|
Samurai Sanders posted:Hm, lemme rephrase a bit: Who decided that the solid walk light was going to be only 4-7 seconds long, and why? It's not a practical issue or anything, I'm just curious, I have been for years, ever since they installed those countdown things and it showed me just how long that flashing red period was. It's clear that thought was put into how long the flashing down't walk period was, so I'm wondering what the thought was behind the length of the walk sign. It's just a capacity issue. If you only have <5 people walking off a particular ramp per cycle, you don't need to give them a lot of time. In a downtown area, on the other hand, it's common to give longer walk times when there's a lot of pedestrian activity. Those downtown intersections don't tend to be state-owned, so I don't get to touch them. The ones I've seen, though, can often work fine with the usual 7 seconds, just because ~10% of crossing peds actually press the button.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
Korea has the countdown on a lot of the crosswalk lights. The ones on little streets don't, but any major street will have the same dude/hand green/red thing, and then a series of green triangles on the side which count down. It's awesome and really the only way to know if it's safe to cross one of the giant intersections, considering how insane Korean drivers are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 04:51
|
|
|
Personally, I like the walk-lights that have countdown timers to the next signal. Good visual indication that you don't really have all that long to wait and eliminates people jaywalking right before getting the walk signal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 11:48
|
|
|
grover posted:Personally, I like the walk-lights that have countdown timers to the next signal. Good visual indication that you don't really have all that long to wait and eliminates people jaywalking right before getting the walk signal. I really like those, too, but they don't work with actuated signals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 13:27
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I really like those, too, but they don't work with actuated signals. The ones we have here do, sort of. The countdown will become faster or slower depending on what is triggered, and sometimes might just jump to the end or stall for a while. Just like progress bars in Windows 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 14:12
|
|
|
In my city in canada we've got almost all our crosswalks replaced with the counter things. It's great for peds to know how long they have, and it's great for drivers knowing exactly when that light is going to turn yellow. I love em!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
Entropist posted:The ones we have here do, sort of. The countdown will become faster or slower depending on what is triggered, and sometimes might just jump to the end or stall for a while. Just like progress bars in Windows Korean ones seem to do that too, but I don't think they use actuated signals at the busy intersections much, it always seems to be the same whether it's rush hour or 3 AM. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't use them at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
Wolfy posted:
Wolfy posted: Shut your whore mouth; The Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange is a thing of beauty. Look at it! (Google maps) Look at how expensive it looks! I truly, unironically love that thing. I drove it drat-near every day for four years as part of my high school commute. The HOV flyover from the 105W to 110N is as much "home" to me as anything else in LA. I get a kick out of taking out-of-towners over that flyover at night. You get a view of the entire loving LA basin in its Blade Runner-esque low-density dystopian glory. I very nearly added paint on the barriers on that little loop from 110N to 105W, though. Apparently "25 mph" sometimes actually means 25 mph! The 105 freeway is, in my spectacularly uneducated opinion, very well done. I mean, look at where it meets the 405! (Google maps again!) Find something wrong with it, I DARE YOU. I'd actually like to know what they got wrong. Maybe some weaving, but it involves low-volume on-ramps or is stretched out over such a long area that it never causes any problems. And 105E feels like it drops a lane pretty quickly but, again, no problems there. Also, The Green Line in the median is neat. It doesn't get all the way to the airport, though, since the LAX expansion is caught in a NIMBY quagmire. Some day the airport will grow out to meet it, or the line will expand to actually go somewhere. Some day. I like the wikipedia accusation that the LAX parking lot owners helped mess things up. I don't doubt that at all. God Bless America. Speaking of disappointing busways, I give you the Harbor Transitway. It's grade-separated through some tight squeezes, which is excellent IMHO, especially since I used the hell out of those HOV lanes. And the bus usage is about 1/4 of what they expected/hoped. Whoops. Also! There are electronic "minutes to [x destination (next freeway, airport, downtown, etc.)] signs along some freeways here, and they are FREAKISHLY ACCURATE. Like, to-the-minute accurate. Like, actually worthwhile-to-pay-attention-to accurate. Minor aside: these is my home ramps. I'm not sure what the design speed is for that NB off-ramp, but I'm told (cough) that it can be navigated at speeds in excesses of freeway limits. Local goons note: these are also the home ramps for the local CHP station. Mind your speeds/on-ramp meters. Great thread, Chilidae. I've gotten a real kick out of it. I'm glad you're still employed, and I hope you'll be able to find greener pastures when it suits you to do so. Please fix Los Angeles. Normal Barbarian fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Dec 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 04:01
|
|
|
