver
behavior at roundabout then compare the video results with his/her answers for video
questions in the questionnaire, these questions are:

Does the driver give the priority right for vehicles which move on the central c/w of
the roundabout?
Does the driver decrease, increase, or stay at the same speed during crossing the
roundabout?

Does the driver change the lane inside the roundabout without the necessity of it?
Does the driver use the appropriate lane for entering the roundabout?

When the drivers were asked about these questions in the questionnaire, 100% of
them answered that they gave the priority right for vehicles which exist inside the
roundabout, 100% of them answered that they decreased their speed during crossing
the roundabout, and 100% of them answered that they did not change the lane inside
the roundabout. But practically these percentages were not as they said, the practical
behavior was different about their answers.
4.4.2

Data Analysis

The priority right is very important to be known by the drivers. At roundabout, the
priority right is for vehicles which are inside the roundabout, not for desiring to enter
the roundabout. When the vehicles were being monitored by the camera, most of
drivers did not give the priority right as they said. Only about 16% of the drivers gave
the priority right for vehicles which are inside the roundabout. This percentage was
the sum of drivers who gave and who forced to give the priority right, about 36% of

58

the drivers did not give the priority right, and 48% of drivers did not face vehicles
inside the roundabout as shown in Figure 4.45. Percentages of these data are shown in
Figure 4.44 precisely.

2.91% 12.79%

Figure (4.44):Video analysis for giving priority right

Figure (4.45): No opposing vehicles

The meaning of priority right is to wait outside the roundabout till you have a gap to
cross, as shown in Figure 4.46 not as shown in Figure 4.47.

Figure (4.46): True action (waiting)

Figure(4.47):Wrong action (crossing)

59

The meaning of forced to give the priority right, is that the vehicle which is inside the
roundabout becomes directly in front of the approaching vehicle which forced to give
it the priority right otherwise the accident will occur if the approaching vehicle does
not stop and wait, the shape of this situation as shown below in Figure 4.48.

Figure (4.48): Vehicle forced to give the priority right

From the main objectives of installing the roundabout, is decreasing vehicles speed at
the intersections. About 88% of drivers decreasing their speeds, 11% stay with the
same speed, and small percentage of drivers increasing their speed. These percentages
are shown in Figure 4.49 below.
11.34%
0.29%
decrease
increase
88.37%

stay at same speed

Figure (4.49):Video analysis for drivers speeds when approaching roundabout

Changing the lanes inside the roundabout is very dangerous, it may causes accidents
and traffic problems inside the roundabout like congestion, so its not preferred to
change the lanes inside the roundabout without necessary.
90% of the sample did not change their lanes during crossing the roundabout, and the
remaining sample did. Accurate percentages are shown below in Figure 4.50.

60

9.09%

yes
no
90.91%

Figure (4.50): Video analysis for changing lanes inside the roundabout

100% of the sample crosses the roundabout with an appropriate lane, because the
driver can cross the roundabout using either the left lane or the right lane when going
straight ahead.
4.4.3

Wrong Behaviors at Roundabout

behavior at roundabout should be known by the drivers & pedestrian, there are some
notices were observed during monitoring driver behavior. These notices are wrong
actions by the drivers or pedestrian, it should not be and must be corrected, these
notices are :

Making U-turn before entering the roundabout.

Pedestrian crossing the roundabout from the inside portion of it.
Passengers leaving the car at the roundabout.
Vehicles inside the roundabout wait, stop, and give the priority right for
vehicles approaching the roundabout.

Making U-turn before the roundabout is a big mistake done by the drivers, it may
causes accidents and traffic congestion, these movements should not be or occurred as
shown in Figure 4.51. During recording videos of driver behavior at roundabout, 11
wrong situations were observed.

61

Figure (4.51): Wrong U-turn

Pedestrian should cross the roundabout from the specific paths before the roundabout,
which is a zebra lines. Its a wrong behavior to cross the roundabout from its core, as
shown in Figure 4.52 case A, they must cross as shown in Figure 4.52 case B.
14 observation were recorded like this.

Figure (4.52): Pedestrian behavior

Passengers must leave the taxi before the roundabout or after, this must be known and
understood by the taxi drivers. They should not stop their cars beside the roundabout,
because this may causes accidents for pedestrian, passengers, and for the taxi itself
and make traffic congestion at the roundabout. 8 situations were observed during
recording videos of driver behavior, as shown in Figure 4.53.

62

Figure (4.53): Wrong passenger downloading

The vehicles inside the roundabout have the priority right, but 33 situations were
observed that, they are waiting the vehicles which approaching the roundabout to give
them the priority right, this behavior occurred by them because:

They scare to make accidents with the approaching vehicles.

