AARoads Forum

Washington Post: For police, not wearing seat belts can be fatal mistake (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/for-police-not-wearing-seat-belts-can-be-fatal-mistake/2012/10/14/78a8dd10-f207-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html)

QuoteBy the time his police cruiser tumbled to a halt in the underbrush beside the interstate in August, the young police officer had been flung clear of the car to his death, the same fate that had been suffered by 139 other officers nationwide who were ejected from their vehicles when not using a seat belt.

QuoteThough most state laws require police to use seat belts, federal data show that only about half of them do, and over the past three decades, 19 percent of the officers killed in accidents were ejected from their vehicles.

Dog bites man.

Do as I say, not as I do.  Typical government employees.

They do plenty of dangerous things on the highway.  Not wearing seat belts, standing outside the scout car on the freeway to perform speed patrol, parking the scout car in the crossover in the median, etc.  Personally, I think people need to start recording these unsafe activities and post it on the web for all, including the cop's supervisor, to see.

There is a big difference between civilians and police officers when it comes to seat belts.

Several Richmond police officers have told me basically what is quoted here --

'Police officers who don't buckle up say they might need to jump out of their cars to arrest someone or to stop a shooter, and the belt could slow their response. Or worse, the myriad equipment on their gun belt could snag and they would become trapped.'

'"I don't wear mine, and I'll take my hit for whatever happens, because if somebody starts shooting at me, I'm not going to get caught in the car," said Randy Brann, president of the Norfolk police union.'

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/02/study-police-officers-often-shun-their-seat-belts

........

Police work is risky.  A Virginia state trooper was killed while directing traffic at the highway in front of the state fair a couple weeks ago, he got hit by a car.

Quote from: bugo on October 14, 2012, 09:10:11 PM
Do as I say, not as I do.  Typical government employees.

Typical humans. Hypocrisy isn't just a government thing.

But law enforcement is ripe for it, yes. They crave power and generally have black & white thinking. but they'll break their own rules because the rules are beneath them. Look at things like Abner Louima, treatment of Occupy Wall Street, or that handicapped man with no legs in Houston. They can be manipulated and they can get bloodthirsty. Our militarization of them has made it just that much worse.

A couple of years ago a cop was killed while trying to make a U turn on the Will Rogers Turnpike (I-44) in NE OK.  If you haven't driven this highway, it is a 4 lane freeway built using one carriageway, with a jersey barrier in the middle.  The median is VERY narrow.

Quote from: Beltway on October 14, 2012, 09:50:50 PM
There is a big difference between civilians and police officers when it comes to seat belts.

Several Richmond police officers have told me basically what is quoted here --

'Police officers who don't buckle up say they might need to jump out of their cars to arrest someone or to stop a shooter, and the belt could slow their response. Or worse, the myriad equipment on their gun belt could snag and they would become trapped.'

'"I don't wear mine, and I'll take my hit for whatever happens, because if somebody starts shooting at me, I'm not going to get caught in the car," said Randy Brann, president of the Norfolk police union.'

It doesn't take much time to unbuckle a seat belt.  It takes more time and effort to open the door than to unbuckle the seat belt.

Quote from: bugo on October 14, 2012, 09:57:54 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 14, 2012, 09:50:50 PM
There is a big difference between civilians and police officers when it comes to seat belts.

Several Richmond police officers have told me basically what is quoted here --

'Police officers who don't buckle up say they might need to jump out of their cars to arrest someone or to stop a shooter, and the belt could slow their response. Or worse, the myriad equipment on their gun belt could snag and they would become trapped.'

'"I don't wear mine, and I'll take my hit for whatever happens, because if somebody starts shooting at me, I'm not going to get caught in the car," said Randy Brann, president of the Norfolk police union.'

It doesn't take much time to unbuckle a seat belt.  It takes more time and effort to open the door than to unbuckle the seat belt.

As pointed out above, the duty belt with all its equipment adds considerable complexity to quickly removing the seat belt.

Quote from: Beltway on October 14, 2012, 09:50:50 PMSeveral Richmond police officers have told me basically what is quoted here --

'Police officers who don't buckle up say they might need to jump out of their cars to arrest someone or to stop a shooter, and the belt could slow their response. Or worse, the myriad equipment on their gun belt could snag and they would become trapped.'

So why not work with the manufacturers to redesign the seat belt for police cars so as to create a "quick release" - maybe a steering wheel button that when pressed immediately unlatches, and retracts, the seatbelt (probably with some kind of breakaway for the shoulder belt)?

If Chevrolet can redesign the driver's seat to be more comfortable for officers with their duty belt in the new PPV, surely a seatbelt can be redesigned...

I believe Beltway and the officers he's quoting.  I think it is plausible that sometimes wearing a seatbelt could be a fatal mistake for officers.

However, I'm extremely skeptical that wearing a seatbelt isn't the better option far more often.

Solution:

Bring back automatic seatbelts. open the door, you are unbelted.

Another solution:
Redesign the tool belt so that it no longer interferes with the seat belt.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 15, 2012, 12:50:11 AM
Another solution:
Redesign the tool belt so that it no longer interferes with the seat belt.

How do you do that?  The duty belt is what it is, and it goes around the waist.

Quote from: Beltway on October 14, 2012, 10:02:43 PM

Quote from: bugo on October 14, 2012, 09:57:54 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 14, 2012, 09:50:50 PM
There is a big difference between civilians and police officers when it comes to seat belts.

Several Richmond police officers have told me basically what is quoted here --

'Police officers who don't buckle up say they might need to jump out of their cars to arrest someone or to stop a shooter, and the belt could slow their response. Or worse, the myriad equipment on their gun belt could snag and they would become trapped.'

'"I don't wear mine, and I'll take my hit for whatever happens, because if somebody starts shooting at me, I'm not going to get caught in the car," said Randy Brann, president of the Norfolk police union.'

It doesn't take much time to unbuckle a seat belt.  It takes more time and effort to open the door than to unbuckle the seat belt.

As pointed out above, the duty belt with all its equipment adds considerable complexity to quickly removing the seat belt.

It's a bullshit answer.  They're just not interested in wearing it.  If they were, they'd find a way.

Quote from: Brandon on October 15, 2012, 06:49:23 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 14, 2012, 10:02:43 PM
As pointed out above, the duty belt with all its equipment adds considerable complexity to quickly removing the seat belt.

It's a bullshit answer.  They're just not interested in wearing it.  If they were, they'd find a way.

You obviously don't know anything about police work.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 14, 2012, 06:00:49 PM
Washington Post: For police, not wearing seat belts can be fatal mistake (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/for-police-not-wearing-seat-belts-can-be-fatal-mistake/2012/10/14/78a8dd10-f207-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html)

Quote from: nyratk1 on October 14, 2012, 09:51:25 PM
They crave power and generally have black & white thinking. but they'll break their own rules because the rules are beneath them. Look at things like Abner Louima, treatment of Occupy Wall Street, or that handicapped man with no legs in Houston. They can be manipulated and they can get bloodthirsty. Our militarization of them has made it just that much worse.

That escalated quickly.

A) How often are police shot at while in their car?

B) Provide us with a comparison of officers that don't wear their seatbelt to those that do wear their seatbelt, and the response time and success rate of jumping out of the vehicle to catch their intended target.

Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2012, 06:21:57 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 15, 2012, 12:50:11 AM
Another solution:
Redesign the tool belt so that it no longer interferes with the seat belt.

How do you do that?  The duty belt is what it is, and it goes around the waist.

Instead of letting it remain what it is, you make it not be what it is and you make it be something different.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 15, 2012, 09:30:57 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2012, 06:21:57 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 15, 2012, 12:50:11 AM
Another solution:
Redesign the tool belt so that it no longer interferes with the seat belt.

How do you do that?  The duty belt is what it is, and it goes around the waist.

Instead of letting it remain what it is, you make it not be what it is and you make it be something different.

Fanny pack.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on October 15, 2012, 12:06:21 AM
Solution:

Bring back automatic seatbelts. open the door, you are unbelted.

wouldn't the lap belt still be a manual item?

Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2012, 08:13:12 AM

Quote from: Brandon on October 15, 2012, 06:49:23 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 14, 2012, 10:02:43 PM
As pointed out above, the duty belt with all its equipment adds considerable complexity to quickly removing the seat belt.

It's a bullshit answer.  They're just not interested in wearing it.  If they were, they'd find a way.

You obviously don't know anything about police work.

Apparently the other 50% of police officers don't either??
You know, the ones who do buckle up.

Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2012, 08:13:12 AM

Quote from: Brandon on October 15, 2012, 06:49:23 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 14, 2012, 10:02:43 PM
As pointed out above, the duty belt with all its equipment adds considerable complexity to quickly removing the seat belt.

It's a bullshit answer.  They're just not interested in wearing it.  If they were, they'd find a way.

You obviously don't know anything about police work.

Um, yes, I do.  My grandfather was a City of Detroit policeman for many years, including through the riot.  Don't tell me I know nothing of police work, pip squeak.

Well, I have a telegram (remember those, kid?) attesting to the fact that my grandmother was the first to use the IDiOT meme.

Quote from: Brandon on October 15, 2012, 06:53:45 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2012, 08:13:12 AM

Quote from: Brandon on October 15, 2012, 06:49:23 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 14, 2012, 10:02:43 PM
As pointed out above, the duty belt with all its equipment adds considerable complexity to quickly removing the seat belt.

It's a bullshit answer.  They're just not interested in wearing it.  If they were, they'd find a way.

You obviously don't know anything about police work.

Um, yes, I do.  My grandfather was a City of Detroit policeman for many years, including through the riot.  Don't tell me I know nothing of police work, pip squeak.

Your grandfather??  Apparently I am a good bit closer to police work than you are. 

Here's a hint -- most state codes have at least partial exceptions in seat belt laws for certain classes of operators, police included.  My state Virginia is one of those.  For example, in a high-speed chase the seat belt is required.  At low speeds of say 10 mph while searching for a perp the seat belt would not be required, for the reasons I provided.

46.2-1094 B2 states that law enforcement officers are "Exempt" from having to wear the seat belt under certain circumstances.
Other Exemptions:
Taxi drivers
Meter readers
Newspaper delivery drivers
Rural mail carriers
Solid waste collectors
Parking ticket officials

Such as unbuckle it when pulling up to a call prior to stopping, when cruising slowly through an area, when anyone comes up to the car, and in several other unpredictable situations. The belt easily tangles up in the duty belt, pops out the flashlight, covers the gun so you can't get it out, and can be dangerous in some situations.

Anybody that believes that traffic cops don't wear seatbelts for the same reason that traffic cops drive 30 or 40 over (hint:  because they are arrogant hypocrites) lives in a fantasy world.

When is the last time you actually say a "shooter" on the interstate?  Traffic cops spend their days in probably the one place in the nation they are unlikely to happen upon any crime, other than the oppertunity to hypocritically random tax others for what they themselves do.

Quote from: SP Cook on October 16, 2012, 06:49:01 AM
Anybody that believes that traffic cops don't wear seatbelts for the same reason that traffic cops drive 30 or 40 over (hint:  because they are arrogant hypocrites) lives in a fantasy world.

When is the last time you actually say a "shooter" on the interstate?  Traffic cops spend their days in probably the one place in the nation they are unlikely to happen upon any crime, other than the oppertunity to hypocritically random tax others for what they themselves do.

S. P., I must respectfully disagree with the  above.

Not because there aren't some lazy law enforcement officers out there (because there are), but because a lot of criminals end up in custody thanks to ethical traffic enforcement.

Case in point (dated, but still relevant) - for many decades, the District of Columbia's male felons were incarcerated at the Lorton Reformatory complex in Lorton, Fairfax County, Va.  Now many of these felons had friends back in D.C., so there was a lot of travel up and down I-95/I-395 to and from the prison complex (which was run by hand-picked associates and friends of former District of Columbia Mayor-for-Life Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr.).  More than a few of the visitors to Lorton would bring "gifts" in the form of illegal drugs and other contraband.

Recall that in the middle of I-95/I-395 is the reversible HOV roadway, with primary traffic enforcement by the Virginia State Police.

The visitors (and even some prison employees) would drive to the prison (especially on weekday afternoons) by way of those HOV lanes, without bothering to have the 3 persons required to comply with the HOV restriction.   So they would get stopped by the Virginia State Police for an HOV violation.  As a result, more than a few persons would end up under arrest for having illegal drugs in their possession (sometimes large quantities of same, intended for delivery to Lorton).

In the mid-1990's, Congress ordered the Lorton prison closed, and it inmates sent to the federal Bureau of Prisons, and the staff laid-off.  Most of the prison complex have since been  torn down, and much of the land has now been developed.

Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2012, 09:51:34 PM

46.2-1094 B2 states that law enforcement officers are "Exempt" from having to wear the seat belt under certain circumstances.
Other Exemptions:
Taxi drivers
Meter readers
Newspaper delivery drivers
Rural mail carriers
Solid waste collectors
Parking ticket officials

While I can see the reason for the exemptions, crashes occur because a car hits another object.  In most of the cases above, the car would be moving at a slow speed.  Nothing is preventing another motorist from slamming into the back (or side) of the exempt vehicle, possibly flinging that driver around or thru the vehicle.

Again, what about the other 50% of officers who do buckle up?
Are they bad police officers?  Do they not know what they're doing?

Beltway, you make it sound as though buckling up is a stupid idea.

Whatever.  Cops are allowed to do a bunch of things the common citizen isn't.  Buckling up is one of the least of them.

Quote from: kphoger on October 16, 2012, 11:21:42 AM
Again, what about the other 50% of officers who do buckle up?
Are they bad police officers?  Do they not know what they're doing?

Beltway, you make it sound as though buckling up is a stupid idea.

You haven't been comprehending what I have written.  I merely pointed out situations and cases where the seat belt use can or should be exempted.  So a smart officer would not go without 100% of the time while on duty, nor would they fasten 100% of the time while on duty.  You have to use your judgment on a situational basis.

Quote from: Special K on October 16, 2012, 11:49:19 AM
Whatever.  Cops are allowed to do a bunch of things the common citizen isn't.  Buckling up is one of the least of them.

They should be forced to obey the laws they are enforcing.

Quote from: bugo on October 16, 2012, 12:16:24 PM

Quote from: Special K on October 16, 2012, 11:49:19 AM
Whatever.  Cops are allowed to do a bunch of things the common citizen isn't.  Buckling up is one of the least of them.

They should be forced to obey the laws they are enforcing.

I disagree.  I also think no one should be required by law to wear a seatbelt.  If you don't want to do it, then you have evaluated the risks and benefits, and made a rational decision.

or you're an idiot.  but, whatever.  the government's job is not to enforce the preservation of idiots.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2012, 08:50:56 AM
Mayor-for-Life Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr.

I had tried to figure out which minor Soviet functionary Shepilov was, to make the dictator joke work... turns out that is Marion Barry's actual middle name!

