A 1987 study (https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1987/1122/1122-005.pdf) looked at 10 cases from California where inside shoulders were removed to make space for extra lanes (generally in combination with narrowing the existing lanes from 12 feet to 11) and found no increases in accident rates and sometimes a *decrease* due to impact of reduced congestion.
And having no inside shoulders is the norm in most of the world.
There are very few scenarios where a disabled vehicle can make it to the inside shoulder but can't get over to the outside. And as cars become more reliable and electronic safety aids reduce rear-end collisions, the need for breakdown lanes in general is falling. So perhaps it's time to consider getting rid of inside shoulders.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 05, 2023, 11:28:11 AM
A 1987 study (https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1987/1122/1122-005.pdf) looked at 10 cases from California where inside shoulders were removed to make space for extra lanes (generally in combination with narrowing the existing lanes from 12 feet to 11) and found no increases in accident rates and sometimes a *decrease* due to impact of reduced congestion.
And having no inside shoulders is the norm in most of the world.
There are very few scenarios where a disabled vehicle can make it to the inside shoulder but can't get over to the outside. And as cars become more reliable and electronic safety aids reduce rear-end collisions, the need for breakdown lanes in general is falling. So perhaps it's time to consider getting rid of inside shoulders.
What in the ChatGPT is this?
Quote from: Rothman on September 05, 2023, 12:11:44 PM
What in the ChatGPT is this?
It sounds convincing on the surface. While there might be something fundamentally wrong with the claim, I don't know what it is. Can you elaborate?
Quote from: kernals12 on September 05, 2023, 11:28:11 AM
A 1987 study (https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1987/1122/1122-005.pdf) looked at 10 cases from California where inside shoulders were removed to make space for extra lanes (generally in combination with narrowing the existing lanes from 12 feet to 11) and found no increases in accident rates and sometimes a *decrease* due to impact of reduced congestion.
And having no inside shoulders is the norm in most of the world.
There are very few scenarios where a disabled vehicle can make it to the inside shoulder but can't get over to the outside. And as cars become more reliable and electronic safety aids reduce rear-end collisions, the need for breakdown lanes in general is falling. So perhaps it's time to consider getting rid of inside shoulders.
Well, our interstates are the among the best designed freeways on Earth - something I notice when traveling overseas. The upkeep may be inconsistent and the drivers that use them are often crappy, but the design (with two shoulders) tends to be very safe and generous. If you lose the shoulder, breakdowns have nowhere to go and end up blocking the lane....clearly, a safety hazard. Not to mention that you lose the use of that lane and traffic immediately ties up due to the bottleneck (and yes it would be worse than simply having one less lane). And there are more scenarios than you think where a disabled vehicle cannot make it from the left lane to the right shoulder. It happens all the time. Sometimes, it's just bad driving; but that's going to exist in your shoulderless freeway too.
I personally like not having a Jersey barrier up my ass when I'm in the left lane, thanks.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 05, 2023, 12:59:49 PM
I personally like not having a Jersey barrier up my ass when I'm in the left lane, thanks.
Then stay off I-70 between New Stanton and Washington, PA; I-78 from Frystown to Allentown; and all of I-83 in PA. :bigass:
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 05, 2023, 12:59:49 PM
I personally like not having a Jersey barrier up my ass when I'm in the left lane, thanks.
You mean to say that you don't enjoy the sensation of being in a Mario Kart game at 80 MPH but with actual consequences coming from impacting the barrier?
A good shoulder is worth far more than an extra lane to squeeze more traffic. Collisions blocking actual lanes are a huge issue.
I don't know that we need inside shoulders, but especially when they are of the same 12-foot width as a traffic lane, they have non-negligible incident management benefits. PennDOT is able to maintain six lanes of traffic while rebuilding the I-95 bridge in Philadelphia only because that segment has full 12-foot shoulders both left and right.
Interstate minimum standards call for left shoulders just four feet wide, so there is not much to be gained from eliminating them in any case.
Quote from: Bruce on September 05, 2023, 03:44:42 PM
A good shoulder is worth far more than an extra lane to squeeze more traffic. Collisions blocking actual lanes are a huge issue.
