Note the word "illegal" see paragraph aboveStupe said:No they don't.doubledog said:Quote:
Turning into a left turn lane and then immediately merging is generally illegal and dangerous. The left turn lane is intended for making left turns only, not for merging into traffic. Using it to merge can create hazardous situations as drivers may not anticipate vehicles entering the lane to turn left.
While I understand people's frustrations, medians do stop the illegal left turns that we ALL saw/see on a daily basis.
They just move them to the next intersection and back up traffic.
Are we finally going to see common sense (medians)
6,415 Views |
66 Replies |
Last: 7 mo ago by BQ_90
U-turns are only illegal in a couple instances. Basically, only when prohibited by a sign or on the crest of a hill. Otherwise, when done safely and with the right of way, perfectly legal.
Brian Alg said:MorganFreeman_HesRightYouKnow.jpegdoubledog said:
While I understand people's frustrations, medians do stop the illegal left turns that we ALL saw/see on a daily basis.
I think there is a serious possibility that they didn't properly account for the negative effects (similar to the shut-it-down doctors in COVID times). But the medians were done to address a real issue. I'd be interested to hear from a TexDOT traffic engineer, whose identity is hidden for his own protection, explain the reasoning for the median decision. It probably wasn't as stupid as is figured.
I believe you are comparing treasonous apples to oranges in your china virus reference.
GSS said:How many "deadly crashes" occurred on Texas Ave, for the areas the medians now occupy?trouble said:
The studies are available. They show a 40-60% reduction in the most deadly crashes. Limiting conflict points AND slowing the vehicles at those points reduces fatal and life altering crashes.
They are inconvenient and annoying but as a former trauma nurse, I'd rather deal with finding an alternate route.
And are the studies comparing "apples to apples"? The FM60 & 2818 slalom, errr, diverging diamond intersection never went through any other version...no stop lights, no speed reduction, no change in exit/on ramps. So now the engineers can claim "see, it moves traffic better than before, and studies show that..."
In troubles original post it is clear the individual doesn't know where, how or why the accidents occurred. Handling a patient or two in a high stress situation is not good for logical data storage and recall. It is a great service to our community what trouble does or did. That said, it is a discredit to society to over engineer in the name of safety. That is too easy to win when it shouldn't really win. Ie covid.
Further these "studies" are likely garbage. With small tweaks of the assumptions I bet the answer goes from no medians to this is mad max we need medians NOW. They arent as fool proof as 2+2 = 4 which most of the general public fails to realize.
A patient or two. You have literally no idea of my background or the extensive amount of training/study I did when that was still my line of work.
Yes, all studies you don't agree with must be bunk.
Yes, all studies you don't agree with must be bunk.
australopithecus robustus
Joined:
Oct 23, 2009
Posts:
2,592
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Before medians: people were the problem
After medians: people are the problem
After medians: people are the problem
I would love to see the accounting of the installation construction and the same for the removal.
At some point we the people have got to do something to stop the wasteful spending of our tax dollars.
At some point we the people have got to do something to stop the wasteful spending of our tax dollars.
hopeandrealchange said:
I would love to see the accounting of the installation construction and the same for the removal.
At some point we the people have got to do something to stop the wasteful spending of our tax dollars.
As long as we also agree to count the spending responding to an accident when someone turns left out of a parking lot and didn't see the oncoming traffic.
Still no numbers of "deadly crashes" the studies, or your memory, show happened on Texas Ave...trouble said:
A patient or two. You have literally no idea of my background or the extensive amount of training/study I did when that was still my line of work.
Yes, all studies you don't agree with must be bunk.
[You know that we do not allow name calling or insulting on this forum. -Staff]
BiochemAg97 said:hopeandrealchange said:
I would love to see the accounting of the installation construction and the same for the removal.
At some point we the people have got to do something to stop the wasteful spending of our tax dollars.
As long as we also agree to count the spending responding to an accident when someone turns left out of a parking lot and didn't see the oncoming traffic.
I would think if that would need to be done there would not be talk of removing the medians.
Our society needs to stop trying to save people from their own stupidity at the cost of everyone else.
You posted "The studies are available. They show a 40-60% reduction in the most deadly crashes."...but no context, if the studies were on 70 mph highways, or on a suburan thoroughfare. Dividing lanes on highways does have a record of reducing fatal, often head-on collisions. How does that compare to what now exists on Texas Ave (and other B-CS streets)?trouble said:GSS said:Still no numbers of "deadly crashes" the studies, or your memory, show happened on Texas Ave...trouble said:
A patient or two. You have literally no idea of my background or the extensive amount of training/study I did when that was still my line of work.
Yes, all studies you don't agree with must be bunk.
I didn't say at any point the studies were specifically on Texas Ave. Why would you assume that? OH so you can be a jerk.
TxDOT made the decision on the STATEWIDE implementation of medians on national studies. Is that more clear?
Since the topic is "medians in B-CS", where's the study that validates your claim? Or we should just believe "an unspecified study (or studies), from somewhere, makes the B-CS median debacle the best thing that TX DoT could do".
And were continous medians the ONLY solution? Somewhere there's a study....
TX DoT had a bunch of Federal Tax $$$$ to burn through... Safe Streets and Roads, "Covid relief" related, and the medians, with little review, OR citizen input, were a result.
Wanna bet decades ago, "studies" showed adding a center turn lane was the cure for reducing vehicle accidents? Now that same real estate, procured through eminent domain, is for the most part...an eyesore.
And TX DoT is not through, with their "improvements" along TX Ave...a wide multi-use path (aka sidewalk) is underway, with many businesses along Tx Ave losing land, often prime parking spots. Kick `em while they're down....
I believe folks that cannot drive without a cell phone in their face is one reason for medians. The other is I've been told it is illegal to "accelerate" to merge from the left turn lane, it is a LEFT TURN LANE.EliteElectric said:
****warning personal experience anecdotal evidence incoming****
I have lived in BCS since January 1992, I have never seen a wreck or even heard of a wreck caused by someone turning into the center turning lane to merge. Not once in 33 + years. I have however seen 5 wrecks between vehicles making a u turn and cross traffic in the short time the medians have been installed.
I travel the "Diverging Diamond" twice a day on weekdays and love the fact that it allows traffic to flow much more efficiently and at a higher volume. The safety aspect is a bonus for sure. Im so glad they didnt install a traditional traffic light intersection.GSS said:How many "deadly crashes" occurred on Texas Ave, for the areas the medians now occupy?trouble said:
The studies are available. They show a 40-60% reduction in the most deadly crashes. Limiting conflict points AND slowing the vehicles at those points reduces fatal and life altering crashes.
They are inconvenient and annoying but as a former trauma nurse, I'd rather deal with finding an alternate route.
And are the studies comparing "apples to apples"? The FM60 & 2818 slalom, errr, diverging diamond intersection never went through any other version...no stop lights, no speed reduction, no change in exit/on ramps. So now the engineers can claim "see, it moves traffic better than before, and studies show that..."
I hear you, and totally respect your opinion I just don't share it. Our nefarious government has a long and well known history of draconian decisions in the name of "studies" or "science" that turn out to be false. Remember when Fauci told us to wear masks, get an experimental "vaccination" stay away from one another, shut down all the small businesses but let Target, Walmart and McDonald's stay open etc, or else we were killing grandma and/or being selfish? It wasn't that long ago. Turns out the whole thing was just a sham just to "test the fences" of public willingness to submit.trouble said:
TxDOT made the decision on the STATEWIDE implementation of medians on national studies. Is that more clear?
I think post covid scam, the public, at least the free thinkers, will always be wary of government "studies" that do things that inconvenience and/or cost us and/or hurt businesses in the name of public safety. "It's the new normal"
Quote:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
One other side effect of medians that I haven't seen mentioned is that they can cause issues for fire, EMS, and police.
