I wonder what problem the original sign addressed. Because forbidding turning right for 2 ½ hours every morning sounds extremely specific, and sounds like one neighbor in particular had some beef with another or something, and got the city to put up the sign.
And maybe that neighbor left, or whichever problem was being addressed didn’t exist anymore.
I know that’s a thing because a long time ago, we had a “15mph - blind children at play” sign in our street, until someone pointed out that the blind child in question was now an adult and had moved out years ago, and the sign was just annoying everybody for nothing 🙂
In other words, the guy might have replaced a useless sign with another, equally useless one on his own dime. Maybe he could simply have called the city to wonder what the sign was for, and possibly have it reviewed and removed altogether.
It prevents backup. If the light goes from green to red on a major road, then arterial traffic stops (just like it is supposed to). Now, a crossroad dumps in a new batch of cars that backfill the next block. When the arterial light turns green, those cars now have nowhere to go. It’s not too long before you have cars blocking part of the intersection between light cycles out of frustration. Or, at least that is the case near where I live.
No apparently my comment wasn’t obvious enough. I was attempting to imply that the afternoon rush hour traffic may have a similar restriction, during which Rush Hour 2 could be finished and Rush Hour 3 shown, but OOP didn’t include whether such a restriction existed in the afternoon, as they would not typically be traveling by the same route in the afternoon, hence no need to change a presumably separate sign indicating the hypothetical afternoon/evening restriction.
Because the busy period in the morning and evening are more than 1 hour long about everywhere with people having differing work schedules that all begin and end within similar but not exact time frame?
Given the original sign covered 7-9.30am seems like it’s to prevent people cutting across traffic during peak commuting time either to prevent accidents or improve the flow of traffic.
There is a sign like this at the end of my street. It’s morning and evening rush times. The turn in question is an offset intersection through a busy road. If you are to take a left off my street you can easily be hit by someone taking a right from the street across into the middle of the road to then take a left from the perpendicular road onto my street. The city put some surveyors out there for a bit and with the accident data and all that determined my street can’t make our left at certain times but the street across can snake their way across town just fine. The 2 streets on either side of mine are just fine to left turn from, they don’t have the offset intersection. Nobody gets pulled over for the turn either but I’m sure if you caused an accident you would get an extra citation.
Also, sometimes, all it takes is asking a carve-out to make your life easier.
For instance, he could have asked the city to add an “except residents” sign under the existing one. At least where I live, you’d be surprised how accommodating the administration can be if you simply ask nicely with a good argument.
Hell, he could have added the sign himself for cheaper and I bet none of the other residents would have complained about it 🙂
Realllly depends on the city. Some places won’t even reply to you for months, and when they do it’ll be a bullshit answer because you’re not of the developers bribing them with millions of dollars…
There’s a sign by my house, on a road I need to turn right on at about 420 every day, that says no right-on-red turns between 730am to 430pm on school days.
It’s frustrating, because it doesn’t seem like it’s actually protecting children for 9 hours a day
If you bring it up, then it could end up in some bureaucratic limbo where nothing ever gets done. And then afterwards if you go to change it yourself they’ll figure it was you. So maybe easier just to change it yourself in the first place?
I wonder what problem the original sign addressed. Because forbidding turning right for 2 ½ hours every morning sounds extremely specific, and sounds like one neighbor in particular had some beef with another or something, and got the city to put up the sign.
And maybe that neighbor left, or whichever problem was being addressed didn’t exist anymore.
I know that’s a thing because a long time ago, we had a “15mph - blind children at play” sign in our street, until someone pointed out that the blind child in question was now an adult and had moved out years ago, and the sign was just annoying everybody for nothing 🙂
In other words, the guy might have replaced a useless sign with another, equally useless one on his own dime. Maybe he could simply have called the city to wonder what the sign was for, and possibly have it reviewed and removed altogether.
