Ever seen a STREET get a DUI? 

The former mayor let me know the project is all finished now. Haven't yet been back to Hollister to see it yet.

I also found this 1 year later news story which said it had been all fixed but some councilmembers and the current mayor want it rolled back to 4 lanes (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iG--u1gw_-Q.html)

Lol

​@@Transitionalone step forward two steps back lol

I just drove down the street today. The zig zags are still there but way more gradual and not really noteworthy or interesting as they were before. They also removed the bollards and from the wear on the white lines you can tell people just go straight and don't even really follow the curves.

Is that rlly better tho?

wouldve been alot funnier if he was

Sometimes you gotta get a little crazy to see some changes

He's still a politician, therefore he's insane

honestly, he seems very likeable

And in a way that is not devencive. He explained it in a good way/

@Darkfarfetch It must be tiring to make up horrific scenarious in your head and live on them. I pity you, truly.

The gangs have taken over though --if you look up the definition of a gang in Black's law dictionary? Find me one tiny little shred of definition that does not perfectly describe every Police department in America. Go on, I'll wait.

@@darkfarfetch3664 you don't have crime in small cities like that. Everyone knows everyone else. And you can just go missing if you're an outsider.

​@Darkfarfetch Your channel name reflects what you just said - far fetched.

Planets, grass and trees can do the same and it looks better than just asphalt and paint

@@gameguild1555 - Those don't help bicycles, though.

@@gameguild1555 Planting new trees ist difficult, because the roots can destroy the pipes and cables in the underground.

@@gameguild1555 I'm pretty sure adding new planets would be pretty expensive - not to mention the shift in gravity it would create

@@TommyJonesProductions of course they do, in fact a median with grass and trees is better at protecting cyclists than these silly flex posts. Flex posts are only visual indicators, slightly better than lines. They are completely useless as actual barriers.

Well, he needed to cover his ass and explain why the effed-up street painting design wasn't his fault.

@@Milesco I mean... looks like the plan clearly showed a single chicane between the intersections, with smooth curved striping...

Bhaahahahha

@@Milesco cover his ass on a

He has to, it's a part of his court ordered community service after his drug conviction...

They’re fixing it. Scraped up the paint. I am saddened by the loss. It was a fun way to feel the steering in my car.

@@josephhoward4697 If they screwed up that badly where I live, during the winter months those homes would have a lot of guest if they kept within the lines at even half the posted speed lol.

@@egg-roll8968 Uninvited guests, I presume?

@@josephhoward4697 uninvited overweight and rude guests that seem to not be able to find the door

yeah I feel like it's a losing battle given how big the road is already

Psychology backs that up. Some paint or a bollard artificially narrowing and slowing a street annoys drivers and makes them feel oppressed, but a proper kerb, trees or plants, or benches on them, and grass and stuff, and it feels natural to slow down and drive more carefully, even if they're only installed to do the same thing as paint and bollards.

idk, ive seen people do 90 down back roads barely wider then the car, if cars can go faster then the speed limit people will do it.

Ok, but most people don't. Naturally some people are still gonna drive like idiots, but most people don't want to risk wrecking at high speeds.

I have no idea why the video didn't bring up the idea of median in the middle of the road, despite even depicting some sort of dual-median design at one point. The storm drains are a problem because they're on the outside of the road, and narrowing the road by removing those lanes will always be a problem. Removing the interior two lanes would be comparatively cheap.

So would I, but that would depend on it getting fixed.

Explains some of the road designs I've seen in some video games. Wonder how autonomous vehicles will change road design?

@@brodriguez11000 Autonomous vehicles are probably being designed around similar logic to what humans already use, so I really doubt it'd change much.

In a similar fashion. Going around curves means 1) lower speeds, 2) slghtly higher distance and 3) less comfort. Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that autonomous vehicles are going to be programmed to follow speed limits hopefully.

There are a lot of road/traffic safety designs that Europe and other countries use that I would absolutely love to see in the US. Particularly protected bike lanes.

Except there is literally nothing to stop anybody from just driving straight down the road and ignore the lines. You'd have to be one hell of an npc to actually turn your steering wheel and follow the lines.

