There’s no entitlement like the entitlement of shit drivers.
“But my car wouldn’t have any damage if it was just the usual soft pedestrian!”
He’s complaining about having to turn it into opposing traffic because the road is now too narrow. Then the footage shows him very clearly barely turning the wheel. I’ve taken sharper turns than that without going on to the opposing lane. This guy just doesn’t know how to drive.
If he can’t make that turn he both bought too large if a vehicle and also is a shit driver.
This just in: shitty drivers don’t know the size of their vehicle. More on this at 6 (apparently).
“it was intended to make roads safer, but one guy told us it’s done just the opposite”
Okay, so I guess that one guy being angry is the opposite of safety.“I’m going to drive recklessly out of spite!”
To be honest those gray small concrete blocks with funny useless poles in them are really a bad road UI design.
Not visible enough and too small to be effective anyway…
So while the complaints are stupid, they have a point: make those road blockers bigger and more visible. Maybe more signage as well…
My sneaking suspicion is that they make things like these or medians almost invisible on purpose to piss people off and make the situation worse, so that they can then point to the idea of “safer road design” as a failure and go back to the old way.
Maybe, but more probably it’s just incompetence due to ignorance … It take time to learn how to do things properly and in the US it’s not like they have experience on that, don’t they?
And probably lack general regulations on how to do it properly, like they have in Germany on in the Netherlands …
it’s more UX than UI here, no?
I guess you could say that the user interfaces with the concrete block via their shiny chrome rims on bald rubber band tires
Yeah … No native speaker here … :)
They’re less ugly than a jersey barrier and do less damage to cars that can’t stay in their lane while still protecting cyclists.
But yeah, visibility is key. I wonder if they are still visible in ten years. That’s my only objection to things like raised crossings: once the paint wears off or in snow they become a lot less visible and no longer as effective. I hate that both as a driver and a cyclist
This is mostly a US problem though. Road designers in the US just don’t seem to actually understand how to implement these things in a sensible manner.
The way to do things like raised crossings is to make them out of a different type of road surface, moving over to brick pavers is common, so there’s always a visual indication.
Yeah we don’t spend money on road maintenance, only road creation
- yes, those gigantic trucks need to fuck right off (the expert also essentially said that)
- it is meant to make people drive slower and more carefully. If they don’t do that then yes, that means more accidents
- good project but in my country those 2 poles every 100 yards or so wouldn’t be enough. Yes, it costs a little more to implement this properly
Going forward they should do it think it through,
mutes audio for the rest of the sentence
I mean, the blue shirt guy admitted that some vehicles might have to turn over the median into oncoming traffic to avoid the thing on the road. That isn’t great, in defense of people not liking this change. That’s dangerous, and bad design.
The large vehicles he’s referring to are industrial large vehicles. Which require special licensing. Even the big ass pickup truck they showed could make the turn with no issues at all going at a reasonable speed.
Even the truck they showed in the video that went into the other lane didn’t need to. It’s just shit drivers in vehicles that are too large. So many large ass truck grocery getters.
Fair point. Just might not be great adding those things near turns. Or what are they even for?
They are supposed to be near turns and intersections. That’s where cars mix with pedestrians, and shrinking the road Menes then go slower.
I feel like this is trying to solve a problem of inattentive drivers rather than the mix of cars and pedestrians/bikers. Drivers are sloppy in general. 🫤
Not every truck a municipality’s public works department uses is this size. You don’t need special licensing to drive a dual wheel F350 long bed, and I’d wager that might be a problem to turn that corner depending on what it has in it. If they need to replace signs, or even just do road work, they need to be able to turn that corner. I have a lot of questions about this.
What happens when it’s an ambulance (a lot of those are built on f450 chassis and don’t require a CDL).
Just go slowly and stop if there is a car coming.
Yes , pretty common for large vehicles to have to to this sooner or later. Driver shouldn’t be operating such large vehicles if their training and licensing, and knowledge of turning circle isn’t enough for them to know how to do this safely.
