They wake you up and scare you! They are not only on freeways, expressways and some boulevards have them too. NC 11 for example.
I mean, that's kinda the point if the driver is asleep or is starting to do so. Nowadays most of the at grade expressways & freeways radiating out of Springfield MO have them.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 05, 2021, 09:40:10 PM
They wake you up and scare you!
You shouldn't be driving while you're asleep, or starting to fall asleep. If you're a passenger, ask the driver to do a better job staying in the lane.
Besides, if the car has a "lane departure" alert system that hasn't been turned off (or is not working due to poor visibility), that will wake you up too. Indeed, one gripe about rumble strips is that they can throw off driver assist systems such as lane departure alerts. (Not that I share that gripe, just that it's out there as a reason to avoid low-tech alternatives like "Botts Dots" or other raised lane markers.)
Kentucky has started using sawed-in rumble strips (a/k/a rumble stripes) in two separate applications for resurfacing projects.
For wider roads, they are used on the center line. For older roads, they are used along the edge lines. They're called "rumble stripes" because the vertical walls of the sawed-in indentations allow the paint from the stripe to reflect better at night.
I have seen Michigan use two edge lines on interstates. Outside of the normal edge line, there's an edge line with sawed-in rumble strips.
Do you make a habit of sleeping while driving?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 05, 2021, 09:58:57 PM
Do you make a habit of sleeping while driving?
No. I hardly ever drive. I don't even have a car. But I've seen MANY people have though.
Rumble strips aren't only used for when you stray out of your lane... here's some on mainline I-90 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5193936,-81.6727612,3a,75y,234.24h,57.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbQ-lRysDRUweqGS8akT6dQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) approaching the infamous 35 mph curve near downtown Cleveland.
I hate speed bumps.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 05, 2021, 09:58:57 PM
Do you make a habit of sleeping while driving?
Fell asleep driving home from my friend's house 30 years ago. those woke me up. I spun around. should another car have been there on the road it would have been bad but I didn't go off the road.
Quote from: oscar on March 05, 2021, 09:54:51 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 05, 2021, 09:40:10 PM
They wake you up and scare you!
You shouldn't be driving while you're asleep, or starting to fall asleep. If you're a passenger, ask the driver to do a better job staying in the lane.
Besides, if the car has a "lane departure" alert system that hasn't been turned off (or is not working due to poor visibility), that will wake you up too. Indeed, one gripe about rumble strips is that they can throw off driver assist systems such as lane departure alerts. (Not that I share that gripe, just that it's out there as a reason to avoid low-tech alternatives like "Botts Dots" or other raised lane markers.)
Yeah. I mean, would you rather have the driver get into a serious accident, or simply allow them to be warned so they can correct themselves and maybe take the next exit? The list of today's drivers who do things they're not supposed to (aka sleepy/distracted driving) is
very, very long.
I remember PennDOT using rumble strips to warn drivers they were approaching a construction zone (70s & 80s). I remember them because they were make me cry as a kid (talking ages 3-7). Took another decade before I stopped noticing them.
In modern times, ODOT uses them along the shoulders of many highways in Ohio.
Iowa used to use them at intersections with stop signs. They would be set up at 3 intervals before the stop. You always knew that a stop sign was coming, even if you missed the stop ahead sign or the actual stop sign.
I haven't been that way in a while, but Delaware used to have them on SB I-95 approaching the toll plaza. When we were kids, my brother called them "fart strips" because of the noise the tires made going over them.
I've seen some states using them on the center line on two-lane roads. I initially found that annoying. Then someone I know lost her father and brother when they were hit head-on on US-15 by a driver who drifted onto the wrong side of the road while going too fast, and that made me think maybe the annoyance isn't such a bad thing.
No, I don't hate them. I actually think they're quite useful for calling attention to things drivers may not expect, like the end of a freeway or a stop sign after many miles of open road.
O'Hare Airport has them coming in on I-190. I think they might be a bit overused in this instance, but they're a good warning that the curves ahead are sharper than meets the eye and you need to slow down more than you might think.
CARDs, SHARDs, rumble strips...like them all.
Quote from: rarnold on March 05, 2021, 10:45:59 PM
Iowa used to use them at intersections with stop signs. They would be set up at 3 intervals before the stop. You always knew that a stop sign was coming, even if you missed the stop ahead sign or the actual stop sign.
Illinois (https://goo.gl/maps/LPUxeev3uM6cEP3w6) and Missouri will also use rumble strips prior to stop signs, though not as much as Iowa. I think there are also a couple examples in Wisconsin.
As for use before construction zones, Illinois will do this on interstates. It used to be done in Missouri occasionally.
In Oklahoma, they're placed a foot or so to the outside of the lane line, so it's hard to notice them unless you're really starting drift out of the lane. Missouri puts them right on the line, which means it's easy to brush against them during normal lateral movement. That's kind of irritating.
WSDOT does an awful job of restriping, so it's handy to have feedback when you're drifting out of a lane you can't see at night or in the rain.
I don't. Although I had no idea there was such a thing as center-line rumble strips until the mid-00s when I encountered them on some 2-lane roads in Arizona. Until then I had only seen the edge-line type and the in-lane type that is used approaching stop signs. Georgia only recently started using center-line rumble strips.
There are other placements for rumble strips. US8/WI47 near Rhinelander, WI has them directly on the centerline of the 2-lane highway. https://goo.gl/maps/51Hhd3gLUKTqMBiV8 The DOT attempted to paint the centerline over this but it is hard to see when the paint and rumble occupy the same spots.
NJDOT has them on nearly every road under their jurisdiction, even in residential areas and passing zones.
They are especially irritating in construction zones, when they shift your lane partly into the paved shoulder. Sometimes they fill in the cavities with asphalt - this happens more often when you are crossing over the median to 2-way traffic on one side of the freeway - but sometimes you're bumping along for miles.
