 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:21:00 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>>> Invisible wrote:
>>> > you need to make an effort to not do this.
>>
>>> Split infinitive. "an effort not to do this".
>>
>> http://www.grammarphobia.com/grammar.html
>
> But with "not" it does sound bad.
Depends on your ear. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
4919e492$1@news.povray.org...
>>
> But in France, the sequence appears to be
>
> Green
> Red
>
> Amber
> Green
>
O_o
Did you ever come in France?
If yes, were you drunk or mind-boggled by driving on the right side of the
road (instead of the wrong one)?? :-)
The correct sequence is
Green
Amber
Red
Green
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In some countries, they put green+yellow means it's about to go red,
We (UK and Germany and most other countries I've been to) have just solid
amber to mean it's about to go red. It's illegal to go through on red and
you will be fined (or photographed then fined!), so the amber is needed to
give people a chance to stop before it goes red. Faster roads have longer
amber phases to avoid you needing to do an emergency stop in fear of running
a red.
> and red+yellow means it's about to go green. Sounds dangerous to me,
> doubly-so if it really means you are allowed to go thru on red+yellow.
Technically you are not allowed to go through on red+amber, it means "ok
green is going to come on in about 1 second so make sure you're in gear and
ready to go". Under normal circumstances if you just begin your "pull away"
sequence when the red+amber comes on you'll cross the line as it turns
green, so no problems.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My favorite is when your light turns green
> which means that the other traffic must have been red for 3-4 seconds
> yet cars are still continuing to go through the intersection trying to
> 'beat' the red.
In the UK at least I see a lot of junctions where the instant one direction
changes from amber to red, the other changes from red to red+amber. If you
have a 3-4 second delay where all directions are on red, then of course
people are going to be tempted to carry on jumping the red for a few seconds
after it's switched from green.
> Another is when you are going to make a right turn and almost hit the guy
> that's been driving on the shoulder for 1/4 mile to make his right turn.
Hehe, I guess you don't need to look out for cyclists while making right
turns there, here you just get into the habit of *always* looking to the
right - alongside and behind you - before actually turning.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Actually no, my *favourite* are the cars where the indicator's don't
> illuminate at all, and instead the reversing lights flash, and the brake
> lights go dim each time it happens! :-D I can't begin to imagine what
> kind of insane wiring fault causes that...
Usually a missing ground connection somewhere in the rear light housing
(broken, corroded and/or bent).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> My peeves include "use the steering wheel to turn, and the brakes to
> slow down. When someone slows in front of you, it's OK for you to slow
> too, and you don't have to drive into the oncoming traffic to avoid
> doing so."
>
> Plus, people, it's rush-hour, not Nascar. See those 3000 people in front
> of you? They too would all like to squeeze past on the shoulder.
Er, yes.
Ever driven along the A303 past Stonehenge? For some insane reason, the
road designers thought it would be amusing to make the road alternate
between single and dual carridgeway every 4 miles or so. Which means
that every bank holiday, when the entire 60-mile length of that road is
gridlocked by westbound holiday-makers, as soon as we get to a
dual-carridgeway section, all the BMWs and Audis dive for the right
lane, race 4 miles down the road, and then stop at nothing to squeeeeeze
in front of that caravan...
PEOPLE! The entire road is moving at less than 2 meters per hour. How
much difference can it possibly make whether you get in before or after
the caravan?? But no, these morons drive across the crosshatchings, and
sometimes even down the wrong side of the single-carridgeway in the path
of angry oncomming traffic, just to get in front of one or two caravans.
I would go as far as to say that if there were no dual-carridgeway
sections, there wouldn't be such a big traffic jam! (Or if they, you
know, make the *whole* road dual carridgeway. The problem seems to be
every time it goes back to single caridgeway, there's a 20-mile tailback
because a few idiots want to push in.)
> And, if you're going more than 50MPH, there should be enough room
> between you and the person in front of you that someone could parallel
> park there.
Hint: Driving 4 cm from somebody's bumper is seriously unlikely to make
them speed up. Nor is beeping your horn.
(Actually, I'm sometimes tempted to hit the brakes just to destroy their
car and see the look on their faces when they have to pay to fix two
cars... I suspect that might not look good in court though.)
>> But seriously, every day when we get home, by dad has to drive round
>> this green car parked on the corner, partially obstructing my dad's
>> drive entrance.
>
> That's why you carry a valve stem remover with you. Or, in the immortal
> words of Bob, "Ha ha, you're out of spare tires. You loose."
My dad tells me that when he wins the lottery, he's going to buy a
Bigfood and accidentally destroy that car with it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Incorrect contraction use in #5. ;-)
What, you never make any mistakes? :-P
There's a difference between one occasional mistake, and people who
write page after page of horribly incorrect garbage.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> all the BMWs and Audis dive for the right lane, race 4 miles down the
> road, and then stop at nothing to squeeeeeze in front of that caravan...