Which is something completely missed in this study. It focuses solely on the number of crashes, not the length of time to return traffic to a normal state after the incident and the lengths of congestion, and if congestion forced traffic to utilize other options, creating or adding to congestion elsewhere.
Quote from: Bruce on September 05, 2023, 03:44:42 PM
A good shoulder is worth far more than an extra lane to squeeze more traffic. Collisions blocking actual lanes are a huge issue.
I seem to recall that being a common problem on I-5 north of Seattle.
Another benefit of a wider inside shoulr is if there is a high concrete barrier, if won't block the view of the left lane continuation on a horizontal curve.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 05, 2023, 11:28:11 AM
A 1987 study (https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1987/1122/1122-005.pdf) looked at 10 cases from California where inside shoulders were removed to make space for extra lanes (generally in combination with narrowing the existing lanes from 12 feet to 11) and found no increases in accident rates and sometimes a *decrease* due to impact of reduced congestion.
And having no inside shoulders is the norm in most of the world.
There are very few scenarios where a disabled vehicle can make it to the inside shoulder but can't get over to the outside. And as cars become more reliable and electronic safety aids reduce rear-end collisions, the need for breakdown lanes in general is falling. So perhaps it's time to consider getting rid of inside shoulders.
You've never had the experience of your vehicle breaking down in the inner lane of a freeway before, have you.
I definitely have. Would not recommend. Of course, it was the tire facing 80+ mph traffic that had to blow out on me.
The inner shoulder comes in very handy for emergency vehicles on I-12 in BR during evening rush hour. So benefit > costs.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 05, 2023, 04:27:45 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 05, 2023, 03:44:42 PM
A good shoulder is worth far more than an extra lane to squeeze more traffic. Collisions blocking actual lanes are a huge issue.
I seem to recall that being a common problem on I-5 north of Seattle.
We've got a special WSDOT crew (the Incident Response Team) that moves cars out of the lanes and it isn't as big of a problem nowadays. A lot of sections now have widened shoulders (one stretch also doubles as bus lanes during peak periods), but the lane expansion north of Everett has shaved away the shoulders and caused a lot of issues. Drivers refuse to adjust to the new conditions and there's near-daily collisions blocking the lanes.
Yes. https://goo.gl/maps/7MGQnfCJk4cvdfs78
Quote from: 1 on September 05, 2023, 12:13:40 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 05, 2023, 12:11:44 PM
What in the ChatGPT is this?
It sounds convincing on the surface. While there might be something fundamentally wrong with the claim, I don't know what it is. Can you elaborate?
The reduced accidents conclusion by the study's authors is a bit of a misnomer because it's tied to measuring increased freeway capacity. And I'd also argue the study doesn't support what OP was contending about safety. First, the study's conclusions are based just on the accidents per million vehicle miles travelled observed with and without the "full-sized" inner shoulder. The study compared the accident rates on the same segments of freeway at two different points in time, first with a wide inner shoulder and then later when that shoulder was reduced in size. The number of accidents was then divided into the total number of millions of vehicle miles traveled in that segment during the study periods. The millions of vehicle miles number was calculated using segment length, average daily traffic counts, and total number of lanes.
But the process of removing the shoulder added a lane to each of those segments, increasing capacity. So you're going to get more vehicles traveling through that segment during the "no shoulder" study period than you would before the shoulder is removed. One would expect there to be a drop in accidents per million vehicle miles traveled on a fixed segment of roadway when you increase its capacity by either 25 percent (going from 4 lanes to 5 in the segment) or 33 percent (going from 3 to 4).
Think of it this way: Let's say you have a one lane road. Along that road in an average day, there's one accident per day and 10 cars travel it. Then you widen that road to ten lanes. Now you get 100 cars that travel it per day, but you get 7 accidents on average. Is that road safer than it was before? It depends on how you're measuring "safety." Based on total number of vehicle trips, it is safer (0.07 accidents per vehicle trip on the 10 lane road versus 0.10 accidents per vehicle trip on the one lane road). But based on total accidents per segment, it's not (7 accidents versus 1).
