I wish there were such a thing as a dedicated U-turn signal. That way, you know why the guy in front of you is taking his/her time through the turn.
I wish cars could automatically dim their lights via a sensor that detects the lights of other vehicles.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 31, 2013, 04:41:54 PM
I wish cars could automatically dim their lights via a sensor that detects the lights of other vehicles.
nope. sometimes I'm gonna need those high beams, no matter what. I do apologize, and I try to need them this badly in only rare instances, but the perfect mix of murky weather and road curves might necessitate it.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 31, 2013, 04:44:26 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 31, 2013, 04:41:54 PM
I wish cars could automatically dim their lights via a sensor that detects the lights of other vehicles.
nope. sometimes I'm gonna need those high beams, no matter what. I do apologize, and I try to need them this badly in only rare instances, but the perfect mix of murky weather and road curves might necessitate it.
on/off switch for if this happens automatically
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 31, 2013, 04:44:26 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 31, 2013, 04:41:54 PM
I wish cars could automatically dim their lights via a sensor that detects the lights of other vehicles.
nope. sometimes I'm gonna need those high beams, no matter what. I do apologize, and I try to need them this badly in only rare instances, but the perfect mix of murky weather and road curves might necessitate it.
fog lights?
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 31, 2013, 04:41:54 PM
I wish there were such a thing as a dedicated U-turn signal. That way, you know why the guy in front of you is taking his/her time through the turn.
I wish cars could automatically dim their lights via a sensor that detects the lights of other vehicles.
Several models of cars have automatic dimming
I always thought it might be nice for there to be a straight-ahead signal for those rare situations where you specifically need to emphasize that you are not turning.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 31, 2013, 04:41:54 PM
I wish cars could automatically dim their lights via a sensor that detects the lights of other vehicles.
My dad's 57 Chevrolet had one of those.
- Have the headlights integrated with windshield wipers so that the headlights automatically turn on when the wipers go on
- Have the high beams integrated with the horn (high beams flash when the horn is used). With stereos louder and louder and cars being better insulated from sound, sometimes the horn alone just doesn't cut it.
I wish American drivers knew how to signal at roundabouts. If you're turning left, signal left dammit!
Quote from: realjd on November 01, 2013, 12:53:39 AM
I wish American drivers knew how to signal at roundabouts. If you're turning left, signal left dammit!
I could agree when referring to un-striped roundabouts (whole 'nother topic right there). However, when they're fully striped, you only need to signal
right, when approaching the exit you are going to depart the roundabout from. The only thing that should matter is what lane the car is in. Since the central island (intentionally, properly) blocks the view of portions of the roundabout, signaling left is ambiguous at best, especially if the roundabout has four or more approaches (how do you know where they entered?). Entering traffic should only be concerned with the traffic
immediately to their left...
nothing else (except for crossing pedestrians). If drivers are using the lanes as they're marked, signaling left is unnecessary.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 31, 2013, 06:12:24 PM
I always thought it might be nice for there to be a straight-ahead signal for those rare situations where you specifically need to emphasize that you are not turning.
I recall some automaker displayed a concept car in the mid-to-late-1980s with such a feature, since the rear turn signals were arrows that pointed left, right, and straight. I'm completely stumped as to what the make/model was, since it never hit production.
Quote from: DaBigE on November 01, 2013, 01:01:35 AM
Quote from: realjd on November 01, 2013, 12:53:39 AM
I wish American drivers knew how to signal at roundabouts. If you're turning left, signal left dammit!
I could agree when referring to un-striped roundabouts (whole 'nother topic right there). However, when they're fully striped, you only need to signal right, when approaching the exit you are going to depart the roundabout from. The only thing that should matter is what lane the car is in. Since the central island (intentionally, properly) blocks the view of portions of the roundabout, signaling left is ambiguous at best, especially if the roundabout has four or more approaches (how do you know where they entered?). Entering traffic should only be concerned with the traffic immediately to their left...nothing else (except for crossing pedestrians). If drivers are using the lanes as they're marked, signaling left is unnecessary.
Here's an example of how the rest of the world does it, from the NSW government:
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/internationalinterstate/roundabouts.html
Signaling like that really makes things go more smoothly, even when lanes are marked.
