466a and Buena Vista

[alanmcdonald]

There have been at least three accidents at the intersection of 466a and Buena Vista this week, not to mention the fatal motorcycle accident recently.

The problem is the yellow left turn signals that permit left turns in a place where it is impossible to see the oncoming traffic due to it being blocked by cars in the left turn lane.

Also, if you are in the left turn lane and do not try to turn on the yellow arrow the cars behind you start honking to get you to move.

What needs to happen to get the yellow arrows removed and red lights for the turn lanes when there is no green left turn arrow?

[golfing eagles]

There have been at least three accidents at the intersection of 466a and Buena Vista this week, not to mention the fatal motorcycle accident recently.

The problem is the yellow left turn signals that permit left turns in a place where it is impossible to see the oncoming traffic due to it being blocked by cars in the left turn lane.

Also, if you are in the left turn lane and do not try to turn on the yellow arrow the cars behind you start honking to get you to move.

What needs to happen to get the yellow arrows removed and red lights for the turn lanes when there is no green left turn arrow?

Impossible???? I make that turn with vehicles in the oncoming left turn lane at least 7-8 times/week and don't see a problem at all.

What needs to happen? Drivers need to see their ophthalmologist or re-take drivers-ed.

What will most likely happen? Like other ridiculous dedicated left turn arrows, they will change this one as well, with the result of a big back up to make the left, just like Morse and 466A. Of course, just like Morse and 466A, the turn lane is not long enough to accommodate this, so the last car will have their arse sticking out in the left lane and some distracted driver will plow into them at full speed.

So, pick your poison.

[VApeople]

The problem is the yellow left turn signals that permit left turns in a place where it is impossible to see the oncoming traffic due to it being blocked by cars in the left turn lane.

If a driver on 466A finds that "it is impossible to see the oncoming traffic due to it being blocked by cars in the left turn lane", they should not try to turn left onto Buena Vista.


Also, if you are in the left turn lane and do not try to turn on the yellow arrow the cars behind you start honking to get you to move.


Why is that a problem?

[Marathon Man]

There have been at least three accidents at the intersection of 466a and Buena Vista this week, not to mention the fatal motorcycle accident recently.

The problem is the yellow left turn signals that permit left turns in a place where it is impossible to see the oncoming traffic due to it being blocked by cars in the left turn lane.

Also, if you are in the left turn lane and do not try to turn on the yellow arrow the cars behind you start honking to get you to move.

What needs to happen to get the yellow arrows removed and red lights for the turn lanes when there is no green left turn arrow?

Sounds like you had some horns honked at you.

[Bilyclub]

Of course if you sit behind the solid white line when the lights green and the arrow is flashing yellow, it's hard to make a left turn at all.

[Bill14564]

Impossible???? I make that turn with vehicles in the oncoming left turn lane at least 7-8 times/week and don't see a problem at all.

What needs to happen? Drivers need to see their ophthalmologist or re-take drivers-ed.

What will most likely happen? Like other ridiculous dedicated left turn arrows, they will change this one as well, with the result of a big back up to make the left, just like Morse and 466A. Of course, just like Morse and 466A, the turn lane is not long enough to accommodate this, so the last car will have their arse sticking out in the left lane and some distracted driver will plow into them at full speed.

So, pick your poison.

Glad to hear the flashing yellow is still there. I hope it remains that way but given the changes at Morse & 44 and Buena Vista & 44 I'm not optimistic.

[mrf0151]

One thing the traffic technicians should do is set a few second delay for green. Doing this would allow the intersection to clear before traffic enters the intersection again.

[golfing eagles]

Glad to hear the flashing yellow is still there. I hope it remains that way but given the changes at Morse & 44 and Buena Vista & 44 I'm not optimistic.

Neither am I. The one at 44 and Morse, turning from southbound Morse to 44 E is the most egregious. It lets 3-4 cars through then turns red, even though you can see over 1/2 mile down Morse. The problem is that like most things these days, we are playing to the lowest common denominator. Amazing how those with the worst driving skills are clamoring to make it "safer"---the same ones who are constantly posting "slow down, we're retired". I'm not advocating speeding, but likewise driving 10 mph below the speed limit is ridiculous, irritating, and speaks to a complete lack of driving ability. Give up your license!

[golfing eagles]

One thing the traffic technicians should do is set a few second delay for green. Doing this would allow the intersection to clear before traffic enters the intersection again.

I'm pretty sure that light has such a delay, but that's not the problem. Those with less than 20/20 vision, who claim they can't see oncoming traffic, just go ahead and turn anyway. Hence, the accidents described above. Then they want to blame the intersection and not their poor driving skills for whatever happens.

[Bill14564]

One thing the traffic technicians should do is set a few second delay for green. Doing this would allow the intersection to clear before traffic enters the intersection again.

In theory, yes. In reality, drivers have already learned that there is a delay and that a few more cars can get through on the red before cross traffic starts moving.

It is quite possible that some of the accidents are due to just that: the left-turning vehicle legally sitting in the intersection waiting to finish the turn sees the light turn red and proceeds while the oncoming driver sees the light turn red and knows he can still make it through before the cross traffic gets the green light. The result is a collision with fingers pointed at the left-turning vehicle while it is actually the driver who ran the red light that should be faulted.

