|
carry on then posted:Do you know what also reduces the risk of cars hitting bikes and peds? And getting rid of bikes and peds Trains only, choo choo
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
Devor posted:And getting rid of bikes and peds One at a time
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:I'd buy that, but otoh don't most new Yorkers not drive because of the traffic/decent public transit? Oh I bet that you're absolutely right that if you put the 65% of NYC residents that don't drive behind the wheel it would be madness, but in reality we're comparing the actual driver population - and in urban areas that includes vast numbers of taxi drivers and daily commuters that are quite experienced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
Right on red is also banned in New York City anyway, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
Right turn on red is the only way to go, an intersection I hit fairly often got updated a few years ago with a huge no right on red light that comes on when oncoming traffic has a green arrow for a left turn, but thankfully people who have lived here forever ignore it because it's a solution looking for a problem. It wouldn't be a problem if the light was smart about it, but there are times where the green arrow stays green for a fair amount of time when there are no cars coming, which is just stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:It wouldn't be a problem if the light was smart about it, but there are times where the green arrow stays green for a fair amount of time when there are no cars coming, which is just stupid. The traffic signal probably has busted video or loop detectors that are meant to tell the signal when there are cards waiting to go. When functioning, they make it so that the minor road approach only gets just enough green and no more. When it gets broken, the quick fix is to set the light for maximum recall on the minor approach - the minor road approach will act as if there are ~always~ cars waiting - this keeps it from backing up while they have a chance to fix it, but does end up allocating more green than needed. Complain to your local DOT responsible for the traffic signals. If it's causing delays and backups on the mainline, tell them that. At a minimum they might check the timing against the counts to see if the minor road is getting too much green.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:Right on red is also banned in New York City anyway, IIRC. In New York City, right on red is permitted at intersections with signage for it. https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2019/08/12/more-than-300-new-york-city-streets-allow-right-on-red-- Most of the intersections that allow it are in Staten Island.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
In the Netherlands, it is said that drivers are more considerate of cyclists than in other places because pretty much all drivers are also cyclists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Just have it both ways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:Right on red is also banned in New York City anyway, IIRC. loving finally
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
Zamujasa posted:Just have it both ways. gently caress parsing this at speed
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
People who drive slow can be frustrating, but is there any evidence that they cause crashes as often quoted by people who get frustrated at slow drivers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:People who drive slow can be frustrating, but is there any evidence that they cause crashes as often quoted by people who get frustrated at slow drivers? I did a little bit of research, and it's interesting because while studies get referenced they mostly seem to have been pulled offline. Slow driving studies have a variety of issues because there can be so many causes. For example intoxicated drivers, old drivers, distracted drivers, etc., tend to be driving slowly shortly before they have a collision. Slow drivers also tend to ignite road rage in surrounding drivers, who often pass on the right or do other dangerous maneuvers. How much of these collisions are due to the speed, hard to say. In general, the best takeaway is that collisions are caused by speed differentials rather than specific speed. Accident rates can best be improved through good traffic engineering (setting and enforcing roads at appropriate speeds) and smart policies like laws prohibiting traveling in passing lanes or passing on the blind side of slower vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
The biggest problem is that you're never retested in the US, if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
iospace posted:The biggest problem is that you're never retested in the US, if you ask me. True, though to be honest Americans aren't really tested in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 02:36
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I did a little bit of research, and it's interesting because while studies get referenced they mostly seem to have been pulled offline. Slow driving studies have a variety of issues because there can be so many causes. For example intoxicated drivers, old drivers, distracted drivers, etc., tend to be driving slowly shortly before they have a collision. Slow drivers also tend to ignite road rage in surrounding drivers, who often pass on the right or do other dangerous maneuvers. How much of these collisions are due to the speed, hard to say. I can definitely see that slow drivers can ignite road rage, and that might cause dangerous driving causing an accident. But I would say that the cause of the accident was the driver who can't control their emotions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:gently caress parsing this at speed ...you have to stop either way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 12:03
|
|
|
iospace posted:The biggest problem is that you're never retested in the US, if you ask me. I have been retested a few years back because I let my license expire for a few years. Should have failed(can't parallel park to save my life) but got passed because, and I quote, I "made mistakes only an experienced driver would make"(pulling up to an intersection so I could see instead of stopping 10ft back where the stop sign was placed). I literally watched her rub out all the bad marks and just write pass on the paper she had.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 12:43
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:I "made mistakes only an experienced driver would make"(pulling up to an intersection so I could see instead of stopping 10ft back where the stop sign was placed).. This is how you hit pedestrians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 13:14
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:This is how you hit pedestrians. The stop sign doesn't mark the spot you're supposed to stop. Pulling forward far enough to see cross traffic is how you're supposed to do it. My son totaled a car when he was a new driver by stopping at the stop sign then pulling out directly into the path of a car he couldn't see from there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The stop sign just means you have to stop and yield to cross traffic. I'm glad your son is ok, I'm sure that was scary. American laws typically state that at a stop sign with a marked stop line you must stop at that line. At a stop sign with a crosswalk you must stop before entering it. Once coming to a complete stop, you then may pull forward and stop again to get a clear view of the intersection. Besides the very real possibility of hitting a cyclist or pedestrian by unexpectedly driving into their path, violating these sorts of laws typically merit a $500 fine when enforced. Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Oct 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I'm glad your son is ok, I'm sure that was scary. American laws typically state that at a stop sign with a marked stop line you must stop at that line. At a stop sign with a crosswalk you must stop before entering it. Once coming to a complete stop, you then may pull forward and stop again to get a clear view of the intersection. Besides the very real possibility of hitting a cyclist or pedestrian by unexpectedly driving into their path, violating these sorts of laws typically merit a $500 fine when enforced. Yes, where there is a marked line you have to stop at the line. You don't have to stop where the stop sign itself is was the point. Due to interference from telephone poles or other signs they may not be in the optimum spot. You're responsible for stopping and making sure the intersection is clear before entering it. The stop sign itself is there for information, not to tell you where to stop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Yes, where there is a marked line you have to stop at the line. You don't have to stop where the stop sign itself is was the point. Due to interference from telephone poles or other signs they may not be in the optimum spot. You are incorrect, that's just how we do it. I was flat out told that any inexperienced driver doing that isn't going to get their license because it is technically illegal. I was passed for breaking the law in the correct way, basically. E: And this intersection had hedges to the street, and was a minor street intersecting a fairly major one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:You are incorrect, that's just how we do it. If there are no markings (i.e., no specific stop line), then there is no official place to stop, short of being out in traffic. You are obligated to get close enough to the intersection to be assured there is no cross traffic before coming to a complete stop and then proceeding. If there is a stop line or crosswalk, you must stop short of that. As I have stated repeatedly, the sign itself could be placed well short of the intersection for a variety of reasons. Stopping at the sign and then proceeding is not safe or proper. cf: https://drivinginstructorblog.com/q-should-you-stop-at-the-stop-sign-or-the-stop-line/ quote:Technically, a driver is required to stop at the stop line, not necessarily right beside the stop sign. Sometimes the stop sign will be placed at a slightly different location than the line, for different reasons (large trucks turning may need more room, so the stop line may be well before the sign in certain industrial areas; or, the stop sign may be placed before the line due to visibility reasons). Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Oct 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:If there are no markings (i.e., no specific stop line), then there is no official place to stop, short of being out in traffic. You are obligated to get close enough to the intersection to be assured there is no cross traffic before coming to a complete stop and then proceeding. That's Canadian, not American.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:That's Canadian, not American. Ohio posted:4511.43 Right-of-way rule at through highways, stop signs, yield signs. Colorado posted:42-4-703. Entering through highway - stop or yield intersection Texas posted:Sec. 544.010. STOP SIGNS AND YIELD SIGNS. (a) Unless directed to proceed by a police officer or traffic-control signal, the operator of a vehicle or streetcar approaching an intersection with a stop sign shall stop as provided by Subsection (c). You're welcome to look up more examples yourself. The stop sign has nothing to do with where you stop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
In California, he is right. If there is no line or crosswalk, you have to stop at the entrance of the roadway, which is where the curbs meet. Minnesota is the same if I recall. However, almost every road with a stop sign has a limit line or crosswalk. There you are supposed to stop at the line and then creep. The vast, vast majority of people don't do this. And don't both to stop at the line and if they do, it is often well into crosswalks, bike lanes, and intersection areas used for turn. They often hit peds, cyclists in bike lanes, or even turning cars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
Lmao. Texas is where the driving test proctor marked it against me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 03:47
|
|
|
Texas "(c) An operator required to stop by this section shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. In the absence of a crosswalk, the operator shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. In the absence of a stop line, the operator shall stop at the place nearest the intersecting roadway where the operator has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway."
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
hence my laughter. I had behavior that actually was in compliance with the law marked against me on a driving test
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 08:12
|
|
|
Put it this way, if you stopped on the other side of the stop line, would you have been able to see a pedestrian who was in your path or about to step into your path, and if so would you have been able to stop? I'm guessing that unless you are literally braking as hard as possible, the answer is yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 09:56
|
|
|
Holy poo poo they're raising the bridge, those madmen! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raptWPQbkMg
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
A traffic signal is out for an intersection. How does the city find out, and how do they go about sending people to fix it? I saw a signal out and then some construction people drive up a bit later to work on it and wondered how that all works. I wouldn't know who to call to have someone sent out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
That's a valid 911 call. Police non emergency or like the city traffic department would be your non-emergency options, but you wouldn't be wasting 911's time to quickly report a malfunctioning signal. Most likely result is a cop directing traffic while somebody from DOT et al pokes at the circuitry. If nobody explicitly calls in the signal, the police will probably find out about it when somebody gets t-boned or something. Javid fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Oct 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
When a light is fully out in my area, not just blinking red, you wouldn't believe how many people I've seen just go through it without stopping. This even includes freeway offramp lights (happened this month to me), so 911 is 100% valid in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
They really aren't in a hurry to punish people for calling 911. if its a public safety issue, call them, its in their domain
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 06:47
|
|
|
Every traffic light intersection here in NL has a backup set of yield/right of way signs which 'take over' if the lights die and there's no cop directing the traffic yet. It's not an ideal situation but at least you know where you stand if the lights don't work. I guess the signs are also used a lot at night, when the lights on many quiet intersections are just switched to flashing amber.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 07:41
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Every traffic light intersection here in NL has a backup set of yield/right of way signs which 'take over' if the lights die and there's no cop directing the traffic yet. I learned if you see a traffic light out you treat it as a 4 way stop reality has taught me to treat it like a 4 way stop and make sure no one is gonna blast through while I try to get across
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 08:02
|
|
|
I've called the non-emergency line for dead traffic lights before. Most recently I got a very frustrated sigh from the operator and a "yup, we know, we have someone out there right now" despite that they did not, in fact, have someone out there. The efficacy of calling is unknown but probably a good idea to just do it anyway imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
RFC2324 posted:I learned if you see a traffic light out you treat it as a 4 way stop There's no concept of 4-way stops here at all. Stop signs are used to mean "you have to yield here and also cross traffic is gonna be blasting through and you won't be able to see the intersection well so you better stop and very carefully look if the road is clear or you're gonna die".
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:59
|
|