|
|
| Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting (292277) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (292528) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Apr 21 10:46:51 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 21 10:16:26 2014. If you put a sign that says these two lanes merge and have arrows pointing down at the two lanes, it would be quite clear.You're probably familiar with the Verrazano - Belt Parkway merge going eastbound. The right Belt Parkway lane (coming down from the BQE) and the left most Verrazano exit lane onto the Belt have to merge into one, right in the middle of the highway. Nobody has the right of way. The sign just tells them to merge. It's probably not the safest thing but it makes more sense than telling everybody on one side to stop and look for a clearing. I agree with you in that I opt for entry ramps that do not have "stop" signs, wherever they be. Another notable spot to avoid is the northbound W 230 St entrance onto the Deegan in the Bronx. But on the Southern State Pkwy there are lots of short entrances and I don't think they use stop signs. The cars just know that if they can't get in, they have to stop and wait. Or you can be aggressive and just force highway traffic to brake and let you in, if you're up for the risk. |
|
|
| (292535) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Apr 21 15:35:12 2014, in response to A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 14 18:44:53 2014. Is this a bus issue or just regular traffic issues? Where I live in Queens, we have traffic issue on my block and not bus issues. |
|
|
| (292536) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Apr 21 16:55:52 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 21 10:16:26 2014. at 50 mph, forget about it.Perhaps, that's why the BQE speed limit is an "unrealistic" 45 mph. |
|
|
| (292537) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 21 17:35:37 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Apr 21 16:55:52 2014. There are parts of the BQE around curves where the speed limit should be 45 or maybe even 40 near Atlantic Avenues. But there are other straight away portions where 55 would be fine if the city speed limit wasn't 50. But the city believes in the lowest common denominator solution. That's why it's 45. (I also remember when the speed limit on the Belt Parkway was 55 mph because the road was designed for 60.) |
|
|
| (292538) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 21 17:36:45 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Apr 21 15:35:12 2014. I don't understand your question. |
|
|
| (292541) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 21 20:52:27 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Apr 19 11:07:25 2014. In the driving manual..STOP mean come to a COMPLETE STOP..then PROCEED with caution. |
|
|
| (292542) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 21 20:55:17 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 21 17:35:37 2014. ha!folks do 55 on the Belt anyway! |
|
|
| (292543) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Apr 21 20:55:53 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 21 17:35:37 2014. Right now they might as well make the speed limit 15 citywide. That's about how fast I can hit those potholes without getting a stomachache. |
|
|
| (292544) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 21 20:58:02 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 21 20:52:27 2014. I know what STOP means. And sometimes you even have to stop more than once depending on visibility. But is it really necessary to always stop every single time in every instance when you can see your surroundings perfectly at one or two mph. That is the question. |
|
|
| (292545) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 21 20:58:05 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 21 20:52:27 2014. I know what STOP means. And sometimes you even have to stop more than once depending on visibility. But is it really necessary to always stop every single time in every instance when you can see your surroundings perfectly at one or two mph. That is the question. |
|
|
| (292546) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Apr 21 21:03:25 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 21 20:58:05 2014. No, it's not. But you're breaking the law by doing so.Of course even though I don't think a full stop always increases safety (sometimes it may hamper it if you stop in the wrong spot and all of a sudden a car comes out of nowhere) I still think the Stop sign is preferable over the Yield sign. With a Stop sign cars slow down to 5 MPH and under. With a Yield sign they'd slow to 20 if even that. |
|
|
| (292547) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 21 21:40:50 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 21 20:58:02 2014. well..its a question of judgement.would it make You a better driver IF you obeyed the traffic laws to the letter..or "bent" a few here and there? that is entirely up to you. I'm not questioning YOUR understanding OF WHAT stop MEANS..or you understanding of traffic laws. My "opinion" is based on MY TRAINING..how I interact with other drivers on the road..what I WOULD EXPECT/not expect from other drivers as different calculations run thru my mind to counter "drivers unawares". I know what you mean..a rolling pause at what appears to be a clear right of way..can't hurt anyone. Maybe. In NY,there's ALWAYS something. Not beefin with you,brah..just speaking my piece..thats all. |
|
|
| (292548) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 21 21:43:14 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Apr 21 21:03:25 2014. That's if they slow down at all..I've seen drivers blow past a YIELD sign like it wasn't there. |
|
|
| (292549) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 21 21:44:30 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Apr 21 20:55:53 2014. or a bent frame..or busted drum..rim..blown tire like what just happened to me over the weekend. |
|
|
| (292550) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Apr 21 22:34:59 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 21 17:35:37 2014. I also remember when the speed limit on the Belt Parkway was 55 mph because the road was designed for 60.The Belt Parkway was designed for a 35 mph speed limit. My source is Robert Moses in a 1953 NY Times Magazine article. |