[Laker14]

Neither am I. The one at 44 and Morse, turning from southbound Morse to 44 E is the most egregious. It lets 3-4 cars through then turns red, even though you can see over 1/2 mile down Morse. The problem is that like most things these days, we are playing to the lowest common denominator. Amazing how those with the worst driving skills are clamoring to make it "safer"---the same ones who are constantly posting "slow down, we're retired". I'm not advocating speeding, but likewise driving 10 mph below the speed limit is ridiculous, irritating, and speaks to a complete lack of driving ability. Give up your license!

I'm not so sure that "playing to the lowest common denominator " is a bad thing in this case. Clearly, it seems to me, that the number of accidents at 466A and BV indicates a change should be made. Generally, I am in favor of the flashing yellow. But it just isn't working there. Too many lanes of traffic, too much speed, too many large vehicles making it difficult to see around, too many impatient drivers, too many people trying to beat the red light rather than using the yellow as it was intended, as a signal to slow down, ....
It's all a recipe for disaster.

I'm not saying the flashing yellow is a bad thing everywhere, but the history at that intersection indicates that the general population can't use it safely there.

[golfing eagles]

I'm not so sure that "playing to the lowest common denominator " is a bad thing in this case. Clearly, it seems to me, that the number of accidents at 466A and BV indicates a change should be made. Generally, I am in favor of the flashing yellow. But it just isn't working there. Too many lanes of traffic, too much speed, too many large vehicles making it difficult to see around, too many impatient drivers, too many people trying to beat the red light rather than using the yellow as it was intended, as a signal to slow down, ....
It's all a recipe for disaster.

I'm not saying the flashing yellow is a bad thing everywhere, but the history at that intersection indicates that the general population can't use it safely there.

That's a reasonable case. However, consider this:

Thousands upon thousands of drivers negotiate that intersection every day without incident. Only once in a while does somebody , usually a driver lacking the skills to hold a license, do something stupid that results in an accident. Least Common Denominator (LCD). And consider what can happen when the end of the turn lane backs up into the left lane of traffic. This happens at the left turn of 466A onto Morse south every day, which has an arrow that turns red.

[Laker14]

That's a reasonable case. However, consider this:

Thousands upon thousands of drivers negotiate that intersection every day without incident. Only once in a while does somebody , usually a driver lacking the skills to hold a license, do something stupid that results in an accident. Least Common Denominator (LCD). And consider what can happen when the end of the turn lane backs up into the left lane of traffic. This happens at the left turn of 466A onto Morse south every day, which has an arrow that turns red.

True that.
Also, and I don't have a proposal to solve this issue, it is likely that what works with summer traffic flow doesn't work as well with the winter traffic flow. Living in Poinciana, I use that intersection a lot, often making the left off of 466A, going from eastbound to northbound onto BV. Generally, in that direction it's not too bad.
Being a frequent traveller on that road, I do worry about what it will be like when all of those apartments they building behind Trailwinds are populated.

[Chi-Town]

Accidents occurred on a regular basis at the Buena Vista and 466 intersection. Dedicated left turn signals were implemented, and the left turn problem disappeared. Hope the same happens at 466A.

[golfing eagles]

Accidents occurred on a regular basis at the Buena Vista and 466 intersection. Dedicated left turn signals were implemented, and the left turn problem disappeared. Hope the same happens at 466A.

Personally, I hope it never happens, but in all likelihood you will get your wish. No problem, I'll just add another 10 minutes to my trip home (after all, what's the rush, we're retired:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:)

[Mark1976]

I agree the sight lines aren’t good. I avoid making left turns there. It’s a high alert intersection for sure

[Wilson02852]

Just never realized how many "expert" traffic engineers retired to The Villages. Always just thought the accidents were caused by IOPs or bad drivers.

[bowlingal]

Get off your phones!!

[bark4me]

There have been at least three accidents at the intersection of 466a and Buena Vista this week, not to mention the fatal motorcycle accident recently.

The problem is the yellow left turn signals that permit left turns in a place where it is impossible to see the oncoming traffic due to it being blocked by cars in the left turn lane.

Also, if you are in the left turn lane and do not try to turn on the yellow arrow the cars behind you start honking to get you to move.

What needs to happen to get the yellow arrows removed and red lights for the turn lanes when there is no green left turn arrow?
You're gonna need to call FDOT about that. I'm sure local LEO have already brought it to their attention. My opinion, if I can't see past the cars to know what is coming, I'm staying in place. If the hockey's wanna go around me and give it a shot, let um. I'll be a great witness for "Failure to yield right of way making a left turn".

[HospitalCoder]

There have been at least three accidents at the intersection of 466a and Buena Vista this week, not to mention the fatal motorcycle accident recently.

The problem is the yellow left turn signals that permit left turns in a place where it is impossible to see the oncoming traffic due to it being blocked by cars in the left turn lane.

Also, if you are in the left turn lane and do not try to turn on the yellow arrow the cars behind you start honking to get you to move.

What needs to happen to get the yellow arrows removed and red lights for the turn lanes when there is no green left turn arrow?

