Lockheed Martin puts in ALL those 100K $ signals? I GUESS you mean the ones
with the cameras on them? I see them go up in my city pretty regular now. I
always see a CITY truck and workers doing it. If the city buys this crap
from Lockheed Martin that just goes to show you how stupid and the "money is
no object" attitude government has. I mean really, it takes a company like
Lockheed Martin to develope and sell this??? And it takes small goverments
to buy it? Morons.....Anyway, I like them....I am getting sick and tired of
having to drive defensively just to get through a GREEN light. I was on my
motorcycle one day and a guy in a motorhome tryed to kill me and all I was
doing was leaving the intersection when the light turned green. The dumbass
didnt even slow down. I was so surprized I looked twice at the light to see
if *I* ran it red....The others (and him) were turning in front of me on the
green, there was a big gap in vehicles, then BAM, theres a motorhome turning
right in front of me running the red light big time.....Like I said, I like
the cameras......it makes those morons stop at a red light for once, and not
just gun it when its good and yellow.
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
There was a big stink in the news last year of short yellows when cameras
were installed. News people checked and they were not short compared to
lights without cameras. People just don't like getting tickets.
What's more, checking the yellow-light duration at intersections with
cameras against that at intersections without cameras isn't the right way
to do it. It's common for a local red-light running problem to be entirely
due to insufficient yellow-light duration at ALL intersections. In such
cases, increasing the YLD frequently causes red light violations to
plummet dramatically--but it doesn't bring in the $$$$$ like red-light
Around here, Santa Clarita CA, these lights have put a stop to turning left
long after the light has changed red. Before the cameras, as many a eight or
nine cars would continue to turn left long after the red thus clogging up
the intersections and causing accidents. Now, everyone (or nearly so)
complies. I vote to keep the cameras.
Bandaid fix that raises revenue for the county. The real problem is probably
that the intersection is poorly designed and needs to be re-configured. The
red light cameras will not prevent accidents that will happen because of the
poor design. The real solution would be to have an engineer study the
intersecion and re-design the intersection. Then implement the new design.
That way you minimize the number of red light runners and make the intersection
safer. Of course this won't raise revenue for the politicians to spend, so it
is not a popular solution.
Depends on the redesign.
If you redesign it so that one road passes under or over the other and
you eliminate the need for the signal entirely... well, I'd bet that
would lower the number of red-light runners to zero.
We've started to get them in Metro Detroit.
I don't understand why they're supposed to be all that great. For one
thing, it virtually assures that everyone reaching the intersection
*has* to stop. Not so with a traditional intersection, where people who
are traveling at the correct speed can sail through green light after
The intersection near my home where they've implemented this is a
relatively low-traffic-volume spot. I imagine it would be absolutely
miserable in higher-traffic-volume places.
Bridges with ramps just intuitively seem better to me.
If you've got clear vision & they're designed correctly you shouldn't
have to shed more than 10% of your speed (seeing as it's a 4 way
yield). I've been through Europe where the roundabout is a slightly
raised (4" round mound in the middle of an intersection. on off hours
I've seen many people drive through at full speed.
The problem with round-abouts (true round-abouts & not these 1/4 round
affairs) is that poor drivers don't try to "merge", they stop & wait
for a large gap.
"If" roadway etiquette is followed a large number of people can pass
through with minimal interruption and greater safety.
(bad drivers can totally screw up round-abouts though. When I was in
the UK this past winter 3 drivers were banned from a private tunnel's
round-about b/c monitoring determined that those 3 were responsible
for nearly 60% of the morning's delay's! this was a tunnel used by
And yes, Bridges with ramps are "better" unless you're the taxpayer
who's got to pay for them or look at them. But with many North
American Drivers or newer European drivers (those who've gotten their
licenses in the past 5 years) round-abouts are terrors.
See, that's exactly the problem. Around here, we have a lot of 'Yield'
signs placed where stop signs should be. People who don't ignore the
yield signs routinely (same ones who roll through stop signs) are
conditioned to stop for them. I am, I must confess. The yield sign
doesn't evoke the 'proper' behavior as assumed by the roundabout design.
I submit that waiting for people to start exhibiting the proper behavior
will be pretty hopeless.
Around here, proper roadway etiquette means that you resist the urge to
give somebody the finger while you cut them off! :-)
All kidding aside, if you don't drive pretty defensively (and somewhat
aggressively) you're in for more than your fair share of wreckage around
here. I've not owned a single vehicle that hasn't been struck in the
rear at least once by somebody else, and believe me, it isn't because
I'm not going fast enough!
The roundabout thing is a nice idea, but I sure wouldn't want one at
a major intersection, and I'm not convinced that they're a good idea
anywhere else, given the conditions on the local roadways. In good
weather, they can be difficult at best. When things are covered with
ice for the four months or so that can happen here, the roundabout is
going to be synonymous with 'traffic jam'.
I grew up with roundabouts in the UK, many of them on major highways.
Their diameter was large, and it was possible to traverse them at
considerable speed most of the time. They did slow down somewhat in the
rush hours but on the whole were pretty good.
Of course there was a difference in the way people drove. There was no
"give way to the ...." rule (other than "Give way to traffic already on
the roundabout"): drivers approaching an intersection at about the same
time mostly followed the "After you, Claude." "No! No! After *you*,
Cecil" approach, and everything sorted itself out on the basis of common
sense and courtesy. All quite unlike the "Get out of my way, you @#%$&*,
before I run you off the road" approach common in many US cities.
Roundabouts of a decent size do take more space than regular
light-controlled intersections but are cheaper than over/underpasses.
On 09/24/04 08:24 am Geoff put fingers to keyboard and launched the
following message into cyberspace:
Bridges cost a fortune and don't work everywhere. They've been
plugging them in Davie, Florida, and they work great. It's a yield
sign, and you can pretty much just blow through the intersection if
your timing's right. It takes some getting used to, but once you do
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
I'm assumming that you're talking about north america.. here in
Northern New England, we've had roundabouts or circles for decades...
ten or so years ago, many of them were ripped out infavor of a
90degree intersection... I've only seen one built since that time.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.