|
|
| (292551) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Mon Apr 21 22:53:06 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Apr 21 22:34:59 2014. pwned! |
|
|
| (292560) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Apr 22 08:35:22 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 21 21:43:14 2014. There's really no reason to slow down, though, if you're sure you're not going to hit anything. For example, if you're making a right turn on one of those corner cuts, you can see clearly if you have space to complete the turn or if you have to wait for cross traffic to clear, so the yield sign can be almost completely ignored if you know you're clear.Do you know of any spots where there are yield signs to fully cross a two-way intersection? Those I would never just ignore, unless I'm in the middle of farmland and you can see long distance in both directions. |
|
|
| (292569) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Tue Apr 22 13:45:46 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Apr 19 11:07:25 2014. Pausing at a stop sign is all that is required.That's not what you said But is it really necessary to always stop every single time in every instance when you can see your surroundings perfectly at one or two mph. That is the question. You don't have to come to a complete stop to see that none are in the vicinity. Please try again! |
|
|
| (292575) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 22 14:31:36 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Tue Apr 22 13:45:46 2014. I was responding to the comment by Edwards that he sees many drivers pausing at stop signs and then blowing through. I responded that a pause is all that is required. I don't know if he was criticizing them for "blowing through" because they weren't being cautious. If so they are wrong.We can debate if rolling through at a mile per hour after looking carefully around is adequate or not, although not within the legal definition of the word "STOP". I think Edwards and I are on the same page here. You seem to really feel that coming to a complete stop and carefully rolling through at a mile or two per hour makes a significant difference in the number of accidents. I say it doesn't matter at all. You just have to be careful. If you didn't come to a complete stop and that caused you to have an accident, then you just weren't careful enough. |
|
|
| (292606) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Tue Apr 22 22:23:57 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Apr 22 14:31:36 2014. But you would be much less likely to be at fault if you obeyed the law as you should.Point taken, you can be the most careful driver, STOP properly at every signed intersection and still get involved in a fender bender. |
|
|
| (292612) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Apr 23 08:27:01 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 21 17:35:37 2014. There are parts of the BQE around curves where the speed limit should be 45 or maybe even 40 near Atlantic Avenues. But there are other straight away portions where 55 would be fine if the city speed limit wasn't 50. But the city believes in the lowest common denominator solution. That's why it's 45.It depends how long the 55 mph zone would be. On a limited-access highway, the "lowest common denominator" solution is often the best because traffic slowing down every time the speed limit dropped would cause a shock wave effect that would have all the traffic in the higher speed zone going slower. |
|
|
| (292615) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Apr 23 08:51:30 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Apr 18 22:19:23 2014. So when don't you have to stop, according to you?When otherwise directed by a police officer. If there's a STOP sign that 95 percent of people are blowing, let your local representative know that you think the sign may not be warranted, but STOP at it when you're approaching it as long as it's there. |
|
|
| (292623) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Apr 23 12:31:46 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Apr 23 08:51:30 2014. They will never remove a stop sign because someone requests its removal.In my neighborhood, there is an intersection where all traffic on one of the streets is away from the intersection, so no vehicles should ever be approaching the intersection anyway on one of the streets. Yet there is a stop sign anyway on the through street. If you suggest it's removal, the response will be that it is needed so cars stop for pedestrians crossing. But logically, since cars supposed to stop for pedestrians anyway, there is no reason for the stop sign. But we have many that act as speed bumps so cars shouldn't be able to travel long distances without being forced to stop frequently. We shouldn't use stop signs for speed control, but for what they were intended. |
|
|
| (292626) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Apr 23 12:33:25 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Apr 23 08:51:30 2014. +1 |
|
|
| (292627) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Apr 23 12:35:09 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Apr 23 12:31:46 2014. Wrong. Removing a stop sign for good reason is standard practice in the USA. |
|
|
| (292628) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Wed Apr 23 12:35:22 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Apr 21 22:34:59 2014. The highway has been upgraded since the 1930s. |
|
|
| (292629) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Apr 23 12:35:46 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Apr 18 22:19:23 2014. You failed to address the part about it being ok because everyone else does it. |
|
|
