Not there, because there is a dedicated left turn lane as well.
[
attachment=4387]
I get what you’re saying Mark, and I agree on the capacity thing, but merging takes time and distance, too. So if everyone split equally here, the queue would be half as long, move half as fast, and the same number of people would make it through before the light changed on them.
(10-13-2017, 12:32 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]So if everyone split equally here, the queue would be half as long, move half as fast, and the same number of people would make it through before the light changed on them.
The point is that the merge happens in a place where traffic is moving faster than "from a stop", and that's how it has more capacity. I disagree that it would necessarily be "half as fast", but do not currently have the time to build a simulation engine to show what I mean!
I actually agree that those road designs are really bad - even though Markster is right and they obviously improve throughput. At the very least you could get an extra as many cars as fit into the right lane after the intersection through and in practice more than that - especially once you adjust for factors like transport trucks / poor drivers that aren't paying attention / etc.
Anyway Canard, so, yes that's ok. This idea that people shouldn't use roads that are built is kind of crazy to me (even if there are possible reasons the roads should be designed differently).
I guess this is a systemic problem that goes right back to driver training, then...
I've always kind of been of the mindset that we should have mandatory driver testing every 5 years. It's absurd to me that I took a test when I was 17, and won't have to take another test until I'm what, 80 or something? That's an awful long time to go unchecked.
(10-14-2017, 07:36 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]I guess this is a systemic problem that goes right back to driver training, then...
I've always kind of been of the mindset that we should have mandatory driver testing every 5 years. It's absurd to me that I took a test when I was 17, and won't have to take another test until I'm what, 80 or something? That's an awful long time to go unchecked.
And even then it's just a paper and vision test, is it not? Although I think a road test is required if someone over 80 has an at-fault road accident.
Does anywhere have regular road tests for non-commercial drivers after the initial licensing? It seems like a logistical nightmare to conduct 13 times as many road tests (if people drive until 80). Self-driving cars will solve so many issues.
I don’t know, but doesn’t it seem kind of absurd that someone today can be driving unchecked who had their last driving test in like the mid-1900’s?
I don't think you need regular driving tests because you're not driving totally unchecked. The feedback loop is in tickets / infractions / accidents. Bad drivers will get more of those and should ultimately be removed from the road. Its much more accurate feedback than a regular test would be. Although we probably need changes to get 'bad' drivers off the road quicker.
(10-14-2017, 03:06 PM)SammyOES Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think you need regular driving tests because you're not driving totally unchecked. The feedback loop is in tickets / infractions / accidents. Bad drivers will get more of those and should ultimately be removed from the road. Its much more accurate feedback than a regular test would be. Although we probably need changes to get 'bad' drivers off the road quicker.
I would love to see evidence of this working but the real experience on the road doesn't suggest that it is. The complaints and problems surrounding roundabouts throw further doubt.
I would be curious to see someone run statistics like how many drivers who cause collisions had at least one prior ticket though.
(10-14-2017, 03:06 PM)SammyOES Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think you need regular driving tests because you're not driving totally unchecked. The feedback loop is in tickets / infractions / accidents. Bad drivers will get more of those and should ultimately be removed from the road. Its much more accurate feedback than a regular test would be. Although we probably need changes to get 'bad' drivers off the road quicker.
I'm not convinced that's really enough. It'll be a lot of tickets/accidents before your licence is pulled.
I would support road tests at least as people get older. Maybe at 50, 65, 75, 80, 85, 90 etc.
(10-14-2017, 05:07 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2017, 03:06 PM)SammyOES Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think you need regular driving tests because you're not driving totally unchecked. The feedback loop is in tickets / infractions / accidents. Bad drivers will get more of those and should ultimately be removed from the road. Its much more accurate feedback than a regular test would be. Although we probably need changes to get 'bad' drivers off the road quicker.
I would love to see evidence of this working but the real experience on the road doesn't suggest that it is. The complaints and problems surrounding roundabouts throw further doubt.
I would be curious to see someone run statistics like how many drivers who cause collisions had at least one prior ticket though.
I'm sure insurance companies know exactly this information. I also bet they have a good idea what additional information they'd like to see.
(10-14-2017, 05:49 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2017, 03:06 PM)SammyOES Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think you need regular driving tests because you're not driving totally unchecked. The feedback loop is in tickets / infractions / accidents. Bad drivers will get more of those and should ultimately be removed from the road. Its much more accurate feedback than a regular test would be. Although we probably need changes to get 'bad' drivers off the road quicker.
I'm not convinced that's really enough. It'll be a lot of tickets/accidents before your licence is pulled.
I would support road tests at least as people get older. Maybe at 50, 65, 75, 80, 85, 90 etc.
Your position does assume that all such bad drivers are over the age of 50. There are plenty of bad and inconsiderate drivers who are much younger than that.
I think there should be retesting every five years from the time you get your license. Driving has the potential to be very dangerous both to the driver and others. What's the problem with ongoing retesting to ensure they possess the skills and aptitude to drive?
It is far too easy to get and keep a driver's license in this country. Christ! You can have repeat impaired offences and still be issued a license.
(10-14-2017, 07:52 PM)Elmira Guy Wrote: [ -> ]I think there should be retesting every five years from the time you get your license. Driving has the potential to be very dangerous both to the driver and others. What's the problem with ongoing retesting to ensure they possess the skills and aptitude to drive?
It is far too easy to get and keep a driver's license in this country. Christ! You can have repeat impaired offences and still be issued a license.
Every five years ... it would be a nuisance, and a cost (road tests are not free!) but the logic is there. I can't see getting that politically approved, though -- maybe once most of the people are using self-driving vehicles, the human pilots will be required to have more rigorous training and licensing?
