|
Javid posted:New question based on what annoyed me today: I'd just restrict it to right-in, right-out and get rid of the signal, or make it left-in and only interrupt one direction. Anything to get rid of the left turns out. Arrangements like this are very similar around the country and work fantastically well. Here is an analogous situation, complete with another access to the parking lot on the cross street: http://binged.it/XT3gk3
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
One thing I would NOT recommend is this thing. I can't tell you how many accidents and close calls I've seen from people trying to jam themselves into the left turn opening to head southbound on Dale Mabry, leaving part of their vehicle hanging out into the northbound lanes.... usually 2 or 3 at a time. It's on the list of things to modify if the accident rate increases any further.
Varance fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Are they truly less efficient though? Just by concentrating your carbon emissions in one place, it becomes much more feasible to scrub it and reduce the carbon content before it hits the atmosphere. Now I have no idea if US plants actually bother to do it, but doing it on a few thousand power plants is much easier than doing it on a few million consumer vehicles. Carbon sequestration sounds like a good idea, but it's expensive (more fossil energy needed to extract the carbon dioxide from air). And there is no evidence that it actually works, long-term. Research ongoing, of course, but if you're going to hinge the future existence of humanity on hypothetical technology, in order not to reduce our energy usage, you might as well choose to hope for fusion power to be viable. This guy did some maths, and he figures there must be no more than 1% leakage per thousand years, otherwise the whole thing is completely useless. And carbon dioxide leaks very easily. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n7/full/ngeo896.html This guys says it will never be viable, as it's as expensive as solar power: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/the-take/why-carbon-capture-and-storage-will-never-pay-off/ Edit: OK, traffic talk. I was just in the UK on holiday, and man, pedestrians have to wait a long time for green over there! It seems it's standard practice to have a separate, pedestrian-only, phase (button activated) at the end of each cycle. So at a four-way crossing, all four crosswalks would get green at the same time, while all car lanes have a red. Saw this in Liverpool and London, at least. If you need to cross diagonally in one cycle, you have to run like hell, because the ped phase is very short, too. In contrast, in Sweden (and most European countries I've been in), peds have a green when parallel car traffic has a green. So, turning cars have to watch out for peds, which might be slightly less safe I guess. On the other hand, British peds seem to very much ignore the signals because they take too long to turn green. Hippie Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:OK, traffic talk. You only get a green if that section of pedestrian crossing is fully protected. Otherwise, you don't. A green light when cars are still able to cross seems a very bad idea, to me. There's no such thing as jaywalking in the UK - if you think it's safe to cross without waiting for the lights, then by all means do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:
I think older signals tended to have parallel phases where different crossings would go green at different times, but more recently they seem to prefer making all traffic stop at once, at the expense of pedestrians getting impatient and crossing whenever they want. I do prefer our system where if crossings are signalised then you don't have to count on cars giving way to you in some cases. Also for modern crossings the pedestrian timing is dependent on motion detectors along the crossing to allow more time for slower pedestrians. So if you go across diagonally you won't be detected and it would default to the lowest time if there was no-one else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Brovine posted:You only get a green if that section of pedestrian crossing is fully protected. Otherwise, you don't. A green light when cars are still able to cross seems a very bad idea, to me. Well, it seems to work. Drivers here know to watch for peds on crossings when turning, and peds know to watch for cars. Drivers have to give way, when turning. Going by the WHO's traffic deaths report, the UK has twice as many pedestrian traffic deaths per capita as Sweden (7,75 vs 3,42 per million, in 2010, if I did the numbers right). Not that I'm saying that's all because of the traffic lights. I have no data about how many of those deaths were on signaled crossings. (Those are both pretty good numbers.) Brovine posted:There's no such thing as jaywalking in the UK - if you think it's safe to cross without waiting for the lights, then by all means do so. Well, there isn't in Sweden either, my point was that it seems like long waiting times would erode people's willingness to respect the lights. Which might lead to them getting run over, some other time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
I recently saw a traffic light go green a few seconds after the walk signal lit. busy one-way street, the crossing is the main pedestrian entrance to the train station. Drivers in all 3 lanes floored it as the light went green even though we were all in the crosswalk and jammed on the brakes as they realized they weren't going to make it through the crowd. This is what happens when you lay off the city's only traffic engineer and let it go to poo poo over a decade. Street view: https://www.google.com/maps/place/1...e7ec53124793936