>
> PEOPLE! The entire road is moving at less than 2 meters per hour.
Ermm, if the entire road is only moving at 2 m/hr then how come the BMWs and
Audis can "race" on the dual carriage way sections? If the dual carriageway
sections are clear, then why not drive at 70mph?
> How much difference can it possibly make whether you get in before or
> after the caravan??
Quite a huge amount sometimes, because caravans tend to be driven a lot
slower than normal vehicles. If you get stuck behind one for a long stretch
where they max out at 50mph and drop to 30mph going up hills, you can lose a
huge amount of time compared to doing a constant 60mph.
> (Actually, I'm sometimes tempted to hit the brakes just to destroy their
> car and see the look on their faces when they have to pay to fix two
> cars... I suspect that might not look good in court though.)
Yeh, I heard that doesn't wash, claiming "the guy in front did a full
emergency stop for no reason but to cause an accident" works quite well as a
defence. And even if they did get the blame, it's still a major hassle for
you. I tend to just slow down gradually, I mean there is an increased risk
of an accident so you better slow down to compensate :-)
> My dad tells me that when he wins the lottery, he's going to buy a Bigfood
> and accidentally destroy that car with it.
Just leave a friendly anonymous note on the windscreen, you never know.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> all the BMWs and Audis dive for the right lane, race 4 miles down the
>> road, and then stop at nothing to squeeeeeze in front of that caravan...
>>
>> PEOPLE! The entire road is moving at less than 2 meters per hour.
>
> Ermm, if the entire road is only moving at 2 m/hr then how come the BMWs
> and Audis can "race" on the dual carriage way sections? If the dual
> carriageway sections are clear, then why not drive at 70mph?
This is what happens. As soon as the new lane appears, all the sports
cars dive into it and rush past the left lane. The left lane speeds up
to about 40 due to the cars leaving it. And then we all slow back down
to more or less stationary as the lanes merge again, and the arrogant
sports car drivers are DETERMINED to get in front of as many people as
possible. Because, you know, it means a really big difference, doesn't it?
>> How much difference can it possibly make whether you get in before or
>> after the caravan??
>
> Quite a huge amount sometimes, because caravans tend to be driven a lot
> slower than normal vehicles. If you get stuck behind one for a long
> stretch where they max out at 50mph and drop to 30mph going up hills,
> you can lose a huge amount of time compared to doing a constant 60mph.
We are talking about a road where people put the brakes on and actually
turn off their engines because the taffic is so slow. How much
difference can it possibly make?!
The last time I drove this particular road, it took 2 hours to move 18
feet forward. Are you seriously telling me getting in front of a caravan
makes any difference? (I should also probably explain that 40% of the
vehicles on this road are caravans. So get in front of one and you're
still behind 200 others.)
>> (Actually, I'm sometimes tempted to hit the brakes just to destroy
>> their car and see the look on their faces when they have to pay to fix
>> two cars... I suspect that might not look good in court though.)
>
> Yeh, I heard that doesn't wash, claiming "the guy in front did a full
> emergency stop for no reason but to cause an accident" works quite well
> as a defence. And even if they did get the blame, it's still a major
> hassle for you. I tend to just slow down gradually, I mean there is an
> increased risk of an accident so you better slow down to compensate :-)
How about just slowing down a little and claiming you saw a rabit? Or a
plastic bag blew across the road and you *thought* it was a dangerous
obstruction? >:-)
>> My dad tells me that when he wins the lottery, he's going to buy a
>> Bigfood and accidentally destroy that car with it.
>
> Just leave a friendly anonymous note on the windscreen, you never know.
Heh. Doubt it. Not knowing dad's neighbors. (One of the reasons he
bought a CD of Widor's Toccata was so he didn't have to listen to them
screaming at each other at the top of their voices through the wall...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> We are talking about a road where people put the brakes on and actually
> turn off their engines because the taffic is so slow. How much difference
> can it possibly make?!
Always greater than zero difference, at least, how much will depend on the
road situation and what happens at any junctions etc, so impossible to
predict. What's to lose by overtaking one more caravan? You never know, at
the next section of dual carriageway that caravan might pull out to overtake
something else, holding up the whole road to around 45mph for a few miles,
or the caravan might get a red light and 20 more cars go infront of it from
a side-road, or the road becomes clearer and the cars infront drive off at
60mph yet this is the slowest driver in existance and you get stuck behind
at 40mph, or ... or ...
