Unpopular Anything Road-Related Opinions

[GaryV]

For 3di's, state-named shields are good,

Because people will get confused as to whether they are on I-275 in MI or FL?

I only know of one person out of many that got Cincinnati and Detroit's I-275 confused with each other, so it would be even more unusual to see Detroit and Tampa's mixed up, considering the distance.

Even then, the exit numbers of where they meet I-75 is different. Cincinnati's meet I-75 in the Ohio side at exit 16, Detroit's meet at exit 20.

OK, I picked FL because of the absurdity.

But still, someone is driving north on I-75 and the directions they have been given say, "Take I-275 to the Eureka Road Exit".  And as the get into northern KY they think, "Great - I'm almost to DTW!"  For someone like that, a little "Michigan" or "Ohio" wording on an Interstate shield isn't going to help.

[Caps81943]

For 3di's, state-named shields are good,

Because people will get confused as to whether they are on I-275 in MI or FL?

I only know of one person out of many that got Cincinnati and Detroit's I-275 confused with each other, so it would be even more unusual to see Detroit and Tampa's mixed up, considering the distance.

Even then, the exit numbers of where they meet I-75 is different. Cincinnati's meet I-75 in the Ohio side at exit 16, Detroit's meet at exit 20.

OK, I picked FL because of the absurdity.

But still, someone is driving north on I-75 and the directions they have been given say, "Take I-275 to the Eureka Road Exit".  And as the get into northern KY they think, "Great - I'm almost to DTW!"  For someone like that, a little "Michigan" or "Ohio" wording on an Interstate shield isn't going to help.

Fair enough, I was saying it more for the aesthetics (not really the right word, though I hope you get my drift). Again, it's an unpopular opinions thread for a reason 

- State-outline highway shields are the best ones.

Depends on the state for me. I think Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri and Ohio's state outline works the best, though their state shapes fit as a shield well naturally. Florida's isn't natural for numbers, but I liked how they cut off one side to fit the numbers instead of squeezing them into the outline like the old Illinois shield or making their state shape fatter like Alabama. For bad examples, I dislike Louisiana and Idaho's to start off for tiny numbers.

I actually mostly agree with that, and I'm not saying every shield needs to have the number inside, I just like when they incorporate the shape (Florida for example). Idaho could do something similar imo.

- Botts' dots are terrible.

I have no clue what they are, but whatever it is, good thing that they don't exist where I am
[/quote]

How they "stripe" this road:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0196573,-96.7030927,3a,45.3y,289.22h,77.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9mtys8QO0RGlDP4gcKCFLw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D9mtys8QO0RGlDP4gcKCFLw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D325.0436%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

You can hardly see a damn thing!

[SkyPesos]

- Botts' dots are terrible.

I have no clue what they are, but whatever it is, good thing that they don't exist where I am

How they "stripe" this road:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0196573,-96.7030927,3a,45.3y,289.22h,77.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9mtys8QO0RGlDP4gcKCFLw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D9mtys8QO0RGlDP4gcKCFLw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D325.0436%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

You can hardly see a damn thing!

Ok yea, I made up my opinion now. At the moment, I'm interested and trying to like the roads in the state of Washington (as Seattle is may favorite US city), but I don't get how this could be more legible than this for lane markings.

[kphoger]

State route shields:   "Boring circles" are better than most any more artistic/creative alternative.

[1995hoo]

Thought of this when I was driving earlier this afternoon:

Right turns on red need to be more heavily restricted in more locations, perhaps by more frequently posting "No Turn on Red 7 AM—7 PM" or something similar. Of course it's primarily a driver training issue, but too many people seem to think they are entitled to go right on red and seem to think other people (including people making a U-turn on a green arrow) must yield to their right on red (never mind that this means you have a red light!).

(No, I wasn't the guy making the U-turn. I was at a light waiting to go straight and I saw multiple near-collisions between people making U-turns on a green arrow, people making rights on red who illegally failed to yield to the U-turners, and people coming up behind the U-turners trying to go left who wound up almost rear-ending U-turners who wrongly stopped to yield to the right-on-red crowd. That particular light is bad both because of a shopping center with access on only one side of the road and a McDonald's with access only on the other side.)

[hotdogPi]

Dedicated U-turn signals are rare. Maybe if there was a sign at that particular intersection saying "yield to U-turns", just to make drivers aware that such a movement does exist and is frequently used?

[Big John]

It depends on where you are,

From Illinois:

There are only two circumstances in which the vehicle making the U-turn (i.e., the second left turn) could claim the right of way: #The vehicle turning right failed to signal its intent to make a right turn. The cross street was marked "NO TURN ON RED," meaning the vehicle signaling a right turn could not have legally made it during the red light.