Yes, when used on surface roads at the fog line when it's a good bicycling road; the shoulders (if exist) don't get swept and they make it harder to move out of it if there is something ahead blocking the shoulder while riding. Otherwise (shoulders of freeways/expressways or all centerlines), it's fine.
Quote from: Big John on March 06, 2021, 12:01:01 AM
There are other placements for rumble strips. US8/WI47 near Rhinelander, WI has them directly on the centerline of the 2-lane highway. https://goo.gl/maps/51Hhd3gLUKTqMBiV8 The DOT attempted to paint the centerline over this but it is hard to see when the paint and rumble occupy the same spots.
You can't see the painted line when it's not there -- the example you linked is badly in need of restriping. When the centerline is painted, it can be seen fine: https://goo.gl/maps/AYh3cGTgUEF7uKUg8
Current practice for construction projects on Michigan trunklines is to put down three sets of temporary rumble strips across the lanes near the beginning of the work zone. The spacing between the strips in each set is shorter with each consecutive set; I guess the intent is to make the rumble sound different with each set. I think these are useless and not worth putting work crews at risk for putting them down and taking them back up.
the road i live on has them in places.. there's a sign that says 'grooved centerline next 16 miles" but it only goes about 7 or so.
if i'm by myself in the canyon, i tend to use the whole road if the visibility permits it (like, i don't cross the line on blind curves and such)
in the snow it can be annoying becase you can't see the centerline anyway, and the tracks in the snow show where everyone 'really' drives. even the snowplow favors the inside of curves, so to stay on the plowed part of the road, one has to take liberties with the centerline.
The only ones I'm not fond of are the shoulder rumble strips in Missouri. For some crazy reason, MoDOT decided that placing the shoulder rumble strip in the white line was a good idea, as opposed to standard practice elsewhere of placing said strip behind the white line.
Quote from: Big John on March 06, 2021, 12:01:01 AM
There are other placements for rumble strips. US8/WI47 near Rhinelander, WI has them directly on the centerline of the 2-lane highway. https://goo.gl/maps/51Hhd3gLUKTqMBiV8 The DOT attempted to paint the centerline over this but it is hard to see when the paint and rumble occupy the same spots.
That's the normal placement of them. The centerline just needs basic repainting.
I like them. For the most part, they are necessary. They might be annoying in certain situations, like the construction example given above, but there's not a whole lot you can do about that.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 05, 2021, 10:53:18 PM
II've seen some states using them on the center line on two-lane roads. I initially found that annoying. Then someone I know lost her father and brother when they were hit head-on on US-15 by a driver who drifted onto the wrong side of the road while going too fast, and that made me think maybe the annoyance isn't such a bad thing.
It's being done here in VA as well. VDOT recently put them on the center line of VA-41 in Pittsylvania County between the Mount Hermon area and at least as far as the Dollar General near Whitmell. I haven't driven VA-41 further than that since the strips were placed, so I don't know how much farther up the strips go. My guess is that they go all the way to the end of VA-41 in Callands.
If I was inattentive while driving, I'd much rather be wakened by the rumble strip than by colliding with the median barrier...
On freeways, no. On non-freeways, especially along the fog line where cyclist are allowed, they should not be used. I feel they're more effective going across the road to alert drivers to large changes in the roadway (example, MA 2 at US 202 in Phillipston where the road goes from a 4-lane freeway to a Super-2).
Also Vermont should never use them after the debacle of putting one on VT 9 west of Brattleboro, where they couldn't remotely be bothered to make it line up with the double yellow line.
Quote from: SectorZ on March 06, 2021, 03:36:59 PM
On freeways, no. On non-freeways, especially along the fog line where cyclist are allowed, they should not be used. I feel they're more effective going across the road to alert drivers to large changes in the roadway (example, MA 2 at US 202 in Phillipston where the road goes from a 4-lane freeway to a Super-2).
Also Vermont should never use them after the debacle of putting one on VT 9 west of Brattleboro, where they couldn't remotely be bothered to make it line up with the double yellow line.
2-lane roads like US-17 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6570683,-77.0720537,3a,63.4y,341.73h,75.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjSaF7XGFnqrWSe5OgiBHgg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (hard to see but they're there) have them on the shoulder.
Would you call this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7260045,-77.3599451,3a,82.7y,199.92h,84.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDk-5fzv4h5MCnFQMBD9UNA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)a "freeway"?
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 06, 2021, 04:25:06 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 06, 2021, 03:36:59 PM
On freeways, no. On non-freeways, especially along the fog line where cyclist are allowed, they should not be used. I feel they're more effective going across the road to alert drivers to large changes in the roadway (example, MA 2 at US 202 in Phillipston where the road goes from a 4-lane freeway to a Super-2).
Also Vermont should never use them after the debacle of putting one on VT 9 west of Brattleboro, where they couldn't remotely be bothered to make it line up with the double yellow line.
2-lane roads like US-17 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6570683,-77.0720537,3a,63.4y,341.73h,75.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjSaF7XGFnqrWSe5OgiBHgg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (hard to see but they're there) have them on the shoulder.
Would you call this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7260045,-77.3599451,3a,82.7y,199.92h,84.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDk-5fzv4h5MCnFQMBD9UNA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)a "freeway"?
Whoever did that to 17 in the first link shouldn't be allowed to build a dollhouse, let alone a road. That is an embarrassment. The lack of shoulder, forcing a cyclist to drive far from the fog line should be implied liability on the designer/builder if a fatality occurs. It's frightening that with all the space down there they feel such a road needs to be 25 feet wide pavement end-to-end.
The second link, that is not a freeway and is really as bad as the first link.
Thank God in the northeast, in general, we don't build high-speed roads with grass 6 inches from the fog line. Most of the faster roads, in fact, have what's almost tantamount to a breakdown lane. If there is a rumble strip, it's on the left edge of that breakdown lane, with frequent gaps in it.