They’re going to fix it, so some of those things might be installed.

Exactly, paint is not infrasture, you see many of the drivers ignoring the paint and just drving striaght through it. I wish they exactly went about narrowing the street and putting physicals barriers between cycles and by doing so you couldc also widen the sidewalk. But they did mention the storm drain and other existing infrasture that would be costly to relocate. It sad this road is built this wide in first place to accomodate so much cars and leave scraps over for cyclists and pedestrians. I hope in implement a more effective road diet with physical traffic calming measures that protect vulnerable users

To be fair, they did mention that budget was a concern. Paint's better than nothing, and cheaper than trees. The little stick barriers will help some. As the area gets more lively and safe for pedestrians and cyclists, and property values start increasing, I think this mayor and his engineers will be supportive of more permanent solutions. The concept needs to prove itself, and the money needs to get there. One step at a time.

Just pour larger sidewalks. Designate a portion of that for bikes. As a pedestrian, id rather be hit by a cyclist than a car. And as a cyclist, id rather not piss off the 2000lb walls moving towards me. The fact that cyclist and foot traffic cant share the sidewalk is the true apalling issue. Cyclist in my coty dont fallow road laws, and cops womt enforce them. The city is also narrowing roads and slowing traffic, for an almost non existant cyclist community. Its just causing drivers to get irritated, which leads to more accidents all around.

Ye, let's make it harder for emergency vehicles to pass traffic congestion

a well designed road is typically multi-modal what good is a road if it only offers convenience for one type of transport.

He's one of the few RU-vidrs I've seen on the topic who seems to believe you can actually design a road to serve all three at the same time. Most people like to argue for prioritizing one over the other, but he presents a balanced take where the goal is getting everyone using the road safely.

@Moon Shine out of curiosity what do you want bike lanes for? Bikes seem impractical for transportation since you show up at your destination sweaty and gross, and for recreational purposes bike trails seem far safer as well as prettier.

@@lukasg4807 not rlly unless you live in like nevada

@@gio160 well he said moving from Phoenix to Dallas, both of those places are hot af 90% of the year

That's what I was thinking, paint can only go so far

Throw a few trees (in pots) in these spots. Adds some shade and avoids drivers choosing to ignore the lines. And they don't have to be expensive either (unlike medians or the like)

Refuge island for pedestrians would be nice

I used to stay in Elizabeth. But they did that to a street be me in Houston and Ngl, I definitely don’t go above 35 anymore 😂

The way it's suppose to be from the beginning :) Nice!

It’s called a road diet. It’s suppose to make traffic go slower

Yes, classic road diet.

Livingston?

Honestly, the "botched" design will be far more effective at slowing down traffic if they put up delineators.

@@snoopyloopy I'm not sure they're trying to go for the absolute most effective way at reducing speed, they just want to reduce the speed to a certain amount

@@snoopyloopy because no one would drive on it

I recognize that ambulance. That's BeamNG Drive!

@@AlphabetSoupABCI saw that and went to the comments haha

Oof!

10:24 beamng drive games ambulance players 😂😂😂

Snow is not an issue in the desert, lol

This channel is criminally underrated

That’s what I thought too. Nobody can make videos on road design that are this entertaining. Except Not Just Bikes lol

Hey 👋

Exactly, it's really the giant open which is simply marked with lines that causes the problem. If it has curbs and planters the lines wouldn't be visible so there wouldn't be anything to confuse the drivers.

money seems to be the main driving factor behind the lack of these features.

That road is ridiculously wide and they can definitely can narrow it too add protected cycling infrasture, street trees and planting strip. It's insane that they build this road wide in a neighbourhood and near a school and wonder why they have a speeding problem. That design of road further enforces the perception that cities have lets roads be more forgiving and proctecting car drivers at the expense of being a hostile environment for pedestrians and cyclists

California city "planning"

Obviously. Nobody accidentally does this.

Yeah they love costing themselves time, money, reputation, and valuable city contracts. Take that, government!

That costs a lot more than paint

Hollister doesn't have that type of money. It would definitely be the preferred solution.

Would have cost millions.

