|
Cichlidae posted:I was never too keen on hybrid beacons, but it's good to hear them working, regardless. If people mistake the flashing red for a stop beacon, the worst that'll happen is some rear-ends, whereas not stopping at all could lead to ped fatalities.. Flashing red is a stop beacon; you stop and proceed if clear just like you do at a stop sign. Most drivers in Texas are very familiar with flashing reds; they're used at a lot of rural intersections. But now they're learning that it means the same thing at a PHB. With the PHB, the ped walks up and has a don't walk signal and pushes the button and the overheads go from dark to solid yellow (not always immediately, you can sync them up with an adjacent signal phase). The solid red comes on and the ped gets the walk sign. The solid red is for half the time it would take a ped to cross. After the half length ped phase, the PHB goes to flashing red. If the pedestrian has left your half of the roadway, you may proceed after stopping at the stop bar. If the pedestrian is still crossing, you stay stopped obviously. For non traffic engineers, the beauty of the PHB is that the numbers of peds required to meet the warrant for installation are much, much lower than those specified in a MUTCD (or TexasMUTCD here) for a full signal just for pedestrians. (the TMUTCD numbers are really, really high and you won't meet unless you're next to something like a large university). Plus, with the flashing red phase, there's a lot less driver frustration of being forced to stay stopped once the ped has cleared the crosswalk. (I'm sure it's been mentioned but we calculate the pedestrian speed as 3.5 ft/s with is pretty slow for most people). Like I mentioned, these have been very popular with peds and there is a lot of latent demand at major arterials. I initially had concerns that in some historically non-compliant pedestrian locations (usually because of cultural differences, we have a lot of people who come from countries where traffic laws are routinely disregarded and they tend to be a fairly high percentage of the pedestrians in some areas), we'd see the PHBs misused (i.e. pushing the button, then running across before the cycle starts, leaving the driver annoyed at having stopped for nothing) but they've actually been well utilized and it's great that we can help provide safe access for a underserved, underpriviledged population.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
There's one on Wharf and Johnson right by the bridge for sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
t_violet posted:we'd see the PHBs misused (i.e. pushing the button, then running across before the cycle starts, leaving the driver annoyed at having stopped for nothing) but they've actually been well utilized and it's great that we can help provide safe access for a underserved, underpriviledged population. You get that a lot in the UK as pedestrian crossings as it's often quite easy to cross without the crossing when it's not very busy. The only mitigation for this used to be flashing amber (which sounds like your equivalent of flashing red) but now all new crossings seem to be Puffin crossings which are theoretically meant to detect walk-aways and when pedestrians have finished crossing, negating the need for flashing amber and avoiding driver annoyance. I'm not sure how well they work - they certainly don't seem to go green as soon as people have crossed but seem to do it pretty soon after, though I'm always tempted to walk reeealy slowly across one and see what happens. The walk-off stuff I'm not sure about - I think I've only seen it completely stop when I crossed early once, though I'm not entirely sure I fully pressed the button that time, ha. Other times it's just done a very short red phase, which is pretty okay I guess. I think a problem with the sensing might be that people (me included) tend to kinda veer off diagonally towards the pavement in the direction they actually want to go, which might throw it off but I'm not sure. Have people ever come across this stuff elsewhere, and do they have any idea how effective it actually is beyond my anecdotal stuff? One thing that does annoy me, though, is that they put the red and green man (our equivalent of the don't walk/walk sign) at torso-level on your side of the road, rather than at light level on the opposite side of the road. Theoretically this is meant to encourage you to keep an a better eye on the traffic, but in my experience it does the opposite and I usually end up just looking at the state of the traffic lights when I can instead. Does anyone know a better justification for this? I suppose it's better if you're visually impaired, but that's why we have the beeper right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
I've been curious forever, since I've seen it blocked off since I was a little kid. There's a little stretch of what used to be the old Route 16 in Milton, NH that has been blocked off for ages now, and I wanted to know why/how/what happened. It's the little white line after where 125 ends. I understand that they built the new Route 16 as a faster route, but why'd they block off that one stretch?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