Quote from: SectorZ on March 06, 2021, 05:13:23 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 06, 2021, 04:25:06 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 06, 2021, 03:36:59 PM
On freeways, no. On non-freeways, especially along the fog line where cyclist are allowed, they should not be used. I feel they're more effective going across the road to alert drivers to large changes in the roadway (example, MA 2 at US 202 in Phillipston where the road goes from a 4-lane freeway to a Super-2).
Also Vermont should never use them after the debacle of putting one on VT 9 west of Brattleboro, where they couldn't remotely be bothered to make it line up with the double yellow line.
2-lane roads like US-17 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6570683,-77.0720537,3a,63.4y,341.73h,75.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjSaF7XGFnqrWSe5OgiBHgg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (hard to see but they're there) have them on the shoulder.
Would you call this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7260045,-77.3599451,3a,82.7y,199.92h,84.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDk-5fzv4h5MCnFQMBD9UNA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)a "freeway"?
Whoever did that to 17 in the first link shouldn't be allowed to build a dollhouse, let alone a road. That is an embarrassment. The lack of shoulder, forcing a cyclist to drive far from the fog line should be implied liability on the designer/builder if a fatality occurs. It's frightening that with all the space down there they feel such a road needs to be 25 feet wide pavement end-to-end.
The second link, that is not a freeway and is really as bad as the first link.
Thank God in the northeast, in general, we don't build high-speed roads with grass 6 inches from the fog line. Most of the faster roads, in fact, have what's almost tantamount to a breakdown lane. If there is a rumble strip, it's on the left edge of that breakdown lane, with frequent gaps in it.
The 'builder' is the public works department or contractor that won the bid to build the road. They are building it based on the plans provided to them. The designer(s) are the engineers that built the road according to state and national standards at the time, and underwent numerous approvers. None of them are going to be held liable because a bicyclist was in an accident.
Most likely, rumblestrips are being installed because motorists ran off the road and died.
Many bicyclists want the ability to use the full lane. You're saying that bicyclists should only be using the shoulder. The bicyclist community needs to get themselves together and agree on national standards, because right now you all want something different.
In New York at least, SHARDS are not supposed to be installed on shoulders that don't have at least 6 feet of pavement, for precisely this reason.
If we're talking about full-lane-width rumble strips to warn of an approaching hazard, the Mountain Parkway has some interesting ones in the westbound lanes approaching I-64. Concrete rumble strips in an otherwise asphalt-surfaced road. And each lane has a different pattern.
https://goo.gl/maps/6QQymEtjBj8rNDjn7
Street View:
https://goo.gl/maps/VGketcY23Gq5rDVeA
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2021, 05:38:15 PM
The 'builder' is the public works department or contractor that won the bid to build the road. They are building it based on the plans provided to them. The designer(s) are the engineers that built the road according to state and national standards at the time, and underwent numerous approvers. None of them are going to be held liable because a bicyclist was in an accident.
Most likely, rumblestrips are being installed because motorists ran off the road and died.
Many bicyclists want the ability to use the full lane. You're saying that bicyclists should only be using the shoulder. The bicyclist community needs to get themselves together and agree on national standards, because right now you all want something different.
Bicyclists do not want to use the full lane when there is no need to do so. There is no need in this case because it didn't need to be designed that way. No bicyclist wants to take the lane on a 55 MPH road.
And we may disagree on this, but I fully believe there should be liability on those that design death traps. You design a car that kills people because of a mistake you're liable, a road should be no different if it's flagrant and obvious. You can't look at these pix and tell me it couldn't have been designed better.
I like rumble strips on the shoulder–as long as they're a couple of feet outside the white line, not RIGHT ON THE LINE.
I like rumble strips within the center line–as long as they're only on the double yellow sections, not on passing zones.
Also, why are there no rumble strips on bridges?
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 14, 2021, 04:02:27 PM
Also, why are there no rumble strips on bridges?
Maybe because bridges have guardrails and barriers that will stop any car leaving the roadway, as opposed to roads on the ground where a rumble strip is needed as extra forewarning because nothing will stop the vehicle from leaving the road and spinning out/rolling over.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 14, 2021, 04:12:43 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 14, 2021, 04:02:27 PM
Also, why are there no rumble strips on bridges?
Maybe because bridges have guardrails and barriers that will stop any car leaving the roadway, as opposed to roads on the ground where a rumble strip is needed as extra forewarning because nothing will stop the vehicle from leaving the road and spinning out/rolling over.
Hm. There have been videos shared on this forum of cars and trucks flying off bridges over this winter.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 14, 2021, 04:12:43 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 14, 2021, 04:02:27 PM
Also, why are there no rumble strips on bridges?
Maybe because bridges have guardrails and barriers that will stop any car leaving the roadway, as opposed to roads on the ground where a rumble strip is needed as extra forewarning because nothing will stop the vehicle from leaving the road and spinning out/rolling over.
Unless the bridge is asphalt like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.3162732,-78.238287,3a,75y,90.96h,69.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCTJSODIJseLLdg9nG3-7-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)one. (Both bridges need to be replaced)
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 05, 2021, 09:40:10 PM
They wake you up and scare you!
That's the whole point, so no I don't mind them at all. The main use I always see them used for is stop signs in the country when you are going 60+ mph, gives you plenty of heads up to start slowing down
I personally like them even when I find them annoying. I like having safe roads more than I dislike the occasional mildly annoying rumbling. I agree with those who say they don't belong on non-limited access road edges if there is not an adequate shoulder for cyclists as I was primarily a cyclist for transportation until 29. Sometimes highway planners go a little overboard on just how many consecutive rumble strips are needed for full-lane rumble strips (one is usually enough). But I'd rather have them than not.
