|
|
| A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting (292277) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (292277) | |
A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 14 18:44:53 2014 Sheepsheadbites.com |
|
|
| (292305) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by MR RT on Tue Apr 15 07:38:34 2014, in response to A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 14 18:44:53 2014. I sure the standing room only folks will be in favor of the 20 MPH until they get into their car. |
|
|
| (292316) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Tue Apr 15 13:56:43 2014, in response to A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 14 18:44:53 2014. Your points about 20 MPH speed limit may be valid, however there are other issues which need more immediate attention - - like drivers and bikers ignoring STOP signs, as well as more serious issues like texting while driving (which you indirectly addressed). Here is a small video sampling I took of a STOP signed intersection at Pelham Parkway South and Holland Ave. |
|
|
| (292319) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 15 14:32:01 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by MR RT on Tue Apr 15 07:38:34 2014. I'm sure anyone in favor of the 20 mph speed limit does not drive and has no idea how it feels to drive at 20 mph. |
|
|
| (292320) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 15 14:48:00 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Tue Apr 15 13:56:43 2014. Everyone knows that you are supposed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign but hardly anyone does that. This is nothing new. One exercise one of my teachers had us do 45 years ago in sociology class was to go out to an intersection with a stop sign, stand there for five minutes and count the percentage of cars that came to a complete. stop. We were told not to count cars that had to stop because there was a car in front of them. According to my counts only 5% came to a full stop. The lesson was that society does not do everything it is supposed to do.Yes, no one on the video stopped, but all of them slowed down and looked around, so they were not being reckless in my opinion. Ignoring a stop sigh to me is to just blow past it without looking around. That is the dangerous act. I doubt many accidents happen because drivers only slow down to 2 mph. Also, there were no pedestrians around. That is when it is important to come to a full stop. So the NYPD goes out and randomly tickets a few who don't stop at a stop sign. Money comes into the City's treasury but the behavior will not stop because it just can't be enforced all the time. At least most drivers slow down at stop signs. Most bikers just drive straight through. It's wrong, but not always dangerous. It's the dangerous actions we need to stop like speeding at 50 or 60 mph in a 30 mph zone and as you say texting and distracted driving, and not giving the right of way to pedestrians. |
|
|
| (292323) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Apr 15 15:05:20 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 15 14:48:00 2014. Having realistic speed limits and normal traffic laws and then enforcing them with cameras (within reason) is fine by me. For example, if they just leave the speed limit at 30 and camera-ticket anyone going 40 or 45 and up, then things make much more sense.The thing is, the cameras have to be perfect. I'm not against red-light cameras, for example, except it has to be definite that they would not photograph in certain situations (i.e. a traffic director is present, an emergency vehicle is present, etc.) Also, there should be a half-second or so grace period after the light turns red (like I think right now it's 0.3 seconds in NYC). One solution to the emergency vehicle problem is that emergency vehicles get control over lights they are approaching to automatically turn them green, including green turn arrows where appropriate. I've seen that done in Suffolk County. |
|
|
| (292325) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Tue Apr 15 16:34:11 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 15 14:48:00 2014. Unacceptable. Slowing down at a STOP sign, but not coming to a full stop is still in violation of NYS VTL 1172a. And it's dangerous too. |
|
|
| (292326) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Apr 15 16:49:48 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 15 14:48:00 2014. Everyone knows that you are supposed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign but hardly anyone does that.I do, when I'm driving a car and I still drive and own a car. There's a very easy way to prove I stop. I drive a manual transmission. I cannot shift into 1st, when the car is moving. It's just not worth it to wreck a syncromesh transmission trying to shift into 1st while rolling. It's a PITA to double clutch on every downshift after the syncromesh is wrecked. |
|
|
