|
Craptacular posted:Suppressed 8 gauge shotguns Holy poo poo, I would pay to do that job for a day! The only maintenance I get to do at my job is shining my work boots with black Sharpie. Edit: I have just come into possession of a really awesome email. This quote, a new favorite which I will use incessantly from now on, regards a rather messed-up intersection:  "That intersection... is nothing more than a major cluster fornication awaiting circle jerk pivot volunteers." gently caress yeah! Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Nov 4, 2009 |
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:39 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Holy poo poo, I would pay to do that job for a day! The only maintenance I get to do at my job is shining my work boots with black Sharpie. At least that railroad crossing isn't at grade...preempt in the middle of the intersection + 4 way split phasing... Fake edit: It isn't signalized.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 03:18
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Wow, you've got to tell me about that!  Click here for the full 640x480 image. In case you're wondering, we were shooting slag off the soot blower nozzles with 12 gauge 00 buck shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 04:34
|
|
|
Nexis posted:At least that railroad crossing isn't at grade...preempt in the middle of the intersection + 4 way split phasing... Right, are you familiar with it? We want (have wanted for 20 years) to put a signal there. Hell, it's ideal for signalization: horrible sight distance, complicated geometry, lots of peds... but it gets blocked every time. Hell, this isn't the first time Pawcatuck's gotten screwed over. Route 78 was supposed to be an extension of Route 2 and make it all the way to I-95. It still could, even today, for minimal cost, but nobody wants to foot the bill. Groda posted:A man named "Pinky" walked into the control room with a shotgun and asked who wanted to the clean the boiler. I did: And I thought it was cool when they let me put up custom signs at the TMC! Shotgun maintenance is badass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 04:50
|
|
|
How would you fix this clusterfuck of an intersection? I would block off the lower left (santa fe ave) and upper right (oakview ave) legs of the intersection, turning them into cul-de-sacs (with pedestrian and bicycles allowed through) and turn it into a two-way stop with curtis/berkeley park having stop signs and colusa having none.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 06:13
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:I would block off the lower left (santa fe ave) and upper right (oakview ave) legs of the intersection, turning them into cul-de-sacs (with pedestrian and bicycles allowed through) and turn it into a two-way stop with curtis/berkeley park having stop signs and colusa having none. Assuming the traffic there isn't super heavy (doesn't look like it) what's wrong with getting rid of the weird on-street parking and turning it into a real roundabout?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 06:51
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:How would you fix this clusterfuck of an intersection? You could do this, though the business owners on Santa Fe Avenue would not be pleased. Personally, I'd do this: Choadmaster posted:Assuming the traffic there isn't super heavy (doesn't look like it) what's wrong with getting rid of the weird on-street parking and turning it into a real roundabout? Dump the on-street parking, make the island a circle, put in truck aprons if needed, and widen the approaches a bit. It's important to remember that a roundabout will operate more efficiently than an all-way stop in all situations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 13:17
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Dump the on-street parking, make the island a circle, put in truck aprons if needed, and widen the approaches a bit. It's important to remember that a roundabout will operate more efficiently than an all-way stop in all situations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 14:56
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:And I thought it was cool when they let me put up custom signs at the TMC! Shotgun maintenance is badass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 15:33
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:Aren't the two approaches on the left a little bit too close together to do that? You could dead-end one of them, as you mentioned before, or just fool around with the geometrics until it works. Better yet, why not transform the southwestern Santa Fe Avenue into one-way eastbound? It would preserve business access, add more on-street parking, and fix the geometric issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 18:14