Personally, I think the problem is an excessive speed limit in a congested area and a lack of traffic light coordination. Cars are traveling 45-55 mph and after getting stopped light after light, they are more likely to blow through a red light. The speed limit from 301 to Buena Vista needs to be reduced.

[golfing eagles]

Personally, I think the problem is an excessive speed limit in a congested area and a lack of traffic light coordination. Cars are traveling 45-55 mph and after getting stopped light after light, they are more likely to blow through a red light. The speed limit from 301 to Buena Vista needs to be reduced.

See post #17

[CartColor]

44 and Morse would be much safer if they would reduce speed limit on Morse south of 44 to 35mph just like it is north of 44. Cars are flying down Morse at 55 and 60. They come ripping thru the north bound Warm springs by pass like a bat out of hell. We'll be picking up pieces of gammy one day after she misjudges the F350 dually coming around the horn at 60. Westbound 44 should have a gradual reduced speed limit from before Walgreens all the way to 301. 55mph is just too fast for a growing populated area. Entering Leesburg has gradual reduction as you approach 441. Only makes sense. And since millions of tax dollars are pouring into Wildwood and the county, maybe they can buy a street sweeper to clean up the intersection debris and crap all over the road. Be safe out there.

[golfing eagles]

44 and Morse would be much safer if they would reduce speed limit on Morse south of 44 to 35mph just like it is north of 44. Cars are flying down Morse at 55 and 60. They come ripping thru the north bound Warm springs by pass like a bat out of hell. We'll be picking up pieces of gammy one day after she misjudges the F350 dually coming around the horn at 60. Westbound 44 should have a gradual reduced speed limit from before Walgreens all the way to 301. 55mph is just too fast for a growing populated area. Entering Leesburg has gradual reduction as you approach 441. Only makes sense. And since millions of tax dollars are pouring into Wildwood and the county, maybe they can buy a street sweeper to clean up the intersection debris and crap all over the road. Be safe out there.

Also see post #17

[Bill14564]

Personally, I think the problem is an excessive speed limit in a congested area and a lack of traffic light coordination. Cars are traveling 45-55 mph and after getting stopped light after light, they are more likely to blow through a red light. The speed limit from 301 to Buena Vista needs to be reduced.

??? The posted speed limit in that area is 45mph. How would lowering the speed limit make any difference if drivers are ignoring it now? If they are impatient at a posted 45mph are they going to be LESS impatient with a posted 40mph? If they are ignoring the posted speed limits and ignoring the red lights are they all of a sudden going to start obeying the signs if the speed limit is lowered?

[HospitalCoder]

??? The posted speed limit in that area is 45mph. How would lowering the speed limit make any difference if drivers are ignoring it now? If they are impatient at a posted 45mph are they going to be LESS impatient with a posted 40mph? If they are ignoring the posted speed limits and ignoring the red lights are they all of a sudden going to start obeying the signs if the speed limit is lowered?

Because speeders on local roads typically drive 5 to 10 mph over the posted limit. Additionally, there are plenty of people who do go the speed limit and that should slow speeders down.

[Jacob85]

I totally agree that something needs to be done. There needs to be a red arrow after the yellow. I don’t know why it’s not on there!

[Jacob85]

It’s a problem because the driver behind you like one reply I read earlier, is on your back and puts pressure on you if you don’t go and can’t see around a car that is turning. It’s an obvious dangerous situation

[golfing eagles]

I totally agree that something needs to be done. There needs to be a red arrow after the yellow. I don’t know why it’s not on there!

It's not there, mainly because it would cause other problems, and the ownness is upon the driver to know how to drive. But, as posted above, it will probably be there soon since we are playing to the least common denominator of poorly skilled drivers.

[Bill14564]

Because speeders on local roads typically drive 5 to 10 mph over the posted limit. Additionally, there are plenty of people who do go the speed limit and that should slow speeders down.

Interesting. Do you imagine the speeders do the math in their head and then travel 5 to 10 mph over the posted limit or do they travel what they perceive to be a safe speed and it just happens that the posted limit is 5 to 10 mph below that?

I would say it's the latter - that speed limits may have represented a safe speed at one point but were then reduced for one reason or another to the point that drivers recognize they are artificially low and ignore them.

Of course, there are also some drivers who drive far too fast (or too slow); these drivers are clearly a problem.

[golfing eagles]

It’s a problem because the driver behind you like one reply I read earlier, is on your back and puts pressure on you if you don’t go and can’t see around a car that is turning. It’s an obvious dangerous situation

Are you saying that you would blindly turn in front of traffic heading at 45+ mph at you because the person behind has "put pressure on you"???? Hmmm.....

[Spalumbos62]

Are you saying that you would blindly turn in front of traffic heading at 45+ mph at you because the person behind has "put pressure on you"???? Hmmm.....

I don't think they are saying that at all. Many valid points here, for sure. But with all the accidents and complaints why isn't a traffic engineer out there assessing the issue? Nothing worse than trying to make a left across 2 or 3 on coming and that one inner lane blocks your view of safety....the median turns on 441 another prime example....
Hopefully the right people will read and respond to our needs.

