Ask me about being a Traffic Engineer!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask me about being a Traffic Engineer!

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

I hear this is the thread for it so I demand an explanation for this nightmare.

https://goo.gl/maps/kgwc9SmTcqMvmj5K6

I know everyone is stoned, but cmon

# ¿ Oct 22, 2019 01:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 01:44

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Entropist posted:

That doesn't make any sense to me? Do they not measure infractions at the stop line in other countries? That is crazy. What if you get blocked by another vehicle from leaving the intersection although it was green when you entered it, you get a red light ticket?

Here the red light cameras are aimed at the stop bar, and thats what you're not allowed to cross when it's red. Now it makes more sense why people in other countries are complaining about red light cameras so much...

I always learned to pull into the intersection in that situation so you could go after it turned red, but I wouldn't trust technology to make that judgement call on if I was legit.

One of the reasons I am against traffic cameras of all varieties, they can't judge the situation. it would be better if every infraction was reviewed by a human, but that kinda eliminates the attraction of them.

# ¿ Oct 22, 2019 01:24

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Hippie Hedgehog posted:

From what I've gathered, in the U S the traffic regulations differ by state. I'm not sure what country you're in so when you say "other countries" I'm not sure what you're asking.

Red light cameras seem like a really bad idea if there is no human reviewing the pictures before the ticket is sent out.

they differ by city and state, wish some requiring human review and others waiting for you to challenge it before it gets reviewed, and a few outright banning them.

tampa banned them(because they were caught deliberately timing lights so it was almost impossible not to run, according to the judge) but uses them anyway

# ¿ Oct 23, 2019 00:47

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

wolrah posted:

Yeah, I don't think really anyone has a problem with red light cameras in theory.

The problem is that in practice, at least in America, they've been almost 100% implemented with a goal of making money rather than improving safety. Both the city and the inevitable private contractor operating the system are driven to ensure that violation numbers remain high. Yellow lights get shortened, tolerances are set as tight as possible so that legitimate right-on-reds get flagged, etc. They don't actually want to stop red-light running, they want to make it easy to do accidentally so they can profit.

I think if they were actually used as it's always claimed people would have a much higher opinion of them. Unfortunately, 'murica...

pretty much this. The part that upsets me the states that do an auto-issue of the ticket count on the citizen to stop and go "hey wait" instead of being unjustly punished, and even then you have to fight against a bullshit scam being literally run by the courts

as they exist in america, they aren't a tool for safety by any stretch.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2019 05:00

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Kaal posted:

You know what's even better than RTOR? Signalized intersections that direct traffic without conflict. RTOR probably ranks up there with poorly signed reversible lane schedules as traffic ideas that cause as much slowdown from near-collisions as they actually help.

Peanut President posted:

that's because europeans (and new yorkers) don't understand that you're supposed to wait for peds before turning

I guess Kaal is from NY, because I pretty much never see these issues. Both drivers and pedestrians know whats up and to watch out for each other during those spots, and the special cases(near schools etc) tend to end up with explicit restrictions.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2019 01:11

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Entropist posted:

We don't have RTOR but we do have lights with arrows for each direction, so on big intersections there's just a right turn lane with a right turn light that's permanently green except when pedestrians want to cross.

this is an elegant solution

# ¿ Oct 24, 2019 05:55

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Kaal posted:

Also statistically New Yorkers are actually better at this sort of thing than people from more rural areas like Wisconsin. Which makes absolute sense because urban drivers are more experienced with congestion and mix-modal traffic, and are also more likely to be driving smaller vehicles with better blind spots.

I'd buy that, but otoh don't most new Yorkers not drive because of the traffic/decent public transit?

# ¿ Oct 24, 2019 14:25

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Zamujasa posted:

Just have it both ways.

gently caress parsing this at speed

# ¿ Oct 25, 2019 00:31

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

iospace posted:

The biggest problem is that you're never retested in the US, if you ask me.

I have been retested a few years back because I let my license expire for a few years. Should have failed(can't parallel park to save my life) but got passed because, and I quote, I "made mistakes only an experienced driver would make"(pulling up to an intersection so I could see instead of stopping 10ft back where the stop sign was placed).

I literally watched her rub out all the bad marks and just write pass on the paper she had.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2019 12:43

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Deteriorata posted:

Yes, where there is a marked line you have to stop at the line. You don't have to stop where the stop sign itself is was the point. Due to interference from telephone poles or other signs they may not be in the optimum spot.

You're responsible for stopping and making sure the intersection is clear before entering it. The stop sign itself is there for information, not to tell you where to stop.