We should be discouraging unnecessarily large vehicles anyway, ideally through urban design like this. Another element I like is sequential speed bumps with uneven gaps, smaller vehicles already going reasonable speeds can just weave through the gaps, larger vehicles going fast are required to slow.
Going slow doesn’t make the wheelbase shorter. Forcing people to drive onto the lane of oncoming traffic is bad infrastructure design.
Maybe, but if you insist on an oversized vehicle and don’t have the skill to keep it in lane, then maybe a little inconvenience is ok
The traffic engineer interviewed knows the wheelbase of common vehicles. Most people don’t need to drive into traffic, they’re just not turning the wheel enough, early enough.
But the people driving cars with the wheelbase of a semi can still take the turn, you just look for oncoming traffic before you use part of the lane.
Or too early. Part of the flood of bad driving since pandemic is everyone seems to cut corners now. Whether crossing lanes or the into opposing traffic on a curve, having trouble with a simple turn, or changing lanes while turning
Also from context I think that’s a residential neighbourhood so how many large trucks are going to be driving through?
I live on a dead end residential street and have big box trucks come through all the time for deliveries. There’s also the garbage/recycling/yard debris trucks that come through every week.
Any municipal vehicle. They don’t get sewage backups or anything? They never need an ambulance?
Probably a lot of garbage trucks?
Unless US trucks are considerably bigger than average they’ll be able to make that corner. I regularly go around corners sharper than that in what is for Europe a pretty big car.
Big 18 wheelers are going to have a problem but they would have had a problem on the original road with as well.
Unless US trucks are considerably bigger than average
Have you been to the US? 😅
The example they used had the turning circle of an oil tanker and would have trouble with a lot of corners. Any normal vehicle would be fine.
Crashing into an oil tanker would probably be worse for the oncoming vehicle than crashing into a normal vehicle though. Forcing any vehicle into incoming traffic is dangerous design.
Are you a civil engineer or technician?
In my area MOST small residential roads will already require semis to turn into oncoming in order to make tight turns - this is not uncommon, and a reason there’s additional licensing for those vehicles. They have a wide turning radius and should know where and how to make that maneuver safely.
There’s nothing wrong with this setup - speaking as a civil engineer in road design.
Are you a civil engineer or technician?
Why do you give me only those two options lol?
Our city buses do it as a routine part of many routes, as do school buses. Large trucks and construction vehicles, too. Me, when I’m towing my boat sometimes. Intersections inherently force vehicles into crossing paths. That’s what an intersection is. So, if it’s dangerous, then we shouldn’t have intersections.
Call out the real problem here: shitty, entitled drivers.
That’s what an intersection is.
Not if you make a right turn…
But sure, inconvenient and very rare vehicles surely would probably have to cross over a little into oncoming. But regular large vehicles shouldn’t have to, ideally.
They can either claim land of the residents to make the road wider, they could leave it dangerous for pedestrians/bicyclists, they could shut the road down completely, or just do what they have done in the video.
If they are comcerned about speeding, they could install speed bumps or speed cameras. Those actually work.
Plenty of research has shown that people will drive at a speed that feels comfortable. Narrower lanes are known to cause people to slow down without additional discomfort or fining speeders.
Making the lanes narrow also works. That’s why they did it. Also people vandalise speed cameras so that’s not worth it, and speed bumps don’t work because people just floor it between the bumps.
Probably, they are concerned about the people in the small lane. Bicyclists and pedestrians. Speed bumps doesn’t stop those large american vehicles from taking out a person in their blind spot during a right turn.
those large american vehicles
Don’t they have outside mirrors? I use those to check for bikes before making turns… 🙄 Like I was taught in driving school.
I was taught to do that AND check your blind spot, because the mirror doesn’t catch everything.
Yeah exactly, that’s what I do too. First outside mirrors for far away riders, then blind spot for immediate vicinity just before turning, while keeping in mind what I saw in the mirror.
What is the problem? Looks like enough room for the cars.
