Spot the error

ASAAR wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:04:17 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Well I agree with that too, but the fundamentals of what he said are
bang on. He also pulled data from several sources where you pulled data
from a single source that seemed to have an anti-DRL bias (from its
language).

And if you notice, I indicated that the source was probably
biased, even though I'm not familiar with that particular issue.

I didn't notice, actually, but hooray.

Alan Browne wrote:

It's simply (the first sign) in error. I've sent the photos to both the
city and to the local provincial highway dept. (Not sure which is resp.
for those signs). The city replied right away. The provincial dept.
has not.

At the point of the first sign, there is only one lane traveling in that
direction. It subsequently splits into center and left and right
turning lanes.

If the intersection allowed a two lane turn, then there would be a
guidance arc painted on the asphalt. There is not. The intersection
certainly is large enough to allow a two lane turn.

A piece of white tape applied over the misplaced arrow would do it. If
the gendarmerie were to spot you and question you in this 30 second
citizen action, you could mention that you were considering suing the
(appropriate authority), that etc. etc.

Were Scott and I the only ones to catch this without adding several
hundred words?

--
john mcwilliams

Alan Browne wrote:
per wrote:
Also, the red car does not seem to have a licence plate up front.

Not issued in Quebec. Some US states also don't issue a front plate.


And some that do don't care if you don't display it.

--
john mcwilliams

On Jul 17, 4:27 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Sp...20PICT5288.jpg

Gee, before reading all of the other posts, I thought the error was
something completely different. I thought that the error was that the
"incorrect" sign was facing the camera, not to road, almost like it
was grabbed from a gov't website or something and photoshopped into
the picture without taking parallax into account.

"Pat" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 17, 4:27 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Sp...20PICT5288.jpg

Gee, before reading all of the other posts, I thought the error was
something completely different. I thought that the error was that the
"incorrect" sign was facing the camera, not to road, almost like it
was grabbed from a gov't website or something and photoshopped into
the picture without taking parallax into account.


Nah, Pat!
I went by just last night to find out the municipality had repaired the
error. It's now very clear:
http://celestart.com/images/publique...r-repaired.jpg
Take care,
Marcel

"Celcius" wrote in message
...

"Pat" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 17, 4:27 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Sp...20PICT5288.jpg

Gee, before reading all of the other posts, I thought the error was
something completely different. I thought that the error was that the
"incorrect" sign was facing the camera, not to road, almost like it
was grabbed from a gov't website or something and photoshopped into
the picture without taking parallax into account.


Nah, Pat!
I went by just last night to find out the municipality had repaired the
error. It's now very clear:
http://celestart.com/images/publique...r-repaired.jpg
Take care,
Marcel


Redundancy is always the safest approach but when did they invent hovering
signs? lol

joe

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:32:50 -0400, ASAAR wrote:
: Another question might be "Why does the red car have its
: headlights turned on?" since the picture was take at 12:11 pm.
: Running lights, ok. But headlights? I don't think that Alan would
: approve of such non-green wastefulness. Oh, I get it now. It's not
: green. It's a *red* car. g BTW, did you see the 'hidden' bike?

It probably belongs to the photographer. Note that his two friends are waiting
for him up the road.

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:08:20 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:32:50 -0400, ASAAR wrote:
: Another question might be "Why does the red car have its
: headlights turned on?" since the picture was take at 12:11 pm.
: Running lights, ok. But headlights? I don't think that Alan would
: approve of such non-green wastefulness. Oh, I get it now. It's not
: green. It's a *red* car. g BTW, did you see the 'hidden' bike?

It probably belongs to the photographer. Note that his two friends are waiting
for him up the road.

That's possible. Odd, though, that I didn't notice them until
quite a while after spotting the closer bike. Hint: It's not
pointed in the same direction as the 'friends' are facing, and
explains why I originally said "bike" instead of "bikes".

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:21:09 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:
: Alan Browne wrote:
: per wrote:
: Also, the red car does not seem to have a licence plate up front.
:
: Not issued in Quebec. Some US states also don't issue a front plate.
:
:
: And some that do don't care if you don't display it.

Massachusetts stopped issuing front plates for several years, then started
issuing them again. So the green and white plates, some of which are still
around, don't have them. I believe the rule here is that you aren't required
to have a front plate; but if one was issued to you, you're required to
display it.

Bob

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:32:42 -0400, ASAAR wrote:
: On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:11:31 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
:
: The sign with the three arrows is set further back, so it could
: identify all three lanes more safely. The middle two headed arrow
: may just indicate that drivers in the middle lane must continue
: straight ahead, but that there's another road slightly further
: ahead, just out of sight, where you can make a left turn. If that
: road does not exist, then the dual headed arrow should be the error,
: and it should have just pointed straight ahead.
:
: I don't pretend to understand what you wrote above... the near sign is
: wrong ... or the city should add a parallel turning lane (better as I go
: through that intersection every evening).
:
: That's one of the options I mentioned. If there is no left turn
: slightly ahead, but not seen in the picture, then the middle (two
: headed) arrow in the near sign is the error, and it should have only
: pointed straight ahead, putting it in agreement with the sign
: further ahead (just to the left of the car in the center of the
: picture) which has only two arrows. Of the two on that sign, the
: one on the right refers to the middle lane, pointing straight ahead.
: This also agrees with the arrows painted on the middle lane, which
: as far as I can see, also only point straight ahead.
:
: The point that I made was that if it was possible to make a left
: turn slightly further ahead, but not visible in the photo (and which
: from what you said now appears not to be the case), then the forward
: sign (with two arrows) would have had the error, not the near sign
: with the three arrows.
:
:
: Another question might be "Why does the red car have its
: headlights turned on?" since the picture was take at 12:11 pm.
: Running lights, ok. But headlights? I don't think that Alan would
:
: Those are running lights. Headlights would be brighter. The sacrifice
: of a few watt hours is supposed to reduce accidents... accidents cause
: more pollution than the use of the electricity...
:
: Headlights would be brighter if they were aimed at the camera.
: They're not, they're aimed straight ahead, pointing in the direction
: the car is traveling, not to the driver's left, across three
: oncoming lanes (from that driver's perspecive) and towards the
: camera. This isn't to say that they are or are not headlights. It's
: just that I don't think it can be determined what type of light they
: are just by how bright or dim the light appears in the picture. In
: any case, looking at the entire light assembly containing the
: headlight, running light, parking light, whatever, there's not
: enough detail to make out the individual components. But it does
: appear that the part that's illuminated is the large central part of
: the assembly. If so, wouldn't that be the headlight? It might be
: much clearer in your original, higher resolution photo, where the
: illuminated component may not be as it appears in the smaller shot
: you made available on the internet.
:
: BTW, did you spot the bike in the picture that I previously
: mentioned? And if you did, how many are there?

If there is one (and so far I haven't seen conclusive evidence - the "bike" in
the near weeds might be a grocery cart), it's probably Alan's. He's the one
who spotted the road sign error, and he just said that he goes through that
intersection daily. So it stands to reason that he's the one who took the
picture.

Bob