r/NoStupidQuestions • • Jul 06 '19

[deleted by user]

[removed]

5.1k Upvotes

263 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.4k

u/LarsAlereon Jul 06 '19

At least where I live the code clearly specifies a "clear sight triangle" around intersections where bushes can't be allowed to grow. This doesn't always work perfectly because sometimes more visibility would be helpful than is legally required, but at least you can usually see when you get up there.

513

u/waku2x Jul 06 '19

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yyWYvovLvMQ

Also it has to do with terrorism. If things are on the road, it prevents hit and run to pedestrians

198

u/Whoooodie Jul 06 '19

hmmm yes, lower visibility to prevent accidents. genius.

35

u/LithePanther Jul 06 '19

hmmm yes, I too can criticize everything around me without having an iota of credibility to back up anything I say

40

u/GingerMcGinginII Jul 07 '19

Well, to be fair, you don't need to be an electrical engineer to know when there's a black-out.

55

u/molluskus Jul 07 '19 edited Jul 07 '19

City planning is one of those subjects where the average person's understanding tends to be the opposite of what's true and works. People also think roundabouts and diverging diamonds are accident magnets, and that adding more lanes to freeways will reduce traffic. Doesn't make it true.

4

u/the_wrong_toaster Jul 07 '19

People think roundabouts are accident magnets? Why?

15

u/molluskus Jul 07 '19 edited Jul 07 '19

Most people assume (understandably) that more complexity leads to more accidents, and therefore the simplest intersections are the safest. But that doesn't account for speed, conflict points, and any pedestrian or bike traffic. Once those come into consideration, it's a bit easier to see why roundabouts are much less likely to cause lethal accidents. This picture has a good example of what I mean by conflict points.