|
Carbon dioxide posted:These things are popular in suburbs here: The school here likes to put them near a crosswalk, blocking the entire bike lane on both sides. I kick the loving things over every time I go by there when they're up. The trend of blaming drivers for hitting things that shouldn't be in the roadway to begin with is ridiculous. E: maybe they got the hint, it used to be right in the middle 
Javid fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Nov 6, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 21:53
|
|
(little flag optional)
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:The VMS programmers here in Mass have gotten a little more clever/jokey over the past year. This coincided, of course, with taking suggestions from people for slogans to put on the VMS. Colorado DOT has been doing this one all over the place:  I think they jinxed it 'cause all the ski resorts are opening late. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Speaking of safety flags... holy poo poo http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1204294/calgary-considers-simple-solution-for-pedestrian-safety-have-them-carry-flags/
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
It's Calgary. They'll be gone in the first week. I wonder, has any municipality tried issuing something like that directly to residents and allowing local stores to sell replacements? Varance fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Speaking of safety flags... holy poo poo I can see this working at an isolated location where motorists aren't used to seeing pedestrians. Within a city, much less so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Speaking of safety flags... holy poo poo I used these for crossing a busy road in DC at an unsignalized intersection. It's nice because it's a very clear way of communicating "Yes, motorist, I am actively stepping out and you need to stop. I'm not being a passive pedestrian waiting for the rush hour traffic to stop (it never stops)." It's also nice because parked cars restrict the sight distance, so sticking a flag out means you don't have to put your body a foot from moving traffic to get people to notice you. http://dcist.com/2010/06/waving_the_reflective_flag.php That article is pretty lovely about its criticisms, but if you are using the flags correctly - by using them to help make the motorists stop before you cross, rather than just picking up a flag and running out there - I think they can be valuable. I know if I'm driving on a 6-lane arterial, I won't be the first driver to stop for a pedestrian standing on the side of the road if the other lanes are all moving. But if there was a pedestrian sticking a flag out there, I probably would.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Devor posted:I used these for crossing a busy road in DC at an unsignalized intersection. It's nice because it's a very clear way of communicating "Yes, motorist, I am actively stepping out and you need to stop. I'm not being a passive pedestrian waiting for the rush hour traffic to stop (it never stops)." It's also nice because parked cars restrict the sight distance, so sticking a flag out means you don't have to put your body a foot from moving traffic to get people to notice you. You don't stop for pedestrians at crosswalks unless you see other cars stopping first?? Isn't that like super illegal, and super lovely? Where is traffic enforcement? When I hear about shitholes where cars don't stop at crosswalks as if it was a red light I just don't get where enforcement is. If people are driving so illegally and dangerously it sounds like the local cops can make a fortune ticketing everyone until the local driving culture or what ever decide to follow the rules. At most I've ever had to step out a little and wave my arm a tiny bit, and that was on a really busy nasty arterial road in a suburban area at night. Usually body language is enough to signal if you want to cross or not. If you're driving in a way that you "didn't notice in time" the pedestrian then you're driving too fast, not paying due attention, or your road was designed by an incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:You don't stop for pedestrians at crosswalks unless you see other cars stopping first?? Isn't that like super illegal, and super lovely? Where is traffic enforcement? When I hear about shitholes where cars don't stop at crosswalks as if it was a red light I just don't get where enforcement is. If people are driving so illegally and dangerously it sounds like the local cops can make a fortune ticketing everyone until the local driving culture or what ever decide to follow the rules. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=16th...,357.65,,0,3.45 This HAWK pedestrian signal was installed at the location that used to have the flags. But back when it was unsignalized, no, people did not stop during rush hour traffic. The pedestrian would have to wait until the stopped traffic from the next traffic signal caught up to this crosswalk, and then they would cross the already-stopped traffic. Yes, it means it's a bad location to put an unsignalized crosswalk. But if you have pedestrian desire-lines, it's not like you can do much to stop them jawywalking. It's nice that they eventually put in the signal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Javid posted:The trend of blaming drivers for hitting things that shouldn't be in the roadway to begin with is ridiculous. Honestly, the trend of blaming pedestrians for being hit by cars is long-running, ridiculous and lovely, and something which badly needs to be reversed in North America. http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/ Baronjutter posted:If you're driving in a way that you "didn't notice in time" the pedestrian then you're driving too fast, not paying due attention, or your road was designed by an incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:You don't stop for pedestrians at crosswalks unless you see other cars stopping first?? Isn't that like super illegal, and super lovely? Technically speaking, the law only mandates that traffic stop for pedestrians when they have already entered crosswalks (meaning any intersection, or any painted mid-block crosswalk). If you see an old lady waiting on the sidewalk next to a crosswalk, clearly you should stop for her, but there is no legal obligation to stop for her*. They make a caveat by allowing you to poke your hand, cane, crutch, wheelchair, or bike partially into the roadway to mandate a halt, but the legal standard is problematic for the obvious safety reasons. *At least here in Oregon. State laws may differ. Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Man that's really sad how most people had absolutely figured out what a disaster auto-centric cities would become but even with public outcry the automakers managed to just buy the right politicians and wage a propaganda war, then change cities so that driving is the only options and now you have 30-40 THOUSAND people killed each year in the US alone due to horrible city planning. At least the number of total traffic related deaths is going down despite driving and population going up. It peaked at about 50k deaths a year in the 70's and has been slowly going down since. I wonder how much of that is due simply to the increasing safety of cars and the war on pedestrians being basically won in much of the continent. Despite the number of traffic deaths going down, the percentage of traffic deaths of pedestrians hit by cars vs car-on-car crashes has actually gone up, which is alarming. In many cases traffic engineering will sacrifice pedestrian safety to increase vehicle safety as the goal is to simply reduce overall deaths. Maybe one day we'll take back the streets, at least in cities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Man that's really sad how most people had absolutely figured out what a disaster auto-centric cities would become but even with public outcry the automakers managed to just buy the right politicians and wage a propaganda war, then change cities so that driving is the only options and now you have 30-40 THOUSAND people killed each year in the US alone due to horrible city planning. I want to say that a major dent was put in the annual traffic fatality numbers once a majority of states passed mandatory seatbelt laws and pushed hard on enforcement. I believe it was the major factor in the declines although the combination of increased mandatory safety equipment including seat belts, air bags, ABS, crumple zones, and electronic stability control together probably account for the rest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:These things are popular in suburbs here: Pretty sure no one is fooled by these for even half a second as kids tend to not be fluorescent yellow and 50 cm high.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Just gotta point out that being injured by horse drawn traffic and even streetcars was pretty common for pedestrians in pre-mass-automobile cities too. Let alone people injured by surface running full on trains.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Just gotta point out that being injured by horse drawn traffic and even streetcars was pretty common for pedestrians in pre-mass-automobile cities too. Let alone people injured by surface running full on trains. Oh yes, pedestrian death rates were horrendous back then. Baronjutter posted:In many cases traffic engineering will sacrifice pedestrian safety to increase vehicle safety as the goal is to simply reduce overall deaths. There are basically three priorities that a department can follow: 1) Reduce overall injuries and fatalities (why should an equestrian's life be valued differently from a pedestrian or a bus passenger?) 2) Look at benefit:cost ratios and perform improvements that do the most good (including accident costs, delay costs, and socioenvironmental costs) 3) Say "we can only afford a million dollars worth of improvements, let's just fix what's cheap." You can guess which one is the most common.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:3) Say "we can only afford a million dollars worth of improvements, let's just fix what's cheap." We don't want to set a precedent that we'll install a HAWK signal! Then everyone will want them!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
I just had to look up what a HAWK signal is. What's the benefit of these over the normal 3 color lights? There's a crosswalk in front of a school near where I work that's pretty much a HAWK signal with a standard traffic light.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
xergm posted:I just had to look up what a HAWK signal is. What's the benefit of these over the normal 3 color lights? They confuse people enough that they pay attention. For a while, at least; I'm still not satisfied with their long-term efficacy, especially if they're used widespread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
xergm posted:I just had to look up what a HAWK signal is. What's the benefit of these over the normal 3 color lights? Yeah, I always figured that pelican crossings were more sensible, since they use standard traffic lights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
I'm in Maine for the first time and I noticed that the curbs are made of a dark stone that sparkles instead of concrete. Is this so plows don't tear them up? It's pretty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:I'm in Maine for the first time and I noticed that the curbs are made of a dark stone that sparkles instead of concrete. Is this so plows don't tear them up? Granite curbs are not unusual - they're used a lot in Washington DC. They're quite a bit more expensive, but also more durable like you guessed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
We have some asphalt curbs around here. They did not fare well in New England weathers. And they need to be painted to be visible at all. I assume they are even cheaper than concrete.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
smackfu posted:We have some asphalt curbs around here. They did not fare well in New England weathers. And they need to be painted to be visible at all. I assume they are even cheaper than concrete. Asphalt is cheaper and more versatile than concrete, but will get ripped up ten times faster. Granite, of course, is a lot stronger, and looks beautiful on an otherwise boring street. It's also upwards of $30/foot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Pretty sure no one is fooled by these for even half a second as kids tend to not be fluorescent yellow and 50 cm high. They catch your attention very well. I drove past one on my way back from work for a year, and it worked even when I knew it was there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
Granite also sucks to install. Take a road with a rough coat of pavement on it. Trench next to road. Maneuver massive slabs of rock around. Don't chip them or the town inspector will fail the section. Make sure they line up perfectly or the inspector will fail the section. Pour concrete between curb and road bed. Make sure the jackhole pouring the concrete doesn't let the concrete come above the pavement grade. Since that jackhole didn't do his job, go back with a jackhammer and knock out all the concrete. Repour. Then finish pave. Asphalt curb gets poo poo out of a machine in minutes. Easy. But it looks arguably shittier and is easily damaged by weather or big trucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Asphalt curbs in my neighborhood started breaking apart within a year. They are not long for New England. Granite curbs are far more popular here because even though they are more expensive, they last decades regardless of the abuse. They do destroy your tires if you're lovely at parallel parking, though. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Kakairo posted:Yeah, I always figured that pelican crossings were more sensible, since they use standard traffic lights. Absolutely. Also, take a look around the particular crossing featured in the article (in Orpington High Street). The road has been narrowed to two lanes, and near the crossing the parking is gone as well, so pedestrians only have to cross a very short space. This is the case up and down the high street -- narrowed street, widened sidewalk (pavement, as they'd say over there). This is the right way to design the main road through a local commercial district. (Better still is to close it to traffic altogether).