It would be cheaper than going to the intended long term solution of 2 immediately adjacent lanes (because the curb, drains and all the asphalt that you want to retain for your traffic calmed configuration would remain in place). But it would also mean that once you are ready to re-build it into the best configuration, (which has the advantage of leaving plenty of space for buffers to the cycle lanes, wide sidewalks, and whatever else they'd want to put onto the street), you'd have to re-add the asphalt of those center lanes, making that step more expensive. I do however think that just putting some planters on that dead space between the double yellow lines (instead of turning it into a full-on median) could be a good way to beautify the street and make it visually narrower.

Are you going to pay for it?

See, around here I'm fairly sure they'd consider that a hazard... and so change the speed limit signs accordingly. Because the claim that people pay no attention to speed limit signs isn't actually quite correct. The thing is though, 'driving to the conditions' includes 'not driving at a substantually different speed form the other vehicles around you' if you don't want to cause significant accidents. So all it takes is for Enough people to regularly ignore the speed limit signs and then no one else can safely follow them. In places where the culture is to stick to the speed limit? Basically everyone sticks to the speed limit! This only changes on roads with very light traffic. And even then, if the signs are sufficiently prominant, and standardized, people will generally stay fairly Close to the limit.

@@laurencefraser I didn't mention but you can still easily drive at the speed limit, it's not dangerous to drive around the traffic islands at normal speed. I personally find it a bit annoying to be stuck behind someone going slower, but I wouldn't consider it a hazard until that car doesn't change speed erratically.

I love traffic calming. It makes the sidewalks much better to walk along. I prefer shared streets though.

@@baksatibi It's a hazard to _be_ the car going much slower than everyone else, since it means someone might rush up behind you.

The traffic light would have to be in a sensible location (e.g at a crosswalk or intersection), otherwise it would look strange and people could just ignore it. A red light camera should also be installed.

And we also got a little history lesson.

The problem is largely sprawl in our city development not the spacing between cities. Large distances between cities is more an argument for airplanes and high speed trains, not for slower cars. The goal isn't to eliminate cars, it's to provide another option for people where transit is possible to reduce congestion and improve travel times for everyone.

I've stopped watching most infrastructure, transit, and urban planning channels for this exact reason. A lot of the more popular channels don't even seem to have a technical understanding of what they're talking about. They just repeat "Stroads bad" and "Replace it with a train" endlessly. It's all very dogmatic. I'm all for more and better transit, but it's not the answer to everything.

the cars are a necessity in the USA almost entirely because your governement keeps spending much more than rail would cost on ever more counterproductive roads and highways (that they don't even maintain properly) rather than building the proper rail and pedestrian infrastructure that would render most of them unnecessary. Yes, you still need roads, but when you're not trying to make them do everything else's job, badly, at much higher cost when you don't ignore half the numbers (roads are subsidized a Lot, drivers pay more for their cars purchase, upkeep, and fuel than they would in ticket prices (and also more than the transit company would have to pay per rider for Their vehicles even if they don't cheat somehow), and so on and so forth), you need a lot less of them, at a lot smaller scale, that are a lot safer and more pleasant to use... Basically, properly built and run public transit makes Roads better too. Yes, yes, cars are still needed in specific use cases, it's rarely practical to properly serve farms via passenger rail, you still need last mile delivery vans, and so on. Doesn't change the fact that they are massively over used and in many places (especially in the USA) the infrastructure needed to support them is well and truely excessive. Oh, and people say 'replace it with a train' endlessly because, well, each mode of transit has situations where it works very well and situations it's not so good at... and the USA Keeps Building Roads for situations where road vehicles are Shit and they should be using Rail! Much like you don't build high-speed rail where a local tram is all that is needed, and don't try to use a VW bug for jobs that require one of those mega mining trucks, and don't take a passenger ferry from New York to California, there are situatons where rail is ideal and personal road vehicles and/or trucks are just DUMB. Pretty much Anywhere you get gridlocked highways? It's because the vast majority of that traffic SHOULD have been going by rail.

