Roadgeek Hot Takes

[NWI_Irish96]

My hot take: Interstate and US highways approaching borders with Mexico or Canada should end before the border crossing, so people don't have to have a passport to clinch a route.

[kphoger]

My hot take: Interstate and US highways approaching borders with Mexico or Canada should end before the border crossing, so people don't have to have a passport to clinch a route.

Or "clinching a route" should be a valid reason to cross the border without one, and then you get a personal escort back through the US border checkpoint. 

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm pretty sure that all the Caltrans maintained roads actually do end before the Mexican border stations. 

[vdeane]

My larger question is why it's a problem.  All it should mean is that you're now second in line at the red light instead of first in line.  Big deal, you'll still get to go when the light turns green either way—and you wouldn't have gotten to go either way.

The only reason I can think of for someone to be upset about that is if they were hoping to sneak through the yellow light too, and the other driver hanging back behind the line before going at the last second thwarted that plan.  Personally, I'd rather not have one vehicle out in the middle of the intersection and a second one hanging two-thirds of the way across the stop line:  considering that sometimes the first car has to clear the intersection on red, that would mean the second car has to complete almost the entire turning maneuver on red.  No, if you're second in line, then just wait your turn behind the line.

Heck, it's quite common for people to just trail behind even after the light has turned red, such that they're running the red light even under the most technical of definitions.

I'm pretty sure that all the Caltrans maintained roads actually do end before the Mexican border stations. 

It seems to be normal for routes to end short of the Mexican border.  Not so much for the Canadian border.

[Henry]

My larger question is why it's a problem.  All it should mean is that you're now second in line at the red light instead of first in line.  Big deal, you'll still get to go when the light turns green either way—and you wouldn't have gotten to go either way.

The only reason I can think of for someone to be upset about that is if they were hoping to sneak through the yellow light too, and the other driver hanging back behind the line before going at the last second thwarted that plan.  Personally, I'd rather not have one vehicle out in the middle of the intersection and a second one hanging two-thirds of the way across the stop line:  considering that sometimes the first car has to clear the intersection on red, that would mean the second car has to complete almost the entire turning maneuver on red.  No, if you're second in line, then just wait your turn behind the line.

Heck, it's quite common for people to just trail behind even after the light has turned red, such that they're running the red light even under the most technical of definitions.

I'm pretty sure that all the Caltrans maintained roads actually do end before the Mexican border stations. 

It seems to be normal for routes to end short of the Mexican border.  Not so much for the Canadian border.

I like to think so too. I-5 and I-69W are the lone exceptions to this in that they actually continue over the Mexican border as new roads (well, with different designations), but I-19 and I-35 end well short of it. On the Canadian side, it's pretty evenly split between staying a freeway (I-5, I-87, current I-89, I-91, I-94, I-95) and downgrading to a surface road (I-15, I-29, I-75, I-81, future I-89), but again the designations change.

[vdeane]

I like to think so too. I-5 and I-699W are the lone exceptions to this in that they actually continue over the Mexican border as new roads (well, with different designations), but I-19 and I-35 end well short of it. On the Canadian side, it's pretty evenly split between staying a freeway (I-5, I-87, current I-89, I-91, I-94, I-95) and downgrading to a surface road (I-15, I-29, I-75, I-81, future I-89), but again the designations change.

IIRC I-69W legally ends here (similarly, I-110 legally ends at the U turn at customs and does not continue onto the bridge).  Contrast I-190, which ends in the middle of the Lewiston-Queenston bridge at the actual border.  I-5 is the only interstate to actually end at the Mexican border.

[Scott5114]

This might be a bit random, but I wonder if how much a person will tolerate a word like "stroad" has to do with how used they are to seeing combined couple names for fandom shipping (such as the Max Caulfield/Chloe Price ship from Life is Strange being "Pricefield" - and that's one of the less cringe-inducing ones out there; more typically you get stuff like Harry Potter/Ginny Weasley being "Hinny").

They were named portmanteaus by Lewis Carroll, so they're not exactly a new concept people have had to get used to. Some of them are just stinkers. (I've never cared for blog or sexting.)

[kphoger]

sexting

It's that hypersensitive, tingly feeling you get when...