[jimjamuser]

There have been at least three accidents at the intersection of 466a and Buena Vista this week, not to mention the fatal motorcycle accident recently.

The problem is the yellow left turn signals that permit left turns in a place where it is impossible to see the oncoming traffic due to it being blocked by cars in the left turn lane.

Also, if you are in the left turn lane and do not try to turn on the yellow arrow the cars behind you start honking to get you to move.

What needs to happen to get the yellow arrows removed and red lights for the turn lanes when there is no green left turn arrow?
Yes, that is one example of a CONTROLLABLE and relatively inexpensive fix to the INFRASTRUCTURE. There is a nationwide RELUCTANCE to spend money on needed safety and infrastructure. (Did I hear someone think tax increase, OH, dear God, dear me?). This also reminds me of the unnecessary speeding by about 25% of the vehicles that I see going in front of my house - which I feel has increased in the last 3 years due to increased traffic or psychological attitude changes. I feel that a person that SPEEDS has the same aggressive ATTITUDE that would make them susceptible to NOT being aware of that mechanical, technical, traffic flow problem that this thread has HIGHLIGHTED.

[golfing eagles]

Yes, that is one example of a CONTROLLABLE and relatively inexpensive fix to the INFRASTRUCTURE. There is a nationwide RELUCTANCE to spend money on needed safety and infrastructure. (Did I hear someone think tax increase, OH, dear God, dear me?). This also reminds me of the unnecessary speeding by about 25% of the vehicles that I see going in front of my house - which I feel has increased in the last 3 years due to increased traffic or psychological attitude changes. I feel that a person that SPEEDS has the same aggressive ATTITUDE that would make them susceptible to NOT being aware of that mechanical, technical, traffic flow problem that this thread has HIGHLIGHTED.

Alternatively, people could learn HOW TO DRIVE

[RPDaly]

///

[jimjamuser]

Someone said, "pick your poison". That leads to a "bigger picture" concept. The Poison is EITHER too many residents for the infrastructure or infrastructure too WEAK for the existing residents (in the winter). At this point, nothing can be done about the number of residents, which will likely only get GREATER in number as rentals increase and more baby boomers retire. So, the solution is to INCREASE and improve the infrastructure. The problem NEEDS to be solved as indicated by the deaths stated in the thread beginning.

I doubt that it can be solved without looking at a tax increase to pay for road structure improvement and lane increases. Also needed is less LAX enforcement of speeding and other aggressive driving practices. (Some people seem to drive like they have a death wish, maybe they all have terminal cancer, I doubt it) So, the problem solution (other than road improvements) seems to go back to having MORE Police hired (again $ and taxes) or some sort of increased camera POLICING equipment, either officers or equipment to video record aggressive violators. Which would be more cost effective?

[jimjamuser]

If a driver on 466A finds that "it is impossible to see the oncoming traffic due to it being blocked by cars in the left turn lane", they should not try to turn left onto Buena Vista.



Why is that a problem?
This time of year one NEEDS to TRY some route planning. Sometimes it is better to go a little longer way around, which has less traffic than take the obvious route that everyone else is taking. Also, there is the time of day planning. For example, just maybe, during the winter months, people going to restaurants COULD (?) try going at LUNCH instead of dinner. Worst of all would be an early dinner during the 4 to 5 PM rush hour.
......Also, a person could plan their shopping for the less busy hours. If you go to Lowes or Home Depot too early, you are in direct conflict (on the roads) with the professional construction and landscaping people (the early rush hour). Just a few ideas, trying to be helpful.

[Bogie Shooter]

I don't think they are saying that at all. Many valid points here, for sure. But with all the accidents and complaints why isn't a traffic engineer out there assessing the issue? Nothing worse than trying to make a left across 2 or 3 on coming and that one inner lane blocks your view of safety....the median turns on 441 another prime example....
Hopefully the right people will read and respond to our needs.

Who do you think are the “right people”? Doubt if any state traffic people monitor TOTV!

[jimjamuser]

That's a reasonable case. However, consider this:

Thousands upon thousands of drivers negotiate that intersection every day without incident. Only once in a while does somebody , usually a driver lacking the skills to hold a license, do something stupid that results in an accident. Least Common Denominator (LCD). And consider what can happen when the end of the turn lane backs up into the left lane of traffic. This happens at the left turn of 466A onto Morse south every day, which has an arrow that turns red.
Yes you could say that, "thousands of drivers negotiate" any intersection or road in America WITHOUT incident. The very definition of an ACCIDENT is when an outlier, something unusual happens, And this leads to DEATHS somewhere or at this PARTICULAR intersection in The Villages. Since this intersection is FAMOUS for problems and DEATHS just on a STATISTICAL basis it means that there is a PROBLEM that demands a solution.
.........I suppose that The Villages SHOULD (?) have staff people that are qualified to work out the SOLUTION in combination with the local POLICE. Maybe, I am assuming too much of an idealistic situation?????

