|
Cichlidae posted:Those mean "slow down/use caution." Often used before sharp curves or, around here, crosswalks. For those of us in Connecticut, you can find them at the Pratt and Whitney plant in East Hartford. Generally, the lines get closer together as they go. Ah, okay. They're used when you're approaching "downtown" La Jolla. It's a posted 35mph but the average through there is normally at least 50mph.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:
I have some of these signs that say "SIGNAL OPERATION CHANGE AHEAD." I deploy them when we change the lane configuration of an intersection, modify the sequence of a diamond interchange, change from split-phased operation to non-split operation, etc. Anytime you want people to realize that something is different, maybe I should pay closer attention, is when I put them up. So in fact, the sign worked, because you took the time to watch what was going on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 15:21
|
|
|
Nexis posted:I have some of these signs that say "SIGNAL OPERATION CHANGE AHEAD." I deploy them when we change the lane configuration of an intersection, modify the sequence of a diamond interchange, change from split-phased operation to non-split operation, etc. Anytime you want people to realize that something is different, maybe I should pay closer attention, is when I put them up. Yep, our "NEW SIGNAL IN OPERATION" signs have really flashy red-and-white striped borders. Normally I'd argue against the use of something like that, but these signs are only temporary, and the more attention they attract in that brief time, the better. ----- Check out this awesome interchange/tram stop I found in Rouen today. It's a SPUI with no through traffic on the cross street.  ----- And for anyone who thinks only 2200/2500 cars can fit in one lane per hour, check out this awesome occurrence that I found.  Yes, that's 5887 cars in two lanes in one hour, or nearly 3000 per lane! Amazing! As to what would increase volumes to nearly three times their normal level on a Saturday morning, I really have no idea. Motorcycle rally?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 18:25
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:And for anyone who thinks only 2200/2500 cars can fit in one lane per hour, check out this awesome occurrence that I found.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 20:32
|
|
|
I've got an interesting (hopefully) question for you. The main drag downtown (State St.) sucks to drive on, because it's slow as hell. It's one lane in either direction and has way too many pedestrians gumming up the works. If you actually plan on going somewhere, you generally take one of the two-lane one-way streets that run alongside it instead. The only reasons to drive on State St. downtown are (1) You only need to go a couple of blocks (2) You are dropping off/picking up a friend (in which case you're one of the douchebags holding up traffic) (3) You're "cruising" (we had to make a law about a decade ago that makes it illegal to continually drive up/down the street. Why would you do this anyway?) (4) You're a taxi or one of the city shuttle buses (5) You want to see downtown but can't be bothered to leave the car (6) You're actually trying to get somewhere, and you're not in a rush. There are apparently more people who do this than I thought. *(see below) I've always said the downtown stretch is useless, and should be closed off and made pedestrian/shuttle bus only (kind of like 16th street in Denver, if you've been there). As it is, a good portion is closed off once a week for the Farmer's Market, and that doesn't seem to cause anyone any undue hardship. When my friends and I looked up the traffic volumes, however, we were surprised to discover it actually seems to carry as many cars as the surrounding streets. On further reflection, I'm guessing this is because State St. is busy into the night, and the later it gets the fewer pedestrians to get in your way and the less reason there is to drive on one of the side streets; I wish I could find a traffic volume map with an hourly breakdown. Anyway, would it be reasonable to close off the portion I've outlined in red, given the traffic volumes in the area? The roads outlined in green are all two-lane, one-way streets going in the direction indicated. Cross streets would not be blocked from crossing State in the closed-off area. There is no street parking on State, and all city & commercial parking lots are accessible only from the one-way streets and cross streets, so State is unnecessary in that regard (there are no driveways or other stuff like that on State either). The one issue is none of the one-way streets have access to the beach side of the 101. For that, you've got to come back to State or go past the one-way streets in either direction by a block or two. Advantages are more room and convenience for pedestrians (since they've taken over downtown anyway), room for popcorn carts/ice cream carts/what have you, more efficient for the shuttle buses and those poor bike taxi guys that are nearly getting run over all the time, and improved appearance. We have a tourism-based economy and I think this would be more tourist-friendly overall. Here's the map, numbers are 100's of cars per day (Google Maps link if you need it): 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 03:31