Entropist posted:The ones we have here do, sort of. The countdown will become faster or slower depending on what is triggered, and sometimes might just jump to the end or stall for a while. Just like progress bars in Windows Oh man, that just sounds incredibly infuriating. Maybe better than not having a timer at all, but if I didn't know what was going on, I'd get super frustrated. What I'm saying is, as a traffic engineer, I'd probably get endless complaints. heythisguyhere posted:Great thread, Chilidae. I've gotten a real kick out of it. I'm glad you're still employed, and I hope you'll be able to find greener pastures when it suits you to do so. Please fix Los Angeles. Glad you're enjoying it! You guys sure have a lot to fix, but take heart. It's only a matter of time before the whole LA freeway network crumbles into sand and has to be re-built from scratch. I'll be ready!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
heythisguyhere posted:Every time I drive through that thing I enter with the assumption that I'm going to do it wrong, and that I won't remember all the little tricks. Driving through downtown L.A. requires a certain fatalism. I've lived here my whole life and still occasionally manage to gently caress up getting from 10W to 60W. It's a straight line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 06:59
|
|
|
By far the most irritating part of the East LA Interchange (the giant monstrosity pictured a few posts up) is that it's missing several movements. For example, getting from the 10 East to the 101 North requires getting off the freeway and driving a block and half on surface streets to get to an on ramp to keep going. While the thread's on an LA bent, I'd like to point out what could be one of the all time worst interchanges ever designed. Only really handles 2 directions, and every exit except one is a left exit. Having driven through this interchange regularly, it absolutely infuriates me that nobody could think of a better idea for this given how much traffic goes through it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 21:17
|
|
|
Consist posted:By far the most irritating part of the East LA Interchange (the giant monstrosity pictured a few posts up) is that it's missing several movements. For example, getting from the 10 East to the 101 North requires getting off the freeway and driving a block and half on surface streets to get to an on ramp to keep going.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 23:58
|
|
|
Even in my free time, I can't stop working my traffic voodoo. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 21:17
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Even in my free time, I can't stop working my traffic voodoo.  Get yourself a hobby, man!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:
I know, and it's not even useful in-game... If I spent this time in the gym instead, I'd probably be able to cut diamonds with my pecs by now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
Building extensive roads and aqueducts is the best thing about Minecraft. If only you could disable creepers 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:Building extensive roads and aqueducts is the best thing about Minecraft. If only you could disable creepers Creepers I can stand, but pre-1.9 Endermen were the worst. Even with the game set to peaceful, they would still spawn for a millisecond and grab chunks out of all of my structures. It was such a mystery until I caught them appearing in flashes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:Building extensive roads and aqueducts is the best thing about Minecraft. If only you could disable creepers Think of creepers and endermen etc. as frost damage, wear and tear and the effects of budget cuts and neglected maintenance 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 22:05
|
|
|
 I saw this sign last night. I realize this isn't the side they look at during installation, so I can see myself making the same mistake. What strikes me as hilarious is the fact that it was left that way. Did the workers just think, 'ah, screw it. people will get the general idea.' Or was it more of a general, 'wow, these new signs sure are strange' reaction? How does work get contracted out, anyway? There's been a bunch of construction on this street funded by the ARRA, but it looks third rate. There's a four way stop intersection on the same street where the white painted 'STOP' on the road looks like it was done with a paintbrush.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
MiTEG posted:
Are you sure the top bolt didn't just come undone? It's hard to tell from the picture, but it seems the post goes higher than the sign, and the "bottom" bolt is missing. That's a much more likely scenario.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
heythisguyhere posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 10:23
|
|
|
CGameProgrammer posted:Then there's this. I'm guessing it's for buses so they can let off in a center island. We've got something similar here in the twin cities along 35W.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 17:18
|
|
|
We have one of those too as a highway offramp. http://g.co/maps/7g86x
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
Boy, I'm really looking forward to a nation-wide cell phone ban while driving. I don't know how, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people oppose this kind of regulation. From what I've seen, their arguments boil down to: "But I drive fine while talking on the phone." - This same guy said he drives fine while drunk. "Feds sticking their hands in everything." - Driving is already a highly regulated activity, not a right. "There are other distractions, like kids in the back seat." - Cell phones are easier to legislate than kids, and provide more of a distraction as the other party isn't aware of the situation. "Hands-free cellphones aren't dangerous." - My Governor used this one. Studies have shown that hands-free cell phone use is just as dangerous as holding it to your ear. "Texting is much worse than talking on the phone." - Regardless of which is worse, they both constitute a distraction and a danger. Any thoughts, y'all? VVVVV Those are certainly good reasons to use the phone, and the cops I've talked with will let you go if you were using it in an emergency. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Dec 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 23:00