Here's another bridge that has rumble strips.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8639528,-76.6150413,3a,75.7y,273.33h,64.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx_b7ZiPOP82awxqnPKUdng!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dx_b7ZiPOP82awxqnPKUdng%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D3.3266048%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.794955,-78.5150301,3a,75y,21.05h,70.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1ORUx4TRY78ql5lmUGQ5bQ!2e0!5s20070901T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en
The 2007 and 2009 years on this part they didn't have rumble strips. NCDOT must of forgot to add them during that time xD
Also in 2007 that highway looks fresh cause it opened in January during that time.
They are a safety device and belong on any high speed road frankly. I will point out Montana uses them on the center line of 2 lane highways, a good idea but one that generates a very unnerving noise when passing at 70 or 80 miles an hour.
As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:29:29 PM
... uses them on the center line of 2 lane highways, a good idea but one that generates a very unnerving noise when passing at 70 or 80 miles an hour.
And it wakes up napping passengers, too.
One night, I got caught in a freak snowstorm on I-71 between Lebanon and Cincinnati, and it was impossible to see the lanes. I drove with my right tires on the rumble strip for several miles to ensure I didn't drift off the road, or into the left lane.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:29:29 PM
As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.
Yes we are.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 30, 2021, 10:54:15 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:29:29 PM
As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.
Yes we are.
I must imagine all the taxes I pay.
(and to counter the argument from HighwayStar and others - I do believe that general taxes should go to roads. If that happened these people would have zero to bitch about)
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:29:29 PM
As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.
Canadians don't pay for our highways. Should they be prohibited from driving on them?
Quote from: SectorZ on March 31, 2021, 07:34:23 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 30, 2021, 10:54:15 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:29:29 PM
As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.
Yes we are.
I must imagine all the taxes I pay.
(and to counter the argument from HighwayStar and others - I do believe that general taxes should go to roads. If that happened these people would have zero to bitch about)
So the argument is that the sales tax you pay on the bike, along with accessories and maintenance, is "paying" for the road?
To throw out a random number: The Bike, helmet, and lights cost $500. Sales Taxes amount to roughly $30 - $35. That is paying for the miles upon miles of dedicated bike lanes, signage and infrastructure?
That's a one-time expenditure. For a regular vehicle, they are paying that in taxes at the pump nearly every month.
Quote from: SectorZ on March 31, 2021, 07:34:23 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 30, 2021, 10:54:15 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:29:29 PM
As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.
Yes we are.
I must imagine all the taxes I pay.
(and to counter the argument from HighwayStar and others - I do believe that general taxes should go to roads. If that happened these people would have zero to bitch about)
Some general taxes go to roads, but that really does not matter. Our roads are funded by what is basically a two part tariff. You pay some in general taxes, and some in fuel. Bicycles clog up roads without paying for the fuel. It would be like shopping at Costco without a membership. Moreover, one could make the argument that the general taxes which go to roads are not paying for your
personal use, but rather are paying for their maintenance as part of the defense highway system, which is of course a non-rival and non-excludeable public good.
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 11:38:26 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 10:40:42 AM
Bicycles clog up roads
No they don't.
Oh yes they do, I have spent enough time driving in places where those hipsters were constantly in the way, blocking parking, turns, etc. They are a pain :banghead:
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 11:41:35 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 11:38:26 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 10:40:42 AM
Bicycles clog up roads
No they don't.
Oh yes they do, I have spent enough time driving in places where those hipsters were constantly in the way, blocking parking, turns, etc. They are a pain
That's only because your car was trying to clog up the road.
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 11:57:57 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 11:41:35 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 11:38:26 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 10:40:42 AM
Bicycles clog up roads
No they don't.
Oh yes they do, I have spent enough time driving in places where those hipsters were constantly in the way, blocking parking, turns, etc. They are a pain
That's only because your car was trying to clog up the road.
My car pays registration and gas taxes, neither of which are provided by the bicyclist. I am entitled to use the road, they are not.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 12:54:15 PM
My car pays registration and gas taxes, neither of which are provided by the bicyclist. I am entitled to use the road, they are not.
Then answer my question:
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 09:59:45 AM
Canadians don't pay for our highways. Should they be prohibited from driving on them?
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 09:59:45 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:29:29 PM
As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.
Canadians don't pay for our highways. Should they be prohibited from driving on them?
They pay for them when they travel here and buy gas here. Or travel toll roads like the New York Thruway or the turnpikes in Maine or New Hampshire.
(Yes, I know you're making a point, but it's not really a valid comparison.)
I don't know how other states do it, but Kentucky has a General Fund and a dedicated Road Fund. The two don't mix unless the government raids the Road Fund for money to put in the General Fund. No regular revenue (sales tax, income tax, property tax, etc.) goes into the Road Fund. It gets its money from gas taxes and vehicle fees (and possibly traffic violation fines, but I don't know for sure.) I've never known Kentucky to move money from the General Fund to the Road Fund, but it has happened the other way.
Pedestrians (hitchhikers) don't pay for our highways, either. How are they different from bicyclists? (Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate.)
Given how much he dislikes SUVs because they're big and non-efficient, you'd think he'd love bikes, since they are smaller and use no gas and only emit carbon through the exhalations of the rider.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 31, 2021, 02:10:12 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 09:59:45 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 30, 2021, 01:29:29 PM
As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.
Canadians don't pay for our highways. Should they be prohibited from driving on them?
They pay for them when they travel here and buy gas here. Or travel toll roads like the New York Thruway or the turnpikes in Maine or New Hampshire.
(Yes, I know you're making a point, but it's not really a valid comparison.)
But they don't pay for our roads except when they're in our country. All those tanks of gas purchased in Canada don't go towards our roads. But OK, I retract my argument.
Anyway... I pay for this country's roads every time I fill up with gas (except when I'm in Mexico), so I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to ride my bicycle on those same roads.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 31, 2021, 02:10:12 PM
Pedestrians (hitchhikers) don't pay for our highways, either. How are they different from bicyclists? (Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate.)
