Rumble strips - do you hate them?

[HighwayStar]

They're great. They help keep drivers in their lanes when the edge of the lane is difficult to see in inclement weather and make distracted drivers aware if something is coming up. Can't understand why anyone would have an issue with them.

Mainly because they are loud and not appropriate for use everywhere. Also they are a maintenance issue in areas with severe freeze thaw action.

They're supposed to be loud. That's the point. They wouldn't be effective if they weren't loud. If they don't belong in a specific location, it has nothing to do with whether something is good or bad.

I live in Palm Springs. We don't have freeze/thaw action. But I noticed more potholes caused by freeze/thaw cycles in the middle of the road and along pavement cracks than I ever saw around rumble strips back when I lived in the Midwest.

Yes its fine for it to be loud for the driver, but what about people that live nearby? This is a bigger issue with the strips that are part of the lane, but even the ones on the side present some of this issue.

The Midwest is one thing, but in the mountain west I have seen rumble strips that were nothing more than a trough due to freeze thaw action and the effects of tire chains.

NYSDOT's all for them and NY's got one heckuve freeze-thaw roller coaster every year.

I guess people just don't know how to drive in those areas where they bother residents.

Also wonder about the idea of thickly settled winding mountain roads where people would be driving on the strips all the time.

Those two issues need not be in the same piece of road, that should be obvious. 

Given CARDs and SHARDs demonstrated success, my hyperbole was emphasizing how little a cost your concerns really represented.

Its not a matter of cost, its a matter of tradeoffs. Noise in particular is a difficult tradeoff to assess.

Especially in cases where there's no one to hear it.

People can always complain if there's some noise issue due to living in an area where drivers can't stay in their lane (I mean. how frequent could the nosie even be? ).  But, saying that CARDs and SHARDs in particular shouldn't be installed at all because of noise is actually irresponsible given the prove safety benefits.

But that cuts both ways, what about cases where someone is certainly going to hear it?
I never said either should not be installed, but they asked what any of the downsides were and I listed them. Having a marginal safety benefit is not enough to install them under every last circumstance.

[formulanone]

I don't mind them, but they seem to be pointlessly applied in a few situations where there's a 25-35mph speed limit. Those aren't the places where drivers are likely to suddenly leave the road, unless it's a very curvy road; and then I don't think that's much of a primary deterrent.

[skluth]

They're great. They help keep drivers in their lanes when the edge of the lane is difficult to see in inclement weather and make distracted drivers aware if something is coming up. Can't understand why anyone would have an issue with them.

Mainly because they are loud and not appropriate for use everywhere. Also they are a maintenance issue in areas with severe freeze thaw action.

They're supposed to be loud. That's the point. They wouldn't be effective if they weren't loud. If they don't belong in a specific location, it has nothing to do with whether something is good or bad.

I live in Palm Springs. We don't have freeze/thaw action. But I noticed more potholes caused by freeze/thaw cycles in the middle of the road and along pavement cracks than I ever saw around rumble strips back when I lived in the Midwest.

Yes its fine for it to be loud for the driver, but what about people that live nearby? This is a bigger issue with the strips that are part of the lane, but even the ones on the side present some of this issue.

The Midwest is one thing, but in the mountain west I have seen rumble strips that were nothing more than a trough due to freeze thaw action and the effects of tire chains.

NYSDOT's all for them and NY's got one heckuve freeze-thaw roller coaster every year.

I guess people just don't know how to drive in those areas where they bother residents.

Also wonder about the idea of thickly settled winding mountain roads where people would be driving on the strips all the time.

Those two issues need not be in the same piece of road, that should be obvious. 

Given CARDs and SHARDs demonstrated success, my hyperbole was emphasizing how little a cost your concerns really represented.

Its not a matter of cost, its a matter of tradeoffs. Noise in particular is a difficult tradeoff to assess.

Especially in cases where there's no one to hear it.

People can always complain if there's some noise issue due to living in an area where drivers can't stay in their lane (I mean. how frequent could the nosie even be? ).  But, saying that CARDs and SHARDs in particular shouldn't be installed at all because of noise is actually irresponsible given the prove safety benefits.

But that cuts both ways, what about cases where someone is certainly going to hear it?
I never said either should not be installed, but they asked what any of the downsides were and I listed them. Having a marginal safety benefit is not enough to install them under every last circumstance.

I'd say saving lives by keeping drivers in their lanes and alerting drivers when approaching a slowdown after driving at higher speeds for several miles is more than marginal. We have enough problems locally with drivers going off the road; they drive for too long and fall asleep at the wheel crossing the desert at night on I-10 because they're ignorant how far it really is from Phoenix to LA. This happens frequently despite the rumble strips. Heaven knows how many lives those rumble strips have saved by alerting sleepy drivers on I-10.

I do hope you wear your seat belt. After all, it's not even a marginal benefit unless you're in an accident.

