|
I'll take the extra two feet of grass + curb between me and traffic, along with the ability to swerve into that yard without mounting the curb myself. I'd love to have that as the hardest choice to make, anyway. The situation around here generally looks like this: 
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
There's a dedicated bike lane for about 200 yards where that highway connects to the nearest city, then it's "lol gently caress you share the road" They put up those signs instead of actually doing anything about how godawful every route between these two cities is to bike. USA.txt
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Where is this anyway? Roughly here: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.422953,-123.192096,3a,75y,224.16h,68.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s52o097e4kpyfMjBT9DM8HQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
They're building one of those here. I'm not impressed, but willing to concede to the actual traffic engineers saying it'll be awesome. Their last "Trust us, it's better" project was this thing, which has grown to be referred to locally as "the clusterfuck", so I'm not TOO hopeful.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Yes, it is. The thing in the photo is not the DDI they're building, which isn't finished enough to show up on google maps yet. http://www.oregon.gov/odot/hwy/region3/pages/fvi_index.aspx They're building it here; the aerial photography is lagging behind the actual map, as you can see.  Supposedly it looks like this currently. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Ah, yes, the ubiquitous "share the road" sign; the surest way to tell cyclists you don't actually give a poo poo about them. Isn't it illegal to bike on the freeway shoulder in CA anyway?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
A jake is an engine brake, and a perfect example of people caring more about quiet than safety.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Didn't I read some study in this very thread that concluded that cell phones are just a symptom of generally lovely driving habits and preventing that behavior didn't positively impact road safety?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Unless the self-driving module can be inexpensively ported to an existing older car, that'd be a giant middle finger to a lot of people who can't just casually buy a new car.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
I know someone who just got their fourth DUI and is only losing their license for three years. I feel like if any offense warrants draconian punishments and a three-strikes type deal, that should be it.Cicero posted:Ideally I was thinking modest penalties with fairly generous subsidies if you're low-income. Kind of like Obamacare. I feel like you have somewhat unrealistic ideas of the size of the gap between the cost of a brand-new car and what people in poverty conditions can afford. A person or family with a paid-for $300 beater and bare-minimum liability insurance would essentially need the entire thing to be paid for to afford it at all - and that's assuming they could be approved for financing, which is a whole other can of worms. The comparison to obamacare isn't accurate since a car isn't a standard employment benefit, and insurance doesn't require you to take on a massive debt up front. Now if there was a module that could be bolted into any existing vehicle for a couple thousand and could be financed over a 24 month period with a subsidy, that's a lot more viable. Javid fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Aug 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
No company will want to bet their asses on the software either, so there will probably a disclaimer on all of them that you still have to sit there watching attentively ready to take over if anything happens so they can blame you when it fucks up. Business-friendly states will probably pass laws to similar effect. I can imagine the shitstorm the first time someone gets found liable for the poor decisions of their self-driving car in Texas or some equally terrible place. Don't get me wrong, I really wanna see this tech take off (so I can skip the tedious part of long trips and read or whatever) but there are a lot of issues - technological and human - to squash before they even go on the market, much less be mandated for everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I don't understand this argument at all. "We can't have self driving cars without a police state because all pedestrians will mess with them otherwise"? You sound like you got some sorta ISsues you need to work out, most people aren't going to deliberately stand in streets all day just to mess with cars. With as much as peds now think the right of way makes them immune to physics, I can see it being an issue of some size or another.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:But the implicit idea in what you've just said is that in the vast majority of cases, pedestrians are forced to stop and wait for traffic to clear before crossing a road. That traffic has forced them to stop - it's not 'unexpected' but that's only because motor companies spent decades normalising motor vehicle priority during the 20th century. Obviously stepping directly in front of a speeding car isn't ideal for either participant, but I don't really see why it would be a disaster if it became the norm in cities which aspire to be pleasant and walkable for cars to slow and stop for pedestrians crossing more than a stopping distance ahead of them. Why is is it so important that they don't stop for pedestrians when they're usually moments away from stopping for the car at the end next queue they encounter? Significantly less energy is wasted by one pedestrian waiting for a safe time to cross a road as compared to an entire arterial roadway grinding to a halt for one person.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Topical: Can some big D.C. churches fight off a bike lane? They are bringing large crowds to try. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...laborative_1_na quote:When the city released the four bike-lane options, United House of Prayer responded with a letter from its lawyer to DDOT saying a bike lane near its property would infringe upon “its constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws.” The letter also argued that city policies were driving African-American churches to the suburbs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
If gas taxes jumped to where they "should" be, though, a lot of people would just be hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You can't encourage transit use when the transit ain't there yet! And the typical "well we got a bus that goes on a single route in the town and the next one over 2 times in the morning and 3 times in the evening" doesn't count as transit. This is my situation. The greenway foundation is busily linking a bike path from a highway rest area to a tiny highway town instead of linking either to somewhere with groceries or anything useful at all, and the bus either direction runs once in the AM and once in the PM. There is nothing to "encourage".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
The first method is only bad if you're one of the people who waits till the last possible microsecond to get over.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Here's another local clusterfuck I'd like to submit for discussion: I have no idea what time or day they found these streets so empty, it's usually packed solid from dawn to dusk. 6th street on the left is one-way south, and 7th is one-way north. M street is a two-way, all three are big arterials. A huge amount of people going up 7th turn left onto M, and the light at 6th & M is long, so traffic in the one westbound lane will back up to 7th every single time. When that happens, somebody always just pulls into the intersection at an angle behind the last car, and blocks the entire left lane as well as the eastbound lane of M street, until the light on 6th turns and the backup clears. How do you even unfuck this without just making it a no-left intersection and moving the same issue up to the next block? I'd like to see them post something to the effect of "if M is full you must clear the intersection" and enforce it with an iron fist for a month to dissuade people. A few people being stuck turning at the next one seems better than making everybody do it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
So do the bonus points for distance go to his next of kin or what?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Indoor, or at least covered, bike lockup facilities with security camera coverage should be mandated for any new or remodeled businesses. The common trend of "put one rack with space for MAYBE four bikes in some awful corner of the parking lot" isn't helping.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
A lot of people prefer the relative freedom of a bike rather than being crammed into a MAX car like sardines and paying for the privilege. A bike is also faster in a lot of cases where there's not a direct trimet run.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Portland's transit and bike options are far beyond what exists in the rest of the state other than maybe Eugene. I'm curious what "good" is if those suck.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
To be fair, going "gently caress trucks" wouldn't be entirely unrealistic for street planning.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
This thread and a few others have made me curious enough to dig up and watch recorded city council meetings about projects around here. A) holy poo poo, parks and rec is a documentary, people are ANGRY about EVERYTHING and every consecutive person is angrier and dumber B) the potential traffic impact of dropping a huge store right next to a bunch of others got less discussion time (by an order of magnitude) than the number of trees it would have in its parking lot
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
I may have posted about this one before but I can't check from the app. I'm starting to hate this intersection:  Cars coming from the north, west, and east have stop signs. Cars coming from the south do not. I assume this is because they don't want cars backed up across the railroad tracks (but somehow the light going the other direction doesn't cause the same problem?) but the result is an infinite supply of cars turning left without having to stop making it impossible for anyone else to cross the intersection. Also, not a design issue, but half of them are retards who don't use their signals, so you think someone is going straight until they turn in front of you and honk like you're at fault for going. What's the fix? A no left turn sign? (They can just go straight and turn left at the next intersection) Make it a proper four way stop for the 23 hours and 55 minutes a day there isn't a train there?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
The intersection to the south of the tracks is already signalized. The problem is that there is no phase when cars are not pouring into that left turn lane. I think just adding an all red phase to that intersection would make it easier for the other directions to get through the three way stop, but it would also jam things up further south at peak times. I don't know if that's a valid phase to have though. Exactly nobody wants to see them add another set of lights to that clusterfuck so I doubt that suggestion would go anywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
The notion that someone can drive drunk, get caught, go through all that, and then go do it again suggests that they probably can't handle a car anymore. It's not like there's a severe shortage of licensed drivers. The serial drunks are an excellent group to cull.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Doesn't car exhaust puke out a significant number of unpleasant chemicals, not just co2? That'd certainly be one important factor.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
And noise. And hasn't the effect of high bicycle use on obesity numbers been shown? Boiling it down to "only" a slightly lower co2 number seems like one way to cheese the stats to favor cars.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:In serious, world-shaking news, everyone's favorite under-height bridge has got a make over with signals and a fancy electronic warning sign. We'll see how much good it does. At what point will they just address the problem crossing instead of pretending like there is any amount of signage that will actually make any sort of difference? The costs related to constant collisions blocking the road have got to be adding up by now. "No, THIS sign will be the one that gets their attention" has failed how many times, now?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
That you want people to be forced to pay for, store, and wear an uncomfortable piece of equipment that does not actually statistically make them any safer. Make them included with all bikes, weigh nothing, and store inside the bike so they can't be stolen while it's locked up (aka like seatbelts) and it becomes a less obnoxious idea.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
So wear a helmet, I don't care. Obviously a lot of people don't want to. Do you demand other people put on warmer clothing when you're feeling chilly, too?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
I drove through the most pointless roundabout in the universe last night and thought it warranted posting:
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
SpaceDrake posted:Okay, if there's a story here, I want to hear it. Presumably the imminent construction of a labyrinth of mcmansions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
The 11'8" bridge could use something obnoxiously visible like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
I'm surprised that the distortion gets significant enough to matter over a distance of only a few miles.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
How many bikes actually perform that stupid clusterfuck dance rather than turning like a car, anyway?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It's like 50/50. A bunch of hard core identity-cyclists refuse to use the protected infrastructure and if they're turning left will "take the lane" to turn left and now baby motorists who are already enraged at the bike lane are double enraged. Also cars can't turn right on red anymore, which is not a common thing here and they're raging about that too. "How come bikes can turn right on a red but cars can't?! Double standards!!!!!" Normally I hate when ~cyclists~ turn up their nose at poo poo built for them and take up a goddamn lane anyway, as that just gets everyone pissed off. BUT    Whoever decided that was a reasonable series of hoops to make people jump through to make a frigging turn is the problem here.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Even if the net efficiency increase for adopting self-driving cars is zero, it'll still be better because people don't have to actually pay attention to the traffic they're stuck in. It sucks a lot less if you don't have to watch the car in front of you for your cue to inch forward.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
Bad Munki posted:It’s not entirely without precedent, although maybe not so destructive: there was a guy, I think in the UK, who went around painting dicks on potholes. The city didn’t seem to care much about the potholes, but they REALLY didn’t like the safety orange dicks, so they were quick about paving over them, problem solved. Yep. https://www.boredpanda.com/wanksy-penis-pothole-graffiti-manchester-england/
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2017 01:04
|
|