3 ms·

Another example of draconian enforcing the letter of the law in the name of making things "safer", then Goodhart's lawwing themselves into thinking they're succ

Another example of draconian enforcing the letter of the law in the name of making things "safer", then Goodhart's lawwing themselves into thinking they're succeeding. At least for myself, when I've got to deal with some kind of traffic control device and optimize my driving around that (say a speed bump), it takes my view/attention/focus away from looking for pedestrians elsewhere. There's also the general problem with stop signs that if you do stop before the line as you're technically supposed to, then most times you can't actually see oncoming vehicle traffic. So most people stop over the line where they will be able to see, which means they're not planning on stopping where pedestrians walk. But fixing intersections is expensive meticulous work, while fining drivers for dealing with what they've been given is profitable. If this were targeted at flagrant violations with warnings for a percentile of marginal cases (ie getting people who don't stop at all, and warning those who strain the idea of a rolling "stop"), then I could see it. But as it's worded, and as speed/red light cameras have been implemented, it just seems like another dynamic of a dystopian hellhole.

TheJoeMan 1y ago
The issue you’re highlighting is called the sight triangle. There are supposed to be restrictions on maximum landscaping height, etc, so you can see from the stop bar. Unfortunately many smaller crossings violate this. For example see fig. 71 at https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/older-road-user/handbook-designing-roadways-aging-population/chapter-7-intersections https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/older-road-user/handbo...
kenjackson 1y ago
> There's also the general problem with stop signs that if you do stop before the line as you're technically supposed to, then most times you can't actually see oncoming vehicle traffic. In these cases there's usually some other violation that is occurring, e.g., cars parked too close to the intersection, or shrubbery not properly cut back. As you note, the result is often they have to go beyond the stop sign. Even worse, I often end up so far in the street that if there was a car that was within its lane, but on the right-most side of it, they'd hit me (fortunately most drivers are aware enough to stop).
- mindslight 1y ago
  Sure, or the "violation" is by the city who would have to spend money to fix the intersection, thus they're incentivized to ignore it. I think the general problem is that the presence of the stop sign and the 80-99% case (depending on the area/intersection) being to only worry about cars creates a type of blindness to pedestrians when they are there. Rather than these devices, I would say it would be more effective to install flashing lights on or around the stop sign, that turn on to signal a pedestrian is crossing. (of course that would now be a bit of an uphill battle owing to the signs with the lights that flash all the time)
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    Yea, then we have flashing lights all over the place and people become blind to them, too.
    - mindslight 1y ago
      I recognized that in my last parenthetical sentence, as we've now got stop signs that flash all the time for similar "must do something" reasons. My point was specifically to only draw attention when it's warranted, to avoid that kind of fatigue. Like I think the crosswalks with flashing yellow lights when pedestrians are crossing are ridiculous overkill, but they don't add to my oversignage fatigue because they only demand that attention when the attention is needed.
graemep 1y ago
> hen Goodhart's lawwing themselves into thinking they're succeeding. At least for myself, when I've got to deal with some kind of traffic control device and optimize my driving around that (say a speed bump), it takes my view/attention/focus away from looking for pedestrians elsewhere. I find that most with unexpected speed limits. Speed bumps are actually on the road and the road surface something you should be looking at anyway. I was recently on a stretch of road where the speed limit kept changing from 20 to 30 and back very frequently, and there were speed camera signs. That was distracting. Another common issue in the UK is what feel like random speed limit changes when moving from one local authority to another. Its not uncommon for the speed limit to rise just before a junction or roundabout. > But fixing intersections is expensive meticulous work, while fining drivers for dealing with what they've been given is profitable. Yes, it is, but the problem is often that it was not well thought out in the first place. Doing it right first time would not cost more.

TheJoeMan 1y ago

The issue you’re highlighting is called the sight triangle. There are supposed to be restrictions on maximum landscaping height, etc, so you can see from the stop bar. Unfortunately many smaller crossings violate this. For example see fig. 71 at https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/older-road-user/handbook-designing-roadways-aging-population/chapter-7-intersections https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/older-road-user/handbo...

kenjackson 1y ago

> There's also the general problem with stop signs that if you do stop before the line as you're technically supposed to, then most times you can't actually see oncoming vehicle traffic. In these cases there's usually some other violation that is occurring, e.g., cars parked too close to the intersection, or shrubbery not properly cut back. As you note, the result is often they have to go beyond the stop sign. Even worse, I often end up so far in the street that if there was a car that was within its lane, but on the right-most side of it, they'd hit me (fortunately most drivers are aware enough to stop).

mindslight 1y ago
Sure, or the "violation" is by the city who would have to spend money to fix the intersection, thus they're incentivized to ignore it. I think the general problem is that the presence of the stop sign and the 80-99% case (depending on the area/intersection) being to only worry about cars creates a type of blindness to pedestrians when they are there. Rather than these devices, I would say it would be more effective to install flashing lights on or around the stop sign, that turn on to signal a pedestrian is crossing. (of course that would now be a bit of an uphill battle owing to the signs with the lights that flash all the time)
- ryandrake 1y ago
  Yea, then we have flashing lights all over the place and people become blind to them, too.
  - mindslight 1y ago
    I recognized that in my last parenthetical sentence, as we've now got stop signs that flash all the time for similar "must do something" reasons. My point was specifically to only draw attention when it's warranted, to avoid that kind of fatigue. Like I think the crosswalks with flashing yellow lights when pedestrians are crossing are ridiculous overkill, but they don't add to my oversignage fatigue because they only demand that attention when the attention is needed.

graemep 1y ago

> hen Goodhart's lawwing themselves into thinking they're succeeding. At least for myself, when I've got to deal with some kind of traffic control device and optimize my driving around that (say a speed bump), it takes my view/attention/focus away from looking for pedestrians elsewhere. I find that most with unexpected speed limits. Speed bumps are actually on the road and the road surface something you should be looking at anyway. I was recently on a stretch of road where the speed limit kept changing from 20 to 30 and back very frequently, and there were speed camera signs. That was distracting. Another common issue in the UK is what feel like random speed limit changes when moving from one local authority to another. Its not uncommon for the speed limit to rise just before a junction or roundabout. > But fixing intersections is expensive meticulous work, while fining drivers for dealing with what they've been given is profitable. Yes, it is, but the problem is often that it was not well thought out in the first place. Doing it right first time would not cost more.