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2012, 12:34:07 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2012, 08:50:56 AM
Mayor-for-Life Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr.

I had tried to figure out which minor Soviet functionary Shepilov was, to make the dictator joke work... turns out that is Marion Barry's actual middle name!

How a poor kid from Itta Bena, Mississippi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itta_Bena,_Mississippi) ended up with a middle name of "Shepilov" is not at all clear to me (according to authors Tom Sherwood and Harry Jaffe, authors of the excellent Dream City: Race, Power, and the Decline of Washington, D.C. (http://www.amazon.com/Dream-City-Power-Decline-Washington/dp/0671768468), Barry never knew his father, and spent most of his growing-up years in Memphis, Tennessee, not Itta Bena).

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2012, 12:20:42 PM

Quote from: bugo on October 16, 2012, 12:16:24 PM

Quote from: Special K on October 16, 2012, 11:49:19 AM
Whatever.  Cops are allowed to do a bunch of things the common citizen isn't.  Buckling up is one of the least of them.

They should be forced to obey the laws they are enforcing.

I disagree.  I also think no one should be required by law to wear a seatbelt.  If you don't want to do it, then you have evaluated the risks and benefits, and made a rational decision.

On private property, people can do as they please, including not using seat belts and engaging in other (sometimes) hazardous activities.  On the public highway network (including roads that are owned or operated by the private sector but open to the public), the State has every right  to require that people not drive under the influence of drugs (including alcohol), to mandate that vehicles operate at or below certain speed limits and be roadworthy.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2012, 12:20:42 PM
or you're an idiot.  but, whatever.  the government's job is not to enforce the preservation of idiots.

I certainly don't mind it if the Darwin Rule applies - but - vehicle crashes involving personal injury or death have to be investigated and sometimes reconstructed at significant expense to taxpayers.  If the crash involves fatalities, then autopsies are probably required (also at taxpayer expense).

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2012, 01:50:00 PM
On private property, people can do as they please, including not using seat belts and engaging in other (sometimes) hazardous activities.  On the public highway network (including roads that are owned or operated by the private sector but open to the public), the State has every right  to require that people not drive under the influence of drugs (including alcohol), to mandate that vehicles operate at or below certain speed limits and be roadworthy.

Problem is these activities have far, far greater potential to endanger other motorists than you not wearing your seatbelt. You cannot equate not wearing your seatbelt to speeding or driving drunk. The only person your lack of a seatbelt is going to injure is yourself.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2012, 12:20:42 PM

Quote from: bugo on October 16, 2012, 12:16:24 PM

Quote from: Special K on October 16, 2012, 11:49:19 AM
Whatever.  Cops are allowed to do a bunch of things the common citizen isn't.  Buckling up is one of the least of them.

They should be forced to obey the laws they are enforcing.

I disagree.  I also think no one should be required by law to wear a seatbelt.  If you don't want to do it, then you have evaluated the risks and benefits, and made a rational decision.

Agreed.  It's not the government's place to force you to wear seat belts, to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body, what guns you can own, or whether you can buy a large Coke.  This is not what the founding fathers had in mind.

Hah! I wore a seatbelt when delivering and throwing newspapers.

Police could buckle when increasing their speed, and unbuckle just before coming to a halt. The high speed chases/pursuits is when they damn well need it. If they can fumble with a laptop in plain sight, their radio, they can manage a two-finger operation that takes all of a second. On the other hand, its your choice as an adult to be an idiot.

Quote from: formulanone on October 16, 2012, 04:10:59 PM
Hah! I wore a seatbelt when delivering and throwing newspapers.

Police could buckle when increasing their speed, and unbuckle just before coming to a halt. The high speed chases/pursuits is when they damn well need it. If they can fumble with a laptop in plain sight, their radio, they can manage a two-finger operation that takes all of a second. On the other hand, its your choice as an adult to be an idiot.

A police car indeed involves multi-tasking, and often is a very noisy and stressed environment, with radio, siren and conversation in the car, including working the CAD, sometimes one or more at the same time.

You don't need to be an officer to see this -- most municipal police departments have "ride-a-long" programs whereby a civilian can ride with an officer on a duty shift.  See for yourself...

This seat belt issue is not as simple as some posters want to make it out to be.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 02:35:58 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2012, 01:50:00 PM
On private property, people can do as they please, including not using seat belts and engaging in other (sometimes) hazardous activities.  On the public highway network (including roads that are owned or operated by the private sector but open to the public), the State has every right  to require that people not drive under the influence of drugs (including alcohol), to mandate that vehicles operate at or below certain speed limits and be roadworthy.

Problem is these activities have far, far greater potential to endanger other motorists than you not wearing your seatbelt. You cannot equate not wearing your seatbelt to speeding or driving drunk. The only person your lack of a seatbelt is going to injure is yourself.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute.  If there is a traffic accident and you aren't wearing a seat belt, you might die or be seriously injured.  If there are other passengers in your car who need to be rescued, then you will not only have caused harm to yourself, but also prevented yourself from being able to rescue them–something which you may have been able to do had you been buckled in during the crash.  So there does exist a hypothetical possiblity that not buckling up would be the determining factor in someone else's death.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2012, 01:42:45 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2012, 12:34:07 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2012, 08:50:56 AMMayor-for-Life Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr.

I had tried to figure out which minor Soviet functionary Shepilov was, to make the dictator joke work... turns out that is Marion Barry's actual middle name!

How a poor kid from Itta Bena, Mississippi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itta_Bena,_Mississippi) ended up with a middle name of "Shepilov" is not at all clear to me (according to authors Tom Sherwood and Harry Jaffe, authors of the excellent Dream City: Race, Power, and the Decline of Washington, D.C. (http://www.amazon.com/Dream-City-Power-Decline-Washington/dp/0671768468), Barry never knew his father, and spent most of his growing-up years in Memphis, Tennessee, not Itta Bena).

Dmitri Shepilov (1905-1995) was Khrushchev's foreign minister and involved in an unsuccessful attempt to depose him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepilov

However, in 1936 he was still fairly obscure and would have been known only to people following events in the Soviet Union very closely--he was not as instantly recognizable as, for example, Zinoviev.  If he is indeed where Marion Barry gets his middle name, then Barry's parents must have been Russia geeks or ardent Communists, or Barry must have given it to himself in adulthood.

Edit:  He did give it to himself in adulthood; originally it was a nickname given him by his classmates at LeMoyne College, where he got his undergraduate degree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2012, 08:50:56 AM

ethical traffic enforcement.

"Ethical" and "traffic enforcement" are conradictory concepts.

Any traffic cop who, ever (other than in response or pursuit), drives one one-thousandth of a MPH over the limit, to be "ethical" must immediatly turn himself in for the same random tax I have to pay.  Or be UNethical.  A hypocrite.

Any traffic cop who, ever, lets anybody go, be they a cute blonde, a fellow traffic cop, a politician, buyer of those "I love cops" bribery stickers, is UNethical.  Corrupt.

Nice story about NOVA's lowlifes.  Care to guess the number of serious crimes commited on an interstate, where traffic cops live, contrasted to say, ANY OTHER PLACE.  Every second wasted enforcing laws that make no sense is another rape, murder, theft, etc, in TOWN.  Where the people are.

Turn off the radar gun, buckle up, and GET TO WORK!!

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2012, 12:20:42 PM

Quote from: bugo on October 16, 2012, 12:16:24 PM

Quote from: Special K on October 16, 2012, 11:49:19 AM
Whatever.  Cops are allowed to do a bunch of things the common citizen isn't.  Buckling up is one of the least of them.

They should be forced to obey the laws they are enforcing.

I disagree.  I also think no one should be required by law to wear a seatbelt.  If you don't want to do it, then you have evaluated the risks and benefits, and made a rational decision.

or you're an idiot.  but, whatever.  the government's job is not to enforce the preservation of idiots.

A person not wearing a seat belt usually doesn't wear one because they don't want to.  No matter how persistent their family may be about the issue, that person won't wear it.

Say, later on, that person gets into an accident and dies.  The family now runs to the government to get them to force everyone to wear a seatbelt. 

Actually - this is how many laws come about.  A family member refused to listen to their family, and now the family is using that person as a reason to enact a new law.  Many time, they'll use the name of the person that died in the law.  (We're not talking something like Code Adam or an Amber Alert...although the naming thing did kinda start snowballing with those laws).

Ironically, the person that died did so doing what they want to do, and the new law, with the dead person's name on it, is opposite of what the dead person wanted!

Quote from: SP Cook on October 17, 2012, 07:53:36 AM
Care to guess the number of serious crimes commited on an interstate, where traffic cops live, contrasted to say, ANY OTHER PLACE.

Interstates are where the money is, and make no mistake, these days traffic enforcement is about money.  Every jurisdiction with control over roads depends on traffic fines for part of their budgets.  (IOW, they count on motorists breaking the law and getting caught.)  Speed cameras and red-light cameras are merely the latest attempts to automate the collection of money for behavior which often is neither unsafe nor unreasonable.

But, of course, if you listen to the cops and the legislators, there is an *epidemic* of poor driving, so they MUST crack down.  Never mind that the motor vehicle death rate has been dropping steadily since the 1940's.  Don't confuse them with facts.

Quote from: SP Cook on October 17, 2012, 07:53:36 AM"Ethical" and "traffic enforcement" are conradictory concepts.

Any traffic cop who, ever (other than in response or pursuit), drives one one-thousandth of a MPH over the limit, to be "ethical" must immediatly turn himself in for the same random tax I have to pay.  Or be UNethical.  A hypocrite.

Any traffic cop who, ever, lets anybody go, be they a cute blonde, a fellow traffic cop, a politician, buyer of those "I love cops" bribery stickers, is UNethical.  Corrupt.

Nice story about NOVA's lowlifes.  Care to guess the number of serious crimes commited on an interstate, where traffic cops live, contrasted to say, ANY OTHER PLACE.  Every second wasted enforcing laws that make no sense is another rape, murder, theft, etc, in TOWN.  Where the people are.

Turn off the radar gun, buckle up, and GET TO WORK!!

S.P., you're phoning it in.

Quote from: kphoger on October 16, 2012, 08:02:47 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 02:35:58 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2012, 01:50:00 PM
On private property, people can do as they please, including not using seat belts and engaging in other (sometimes) hazardous activities.  On the public highway network (including roads that are owned or operated by the private sector but open to the public), the State has every right  to require that people not drive under the influence of drugs (including alcohol), to mandate that vehicles operate at or below certain speed limits and be roadworthy.

Problem is these activities have far, far greater potential to endanger other motorists than you not wearing your seatbelt. You cannot equate not wearing your seatbelt to speeding or driving drunk. The only person your lack of a seatbelt is going to injure is yourself.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute.  If there is a traffic accident and you aren't wearing a seat belt, you might die or be seriously injured.  If there are other passengers in your car who need to be rescued, then you will not only have caused harm to yourself, but also prevented yourself from being able to rescue them–something which you may have been able to do had you been buckled in during the crash.  So there does exist a hypothetical possiblity that not buckling up would be the determining factor in someone else's death.

If it's such a concern to those passengers in the car, they are free to tell the driver to buckle up. I had plenty of friends in high school who didn't wear seatbelts but I made them when they were driving me somewhere.

Quote from: SP Cook on October 17, 2012, 07:53:36 AM
"Ethical" and "traffic enforcement" are conradictory concepts.

Any traffic cop who, ever (other than in response or pursuit), drives one one-thousandth of a MPH over the limit, to be "ethical" must immediatly turn himself in for the same random tax I have to pay.  Or be UNethical.  A hypocrite.

Any traffic cop who, ever, lets anybody go, be they a cute blonde, a fellow traffic cop, a politician, buyer of those "I love cops" bribery stickers, is UNethical.  Corrupt.

Nice story about NOVA's lowlifes.  Care to guess the number of serious crimes commited on an interstate, where traffic cops live, contrasted to say, ANY OTHER PLACE.  Every second wasted enforcing laws that make no sense is another rape, murder, theft, etc, in TOWN.  Where the people are.

Turn off the radar gun, buckle up, and GET TO WORK!!

So nuts should be allowed to go 100 mph because all the other crimes haven't been yet all solved?

Nuts are gonna go 100 mph regardless of the level of traffic enforcement.

I can't remember the last time I saw a civilian driving at 100 MPH.

Quote from: bugo on October 17, 2012, 06:54:47 PM
I can't remember the last time I saw a civilian driving at 100 MPH.

I see it once every couple of days here in SoCal. 

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 17, 2012, 06:55:40 PM

Quote from: bugo on October 17, 2012, 06:54:47 PM
I can't remember the last time I saw a civilian driving at 100 MPH.

I see it once every couple of days here in SoCal. 

Okie drivers are notoriously slow. 

Sometimes I do see cars going very fast in Little Rock.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 17, 2012, 05:59:24 PM
Nuts are gonna go 100 mph regardless of the level of traffic enforcement.

Not if they get enough citiations for speeding and reckless driving, they won't.

Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2012, 12:14:34 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 16, 2012, 11:21:42 AM
Again, what about the other 50% of officers who do buckle up?
Are they bad police officers?  Do they not know what they're doing?

Beltway, you make it sound as though buckling up is a stupid idea.

You haven't been comprehending what I have written.  I merely pointed out situations and cases where the seat belt use can or should be exempted.  So a smart officer would not go without 100% of the time while on duty, nor would they fasten 100% of the time while on duty.  You have to use your judgment on a situational basis.

Some police agencies that I am familiar with have it in the general orders that seat belts must be used at all times.

I am not saying that those provisions should be that inflexible, but breaking a general order can get a law enforcement officer in trouble with those above in the chain of command.

Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2012, 09:43:01 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 17, 2012, 05:59:24 PM
Nuts are gonna go 100 mph regardless of the level of traffic enforcement.

Not if they get enough citiations for speeding and reckless driving, they won't.

Yes they will. Give someone a speeding ticket, they may slow down for a couple days, but then they'll start to justify speeding again pretty quick. And then there are some people who practically collect speeding tickets.

They really aren't much of a deterrent.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 18, 2012, 12:24:10 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2012, 09:43:01 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 17, 2012, 05:59:24 PM
Nuts are gonna go 100 mph regardless of the level of traffic enforcement.

Not if they get enough citiations for speeding and reckless driving, they won't.

Yes they will. Give someone a speeding ticket, they may slow down for a couple days, but then they'll start to justify speeding again pretty quick. And then there are some people who practically collect speeding tickets.

They really aren't much of a deterrent.

I agree with deathtopumpkins...if a driver is afraid of getting a ticket, then he/she won't speed to begin with.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 18, 2012, 12:24:10 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2012, 09:43:01 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 17, 2012, 05:59:24 PM
Nuts are gonna go 100 mph regardless of the level of traffic enforcement.

Not if they get enough citiations for speeding and reckless driving, they won't.

