|
Stew Man Chew posted:He even got the lyrics wrong. Properly aligned headlights shouldn't do this. The problem is that people lift pickups without adjusting alignment. Headlights will also go out of alignment. Crappy HID kits (this is all of them) are a major culprit as headlights designed for halogens don't work with HIDs.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Before this year, tree maintenance on the Parkway in Fairfield County was minimal and borderline negligent. The one that caused the lawsuit wasn't an isolated incident, I saw trees down blocking lanes every time a storm with more than a light breeze came in and I personally saw three cars damaged by falling or fallen trees last year in addition to all the lane closures due to trees that fortunately didn't come down during rush hour. You have to understand, though, how incredibly constrained we are with tree maintenance on the Parkway. Since it's historical, even trimming trees has to go through a rigorous review process, and the trees are a major part of its historical character. It's easier to do a controlled burn of ten thousand acres elsewhere in the state than to cut down one tree on the Parkway. porkfriedrice posted:Pretty good article in the Courant about one of the spans of the new Q bridge that will be opening soon: http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-green-new-haven-q-bridge-20120421,0,6916987.column It's not officially my project, but when there's something so massive going on, it's difficult not to get involved. Every engineer in the DOT has gotten a tour of the construction site. The project has gone about as well as anyone can hope thus far, except for one little hiccup: the first time it was bid, there were exactly 0 bidders. We had to go back through, split it into tiny pieces, and re-bid it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Perhaps Germany has sovereign immunity. I know we've waived ours in Connecticut, because we get sued for every little thing. The most recent occurrence was when a tree fell on someone's car on the Merritt Parkway; we inspect the trees regularly, but it had rotted in the meantime and fell over. Nah, the German state doesn't have sovereign immunity, not according to Wikipedia anyway. (I thought that concept only applied in old-fashioned backwards monarchies like Sweden, where the regent cannot be prosecuted, but apparently the US fed government has that, too?) I think you can chalk it up to different concepts of how to keep the state from making crappy laws. In most of Europe, you as a citizen cannot hold lawmakers liable for not disallowing dangerous behavior. I'm sure there's a Latin word for this... If the state makes it legal for you to do a stupid thing and get hurt, you have no grounds to sue because you are still responsible for your actions. There is generally some mechanism to revert laws which are unconstitutional, but it doesn't necessarily involve neither courts nor damages. But, on the other hand, if the state itself breaks a law, causing damage to you, you can sue for (actual) damages. TL;DR: Germans can't sue the state for making it legal to go fast, but not because of sovereign immunity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 11:12
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:TL;DR: Germans can't sue the state for making it legal to go fast, but not because of sovereign immunity. Wow, now it makes sense why they call it 'sovereign.' If you know about German law, maybe you can confirm/deny what I heard once. In the US, if I stole a car, then got T-boned by someone who ran a red light while making my getaway, they would be legally responsible for the accident and I could sue them. I was told this wouldn't happen in Germany. Is that true? The US does have some really bizarre legal concepts, like my personal favorite, Attractive Nuisance. It doesn't seem too bad when you're reading the Wiki, but here's how it's implemented with relation to my job: Typically, we don't put up fences along railroad tracks. People do walk across them, and they do end up getting killed on occasion, but it's not enough to warrant putting up hundreds of miles of fence in rural areas. In some urban areas, though, trespassing is frequent enough (95% of deaths on the railroad tracks are trespassers) that we have to put up fences. People don't like fences. Even if you build a pedestrian overpass a hundred feet away, they will cut holes in the fences, knock them down by pushing mattresses against them, even run their cars into them. As soon as that fence is compromised, it then constitutes an attractive nuisance, and the next person to get creamed anywhere near that hole can hold the state legally responsible. Sure, we're responsible for maintenance, but there's only so much we can do. It's cheaper to get sued than to have someone constantly patrolling the fences. I just find it ironic that the end result of this doctrine is our decision to actively fight fence installation, even when it would be safer to have them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 12:39