| (292328) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 15 17:59:58 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Apr 15 15:05:20 2014. Where did you hear there was a grace period? They go off immediately and virtually all the summonses are issued for the first fraction of a second. I don't even know if they flash after that point like if someone goes through the red light after five or ten seconds. Those are the real culprits. If there is emergency vehicle that forces you to go through, you would have to plead that and ask them to review the other pictures. |
|
|
| (292329) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 15 18:01:59 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Apr 15 16:49:48 2014. So you are stopping for the health of your car, not for safety. Would you always come to a full stop if there is absolutely no one else anywhere in the area? |
|
|
| (292330) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 15 18:03:14 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Tue Apr 15 16:34:11 2014. I disagree that it is always dangerous if you are 100% sure there are no pedestrians or bikes anywhere around. |
|
|
| (292338) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by FamousNYLover on Tue Apr 15 19:36:26 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Apr 15 16:49:48 2014. I know in most of areas in Long Island and Westchester, you can turn right at RED after making complete stop. Have anyone honk at you when you did not know making right turn on red is allowed? |
|
|
| (292339) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12th on Tue Apr 15 19:54:23 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by FamousNYLover on Tue Apr 15 19:36:26 2014. You mean outside of NYC you can make the right turn on red unless there is a sign that is prohibited.People honk because they are in a hurry. |
|
|
| (292348) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Apr 16 06:34:15 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 15 17:59:58 2014. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pr2012/redlights.shtmlMyth: Traffic signals with red-light cameras are timed with shorter yellow signals to snare motorists. Fact: New York City's traffic signals are all timed to provide a minimum of three seconds of yellow light, which is consistent with national guidelines. Red-light cameras take pictures 0.3 seconds after the light has turned red. |
|
|
| (292349) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Railbus63 on Wed Apr 16 09:29:16 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 15 14:48:00 2014. So the NYPD goes out and randomly tickets a few who don't stop at a stop sign. Money comes into the City's treasury but the behavior will not stop because it just can't be enforced all the time. At least most drivers slow down at stop signs. Most bikers just drive straight through. It's wrong, but not always dangerous. It's the dangerous actions we need to stop like speeding at 50 or 60 mph in a 30 mph zone and as you say texting and distracted driving, and not giving the right of way to pedestrians.Well said. |
|
|
| (292353) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Apr 16 11:06:37 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 15 14:48:00 2014. It's the dangerous actions we need to stop like speeding at 50 or 60 mph in a 30 mphDefine what you mean by "dangerous?" Is going through a red light dangerous? If so, then the approach speed to a traffic signal must be consistent with the signal's yellow change interval. That interval was based on a 30 mph speed limit. That's a standard based on reaction time and a modest braking rate. If your approach speed is faster, you will not be able stop before the signal turns red. Your continued insistence that the yellow change interval should be increased contradicts your assertion that approach speeds "modestly" in excess of 30 mph are safe. Do you know why NYC adopted a 30 mph speed limit with respect to traffic signals? It's to maximize vehicular crossings through an intersection. The transition time GR-YR-RR-RG is dead time. No vehicles can travel during this interval. There are 2 such intervals for a complete cycle for a simple intersection. NYC's standard traffic signal cycle is 90 seconds. That means 11% of possible travel time is lost due to changing signals. Want to increase the yellow change interval to 4 seconds (40 mph approach speed)? The change interval increases to 13.3%. Want to increase the cycle time to increase the travel through the intersection? The limit is how much traffic will accumulate during a red cycle. It's not very long in NYC with 20 blocks per mile being the norm. Does your definition of "dangerous" extend to damage caused to non-vehicular road users? They outnumber motor vehicles in NYC by nearly 2:1. They were also there before automobiles were allowed to use the roads. They have not disappeared. The single most important determining the severity of damages caused to pedestrians is impact speed. Almost the entire injury severity range is compressed into 20 to 40 mph impact speeds. A 40 mph impact speed means 85% chance of death and 15% chance of injury. A 30 mph impact speed means 45% chance of death and 50% chance of injury. A 20 mph impact speed means a 5% chance of death and 65% chance of injury. If you have no compassion for your fellow humans nor any guilt for having caused them death or injury, consider the damage an impact will cause your car. |
