|
N is for Nipples posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INMiXqP8vI0 One that wasn't in the video: 
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
What was the deal with both directions having flashing red lights at the same time?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
Crankit posted:What was the deal with both directions having flashing red lights at the same time? Thats called a "stop sign"
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
Crankit posted:What was the deal with both directions having flashing red lights at the same time? Lights (or rather; light mechanics) out of order I suppose, over here they flash the ambers for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
Flashing reds means you treat it as a 4 way stop, or more accurately everyone comes to a stop, no one knows the rules so it's people in 4 lanes each slowly inching out and seeing if someone else in the other 3 directions is going to go through
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
-Usually- four-way flashing reds are used only late at night when there's theoretically not enough traffic to interfere with each other, or as a failsafe when there's some sort of serious error in the light control network. Flashing yellow one way / red the other is also usually a late night thing. You'll also see them sometimes if there's some sort of special event causing high traffic (concert, sportsball game, etc) in which case there's generally a cop or several directing traffic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
Having your traffic lights turn off at night seems really stupid. Am I misunderstanding, or is that what's happening?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
I honestly don't know what makes that intersection such an idiot magnet. Maybe it's just that the positioning of our cameraman directly over it has afforded him the unique opportunity to catch every accident, but it still seems far too common.Crankit posted:Having your traffic lights turn off at night seems really stupid. Am I misunderstanding, or is that what's happening?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
Crankit posted:Having your traffic lights turn off at night seems really stupid. Am I misunderstanding, or is that what's happening? It's common in commercial and industrial areas that are super-busy during the day, but have very little traffic at night. The lights will go to four way flashing red, and you treat it like a huge stop sign, or two way each flashing red and yellow, where yellow is "HEY rear end in a top hat PAY ATTENTION" and red is still a stop sign. (There would be flashing yellow on the major road, and flashing red for the smaller cross street.) As mentioned above, a four way stop is simply several difficulty steps above the ability level of 90% of the driving public, let alone a four way stop with more than four lanes, so it doesn't always work. Its supposed to keep the intersection from holding one or two cars at a red light for a full traffic cycle at intersections with no traffic sensing equipment, when there is literally no traffic in the perpendicular. In Miami, most of them seem to click over at 11pm or midnight, and go back to normal at 6am. My favorite in that video though was the Cherokee rollover that turned INTO the incipient spin. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Crankit posted:Having your traffic lights turn off at night seems really stupid. Am I misunderstanding, or is that what's happening? As someone who has spent a lot of time sitting at stop lights at 3 am while there was zero cross traffic for miles, flashing red lights at night seem like a great idea. I wouldn't want them at "weird" intersections (many lanes, streets meeting at angles, elevation changes, limited visibility, etc), but it should (theoretically) be really nice to have on low traffic roads.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Crankit posted:Having your traffic lights turn off at night seems really stupid. Am I misunderstanding, or is that what's happening? They don't turn off, they just revert to (essentially) stop signs, because there isn't enough traffic to trigger the light controls properly. It's vastly better than sitting at a red light waiting for it to run through its minutes-long timed cycle when there's no one else within a mile radius. (Especially on a motorcycle, which usually can't trigger the light change at all, and you often have to just run the red.) You can't really use the "it's confusing to reasonable drivers" excuse, 'flashing red = stop' is only marginally less basic than 'drive on the right'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Seems odd, why don't you have it like here, where at night the busiest road gets a green all the time until traffic approaches from another direction and then initiate a traffic cycle? Surely that would have less probability for chaos?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
N is for Nipples posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INMiXqP8vI0 Everyone is aiming for the bullseye in the middle of the intersection.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Well yeah that's why nobody stops, if you do you'll just get rear ended! I wonder if a roundabout would make that intersection
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Crankit posted:Seems odd, why don't you have it like here, where at night the busiest road gets a green all the time until traffic approaches from another direction and then initiate a traffic cycle? Surely that would have less probability for chaos? We have those as well but imagine, if you will, that different kinds of intersections exist. Some of them don't have sensors. Some vehicles don't trigger sensors. Honestly this is better, the street that would normally be green in your situation is still green in this situation, but the side traffic can treat it like a stop sign so long as cross traffic is clear. No signal changes, no waiting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
