tdotson Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Looks like another crosswalk signal down. There are no sidewalks leading to these, what a waste! Now another government employee will come out and repair for no one to use. Whoever approved these where no sidewalks lead profited someone's pocket, shafted the taxpayer. Intersection of 120 & 278. Link to post Share on other sites
Big Cat Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 They are required to be installed. Do you not ever see anyone walking down 120 or 278? I have. The local municipality or GDOT can not afford to all of a sudden install ALL sidewalks on ALL existing roads at one time. Link to post Share on other sites
Ugadawgs98 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 What does a sidewalk have to do with it? It still has pedestrian traffic. Link to post Share on other sites
tdotson Posted December 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 They are required to be installed. Do you not ever see anyone walking down 120 or 278? I have. The local municipality or GDOT can not afford to all of a sudden install ALL sidewalks on ALL existing roads at one time. One would think to wait to install these when there are sidewalks leading to them. If people are walking along these roads, they are walking in the ditch in many spots. There is hardly a shoulder to walk on. Link to post Share on other sites
Ugadawgs98 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) One would think to wait to install these when there are sidewalks leading to them. If people are walking along these roads, they are walking in the ditch in many spots. There is hardly a shoulder to walk on. So you think there is no where for a pedestrian to walk along 278 or 120? I know of no area along either of those roadways where there is not sufficient room, matter of fact both roadways are pretty much designed to have wide shoulders so you can pull a vehicle off the roadway. Edited December 13, 2012 by Ugadawgs98 Link to post Share on other sites
rednekkhikkchikk Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 On every other road in the county, they walk on the asphalt. At night. Dressed in black. Seriously, I frequently see people crossing 278 at Buchanan Hwy which is a similar intersection, either on foot or bicycle, usually just at or after dark. It's difficult to see them when you're sitting still at the light, much less running 60-65 mph in heavy traffic. I imagine those people would disagree with your assessment that marked crosswalks w/crossing signals are not needed or useful. All the crosswalks in the county that I've seen lead from one side of the road to the other as they are designed to do. Where else would you have them go? Link to post Share on other sites
lowrider Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 You're right about walking at night, in black. I can't tell you how many times on Hiram-Sudie I've been traveling and haven't seen anyone until I go past them. Walking on the edge of the pavement. Scares the shiit out of me. All I had to do was swerve a couple of inches and I could have hit them. It pisses me off. I don't want to hit anyone, especially take their life, but I swear you can't see them!!! 2 Link to post Share on other sites
mei lan Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 One would think to wait to install these when there are sidewalks leading to them. If people are walking along these roads, they are walking in the ditch in many spots. There is hardly a shoulder to walk on. The DOT is required to install these due to federal regulations, or they won't get reimbursed by the feds. The feds don't give a rat's patootie what is there or what it looks like. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
zoocrew Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Looks like another crosswalk signal down. There are no sidewalks leading to these, what a waste! Now another government employee will come out and repair for no one to use. Whoever approved these where no sidewalks lead profited someone's pocket, shafted the taxpayer. Intersection of 120 & 278. As I understand this, the law requires the crosswalks be installed at all intersections. The rational is that people do use them now, but it is also much cheaper to install the design concept at construction than it is to add it in the future. It is a business decision, something everyone seems to want to complain the government doesn't do, but when it does, everyone wants to complain because it involves expenditure now. Well, that current expenditure saves money in the future. Link to post Share on other sites
xxrsellars Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 The DOT is required to install these due to federal regulations, or they won't get reimbursed by the feds. The feds don't give a rat's patootie what is there or what it looks like. And that statement goes for more than just crosswalks.... Link to post Share on other sites
mojo413 Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 As I understand this, the law requires the crosswalks be installed at all intersections. The rational is that people do use them now, but it is also much cheaper to install the design concept at construction than it is to add it in the future. It is a business decision, something everyone seems to want to complain the government doesn't do, but when it does, everyone wants to complain because it involves expenditure now. Well, that current expenditure saves money in the future. Actually all intersections in the East Paulding area on 278, 92 and East Paulding Drive were modified after the fact to make the intersections handicap accessible. I sit at each of these intersections when I am often held up by long red lights and am all amazed with the thought of someone crossing the intersection in their wheel chair then traveling down 92 in a traffic lane to get to the next handicap accessible intersection. Seems like a federal lack of common sense to me. Being held up at long red lights while there is no approaching traffic in the opposing direction is another topic for another day. All of these same intersections were equiped at the same time as handicap access was added with equipment to monitor opposing traffic to manage cycles that would reduce gas consumption from stopped cars. However the state does not have the manpower to setup and maintain this specialized equipment. Link to post Share on other sites
Big Cat Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 I know they are required to be installed and why. The part that irritates me is that most of the time they are installed incorrectly. Slopes exceeding ADA accessibility requirements, PED Heads in wrong location, truncated domes installed incorrectly, in wrong place, misalignment of ramp/crosswalk, crosswalk installed wrong....So, the local municipality or developer installs a new sidewalk and end up having to replace most of what is installed.... Link to post Share on other sites
HardwareDJ Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) So it's the pedestrian crossing signs fault because it was install on a median that someone decided they wanted to drive on? We should remove all roadside signs so dumb drivers won't run into them. :wacko: Edited December 14, 2012 by ~Chester~ Link to post Share on other sites
Sellersgirl1012 Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 I'm sure when the hospital is done there will be an increase in all traffic, foot traffic included! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now