|
|
| (292354) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Apr 16 11:45:21 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 15 18:01:59 2014. So you are stopping for the health of your car, not for safety.It's not often one can feel a sense of moral superiority (obeying stop signs) while benefiting personally (avoiding costly repairs). I also obey stop signs on the rare occasions when driving an automatic. It's a lot harder to prove when driving an automatic. How you care to ascribe your motivation is immaterial. Would you always come to a full stop if there is absolutely no one else anywhere in the area? I do. I'm also aware that most accidents occur when a person or object suddenly appears from out of nowhere. I've also seen too many drunks on the roads at 3am, when "absolutely no one else" is in the area. N.B. I've known too many people who were killed by cars or had a parent killed by a car. I don't want to be the person to inflict such damage on anyone. On a personal level, I know I'd live with such an incident for the remainder of my life. I prefer to take the extra step to avoid such unpleasantness, even should that cost me a few precious seconds. |
|
|
| (292355) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Apr 16 11:50:36 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by FamousNYLover on Tue Apr 15 19:36:26 2014. I know in most of areas in Long Island and Westchester, you can turn right at RED after making complete stop. Have anyone honk at you when you did not know making right turn on red is allowed?I'm still pretty good at remembering "right on red," when outside the City. My biggest problem is cars turning right on red into my path, when I have the green light. |
|
|
| (292358) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Apr 16 15:44:42 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Apr 16 11:06:37 2014. So here we go again with the percentage of death vs speed argument. That seems to be all you have. You accuse me of having no compassion or guilt if I caused someone's death or injury. You don't know me and have no right to accuse. So let me ask you. Why are you willing to accept even a 5% chance of death with a 20 mph speed limit? Isn't it worth saving even one more life if we lowered the limit to 10 mph on every road?Dangerous is exactly what it sounds like-- likely to cause injury or damage. Is gong through a red light "dangerous"? Not always. That does not mean I am advocating drivers to ignore signals. If there is any type of traffic, it usually is dangerous and therefore only allowed for emergency vehicles or to get out of the way and go through a red light with looking carefully if that is the only way an emergency vehicle can pass. I'm not sure what you mean by modest braking rate. It is modest if you are not that close to the signal. I have had many instances where I am going at the speed limit and sometimes slower when I have had to use considerable force to stop and even then I am a few feet into the crosswalk and have to back up. If you decide to go through the amber on any wide street, there is not enough time to get to the other side within 3 seconds and you have to finish on the red. It takes at least six seconds to cross a street like Woodhaven Blvd and you are only given a three second amber. So what do you do if the signal turns amber just as you are passing the crosswalk? You can't stop on a dime and you can't get through to the other side while the light is still amber. So DOT allows like three or four seconds where both sides are red to allow cars to get across the intersection.. At most intersections there are now two seconds where both sides are red where there only used to be one second. That is dead time. I don't understand where your 11% comes from. We could take the one second off the green and make it amber. Does your 3 seconds of amber take into account someone going downhill and needing a greater distance to stop? Three seconds is adequate for 20 mph, but not for 30 mph. On streets with a 20 mph speed limit, are the ambers shortened to 2 seconds, or is it still 3 seconds? I bet it is still 3 seconds. There are also many intersections with less than three second ambers because no one ever checks them. There is a lot we can do to reduce accidents like having warning signs before merges and lanes that suddenly become left turn lanes and you have to make a sudden lane shift to get out. We also have lanes that disappear without warning. Poor and improperly placed signage, dark stretches of road, missing lane and directional markings. I could go on. But it is so much easier just to blame everything on speeding and blame the drivers even when speeding is not the cause, than for DOT to do a proper job to make the roads safe. |
|
|