Yes they will. Give someone a speeding ticket, they may slow down for a couple days, but then they'll start to justify speeding again pretty quick. And then there are some people who practically collect speeding tickets.

They really aren't much of a deterrent.

If that won't stop them, then license suspensions and jail terms will.

Quote from: Beltway on October 18, 2012, 06:27:21 AM
If that won't stop them, then license suspensions and jail terms will.

Well, the latter, at least, for the length of the time spent inside.

Quote from: Beltway on October 18, 2012, 06:27:21 AM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 18, 2012, 12:24:10 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2012, 09:43:01 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 17, 2012, 05:59:24 PM
Nuts are gonna go 100 mph regardless of the level of traffic enforcement.

Not if they get enough citiations for speeding and reckless driving, they won't.

Yes they will. Give someone a speeding ticket, they may slow down for a couple days, but then they'll start to justify speeding again pretty quick. And then there are some people who practically collect speeding tickets.

They really aren't much of a deterrent.

If that won't stop them, then license suspensions and jail terms will.

Right.  Because we all know that the little 2" x 3" piece of plastic someone is issued somehow transmits a signal to the vehicle, allowing it to start.  Without that little piece of plastic, the car won't go anywhere.

And no one ever has been ticketed for driving with a suspended license.

Please - tell us more about how a suspended license will prevent someone from driving a car.

Jail for speeding?  Don't you think that's a bit excessive, like public flogging for jaywalking?

He's from the Perkins Union.

Quote from: bugo on October 18, 2012, 09:21:39 AM
Jail for speeding?  Don't you think that's a bit excessive, like public flogging for jaywalking?

For what was being discussed, 100+ mph speeding, if the perp keeps it up after many tickets for it, jail is not excessive.

I tried to post this upthread several days ago, but it did not get posted.

Workers comp won't pay for injuries suffered on the job if proper equipment is not used. For highway maintenance workers that includes hi-viz equipment, proper headgear and footgear, and wearing seat belts if operating vehicles or machinery. There is even an OSHA requirement now that reporters who are broadcasting or taking photos on right-of-way or in work zones must wear hi-viz vests.

If a police officer is injured in a wreck and is not wearing a seat belt in violation of law or policy, then I'd hazard to guess that their injuries would not be covered by workers comp. I would also not be surprised to learn that life insurance policies won't pay off if a cop gets killed in a wreck and he or she is not wearing a seat belt unless an exemption is present in statute or policy.

QuoteMarion Berry

"The bitch done set me up!!!"  :ded:

This officer was off-duty, and it is not clear if he was wearing a seat belt (though from the images of the wreck, it probably would not have mattered this time). 

Prince George's police officer killed in traffic accident (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/prince-georges-police-officer-involved-in-serious-accident/2012/10/18/5891f794-195a-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_blog.html)

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 19, 2012, 08:05:25 AM
This officer was off-duty, and it is not clear if he was wearing a seat belt (though from the images of the wreck, it probably would not have mattered this time). 

Prince George's police officer killed in traffic accident (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/prince-georges-police-officer-involved-in-serious-accident/2012/10/18/5891f794-195a-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_blog.html)

holy shit, people.  if there's someone coming up behind you, don't fucking pull out in front of them.

extremely reminiscent of a crash I once had, especially the damage to the left front of the SUV.  I was going about 75 when someone decided to suddenly make a left turn from the right lane. 

terrible luck for the officer that there was a utility pole there - I just spun around in the grass until my energy dissipated.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 19, 2012, 10:18:40 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 19, 2012, 08:05:25 AM
This officer was off-duty, and it is not clear if he was wearing a seat belt (though from the images of the wreck, it probably would not have mattered this time). 

Prince George's police officer killed in traffic accident (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/prince-georges-police-officer-involved-in-serious-accident/2012/10/18/5891f794-195a-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_blog.html)

holy shit, people.  if there's someone coming up behind you, don't fucking pull out in front of them.

extremely reminiscent of a crash I once had, especially the damage to the left front of the SUV.  I was going about 75 when someone decided to suddenly make a left turn from the right lane. 

terrible luck for the officer that there was a utility pole there - I just spun around in the grass until my energy dissipated.

WTOP Radio: Charges pending against woman who crashed with Pr. George's officer (http://www.wtop.com/41/3085582/Charges-pending-against-woman-who-crashed-with-Pr-Georges-officer)

QuotePrince George's County Police Chief Mark Magaw says the woman driver had originally been in the left turn lane and made a decision to cross several lanes of traffic - ultimately colliding with Bowden's cruiser which then crashed into a utility pole.

[Emphasis added below]

QuoteInvestigators say Bowden was speeding, and he was not wearing a seat belt. This is the second time in two months that a Prince George's police officer has died in an accident while not wearing a seat belt.

Arkansas State Police lost an officer four years ago  on I-40 near Mulberry: he crossed the median (presumably to go after a speeder) and crossed in front of a semi-truck.

Quote from: US71 on October 20, 2012, 08:49:43 AM
Arkansas State Police lost an officer four years ago  on I-40 near Mulberry: he crossed the median (presumably to go after a speeder) and crossed in front of a semi-truck.

Yet anther reason why I think we need to close off these crossovers.  IMHO, median breaks on freeways are dangerous.

Quote from: Brandon on October 20, 2012, 11:07:48 PM

Quote from: US71 on October 20, 2012, 08:49:43 AM
Arkansas State Police lost an officer four years ago  on I-40 near Mulberry: he crossed the median (presumably to go after a speeder) and crossed in front of a semi-truck.

Yet anther reason why I think we need to close off these crossovers.  IMHO, median breaks on freeways are dangerous.

I have little problem with full median crossings where there's room enough to safely store a vehicle waiting for a gap–especially where there's enough shoulder room to allow deceleration and acceleration (example here (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=27.022249,-99.747378&spn=0.002815,0.003449&t=k&z=18)).  What I think are really dangerous are the crossovers where there's just a barrier in between roadways, no storage space (example here (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=37.937242,-96.758456&spn=0.001246,0.001725&t=k&z=19)).

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2012, 08:36:53 AM
What I think are really dangerous are the crossovers where there's just a barrier in between roadways, no storage space (example here (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=37.937242,-96.758456&spn=0.001246,0.001725&t=k&z=19)).

Looks like you can pull into the left shoulder after the break, back through it, and then wait for a gap to bang a hard U. But will the popo do it this way after shitting a Catholic brick?

Quote from: Brandon on October 20, 2012, 11:07:48 PM

Quote from: US71 on October 20, 2012, 08:49:43 AM
Arkansas State Police lost an officer four years ago  on I-40 near Mulberry: he crossed the median (presumably to go after a speeder) and crossed in front of a semi-truck.

Yet anther reason why I think we need to close off these crossovers.  IMHO, median breaks on freeways are dangerous.

They are needed for emergency services access, and the ones on either side of an interchange are needed for snow plows to make a u-turn when plowing the ramps.

Quote from: Brandon on October 20, 2012, 11:07:48 PM

Quote from: US71 on October 20, 2012, 08:49:43 AM
Arkansas State Police lost an officer four years ago  on I-40 near Mulberry: he crossed the median (presumably to go after a speeder) and crossed in front of a semi-truck.

Yet anther reason why I think we need to close off these crossovers.  IMHO, median breaks on freeways are dangerous.

Around here, the cops will plow through the grassy median to turn around after a speeder. U-turns? They don't need no steenking U-turns to go with their badges.

Quote from: Beltway on October 21, 2012, 03:30:50 PM

Quote from: Brandon on October 20, 2012, 11:07:48 PM

Quote from: US71 on October 20, 2012, 08:49:43 AM
Arkansas State Police lost an officer four years ago  on I-40 near Mulberry: he crossed the median (presumably to go after a speeder) and crossed in front of a semi-truck.

Yet anther reason why I think we need to close off these crossovers.  IMHO, median breaks on freeways are dangerous.

They are needed for emergency services access, and the ones on either side of an interchange are needed for snow plows to make a u-turn when plowing the ramps.

In areas with exits closer than every four to five miles, no, they aren't really needed for that kind of access.  It is far safer to use the ramps of the nearest exit.  As an example where crossovers don't exist for miles, I present to you I-55 between MP 249 and MP 277 in Illinois.  Somehow plows and emergency vehicles do just fine without the crossovers.

The NY Thruway likes to build up the left shoulder before crossovers to form a deceleration "lane", but doesn't do the same after the crossover, so there's no acceleration "lane".  Here's (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.118034,-76.227616&spn=0.001094,0.002642&t=h&z=19) an example just west of the Liverpool exit.  There's one in each direction, but the westbound one was easier to see in the aerial.  I've only seen this on the Thruway, and I think it's kind of neat.  I've actually seen police cars parked in this exact crossover before.

Assuming there's enough interest, I propose splitting the discussion about crossovers into a new topic.

Quote from: Brandon on October 21, 2012, 08:25:27 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 21, 2012, 03:30:50 PM

Quote from: Brandon on October 20, 2012, 11:07:48 PM
Yet anther reason why I think we need to close off these crossovers.  IMHO, median breaks on freeways are dangerous.

They are needed for emergency services access, and the ones on either side of an interchange are needed for snow plows to make a u-turn when plowing the ramps.

In areas with exits closer than every four to five miles, no, they aren't really needed for that kind of access.  It is far safer to use the ramps of the nearest exit.  As an example where crossovers don't exist for miles, I present to you I-55 between MP 249 and MP 277 in Illinois.  Somehow plows and emergency vehicles do just fine without the crossovers.

What part of I-55 is that?  I just checked it on Google Maps between I-155 and I-80, and I counted at least 20 crossovers.

It is not dangerous for an emergency vehicle or snow plow to use a crossover if they use their warning lights. The roof lights and strobes are extremely obvious from a long distance away.  They are not going to use a crossover unless there is sufficient need, and they don't have to use a crossover if they decide to use an interchange instead.

Crossovers, even if only intended for official use, are a huge temptation to drivers making less-than-wise choices.  I've been guilty of it a few times.  I used to deliver supplies to a rest area, and sometimes used the crossover instead of turning around at the next exit.  But I did everything as safely as possible, including sometimes stopping on the far right shoulder and waiting for all traffic to clear before turning around.  Many drivers hardly even yield before pulling out in the other direction.  With proper acceleration/deceleration space, that would be less of an issue.

Here (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=36.628056,-93.223768&spn=0.002536,0.003449&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=36.628163,-93.223796&panoid=xFtim-YMtDDLKy4NJg5Gqg&cbp=12,136.08,,0,6.68)'s the diciest crossover I've used, having gotten on the highway here (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=36.63023,-93.224739&spn=0.002536,0.003449&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=36.630143,-93.22468&panoid=QG-OljlIl0lbbXPSMEt8cw&cbp=12,89.71,,0,15.54).

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2012, 11:40:22 PM
Crossovers, even if only intended for official use, are a huge temptation to drivers making less-than-wise choices.

So the crossover is the one doing the tempting?

Quote
I've been guilty of it a few times.  I used to deliver supplies to a rest area, and sometimes used the crossover instead of turning around at the next exit.  But I did everything as safely as possible, including sometimes stopping on the far right shoulder and waiting for all traffic to clear before turning around.  Many drivers hardly even yield before pulling out in the other direction.  With proper acceleration/deceleration space, that would be less of an issue.

I've never felt any temptation to use a crossover for non-official purposes.  Apparently neither do about 99.9% of the other motorists.

Quote from: Beltway on October 21, 2012, 10:18:15 PM

Quote from: Brandon on October 21, 2012, 08:25:27 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 21, 2012, 03:30:50 PM

Quote from: Brandon on October 20, 2012, 11:07:48 PM
Yet anther reason why I think we need to close off these crossovers.  IMHO, median breaks on freeways are dangerous.

They are needed for emergency services access, and the ones on either side of an interchange are needed for snow plows to make a u-turn when plowing the ramps.

In areas with exits closer than every four to five miles, no, they aren't really needed for that kind of access.  It is far safer to use the ramps of the nearest exit.  As an example where crossovers don't exist for miles, I present to you I-55 between MP 249 and MP 277 in Illinois.  Somehow plows and emergency vehicles do just fine without the crossovers.

What part of I-55 is that?  I just checked it on Google Maps between I-155 and I-80, and I counted at least 20 crossovers.

It is not dangerous for an emergency vehicle or snow plow to use a crossover if they use their warning lights. The roof lights and strobes are extremely obvious from a long distance away.  They are not going to use a crossover unless there is sufficient need, and they don't have to use a crossover if they decide to use an interchange instead.

I told you MP 249 to MP 277.  And no, they use crossovers all the time, usually without lights.

What kind of fantasy world do you live in, Beltway?

Quote from: Brandon on October 21, 2012, 08:25:27 PM
In areas with exits closer than every four to five miles, no, they aren't really needed for that kind of access.  It is far safer to use the ramps of the nearest exit.  As an example where crossovers don't exist for miles, I present to you I-55 between MP 249 and MP 277 in Illinois.  Somehow plows and emergency vehicles do just fine without the crossovers.

Sure they are. Using a random example - Say you have interchanges at MP 5 & MP 10 - which are 5 miles away.  What if an accident happened Southbound at MP 5.4...do you want a cop to travel 4.6 miles north past the accident, use the interchange, then travel 4.6 miles south, battling slowing traffic?  That's over a 9 mile detour just because you don't want a median crossover.

Have you ever used the road after a snowstorm, to determine how those ramps and roads are truly plowed?

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 06:22:13 AM
I've never felt any temptation to use a crossover for non-official purposes.  Apparently neither do about 99.9% of the other motorists.

I dislike intensely using crossovers, even when I have the ability to do so for official reasons (which I sometimes do). Ones that are just a break  in a Jersey wall I won't use - at all.

Quote from: Brandon on October 22, 2012, 06:39:21 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 21, 2012, 10:18:15 PM
What part of I-55 is that?  I just checked it on Google Maps between I-155 and I-80, and I counted at least 20 crossovers.

It is not dangerous for an emergency vehicle or snow plow to use a crossover if they use their warning lights. The roof lights and strobes are extremely obvious from a long distance away.  They are not going to use a crossover unless there is sufficient need, and they don't have to use a crossover if they decide to use an interchange instead.

I told you MP 249 to MP 277.  And no, they use crossovers all the time, usually without lights.

What kind of fantasy world do you live in, Beltway?

Can you post without making personal attacks?

I don't live in Illinois.  Google Maps doesn't show mileposts.  Why didn't you answer my question about which section of I-55?

Around where I live crossovers are rarely used for non-official uses.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2012, 08:25:44 AM

Quote from: Brandon on October 21, 2012, 08:25:27 PM
In areas with exits closer than every four to five miles, no, they aren't really needed for that kind of access.  It is far safer to use the ramps of the nearest exit.  As an example where crossovers don't exist for miles, I present to you I-55 between MP 249 and MP 277 in Illinois.  Somehow plows and emergency vehicles do just fine without the crossovers.