> How about just slowing down a little and claiming you saw a rabit? Or a
> plastic bag blew across the road and you *thought* it was a dangerous
> obstruction? >:-)
Yeh, might work, but still is it really worth all the hassle of having to
wait for your car to be repaired, possibly getting injured yourself, etc
etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> We (UK and Germany and most other countries I've been to) have just
> solid amber to mean it's about to go red. It's illegal to go through on
> red and you will be fined (or photographed then fined!), so the amber is
> needed to give people a chance to stop before it goes red. Faster roads
> have longer amber phases to avoid you needing to do an emergency stop in
> fear of running a red.
Same here. Our traffic laws are set at the state level, but everywhere
I've ever been, the technical is "Yellow means stop if it's safe to stop
and you'll not be in the intersection. If it's red and you're in the
interesection, you're risking a ticket."
In other words, if you're going slow enough, stop when it turns yellow
even if you could have made it through on the yellow. It doesn't mean
"this is your last chance to make it, so slam on the gas."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:14:37 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Incorrect contraction use in #5. ;-)
>
> What, you never make any mistakes? :-P
>
> There's a difference between one occasional mistake, and people who
> write page after page of horribly incorrect garbage.
It just struck me as funny, especially after reading your missive that
included being annoyed by people who misuse apostrophes.
It's what's known as McKean's Law. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
m_a_r_c wrote:
> Did you ever come in France?
> If yes, were you drunk or mind-boggled by driving on the right side of the
> road (instead of the wrong one)?? :-)
>
> The correct sequence is
>
> Green
> Amber
> Red
> Green
Good to see France has some sense ;)
This is the same as the U.S., btw.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Good to see France has some sense ;)
> This is the same as the U.S., btw.
Altho I have seen things where, for example, the left turn lane has a
green arrow, and when that's going to a red arrow, all the lights go to
yellow. So if you're not in the left turn lane, you get
green
yellow
red
yellow
red
green
Not often, and a bit confusing when it happens, and not dangerous since
you're already stopped. Just takes a bit of looking around to notice why.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-Nov-08 14:15, Invisible wrote:
> In the interests of public service, I'd like to point out the following
> small details:
>
> 7. If there is no more space on your drive,
Buy another 1TB USB disk?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Depends on your ear. ;-)
True, my ear is not a native English listener.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>
>> My favorite is when your light turns green
>> which means that the other traffic must have been red for 3-4 seconds
>> yet cars are still continuing to go through the intersection trying to
>> 'beat' the red.
>
> Yeah. Of course, the only thing they're likely to "beat" is the bodywork
> of their precious sports car when it smashes into another vehicle.
>
I also love people who go through an intersection and hit the person
that ran the red light - in plain view. Like you couldn't see someone
was going to hit you or you were going to hit someone.
>> Another is when you are going to make a right turn and almost hit the
>> guy that's been driving on the shoulder for 1/4 mile to make his right
>> turn.
>
> I don't know about other countries, but here that kind of thing is
> illegal. (Not that this stops anybody...)
>
Driving on the shoulder is illegal here as well, but people don't care.
If you are driving on the shoulder and you get hit (even if it is
because the other person failed to look) it is your fault. I know
several people who thought they were cheated because it turned out to be
their fault for driving on the shoulder.
> I don't know why, but people who drive expensive sports cars seem to
> have the mentality that it's their road and everybody else is required
> to get out of *their* way, and that the rules to not apply to them. As
> if the world is put there for their own personal convinience or
> something... grr!
>
I honestly do not care how fast a person drives - just respect the
others around you. If the traffic is heavy, don't cause problems by
weaving and the like.
If someone is bring a jerk, it's best to just let them past and get way
ahead of you so that their actions don't cause you to get into an accident.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> My favorite is when your light turns green
>> which means that the other traffic must have been red for 3-4 seconds
>> yet cars are still continuing to go through the intersection trying to
>> 'beat' the red.
>
> In the UK at least I see a lot of junctions where the instant one
> direction changes from amber to red, the other changes from red to
> red+amber.
The delay is probably similar to red+amber.
Are you allowed to go on a red+amber?
If you have a 3-4 second delay where all directions are on
> red, then of course people are going to be tempted to carry on jumping
> the red for a few seconds after it's switched from green.
>
Yes and no - it depends on where you live. Some areas are really bad -
10-15 seconds of red light running. Other areas are very lawful and
compliant. I think it depends on the demeanor of the people that drive
through the area.
I like that some places actually put in red light cameras - then it is
automatic with the ticket, not only when there is a cop around.
>> Another is when you are going to make a right turn and almost hit the
>> guy that's been driving on the shoulder for 1/4 mile to make his right
>> turn.
>
> Hehe, I guess you don't need to look out for cyclists while making right
> turns there, here you just get into the habit of *always* looking to the
> right - alongside and behind you - before actually turning.
>
A cyclist is different, he should be there - that's where it is safer.
You should always look before changing lanes.
It's those cars who are trying to get 30 cars ahead that cause the
problem. They think they have the right to drive on the shoulder
because they are turning ahead - even to the point where if there is a
car parked on the shoulder, they pull back into traffic - they just used
the shoulder as a passing lane!