I'd argue that to conclude that the removal of the inner shoulder didn't significantly contribute to an increase in accidents, the data would have to show a corresponding statistical reduction in accidents per million vehicle miles reflecting the gained million vehicles miles of throughput achieved on that higher capacity segment during the study period. But the study's data do not uniformly show that much of a decrease. Only segments 4, 5, and 9 show a decrease commensurate with the additional capacity. The other seven show less of a decrease that that, and, in one instance, show an increase.
(https://i.imgur.com/WSueEdM.jpg)
The second issue is that, although the study authors somewhat downplay the data, there seems to a statistically significant increase in accident severity along some of the segments with no inner shoulders. If the purpose of the study was just to see if you can erase the inner shoulder to add another travel lane and get more traffic through without causing too many more accidents, then the study sort of supports that (although the authors bury until the end that the data show that the accident reduction wasn't statistically significant).
(https://i.imgur.com/VlK6Hfp.jpg)
But if I understand OP's premise, it is that you can remove inner shoulders without making a highway less safe. To reach that conclusion in a meaningful way based on the study, you don't just have to have to show that accident rates did not increase for the segment, but that accident severity rates also did not increase as well. From my reading of the data, quite a few of the segments show statistically significant increases in "injury" and "fatal" accidents on the no shoulder versions of the studied freeway segments.
(https://i.imgur.com/qFzNySw.jpg)
Third, this is 50 year-old data, so it does not take into account what improvements in vehicle technology would have on increasing or decreasing safety when a shoulder is decreased in size. The study was done on vehicles that were generally lighter and slower than today's vehicles as well as lacked anti-lock brakes and other modern car features that might introduce variables as to whether an accident occurs or is avoided, and its severity, in a "left lane, no shoulder" collision situation.
That's not to say this study's data can't be considered. But given what the data show, I don't think it supports the conclusion that freeways without inner shoulders are just as safe as those with shoulders. To draw that conclusion, you would have needed to see both the accidents per million vehicle miles decrease in direct proportion to the increased throughput along the segment AND no statistically significant increase in severity of accidents. This study's data shows neither. At best, it supports the conclusions that if you remove a shoulder to add capacity, the accident rate along that segment won't greatly increase, and that on segments with high average daily traffic volumes, the accident rate will increase less than on segments with lower ADT.
Judging by the number of broken down vehicles I see on the inside shoulder along I-10 between Tucson and Phoenix (because Arizona folks really like the left lane), we definitely need an inside shoulder.
Yes. This isn't really a valid question.
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on September 05, 2023, 10:21:37 PM
The inner shoulder comes in very handy for emergency vehicles on I-12 in BR during evening rush hour. So benefit > costs.
Why couldn't they use the outside shoulder?
Definitely on wide freeways where a vehicle that lost power may not be able to make it over to the right in time. Inner shoulders should be wider than outer ones as they are next to lanes with generally faster traffic, which is more dangerous.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 05, 2023, 11:28:11 AM
There are very few scenarios where a disabled vehicle can make it to the inside shoulder but can't get over to the outside. And as cars become more reliable and electronic safety aids reduce rear-end collisions, the need for breakdown lanes in general is falling. So perhaps it's time to consider getting rid of inside shoulders.
Have you ever driven considerable distance in the inside lane of the PA Turnpike? It's very tedious, and will make you rethink the value of wider shoulders. The presence of shoulders improves the overall driving experience, not just the safety of the roadway.
Quote from: webny99 on September 06, 2023, 03:23:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 05, 2023, 11:28:11 AM
There are very few scenarios where a disabled vehicle can make it to the inside shoulder but can't get over to the outside. And as cars become more reliable and electronic safety aids reduce rear-end collisions, the need for breakdown lanes in general is falling. So perhaps it's time to consider getting rid of inside shoulders.
Have you ever driven considerable distance in the inside lane of the PA Turnpike? It's very tedious, and will make you rethink the value of wider shoulders. The presence of shoulders improves the overall driving experience, not just the safety of the roadway.
Now I'm wondering if the inside shoulders on US freeways is a contributing factor in our lack of lane discipline here.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 06, 2023, 12:33:25 PM
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on September 05, 2023, 10:21:37 PM
The inner shoulder comes in very handy for emergency vehicles on I-12 in BR during evening rush hour. So benefit > costs.