| (292631) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Apr 23 12:38:33 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Apr 23 12:31:46 2014. They will never remove a stop sign because someone requests its removal.No, but a STOP sign could be removed because an engineering analysis shows it isn't warranted. In my neighborhood, there is an intersection where all traffic on one of the streets is away from the intersection, so no vehicles should ever be approaching the intersection anyway on one of the streets. Yet there is a stop sign anyway on the through street. If you suggest it's removal, the response will be that it is needed so cars stop for pedestrians crossing. Is this response actual or hypothetical? But logically, since cars supposed to stop for pedestrians anyway, there is no reason for the stop sign. No, cars aren't supposed to stop for pedestrians. Absent the STOP sign, cars would have the right of way at that crossing. New York City Traffic Rules, §4-04(b)(2). But we have many that act as speed bumps so cars shouldn't be able to travel long distances without being forced to stop frequently. We shouldn't use stop signs for speed control, but for what they were intended. Absolutely. |
|
|
| (292633) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Wed Apr 23 12:41:24 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Apr 23 12:35:46 2014. Most stop signs should be replaced by yield signs. |
|
|
| (292634) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Apr 23 12:45:29 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by N6 Limited on Wed Apr 23 12:41:24 2014. I don't think so. Where is a yield sign ever used for crossing a stream of traffic? Yield signs are only used when you are merging with a stream of traffic. |
|
|
| (292635) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Apr 23 12:51:37 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by N6 Limited on Wed Apr 23 12:41:24 2014. No, because usually in order to cross a typical intersection, you have to slow down to do so safely. While people may not fully acknowledge Stop signs they usually slow down enough to respect the potential danger. A yield sign does not even require one to slow down. |
|
|
| (292649) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Apr 23 16:26:10 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Sun Apr 20 22:16:17 2014. Dont understand why you quoted me then made the point you did.I was saying that you could still have an accident even if you first came to a complete stop and you weren't paying attention and started going again and then hit a pedestrian or a bike. The point was that paying attention was the key, not coming to a complete stop. It would not be too late to hit the brakes after you were going at 2 mph. At that speed, you would be able to stop almost instantly. And if someone or a bike were that close to your car, you wouldn't be going 2 mph in the first place. You would have stopped which is what I meant by paying attention. |
|
|
| (292656) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Apr 23 20:39:56 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Apr 22 08:35:22 2014. come to think of it..there are a few along RT.2 heading to Grafton..and RT.7 To Bennington..but none in the city that i can think of. |
|
|
| (292659) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Wed Apr 23 23:21:59 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Apr 23 16:26:10 2014. It would not be too late to hit the brakes after you were going at 2 mph. At that speed, you would be able to stop almost instantly. And if someone or a bike were that close to your car, you wouldn't be going 2 mph in the first place.I would never do that because that's breaking the law and it's still unsafe and stupid to roll 2 MPH past a STOP sign. What time savings have you achieved by braking the law? You are with 99 percent of all drivers who have no business driving a vehicle, much less riding a bike. 99 percent of all drivers fail to use turn signals at least 100 feet prior to the intent of changing lanes. Does than mean you refuse to use you turn signal on a empty highway at 3 AM because it's no big deal? 99 percent of all drivers make illegal U-turns at intersections or along commercial streets in NYC. Do you make illegal u-turns too? |
|
|
| (292671) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Apr 24 08:39:57 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Apr 22 08:35:22 2014. Do you know of any spots where there are yield signs to fully cross a two-way intersection?Completely uncontrolled intersections are probably more common. |
|
|
| (292674) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 24 10:23:24 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Wed Apr 23 23:21:59 2014. I don't think any of those are quite 99%. |
|
|
| (292677) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 24 10:35:57 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 21 21:43:14 2014. Huh? You're supposed to blow by yield signs as if they weren't there, as long as there are no other applicable objects nearby to yield to. |
|
|
| (293826) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Kevin from Midwood on Tue May 27 16:54:07 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Apr 21 20:58:05 2014. The notion that stopping is optional is deeply ingrained in NYC drivers. This creates awkward situations. One time when I was here, a car at maybe a little closer than halfway down the block was approaching. As I crossed, the driver kept going, honked at me, and passed through a few inches behind me. Because I never want to go through that again, my best course of action is to stand at the corner and wait. If the driver does come to a complete stop, then my time and the time of everyone in the vehicle has been wasted as they wait for me to cross. If the driver doesn't stop, then even more of my time is wasted waiting for him to clear the intersection. These things aren't supposed to be arbitrary. |
|
|
