Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
... Martin Underwood wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 25 Jun 2005: Going back to the earlier theme of "let's mock the Americans' way of doing things", another thing that I found when I drove over there was that their standard of signposting, once you got off the multi-lane highways, was abysmal. Maybe I'm just used to a three-way sign at the junction of almost every country lane in England. And the road name signs are very difficult to read because they are in a very condensed font, in white letters on a pale green background: signs are supposed to be legible! I can only comment on Massachussetts roads: I don't know whether it's the same in all states. It doesn't help that the road atlas that I had was organised by town (rather than being a simple west-to-east, north-to-south arrangement) and the various maps were at different scales and in different styles. And this was a map book that boasted on its front cover "highly acclaimed" and "very easy to use"!!! They don't seem to be very good at doing road maps - we used that same one, I think, when we visited Mass. some years ago now. Yes, it assumes that you instinctively know which township or which district of a big city (eg Boston) you are currently in - because each has its own separate index of street names (as opposed to a Massachussets-wide or even Boston-wide index of streets). I got lost on my way back to Logan airport somewhere in the Boston suburbs. With a decent map it would have been dead easy to look up a street name and locate myself. But when you've got to work out which suburb ("town") you're in to know which index to look in, it makes life very difficult. The idea of having maps that didn't tile together on consecutive pages in the book and which were all at different scales was the final straw: it was so bad that it was hilarious. When I mentioned it to an American he seemed mystified and impressed that I had the courage to venture off the multi-lane highways! The thing I noticed on our visit to Kansas was that distances were measured in fractions of a mile, rather than yards - where we would say there was an exit in (say) 200 yards, they'd put "3/8 mile". Alternatively they measure smaller distances in feet rather than yards. Seeing a temporary road works sign that says "Road works - 3000 feet ahead" makes you think "Er, what? Oh, 1000 yards. Right, OK." Just a case of what you're used to. But using non-decimal fractions of a mile is just plain stupid, given that car mileometers are calibrated in tenths of a mile - much better to say "0.4 mile" or "4/10 mile" rather than "3/8 mile". Mind you, our signs sometimes give distances as 1/2 or 1/4 mile - but I imagine more people know what these are as tenths of a mile than could work out 3/8 mile in an instant. The other thing that caught me out is that on minor roads there's sometimes no stop or give-way line where a minor road meets a major road - very tricky to work out where to stop, especially where the junction is on a bend. However zebra crossings have dirty-great white lines across the road: several times I instinctively slammed on the brakes to stop at a zebra crossing, even when there was no-one crossing, thinking I was meeting a major road - it's one thing knowing that you're wrong; it's another thing remembering it in the heat of the moment. And it felt wrong not having a red-and-amber "get ready to go, put the car in gear/drive, take the handbrake off" phase to traffic lights, but I gather a lot of Europe is like that. I must admit, after driving in America and having to keep down to fairly low speed limits on single-carriageway roads (35 where we'd probably have had 50 or 60), it was nice to get off the train from Gatwick into my own car and drive on the right side of the road on country lanes where I was able to drive at a reasonable speed, or on a dual-carriageway where I wouldn't have to contend with someone overtaking me on my nearside or going dead-level with me mile after mile, and in a car that didn't change down automatically into second gear every time I dropped below 30 or negotiated a roundabout! Before I went, I was apprehensive of how I'd adjust to driving on the other side of the road, but I had no problems with that. And I think I coped with roundabouts like the one going onto Cape Cod a damn-sight better than most Americans who very rarely get to see one and were flummoxed to encounter one all of a sudden. I wouldn't like to have to drive a RHD car on the right (or an LHD car on the left) though: I like to be able to see in my door mirror what's overtaking me or see what's coming towards me when I want to overtake. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
RAIL London special | London Transport | |||
How fast-talking cyclist got away with 'jumping red light' - Daily Mail | London Transport | |||
Roadside Ticket Machines run by London Buses - how useful / reliableare they? | London Transport | |||
Got a Hobby? | London Transport | |||
Got a hobby? A passion? Or an Interest? | London Transport |