I don't believe that the solution would involve taking away the driver's licenses of every SLOW and hesitant driver. That would be about 40% of the Village People. I believe that the greater problems are at the higher end of the speed spectrum. One is supposed to be aware of one's environment and adjust accordingly. The older seniors here have no bus system that they can depend on like in large metro areas. So, to me, I accept my environment and add some extra time for travel during the winter season and I realize that some NEW RESIDENTS will get confused, disoriented, and lost at times when they drive. To a certain extent, it MUST be ACCEPTED. Now I would appreciate more Police for safety sake!!!!!

[golfing eagles]

Someone said, "pick your poison". That leads to a "bigger picture" concept. The Poison is EITHER too many residents for the infrastructure or infrastructure too WEAK for the existing residents (in the winter). At this point, nothing can be done about the number of residents, which will likely only get GREATER in number as rentals increase and more baby boomers retire. So, the solution is to INCREASE and improve the infrastructure. The problem NEEDS to be solved as indicated by the deaths stated in the thread beginning.

I doubt that it can be solved without looking at a tax increase to pay for road structure improvement and lane increases. Also needed is less LAX enforcement of speeding and other aggressive driving practices. (Some people seem to drive like they have a death wish, maybe they all have terminal cancer, I doubt it) So, the problem solution (other than road improvements) seems to go back to having MORE Police hired (again $ and taxes) or some sort of increased camera POLICING equipment, either officers or equipment to video record aggressive violators. Which would be more cost effective?

Yes you could say that, "thousands of drivers negotiate" any intersection or road in America WITHOUT incident. The very definition of an ACCIDENT is when an outlier, something unusual happens, And this leads to DEATHS somewhere or at this PARTICULAR intersection in The Villages. Since this intersection is FAMOUS for problems and DEATHS just on a STATISTICAL basis it means that there is a PROBLEM that demands a solution.
.........I suppose that The Villages SHOULD (?) have staff people that are qualified to work out the SOLUTION in combination with the local POLICE. Maybe, I am assuming too much of an idealistic situation?????

As expected, the usual. MORE government, MORE spending, MORE nanny state, LESS individual responsibility and accountability. No thank you.

[Spalumbos62]

Who do you think are the “right people”? Doubt if any state traffic people monitor TOTV!

It certainly would be nice if this info did get to the proper people! Allot of good suggestions on this thread, too bad it's only chatter.

[jimjamuser]

??? The posted speed limit in that area is 45mph. How would lowering the speed limit make any difference if drivers are ignoring it now? If they are impatient at a posted 45mph are they going to be LESS impatient with a posted 40mph? If they are ignoring the posted speed limits and ignoring the red lights are they all of a sudden going to start obeying the signs if the speed limit is lowered?
I agree with you that SIMPLY lowering the speed limit would NOT work and might make things worse. I have posted several times before that I believe that speeding and hazardous driving seem to have increased in the last 3 years. And it is also in the summer, not just winter. I think that there is some kind of attitude and psychological change happening. Not sure WHY this is happening, but something IS happening because I have read a lot of threads about hazardous and distracted driving on the Forum. Chronologically, it seems to have happened AFTER the Pandemic. There may or may NOT be a relationship? I read somewhere that during the Pandemic, those that continued to drive to or for work had the roads to themselves and were able to drive Fast and Furiously. Then, when the main part of the Pandemic was over, they kept driving crazy-like.

[Babubhat]

Too many think yellow means speed up and drive like Spongebob

[Escape Artist]

I agree the sight lines aren’t good. I avoid making left turns there. It’s a high alert intersection for sure

Exactly! It’s about sight lines, not this idea that some people have bad vision so they shouldn’t even be driving, as one commenter suggested. If it’s a large truck or SUV opposite I can’t see around them and if I pull out too far I might be clipped by an on-coming car. It’s bad road design/engineering.

[golfing eagles]

Exactly! It’s about sight lines, not this idea that some people have bad vision so they shouldn’t even be driving, as one commenter suggested. If it’s a large truck or SUV opposite I can’t see around them and if I pull out too far I might be clipped by an on-coming car. It’s bad road design/engineering.

That's right, when there is a truck, sometimes a pick-up or a large SUV, you might not be able to see oncoming traffic. That's simple---you don't go if you can't see, even if the driver behind is "pressuring you" or honking. That's a given. But that's not what we are discussing. What some are proposing is that the yellow flashing arrow be changed to red when the straight away light turns green. This means you sit there. You sit there if it is clear no one is coming. You sit there at 10 PM when there is no traffic. You sit there for absolutely no reason other than a few morons turned right in front of oncoming traffic. As Judge Judy says, "You can't fix stupid". And guess what---a red arrow won't fix stupid either---they will just find another way to manifest their stupidity.