FFStudios posted:It's the little white line after where 125 ends. I understand that they built the new Route 16 as a faster route, but why'd they block off that one stretch? Varance fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Sep 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
FFStudios posted:I've been curious forever, since I've seen it blocked off since I was a little kid. There's a little stretch of what used to be the old Route 16 in Milton, NH that has been blocked off for ages now, and I wanted to know why/how/what happened. There's no reason to keep it. There aren't any other streets branching off, nor houses, and it would take extra money to build another on-ramp for it (may hurt capacity/safety, too.) Maintenance costs money, too, so if there are any bridges, culverts, or drainage along that stretch, you're looking at a couple hundred thousand per year just to keep it open.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
"Yo Cichlidae, can you design us an interchange?" "You're drat right I can!  "Six hours later... This interchange becomes:  (Courtesy of Kurumi, who is awesome) No, wait a minute, that interchange design sucks! HERE is what I designed.    The whole design goes a couple miles in every direction, and it's very detailed, so I have no way to easily show it to you. But it allows movements between everything, connects with the New London frontage roads, eliminates the left exit on I-95, and it LOOKS LIKE A GIANT ANGRY FACE! What's not to love?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
I can't tell if it's modeled after an angry alien or ovaries. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
It makes me think of shoelaces. Over under under over...
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Yo what's the vMax on those loops? City engineers were blushing when they admitted having to settle on 30 km/h in grade-separating our eastern ring road.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
It looks like a perturbed owl to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Yo what's the vMax on those loops? City engineers were blushing when they admitted having to settle on 30 km/h in grade-separating our eastern ring road. Depends on the radius and superelevation; I don't remember the exact measurement, but it's about 350', which is 35 mph at a 4% super. Supers up to 10% are allowed, but 35 mph really isn't bad at all. That's about 55 kph.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 03:54
|
|
|
Any reason why they asked you to design that interchange? I haven't heard any Route 11 news lately, so I figured that project was shelved for the time being again.quote:Courtesy of Kurumi, who is awesome CT Roads Great website, I've learned a lot about Connecticut road history there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 08:45
|
|
|
porkfriedrice posted:Any reason why they asked you to design that interchange? I haven't heard any Route 11 news lately, so I figured that project was shelved for the time being again. We're still working on it, just at a slow pace, until we get a firm decision. Currently, Malloy says he'll have it built, with tolls helping to subsidize its cost. As for who asked me to, I'm buddies with the guys in Project Concepts. They appreciate someone working with an outside perspective; that's why I had the design contest for the 91-15 interchange. These projects are 20 years out, but now is a great time to start pumping out concepts and variations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 12:22
|
|
|
About the ped crossing you're designing, that's a really good idea. I know if I saw that sort of flashing sign I'd likely slow down or stop. However, could it be that drivers in Connecticut aren't aware that pedestrians have the right of way in the crossing? A lot of people assume that, on a major street, cars always have the right of way because they're bigger and faster and harder to stop. I know in NC I didn't realize it was a law to give peds the right of way until I saw a sign that literally spelled it out "STATE LAW: STOP FOR PEDESTRIANS, YOU rear end in a top hat". With that sign up, it seemed like we had extremely good compliance. Every once in awhile, a cop would reinforce the message by pulling over someone who didn't stop. Not often, just enough to get word of mouth going.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 13:46
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:About the ped crossing you're designing, that's a really good idea. I know if I saw that sort of flashing sign I'd likely slow down or stop. Don't pedestrians in a crosswalk always have the right of way in every state? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