The USSR dominated rail transport for both passenger and freight. It is indeed possible

I just wanna say in advanced, I appreciate you making my commute longer, I don't like showing up to work on time, to make money and I really hate going home to my wife and kids. So please introduce tons of traffic calming and anything to make my commute slower. I'd appreciate it!

@@StaYUTI420 Agree -- this "traffic calming" fad should be called what it really is: "traffic congesting". Or at least, "artificial traffic slowing". This obsession with slowing down traffic is annoying. As long as drivers are driving safely and paying attention, it doesn't matter how fast they're going (within reason). Cars and roads exist in order to get people from A to B in a reasonably quick, efficient manner. The car-hating zealots want to destroy that. 😠

@@Milesco “as long as drivers are driving safely” Yeah tell that to the millions of people a year who get hit by drivers speeding down quiet neighbourhood streets. No one’s putting traffic calming on big arterial streets, and if your commute consists entirely of narrow local neighbourhood streets then that’s a you problem. You simply cannot trust everyone to use a 2 ton death machine responsibly and safely by twiddling your fingers and asking “but.. but would you PWEASE consider slowing down?” That’s the entire point of this video. Using the power of infrastructure so drivers HAVE to slow down in places they need to be. Roads do not exist only for cars. They exist for people walking, biking, taking the bus, etc too. Designing your street for only one mode of transportation is kind of a crappy way to design something.

​@@cocobailey777 You're missing the point. Speed, by itself, isn't dangerous (within reason). It's _collisions_ that are dangerous, and speed doesn't cause collisions (except at the extremes). German autobahns have no speed limits at all, yet because of high quality, well trained, disciplined drivers, they are safe. The problem isn't speed, it's incompetent drivers who are unable to control their cars or don't pay attention. Focus your energies on suspending or revoking the licenses of _those_ people -- the truly incompetent -- and we'll have safe streets, while still allowing competent drivers to proceed to their destinations at a reasonable velocity and not at a granny's pace. _"Roads do not exist only for cars. "_ Yeah, they do. _"They exist for people walking...."_ No, that's what sidewalks are for. _"...taking the bus..."_ That's functionally the same as cars (motor vehicles) _"...biking..."_ Okay, that one's a legitimate concern, but again, the problem is incompetent motorists not keeping their eyes (and brains) open and *paying attention.* The cause of motor vehicle-bicycle collisions is, in most cases, drivers not keeping an eye out for bicyclists. (Although in my experience, I'm happy to say that most do.) Not speed. If you're driving down a straight road, you can go at a fairly decent clip and still have no serious risk of hitting a bicyclist, unless the bicyclist swerves into your path, in which case, that's the biker's fault. The only time there are real issues is when the motorist wants to make a turn -- typically a right turn across (or unfortunately, into) the path of a bicyclist. Regrettably, those situations do result in all too many collisions, but again, that's the fault of drivers not looking out and paying attention. Not speed. (Indeed, the motorists are already going slow because they're _making a turn!)_ So, to sum up, don't worry so much about speed, worry about the incompetent drivers and get them off the road.