I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one photo of a fire truck that got high centered trying to get across a median. And the turning radius of a fire truck is often too big to allow U-turns. Those problems can be mitigated with judicious route planning, but said routes generally take longer than if the truck could have made a left turn directly.
For police, medians make it much more difficult to turn around on traffic violators going the opposite direction. Habitual traffic scofflaws may find this a plus. (BTW, did anyone else notice that they put a low spot in the median on George Bush opposite the driveway of the JP3 parking lot so vehicles coming out can make a left? And that parking lot is a favorite spot for CSPD motorcycle cops to hang out, especially during school zone hours.)
PS: I'm just hoping TxDoT doesn't go through with the threatened medians on FM1179.
I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one photo of a fire truck that got high centered trying to get across a median. And the turning radius of a fire truck is often too big to allow U-turns. Those problems can be mitigated with judicious route planning, but said routes generally take longer than if the truck could have made a left turn directly.
For police, medians make it much more difficult to turn around on traffic violators going the opposite direction. Habitual traffic scofflaws may find this a plus. (BTW, did anyone else notice that they put a low spot in the median on George Bush opposite the driveway of the JP3 parking lot so vehicles coming out can make a left? And that parking lot is a favorite spot for CSPD motorcycle cops to hang out, especially during school zone hours.)
PS: I'm just hoping TxDoT doesn't go through with the threatened medians on FM1179.
One person poops their pants: EVERYONE MUST WEAR DIAPERS!hopeandrealchange said:BiochemAg97 said:hopeandrealchange said:
I would love to see the accounting of the installation construction and the same for the removal.
At some point we the people have got to do something to stop the wasteful spending of our tax dollars.
As long as we also agree to count the spending responding to an accident when someone turns left out of a parking lot and didn't see the oncoming traffic.
I would think if that would need to be done there would not be talk of removing the medians.
Our society needs to stop trying to save people from their own stupidity at the cost of everyone else.
Texas Ave passes over the crest of a hill at Holeman. So you are saying that Holeman at Texas Ave should not have a u-turn on Texas (both ways)AggiePhil said:
U-turns are only illegal in a couple instances. Basically, only when prohibited by a sign or on the crest of a hill. Otherwise, when done safely and with the right of way, perfectly legal.
Smeghead4761 said:
One other side effect of medians that I haven't seen mentioned is that they can cause issues for fire, EMS, and police.
I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one photo of a fire truck that got high centered trying to get across a median. And the turning radius of a fire truck is often too big to allow U-turns. Those problems can be mitigated with judicious route planning, but said routes generally take longer than if the truck could have made a left turn directly.
For police, medians make it much more difficult to turn around on traffic violators going the opposite direction. Habitual traffic scofflaws may find this a plus. (BTW, did anyone else notice that they put a low spot in the median on George Bush opposite the driveway of the JP3 parking lot so vehicles coming out can make a left? And that parking lot is a favorite spot for CSPD motorcycle cops to hang out, especially during school zone hours.)
PS: I'm just hoping TxDoT doesn't go through with the threatened medians on FM1179.
A great example of a likely too difficult to really account for problem caused by the medians.
Only if the intersection cannot be seen from 500 feet in both directions. Which, even at that location, they can.doubledog said:Texas Ave passes over the crest of a hill at Holeman. So you are saying that Holeman at Texas Ave should not have a u-turn on Texas (both ways)AggiePhil said:
U-turns are only illegal in a couple instances. Basically, only when prohibited by a sign or on the crest of a hill. Otherwise, when done safely and with the right of way, perfectly legal.
australopithecus robustus
Joined:
Oct 23, 2009
Posts:
2,592
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pro or anti median, the lesson lies in the amount of government distrust by the public, as a couple posters have pointed out. That distrust has been profoundly exacerbated in perpetuity by the actions during Covid. We see a lot of this on the municipal level all the time. It seems there's no one that's not mad at the City of Colege Station these days for instance.