Why couldn't they use the outside shoulder?
Because most drivers are idiots and will panic in case of a mechanical problem and stop at the closest available spot rather than limp a bit further to find a safer spot to stop. Especially if there's any decent amount of traffic. If they're in a left lane, they'll use the left shoulder rather than try and merge their way over to the right shoulder where it's wider. They call it the "breakdown lane" for a reason.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 07, 2023, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 06, 2023, 12:33:25 PM
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on September 05, 2023, 10:21:37 PM
The inner shoulder comes in very handy for emergency vehicles on I-12 in BR during evening rush hour. So benefit > costs.
Why couldn't they use the outside shoulder?
Because most drivers are idiots and will panic in case of a mechanical problem and stop at the closest available spot rather than limp a bit further to find a safer spot to stop. Especially if there's any decent amount of traffic. If they're in a left lane, they'll use the left shoulder rather than try and merge their way over to the right shoulder where it's wider. They call it the "breakdown lane" for a reason.
You can find various videos on YouTube (Stanley Roberts has posted a good number from his "ride-alongs" with San Francisco area police) in which a cop goes to stop a driver, the driver panics and wants to pull to the left shoulder, and the cop has to go on the PA telling the driver either to pull to the right shoulder instead or (preferably) to exit the highway altogether to a safer location. People are conditioned to the idea of "stop immediately."
Maybe I should clarify: I'm not saying there would be no space between the edge of the left lane and the Jersey Barrier, but I'm imagining it would be only 3-4 feet wide instead of 10.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 07, 2023, 10:55:16 AM
Maybe I should clarify: I'm not saying there would be no space between the edge of the left lane and the Jersey Barrier, but I'm imagining it would be only 3-4 feet wide instead of 10.
So, less than 12 inches different from current Interstate requirements?
Seeing as my wife nearly got killed in a car accident on a freeway a few years ago and probably would have if not for an inside shoulder, I say yes we fucking need inside shoulders on freeways.
And inner shoulders should be wider, not narrower, as it is more dangerous to be right next to the left lane than the right. But let's say someone's car breaks down in slow traffic, and they don't have the momentum to get over to the right, there should always be a left shoulder.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 07, 2023, 10:32:11 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 07, 2023, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 06, 2023, 12:33:25 PM
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on September 05, 2023, 10:21:37 PM
The inner shoulder comes in very handy for emergency vehicles on I-12 in BR during evening rush hour. So benefit > costs.
Why couldn't they use the outside shoulder?
Because most drivers are idiots and will panic in case of a mechanical problem and stop at the closest available spot rather than limp a bit further to find a safer spot to stop. Especially if there's any decent amount of traffic. If they're in a left lane, they'll use the left shoulder rather than try and merge their way over to the right shoulder where it's wider. They call it the "breakdown lane" for a reason.
You can find various videos on YouTube (Stanley Roberts has posted a good number from his "ride-alongs" with San Francisco area police) in which a cop goes to stop a driver, the driver panics and wants to pull to the left shoulder, and the cop has to go on the PA telling the driver either to pull to the right shoulder instead or (preferably) to exit the highway altogether to a safer location. People are conditioned to the idea of "stop immediately."
Especially people that aren't used to getting pulled over, they do panic and freeze. It's a natural reaction by most people.
We watch OP Live where they pull people over, and there was one video where someone pulled ahead to a side street and stopped and the cop yelled at them, saying they were to pull over the moment the officers lights were turned on. So it doesn't help that there's disagreements among officers themselves when and where to pull over.
And going back to triples comment, there's some people out there that will stop right in the travel lane when their car is disabled claiming they don't want to damage it further by turning the wheel. I'm sure in their mind, if they're having car trouble, they might as well cause everyone to have a bad day and jam up the entire highway. I would love to know if cops actually gave tickets for that.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 07, 2023, 01:37:35 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 07, 2023, 10:32:11 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 07, 2023, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 06, 2023, 12:33:25 PM
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on September 05, 2023, 10:21:37 PM
The inner shoulder comes in very handy for emergency vehicles on I-12 in BR during evening rush hour. So benefit > costs.