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I've got an interesting (hopefully) question for you. Well, let's do a little math. On two-lane one-way roads with on-street parking, I'd expect a capacity of about 1400 vehicles per hour (vph) per lane. Since the daily volume is about 10 times the peak hour volume, that's about 28,000 cars per day. Now, say we closed State Street. Assuming all the eastbound traffic uses Anacapa instead, and all westbound traffic uses Chapala, those volumes will go to 23,000 and 19,600, respectively, in the heaviest segments. So, strictly speaking, you could close State Street and the adjacent roads could take the traffic. However, chances are that at least some businesses wouldn't want that. Many rely (or think they rely) on people driving past the storefronts for business. All the same, there are plenty of cities with sections of their CBD set aside for pedestrians only, and they're actually very inviting. It's especially popular in Europe where the old city center is too narrow for vehicular traffic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 04:11
|
|
|
Amusingly, I just got an ad for this site at the bottom of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 06:33
|
|
|
What do you think of this? http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/nonstandard/ongreen.htm I was confused as hell by these signs until I finally looked it up and found that website. I'm pretty sure most people reading a sign that says "bicycles stop on line for green" would think that it meant that cyclists had to stop when the light was green. I hope you guys don't use those signs in CT too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 15:16
|
|
|
I've seen signs with a similar meaning in the Netherlands, but it's worded more like "On red, drive up to the line" which makes a lot more sense, at least to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 15:57
|
|
|
Echo 3 posted:What do you think of this? http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/nonstandard/ongreen.htm I was confused as hell by these signs until I finally looked it up and found that website. I'm pretty sure most people reading a sign that says "bicycles stop on line for green" would think that it meant that cyclists had to stop when the light was green. I hope you guys don't use those signs in CT too. My take on it is "Hey, if you're a bicyclist who is always yelling about equality on the road, how about you actually obey this here traffic signal and stop on red? Thanks  "Fake: could be worded a lot better though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 16:26
|
|
|
Echo 3 posted:What do you think of this? http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/nonstandard/ongreen.htm I was confused as hell by these signs until I finally looked it up and found that website. I'm pretty sure most people reading a sign that says "bicycles stop on line for green" would think that it meant that cyclists had to stop when the light was green. I hope you guys don't use those signs in CT too. That's obviously very badly worded. I figured that it meant that bicyclists should stop when the light is green on first impression! The federal version is simpler to understand. I've had people complain before about not being able to trip a loop detector on a bicycle, so here are some tips. First off, the loop detector's sensitivity is highest right above the edge of the loop. That detection zone rises about half its width (3 feet) into the air, making a "bubble" over the loop. Where there are many bicyclists, it's advisable to put in a quadrupole loop, which is basically a figure-eight, or two loops side-by-side with turns in opposite directions. Because of wonderful electromagnetic smoke and mirrors, this results in a very sensitive detection zone right in the middle, which is a good place to be in the lane. Unfortunately, because the resulting loop segments are half as wide, the detection "bubble" only extends up a foot and a half, and some trucks will miss it altogether. Oops! ----- Edit: For those of you in Connecticut, I'd recommend checking out this Courant article. Basically, the DOT has a 3.7 billion dollar shortfall, and we're canceling a lot of projects (Routes 11, 6, 44, 7, 4, and I-84 are mentioned.) Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Nov 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 18:34
|
|
|
Echo 3 posted:What do you think of this? http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/nonstandard/ongreen.htm I was confused as hell by these signs until I finally looked it up and found that website. I'm pretty sure most people reading a sign that says "bicycles stop on line for green" would think that it meant that cyclists had to stop when the light was green. I hope you guys don't use those signs in CT too. The worst thing about this (aside from all the lovely implementation that the site goes into) is that it could be clarified by changing a single word: "Bicycles wait on line for green."