Sure they are. Using a random example - Say you have interchanges at MP 5 & MP 10 - which are 5 miles away.  What if an accident happened Southbound at MP 5.4...do you want a cop to travel 4.6 miles north past the accident, use the interchange, then travel 4.6 miles south, battling slowing traffic?  That's over a 9 mile detour just because you don't want a median crossover.

Have you ever used the road after a snowstorm, to determine how those ramps and roads are truly plowed?

Having crossovers at each side of an interchange, allows one snow plow to make a loop and plow all 4 finger ramps in one operation with a minimum of wasted distance.  In a heavy snow he might be assigned to keep plowing that one interchange's ramps repeatedly.  It is not unsafe, as a snow plow is lit up like a Christmas tree.

Without the crossovers, a snow plow would have to leave the mainline, plow 2 ramps, and then re-enter the mainline.  There could be a lot of wasted distance, or if he plowed the mainline on the same job, he would have to skip the section between the ramp terminals and another plow would be needed to do the skipped section.

With the crossovers, a plow assigned to the mainline could plow continuously on the mainline, and a plow assigned to the interchange could plow continuously there and then work the interchange approach highway as well.  It's about the efficient use of equipment.

I speak from experience of plowing VA I-64 back in the early 1980s.
VDOT blocks some of the interchange-related crossovers with a pile of gravel during times of the year when there will be no snow.

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 06:22:13 AM

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2012, 11:40:22 PM
Crossovers, even if only intended for official use, are a huge temptation to drivers making less-than-wise choices.

So the crossover is the one doing the tempting?

Well, that was a weird question.  Umm, no, the crossover is not a conscious entity.  But the temptation to cross the median is a lot less when there is no paved space between the roadways.  I've hardly ever seen a driver cross the median without a crossover.

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 06:22:13 AM

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2012, 11:40:22 PM
I've been guilty of it a few times.  I used to deliver supplies to a rest area, and sometimes used the crossover instead of turning around at the next exit.  But I did everything as safely as possible, including sometimes stopping on the far right shoulder and waiting for all traffic to clear before turning around.  Many drivers hardly even yield before pulling out in the other direction.  With proper acceleration/deceleration space, that would be less of an issue.

I've never felt any temptation to use a crossover for non-official purposes.  Apparently neither do about 99.9% of the other motorists.

When I mentioned the rest area scenario to one of our other drivers (we only had five drivers), he mentioned that he'd done the exact same thing–though he usually stopped in the median and put on his hazard lights for a minute to pretend like he was making an emergency stop.  If you were to survey 1000 motorists, I bet you would come up with substantially more than one person (your 0.1%) who has used a crossover when they weren't supposed to–and even more than that who have been tempted to.  Here in Wichita, I see people use the crossover near my work exit every time they close a nearby exit for construction:  rather than turn around at the next exit, they just flip a U turn.  Also, on trips, I often see people flip a U turn when there's a huge backup due to a car wreck.  Just from conversations I've had with people, this seems to be a common temptation.

Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2012, 10:46:15 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 06:22:13 AM

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2012, 11:40:22 PM
Crossovers, even if only intended for official use, are a huge temptation to drivers making less-than-wise choices.

So the crossover is the one doing the tempting?

Well, that was a weird question.  Umm, no, the crossover is not a conscious entity.  But the temptation to cross the median is a lot less when there is no paved space between the roadways.  I've hardly ever seen a driver cross the median without a crossover.

It is clearly illegal and risky.  There are many things on the highway that are illegal and risky, and it is not possible to make all of them impossible to do.

Properly designed crossovers exist for an important reason.

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 10:49:49 AM

Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2012, 10:46:15 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 06:22:13 AM

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2012, 11:40:22 PM
Crossovers, even if only intended for official use, are a huge temptation to drivers making less-than-wise choices.

So the crossover is the one doing the tempting?

Well, that was a weird question.  Umm, no, the crossover is not a conscious entity.  But the temptation to cross the median is a lot less when there is no paved space between the roadways.  I've hardly ever seen a driver cross the median without a crossover.

It is clearly illegal and risky.  There are many things on the highway that are illegal and risky, and it is not possible to make all of them impossible to do.

Properly designed crossovers exist for an important reason.

Yes, I agree.  I also generally do not have a problem with crossovers–with no restrictions–as long as there is deceleration and acceleration room.  It's the ones with no wiggle room that I think are the real culprits.

I wonder if there's a cultural/legal component too.  I've never seen crossovers used for anything but speed enforcement, snow plows, and DOT usage.  I wonder if the fact that it's illegal to make a U turn except at marked intersections on select divided highways has anything to do with this.  When such a move needs to be made, we tend to think "lets find a side street or business to loop back on" rather than "U turn next opportunity".

Quote from: deanej on October 22, 2012, 11:40:19 AM
I wonder if there's a cultural/legal component too.  I've never seen crossovers used for anything but speed enforcement, snow plows, and DOT usage.  I wonder if the fact that it's illegal to make a U turn except at marked intersections on select divided highways has anything to do with this.  When such a move needs to be made, we tend to think "lets find a side street or business to loop back on" rather than "U turn next opportunity".

Doubt it. U-turns are legal at most intersections in Florida, yet I almost never see someone U-turning on the freeway. Cutting across three lanes to the exit, sure, but not cutting across the median.

Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2012, 11:00:00 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 10:49:49 AM
It is clearly illegal and risky.  There are many things on the highway that are illegal and risky, and it is not possible to make all of them impossible to do.

Properly designed crossovers exist for an important reason.

Yes, I agree.  I also generally do not have a problem with crossovers–with no restrictions–as long as there is deceleration and acceleration room.  It's the ones with no wiggle room that I think are the real culprits.

How is an inanimate object a "culprit"?  Again you are trying to transfer blame to the crossover.

Official-use-only crossovers don't need "deceleration and acceleration room", not in the sense of accell/decell lanes.  The roof lights are an official signal to yield, and visible from a long distance away.

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 12:18:56 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2012, 11:00:00 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 10:49:49 AM
It is clearly illegal and risky.  There are many things on the highway that are illegal and risky, and it is not possible to make all of them impossible to do.

Properly designed crossovers exist for an important reason.

Yes, I agree.  I also generally do not have a problem with crossovers–with no restrictions–as long as there is deceleration and acceleration room.  It's the ones with no wiggle room that I think are the real culprits.

How is an inanimate object a "culprit"?  Again you are trying to transfer blame to the crossover.

Official-use-only crossovers don't need "deceleration and acceleration room", not in the sense of accell/decell lanes.  The roof lights are an official signal to yield, and visible from a long distance away.

By "with no restrictions", I mean available to you and me and everybody to use; my car doesn't have roof lights, sorry to say.  Besides which, roof lights plus more accel/decel room is definitely safer than roof lights with no accel/decel room.

The crossovers on the Jersey barrier sections of I-44 (the toll roads) in Oklahoma seem to be very poorly designed.

Quote from: hbelkins on October 22, 2012, 01:42:41 PM
The crossovers on the Jersey barrier sections of I-44 (the toll roads) in Oklahoma seem to be very poorly designed.

I don't know if you have ever seen the ones on some of the oldest portions of the Capital Beltway in Montgomery County, Maryland.  Little more than a gap in the wall (because the right-of-way is narrow, and there is no shoulder at all on the left side of the freeway).

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2012, 03:58:48 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on October 22, 2012, 01:42:41 PM
The crossovers on the Jersey barrier sections of I-44 (the toll roads) in Oklahoma seem to be very poorly designed.

I don't know if you have ever seen the ones on some of the oldest portions of the Capital Beltway in Montgomery County, Maryland.  Little more than a gap in the wall (because the right-of-way is narrow, and there is no shoulder at all on the left side of the freeway).

Which would be utilized only in certain types of emergencies, such as when absolutely necessary to gain access to the other roadway, such as when jammed traffic would prevent easy access via an interchange.

Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2012, 01:14:23 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 12:18:56 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2012, 11:00:00 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 10:49:49 AM
It is clearly illegal and risky.  There are many things on the highway that are illegal and risky, and it is not possible to make all of them impossible to do.

Properly designed crossovers exist for an important reason.

Yes, I agree.  I also generally do not have a problem with crossovers–with no restrictions–as long as there is deceleration and acceleration room.  It's the ones with no wiggle room that I think are the real culprits.

How is an inanimate object a "culprit"?  Again you are trying to transfer blame to the crossover.

Official-use-only crossovers don't need "deceleration and acceleration room", not in the sense of accell/decell lanes.  The roof lights are an official signal to yield, and visible from a long distance away.

By "with no restrictions", I mean available to you and me and everybody to use; my car doesn't have roof lights, sorry to say.  Besides which, roof lights plus more accel/decel room is definitely safer than roof lights with no accel/decel room.

You were discussing emergency crossovers on Interstate highways.  Non-official use is prohibited.  On a 70-mph design, accell/decell lanes would be about 1,000 feet long, and that would be wasteful in that case.

Crossovers open the the public on non-freeways are a different subject, and they should have ample accell/decell lanes.

Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2012, 01:14:23 PM
By "with no restrictions", I mean available to you and me and everybody to use; my car doesn't have roof lights, sorry to say.  Besides which, roof lights plus more accel/decel room is definitely safer than roof lights with no accel/decel room.

I don't know what percentage of median crossovers are "with no restrictions" in the US, but in NY we don't, and will never have, any; they're all emergency/official vehicles only.

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 09:02:57 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2012, 08:25:44 AM

Quote from: Brandon on October 21, 2012, 08:25:27 PM
In areas with exits closer than every four to five miles, no, they aren't really needed for that kind of access.  It is far safer to use the ramps of the nearest exit.  As an example where crossovers don't exist for miles, I present to you I-55 between MP 249 and MP 277 in Illinois.  Somehow plows and emergency vehicles do just fine without the crossovers.

Sure they are. Using a random example - Say you have interchanges at MP 5 & MP 10 - which are 5 miles away.  What if an accident happened Southbound at MP 5.4...do you want a cop to travel 4.6 miles north past the accident, use the interchange, then travel 4.6 miles south, battling slowing traffic?  That's over a 9 mile detour just because you don't want a median crossover.

Have you ever used the road after a snowstorm, to determine how those ramps and roads are truly plowed?

Having crossovers at each side of an interchange, allows one snow plow to make a loop and plow all 4 finger ramps in one operation with a minimum of wasted distance.  In a heavy snow he might be assigned to keep plowing that one interchange's ramps repeatedly.  It is not unsafe, as a snow plow is lit up like a Christmas tree.

Having crossovers at each side also helps when VDOT closes the through route exit ramp with no warning and no posted detour - and long distance to the next exit...
...

Quote from: Steve on October 22, 2012, 06:12:22 PM
Having crossovers at each side also helps when VDOT closes the through route exit ramp with no warning and no posted detour - and long distance to the next exit...
...

Do you speak from personal experience?

Quote from: hbelkins on October 22, 2012, 10:08:10 PM

Quote from: Steve on October 22, 2012, 06:12:22 PM
Having crossovers at each side also helps when VDOT closes the through route exit ramp with no warning and no posted detour - and long distance to the next exit...
...

Do you speak from personal experience?

VDOT and others will sometimes close a ramp for milling and repaving overnight - and sometimes for other reasons (there were a lot of those this past two years while the I-495 Express Lanes were being built).  But those are decently signed and the spacing between the interchanges is generally not very far.

Over the course of decades of driving in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I have only seen a closure (with no warning) in the aftermath of a crash involving hazardous materials, one or more fatalities, or a criminal investigation (my people were working one night near I-395 at South Glebe Road (Va. 120) when an Alexandria police officer was shot (the officer eventually recovered), which resulted in a total shut-down of the northbound lanes for a crime scene investigation involving several agencies (City of Alexandria, Arlington County and the Virginia State Police)).

Aside from a fuel tank truck wreck and fire, the worst HAZMAT incident on a ramp that I can remember in Northern Virginia was the truck that was carrying a load of explosives (I think it might have been black powder) turned on its side in the old Springfield Interchange in Fairfax County on the ramp that then  carried all I-95 northbound traffic.  The incident resulted in the shutdown of everything running through the interchange until a team of special agents from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms could come to the scene and unload a pretty large load (in was measured in tons) entirely by hand and and reload it onto another truck.  It took hours to finish the off-load and reload, and traffic was impacted over 60 miles away in Maryland.

Snow plows have not only median breaks but jughandles! My god!
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=44.227857,-69.814317&spn=0.014023,0.033023&gl=us&t=k&z=16&layer=c&cbll=44.227937,-69.814233&panoid=Or0dDHMyfH1mUTklKBzqNA&cbp=12,45.96,,0,5.73

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2012, 11:08:43 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on October 22, 2012, 10:08:10 PM

Quote from: Steve on October 22, 2012, 06:12:22 PM
Having crossovers at each side also helps when VDOT closes the through route exit ramp with no warning and no posted detour - and long distance to the next exit...
...

Do you speak from personal experience?

VDOT and others will sometimes close a ramp for milling and repaving overnight - and sometimes for other reasons (there were a lot of those this past two years while the I-495 Express Lanes were being built).  But those are decently signed and the spacing between the interchanges is generally not very far.

Over the course of decades of driving in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I have only seen a closure (with no warning) in the aftermath of a crash involving hazardous materials, one or more fatalities, or a criminal investigation (my people were working one night near I-395 at South Glebe Road (Va. 120) when an Alexandria police officer was shot (the officer eventually recovered), which resulted in a total shut-down of the northbound lanes for a crime scene investigation involving several agencies (City of Alexandria, Arlington County and the Virginia State Police)).

Well, you missed this one, then. Regular work detail repaving the ramp, middle of the day on a weekday. Absolutely no advance warning until past the previous exit, and even then I'm not sure there was all that much - regardless, it would have been trivially easy to use the last exit and proceed through from there, but ridiculously non-trivial to continue on the Interstate.

Quote from: Steve on October 23, 2012, 12:43:23 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2012, 11:08:43 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on October 22, 2012, 10:08:10 PM

Quote from: Steve on October 22, 2012, 06:12:22 PM
Having crossovers at each side also helps when VDOT closes the through route exit ramp with no warning and no posted detour - and long distance to the next exit...
...

Do you speak from personal experience?

VDOT and others will sometimes close a ramp for milling and repaving overnight - and sometimes for other reasons (there were a lot of those this past two years while the I-495 Express Lanes were being built).  But those are decently signed and the spacing between the interchanges is generally not very far.

Over the course of decades of driving in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I have only seen a closure (with no warning) in the aftermath of a crash involving hazardous materials, one or more fatalities, or a criminal investigation (my people were working one night near I-395 at South Glebe Road (Va. 120) when an Alexandria police officer was shot (the officer eventually recovered), which resulted in a total shut-down of the northbound lanes for a crime scene investigation involving several agencies (City of Alexandria, Arlington County and the Virginia State Police)).