​@@Milesco Speed IS dangerous, as it increases your chances of getting into a collision in the first place, it reduces your time to react in case anything happens in front of you, and studies have shown that even a 15mph increase in speed can have a serious impact on fatality rates. A person hit by a car traveling at 35 miles per hour is five times more likely to die than a person hit by a car traveling at 20 miles per hour. You say "speed isn't dangerous, collisions are" - that doesn't really make sense as the two are directly correlated with one another. You reduce your speed, you reduce your chance of hitting something or someone. German autobahns have no speed limits and they are safe BECAUSE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, which is exactly what is being talked about in this video. Nowhere in the video does Rob say "wow these highways are so safe because drivers are". Wide lanes, gentle curves, and straight roadways - all to keep people safe at 65mph. Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. It's the same thing for American highways as well, and the thing is, those are designed for you to go fast. _That's why they're highways._ Your local neighbourhood street does not need to be designed like a highway, which is (again) the message that this video is trying to make. You want to get to your destination at a reasonable speed and not at a 'granny's' pace, as you say. Then don't drive on the traffic calmed streets. That's the entire reason the traffic calming is there in the first place. You are acting like they are installing 50 speed bumps and chicanes and narrowing down the lanes to 2 feet wide in every street in your city. No. There's different types of roads for a reason (again, mentioned in the video), and you already what you need - arterial streets, for going fast - while the streets this video is talking about is for local neighbourhood streets, with people backing out of their driveways onto them and kids playing everywhere. These streets do not need to be designed like a highway (or a runway as Rob calls them). _You do not need to drive on them like it's a highway._ I disagree with your point that roads exist only for cars. If you built a city with that mindset, you would get dystopian hellscapes with half the city paved with parking lots and multi lane stroads clogged with traffic snaking throughout the entire city. Oh wait, that's what most American suburbs look like nowadays. And those suburbs are an objectively bad place to live. You may not see it (I'm assuming you're reasonably car dependent judging by your response of "I want to go vroom vroom everywhere"), but dense walkable cities like in Europe are way better in terms of... well, everything. And guess what, part of the reason why that is is because you don't have people flying down those streets at 50mph. "No, that's what sidewalks are for" Many sidewalks in America either don't exist at all, or are in terrible condition, extremely narrow, and can be inaccessible to people with disabilities. So, uh, yeah, pedestrians are still a very important part of the conversation here. Plus, there have been plenty of accidents from drivers mounting the sidewalk and killing a pedestrian. So the one place that's supposed to be safe for pedestrians isn't really that safe, if you let people go a million miles an hour on them. Taking the bus is not the same as single occupancy motor vehicles in this context, as a well designed 'complete street' as Rob calls it should have some sort of transit priority. A lot of American public transit systems are absolutely terrible, and part of that is because the buses just get dumped onto the streets with the traffic and have to compete with other cars. Buses, when managed well, can take dozens of cars off the street which makes things better for everyone. And I can tell you've probably never ridden a bike for any reasonable amount of time in your life, because saying that you're fine with people passing by at 50mph right beside bikers (or any other vulnerable road users) is something any cyclist would never say. I've done commutes before on highway shoulders (it was permitted, for some reason) and having cars pass by you a few feet away at highway speeds is NOT pleasant at all. Do better. "So, to sum up, don't worry so much about speed, worry about the incompetent drivers and get them off the road." The problem with this statement is that it would only work in a utopian world where we could somehow magically detect every single bad driver and say "no driving 4 u". That's not how the world works - there are always going to be shitty drivers no matter how hard you try. So to mitigate the risk of those shitty drivers, you use infrastructure in order to lower the risk of collisions and make things safer for everyone. Such as... you know, _making people go slower._ If the real cause of every single collision was drivers simply being incompetent and not paying attention (it isn't), then answer this. Would you rather those drivers make a mistake at 20mph, or 50mph? These are all points that are already being made in the video you're watching right now.

Rural Britain is also like that.

We have this in the Netherlands as well. Often the shoulder lane is less wide so it requires everyone to drive slower. 2 lanes means 130km/h, 3 lanes means 100/120km/h. General speed was reduced to 100km/h 2 years ago so that effect has gone away. I suppose it allows for a temporary increase in capacity without having to redo the entire line but I don't know if it is considered a succes here.

$45 million spent on it for a 10 mile stretch. There sure seems to be a lot of money for highway expansions. We need to stop trying to "improve" highways and instead focus that money on improving public transit. A few buses at peak traffic times can take just as much traffic off the highway as a flex lane can add capacity, but with the added benefit of reducing cars on other streets as well. Unfortunately highways are decided by the state so it doesn't matter what impacted cities think.

I'm pretty sure that the phenomenon of "induced demand" all but guarantees that the "flex" lanes will eventually become permanent lanes.

it's incredible that city planners still dont understand induced demand. if you build it they will clog it. that money could have been better spent on public transit.

@@CRneu I think the city planners understand induced demand quite well, but they're not the ones making the decisions about what to build...

You mean the other channels that are against excessive urban sprawl and promote mixed-use medium density zoning to alleviate the Missing Middle problem? They have a point

@@RRapierre I'm not disagreeing with them, America has some of the worst city design in the developed world. It's just nice to see some of the positives and cool ideas on display here

Yeah that's great :) With the added benefits of making cycling an option (less traffic, more exercise) and lessening the heat island effect and air pollution with the trees.

