Re: U-turns

From: Bob Prevett (prevett@shreddr.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis)
Date: Fri Jun 20 1997 - 10:18:31 PDT

Next message: Bob Colopy: "Re: 3rd ave web site needs a new home"
Previous message: Adams, Don: "U-turns"
Next in thread: Booker Bense: "Possible Addition to Safety Packs"
Reply: Booker Bense: "Possible Addition to Safety Packs"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

From: "Bob Prevett" <prevett@shreddr.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis>
Message-Id: <9706201018.ZM6697@shreddr.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:18:31 -0700
In-Reply-To: "Adams, Don" <dadams@visa.com-DeleteThis> "U-turns" (Jun 20,  8:36am)
References: <c=US%a=_%p=Visa%l=SW720_X016-970620152613Z-582@msmailgw2.visa.com-DeleteThis>
To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Subject: Re: U-turns
Cc: prevett@shreddr.engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Jun 20, 8:36am, Adams, Don wrote:
> Subject: U-turns
> After Jim's comment the other day about U-turns, I did notice that he was
> quite correct. The intersection north of the 3rd Ave. parking lot is now
> marked with "no U-turn" signs in all directions. This makes both
> intersections close to 3rd Ave. controlled in this inconvenient manner.
>
> It's not readily apparent when you get in the turn lane to make that U-turn
> back toward Foster City because the sign is not located on the island in
> the center of the road, but is positioned on the left side of the oncoming
> lane. Maybe it's a little entrapment trick to see if we really notice it!
> So, if you do get one of these tickets, you could argue in court that the
> intersection is improperly marked... but who's got time for court?

It is clear that U-turns are illegal at the 3rd Ave / Foster City Blvd
intersection to the east of the sailing site. There is no left turn signal
there; only standard red/green. Thus, making a U-turn there puts the vehicle
into the flow of traffic coming the other way through the green light. Also
the stopped vehicle impedes the flow of traffic in the east bound direction
while waiting to turn, creating another possible safety hazard. So, posting
this intersection as no U-turn does make sense safety wise. And, the no U-turn
sign is put an appropriately visible location.

However, the intersection to the west of the sailing site ( is it Mariner's
Island Blvd?) is a different story altogether. The two above U-turn safety
issues do not apply here due to the dedicated left turn arrow and lane. Also,
the signal pole with the left turn signal, which is in direct line of site for
vehicles waiting to turn, is not posted with a no U-turn sign. This is unlike
every other instance no U-turn intersections in the area. The no U-turn sign
that is far to the left over on the side street may just be intended to
indicate no U-turns on that side street itself. I don't know exactly why it's
over there, but if the intent was to prevent left U-turns on the 3rd Ave
intersection, it should be in a more appropriate location consistent with other
like intersections in area.

Therefore, I think it's probably legal and OK to U-turn there. I would be very
surprised to receive a ticket for U-turning there, but if did, I would be able
to make a good case against the ticket based upon the above arguments.

Just my $0.02

BobP

-- 
Bob Prevett (prevett@engr.sgi.com-DeleteThis)	Silicon Graphics Computer Systems
(415) 933-5315				M/S 2U-923

Next message: Bob Colopy: "Re: 3rd ave web site needs a new home"
Previous message: Adams, Don: "U-turns"
Next in thread: Booker Bense: "Possible Addition to Safety Packs"
Reply: Booker Bense: "Possible Addition to Safety Packs"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:32:04 PST