It's pretty funny that you all think people can remember what a flashing red, or a green, or a red light, or driving on the right side of the road, or turn signals, or brake lights mean. They're too busy playing angry birds on their phones to consider such unimportant things. Count on them continuing on their present trajectory (perhaps even following the lane in the road) and expect them to be planning on trying to kill you. Then drive around them. I've given up on expecting other drivers to be capable of anything other than breathing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
I want to get that huge red south african amored truck thing that Richard Hammond drove aound in, then I can feel safe on the roads, some of the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Goober Peas posted:Everyone is aiming for the bullseye in the middle of the intersection. Maybe it's like car curling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Crankit posted:I want to get that huge red south african amored truck thing that Richard Hammond drove aound in, then I can feel safe on the roads, some of the time. The marauder? I kinda want one because it is basically the Escalade edition of my truck. Too bad they're 6 figures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Surprisingly I've never seen anyone gently caress up around here when a traffic light starts flashing red. Everyone just does what they're supposed to and everything continues on as normal. Maybe it's because around here there are a bunch of normal stop signed intersections with a flashing red light hung over top of the intersection so people are used to it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
I've never seen it either. It tends to be a clusterfuck at busy intersections when no one really has a feel for when other cars are going to go, but that's what functioning stoplights are meant to fix anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Galler posted:Surprisingly I've never seen anyone gently caress up around here when a traffic light starts flashing red. Everyone just does what they're supposed to and everything continues on as normal. Maybe it's because around here there are a bunch of normal stop signed intersections with a flashing red light hung over top of the intersection so people are used to it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
In some of the videos I have seen even though the person technically bad the green light, as soon as the light turns green they floor it even though there is clearly people in the intersection running the red. Some people see the green and just go I to instinct mode and floor it without looking in the intersection. FlapYoJacks fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Mar 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Ugh, I really should know better than to read the comments on news sites. The BBC ran an article having a moan about people parking on pavements, and here we have this gem:Mark Winning posted:Stop making so much fuss. I've found it's impossible to stop these ignorant people. In desperation I scratch the side of the vehicles and have been doing so for many years and nothing has changed. We live in a Me, Me culture. I scratched one car once and by coincidence took the dogs for a walk in the morning to see the household outside looking at the side of the car in disgrace. ratbert90 posted:In some of the videos I have seen even though the person technically bad the green light, as soon as the light turns green they floor it even though there is clearly pedo in the intersection running the red. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:
I can't type on a tablet well.  If there was a pedo in the intersection I would floor it though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Ugh, I really should know better than to read the comments on news sites. The BBC ran an article having a moan about people parking on pavements, and here we have this gem: assuming they're talking about parking on sidewalks, what's your issue there? do you park on sidewalks?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Unfortunately, you are driving on a sidewalk, and I think that sidewalks were made for people and not for cars. I really would like to see StopXAM spread from just being a Russian thing. Strabo4 fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Mar 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:assuming they're talking about parking on sidewalks, what's your issue there? do you park on sidewalks? Pretty much, yeah. I can't believe it's not illegal, especially living in a city with really strict parking laws even in the legal spots. I think this is the article, it says parking in footpaths is only illegal in greater London.  
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
That still doesn't justify anonymous property-damaging vigilantism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:That still doesn't justify anonymous property-damaging vigilantism. I'm not saying it does (StopXAM is a much better solution) but the vigilantism doesn't justify being "beaten to within an inch of their life, and forced to pay for the respray, then either banged up or put down."
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Ror posted:Pretty much, yeah. I can't believe it's not illegal, especially living in a city with really strict parking laws even in the legal spots. I think this is the article, it says parking in footpaths is only illegal in greater London. atomicthumbs posted:I'm not saying it does (StopXAM is a much better solution) but the vigilantism doesn't justify being "beaten to within an inch of their life, and forced to pay for the respray, then either banged up or put down."