Quote from: DaBigE on October 31, 2013, 11:05:46 PM
- Have the high beams integrated with the horn (high beams flash when the horn is used). With stereos louder and louder and cars being better insulated from sound, sometimes the horn alone just doesn't cut it.
fuck the horn. it's the equivalent of walking up to someone's face and going "wassaaaap" (like that old Budweiser commercial) from 3 inches away.
nice garlic breath, asshole.
Quote from: realjd on November 01, 2013, 08:07:05 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 01, 2013, 01:01:35 AM
Quote from: realjd on November 01, 2013, 12:53:39 AM
I wish American drivers knew how to signal at roundabouts. If you're turning left, signal left dammit!
I could agree when referring to un-striped roundabouts (whole 'nother topic right there). However, when they're fully striped, you only need to signal right, when approaching the exit you are going to depart the roundabout from. The only thing that should matter is what lane the car is in. Since the central island (intentionally, properly) blocks the view of portions of the roundabout, signaling left is ambiguous at best, especially if the roundabout has four or more approaches (how do you know where they entered?). Entering traffic should only be concerned with the traffic immediately to their left...nothing else (except for crossing pedestrians). If drivers are using the lanes as they're marked, signaling left is unnecessary.
Here's an example of how the rest of the world does it, from the NSW government:
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/internationalinterstate/roundabouts.html
Signaling like that really makes things go more smoothly, even when lanes are marked.
Still agrees with the 'signal as you intend to exit' method (Wisconsin DMV instructions (1.1 mb PDF) (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/roaddesign/roundabouts/docs/rab-brochure.pdf)). Given how US drivers currently use their turn signals (or lack thereof) I envision a lot of people forgetting to switch indications before they exit. ==> More confused drivers, less acceptance of roundabouts. Not to get into a slippery-slope argument, but you would be amazed at what people will use as an excuse to be against a roundabout at a public meeting.
From the AUS link, in their "Turning Right" image (equivalent to our left turn), how does the turn signal change how the drivers waiting on the EB and SB approaches are going to handle the situation? Regardless of what exit the circulating driver is going to take, they still have to yield to them.
In theory, the right-turn indicator tells the fellow waiting at the first entrance (eastbound, if we assume north is up in the diagram) that if he wants to make a left turn (take the first exit), or if he wants to use the outside lane to go straight (take the second exit), he can go ahead and do so because he won't come into conflict with the guy making the right turn.
The biggest thing is reducing ambiguity. Roundabouts work splendidly when nobody has to guess at what anybody else is doing.
Quote from: DaBigE on October 31, 2013, 11:05:46 PM
- Have the headlights integrated with windshield wipers so that the headlights automatically turn on when the wipers go on
Given the number of states that currently require headlight use when wipers are on, I'm not surprised this isn't already a feature on newer cars.
Quote from: DaBigE on October 31, 2013, 11:05:46 PM
- Have the headlights integrated with windshield wipers so that the headlights automatically turn on when the wipers go on
I like this idea.... A lot.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 31, 2013, 04:41:54 PMI wish cars could automatically dim their lights via a sensor that detects the lights of other vehicles.
Lincoln had this feature in 1981, as an option on the Town Car. It should have caught on, and should now be mandatory.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 31, 2013, 04:44:26 PMnope. sometimes I'm gonna need those high beams, no matter what. I do apologize, and I try to need them this badly in only rare instances, but the perfect mix of murky weather and road curves might necessitate it.
Read up on back-glare and learn why high beams
don't help you in fog, rain or snow (i.e. what I presume you mean by 'murky weather'. There is absolutely no reason to continue to run your highs when meeting oncoming traffic.
By your logic, I should run my high beams constantly at night because I drive a truck, and because of the heavy weight of my vehice and its increased stopping distance, I need the extra visibilty. Right. 'Cept I don't do that, because it's
being a douchebag. Won't kill me, won't kill you. Lower your fucking headlights if you can see traffic. I have zero patience for this. None what so ever.
Quote from: DaBigE on October 31, 2013, 11:05:46 PM- Have the headlights integrated with windshield wipers so that the headlights automatically turn on when the wipers go on
My last truck had this feature. My current truck unfortunately does not.