They dont know the priority right rule at roundabout.

The aggressive behavior of the approaching vehicles forced them to stop.

This wrong behavior is shown in Figure 4.54.

Figure (4.54): Wrong behavior

4.5 Linking of Driver Characteristics to Questionnaire and Video Data
SPSS program was used for this purpose, some variables dealing with vehicle and
driver characteristics from questionnaire content were linked to the questions of the
first part in questionnaire (familiarity of the driver with roundabout traffic laws) and
video questions. The variables are ( vehicle type, transmission type, manufacture year
of vehicle, driver sex, driver age, year of experience in driving, level of education,
driving license, year of getting license, driver job, and driver income). The analysis is
63

presented and shown in the Appendix page 103. The relationships between every
factor and every question are listed as shown in Tables 4.17, 4.18, 4.19. If there is a
relation, true mark () was signed and if there is no relation, cross mark (x) was
signed. The relations percentage between all factors and the total questions was
12.33%. This means that when characteristics of drivers were linked to their
familiarity and knowledge of roundabout traffic laws and their real behavior which
was concluded from the video analysis, the relationship was weak and not more than
13.4%, as shown in Tables 4.17, 4.18, 4.19.
Table (4.16): Data of questionnaire and video to be linked with driver characteristics
Symbol
Q15

Meaning
Where are vehicles w
for pedestrian and cy
crossing?
What does yield sign
at roundabout?

Q16

Q17

Who have the right o

priority at roundabou
What is the best spee
roundabout (km/h)?

Q18
Q19

What does this sign m

Q20

Is it allowable to turn
(clockwise U turn) be
the roundabout ?

Q21

What is the Appropri

lane to turn right ?

64

Table (4.17): Analysis of questionnaire data

Variables

Questions

15- Where are vehicles

waiting during
pedestrian and cycling
crossing?

16- What does yield sign

mean at roundabout ?

17-Who have the right of

priority at roundabout ?

18- What is the best

speed inside roundabout
(km/h)?

19- What does this sign

mean?

20- Is it allowable to turn

left (clock wise U turn)
before the roundabout ?

21- What is the

appropriate lane to turn

right ?

22- What is the

Appropriate lane to turn
left ?

23- What are you going

to do while you are
inside the roundabout
and an emergency car is
close to you?

24- Is it right to change

the lane inside the
roundabout ?

25- If you missed the

required exit during
driving inside the
roundabout, what will
you do?

65
Variables

Questions

15- Where are vehicles

waiting during
pedestrian and cycling
crossing?

16- What does yield sign

mean at roundabout ?

17-Who have the right of

priority at roundabout ?

18- What is the best

speed inside roundabout
(km/h)?

19- What does this sign

mean?

20- Is it allowable to turn

left (clockwise U turn)
before the roundabout ?

21- What is the

Appropriate lane to turn
right ?

22- What is the

Appropriate lane to turn
left ?

23- What are you going

to do while you are

inside the roundabout if
an emergency car is
close to you?

24- Is it right to change

the lane inside the
roundabout ?

25- If you missed the

required exit during
driving inside the
roundabout, what will
you do?

66

Variables

Questions

15- Where are vehicles

waiting during
pedestrian and cycling
crossing?

16- What does yield sign

mean at roundabout ?

17-Who have the right of

priority at roundabout ?

18- What is the best

speed inside roundabout
(km/h)?

19- What does this sign

mean?

20- Is it allowable to turn

left (clockwise U turn)
before the roundabout?

21-What is the
appropriate lane to turn
right ?

22- What is the

Appropriate lane to turn
left ?

23- What are you going

to do while you are
inside the roundabout
and an emergency car is
close to you?

24- Is it right to change

the lane inside the
roundabout ?

25- If you missed the

required exit during
driving inside the
roundabout, what will
you do?

67

Table (4.18): Analysis of videos questions

Questions

Variables

Vehicle Type

Type of Transmission

Manufacture Year
Of vehicle

Driver Sex

Driver Age

experience Years of
Driving

Education Level of
Driver

Driver's Driving License

Year of getting
Driving License

Driver Job

Driver Income

Remarks: if p-value >0.05 means that there is no significant effect

Relations with p-value< 0.05=19 percent of relations which has effect=19/154=12.3%
68

Table (4.19): Relationships between driver

characteristics and questionnaire, video data

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

x= There is no significant effect

= There is significant effect

4.6 Traffic Police questionnaire

Questionnaires were addressed to traffic police, where the sample size was (20).The
questionnaire exists at Appendix page No. 100. The objectives of this questionnaire
are:

4.6.2

Knowing how much they know about traffic laws & their opinion at roundabout
intersection.
Traffic police opinion about the factors which affect driver behavior at roundabout.
Traffic police opinion about the reasons of accidents at roundabout.
The amount of awareness and satisfaction of traffic police about roundabout.

