...
首页> 外文期刊>ITE journal >Letters to the editor
【24h】

Letters to the editor

机译:给编辑的信

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The traffic control system has the purpose of assuring safe and expeditious travel. Right-of-way rules are meant to avoid collisions by telling road users who goes first and who has to yield. Do these rules make sense? Let us take the example of the major road. Its purpose is to let drivers travel at an even, undiminished speed. Minor-road drivers at STOP signs must wait until it is safe to cross. But to pedestrians, the law gives the opposite instruction. In most states, pedestrians have an undisputed right of way on marked and unmarked crosswalks, modified only by the proviso that they may not move into the path of vehicles that constitute an immediate hazard so close that drivers cannot yield. Subject to this or similarly worded provisos, pedestrians may do what is forbidden to motorists: to get in the way of fast-moving traffic. The crosswalk law and the major-road concept are incompatible in terms of safety and efficiency. To give pedestrians directives different from those for minor-road drivers cannot be justified on operational or safety grounds. We need no statistical analysis to demonstrate that it is safer to cross a street after the cars on it have passed than to cross in front of them, whether on a crosswalk or elsewhere.
机译:交通控制系统的目的是确保安全快捷的出行。通行权规则旨在通过告诉道路使用者谁先行,谁必须屈服来避免碰撞。这些规则有意义吗?让我们以主要道路为例。其目的是让驾驶员以均匀,不降低的速度行驶。处于停车标志的小路驾驶员必须等待,直到可以安全通过为止。但是对于行人,法律给出了相反的指示。在大多数州,行人在有标记和无标记的人行横道上拥有无可争辩的通行权,但前提是行人不得驶入构成直接危险的车辆,以至于驾驶员无法屈服,但必须加以修改。在此或类似措词的前提下,行人可能会执行驾车者禁止的操作:阻止快速交通。人行横道法则和主要道路概念在安全性和效率方面是不相容的。出于操作或安全的考虑,向行人提供不同于小路驾驶员的指令是不合理的。我们不需要进行统计分析就可以证明,在经过汽车之后,过马路比在人行横道上或其他地方过马路更安全。

著录项

  • 来源
    《ITE journal》 |2008年第11期|p.1214|共2页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《工程索引》(EI);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 交通运输;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号