|
One thing they are trying to here is make street parking more expensive than garage parking. It also will go up every hour. Makes sense as the quick trips can pay for a short meter while long termer can go to a garage. Though my backup spot when I don't bike is a 10 hour meter that only costs 3.25, which is awesome. Sure I'll lose that soon.
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
So here's a fun thing: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article71466347.html#storylink=hpdigest Apparently it has a warranty and the contractor hasn't declared bankruptcy (yet) so maybe this won't be another adventure in Caltran's lowest bidder leaving us holding the bag.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
jyrka posted:What's the other job? Demolition Derby driver
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It's pretty easy to test for drunk driving, but cracking down on cell phones is a lot harder. As they kill more and more people though I'd be totally fine with the courts being allowed to pull cell/data activity reports to nail people for loving around with their phone and causing a crash. They are already though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
They use this design in
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Lazy people sure. Lazy people also don't bother to bike all that much in the first place. The idea that wearing helmets is going to cause a significant drop in biking doesn't hold water. It is actually quite common. I have cracked 2 helmets in the last year. One getting hit by a car, the second being a moron and going to fast in the rain. The first I did go to a doctor for insurance, but had a couple minor scrapes and some (actually pretty bad) soft tissue issues. The second cracked the helmet (enough that the bike shop was impressed), but nothing but road rash. Without a helmet, they'd have been ambulance rides and the second, being at 20mph, probably would have lead to some serious problems.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:This is pretty bad. That's for that dude who's parked on the lawn to get out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
will_colorado posted:yikes: Looks like georgia needs cc myers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Blue Moonlight posted:So, I'm not informed of the current state of affairs by any means, so I have no dog in this ideological fight. That article was debunked a bunch of times. It assumed a hummer H2 would last like 300k mi and that a prius would last 100k mi (which is shorter than the battery warranty). Also, the city in canada cites was polluted in like the 1950s and was suffering residual effects -- modern processes are not nearly as dirty. A bunch of other things too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
CA-110 is, like the above freeway, old as hell.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
^^^^^^ As a frequent cyclist and ped, I disagree. While it could be in theory, it allows cars to turn right when the conditions allow rather than just a light. You'll get into situations where a parallel crosswalk can be full for essentially all of the green cycle, meaning few cars can turn right. This can lead to aggressive driving. This allow cars an extra opportunity to turn and reduces the urge to get the turn done before the light changes. This assumes that cars pay attention to peds, but in the reasonably urban area where I live and work, they're generally expected. OTOH, bicyclists still aren't expected which creates fun conflicts. Right on red sucks as a cyclist if you are in a bike lane. Drivers will more ferequently pull out in front of you when you have a green because you will be obscured by parked cars (and them just not looking for a cyclist). It can also create conflicts where cars will attempt to turn right on red in front and around of a cyclist (this is illegal, FYI) just before the light changes creating a right hook. Right on red is good and correct, however, because gently caress waiting at long lights. Particularly as a cyclist on a hot day. nm fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:As a cyclist, the thing to do is get hit by the turning car. The car driver will be held responsible, and they will probably never make the same mistake at all. This is the only way to educate drivers. This got me 6 months of physical therapy. gently caress that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Michael Scott posted:Yeah that is extremely dumb. There are a lot of 'correct' people in emergency rooms and morgues. For the record, mine was not intentional in any way. I don't recommend getting hit by a loving car.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:The report doesn't divide collision rate by miles driven or time spent driving? I insure though an allstate company (branded as something else that provides higher cover) and they only started asking about odo when I revised both my car milages frim the normal 12000 to 5000 as I barely drive. I don't think they have those numbers.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
I loving hate the people who lived in the 80s. So, our local state college has hosed up parking and always has had hosed parking. It is just outside of reasonable walking distance from light rail. Why? quote:Sacramento was building a light-rail line at about that time, and considered bringing it onto campus. But school officials were against it. They thought it would bring “an undesirable element to campus,” according to a university memo from back then. http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/back-seat-driver/article172469866.html#storylink=hpdigest
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Javid posted:Is there a safer direction for a vehicle's occupants to be facing than directly forward? That actually makes SOME sense as a possible avenue of safety improvement that can occur if the driver doesn't even have to be pointed in the direction the car is going. Facing backwards is safer but also makes people carsick. They've tried to make airplane seats face backwards for years for the same reason (they're not driving anyhow), but people won't do it for that reason.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
devicenull posted:So back to roads... MDOT (Minnesota) would patch potholes in any weather, but they told me that under 0F or so, the stuff they have to use basically only lasts a fairly short time. Dunno about whole roads, but certainly before 0, you're hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:Grew up there. Are you me? Fancy city folk. Half my family is from Grangeville. And by Grangeville, we mean Fenn. And by Fenn, we mean that's where the nearest paved road is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^ His comments to the contrary, a stop sign would do effectively the same thing. Even if people don't fully stop at the stop sign, they will slow down to the point that hitting a bike will be non-fatal and likely reduce the speeds to the point at which the accident can be avoided. Re-routing a road, even that short distance, is pretty expensive, particularly if the government doesn't own the land. You can actually get stop sign installed and prevent everything but a 1 in a million fatal or you can try for the modification and have nothing done. devicenull posted:On the Merrit? Not unless you have a death wish. Two narrow lanes of twisty highway traffic is not a good match for a bike lane. Putting unsafe bike lanes everywhere instead of designing safe cycling infrastructure is the new hotness among lazy traffic engineers. nm fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Jan 10, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2018 08:54
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah I fixed a local google maps problem like 5 times over a few years. Every time my change would eventually get approved by some higher ranked volunteer contributor, or I'd get grilled by the system about the change. Sometimes the update would go through but then months later I'd notice it was set back to being wrong again. I got big into doing google maps stuff but ended up being so frustrated by the system and my corrections all eventually falling back that I gave up. Fixing open street maps is also annoying as gently caress. If you want the community to fix things, make it easy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2018 09:03
|
|
|
Javid posted:I'm just boggling at 55 pound bikes. Jesus christ. My touring bike weighs 42 lbs with racks and fenders, and I consider that heavy as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Corla Plankun posted:Speaking of solid lines, I've been wondering about this intersection for a while. The solid lines on the right mean it is definitely illegal to move into the bikelane when a car is trying to turn right, right? I frequently find myself sitting at this light with my blinker on (in the lane like a good boy) and some rear end in a top hat will come cruising up the bikelane to take their right and I have to honk when I take my turn so they don't hit me. Honestly, as a cyclist who's been hooked, please just move over when you can safely, as soon as you can (within like 200 feet).