[interstatefan990]

I think we need to make it more acceptable to not make a right on red. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to. It should be more like a choice and not an expectation, like going over the speed limit. I'm tired of getting honked at because I hesitated a little bit when visibility/sightlines were awful and pedestrians were walking around everywhere. I legally don't have the right of way, so don't force me into a dangerous situation where I could be at fault for anything that happens. Sometimes it makes things safer for everyone to simply wait until the light turns green.

And no, I'm not that driver. I just think people on the road need to have a little more patience.

[oscar]

Dedicated U-turn signals are rare. Maybe if there was a sign at that particular intersection saying "yield to U-turns", just to make drivers aware that such a movement does exist and is frequently used?

There is a sign at the busy intersection of Arlington Blvd. (US 50) and Patrick Henry Dr. in Seven Corners in Virginia, directing U-turning traffic to yield to right turns from NB Patrick Henry.

But this issue is a recurring problem in my Arlington VA neighborhood, where I often need to make a U-turn from northbound George Mason Dr. (on an unprotected green) at the Pershing Drive intersection, to get to street parking spaces in front of my apartment. It's common for EB Pershing Dr. traffic to attempt a right on red, conflicting with my U-turn. I'll have to honk, or glare, at the other driver to get him to yield.  Since there's no protected green phase on NB George Mason (unlike in the Seven Corners situation), I often get little time to make the U-turn during a break in SB traffic, so it's only fair for EB Pershing Dr. traffic to wait for me to complete my U-turn.

[1995hoo]

I've seen signs that say "Right on Red Must Yield to U-Turn," but it seems like every time I've seen one, it invariably gets knocked down or disappears within a week or two. The intersection that prompted me to think of the issue (Van Dorn Street at Edsall Road in Alexandria, Virginia) does not have such a sign. It does have two left-turn lanes from northbound Van Dorn, which is the direction where the problem primarily occurs, so I generally get in the right-hand left-turn lane if I want to turn left because I know the odds are high of getting stuck in the other lane behind a U-turner who will wrongly yield.

Incidentally, to emphasize, it's not a dedicated U-turn light–it's a left-turn green arrow. But someone going left, or making a U-turn, with a green arrow has a green light such that someone who wants to go right on red must yield (because he has a red). If the guy going right also had a green arrow, then the U-turner would have to yield, though I submit that's bad traffic light management if that happens (and it does on southbound Van Dorn at the Beltway, not far south of the other intersection mentioned above–there used to be a sign saying "U-Turn Must Yield to Right Turn," but it got knocked down so many times I guess VDOT gave up).

I do know of two dedicated U-turn lights near where I live, but neither has a conflict with right turns due to road layout. One is at the intersection seen at this link and the other is at the next intersection east of there:
https://goo.gl/maps/bsaRPpbZAxySbeXA9

[Ned Weasel]

- I know most of us hate HAWK signals, and I agree, but I don't think regular traffic lights are the way to go. Flashing green (BC-style) is the way to go.

What's wrong with HAWK signals?  When they're not in use, the lights stay dark, so less energy is used overall.

[hotdogPi]

- I know most of us hate HAWK signals, and I agree, but I don't think regular traffic lights are the way to go. Flashing green (BC-style) is the way to go.

What's wrong with HAWK signals?  When they're not in use, the lights stay dark, so less energy is used overall.

1. Dark = stop for every other signal.
2. Drivers don't seem to understand that you can go after the red starts flashing.

[Scott5114]

- I know most of us hate HAWK signals, and I agree, but I don't think regular traffic lights are the way to go. Flashing green (BC-style) is the way to go.

What's wrong with HAWK signals?  When they're not in use, the lights stay dark, so less energy is used overall.

Why are we being cheap when it comes to safety devices? If energy usage matters–which I would think an LED signal head would use a trivial amount of energy, but if–stick a solar panel on the damn thing.

[Ned Weasel]

What's wrong with HAWK signals?  When they're not in use, the lights stay dark, so less energy is used overall.

1. Dark = stop for every other signal.

Didn't this forum already beat a similar issue to death with regards to flashing yellow arrows?  What I mean is, the flashing circular yellow (beacon) traditionally meant "proceed with caution but watch out for potential hazard," but the flashing yellow arrow means "turn permitted but yield right-of-way."  The thing that bothered people was that it changed the meaning of a flashing yellow light.  But it has the distinct advantage of allowing "Dallas phasing" without having a confusing and contradictory simultaneous display of a circular green and circular red.  So, the meanings of individual traffic signal displays becomes contextual (assuming that hasn't been the case all along, which it arguably has).  HAWK signals just change the meaning of an all-dark signal.  And, on that note, "dark signal = stop" only really applies to full-blown traffic signals, which these days always have at least three lenses in vertical or horizontal arrangement, which is not a feature of the HAWK signal.  Is the average driver aware of that distinction?  I suppose we could take a survey, but consider every other beacon signal that only flashes when needed.  These have been in use for a long time as warning beacons for crosswalks, intersection approaches, and definitely for school zones.  When they're not in use, they're dark, and never meant stop when dark.