Why couldn't they use the outside shoulder?
Because most drivers are idiots and will panic in case of a mechanical problem and stop at the closest available spot rather than limp a bit further to find a safer spot to stop. Especially if there's any decent amount of traffic. If they're in a left lane, they'll use the left shoulder rather than try and merge their way over to the right shoulder where it's wider. They call it the "breakdown lane" for a reason.
You can find various videos on YouTube (Stanley Roberts has posted a good number from his "ride-alongs" with San Francisco area police) in which a cop goes to stop a driver, the driver panics and wants to pull to the left shoulder, and the cop has to go on the PA telling the driver either to pull to the right shoulder instead or (preferably) to exit the highway altogether to a safer location. People are conditioned to the idea of "stop immediately."
Especially people that aren't used to getting pulled over, they do panic and freeze. It's a natural reaction by most people.
We watch OP Live where they pull people over, and there was one video where someone pulled ahead to a side street and stopped and the cop yelled at them, saying they were to pull over the moment the officers lights were turned on. So it doesn't help that there's disagreements among officers themselves when and where to pull over.
And going back to triples comment, there's some people out there that will stop right in the travel lane when their car is disabled claiming they don't want to damage it further by turning the wheel. I'm sure in their mind, if they're having car trouble, they might as well cause everyone to have a bad day and jam up the entire highway. I would love to know if cops actually gave tickets for that.
This brings up something I've always wondered about. Many states have passed "quick clearance" laws that require drivers to move disabled vehicles -- if the vehicle can be safely moved -- to the shoulder. Yet insurance companies advise drivers not to move their vehicles from the site of the accident until the police come to draw the diagram up for the accident report.
Quote from: vdeane on September 06, 2023, 08:38:44 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 06, 2023, 03:23:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 05, 2023, 11:28:11 AM
There are very few scenarios where a disabled vehicle can make it to the inside shoulder but can't get over to the outside. And as cars become more reliable and electronic safety aids reduce rear-end collisions, the need for breakdown lanes in general is falling. So perhaps it's time to consider getting rid of inside shoulders.
Have you ever driven considerable distance in the inside lane of the PA Turnpike? It's very tedious, and will make you rethink the value of wider shoulders. The presence of shoulders improves the overall driving experience, not just the safety of the roadway.
Now I'm wondering if the inside shoulders on US freeways is a contributing factor in our lack of lane discipline here.
Interesting thought. It definitely seems possible that high standards of road quality reach a point of diminishing returns where the benefits to safety are outweighed or even counteracted by increased driver laziness.
We need to fine people who remain stationary in the extreme left lane when they reasonably could have moved it to the shoulder.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 07, 2023, 01:57:12 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 07, 2023, 01:37:35 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 07, 2023, 10:32:11 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 07, 2023, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 06, 2023, 12:33:25 PM
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on September 05, 2023, 10:21:37 PM
The inner shoulder comes in very handy for emergency vehicles on I-12 in BR during evening rush hour. So benefit > costs.
Why couldn't they use the outside shoulder?
Because most drivers are idiots and will panic in case of a mechanical problem and stop at the closest available spot rather than limp a bit further to find a safer spot to stop. Especially if there's any decent amount of traffic. If they're in a left lane, they'll use the left shoulder rather than try and merge their way over to the right shoulder where it's wider. They call it the "breakdown lane" for a reason.
You can find various videos on YouTube (Stanley Roberts has posted a good number from his "ride-alongs" with San Francisco area police) in which a cop goes to stop a driver, the driver panics and wants to pull to the left shoulder, and the cop has to go on the PA telling the driver either to pull to the right shoulder instead or (preferably) to exit the highway altogether to a safer location. People are conditioned to the idea of "stop immediately."
Especially people that aren't used to getting pulled over, they do panic and freeze. It's a natural reaction by most people.
We watch OP Live where they pull people over, and there was one video where someone pulled ahead to a side street and stopped and the cop yelled at them, saying they were to pull over the moment the officers lights were turned on. So it doesn't help that there's disagreements among officers themselves when and where to pull over.