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Entropist posted:They'll get the message when you squeeze your bike in in front of them anyway, give them an angry look, point at the bike sign, and take all the time you need to get going when the light turns green. That's cute. Then they run you over with their f250.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Most of our freeways are really old. All the lessons we learned get passed off to states that didn't build as quickly. We do post exit numbers, but only as the signs get replaced. No one in California uses them, you just know what exit you have. Edit: 242 is clearly indicated off of wb 4 though both on my own knowledge and Google maps though. https://goo.gl/maps/wKzv69uaMur nm fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Do you really believe this is some special American thing? I suspect it is more common in the US because we built a whole lot of freeways early and in built up areas where it is hard to rebuild them to modern standards.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The US is also a lot more willing to tear down whole neighborhoods to slam a freeway through though with room to spare. It cuts both ways. They were, but less so these days. It is also extremely expensive. I would agree with the latter point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Sure, but how many cities of today or even 50 years ago are insisting on building brand new massively substandard freeways? Plenty of places where they would have done so before they just don't build anything, or some aspect of the old fully substandard interchange or road collapses and ends up just plain closed or otherwise converted. Most of the freeways in the country have been built since good design for ramps became common. My point is that the US built urban freeways earlier than most other countries. This means the retain all the terrible design features because it is too expensive to fix them. I have seen way more weaving and short ramps space on american freeways than European freeways. Much of the US effectively stopped or severely limited building urban freeways in ealry 70s after the freeway revolts. The US is also really bad about improving existing infastructure when it is built.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Devor posted:The amount of poo poo that contractors get away with because DOTs don’t want the fight and inevitable legal challenges is staggering. If it doesn’t affect safety and doesn’t have a news report about it, it’s not getting fixed Or ADA. ADA will gently caress you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Sri.Theo posted:The US has one of the most extensive rail freight systems in the world- are you sure you’re valuing the benefit cost ratio of those tracks appropriately? We have a ground level railway running though the middle of the urban core of my city and they run fairly often. It is a massive pain in the rear end. It is a single UP track. There is a second double tracked UP line that runs basically the same route a few miles away.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
stevewm posted:What really sucks is when a train comes through it basically bisects a large, busy, chunk of the city. All the crossings are at-grade. No underpasses/overpasses anywhere. And the trains creep through at like 15mph. If anything happens to the train, your city is just hosed. We had someone drive on the tracks a while ago (did not get hit) and it was just a complete clusterfuck.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted: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. Yeah, it is crazy. We've had a lot of power outages here recently (and not in PGE land, we just had trees fall). Caltrans currently has the digital signs up reminding people that a dead stop light is a stop sign. I saw like 2-3 near misses at one intersection on Saturday
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:In California we call them unmarked crosswalks, but pedestrians still legally have priority there. Yup and literally no one follows the law on this, including, ya know, the cops: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/04/13/the-jaywalker-brutalized-by-sacramento-police-was-stopped-for-no-reason-at-all/
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:I love living in a town with a separated bike lane and getting to see all the right-hookings that anyone who's actually been on a bicycle would expect I was getting right hooked before. Protected bike lanes at least mean I also don't get doored or have to go into the lane of traffic for every loving double parker.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2021 07:03
|
|
|
85% is misused in the US. Here the idea seems to build the road and then figure out the speed from how people drive on it. Instead you should designed the road so the 85% speed is the speed you want. Like the residential street in front of my house is 50 feet wide. It allows street parking, but it isn't packed. People don't do 25 here. Narrowing it even 10 feet would have a huge impact.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
Entropist posted:Watching these bike and other infra discussions as a Dutch person is probably what it's like for others to watch boomers discuss how to best fax their holiday pictures to each other in 2021. Quaint, but better systems have been developed for at least the last 30 years and the lack of awareness of it is insane. I hate that I agree with you. Also city beautiful.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Yeah I looked into buying those but it's not that useful for a tourist since it's local and some regional transport only as you mention. Not to mention that one night in a hotel would cost more than a tank of gas even at current prices. It's super useful as a tourist because it's the cost of 2 1 day passes on local transport. Additionally, if you are creative you can link re trains together and get pretty far. It wouldn't work in the US because we don't have much transit and if it worked our very small systems would be completely overwhelmed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2022 16:44
|
|
. We got a slight reduction in fuel taxes which is below the variation you see from one pump to another so does nothing other than reduce tax revenue.