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 20:37
|
|
|
This is a pretty annoying intersection in my hometown, and caused me to get a warning from a cop within my first month of driving: Two people are traveling in opposite directions on Essex Street and turn onto vine street. That little triangle thing isn't signed at all. Does the right branch yield to the left branch or vice-versa? I would have thought the left yielded to the right, but according to the cop that was wrong. (The intersection slightly to the left is also terrible in its own special way. Enough weaving to run a textile mill out of business.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2009 15:24
|
|
|
The traffic that's merging always yields to the traffic that is already on the road. In this case, someone heading south on Essex St who turns left onto Vine has right of way over the traffic merging onto Vine St from the south. That's basic drivers ed stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2009 18:33
|
|
|
thelightguy posted:The traffic that's merging always yields to the traffic that is already on the road.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2009 20:10
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:How do you decide which leg is "merging" and which one is "already on the road" in this case? If the left leg were slightly curved, would it be different? Technically, at least in Connecticut, traffic on the left must yield to traffic on the right, even on freeway on-ramps. It used to be standard practice to put yield signs on on-ramps to emphasize the point. For the same reason, RIDOT put shark teeth (a yield bar) at this intersection:  It looks analogous to the picture Tool Maker posted, except that his example had a lane going in the opposite direction. Who has right of way would probably depend on whether it counts as an intersection or a merge. In the former case, though, the turning roadway should at least have a yield sign. The yield lines in my example are there because, otherwise, traffic on the straight roadway would have to yield to entering traffic. This is also why we put yield lines, dashed lines, or yield signs on roundabouts: otherwise, traffic already in the circle would have to yield to entering traffic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2009 22:52
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:How do you decide which leg is "merging" and which one is "already on the road" in this case? If the left leg were slightly curved, would it be different? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the left leg is bidirectional, and the right leg is one way, which would make the right leg a slip road on to Vine. Admittedly, I'm speaking with PA as a reference, which is rear end-backwards in a number of ways relating to traffic laws. For us, with an intersection like Cichlidae posted, the traffic turning left from the main road on to the on ramp would always have right of way over the traffic turning right unless, of course, there was a yield sign that said otherwise. (in which case half the drivers will treat it like a full stop and the other half will rear-end them. Repeatedly.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 02:40
|
|
|
thelightguy posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the left leg is bidirectional, and the right leg is one way, which would make the right leg a slip road on to Vine. No, both legs are bidirectional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 02:44
|
|
|
Tool Maker posted:No, both legs are bidirectional. This is a pretty tricky spot; I'd probably consider it an intersection, and in that case, you didn't have the right of way since you were turning onto a road. However, there should be SOME kind of traffic control. Having a three-way intersection with no stop bars or signs is just begging for some nasty angle collisions. thelightguy posted:Admittedly, I'm speaking with PA as a reference, which is rear end-backwards in a number of ways relating to traffic laws. For us, with an intersection like Cichlidae posted, the traffic turning left from the main road on to the on ramp would always have right of way over the traffic turning right unless, of course, there was a yield sign that said otherwise. (in which case half the drivers will treat it like a full stop and the other half will rear-end them. Repeatedly.) This is the de facto rule here, as well, at intersections. If I'm turning left onto a road, I have priority over oncoming traffic turning right, if only because it's much easier for him to stop and let me pass than for me to stop in the middle of the intersection and let him go. If we both went and collided, I really don't know who would be at fault.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 04:02
|
|
|
I'm working on another bridge rehab job, and I came across this wonderful picture that I'd like to share: I feel sorry for inspectors. I've seen them come across mounds of "bird debris" that had to be removed, snake nests, hornet nests, mouse nests, bird nests, giant bushes of poison ivy, and so on, all while suspended 20 feet above traffic in a little bucket. Of course, the inspection reports can't say "Holy gently caress, I got stung by a dozen angry wasps and nearly fell out of the bucket!" Instead, you get tantalizing little tidbits like, "11 bullet holes noted at time of inspection, 13 at the end of the day."
