To the editor:

The proposed Kasold redesign includes a roundabout. I’m given the blanket assurance that roundabouts are safe. That statement seems to make some unwarranted assumptions: 1. Pedestrians will be able to see gaps in the traffic and cross the lane quickly. 2. Cars will stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. 3. Roundabout safety benefits both cars and cyclists equally.

To respond to each of these points: 1. Pedestrians who are visually impaired may not be able to adequately see traffic gaps. Slow pedestrians may not be able to cross the lane quickly. 2. The assumption that cars will stop for pedestrians entering the crosswalk isn’t supported by Federal Highway Safety Administration research that found motorists yielded to pedestrians in roundabout crosswalks 19 percent of the time on average. That’s only one in five cars yielding to pedestrians entering or in roundabout crosswalks. 3. Florida Department of Transportation research shows bicyclists and cars do not receive equal traffic benefits from roundabouts. Accident rates for cyclists who “take the lane” in roundabouts is 15 times higher than either car or pedestrian accident rates. Some newer roundabout designs now include bicycle exit-to-pedestrian-crosswalk features.

The blanket statement “roundabouts are safe” is too broad. It’s more accurate to say newer designs are safer than the older designs for some users. Many pedestrians use the sidewalk along Kasold. I don’t think Kasold is a good place for a roundabout. I agree with the Journal-World Aug. 23 editorial that the proposed street reconfiguration isn’t well thought out.