| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #792503] |
Mon, 28 January 2008 09:15 |
|
On Jan 27, 2:12 pm, John David Galt <j... [at] diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
wrote:
> Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Scott in SoCal wrote:
> >> KTLA is reporting that a Trucker tried to beat a train and lost. The
> >> Metrolink commuter train clipped the end of his trailer, spreading
> >> wreckage for hundreds of feet.
>
> > Presumably the idiot was not injured (that may be the most preventable
> > "accident" in the inventory) -- I hope the train crew and passengers are
> > OK.
>
> For a trucker this is not always a preventable accident. Some places
> require (or the geometry makes necessary) a second stop ON the tracks
> to wait for traffic to clear, because traffic won't yield to you just
> because you looked both ways before you started across the tracks.
Nothing obligates you to make a right turn on red, however. It's
completely preventable if you don't think like a Californian.
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #793215 ] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 19:21 |
|
Paul Johnson <baloo [at] ursine.ca> writes:
> Nothing obligates you to make a right turn on red, however. It's
> completely preventable if you don't think like a Californian.
Turning right on a red should be considered obligatory when
there's anyone behind you. It's just common courtesy.
Geoff
--
"Komm, gib mir deine skull"
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #793221 ] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 21:20 |
|
Geoff Miller wrote:
> Paul Johnson <baloo [at] ursine.ca> writes:
>
>> Nothing obligates you to make a right turn on red, however. It's
>> completely preventable if you don't think like a Californian.
>
>
> Turning right on a red should be considered obligatory when
> there's anyone behind you. It's just common courtesy.
Schoolbuses here may not move on red signals. I don't know the source
of the regulation.
--
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #793223 ] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 21:30 |
|
On 2008-02-05, Geoff Miller <geoffm [at] lava.net> wrote:
>
>
> Paul Johnson <baloo [at] ursine.ca> writes:
>
>> Nothing obligates you to make a right turn on red, however. It's
>> completely preventable if you don't think like a Californian.
>
>
> Turning right on a red should be considered obligatory when
> there's anyone behind you. It's just common courtesy.
For me, common courtesy doesn't include getting myself killed, but YMMV.
Regards,
Florian
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #793227 ] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 23:20 |
|
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:21:45 -0000, geoffm [at] lava.net (Geoff Miller)
wrote:
>
>
>Paul Johnson <baloo [at] ursine.ca> writes:
>
>> Nothing obligates you to make a right turn on red, however. It's
>> completely preventable if you don't think like a Californian.
>
>
>Turning right on a red should be considered obligatory when
>there's anyone behind you. It's just common courtesy.
Not if that is the only lane for going straight. Also I wonder
whether accident rates, especially with pedestrians have increased due
to right turn on red. Also make sure you aren't turning into a
railroad with the gates down.
>
>
>
>Geoff
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #793283 ] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 08:41 |
|
Clark F Morris <cfmpublic [at] ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:21:45 -0000, geoffm [at] lava.net (Geoff Miller) wrote:
>>Paul Johnson <baloo [at] ursine.ca> writes:
>>>Nothing obligates you to make a right turn on red, however. It's
>>>completely preventable if you don't think like a Californian.
>>Turning right on a red should be considered obligatory when
>>there's anyone behind you. It's just common courtesy.
>Not if that is the only lane for going straight. Also I wonder
>whether accident rates, especially with pedestrians have increased due
>to right turn on red. Also make sure you aren't turning into a
>railroad with the gates down.
I've witnessed such situations. Through traffic on the road parallel to
the railroad gets the green where signals are interlocked. If the turn
would be onto the blocked grade crossing, the turning cars must treat
the turn as a red light and not enter the intersection, staying behind
the line. Naturally, other drivers come up behind them after an abrupt
stop and lay on the horn.
Unfortunate restrictions on self help with regard to dangerous idiots
makes it illegal to shoot them; oh well.
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #793317 ] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 12:21 |
|
On Feb 6, 8:41 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a... [at] chinet.com> wrote:
> I've witnessed such situations. Through traffic on the road parallel to
> the railroad gets the green where signals are interlocked. If the turn
> would be onto the blocked grade crossing, the turning cars must treat
> the turn as a red light and not enter the intersection, staying behind
> the line. Naturally, other drivers come up behind them after an abrupt
> stop and lay on the horn.