I think they do, but that's kind of my point. I didn't know, and I went to driver's ed and consider myself to be a fairly well informed driver. It's not a stretch to think that other people are similar to myself. Another question that came up is the question of retainer walls: Why are we seeing more of those wire restraining walls, and just how effective are they? Also, when the issue of safety comes up for various interstates/highways, how is that decision made? Why is it that some two-lane highways will have a divider when others don't?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Don't pedestrians in a crosswalk always have the right of way in every state? Here in Connecticut, peds have the right-of-way even outside a crosswalk. I'm sure someone will complain about that here, but the reason is very simple: in any collision between a pedestrian and a vehicle, the pedestrian loses. Therefore, the laws are very, very protective toward them. SquadronROE posted:Why are we seeing more of those wire restraining walls, and just how effective are they? Also, when the issue of safety comes up for various interstates/highways, how is that decision made? Cable guide rail, as it's called here, is not particularly safe, especially for motorcyclists. We're removing it wherever possible and putting in metal beam rail or concrete barriers instead. Some places are still installing new cables, because they're very cheap, but I don't expect that will last too much longer. SquadronROE posted:Why is it that some two-lane highways will have a divider when others don't? There are two main factors. One is median width: if the median is more than 30' wide, each direction of traffic is technically outside of the other's clear zone, which means that a car that leaves the road will have an 80% chance of recovering (or stopping) before it crosses that 30' gap. 80% isn't a great number when you're talking about a 100+ mph head-on collision, so we like to put barrier down for anything less than ~70'. Anything less than 30' (depending on slope, ADT, and speed, but it's simple to assume a 30' clear zone for freeways) needs a barrier to prevent head-ons. The second is cost: barrier's not cheap, and as soon as it's installed, you have to take responsibility for maintaining it constantly. Because we don't have money to put barrier everywhere, we prioritize high-volume and high-accident locations to get as much bang for the buck as we can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
I was just actually reading that where I live EVERY intersection is considered to have an invisible crosswalk in terms of pedestrian right of way. People here are excellent at stopping at crosswalks but even in residential areas if you're crossing at an intersection where there's no actual painted crosswalk you'll get honked at, yelled at, and shot very dirty looks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
Varance posted:Canada isn't anywhere near as car-friendly as the US is, if only because the traffic volumes rarely if ever require dedicated right turn lanes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
Yeah that makes no sense to me. Canada has massive cities and I believe the busiest highway in north america, just as america has vast underpopulated rural areas. Both countries have horrible sprawling nightmare cities as well as walkable transit paradises.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
Millstone posted:I hate it when people try and simplify traffic to "Canada". It's obviously very varied. And there are lots of "car-friendly" municipalities just like there are lots of right turn lanes. Even sprawlers like Missisauga and Calgary have nothing on most cities in traditionally red American states. Baronjutter posted:Yeah that makes no sense to me. Canada has massive cities and I believe the busiest highway in north america, just as america has vast underpopulated rural areas. Both countries have horrible sprawling nightmare cities as well as walkable transit paradises. Yes, nobody else in Canada has something like this that runs for kilometers and kilometers:  But then again, this is a rare outlier in one of the biggest cities on this continent. And also a colossal urban design fuckup, to boot. If it weren't for the collector-express system and generous use of parclo and stack interchanges, the entire thing would be a clusterfuck of epic proportions. Varance fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Sep 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 06:42
|
|
|
Varance posted:
I'm not sure what I'm meant to be seeing here that other places don't have. If it's just wide dual carriageway, the NJ Turnpike currently has that for 32 miles, and will soon have it for 54 miles. If it's wide dual carriageway specifically with limited exits for the inner lanes, the Garden State Parkway has that for 20 miles; which is then followed by this: http://goo.gl/maps/g7DGQ
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 13:35
|
|
|
I think what he's saying is that it's a gorgeous stretch of concrete paved highway that nobody uses. Canadians love our socialized roads, what the gently caress is a toll?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I'm not sure what I'm meant to be seeing here that other places don't have. If it's just wide dual carriageway, the NJ Turnpike currently has that for 32 miles, and will soon have it for 54 miles. If it's wide dual carriageway specifically with limited exits for the inner lanes, the Garden State Parkway has that for 20 miles; which is then followed by this: http://goo.gl/maps/g7DGQ Otherwise, you're talking about Jersey. Varance fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Sep 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Varance posted:Let me clarify that as nobody else in Canada. I'm well aware that practically every controlled-access road leading to/from Manhattan in Jersey uses the collectors-express arrangement. We've started doing it here in Florida with reversible express lanes, and have left provisions to throw them down on several of our interstates if the need arises. Kitchener has a Collectors-Express system for a few kilometers here too. It's totally useless though. http://goo.gl/maps/fSh97