Quote from: roadman on November 01, 2013, 06:51:21 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 31, 2013, 11:05:46 PM
- Have the headlights integrated with windshield wipers so that the headlights automatically turn on when the wipers go on
Given the number of states that currently require headlight use when wipers are on, I'm not surprised this isn't already a feature on newer cars.
That "feature" would cause people to flash their lights whenever a bug hit their windshield, or if it's not raining hard enough to keep the wipers on consistently and the driver didn't already turn their lights on.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 01, 2013, 06:03:34 PM
In theory, the right-turn indicator tells the fellow waiting at the first entrance (eastbound, if we assume north is up in the diagram) that if he wants to make a left turn (take the first exit), or if he wants to use the outside lane to go straight (take the second exit), he can go ahead and do so because he won't come into conflict with the guy making the right turn.
The biggest thing is reducing ambiguity. Roundabouts work splendidly when nobody has to guess at what anybody else is doing.
That assumes the person will stay in their lane... not a good assumption to make in the US! In fact, over here, it's generally a good idea to assume a driver's maneuver will conflict with yours regardless of what their signal says.
Plus we don't have many multi-lane roundabouts like that. In the ones we do have, the lanes "push" to the right at the exits on the more major road, so that one would need to change lanes if they were to go more than 270 degrees around for some reason.
My main vehicle -- my Saturn Vue -- has both daytime running lights and a sensor that automatically turns on the headlights (and by extension, taillights) in low-light conditions.
I figure that the DRLs satisfy the "headlights on when wipers in use" requirement.
Quote from: formulanone on November 01, 2013, 07:47:12 AM
I recall some automaker displayed a concept car in the mid-to-late-1980s with such a feature, since the rear turn signals were arrows that pointed left, right, and straight. I'm completely stumped as to what the make/model was, since it never hit production.
I would rather have a straight ahead signal on the front of the car. Most of the times I've wanted such an indication have been when going straight in a shared left-thru lane where most traffic goes left and there is a decent opposing left turn movement.
Quote from: vdeane on November 01, 2013, 08:31:09 PMThat "feature" would cause people to flash their lights whenever a bug hit their windshield, or if it's not raining hard enough to keep the wipers on consistently and the driver didn't already turn their lights on.
In my last truck, with the wipers-on-lights-on feature, the headlights stayed on after turning the wipers off until I turned the headlight switch on, then back off. The headlights did not come on when using the wipe-wash.
I think it would be cool to have a car with a special mode that turns all the wheels 90 degrees and allows you to drive sideways. Would make parallel parking a lot easier, and might be useful for getting out of some other tight situations.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 02, 2013, 02:52:47 PM
I think it would be cool to have a car with a special mode that turns all the wheels 90 degrees and allows you to drive sideways. Would make parallel parking a lot easier, and might be useful for getting out of some other tight situations.
I think it would be cool to have a car with a special mode that turns all the wheels 90 degrees downward and allows the car to fly.
It's almost 2015, why don't we have this yet?
Quote from: Duke87 on November 02, 2013, 02:52:47 PM
I think it would be cool to have a car with a special mode that turns all the wheels 90 degrees and allows you to drive sideways. Would make parallel parking a lot easier, and might be useful for getting out of some other tight situations.
While cool, it would be a mechanical nightmare. The only real way you could do that is if each wheel had its own electric motor for power instead of the traditional drivetrain/axle setup.
Oshkosh had a similar feature called All-Steer, which, at the flip of a switch, allowed a computer to control/synchronize the rear wheels with the steering axle. It had three positions: 1) locked forward, 2) turn opposite of the front (reduce turning radius), or 3) turn with the front (allowing the truck to "crab-walk" diagonally). All-Steer Driving Manual (http://www.rvfd.org/members_only/AS_Ops.pdf) (3 mb PDF)
In before Prelude Si 4WS.
Electric cars becoming more common and being able to be charged for free (instead of a lot for gas for normal cars).
You know that energy costs money no matter where it comes from, right?
