right of way

[akubi]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: akubi
they should install a traffic light in such situations

No, people should just read the manual that the MVA/DMV gives out for studying for your driving test. But that would be expecting people to use their brains and I guess that might be asking a little too much. The only reason to put a traffic signal at a place like that is if the traffic in the area becomes so bad that one is deemed necessary. Not just because it makes it so people who don't know the rules of the road can continue to not know the rules of the road.

[edit] Oh, and A has the right of way in all cases. And technically, even if B did not have a stop sign, A would still have right of way since he is on the more favored thoroughfare.

good job saving some grace by editting your initial post (which i read with amusement). it would've been easier to rip apart.

if you don't see the possible dangers or even the said inconveniences that would arise from the illustrated situation, you probably haven't driven a car much.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: akubi

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: akubi
they should install a traffic light in such situations

No, people should just read the manual that the MVA/DMV gives out for studying for your driving test. But that would be expecting people to use their brains and I guess that might be asking a little too much. The only reason to put a traffic signal at a place like that is if the traffic in the area becomes so bad that one is deemed necessary. Not just because it makes it so people who don't know the rules of the road can continue to not know the rules of the road.

[edit] Oh, and A has the right of way in all cases. And technically, even if B did not have a stop sign, A would still have right of way since he is on the more favored thoroughfare.

good job saving some grace by editting your initial post (which i read with amusement). it would've been easier to rip apart.

if you don't see the possible dangers or even the said inconveniences that would arise from the illustrated situation, you probably haven't driven a car much.

I do see them. That's why I edited my post. But there needs to be a pretty good amount of traffic to make a light necessary. Nobody knows how much traffic the actual intersection in question really sees. But beyond a certain volume. . .yes, there would need to be a light. My main complaint was that too many people just do whatever the traffic light says and don't really know the laws of the road. It is amusing to watch how confused people become at 4 way stop intersections with only stop signs and no traffic light to tell them when they can go. Half the people dont know what to do or who should go next. You get people who are too polite and you end up with deadlock. You get people who are clueless and aggressive and cut people off.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: sao123
Case 3: properly designed by a good traffic engineer.
Text

except even the people turning left (like A) would be merging right and then moving back 2 lanes to the left for their turn.

There's no way to state "unless turning left"... people aren't going to be reading extensive signs.

what do you mean moving back 2 lanes for the left turn?
Everyone merges... turning or not. This alleviates the problem of someone going straight in a lane, stuck behind someone trying to turn. Then anyone who is turning goes into the turning lane. Theres only 2 lanes, not 3. Theres the right lane where all cars pass through, and then theres the left lane where all cars turn left.
This is how is should be properly designed, believe me, I work at PENNDOT. (Pa Dept of Transportation)

**Edit: fixed my picture so its not confusing.
Pic

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/acemcmac/untitled.GIF

^^^^ Thats how a real trafic engineer would have done it and told those people on the side street to find another place to make lefts!

Teh winnar

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: acemcmac
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/acemcmac/untitled.GIF

^^^^ Thats how a real trafic engineer would have done it and told those people on the side street to find another place to make lefts!

Teh winnar

A perfect example of why a 10 million dollar road job costs 250 million and why are taxes are 5 times what they need to be.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: sao123
Case 3: properly designed by a good traffic engineer.
Text

except even the people turning left (like A) would be merging right and then moving back 2 lanes to the left for their turn.

There's no way to state "unless turning left"... people aren't going to be reading extensive signs.

what do you mean moving back 2 lanes for the left turn?
Everyone merges... turning or not. This alleviates the problem of someone going straight in a lane, stuck behind someone trying to turn. Then anyone who is turning goes into the turning lane. Theres only 2 lanes, not 3. Theres the right lane where all cars pass through, and then theres the left lane where all cars turn left.
This is how is should be properly designed, believe me, I work at PENNDOT. (Pa Dept of Transportation)

**Edit: fixed my picture so its not confusing.
Pic

No offense, but that is pretty messed up right there.

I would support a public hanging of any traffic engineer who took a 4 lane divided highway and had a merge right in there. recipie for disaster and accidents and a choke point to boot.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: acemcmac
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/acemcmac/untitled.GIF

^^^^ Thats how a real trafic engineer would have done it and told those people on the side street to find another place to make lefts!

Teh winnar

A perfect example of why a 10 million dollar road job costs 250 million and why are taxes are 5 times what they need to be.

The only thing that I had against your idea was the 2 to 1 lane merge. The drivers in my area are totally retarded when it comes to merges and so it's a surefire way to generate traffic.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: sao123
Case 3: properly designed by a good traffic engineer.
Text

except even the people turning left (like A) would be merging right and then moving back 2 lanes to the left for their turn.

There's no way to state "unless turning left"... people aren't going to be reading extensive signs.

what do you mean moving back 2 lanes for the left turn?
Everyone merges... turning or not. This alleviates the problem of someone going straight in a lane, stuck behind someone trying to turn. Then anyone who is turning goes into the turning lane. Theres only 2 lanes, not 3. Theres the right lane where all cars pass through, and then theres the left lane where all cars turn left.
This is how is should be properly designed, believe me, I work at PENNDOT. (Pa Dept of Transportation)

**Edit: fixed my picture so its not confusing.
Pic

I hope you aren't an actual traffic engineer. You just cut the flow of the MAIN road from 2 to 1 lanes. I know you only knocked out one lane for a bit, but you just cut the capacity by OVER 1/2 and created just as bad a problem with your solution.

Wait a minute, you probably ARE a traffic engineer.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: sao123
Case 3: properly designed by a good traffic engineer.
Text

except even the people turning left (like A) would be merging right and then moving back 2 lanes to the left for their turn.

There's no way to state "unless turning left"... people aren't going to be reading extensive signs.

what do you mean moving back 2 lanes for the left turn?
Everyone merges... turning or not. This alleviates the problem of someone going straight in a lane, stuck behind someone trying to turn. Then anyone who is turning goes into the turning lane. Theres only 2 lanes, not 3. Theres the right lane where all cars pass through, and then theres the left lane where all cars turn left.
This is how is should be properly designed, believe me, I work at PENNDOT. (Pa Dept of Transportation)

**Edit: fixed my picture so its not confusing.
Pic

I hope you aren't an actual traffic engineer. You just cut the flow of the MAIN road from 2 to 1 lanes. I know you only knocked out one lane for a bit, but you just cut the capacity by OVER 1/2 and created just as bad a problem with your solution.

Wait a minute, you probably ARE a traffic engineer.

Fortunately I am not the traffic engineer. However you guys are all worried about the capacity of the main road. which is stupid. When designing an intersection, throughput of traffic going straight is not your concern unless there are severe backups (in which case a red light would be emminent. The fact that a stop sign exists, means that the traffic volume is low enough for thsi to not be a problem.) Your main concern of an intersection is not the throughput, its the volume and safety of the entry and exit points.

Lets fact out the issue here.

Someone trying to turn left from point be has to negotiate at least 3 lanes of traffic, all of which must be empty for a turn to be successful. 3 lanes of traffic to cross is a lot. by merging all of lanes 3 and 4 into lane 4, one only now has 2 lanes to negotiate (and both going the same direction to boot). This eliminates the dangerous driver who pulls halfway across because the 2 lanes closest to him are open but lane 3 still has cars, because lane 3 is now never occupied by any throughput traffic.

Secondly, this eliminates the stopping of traffic while waiting for a person who is turning left from lane 3 into point b, while he waits for lanes 1&2 to open. Which also cuts the volume of the main road in half, even if it is only temporary.

This intersection is safer as i designed it.