|
Solkanar512 posted:So the Seattle area is about to get so-called Smarter Highways. Adding electronic signs is a couple orders of magnitude cheaper than adding lanes. It's definitely cost-effective, but I wouldn't expect a 20% increase in capacity, unless Washington drivers blindly follow all signs. Making traffic merge earlier, and at higher speed, does improve capacity significantly, but many drivers will just stay in the closed lane until the last minute and then try to shove themselves back into traffic at 5 mph. It's so prevalent here, that people generally won't merge until they're already halfway through the lane closure taper. Another reason it may help lower congestion is advising commuters of congestion ahead, causing them to choose an alternate route that they wouldn't have otherwise. This really depends on what/how many routes are available. If there's nowhere else to go, the signs don't help much at all. As for reducing accidents, that's all but assured. Secondary incidents, which are accidents that occur due to other accidents, can be reduced tremendously thanks to electronic signs. This is where a majority of the cost savings comes from: reducing non-recurring congestion. That's always a worthwhile goal, in my mind. The main concern is that the TMC is manned by competent staff 24/7. Keeping the signs up-to-date is extremely important to the motoring public, or else drivers will stop trusting them and ignore the warnings. dennyk posted:Do the lane markers really have much advantage over just a standard electronic message sign? The message signs themselves are pretty helpful, though the ones around downtown Atlanta can be a little hard to interpret since there's a good chance that any given lane passing under the sign won't exist (or will end up becoming the right-hand lane instead of the far left lane) by the time you get to whatever obstacle it's announcing. The closer the sign assemblies are spaced, the better the chance that the lane info will still be relevant. One sign per lane is definitely better than an all-text sign, since it can be read by people who don't speak English, and it reduces the amount of thinking drivers have to do. You don't want to give those guys something to think about when they're approaching an accident. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Aug 7, 2010 |
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
grover posted:This helps only when there is an accident, though. More lanes would help every day of the year. It's horrible, isn't it? Public policy doesn't make any connection between the user benefits of a better road system and the money that's used to fix them. Some of our improvements, like putting in rumble strips or guide rail, have benefit/cost ratios well above 10:1. They're subject to the same budgetary restrictions as everything else, and we can only afford to do a few miles per year. The legislature doesn't understand that investing $100M now will save us billions in the long run; they're only interested in one year's budget and avoiding the appearance of wasting money. The same could be said for freeway improvements above and beyond maintenance. One of our interchanges, I-84 at Route 8, is in pretty bad shape. Looking at the next few years, the benefit/cost ratio for fully rebuilding it and adding capacity is about twice that for leaving the old one there and paying out the rear end to keep it from falling down. The politicians only see the $2 billion price tag, though, and shake their heads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 15:58
|
|
|
TacoHavoc posted:I live in RI, and I can see conceptually how those signs would work. However, living here has made me lose all faith in humanity. People would swing right and try to go 75 until running into whatever was blocking the right lane, then try to merge without signaling or looking. Most of that congestion comes from one place: I-95 between the Providence Place Mall and 146. The double on-ramp from Memorial Blvd and 6/10, and then the off-ramp to 146 and State Offices, is a massive bottleneck. That on-ramp is congested at least 8 hours a day. It backs up down 6, usually to Dean Street, and down 95 a couple of miles. The construction work with 195 is making things even worse, since there are no shoulders, so one broken down car can block a lane for hours. The weave between 6 and 195 on 95 SB used to be a choke point as well, but the 195 relocation has done a lot to fix that. 195 itself backs up a lot during construction, but the project will remove some closely-spaced exits downtown and really smooth things out overall. It won't help the bottleneck on 95 NB, though, and that will continue to back up onto 195 and beyond in peak hours.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 16:11