Well, you missed this one, then. Regular work detail repaving the ramp, middle of the day on a weekday. Absolutely no advance warning until past the previous exit, and even then I'm not sure there was all that much - regardless, it would have been trivially easy to use the last exit and proceed through from there, but ridiculously non-trivial to continue on the Interstate.

I noticed NJ does this.  They won't post a detour at the previous exit when the next exit is closed.  I talked to someone at NJDOT at a public meeting about this, and they said it's due to people commonly ignoring the signs beforehand.

Take this example: A few years back in Jersey: I-295's NB Exit 57 (US 130 North) was closed due to a pavement rehab project.  The signed detour was to go to Exit 60 (I-195), then to 206 South, then to 130 South, then to I-295 South, where one could make a u-turn by turning onto 295 South then immediately off 295 utulizing the cloverleaf ramps to 130 North. The signed detour was about 8 miles long.

The proper detour (IMO) should have been using Exit 56 (3/4 mile before Exit 57).  From this exit, there are multiple options to get back to US 130 at the 295 interchange area within about 2 - 3 miles.  But since the exit was before the exit that was closed, it wasn't signed as a detour route.

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 05:34:36 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2012, 01:14:23 PM
By "with no restrictions", I mean available to you and me and everybody to use; my car doesn't have roof lights, sorry to say.  Besides which, roof lights plus more accel/decel room is definitely safer than roof lights with no accel/decel room.

You were discussing emergency crossovers on Interstate highways.  Non-official use is prohibited.  On a 70-mph design, accell/decell lanes would be about 1,000 feet long, and that would be wasteful in that case.

Crossovers open the the public on non-freeways are a different subject, and they should have ample accell/decell lanes.

No, I was referring to crossovers on freeways in general.  The two Google maps examples I posted upthread are not both on Interstates.  In fact, one of them isn't even in the United States (though, to be fair, that one isn't a full freeway, but this one (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=26.497999,-100.01377&spn=0.002828,0.003449&t=k&z=18) farther south is on a freeway stretch of the same route; here (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=25.57535,-101.813865&spn=0.0057,0.006899&t=k&z=17) is an example from another another freeway route in a neighboring state).

Apparently other countries don't find accel/decel lanes space to be a waste, but rather a necessary component of accommodating traffic movements.  Furthermore, the length of said accel/decel lanes could probably be shortened due to light use, i.e. the fact that few drivers would actually need to use them.

Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2012, 11:23:47 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 05:34:36 PM
Crossovers open the the public on non-freeways are a different subject, and they should have ample accell/decell lanes.

No, I was referring to crossovers on freeways in general.  The two Google maps examples I posted upthread are not both on Interstates.  In fact, one of them isn't even in the United States (though, to be fair, that one isn't a full freeway, but this one (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=26.497999,-100.01377&spn=0.002828,0.003449&t=k&z=18) farther south is on a freeway stretch of the same route; here (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=25.57535,-101.813865&spn=0.0057,0.006899&t=k&z=17) is an example from another another freeway route in a neighboring state).

Apparently other countries don't find accel/decel lanes space to be a waste, but rather a necessary component of accommodating traffic movements.  Furthermore, the length of said accel/decel lanes could probably be shortened due to light use, i.e. the fact that few drivers would actually need to use them.

A freeway would be equivilent to an Interstate highway in that a crossover is for official use only.

How does posting a few examples demonstrate what is customary design for crossovers on freeways inside or outside of the USA?

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 01:16:12 PM
A freeway would be equivilent to an Interstate highway in that a crossover is for official use only.

Huh?  Crossovers aren't necessarily for official use only on non-Interstate freeways.  That may be the law in all or most of the states here in the US (I'm not about to look them all up), but it certainly isn't the way things are everywhere in the world.

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 01:16:12 PM
How does posting a few examples demonstrate what is customary design for crossovers on freeways inside or outside of the USA?

It doesn't.  I never intended it to.  My statement, 'Apparently other countries don't find accel/decel lanes space to be a waste...' was intended to be backed up by common knowledge, not proven by my earlier Google Maps links.  I thought it was common knowledge that jurisdicions where construction money is harder to come by (developing nations) frequently prefer a combination of RIROs and crossovers to grade-separated interchanges on their freeways–furthermore that the crossovers frequently have accel/decel space provided.  I forget that not everyone spends insane amounts of time 'driving' highways in foreign countries on Google satellite imagery the way I've been known to do.

Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2012, 05:39:16 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 01:16:12 PM
A freeway would be equivilent to an Interstate highway in that a crossover is for official use only.

Huh?  Crossovers aren't necessarily for official use only on non-Interstate freeways.  That may be the law in all or most of the states here in the US (I'm not about to look them all up), but it certainly isn't the way things are everywhere in the world.

The definition of 'freeway' in the USA would not include a highway with a crossover open to the public, as that would be an at-grade intersection.

Quote

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 01:16:12 PM
How does posting a few examples demonstrate what is customary design for crossovers on freeways inside or outside of the USA?

It doesn't.  I never intended it to.  My statement, 'Apparently other countries don't find accel/decel lanes space to be a waste...' was intended to be backed up by common knowledge, not proven by my earlier Google Maps links.  I thought it was common knowledge that jurisdicions where construction money is harder to come by (developing nations) frequently prefer a combination of RIROs and crossovers to grade-separated interchanges on their freeways–furthermore that the crossovers frequently have accel/decel space provided.  I forget that not everyone spends insane amounts of time 'driving' highways in foreign countries on Google satellite imagery the way I've been known to do.

I don't see how it is possible to generalize about highway designs all over the world.  There is great variation in how things are done.

What you cited as "common knowledge"... I have been reading roads forums for 15 years, and that is the first such comments that I have seen.

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 07:54:48 PM
The definition of 'freeway' in the USA would not include a highway with a crossover open to the public, as that would be an at-grade intersection.

It's an edge case, like a RIRO intersection.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4875.0

Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 08:19:16 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 07:54:48 PM
The definition of 'freeway' in the USA would not include a highway with a crossover open to the public, as that would be an at-grade intersection.

It's an edge case, like a RIRO intersection.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4875.0

I wouldn't put RIRO in the same category as a crossover.

Left turns on a freeway?  Especially at one with a 70 mph or more speed limit?  No way would I consider that to be a freeway.

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 08:22:16 PM
Left turns on a freeway?  Especially at one with a 70 mph or more speed limit?  No way would I consider that to be a freeway.

Good to know. I'll remember that next time someone asks me what Beltway's definition of a freeway is.

Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 08:28:20 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 08:22:16 PM
Left turns on a freeway?  Especially at one with a 70 mph or more speed limit?  No way would I consider that to be a freeway.

Good to know. I'll remember that next time someone asks me what Beltway's definition of a freeway is.

I was trying not to be pushy, like saying that the highway engineering definition of freeway in the USA, would say the same.

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 07:54:48 PM
The definition of 'freeway' in the USA would not include a highway with a crossover open to the public, as that would be an at-grade intersection.

Maybe, maybe not.  I've never read of crossovers being a deal breaker for the term 'freeway' during my time on roads forums (which is not 15 years).  I suppose that's because I've never heard of a crossover referred to as an intersection before.

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 01:16:12 PM
I don't see how it is possible to generalize about highway designs all over the world.  There is great variation in how things are done.

What you cited as "common knowledge"... I have been reading roads forums for 15 years, and that is the first such comments that I have seen.

Yes, there is great variation in how things are done.  That's sort of my point, isn't it?  Some countries restrict movement on freeways more, some less.  Some are more fond of grade separation, while others are more fond of crossovers.

I should not have assumed that to be common knowledge.  I've probably spent more time on foreign-country skyscrapercity roads forums than most, and have probably spent more time perusing foreign-country Google Maps satellite imagery than most.

Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 08:28:20 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 08:22:16 PM
Left turns on a freeway?  Especially at one with a 70 mph or more speed limit?  No way would I consider that to be a freeway.

Good to know. I'll remember that next time someone asks me what Beltway's definition of a freeway is.

Not all left turns are created equal.  I had posted an example of a crossover where traffic actually crosses the opposing lanes and then merges on the right; this would probably violate most people's definitions of a freeway.  But one where a car simply makes a U-turn in the median isn't exactly the same thing as a left turn, since there is no actual crossing of vehicle paths; were there proper accel/decel room, turning around at a location like this one in El Salvador (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=13.687794,-89.319167&spn=0.001871,0.002401&t=k&z=19) would be no different than doing so on westbound I-10/I-20 in Texas (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=31.085245,-104.063959&spn=0.006597,0.009602&t=k&z=17).  The turning radius is smaller, but that's about it.

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 08:34:20 PM
highway engineering definition of freeway in the USA ^{[citation needed]}

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 08:34:20 PM
I was trying not to be pushy, like saying that the highway engineering definition of freeway in the USA, would say the same.

I'm not sure I agree with you on that. For example this is on the 905 near San Diego: http://www.flickr.com/photos/navymailman/3768457776/in/photostream/
It's rather slow-speed, but it still qualifies as a freeway.

Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2012, 08:47:05 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 07:54:48 PM
The definition of 'freeway' in the USA would not include a highway with a crossover open to the public, as that would be an at-grade intersection.

Maybe, maybe not.  I've never read of crossovers being a deal breaker for the term 'freeway' during my time on roads forums (which is not 15 years).  I suppose that's because I've never heard of a crossover referred to as an intersection before.

Left turns -would- be a deal breaker.

You mentioned "U-turn in the median" in your post; other than for emergency and/or official use, there's no reason for that on a freeway.  The only call for a crossover open to public use would be to access an intersecting road.

Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 08:48:47 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 08:34:20 PM
I was trying not to be pushy, like saying that the highway engineering definition of freeway in the USA, would say the same.

I'm not sure I agree with you on that. For example this is on the 905 near San Diego: http://www.flickr.com/photos/navymailman/3768457776/in/photostream/
It's rather slow-speed, but it still qualifies as a freeway.

It says --
U TURN TO USA

-- That doesn't make it a freeway.  It also seems to be a sign error, if indeed it is located in the USA.

That doesn't make it a freeway. Caltrans makes it a freeway.

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:07:19 PM
You mentioned "U-turn in the median" in your post; other than for emergency and/or official use, there's no reason for that on a freeway.  The only call for a crossover open to public use would be to access an intersecting road.

A quickly drawn illustration of a three-way highway interchange to show how that's not necessarily the case:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Fcrossovers_zps7b5fb9d2.png&hash=617c5507d4a8138844aa973bf520a6e5120379d2)

As you can imagine, this is quite a bit cheaper than building a trumpet interchange.  There are no conflicting movements other than merges and lane changes, and controlled access can still be maintained.

Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 09:10:22 PM
That doesn't make it a freeway. Caltrans makes it a freeway.

Where does CalTrans say that that is a freeway?

Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2012, 09:28:21 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:07:19 PM
You mentioned "U-turn in the median" in your post; other than for emergency and/or official use, there's no reason for that on a freeway.  The only call for a crossover open to public use would be to access an intersecting road.

A quickly drawn illustration of a three-way highway interchange to show how that's not necessarily the case:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Fcrossovers_zps7b5fb9d2.png&hash=617c5507d4a8138844aa973bf520a6e5120379d2)

As you can imagine, this is quite a bit cheaper than building a trumpet interchange.  There are no conflicting movements other than merges and lane changes, and controlled access can still be maintained.

I can't imagine why a design like that would exist on what would otherwise be a freeway.

Slow down in left lane, enter decell lane, make u-turn, enter accell lane, speed up, weave across 2 lanes, enter decell lane, turn right.  Very un-freeway-like.

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:30:48 PM

Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 09:10:22 PM
That doesn't make it a freeway. Caltrans makes it a freeway.

Where does CalTrans say that that is a freeway?

All over the place.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.554491,-116.941266&spn=0.008247,0.016512&gl=us&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=32.554552,-116.941147&panoid=VRnfNqKemY_s3BG6fTa_Mg&cbp=12,130.81,,1,6.23
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.555848,-116.939249&spn=0.008247,0.016512&gl=us&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=32.5558,-116.939335&panoid=hkoUEF_aeO-xrL5hoOZD1Q&cbp=12,267.07,,0,15.2
And here's the U-turn itself:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.55318,-116.939099&spn=0.004142,0.008256&gl=us&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=32.552672,-116.939012&panoid=qOso0QREhsy8zmpPROKhJg&cbp=12,156.51,,0,9.01

Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 09:36:11 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:30:48 PM

Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 09:10:22 PM
That doesn't make it a freeway. Caltrans makes it a freeway.

Where does CalTrans say that that is a freeway?

All over the place.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.554491,-116.941266&spn=0.008247,0.016512&gl=us&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=32.554552,-116.941147&panoid=VRnfNqKemY_s3BG6fTa_Mg&cbp=12,130.81,,1,6.23
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.555848,-116.939249&spn=0.008247,0.016512&gl=us&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=32.5558,-116.939335&panoid=hkoUEF_aeO-xrL5hoOZD1Q&cbp=12,267.07,,0,15.2
And here's the U-turn itself:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.55318,-116.939099&spn=0.004142,0.008256&gl=us&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=32.552672,-116.939012&panoid=qOso0QREhsy8zmpPROKhJg&cbp=12,156.51,,0,9.01

But does CalTrans consider that one spot with the u-turn to be freeway-standard?

Besides, like I said, the sign message is self-contradictory.  If you are in the USA, you don't make a u-turn into the USA.

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:34:26 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2012, 09:28:21 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:07:19 PM
You mentioned "U-turn in the median" in your post; other than for emergency and/or official use, there's no reason for that on a freeway.  The only call for a crossover open to public use would be to access an intersecting road.

A quickly drawn illustration of a three-way highway interchange to show how that's not necessarily the case:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Fcrossovers_zps7b5fb9d2.png&hash=617c5507d4a8138844aa973bf520a6e5120379d2)

As you can imagine, this is quite a bit cheaper than building a trumpet interchange.  There are no conflicting movements other than merges and lane changes, and controlled access can still be maintained.

I can't imagine why a design like that would exist on what would otherwise be a freeway.

Slow down in left lane, enter decell lane, make u-turn, enter accell lane, speed up, weave across 2 lanes, enter decell lane, turn right.  Very un-freeway-like.

Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2012, 09:28:21 PM
As you can imagine, this is quite a bit cheaper than building a trumpet interchange.

And still somewhat similar to the I-10/I-20 example I cited above.

Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2012, 09:45:55 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:34:26 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2012, 09:28:21 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:07:19 PM
You mentioned "U-turn in the median" in your post; other than for emergency and/or official use, there's no reason for that on a freeway.  The only call for a crossover open to public use would be to access an intersecting road.

A quickly drawn illustration of a three-way highway interchange to show how that's not necessarily the case:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Fcrossovers_zps7b5fb9d2.png&hash=617c5507d4a8138844aa973bf520a6e5120379d2)

As you can imagine, this is quite a bit cheaper than building a trumpet interchange.  There are no conflicting movements other than merges and lane changes, and controlled access can still be maintained.