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 18:22
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'm working on another bridge rehab job, and I came across this wonderful picture that I'd like to share: Did you colorize that bird's eyes or did it come that way? It looks like an evil bird, devilishly creating a massive pile of poo poo for the inspectors to clear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 22:53
|
|
|
Lucid Smog posted:Did you colorize that bird's eyes or did it come that way? It looks like an evil bird, devilishly creating a massive pile of poo poo for the inspectors to clear. The original photo was in color. I can only scan in grayscale at work, so I re-added the red eye. It looked much like that in the original photo. I didn't even notice the pigeon until I'd read the comment! Bird poop is a very big problem, because it corrodes the paint and metal. On top of that, it can add an impressive amount of weight to a structure. I took an architecture course in France, and the professor mentioned that, during the tower's renovation in the early 1980s, about 2 thousand tons of guano was removed. Compare that to the 7 thousand tons of metal in the tower itself. "Bird debris" removal is such an important part of maintenance that we have detailed specifications and a pay item specifically for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 23:44
|
|
|
Can you explain why the city of Seattle is seeming to reduce capacity on some major arterials? Greenwood Avenue, South of 85th street is a 2 lane road with a left turn lane in the center. North of 85th, it is a 4 lane road without a center turn lane. They recently revamped the intersection at 85th and Greenwood. Northbound, The turn lane becomes a protected left and they add a dedicated right turn lane, with one lane continuing on across the intersection. Southbound, the left lane turns into a protected left turn lane (without much advanced signage) and the right lane continues into the single lane across the intersection. Needless to say, this causes backups. Also, the southbound protected left only allows about 4 cars through, no matter how many are waiting. During rush hour, northbound traffic gets backed up until nearly 76th st. How would you fix this intersection to reduce some of the rush hour backup? Is it just a matter of signal timing or is there something else at play here? In a related question, They're currently doing work about a mile north of there, on 105th and Greenwood. The intersection is an interesting one, as it is a 5 way connection, with 105th turning into a minor road and the arterial continuing on Holman road. They're doing construction on this intersection at the moment and from all appearances, they're going to reduce access southbound across Holman/105th, and shunt people towards Holman. They're keeping the northbound lanes the way they are with a protected left and two lanes continuing across the intersection, but are changing the southbound side from a protected left, one lane straight across, one shared straight/right lane and one right turn only lane, and turning it into a protected left, one lane straight across and two right turn only lanes. Why the change? What's the gain in it? Neither intersection was particularly troublesome before the changes, and there has been a glut across the city of turning trouble free 4 lane roads into 2 lane roads with a center lane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2009 10:41
|
|
|
virtual256 posted:Can you explain why the city of Seattle is seeming to reduce capacity on some major arterials? Greenwood Avenue, South of 85th street is a 2 lane road with a left turn lane in the center. North of 85th, it is a 4 lane road without a center turn lane. Signal timing and some more appropriate signage could help. Turning a through lane into a turn lane happens all the time around here. As long as you stick some turn arrows on the pavement well ahead of time, things will work relatively smoothly. Of course, no amount of signs or markings can fix bad geometrics. This road is just too narrow. From how you describe it, it seems like it needs more lanes at the intersection itself. Of course, seeing as the area's pretty built up, there's not much that could be done save for making it a one-way road or tearing down the buildings surrounding the intersection. quote:In a related question, They're currently doing work about a mile north of there, on 105th and Greenwood. The intersection is an interesting one, as it is a 5 way connection, with 105th turning into a minor road and the arterial continuing on Holman road. They're doing construction on this intersection at the moment and from all appearances, they're going to reduce access southbound across Holman/105th, and shunt people towards Holman. They're keeping the northbound lanes the way they are with a protected left and two lanes continuing across the intersection, but are changing the southbound side from a protected left, one lane straight across, one shared straight/right lane and one right turn only lane, and turning it into a protected left, one lane straight across and two right turn only lanes. Why the change? What's the gain in it? Turning a five-legged intersection into a four-legged intersection is primarily a safety improvement. Our most dangerous intersections aren't the really busy or high-speed ones, but rather the weird ones. Stick an extra leg in there, offset the street, or put a couple lights right near each other, and you're going to get crashes. Now, let's talk capacity. With the previous configuration, unless the intersection was running split phasing (which could be the case, given it's five-legged), the shared right/through would push through fewer cars than either a single through or a single right turn. If they want to turn it mostly into a normal intersection (dual-ring quad, exclusive ped phase, 10th phase for eastbound 105th), they'd need to get rid of the shared lane. Much higher right-turn than through volume? The shared lane becomes a second right turn lane. If it were up to me, I'd block off the eastbound 105th approach, to help with safety. It obviously has less traffic than the other four, and it would help to further normalize the intersection, improve capacity, and make it safer. quote:Neither intersection was particularly troublesome before the changes, and there has been a glut across the city of turning trouble free 4 lane roads into 2 lane roads with a center lane. There is something to be said for turn lanes. Sure, they reduce capacity, but the extra room adds a buffer for bicyclists and parked cars, as well as reducing rear-end accidents when someone tries to turn left into a driveway from a travel lane. You can transition a Two-Way Left Turn Lane (TWLTL) nicely into a left turn lane at intersections without widening the road, too!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2009 21:48