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I recently saw a traffic light go green a few seconds after the walk signal lit. busy one-way street, the crossing is the main pedestrian entrance to the train station. Drivers in all 3 lanes floored it as the light went green even though we were all in the crosswalk and jammed on the brakes as they realized they weren't going to make it through the crowd. Better give Mani Poola a call. Just don't pretend to be the DOT commissioner, or else you'll get arrested months later. (anyone catch that reference?)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I recently saw a traffic light go green a few seconds after the walk signal lit. busy one-way street, the crossing is the main pedestrian entrance to the train station. Drivers in all 3 lanes floored it as the light went green even though we were all in the crosswalk and jammed on the brakes as they realized they weren't going to make it through the crowd. That appears to be the intent of that installation. Normally you would just have a crosswalk by itself, with the supplemental signs pointing out it's a crosswalk, and saying "State Law - Stop for Peds in Crosswalk". But people don't stop for peds. So they installed a light that makes traffic stop briefly to give peds enough chance to "take the lane" and be brave about starting to walk, and then relies on drivers obeying the law to yield to peds in crosswalk. This lets you have shorter stoppages for vehicles because they only have to wait long enough for the peds to actually clear the intersection, instead of having a red time based on the slow-moving assumption in the MUTCD. Or if there's a big crowd of peds, it lets them hold priority longer. It does seem like it's not quite working as intended though. It should probably flash yellow instead of green, but I don't do signal design, and that thing is probably violating some MUTCD rules that would help guide driver expectations for green = they have the right of way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Yeah that seems like a really bad design. I get the intent but it should not go to green, green makes drivers think they have right of way and the peds better loving MOVE or it's legal to run them down. I don't know how you'd solve that, alternate between red and some sort of flashing crosswalk warning sign? Also the idea of not stopping for pedestrians at a crosswalk seems crazy, it's like not stopping at a red light. Here if people didn't notice someone at a crosswalk they'll jam on the breaks, it's serious, you HAVE to stop as if it's a red. I actually almost got hit at a crosswalk the other day. Narrow 2 lane road in a very busy tourist area and this huge white expedition or escalade or something with Montana plates doing about 10km (traffic moves slow there) just slowly keeps driving into the crosswalk I'm in. I had to actually slap their hood to get their attention and jump back a little. They looked at me as if I was in the wrong but didn't honk. The monster SUV got dirty looks from everyone and some lady shouted "LEARN TO DRIVE rear end in a top hat" from behind me. I often have to be extra careful if I see foreign plates because American and Albertan's drivers apparently are lawless savages not used to ever seeing pedestrians. One of their favourite things to do is quickly turn left when there's a break in car traffic, into pedestrians they didn't bother to check for. Then they either have to mow down the pedestrians or cause the cars in the oncoming lane to stop. Or just honk and blast through the pedestrians hoping they'll jump away. I always walk extra slow for these assholes. \/ Man, cars bullying peds on a right turn, that's loving bizzaro world. I wish we had something like that here just to give cars a chance to ever turn right on a green. Generally it's always so packed with pedestrians you have no chance until the very last seconds, and hope a jerk doesn't run accross while the don't-walk is flashing. Generally it's like turning left, you've got a second or two while it's red but the other way hasn't turned green. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
In one of the heavier pedestrian crossings in Baltimore, there is a heavy right-turn movement at a signalized intersection. At that location, there is a red-right turn arrow that stays lit for 5-10 seconds after the through movement has started, just to give pedestrians a chance to get into the crosswalk, then goes permissive green (not green arrow) so that they can proceed while yielding to the peds. That delay works pretty well, where otherwise peds were getting bullied out of their only walk phase.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
A similar thing happens with cars vs bicycles here in Holland. The straight-ahead bicycle path gets green at the same time the car road does. However, this is resolved well. Any time this is the case, there's a sign under the traffic light indicating the possibility of meeting cyclists when turning right. Also, the curb between the road and the cycle path goes a little beyond the car traffic light, so that any waiting cyclists are already ahead of the cars, easily visible by drivers. Concerning stopping for crosswalks (those without lights), I find it depends on the place. Most places I know, cars stop as soon as you attempt to cross. But in certain big cities such as The Hague, cars don't tend to stop until you're actually on the road itself. It's quite dangerous, you have to wait for a gap between cars, quickly jump onto the road, and hope the next driver is awake enough to brake in time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Concerning stopping for crosswalks (those without lights), I find it depends on the place. Most places I know, cars stop as soon as you attempt to cross. But in certain big cities such as The Hague, cars don't tend to stop until you're actually on the road itself. It's quite dangerous, you have to wait for a gap between cars, quickly jump onto the road, and hope the next driver is awake enough to brake in time. Some people here won't even stop if you're already in the road; I think it's common throughout the urban northeast. It was about the same in Paris, too: if there aren't a bunch of people crossing at once, don't expect drivers to yield. Those of you who were saying last year that RRFB compliance would increase over time? We're still getting plenty of complaints. I think the efficacy of mid-block crosswalks depends more on locale than on how bright your flashers are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