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> red, then of course people are going to be tempted to carry on jumping
> the red for a few seconds after it's switched from green.
My favorite is when I stop safely for the amber light and the guy behind
me pulls out, goes around me, and blows thru the red light.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:20:22 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Depends on your ear. ;-)
>
> True, my ear is not a native English listener.
:-)
One of my favourite quotes of all time comes from H2G2 - "...to boldly
split infinitives that no man has split before."
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:38:25 -0500, Tom Austin wrote:
> If someone is bring a jerk, it's best to just let them past and get way
> ahead of you so that their actions don't cause you to get into an
> accident.
OTOH, if they get ahead of you and then get into an accident, that'll
delay your trip....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:38:25 -0500, Tom Austin wrote:
>
>> If someone is bring a jerk, it's best to just let them past and get way
>> ahead of you so that their actions don't cause you to get into an
>> accident.
>
> OTOH, if they get ahead of you and then get into an accident, that'll
> delay your trip....
>
> Jim
Yes, but at least you were not involved in the accident - given they
were far enough ahead.
If you get in their way you may be the indirect cause of an accident.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> red, then of course people are going to be tempted to carry on jumping
>> the red for a few seconds after it's switched from green.
>
> My favorite is when I stop safely for the amber light and the guy behind
> me pulls out, goes around me, and blows thru the red light.
>
Yes, I've had that happen.
I once made a safe stop at a red light.
I started to fiddle with the radio and started to hear tires squealing.
Next thing I know a guy blows past me sideways spinning into the
intersection.
Apparently he anticipated that I would run the light and he would
follow. Then when he looked up again he almost hit me.
I lucked out that day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:38:25 -0500, Tom Austin wrote:
>>
>>> If someone is bring a jerk, it's best to just let them past and get way
>>> ahead of you so that their actions don't cause you to get into an
>>> accident.
>>
>> OTOH, if they get ahead of you and then get into an accident, that'll
>> delay your trip....
>>
>> Jim
>
> Yes, but at least you were not involved in the accident - given they
> were far enough ahead.
>
> If you get in their way you may be the indirect cause of an accident.
>
In this state at least, it doesn't matter who caused the accident. If
you're the last person in line, you're responsible. I'd rather be in
front ;)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> My favorite is when I stop safely for the amber light and the guy behind
> me pulls out, goes around me, and blows thru the red light.
< a bit of a tangent, but not much .. >
I'm surprised Gail hasn't jumped in about the lunatic drivers in South
Africa.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> My favorite is when I stop safely for the amber light and the guy
>> behind me pulls out, goes around me, and blows thru the red light.
>
> < a bit of a tangent, but not much .. >
>
> I'm surprised Gail hasn't jumped in about the lunatic drivers in South
> Africa.
>
maybe she's one of them ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Same here. Our traffic laws are set at the state level, but everywhere
> I've ever been, the technical is "Yellow means stop if it's safe to stop
> and you'll not be in the intersection. If it's red and you're in the
> interesection, you're risking a ticket."
In the UK at least, the law says that you must not go over the white line
that is painted across the road next to the signal, if it is on red. That
is what the cameras look for, they take two photos that include the signal
and the line in the frame, if they both show a red signal and the first is
your car behind the line and second is your car ahead of the line, then
that's proof enough to be fined.
I always wondered if the light was red (and there were no other cars
around), whether it would be technically legal to drive on the other side of
the road (into the oncoming traffic) and drive through the intersection.
Technically you haven't crossed the white line that the signal is telling
you to stop at (it only goes half way across the road).
> In other words, if you're going slow enough, stop when it turns yellow
> even if you could have made it through on the yellow. It doesn't mean
> "this is your last chance to make it, so slam on the gas."
Quite often though, people are driving above the speed limit, so the amber
phase is maybe not long enough for them to have enough warning to stop, or
to get over the line before it goes red. Their only option to avoid running
a red is to speed up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I also love people who go through an intersection and hit the person that
> ran the red light - in plain view. Like you couldn't see someone was
> going to hit you or you were going to hit someone.
Depends on the intersection, sometimes you would have no chance of seeing
someone coming from the side at 50mph until it was too late to take any
avoiding action.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> In the UK at least I see a lot of junctions where the instant one
>> direction changes from amber to red, the other changes from red to
>> red+amber.
>
> The delay is probably similar to red+amber.
> Are you allowed to go on a red+amber?
Not technically, but the phase is so short (usually 1 second or less) by the
time you've actually started moving past the light it is on green anyway.
> Yes and no - it depends on where you live. Some areas are really bad -
> 10-15 seconds of red light running.
Huh? What do the cars do that are on green? Here I see max. 1 second red
light running, and even that is very rare.