|
|
|
I've been doing my own little traffic study as I commute home north on I-91. As I approach the overpass for Elm St there is a VMS board and typically it's off and traffic flows nice and smooth. But, whenever it's on (usually saying take Rt 3 for I-84) left lane traffic grinds to a halt. There is a slight curve and a hill leading up to the sign. Is this some natural phenomenon with a Granny McGee freaking out by seeing yellow letters appear out of nowhere? or could the board just be in a crappy place?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2009 02:04
|
|
|
Lobstaman posted:I've been doing my own little traffic study as I commute home north on I-91. It's not just your imagination. Putting a message on a VMS will cause people to slow down significantly to read it all. We try to make our messages as short as possible, like so: PROBLEM LOCATION RECOMMENDATION So, for example, you should see something like this. RIGHT LANES CLOSED I-84 EXIT 54 USE I-291 We need to convey as much information as possible in as few words as possible. In this example, "CLOSED" implies that there's planned construction going on. If it were due to an accident, the sign should say, "BLOCKED." The I-84 on the second line is only necessary if you're on another route (I-91 in this case.) The exit number is the first exit PAST the closure in question, since we don't want people passing exit 53 and saying, "Oh, the sign was wrong!" Unfortunately, that's still a lot to take in in five seconds. It gets even worse when there are multiple frames. One of the most important rules in sign writing is that there should be two frames, max. If you have too much information for two frames, use two signs or cut out anything unnecessary. Unfortunately, not everyone follows this rule, or they flash the frames too fast or too slow, or they use ambiguous abbreviations like "rt" and "lt." That takes even more of the driver's attention. Add all this together, and you end up with people slowing down by 20 mph to read the sign, and inevitably, this leads to congestion and rear-ends. It gets super dangerous at night, because the signs don't slowly light up; they flash on all at once. When you're alone on an unlit road and suddenly a hundred yellow lights shine in your face from above, there's a very good chance you'll freak out and crash. We have cameras mounted above some VMS for this very reason. We can see how people react to them, and often we need to shut off or choose not to display a helpful message if we think it could cause a dangerous situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2009 03:10
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Turning a five-legged intersection into a four-legged intersection is primarily a safety improvement. Our most dangerous intersections aren't the really busy or high-speed ones, but rather the weird ones. Stick an extra leg in there, offset the street, or put a couple lights right near each other, and you're going to get crashes. So here's one I can't believe hasn't been more of a problem: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=adeli...004994&t=h&z=18 57th and Aileen are pretty low traffic, if I ran the circus, I'd probably block the ends that meet the intersection except to emergency traffic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2009 22:59
|
|
|
Calast posted:So here's one I can't believe hasn't been more of a problem: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=adeli...004994&t=h&z=18 The lights finally got installed and there are big signs saying "This traffic light brought to you by the black panthers"
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2009 00:07
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:This is in a neighborhood where the city wouldn't even install traffic lights when kids were getting run over in crosswalks on market street on a pretty regular basis. You wouldn't believe the number of people that ignore the NTOR there. YOU CAN'T SEE! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2009 03:28
|
|
|
Calast posted:You wouldn't believe the number of people that ignore the NTOR there. YOU CAN'T SEE! Really? I always get behind people who have no concept of right turn on red and insist on sitting through the entire cycle, obliviously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2009 04:06
|
|
|
Pagan posted:Really? I always get behind people who have no concept of right turn on red and insist on sitting through the entire cycle, obliviously. In the SF bay area, you have basically equal parts of both; people who you're lucky if they even slow down before a RTOR, or people that don't know it exists. What gets is that most people that don't know the elusive LTOR is legal, at the intersection of two one way streets. Which happens a lot in SF and Berkeley.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2009 07:24
|
|
|
Calast posted:What gets is that most people that don't know the elusive LTOR is legal, at the intersection of two one way streets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2009 10:19
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Turning a five-legged intersection into a four-legged intersection is primarily a safety improvement. Our most dangerous intersections aren't the really busy or high-speed ones, but rather the weird ones. Stick an extra leg in there, offset the street, or put a couple lights right near each other, and you're going to get crashes. It is running split phasing, at least for the East/north bound from Holman and the West bound from 105th segments, and East bound 105th is already blocked into a right turn only onto Holman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2009 12:30