And going back to triples comment, there's some people out there that will stop right in the travel lane when their car is disabled claiming they don't want to damage it further by turning the wheel. I'm sure in their mind, if they're having car trouble, they might as well cause everyone to have a bad day and jam up the entire highway. I would love to know if cops actually gave tickets for that.
This brings up something I've always wondered about. Many states have passed "quick clearance" laws that require drivers to move disabled vehicles -- if the vehicle can be safely moved -- to the shoulder. Yet insurance companies advise drivers not to move their vehicles from the site of the accident until the police come to draw the diagram up for the accident report.
I'm not sure if some of these states have passed laws, or if they're just advisory signage on the roadway. Either way there's some areas that won't even send a officer out for some accidents. If it was a accident in an intersection where cars are at unusual angles and positions its good not to move them. If these accidents are on highways where one car bumped into or sideswiped another car, it's pretty obvious what happened by looking at yhe damage and those cars can be moved off the road without much of an issue.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 07, 2023, 02:43:55 PM
there's some areas that won't even send a officer out for some accidents
The last accident I was in was during heavy Covid-19 restrictions. I called the police, they asked if anyone was injured, I said no, and they told me officers were only being dispatched for injury accidents. They instructed me to fill out an accident report ourselves online. So the other driver and I went into my house (the accident was right in front of the driveway) and filled out an accident report on my home computer.
I once witnessed an accident and a responding cop told the drivers to move their cars out of the road. One of them refused to do so, claiming he was told not to move the car following an accident. That didn't sit too well with the cop for rather obvious reasons. (I recall the driver was of some sort of East Asian ethnicity and had a very strong accent, so who knows what the standard might be in his home country.)
That rather absurd example aside, it certainly used to be the norm that you were not supposed to move the vehicles after an accident until a cop told you to do so. I seem to recall that's what we were taught in driver's ed in the late 1980s. As noted above, that standard has changed in many places as states and localities realized that minor fender-benders were causing major unwarranted traffic tieups when people didn't move their cars. But I wonder how many people who learned the old rule are unaware of the newer standard. Wouldn't surprise me at all–I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who think that everything they learned about driving in the 1960s still applies today.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 07, 2023, 03:16:31 PM
I once witnessed an accident and a responding cop told the drivers to move their cars out of the road. One of them refused to do so, claiming he was told not to move the car following an accident. That didn't sit too well with the cop for rather obvious reasons. (I recall the driver was of some sort of East Asian ethnicity and had a very strong accent, so who knows what the standard might be in his home country.)
That rather absurd example aside, it certainly used to be the norm that you were not supposed to move the vehicles after an accident until a cop told you to do so. I seem to recall that's what we were taught in driver's ed in the late 1980s. As noted above, that standard has changed in many places as states and localities realized that minor fender-benders were causing major unwarranted traffic tieups when people didn't move their cars. But I wonder how many people who learned the old rule are unaware of the newer standard. Wouldn't surprise me at all–I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who think that everything they learned about driving in the 1960s still applies today.
Having worked as an auto insurance adjuster, the whole moving cars things before the cops get there enables both parties with the ability to lie a lot more effectively about what happened. Even had the "I kicked the debris from the accident to the shoulder before the cops got there" routine more than once, which made it even harder for any basic evidence to be preserved. It sucks when you're on the wrong end of it, especially if you don't have collision coverage and the person that hits you lies and has their lie become more more plausible.
Granted in certain states I handled (chiefly the one I live in), the amount of effort put in by police to document what happened can be very close to none at all in many cases. Like down to "vehicle 1 hit vehicle 2" levels of description. Always loved that Connecticut is so damn stringent about police reports and documentation from police in a car accident. They're a refreshing difference from the twelve other states I handled.
Quote from: SectorZ on September 07, 2023, 03:35:14 PM
Having worked as an auto insurance adjuster, ...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing an auto insurance adjuster loves more that someone who simply tells the truth about what happened.
Quote from: kphoger on September 07, 2023, 02:59:21 PM
The last accident I was in was during heavy Covid-19 restrictions. I called the police, they asked if anyone was injured, I said no, and they told me officers were only being dispatched for injury accidents. They instructed me to fill out an accident report ourselves online. So the other driver and I went into my house (the accident was right in front of the driveway) and filled out an accident report on my home computer.