I’ve never heard of a city making a road less safe with the intention of slowing down traffic.
You either make driving fast less safe, or you put a speed camera on every corner with the appropriate punishment. Cameras are expensive, and drivers will complain about them. If you make driving fast less safe, only the ones that remember how the road was before can complain about it.
Look to Europe then. Roads here have less width compared to USA to force you to focus. Or roundabouts which also make the crossing less safe…if you try to keep your speed.
Both end up making roads safer by slowing you down and forcing you to focus.
Depending on how you frame it, that happens all the time. For example, a speedbump causes speed reduction, but at high speeds it causes (momentary) loss of control. Or narrowing the road, which means less margin for error.
People will drive their cars as fast as feels safe. By introducing hazards, you make people slow down which increases safety, but each feature in isolation could be said to be dangerous in some way, y’know?
That’s not what the guy is complaining about. It’s a perfectly valid point that with a longer vehicle you have to cut into the oncoming lane or your rear tires will hit the curb.
Feel free to criticize people you disagree with, but at the very least you should criticize what they’re actually saying rather than your unfair interpretation of it.
Firstly, that’s a big ass car and no one other than tradesperson or people who work closely with construction should be driving that. Secondly, that’s a big ass gap, at least 1m, dude purposefully went all the way out there to proof his point.
And if that is the smallest turning circle of that vehicle I don’t know what to say. These shit bags are just too lazy to turn the wheel and likely have no idea where the corners of their truck are.
No offense but that’s a basic
F150Ram 1500. It’s got one of the shortest beds of the lineup.A vehicle with a longer bed or dual wheels, or even with a trailer (say a municipal vehicle for the sake of argument) might have trouble making that turn. It’s not necessarily that his personal truck can’t do it. Just because his truck can doesn’t mean all vehicles can.
It needs to be safe enough for all vehicles that might have to travel that road.
I think its actually a RAM 1500 but your point still stands.
Yeah. Like. I get it. People are pissed because passenger vehicles in the US keep getting bigger and more unweildy and people don’t want them on the road because of the danger to pedestrians.
But at the same time, the people who service your roads, power lines and water systems and respond to emergency situations still have to drive on them.
Just because he’s being overdramatic about his own vehicle doesn’t mean he’s not right.
No road should be designed for all vehicle, else every road is stroad. It should be big enough for municipal vehicle like garbage truck to pass through, but for turning, as long as it’s wide enough for smaller private vehicle to turn, even if vehicle like pickup and truck have to went into opposite lane to do it, it should be suffice. A wider corner turn makes people drive recklessly because they can make the turn without slowing down, while narrower like this one make sure people actually stop and take time to turn. This is also very important here because there’s a bicycle lane there, if a huge vehicle with so much blind spot just turn without stopping, that blindspot will very likely blocking the oncoming cyclist. Tom Scott did a similar video on that, and if you drive you probably experience it in some form.
Narrow turn like this might be unfair to bigger vehicle, but it’s basically forcing bigger car driver to be extra careful, which they should be consider the size of the vehicle they’re driving and the danger their vehicle pose to others. They can drive a smaller vehicle if they feel unfair.
They designed that vehicle without regard for safety. Then it was rated poor for pedestrian safety and people still bought it. They made the street safe for the people Ford and the buyer ignored.
It sounds to me like you haven’t been in a Ford truck for some time and you’re basing your opinion on safety rating information for certain events where the occupants aren’t wearing seatbelts and don’t take the proper precautions to prevent things from flying around the vehicle in a crash.
No offense but vehicles are better built for safety now than they were the previous 5 years, 10 years, 20 years etc. But this isn’t about safety in the event of a crash. If you mean ability to see pedestrians in front, this is true but it also has nothing to do with their ability to safely turn a corner without going into incoming traffic to do so.
Newer vehicles generally have better turning radii than older ones. I know for a fact that there are some passenger vehicles on the road including municipal working vehicles and ambulances that can’t make that turn safety without jumping the curb. With those rods extended upward vertically the front or rear bumper of a larger vehicle with a worse turning radius can’t clear that without breaking the law and swinging into oncoming traffic.