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:...and that they can do it from any of the multiple left turn lanes, unless there is a sign that says otherwise. That does always confuse people, I've had passengers freak out because I turn left on red onto a one way. Another thing that people do, without realizing it's illegal (at least, it's illegal in Texas) is turn left from a minor road, onto a major road, and stop in the center lane, THEN try and merge with the traffic. In TX, that's illegal; when you turn, you have to merge into traffic right away, you can't stop or use the center turning lane as an acceleration lane. Up here in Rhode Island, what people do when it's busy and they're trying to turn left is they nose out into the lane closest to them when there's a gap, and then wait till there's a gap in the other lane too. Of course, this means that the lane they've pulled into is completely blocked for however long it takes someone to have pity and let them in. Always fun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2009 17:40
|
|
|
Alpine Mustache posted:This may be something that only applies to NJ, but whats the deal with all the pink center lines getting painted on the roads next to or between the double yellow lines lately? Around here (Ohio) that's usually something done along a parade route.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2009 17:57
|
|
|
quote:LTOR on one-way streets That's a very weird concept to get used to. On a related note, until recently, it was legal in China to go straight through a red light at a T-intersection. It's kinda sorta like an RTOR, but with enough added danger that China had to ban the maneuver. virtual256 posted:It is running split phasing, at least for the East/north bound from Holman and the West bound from 105th segments, and East bound 105th is already blocked into a right turn only onto Holman. Makes sense. It's probably a capacity improvement, then. Changing the lanes around allows a more normal quad phasing, which offers a significant improvement. Pagan posted:Up here in Rhode Island, what people do when it's busy and they're trying to turn left is they nose out into the lane closest to them when there's a gap, and then wait till there's a gap in the other lane too. Of course, this means that the lane they've pulled into is completely blocked for however long it takes someone to have pity and let them in. Always fun. Of course. Working in the TMC, I even saw someone do that on I-95. A car was at the Thurbers Ave exit, but in the left lane, and stopped in full traffic to slowly creep across the remaining 3 lanes as he found gaps. Yes, he made it to the exit, after causing a half mile backup. Halah posted:Around here (Ohio) that's usually something done along a parade route. My hometown has the oldest 4th of July parade in the country, and the route has a red-white-blue centerline. It doesn't seem to confuse anyone, but that could be because they're distracted by the 8-foot-wide lanes, massive trees on the edge of the road, and crosswalks every hundred feet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 00:46
|
|
|
Pagan posted:Another thing that people do, without realizing it's illegal (at least, it's illegal in Texas) is turn left from a minor road, onto a major road, and stop in the center lane, THEN try and merge with the traffic. In TX, that's illegal; when you turn, you have to merge into traffic right away, you can't stop or use the center turning lane as an acceleration lane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 02:36
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:Using the center turn lane as an accel/decel lane is illegal everywhere as far as I know. Stopping in it, however, is not only legal but recommended in some states. It's legal in California as long as you exit it within 200 feet. Why is this illegal in other states? CVC 21460.5 posted:(c) A vehicle shall not be driven in a designated two-way left-turn lane except when preparing for or making a left turn from or into a highway or when preparing for or making a U-turn when otherwise permitted by law, and shall not be driven in that lane for more than 200 feet while preparing for and making the turn or while preparing to merge into the adjacent lanes of travel. A left turn or U-turn shall not be made from any other lane where a two-way left-turn lane has been designated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 03:02
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:Using the center turn lane as an accel/decel lane is illegal everywhere as far as I know. Stopping in it, however, is not only legal but recommended in some states. Yes, that's how it's meant to be used. It serves the same purpose as a bunch of tiny left turn lanes would. Turning traffic gets out of the travel lane to avoid blocking through vehicles or getting rear-ended by inattentive drivers. Then, the turning car can wait for oncoming traffic to clear before finishing the maneuver. Some deceleration is implied, as it's impossible to move into the lane if you're already stopped. Doing some quick math shows that you can decelerate from 43 mph to 0 within 200 feet, so using it as a decel lane is within the law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
One of the major motorways here in sydney (M4 for any locals) is a nightmare during peak hour like most major roads, but one thing i have never understood is the fact that most of it is 3 lanes, but at one point it narrows into 2 lanes for the space of about 200 metres before an onramp, becoming 4 lanes after the 2 onramp lanes join the motorway. What is the purpose for this? it is the sole reason why traffic comes to a grinding halt in that particular spot, but once you get past it the traffic flows nicely. I would have thought that having the 3 lanes continue and have one onramp lane would be a better option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2009 09:03
|
|