| (292365) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Wed Apr 16 20:59:04 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 15 18:03:14 2014. You disagree and find it acceptable to roll (slow down but not come to a full stop, look both ways and proceed only when it is safe to do so) past a STOP sign when you are `100 percent sure there are no pedestrians or bikes? You forgot cars, trucks, emergency vehicles, and buses in your statement.VTL 1172A: (a) Except when directed to proceed by a police officer, every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, then shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or in the event there is no crosswalk, at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of the approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection and the right to proceed shall be subject to the provisions of section eleven hundred forty-two. It's just that, EVERY DRIVER SHALL STOP, not slide, roll, crawl or blow by a STOP sign until a full stop is made, the driver has looked both directions, checked mirrors then proceeds when it's safe. My ex-boss had the same argument as you, that's why she received a traffic summons for blowing by a STOP sign. I really feel that people like you who think it's not dangerous to roll by a STOP sign if you are 100 percent sure it's safe, should walk into the nearest DMV and surrender their license. Driving is a serious responsibility which everyone should obey the laws, even though some people like you argue it's more detrimental. |
|
|
| (292366) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Wed Apr 16 21:01:07 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Railbus63 on Wed Apr 16 09:29:16 2014. Not really. He thinks that it's okay when drivers slow down at STOP signs. That goes into the same category as the speeding he mentions in comparison; both are dangerous and illegal. |
|
|
| (292367) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Wed Apr 16 21:02:07 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Apr 16 11:45:21 2014. +1,000 |
|
|
| (292394) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Apr 17 11:44:38 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Wed Apr 16 20:59:04 2014. Then according to your logic, 95% of the drivers should not be driving and should have their licenses taken away. Yes, they will catch a few when they need to meet a quota, but it could not be enforced to the point where it would affect driver behavior.By the same logic, since probably 95% of pedestrians jaywalk at one time or another, they also shoud not be permitted to cross the street either. I did not forget "cars, trucks, emergency vehicles and buses". I didn't mention them because if you can't see them at a stop sign, you are going way too fast and are not even crawling through a stop sign. It is the pedestrians and bikes you can misjudge and might hit if you see them and don't come to a complete stop. I also should have mentioned wheelchairs, skateboarders, non-motorized scooters, and illegal segways or other off-road vehicles. You don't have to come to a complete stop to see that none are in the vicinity. But you forgot those also. |
|
|
| (292398) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Thu Apr 17 13:18:41 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Apr 17 11:44:38 2014. Then according to your logic, 95% of the drivers should not be driving and should have their licenses taken away. Yes, they will catch a few when they need to meet a quota, but it could not be enforced to the point where it would affect driver behavior.By the same logic, since probably 95% of pedestrians jaywalk at one time or another, they also shoud not be permitted to cross the street either. Two different things, one requires a license, the other requires only your feet and playing a game of human Frogger. And quotas are BS - - you get caught blowing by a STOP sign, you pay up - - you really don't deserve to drive. If 99 percent of all drivers break the law, a law designed to keep all stakeholders safe, then these 99 percent should not be driving, period. Illegal segways are a serious problem in the NE section of the Bronx (my area), I see Jamaicans running with their illegal scooters all the time, sometimes right next to an NYPD vehicle. |
|
|
| (292399) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Thu Apr 17 13:18:53 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Apr 17 11:44:38 2014. Then according to your logic, 95% of the drivers should not be driving and should have their licenses taken away. Yes, they will catch a few when they need to meet a quota, but it could not be enforced to the point where it would affect driver behavior.By the same logic, since probably 95% of pedestrians jaywalk at one time or another, they also shoud not be permitted to cross the street either. Two different things, one requires a license, the other requires only your feet and playing a game of human Frogger. And quotas are BS - - you get caught blowing by a STOP sign, you pay up - - you really don't deserve to drive. If 99 percent of all drivers break the law, a law designed to keep all stakeholders safe, then these 99 percent should not be driving, period. Illegal segways are a serious problem in the NE section of the Bronx (my area), I see Jamaicans running with their illegal scooters all the time, sometimes right next to an NYPD vehicle. |
|
|