Even if we decided to abandon fuel taxes for infrastructure, you're always going to have to pay to "fill up" because energy is never going to be free, barring something crazy happening or a car that somehow generates its own energy.
If you drive an electric car, when you plug it in you're getting power that comes from a power plant. These power plants typically require coal or natural gas or water force, and you pay for the conversion of those resources into the electricity that you can plug in. This happens at your house and everywhere else that there is electricity too, which is why you get an electric bill.
Once we find a way to get usable energy from lightning, it will work.
(Now you're just trolling)
You'll still have to pay somebody to convert the lightning into usable energy, just like with anything else.
I don't think lightning would be enough power to keep the US running anyways. Beaming solar from space via microwaves (a la SimCity 3000) might work for "free", but only if we socialized the power system, which will happen when hell freezes over.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on November 01, 2013, 11:48:52 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 01, 2013, 08:31:09 PMThat "feature" would cause people to flash their lights whenever a bug hit their windshield, or if it's not raining hard enough to keep the wipers on consistently and the driver didn't already turn their lights on.
In my last truck, with the wipers-on-lights-on feature, the headlights stayed on after turning the wipers off until I turned the headlight switch on, then back off. The headlights did not come on when using the wipe-wash.
I sometimes have to flick the wipers on a time or two afterwards because of how they streak. Not always though.
Corco is apparently a climate change denier. Not that electric cars are a panacea, but they're easier to convert to cleaner power.
(Now you're just trolling)
Of course they are- the electricity for electric cars can come from wind just as well as it can from coal, but there's still cost involved in converting the energy from that raw form into the nice electricity that comes from power outlets and you'll always have to pay for that.
Sure, you'll have to pay for it with money. Would you rather pay for it with sea level rise, droughts, and other such bad shit?
Please show where I indicated that I would prefer to continue with our current energy practices instead of switching to new energy (or the other way around, for that matter). All I said is that energy costs money, no matter what its source. There's no value judgment there on what energy we should be using.
1 indicated that with electric cars, it would be "free" to fill up, and in his case he was clearly referring to money. No matter your stance on electric cars or climate change, you have to be willing to acknowledge that it does and will continue to cost money to plenish your car with energy, no matter where that energy comes from.
Well if you had your own personal wind turbine or solar panels, it technically would be free to fill up :bigass:
My driving wish?
Jeff's lane. All others get the hell out.
Unfortunately, with Jeff being too common of a lane, I'll probably be sitting behind some other Jeff who insists on going 10 below the limit.
Quote from: NE2 on November 02, 2013, 05:24:08 PM
Corco is apparently a climate change denier. Not that electric cars are a panacea, but they're easier to convert to cleaner power.
You're talking out of your ass here. Electric cars, yes, do run on electricity, but where do you think that electricity comes from? Unicorn farts? Most electricity in this country comes from the burning of fossil fuels, most of which is coal. So, electric cars don't look quite so good when you realize the power source. Also, as Corco pointed out, you will still have to pay someone to convert what ever source you use (solar, wind, nuclear, etc) into electricity.
Quote from: Brandon on November 04, 2013, 09:39:04 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 02, 2013, 05:24:08 PM
but they're easier to convert to cleaner power.
I'm not reading.
And yes, rail is going to beat cars. So I guess that's my driving wish: cars become unnecessary for most everyday trips.
Quote from: NE2 on November 04, 2013, 09:51:56 AM
Quote from: Brandon on November 04, 2013, 09:39:04 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 02, 2013, 05:24:08 PM
but they're easier to convert to cleaner power.
I'm not reading.
And yes, rail is going to beat cars. So I guess that's my driving wish: cars become unnecessary for most everyday trips.
Odds are, with our development patterns, that won't happen anytime soon. Get used to it.
Odds are our development patterns are shite.
Quote from: NE2 on November 04, 2013, 11:28:59 AM
Odds are our development patterns are shite.
They are what they are, and you cannot change them. Nice that you think you can wish something different into existence, but you can't. Learn to accept what is here on the ground. Otherwise, you'll blow an artery.
I accept that we're destroying the planet. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
I'd like to see more revitalization of cities than sprawling out. If you can walk to the corner grocery store like people used to to (and still do in cities like New York), you won't have to rely on the car so much. I'd love to take a train instead of driving or flying. Building Suburbia is a bad concept when there is plenty of opportunity inside the city.