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:You could dead-end one of them, as you mentioned before, or just fool around with the geometrics until it works. Better yet, why not transform the southwestern Santa Fe Avenue into one-way eastbound? It would preserve business access, add more on-street parking, and fix the geometric issue. The top road labeled "santa fe ave" is actually colusa, google maps labeled it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 18:38
|
|
|
Nexis posted:At least that railroad crossing isn't at grade...   Tupelo, Mississippi
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 20:33
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:Street view shows only one business on that road and it's on the corner, or maybe I'm not looking closely enough... Even one business is enough to block a project. The one-way arrangement would add on-street parking to compensate for the loss of parking in the circle itself. quazi posted:You mean like this? Boy, we love us some at-grade crossings in Connecticut. This state contains every single grade crossing on the entire northeast corridor! My office was trying to close an extremely dangerous at-grade crossing in Hartford (there isn't even room to put in gates), but local business owners (Aetna and The Courant) keep blocking it. Come on, guys, you're the ones who would be affected most if a train hit someone there!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 22:19
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:My office was trying to close an extremely dangerous at-grade crossing in Hartford (there isn't even room to put in gates), but local business owners (Aetna and The Courant) keep blocking it. Come on, guys, you're the ones who would be affected most if a train hit someone there! Crossings without gates? I would never have believed such a thing until I drove through some rural areas a while back and saw it for myself. Then it occurred to me that duh, they're not going to put an expensive gate at every single crossing in Bumfuck, USA, especially where you can see the train coming from a mile away. But no gate in an urban area? Maybe drivers are better there than they are here (where people go zooming through the intersection to make it under the gate in time). Reminds me of a story the LA Times wrote about Metrolink safety a month or two ago. There was one angry lady quoted as saying they had to fence off every last bit of track and put in pedestrian gates to block off the sidewalk area between the gate on the road and the beginning of the fence. Because her precious 20-something snowflake somehow didn't notice the gate or all the flashing lights and managed to walk in front of a train. In related news: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR2009110402413.html How old are most of the traffic systems in the US and do they really not have backups in case of poo poo like this? I'm guessing that all comes down to the budget...
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 22:45
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Crossings without gates? I would never have believed such a thing until I drove through some rural areas a while back and saw it for myself. Then it occurred to me that duh, they're not going to put an expensive gate at every single crossing in Bumfuck, USA, especially where you can see the train coming from a mile away. But no gate in an urban area? Maybe drivers are better there than they are here (where people go zooming through the intersection to make it under the gate in time). You'd be surprised. We still have electromechanical signals out there, with an electric motor turning a camshaft that activates the lights on a fixed schedule. It's entirely feasible that a failure at a single point could cause some mass chaos, though our systems up here have way fewer than 750 signals. System failures are actually quite common, though it's usually the communication between the signals themselves that breaks, not the computer running them. In that case, they switch over to uncoordinated operation. Unfortunately, many signals really need to be coordinated to work properly at peak hours. Closely spaced intersections, for example, need their artery through phases coordinated so large queues won't build between them and cause gridlock. The two signals of a diamond interchange are a perfect example. As to spare equipment, we have some, but it takes time to diagnose the problem and find someone equipped to go fix it. I work with signal controllers as part of my job, but I wouldn't consider myself qualified to replace them if they broke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 23:23
|
|
|
quazi posted:You mean like this? We have a horrible one here in Houston...3 tracks and 3 roads that don't quite line up...