You are incorrect, that's just how we do it.

I was flat out told that any inexperienced driver doing that isn't going to get their license because it is technically illegal. I was passed for breaking the law in the correct way, basically.

E: And this intersection had hedges to the street, and was a minor street intersecting a fairly major one.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2019 01:18

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Deteriorata posted:

If there are no markings (i.e., no specific stop line), then there is no official place to stop, short of being out in traffic. You are obligated to get close enough to the intersection to be assured there is no cross traffic before coming to a complete stop and then proceeding.

If there is a stop line or crosswalk, you must stop short of that. As I have stated repeatedly, the sign itself could be placed well short of the intersection for a variety of reasons. Stopping at the sign and then proceeding is not safe or proper.

cf: https://drivinginstructorblog.com/q-should-you-stop-at-the-stop-sign-or-the-stop-line/

This is exactly the position I have been reiterating.

That's Canadian, not American.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2019 03:17

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Lmao. Texas is where the driving test proctor marked it against me.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2019 03:47

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

hence my laughter. I had behavior that actually was in compliance with the law marked against me on a driving test

# ¿ Oct 26, 2019 08:12

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

They really aren't in a hurry to punish people for calling 911. if its a public safety issue, call them, its in their domain

# ¿ Oct 29, 2019 06:47

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Carbon dioxide posted:

Every traffic light intersection here in NL has a backup set of yield/right of way signs which 'take over' if the lights die and there's no cop directing the traffic yet.

It's not an ideal situation but at least you know where you stand if the lights don't work. I guess the signs are also used a lot at night, when the lights on many quiet intersections are just switched to flashing amber.

I learned if you see a traffic light out you treat it as a 4 way stop

reality has taught me to treat it like a 4 way stop and make sure no one is gonna blast through while I try to get across

# ¿ Oct 29, 2019 08:02

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Hippie Hedgehog posted:

Enforcement sounds good when you say it, but unfortunately that doesn't look like the kind of neighbourhood where these drivers are likely to run into a random squad car and get pulled over.

If someone calls it in, sure, someone might knock on their door, but even with that video there would be insufficient evidence for a conviction in most (sane) jurisdictions, because you can't identify the driver.

Sorry I don't have anything better to offer, I guess as a traffic engineer one might consider planting trees or lampposts (or bollards) along the sidewalk to prevent driving on it? If it's a low-speed street that shouldn't affect safety too much.

Red light cameras have established the precedent that if you own the car you are responsible. Don't let people who will drive on sidewalks use your car, and make sure you call the cops if it gets stolen.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2019 21:11

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Lobsterpillar posted:

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the contractor should have predicted it: the road controlling authority should have predicted it, and if they didn't, then when they become aware of it they can take steps to mitigate, which may (should, in my opinion but some may differ) include having the contractor extend their traffic management plan to include the affected school area or to signpost an alternative detour (or as you say: cease operation and reopen the road during peak times and do night works, if that's possible).

bet the contractor isn't even aware that there might be an issue, and the authority can just throw the contractor under the bus if something goes wrong

all your options cost money or cost someone reputation, and both are more important than the lives of children, obviously

# ¿ Nov 4, 2019 03:53

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Hippie Hedgehog posted:

I thought such measures (impairing vision for drivers) were purposely being used to slow down traffic. One of the professionals in the thread can surely expand on this.

For example, roundabouts used to be flat here, until a couple decades ago. Then they started making artificial mounds in the middle of them so you can't see across them. Apparently this was found to reduce accidents by forcing drivers to be more alert, or something.

Some places it can help, but the vast majority of the time it's making things more dangerous because drivers can't see incoming traffic.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2019 23:41

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Entropist posted:

Right. At the intersection there is an unbroken, continuous center line on that side of the road, and you're not allowed to overtake across those - they don't want people overtaking through intersections. The arrows indicate that that is coming up and you should get the hell out of the opposite lane. The general rule is that you can only overtake across striped lines, not continuous lines, and this is sometimes indicated per side by having one half of the double center line be striped and the other half continuous.

Having all these details is why our driving exam tests are so easy to fail...

We have similar systems in the states for indicating when its legal to pass/change lanes, but not the street markings for speed. Thats pretty cool.

# ¿ Nov 7, 2019 08:40

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Carbon dioxide posted:

Chill, dudes. If you hit the throttle on full on the up ramp and cut off several trucks getting on the highway just because you want to get to 130 km/h fast, you'll lose any time advantage that might give you at the next bit of busy traffic on the highway, or at the first traffic light when you get off the highway.