[jimjamuser]

That's right, when there is a truck, sometimes a pick-up or a large SUV, you might not be able to see oncoming traffic. That's simple---you don't go if you can't see, even if the driver behind is "pressuring you" or honking. That's a given. But that's not what we are discussing. What some are proposing is that the yellow flashing arrow be changed to red when the straight away light turns green. This means you sit there. You sit there if it is clear no one is coming. You sit there at 10 PM when there is no traffic. You sit there for absolutely no reason other than a few morons turned right in front of oncoming traffic. As Judge Judy says, "You can't fix stupid". And guess what---a red arrow won't fix stupid either---they will just find another way to manifest their stupidity.
In general, it is probably a pretty good tradeoff for a car to have to sit for a few minutes at 10 PM than have a situation when a car turning left can be HIT and people injured or DEAD. DEAD is more PERMANENT that a few minutes delay - last time I checked. When a Senior is involved in a crash, there would likely, on average, be worse physical and medical outcomes. Then we have a whole slew of costly situations. The children and grandchildren of the injured Senior are negatively affected. A spouse may have been at home. We could have HIGH hospital costs and long physical therapy costs.
.......ALL this pain and suffering because someone has NOT upgraded the roads or added more Police to make up for the increasing Village traffic and drivers pushing the limits of speed and hazardous driving. For me, I would choose life over inconvenience !!!!!

[golfing eagles]

In general, it is probably a pretty good tradeoff for a car to have to sit for a few minutes at 10 PM than have a situation when a car turning left can be HIT and people injured or DEAD. DEAD is more PERMANENT that a few minutes delay - last time I checked. When a Senior is involved in a crash, there would likely, on average, be worse physical and medical outcomes. Then we have a whole slew of costly situations. The children and grandchildren of the injured Senior are negatively affected. A spouse may have been at home. We could have HIGH hospital costs and long physical therapy costs.
.......ALL this pain and suffering because someone has NOT upgraded the roads or added more Police to make up for the increasing Village traffic and drivers pushing the limits of speed and hazardous driving. For me, I would choose life over inconvenience !!!!!

I disagree (what a surprise). Like I already posted, if you can't see down the road, don't go. That means that those who are stupid enough to go anyway are the few that get into an accident. The suggestion above is yet another attempt to protect these idiots from themselves, ie: just another facet of the Orwellian nanny state, at the expense of the thousands that have no problem whatsoever at that intersection. In this case, I'm in favor of social Darwinism.

[Bill14564]

In general, it is probably a pretty good tradeoff for a car to have to sit for a few minutes at 10 PM than have a situation when a car turning left can be HIT and people injured or DEAD. DEAD is more PERMANENT that a few minutes delay - last time I checked. When a Senior is involved in a crash, there would likely, on average, be worse physical and medical outcomes. Then we have a whole slew of costly situations. The children and grandchildren of the injured Senior are negatively affected. A spouse may have been at home. We could have HIGH hospital costs and long physical therapy costs.
.......ALL this pain and suffering because someone has NOT upgraded the roads or added more Police to make up for the increasing Village traffic and drivers pushing the limits of speed and hazardous driving. For me, I would choose life over inconvenience !!!!!

There is no amount of upgrading that will prevent someone from doing something stupid. The thousands who go through that intersection safely each and every day are proof that there is nothing inherently unsafe about the intersection itself. "I couldn't see what was coming but decided to turn anyway" is not the fault of the intersection.

More police? Are you seriously proposing having an officer placed at every intersection in the Villages? On foot or in a car? Maybe you would like them out their with a baton directing traffic through the intersection?

If you insist on choosing life over inconvenience then you insist on eliminating motor vehicles entirely. People die in car crashes every day. People here die in golf cart crashes, often involving an automobile but not always. Want to choose life over inconvenience? Then we'll have to get rid of automobiles and golf carts. Pretty simple.

Or maybe we balance safety with necessity while demanding personal responsibility and educated operators. Stop making excuses for bad choices. Stop blaming the intersection for someone who decides to cross two lanes of traffic without first ensuring there is no oncoming traffic. Stop blaming the driver turning left when an oncoming vehicle chooses to run the red light. Stop insisting we cater to the least common denominator and instead, demand the least common denominator learn to drive.

[CFrance]

That's right, when there is a truck, sometimes a pick-up or a large SUV, you might not be able to see oncoming traffic. That's simple---you don't go if you can't see, even if the driver behind is "pressuring you" or honking. That's a given. But that's not what we are discussing. What some are proposing is that the yellow flashing arrow be changed to red when the straight away light turns green. This means you sit there. You sit there if it is clear no one is coming. You sit there at 10 PM when there is no traffic. You sit there for absolutely no reason other than a few morons turned right in front of oncoming traffic. As Judge Judy says, "You can't fix stupid". And guess what---a red arrow won't fix stupid either---they will just find another way to manifest their stupidity.
The lights can be timed to change so that the red arrow goes off during low traffic hours. That technology has been around forever.
However, since the lights all along 466A aren't timed at all, maybe the county hasn't put that software update.:shrug:

[Chi-Town]

Much talk about drivers that shouldn't get behind the wheel of a car if they can't navigate a left turn at that intersection. Well, that's never going to happen. But what about poor Joe Schmo who is driving down 466A with the green light and a car pulls out right in front of him?
That is usually the case.

[golfing eagles]

Much talk about drivers that shouldn't get behind the wheel of a car if they can't navigate a left turn at that intersection. Well, that's never going to happen. But what about poor Joe Schmo who is driving down 466A with the green light and a car pulls out right in front of him?
That is usually the case.

That would suck.

What about the poor Joe Schmo who is sitting with his rear end out in the left lane because 25 cars are backed up in the turn lane because the nanny state changed the arrow to red and gets plowed into at full speed?

That would also suck.