2. Drivers don't seem to understand that you can go after the red starts flashing.

I've never seen this problem but I don't doubt it exists.  Drivers are supposed to know that a flashing red means stop and then proceed when clear, but drivers are supposed to know a lot of things that they seem to ignore.  Maybe add a sign to explain this when it becomes a problem?

Are there any actual studies showing costs versus benefits of HAWK signals versus traditional (full-blown traffic signal) crosswalk signals?

[Scott5114]

Didn't this forum already beat a similar issue to death with regards to flashing yellow arrows?  What I mean is, the flashing circular yellow (beacon) traditionally meant "proceed with caution but watch out for potential hazard," but the flashing yellow arrow means "turn permitted but yield right-of-way."  The thing that bothered people was that it changed the meaning of a flashing yellow light.

I don't think that the FYA fundamentally changed the meaning of flashing yellow, but rather extended it–"turn permitted but yield right-of-way" is a more specific way of saying "proceed with caution but watch out for potential hazard (of oncoming traffic)". Thus most people were able to intuitively understand the meaning of an FYA the first time they encountered one. (Although not the guy that my wife T-boned a few years ago, apparently.)

The HAWK redefining "dark" from meaning "stop" to "go" is quite a bit more fundamental of a change.

I've never seen this problem but I don't doubt it exists.  Drivers are supposed to know that a flashing red means stop and then proceed when clear, but drivers are supposed to know a lot of things that they seem to ignore.  Maybe add a sign to explain this when it becomes a problem?

Every HAWK I've seen already has a sign explaining how it works.

I think the problem may be that flashing red stoplights always blink in unison, while HAWKs blink alternately, like a railroad crossing. I wonder if a HAWK were programmed to blink both reds in unison if that would improve understanding of what the signal is trying to communicate.

[interstatefan990]

I'd also like to note that HAWKs can be confusing because they change the meaning of a double alternating red-flashing signal. When you're approaching a railroad crossing, that signal means stop and wait until it's completely dark. When you approach a HAWK, that same signal means you can go after stopping. This is in opposition to the single red-flashing signal that we see with stop beacons or conventional traffic lights set to flash-only mode. I never understood why HAWKs had to have the triple signal face with the double alternating red flash, and not just the aforementioned single red flash with an accompanying yellow. Maybe they can be switched to a two signal face design. I wouldn't be surprised if some drivers didn't realize that you can go after the red starts flashing.

[MikeTheActuary]

I'd also like to note that HAWKs can be confusing because they change the meaning of a double alternating red-flashing signal. When you're approaching a railroad crossing, that signal means stop and wait until it's completely dark.

Actually, the wigwam lights at rail crossings still mean "come to a complete stop and proceed only when safe".

There are circumstances where you should (cautiously) proceed through a rail crossing when the lights are flashing.  However, driving around lowered barriers is (I think) universally illegal.

[vdeane]

There are circumstances where you should (cautiously) proceed through a rail crossing when the lights are flashing.

That sounds like a good way to get run over by a train.

[interstatefan990]

There are circumstances where you should (cautiously) proceed through a rail crossing when the lights are flashing.

That sounds like a good way to get run over by a train.

Agreed.

[ibthebigd]

Exit services need to say how far off the exit before you get off the exit.

SM-G950U

[kernals12]

Left-hand ramps are a clever design that reduces costs and right of way requirements.

[Ned Weasel]

Left-hand ramps are a clever design that reduces costs and right of way requirements.

Do they really reduce costs?  I would think two overpasses are generally more expensive than one.

[Scott5114]

Left-hand ramps are a clever design that reduces costs and right of way requirements.

Do they really reduce costs?  I would think two overpasses are generally more expensive than one.

Generally, conflicting with facts makes an opinion unpopular, so at least it fits the thread...

[texaskdog]

For 3di's, state-named shields are good,

Because people will get confused as to whether they are on I-275 in MI or FL?

sometime on long trips I just like the reassurance

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

If a freeway carries the same or fewer vehicles than a nearby surface road, it is likely best that the freeway be removed. Yes, I seriously have an irrational hatred for the Central Scranton Expressway; 307 carries just as much traffic!