I agree. Pedestrians should be allowed on highways, except where it has been determined to be unsafe. And so it is. Except for a small handful of states, hitchhiking is allowed from anywhere outside the travel lanes of any road–except for freeways, where access is restricted to allow only motor vehicles. Being required to stand on the shoulder while hitchhiking is little different than being required to drive in a particular lane in advance of a turn.
Thus, I turn the argument around: if you pay for the roads every time you fill up your car with gas, then why should you be prohibited from walking on those same roads to get to a neighbor's house a mile away?
Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.
Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2021, 05:42:33 PM
Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.
Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 05:46:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2021, 05:42:33 PM
Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.
Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.
Are you saying that bicycle riders are homeless?
Whether you own or rent your home, you pay property taxes. Directly if you own, indirectly if you rent.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 05:46:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2021, 05:42:33 PM
Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.
Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.
How do you propose to ban "hipster" cyclists vs. those like me who bike and own a car (to pay gas taxes and registration fees) and pay income taxes?
Quote from: GaryV on March 31, 2021, 05:59:21 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 05:46:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2021, 05:42:33 PM
Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.
Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.
Are you saying that bicycle riders are homeless?
Whether you own or rent your home, you pay property taxes. Directly if you own, indirectly if you rent.
Not so fast. When you own your own home you pay 100% of the property tax. As a renter you DO NOT pay 100% of the property tax, you pay an amount which depends on the elasticity of demand for housing.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 31, 2021, 06:03:30 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 05:46:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2021, 05:42:33 PM
Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.
Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.
How do you propose to ban "hipster" cyclists vs. those like me who bike and own a car (to pay gas taxes and registration fees) and pay income taxes?
I have no desire to ban cyclists, on the contrary I am a fan of dedicated bicycle routes. But in many cases roads are dis-proportionally affected by the addition of bicycle infrastructure that provides far too little utility for the cost it imposes.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: GaryV on March 31, 2021, 05:59:21 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 05:46:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2021, 05:42:33 PM
Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.
Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.
Are you saying that bicycle riders are homeless?
Whether you own or rent your home, you pay property taxes. Directly if you own, indirectly if you rent.
Not so fast. When you own your own home you pay 100% of the property tax. As a renter you DO NOT pay 100% of the property tax, you pay an amount which depends on the elasticity of demand for housing.
I will guarantee you that in most cases, rent is set at a level to cover all property taxes, divided by the number of tenants. I lived in a four-unit apartment building for a few years. I guarantee part of my rent was calculated by a formula like "property tax / 4 tenants / 12 months."
Quote from: ET21 on March 15, 2021, 10:04:48 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 05, 2021, 09:40:10 PM
They wake you up and scare you!
That's the whole point, so no I don't mind them at all. The main use I always see them used for is stop signs in the country when you are going 60+ mph, gives you plenty of heads up to start slowing down
I get why they do that, for safety. But my friends don't seem to like them really.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 05:46:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2021, 05:42:33 PM
Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.
Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.
Owning a vehicle is not the same thing as not riding a bicycle. I'd suggest that a quite large proportion of the cycling population
does own a house and/or vehicle. But feel free to find data that contradictions that suggestion.
The biggest cyclers I personally know all own property and cars.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 05:46:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2021, 05:42:33 PM
Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.
Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.
I must have imagined owning my houses for the past 16 years.
Here's a novel idea, stop stereotyping literally every effing group of people you come across, and life might get a little simpler for you.
Quote from: SectorZ on April 01, 2021, 03:51:38 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 05:46:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2021, 05:42:33 PM
Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.
Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.
I must have imagined owning my houses for the past 16 years.
Here's a novel idea, stop stereotyping literally every effing group of people you come across, and life might get a little simpler for you.
I fail to see how that makes life any simpler. It is true, there is a strong positive correlation between home ownership and car ownership. There is a negative correlation between renting and car ownership. Sorry if that offends you but that's just how it is. :spin:
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 01, 2021, 05:08:27 PM
I fail to see how that makes life any simpler. It is true, there is a strong positive correlation between home ownership and car ownership. There is a negative correlation between renting and car ownership. Sorry if that offends you but that's just how it is. :spin:
After controlling for how urban an area is, there should not be much of a correlation at all.
Quote from: 1 on April 01, 2021, 05:09:33 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 01, 2021, 05:08:27 PM
I fail to see how that makes life any simpler. It is true, there is a strong positive correlation between home ownership and car ownership. There is a negative correlation between renting and car ownership. Sorry if that offends you but that's just how it is. :spin:
After controlling for how urban an area is, there should not be much of a correlation at all.
Actually there still is. If you go to more rural areas you find more people who do not own a house that own a car, but few people that own a house and own no car. Its not really enough difference to make a difference especially considering that a very large share of the population lives in a relatively narrow window of urbanization rates.
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 01, 2021, 05:08:27 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 01, 2021, 03:51:38 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 05:46:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2021, 05:42:33 PM
Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.
Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.
I must have imagined owning my houses for the past 16 years.
Here's a novel idea, stop stereotyping literally every effing group of people you come across, and life might get a little simpler for you.
I fail to see how that makes life any simpler. It is true, there is a strong positive correlation between home ownership and car ownership. There is a negative correlation between renting and car ownership. Sorry if that offends you but that's just how it is. :spin:
You don't understand how life becomes simpler by stopping hating on people that choose to live different lives than you?
Quote from: SectorZ on April 01, 2021, 05:14:12 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 01, 2021, 05:08:27 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 01, 2021, 03:51:38 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 05:46:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2021, 05:42:33 PM
Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.
Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.
I must have imagined owning my houses for the past 16 years.
Here's a novel idea, stop stereotyping literally every effing group of people you come across, and life might get a little simpler for you.
I fail to see how that makes life any simpler. It is true, there is a strong positive correlation between home ownership and car ownership. There is a negative correlation between renting and car ownership. Sorry if that offends you but that's just how it is. :spin:
You don't understand how life becomes simpler by stopping hating on people that choose to live different lives than you?