Basically, being the innocent victim of another's negligence sucks. The question on the table is: would a dedicated red arrow at that intersection fix the problem or just shift the risk to a different problem? Again, you can't fix stupid.

[jimjamuser]

I disagree (what a surprise). Like I already posted, if you can't see down the road, don't go. That means that those who are stupid enough to go anyway are the few that get into an accident. The suggestion above is yet another attempt to protect these idiots from themselves, ie: just another facet of the Orwellian nanny state, at the expense of the thousands that have no problem whatsoever at that intersection. In this case, I'm in favor of social Darwinism.
I agree with the concept of "if you don't see, don't go. But, the rest is a little "harsh" for me. Yes, individual responsibility for good driving IS an IMPORTANT factor. But, there are a whole set of OTHER factors. The individual EXISTS in an environment of regulations where basically people have come to an AGREEMENT about files of the road and speed limits. Obviously, the state and local governments get involved in posting the speed limit signs. Suppose there were NO speed limit signs or enforcement? That world would be a mess........so obviously society needs SOME rules and therefore SOME GOVERNMENT enforcement. We ALL agree to NOT pass a school bus that is unloading children. That rule is NOT some "nanny state" rule - it is just societies agreed on wisdom to protect the valuable lives of children. So, basically, we all live in an environment of RULES and government is the referee with the whistle on those rules.

What people may differ on is how protective a RULE (or speed limit) might be.....is it good safety or is it onerous to an individual? I agree about individual responsibility. The individual is responsible to society (government) but the reverse is ALSO true government is responsible to the individual. And it is up to the government to maintain SAFE roads to travel on. I am just saying that HERE in The Villages it is a SPECIAL environment. WE ALL like the fact that we are safer in our homes because we are SURROUNDED by older people with LESS inclination to rob or be violent. For that safety we must trade off some inconveniences and ACCEPT some things .......like that the eyesight and reflexes of our fellow Villagers are somewhat suspect and declining. That IS just OUR environment and I ACCEPT it. Nothing is perfect.

[jimjamuser]

There is no amount of upgrading that will prevent someone from doing something stupid. The thousands who go through that intersection safely each and every day are proof that there is nothing inherently unsafe about the intersection itself. "I couldn't see what was coming but decided to turn anyway" is not the fault of the intersection.

More police? Are you seriously proposing having an officer placed at every intersection in the Villages? On foot or in a car? Maybe you would like them out their with a baton directing traffic through the intersection?

If you insist on choosing life over inconvenience then you insist on eliminating motor vehicles entirely. People die in car crashes every day. People here die in golf cart crashes, often involving an automobile but not always. Want to choose life over inconvenience? Then we'll have to get rid of automobiles and golf carts. Pretty simple.

Or maybe we balance safety with necessity while demanding personal responsibility and educated operators. Stop making excuses for bad choices. Stop blaming the intersection for someone who decides to cross two lanes of traffic without first ensuring there is no oncoming traffic. Stop blaming the driver turning left when an oncoming vehicle chooses to run the red light. Stop insisting we cater to the least common denominator and instead, demand the least common denominator learn to drive.
At some point in the FUTURE, we will STILL have vehicles and golf carts, but we (MAY)? eliminate BAD DRIVERS by having DRIVERLESS vehicles. In the meantime, I would rely on PHYSICAL improvements to the road system, which is, obviously inadequate in the winter season. Like at THAT particular intersection, maybe a longer left turn lane is NEEDED, or a whole additional lane added. Whatever, there IS a problem that NEEDS a solution. There are traffic experts that COULD be subcontracted, if necessary.

Yes, TRUE that people die in cars and golf carts every day somewhere in the US. But, that doesn't mean that people should GIVE UP and accept those NUMBERS. The idea is to TRY to bring those numbers down. Many on this Forum have been making good suggestions for IMPROVEMENT. 20 % more Police would be a positive suggestion. No one is suggesting Police on every corner directing traffic.....that is just an exaggerated distraction from the alternative of making and reading about POSITIVE suggestions.

[golfing eagles]

I agree with the concept of "if you don't see, don't go. But, the rest is a little "harsh" for me. Yes, individual responsibility for good driving IS an IMPORTANT factor. But, there are a whole set of OTHER factors. The individual EXISTS in an environment of regulations where basically people have come to an AGREEMENT about files of the road and speed limits. Obviously, the state and local governments get involved in posting the speed limit signs. Suppose there were NO speed limit signs or enforcement? That world would be a mess........so obviously society needs SOME rules and therefore SOME GOVERNMENT enforcement. We ALL agree to NOT pass a school bus that is unloading children. That rule is NOT some "nanny state" rule - it is just societies agreed on wisdom to protect the valuable lives of children. So, basically, we all live in an environment of RULES and government is the referee with the whistle on those rules.

What people may differ on is how protective a RULE (or speed limit) might be.....is it good safety or is it onerous to an individual? I agree about individual responsibility. The individual is responsible to society (government) but the reverse is ALSO true government is responsible to the individual. And it is up to the government to maintain SAFE roads to travel on. I am just saying that HERE in The Villages it is a SPECIAL environment. WE ALL like the fact that we are safer in our homes because we are SURROUNDED by older people with LESS inclination to rob or be violent. For that safety we must trade off some inconveniences and ACCEPT some things .......like that the eyesight and reflexes of our fellow Villagers are somewhat suspect and declining. That IS just OUR environment and I ACCEPT it. Nothing is perfect.