> I like that some places actually put in red light cameras - then it is
> automatic with the ticket, not only when there is a cop around.
Yeh a lot of them here too, although IMO they make the cameras too obvious.
> It's those cars who are trying to get 30 cars ahead that cause the
> problem. They think they have the right to drive on the shoulder because
> they are turning ahead - even to the point where if there is a car parked
> on the shoulder, they pull back into traffic - they just used the shoulder
> as a passing lane!
Actually people do that here in Germany quite often when the traffic is
slow, in fact there are even a few places with signs where it tells you to
use the shoulder if you are turning off and traffic is slow. If traffic is
really slow or stopped then people will often drive for kms on the shoulder
to get off at the next exit. I sometimes wonder if any accidents are caused
by this behaviour, like if someone is turning off and doesn't see someone
else coming up on the shoulder, but everyone seems to have a similar
understanding of what's going on.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I once made a safe stop at a red light.
> I started to fiddle with the radio and started to hear tires squealing.
> Next thing I know a guy blows past me sideways spinning into the
> intersection.
Oh wow, yeh at least he didn't just plough into the back of you.
I had a similar experience on my bike once, it was at some construction work
and the light went red, so I stopped and was first in line. A split second
later I see a cyclist (who must have been right behind me) come flying past
me in the air pretty much separated from his bike. Once he'd picked himself
up off the road and collected up his (now unrideable) bike, he said to me
how stupid I was to stop at the light and I should have just gone through it
like all the other cyclists!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I also love people who go through an intersection and hit the person
>> that ran the red light - in plain view. Like you couldn't see someone
>> was going to hit you or you were going to hit someone.
>
> Depends on the intersection, sometimes you would have no chance of
> seeing someone coming from the side at 50mph until it was too late to
> take any avoiding action.
>
Yes, but then you have the perfectly clear view of a person sitting in
your way - and you aim for them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> In the UK at least I see a lot of junctions where the instant one
>>> direction changes from amber to red, the other changes from red to
>>> red+amber.
>>
>> The delay is probably similar to red+amber.
>> Are you allowed to go on a red+amber?
>
> Not technically, but the phase is so short (usually 1 second or less) by
> the time you've actually started moving past the light it is on green
> anyway.
>
>> Yes and no - it depends on where you live. Some areas are really bad
>> - 10-15 seconds of red light running.
>
> Huh? What do the cars do that are on green? Here I see max. 1 second
> red light running, and even that is very rare.
>
The cars waiting on green just have to keep waiting.
>> I like that some places actually put in red light cameras - then it is
>> automatic with the ticket, not only when there is a cop around.
>
> Yeh a lot of them here too, although IMO they make the cameras too obvious.
>
What's the goal - to stop red light running or to give the most fines
possible?
You hide them to give tickets, you show them if you just want people to
stop.
Then the budget people come in - tighten the amber times so that we can
give more red light tickets so that we can fund our pension plan.
> Actually people do that here in Germany quite often when the traffic is
> slow, in fact there are even a few places with signs where it tells you
> to use the shoulder if you are turning off and traffic is slow. If
> traffic is really slow or stopped then people will often drive for kms
> on the shoulder to get off at the next exit. I sometimes wonder if any
> accidents are caused by this behaviour, like if someone is turning off
> and doesn't see someone else coming up on the shoulder, but everyone
> seems to have a similar understanding of what's going on.
>
I've seen this on regular roads with stop lights.
Actually, I could care less if people use the shoulder - especially in
the case you pointed out. When driving on the shoulder and going at
high speed along traffic that is almost stopped - that's asking for trouble.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I once made a safe stop at a red light.
>> I started to fiddle with the radio and started to hear tires squealing.
>> Next thing I know a guy blows past me sideways spinning into the
>> intersection.
>
> Oh wow, yeh at least he didn't just plough into the back of you.
>
I now keep an eye on traffic behind me when stopping at lights.
> I had a similar experience on my bike once, it was at some construction
> work and the light went red, so I stopped and was first in line. A
> split second later I see a cyclist (who must have been right behind me)
> come flying past me in the air pretty much separated from his bike. Once
> he'd picked himself up off the road and collected up his (now
> unrideable) bike, he said to me how stupid I was to stop at the light
> and I should have just gone through it like all the other cyclists!
>
>
Don't cyclists have to obey the traffic laws as well - I guess that's
the way of things. If someone does not do something you expect them to
do - it's your fault.
I've seen 1 or 2 accidents that were just that accidents.
But most of the accidents out there should be labeled stupidities -
because someone was doing something stupid and the 'accident' was
totally avoidable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Depends on the intersection, sometimes you would have no chance of seeing
>> someone coming from the side at 50mph until it was too late to take any
>> avoiding action.
>
> Yes, but then you have the perfectly clear view of a person sitting in
> your way - and you aim for them.