"Right turn on red" should just be disallowed. If the intersection is
of type where right turns can often safely be performed when through
traffic has a red than the right turning lane should just be given
it's own traffic light and more green time. Let this light show red
when the grade crossing with the parallel railway is closed and you
won't have cars turn on to a closed crossing.
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #793337 ] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 16:39 |
|
Florian Laws <fl-usenet-3 [at] void.s.bawue.de> writes:
: Turning right on a red should be considered obligatory when
: there's anyone behind you. It's just common courtesy.
> For me, common courtesy doesn't include getting myself killed, but YMMV.
"Assuming it's safe to do so" was implicit, smartass.
Geoff
--
"Komm, gib mir deine skull"
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #793338 ] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 16:44 |
|
Clark F Morris <cfmpublic [at] ns.sympatico.ca> writes:
: Turning right on a red should be considered obligatory when
: there's anyone behind you. It's just common courtesy.
> Not if that is the only lane for going straight. Also I wonder
> whether accident rates, especially with pedestrians have increased
> due to right turn on red. Also make sure you aren't turning into a
> railroad with the gates down.
Why is it that so many people on Usenet, when confronted with a
straightforward, commonsense assertion, will immediately start
grasping about for counterexamples rather than making a good-
faith effort to understand what was said?
No, obviously not if it's the only lane going straight. Since
that's clearly a special case, I saw no reason to qualify my
statement with a disclaimer to that effect.
Geoff
--
"Komm, gib mir deine skull"
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #793390 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 05:26 |
|
In article
<b520f85c-1de5-4e43-99a6-7082f42da6a7 [at] k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
K <railwaypassenger [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:41 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a... [at] chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > I've witnessed such situations. Through traffic on the road parallel to
> > the railroad gets the green where signals are interlocked. If the turn
> > would be onto the blocked grade crossing, the turning cars must treat
> > the turn as a red light and not enter the intersection, staying behind
> > the line. Naturally, other drivers come up behind them after an abrupt
> > stop and lay on the horn.
>
> "Right turn on red" should just be disallowed. If the intersection is
> of type where right turns can often safely be performed when through
> traffic has a red than the right turning lane should just be given
> it's own traffic light and more green time.
A green turn signal is not the same as "right on red." A green turn
signal would give the turning car the right of way. On "right on red",
the turning car must first stop and then yield to any conflicting
traffic.
Right on red is a good thing as it increases the efficiency of the
traffic flow. The problem is that some controlled intersection signals
are not properly coordinated with RR crossings.
Merritt
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #793442 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 17:10 |
|
In article <mmullen8014-FCB340.20262506022008 [at] netnews.asp.att.net>,
Merritt Mullen <mmullen8014 [at] mchsi.com> wrote:
>The problem is that some controlled intersection signals are
>not properly coordinated with RR crossings.
Even when they are a large semi might not be able to move fast
enough from a stop to get its trailer off the tracks before the
train gets there.
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #793751 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 06:29 |
|
K <railwaypassenger [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 6, 8:41 am, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>I've witnessed such situations. Through traffic on the road parallel to
>>the railroad gets the green where signals are interlocked. If the turn
>>would be onto the blocked grade crossing, the turning cars must treat
>>the turn as a red light and not enter the intersection, staying behind
>>the line. Naturally, other drivers come up behind them after an abrupt
>>stop and lay on the horn.
>"Right turn on red" should just be disallowed. If the intersection is
>of type where right turns can often safely be performed when through
>traffic has a red than the right turning lane should just be given
>it's own traffic light and more green time. Let this light show red
>when the grade crossing with the parallel railway is closed and you
>won't have cars turn on to a closed crossing.
We were discussing right-turning vehicles not entering the intersection
on a green light when a train occupies the grade crossing, not right
turn on red.
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #793752 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 06:35 |
|
Merritt Mullen <mmullen8014 [at] mchsi.com> wrote:
>K <railwaypassenger [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Feb 6, 8:41 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a... [at] chinet.com> wrote:
>>>I've witnessed such situations. Through traffic on the road parallel to
>>>the railroad gets the green where signals are interlocked. If the turn
>>>would be onto the blocked grade crossing, the turning cars must treat
>>>the turn as a red light and not enter the intersection, staying behind
>>>the line. Naturally, other drivers come up behind them after an abrupt
>>>stop and lay on the horn.
