Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition
-
-
There's another entrance to the gas station, but some people would rather create a traffic jam than drive fifty more feet.
QFT
-
The little stump bridge used to the bridge, 20 years ago. I've talked about this before. The problem was that it was a drawbridge, and that road, 1A, was a major commuter road, but that didn't stop the entitled assholes with boats from trying to cross it constantly during rush hour, resulting in massive backups as they'd close the bridge and reopen it entirely too soon. The new bridge rises up high enough that sailboats can go under it, but they couldn't close 1A for 2 years, so it has that weird S-hook so that the old road could stay open until they finished half the new bridge and could route traffic on it. You'll notice the western, larger, road going south. That didn't connect to the bridge when I moved away, and it was a smaller, two-lane road, that they've obviously upgraded since I moved away, so you had to take the eastern road and hit that dogleg, and then the curve on the northern side of the river.
They also cut half the parking lot away from a McDonald's, so obviously that had to close, because they also made it inconvenient to get in and out from the new road. Looks like it's now an office for the marina, judging from Google Maps.
-
Salemites would be nearly as entitled assholes and Cantabridgians if they could (I have a friend who used to gripe about his ex-ward councilor, who periodically called the police to complain about people playing football on "her" Commons--she's the entitled one, not him), so I'm surprised they ever ran the straight section of the bridge down and widened the street below it, because they hate commuters.
-
Fine, so you say how the talk about how too low speed limits are bad didn't convince you and then you slap in your own link about… completely different problem.
Nothing I say make sense without its context. and usually it doesn't even make sense with it.
In my response I don't even address whether speed limits low or high are better or worst. and it is not the highlight of my response.
I did suggest that the video presented is not going to convince me and what kind of people this videos was meant to convince and that it is doing it for wrong reasons. and also that it missing any substantial "facts" which is typical for propaganda.
completely unsubstantiated speed limits on roads where higher limit would be appropriate and that these are often abused by police to extort money on fines without actually helping safety at all is a fact.
Looks like that we both agree fundamentally that speed limits are important where appropriate.
our "appropriate" may slightly differ. but at least we agree.A police giving you a fine is not extortion it is enforcement. if you are living in a country where police extort you, I think you have a much bigger problem.
Enforcement and fines are a deterrent and collective lesson even if was done on an "extortion road".
it is one of many tools used to keep the system going.
Regardless no system is perfect. individual cases of injustices will always exists. we can't win it all.I think there is no argument that any society needs laws to sustain.
and people taking the law to their own hands cause more issues then the people who follows it.Our morality is on a slippery slope. if history is any evidence.
Be a good brick in the wall., try not to bend the rules too much, bending lead to breaking.To conclude this discussion:
The solution is fixing the problem. in my personal opinion speed limit is not the problem hence it is not part of the solution) or at least it is lower on the priority of something that needs fixing.This is the solution for all problems( ok not all, but a lot):
##Eliminate the weakest link - the human factor.
You made me write more then I would have liked to, hope you proud of yourself.
-
Somebody's into the liquor cabinet again...
Oh, and in response to the control freaks among us:
-
Reversing a trailer isn't so hard.
Well, I'm getting better but the big reversing job that I would like to be able to do is to get the trailer back under the house. We have a high-set Queenslander with about 30cm of clearance either side, and up a slope. The best I've done is to get it up to the gate but I obviously can't push 700+ kg of trailer up the hill.
Until my reversing skills improve I have a winch. It takes ages but gets the job done.
-
Yes, self-driving cars! Gimme!
-
Actually from this photo it is clear that it is a full+dashed line rather than plain full line. The previous one had lower resolution so I didn't see it.
turning lane
We don't have those here, ever. All lanes are either one or the other direction here. I am actually glad to see the picture, because I have heard about bidirectional lanes several times, but I've never seen one.
We also don't have any multi-lane roads with possibility to turn every couple of meters like here. If it is multi-lane, it does only allow turning at intersections. A parking lot like on the picture would here be separated from the road except one or two entry/exit points and those would be marked as junctions (so the solid line on the verge would be interrupted with dashes) and either there would be fully marked turn lanes or the junction would only allow turning to the parking long from the adjacent lane. In fact most multi-lanes here have a physical divider, often with a guard rail or even fence on it.
-
Since we're all sharing strange crossroads. Let's add one featuring draw bridges and a medieval gate ...