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:Asphalt curbs in my neighborhood started breaking apart within a year. They are not long for New England. How common are parallel spots around you? In my city there are less than 20 I believe, and all in an area not used often at all. And I absolutely suck at them since I never have to use them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
I used to live near downtown Waltham, so there was tons of parallel parking. I only rim rashed once during the seven years I lived there, and it was about six weeks before I moved. It's always the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
John Dough posted:They catch your attention very well. I drove past one on my way back from work for a year, and it worked even when I knew it was there. Maybe the first time but more in a "what is this crap" way. I see them all the time and it never registers as something i need to pay attention to. Those dummies the Belgian police puts out near roadworks which are basically just dressed up shop mannequins do work however. Once i only realised it wasn't a real person when i had already passed the "person".
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
Oh, man, I missed the fuel/road tax discussion! I could never understand the philosophy of "who uses the infrastructure should pay for it". I guess it's an ideologically important thing in the US? Relatedly, is is there a federal law that DoT budgets may only be made up of incomes from fuel/road tax, and vice versa, that fuel/road tax may only be used by the DoT? Because it sure sounds like that from the discussion here. Here in Sweden, the gas tax is sky high, like in most of Europe, but it goes into the state's general budget and is used for whatever (like all other taxes we have, I think). Which has the advantage that if you as a citizen want more highways but don't care much for raised taxes, you can vote for the party that wants to increase road spending and cut welfare. And vice versa. No need to have the "low tax vs high tax" debate mixed into the issue of infrastructure spending. The level of the fuel tax is decided in part by the environmental ambitions (suppress driving) and in part by the need for income. Hippie Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Nov 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:I could never understand the philosophy of "who uses the infrastructure should pay for it". I guess it's an ideologically important thing in the US? It's a push back against decades of spending trillions on roads then going to the public transit folks going "oh we don't have any money sorry for your lots seeya next year"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
It's also descendant from the way roads were first paid for back in the 20s and 30s. Motorists wanted better roads and they were willing to pay for it, so they chose to allow themselves to be taxed to pay for it. And heaven forbid we ever reexamine that system. This is America, and the best way is the way we've always done it because teh way we've always done it is the best way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:It's a push back against decades of spending trillions on roads then going to the public transit folks going "oh we don't have any money sorry for your lots seeya next year" Not sure I get what your saying. When was what you describe the case, that regular taxes were spent on roads, to the exclusion of other interests? When did that stop, i.e. when did the current doctrine of only using fuel taxes begin? I'm not sure I see how the current setup help public transit either, since it seems they get even less money than before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
I think they're actually somewhat mistaken. Although usage fees (vehicle licenses and fuel surcharges) do go towards road maintenance, this only covers about 1/3 of the cost, with the rest made up from property and income taxes. http://www.teamestrogen.com/content/cycling_myth2 In other words it's functionally the same as in Sweden, just that the fuel taxes are too low to actually compensate for road usage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
There's also a lot of variances between states. The federal gas tax goes into the highway trust fund, and that funds highways and transit. The trust fund ends up being propped up by general revenue as well. States also collect a gas tax, and who knows what happens with that. In Minnesota we put it in our constitution that it has to be dedicated to roads, but I know Wisconsin does not (they just voted to put something in their constitution, and it didn't pass). So it depends on the state [And can I just say how insane it is that gas tax revenue ends up in a flipping Constitution?]. Then you've got county and local municipalities that will fund things through the only revenue source they've got, property and sales tax. And of course money passes down as well, the federal government will give the states and cities money, the states will give cities and counties money, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Devor posted:https://maps.google.com/maps?q=16th...,357.65,,0,3.45 Kakairo posted:Yeah, I always figured that pelican crossings were more sensible, since they use standard traffic lights. I also just got sent this article about "stroads", which hits on exactly what's wrong with that Washington street, that it is an unholy hybrid between a street and a road. I'm not sure what the solution is, though, since the DC Metro doesn't have very much room for real roads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I also just got sent this article about "stroads", which hits on exactly what's wrong with that Washington street, that it is an unholy hybrid between a street and a road. I'm not sure what the solution is, though, since the DC Metro doesn't have very much room for real roads. Demolish buildings to make room for a full radial freeway network and obliterate the DC building height limit laws so that replacements can easily handle the removed space.  And just to be safe, run new DC metro lines in the median areas of all the new freeways. And ideally, have the government rent out air rights over the new freeways a la the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Just make it Dubai, all skyscrapers and highways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Demolish buildings to make room for a full radial freeway network and obliterate the DC building height limit laws so that replacements can easily handle the removed space. Problem: Then the capitol won't look imposing and frightening to people driving by.  Solution: Pick up the capitol by its foundations and place it atop a 600-foot man-made hill. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:08
|
|