| (295234) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by displaced angeleno on Mon Jul 7 15:33:06 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Apr 23 12:38:33 2014. Sorry to zombie post, but absent the STOP sign, reading New York City Traffic Rules, a car does not have the right of way at that location, and must stop to any pedestrian in the crosswalk or attempting to use the crosswalk.New York City Traffic Rules, §4-04(b)(2) states that a pedestrian shall not cross in front of an oncoming vehicle. However, §4-04(b)(1) states that drivers shall yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk. The only sensible interpretation of those two articles is that pedestrians shall not cross in front of imminently crossing vehicles, but that drivers who are approaching from a distance such that a stop is possible, must stop. The text for review: (1) Operators to yield to pedestrians in crosswalk. When traffic control signals or pedestrian control signals are not in place or not in operation, the operator of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing a roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is in the path of the vehicle or is approaching so closely thereto as to be in danger. (2) Pedestrians shall not cross in front of oncoming vehicles. Notwithstanding the provisions of (1) of this subdivision (b), no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the operator to yield. |
|
|
| (295316) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jul 10 08:13:49 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by displaced angeleno on Mon Jul 7 15:33:06 2014. There's nothing wrong with "Zombie posting" as long as you are on-topic. |
|
|
| (295343) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Jul 11 15:28:02 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by displaced angeleno on Mon Jul 7 15:33:06 2014. Sorry to zombie post, but absent the STOP sign, reading New York City Traffic Rules, a car does not have the right of way at that location, and must stop to any pedestrian in the crosswalk or attempting to use the crosswalk. New York City Traffic Rules, §4-04(b)(2) states that a pedestrian shall not cross in front of an oncoming vehicle. However, §4-04(b)(1) states that drivers shall yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk. The only sensible interpretation of those two articles is that pedestrians shall not cross in front of imminently crossing vehicles, but that drivers who are approaching from a distance such that a stop is possible, must stop.The language of §4-04(b)(1) is pretty clear that the vehicle is only required to stop if the pedestrian is in the crosswalk. If the pedestrian is waiting on the sidewalk, the vehicle has the right of way per §4-04(b)(2). |
|
|
| (295345) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Jul 11 19:26:46 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Apr 23 12:38:33 2014. The response is hypothetical. |
|
|
| (295347) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Jul 11 19:58:16 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Jul 11 15:28:02 2014. I agree. |
|
|
| (295349) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Jul 11 19:59:36 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Jul 11 19:26:46 2014. Huh? He shot down all your arguments. |
|
|
| (295408) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Sun Jul 13 17:57:28 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Jul 11 19:26:46 2014. The response is hypothetical.So suggest its removal, citing MUTCD warrants for STOP sign control, and see if the response would be actual. The sign might be a remnant from when traffic on the cross street was two-way or went in the opposite direction. Based on your description, I would take down the STOP sign and build a raised intersection. |
|
|
| (295499) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 15 19:12:03 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Sun Jul 13 17:57:28 2014. What do you mean by a raised intersection? You mean raise the intersection and crosswalk to the same height as the sidewalk so cars slow down but don't stop and people can cross easier? If so, I'm sure they would just say there is no budget to do that right now or that there are not enough pedestrians crossing there to warrant the expense. I woud tend to agree with that. |
|
|
| (295521) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jul 16 08:43:59 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 15 19:12:03 2014. What do you mean by a raised intersection? You mean raise the intersection and crosswalk to the same height as the sidewalk so cars slow down but don't stop and people can cross easier?Yes, either the same height as the sidewalk or halfway.  If so, I'm sure they would just say there is no budget to do that right now or that there are not enough pedestrians crossing there to warrant the expense. I woud tend to agree with that. Obviously there should be a problem worth correcting if money is to be spent on it. I assumed there were pedestrians crossing at that location based on your "hypothetical response." If there aren't enough pedestrians crossing at that location, why would the response be that the STOP sign is needed for pedestrians crossing? |
|
|
| (295544) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 16 15:11:09 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jul 16 08:43:59 2014. Because as far as I know, every intersection has a stop sign or a traffic signal. The only places where there may be a yield sign instead is if it is an entrance to a highway, and many of them also have stop signs. I have not seen any totally unmarked intersections in the city or even in the suburbs. |
|
|
| (295550) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jul 16 16:53:01 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 16 15:11:09 2014. Because as far as I know, every intersection has a stop sign or a traffic signal. The only places where there may be a yield sign instead is if it is an entrance to a highway, and many of them also have stop signs. I have not seen any totally unmarked intersections in the city or even in the suburbs.You said the intersecting street was one way AWAY from the intersection only. There are no such intersections in the city without a STOP sign or traffic signal? I found three on Avenue D in Manhattan. Quickly looking into Brooklyn, there's Flatbush Avenue at Brooklyn Avenue, East 36th Street, East 38th Street/Hubbard Place, Lott Place, Baughman Place... well, pretty much any intersection with minor approaches that are one-way away from the major street. |
|
|
| (295572) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Thu Jul 17 08:52:10 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jul 16 16:53:01 2014. ZOMG PWN3d!!! |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||