Anyway, back to the topic, I'd like to see roundabouts implemented more in the United States, it will make it easier for traffic to get onto busier roads from smaller streets.
Quote from: Brandon on November 04, 2013, 09:39:04 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 02, 2013, 05:24:08 PM
Corco is apparently a climate change denier. Not that electric cars are a panacea, but they're easier to convert to cleaner power.
You're talking out of your ass here. Electric cars, yes, do run on electricity, but where do you think that electricity comes from? Unicorn farts? Most electricity in this country comes from the burning of fossil fuels, most of which is coal. So, electric cars don't look quite so good when you realize the power source. Also, as Corco pointed out, you will still have to pay someone to convert what ever source you use (solar, wind, nuclear, etc) into electricity.
With power plants, the pollution generated is centralized and more easily contained/mitigated. Cars are much dirtier than a coal power plant.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on November 01, 2013, 07:56:58 PM
Lincoln had this feature in 1981, as an option on the Town Car. It should have caught on, and should now be mandatory.
GM had the Autronic Eye option in the '50s.
What I would like to see is higher speed limits on roads, especially little used 2 lane highways. For example: US 59/270 from Hodgen, OK to Acorn, AR should be 90 MPH because it's safe to drive at that speed except for one nasty corner.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on November 04, 2013, 06:50:55 PMAnyway, back to the topic, I'd like to see roundabouts implemented more in the United States, it will make it easier for traffic to get onto busier roads from smaller streets.
As a truck driver, no...just no. Especially small multi-lane roundabouts, as it's not possible for my vehicle to maintain lane around tight curves.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on November 06, 2013, 12:19:03 AM
Quote from: PColumbus73 on November 04, 2013, 06:50:55 PMAnyway, back to the topic, I'd like to see roundabouts implemented more in the United States, it will make it easier for traffic to get onto busier roads from smaller streets.
As a truck driver, no...just no. Especially small multi-lane roundabouts, as it's not possible for my vehicle to maintain lane around tight curves.
They're supposed to be designed with a drivable portion of the median so trucks can take a straighter path through them.
I was thinking for suburban areas and minor residential streets and feeders to the arterials. I live in a subdivision and trying to get out on the main road takes a while at times. Using Myrtle Beach as an example, I'd like to see more roundabouts for Carolina Forest Blvd and some of the subdivision entrance due to the large amount of turning traffic. Obviously roundabouts won't work everywhere, but in cases like Carolina Forest, they'll be an improvement.
more yield, less stop.
More cops enforcing anti-drag racing/cruzing laws, less retiming traffic signals out of sync to try and achieve the same goal (but only succeeding in pissing off people just trying to get in/out of town). :banghead:
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on November 06, 2013, 12:19:03 AM
As a truck driver, no...just no. Especially small multi-lane roundabouts, as it's not possible for my vehicle to maintain lane around tight curves.
You're not supposed to try and stay in-lane within the roundabout with a larger vehicle. If you're using the inside lane, that is what the truck apron is for (trailer off-tracking); if you're in any other lane, you take up two lanes thru part of the maneuver. No different than making a right turn at 99% of signalized/stop-controlled intersections.
what's wrong with cruising? I like to do that. as long as I am not driving carelessly/recklessly, I should not be prevented form circling the block 60* times. I may be stupid and inefficient, but it's my life and my gasoline bill.
drag racing? seriously, that's why traffic lights are timed so poorly? here I thought it was more attributable to no one having bothered to make an engineering study in N years, during which traffic patterns have changed drastically.
* okay, that's exaggerating, but most cruising laws state 3 times is too much, and I've definitely done that before, just looking around, trying to find old signs, etc.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 06, 2013, 01:40:30 PM
what's wrong with cruising? I like to do that. as long as I am not driving carelessly/recklessly, I should not be prevented form circling the block 60* times. I may be stupid and inefficient, but it's my life and my gasoline bill.
drag racing? seriously, that's why traffic lights are timed so poorly? here I thought it was more attributable to no one having bothered to make an engineering study in N years, during which traffic patterns have changed drastically.