Even cars going at speeds like 20mph cover a distance like 5 metres (maybe
the distance from being hidden to being in the middle of the intersection)
in well under one second. I suspect if you're going 50mph and you see a car
crossing your path 0.5 seconds before you are about to hit it, there's not a
lot you can do, cars don't turn very sharply at 50mph.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Huh? What do the cars do that are on green? Here I see max. 1 second red
>> light running, and even that is very rare.
>>
>
> The cars waiting on green just have to keep waiting.
Oh wow, that would never happen here, if it was a fast road there would
definitely be a load of accidents because the people on green would just go
without looking left&right very far, some would probably see you and drive
out anyway forcing you to do an emergency stop and crash into them.
Insurance would certainly blame the person for red light jumping no matter
what happened.
On a slower road the cars on green would just force their way over and force
the red-light runners to stop (this happens sometimes when the exit is
blocked and people get stuck in the middle and then try to go when it frees
up, forgetting that they don't have green anymore).
>> Yeh a lot of them here too, although IMO they make the cameras too
>> obvious.
>>
>
> What's the goal - to stop red light running or to give the most fines
> possible?
It seems to just stop people red-light running at certain junctions, and
they can tell which ones they need to stop at before they get to there. If
they hid them somehow you'd never know which ones had cameras so you'd have
to stop at all of them. The police could just announce "we've fitted red
light cameras under-cover to around 10% of intersections on a rotating
basis".
> I've seen this on regular roads with stop lights.
We don't usually have shoulders on regular roads, if there's space for a
shoulder it will be a proper lane.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> Depends on the intersection, sometimes you would have no chance of
>>> seeing someone coming from the side at 50mph until it was too late to
>>> take any avoiding action.
>>
>> Yes, but then you have the perfectly clear view of a person sitting in
>> your way - and you aim for them.
>
> Even cars going at speeds like 20mph cover a distance like 5 metres
> (maybe the distance from being hidden to being in the middle of the
> intersection) in well under one second. I suspect if you're going 50mph
> and you see a car crossing your path 0.5 seconds before you are about to
> hit it, there's not a lot you can do, cars don't turn very sharply at
> 50mph.
>
I agree, but a car sitting in an intersection for 5 seconds doesn't
count in this situation. - OK, it only counts if the person hitting him
actually got on the brakes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> In the UK at least, the law says that you must not go over the white
> line that is painted across the road next to the signal, if it is on
> red.
In most states in the USA, if your car hasn't gotten across the *far*
white line when the light goes red, technically you're in the
intersection on a red light. As for what the cameras look for, I
couldn't say.
> Quite often though, people are driving above the speed limit, so the
> amber phase is maybe not long enough for them to have enough warning to
> stop, or to get over the line before it goes red. Their only option to
> avoid running a red is to speed up.
Yep, that happens too. When I was learning to drive (and sometimes still
now), I start thinking to myself "No, no, no, no, YES!" and making the
decision in advance whether I'll stop for a yellow or not. At least that
way, I'm either speeding up or slowing down, and not hesitating trying
to decide which I should do when I should already be acting. Not that I
always make the right decision, but usually.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Huh? What do the cars do that are on green? Here I see max. 1 second
> red light running, and even that is very rare.
The other ones that bug me is when traffic is heavy, and instead of
leaving the intersection open enough, when the light's green, five cars
will pull into the middle of the three-lane-road intersection, just so
they can "get through the light." Of course, when the cross traffic
gets the green, the intersection is still full. So most people will
drive in front of the people already stuck and start blowing the horn.
Very helpful, that.
>> I like that some places actually put in red light cameras - then it is
>> automatic with the ticket, not only when there is a cop around.
>
> Yeh a lot of them here too, although IMO they make the cameras too obvious.
I think in the USA you'd get even worse constitutional challenges if the
camera was hidden. The whole excuse for putting the camera in is to
encourage people to slow down and not run the red-light. (We all know
it's really to collect money.)
> accidents are caused by this behaviour,
I'd be more worried that in the case of an accident, there's no way for
the emergency vehicles to get to the problem area, myself.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In most states in the USA, if your car hasn't gotten across the *far*
> white line when the light goes red, technically you're in the intersection
> on a red light.
Is that illegal then, to be *in* the intersection when the light you passed
on the way in is red? What happens if you are wanting to turn left and have
to wait until all the cars coming the opposite way have stopped on red - is
that illegal if your light has switched back to red? Or what if traffic is
moving slowly and you set off into the intersection on green, but then it
changes to red before you make it to the other side?
> Yep, that happens too. When I was learning to drive (and sometimes still
> now), I start thinking to myself "No, no, no, no, YES!" and making the
> decision in advance whether I'll stop for a yellow or not. At least that
> way, I'm either speeding up or slowing down, and not hesitating trying to
> decide which I should do when I should already be acting. Not that I
> always make the right decision, but usually.