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 02:35
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:You'd be surprised. We still have electromechanical signals out there, with an electric motor turning a camshaft that activates the lights on a fixed schedule. It's entirely feasible that a failure at a single point could cause some mass chaos, though our systems up here have way fewer than 750 signals. System failures are actually quite common, though it's usually the communication between the signals themselves that breaks, not the computer running them. In that case, they switch over to uncoordinated operation. One of the problems, as a responder, that ends up happening is you get stuck in traffic on the way to the problem. That's if you are adequately prepared for what you are going to find. You get out with a new controller, conflict monitor, loadswitches, and it ends up being a fuse in a 24V power supply...and you just ran out. All the indications, on a single approach, for a given color out? Flash. Controller loses its mind? Flash. Breaker trips? Flash. The list goes on and on why a cabinet will go into flash. The system is intentionally set up so that anything abnormal will put the intersection into a safe condition. You really don't want to see what happens when an intersection continues to run with all the reds out on one approach. People still think that intersection dark = I don't have to stop. It was a nightmare around the city last year after hurricane Ike. The news was pleading for people to stop at dark signals. One year out, and the idiots have forgotten. The biggest thing to worry about is getting rear ended because you obey the law, and Joe Redneck thinks that if the lights are off, nobody's home. Nexis fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Nov 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 02:45
|
|
|
Nexis posted:We have a horrible one here in Houston...3 tracks and 3 roads that don't quite line up... That's... just awful! Does anyone actually drive there? Those look like pretty big roads (from a New England perspective), but I don't see any cars. Nexis posted:One of the problems, as a responder, that ends up happening is you get stuck in traffic on the way to the problem. That's if you are adequately prepared for what you are going to find. You get out with a new controller, conflict monitor, loadswitches, and it ends up being a fuse in a 24V power supply...and you just ran out. All the indications, on a single approach, for a given color out? Flash. Controller loses its mind? Flash. Breaker trips? Flash. The list goes on and on why a cabinet will go into flash. drat, tell me about it! When we go to signal turn-ons, we just stand there and cross our fingers. I know old technology is more stable, but would it kill them to make signals easier to troubleshoot? Add to that the fact that emergency responders only have access to the little switchbox on the front, and how unlikely you are to get a signal tech out there in the middle of the night or on a weekend/holiday. The most important signals get 24-hour maintenance levels, but those are few and far between. quote:People still think that intersection dark = I don't have to stop. It was a nightmare around the city last year after hurricane Ike. The news was pleading for people to stop at dark signals. One year out, and the idiots have forgotten. The biggest thing to worry about is getting rear ended because you obey the law, and Joe Redneck thinks that if the lights are off, nobody's home. What do you think of the proposed MUTCD's hybrid signals? They go dark periodically as a part of normal operation. Several states are justifiably frightened by the possibility of a signal that causes some drivers to stop and some to keep going. I, personally, hope they won't be included. What do you think? Standard: 45 An emergency-vehicle hybrid signal shall consist of three signal sections, with a CIRCULAR 46 YELLOW signal indication centered below two horizontally aligned CIRCULAR RED signal 47 indications (see Figure 4G-1). Stop lines and EMERGENCY SIGNAL—STOP WHEN FLASHING 48 RED (R10-14 or R10-14a) signs (see Section 2B.59) shall be used with emergency-vehicle hybrid signals. 49 Emergency-vehicle hybrid signals shall be placed in a dark mode (no indications displayed) during 50 periods between actuations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 03:15
|
|
|
Oog, that seems like it could cause problems. Everywhere I've seen is "flashing red means the same thing as a stop sign". And I've seen the occasional stop sign in an isolated rural area that had a double flashing red like that to mean, "REALLY VERY MUCH STOP HERE, DUMMY". What's wrong with just doing solid red, solid yellow, separate flashing yellow (or green) with a big "EMERGENCY SIGNAL" sign? That's the way I've seen it just about everywhere, and everyone knows what a solid red light means (and if they don't, the big goddamn fire truck with all its lights on would probably be a tip-off).
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 03:39
|
|
|
potato of destiny posted:Oog, that seems like it could cause problems. Everywhere I've seen is "flashing red means the same thing as a stop sign". And I've seen the occasional stop sign in an isolated rural area that had a double flashing red like that to mean, "REALLY VERY MUCH STOP HERE, DUMMY". It's a good thing it's only the draft MUTCD and not in the real thing (yet). I think the point of the hybrid signal is to save some cash on electricity. alright, let's think about that. With LED signal faces, just one pointing in each direction, you're talking on the order of 50 Watts. Let's say your fire truck never ever pulls out, so you're saving 438 kilowatt-hours per year. At about 15 cents per kilowatt-hour, that's $65.7 a year (you spend more buying a new firehose or a pair of boots), and in return you increase the chances of a rear-end collision by several orders of magnitude. Nice!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 03:49
