The Observation Deck

Can anyone explain this decision to me? I'm sure there's a rational explanation.

I can't even process this.... even my 11 year old can't process this...

Obviously, the light is not over the intersection. With that being said, I don't think you could be held liable for going through it. There are uniform guidelines for how high traffic lights have to be, how big they have to be, etc. I believe one of them is that the traffic light must be over the intersection if possible.

The same goes for other traffic signs. For example, stop signs must be seven feet tall and so big in diameter, or else they are not official and cannot be enforced against you. This is state law.

If you ever get pulled over for running a stop sign, red light, etc., never admit to the officer that you saw the sign, light, etc. If you decide to fight the ticket, that will be used against you. Go out and measure the sign that you allegedly ran before you pay any ticket.

Also, some officers are famous for being hurried and will make careless mistakes when writing tickets. Often, they will spell your name, street, or address wrong. Sometimes, they will even write things like "Clifton southbound" or "Andrews eastbound" as the location of the offense. If the officer can't even determine your name, address, or street direction, how can we trust that they saw you committing the violation? Also, some police departments will say that your offense resulted in an accident even when it didn't and charge you a higher fine amount. I fell for this one when I got my last ticket fourteen years ago. I should have fought it. Again, if the officer can't even determine if an accident occurred, how can we trust that he even saw you commit the violation? Tickets with such wild errors should be dismissed.

As another regarding those temporary stop signs that are put up when a permanent stop sign is blown over, most of those are not official signs as most of them are only five or so feet tall. State regulations state that in areas when pedestrian traffic is likely (Lakewood), stop signs should be at least seven feet tall.

A final note: I also believe that those "no left turn" or "no right turn" signs coming out of Drug Mart, CVS, McDonald's, etc. are wildly unofficial. However, don't take my word for it.

Sources:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.12
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.11v1
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/En ... fault.aspx

C'mon y'all, that's the light to go into the convenience store parking lot. The real problem is it seems to be stuck on RED, so no one ever enters the lot, hence the lack of cars in the middle of the day. Boy, if I owned that store, I'd be pissed! At least get the light to work correctly!

This seems to be the new thinking on placement for a non-perpendicular intersection.

What could be the possible rationale for this?

There is no decent reason one should have to look away from the intersection for traffic signals. Why should one be expected to avert gaze away from where pedestrians, cyclists and autos converge? I don't understand how this got through engineering or planning and would love to hear a response. The road isn't angled enough that you should not be expecting to watch the intersection, if that is the case the intersection as a whole is poorly designed.

I don't always agree with everything the city does in terms of how it handles traffic/lights/etc., but I go to St. Clement and use the light every week, and for whatever reason, the angle works.

The crosswalk at City Hall, with Garfield kids trying to use it during rush hour ... not so much. That's a situation just waiting to go bad.

History question: Why does that strange curve on Lincoln next to the Church exist? I assume St. Clements was built before Lincoln Road was paved.
So why wasn't Lincoln paved straight south, making for larger yards on the west side of the street?
Was Baxterly Ave. already paved and homes built, thereby requiring the east side of Lincoln to be out of line with St. Clements?
The "one sided street" (I think it's Ferndale) is the next street east of Baxterly. It only has homes on its east side, and a wall of backyard fences on its westside.

My guess is that story of the the odd curve at Lincoln and Madison is somehow connected to the "one sided street".

Michael Deneen wrote:History question: Why does that strange curve on Lincoln next to the Church exist? I assume St. Clements was built before Lincoln Road was paved.
So why wasn't Lincoln paved straight south, making for larger yards on the west side of the street?
Was Baxterly Ave. already paved and homes built, thereby requiring the east side of Lincoln to be out of line with St. Clements?
The "one sided street" (I think it's Ferndale) is the next street east of Baxterly. It only has homes on its east side, and a wall of backyard fences on its westside.

My guess is that story of the the odd curve at Lincoln and Madison is somehow connected to the "one sided street".

Stan, this seems like your area of expertise. When you built the church in your late teenage years, why did you then curve the street instead of making it straight?

Corey

My mule team just pulled to the right (ye? haw?) when I was clearing the road.