I would tend to define a nanny state traffic rule as one that affects thousands upon thousands of people because a very few have done something stupid. Least Common Denominator again.

Judging by the length of time it takes that light to cycle and the number of cars on the road, I'd estimate that 100 vehicles go by that intersection every 2 1/2 minutes=2,400/hour for say 12 hour a day=28,800 in that time, so let's be conservative and call it 30,000/day=11 million/year. ELEVEN MILLION!

Now, how many accidents have there been at that intersection???? I don't know---there have only been 2 recently publicized, but let's go high and say 2/month=24/year

24 out of 11 million!!!!! That approaches lottery odds. And that's my definition of a nanny rule---affecting 11 million transits of that intersection for a handful of accidents. And remember there is still the law of unintended consequences----the distracted driver plowing into the last car in a back up of the turn lane cause by the red arrow.

[Stu from NYC]

I would tend to define a nanny state traffic rule as one that affects thousands upon thousands of people because a very few have done something stupid. Least Common Denominator again.

Judging by the length of time it takes that light to cycle and the number of cars on the road, I'd estimate that 100 vehicles go by that intersection every 2 1/2 minutes=2,400/hour for say 12 hour a day=28,800 in that time, so let's be conservative and call it 30,000/day=11 million/year. ELEVEN MILLION!

Now, how many accidents have there been at that intersection???? I don't know---there have only been 2 recently publicized, but let's go high and say 2/month=24/year

24 out of 11 million!!!!! That approaches lottery odds. And that's my definition of a nanny rule---affecting 11 million transits of that intersection for a handful of accidents. And remember there is still the law of unintended consequences----the distracted driver plowing into the last car in a back up of the turn lane cause by the red arrow.

Confusing people with facts again.:what:

[jimjamuser]

I would tend to define a nanny state traffic rule as one that affects thousands upon thousands of people because a very few have done something stupid. Least Common Denominator again.

Judging by the length of time it takes that light to cycle and the number of cars on the road, I'd estimate that 100 vehicles go by that intersection every 2 1/2 minutes=2,400/hour for say 12 hour a day=28,800 in that time, so let's be conservative and call it 30,000/day=11 million/year. ELEVEN MILLION!

Now, how many accidents have there been at that intersection???? I don't know---there have only been 2 recently publicized, but let's go high and say 2/month=24/year

24 out of 11 million!!!!! That approaches lottery odds. And that's my definition of a nanny rule---affecting 11 million transits of that intersection for a handful of accidents. And remember there is still the law of unintended consequences----the distracted driver plowing into the last car in a back up of the turn lane cause by the red arrow.
Well, I would say that some thought has gone into that post. I would say that a traffic safety engineer would like to know if the accidents happened for transits straight through the intersection or mostly during transits from a left turn lane or right turn lane and are they mostly on one or the other roads. Then, are most of the accidents during the winter season? Then, what about the time of the day, rush hour - morning or afternoon or after happy hour? Is there more on weekends, Sundays, or weekdays?
.......How does this intersection COMPARE in accidents with a similar intersection THAT has about the same number of transits that is close by to this particular intersection - and to others further away in The Villages? Is the number of Golf Cart transits significantly different at other intersections?
........Seems like some people are SINGLING out this intersection as being DANGEROUS. And others are saying that there IS no there....there ......and putting the blame on bad drivers. If that IS TRUE then all similarly busy (with transits) intersections in The Villages should have the same amount of accidents.
.......A traffic study should be able to prove which one of those possibilities is true. And that knowledge should determine the ACTION going forward. Different solutions with different costs could be brought forward.

[golfing eagles]

Well, I would say that some thought has gone into that post. I would say that a traffic safety engineer would like to know if the accidents happened for transits straight through the intersection or mostly during transits from a left turn lane or right turn lane and are they mostly on one or the other roads. Then, are most of the accidents during the winter season? Then, what about the time of the day, rush hour - morning or afternoon or after happy hour? Is there more on weekends, Sundays, or weekdays?
.......How does this intersection COMPARE in accidents with a similar intersection THAT has about the same number of transits that is close by to this particular intersection - and to others further away in The Villages? Is the number of Golf Cart transits significantly different at other intersections?
........Seems like some people are SINGLING out this intersection as being DANGEROUS. And others are saying that there IS no there....there ......and putting the blame on bad drivers. If that IS TRUE then all similarly busy (with transits) intersections in The Villages should have the same amount of accidents.
.......A traffic study should be able to prove which one of those possibilities is true. And that knowledge should determine the ACTION going forward. Different solutions with different costs could be brought forward.

Possibly your best post ever. Unfortunately, we don't have easy access to all that data.

[jimjamuser]

Possibly your best post ever. Unfortunately, we don't have easy access to all that data.
Thanks!

[golfing eagles]

Thanks!

You're welcome. Just trying to turn you back from the dark side :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: