ITT: Road Designs We Hate
I exclusively road a bike for first six or seven years I was eligible to drive a car, and now that I've been driving for a little under a year, there's a lot of shit that seems outright retarded to me.
Can anyone explain to me why it's ever a good idea to have an exit from the left lane?
Right seems reasonable, since if your exit is coming up, you can hang in that lane without someone up your asshole, and all cars exiting are going at a comparatively lower speed to the rest of the road.
With left lane exits, if you're not 100% accurate on knowing when your exit is up, you're fighting lanes of high speed traffic as you move left, and everyone in the far-most left lane will be guaranteed to be doing at least 20mph over the speed limit.
Why the fuck is this done?
>>933638
>>Why the fuck is this done?
seems like the ones I've used are due to terrain or existing infrastructure that block a rightward exit. better a lefty than going to the next exit and having to double back.
but you're right, driving is a PITA that most people are conditioned to accept.
you should probably make a thread on >>>/o/
>>933638
What >>933661 said. Seattle has a few, and there's nowhere to put them on the right side. Actually, if drivers would pull the collective sticks out of their asses and stop with the whole "left lane is muh passin' lane" bullshit (what they really mean is "I want to go as fast as want wherever I want, safety be damned), ESPECIALLY in urban areas with massive traffic volume, the left lane exits would be considerably easier to use. But considering the average driver thinks they "know better" when they're on the road, yeah.
>>933918
It will be all better when self-driving cars are ubiquitous.
So much better in so many ways.
>>933638
>Can anyone explain to me why it's ever a good idea to have an exit from the left lane?
It is pretty logical given we drive on the left hand side of the road.
>>933923
It's a real shame your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are so low. You probably had more potential, but you obviously grew up and live in a 3rd world country so you never learned that some countries drive on the right.
>>933928
>some countries drive on the right
Most countries drive on the right.
In addition to what everyone else said, it also means that you can have an exit on both the left and the right at the same time, and you can have an on-ramp into the right lane and an exit right after it without getting weaving issues.
>>936335
A third of the world's population drives on the left.
Advanced warning signs are placed 1 mile and half mile in advance of exits. See infograph for left v right exit signs
>>937145
The sad thing is 90% of drivers don't seem to realize this. Fuck, so many people have to cut across from the right at the last second because they're on the wrong side.
I sat in traffic looking at OP's pic for about 45 minutes today
![blog51f3e841d352f5d7ef197cb5a47941f6[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BWWIKyb.jpg "blog51f3e841d352f5d7ef197cb5a47941f6[1].jpg")
>>937145
Why not have arrows? Each arrow in pic related is positioned above a corresponding lane. Seems much more intuitive.
>>933638
philadelphia
xD
>>937178
>many people have to cut across from the right at the last second because they're on the wrong side
That happens whatever side you put the exit on. Morons gotta moron.
>>933638
all the left-hand exits i've seen on interstates were done because of lazy/cheapskate highway design
>>933638
>Complaining about people obeying the speed limit
Unless you are driving some absurdly instrumented car, there's no way that could ascertain the speeds of other drivers to that degree of accuracy.
>>937248
Bigger more complex interstates do use arrows
>>937376
Interchanges are very expensive. It's all about funding never about lazy designs
>>937430
I don't think you've ever tried, because it's really not that hard. There's a very clear difference between someone going 10 mph vs 20 mph faster than you.
>>938073
It's the SI moron. He's going 13N/m.
>>938102
motherfucker got me again
>>938102
>No space between the number and the unit symbol
Please re-read the SI Brochure.
Additionally, please specify the quantity you are referring to by N/m. Are you describing my stiffness, tear strength or something else? I don't think a spring constant applies to my body.
>>938105
>implying it's an si unit
It's in Noones you sperg. Not supposed to be a space according to the relevant standards body. Read the brochure.
>>937145
2/10 mile, 6/10 mile, are you for real?
>>938134
N is the symbol for the newton, as enshrined in the SI Brochure and the ISO standards which are based on it. A space is required according to the same entities. Do you care to specify which brochure it is that contradicts the above?
>>938372
>thinking one system of units among many can lay exclusive claim to Roman letter symbols
Top kek m8
>>938383
>Implying ISO 80000 wasn't promulgated for this very purpose
Gotta have standards, my friend. It's not an exclusive claim either: using letters in as part of language is not prohibited.
>>938399
>standards body claims authority over casual language
>body asserts authority by virtue of being authority
>wat is circular argument
Sharia law was also created with those aspirations and that purpose. Doesn't mean we are bound by it. You just went 1.34N/m.
>>937430
Speeding isn't obeying the fucking speed limit, especially when no one is supposed to be in the left lane ever unless your currently passing, in my state, cunt.
>>938399
which part of that standard has you interpreting 'mph' as 'meters per hour'? The SI would be 'm/h'.
>>938425
The SI is language-independent.
The bodies which maintain and promulgate the SI and the International Organisation of Standardisation derive their authority from the national governments which comprise their respective memberships.
>No space between the number and the unit symbol
Please re-read the SI Brochure.
Additionally, please expressly state which quantity it is you are referring to with that expression.
>>938448
>The SI is language-independent
So is Sharia.
>>938449
Is it?
>Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.(Al-Zukhruf 43:3)
>>938448
ISO does not have "authority". They're a non-governmental organization. The fact that they have national members merely means that said governments have standards-making bodies in affiliation with ISO. ANSI, which is part of ISO but is also a governmental organization that -does- have authority, defines many things in terms of pounds, miles, feet, etc. Also note that such units as minutes, litres, decibels, bars, etc. are not part of SI, yet are in common use in every country of the world.
>>938820
>ISO does not have "authority".
Then you agree that there is no problem of circular reasoning.
>Here's a list of non-SI units accepted for use with the SI
>Plus one that has been officially deprecated
Please re-read the SI Brochure.
The oddities of one particular standards body having jurisdiction over only one nation are irrelevant.
>>938827
You know, you're really smart. You should take a tripcode, so everyone can know who you are.
>>938829
I'm not posting for the purpose of gaining any kind of fame or personal recognition. Knowing that I am furthering the understanding of the correct use of SI units, prefixes and unit symbols as prescribed by the SI (and further incorporated within ISO 80000) is sufficient reward.
Fucking roundabouts.
>>938843
Dear, they're called traffic circles. East Coast.
>>938853
>Conflating the poetry in motion of a roundabout with the clusterfuck that is a traffic circle
Lobotomise yourself.
>>938827
>Then you agree that there is no problem of circular reasoning.
As far as the brochures application to informal use of units, yes there is. They do not have the authority to dictate what units people use, no method of enforcement and no say in how anyone is allowed to express themselves. That they _intend_ for their units and standard ways of expressing them to be used universaly doesn't mean anyone is obligated to fulfill their intention.
Any claim to the contrary is a circular argument in that a body can not give themselves the authority to give themselves the authority to do assert such authority.
Needs to be a traffic circle. Yet they just put in lot of new development. So it is stuck being a cluster fuck.
>>938871
Nowhere needs a traffic circle, fuckwit.
Traffic lights on a major interstate highway. The city I live in has a major north-south interstate highway that goes through it, however in the ghetto area they made the speed limit 30mph lower than everywhere else and have 3 different traffic lights.
>>938872
The only thing wrong with circles are the fucking morons who don't understand the concept of not running into another car
>>938888
Traffic circles are fundamentally flawed. Perfect driver behaviour contributes to, rather than ameliorates, its shortcomings.
>>938901
>Traffic circles are fundamentally flawed
Good argument you have there. You've convinced me with your solid reasoning and facts.
>>938901
>Perfect driver behaviour contributes to, rather than ameliorates, its shortcomings.
Are those shortcomings the higher capacity or increased safety?
>wfm i have no face to express disbelief at burgers getting confused by a roundabout
>>938903
>Good argument you have there. You've convinced me with your solid reasoning and facts.
Not him, but the high number of potential collisions combined with the greater need to look in several directions at once make it a more dangerous option than a traffic light.
It should be pretty obvious the design improves throughput at the expense of safety.
>>938911
>disbelief at burgers getting confused by a roundabout
We have plenty of traffic circles in Murrica.
Hell, D.C. is full of them.
>>938925
>It should be pretty obvious the design improves throughput at the expense of safety.
No. No, it's not obvious. In fact, all research shows roundabouts to be much safer than crossings. The first rule of intuition is to never trust your intuition.
>>938925
If everyone drove the way they fucking said they would when they passed the God damned road test, you wouldn't have to keep checking.
Unless there's a sign, just don't get on the circle unless it's clear. That's one place to look.
If you're on the circle, everyone bows to you, so there's again, only one place to look.
>>938925
>high number of potential collisions combined with the greater need to look in several directions at once
kekkity kek m8, have you even thought about this for 5 seconds?
>>939003
>have you even thought about this for 5 seconds?
Have you?
Your diagram would make SOME sense if there were no traffic lights in the normal intersection.
In reality though, a normal intersection, with traffic lights (including right turn on green arrow only) has NO collision points unless someone runs a red light.
AND you don't have to look anywhere except where you're going.
>>939019
>In reality though, a normal intersection, with traffic lights (including right turn on green arrow only) has NO collision points unless someone runs a red light.
Eh, yeah they do. If lights at an intersection doesn't have a cycle for people turning left then there's the potential for a collision between oncoming traffic and people turning left.
>>939019
>unless someone runs a red light
>or fails to clear the intersection before another direction goes green
>or veers out of the intended path
>also assuming that left/right (for britain/murica respectively) turn on red isn't permitted
That's an awful lot of assumptions you're glossing over there. In reality, you are literally 100% wrong. You cannot get more wrong than you current are. Except perhaps by designing an intersection to be a traffic supercollider to crash cars head on at high speed to study the sub-car particles that result.
>>933918
>>933923
The mathematical model which first described how water flowed down a stream or river accurately describes traffic flow under ideal conditions. The innermost traffic (left most lane if you drive on the right side) goes the fastest while the outermost traffic goes slower.
The idea of traffic flow actually makes sense. The idea is that tractors, semis, inexperienced drivers can drive on the outtermost lane, those who go just above the speed limit a little bit can go in the middle lanes, and reckless idiots can drive in the innermost lanes.
>>938925
>improves throughput at the expense of safety
Just stay home, then you will improve your safety at the expense of throughput regardless of what the city does. But it seems both faster and safer to me. Circles tend to plug up and go much slower in heavy traffic but you can just zip on through most times. With lights you are waiting for this stupid timer to tick over at 3:00AM, makes me feel stupid.
>>938871
It doesn't need a traffic circle, no one uses Medlock.
>>937145
>>937248
>>933638
I hate how US road signs tells the street names instead of different destinations like nearby neighbourhoods.
>>938372
N doesn't refer to Newtons (Newtons is to be capitalized by the way, fucktard) in this case you absolute fucktarded fucking moronic imbecile. Kill yourself.
>>939246
ESFP faggot shitter detected.
>>939157
>Traffic circles are a like a box where you have to let people put things on top before you can take something out (which is now at the bottom). How's that for you?
Fucking how? Are you retarded?
>>936335
It's like a map of /pol/ shitposter nations
Op drives on 76 through philly. One of the most nightmarish highways in the united States. And I've lived in LA
>>939351
Its narrow lane and left shoulder configuration, left lane entrances and exits (nicknamed "merge or die"), common construction activity and generally congested conditions have led to many accidents, critical injuries and fatalities, leading to the highway's humorous nickname of the "Surekill Expressway" or in further embellishment, "Surekill Distressway".[8][9]
>>939330
>Newtons is to be capitalized by the way, fucktard
I wasn't referring to the family of the renowned physicist. I suggest you refer to the SI Brochure if that's what you thought I meant.
>>939345
>Traffic circle = box; a space with limited capacity and a necessarily first in, last out load/de-load order
>Traffic = things; stuff that goes into and out of the space
I can't reduce the concept any further. If you don't understand, that's ok, but please don't offer any more opinions on traffic management.
>>939388
>>937248
>>937145
Make vay for ßuperior German design.
>>938871
That guy who argued against traffic circles was a retard.
There's a problem though when there are this many intersecting roads and some of them are as big as they are.
People driving single file.
>>938871
>>942175
My city has a pretty neat two file traffic circle that helps with directing traffic more effectively from the Autobahn into the city, but I break a sweat every time I have to use it.
>>942177
We just got a double-lane circle here... i like single-lane circles, but hab' angst fuer the double
>>939019
roundabouts don't replace traffic lights. Roundabouts replace stop sign intersections.
>>937145
philly reporting in.
We have a few left exits where it is too congested to build a cloverleaf or there is a river to the right.
>>942678
even better: new englanders call them "rotaries"
>American Civil engineering
*shudders*
>>942177
At first I thought that was supposed to look like a giant roulette wheel.
>>942608
>Roundabouts replace stop sign intersections.
This. And some types of yield intersection too.
![A4053_Coventry_Ring_Road_Junction_2_-_Coppermine_-_13260[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6sXnXT1.jpg "A4053_Coventry_Ring_Road_Junction_2_-_Coppermine_-_13260[1].jpg")
Coventry here in the UK has a sketchy as f*ck ring road system.
Traffic joining and leaving cross over, and have about 20 feet to do it.
And until you get to this point you can't see the other traffic because the roads are different heights.
bumb
>>>/o/14855788
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>933928
Some countries drive on the wrong side of the road m8.