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Boy, I'm really looking forward to a nation-wide cell phone ban while driving. I don't know how, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people oppose this kind of regulation. Nope, I'm with you 100% here. I have a hands-free set installed in my car for emergency calls. I only use it to call in drunk drivers (very rare, thankfully) or to call the local radio station's traffic desk if someone is walking around in the motorway breakdown lane or something. I've had to do both of those a couple times this year. Other than that, it's solely for people to call me. If I pick up, first thing I'll say is that I'm driving and ask if it can wait. I've had an emergency call once that I was glad I didn't miss. Anything else can wait.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
1. Who's going to enforce it? 2. Who's going to pay for it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:1. Who's going to enforce it? Police. Around here, they occasionally have cell phone checkpoints, similar to their drunk driver roadblocks. quote:
I guess that depends on the legislation. I'm sure the ticket revenue would be substantial, but even if it doesn't break even that way, it should be publicly funded since everyone benefits from fewer accidents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
When studied, bans on talking and texting have had no effect on accidents at best and may have increased accidents at worst by pushing phones down out of sight where it takes eyes off the road for longer. It sucks, but there's really no way to make it work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:When studied, bans on talking and texting have had no effect on accidents at best and may have increased accidents at worst by pushing phones down out of sight where it takes eyes off the road for longer. It sucks, but there's really no way to make it work. You could, but it'd be awfully invasive. Making phones inactive when used above a certain speed, putting a chip in them to have them shut off when within 3 feet of a steering wheel in a moving car, embedding signal blockers in the road, or photographing drivers on a random basis with the same cameras used for red-light-running and speeding. Not very good ideas, and I wouldn't want to see any implemented, but we've got to take any steps we can to at least add an extra charge when someone gets in a wreck from distracted driving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
^^ None of those are cost effective or reasonable implementations.^^ My understanding is that there are major jurisprudent restrictions to nationwide legislation such as this, namely, that local police are not enforcers of Federal law, and Federal law enforcement has no national police branch. This is why local cops generally cannot enforce immigration issues. And I disagree that extra charges are warranted. Cause is irrelevant. Accidents should be treated equally regardless if the causal driver was drunk, sleeping, texting, or just a damned idiot. Chaos Motor fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Dec 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 01:40
|
|
|
I'm not American so I may be talking out my arse here, but couldn't they just make federal funding dependent on passing state laws implementing cellphone bans or enforcing the federal ban.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
Digital War posted:I'm not American so I may be talking out my arse here, but couldn't they just make federal funding dependent on passing state laws implementing cellphone bans or enforcing the federal ban. There's been no attempt at even making a federal law against it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:Cause is irrelevant. Legally, though, it is relevant. There's a difference between misadventure and gross negligence, or between murder and manslaughter. Why shouldn't there be a heavier punishment for someone who knowingly endangers his and others' lives? Digital War posted:I'm not American so I may be talking out my arse here, but couldn't they just make federal funding dependent on passing state laws implementing cellphone bans or enforcing the federal ban. Absolutely, that's what they do with drunk driving. My state misses out on millions a year in federal funding due to its lax laws. Install Gentoo posted:There's been no attempt at even making a federal law against it. I don't expect there will be any proposed legislature for a few months, at least. But the fact that the NTSB recommended a law be drafted makes it very likely that one will be proposed, and possibly turned into law, in the next few years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 02:21
|
|
|
Digital War posted:I'm not American so I may be talking out my arse here, but couldn't they just make federal funding dependent on passing state laws implementing cellphone bans or enforcing the federal ban. Yeah, they tried that with the whole "Drive 55" thing, and it worked... for a while. Cichlidae posted:Legally, though, it is relevant. There's a difference between misadventure and gross negligence, or between murder and manslaughter. Why shouldn't there be a heavier punishment for someone who knowingly endangers his and others' lives? You can make those arguments in court without special legislation. I've nearly had my life taken from me by gross negligence simply from another driver not checking their mirror when changing lanes or merging a hundred million times, I don't see why "texting" is a different class of negligence than any other "not paying attention" behavior. Whether they are texting or picking their nose isn't the point. That said, texting while driving is stupid. But I've also seen people reading magazines and newspapers while driving. I don't see the point to making special cases. Inattention is inattention, regardless of why. Hell, I see people watching TV on their center console all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:That said, texting while driving is stupid. But I've also seen people reading magazines and newspapers while driving. I don't see the point to making special cases. Inattention is inattention, regardless of why. I definitely agree there. Unsafe driving is bad, regardless of the cause. What's troubling about cell phones is how quickly the trend has arisen, and how commonplace it's become. I believe the best hope to reduce distracted driving is to create a social stigma. Whether legislation will do that or not is another matter, but when the only tool you have is a hammer...