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Wow, now it makes sense why they call it 'sovereign.' I'm not really an expert on German law, but I agree that it looks weird if your stealing the car has any bearing on who's held responsible for the accident. That doesn't sound right. Usually this kind of laws are pretty similar across the EU. I know for a fact that the other driver would be held responsible in Sweden, where I live. You're both committing crimes while driving, but only his reckless driving has any bearing on responsibility for the accident. Ultimately, what matters is how you drive, not how you came to be on the road in the first place. In the end, he would probably be arrested either for reckless driving (loss of license and up to 2 years in prison if anyone was badly hurt), or involuntary manslaughter if you die. And his insurance company would cover damages to you resulting from the criminal case; there is likely no civil liability even though he's at fault. These would be mainly actual damages, such as cost of new car and rehabilitation, and loss of salary if you're hospitalized, but also some small compensation for "pain and suffering" (in the order of 230€ per month). If you caused the accident while driving a stolen car, you'd be in a shitpile of financial trouble due to not having insurance, though. The other guy's insurance company would pay his expenses and then sue you in a civil case, as I understand it. And that crap about "attractive nuisance" sounds like a lot of money down the drain... Hippie Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Apr 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 13:10
|
|
|
I feel like the United States makes special efforts to ensure our legal system is as retarded and useless as possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:My god, have song references infiltrated all aspects of our society? I'm a rabid Bruce Springsteen fan, I can't help it. Stew Man Chew posted:He even got the lyrics wrong. No, I didn't. I used the Bruce Springsteen lyrics, because he wrote the song.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Wow, now it makes sense why they call it 'sovereign.' If the other driver survived and you weren't speeding in that stolen car, maybe. I can't imagine a single elected prosecutor in the US wouldn't go for a felony murder charge if the guy died though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:I feel like the United States makes special efforts to ensure our legal system is as It's not even as if it succeeds at that either these days if you look at the Lawyer megathread. Btw, one question I have on a more traffic related matter. Who controls the access utilities have to roads in the US? Who gives them permits to dig up roads and how much effort is there being made at coordinating them? In the UK they've been trying to make a start at managing things better but it still ends up with things like the major road near my flat being torn up 4 times in a 6 month period (then having bits torn up again a couple of times because the people installing the water pipe hosed up).
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:If you know about German law, maybe you can confirm/deny what I heard once. In the US, if I stole a car, then got T-boned by someone who ran a red light while making my getaway, they would be legally responsible for the accident and I could sue them. I was told this wouldn't happen in Germany. Is that true? A related one is: I steal a car. I run a red light and cause an accident injuring someone. They sue the owner of the car. This can actually work, if they prove that the owner did something stupid like leave the keys in the car.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
Munin posted:It's not even as if it succeeds at that either these days if you look at the Lawyer megathread. There is almost no coordination at all. We try to contact them to get all their poo poo in order when we're planning on doing road work, so they'll have a chance to get full access to the road bed and not have to dig up fresh asphalt, but they're so flippant it's almost hostile. 1/3 to 2/3 of the utilities won't show up at utility meetings designed specifically to address their concerns; those that do only have a vague idea of what work they intend to do, and you're lucky if you get a few handwritten scribbles on a photocopied plan to show you where their hardware is going. It's fruitless to include their work in a project, anyway, because they have no incentive to follow your schedule and will hold up your job by months/years if they "can't get around to it just yet." The best you can do is ask them not to do their work until adjacent work is finished, so they don't complicate your traffic control.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
Munin posted:
Sounds like a clear need for utility accessible pavements... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
I like these nifty flashing green lights that indicate the imminent transition to the next phase. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-VihVO-p18 grillster fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Apr 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
grillster posted:I like these nifty flashing green lights that indicate the imminent transition to the next phase. Also yellow and red. Europe. The roads just make sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
In my area most traffic lights for two lane (one in each direction) usually have two light clusters hanging from a pole hanging over the opposite stop lineish area. Certain traffic lights have another third light cluster that is on the closer pole. What's the point of those and what are their technical names? They are not for pedestrians. I was thinking its for people down or up a hill or around a curve to know what the light is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
