3d child instead of speed bumps..
- Thread starter sxg6
- Start date
- Status
I agree.
freakin stupid idea.
It will ultimately engender complacency around real children.
Queensland put cardboard Police cars around the place to make drivers think that there were more Police than there were.
They stopped doing it after the cardboard cars got shot up, and they realised a live one was only a matter of time.
It will ultimately engender complacency around real children.
Queensland put cardboard Police cars around the place to make drivers think that there were more Police than there were.
They stopped doing it after the cardboard cars got shot up, and they realised a live one was only a matter of time.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
They stopped doing it after the cardboard cars got shot up, and they realised a live one was only a matter of time.
Hilarious.
They stopped doing it after the cardboard cars got shot up, and they realised a live one was only a matter of time.
Hilarious.
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
Originally Posted By: Shannow
They stopped doing it after the cardboard cars got shot up, and they realised a live one was only a matter of time.
Hilarious.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
They stopped doing it after the cardboard cars got shot up, and they realised a live one was only a matter of time.
Hilarious.
I hate "school zones" for the same reason. It teaches kids to deal with cars going at artificially low speeds and that they have the right of way to cars.
I constantly see kids doing stupid things in front cars because of this.
I constantly see kids doing stupid things in front cars because of this.
Who thought that one up? A child hater??
Man that's pretty scary.....plus I can only imagine after awhile the defense someone would use after they hit a real live child....Idiocracy baby!!
Man that's pretty scary.....plus I can only imagine after awhile the defense someone would use after they hit a real live child....Idiocracy baby!!
Originally Posted By: bigmike
I'm waiting for the cars that run off the road attempting to avoid the virtual child. Might actually create more harm than good.
That was exactly my though. At first a lot of drivers would be slamming their brakes or swirling to avoid the "child", then, once the neighborhood gets used to this speed bump, they will be OK with running over children, don't you love how our tax dollars are spent
I'm waiting for the cars that run off the road attempting to avoid the virtual child. Might actually create more harm than good.
That was exactly my though. At first a lot of drivers would be slamming their brakes or swirling to avoid the "child", then, once the neighborhood gets used to this speed bump, they will be OK with running over children, don't you love how our tax dollars are spent
Meh, I'll be too busy texting to see it anyway
Kestas
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Shannow
freakin stupid idea.
It will ultimately engender complacency around real children.
Agreed - unintended consequences. You don't have to be an expert in psychology to figure this one out.
freakin stupid idea.
It will ultimately engender complacency around real children.
Agreed - unintended consequences. You don't have to be an expert in psychology to figure this one out.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
... and that they have the right of way to cars.
Do you know that it is the case (at least in Europe where I learned to drive, I have to check for Canada)?
As soon as a pedestrian puts a foot on the street, he is the one who has the right of way. Same for a bike compare to a car.
It is like on water, the less maneuverable has the right of way compare to the others.
What is the rule/law in NA for that?
PS: It is not a reason to do stupid things in front of cars like some do, I do agree with you on that part.
... and that they have the right of way to cars.
Do you know that it is the case (at least in Europe where I learned to drive, I have to check for Canada)?
As soon as a pedestrian puts a foot on the street, he is the one who has the right of way. Same for a bike compare to a car.
It is like on water, the less maneuverable has the right of way compare to the others.
What is the rule/law in NA for that?
PS: It is not a reason to do stupid things in front of cars like some do, I do agree with you on that part.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
freakin stupid idea.
It will ultimately engender complacency around real children.
Queensland put cardboard Police cars around the place to make drivers think that there were more Police than there were.
They stopped doing it after the cardboard cars got shot up, and they realised a live one was only a matter of time.
I lived in a little town out in Nowhere Kansas for a few years. They used to set a spare patrol car out in certain areas with an inflatable dummy in a cop uniform. The quit the practice when people started leaving donut boxes on the hood.
freakin stupid idea.
It will ultimately engender complacency around real children.
Queensland put cardboard Police cars around the place to make drivers think that there were more Police than there were.
They stopped doing it after the cardboard cars got shot up, and they realised a live one was only a matter of time.
I lived in a little town out in Nowhere Kansas for a few years. They used to set a spare patrol car out in certain areas with an inflatable dummy in a cop uniform. The quit the practice when people started leaving donut boxes on the hood.
Originally Posted By: Pesca
Originally Posted By: Tempest
... and that they have the right of way to cars.
Do you know that it is the case (at least in Europe where I learned to drive, I have to check for Canada)?
As soon as a pedestrian puts a foot on the street, he is the one who has the right of way. Same for a bike compare to a car.
It is like on water, the less maneuverable has the right of way compare to the others.
What is the rule/law in NA for that?
You have to be in a painted crosswalk to force cars to stop. If it's controlled by a traffic light/cop/crossing guard you have to follow their instructions.
If you're blind, with cane, you can cross anywhere you want.
Interstates are "limited access" meaning no pedestrians, horses, mopeds, farm implements etc. This list of stuff generally also has more rights... driving is a "priviledge" which has to yield to those with rights. Pedal bikes have to follow all traffic laws and stay right when practicable. When biking I annoy following car drivers on narrow bridges by seizing the whole lane... no breakdown lane, not practicable. Tough noogies.
States fine tune the laws, but this is general.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
... and that they have the right of way to cars.
Do you know that it is the case (at least in Europe where I learned to drive, I have to check for Canada)?
As soon as a pedestrian puts a foot on the street, he is the one who has the right of way. Same for a bike compare to a car.
It is like on water, the less maneuverable has the right of way compare to the others.
What is the rule/law in NA for that?
You have to be in a painted crosswalk to force cars to stop. If it's controlled by a traffic light/cop/crossing guard you have to follow their instructions.
If you're blind, with cane, you can cross anywhere you want.
Interstates are "limited access" meaning no pedestrians, horses, mopeds, farm implements etc. This list of stuff generally also has more rights... driving is a "priviledge" which has to yield to those with rights. Pedal bikes have to follow all traffic laws and stay right when practicable. When biking I annoy following car drivers on narrow bridges by seizing the whole lane... no breakdown lane, not practicable. Tough noogies.
States fine tune the laws, but this is general.
I love this comment from the story:
"I want to do a burn out on her face...
takes care of the acne anyway!"
"I want to do a burn out on her face...
takes care of the acne anyway!"
That was one of my thought about that: Do they have to do the paint again after a tire mark on it (not too much realistic).
If that was in my parking lot, I will do it everytime they repaint it, and I am definitively not a burn-out guy (but I will become one for sure).
If that was in my parking lot, I will do it everytime they repaint it, and I am definitively not a burn-out guy (but I will become one for sure).
Originally Posted By: eljefino
You have to be in a painted crosswalk to force cars to stop. If it's controlled by a traffic light/cop/crossing guard you have to follow their instructions.
It's been several decades since I took my driver's exam so this may have changed...
but it used to be that pedestrians (in my state, anyways) always had right of way. It didn't matter if they were jaywalking or not. Even when breaking the law, they had right of way over oncoming vehicles.
Has this recently changed or was it not universal in the USA?
You have to be in a painted crosswalk to force cars to stop. If it's controlled by a traffic light/cop/crossing guard you have to follow their instructions.
It's been several decades since I took my driver's exam so this may have changed...
but it used to be that pedestrians (in my state, anyways) always had right of way. It didn't matter if they were jaywalking or not. Even when breaking the law, they had right of way over oncoming vehicles.
Has this recently changed or was it not universal in the USA?
- Status
Similar threads