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It's horrible, isn't it? Public policy doesn't make any connection between the user benefits of a better road system and the money that's used to fix them. Some of our improvements, like putting in rumble strips or guide rail, have benefit/cost ratios well above 10:1. They're subject to the same budgetary restrictions as everything else, and we can only afford to do a few miles per year. The legislature doesn't understand that investing $100M now will save us billions in the long run; they're only interested in one year's budget and avoiding the appearance of wasting money. Even if the do work and people mail in their $2.50, I know those mailing are expensives; I want to say $5-10 apiece based on what my credit union tells me snail-mailed hardcopy statements cost. Wouldn't it cost more money to mail bills and receive payment than the toll is worth, thus actually losing money?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
grover posted:I found out this project actually has been green-lit as a toll road, and is expected to start construction next July. It will have automated tolling without toll booths. The toll system will read transponders for cars that have them, and take photos of license plates and mail bills to those without. Which just seems utterly absurd. Does this actually work? Are mailed tolls enforceable? Does this sort of toll booth actually work? I know Ireland does this, at least on a section of the M50 motorway that semi-circles Dublin. Other toll roads still have manned booths, but those are some drat nice motorways, too. (The rural roads are...more of an adventure.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 20:06
|
|
|
grover posted:I found out this project actually has been green-lit as a toll road, and is expected to start construction next July. It will have automated tolling without toll booths. The toll system will read transponders for cars that have them, and take photos of license plates and mail bills to those without. Which just seems utterly absurd. Does this actually work? Are mailed tolls enforceable? Does this sort of toll booth actually work? I can't say much about their prices, except that London's inner-city congestion charge seems to work the same way. I'm sure they'd expect most people to buy transponders after being mailed a few bills. I agree completely with what you said about putting up tolls; it'll just push the traffic problems onto other roads. Building toll booths to finance construction sets a precedent that will be hard to erase. It is, however, a popular way to pay for road construction, since only the people who make use of the improvements have to pay for it. The question is whether they'll take them down when the improvements are paid off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 22:40
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It is, however, a popular way to pay for road construction, since only the people who make use of the improvements have to pay for it. The question is whether they'll take them down when the improvements are paid off. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel has a huge toll to cross it. The recently constructed freeway connecting I-64 to North Carolina has a toll, too. (A lot of locals exit, drive on secondaries, and bypass the toll booth.) Both of these roads are primarily traversed by tourists and by non-resident commuters, neither of whom had much say in the matter. There have been other toll roads in past decades as well- I264 to VA Beach, and two tunnels connecting Portsmouth to Norfolk have had toll booths, and targeted local residents. These booths were ultimately removed, although both were removed LONG after the projects had been bought & paid for. I have a hard time believing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel hasn't been paid for, but they ostensibly use the money to maintain it. Ah well, it's a tourist tax, right? I've paid it a couple times, but always as a tourist. This particular project will be primarily targeting local residents, and not tourists. IMHO, they should move the toll booths down to the North Carolina border, so "other people" will pay for my road, and not me.  I'd gladly pay 50 cents to shave 15 minutes off my commute, though.