I can't imagine why a design like that would exist on what would otherwise be a freeway.

Slow down in left lane, enter decell lane, make u-turn, enter accell lane, speed up, weave across 2 lanes, enter decell lane, turn right.  Very un-freeway-like.

Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2012, 09:28:21 PM
As you can imagine, this is quite a bit cheaper than building a trumpet interchange.

And still somewhat similar to the I-10/I-20 example I cited above.

A freeway should be built to freeway standards, not with grossly substandard features to "save money".  IOW, build a bridge and ramps there.

The I-10/I-20 interchange is a true freeway.  The left-exit to left-entrance ramp is freeway-standard, even if today considered an obsolete design.

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:41:05 PM

Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 09:36:11 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:30:48 PM

Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 09:10:22 PM
That doesn't make it a freeway. Caltrans makes it a freeway.

Where does CalTrans say that that is a freeway?

All over the place.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.554491,-116.941266&spn=0.008247,0.016512&gl=us&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=32.554552,-116.941147&panoid=VRnfNqKemY_s3BG6fTa_Mg&cbp=12,130.81,,1,6.23
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.555848,-116.939249&spn=0.008247,0.016512&gl=us&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=32.5558,-116.939335&panoid=hkoUEF_aeO-xrL5hoOZD1Q&cbp=12,267.07,,0,15.2
And here's the U-turn itself:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.55318,-116.939099&spn=0.004142,0.008256&gl=us&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=32.552672,-116.939012&panoid=qOso0QREhsy8zmpPROKhJg&cbp=12,156.51,,0,9.01

But does CalTrans consider that one spot with the u-turn to be freeway-standard?

There's no 'end freeway' sign before it, so yes.

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:41:05 PM
Besides, like I said, the sign message is self-contradictory.  If you are in the USA, you don't make a u-turn into the USA.

Just consider yourself to be in the frontier zone at that point–No man's land–having left the USA but not yet arrived at México.  Such signage is common; nearby on I-5, you can find this (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.542689,-117.030466&spn=0.000009,0.004801&gl=us&t=k&layer=c&cbll=32.542746,-117.030552&panoid=xrin36E1THzhnH9WsBnt1w&cbp=12,81.27,,1,2.01&z=18).

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:53:33 PM
A freeway should be built to freeway standards, not with grossly substandard features to "save money".  IOW, build a bridge and ramps there.

What is non-freeway about it?  What constitutes 'freeway standards' other than being free of cross traffic and stops?  A highway can be a freeway without conforming to Interstate standards, if that's what you're assuming 'freeway standards' to mean.

Slow down in left lane, enter decel lane, make U turn, enter accel lane, speed up, weave across two lanes one lane..... This is the correct procedure to get from WB I-20 to EB I-10–which is apparently 'freeway-standard'.  Add an option lane to my illustration, spread the median a bit, and flare the ramp from freeway to surface highway, and there's realistically no difference at all.

Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 10:09:06 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:41:05 PM

Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 09:36:11 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:30:48 PM

Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 09:10:22 PM
That doesn't make it a freeway. Caltrans makes it a freeway.

Where does CalTrans say that that is a freeway?

All over the place.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.554491,-116.941266&spn=0.008247,0.016512&gl=us&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=32.554552,-116.941147&panoid=VRnfNqKemY_s3BG6fTa_Mg&cbp=12,130.81,,1,6.23
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.555848,-116.939249&spn=0.008247,0.016512&gl=us&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=32.5558,-116.939335&panoid=hkoUEF_aeO-xrL5hoOZD1Q&cbp=12,267.07,,0,15.2
And here's the U-turn itself:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.55318,-116.939099&spn=0.004142,0.008256&gl=us&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=32.552672,-116.939012&panoid=qOso0QREhsy8zmpPROKhJg&cbp=12,156.51,,0,9.01

But does CalTrans consider that one spot with the u-turn to be freeway-standard?

There's no 'end freeway' sign before it, so yes.

Why did you snip the following?  It puts the whole installation in doubt, that someone there screwed up.

"Besides, like I said, the sign message is self-contradictory.  If you are in the USA, you don't make a u-turn into the USA."

I snipped it because it's off-topic. You're arguing like a Repub-a-dub-dub.

Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2012, 10:10:24 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:41:05 PM
Besides, like I said, the sign message is self-contradictory.  If you are in the USA, you don't make a u-turn into the USA.

Just consider yourself to be in the frontier zone at that point– No man's land –having left the USA but not yet arrived at México. 

No, the border is a discrete line, there is no "no man's land".

Quote

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 09:53:33 PM
A freeway should be built to freeway standards, not with grossly substandard features to "save money".  IOW, build a bridge and ramps there.

What is non-freeway about it?  What constitutes 'freeway standards' other than being free of cross traffic and stops?  A highway can be a freeway without conforming to Interstate standards, if that's what you're assuming 'freeway standards' to mean.

Slow down in left lane, enter decel lane, make U turn, enter accel lane, speed up, weave across two lanes one lane..... This is the correct procedure to get from WB I-20 to EB I-10–which is apparently 'freeway-standard'.  Add an option lane to my illustration, spread the median a bit, and flare the ramp from freeway to surface highway, and there's realistically no difference at all.

Oh please.  Your diagram has an intersection.  I-10/I-20 has auxiliary lanes at least 2,000 feet long, and a ramp that could handle about 40 mph traffic

Quote from: NE2 on October 23, 2012, 10:13:51 PM
I snipped it because it's off-topic. You're arguing like a Repub-a-dub-dub.

Like I said, someone screwed up when they designed and posted that sign.

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 10:19:00 PM
Oh please.  Your diagram has an intersection.  I-10/I-20 has auxiliary lanes at least 2,000 feet long, and a ramp that could handle about 40 mph traffic

So if the median were bulged out enough to accommodate....what? 40 mph? 35 mph? and longer auxilliary lanes, then you'd be OK with a crossover on a freeway?  Geez, it was just an MSpaint drawing done to illustrate the point; I wasn't exactly measuring turning radii and lane lengths.  My point is that I-10/I-20 has what amounts to a crossover, and it's not there to serve an intersecting road.

I don't have a dog in this fight one way or the other, but I figured a map of Exit 3 on the Palisades Parkway might be relevant to the discussion at hand. http://goo.gl/maps/mLm1r

(Curiously, the SB->NB U-turn is missing from Google maps.)

Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2012, 10:39:09 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 10:19:00 PM
Oh please.  Your diagram has an intersection.  I-10/I-20 has auxiliary lanes at least 2,000 feet long, and a ramp that could handle about 40 mph traffic

So if the median were bulged out enough to accommodate....what? 40 mph? 35 mph? and longer auxilliary lanes, then you'd be OK with a crossover on a freeway?  Geez, it was just an MSpaint drawing done to illustrate the point; I wasn't exactly measuring turning radii and lane lengths.  My point is that I-10/I-20 has what amounts to a crossover, and it's not there to serve an intersecting road.

Wrong.  WB I-20 has a ramp to EB I-10, with a left exit and a left entrance.

Wrong.  WB I-10 has a ramp to EB I-10, with a left exit and a left entrance. That's the definition of a crossover.

If you have to U-turn from I-10 westbound onto I-10 eastbound through the median in order to exit onto I-20, then that interchange meets the same design as kphoger posted, just with one of the U-turns replaced by a direct ramp.

---

Beyond the I-10/20 interchange and Palisades Parkway interchange already mentioned, there are numerous other examples of this design in the United States. Here are some that I've driven recently:

• It has since been closed off in the WB-EB direction, but traffic entering NH 16/US 4 at Exit 4 in Portsmouth, NH has a median u-turn from EB-WB (http://goo.gl/maps/ZE4Te)
• While it is not a freeway to the east, I would consider this one to be a freeway to the west: The connector from I-295 to US 1 in Brunswich, ME. (http://goo.gl/maps/xEfjV) Mainline US 1 traffic actually has to use a median u-turn and then cross 2 lanes so as to not continue onto I-295.
• Perhaps an even more dangerous setup exists in Poughkeepsie, NY on the US 9 freeway (http://goo.gl/maps/gpG74). This one is remarkably hard to use due to the presence of both outside and inside ramps on each side of the median u-turns, and is the only notably substandard feature on the several-mile-long freeway.
• There are multiple examples of this on the Lake Ontario State Parkway: 1 (http://goo.gl/maps/MLvai) 2 (http://goo.gl/maps/XkGKk)  While admittedly there is one stretch of the LOSP built with a few at-grade intersections, most of the road is a full freeway. The Robert Moses State Parkway (which would have been the western end of the LOSP had it been finished) also has one. (http://goo.gl/maps/TTcwp)
• The Taconic State Parkway also has a few built to access state park turnoffs, and, while it is not technically a freeway on the northern half, all major intersections are grade-separated, and almost all minor ones are just RIROs

---

As to the "U-turn to USA" sign, that's standard wording. Most border crossings have one of those. And they exist elsewhere too, like the "U-turn to Boston" on the MassPike (I-90), which is still located within the city of Boston.

How would you word it instead Beltway? "U-turn to the USA even though you haven't technically left it yet"?

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 10:19:00 PM
No, the border is a discrete line, there is no "no man's land".

Theoretically, yes; practically, no.  Take, for example, the border between Western Sahara and Mauritania.  There's a nice asphalt highway on both sides, heading north from Moroccan immigration (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=21.363391,-16.960337&spn=0.01169,0.013797&t=k&z=16) and heading south from Mauritanian immigration (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=21.333093,-16.946433&spn=0.011693,0.013797&t=k&z=16).  However, in between, there is a 3.4-km stretch of this (http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/27959004.jpg).  This widely known stretch of desert sand is maintained by neither country, and is commonly called No Man's Land.  Technically, the whole stretch lies within Western Sahara, but you might say the line here is a bit wide.  I would consider the whole stretch to be the frontier zone.  A driver heading south would have already filled out Moroccan exit paperwork, yet might very well decide to 'return to Western Sahara' if his car started getting stuck in the sand.  Obviously this example is not exactly the same as the California one, but I just wanted to explain what I meant in referring to the whole area as the frontier zone.  At that point in the California example, you're basically already committed to enter México, with no exits between you and the customs facility; from a practical standpoint, you're in México, even if you have not technically crossed over the arbitrary line.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 24, 2012, 09:56:52 AM
the "U-turn to Boston" on the MassPike (I-90), which is still located within the city of Boston.

...but NOT on the Turnpike itself.  It's on an exit ramp (18-19-20) and is restricted to passenger cars with E-ZPass only.

Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2012, 10:48:40 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 10:19:00 PM
No, the border is a discrete line, there is no "no man's land".

Theoretically, yes; practically, no.  Take, for example, the border between Western Sahara and Mauritania.  There's a nice asphalt highway on both sides, heading north from Moroccan immigration (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=21.363391,-16.960337&spn=0.01169,0.013797&t=k&z=16) and heading south from Mauritanian immigration (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=21.333093,-16.946433&spn=0.011693,0.013797&t=k&z=16).  However, in between, there is a 3.4-km stretch of this (http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/27959004.jpg).  This widely known stretch of desert sand is maintained by neither country, and is commonly called No Man's Land.  Technically, the whole stretch lies within Western Sahara, but you might say the line here is a bit wide.  I would consider the whole stretch to be the frontier zone.  A driver heading south would have already filled out Moroccan exit paperwork, yet might very well decide to 'return to Western Sahara' if his car started getting stuck in the sand.  Obviously this example is not exactly the same as the California one, but I just wanted to explain what I meant in referring to the whole area as the frontier zone.  At that point in the California example, you're basically already committed to enter México, with no exits between you and the customs facility; from a practical standpoint, you're in México, even if you have not technically crossed over the arbitrary line.

And an example on this continent: US 11 at the Canadian border has nearly a whole mile between US and Canadian customs.  This isn't even a bridge; there's no reason for US customs to be 7/10 mile inland.  They just did it.  You can't drive US 11 all the way to the border without having to drive through customs.

A water example: Cornwall Island.  In order to leave the island, in either direction, you have to pass through customs, even though the island is technically in Canada, thanks to the dispute over arming customs officers.  The total distance between the plazas is nearly three miles long.  In order to access Cornwall Island from the US, one legally has to drive to the mainland, U turn at the traffic circle (oval), and head back, paying $6.50 in tolls for what would otherwise be a free trip.

Quote from: deanej on October 24, 2012, 11:29:09 AM
And an example on this continent: US 11 at the Canadian border has nearly a whole mile between US and Canadian customs.  This isn't even a bridge; there's no reason for US customs to be 7/10 mile inland.  They just did it.  You can't drive US 11 all the way to the border without having to drive through customs.

on the Alaska Highway, US customs are right across the border, but Canada customs are a good 20km down the road into Yukon.

Quote from: deanej on October 24, 2012, 11:29:09 AMAnd an example on this continent: US 11 at the Canadian border has nearly a whole mile between US and Canadian customs.  This isn't even a bridge; there's no reason for US customs to be 7/10 mile inland.  They just did it.  You can't drive US 11 all the way to the border without having to drive through customs.

Interestingly enough, the speed limits are metric over the entire stretch, using the signs defined in the 2003 MUTCD.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 24, 2012, 11:31:30 AM

Quote from: deanej on October 24, 2012, 11:29:09 AM
And an example on this continent: US 11 at the Canadian border has nearly a whole mile between US and Canadian customs.  This isn't even a bridge; there's no reason for US customs to be 7/10 mile inland.  They just did it.  You can't drive US 11 all the way to the border without having to drive through customs.

on the Alaska Highway, US customs are right across the border, but Canada customs are a good 20km down the road into Yukon.

And there are numerous roads and driveways in between too.  Must be fun to live between customs stations.

Quote from: deanej on October 24, 2012, 11:42:13 AM

And there are numerous roads and driveways in between too.  Must be fun to live between customs stations.

it is reminiscent of how Latin American countries sometimes do customs and immigration. you check yourself out of one country, and into another, and in between there may be a lengthy border segment in which there is no enforcement of legal presence. 

Mexico, for example, has a ~30km "frontier zone" and most of the time (barring a random check at the border itself) you can drive into the country without anyone asking you any questions until an Aduana depot about 30km in.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 24, 2012, 11:47:01 AM

Quote from: deanej on October 24, 2012, 11:42:13 AM

And there are numerous roads and driveways in between too.  Must be fun to live between customs stations.

it is reminiscent of how Latin American countries sometimes do customs and immigration. you check yourself out of one country, and into another, and in between there may be a lengthy border segment in which there is no enforcement of legal presence. 

Mexico, for example, has a ~30km "frontier zone" and most of the time (barring a random check at the border itself) you can drive into the country without anyone asking you any questions until an Aduana depot about 30km in.

The difference being that there is an actual immigration building (along with whole cities) at the border itself.

Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2012, 12:09:22 PM

The difference being that there is an actual immigration building (along with whole cities) at the border itself.

is this true for every legal Mexico entry point?  what about the river crossings across the Rio Grande which the US closed after 9/11, from which one cannot get to anywhere else in Mexico via road?

in the US, the only legal crossing without a port of entry I can think of is Hyder, AK, as the road doesn't go anywhere past it.

Another border example:  the corredor fiscal on the west side of Nogales, between Mariposa (the US port of entry) and Nogales III (the Mexican port of entry).  Mariposa is right at the international boundary, while Nogales III is a considerable distance south of it.  It is technically Mexican territory in its entirety but in practice anyone traversing it in either direction is in "no man's land" since legal exit is impossible without clearing customs on one side or the other.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 24, 2012, 12:12:07 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2012, 12:09:22 PM

The difference being that there is an actual immigration building (along with whole cities) at the border itself.

is this true for every legal Mexico entry point?  what about the river crossings across the Rio Grande which the US closed after 9/11, from which one cannot get to anywhere else in Mexico via road?

in the US, the only legal crossing without a port of entry I can think of is Hyder, AK, as the road doesn't go anywhere past it.

If you're referring to Santa Elena and Boquillas del Carmen, opposite Big Bend National Park, then I've crossed at both of them before 9/11.  They are actually not technically inaccessible by road; in fact, I believe Boquillas is served by a federal highway, albeit a gravel one.  Back in the late '90s, at least, there was even semi-regular bus service between Santa Elena and Manuel Benavides along desert roads which look like this (http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/18608649.jpg).  I suppose it may have been possible to enter México via those towns without ever encountering a government official at the border itself.

Quote from: SidS1045 on October 24, 2012, 11:25:08 AM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 24, 2012, 09:56:52 AM
the "U-turn to Boston" on the MassPike (I-90), which is still located within the city of Boston.

...but NOT on the Turnpike itself.  It's on an exit ramp (18-19-20) and is restricted to passenger cars with E-ZPass only.

If you read the discussion before that post, you'll note that my point was that the wording of the sign said "U-turn to Boston" even though it's still in Boston. Whether this is part of an exit or not is irrelevant.

Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 06:33:36 AM
Wrong.  WB I-10 has a ramp to EB I-10, with a left exit and a left entrance. That's the definition of a crossover.

It was not designed or built or needed to serve as a "crossover".

That ramp was designed and built to provide a connection from WB I-20 to EB I-10. The I-10/I-20 junction is a grade separated full directional 3-way freeway interchange, albeit an obsolete design that is over 40 years old (left-hand ramp terminals fell out of favor in highway engineering over 20 years ago).

Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2012, 02:45:56 PM

Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 06:33:36 AM
Wrong.  WB I-10 has a ramp to EB I-10, with a left exit and a left entrance. That's the definition of a crossover.

It was not designed or built or needed to serve as a "crossover".

...the fuck? It's a crossover to make up for a missing movement.

Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 03:45:10 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2012, 02:45:56 PM

Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 06:33:36 AM
Wrong.  WB I-10 has a ramp to EB I-10, with a left exit and a left entrance. That's the definition of a crossover.

It was not designed or built or needed to serve as a "crossover".

...the fuck? It's a crossover to make up for a missing movement.

And, whether a driver heading east on I-10 started out on I-10 West or I-20 West is irrelevant in the way the crossover functions.  The route number doesn't matter, since they're duplexed by the time you get to the crossover:  what you have is a left exit, median U turn, left entrance, and quick lane change.

Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 03:45:10 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2012, 02:45:56 PM

Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 06:33:36 AM
WB I-10 has a ramp to EB I-10, with a left exit and a left entrance. That's the definition of a crossover.

It was not designed or built or needed to serve as a "crossover".

...the fuck? It's a crossover to make up for a missing movement.

It is a freeway-to-freeway -ramp- that is almost 1/2 mile long.  The median itself is over 1/4 mile wide at the widest.  There is a scale on the map, that's where I got the size from.

Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2012, 05:38:01 PM

Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 03:45:10 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2012, 02:45:56 PM

Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 06:33:36 AM
WB I-10 has a ramp to EB I-10, with a left exit and a left entrance. That's the definition of a crossover.

It was not designed or built or needed to serve as a "crossover".

...the fuck? It's a crossover to make up for a missing movement.

It is a freeway-to-freeway -ramp- that is almost 1/2 mile long.  The median itself is over 1/4 mile wide at the widest.  There is a scale on the map, that's where I got the size from.

Crossovers go from one direction to the other direction. It's a crossover. You're wrong. You're allowed to be wrong. In fact, you in particular are, because you seem to do it a lot.

Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2012, 10:48:40 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 23, 2012, 10:19:00 PM
No, the border is a discrete line, there is no "no man's land".

Theoretically, yes; practically, no.  Take, for example, the border between Western Sahara and Mauritania.  There's a nice asphalt highway on both sides, heading north from Moroccan immigration (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=21.363391,-16.960337&spn=0.01169,0.013797&t=k&z=16) and heading south from Mauritanian immigration (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=21.333093,-16.946433&spn=0.011693,0.013797&t=k&z=16).  However, in between, there is a 3.4-km stretch of this (http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/27959004.jpg).  This widely known stretch of desert sand is maintained by neither country, and is commonly called No Man's Land.

And if you look at the Map, the road is called that too :P

yep, it's basically a U-turn ramp.  kinda interesting to be traveling on I-10 westbound and have the opportunity to switch to I-10 eastbound as a well-signed mainline exit.

if you are so inclined, you can make a U-turn from I-20 westbound to I-20 eastbound, only briefly touching I-10.

Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2012, 05:38:01 PM
It is a freeway-to-freeway -ramp- that is almost 1/2 mile long.  The median itself is over 1/4 mile wide at the widest.  There is a scale on the map, that's where I got the size from.

It is a freeway-to-freeway crossover ramp that allows one to make a median U-turn from I-10 WB to I-10 EB.  Its dimensions don't change that fact, they only make the U-turn maneuver safer than the one on the Palisades Parkway.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on October 24, 2012, 07:57:23 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2012, 05:38:01 PM
It is a freeway-to-freeway -ramp- that is almost 1/2 mile long.  The median itself is over 1/4 mile wide at the widest.  There is a scale on the map, that's where I got the size from.

It is a freeway-to-freeway crossover ramp that allows one to make a median U-turn from I-10 WB to I-10 EB.  Its dimensions don't change that fact, they only make the U-turn maneuver safer than the one on the Palisades Parkway.

And a lot safer than the former U-Turn ramp at I-55 and IL-129 (Exit 238) in Braidwood.

Quote from: Steve on October 24, 2012, 06:53:58 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2012, 05:38:01 PM

Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 03:45:10 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2012, 02:45:56 PM

Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 06:33:36 AM
WB I-10 has a ramp to EB I-10, with a left exit and a left entrance. That's the definition of a crossover.

It was not designed or built or needed to serve as a "crossover".

...the fuck? It's a crossover to make up for a missing movement.

It is a freeway-to-freeway -ramp- that is almost 1/2 mile long.  The median itself is over 1/4 mile wide at the widest.  There is a scale on the map, that's where I got the size from.

Crossovers go from one direction to the other direction. It's a crossover. You're wrong. You're allowed to be wrong. In fact, you in particular are, because you seem to do it a lot.

I worked in roadway final design for 5 years back in the 1980s, on secondary, primary, freeway, and Interstate highway projects (and I am -not- claiming to be an "expert" in the field). 

Even then I would have called that a ramp, albeit a least-expensive (yeah, I'll say it, "cheap" ) way to connect WB I-20 to EB I-10, and obsolete even then in the 1980s for current Interstate highway standards, although in the mid-1960s when designed it might have been an acceptable design, for the era as well as for the traffic volumes of probably no more than about 5,000 AADT on the mainlines.  Even today there is probably very little traffic between I-20 and easterly I-10, given the rural nature of the area, and the acute angle of that "wye" , and the surface highways available that provide shorter service for the local traffic that would use that "wye" .

Go ahead and call it what you want; crossover, crossover-ramp, ramp, I don't care.

To move this issue forward, is Texas planning on modernizing this interchange?  There is plenty of existing right-of-way available for a modern semi-directional interchange, i.e. with no left-hand ramp terminals.  These highways today probably carry over 25,000 AADT with over 25% large trucks.

Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2012, 03:49:30 PM
To move this issue forward, is Texas planning on modernizing this interchange?  There is plenty of existing right-of-way available for a modern semi-directional interchange, i.e. with no left-hand ramp terminals.  These highways today probably carry over 25,000 AADT with over 25% large trucks.

is it needed?  how much of that AADT actually makes the sharp turn from a westbound road to an eastbound?  given the destination of the traffic, it is probably most advantageous to take a north-south cutoff from one to the other.  TX-17 comes to mind as being useful for that purpose.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 25, 2012, 06:05:31 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2012, 03:49:30 PM
To move this issue forward, is Texas planning on modernizing this interchange?  There is plenty of existing right-of-way available for a modern semi-directional interchange, i.e. with no left-hand ramp terminals.  These highways today probably carry over 25,000 AADT with over 25% large trucks.

is it needed?  how much of that AADT actually makes the sharp turn from a westbound road to an eastbound?  given the destination of the traffic, it is probably most advantageous to take a north-south cutoff from one to the other.  TX-17 comes to mind as being useful for that purpose.

That was one of my points, that there is probably very little traffic between I-20 and easterly I-10.  The issue would be the operational problems with the left exit and the left entrance, is it worth perhaps $10 million to provide a ramp with a right exit and a right entrance?

Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2012, 08:53:59 PM
is it worth perhaps $10 million to provide a ramp with a right exit and a right entrance?

Probably not, which is precisely why I don't have a problem with having some open turnarounds on freeways.

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 01:20:45 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2012, 08:53:59 PM
is it worth perhaps $10 million to provide a ramp with a right exit and a right entrance?

Probably not, which is precisely why I don't have a problem with having some open turnarounds on freeways.

I must disagree. 

Crossovers are inherently hazardous, because they require deceleration on the fast shoulder to use them, and then acceleration (again, on the fast shoulder).

I have seen more than a few wrecks that happened because a "regular" motorist used a crossover to execute a "U" Turn.

Drivers should make the "U" turn at the next interchange.  If the demand justifies it, then a "U" type flyover ramp should be built to allow the movement to be made safely.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 26, 2012, 02:44:19 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 01:20:45 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2012, 08:53:59 PM
is it worth perhaps $10 million to provide a ramp with a right exit and a right entrance?

Probably not, which is precisely why I don't have a problem with having some open turnarounds on freeways.

I must disagree. 

Crossovers are inherently hazardous, because they require deceleration on the fast shoulder to use them, and then acceleration (again, on the fast shoulder).

I have seen more than a few wrecks that happened because a "regular" motorist used a crossover to execute a "U" Turn.

Drivers should make the "U" turn at the next interchange.  If the demand justifies it, then a "U" type flyover ramp should be built to allow the movement to be made safely.

So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (http://maps.google.com/?ll=37.606208,-88.996425&spn=0.024411,0.038409&t=k&z=15) (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?

[link fixed]

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 26, 2012, 02:44:19 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 01:20:45 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2012, 08:53:59 PM
is it worth perhaps $10 million to provide a ramp with a right exit and a right entrance?

Probably not, which is precisely why I don't have a problem with having some open turnarounds on freeways.

I must disagree. 

Crossovers are inherently hazardous, because they require deceleration on the fast shoulder to use them, and then acceleration (again, on the fast shoulder).

I have seen more than a few wrecks that happened because a "regular" motorist used a crossover to execute a "U" Turn.

Drivers should make the "U" turn at the next interchange.  If the demand justifies it, then a "U" type flyover ramp should be built to allow the movement to be made safely.

I suppose it would depend on what kind of a 'freeway' we are talking about, as some parkways have fairly low design speeds.

Certainly anything built to Interstate standards in the U.S., it would be hazardous to have a public-use crossover.

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 26, 2012, 02:44:19 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 01:20:45 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2012, 08:53:59 PM
is it worth perhaps $10 million to provide a ramp with a right exit and a right entrance?

Probably not, which is precisely why I don't have a problem with having some open turnarounds on freeways.

I must disagree. 

Crossovers are inherently hazardous, because they require deceleration on the fast shoulder to use them, and then acceleration (again, on the fast shoulder).

I have seen more than a few wrecks that happened because a "regular" motorist used a crossover to execute a "U" Turn.

Drivers should make the "U" turn at the next interchange.  If the demand justifies it, then a "U" type flyover ramp should be built to allow the movement to be made safely.

So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (http://trouble%20call) (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?

No, we are not at all accepting your "argument by exception" here.  As pointed out, I-10/I-20 has auxiliary lanes 1/2 mile long, and yes, it should be replaced.

Quote from: Beltway on October 26, 2012, 05:00:53 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (http://maps.google.com/?ll=37.606208,-88.996425&spn=0.024411,0.038409&t=k&z=15) (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?

No . . . and yes . . .

Gotcha.  ;-)

This discussion about I-10/20 should really be split off to another topic.

As for the ramp in question: I don't have a problem with it.  I would guess traffic counts are fairly low on the ramp.

What's the roadway that parallels the ramp?  Is it an older ramp, or a remnant of when US 80/290 met here?

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 05:03:21 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 26, 2012, 05:00:53 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (http://maps.google.com/?ll=37.606208,-88.996425&spn=0.024411,0.038409&t=k&z=15) (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?

No . . . and yes . . .

Gotcha.  ;-)

Creative snipping and use of the ellipsis (the ... ) is often a dishonest dialectic tactic.

Quote from: Beltway on October 26, 2012, 05:31:01 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 05:03:21 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 26, 2012, 05:00:53 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (http://maps.google.com/?ll=37.606208,-88.996425&spn=0.024411,0.038409&t=k&z=15) (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?

No . . . and yes . . .

Gotcha.  ;-)

Creative snipping and use of the ellipsis (the ... ) is often a dishonest dialectic tactic.

Use of "is often" is often a dishonest dialectic tactic.

Quote from: Steve on October 26, 2012, 06:02:14 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 26, 2012, 05:31:01 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 05:03:21 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 26, 2012, 05:00:53 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (http://maps.google.com/?ll=37.606208,-88.996425&spn=0.024411,0.038409&t=k&z=15) (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?

No . . . and yes . . .

Gotcha.  ;-)

Creative snipping and use of the ellipsis (the ... ) is often a dishonest dialectic tactic.

Use of "is often" is often a dishonest dialectic tactic.

It was nicer than how I really think about it --

Creative snipping and use of the ellipsis (the '...' ) IS a dishonest debating tactic.

Would you like it if I edited your post?

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 12:59:57 AM
Would you like it if I fucked your goats?

Quote from: NE2 on October 27, 2012, 01:11:12 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 12:59:57 AM
Would you like it if I fucked your goats?