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I'm not sure what I'm meant to be seeing here that other places don't have. If it's just wide dual carriageway, the NJ Turnpike currently has that for 32 miles, and will soon have it for 54 miles. If it's wide dual carriageway specifically with limited exits for the inner lanes, the Garden State Parkway has that for 20 miles; which is then followed by this: http://goo.gl/maps/g7DGQ It's just really busy. Other than that it's not that unique. The DOH stole the C/E design off the Dan Ryan and it has Ontario tall wall in the newer sections.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I'm not sure what I'm meant to be seeing here that other places don't have. I live in the Vancouver area, the third largest city in Canada (metro area about 3 million), and we're reaching the end of a project to expand our 2-3 lane main freeway to 4 lanes (each way, including one HOV lane) all the way through the most congested portion, with a 10-lane bridge. There's still a very large group of the population that is angry because they believe the money should have gone to fund public transit, and that the resulting increased congestion would discourage automobile use. In Vancouver proper, there has been a policy on the books for about 20-30 years to not create new capacity for automobiles. I have joked that the official slogan for the city should be "Welcome to Vancouver. Want to make a left hand turn? gently caress YOU!" I'm not saying that's good or bad, just an observation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
EngineerJoe posted:Kitchener has a Collectors-Express system for a few kilometers here too. It's totally useless though. http://goo.gl/maps/dSKO7 hakarl posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's his point. Nowhere else in Canada looks like that. As an example, Richmond Hill Centre, now:  Richmond Hill Centre, same location within about 10-15 years:  Keep in mind that Richmond Hill is one of Toronto's exurbs. In the image above, the 4 lanes of roadway are directly above an extension of the Yonge subway. The Centre itself will be a BRT/subway/commuter rail hub filled with high-density real estate. Varance fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Sep 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 06:15
|
|
|
How are you supposed to handle something like this? http://goo.gl/maps/ypKui This is a 4-way stop/double t-bone intersection abomination, but both sides of Franklin Avenue are further "in" the intersection than Ash St. Contiuing either way on Franklin requires a full right turn onto Ash St unless you enjoy going diagonally across 4 lanes, and then a left turn to keep going on Franklin. My strategy so far has been to stop in the 5 feet where you can actually see things coming(both sides have buildings/foliage preventing you from seeing poo poo on Ash St unless you're practically in the intersection), and then drive the entire way across without stopping again for the left turn that's involved. It seems like a whole lot of hassle that could have been avoided if one end of Franklin was built 50ft north or south of the other. At least it's not Gurnee, where the design philosophy seems to be "make sure people can get to Gurnee Mills and Six Flags; make everything else spaghetti." http://goo.gl/maps/I3Gx8
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 13:05
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:How are you supposed to handle something like this? We have a ton of those up here. Here is one awful example. CT 174 makes a "Z" there, like so:  Look closely and you'll also see that the eastbound left turn lane is about 8 feet wide, which makes it mostly useless. How to fix them? There are a few options. 1: Realign the road to turn two 3-way intersections into one 4-way. You will need to buy up properties, because the road will be going right through them. And you end up with something like this:  2: Widen the radius and adjust the stop signs to turn that small section of Ash Street into Franklin, like so:  Of course, it's still a safety issue, and you'll have a hard time with sidewalks unless you can remove that big brick building on the corner. 3: Signalize the whole thing, like we did in New Britain. That depends on volumes, too; you say it's four-lane, but it looks like they're all very small, relatively low-volume roads, probably with an ADT under 3000. You'll have a tough time meeting signal warrants with those volumes. Haifisch posted:At least it's not Gurnee, where the design philosophy seems to be "make sure people can get to Gurnee Mills and Six Flags; make everything else spaghetti." http://goo.gl/maps/I3Gx8 That's suburban sprawl for you. The whole idea of circuitous roads like that is to hinder through traffic. There are also plenty of water bodies, which don't exactly help when it comes to continuity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