[Rothman]

I don't mind them, but they seem to be pointlessly applied in a few situations where there's a 25-35mph speed limit. Those aren't the places where drivers are likely to suddenly leave the road, unless it's a very curvy road; and then I don't think that's much of a primary deterrent.

At least in NY, there are engineering criteria that determine where they are installed.  It's not automatic with every project.

[HighwayStar]

They're great. They help keep drivers in their lanes when the edge of the lane is difficult to see in inclement weather and make distracted drivers aware if something is coming up. Can't understand why anyone would have an issue with them.

Mainly because they are loud and not appropriate for use everywhere. Also they are a maintenance issue in areas with severe freeze thaw action.

They're supposed to be loud. That's the point. They wouldn't be effective if they weren't loud. If they don't belong in a specific location, it has nothing to do with whether something is good or bad.

I live in Palm Springs. We don't have freeze/thaw action. But I noticed more potholes caused by freeze/thaw cycles in the middle of the road and along pavement cracks than I ever saw around rumble strips back when I lived in the Midwest.

Yes its fine for it to be loud for the driver, but what about people that live nearby? This is a bigger issue with the strips that are part of the lane, but even the ones on the side present some of this issue.

The Midwest is one thing, but in the mountain west I have seen rumble strips that were nothing more than a trough due to freeze thaw action and the effects of tire chains.

NYSDOT's all for them and NY's got one heckuve freeze-thaw roller coaster every year.

I guess people just don't know how to drive in those areas where they bother residents.

Also wonder about the idea of thickly settled winding mountain roads where people would be driving on the strips all the time.

Those two issues need not be in the same piece of road, that should be obvious. 

Given CARDs and SHARDs demonstrated success, my hyperbole was emphasizing how little a cost your concerns really represented.

Its not a matter of cost, its a matter of tradeoffs. Noise in particular is a difficult tradeoff to assess.

Especially in cases where there's no one to hear it.

People can always complain if there's some noise issue due to living in an area where drivers can't stay in their lane (I mean. how frequent could the nosie even be? ).  But, saying that CARDs and SHARDs in particular shouldn't be installed at all because of noise is actually irresponsible given the prove safety benefits.

But that cuts both ways, what about cases where someone is certainly going to hear it?
I never said either should not be installed, but they asked what any of the downsides were and I listed them. Having a marginal safety benefit is not enough to install them under every last circumstance.

I'd say saving lives by keeping drivers in their lanes and alerting drivers when approaching a slowdown after driving at higher speeds for several miles is more than marginal. We have enough problems locally with drivers going off the road; they drive for too long and fall asleep at the wheel crossing the desert at night on I-10 because they're ignorant how far it really is from Phoenix to LA. This happens frequently despite the rumble strips. Heaven knows how many lives those rumble strips have saved by alerting sleepy drivers on I-10.

I do hope you wear your seat belt. After all, it's not even a marginal benefit unless you're in an accident.

Marginal here is used in the manner of the following definition
(chiefly of costs or benefits) relating to or resulting from small or unit changes.

First, the effect of keeping drivers in their lanes is separable from the effect of slowing them down. You can do one without the other.
Second, to use the term marginal as intended, what is the marginal benefit of the strip on top of numerous flashing signs? That is the marginal benefit we are talking about, I doubt its massive.
Third, the entire discussion about alerting drivers in the desert who try to run off the road has no bearing on the marginal effectiveness of rumble strips in their slowing down traffic application.
Fourth, the seat belt remark is a fallacy of comparison. Seat belts have high marginal effectiveness with minimal tradeoffs, which is why people use them. But do you wear a helmet when you drive? Nope, even though it is marginally effective? Why? Because its marginal effectiveness is not enough in relation to its tradeoffs in comfort and convenience. Now, race car drivers usually do wear helmets because for them the tradeoff is different.
You see, the marginal effectiveness a safety device is a key part of deciding where and when it makes sense to implement it.

Now back to the strips. The point here is that rumble strips are not appropriate in all situations, and particularly the "slow down" variety are not appropriate at every location where drivers are supposed to slow down. There are proper and improper situations for their use.

[Scott5114]

In pretty much every situation Oklahoma uses them in, they're either on the edges of the lanes (and so will only produce sound when they're actively being used as a safety device) or they're at a rural at-grade highway junction which is a danger precisely because it is outside a developed area where someone would be expecting a busy intersection (SH-152 at SH-6, for instance).

[HighwayStar]

In pretty much every situation Oklahoma uses them in, they're either on the edges of the lanes (and so will only produce sound when they're actively being used as a safety device) or they're at a rural at-grade highway junction which is a danger precisely because it is outside a developed area where someone would be expecting a busy intersection (SH-152 at SH-6, for instance).

Which is a reasonable implementation of the technology. Good job Oklahoma. 

[Scott5114]

Now that's about the first time that series of words has ever been said...