Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why does it not surprise me that you need someone to paint a white line on the ground for you to figure out how and where to stop at a red light?
Possibly because the line is called a "Stop Line" and that is where the law requires a motorist to stop? Forget your baseless three second rule and follow the law.
Possibly because the line is called a "Stop Line" and that is where the law requires a motorist to stop? Forget your baseless three second rule and follow the law.
However at most stop lines you can't see if it's safe to turn. You've got to stop at the line then inch forward to get a clear sight line to see when it's safe.
Really? You're going with that after your whole argument was this?
Yes. There is a distinction between thinking that stop lines at intersections are generally useless but asking, if the County is going to insist on inexplicably requiring an arbitrary stop 5-7 feet prior to the poorly marked pedestrian crossing at this particular intersection, that they make it clear that you are required to stop at that point rather than just racking up revenue with a traffic camera.
Generally speaking, the white line is pointless. If you can't figure out that you are supposed to stop your car sufficiently short of a crossing intersection so that pedestrians can safely cross, then you shouldn't be driving in the first instance.
if the County is going to insist on inexplicably requiring an arbitrary stop 5-7 feet prior to the poorly marked pedestrian crossing at this particular intersection.
<snip>
Quote:
Generally speaking, the white line is pointless. If you can't figure out that you are supposed to stop your car sufficiently short of a crossing intersection so that pedestrians can safely cross, then you shouldn't be driving in the first instance.
The white line (either this one or stop lines in general) is hardly pointless. It gives a clear indication of where you are supposed to stop.
Apparently it is not always obvious where to stop. In this situation, someone has decided on a location which you believe to be arbitrary. Whether it is or not the "best' place to stop, the county has decided to eliminate all confusion on the matter by painting a white stop line. Now everyone knows where to stop, regardless of how arbitrary it may seem or where a poorly painted crosswalk may be located.
Sure, the pedestrian crossing could use a fresh coat of paint. Sure, the traffic camera is a money grab.
But to claim that a clearly visible white stop line needs additional signage makes no sense. Your argument is basically that since you don't agree with its location, its validity is questionable without additional direction.
I know plenty of stop signs and other "traffic control devices" that make no sense at all. They are considerably more arbitrary than this stop line (and clearly installed for revenue generation - not safety). Would you argue that such a stop sign needs an additional "we really mean stop!" sign so as not to "trick" people?
Yes. There is a distinction between thinking that stop lines at intersections are generally useless but asking, if the County is going to insist on inexplicably requiring an arbitrary stop 5-7 feet prior to the poorly marked pedestrian crossing at this particular intersection, that they make it clear that you are required to stop at that point rather than just racking up revenue with a traffic camera.
Generally speaking, the white line is pointless. If you can't figure out that you are supposed to stop your car sufficiently short of a crossing intersection so that pedestrians can safely cross, then you shouldn't be driving in the first instance.
This is the 2nd or 3rd time you've used the word arbitrary. Look at this RLC intersection. The white lines are placed just before the curve of the sidewalk just the same as the Roosevelt Field pic above. Also the same as a non-RLC intersection. Quit bitching about a law that's been in place before RLCs. Stop at the g'damn line. It's consistently there for good reason.
This is the 2nd or 3rd time you've used the word arbitrary. Look at this RLC intersection. The white lines are placed just before the curve of the sidewalk just the same as the Roosevelt Field pic above. Also the same as a non-RLC intersection. Quit bitching about a law that's been in place before RLCs. Stop at the g'damn line. It's consistently there for good reason.
I'm sorry, is your argument that this random intersection you posted (where a white line is consistent all the way across) proof that the particular Roosevelt Field intersection in question (where the white line is NOT consistent all the way across) isn't marked in an arbitrary manner? I think you are just being contrarian.
Look at this picture:
This white line on the right turn lane in this picture is at least 15 feet BEFORE the other white lines. Its an arbitrary spot to put it and it isn't consistent with other intersections. Its particularly poorly marked because it is partially faded (and the entire crosswalk is faded in that area). Again, if the County wants cars to stop 15-20 feet before a crosswalk, they should make it clear by putting up a sign that the point where they want you to stop is NOT the same as other intersections, but is different in that the right line requires a stop 15 feet earlier than usual. Instead, they put a white line on the ground with a "right on red after stop" sign, without clearly stating that the stop point is, counterintuitively, 15-20 feet before what many consider to be a natural stop point (which would be, pursuant to the VTL, "before entering the crosswalk . . . or in the event that there is no crosswalk, at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of the approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway"). A reasonable driver might guess that the white line is the stop point, but others might not given its distance from the intersection and the crosswalk. Putting up a "stop here on red" sign - which are hardly uncommon - would eliminate any confusion. And if the goal is to enhance safety rather than generate revenue, the elimination of such confusion is critical.
With respect to the Jerusalem Avenue picture you posted, I don't have a problem with them painting a white line there. But irrespective of the existence of the white line, I would have known where to stop my car if the light was red and I believe any responsible driver would have known to do the same thing.
The white line (either this one or stop lines in general) is hardly pointless. It gives a clear indication of where you are supposed to stop.
Apparently it is not always obvious where to stop. In this situation, someone has decided on a location which you believe to be arbitrary. Whether it is or not the "best' place to stop, the county has decided to eliminate all confusion on the matter by painting a white stop line. Now everyone knows where to stop, regardless of how arbitrary it may seem or where a poorly painted crosswalk may be located.