Slabs went in today. Pictures & more info soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:We have a ton of those up here. Here is one awful example. CT 174 makes a "Z" there, like so: I don't see why you'd do anything to it; it's a largely residential street that doesn't go anywhere. I can't think of any reason I'd want to increase speeds or capacity in that area and if I changed anything, I'd get nothing but a constant barrage of complaints from citizens about the horrific speeding problem in the neighborhood. It's actually not a bad design for a residential neighborhood: no street appears to go for more than three blocks without a break. It'd cut way down on any incidental cut through traffic, drivers are forced to slow down every few blocks but you still have connectivity and have avoided having a neighborhood full of cul-de-sacs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
Varance posted:But then again, this is a rare outlier in one of the biggest cities on this continent. And also a colossal urban design fuckup, to boot. If it weren't for the collector-express system and generous use of parclo and stack interchanges, the entire thing would be a clusterfuck of epic proportions. It kind of is anyway considering how bad traffic gets. Depending on the time of day longer distance commutes along the 401 can take 2-3x as long as when traffic is good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
t_violet posted:I don't see why you'd do anything to it; it's a largely residential street that doesn't go anywhere. I can't think of any reason I'd want to increase speeds or capacity in that area and if I changed anything, I'd get nothing but a constant barrage of complaints from citizens about the horrific speeding problem in the neighborhood. Yes, there are absolutely better things to spend money on and it wouldn't merit a project. In my example, the only reason 174 is signalized is it's the major East-West arterial in that area. You're in this line of work, too, so you must know how many complaints we get about random mildly inconvenient intersections. We normally have form letters, thankfully, but every once in a while, it's a state rep or mayor who decides his neighborhood needs a new signal. I had to spend a couple days last week drafting up a letter (and then going to meetings about who needs to send it) for a VIP who is dead-set on a signal at an unwarranted location. Edit: On the other hand, I say this wouldn't merit a project, but I've done at least one before. It was a town job, and I thought it would never get built in a million years; they had to bulldoze a former car dealership / gas station with contaminated soil, a church, and a Spanish-American cultural center, as well as get partial takes on another church and a fire station. Somehow it went through, and well, here we are. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Sep 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yes, there are absolutely better things to spend money on and it wouldn't merit a project. In my example, the only reason 174 is signalized is it's the major East-West arterial in that area. Yeah, it's funny that we're on the opposite ends of the spectrum, you deal a lot with increasing mobility and efficiency of roads and intersections; most of my daily work is addressing citizen complaints over the "insanely dangerous speeds" on residential speeds that mean their children face mortal danger when they play in the street. (stock answer: that's not what streets are for, get your kids out of the freakin' street). I'm always amazed at how many citizens think any road configuration that isn't a straight line is a "death trap". I have a laissez-faire attitude towards traffic control: if something works well enough and doesn't create dangerous situation, why gently caress with it? I'm not gonna throw up a shitload of useless signs or spend $$, just because an irregular intersection offends a citizen's sense of propriety. Goddamit, learn to drive defensively and accept that driving in an urban context means you'll have to stop and yield to pedestrians occasionally unless you wanna live in a Mad Max distopia of endless pavement and hot rods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
t_violet posted:unless you wanna live in a Mad Max distopia of endless pavement and hot rods. You don't? On the topic of pedestrians, driving to places where people actually walk always wears me out. I do agree that peds absolutely should have right of way, but let's face it - driving in AZ you very, very rarely actually encounter peds and thus it's easy to shut that part of the brain off. Driving pretty much anywhere else, especially in downtown areas, can be maddening trying to actually track non-automotive traffic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:You don't? You know, one of the challenges we're facing right now is "distracted walking". Pedestrians are wearing headphones, looking at their phones while they walk and geneerally not being aware of the traffic situation around them. It's a real problem and a tough one for even careful drivers. You'll be halfway through a legal right turn on the green when the pedestrian who was just loitering at the corner suddenly notices they have the walk phase and steps off the curb without looking. I don't know what the answer is other than education for both the drivers (texting bad) and the pedestrian (texting bad).