| (292403) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Apr 17 14:36:13 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Apr 16 15:44:42 2014. If you decide to go through the amber on any wide street, there is not enough time to get to the other side within 3 seconds and you have to finish on the red. It takes at least six seconds to cross a street like Woodhaven Blvd and you are only given a three second amber.That's because the yellow interval is calculated to allow enough time for a vehicle approaching the signal to stop. The all red interval is calculated to allow a vehicle that enters the intersection at the end of the yellow to reach the other side before opposing traffic gets a green. Does your 3 seconds of amber take into account someone going downhill and needing a greater distance to stop? No; a downhill grade would increase the minimum yellow time (although negligibly if it's less than 3 percent). Three seconds is adequate for 20 mph, but not for 30 mph. On streets with a 20 mph speed limit, are the ambers shortened to 2 seconds, or is it still 3 seconds? I bet it is still 3 seconds. You would win that bet, because NYCDOT's policy minimum yellow interval is three seconds. There is a lot we can do to reduce accidents like having warning signs before merges and lanes that suddenly become left turn lanes and you have to make a sudden lane shift to get out. True, but we're talking about reducing pedestrian fatalities. |
|
|
| (292407) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Apr 17 14:52:13 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Apr 17 14:36:13 2014. But the red time assumes that you are going at the speed limit. If you can only cross Woodhaven at 20 mph after having entered the intersection, the opposing light will turn green before you get all the way to the other side. Cars on the main street have to wait for the traffic to get out of the intersection before proceeding, cutting down on their green time. If the ambers were longer, fewer cars would enter the intersection because they would be able to stop and fewer woud get stuck on the red in the middle.Reducing all types of accidents will also reduce pedestrian fatalities, so my comment was relevant. There is less of a likelihood of hitting a pedestrian while changing lanes hurriedly if someone were not required to change lanes at the last minute because of inadequate notice. |
|
|
| (292409) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Railbus63 on Thu Apr 17 15:02:35 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Wed Apr 16 21:01:07 2014. There are degrees of difference. A motorist driving recklessly at 30 m.p.h. over the limit is a far greater menace than a person who does a 2 m.p.h. rolling stop when no pedestrians or opposing traffic is present. |
|
|
| (292412) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Apr 17 15:06:06 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Railbus63 on Thu Apr 17 15:02:35 2014. Correct. |
|
|
| (292418) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Thu Apr 17 15:49:22 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Thu Apr 17 13:18:53 2014. It's a matter of the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.If you want to enforce the law like that, then everybody jaywalking (in any capacity) should be ticketed as well. That includes people who enter the intersection once the red hand has started blinking, or those crossing a quiet, narrow street midblock instead of going to the nearest intersection. (And as a matter of fact, plenty of pedestrians do far more than that across the city every day). The amount of risk posed by those people is essentially the same. Rolling through a stop sign at 2 mph means that you could easily stop if needed. Now personally, I would always stop (I was taking driving lessons in my home country, and the instructor actually told me specifically to roll through. I continued stopping though, since I don't want to get into the habit) But realistically, the danger posed is essentially nothing. If you hit a pedestrian or another car because you were rolling through at 2 mph, chances are you weren't paying attention. |
|
|
| (292419) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Apr 17 15:54:52 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by checkmatechamp13 on Thu Apr 17 15:49:22 2014. And if you weren't paying attention, you could also come to a complete stop, then start going anyway even if someone is also starting to walk or if a bike is coming. |
|
|