The First Field: The knowledge about Traffic Laws at Roundabout

When a driver desires to cross the roundabout, he/she must wait outside the
roundabout and give the priority right for the drivers inside the roundabout. Police
traffic sample was asked about the driver who must wait and give the priority right for
the other, 85% of the sample answered correctly, that the driver who want to cross the
roundabout must wait and give the priority right, but 15% answered conversely, and
this is not a small percentage as their important locations.
Table 4.20 shows the percentages of traffic police answers about the listed questions,
these questions reflects familiarity of traffic police about roundabout advantages and
benefits.

Table (4.20): Traffic police knowledge about traffic laws at roundabout

The question
1 Is it right to change the lane inside the roundabout?
2 Are the most of drivers use the signal before entering
the roundabout?
3 Are the most of drivers use the appropriate lane
before entering the roundabout?
4 Do you prefer to transfer the most of intersections to
roundabout because of its characteristics & benefits
when it is compared with other intersections?

70

Table 4.21 shows the traffic polices agreement degree about the benefits and
characteristics of the roundabout, when compared with other intersections.
Table (4.21): Traffic police acceptance degree about roundabout advantages

a
b
c
d
e
f
g

4.6.2

The Second Field: The Factors Affect Driver Behavior at Roundabout

Its noted when using the roundabout , there is a high percentage of drivers ignore the
priority right at roundabout and the traffic laws, so police traffic were asked about the
factors which affect on driver behavior and how much these factors contribute in
ignoring the laws. The reasons which were asked for the traffic police listed below in
Table 4.22 with traffic police agreement percentage on every factor.
Table (4.22): Traffic police answers about factors affecting driver behavior

a
b
c
d
e
f
g

h
i
j

4.6.3

The Third Field: The Reasons of Accidents at Roundabout

Traffic police were asked about the percentage of factors that may contribute in
accidents occurring at roundabout, these factors are listed in Table 4.23, the percentages
represent the extent of traffic police agreement with every factor.
Table (4.23): Degree of contribution of factors in occurring accidents at roundabout

a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
4.6.4

The Fourth Field: Awareness and Satisfaction

Traffic police confirmed that there are a need for awareness messages to increase
awareness & culture about the use of roundabout, they confirmed that about 50% of the
drivers are satisfied about the roundabout. Traffic police are convinced at roundabout
intersection as a model to organize the traffic movement.
Some factors contribute in awareness like newspapers, magazine, TV, radio, and others
as listed in table 4.24. The traffic police were asked about these factors, how much it
contribute in increasing the traffic awareness and culture at roundabout.
Table (4.24): Degree of contribution of media in increasing driver traffic awareness

a
b
c
d
e

4.7

Driving Schools Questionnaire

Driving school is essential element for drivers behavior, it learns the drivers about
the correct behavior at road components, so they must learn the driving at roundabout
and they must have the detailed information about the roundabout. Sample consists of
(20) questionnaire were addressed for driving schools to achieve some objectives,
these objectives are:

Knowing how much the information that the student receives in the training.
Knowing the reasons of traffic accidents at roundabout.
Their opinion in increasing the awareness and traffic culture.
Knowing information about the practical test.

The questionnaire exists at the appendix page No. 97

4.7. 1 The First Field: Training
Some questions were introduced for driving school asking about training of students
in the schools, the questions are listed in Table 4.25, the percentages shown in the
table represent the percentages answers of driving schools with three options yes, no,
and sometimes.
Table (4.25):Percent of theoretical and practical training materials provided to student
The question
1
Do you provide the student with educational
materials about traffic laws and priority right
at roundabout?
2
Do you learn the student practically how to
use the roundabout & give the priority right?
3
Does the student find difficulty in using the
roundabout compared with Other
intersections?
4
Do you learn the student to use the signal
before entering and when exiting the
roundabout?
5
Do you learn & train the student about

6
7
8

choosing the appropriate lane before entering

the roundabout?
Do you learn & train the student about not to
change the lane during circulating in the
roundabout?
Does the written exam of license contain
questions about traffic laws at roundabout?
Does the practical test of license contain
driving at roundabout?