Boner Wad posted:In my area most traffic lights for two lane (one in each direction) usually have two light clusters hanging from a pole hanging over the opposite stop lineish area. We call those auxiliary signal heads, and they are quite useful! As you noted, they can improve signal sight distance when the geometry is "constrained" (that's a euphemism for 'lovely'), they can provide reinforcement if it's an isolated signal that people might not notice, they're great if you have an older population who can't really turn their head, they let you see the signal if it's blocked by trucks or buses, it ensures redundancy if the other signal heads get taken out, and it makes it easier for pedestrians to tell which phase it is. EDIT: If anyone out there is looking for a starting job in Traffic Engineering, we just started hiring again for the first time in 4 years. The job posting is here. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Apr 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
Also for when the main signal is too close to the stop bar and puts it so far overhead that people's visors block it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
Cichlidae, I have a mission for you. Please do everything in your power to at some point get a transporter bridge built before you retire from traffic engineering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 11:18
|
|
|
What if I list my only relevant experience as I read this thread at least twice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
I have a question, probably been asked but: What is the deal with guide rails? I'm not talking about the ones over steep dropoffs, or when there is a marginally small median. I'm talking about dual guide rails running down interstates with a huge median in between. For some reason, NC DOT has started putting up those ugly rear end guide rails instead of the steel cable they were doing at some point. I figured in those situations the steel cable was sufficient, and easier to fix when vehicles did ram into them. Was there a study or something that came out saying that multiple guide rails was better?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
The reason for phasing out steel cable rails is actually safety-related. Motorcyclist + steel cable = cheese cutter effect. Not pretty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
Gothmog1065 posted:I have a question, probably been asked but: They're phasing them out now? They were actively installing them on I-77 between Greensboro and the VA border just a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:The reason for phasing out steel cable rails is actually safety-related. Motorcyclist + steel cable = cheese cutter effect. Not pretty. It's no different with regular guard rails. In the outer edge of cloverleaves around here, they have put up guard rails with protection on the underside, so you can't slide underneath them and have your head chopped off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
John Dough posted:It's no different with regular guard rails. In the outer edge of cloverleaves around here, they have put up guard rails with protection on the underside, so you can't slide underneath them and have your head chopped off. Regular guard rails let you sort of slide along them with no major damage, like if you veer into the barrier without actually flipping the bike over. Do the same thing with steel cable and you could lose a limb. It's seriously not pretty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
Gothmog1065 posted:I'm talking about dual guide rails running down interstates with a huge median in between. Reducing crossover accidents involving a big rig. They don't want the rig to cross the median and enter oncoming traffic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
Gothmog1065 posted:I have a question, probably been asked but: We're getting rid of them here, too. Along with the reasons mentioned above, tall vehicles tend to flip over the top of 3-cable guide rail. I'm not positive, but I'd wager that metal beam rail has comparable repair costs to 3CGR. You can only splice the cable so many times, but you can slap in a new beam segment whenever you like. No need to post-tension it, either.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:They're phasing them out now? They were actively installing them on I-77 between Greensboro and the VA border just a few years ago. If you're referring to the 3 cable system, I haven't seen anyone actively put those in in a few years now. South of Asheboro where they redid 220 to make it interstate ready, they put in the metal beam rail (Stealing Chichlidae's terms), for miles. I just find the metal beams ugly because they look to be exceptionally difficult to mow around and keep sprayed for some reason so the grass looks like poo poo. I think they're leaving the cabling system where it stands, but it looks like everywhere new they're putting in the metal beam rails. Chichlidae posted:We're getting rid of them here, too. Along with the reasons mentioned above, tall vehicles tend to flip over the top of 3-cable guide rail. I'm not positive, but I'd wager that metal beam rail has comparable repair costs to 3CGR. You can only splice the cable so many times, but you can slap in a new beam segment whenever you like. No need to post-tension it, either. I saw some down on I-95 in Georgia I think near the southern border that weren't terrible, it looks like they just put one of the guide rails down the center of the road, rather than one running down each side. Guess I'm just weird with my aesthetics.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 13:32
|
|
|
They're putting up the cable system in MA...so... 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 14:37
|
|
|
They just installed a bunch of it on I-76 east of Akron, OH too. I don't recall seeing it anywhere else in the state, all the new barrier work along I-71 has been proper steel rail, so I'm not sure why they used it there..