No one is "hating" on anyone, that is your imagination running away with you. I don't want bicycles clogging the road I am trying to drive on, and that in no way makes life more complicated. Actually, without the bicycles in the way, it would be less complicated. :-D
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 01, 2021, 05:16:17 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 01, 2021, 05:14:12 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 01, 2021, 05:08:27 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 01, 2021, 03:51:38 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 31, 2021, 05:46:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2021, 05:42:33 PM
Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.
Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.
I must have imagined owning my houses for the past 16 years.
Here's a novel idea, stop stereotyping literally every effing group of people you come across, and life might get a little simpler for you.
I fail to see how that makes life any simpler. It is true, there is a strong positive correlation between home ownership and car ownership. There is a negative correlation between renting and car ownership. Sorry if that offends you but that's just how it is. :spin:
You don't understand how life becomes simpler by stopping hating on people that choose to live different lives than you?
No one is "hating" on anyone, that is your imagination running away with you. I don't want bicycles clogging the road I am trying to drive on, and that in no way makes life more complicated. Actually, without the bicycles in the way, it would be less complicated. :-D
So you want to ban a legal activity I take part in? Got it.
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 01, 2021, 05:08:27 PM
I fail to see how that makes life any simpler. It is true, there is a strong positive correlation between home ownership and car ownership. There is a negative correlation between renting and car ownership. Sorry if that offends you but that's just how it is. :spin:
Again: even if that's true, it doesn't matter. Owning a car doesn't mean a person doesn't ride a bike. All that matters for your argument is if the people
actually riding their bikes are paying for the road. Non-car-ownership and non-property-ownership are not statistical proxies for bicycle-riding.
I don't care if bikes pay taxes or not. The vast majority of roads are not safe for them and they shouldn't be riding on them.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 01, 2021, 07:36:06 PM
I don't care if bikes pay taxes or not. The vast majority of roads are not safe for them and they shouldn't be riding on them.
1. The vast majority of roads are residential streets.
2. SectorZ has been on almost every single numbered road in New Hampshire where bikes are not prohibited, and I believe most of Vermont, too. No issues.
Quote from: 1 on April 01, 2021, 07:37:35 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 01, 2021, 07:36:06 PM
I don't care if bikes pay taxes or not. The vast majority of roads are not safe for them and they shouldn't be riding on them.
1. The vast majority of roads are residential streets.
2. SectorZ has been on almost every single numbered road in New Hampshire where bikes are not prohibited, and I believe most of Vermont, too. No issues.
3. Bikes don't pay for the roads. Neither do cars.
People do. And a great number of them own both a bicycle and a car.
4. Roads are safe for bicycles. It's drivers who pay cyclists no mind that make roads dangerous.
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2021, 08:21:33 PM
4. Roads are safe for bicycles. It's drivers who pay cyclists no mind that make roads dangerous.
In a perfect world, yes. But you yourself admit that mixing drivers and bikes just isn't safe. If you decide to bike on a high speed road you are taking your life into your hands
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 01, 2021, 10:19:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2021, 08:21:33 PM
4. Roads are safe for bicycles. It's drivers who pay cyclists no mind that make roads dangerous.
In a perfect world, yes. But you yourself admit that mixing drivers and bikes just isn't safe. If you decide to bike on a high speed road you are taking your life into your hands
I do?
Hmmm, if I did, then perhaps I was in error. I only admit that mixing self-absorbed, inattentive drivers with cocky, lane-hogging cyclists is dangerous. Attentive, considerate drivers and attentive, considerate cyclists can coexist perfectly well–both on city streets and on the highway.
I'm guessing this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1079471,-78.7691185,3a,76.7y,231.42h,64.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPtH1l4HJkKyLbriKR7hhJg!2e0!5s20161201T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en) is how rumble strips were made in the 50s-60s.
Quote from: tolbs17 on April 07, 2021, 08:08:50 PM
I'm guessing this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1079471,-78.7691185,3a,76.7y,231.42h,64.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPtH1l4HJkKyLbriKR7hhJg!2e0!5s20161201T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en) is how rumble strips were made in the 50s-60s.
Probably not too far off from the truth.
(https://i.imgur.com/2XjMAb2.jpg)
Looking through a 1960 Highway Engineering text I cannot find any reference to how rumble strips were constructed.
Have rumble strips been around that long? I thought one of the experiments done on the abandoned PA Turnpike in the 1980s was the testing of rumble strips for use on roads.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on April 08, 2021, 01:04:07 PM
Have rumble strips been around that long? I thought one of the experiments done on the abandoned PA Turnpike in the 1980s was the testing of rumble strips for use on roads.
They existed before then. Kentucky parkways had them before toll booths in the late 1970s.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on April 08, 2021, 01:04:07 PM
Have rumble strips been around that long? I thought one of the experiments done on the abandoned PA Turnpike in the 1980s was the testing of rumble strips for use on roads.
The picture I posted is from the early 1950s.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on April 08, 2021, 01:04:07 PM
Have rumble strips been around that long? I thought one of the experiments done on the abandoned PA Turnpike in the 1980s was the testing of rumble strips for use on roads.
The rumble strips tested by the PA Turnpike were the strips running on the right shoulder. It was called the SNAP project (Sonic Nap Alert Pattern). https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/effectiveness/state_pa.cfm (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/effectiveness/state_pa.cfm)
The rumble strips that cross a full lane, such as approaching toll booths, were in place before then.
Quote from: Popular Mechanics – February 1953 – "Singing" Safety Lanes Provide Warning for Motorists"
Pavement edges that "sing" a warning when motorists veer too near the side of the roadway will border north and south lanes of the proposed Garden State Parkway in New Jersey. Three-foot strips of corrugated concrete which cause a humming sound when driven over will be a safety feature of the 165-mile expressway. The corrugations act as reflectors for increased visibility both day and night. The tooled strips are also being used on other New Jersey highways for reflecting curbs and as a replacement for the center line in two-lane roads.