[formulanone]

sexting

It's that hypersensitive, tingly feeling you get when...

...you get six of something instead of eight?

fandom shipping

Not to be a derailing jerk, but I really thought this term was for a subculture of those who make up fanfic related to cargo, courier, and freight services....TIL.

[kphoger]

fandom shipping

Not to be a derailing jerk, but I really thought this term was for a subculture of those who make up fanfic related to cargo, courier, and freight services....TIL.

Oh, great.  Now I'm imagining furries driving UPS routes.

[JayhawkCO]

There should be more dedicated right turn lanes.

[kphoger]

There should be more dedicated right turn lanes.

Who could argue with that!

[JayhawkCO]

There should be more dedicated right turn lanes.

Who could argue with that!

Well, never seen a big call for them. Especially on four-laned roads. I always manage to get behind the person that moves over right before an intersection with the intention of going straight and I want to turn right.

[kphoger]

I always manage to get behind the person that moves over right before an intersection with the intention of going straight and I want to turn right.

I was actually thinking the opposite:  a 70mph highway, no right-turn lane, and a car slowing down to 22mph in front of me to make a right turn.  For example, in my area, the addition of a right-turn lane to K-254 @ Rock Road (before/after) was most welcome.

[JayhawkCO]

I always manage to get behind the person that moves over right before an intersection with the intention of going straight and I want to turn right.

I was actually thinking the opposite:  a 70mph highway, no right-turn lane, and a car slowing down to 22mph in front of me to make a right turn.  For example, in my area, the addition of a right-turn lane to K-254 @ Rock Road (before/after) was most welcome.

I should have specified on city streets. Obviously in your case, it's dangerous not to have one. In what I was thinking, it's just annoying to not have one.

[kphoger]

Tell me if this take is hot or cold:  most arrow-equipped intersections should have right-turn arrows.

[JayhawkCO]

Tell me if this take is hot or cold:  most arrow-equipped intersections should have right-turn arrows.

I would think cold. Definitely gets traffic turning more easily when people are paying attention.

[webny99]

I still think you're trying to paint with too broad a brush.

Of course, it wouldn't be much of a hot take otherwise.

If the first driver feels he can better see oncoming traffic by staying behind the line—whether because of intersection geometry, a prevalence of large SUVs or trucks that make it hard to see, whatever—then that person is well within his rights to stay behind the line and the fact that someone further back doesn't like it is nobody's "problem" other than the impatient driver further back.

Of course there could be specific situations where it might not make sense to pull forward, but those are exceptions.

 In a generic context, it's courtesy to pull into the intersection - if not immediately, at least when one of the following occurs: (a) opposing left turning traffic has cleared to improve sightlines, (b) in anticipation of an upcoming gap, or (c) when it's clear that the there will be no gap before the light changes (I'd say "when the light turns yellow", but as already discussed, that could be illegal in some states) - to ensure completion your turn before the cycle ends, which is in my view, the responsibility of the first car in line - especially when there's no protected phase, but even when there is.

My larger question is why it's a problem.  All it should mean is that you're now second in line at the red light instead of first in line.

It's a problem if you care about the efficiency and predictability of the road network. Not completing your turn as the first car in line is never helpful to anyone waiting behind you. It's basically a giant middle finger to the person immediately behind you, who is now forced to wait and loses their flexibility to go if they so choose, and, by extension, everyone behind them - including a car at some point in the line who could have gone on the upcoming cycle and now has to wait another whole light cycle, and multiply that times however long the line is.

And, if there's no protected phase and the first car doesn't go, who's to say they won't also refuse to go on the next cycle, and the next? And how can anyone waiting interpret that as anything other than inattentive, selfish, or both? That's why I used the term faux pas - not completing your turn obviously suggests technical incompetence, but it's also a social mistake - it signals that you don't have any respect for the line behind you.
 

Big deal, you'll still get to go when the light turns green either way—and you wouldn't have gotten to go either way.

Neither is necessarily true. I might not get to go on the next cycle if there's no protected phase - and I might have gotten to go on the current cycle if the first car turned on yellow with enough time for me to make it through behind them - which I would always consider doing if there's a long line waiting to turn. My stance has nothing to do with me as an individual (though that can add a layer of intensity at times) and everything to do with the collective whole.