| (292421) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Apr 17 16:57:55 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Apr 17 14:52:13 2014. But the red time assumes that you are going at the speed limit. If you can only cross Woodhaven at 20 mph after having entered the intersection, the opposing light will turn green before you get all the way to the other side. Cars on the main street have to wait for the traffic to get out of the intersection before proceeding, cutting down on their green time. If the ambers were longer, fewer cars would enter the intersection because they would be able to stop and fewer woud get stuck on the red in the middle.If the speed limit were lowered to 20, then the red time would have to be adjusted so the light wouldn't change with cars in the intersection. The red time, by definition, is the time it takes a 20 foot long vehicle to enter the intersection at the last possible millisecond of yellow and make it to the other side before the opposing traffic gets a green. It will still cut down on the major street green time, but the light will be red instead of green for that additional second. The yellow time is calculated to be enough for an approaching vehicle traveling at the design speed to stop, so all lengthening the yellow would do would be to say you're increasing the design speed. Plus, drivers would see a longer yellow and be more likely to accelerate to get through the intersection before it turns red. |
|
|
| (292422) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Apr 17 17:21:28 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Apr 17 16:57:55 2014. I wasn't talking about lowering the speed limit to 20 mph but situations where you cannot go faster than 20 mph. Lowering the speed limit to 20 mph would increaae congestion so cars which have already entered the intersection on the green will now be stuck going through at less than 20 mph increasing the number of cars getting stuck on the red in the middle of the intersection. It would not solve anything. |
|
|
| (292461) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Fri Apr 18 02:26:34 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by checkmatechamp13 on Thu Apr 17 15:49:22 2014. Not to mention the stop sign pollution going on these days. |
|
|
| (292469) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Apr 18 11:47:18 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Apr 16 15:44:42 2014. Why are you willing to accept even a 5% chance of death with a 20 mph speed limit? Isn't it worth saving even one more life if we lowered the limit to 10 mph on every road?There are many ways to lower pedestrian fatalities. No single one will eliminate all (or nearly all). It becomes increasingly more difficult to get the same proportional benefit by continuing to go back to the same well. There's a sweet spot on the curve. Going from 50 mph to 40 mph reduces the fatality rate by 15% (100% to 85%). Going from 40 mph to 30 mph reduces fatality rate by 47% (85% to 45%). Going from 30 mph to 20 mph reduces fatality rate by 89% (45% to 5%). Reducing impact speed further will not result in such a dramatic reduction in either relative or absolute terms. Other means will have to be employed to significantly reduce the remaining 5%. The way to discover that method is to look for anomalies in fatality data. One possible area is to note that impacts with SUV's, trucks and buses result in higher fatality rates than with passenger cars for a given impact speed. Vehicle design changes can address this. However, such design changes are long lead for both design and implementation. Moreover, they are beyond NYC's control, except for NYC-owned vehicles. That does not make me against such changes. I'm being realistic in what can be accomplished today and what will take 5 years to become effective. Dangerous is exactly what it sounds like-- likely to cause injury or damage. What about the severity of injury or damage? Does that enter into your definition of dangerous? What about who is injured? There would not be much demand for action, if injuries were limited to those within the vehicles. Driver injuries could be overlooked because of the assumed risk doctrine. I'm not sure what you mean by modest braking rate. I don't know how I could be more specific. I stated that 10 fps/sec (6.7 mph/sec) was moderate braking. By contrast, panic braking rates while not skidding or losing control is around 25 fps/sec (17 mph/sec). Stopping for red lights uses the moderate braking rate so as not to encourage rear end collisions. I have had many instances where I am going at the speed limit and sometimes slower when I have had to use considerable force to stop and even then I am a few feet into the crosswalk and have to back up. Everything you have said in defence of going faster than the speed limit, not obeying stop signs, etc. indicates that you are a bad driver. Not being able to stop before a crosswalk while obeying the speed limit, does not contradict this observation. :=) Does your 3 seconds of amber take into account someone going downhill and needing a greater distance to stop? The 3 seconds is not my standard. It was issued by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) and was adopted as the standard for the yellow change interval by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This standard does take grade into account both uphill and downhill. However, it's not likely to make much difference. You will need a grade of 7.8% to add 1 second to the yellow change interval. You do not see such grades in relatively flat NYC. So DOT allows like three or four seconds where both sides are red to allow cars to get across the intersection. That's called the red-clearance interval. The default setting for NYC is 2.0 seconds and has been for some time. It's also an ITE standard that's been adopted by the FHWA. That's