The moderators need to step in and end the editing of other people's material.

Or is this group just m.t.r.lite?

I'm surprised the smartest guy in the room has such thin skin.

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 01:30:28 AM

Quote from: NE2 on October 27, 2012, 01:11:12 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 12:59:57 AM
Would you like it if I fucked your goats?

The moderators need to step in and end the editing of other people's material.

Or is this group just m.t.r.lite?

No one's editing anyone else's material.

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 01:30:28 AM
I married John Lansford as soon as it became legal in DC

See?

Quote from: InterstateNG on October 27, 2012, 01:42:20 AM
I'm surprised the smartest guy in the room has such thin skin.

Says the guy who complains the moderators aren't doing enough. Seriously... the reason we have mods on this forum is to prevent it from spiralling downhill. It's not our intent to censor everything and keep everything in line. A lot of us know each other, we banter, we muck around. We try to walk the line between scaring newbies away and pissing off those who believe in the First Amendment.

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (http://maps.google.com/?ll=37.606208,-88.996425&spn=0.024411,0.038409&t=k&z=15) (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?

[link fixed]

I am not personally familiar with either location, though I like the "U-Turn" flyover linked above, for it removes the danger associated with "traditional" crossovers.

Quote from: Steve on October 27, 2012, 02:05:06 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 01:30:28 AM

Quote from: NE2 on October 27, 2012, 01:11:12 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 12:59:57 AM
Would you like it if I fucked your goats?

The moderators need to step in and end the editing of other people's material.

Or is this group just m.t.r.lite?

No one's editing anyone else's material.

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 01:30:28 AM
I married John Lansford as soon as it became legal in DC

See?

You just edited my post.  You are a moderator here, correct? 

If so, you are helping make this group like another m.t.r, which by the way is basically dead because of a range of disfunctional behaviors over a long period of time.

This post modification stuff isn't really good for the group, IMHO.  Granted, we have some fights here, it's really silly and don't help anyone or anything.

I can do it as well:

Quote from: Steve on October 27, 2012, 02:05:06 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 01:30:28 AM
I married John Lansford as soon as it became legal in DC

See how I got fucked by a goat.

Rather easy, yet rather juvenile.  That said, it isn't for the mods to do, but rather for the individuals to act like the mature adults they are supposed to be.  The only thing I would ask of the mods, and I've seen it from time to time, is a chastising of those who continue to act like asses here.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 27, 2012, 03:55:45 AM

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (http://maps.google.com/?ll=37.606208,-88.996425&spn=0.024411,0.038409&t=k&z=15) (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?

[link fixed]

I am not personally familiar with either location, though I like the "U-Turn" flyover linked above, for it removes the danger associated with "traditional" crossovers.

The flyover at that location (in Illinois) is so rarely used, I tend to think it's overkill; in fact, during snow storms, it's barely passable because nobody uses it.  The only reason I can think of that a vehicle couldn't just go through Goreville would be clearance issues for a large truck, in which case I'm sure it could just turn around at the IL-148 junction.  Just like the Texas example, though, it's a little-used movement.

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 12:59:57 AM
Creative snipping and use of the ellipsis (the '...' ) IS a dishonest debating tactic.

What I was getting at by my snarky snippity is that you seem to maintain both that the Texas example is sufficient for a freeway and also that it is substandard for a freeway.  Also, I keep saying that crossovers are fine assuming sufficient accel/decel lanes, yet your main defense in saying the Texas example is a different beast is that it has sufficient accel/decel lanes.

Quote from: Beltway on October 26, 2012, 04:58:20 PM
I suppose it would depend on what kind of a 'freeway' we are talking about, as some parkways have fairly low design speeds.

Certainly anything built to Interstate standards in the U.S., it would be hazardous to have a public-use crossover.

I think this is the real issue.  Not being an Interstate doesn't mean a road isn't a freeway.  In fact, not all Interstates were built to Interstate standards.  Freeway standards in other countries are different from our own, but that doesn't mean the roads there aren't freeways.

What I've been trying to drive home is the fact that crossovers do exist on freeways, and that many of them function just fine–not as well as a flyover, perhaps, but just fine for the price tag.

Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2012, 11:48:50 AM
What I was getting at by my snarky snippity is that you seem to maintain both that the Texas example is sufficient for a freeway and also that it is substandard for a freeway.  Also, I keep saying that crossovers are fine assuming sufficient accel/decel lanes, yet your main defense in saying the Texas example is a different beast is that it has sufficient accel/decel lanes.

No, you seem to be using a highly unusual Interstate interchange setup, to say that there is nothing wrong with making median crossovers common on the Interstate system.  That is what I meant by the fallacy of "argument by exception", that something is ok to do if there can be found even one possible case of it being done.

Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2012, 11:48:50 AM
What I've been trying to drive home is the fact that crossovers do exist on freeways, and that many of them function just fine–not as well as a flyover, perhaps, but just fine for the price tag.

As I have suggested up-thread, I assert that the potential for a serious wreck is unacceptably high to allow the general motoring public to use at-grade crossovers on freeway-class roads. 

The speeds (and frequently the traffic volumes) are just too high to allow such use. 

This is also redundant, but I am saying it again because I feel so strongly about it - I have used them sometimes (while on official business related to my job) with a bright amber strobe beacon on the roof of my truck, and I always dislike them intensely, for the drivers behind me (in spite of precautions taken) still don't seem to anticipate that a vehicle might be slowing to pull off on the fast shoulder.  And after making the turn at the crossover, then there is the matter of getting enough of a break in traffic to accelerate up to speed (and execute a safe merge with the fastest freeway traffic, which is usually in the left lane).

State DOTs and similar (toll road) agencies do plenty of other "expensive" things on freeways (that they might not do on roads of a lower functional classification) to keep them moving safely.  Even though a "U-Turn" flyover is rather expensive, I strongly prefer that for public use instead of an at-grade crossover.  There's also the matter of "expectations."  Drivers do not "expect" vehicles to be slowing in the left lane to turn onto a crossover, nor do they expect a vehicle to come out of a crossover to merge with traffic.

Years ago, the Ohio Turnpike used the best signing at its crossovers (of which there are many, probably especially for winter maintenance), which read something like this:

"No "U" Turn - Crossing Prohibited - Violators Prosecuted.

The last time I drove the Turnpike (from the Pennsylvania border to Toledo, a few years ago), those signs had been replaced by something that was probably more compliant with the MUTCD.

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 12:28:45 PM
No, you seem to be using a highly unusual Interstate interchange setup, to say that there is nothing wrong with making median crossovers common on the Interstate system.  That is what I meant by the fallacy of "argument by exception", that something is ok to do if there can be found even one possible case of it being done.

If those crossovers had accel/decel room and could handle a truck, then I'd be all for them.  However, that's a far cry from simply removing "Authorized vehicles only" signs.  So, yes, I'm in favor of crossovers; but, no, I don't think most of the ones our Interstates have are safe for common use.  In fact, much of our Interstate system really doesn't have sufficient space in the median to easily accomodate turning around.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 27, 2012, 01:06:29 PM
I always dislike them intensely, for the drivers behind me (in spite of precautions taken) still don't seem to anticipate that a vehicle might be slowing to pull off on the fast shoulder.  And after making the turn at the crossover, then there is the matter of getting enough of a break in traffic to accelerate up to speed (and execute a safe merge with the fastest freeway traffic, which is usually in the left lane).

State DOTs and similar (toll road) agencies do plenty of other "expensive" things on freeways (that they might not do on roads of a lower functional classification) to keep them moving safely.  Even though a "U-Turn" flyover is rather expensive, I strongly prefer that for public use instead of an at-grade crossover.  There's also the matter of "expectations."  Drivers do not "expect" vehicles to be slowing in the left lane to turn onto a crossover, nor do they expect a vehicle to come out of a crossover to merge with traffic.

As for slowing down and speeding up on the shoulders, I totally understand and agree.  I've only had to do that a few times, and it's risky business.  Even slowing to a stop on the right shoulder freaks me out a little bit.  This is why I would only advocate crossovers with proper acceleration and deceleration lanes; having a full lane would ensure there's plenty of pavement, and would also increase drivers' expectation of seeing a turning vehicle (since it would function basically as a tight left exit).

As for people not expecting to see people using crossovers, I'd say that is a cultural phenomenon based on the fact that turning around on freeways is generally prohibited in this country.  It takes me by surprise when I see someone illegally use an Interstate crossover.  When driving in México, OTOH (where turning around is permitted), I fully expect to see it, and just include that as part of defensive driving.  Similarly, on non-Interstate expressways in the US where turning around is permitted (for example, US-54/US-400 between Andover and Augusta, KS; or US-60 between Springfield and Mountain Grove, MO), I fully expect to see it.  Most of the crossovers along those two US highways lack what it would take to make them safe for a freeway (not to mention the cross traffic), but my point is that our expectations are not concrete.  Just because American freeway drivers aren't expecting cars to turn around, that doesn't mean that no drivers on any freeway either don't or wouldn't.

Quote from: Brandon on October 27, 2012, 10:51:53 AM
This post modification stuff isn't really good for the group, IMHO.  Granted, we have some fights here, it's really silly and don't help anyone or anything.

I can do it as well:

Quote from: Steve on October 27, 2012, 02:05:06 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 01:30:28 AM
I married John Lansford as soon as it became legal in DC

See how I got fucked by a goat.

Rather easy, yet rather juvenile.  That said, it isn't for the mods to do, but rather for the individuals to act like the mature adults they are supposed to be.  The only thing I would ask of the mods, and I've seen it from time to time, is a chastising of those who continue to act like asses here.

We do chastise. Keep in mind this is often done via private message, or even offline if we know the perpetrator, so most of you may not be aware of it. We also have frequent discussions about the more regular "problem" customers. And while many people may feel that there are about a dozen people worth getting rid of in order to make the forum less obnoxious, we would be losing a lot of knowledge by doing so. We've had this discussion and we're erring on the side of inclusiveness. If you're obnoxious AND don't contribute anything, then we take action.

Quote from: Brandon on October 27, 2012, 10:51:53 AM
This post modification stuff isn't really good for the group, IMHO.  Granted, we have some fights here, it's really silly and don't help anyone or anything.

I can do it as well:

Quote from: Steve on October 27, 2012, 02:05:06 AM

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 01:30:28 AM
I married John Lansford as soon as it became legal in DC

See how I got fucked by a goat.

Rather easy, yet rather juvenile.  That said, it isn't for the mods to do, but rather for the individuals to act like the mature adults they are supposed to be.  The only thing I would ask of the mods, and I've seen it from time to time, is a chastising of those who continue to act like asses here.

It is nothing to be proud about, but I learned enough even while a teenager that I could be as nasty and abusive as most anybody on Usenet or anywhere else if I chose to.  But why?  It's useless and wouldn't prove anything of value, IMHO.

Thie group has a lot of potential, IMHO.  Unmoderated groups such as on Usenet obviously have a problem in that there is no moderation.  Moderated groups can be a very productive and stable environment, but there is always the possibility that the moderators themselves can create issues that could make things as bad or worse than when there is no moderation.  So far in the two years that this group has had very high numbers of postings, I would say that things have gone pretty well overall.  I hope that it stays that way.  The moderators do a lot of work and should be commended.

Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2012, 01:33:21 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 12:28:45 PM
No, you seem to be using a highly unusual Interstate interchange setup, to say that there is nothing wrong with making median crossovers common on the Interstate system.  That is what I meant by the fallacy of "argument by exception", that something is ok to do if there can be found even one possible case of it being done.

If those crossovers had accel/decel room and could handle a truck, then I'd be all for them.  However, that's a far cry from simply removing "Authorized vehicles only" signs.  So, yes, I'm in favor of crossovers; but, no, I don't think most of the ones our Interstates have are safe for common use.  In fact, much of our Interstate system really doesn't have sufficient space in the median to easily accomodate turning around.

To design a median crossover for 70 mph design speed mainline --

Accell and decell lanes each at least 1,500 feet length.  If large trucks are allowed, at least 2,500 feet.  This would be from and to the left lanes of the mainline, let's keep in mind.

Curve between decell and accell lane --
Design Speed 15 mph
e= 4% [superelevation]
Minimum Design Radius (ft) = 45
http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/downloads/designGuide/CH_4.pdf

Looks like it would take at minimum 110 feet of median width to accomodate even a fairly sharp curve on the crossover.

A 60 foot wide median is plenty wide enough for safety, as a general feature on a rural Interstate.

For a u-turn, it looks like in many cases it would be cheaper to build an overpass bridge and a ramp with right-hand terminals.

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 07:24:29 PM
For a u-turn, it looks like in many cases it would be cheaper to build an overpass bridge and a ramp with right-hand terminals.

I'm baffled by the logic that it would be cheaper to build an overpass than to build the lanes 50 feet further apart.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on October 27, 2012, 08:41:02 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 07:24:29 PM
For a u-turn, it looks like in many cases it would be cheaper to build an overpass bridge and a ramp with right-hand terminals.

I'm baffled by the logic that it would be cheaper to build an overpass than to build the lanes 50 feet further apart.

With a 70 mph design speed, the transition to the widened area of the median would be about 1/2 mile long, and the cost would be for extra right-of-way.  That is for a very minimal 15 mph curve, it really should be more than that, IMO.

Also, include the cost of the accell and decell lanes, about 2,500 feet of each if large trucks are allowed.

And STILL that would mean left-hand terminals on the accell and decell lanes. 

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 09:50:40 PM

Quote from: Kacie Jane on October 27, 2012, 08:41:02 PM

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 07:24:29 PM
For a u-turn, it looks like in many cases it would be cheaper to build an overpass bridge and a ramp with right-hand terminals.

I'm baffled by the logic that it would be cheaper to build an overpass than to build the lanes 50 feet further apart.

With a 70 mph design speed, the transition to the widened area of the median would be about 1/2 mile long, and the cost would be for extra right-of-way.  That is for a very minimal 15 mph curve, it really should be more than that, IMO.

Also, include the cost of the accell and decell lanes, about 2,500 feet of each if large trucks are allowed.

And STILL that would mean left-hand terminals on the accell and decell lanes. 

Wouldn't new ROW need to be purchased anyway for an overpass with right-hand points of access?  How much are looking at in each case?

In my experience, I don't think I can say I've seen a crossover that was safe for large trucks to use.  The amount of pavement needed for a loaded truck to reach safe merging speed is much more than for a passenger car.  Having said that, I think many of our existing entrance ramps are also insufficient in that regard (Texas, I'm looking at you); I mean, there are some at which a passenger car struggles to reach safe merging speed.  In the I-10/I-20 example, the situation is helped by the acceleration lane's becoming part of the I-20 East mainline–and therefore a lane that doesn't even need to merge until traffic is clear, unless the driver is taking I-10.

PS:  For the youtube junkies, here's one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkh2AVh30e4) of an Australian road train doing a U turn on a two-lane road.