There is a reason that the law states that you must drive as if there are other people on the road.
As far as the argument about not all roads being required to support all vehicles, every road should generally be able to facilitate an ambulance being driven on it (not even in an emergency situation, but in general).
So while I admit that his personal truck can safely make that turn with no problem, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a point.
I would love to hear from a civil engineer or city planning engineer about this.
I’m from an old American city with some of the narrowest roads and residential streets and I wouldn’t discount his argument just because it doesn’t effect him.
I literally do mean pedestrians, and it literally does mean being able to take a sharp corner. The hood design is deadly to pedestrians, and you’re so high up that you have massive blindspots. It is a machine that can and regularly does cause front-overs, meaning running pedestrians and children over. I absolutely hate how the most unsafe hood design is considered normal, and have and will continually lobby for them to be removed from the roads.
I do not care how safe someone feels inside. To everyone outside the car they are massive liabilities.
Edit: LITERALLY 2 POSTS AWAY FROM THIS ONE ON THE FEED. Happened yesterday.
I am not denying the danger. Take a moment to understand that just because the vehicle is dangerous doesn’t mean anything as far as this particular complaint is concerned. My point had exactly zero percent of anything to do with what you’re arguing.
Even if this truck were lower to the ground (like the F150-F350 trucks of the 1990’s and early 2000’s) that still wouldn’t necessarily equate to a turning radius that would allow such a vehicle (looking at you fucking ambulances built on an F350 chassis) to turn the corner without edging into oncoming traffic which is against the law and is unsafe.
You can stop yelling at me. I’m not a yee yee truck driver. I’m not saying that this is meant to be a normal commuter vehicle.
I even agree with you that they’re dangerous. I never advocated for them to be used by everyday people. But they don’t require a CDL. Nor do they require any special license. And municipality’s use them all over for various tasks. So if the municipality uses a vehicle like that in normal operations the road should be able to safely accommodate it.
As I said, feel free to disagree but at least disagree with their actual point - not your interpretation of it.
It’s unclear to me what your personal opinion on pickup trucks has to do with any of this. I’m talking about fairly representing people’s views. I don’t know what it is you seem to take issue with.
I’m disagreeing their point by saying that’s actually a non-issue, they just have to drive more carefully, especially when they’re driving something that large. And it seems like they can’t navigate it, which kinda proof the point that it is not an issue. Even if they need to go out a bit to the opposite lane, that is still non-issue. A full sized truck does that all the time, you just have to be careful with it.
The amount of idiots who drive trucks and have no clue how to drive them is a huge problem. They buy them and then never use them for the intended purpose and then cause those of us who do need them for work, to pay premiums because the manufacturers no longer care about making non premium models. Why would they when you got idiots like this guy buying the most expensive trim level, just to drive around in the city.
Exactly. People who actually need these to earn a living don’t really care about the bell and whistle it come with, they just need it to run reliably. Not to mention it’s an incredibly dangerous car seeing how huge it is compared to a sedan, the size of it literally makes people feels invincible and drive more recklessly.
Yep, they call them pavement princesses and the idiots who drive them absolutely think they can bully everything else because they’re in a truck. They’re morons.
The truck they showed who was goint into oncoming traffic was 2m away from the curb. These people can’t drive or should buy a smaller car that they can drive.
I think the main thing to criticize is the fact that the news picked this one random person’s grievance to platform.
Would the news do the same if a cyclist complained that a road was unsafe for cyclists? A driver being upset, while an expert disagrees, is considered newsworthy. But I’d bet that if it was a random cyclist who was upset, even if the experts agreed with them, it wouldn’t make the news.
Great point, I didn’t see them talk to any pedestrians or cyclists!
The traffic engineer explained it was a skill issue.
it’s not a valid point because you can clearly see in the video that you don’t actually need to go out into the oncoming lane, they showed a pickup making the turn unnecessarily wide