All your fast accelerating/fast driving is doing is creating loud noises and make you use up a lot of fuel. It doesn't save any time at all.

I'm sorry for the people who aren't able to understand rationally that accelerating faster and going faster is a net loss since there's no time profit and it just costs more fuel. They're only "I WANT MORE VROOMVROOM". But if even the party that all the people whose thought patterns don't go beyond "I WANT MORE VROOMVROOM" vote on now seem to realize this and begrudgingly changed the law, I think the point is finally starting to come across.

I'm always glad when rationality wins and improves the situation for everyone, even those who assume it gets worse because there is less VROOMVROOM.

Next point on the agenda: Getting the fact across to America that roundabouts allow for much more throughput than 4-way stop intersections without decreasing the safety at all.

It's just safer to match full speed on the road before you merge with said road. Merging onto a road at 80km/hr when everyone else is going 120km/hr sounds like you expect everyone to slam on their brakes for you

# ¿ Nov 13, 2019 11:40

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

silence_kit posted:

Yeah you could take his same argument and use it to argue that the 100 kph limit is too fast and to call for further speed limit reduction.

I understand the point that car trip travel times are not just the times spent traveling on a limited access freeway and include other things like waiting at stoplights, so at some point increasing freeway speeds would face diminishing returns on reducing travel times�but he hasn�t shown where that point is at all.

the argument is that you will hit traffic and then he will catch up so you are both averaging the same speed.

its a dumb argument, but my drivers ed teacher made it 25 years ago, so its far from being a new lie

# ¿ Nov 13, 2019 12:12

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

silence_kit posted:

I don't get this. I don't understand how driving faster would make traffic worse. When you are in heavy traffic, the speed limit doesn't really matter, so I am very confused here.

This feels like a bogus 'traffic science' principle, kind of like 'latent demand' discussed in this thread earlier, where an ideological preference against car travel against is disguised as an empirical fact. There are so many arguments you could make in support of the idea of making car travel less convenient, not sure why people on this forum are committed to making up false ones.

I think the belief is that the traffic will be bad anyway, so they might as well drive like assholes to save a few pennies even tho they are actually part of the problem

# ¿ Nov 13, 2019 12:29

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Entropist posted:

The thing about not reaching 130 before the next city was not a serious comment...

But it is actually the case that a lower maximum speed results in higher throughput with certain volumes of traffic. I'm sure there is a detailed post in this thread explaining this from the time when there were actual traffic engineers here, many years ago., but I don't remember the argument well enough to explain it myself.

Its on one of the very first pages, and I don't disagree. I only say you should be getting up to full speed on the ramp before you try to merge with traffic.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2019 14:03

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Watermelon Daiquiri posted:

What? Do the west texan interstates and highways no longer have 90mph limits? I distinctly remember travelling at that speed and more driving out to new mexico.

Never did, thats just how you drive in Texas.

# ¿ Nov 14, 2019 22:54

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

I get the feeling that the people who are aghast at right on red think you just barrel on through, slowing down just enough to not roll or some poo poo.

Its a stop sign. When the light is red, you treat it exactly like a stop sign if you want to turn. Its not complicated. Yes it means pedestrians have to look up and check to make sure no one is gonna run them over, but if you are crossing a street you should be doing that anyway, unless stop signals magically put up force fields over intersections outside of the US.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2020 15:23

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

I guess one aspect to American pedestrian culture is always making sure no idiot drivers are coming, even if the signals and signs and markings all protect them.

# ¿ Aug 12, 2020 18:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 01:44

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

Haifisch posted:

I'm thinking more of the situations around where I live, where you're unlikely to have roads that congested. Most of the time people being let in by someone being 'polite' create active road hazards because they're trying to cross multiple lanes of traffic, many of which are typically moving at 40-50mph and may not be able to see them if they're in front of the car letting them in(there's one specific intersection that's really bad about this because there's a gas station on the corner but a median preventing people from turning to go west from there, so instead they'll try to cross a right turn lane & two straight lanes to get into the left turn lane from the road going north). Even if they're just going into the lane of the person being 'polite', it's still dangerous to come to a stop when nobody's expecting you to do so/refuse to go when people are expecting you to go. 99% of the time people will get a gap naturally within 1-3 minutes anyway, so people doing this stuff aren't even helping their intended helpee that much.

If it's legitimately so congested that nobody's going more than 5mph anyway, then it's much more reasonable(and actually polite) to do that.

if you aren't driving with one foot on the break most places you are just begging to get in an accident.

and then when you do use the brake early and often you get rear ended

# ¿ Sep 3, 2020 06:58

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask me about being a Traffic Engineer!