Yeh I have that sometimes too, although usually it's just because I don't
want to break hard to stop in time, then I decide to keep going, but then I
realise it's going to be a bit risky and it might go red so I slam on the
brakes anyway!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The other ones that bug me is when traffic is heavy, and instead of
> leaving the intersection open enough, when the light's green, five cars
> will pull into the middle of the three-lane-road intersection, just so
> they can "get through the light."
Here you're not meant to enter the intersection unless your exit is clear
(or you can be sure it will be clear when you get there). ie you're not
meant to stop in the middle of the intersection, the only exception is if
you are turning across the oncoming traffic, where you are allowed to wait
in the middle.
> Of course, when the cross traffic gets the green, the intersection is
> still full. So most people will drive in front of the people already stuck
> and start blowing the horn.
How do they drive in front of the people stuck in the middle? Usually here
the idiots who block the intersection go as far forward as they can so it's
impossible to go in front of them, sometimes you have to weave around behind
them, particularly fun if it's more than one lane.
> I think in the USA you'd get even worse constitutional challenges if the
> camera was hidden.
Hehe, a hidden camera to catch people driving illegally? Bah no we can't
possibly have that - the people must know exactly which section of road they
have to drive legally on!
> I'd be more worried that in the case of an accident, there's no way for
> the emergency vehicles to get to the problem area, myself.
When there is no shoulder here you are meant to leave a gap between the two
lanes (ie you stop over the left side of the left lane, and over to the
right side of the right lane), that usually leaves plenty of gap for
emergency services to come through. Pretty sensible as some of the
remaining old autobahns here don't have a shoulder, also some of the newer
ones can be switched from a shoulder to a proper lane depending on the
traffic volume.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> In most states in the USA, if your car hasn't gotten across the *far*
>> white line when the light goes red, technically you're in the
>> intersection on a red light.
>
> Is that illegal then, to be *in* the intersection when the light you
> passed on the way in is red? What happens if you are wanting to turn
> left and have to wait until all the cars coming the opposite way have
> stopped on red - is that illegal if your light has switched back to
> red? Or what if traffic is moving slowly and you set off into the
> intersection on green, but then it changes to red before you make it to
> the other side?
Technically, yes, you're in trouble. You're not supposed to enter the
intersection unless you can clear the other side legally. Don't pull
into the middle of the intersection to turn - wait in the turn lane, for
example.
In New York City, where such leads to deadlock, the fine is something
like $500 to be in the intersection when the light changes.
In practice, no, you rarely get in trouble, unless you do something else
stupid too and it's something they add on top.
> Yeh I have that sometimes too, although usually it's just because I
> don't want to break hard to stop in time, then I decide to keep going,
> but then I realise it's going to be a bit risky and it might go red so I
> slam on the brakes anyway!
Yes, that's what my technique was invented to solve. I decide I'm going
to go, and if it turns red anyway, I go anyway. Of course, one has to be
somewhat concervative.
I've learned it helps if you're in a suit and tie, also.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> ie you're not meant to stop in the middle of the intersection,
Well, yes, that's why it bugs me. :-)
>> I think in the USA you'd get even worse constitutional challenges if
>> the camera was hidden.
>
> Hehe, a hidden camera to catch people driving illegally? Bah no we
> can't possibly have that - the people must know exactly which section of
> road they have to drive legally on!
Well, there were already constitutional challenges based on the fact
that the camera can't take the witness stand, for example. How are you
supposed to argue you weren't speeding if the police won't even tell you
where they caught you speeding?
>> I'd be more worried that in the case of an accident, there's no way
>> for the emergency vehicles to get to the problem area, myself.
>
> When there is no shoulder here you are meant to leave a gap between the
> two lanes (ie you stop over the left side of the left lane, and over to
> the right side of the right lane), that usually leaves plenty of gap for
> emergency services to come through.
I think that works well if everyone understands it. It works poorly if
half the people think you're supposed to squeeze right from the left lane.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:57:42 -0500, Tom Austin wrote:
> Yes, but at least you were not involved in the accident - given they
> were far enough ahead.
>
> If you get in their way you may be the indirect cause of an accident.
True, but if I can keep 'em behind me, then I'm not going to be stuck in
traffic for hours. ;-)
Jim (mostly joking)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Technically, yes, you're in trouble. You're not supposed to enter the
> intersection unless you can clear the other side legally.
That's sounds a bit silly, how are you meant to know if the light is going
to switch to red before you get to the other side? Just this morning I
entered an intersection as it switched to amber (no way to stop in time),
and I'm pretty sure it was on red by the time I got out the other side
(around 20mph I guess, crossing 4 lanes of traffic and 2 tram lines).
> Don't pull into the middle of the intersection to turn - wait in the turn
> lane, for example.