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's... just awful! Does anyone actually drive there? Those look like pretty big roads (from a New England perspective), but I don't see any cars. That picture had to have been snapped on a weekend. Griggs and Mykawa are both pretty major streets. Also, the fact that there doesn't appear to be much traffic on I-610 leads me to believe it is a weekend. The one thing I remember about the one signal was that the cabinet had a huge note in it saying "IF EITHER OF THE PREEMPTS ARE NOT WORKING CONTACT MR. TRAINDUDE @ BNSF." Cichlidae posted:drat, tell me about it! When we go to signal turn-ons, we just stand there and cross our fingers. I know old technology is more stable, but would it kill them to make signals easier to troubleshoot? Add to that the fact that emergency responders only have access to the little switchbox on the front, and how unlikely you are to get a signal tech out there in the middle of the night or on a weekend/holiday. The most important signals get 24-hour maintenance levels, but those are few and far between. It's all about being prepared. When I was at the city we had a mandatory burn in for new cabinets. They had to run for 72 hours in the signal shop before they could be set out on the street. Generally this involved sending the techs the timing book, hookup diagrams and layout so they could set it up on a light board to run it. Generally if anything is going to fail, it happens within the first 72 hours. At the county, our inspectors are more competent to handle a turn on on the fly, but I still prepare the controller and CMU key for them. If they have problems, they call for help. Generally, they have all the equipment they need to get out of bind on a turn on. Regarding our emergency response, our inspectors handle calls during the day, and we have a maintenance crew on contract to handle after hours calls. The only thing that we are not equipped to do in house is major work, i.e., cabinet changeouts, knock downs, pole damage, ped damage, and signal head damage. We also can't take care of overhead things do to a lack of any bucket trucks. At first I thought this was a bad thing, but we are already stretched so thin that having our guys doing lamps would suck away even more time. Cichlidae posted:What do you think of the proposed MUTCD's hybrid signals? They go dark periodically as a part of normal operation. Several states are justifiably frightened by the possibility of a signal that causes some drivers to stop and some to keep going. I, personally, hope they won't be included. What do you think? That is a HAWK signal. We had two installed while I was with the city. That is strange seeing it applied for EV use, I had only seen it for ped crossings. Also, it is a bitch getting the logic to work for those. Luckily one of my friend's is a Nextphase ninja and was able to help us out. Here is a youtube video of one in action. The research claims that people respond better to these things as opposed to a signalized ped crossing. I don't know, I didn't like the two that we did in town. Nexis fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Nov 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 05:01
|
|
|
Nexis posted:That is a HAWK signal. ... The research claims that people respond better to these things as opposed to a signalized ped crossing. I don't know, I didn't like the two that we did in town. That looks confusing as all hell. And there's really nothing it does that you couldn't do with a regular signal head. I bet the research got good results just because people where slowing/stopping more due to the "What the gently caress am I supposed to do with this?" factor. Kind of like the fake "debris" they paint on residential streets in some places, which research shows does slow people down... for a few months. People go back to their normal driving habits once they're all aware it's bullshit (who ever thought that was a good idea either?). Cichlidae posted:With LED signal faces, just one pointing in each direction, you're talking on the order of 50 Watts. Let's say your fire truck never ever pulls out, so you're saving 438 kilowatt-hours per year. At about 15 cents per kilowatt-hour, that's $65.7 a year (you spend more buying a new firehose or a pair of boots), and in return you increase the chances of a rear-end collision by several orders of magnitude. Nice! All the fire stations around here have a single-flashing-red-light signal by their driveways. It's off unless they're using it and looks nothing like a normal traffic signal (plus it has an accompanying sign) so there's nothing at all confusing about it. Is there some supposed advantage to the proposed signal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 11:34
|
|
|