R30 going top to bottom along the canal is the ring road around Brugge. Yes that canal is used by both commercial and pleasure boats. Yes that means they will raise those bridges several times per day. Yes this happens for several km while the road follows the canal. The city walls where originally at the left side of the canal. Several gates remain and these points are still the only bridges to cross into the city center.
-
A police giving you a fine is not extortion it is enforcement. if you are living in a country where police extort you, I think you have a much bigger problem.
Unfortunately yes, I live in Corruptsylvania. Policemen asking for bribe is not as bad here as somewhat further south like Romania or Croatia, but not exactly unheard of. After all what do you expect in country where former president stole protocolar pen and back when he was prime minister said that he can't tell clean money from dirty money.
But the main issue is that we have city police and national police and fines collected by city police go to to the city budget. So in many places they focus on controlling speed in places where they are likely to collect most money due to bogus or misleading marking and completely ignore the places that are actually dangerous. This was to the point where the parliament tried to tweak the law to prevent it.
They also focus on controlling speed and testing for alcohol because those are easy to prove and don't seem to enforce other things like dangerous overtaking. The national police are not under such pressure and enforce more appropriately, but there is too few of them.
The solution is fixing the problem. in my personal opinion speed limit is not the problem hence it is not part of the solution) or at least it is lower on the priority of something that needs fixing.
I agree. Unfortunately there does not seem to be anybody who would analyse the accidents and try to improve the situation. The road signs are in control of city councils and they rarely have knowledge and resources for proper analysis, so the changes often seem rather ad-hoc.
-
After all what do you expect in country where former president stole protocolar pen and back when he was prime minister said that he can't tell clean money from dirty money.
The guy on the right either was with him on it, or just uncomfortable about the situation, he knew whats going to happened.
Notice how he start to move stuff on the table, to dissociate himself from the situation.
and also place what seem to be a phone as a barrier. lucky for him he was only interested in the pen.
-
The later. The guy on the right is Chilean president and they were signing some treaty. He apparently noticed something was amiss, but wanted to maintain decorum himself.
The part about the dirty money is really the
here though. Mr. Klaus could be a decent economist, but never seemed to understand the importance of working justice. So when he was in charge of transformation from communist directed economy to free market one, legal system was seriously neglected, so now we have police that excels at solving murders and similar felonies, but has serious trouble investigating corruption and financial crimes. And if it finds anything, the courts take years. And then to top it off this Mr. Klaus at the end of his presidency term pardoned those whose trial was running for more than 8 years, which included some of the biggest crooks who defrauded billions.
-
To clarify this mess:
This is the road you have to follow coming from the right and going direction of the city center. Yes, even in 2014 you still enter the city by passing through the gate like it has been for countless centuries.
Coming from the North you're screwed when the bridge is open because there is no lane for right turning traffic meaning that the first car going right will block the entire right lane until the bridge is accessible again.
-
Yes, self-driving cars! Gimme!
Be careful what you wish for...
-
Most places in the US have a "don't block the box" rule, meaning you wait at the light until you can complete the entire turn--you're not supposed to wait in the middle of the intersection.
I have never heard of this. I mean, the rule as I understand it is that you can complete your turn (or simply going through) based on backed up traffic where you're going. I've never heard a rule that you shouldn't enter the intersection waiting for a break in oncoming traffic when making a left turn.
In fact, I remember my driver's ed (in CA) teaching that when you enter waiting in the intersection for a left turn, you don't turn your wheels in case you get rear ended, so you would only go forward instead of turn into oncoming traffic.
If you sit behind the crosswalk waiting for a left turn, I'm going to start honking at your ass because fuck you.
-
But then we also have the lights directly to the sides of and above the white stop lines
I hate it when intersections do this, because I usually can't see the light as the first car unless I stop at least a car's length back or put my head down on the dash to look up.
-
I have never heard of this. I mean, the rule as I understand it is that you can complete your turn (or simply going through) based on backed up traffic where you're going. I've never heard a rule that you shouldn't enter the intersection waiting for a break in oncoming traffic when making a left turn.
it's a law in most states, if not all.
it's not a heavily enforced law, but it is on the books... technically.
-
That article's kind of surprising in a way. I'd like to know what they consider poor roads in Dallas that put it so high on the second
I was pretty shocked not to see DC on the list. I can only think that the relatively decent conditions of the surrounding areas saved it.