The only reason I can think of for someone to be upset about that is if they were hoping to sneak through the yellow light too, and the other driver hanging back behind the line before going at the last second thwarted that plan.  Personally, I'd rather not have one vehicle out in the middle of the intersection and a second one hanging two-thirds of the way across the stop line:  considering that sometimes the first car has to clear the intersection on red, that would mean the second car has to complete almost the entire turning maneuver on red. No, if you're second in line, then just wait your turn behind the line.

Yes, as the second car in line, I will always be hoping for a chance to go and will always at least consider going if/when the first car goes. I don't expect that of anyone else, but it's a standard I hold myself to because I feel I would be doing a disservice to everyone behind me not to. In the same way that the first car not going has negative ripple effects, the second car going has positive ripple effects: it allows someone to get through on the next cycle who wouldn't have otherwise.

That said, I'm not advocating for the second car to pull right up into the intersection. There are cases when I might, but I generally wouldn't pull up so far that I'll be forced to go unless there was a large gap and I was highly confident of both of us being able to clear the intersection before the red phase.

[webny99]

Tell me if this take is hot or cold:  most arrow-equipped intersections should have right-turn arrows.

I would think cold. Definitely gets traffic turning more easily when people are paying attention.

I think it depends on whether there are right turn lanes. If there are, it's a cold take, because of course they should have arrows. If there aren't, arrows aren't really necessary but nor are they harmful, so that's more of a warm/borderline hot take.

[kphoger]

... if there's no protected phase ...

... if there's no protected phase ...

My opinion does change if we're talking about an approach with no left turn arrow.

Hehehe.  I remember back when almost no intersections in Chicago city limits had turn arrows.  I was in college at the time, and a classmate and I had agreed to drive school vans for a field trip to the Indiana Dunes.  On our way back, we decided to race each other back to campus.  We got off the Eisenhower somewhere and used local streets to see who would make it back first.  With the lack of turn arrows, I found myself sometimes being the third person to go through after the light had already changed.

[webny99]

My opinion does change if we're talking about an approach with no left turn arrow.

Meanwhile, mine doesn't. It only intensifies when there's no left turn arrow, but I believe that it is the responsibility of the first car in line to complete their turn at the end of the permissive phase regardless.

[kphoger]

most arrow-equipped intersections should have right-turn arrows.

I think it depends on whether there are right turn lanes. If there are ... of course they should have arrows. If there aren't, arrows aren't really necessary

I'm curious to know why you think that.  I can think of signalized intersections with no right-turn lane but at which a majority of right lane traffic is indeed turning right.  It seems to me that having a green right-turn arrow would be beneficial during those phases in which there are no conflicting movements.

[1995hoo]

One possible reason for a green arrow versus a green ball might be if the intersection has heavy pedestrian traffic and the goal is to give right-turn traffic a dedicated period to turn that is supposed to be free of pedestrian interference.

(I word it that way because the District of Columbia has some intersections of that sort and the pedestrians refuse to obey the "Don't Walk" sign or yield to cars with the green arrow, often becoming very belligerent if drivers force the issue.)

[webny99]

most arrow-equipped intersections should have right-turn arrows.

I think it depends on whether there are right turn lanes. If there are ... of course they should have arrows. If there aren't, arrows aren't really necessary

I'm curious to know why you think that.  I can think of signalized intersections with no right-turn lane but at which a majority of right lane traffic is indeed turning right.  It seems to me that having a green right-turn arrow would be beneficial during those phases in which there are no conflicting movements.

Primarily because those cars should be able to turn right on red anyways, but I suppose an arrow would eliminate the need to stop, which would improve the flow. The biggest drawback is that anyone choosing to go straight from that lane throws a wrench in the works, and the flow gets disrupted anyways.

In most cases though, if the majority of right lane traffic is turning right, then there probably should be a right turn lane - either by adding a designated one or repurposing the shared right/thru lane.

[kphoger]

Primarily because those cars should be able to turn right on red anyways

Which is true whether there's a right-turn lane or not...