Nexis posted:That is a HAWK signal. We had two installed while I was with the city. That is strange seeing it applied for EV use, I had only seen it for ped crossings. Also, it is a bitch getting the logic to work for those. Luckily one of my friend's is a Nextphase ninja and was able to help us out. Here is a youtube video of one in action. The research claims that people respond better to these things as opposed to a signalized ped crossing. I don't know, I didn't like the two that we did in town. Why do cars start entering the intersection when it's flashing red? People may respond better, but it could just be because they have no idea what's going on. A signal like this is twice as complicated as a normal ped beacon, and, in that configuration (mounted on a mast arm at an intersection), it's really easy to mistake it for a normal signal and assume the power's out. Choadmaster posted:That looks confusing as all hell. And there's really nothing it does that you couldn't do with a regular signal head. I bet the research got good results just because people where slowing/stopping more due to the "What the gently caress am I supposed to do with this?" factor. Kind of like the fake "debris" they paint on residential streets in some places, which research shows does slow people down... for a few months. People go back to their normal driving habits once they're all aware it's bullshit (who ever thought that was a good idea either?). Yeah, like this. As an aside, Sweden has some trompe l'oeil raised crosswalks that are actually flush with the pavement. They're quite convincing in photos; I'm not sure how real they'd look in person. Something like that is quite effective at first, especially for tourists who will only come across them once or twice, but the regulars soon learn to ignore them. Then, they see that people are ignoring the fake raised crossing and put in a REAL raised crossing. You can imagine what happens next. Choadmaster posted:All the fire stations around here have a single-flashing-red-light signal by their driveways. It's off unless they're using it and looks nothing like a normal traffic signal (plus it has an accompanying sign) so there's nothing at all confusing about it. Is there some supposed advantage to the proposed signal? I really don't know. The MUTCD just offers it as an option without any research to back it up. The power savings seem insignificant, there's a potential for accidents... they may be relying on how much it stands out to motorists, but I'd still prefer a single 12" indication to a hybrid signal with three 8" indications.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 13:20
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yeah, like this. As an aside, Sweden has some trompe l'oeil raised crosswalks that are actually flush with the pavement. They're quite convincing in photos; I'm not sure how real they'd look in person. Something like that is quite effective at first, especially for tourists who will only come across them once or twice, but the regulars soon learn to ignore them. Then, they see that people are ignoring the fake raised crossing and put in a REAL raised crossing. You can imagine what happens next. I didn't notice anything like that in Stockholm or Goteborg. I suppose that they're really really convincing, really really unconvincing or they hadn't installed them in those cities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 15:30
|
|
|
I always think of this rail crossing near Middletown, CT on Route 66 when the subject comes up. The road and the rail line cross at a close angle, and the road is wide, so the bridge has to be long and ends up relatively massive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 16:11
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:I didn't notice anything like that in Stockholm or Goteborg. I suppose that they're really really convincing, really really unconvincing or they hadn't installed them in those cities. I saw it in a brochure about traffic calming, but I had to pass it on to my fellow employees, otherwise I'd scan it. They looked very convincing from the photos therein. smackfu posted:I always think of this rail crossing near Middletown, CT on Route 66 when the subject comes up. The road and the rail line cross at a close angle, and the road is wide, so the bridge has to be long and ends up relatively massive. This part of 66 was only 2 lanes wide until a few years ago. Railroad bridges are INCREDIBLY expensive; The Church Street Extension cost hundreds of times what I'll earn over the course of my entire life. ----- You guys hear me complaining about minimally competent drivers all the time. This is why. Would you want someone who failed a knot-tying test 949 times to be running your bungee-jump team? How about letting someone who failed a babysitting test 949 times watch your kids? This are the kind of driver I have to design for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 18:28
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:You guys hear me complaining about minimally competent drivers all the time. This is why. Would you want someone who failed a knot-tying test 949 times to be running your bungee-jump team? How about letting someone who failed a babysitting test 949 times watch your kids? This are the kind of driver I have to design for. That is pretty amazing, but on the other hand, it's not in the US. I imagine our driver's tests are easier, so we have more terrible drivers. What would you like to see changed in traffic enforcement? I've always thought highway speeding was pretty minor, but most places levy higher fines for doing 10 over on the freeway then they do for running a stoplight or stop sign. I think the latter is far dangerous, but I'd like to hear from an expert.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 20:09
|
|
|
I think Red Green put it best (paraphrased): "You spend 18 years learning how to push a pencil, which doesn't explode when you roll it over, and 2 weeks learning how to drive a car, which does."