My wife has had reasons to drive into the city recently and was commenting on how terrible the roads are in there. Perhaps this situation will improve with Marion Barry finally out of the picture.
-
it's a law in most states, if not all.
I cannot believe this without evidence. Not as @FrostCat originally described it (though he backed off a little later on).
-
clarification then.
it is on the books in most if not all states that it is a traffic violation (at minimum, in Maine for example it could be prosecuted as a criminal charge up to and including felony depending on severity) to deliberately block the flow of traffic.
as an extension of this it is usually considered that one should not enter an intersection if one is not confident that one can complete the traversal of the intersection before opposing traffic receives the green light
the idea being to prevent this:
so, depending on the state they may have:
- the rule about intersections explicitly covered in law (IIRC: ME, NH, VT, CT and FL fall into this category)
- The rule can be inferred from the existing rule about not blocking flow of traffic and prosecuted as such as a primary offense (i'm not aware of any states that fall into this category, but i would be shocked if it isn't most of them)
- The rule can be inferred from the existing rule about not blocking flow of traffic and prosecuted as such as a secondary offense (they can get you for it only if they have to stop you for a primary offense (like speeding))
-
to deliberately block the flow of traffic.
Yes, we're in agreement. I'm not talking about that, but waiting to turn left because you have oncoming traffic, not because there's nowhere to go after you turn left and exit the intersection.
-
Yes, we're in agreement.
good.
now would it nto be blocking the flow of traffic to sit in the middle of a busy intersection trying to turn left and having to wait until the cross direction gets a greenlight before you can go so now they have to wait for you, instead of waiting an extra 60 seconds for the lights to cycle back around and give you teh green left turn arrow?
i've seen it prosecuted before under those situations. ;-)
-
now would it nto be blocking the flow of traffic to sit in the middle of a busy intersection trying to turn left and having to wait until the cross direction gets a greenlight before you can go so now they have to wait for you, instead of waiting an extra 60 seconds for the lights to cycle back around and give you teh green left turn arrow?
i've seen it prosecuted before under those situations.
That sounds like some politician meddled with the traffic signal programming -- if the intersection isn't draining completely by the time the cross green goes up, something is rotten, and it's not the fault of the individual driver who is trying to make a permissive left turn. OTOH, I'd write the ticket in a heartbeat if someone tried this stunt from a protected-only left turn lane -- as it's no different than running a red light at that point, legally speaking.
-
But the fact that often there are completely unsubstantiated speed limits on roads where higher limit would be appropriate and that these are often abused by police to extort money on fines without actually helping safety at all is a fact.
ASDESIGNED_WONTFIX
-
I have never heard of this. I mean, the rule as I understand it is that you can complete your turn (or simply going through) based on backed up traffic where you're going.
Later downthread, it appears I was wrong about this.
If you sit behind the crosswalk waiting for a left turn, I'm going to start honking at your ass because fuck you.
If I do that, it's usually because the intersection is twitchy.
-
We don't have those here, ever. All lanes are either one or the other direction here. I am actually glad to see the picture, because I have heard about bidirectional lanes several times, but I've never seen one.
Those look nasty but I don't recall hearing that there are many accidents in them.
-
If you sit behind the crosswalk waiting for a left turn, I'm going to start honking at your ass because fuck you.
you may wish to avoid doing that with me FWIW.
doing that to me is liable to make me just drive slower
-
doing that to me is liable to make me just drive slower
Slower than stopped? Do you mean you'll back into me?
-
Slower than stopped? Do you mean you'll back into me?
no, but i wouldn't be inclined to put much gas into my start when i did get the green light. ;-)
-
And that's different from every other Prius driver how? ;)
-
Yes that means they will raise those bridges several times per day.
The picture I put in above of, before they replaced the drawbridge, it would be opened repeatedly during rush hour. If someone firebombed a boat causing that, and the jury was made of commuters, there'd be an acquittal.
Now that I think of it, when I lived in Fort Lauderdale, the same thing happened on the major road I took over the Intracostal every damn day. Funnily enough they replaced that drawbridge too. (See the empty walled lot at the end of S Surf Rd? I lived there--when there was a building there--for a while in 2000. It was pretty awesome.)
-
And that's different from every other Prius driver how?
usually i'm far more zippy than your standard prius driver.
i've got places to go to!
i drive it because i like the better gass mileage but i'm not anal about it. if i only manage 38-40MPG because i'm a bit heavy on the gas that's still better than the 22 i was getting with the taurus. i see no need to try and hypermile.