good for 90 feet of combined road width plus vehicle length at 30 mph (45 ft/sec). I don't understand where your 11% comes from. It's the sum of the yellow change plus the red clearance intervals as a percentage of the total cycle time. For most NYC traffic signals, this comes to 10 seconds for the two yellow change and read clearance intervals per cycle and a 90 second cycle time. 10/90 = 11%. This assumes drivers after processing the green to yellow change will apply the brakes and not gun the accelerator. :=) There is a lot we can do to reduce accidents like having warning signs before merges and lanes that suddenly become left turn lanes and you have to make a sudden lane shift to get out. We also have lanes that disappear without warning. Poor and improperly placed signage, dark stretches of road, missing lane and directional markings. There is a lot we can do to reduce accidents like having warning signs before merges and lanes that suddenly become left turn lanes and you have to make a sudden lane shift to get out. We also have lanes that disappear without warning. Poor and improperly placed signage, dark stretches of road, missing lane and directional markings. I agree. However, what you described rarely involves a collision with a pedestrian. It's mostly vehicle-vehicle collisions. Stop thinking about fender benders and consider only pedestrian fatalities and injuries. But it is so much easier just to blame everything on speeding and blame the drivers even when speeding is not the cause, than for DOT to do a proper job to make the roads safe. A review of the pedestrian fatality police reports indicates the driver responsible 70% of the time and solely responsible 53% of the time. The two major causes are speeding and failure to yield. "The fault dear Brutus lies not in the stars..." More importantly, the quickest solution involves reducing impact speed. |
|
|
| (292471) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Fri Apr 18 13:30:55 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Apr 17 15:06:06 2014. Incorrect. Obey the STOP sign. |
|
|
| (292477) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Apr 18 17:39:07 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Fri Apr 18 13:30:55 2014. I will when the other 95% of the drivers do so. That will never happen.And don't you ever jaywalk if you tell me to always come to a 100% complete stop. |
|
|
| (292480) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Apr 18 19:03:33 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Apr 18 17:39:07 2014. LOL!!!! You should almost always come to a complete stop. It doesn't matter what everyone else does. |
|
|
| (292483) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Apr 18 22:19:23 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Apr 18 19:03:33 2014. Almost always is not always. So when don't you have to stop, according to you? |
|
|
| (292484) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Apr 18 22:42:44 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 15 14:48:00 2014. STOP does not mean YIELD.STOP means STOP.. I see plenty of drivers who PAUSE at a stop sign..then blow through. We were taught to obey those signs as if our life and the life of our passengers depended on it,cause it DID. Once had a jerk on my bus whining about "why did i stop at the RAILROAD CROSSING..OPEN MY DOOR..DRIVE THRU..Then close it.." huh? i looked over at him,and said.."you should be lucky i did that..you are still alive...AND I'll keep on doing THAT EVERYTIME.." |
|
|
| (292489) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Apr 19 11:07:25 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Edwards! on Fri Apr 18 22:42:44 2014. Pausing at a stop sign is all that is required. You don't have to wait there if it is not required. But I get what you say that STOP does not mean YIELD. Yet YIELD can mean STOP.I was once coming off I-4 in Florida accessing a local road. Cars were all zooming around a curve and there was hardly any visibility. A car could have appeared out of nowhere. There was a Yield sign getting off I-4. But cars were coming around the turn so fast and so often, I decided to stop, rather than yield to be absolutely certain there were no cars on the road that I could see. So this car behind me plows into me and admits he wasn't watching my car, but the other road. He told me that in three years of him coming off that ramp, I was the first one to stop at that yield sign, so he expected me to go through and not stop. So was I wrong in being extra cautious? |
|
|
| (292490) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Apr 19 11:24:46 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Apr 19 11:07:25 2014. FloridaFlorida has the highest pedestrian fatality rate with 2.67 fatalities per 100K population. Five of the ten cities with the highest pedestrian fatality rates are in Florida. |
|
|
| (292501) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 20 01:19:57 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Apr 19 11:07:25 2014. nope..you did the right thing.There is the SAME exit and entry point set up to/from the BQE at Classon avenue..and I use EXTREME CAUTION upon exit and entry even if other drivers don't. |