Who likes this placement of rumble strips.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7206222,-78.0056324,3a,75y,356.38h,71.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdGznm0s5eNeguKjcGUtLTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 01, 2021, 12:25:11 PM
Who likes this placement of rumble strips.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7206222,-78.0056324,3a,75y,356.38h,71.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdGznm0s5eNeguKjcGUtLTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
To me, that's perfect. The wider shoulder has a gap between edge line and rumble strip, where as the narrower shoulder does not.
Quote from: kphoger on May 01, 2021, 05:25:06 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 01, 2021, 12:25:11 PM
Who likes this placement of rumble strips.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7206222,-78.0056324,3a,75y,356.38h,71.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdGznm0s5eNeguKjcGUtLTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
To me, that's perfect. The wider shoulder has a gap between edge line and rumble strip, where as the narrower shoulder does not.
Or is this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3896722,-77.8656984,3a,75y,352.01h,70.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAxBGjkVYIvGVupToSpO3ig!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DAxBGjkVYIvGVupToSpO3ig%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D78.71243%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) better?
Would you prefer Botts Dots?
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 01, 2021, 05:32:57 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 01, 2021, 05:25:06 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 01, 2021, 12:25:11 PM
Who likes this placement of rumble strips.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7206222,-78.0056324,3a,75y,356.38h,71.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdGznm0s5eNeguKjcGUtLTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
To me, that's perfect. The wider shoulder has a gap between edge line and rumble strip, where as the narrower shoulder does not.
Or is this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3896722,-77.8656984,3a,75y,352.01h,70.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAxBGjkVYIvGVupToSpO3ig!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DAxBGjkVYIvGVupToSpO3ig%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D78.71243%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) better?
No, of course not. Read the bolded phrase.
Quote from: kphoger on May 01, 2021, 06:06:22 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 01, 2021, 05:32:57 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 01, 2021, 05:25:06 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 01, 2021, 12:25:11 PM
Who likes this placement of rumble strips.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7206222,-78.0056324,3a,75y,356.38h,71.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdGznm0s5eNeguKjcGUtLTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
To me, that's perfect. The wider shoulder has a gap between edge line and rumble strip, where as the narrower shoulder does not.
Or is this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3896722,-77.8656984,3a,75y,352.01h,70.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAxBGjkVYIvGVupToSpO3ig!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DAxBGjkVYIvGVupToSpO3ig%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D78.71243%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) better?
No, of course not. Read the bolded phrase.
NCDOT did that in the mid 2000s
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 01, 2021, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 01, 2021, 05:36:26 PM
Would you prefer Botts Dots?
No.
I prefer profiled plastic lines (https://goo.gl/maps/WPv8Q2hMn64wJV9j7), which are WSDOT's replacement for both Botts Dots on lane lines, and some rumble strips. You can see the lines in that streetview link used botts dots before repaving if you switch to 2015 or earlier.
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2021, 09:03:59 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on April 07, 2021, 08:08:50 PM
I'm guessing this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1079471,-78.7691185,3a,76.7y,231.42h,64.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPtH1l4HJkKyLbriKR7hhJg!2e0!5s20161201T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en) is how rumble strips were made in the 50s-60s.
Probably not too far off from the truth.
(https://i.imgur.com/2XjMAb2.jpg)
And that design, The Fayetteville bypass (I-95) has them, and I-40 going to Wilmington.
Quote from: SectorZ on March 06, 2021, 05:13:23 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 06, 2021, 04:25:06 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 06, 2021, 03:36:59 PM
On freeways, no. On non-freeways, especially along the fog line where cyclist are allowed, they should not be used. I feel they're more effective going across the road to alert drivers to large changes in the roadway (example, MA 2 at US 202 in Phillipston where the road goes from a 4-lane freeway to a Super-2).
Also Vermont should never use them after the debacle of putting one on VT 9 west of Brattleboro, where they couldn't remotely be bothered to make it line up with the double yellow line.
2-lane roads like US-17 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6570683,-77.0720537,3a,63.4y,341.73h,75.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjSaF7XGFnqrWSe5OgiBHgg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (hard to see but they're there) have them on the shoulder.
Would you call this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7260045,-77.3599451,3a,82.7y,199.92h,84.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDk-5fzv4h5MCnFQMBD9UNA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)a "freeway"?
Whoever did that to 17 in the first link shouldn't be allowed to build a dollhouse, let alone a road. That is an embarrassment. The lack of shoulder, forcing a cyclist to drive far from the fog line should be implied liability on the designer/builder if a fatality occurs. It's frightening that with all the space down there they feel such a road needs to be 25 feet wide pavement end-to-end.
The second link, that is not a freeway and is really as bad as the first link.
Thank God in the northeast, in general, we don't build high-speed roads with grass 6 inches from the fog line. Most of the faster roads, in fact, have what's almost tantamount to a breakdown lane. If there is a rumble strip, it's on the left edge of that breakdown lane, with frequent gaps in it.
@SectorZ seems like more of these are STILL coming...
Are these good for just two-lane highways that are not divided?
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-19-rumble-strips-installed-division-2.aspx
Late a nite on a 2 lane road driving thru a forest I sometimes try to keep my right wheels on the fog line rumble stripe. My thinking is the noise might scare away any critters wanting to cross the road.
I bought a deer whistle yrs ago but I put it on backawards so it attracted the deer 2 me. :bigass:
Has anyone lived at an intersection where there are rubble strips? Does the noise bother u in the house? I'd imagine u get used to it & dont pay it any attention.
I live a few blocks from a rr track. We Very very seldom notice a train passing even in the wee hrs. There are road crossings 2 miles west & 5 miles east. If I listen I can hear the west crossing whistle on the west crossing & I can barely hear east crossing @ 5 miles.