Quote from: SectorZ on September 07, 2023, 03:35:14 PM
It sucks when you're on the wrong end of it, especially if you don't have collision coverage and the person that hits you lies and has their lie become more more plausible.
I had the advantage of sitting at my own computer when filling out the police report. I'd type a statement and, read it to her, and ask her:
Does that sound about right to you? She never disagreed with anything I put down on the report, so everything was my own wording.
Yes, especially with those with more than 2X2 lanes. Loss of power can happen while in the fast lane, and having multiple lanes to cross to get to a shoulder is quite burdensome in locales with the traffic counts that justify those extra lanes. They are used by emergency vehicles regularly in high-traffic scenarios, and sometimes by those who make the content possible on all of the Arkansas police activity YouTube videos along with the right shoulder, usually just a few minutes before ASP maneuvers to PIT/TVI them into the Jersey barrier or the treeline.
I think it really depends on the width of the freeway.
Is it more than 4 lanes wide? In that case, trying to move over to the right lane if you're having problems in the left may cause more trouble.
That's what I said. If you are having car trouble you may not be able to safely get over all those lanes. Such as accelerating to overtake..etc. Or traffic could be going 20 mph at the time and lack the momentum to.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 07, 2023, 02:43:55 PM
I'm not sure if some of these states have passed laws, or if they're just advisory signage on the roadway. Either way there's some areas that won't even send a officer out for some accidents. If it was a accident in an intersection where cars are at unusual angles and positions its good not to move them. If these accidents are on highways where one car bumped into or sideswiped another car, it's pretty obvious what happened by looking at yhe damage and those cars can be moved off the road without much of an issue.
Kentucky passed such a law within the last 19 years (since I started this job) and the signs are black-on-white regulatory.
Today, I saw a disabled car on the left side of the Mass Pike shortly before the Ted Williams tunnel. They have a small 4 foot shoulder there and that was enough that most of the car fit in with only the right wheels over the edge. Traffic was light enough that drivers, including myself, could just move over, but still, that lane would be usable in a heavy traffic situation, albeit drivers would need to slow down.
I would have thought you would be faulting the driver for stopping on the left, given your original post in this thread in which you said we don't need left shoulders because drivers can normally make it over to the right.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 09, 2023, 08:31:46 AM
Today, I saw a disabled car on the left side of the Mass Pike shortly before the Ted Williams tunnel. They have a small 4 foot shoulder there and that was enough that most of the car fit in with only the right wheels over the edge. Traffic was light enough that drivers, including myself, could just move over, but still, that lane would be usable in a heavy traffic situation, albeit drivers would need to slow down.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 05, 2023, 11:28:11 AMA 1987 study looked at 10 cases from California where inside shoulders were removed to make space for extra lanes (generally in combination with narrowing the existing lanes from 12 feet to 11) and found no increases in accident rates and sometimes a *decrease* due to impact of reduced congestion.
And having no inside shoulders is the norm in most of the world.
There are very few scenarios where a disabled vehicle can make it to the inside shoulder but can't get over to the outside. And as cars become more reliable and electronic safety aids reduce rear-end collisions, the need for breakdown lanes in general is falling. So perhaps it's time to consider getting rid of inside shoulders.
So you changed your pick?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 05, 2023, 04:27:45 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 05, 2023, 03:44:42 PM
A good shoulder is worth far more than an extra lane to squeeze more traffic. Collisions blocking actual lanes are a huge issue.
I seem to recall that being a common problem on I-5 north of Seattle.
It's also a big problem on I-55 in Will County, Illinois as there is a substandard left shoulder (narrower than usual) due to the age of the freeway and the need (very big need) to add a third lane between Weber Road (mp 263) and I-80 (mp 250).
Quote from: kernals12 on September 07, 2023, 10:55:16 AM
Maybe I should clarify: I'm not saying there would be no space between the edge of the left lane and the Jersey Barrier, but I'm imagining it would be only 3-4 feet wide instead of 10.
Then you get this such as on I-55 in Will County: https://goo.gl/maps/5bLAMfEEGiGvGuCy7
Not quite Pennsylvania narrow, but not enough room for a vehicle.