I would argue that the intersection at Texas/Holeman is not clearly visible within 500 feet for autos ascending the hill (south bound). Perhaps one can see the intersection from a distance; however when you are actually at the intersection, the drivers vision is impaired by the slope of the hill. The layout of this intersection contributes to numerous accidents (e.g. the one just last week).AggiePhil said:Only if the intersection cannot be seen from 500 feet in both directions. Which, even at that location, they can.doubledog said:Texas Ave passes over the crest of a hill at Holeman. So you are saying that Holeman at Texas Ave should not have a u-turn on Texas (both ways)AggiePhil said:
U-turns are only illegal in a couple instances. Basically, only when prohibited by a sign or on the crest of a hill. Otherwise, when done safely and with the right of way, perfectly legal.
Having been caught in two lanes of traffic and a median with a fire truck coming up behind us - yes the medians are a problem for first responders. There is no place for them to pass or cars to get out of the way. It was horrible. They sat for two light changes. I guess if we are going to keep the medians, we just need a lot more fire stations so the firefighters have less to travel. Maybe one for each mile of Texas Ave and for each mile of Villa/Briarcrest. Those are cheap, right?
When every second counts, medians add minutes to the response.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Where are these studies? Do we have them in pdf form? Please post links if so.
motherrunnersBCS said:
Having been caught in two lanes of traffic and a median with a fire truck coming up behind us - yes the medians are a problem for first responders. There is no place for them to pass or cars to get out of the way. It was horrible. They sat for two light changes. I guess if we are going to keep the medians, we just need a lot more fire stations so the firefighters have less to travel. Maybe one for each mile of Texas Ave and for each mile of Villa/Briarcrest. Those are cheap, right?
Be careful here. Many of our local leaders will take you serious.
That doesn't sound right. Every fire truck here has an Opticom emitter. Turns the light green ahead of them so they can get through safely and so any blocking traffic can clear out safely. In my opinion, the PD vehicles need them as well.motherrunnersBCS said:
Having been caught in two lanes of traffic and a median with a fire truck coming up behind us - yes the medians are a problem for first responders. There is no place for them to pass or cars to get out of the way. It was horrible. They sat for two light changes.
Which were replaced by illegal U-Turns.doubledog said:Quote:
Turning into a left turn lane and then immediately merging is generally illegal and dangerous. The left turn lane is intended for making left turns only, not for merging into traffic. Using it to merge can create hazardous situations as drivers may not anticipate vehicles entering the lane to turn left.
While I understand people's frustrations, medians do stop the illegal left turns that we ALL saw/see on a daily basis.
I do not know why the light did not change. The people in the curb lane tried to let the people in the far lane over but without people moving at the front, it was bad.
-You will perform the safe and effective U-Turn.
-You will not turn right on red.
-You will not visit that business you like without having to drive a mile down the road and drive through another businesses parking lot to get there.
-And you will be happy.
The part about all this that really blows my mind is that the powers that be are actively encouraging U-Turns.
-You will not turn right on red.
-You will not visit that business you like without having to drive a mile down the road and drive through another businesses parking lot to get there.
-And you will be happy.
The part about all this that really blows my mind is that the powers that be are actively encouraging U-Turns.
Don't Eat The Bugs
trouble said:
A patient or two. You have literally no idea of my background or the extensive amount of training/study I did when that was still my line of work.
Yes, all studies you don't agree with must be bunk.
Well all studies that ignore obvious flaws are bunk.
1. Delay in emergency response.
2. Increase U-Turns
3. You cant make being stupid safe.
4. Economic impact especially to small businesses
Sorry that a department who justifies their value by saving people finds a need to do something to save people. Being aware of the biased incentives is not that hard of a concept.
Before the medians I've never seen somebody drive the wrong way down Texas Ave to get to the location they wanted to. I've seen it several times now. And several illegal U-turns