If people aren't willing to at least drive carefully in their own neighbourhoods, imagine how they drive when they don't have to worry about running over their neighbours kids.
If people aren't willing to at least drive carefully in their own neighbourhoods, imagine how they drive when they don't have to worry about running over their neighbours kids.
If anyone is interested in this stuff, the youtube channel NotJustBikes talks a lot about this and related topics. Here's a short video on how "traffic calming" infrastructure gets drivers to slow down, and we all know that stop signs just dont.
Someone probably died here for this roundabout to be added though.
A car leaps 7 meters into the air across the roundabout.
In residential areas you never would have any signs because of this rule.
You can speed through it if visibility is good but it is very hard to argue you weren't at fault in case of a crash.
Britain can shrink the roundabout to just paint, or sometimes paint and a slight hump: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4722603,-0.0655446,3a,75y,32...
Denmark prefers tight corners and narrower roads. Just one parked car and you have to slow: https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6754101,12.4699621,3a,75y,28...
Are there some numbers on this? Even if your own?
I mean, _some_ people don't stop, sure that's valid on its face.
But they "just don't work anywhere", is that what, half of drivers refusing to stop at a four way stop? One in four?
I get that it's a fraught topic, but still...
More common than yield signs, by far. Which is probably why most people treat them as yield signs.
(Yes, you should also be coming to a full stop, but it is impressive how rapidly people will go through the motions of "stop, look, go" to the point that they don't realize they didn't finish any one step. Similar to talking, all told. In speech, most words blend together and you don't have meaningful stops between all words.)
But the rules only help you so far, you need the execution (iE: police on the streets that actually performs their duties). Might not be as glorious as stopping a shooter, but ensuring smooth traffic literally also saves lives.
Road design goes a long way towards that, and roads that _feel_ safe counter-intuitively make drivers behave in less safe ways, while most drivers (broad generalization) will behave more cautiously when the roads they drive feel unsafe. The fact that your subdivision is statistically likely top have wide roads with plenty of visibility, few (if any) cars parked on the street, and big setbacks means drivers feel more comfortable with going 30+ MPH in a residential zone. On the other hand, my narrow street with cars parked on both sides and only about two feet of clearance on each side tends to make most drivers only go 20-25 MPH (although there's still daredevil scofflaws).
Edit: and the city is improving it -- my street is scheduled to get curb extensions, which should both make it slightly safer for drivers (visibility into intersections will be improved) and for pedestrians (the road will be further narrowed at intersections).
Residential speeders are bunch of no-account ruffians if you ask me.
I don't read much into that. It's extremely common for people to become angry when startled, especially in a near-collision situation.
The wealthiest town I lived in (in college), a group of classmates and I almost got run down by a minivan, while we were crossing during a red light and walk signal. The driver rolled down the window to yell at us that we were in the wrong, "Because we didn't pay taxes in this town". Is that normal/common? Because that sort of experience was normal for that town - I knew a few people who actually had been hit while walking with a similar experience, being yelled at by the driver while they are lying on the ground.
Wealthy and poor neighborhoods are the dangerous ones where drivers are absolute dangers. And to me the reason is simple : there's not much law enforcement there. The rich ones because they are friends with the mayor/police chief so they have orders to not bother the locals. The poor ones because not sending police there is the easiest way to keep the bad guys there. At least they are not doing their stuff elsewhere.
Many people told me so and I didn't wanted to believe them because it was too simple. But bad experience after bad experience made me come to the same conclusion : where there's no law enforcement, more and more people are breaking the law, no matter the consequences for their peers.
Until now I didn't really have any data, just my eyes, and my brain, and I knew things weren't trending well.
Sad.
I bike to and from work most days, decked out in fluorescent colors and reflectors and blinky lights that should make a negligent vehicular homicide civil suit a slam-dunk for my wife, plus an excellent set of life insurance policies if that doesn't work.
To my shame, I have a large old SUV that I use on days I can't bike, but it brings me a perverse joy to drive at or just under the actual speed limit on my road and watch the traffic pile up behind me.
Many routing algorithms base their decisions on past travel time and current traffic conditions. If you convince enough of your neighbors to drive legally then eventually the routing algorithms increase their anticipated travel time for those streets which (depending on what the alternatives are) may result in fewer people being routed onto those streets.
The answers you see are sometimes jaw-dropping[1] and I suspect there's an element of "the blind leading the blind" as people assume some of this is correct.
[1] For example someone posted a close call where a truck turning left nearly hit a pedestrian crossing in the crosswalk and the top comments claimed that it was the pedestrian's fault because the red hand was flashing and she should not be in the crosswalk.
Edit: There are also sooo many incidents of psychotic road rage posted on social media that it makes you lose faith in humanity. But it's hard to tell if this is an uptick in incidents or an uptick in visibility.
Source: the signs outside Northern California open spaces (and the newspaper)
It is estimated that 50 million Americans go hiking each year, and of them 25,000 will die out on the trail. Hiking has some inherent risks. Cougar attacks should only be slightly higher than "swarmed to death by killer bees" on the list of reasons you don't go hiking or trail running.
Key phrase: if you can. I'm a runner too, and I run year 'round in a suburb that has all of the problems others here have mentioned. It is possible, and I've even written guides on how to do it safely. It just takes more effort. In particular, wearing headphones is even less advisable in winter than it is the rest of the year. You need to hear when vehicles are approaching, even if they're EVs and all you're getting is the tire/wind noise. It's certainly not for everyone.
For those who don't want to make the effort, I recommend cross-country skiing or snowshoes. Work with what you have.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/cars-us-now-required-backup-camera...
There was some discussion amongst my neighbors about a sign near us and we found that the key variable is the speed at which one considers a vehicle to be "stopped". Some folks felt that a 6 mph (10 kph) rolling stop at an empty intersection counted as a stop while others felt that anything more than 1 mph (1.6 kph) meant that the driver was running the stop sign. Since the majority of drivers fell somewhere in that range the estimates for how many people stopped were wildly different.