|
|
| (292508) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Apr 20 15:52:32 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 20 01:19:57 2014. Not sure I know what you are referring to. Do you mean eastbound or westbound?The only time I woud dare get on the BQE south at Atlantic Avenue, is when traffic is moving very slow. Otherwise I will go out of my way to use another entrance. There is no acceleration lane and cars doing 50 in the right lane around a curve. Very difficult to see if someone is coming. |
|
|
| (292522) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Sun Apr 20 22:05:08 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Apr 18 19:03:33 2014. Exactly - as I have been saying. Some people are really dumb when it comes to what a STOP sign or flashing red signal means. |
|
|
| (292523) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Sun Apr 20 22:10:35 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Apr 18 17:39:07 2014. I will when the other 95% of the drivers do so. That will never happen.So since 95 percent of the other drivers have a complete ignorance of the law, then you will follow them - - until you hit someone at a STOP sign. Go ahead, as long as you don't hit me. Yesterday, I took a video sampling at a major all-way STOP intersection inside Cross County Mall in Yonkers - - about 90 percent of all drivers failed to obey the STOP signs. You need to surrender your driver's license with that attitude. Do you think it's acceptable for NYCT bus operators to blow by a STOP when there is no one at this intersection, as you think it OK to do so? |
|
|
| (292524) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Sun Apr 20 22:16:17 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Apr 17 15:54:52 2014. And if youAgain, your idiocy means it's too late to stop because you already hit someone. What if it's too late to hit the brakes after you disobeyed the STOP sign in the first place? What if there was a camera at this intersection what would recoding everything, ...from the "acceptable" 2 MPH roll past the STOP marker right to the point of impact? |
|
|
| (292525) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 21 09:09:39 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Apr 20 15:52:32 2014. both east AND westbound.very dangerous. |
|
|
| (292526) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Apr 21 09:33:39 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Apr 19 11:07:25 2014. Highway entrances tend not to be signed correctly, especially in NYC, in my opinion.If there is ample acceleration room, you should have a "Merge" sign, perhaps with the whole picture of two lines converging into one. That's it. And if even that! I can't stand it when they put "yield" signs at highway entrances. I've even seen yield signs where you don't have to merge!!! Yield means you have to find a clearing in traffic. It really means "stop" unless it's all clear. It should only be used at intersections, never on highways. If there is little acceleration room, then there should be a special warning sign that is neither a stop sign or a yield sign. Something like: "Quick merge: be prepared to stop if necessary." You should never be forced to stop at the nonsensical point that you are at some NYC highway entrances, namely before you are parallel to the highway (such as the BQE at Atlantic). That's crazy because you not only have to calculate the possibility of a car coming but also how fast you can accelerate to get in front of it. I would go so far as to say that even traffic on the highway in the right lane should receive a warning sign saying that traffic is merging. Perhaps even the automatic right of way should be removed and the sign should say, "merge with entering traffic." So in summary: there should be no yield signs on highways. Only merge signs in ordinary circumstances and special "quick merge" signs that are also given to the right lane so that the merge is cooperative and not solely the burden of the entering traffic. But as long as NYC and other places treat highway entrances as intersections, with signs such as "stop" and "yield" that should only be used at intersections, it's never going to work out well. |
|
|
| (292527) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 21 10:16:26 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Apr 21 09:33:39 2014. I don't think the words "quick merge" would work or any long phrases that you suggest. I guess they use "Yield" instead of "merge" to indicate the vehicles already on the road have the right of way.But I agree that something needs to be done at Atlantic Avenue. It is just too dangerous. There is probably not enough entering traffic fo have an entrance without a merge. But they could put up a sign on the highway prior to the entrance saying "Move left" ""Heavy merge ahead". I always do that anyway, as some others do. But non-regulars would not know. When traffic is heavy, there is no problem because the cars on the highwy let you in one for one. Bur at 50 mph, forget about it. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|