I'm curious about the lane continuity on a road I take to and from work. Heading south it's primarily a two lane road until about 400-500 feet from a pretty sizable intersection, it expands to 3 full lanes with a fourth right turn lane. The third lane merges back in immediately after the intersection and then another 1500 feet down the road it merged down to one lane. Why bother doing 3 lanes if you're going to immediately get rid of all of them? I don't know the roads history, I only recently moved to the area and my guess was more that they wanted to get those lanes out of the way with the intention of expanding the whole road 2 to 3 lanes. This is the area in question What's really weird is that a few miles down the road the one lane road expands to two for about 1500 feet on just the southbound side without any really major intersections and then goes back to 1. Here's that area.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Sometimes you just need those extra lanes at a long light for "storage" of cars waiting at the intersection. There's a couple like that here in Victoria where it's a normal 2 lane road, but at the intersection it goes to 4 lanes + a left turn lane then all the lanes merge back together not 100m from the intersection. It's just because otherwise you'd have a huge single-file line of cars that would back up and potentially gridlock other intersections and driveways. It can get a little hairy as of course no one knows how to merge after the intersection and you sometimes get the poor people in the right lane just stopped and stuck there all the way back to the intersection as they wait for the left lane to let them in. It's seriously not even 100m, more like 50. In the 2nd example you posted that's just a passing lane going up the hill. When ever you see 3-lane sections, the 2 lane is always the up-hill part. It's so slow heavy vehicles that don't like hills can keep right and let everyone pass. That's pretty much how all the mountain highways here function. 2 lanes up hill, 1 lane down. http://goo.gl/maps/HqTjv If you follow this highway you'll see it's mostly 2 lane but sometimes 3 lanes where it gets steep, with the 2 lane portion always being up the grade. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Sometimes you just need those extra lanes at a long light for "storage" of cars waiting at the intersection. There's a couple like that here in Victoria where it's a normal 2 lane road, but at the intersection it goes to 4 lanes + a left turn lane then all the lanes merge back together not 100m from the intersection. It's just because otherwise you'd have a huge single-file line of cars that would back up and potentially gridlock other intersections and driveways. It's not storage as much as throughput. The lanes are called "Auxiliary Through Lanes", and the idea is that you have enough space downstream of the signal to merge back into fewer lanes more or less at speed. A lot of the time, this distance isn't long enough so operations suffers. Here's an NCHRP report on how to do them correctly http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_707.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Devor posted:That appears to be the intent of that installation. Normally you would just have a crosswalk by itself, with the supplemental signs pointing out it's a crosswalk, and saying "State Law - Stop for Peds in Crosswalk". But people don't stop for peds. So they installed a light that makes traffic stop briefly to give peds enough chance to "take the lane" and be brave about starting to walk, and then relies on drivers obeying the law to yield to peds in crosswalk. This lets you have shorter stoppages for vehicles because they only have to wait long enough for the peds to actually clear the intersection, instead of having a red time based on the slow-moving assumption in the MUTCD. Or if there's a big crowd of peds, it lets them hold priority longer. Drivers in Stamford are particularly hostile to pedestrians, they'll turn right and lean on the horn or swerve around you with only a foot or two to spare even though you have a walk signal. There's one bus driver in all of downtown who will yield to pedestrians, the rest will make turns as people are crossing so you have to stop walking or get hit (and you might as well replace the gas pedal with an on/of switch, they're either driving full throttle or jamming on the brakes.) Traffic in the city is an unmitigated disaster. Cichlidae posted:Better give Mani Poola a call. Just don't pretend to be the DOT commissioner, or else you'll get arrested months later. (anyone catch that reference?)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Not entirely sure this is the right thread but I can't find answers to this from google. Here in Ames, most of the 4-way intersections have left-turn lanes with corresponding traffic lights that have 5 signals - the normal red/yellow/green, and then yellow and green left arrows. This particular one confuses the gently caress out of me, because it gives me a signal I've never encountered before that doesn't seem to actually mean anything different to other signals.  Most of the time, when cycling out of 3 reds, the left signal will show both a green and a green arrow. This on its own seems a bit silly to me - I don't understand why it wouldn't just show the green arrow. More worryingly, however, it has on a few occasions shown red and a green arrow, to which I have reacted as if it was green and a green arrow (and not crashed, so its working so far). Why are these being shown and what do they mean 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
I think the balls are for the through lanes -- if there is a red ball with the arrow, then its turn only on both sides. With green ball and arrow it means that the opposite direction is stopped and everyone- through and turning- can go. That's what I've always interpreted it as, at least. I know here in dallas there are lights where the balls on the turn signal are used to indicate the lights for the opposing direction, so if you have only a green ball on the turn lane, it means that the light is green for the opposite direction and you can only turn once its safe.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Just looks like a doghouse but stacked vertically to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Can anyone explain this crosswalk? http://goo.gl/maps/8RdGm It's in the middle of absolutely nowhere rural country where none of the intersections for kilometers have crosswalks of any kind, and then bam right in the middle of this road leading to a ditch/rock, It has big standard crosswalk warning signs too, it's 100% legit crosswalk. I've never seen anything like it and every time I drive past it I just want to park and go knock the the local houses and ask what the gently caress is up with the crosswalk. There aren't even shoulders to walk on, it's a narrow barely 2 lane road, the only possible use would be those neighbours crossing the street to visit each other. Also traffic ranges from none of extremely light. Another bit of a boggle, they re-did the sidewalk along here recently and this house lost its driveway. It had a driveway, now there's just a curb and tree. It has a car port on the other side, so my only guess is that the city said each house can only have 1 driveway so pick one or the other. Sometimes though I'll see a car in the driveway, no marks on the grass or curb though. http://goo.gl/maps/bRfrR Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Can anyone explain this crosswalk? For your first mystery, my best guess is that either there's a trail crossing there (doesn't appear to be the case, but there are a lot of trails around), or, more likely, a ped got killed there. There are a lot of reactionary treatments like that. They might not really make the situation better, or justify the cost, but the family feels a whole lot better if at least you take action against the same tragedy happening again. Plus, the town engineer won't get sued for gross negligence  For the second one, that's probably the case. A sane town council will try to minimize curb cuts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
That first one looks like it's a crossing from the house on one side to a little school bus stop area on the other side.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Who says engineering can't be pretty? The version with rivers and parks turned on is even nicer looking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:In contrast, in Sweden (and most European countries I've been in), peds have a green when parallel car traffic has a green. So, turning cars have to watch out for peds, which might be slightly less safe I guess. On the other hand, British peds seem to very much ignore the signals because they take too long to turn green. One thing I like is that a lot of combined pedestrian/cycle signals automatically go green for the bicycle traffic, while the pedestrian signal goes green on demand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
Welcome to suburbia! googlemaps Reservoir, Victoria, Australia. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Welcome to suburbia! googlemaps
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
I like all those super thin buildings, looks like something you'd see in an older asian city. Man, to top off that hosed intersection there's a railway running down the middle, god drat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I like all those super thin buildings, looks like something you'd see in an older asian city. Also all those buildings would be shops. Usually single storey. Reservoir isn't quite of the density where putting the railway underground would be "viable", but, with Australian city traffic being terrible, the level crossing still causes a fair amount of congestion at peak times. Australian cities tend to have a lot of the same issues as American ones, transport wise - only moderately dense, and breaks down into detached suburbia pretty close to the the CBD. For instance Greater Sydney covers about the same area as Greater London with one quarter the population, and Melbourne has a pretty similar density - although it's not as hindered by the terrain as Sydney, which in fact only encourages the sprawl. City planning across Melbourne is a mess, with a continue tug-of-war between developers who want to put ugly-rear end, flimsily constructed buildings in dumb spots (poo poo, in Docklands that's all there is) and blue-haired NIMBYs who are resistant to the idea of even modest infill (see Camberwell), with no happy medium it seems. At least Melbourne never got rid of its trams like Sydney did, who are gradually reintroducing them to some of the old routes. (And Sydney is its own little level of urban development hell.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Hey, so question about the MUTCD. It's federal law that says it's the standard for signs, signals, and markings. But that doesn't mean that anybody is legally required to follow it? The way I read the federal statute is that if there was some doubt about what the "right" way to do it is, the MUTCD would provide the answer, but it doesn't force everyone to follow it. Surely they couldn't follow a Canadian version of the MUTCD, but there's no reason they can't experiment with something, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
The Deadly Hume posted:
I'd say they have that a lot worse. Even terribly sprawled out American cities tend to have a high buildings/high density core that's far larger than any Australian cities. FISHMANPET posted:Hey, so question about the MUTCD. It's federal law that says it's the standard for signs, signals, and markings. But that doesn't mean that anybody is legally required to follow it? The way I read the federal statute is that if there was some doubt about what the "right" way to do it is, the MUTCD would provide the answer, but it doesn't force everyone to follow it. Surely they couldn't follow a Canadian version of the MUTCD, but there's no reason they can't experiment with something, right? If I remember right, violating it too often can trigger loss of federal funding for certain road projects. This isn't from some sort of automated process, but rather that when federal department of transportation personnel review funding requests it's considered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Hey, so question about the MUTCD. It's federal law that says it's the standard for signs, signals, and markings. But that doesn't mean that anybody is legally required to follow it? The way I read the federal statute is that if there was some doubt about what the "right" way to do it is, the MUTCD would provide the answer, but it doesn't force everyone to follow it. Surely they couldn't follow a Canadian version of the MUTCD, but there's no reason they can't experiment with something, right? Following the MUTCD is a great idea because if there is ever a lawsuit about an incident that they are blaming on the sign/signal/pavement markings, you can say "I followed the MUTCD" and it's very hard for someone to say the design was negligent. Whereas if you do some special snowflake design that isn't listed in the MUTCD (or violates it!) then they can get an expert up on the stand to explain why the MUTCD is the bees knees and you should award them $Texas in damages. And as the other dude above me said, many agencies will require you to use the MUTCD for work they are funding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
They're replacing this intersection with a roundabout. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3282878,-73.2085203,245m/data=!3m1!1e3 I got to hear about if from my cousin on Saturday. You see, roundabouts are popular in socialist countries and they're "bringing all that stuff over here." He went on to explain that the safety statistics are fabricated in the same way that nobody dies at Disney because they don't declare them dead until they get to the hospital. He then went on to explain that some people can drive safely while on a cell phone (he's gotten a lot of tickets for it,) and that it's ridiculous that you can't even have it on your lap while driving. He also claimed that you can get a ticket even if you're pulled over or if your car is off (I'm pretty sure he made up that second one,) and got a lot of agreement from family that the cell phone laws go too far. Then the conversation went on to seat belt laws and a bunch of comments like "I always put it on when I get on the highway." Everyone was agreeing with that, too. So either roundabouts are a socialist conspiracy and seatbelt and cell phone laws are purely a cash grab, or my that side of the family are a bunch of terrible drivers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Why they are making it a roundabout instead of changing it in to a simple right angle intersection possibly with a traffic light first? I've seen a lot of those acute-angle-intersection-with-cutoff-leg style intersections changed to have the whole intersecting road bend over to form a three way intersection: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0136247,-74.8598436,431m/data=!3m1!1e3
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Why they are making it a roundabout instead of changing it in to a simple right angle intersection possibly with a traffic light first? I've seen a lot of those acute-angle-intersection-with-cutoff-leg style intersections changed to have the whole intersecting road bend over to form a three way intersection: They've already got a nice center piece! Like, so nice and prepared it makes me wonder if that's always been the plan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Why they are making it a roundabout instead of changing it in to a simple right angle intersection possibly with a traffic light first? I've seen a lot of those acute-angle-intersection-with-cutoff-leg style intersections changed to have the whole intersecting road bend over to form a three way intersection: Many states have already enacting laws declaring roundabouts the FIRST choice when it comes to intersection reconstruction, and in order to go with another design, the engineer has to prove why the roundabout would NOT work. Connecticut hasn't gone that far yet, but basically, roundabouts are going to work better than any stop-controlled intersection and be safer than any signal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Why they are making it a roundabout instead of changing it in to a simple right angle intersection possibly with a traffic light first? I've seen a lot of those acute-angle-intersection-with-cutoff-leg style intersections changed to have the whole intersecting road bend over to form a three way intersection:
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
No surprises here: http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/08/researchers-find-its-terrifyingly-easy-to-hack-traffic-lights/
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
EoRaptor posted:No surprises here: Yeah, I was telling a friend about that the other day. Depending on how the conflict monitor is set up, it would be trivial to either completely buttfuck a city's roads for a while or cause thousands of (potentially fatal) accidents. I'm surprised foreign governments haven't gone after traffic signal systems, honestly. It seems like extremely valuable sabotage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
EoRaptor posted:No surprises here: Baltimore is immune to this attack  Their lights aren't even connected to the adjacent ones for timing purposes
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 03:09
|
|