@@Snowshowslow I mean… it’s hot here half the year so idk about biking to work. But it’s fun for weekend rides lol

@@PatricenotPatrick Where do you live? :)

Yeah, just form a bunch of businesses. lol

Businesses don’t slow things down as much as you would hope. I live near a few streets like this but lined with commercial property and large apartment complexes, so lots of traffic, they also have lots of street lights. The speed limit is 35 but if you go with the flow of traffic you’re easily still going 50 mph or even more. If the cops pulled over speeders they’d literally have to pull over nearly every car driving on the road.

That is the idea behind it. The perceived danger of head-on collisions with oncoming traffic is one of the best psychological triggers to slow people down. Remember that our danger sense is not as intelligent as we are. It basically thinks we are running down the street, so it will not see a real danger in e.g. running into pedestrians crossing our path. But running head-on into a solid object, that's always dangerous.

@@HenryLoenwind All well and good until the perception becomes real. I'd really rather not go down a street playing little games of chicken every hundred yards.

There are plenty of ways for pedestrians to cross safely that are illustrated in other videos on his channel. Nothing is black and white.

this state has become infested with them lol

And here I am up cause I went to bed early

Luckily, there probably won't need to be any litigation. The city, per the contract specs, probably didn't pay the contractor for the striping, and won't pay until it's done correctly. The contractor will most likely come back and fix it, since they obviously want to get paid.

Yup. Looks like it works.

My idea would be to put car lanes at the very edge of the road, 3 meters each, and then the rest can be a green median with a perfectly straight shared path. The median could be separated by a truck apron curb so emergency vehicles can hop onto the path

I', sure they'd be more than happy to do that if you send them the money for it.

The little bike agenda and "stroads". What is a stroad little bike person?

@@4149stonepony You could google it, big car guy. It's something that is bad for you, too. And you should want me on a bike, so you can keep the road to yourself. Advocating only for car lanes is just gonna force both of us into cars, instead of just the one who actually wants to drive one.

@@MentalEdge Yeah I could google everything I just wanted to hear from the little bike people what the actual definition of a "stroad" is. Or my favorite is induced demand another ambiguity little cyclistas love, so let me destroy that for you. Would you rather have a speeding problem or induced demand? Wait, what speed should traffic be allowed to go, so that cyclists feel 'safe' 3 mph? So is it still a cars fault if you run into it and it is parked? Biking, while great for exercise and recreation makes for real shitty transportation, but don't tell the status hungry virtue signalers that.

@@4149stonepony I don't think you're looking for discussion. If you were, you'd be coming at me with information, stats, and google results. Not this girly passive aggressive use of the word "little", etc. You're clearly either a troll, or far too entrenched to be capable of reasonable discourse on the matter. There's nothing ambiguous about induced demand, it's literally a peer reviewed research item with hard numbers available. The answer to making cycling safe btw isn't limiting the speed of cars anywhere but in places where they intermingle with other traffic (on walking streets, such as in superblocks), it's properly segregating the lanes and paths of the different forms of traffic in the first place. Paint does little to stop a metric ton of metal, there's a reason we do the bare minimum of giving sidewalks a curb. I'm not sure if I'll block you yet. You seem like the type of shitslinger that might be fun to screw with. As for crashing into parked cars? I mean that's just a smol brain attempt at getting a rise out of someone.

@@4149stonepony Arguing for cars-only is like saying elevators are a must, because in your house, the fridge is on the third floor while your kitchen is on the first. The real solution is to fix your wacky zoning laws so you can put the fridge in the damn kitchen, and use your hands to get what you need for cooking. It's not like elevators shouldn't exists, they serve an important purpose. But maybe don't use the space they take up as an excuse to place stuff further apart (parking lots), nor discount the usefulness of stairs when you only need to move a floor or two. And it's not like I never use cars. But I only need to like once or twice a year. Meanwhile, the US has used cars as an excuse to allow their cities to sprawl into inefficient money-sinks that makes their daily use mandatory, whether you can afford it or not.