-
@bulb said:
lights directly to the sides of and above the white stop lines
I hate it when intersections do thisWhen you are in the first row, the light is always comfortably visible to the side here. The one above is optional and intended for those in the queue.
now would it nto be blocking the flow of traffic to sit in the middle of a busy intersection trying to turn left and having to wait until the cross direction gets a greenlight before you can go so now they have to wait for you
No. Because when the light turns red behind—and opposite to—you, there have to be a second or two before the other light turns green. And that's when you should be able to leave if you didn't find any gap earlier.
That sounds like some politician meddled with the traffic signal programming -- if the intersection isn't draining completely by the time the cross green goes up, something is rotten
Exactly. There should be time to leave the junction between the red on one direction and green on the other.
-
A bit to the north of the previous one we have this:
The R30 that makes a slight turn is the ring road that is also in the other one. It follows the canal further down.
Notice the patch of water in the center of the image with the boats? Those are pleasure yachts. And that central body of water is a real operation a lock. The smaller vessels fit in the lock with room to spare. But larger commercial shippers are a rather snug fit. So much that both bridges at both ends of the lock have to be open during the entire lock cycle.
-
No. Because when the light turns red behind—and opposite to—you, there have to be a second or two before the other light turns green.
that would be why i said you shouldn't be in the intersection if you cannot clear before the cross direction has the green.
and yes you often have 2 to 5 seconds between one side turning red and the cross side turning green. but that's not always guaranteed.
-
But larger commercial shippers are a rather snug fit. So much that both bridges at both ends of the lock have to be open during the entire lock cycle.
That sounds horrible.
It sounds like the most reasonable thing to do long term would be to put in a pair of locks around that central section--one north of the northern bridge, one south of the southern one--and depress the center section so you never have to use raise the bridge. I guess you'd need a third lock to the east too, for that to work.
-
The picture I put in above of, before they replaced the drawbridge, it would be opened repeatedly during rush hour. If someone firebombed a boat causing that, and the jury was made of commuters, there'd be an acquittal.
We just make our bridges 50 feet high with a dedicated pass-thru around here.BTW, there's pretty much no where for a 50 foot tall ship to go if they pass under. Niagara Falls is 10 miles down river.
-
It sounds like the most reasonable thing to do long term would be to put in a pair of locks around that central section--one north of the northern bridge, one south of the southern one--and depress the center section so you never have to use raise the bridge. I guess you'd need a third lock to the east too, for that to work.
You're literally locked in here. If I'm not mistaking the protected UNESCO heritage site extends to include the canal that is the city border in this place. Even if that wasn't the case ... there is no room here to wiggle an extra bridge in, or even for a raised bridge.
-
and yes you often have 2 to 5 seconds between one side turning red and the cross side turning green. but that's not always guaranteed.
Here I can rely on it. But then here yielding to opposing traffic is what is taught in the driving course and written in the rules, so unless there is a dedicated turn lane with directional light the setting has to take it into account. Large crossroads without separate directional lights even often have a green left arrow (that is exactly like the one in normal signal, but is alone) behind them that lights green in that period to indicate that the opposing traffic is stopping because it just got red and it's the right time to finish the left turn now.
-
We just make our bridges 50 feet high with a dedicated pass-thru around here.
That's what they replaced the original bridge--which was actually more of a causeway--with.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5362979,-70.8873956,3a,75y,353.26h,78.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sC0TwiNntBvVV61fOvvEEHA!2e0
-
Even if that wasn't the case ... there is no room here to wiggle an extra bridge in, or even for a raised bridge.
Yeah, I can see that, or I would've suggested it. :) I meant that if you could place three locks in the canal outside the section, you could maybe theoretically seal off the central section and dredge it and drain it so it was lower, to the point where you didn't need a drawbridge.
-
now would it nto be blocking the flow of traffic to sit in the middle of a busy intersection trying to turn left and having to wait until the cross direction gets a greenlight before you can go so now they have to wait for you, instead of waiting an extra 60 seconds for the lights to cycle back around and give you teh green left turn arrow?
i've seen it prosecuted before under those situations.
In the UK we set it out more explicitly: you may not enter the yellow box* unless your exit road is clear.