It prevents backup. If the light goes from green to red on a major road, then arterial traffic stops (just like it is supposed to). Now, a crossroad dumps in a new batch of cars that backfill the next block. When the arterial light turns green, those cars now have nowhere to go. It’s not too long before you have cars blocking part of the intersection between light cycles out of frustration. Or, at least that is the case near where I live.
Maybe he caused a 50-car pileup and killed hundreds of puppies.
7-9:30a Definitely speaks to it being rush-hour specific.
How can it be rush hour when it’s two and a half hours long?
It covered Rush Hour and a portion of Rush Hour 2. Not 3, because the city is no fun.
Perhaps that’s done in the afternoon but OOP didn’t mention it because it wasn’t relelvant?
Maybe it wasn’t obvious, but I was referring to the runtime of the Javkie Chan movies.
No apparently my comment wasn’t obvious enough. I was attempting to imply that the afternoon rush hour traffic may have a similar restriction, during which Rush Hour 2 could be finished and Rush Hour 3 shown, but OOP didn’t include whether such a restriction existed in the afternoon, as they would not typically be traveling by the same route in the afternoon, hence no need to change a presumably separate sign indicating the hypothetical afternoon/evening restriction.
Because the busy period in the morning and evening are more than 1 hour long about everywhere with people having differing work schedules that all begin and end within similar but not exact time frame?
You are asking a question, but it sounds like you are stating a fact. I don’t know how to make sense of anything anymore?
Likely a school zone. Most of these signs are because there are children crossing the street and they don’t want them to get hit by cars.
But my commute! You don’t understand it’s so long if I don’t put school children at risk!
This is how I feel about OOP and people thinking it’s hilarious how they messed with the sign.
I just see another entitled car brain who thinks they should be allowed to do whatever they like.
Given the original sign covered 7-9.30am seems like it’s to prevent people cutting across traffic during peak commuting time either to prevent accidents or improve the flow of traffic.
There is a sign like this at the end of my street. It’s morning and evening rush times. The turn in question is an offset intersection through a busy road. If you are to take a left off my street you can easily be hit by someone taking a right from the street across into the middle of the road to then take a left from the perpendicular road onto my street. The city put some surveyors out there for a bit and with the accident data and all that determined my street can’t make our left at certain times but the street across can snake their way across town just fine. The 2 streets on either side of mine are just fine to left turn from, they don’t have the offset intersection. Nobody gets pulled over for the turn either but I’m sure if you caused an accident you would get an extra citation.
Also, kids on their way to school
Yeah true. But I reckon it was worth asking.
Also, sometimes, all it takes is asking a carve-out to make your life easier.
For instance, he could have asked the city to add an “except residents” sign under the existing one. At least where I live, you’d be surprised how accommodating the administration can be if you simply ask nicely with a good argument.
Hell, he could have added the sign himself for cheaper and I bet none of the other residents would have complained about it 🙂
Realllly depends on the city. Some places won’t even reply to you for months, and when they do it’ll be a bullshit answer because you’re not of the developers bribing them with millions of dollars…
There’s a sign by my house, on a road I need to turn right on at about 420 every day, that says no right-on-red turns between 730am to 430pm on school days.
It’s frustrating, because it doesn’t seem like it’s actually protecting children for 9 hours a day
Sounds like you should find a fun 10-minute activity to start at 4:20.
It’s to try and prevent people from cutting through a neighborhood during rush hour. Common in more gridded cities.
Yes; also, I’ve seen it in more suburban areas, too, near a school as a way to protect the children from cars.
If you bring it up, then it could end up in some bureaucratic limbo where nothing ever gets done. And then afterwards if you go to change it yourself they’ll figure it was you. So maybe easier just to change it yourself in the first place?
School kids probably
His sign wasn’t useless, the new one was about 20% less useless.
Seriously, do people just hit “save” or “post” without even glancing at what they wrote?
No tmie!
Now you’re making me self-conscious about my ninja edit rates.
I had one of those by my house, not in the residential area.
Morning turners would back up the lane into another light, so the sign was just to cover up for bad traffic design