73

4.7. 2 The Second Field: The Reasons of Accidents at Roundabout

The driving trainer of students can determine the factors which contribute in
occurring the accidents and the degree of contribution for every factor, because he
notices the traffic violations every day. Some factors/reasons were listed in Table 4.26
to evaluate the degree of influence on accidents occurring. The percentages shown in
the table represent the sample answers percentages of three levels high, normal, and
low.
Table (4.26): Degree of contribution of factors in occurring accidents at roundabout

a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
4.7. 3 The Third Field: Awareness and Traffic Culture
Driving schools confirmed that there is a need for awareness messages to increase
awareness & culture about the use of roundabout. There are some ways to contribute
in increasing awareness and traffic culture at roundabout, these media are listed in
Table 4.27 to know the degree of contribution in increasing the awareness and traffic
culture and later to advise stake holders to use it. The sample answers percentages are
shown in the Table below with three levels high, normal, and low.
Table (4.27): Degree of contribution of media in increasing driver traffic awareness

a
b

c
d
e

4.7. 4 The Fourth Field: The Practical Test

Driving school confirmed that there is a percentage less than 25% fails in the practical
test because of their wrong behaviors at roundabout. Student behavior at roundabout ,the
correct use of roundabout, and applying the traffic laws are precisely considered from the
important criteria of success or failure of the student at the practical test .

Driving schools trainers (DST) were asked about the violations contribution which
listed below in Table 4.28 in the failure of students during the practical test, the
percentages shown in the table represent the percentages of (DST) answers .
Table (4.28): Wrong behaviors contribution in student failure in practical test

a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j

4.8

Summary:

In this study the process of data collection has gone through responding drivers about
roundabout traffic rules by using a questionnaire. At the same time video was
recorded to monitor the actual driver behavior especially his/her application to
priority right rule, therefore the data collected were accurate and the results obtained
after analysis of data were real and represent the actual situation of driver behavior at
Gaza roundabouts. The research outcomes and results are expected to be of great help
for administrative decisions in the ministry of transportation, municipality, and traffic
police departments.
75

Chapter 5: Conclusions & Recommendations

5.1 Summary
The main objective of this research was to determine the portion of drivers who do not
follow the priority rule and to analyze the reasons that make the drivers not following
the priority rule. For achieving the above mentioned aim the work in this research was
divided into seven stages. The first stage involves conducting literature review on
driver behavior at roundabout intersections and the impact of this behavior on the
capacity and safety at roundabouts. The second stage is the selection of roundabouts
those are similar in topographic and geometric design properties in Gaza city. The
third stage involves the collection of traffic data at roundabouts. The fourth stage is
designing questionnaires for drivers, traffic police and driving schools for the purpose
of collection information about vehicles, drivers, and drivers behavior during crossing
roundabout intersections. The fifth stage is making statistical analysis for data and
information obtained and discussing the obtained results. The sixth stage is
summarizing the main results and conclusions of the study. The seventh stage is
proposing solutions and recommendations for wrong behaviors and traffic problems at
roundabouts.
5.2 Conclusions
This research has been analyzed by using excel and SPSS (Statistical Package for
Social Science) programs, the findings of the research are:
1. Results obtained from questionnaire analysis showed that 88% of the study sample
knows the base of priority right, while the practical results obtained from video
analysis were different, only about 30% of the sample applied and gave priority right
at the roundabout. These results due to several reasons such as a lack of strict
measures against violators; a small diameter of central island; a number of drivers
have obtained a license since a long time; and media don't make its role in awareness
the driver with roundabout traffic laws.
2. According to the video analysis about 88.5 % of study sample decrease their
speeds when approaching the roundabout, while 11% of the sample stay at the same
speed. About 93% of study sample (due to questionnaire analysis) was agree that
roundabouts force the drivers to slow their speeds when approaching the intersection.
This means that the roundabout doing its function in forcing the drivers to decrease
their speeds.
3. Results obtained from video analysis showed that only 9% of the study sample had
changed lanes inside the roundabout, while about 91% of the sample keep their lanes
during crossing the roundabout.