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 20:18
|
|
|
Pagan posted:That is pretty amazing, but on the other hand, it's not in the US. I imagine our driver's tests are easier, so we have more terrible drivers. I'm not an expert when it comes to enforcement; my job is just tangentially related. Were I an officer of the law, though, I imagine I'd be quite strict about all traffic infractions, even minor ones like traveling in the left lane and not signaling before a lane change. I'd be more lenient about things like running a fresh red light or driving over the limit, because I know we design for it. Most accidents here are caused by tailgating, but I'm not sure how much enforcement could fix that, as it's heavily ingrained in New England culture. I'd be especially harsh on people who drive while on their cell phones, which is illegal here, because it really bugs me and I'm a bit vindictive. Of course, I'm not a cop, and I respect how they choose to enforce traffic laws. I'm certainly not going to tell them how to do their jobs, no more than I'd expect them to tell me how to design a signal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 01:08
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'm not an expert when it comes to enforcement; my job is just tangentially related. Were I an officer of the law, though, I imagine I'd be quite strict about all traffic infractions, even minor ones like traveling in the left lane and not signaling before a lane change. I'd be more lenient about things like running a fresh red light or driving over the limit, because I know we design for it. Most accidents here are caused by tailgating, but I'm not sure how much enforcement could fix that, as it's heavily ingrained in New England culture. I'd be especially harsh on people who drive while on their cell phones, which is illegal here, because it really bugs me and I'm a bit vindictive. Of course, I'm not a cop, and I respect how they choose to enforce traffic laws. I'm certainly not going to tell them how to do their jobs, no more than I'd expect them to tell me how to design a signal. I guess what I meant was more along the lines of; what are the worst traffic infractions, in your opinion? What causes most accidents, what's the dumbest stuff people do? You've often said you have to design for the dumbest 1/10th of 1% : what are their worst habits?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 02:39
|
|
|
Pagan posted:I guess what I meant was more along the lines of; what are the worst traffic infractions, in your opinion? What causes most accidents, what's the dumbest stuff people do? You've often said you have to design for the dumbest 1/10th of 1% : what are their worst habits? They accelerate and brake erratically, are distracted behind the wheel, don't pay attention to signs or signals, drift into other lanes, are quite susceptible to road rage, tailgate, have a very hard time judging distance (such as whether they have room to stop for a yellow light, or when they can pull into traffic), back up without looking behind, and drive exceptionally slowly when it's not merited. Most people do at least one of these things, but it takes a really horrible driver to do them all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 03:30
|
|
|
Hey have you said anything about lane markings?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 04:37
|
|
|
nm posted:Hey have you said anything about lane markings? We've had some lane marking discussions, yeah. What would you like to know/talk about?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 04:48
|
|
|
Speeding enforcement has nothing to do with maintaining safety and everything to do with revenue generation. Speeding is an easy violation to catch and to prosecute compared to more nebulous (but much more dangerous) violations like tailgating, being distracted, or aggressive driving, and it's far more common than other more dangerous open-and-shut violations like running red lights or DUI, so it's a good cash cow. Fines for speeding are set high to collect more revenue, nothing more to it than that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 17:06
|
|
|
dennyk posted:Speeding enforcement has nothing to do with maintaining safety and everything to do with revenue generation. Speeding is an easy violation to catch and to prosecute compared to more nebulous (but much more dangerous) violations like tailgating, being distracted, or aggressive driving, and it's far more common than other more dangerous open-and-shut violations like running red lights or DUI, so it's a good cash cow. Fines for speeding are set high to collect more revenue, nothing more to it than that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 17:48
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:If you live in the US, maybe (Who the hell thought it was a good idea to allow local governments to both set and collect speed tickets?) If you live most anywhere else, no it's not and you are most likely partly a reason why. Yeah, I'm in the US. Don't know how it is in other countries, though. (The UK has a lot of those ticketing speed cameras, don't they? Those suckers aren't common at all in the US yet...) Also, I'm a "go with the flow" driver on the freeway and I don't speed on surface streets. Granted, "the flow" on I-75 here in Atlanta is usually about fifteen or twenty over the posted limit, but I ain't no coked-up type-A rear end in a top hat weaving between lanes with the gas pedal of his BMW making a dent in the floorboard. Edit: Never had a speeding ticket, either; the cops here don't pay much attention to you going 10-15 over along with everybody else when there's plenty of juicy four-figure-fine suckers going 85 or 90 to choose from. Unless they think you might net 'em a nice little drug bust or something, but being a pasty white nerdy dude driving alone in a boring late-model import sedan lets me avoid that. 