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 03:40
|
|
|
Honestly it'd be such a pain to try to get something like that passed that we'll probably have automated robot cars that nullify the problem before it'd get done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
They have recently (within the last year or 2) banned handheld electronics while driving here (British Columbia). They do have checks and I guess they would pull you over but this seems kind of rare. The big thing is if you have an accident and it is found out you where on your cell phone etc at the time your insurance will not cover you (from what I understand). People do plenty of illegal things when they drive now (no signals etc) and it does not always create an accident but it increases the chances of it happening. It seems like this just gives officers a tool to deal with this when they see it not necessarily something they are going to start specifically looking for. http://www.icbc.com/faqs/road_safetyfaqs
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 04:29
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I believe the best hope to reduce distracted driving is to create a social stigma. Ray LaHood is beating this horse as hard as he can, probably because it's about the only thing he can actually do in his term as Sec of Transportation. Chaos Motor posted:You can make those arguments in court without special legislation. I've nearly had my life taken from me by gross negligence simply from another driver not checking their mirror when changing lanes or merging a hundred million times, I don't see why "texting" is a different class of negligence than any other "not paying attention" behavior. Whether they are texting or picking their nose isn't the point. I think the biggest reason (and this is just my view, so I don't know if anyone else agrees, or if the terms I use mean anything) is active negligence verse passive negligence. If I get in a car and am drunk, I'm being activly negligent. I've made the choice essentially to be a bad drive. If I forget to check my blind spot, it's still negligence, but it's more passive. In an instant I forgot to check and whoops. Likewise, using a phone is active. You're making the choice to distract yourself with the phone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 05:37
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Honestly it'd be such a pain to try to get something like that passed that we'll probably have automated robot cars that nullify the problem before it'd get done. Well, since you mention it... Remember this guy? Here's their KC Gig Ideas submission: quote:Using Google Fiber, Google's Driverless car program, and Integrated Roadways' modular pavement products featuring embedded intelligent sensor networks, we can provide self-driving car services at five cents per mile for non-commercial users, and five cents per ton-mile for commercial users. Too far fetched? Too bad. It made the semi-finals for the Gigabit Challenge, chaired by Vint Cerf of TCP/IP and VP at Google. We find out Friday if the submission survived to the Finals, which puts it in competition for $100,000 cash & services "Grand" prize, $250,000 "Born Global" convertible note investment, $100,000 worth of cash & services for 2nd-5th places, the People's Choice award, and last but not least, individual awards and/or deals with the judging panel, which consists of angel, VC, tech, and municipal representatives. I can get the content of the actual proposal if anyone's interested. I think the target and timing are both great, as KC is really taking pains to grow its stature, and if the city can pull off this kind of coup, KC has a great shot at hitting it's goal of becoming "The most entrepreneurial city in America" and supercharging the Silicon Prairie effort. Hell we've been named one of the WORLD's best unknown travel spots, one of the nation's "next" cocktail Meccas, and had three of our UMKC Bloch school instructors named the world's top innovation management scholars, all in the last few months. This is a great way to fix our city's problems and put us on the map, in my opinion! Chaos Motor fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Dec 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
Considering how horrible ice contracting and expanding is on pavement, I'm not sure why he thinks creating roads with cracks premade is a great idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 06:25
|
|