76

4. About 38% of the study sample is from the age group less than 30 years old, this
indicates that a significant percentage of drivers are new and have a few years of
experience. The young people do not have the ability on high patience such as older
persons during driving, and that is one of the causes of violations at roundabouts.
5. About 51% of drivers are getting license before 2000; in this period roundabouts
were not familiar in Gaza strip. Therefore, their information about using and dealing
with roundabouts were too weak.
6. About 42% of the study sample are taxi drivers; this is a high percentage that
makes the percentage of not giving priority right at roundabouts to be high also.
7. About 86% of questions concerning traffic rules knowledge had been answered
correctly by the drivers. This means that a large percentage of drivers have a good
information about traffic laws. Therefore they don't follow the traffic laws because of
another factors which seem to be a lack of respect for traffic laws; limited use of strict
measures against violators; the geometry of roundabout especially when the central
island is small; low traffic signs and road markings at roundabout.
8. About 61% of study sample preferred radio for more traffic awareness about
roundabout. This is because of existing of a large number of taxi drivers in the
study sample. The others preferred TV; internet; and social networking sites.
9. About 61% of the sample preferred the roundabout more than traffic signals as it
decreases the congestion. Also roundabout was preferred more than stop sign in both,
safety and decreasing the congestion.
10. About 70% of study sample agree that driver behavior improves whenever the
central island is bigger.
11. When characteristics of driver like (age, sex, years of experience, level of
education, year of getting driving license, and monthly income---etc ) were linked to
his/her familiarity of roundabout traffic laws and behavior, the relationship between
was weak and not more than 13.4%. This means that the factors dealing with driver
characteristics have a small impact on his/her real behavior and familiarity with traffic
laws at roundabout.
12. Traffic police agree that there are some factors influence on driver behavior at
roundabouts, this factors like driver's recklessness, traffic congestion, geometric
shape, ignorance of traffic laws about roundabout, young age of driver, the Over
speed and a few years of experience.
13. Traffic police confirmed that there is a need for traffic awareness to improve the
driver behavior and to increase his traffic culture about the use of roundabout through
activating the media like social networking sites, TV, radio, and driving schools.

77

14. Driving schools provide students educational materials about traffic laws and
priority right at roundabout; this contributes positively on driver behavior at
roundabouts.
15. Driving schools confirmed that the written examination always has questions
about traffic laws at roundabouts, and the practical test contains driving at
roundabouts. This leads to improve the driver behavior at roundabouts.
16. Using and applying of traffic laws accurately at roundabouts considered an
important measure in success or failure in the students practical exam as
driving schools confirmed that.

78

5.3 Recommendations
Several recommendation have emerged from this research which are:
1. Students in driving schools should learn the priority right at roundabout, and how
to use it correctly and safely.
2. Media must do its role in increasing the awareness of drivers about safe driving
especially at roundabouts since it is new and has become famous after 2000 year
in Gaza strip. This media like TV, radio, social networking sites, and internet.
3. There should be strict procedures against violators at roundabouts, thats for
avoiding drivers careless and ignorance of traffic laws.
4. Some intersections should be converted to roundabouts, because of its high safety,
decreasing the congestion, and its role in forcing the drivers to slow their speeds.
5. The municipality should work to improve geometry of the roundabout as possible,
and to increase the means of safety by applying proper road markings and traffic
signs at the intersection.
5.4 Further Study
1. Further studies should be conducted on other locations in Gaza strip with
different traffic conditions, and different geometry of roundabouts.
2. On the two studied roundabouts, further studies should be conducted but for
left and U turn movements in order to get a clearer picture.
3. Also, field studies should be done for capacity evaluation at the roundabouts
to investigate the relationship between the driver behavior and capacity,
performance of the roundabout

79

References
1- AL-Masaeid, H.R., and Faddah, M.Z. (1997). "Capacity of Roundabouts in
Jordan." Transportation Research Record 1572, PP. (76-85).
2- AL-Omari, H., Al-Masaeid, H.R., and Al-Shawabkah, Y.S. (January 2004).
"Development of a Delay Model for Roundabouts in Jordan." Journal of
Transportation Engineering 130, no.1, PP. (76-82).
3- Daganzo, C.F. (1981). Estimation of gap acceptance parameters within and across
the population from direct roadside observation. Transportation Research Part
B:Methodological, 15(1), pp. (1-15).
4- Department of Transportation (2013). Roundabout Design Guidelines. State Of
Maryland: State Highway Administration.
5- FHWA (2000). Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. Federal Highway
Administration. US Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.: FHWA-RD-00067.
6- Jie, C., Xinmiao, Y., Wei, D., and Xin, H. (2008). Drivers Critical Gap Calibration
at Urban Roundabouts. Volume 13, Number 2, pp.(237-242).
7- Kusuma, A., and Koutsopoulos, H.N. (2011). Critical Gap Analysis of Dual Lane
Roundabouts. 6th International Symposium on Highway Capacity and Quality of
Service. Stockholm., Sweden. Elsevier Ltd, Volume 16, pp. (709717).
8- Lively, T.C., Paciorek, J.C., and Hutcheson, T.C. (2006). Frequently Asked
Questions. U.S. Massachusetts. Franklin Regional of Governments.
9- Mahmassani, H., and Sheffi, Y. (1981). Using gap sequences to estimate gap
acceptance functions. Transportation Research Part B 15, pp. (143-148).
10- Mandavilli, S., Russell, E.R., and Rys, M.J. (2003). Impact of Modern
Roundabouts on Vehicular Emissions, Proceedings of the Mid-Continent
Transportation Research Symposium, Ames, Iowa
11- Mason, R.L., and Young, J.C. (2002). Multivariate Statistical Process Control with
Industrial Applications. ASA-SIAM
12- McIntosh, K. (2011). Evaluating the Performance and Safety Effectiveness of
Roundabouts. U.S. Michigan, Opus International Consultants Inc.
13- NCHRP ( 1998). Modern roundabout practice. synthesis of highway practice 264.
Washington: national academy press.