Sure, the pedestrian crossing could use a fresh coat of paint. Sure, the traffic camera is a money grab.
But to claim that a clearly visible white stop line needs additional signage makes no sense. Your argument is basically that since you don't agree with its location, its validity is questionable without additional direction.
I know plenty of stop signs and other "traffic control devices" that make no sense at all. They are considerably more arbitrary than this stop line (and clearly installed for revenue generation - not safety). Would you argue that such a stop sign needs an additional "we really mean stop!" sign so as not to "trick" people?
I'm not questioning its validity because its arbitrary. I'm simply saying that it should be more clear because, in my view, the white line alone may not be sufficient to alert the average driver that the stop point is 15-20 feet before the crosswalk. What I find surprising is that you think drivers are sufficiently irresponsible such that a white line before a traffic light or crosswalk at a standard intersection is necessary, but that giving clarity to those same drivers by installing an accompanying sign at an atypical intersection is unreasonable.
Again, if the County wants you to stop at a certain point (be 1, 10, or 100 feet before an intersection), so be it. But to paint a white line on the ground far before the intersection itself without accompanying signage for clarity while racking up red light camera tickets is not reasonable if the County is at all interested in making the intersection safer.
I'm not questioning its validity because its arbitrary. I'm simply saying that it should be more clear because, in my view, the white line alone may not be sufficient to alert the average driver that the stop point is 15-20 feet before the crosswalk.
The white line alone is sufficient for other intersections. Its location at this intersection makes perfect sense given the position of the lights and the layout of the road.
Quote:
What I find surprising is that you think drivers are sufficiently irresponsible such that a white line before a traffic light or crosswalk at a standard intersection is necessary, but that giving clarity to those same drivers by installing an accompanying sign at an atypical intersection is unreasonable.
I'm not sure how you arrive at a conclusion of "what I think." I don't think drivers are "sufficiently irresponsible." My experience has simply shown that a white stop line is a standard feature of an intersection like this. Redundant signage to support a standard device isn't necessarily a good thing. As I already stated, having a sign reminding people that a stop sign means stop doesn't make sense either. You seem to be the one that thinks drivers don't know what a stop line is.
I see people at many intersections ignoring the stop line. I see just as many people doing it when there is a big "stop here on red," "don't block the box," or "don't block driveway" sign. That's just how people drive. While I am adamantly against RLCs, I think there should be more enforcement in this area. People respond to enforcement better than signs.
Quote:
Again, if the County wants you to stop at a certain point (be 1, 10, or 100 feet before an intersection), so be it. But to paint a white line on the ground far before the intersection itself without accompanying signage for clarity while racking up red light camera tickets is not reasonable if the County is at all interested in making the intersection safer.
Obviously the county has decided (for what seems like logical reasons) exactly where they want you to stop at that intersection. That's what the big white line is for! It's hardly "far" before the intersection. Due to the curve in the road, it couldn't be level with the other lines. There are numerous insertions where the turn lane stop line is offset from the other lanes. This intersection is far from unique in that regard.
If you - like so many others - choose to ignore the big white line, I don't see how a sign is going to make things any better. If you can't see the white line or don't know what it means, perhaps you shouldn't be driving in the first place.
Back to the original discussion of RLC... I just saw this interesting video from May 5:
This is a Suffolk police officer speaking to the Suffolk County Legislature. Pretty interesting information to support the talk of shortened light intervals and how RLC create dangerous situations.
The white line alone is sufficient for other intersections. Its location at this intersection makes perfect sense given the position of the lights and the layout of the road.
I'm not sure how you arrive at a conclusion of "what I think." I don't think drivers are "sufficiently irresponsible." My experience has simply shown that a white stop line is a standard feature of an intersection like this. Redundant signage to support a standard device isn't necessarily a good thing. As I already stated, having a sign reminding people that a stop sign means stop doesn't make sense either. You seem to be the one that thinks drivers don't know what a stop line is.
I see people at many intersections ignoring the stop line. I see just as many people doing it when there is a big "stop here on red," "don't block the box," or "don't block driveway" sign. That's just how people drive. While I am adamantly against RLCs, I think there should be more enforcement in this area. People respond to enforcement better than signs.
Obviously the county has decided (for what seems like logical reasons) exactly where they want you to stop at that intersection. That's what the big white line is for! It's hardly "far" before the intersection. Due to the curve in the road, it couldn't be level with the other lines. There are numerous insertions where the turn lane stop line is offset from the other lanes. This intersection is far from unique in that regard.
If you - like so many others - choose to ignore the big white line, I don't see how a sign is going to make things any better. If you can't see the white line or don't know what it means, perhaps you shouldn't be driving in the first place.
The white line placement and traffic rules at this intersection is unlike any other intersection on Old Country Road that has a dedicated turn lane with a triangular divider. At similar intersections Eastbound at Clinton Rd, Carle Rd, and Northbound on Merrick Ave, the white line is right up against the crosswalk, which is the intuitive place for a red-light stop. Eastbound at Merchant's Concourse, New South Road, Salisbury Park Drive and Levittown Parkway, you are not even required to stop - only yield. Particularly when not coupled with clear signage to stop well short of the intersection on red, I find it hard to believe that the unnatural placement of a white line so far back from the crosswalk serves any purpose at this intersection but to increase red-light camera revenue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