dennyk fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Nov 7, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 19:24
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:All the fire stations around here have a single-flashing-red-light signal by their driveways. It's off unless they're using it and looks nothing like a normal traffic signal (plus it has an accompanying sign) so there's nothing at all confusing about it. Is there some supposed advantage to the proposed signal? Most of the fire stations around here just have a normal setup with it set to flashing yellow or green until it's activated. Some have a two-head setup with flashing yellow and red.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 19:46
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:We've had some lane marking discussions, yeah. What would you like to know/talk about? Also, markings in relation to speed. Finally, a long time ago you mentioned the problem with the interchange I linked was mostly markings and I just want to know the difference between good and bad. is it just age or is there more? nm fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Nov 9, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2009 02:57
|
|
|
nm posted:I want to know more about the shiny ones and the ones that make noise and why everyone doesn't use them. Is it just cost, or is there a durability concern? The MUTCD that all pavement markings must be either retroreflective (shiny) or lit. Generally, this is done with glass beads mixed into or thrown on top of the wet epoxy. We're all required to use them, but the beads tend to wear off quickly; more on that in a minute. As to "ones that make noise," those are rumble strips or raised pavement markers. Rumble strips aren't often used in residential areas, because they wake people up at night. We had a guy who called the mayor daily for a month because his kids were having nightmares because of the rumble strips we installed near his house. They were removed soon thereafter. On freeways, rumble strips are very cost-effective (on the order of 10 cents per foot to install) and, in my opinion, should be installed in most places. Of course, there's a right way and a wrong way to install them. Too close to the edge of the road, and they'll be hit all the time, which pisses people off. Too far, and they won't be hit in time to wake the driver before he crashes. Raised pavement markings are expensive compared to epoxy, and aren't often used in places with significant snowfall, as plows scoop them up like a crack whore collecting pennies. quote:Also, markings in relation to speed. Pavement markings on our freeways are 6" wide, while they're only 4" wide on other roads. Stop bars are 12" wide in most places, but 24" wide in dangerous locations or with high approach speeds. Other than that, pavement markings are mostly speed-insensitive. It's different in France, though; their widths and lengths vary based on the type of road. quote:Finally, a long time ago you mentioned the problem with the interchange I linked was mostly markings and I just want to know the difference between good and bad. is it just age or is there more? We say that no amount of markings can fix bad geometrics, but bad markings can really ruin an otherwise good interchange. Sometimes they're laid out incorrectly, which is very frustrating because it could take years before we're able to fix it. Age, though, is the biggest problem. Edge lines last a long time, because they're generally not being run over. Lane lines, on the other hand, are constantly being hit, and it's only a matter of time before they lose their brilliant retroreflective glow and become a pale off-white. Within a year, they're much duller. Then, they start to peel up, chip, and crack. It's a bit neat to see, because the pavement underneath is usually newer-looking than the surrounding stuff, since it was, until recently, untouched. Add plows to the equation, and the markings last even shorter. Finally, we have the problem that these things are supposed to last 3-5 years, and we only replace them once a decade thanks to $$$. The ARRA (stimulus act) just let us re-stripe a whole lot of roads, but it's only about a percent of what needs to get done. $250,000 buys about 50 miles of crosswalks, stop bars, and lane arrows on local roads and collectors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2009 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:39 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It's only a matter of time before they lose their brilliant retroreflective glow and become a pale off-white. Within a year, they're much duller. Then, they start to peel up, chip, and crack. It's a bit neat to see, because the pavement underneath is usually newer-looking than the surrounding stuff, since it was, until recently, untouched. Add plows to the equation, and the markings last even shorter. Funny, I've never noticed a line peel or chip. They just seem to wear away. It's not something I pay much attention to though, I'll have to keep my eyes open for that. Does your stuff get dried/fused/whatever with a flamethrower? I want to be the guy doing that!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2009 13:14
|
|