80

14- Polus, A., Craus, J., and Reshetnik, I. (1996). Non-Stationary Gap Acceptance
Assuming Drivers Learning and Impatience. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol.
37, No. 6, pp. (395-402).
15- Polus, A., and Shmueli, S. (1999). Entry capacity of roundabouts and impact of
waiting times. Road 35 and Transport Research 8(3), pp. (43-54).
16- Polus, A., Shmueli, S., and Livneh, M. (2003). Critical Gap as a Function of
Waiting Time in Determining Roundabout Capacity, Journal of Transportation
Engineering, ASCE pp. (504-509).
17- Russell, R. (2000). Modeling Traffic Flows and Conflicts at Roundabouts.
Manhattan, Kansas: Mac-Blackwell National Rural Transportation Study Center.
18- Solomon, T.G. (2007). Capacity Evaluation Of Roundabout Junctions. Addis
Ababa University. Addis Ababa.
19- Suleiman, T.I., Bandoura, F., and AL-Masaeid, H. (2006). Traffic safety at
roundabouts in Urban Areas - Case Study in Jordan. Jordan University of Science
and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
20- Taylor, D.B., and Mahmassani, H.S. (1998). Behavioral Models and
Characteristics of Bicycle-Automobile Mixed-Traffic: Planning and Engineering
Implications. Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX.
21- Teply, S., Abou-Henaidy, M.I., and Hunt, J.D. (1997). Gap acceptance behavior
aggregate and Logit perspectives: Part 1. Traffic Engineering and Control 38(9), pp.
(474-482).
22- Transport scotland (2007). design manual for roads and bridges council. Northern
ireland: td 16/07 volume 6, section 2, part 3.
23- http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/roundabouts/roundaboutsummit/
Rndabtatt5. ht accessed in 14/11/2014
24- U.S.Dept.of transportation,FederalHighwayAdministration(FHA), available from
internet(http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/transportation/pdf/roundaboutdf
accessed in 22-6-2014).

81

Appendixes
ANNEX1 : Questionnaires in Arabic

(
(

ROUNDABOUT

: .
82

(: (

. ............... .............. . ........ -6

(..........

: -7

) ( - (
(

-8
18 - (
) 19 - 45 -(
( ) 45-65 - (
) - 65
(
-9

- 5 (
) 5- 15 - (
) 16-25 - (
(
) - 25
(
-10

- (
) -(
(
(
(
) -
) -
-11
- ( ) - (
(

....................
-12
-13
) -
) - (
(
) - ) - (
(
(
) -
( -
)
( - (
(
-14
) 1000(-
- ( ) 1000-2500) 2500-4000( -
)4000

- (

- (

:
( ) . ( ) 16- -15

 -
-20

( )

-21
-22

-23

-24

-25



)

84

 :


...................
-26

) -27

-31
)

:

-32

-33

(

)

-34

-57

59- (
58-

:5-
- -)

;-5

( ) -64

( ) -64

-64

85

-65

-66

-67


-68

-69

-6:

;-6

-74

86

 ( : (
:

-1
:

-3
(

-5
/

87


-6

..........

-7

8-
:


/

-9
..........

-11
..........
-12

/

89

 /
:

-1

..........


-2

..........

-3
..........

-4

..........

-5

..........

..........

-7

)

-8


)

90

-10
..........



/

91

-11


:

-12
75%.........

.......... 0 25(%

.......... 25 50(%

....... 50 75(%

-13

....................