* okay, that's exaggerating, but most cruising laws state 3 times is too much, and I've definitely done that before, just looking around, trying to find old signs, etc.
drag racing - no (and that's usually done late at night in areas where there really isn't any other traffic, so they aren't really concerned about lights or any traffic laws for that matter).
But, it does appear to be done when a town wants to slow traffic down. Easier to change a signal timing than most other things.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 06, 2013, 01:40:30 PM
what's wrong with cruising? I like to do that. as long as I am not driving carelessly/recklessly, I should not be prevented form circling the block 60* times. I may be stupid and inefficient, but it's my life and my gasoline bill.
drag racing? seriously, that's why traffic lights are timed so poorly? here I thought it was more attributable to no one having bothered to make an engineering study in N years, during which traffic patterns have changed drastically.
* okay, that's exaggerating, but most cruising laws state 3 times is too much, and I've definitely done that before, just looking around, trying to find old signs, etc.
Whoa...I never said anything was wrong with cruising or drag-racing, just the methods some cities use to try and prevent it. The example I was thinking of is this stretch of US 151 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=43.130869,-89.305973&spn=0.030724,0.066047&t=m&z=15), between roughly US 51 & the Interstate. Drive it during the day and the lights are mostly sync'd. Drive it any day after 9 or 10 pm and you'll be lucky to catch 2 greens in a row.
And yes, many areas do use 3 as the magic number, but most times there's so much low-hanging fruit, a roadgeek or someone lost has next to nothing to worry about.
Quote from: DaBigE on November 06, 2013, 02:04:52 PMI never said anything was wrong with cruising or drag-racing
I can tell you right now, there's plenty wrong with drag racing on public roads.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 06, 2013, 02:14:37 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 06, 2013, 02:04:52 PMI never said anything was wrong with cruising or drag-racing
I can tell you right now, there's plenty wrong with drag racing on public roads.
Yeah, people who are racing on public roads should dress appropriately for their gender. :bigass:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 06, 2013, 02:14:37 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 06, 2013, 02:04:52 PMI never said anything was wrong with cruising or drag-racing
I can tell you right now, there's plenty wrong with drag racing on public roads.
No shit...really?? :rolleyes:
The point of my original post was
not about whether cruising or drag racing is good or bad.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 06, 2013, 12:51:21 PM
more yield, less stop.
On a related note, speed bumps can rot in hell, too. Especially when they're installed on a through street, like here:
https://maps.google.com/?ll=41.136698,-73.543435&spn=0.00446,0.007725&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.136889,-73.54347&panoid=nmgbEwoJRosSgzNAoxOJOA&cbp=12,348.62,,0,13.25 (https://maps.google.com/?ll=41.136698,-73.543435&spn=0.00446,0.007725&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.136889,-73.54347&panoid=nmgbEwoJRosSgzNAoxOJOA&cbp=12,348.62,,0,13.25)
In this particular case the "problem" is that cars used to drive down this street at a good clip while at the same time people who lived on the street would walk in it to walk their dogs or whatever. Combined with some blind-ish curves this was a safety hazard.
The
proper solution in a situation like this is to install sidewalks, to remove the conflict between cars and pedestrians. But that might have involved cutting down a few people's bushes (god forbid). So the city was lazy and put speed bumps in instead. :ded:
Quote from: DaBigE on November 06, 2013, 01:35:19 PM
More cops enforcing anti-drag racing/cruzing laws, less retiming traffic signals out of sync to try and achieve the same goal (but only succeeding in pissing off people just trying to get in/out of town). :banghead:
What's so bad about cruising? I did it as a kid and it kept me away from cigarettes and beer. It was just good clean fun (even though the thought of dragging Main in Mena, AR sounds absolutely dreadful today.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 06, 2013, 10:33:30 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 06, 2013, 12:51:21 PM
more yield, less stop.