grover fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Aug 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
What's up engineering buddy  I've been following this thread for almost a year now and finally got a chance to ask you questions. If you like, I can tell you about Dutch roads and traffic systems as well  In the Netherlands, all civil engineering students have to take courses in traffic & transportation. My teachers seem to have roundabout fetishes though, since every single assigned problem could be solved by either constructing a roundabout, more roundabouts or larger roundabouts. Take this cluster of traffic madness for example.  Click here for the full 1142x729 image. This is a notorious spot for bad traffic in the Dutch city of 's-Hertogenbosch. What would your solution to this driving exam students hell be? Dutch roads in a nutshell:  Click here for the full 738x563 image. The Turborotonde (turbo-roundabout). Note that this one is not designed to the latest specifications.  This design is pretty much correct. Note the 90 degree corners in the roads in the middle to prevent speeding.    Click here for the full 1225x740 image. Also, Prins Clausplein.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 12:09
|
|
|
Dutch Engineer posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 14:48
|
|
|
Dutch Engineer posted:What's up engineering buddy Normalize the intersection. Makes life much simpler. You could even stick in a roundabout if you really wanted.  quote:Dutch roads in a nutshell: I've never seen turbo roundabouts with 90-degree corners before. I have a feeling that sharp corners like that would just be constantly run over if we tried to do it here. quote:Is that overhead roundabout just for bicycle traffic? Any safety that may provide seems overridden by the inclusion of a huge fixed object in the middle of the signalized intersection below. quote:
As Grover says, stack interchanges are excellent for capacity, meet all modern standards, look elegant to boot. The fact that the railroad track is there without perturbing the interchange makes it that much better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 16:17
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Normalize the intersection. Makes life much simpler. You could even stick in a roundabout if you really wanted. That would actually make sense. Too bad it will probably never be implemented  quote:
It's also done to prevent this from happening:  Click here for the full 738x559 image. This happens a lot when the turbo roundabout is new and drivers still have to get used to it. It turns out it's better to force the driver to take the roundabout again then it is to allow mistakes like the one above. quote:
Yes, it is. Not only that, but in order to prevent the cyclists from having to climb steep bike paths, they will actually lower the intersection a few meters. Here, have a crosssection.  Click here for the full 959x414 image. quote:As Grover says, stack interchanges are excellent for capacity, meet all modern standards, look elegant to boot. The fact that the railroad track is there without perturbing the interchange makes it that much better. And when you drive over it at night, you can see the lit-up skylines of The Hague and Rotterdam. Beautiful
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 22:46
|
|
|
Dutch Engineer posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
Dutch Engineer posted:Yes, it is. Not only that, but in order to prevent the cyclists from having to climb steep bike paths, they will actually lower the intersection a few meters. Here, have a crosssection.  That's amazing!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
grover posted:Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that actually a safer and more efficient way for traffic to pass through the roundabout? It disturbs the flow of traffic. In general, you want drivers to take the outside lane if possible, and the inside lane if necessary. This prevents congestion, confusion and accidents. It's also really inefficient to take a turn like that. You'd have to slow down, take a hard left and accelerate again. This takes a lot longer then just following your lane. This is not a perfect world though, and people still take the wrong lanes. That's why maintenance costs a lot more on turbo roundabouts: to repair the damage done to the barriers by drivers who took the wrong lane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 23:06
|
|
|
Dutch Engineer posted:Yes, it is. Not only that, but in order to prevent the cyclists from having to climb steep bike paths, they will actually lower the intersection a few meters. Here, have a crosssection. Yes sir, no drainage problems here, none at all! For the spire, they should at least do something like the French do in Le Havre:  Dutch Engineer posted:It disturbs the flow of traffic. In general, you want drivers to take the outside lane if possible, and the inside lane if necessary. This prevents congestion, confusion and accidents. It's also really inefficient to take a turn like that. You'd have to slow down, take a hard left and accelerate again. This takes a lot longer then just following your lane. People will learn, given enough time. But with the square corners, wouldn't it be hard for people on the 2-lane approach that faces that corner to figure out what's up? Without the curve there, there's no directional guidance. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 00:03
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