-14





/

ANNEX2: Questionnaires in English

Driver questionnaire
Vehicle questions
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Driver questions

What type of vehicle do you use?

a-personal ( ) b-taxi (
passengers ( ) e-truck ( ) f- motorcycle ( ) g
What type of transmission in your vehicle? a-a
manufacture Year of the vehicle (
Vehicle color (
Manufacturer company (
Sampling time ( day ., date , hour.

7.
8.

Sex ? a- male (
Age ? a- 18 or less (
e- 51-60 ( ) f- more than 60 (
9.
How many years of experience do you have in
a- less than 5 years (
10.
What level of education do you have ?
a- primary level or less (
d- College level (
11.
Do you have a driving license ? a- yes ( ) b- n
12. at what year did you get the driving license ? ( ..)
13. what is your job ?
a- employee ( ) b- taxi driver (
e- Military officer (
14. How much your Monthly income (NIS)?
a- (1000 2000) b- (2000-3000) c- (3000-4000) d- more than 4000
The first field :The Knowledge about traffic laws at roundabout
15.Where are vehicles waiting for crossing of pedestrian and cycling ?
a- before stop line ( ) b- after stop line ( )
16.What does yield sign mean at roundabout ?
a- keep moving at the same speed (
c- don't stop at roundabout ( )
the roundabout ( )
17.Who have the right of priority at roundabout ?
a- the vehicle inside the roundabout (
roundabout (
18.What is the best speed inside roundabout (km/h)?
a- 30 or less (

93

19. What does this sign mean?

a- be careful, you are facing a roundabout (
b- the circumvent is clockwise ( )
c- the circumvent is counterclockwise ( )
d- don't stop at roundabout ( )

20. Is it allowable to turn left beside the island before the roundabout ?
a- yes ( ) b- no ( )

21.What is the Appropriate lane to turn right ?

a- the lane which is beside the curb (
b- the lane which is beside the island (

22.What is the Appropriate lane to turn left ?

a- the lane which is beside the curb (
b- the lane which is beside the island (
23. What you are going to do while you are inside the roundabout and an
emergency car was closed to you?
a- moving through the roundabout till arriving the required exit ( )
b- stopping inside the roundabout beside the curb ( )
c- go out from the next exit & stop beside the curb away from the roundabout (
24. Is it right to change the lane inside the roundabout ?
a- yes ( ) b- no ( )

94

25. If you lost the required exit during driving inside the roundabout, what you
do?
a- go back till arriving the required exit ( )
b- keep moving in circumvent till arriving the required exit ( )
c- choose the closer exit & use another ways ( )
the second field : The behavior at roundabout
26. How many times do you pass the roundabout daily ?
a- 5 or less ( ) b- 5-10 ( ) c- 10-20 ( ) d- more than 20 ( )
27. Have you given the priority right to vehicles that is inside the roundabout?
a- yes ( ) b- no ( ) c-no opposing vehicles (
)
28. Did you slow the speed when you arrive the roundabout ?
a- yes ( ) b- no ( )
29. Have you given the priority right for pedestrian at pedestrian lines ?
a- yes ( ) b- no ( )
30. Did you change the lane inside the roundabout ?
a- yes ( ) b- no ( )
31. How many times did you make an accident at roundabout? (.)
The third field : Awareness and satisfaction
32. To increase the Traffic awareness at roundabout, which method is appropriate ?
a- TV (
f- social networking sites ( ) g- others (
33. Did the written examination of license contain questions about roundabout?
a- yes (
34. Did the practical test of license contain a driving around a roundabout?
a- yes (
Fill in the following table as you think
#

35
36
37
38
39
40

)b

)b

)b

41
42
43
44
45
46

47
48
49
50

96

Driving school questionnaire

The first field: The training
1 -Do you provide the student with educational materials about traffic laws and
priority right at roundabout?
a- yes ( ) b- no (

) c- sometimes (

2 Do you provide the student practically how to cross the roundabout & give the
priority right?
a- yes ( ) b- no (

) c- sometimes (

3- Does the student find the use of roundabout is difficult when compared with other
intersections?
a- yes ( ) b- no (

) c- sometimes (

4 Do you learn the student to use the signal before entering and when exiting the
roundabout?
a- yes ( ) b- no (

) c- sometimes (

5- Do you learn & train the student on choosing the appropriate lane before entering
the roundabout?
a- yes ( ) b- no (

) c- sometimes (

6- Do you learn & train the student to not change the lane during circulating the
roundabout?
a- yes ( ) b- no (

) c- sometimes (

7 Does the written exam for license contain questions about traffic laws at
roundabout?
a- yes ( ) b- no (

) c- sometimes (

8- Does the practical test for license contain driving at roundabout?

a- yes ( ) b- no ( ) c- sometimes ( )

97

The second field: The reasons of accidents at roundabout

9- From your point of view as a driving coach, determine how much these
factors contribute in accidents occurrence at roundabout?