I have no issues with rumble strips. They're a safety feature, and they're rarely an annoyance except when they need to be.. in which case that's a good thing!
they just widened some of the shoulders on sh-14 near where i live. they're now a whopping 2 feet wide. but, they rumble-stripped them, making it pretty annoying to dive-bomb the corners.
i get it, i'm not supposed to do that anyway. just sayin, though.
But I think it would be annoying when trying to pass the vehicle in front of you.
If a safety item is annoying to you, it means it's doing its job.
They aren't annoying for the brief period of time you're on them if you're passing.
These days when highways are resurfaced, rumble strips will be added to them as seen in this document: https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Division%202%20Letting/03-09-2022/DB00520%20PROPOSAL.pdf
Skip to page 41 for those details.
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.
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 03:51:23 PM
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.
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 03:51:23 PM
Can't understand why anyone would have an issue with them.
Well, this was the OP's reason...
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 05, 2021, 09:40:10 PM
They wake you up and scare you!
I have zero issues with them. The only time I've ever found myself annoyed by them is when lanes get shifted for construction and the pre-existing rumble strips don't move, so you might be driving in them for a bit. But that's such a small price to pay compared to the crashes and injuries they help avoid and the lives they save. They've saved my butt more than once.
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 03:57:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 03:51:23 PM
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.
Quote from: US 89 on February 09, 2022, 03:58:23 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 03:51:23 PM
Can't understand why anyone would have an issue with them.
Well, this was the OP's reason...
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 05, 2021, 09:40:10 PM
They wake you up and scare you!
I have zero issues with them. The only time I've ever found myself annoyed by them is when lanes get shifted for construction and the pre-existing rumble strips don't move, so you might be driving in them for a bit. But that's such a small price to pay compared to the crashes and injuries they help avoid and the lives they save. They've saved my butt more than once.
OMG!! They woke him up. Oh, the humanity. Call the National Guard.
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 04:06:47 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 03:57:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 03:51:23 PM
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.
Yes. They make it more annoying to straighten curves, and on some of Arkansas' 2 lanes, make it impossible to ride a bicycle and not be completely in the travel lane as most of the shoulders are not what I would construe as wide compared to other states, if they exist at all.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2021, 11:38:03 PM
In Oklahoma, they're placed a foot or so to the outside of the lane line, so it's hard to notice them unless you're really starting drift out of the lane. Missouri puts them right on the line, which means it's easy to brush against them during normal lateral movement. That's kind of irritating.
States that put them on the line and sometimes veering inside the lines - don't care for these.
Just outside the line - very effective and still enough time to react
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 03:57:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 03:51:23 PM
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.
Kentucky has been increasingly using "rumble stripes" -- sawed-in rumble strips over which the white edge line is painted -- on rural two-lane roads. I've noticed that they don't install the strips in what Massachusetts would call "thickly settled" areas where the speed limit drops from 55 to 45. KY 715 in the Rogers community in Wolfe County and KY 52 in the Elkatawa community of Breathitt County are two examples with which I'm very familiar.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 05, 2021, 09:40:10 PM
They wake you up and scare you!
Then the rumble strips did their job.
Rumble strips are a safety measure, and as such, I have no issues with them - whether on the outside lines or on the center line. If they save even one life by waking a drowsy driver, they are worth it.
I like rumble strips because they go BRRRRRR and that's funny.
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 04:19:11 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 04:06:47 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 03:57:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 03:51:23 PM
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. :D
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2022, 10:18:56 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 04:19:11 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 04:06:47 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 03:57:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 03:51:23 PM
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. :D
Those two issues need not be in the same piece of road, that should be obvious. :coffee:
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 10:34:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2022, 10:18:56 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 04:19:11 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 04:06:47 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 03:57:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 03:51:23 PM
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. :D
Those two issues need not be in the same piece of road, that should be obvious. :coffee:
Given CARDs and SHARDs demonstrated success, my hyperbole was emphasizing how little a cost your concerns really represented.
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2022, 11:14:04 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 10:34:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2022, 10:18:56 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 04:19:11 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 04:06:47 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 03:57:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 03:51:23 PM
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. :D
Those two issues need not be in the same piece of road, that should be obvious. :coffee:
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.
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 10, 2022, 12:34:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2022, 11:14:04 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 10:34:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2022, 10:18:56 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 04:19:11 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 04:06:47 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 03:57:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 03:51:23 PM
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. :D
Those two issues need not be in the same piece of road, that should be obvious. :coffee:
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? :D). 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.
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2022, 06:55:25 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 10, 2022, 12:34:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2022, 11:14:04 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 10:34:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2022, 10:18:56 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 04:19:11 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 04:06:47 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 03:57:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 03:51:23 PM
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. :D
Those two issues need not be in the same piece of road, that should be obvious. :coffee:
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? :D). 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 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.
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 10, 2022, 10:32:45 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2022, 06:55:25 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 10, 2022, 12:34:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2022, 11:14:04 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 10:34:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2022, 10:18:56 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 04:19:11 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 04:06:47 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 03:57:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 03:51:23 PM
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. :D
Those two issues need not be in the same piece of road, that should be obvious. :coffee:
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? :D). 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.
Quote from: formulanone on February 10, 2022, 10:56:57 AM
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.
Quote from: skluth on February 10, 2022, 11:08:37 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 10, 2022, 10:32:45 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2022, 06:55:25 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 10, 2022, 12:34:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2022, 11:14:04 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 10:34:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2022, 10:18:56 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 04:19:11 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 04:06:47 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 09, 2022, 03:57:25 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 09, 2022, 03:51:23 PM
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. :D
Those two issues need not be in the same piece of road, that should be obvious. :coffee:
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? :D). 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.
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).
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 10, 2022, 08:26:36 PM
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. :clap:
Now that's about the first time that series of words has ever been said...