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
t_violet posted:Yeah, it's funny that we're on the opposite ends of the spectrum, you deal a lot with increasing mobility and efficiency of roads and intersections; most of my daily work is addressing citizen complaints over the "insanely dangerous speeds" on residential speeds that mean their children face mortal danger when they play in the street. (stock answer: that's not what streets are for, get your kids out of the freakin' street). We need to make a BINGO card for overblown complaints. Here are a few I've heard flung around: - Dead Man's Curve - Death trap - Speedway (usually used for residential suburban streets) - An accident every day - Free-for-all - Cluster fornication awaiting pivot volunteers (ok, that one's not typical, but it's still one of my favorites) - Spaghetti junction (for any interchange more complex than a cloverleaf) - Fatal accident waiting to happen - No-man's land Any of you readers out there who are submitting a complaint, be aware that using any one of those will earn you an eye-roll from anyone who reads it. We'll still treat it with the same respect and promptness, though, 'cause we're pro. IOwnCalculus posted:You don't? My wife grew up in Phoenix, by the way, and when she moved to Rhode Island, she HATED driving. She's since gotten used to it, and, like me, finds driving in Phoenix incredibly boring. I could see how Phoenix's roads lead to driver fatigue. It's all straight and flat, not much interesting topography, very few landmarks, so you learn to get complacent. I'd prefer a lot of the roads around here which, despite being objectively more dangerous, are a lot more interesting to drive because they're demanding. You pay attention to every sign, watch that shoulderline like a hawk, and there's no way you'd miss a ped (or a deer). t_violet posted:You know, one of the challenges we're facing right now is "distracted walking". Pedestrians are wearing headphones, looking at their phones while they walk and geneerally not being aware of the traffic situation around them. It's a real problem and a tough one for even careful drivers. You'll be halfway through a legal right turn on the green when the pedestrian who was just loitering at the corner suddenly notices they have the walk phase and steps off the curb without looking. I don't know what the answer is other than education for both the drivers (texting bad) and the pedestrian (texting bad). A huge majority of our pedestrian fatalities are either: distracted ped, drunk ped, or ped trying to cross a freeway on foot. The media here isn't really picking up on it, but it's very common for people to get hit because they were obliviously pecking away at their phones, or just listening to music while jogging in the road and couldn't hear the honks. Not that I'm blaming them for being a pedestrian, but their lives could have been saved if they'd been a bit more aware.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
I did an experiment yesterday when attempting to cross a crosswalk well-marked with a "STOP FOR PEDESTRIANS" sign (albeit the non-blinking kind) on a busy 2-lane road in an area where people are well accustomed to pedestrians having the right of way and stop at this crosswalk all the time. I first approached the crosswalk, but stopped 5 feet back. Nobody stopped. Cars just kept coming and coming. I then stepped right up to the edge of the crosswalk and paused: the very next car stopped. My hypothesis is that standing 5-feet back is the universal signal for "Go ahead, I'm just gonna wait for a gap." grover fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Sep 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 14:49
|
|