The third field: Awareness and traffic culture

10- Is there a need for awareness messages to increase awareness & culture about
the use of roundabout?
a- yes ( ) b- no (

) c- perhaps (

11 How much these factors contribute in increasing the traffic awareness &
culture at roundabout?

The fourth field: The practical test

12- What are the student's percentages who fail in the license test because of their
wrong behavior at roundabout ?
a- (0 25) % b- (26-50) .. c- (51-75) . d- (76-100)
13- Is the student behavior at roundabout , his way of using & applying of traffic
laws accurately considered an important measure in success or failure in the
driver's license exam ?
a- yes ( ) b- no (

) c- sometimes (

14- As you a driving school trainer, how much these traffic violations contribute at
practical test at roundabout which leading to failure in getting driving license ?

99

Traffic police questionnaire

The first field: The knowledge about traffic laws & traffic police opinion about
roundabout
1- When a vehicle is approaching to the roundabout, which vehicle is required to wait
& give the priority right ?
a- The vehicle which is approaching to roundabout ( ) b- The vehicle which is inside
the roundabout ( )
c I dont know (

2 Is it right to change the lane inside the roundabout?

a- yes ( ) b- no (

) c- I dont know ( )

3 Are the most of drivers use the signal before entering the roundabout?
a- yes ( ) b- no (

) c I dont know ( )

4 are the most of drivers use the appropriate lane before entering the roundabout ?
a- yes ( ) b- no (
5 According to your opinion, how much you are agree with the benefits of
roundabout compared with other intersections in the listed factors ?
The benefit \

6- Do you prefer to transfer the most of intersections to roundabout because of its

characteristics & benefits when it is compared with other intersections?
a- yes ( ) b- no (

) c- I dont know ( )

100

The second field: The factors which affect on driver behavior at roundabout.
7- High percentage of drivers ignore the priority right at roundabout for vehicles
which are exist inside the roundabout, in your opinion, how much the factors below
contribute in this behavior ?

Igno

Not t

lim

The third field: Traffic accidents reasons at roundabout.

8- As you think, how much these factors contribute in accidents at roundabout?

Factor / reason

101

Traffic congestion
Geometric shape
for roundabout
Young age of driver
Limited number of years of
experience
Bad weather conditions
Not taking the necessary actions
against the violators
The fourth field: Awareness and satisfaction
9- Is there a need for awareness messages to increase awareness & culture about the
use of roundabout?
a- yes ( ) b- no (

) c- I dont know ( )

10- What is the position of the public about using the roundabout?
a- very positive ( ) b- positive (
e- Very negative (

) c- normal ( ) d- negative (

11- Are you satisfied with a roundabout as a model to regulate the traffic movement?

a- yes ( ) b- no (

) c- I dont know ( )

12 How much these factors contribute in increasing the traffic awareness about
using the roundabout?

102

ANNEX3: Data Linking

The analysis was done by using SPSS program.
Note: There are no significant differences (no effect) if value of (p-value>0.05).

Table (1)

Table (2)

Table (3)

Table (4)

Table (5)

Table (6)

103


Table (7)

Table (8)

Table (9)

Table (10)

Table (11)

Table (12)

Table (13)


Table (14)

105


Table (20)

Table (21)

Table (22)

Table (23)

Table (24)

Table (25)

Table (26)

106

Table (27)

Table (29)
DF
p-value

Table (30)
DF
p-value

Table (31)
DF
p-value

Table (32)
DF
p-value

107

Table (33)
DF
p-value

Table (34)
DF
p-value

Table (35)
DF
p-value

Table (36)
DF
p-value

Table (37)
DF
p-value

Table (38)
DF
p-value

108

Table (39)
DF
p-value

Table (40)
DF
p-value

Table (41)
DF
p-value

Table (42)
DF
p-value

Table (43)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (44)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value
109


Table (45)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (46)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (47)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (48)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (49)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (50)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (51)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value
110


Table (52)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (53)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (54)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (55)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (56)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (57)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

111

Table (58)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (59)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (60)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (61)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (62)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (63)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (64)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

112


Table (65)

Table (66)

Table (67)

Table (68)

Table (69)

Table (70)

Table (71)

113

Table (72)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (73)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (74)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (75)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (76)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (77)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (78)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

114

Table (79)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (80)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (81)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (82)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (83)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

Table (84)
Pearson Chi-Square
DF
p-value

115