You must have to wait for a huge gap in the oncoming traffic then - usually
here you move forward until you are exactly lined up with the exit, and as
soon as there is a gap in the oncoming traffic you make the turn. Otherwise
you'd literally be there all day (and getting honked at from the cars
behind)!.
> In New York City, where such leads to deadlock,
It will only lead to deadlock if you enter the intersection when your exit
is not clear - we have that rule too.
> In practice, no, you rarely get in trouble, unless you do something else
> stupid too and it's something they add on top.
Ditto here, the police are not going to even do anything if they are right
behind you. They're probably doing the same thing :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, there were already constitutional challenges based on the fact that
> the camera can't take the witness stand, for example. How are you supposed
> to argue you weren't speeding if the police won't even tell you where they
> caught you speeding?
Of course they should tell you where you were caught, but there's no reason
to keep the cameras in the same place.
Actually in the UK they had almost this method, because I think 80-90% of
the camera housings are actually empty inside. A pretty good idea so long
as they put the camera housings near dangerous areas (and not just on a big
empty wide stretch with a ridiculously low limit). Naturally they move
around the actual cameras, so you're never sure which ones are actually
working or not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Technically, yes, you're in trouble. You're not supposed to enter the
>> intersection unless you can clear the other side legally.
>
> That's sounds a bit silly, how are you meant to know if the light is
> going to switch to red before you get to the other side?
That's what the yellow is for.
> morning I entered an intersection as it switched to amber (no way to
> stop in time), and I'm pretty sure it was on red by the time I got out
> the other side (around 20mph I guess, crossing 4 lanes of traffic and 2
They need a longer yellow light there. As I said, in practice it's
usually not a problem.
> You must have to wait for a huge gap in the oncoming traffic then -
Or look ahead a bit. Or wait for the turn signal.
Of course it all falls apart if the lights aren't designed properly,
yes. If the yellow is too short to clear the intersection at a
reasonable speed, or you have no left turn arrow when there's usually
lots of oncoming traffic, you'll be in trouble.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's what the yellow is for.
So, you make the yellow phase last long enough to cross the entire junction
at the slowest speed you can imagine for that junction? I guess that would
work, but then when the road is flowing normally, people would just continue
to drive through on yellow, knowing that it is going to last for 5 seconds
or whatever, when the whole point of yellow is for you to stop if it's safe
to do so.
In China I saw a few lights where they had a big 7-segment countdown timer
above the lights, looked like a pretty cool idea, well it would have been if
they paid any attention to the lights in the first place :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> So, you make the yellow phase last long enough to cross the entire
> junction at the slowest speed you can imagine for that junction?
No. If you're going *that* slow, it's easier to stop. You make it long
enough to get through going at the slowest speed where it would be
unsafe to try to stop. :-)
> In China I saw a few lights where they had a big 7-segment countdown
> timer above the lights, looked like a pretty cool idea, well it would
> have been if they paid any attention to the lights in the first place :-)
Yeah. I'm rather surprised there's any Chinese people left alive, with
the way they do traffic there. :-)
"That's our hotel on the left."
"Then why did the taxi driver pull into the right-turn-only lane?"
"The line's shorter."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> So, you make the yellow phase last long enough to cross the entire
>> junction at the slowest speed you can imagine for that junction?
>
> No. If you're going *that* slow, it's easier to stop.
But my whole point is, how do you know it's about to switch to amber? If
you enter the junction on green going slow enough, you won't make it to the
other side before it gets to red.
> Yeah. I'm rather surprised there's any Chinese people left alive, with the
> way they do traffic there. :-)
>
> "That's our hotel on the left."
> "Then why did the taxi driver pull into the right-turn-only lane?"
> "The line's shorter."
To be fair that isn't *that* bad, I've seen quite a few cars do that here,
using the turn-only lane and then going straight, getting in front of about
20-30 cars in the process. What I found particularly weird in China was
that they started to queue up in the lanes for oncoming traffic when at a
red light! Or that you can be going around a corner on a 2-lane road at
50mph and suddenly you're faced with an old woman on a tricycle coming
towards you!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> If you enter the junction on green going slow enough, you won't make it
> to the other side before it gets to red.
Stop on the green. Wait till it's clear on the far side.
>> Yeah. I'm rather surprised there's any Chinese people left alive, with
>> the way they do traffic there. :-)
>>
>> "That's our hotel on the left."
>> "Then why did the taxi driver pull into the right-turn-only lane?"
>> "The line's shorter."
>
> To be fair that isn't *that* bad,
It was for me! That's not a story, that's an experience. :-)
> on a 2-lane road at 50mph and suddenly you're faced with an old woman on
> a tricycle coming towards you!
Yeah. And the people on bicycles weaving out in front of the oncoming
busses.
Like I said, I'm surprised there's any of them left alive.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