What's the difference between that path and the path on a regular roundabout? You don't have any directional guidance (apart from signs) on that either. In fact, it's even harder to take a wrong left turn on this design because of the raised square corner. I'll see if I can get permission from my professor to upload his roundabout spreadsheet. It shows pretty much every single design with capacities and everything. Dutch Engineer fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Aug 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 13:17
|
|
|
How much math is involved? Are there ways to get into the business that avoid math?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 14:14
|
|
|
Dutch Engineer posted:What's the difference between that path and the path on a regular roundabout? You don't have any directional guidance (apart from signs) on that either. In fact, it's even harder to take a wrong left turn on this design because of the raised square corner. A normal turbo roundabout has a curved corner there to lead the driver to the right. I'm not so much worried that people would go the wrong direction, but rather whether they'll see it as a lane at all. I'd love to see that spreadsheet, even if it's in Dutch. I guarantee it'd get some use here. nerdly_dood posted:How much math is involved? Are there ways to get into the business that avoid math? Nothing you can't do with a 4-function calculator, unless you really get into geometrics, and even then, there's software. Pretty much any engineering degree will more than prepare you. For me, personally, the most math I have to do on a daily basis is multiplication. Very simple.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
On the topic of the elevated bicycle roundabout, we have an inverted version of that near where I live. Click here for the full 1049x692 image. google streeview That's about the only halfway interesting traffic thing here though, unless I'm missing something obvious. Generally speaking the roads in Denmark seem to be pretty well thought out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 18:01
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Nothing you can't do with a 4-function calculator, unless you really get into geometrics, and even then, there's software. Pretty much any engineering degree will more than prepare you. For me, personally, the most math I have to do on a daily basis is multiplication. Very simple. It's the engineering degree that's the problem. I'm good at geometry and trig (but it's been a while since I had any schooling in either of those) but I'm worthless at algebra. I'm quite fond of my TI-84.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 18:52
|
|
|
nerdly_dood posted:It's the engineering degree that's the problem. I'm good at geometry and trig (but it's been a while since I had any schooling in either of those) but I'm worthless at algebra. I'm quite fond of my TI-84. That'll depend on your school, then. The one I went to required calculus 1-4, and calc 4 (diffeqs) was a "no calculators" class. You could possibly get into traffic engineering without an engineering degree, but you would need prior experience in the field. Maybe begin with an internship?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 21:46
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
This is the spreadsheet we use to check if a certain roundabout has the capacity to handle a certain amount of traffic. It's in Dutch, so I'll translate and explain a few things: - First, make sure you turn macro's on, or the program won't work. - Click Ja (yes) on the pop-up. - Now you're in a tab called invoer (input). You can see a very basic sketch of a roundabout. You can put your input in the cells with the blue zeroes. All input is based on Personen Auto Equivalenten (PAE, Personal Car Equivalent) per hour, a car is 1, a truck is 2 and a very large truck is 3 PAE. - After you have finished your input, you can decide if you want your lane seperation to be 2,5 or 7 meters wide. - If you press the button Intensiteitsgroei (intensity growth) you can adjust for increased traffic over the years. It's pretty self-explainitory. - Now look at the Resultaten (results). the Verzadigingsgraad (VG, Saturation degree) should be below 0,80 and the gemiddelde wachttijd (Tgem, average waiting period) should be below 50 seconds. - You can click the tabs or buttons with the roundabout designs to check the output, but it would take too much work to translate all that to make sense. Tip: if you press Scenariobeheer and select testbelasting, you get an example of some input. Please note that some of the designs are purely theoretical and have never been applied... yet  Disclaimer: this spreadsheet is only supposed to be used just for initial scouting and very, VERY basic designwork. I wouldn't bet my life on it, especially if you'd have to use it anywhere else than the Netherlands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 15:40
|
|
|
Going way the hell back to the first page, you mention:Cichlidae posted:
and I gotta ask: have you been there? Because gently caress LeCorbusier. I'd read about it being a planned city, designed by prominent architects, and so I expected it to be, architecturally at least, pretty interesting and vital. I want to point out that these are three entirely different structures in different sectors of the city:    Ugh. Nothing but hideous brutalism so far as the eye can see. It's just a uniform sprawl of exposed concrete slabs joined by exposed concrete columns, all of them stained with crud and strewn with detritus. Granted, India's poor, it's beset by poverty of a scale completely unknown to anyone born into a 1st-world nation, and that explains the dirt. And there *are* some (really) nice private homes in some areas, and I suspect that they're good-looking primarily because Le Corbusier had nothing to do with them. The *traffic* flow is impressive as hell. Bajillions of people on bikes, Hero Hondas, tuk-tuks, and Tatas (usually with Ferrari badge stickers on them) ignoring lane markers and cutting each other off constantly, and there's nowhere near as much congestion as you'd expect to be caused by the chaos. One thing I saw that I liked was timers mounted on the traffic lights which would count down how much time was left on the current signal. I could see that leading to some racing, but it definitely eliminates having a stale green light surprise you with a sudden expiration. But the architecture? Man. If there's one architectural style I'd eradicate entirely, it'd be brutalism. Preferably with high exposives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 20:13
|
|
|
Not maintaining brutalist structures and then complaining about their decrepit appearance is fashionable these days. Keep in mind, i'm not a fan of "towers in a park" either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 20:26
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:...unless Washington drivers blindly follow all signs. Making traffic merge earlier, and at higher speed, does improve capacity significantly, but many drivers will just stay in the closed lane until the last minute and then try to shove themselves back into traffic at 5 mph.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 21:09
|
|
|
Dutch Engineer posted:This is the spreadsheet we use to check if a certain roundabout has the capacity to handle a certain amount of traffic. It's in Dutch, so I'll translate and explain a few things: Amazing spreadsheet. It immediately provided what could prove to be a feasible solution to a tricky intersection we've been looking at, producing a max delay of 10 seconds. I assume Ngem z is the average queue, or at least that's what I told my bosses Phanatic posted:I want to point out that these are three entirely different structures in different sectors of the city: Everyone's got different taste. I'm personally not a fan of brutalism (I'm a New England colonial kinda guy, since that's what I grew up with), but back in the first half of the century when LeCorbusier was active, it was the big new thing. Keep in mind that he organized his cities, at least for a time, as an industrial system, much like a factory. He also operated on the assumption that buildings could be mostly self-sufficient ecosystems, which turned out to be quite false. The eventual result of this in France was that thousands of high-rise apartments were built during the 1950s-1970s, eventually turning into cesspits of poverty. LeCorbusier had some interesting ideas, and I have to admire him for his boldness, but in retrospect, his ideas don't mesh with the real world. What I like about Chandigarh is the meticulous way it's planned, and the hierarchy of road networks. Regarding putting timers on the signals, it can definitely be implemented on pre-timed coordinated signals, which I'd imagine are common in a city with a regular street network. Once you start doing adaptive phasing, optional pedestrian phases, and vehicle extension, though, countdown timers get impractical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 21:09
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Amazing spreadsheet. It immediately provided what could prove to be a feasible solution to a tricky intersection we've been looking at, producing a max delay of 10 seconds. I assume Ngem z is the average queue, or at least that's what I told my bosses Ngem z is the queue in the southern lane. You'll need to look at Ngem max for the maximum queue in any direction. Also, please note that this model may not apply in the US, so please don't use it for design validations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 22:58
|
|
|
Dutch Engineer posted:Ngem z is the queue in the southern lane. You'll need to look at Ngem max for the maximum queue in any direction. Yeah, that's what I figured for the queue. As to how drivers perform in roundabouts here, Americans are 10-15% less efficient at driving, so I'd just bump the volumes up by 10%. Funny thing, we use 0.85 volume/capacity as the breakpoint here, not 0.8 like you do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 23:56
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Americans are 10-15% less efficient at driving
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 00:32
|
|
|
grover posted:Why is that? Bigger cars? Inability to accelerate? Unwillingness to exploit openings in traffic? Combination of the three?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Overall skill and knowledge required to get a license is what Europeans walk out of their first day of drivers' education knowing. That's it, alright! Having longer cars, I'm sure, increases queue length, but capacity is primarily a function of headway. Higher speeds and better/more aggressive drivers mean smaller headways and higher capacity. The biggest factor for roundabouts is Americans' general lack of familiarity and comfort with their operation. We hope to shrink that roundabout capacity gap to 5% over the next decade or so, but I'm sure there'll always be some lag behind Europe until our drivers education system is re-worked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 01:38