On a related note, speed bumps can rot in hell, too. Especially when they're installed on a through street, like here:
https://maps.google.com/?ll=41.136698,-73.543435&spn=0.00446,0.007725&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.136889,-73.54347&panoid=nmgbEwoJRosSgzNAoxOJOA&cbp=12,348.62,,0,13.25 (https://maps.google.com/?ll=41.136698,-73.543435&spn=0.00446,0.007725&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.136889,-73.54347&panoid=nmgbEwoJRosSgzNAoxOJOA&cbp=12,348.62,,0,13.25)
In this particular case the "problem" is that cars used to drive down this street at a good clip while at the same time people who lived on the street would walk in it to walk their dogs or whatever. Combined with some blind-ish curves this was a safety hazard.
The proper solution in a situation like this is to install sidewalks, to remove the conflict between cars and pedestrians. But that might have involved cutting down a few people's bushes (god forbid). So the city was lazy and put speed bumps in instead. :ded:
As annoying as speed humps are, I can accept them in preference to stop signs and the like
provided you can easily traverse them at the posted speed limit. The ones I hate are the ones that are so sharp that you have to slow to a crawl or to well below the speed limit. That sort is clearly put there not to enforce the speed limit but to discourage people from using the street. If the road is privately-owned and privately-maintained (which is the case in some subdivisions around here), then I guess it's their prerogative to try to push people to other roads, but I've encountered plenty of them on publicly-maintained secondary roads. It's a giant middle-finger gesture to drivers. I get it–people don't like cut-through traffic in their neighborhoods, especially when the cut-through traffic goes way too fast. But the way to combat it is to push the authorities to synchronize the traffic lights and improve turn lanes and such to make the more important roads more appealing so drivers won't feel the need to cut through your neighborhood.
For those folks familiar with Northern Virginia, the neighborhood I've always found to be by far the most uppity in campaigning for speed humps, stop signs, etc., is the Mantua neighborhood just east of Fairfax City (I attended Mantua Elementary for three years in the early 1980s after my first school closed and my parents live nearby, though not in Mantua). They had a lot of cut-through traffic and I will concede there was a serious speeding problem, but their solution was to get tons of stop signs put up and to install 15-mph speed humps on roads posted at 25 mph.
I think what may be all the more annoying is that when you do encounter the speed humps that allow you to proceed at the speed limit, a lot of drivers slow to practically a dead stop anyway, probably because they're so used to the other sort.
(Our neighborhood has only one way in and out. The street was originally planned to run through and connect to a VDOT secondary route at the other end, but some "legacy" homeowners refused to sell and so there's no connection. We're all thankful for it. Some people in our neighborhood already go 45+ mph in the 25-mph zone. If the street had been finished, we'd get cut-through traffic going way too fast and we'd probably have wound up with speed humps too.)
I think one of the overarching problems here is that people don't understand the concept of the minor collector and realize there is a need for a type of street between 4 lane arterial and 25-mph residential street. So they try to turn the minor collectors into residential streets and wonder why it causes problems.
Oh, yeah, that's another one: stop building suburban neighborhoods so full of dead ends and cul-de-sacs. Yes, not doing that means people who don't live in your neighborhood may drive down your street. Deal with it, that's what streets are for.
If a town is properly planned, no street should ever dead end unless topography dictates it must (it ends at the water, it ends at a cliff, etc.). The more streets go through, the better connected everything is and the more redundancy your network has, which is invaluable when something distrupts flow on what's normally the major street. Furthermore, it makes things more friendly to pedestrians and cyclists, since you remove the absurd situations where in order to get to something that's a quarter mile away you have to travel over a mile because you live at the end of a cul-de-sac and have to head north, then east, then south, then west to get to that store that's just south of you.
I especially hate neighborhoods with only one way out because then if something makes that way out impassible (tree falls across the road, nasty car accident, police investigation, bridge washout, sinkhole, whatever), then everyone in the neighborhood is trapped (and anyone not home cannot get home) until the problem can be fixed. Chipmunks are smart enough to build two exits to their burrows so they can run out the back if something threatens the front (not that I know this from experience or anything...), why do people act dumber than chipmunks and not build themselves a back exit?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 31, 2013, 06:48:42 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 31, 2013, 04:41:54 PM
I wish cars could automatically dim their lights via a sensor that detects the lights of other vehicles.
My dad's 57 Chevrolet had one of those.
So did my father's '69 Cadillac.