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
wolrah posted:They just installed a bunch of it on I-76 east of Akron, OH too. I don't recall seeing it anywhere else in the state, all the new barrier work along I-71 has been proper steel rail, so I'm not sure why they used it there.. They use the cable barriers around Columbus, and it was earlier this year there was the first cable barrier crossing fatality in the state. An SUV managed to jump the barrier and head on a minivan, which was then rear-ended by an 18-wheeler. According to this article http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/02/13/cable-barriers-a-success-more-may-be-on-way.html they are putting up more cables, due to cost among other reasons. Columbus Dispatch posted:Cable is cheaper and safer than concrete barriers or metal guardrails, and it has reduced dramatically the number of cross-median fatalities along stretches of I-270, I-70, I-71 and other highways where no barriers existed before, officials say.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
All the widening work on I-71 in rural areas has dramatically narrowed the median, and as far as I can tell, cable barriers have been uniformly installed.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
They are certainly better than nothing, especially if they're outside the clear zone. Just don't use them if there's something that needs protection: they have 3x more deflection than MBR.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 12:24
|
|
|
Are the I-beams that get driven into the ground for Parkway barrier weathering steel?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Are the I-beams that get driven into the ground for Parkway barrier weathering steel? Probably; we only got the directive not to use them a couple months ago, and everything that goes on the Parkway is supposed to be scenic. Street View imagery isn't great, but it certainly looks brown to me.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
So, will you be designing roads five years from now, or are you planning on taking on the challenge of using your brain for the next generation of carriage?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 08:16
|
|
|
grillster posted:So, will you be designing roads five years from now, or are you planning on taking on the challenge of using your brain for the next generation of carriage? A lot of it depends on gas prices, believe it or not. Cheap gas means increasing volumes, and that means capacity and operational improvements, as well as lots and lots of bridge rehab. Steadily rising gas prices means an emphasis on transit, some operational improvements to reduce bottlenecks and resulting congestion, and still lots of bridge rehab. A spike in gas prices is a whole different story, and it's a scary prospect. There will be a mad scramble toward mass transit, but it'll be all but impossible thanks to a huge drop in our budget: expensive gas means people will buy much less, which means gas tax revenue will drop. The state will probably even reduce it to ease the burden on commuters. Volumes will drop drastically, eliminating most long-term projects. Safety improvements will continue at a much reduced rate. Bridge rehab will all but stop, thanks to the budget cuts. This is why we need to increase gas taxes now. We need to fix our infrastructure in preparation for that gas shock.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 12:39
|
|
|
So percentage-wise, how much traffic is road design/your fault, and how much is people can't drive and are horrible people who need to have their tires lit on fire.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 15:04
|
|
|
We'll need a third slice of the pie chart for cheap / corrupt / blatantly stupid legislators cockblocking good projects.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
Let me ask this: I remember hearing in my Civil Engineering class something about some new concrete/cement that had an additive that would actually allow it to cure in about 15 minutes, and be ready to use in around a day. Have you heard of this? Is it coming to fruition? Something like that would seem to be a high priority as that would greatly reduce costs and time on construction.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
I'm not familiar with that specific product, but I believe the universal trade-off in cure time is amount of shrinkage and longevity - slower cure means less shrink and longer life, faster cure means more shrink and shorter life. If they've overcome one of those tradeoffs it could be huge, if they've overcome both it's revolutionary, but if they haven't changed the equation for either, it's just a slightly better tool, IMHO.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 20:33
|
|