If the road you want to drive down is clear, but there's moving traffic crossing your path, you explicitly can enter and stop in the box (as long as you stay out of the way of said traffic, obviously).
It would be pretty silly to ban it because you can get a much better view of the traffic on the various roads and are much more likely to get through on green this cycle than if you had to wait behind the line until you had a gap.
If the oncoming traffic doesn't clear before the lights change (this being a situation that can pretty much only arise at a traffic light-controlled junction) then you simply clear the junction as promptly as is safely possible. There should always be reasonable time from amber your way to green the other for a junction to clear by the time the other guys have right of way, though of course reasonable doesn't cover every single instance in practice and occasionally they have to wait.
*We have yellow cross-hatchings on the road in some junctions. If there's a yellow box, you absolutely must obey this rule. If there's no yellow box then you usually [i]should[/i] stay out of the space where it would be if there was one (unless it's a situation where that's clearly a stupid thing to do, as can occur at roundabouts and junctions without traffic lights) but it's not actually illegal unless you're doing something stupid enough to fall under some sort of catch-all offense like Driving Without Due Care And Attention.
-
now would it nto be blocking the flow of traffic to sit in the middle of a busy intersection trying to turn left and having to wait until the cross direction gets a greenlight before you can go so now they have to wait for you,
No? You don't wait for the cross to get a green, you wait for the oncoming to have a red. There should be ~2-3 seconds after that when you can make your turn before the cross traffic gets a green.
and yes you often have 2 to 5 seconds between one side turning red and the cross side turning green. but that's not always guaranteed.
If the light immediately turns green when the other light turns red, someone at traffic management has done something wrong. That will lead to wrecks when someone tries to beat a red and someone with a green pulls out.
-
There should be ~2-3 seconds after that when you can make your turn before the cross traffic gets a green.
yes. and now maybe this isn't an issue so much where you drive, but the oncomming same direction traffic will not infrequently also take advantage of that delay to slip by on the red, leaving you in the middle of the intersection with the cross traffic wanting to get past.
i wish the coursts had ruled that traffic cameras for automatic running red tickets were legal and not an invasion of privacy (because you could see inside the cars in the picture. an invasion of privacy! being photographed in public! wehre anyone with a cellphone camera could have taken that picture!)
-
If the road you want to drive down is clear, but there's moving traffic crossing your path, you explicitly can enter and stop in the box (as long as you stay out of the way of said traffic, obviously).
I wasn't aware of that nuance. I thought yellow box was complete "Don't enter unless you can get out immediately"
-
i wish the coursts had ruled that traffic cameras for automatic running red tickets were legal
It was guilty until proven innocent which, I'm pretty sure, was unconstitutional anyway. They send the non-ticket ticket to the owner of the car as well, whom you can't prove was the one driving without a clear picture of their face, which there usually wasn't one of.
-
It was guilty until proven innocent which, I'm pretty sure, was unconstitutional anyway. They send the non-ticket ticket to the owner of the car as well, whom you can't prove was the one driving without a clear picture of their face, which there usually wasn't one of.
the specific system we used used a low angle camera that took the picture from the front as you were going through the intersection. sure they sent the ticket to the registered owner of the car, because that's the address they had.
the way the tickets worked was you had 45 days to pay the fine (which did get expensive the more times you were photographed) before you would be summoned to court for the ticket (it would be an official one at that point, not just a fine) and you could fight it if it wasn't you (they had the photo and when you showed up and it wasn't you that was just about it. in out five minutes.
all of that passed the courts. what killed it was invasion of privacy because personal belongings could be photographed as well....
you're FLIPPING IN PUBLIC! THERE IS NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN PUBLIC!
-
I thought yellow box was complete "Don't enter unless you can get out immediately"
I got it slightly wrong. At roundabouts your version is correct, for right turns on crossroads or T-junctions (which is about the only time in practice you'd ever get into the situation) mine is.
The Highway Code - Using the road (159 to 203) - Guidance - GOV.UK
Rules for using the road, including general rules, overtaking, road junctions, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings and reversing.
-
Yes, that should be the same throughout Europe.
Except the yellow box appears on most important Junctions in Britain while in most other countries it only appears occasionally in places where the driver might otherwise miss the fact they are in a junction. For example we have one junction here that does not have traffic lights, but next to it is a pedestrian crossing that does. So the junction has the yellow box to remind you not to enter it if there are already about two cars waiting behind it.