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's it, alright! Having longer cars, I'm sure, increases queue length, but capacity is primarily a function of headway. Higher speeds and better/more aggressive drivers mean smaller headways and higher capacity. The biggest factor for roundabouts is Americans' general lack of familiarity and comfort with their operation. We hope to shrink that roundabout capacity gap to 5% over the next decade or so, but I'm sure there'll always be some lag behind Europe until our drivers education system is re-worked. The thing that bugs the hell out of me is our incredible reliance on stop signs. There are so damned many intersections where one flow of traffic should just have right-of-way and intersecting traffic should get a yield sign, it's ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 02:06
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The thing that bugs the hell out of me is our incredible reliance on stop signs. There are so damned many intersections where one flow of traffic should just have right-of-way and intersecting traffic should get a yield sign, it's ridiculous. The reason they're so common is because stop signs are generally used as traffic calming devices. Any professional will tell you that stop signs are NOT for traffic calming, and there are much better alternatives, but putting up a stop sign is cheap and gets the local residents to shut up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 02:09
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The thing that bugs the hell out of me is our incredible reliance on stop signs. There are so damned many intersections where one flow of traffic should just have right-of-way and intersecting traffic should get a yield sign, it's ridiculous. The interesting thing is that when you get used to one, it messes you up for the other. If you are used to 4 way stops, and you come to a stop sign, you go as soon as you see no one is sitting there already. Doesn't work so well at 2 way stops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 02:32
|
|
|
What I really love were the no-way stops in my neighborhood: intersections with no stop signs and no clear right-of-way. All over the place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 02:41
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The reason they're so common is because stop signs are generally used as traffic calming devices. Any professional will tell you that stop signs are NOT for traffic calming, and there are much better alternatives, but putting up a stop sign is cheap and gets the local residents to shut up. My favorite one was put in at a three-way intersection near my house oh, maybe 15 years ago. Main street had a tumescent 25mph speed limit, side street had very little traffic. But they put a stop sign there for just that reason. Nobody wanted it there. Local residents kept sneaking out at night, and stealing the stop sign. Township kept putting it back up. This happened three times that I know of. Then the township put it back up, and *welded* the sign to the post. Some brave soul went out there and took a torch to it, cut the stop sign off, and then bent the post over double and welded the post to itself. The township's persistance paid off in the end, and the sign eventually went up and stayed up, but it was fun for a while.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 03:09
|
|
|
grover posted:What I really love were the no-way stops in my neighborhood: intersections with no stop signs and no clear right-of-way. All over the place. There's a lot to be said for free intersections on low-volume, low-speed roads. Even putting up a pair of yield signs is better than stop signs in most neighborhoods. Phanatic posted:My favorite one was put in at a three-way intersection near my house oh, maybe 15 years ago. Main street had a tumescent 25mph speed limit, side street had very little traffic. But they put a stop sign there for just that reason. Great, now all we need are a few thousand dedicated welders worldwide to go on a crusade against inefficient stop signs! With a critical mass of support, we could remove the signs (and turn the posts into high-strength balloon animals) faster than the maintenance department can put them up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 03:26
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The thing that bugs the hell out of me is our incredible reliance on stop signs. There are so damned many intersections where one flow of traffic should just have right-of-way and intersecting traffic should get a yield sign, it's ridiculous. Edit: the city of berkeley has a couple of traffic circles that would be roundabouts except there are ALSO stop signs! Not all of them are four-way stops eitherr Socket Ryanist fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Aug 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The reason they're so common is because stop signs are generally used as traffic calming devices. Any professional will tell you that stop signs are NOT for traffic calming, and there are much better alternatives, but putting up a stop sign is cheap and gets the local residents to shut up. This reminds me of something, and if I remember correctly you worked in France for a bit so hopefully you can confirm this for me: My friend recently moved to Paris and tells me they have this crazy rule ("It's great when you get used to it!" he says) that cars making right-hand turns at an intersection (where in the US we'd probably have a stop sign) do not have to stop. They just turn right onto the next street and cars already on that street have to give way. This means that whenever you're driving down the street, at any time someone might come cruising out of a side street to cut you off so you have to drive very carefully and check every side street as you drive up to/past it. I find it very hard to believe this could work but he swears it's true and it works fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 09:11
|
|
