If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Magnulus wrote: > "Scott en Aztl=E1n" > wrote in message > ... > > And when you do not have sufficient space to come to a complete stop > > before entering the intersection, as in the case when you are ten feet > > from the stop line when the light turns yellow, the law allows you to > > continue through the intersection. Yellow does not mean red. > > > Were you by chance driving so fast you COULDN'T stop? Why don't you try > driving a little SLOWER, leadfoot. You know, the POSTED SPEED LIMIT. Then > maybe you won't run red lights. > > I don't know, otherwise, of any stop lights that turn from yellow to red > that fast. There's the other alternative that was a tactic used in one notorious little Cleveland suburb (Brooklyn?): the 'long' intersection. There used to be a light-controlled intersection there where, on one busy approach street, the 'stop' lines were some 150' (IIRC) from the actual intersection. When the light went amber, if you were driving at the speed limit, you either: 1) couldn't stop behind the 'stop' line (resulting in a citation for stopping *in the intersection*) or 2) went *under* a red light because the amber was something around 2 seconds long (resulting in a red light violation citation). Do the math: in order to travel the distance from the stop line to clear the light in 2 seconds, you had to be going 75 ft/sec.; some 51 mph. In short, if you weren't able *for whatever reason* to stop behind the white line, you were going to get a citation *unless you were speeding*. -- C=2ER. Krieger (Been there; done that) |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> And when you do not have sufficient space to come to a complete stop > before entering the intersection, as in the case when you are ten feet > from the stop line when the light turns yellow, the law allows you to > continue through the intersection. Yellow does not mean red. If you can't stop for a yellow, the law has no problem with that, but if you can't stop for a red, you were DRIVING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, you dumb hick. I myself am guilty of running a couple of red lights (by 1/2 second or so), but at least I'm not whining about "yellow lights being too short" like a fat bitch. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
In article . com>,
Motorhead Lawyer > wrote: > >There's the other alternative that was a tactic used in one notorious >little Cleveland suburb (Brooklyn?): the 'long' intersection. There >used to be a light-controlled intersection there where, on one busy >approach street, the 'stop' lines were some 150' (IIRC) from the actual >intersection. When the light went amber, if you were driving at the >speed limit, you either: 1) couldn't stop behind the 'stop' line >(resulting in a citation for stopping *in the intersection*) or 2) went >*under* a red light because the amber was something around 2 seconds >long (resulting in a red light violation citation). Of course, technically, if you were past the stop line when the light turned red, you were in the clear even going under the red light. But I'm sure that little issue would never stand between an Ohio cop and your money. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Usual Suspect > wrote: > >If you can't stop for a yellow, the law has no problem with that, but if you >can't stop for a red, you were DRIVING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, you dumb >hick. I myself am guilty of running a couple of red lights (by 1/2 second >or so), but at least I'm not whining about "yellow lights being too short" >like a fat bitch. May you fall prey to a nearly-instantaneous yellow next time you reach a stop line. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert F Merrill" > wrote in message ... > James C. Reeves wrote: > >> >> I'm sure I don't know. But here the traffic engineers/designers are >> calling them "traffic circles". > > I've had it confirmed by misc.transit.road: > > A "traffic circle" gives right of way to people entering. > > A "roundabout" or "rotary" gives right of way to people already inside. > > Now if it's signal controlled, no one really has "right of way", so I > don't > know what it is. Interesting. Perhaps the name changes based on the status if the traffic lights/signals (and which group has the right away based on those signals at any given time). Of course I'm kidding. Question...how does a driver know if they're entering a "roundabout" vs. a "traffic circle"? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Usual Suspect" > wrote in message ... > Scott en Aztlán wrote: > >> And when you do not have sufficient space to come to a complete stop >> before entering the intersection, as in the case when you are ten feet >> from the stop line when the light turns yellow, the law allows you to >> continue through the intersection. Yellow does not mean red. > > If you can't stop for a yellow, the law has no problem with that, but if > you > can't stop for a red, you were DRIVING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, you dumb > hick. I myself am guilty of running a couple of red lights (by 1/2 second > or so), but at least I'm not whining about "yellow lights being too short" > like a fat bitch. I had no idea that overweight women complain about the length of yellow lights. ;-) |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
James C. Reeves wrote:
> Interesting. Perhaps the name changes based on the status if the traffic > lights/signals (and which group has the right away based on those signals > at > any given time). Of course I'm kidding. Question...how does a driver > know if they're entering a "roundabout" vs. a "traffic circle"? Roundabouts generally have yield signs entering, while traffic circles do not. Roundabouts *usually* have slip-ramps to let you go in at an angle, rather than the roads just intersecting with the ring. There's also a "roundabout sign" that is generally used everywhere but in the US (afaik) - it's blue with a white circle with 3 arrowheads pointing counterclockwise. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote: > On 7 Feb 2005 08:09:49 -0800, "Motorhead Lawyer" > > wrote: > > >While the completed intersection to which she refers *is* > >a relative abomination a half mile from my office, the one to be > >replaced by a roundabout truly *should be*. > > You have my condolences - both for living close to a relative > abomination, and for living in Wisconsin. Thank you. I can usually go a block or so out of the way to drive around the abomination, but then, ... I'm still in Wisconsin, dammit. -- C=2ER. Krieger (Not crashing) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"James C. Reeves" wrote: > > "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message > ... > > On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:30:33 GMT, "Kenneth P. Stox" > > > wrote: > > > >>I assume you mean what we in the states called a traffic circle. They > >>used to be in broad use, but have since been eliminated. > > > > I guess nobody told the urban planners here in SoCal - they're being > > installed in some of the newer developments. > > > > Same here in Maryland...they're springing up at several places with one > planned to be built soon at the entrance to our 1950's vintage housing > development. Traffic circles are "in" with the current crop of urban planners. At the local university, the school of design encouraged the university to add one at one of the main intersections. What a joke. It is way to small to be useful. There is no room to maneuver. Two cars fill it up. But it "looks good" from an aerial view. I hope the twits who encourage the installation of these things are forced to actually use them. It seems that no one learns from past mistakes. Regards, Ed White |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
C. E. White > wrote: > >Traffic circles are "in" with the current crop of urban >planners. This is because "urban planner" implies "car hater" and therefore anything which makes traffic worse is a good thing. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|