>>"Right turn on red" should just be disallowed. If the intersection is
>>of type where right turns can often safely be performed when through
>>traffic has a red than the right turning lane should just be given
>>it's own traffic light and more green time.
>A green turn signal is not the same as "right on red." A green turn
>signal would give the turning car the right of way. On "right on red",
>the turning car must first stop and then yield to any conflicting
>traffic.
>Right on red is a good thing as it increases the efficiency of the
>traffic flow.
The problem with right turn on red is that it assumes facts not in
evidence, that the turning driver will obey the law, coming to a full
stop then yielding right of way to cross traffic AND pedestrians. If
drivers were that competent in the first place, would said intersection
even have a traffic light?
>The problem is that some controlled intersection signals are not
>properly coordinated with RR crossings.
This has nothing to do with what was being discussed. At the
intersections I'm thinking of, the traffic signals are interlocked. No
turn signs light up to prohibit turning toward the grade crossing while
a train occupies it.
The problem is the idiot drivers behind who refuse to observe that the
turning driver must not enter the intersection under such a circumstance.
And no, you really don't want the highway department to build a right
turn slip lane for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #793818 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 00:44 |
|
On Feb 6, 7:39 am, geo... [at] lava.net (Geoff Miller) wrote:
> Florian Laws <fl-usene... [at] void.s.bawue.de> writes:
>
> : Turning right on a red should be considered obligatory when
> : there's anyone behind you. It's just common courtesy.
>
> > For me, common courtesy doesn't include getting myself killed, but YMMV.
>
> "Assuming it's safe to do so" was implicit, smartass.
Then you shouldn't have implied otherwise in reply to my comment, co-
moron.
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #793820 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 00:48 |
|
On Feb 9, 9:35 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a... [at] chinet.com> wrote:
> The problem with right turn on red is that it assumes facts not in
> evidence, that the turning driver will obey the law, coming to a full
> stop then yielding right of way to cross traffic AND pedestrians. If
> drivers were that competent in the first place, would said intersection
> even have a traffic light?
Yes. Traffic lights aren't about competence as much as convenience.
Ever been to a normally signalled intersection during rush hour in a
blackout?
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #793903 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 07:35 |
|
In article <fom2fj$vlv$1 [at] aioe.org>, "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk [at] chinet.com> wrote:
> The problem with right turn on red is that it assumes facts not in
> evidence, that the turning driver will obey the law, coming to a full
> stop then yielding right of way to cross traffic AND pedestrians. If
> drivers were that competent in the first place, would said intersection
> even have a traffic light?
I think for that specific reason, right turn on red is not allowed in some
countries.
--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #794050 ] |
Tue, 12 February 2008 22:12 |
|
In article <fom2fj$vlv$1 [at] aioe.org>, Adam H. Kerman <ahk [at] chinet.com> wrote:
>
>The problem with right turn on red is that it assumes facts not in
>evidence, that the turning driver will obey the law, coming to a full
>stop then yielding right of way to cross traffic AND pedestrians. If
>drivers were that competent in the first place, would said intersection
>even have a traffic light?
If the problem is that drivers will not obey the law, making the law
stricter will not work.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #794080 ] |
Wed, 13 February 2008 02:15 |
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> If the problem is that drivers will not obey the law, making the law
> stricter will not work.
Too bad that a lot of security people don't understand this.
--
Cheers,
Bev
*----------------------------------------------------*
*Are you *sure* there's a hyphen in "anal-retentive?"*
|
|
|
| Re: Trucker Nailed by a Metrolink Train [message #794466 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 22:44 |
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <fom2fj$vlv$1 [at] aioe.org>, Adam H. Kerman <ahk [at] chinet.com> wrote:
>> The problem with right turn on red is that it assumes facts not in
>> evidence, that the turning driver will obey the law, coming to a full
>> stop then yielding right of way to cross traffic AND pedestrians. If
>> drivers were that competent in the first place, would said intersection
>> even have a traffic light?
>
> If the problem is that drivers will not obey the law, making the law
> stricter will not work.
>
However this is not a matter of making the law stricter, this is a
matter of changing a law. At least my personal experience was that in
the province of Québec was that drivers obeyed the no-right-turn-on-red.
We just had to look out for the tourists from Ontario. :)
On the other hand experience in Ontario suggests that drivers will
simply roll through a red light when making a right turn.
--
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
|
|
|