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Let's see how you feel after your stuff gets vandalised by some scumbag. Besides in the process of getting towed they're likely to get a few scrapes and dings anyway. Collateral Damage fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Mar 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
That's between them and the towing company, who are insured for such things anyway (though good luck with that one). I don't park like a knob, because I don't want a ticket, but that's how life works. I've been got once, and it annoyed the hell out of me (the time allowance for parking on one side of the street was different to that on the other and I didn't realise), but you pay it and try not to do it next time. At least unlike speed cameras there's an immediate cause-effect relationship to ticketing someone with a nice yellow sticker on the glass, rather than a letter dropping on the doormat a week later. The whole parking-on-pavements thing seems like a non-issue to me - the mechanism for dealing with it is already there (obstructing the pedestrians), they just need to make sure they have a definite guideline, such as "you must have 24 inches width for clear passage" or whatever (I don't see an issue with someone parking with a couple of wheels up the kerb if that seems like the best balance of road space vs pavement space) and actually enforce it universally. Speaking of people trashing cars, a few weeks ago one of the guys at work had the side of his E46 eviscerated by a lorry. It seems that the driver got out, definitely saw the damage, then drove off, not realising a couple of people had seen it happen. Not sure what's happening with that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
In my town, the traffic lights shut off at night and there are several intersections around town with no lights or signage at all. At first, I thought that the stop signs had been stolen (people really do this), but apparently stop signs are just too expensive to justify putting them in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:That's between them and the towing company, who are insured for such things anyway (though good luck with that one). I don't park like a knob, because I don't want a ticket, but that's how life works. I've been got once, and it annoyed the hell out of me (the time allowance for parking on one side of the street was different to that on the other and I didn't realise), but you pay it and try not to do it next time. At least unlike speed cameras there's an immediate cause-effect relationship to ticketing someone with a nice yellow sticker on the glass, rather than a letter dropping on the doormat a week later. Keying is stupid though and the owner is less likely to learn his lesson and just become a bigger rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Then make it whatever value you need, I just chose 24" at random. The point is that they have a mechanism in place already, all they have to do is make a set definition of what constitutes an obstruction, and actually enforce it universally. Saying "no parking on pavements at all ever" just isn't going to work, there are a lot of roads where bumping a couple of wheels up the kerb is the best compromise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Saying "no parking on pavements at all ever" just isn't going to work, there are a lot of roads where bumping a couple of wheels up the kerb is the best compromise. If you just say "don't park on the sidewalk" or get a ticket, that is a much easier to understand rule and easier to enforce. Yes, that may mean that more streets become more no parking zones, but if you have two working legs isn't isn't going to hurt much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
If you have two working legs you're considerably less likely to be complaining about wheelchair access. I'm not condoning parking on the sidewalk (I'm pretty sure blocking the walk is ticketable more or less everywhere in the US) but a lot of people may have bought their houses/flats/whatever with the understanding that that was legal and permissible parking. Waving your hands and going "you have to park two blocks away because you're frustrating me on my casual Sunday stroll" is a pretty big dick move.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
I spent 5 months living in Dublin and it seemed to me that people parked their cars wherever they drat well pleased, however they pleased. It seemed to me like they belonged to shop employees or residents of the apartment block, but at least in Christchurch people were parking any old place. I've never seen anything like it anywhere else. We don't have sidewalks where I grew up, but I at least knew I want supposed to park on them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 13:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:If you have two working legs you're considerably less likely to be complaining about wheelchair access. Both sides have great points, in that it's not unreasonable to require people not to park their cars on the goddamn sidewalk, and yet you would be kind of screwing some people over by instituting a new requirement that wasn't around before. The proper (government) answer is to spend six months bitching over it, add in some halfway measure that gets people off the sidewalk and finds them somewhere to park, ends up costing the city half a million dollars, and in the end pleases nobody. Because if it's not past schedule, over budget, and universally loathed, it's not government! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 15:15
|
|
