Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Högertrafikomläggningen

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 190 posts

Re: Högertrafikomläggningen

#151

Post by nisse72 »

bloomingeek wrote: post #80

In early 2001, my wife and I visited the beautiful country of New Zealand. The travel books told us to be aware that traffic flows opposite from the US. When we collected our rental car in Invercargill, there was a sticker near the steering wheel that read: "To stay alive, drive on the left!". We had a good laugh and drove away from the airport. We soon discovered that the raised middle finger was international. :)

You probably also saw the arrows on the road itself as a reminder of the correct direction of travel. Those are always near any places tourists are likely to stop, since after a break it's common to forget which side to be on.

Re: Högertrafikomläggningen

#152

Post by cozzyd »

matsemann wrote: post #150
rkagerer wrote: post #148

Interesting how changing up the side of the road drivers use elevated their attention, resulting in less accidents, until the activity became second nature again. The relatively smooth changeover saw a temporary reduction in the number of accidents... These initial improvements did not last, however. The number of motor insurance claims returned to "normal" over the next six weeks Iceland saw a similar effect on "H-d…

Yes, it's a thing that makes it hard for city planners and transport engineers when they test out new things. Any change often improves status quo in the start, so need to run it for long enough to actually gather valid data.

Sounds like we should have chaotic traffic patterns to improve safety.

Re: Högertrafikomläggningen

#153

Post by nobodyandproud »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #113
alkonaut wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a large part were just ”no” to anything. Few I imagine were against right hand traffic but many simply resisted change. Only just half of voters voted, however.

NIMBYism in a nutshell.

Downvoted, but the down-voters have’t given thought to how closely coorelated this is.

Re: Högertrafikomläggningen

#154

Post by Too »

Something interesting is that roads don’t have the same properties if you just drive them the other direction.

It’s not something you will immediately notice by just looking at the road, you have to think of the full picture.

Imagine a fork vs a merge. You have buffer zones for off-ramps. Tight merges. Psychology of drivers. Reaction to signage. All this alters the flow of traffic and create undesired bottlenecks.

In the bigger cities you can still find a few examples of such originally left roads around, with less ideal flow. Usually around tunnels where rework is difficult.

Re: Högertrafikomläggningen

#155

Post by scarytom »

matsemann wrote: post #7

One surprising (after we got a ticket..) thing about parking laws in Sweden is that you're also only allowed to park on the right side of the road / with the car in the direction of the traffic. This has the benefit of that when you're leaving the street parking, you are sitting close to the lane and can look behind you for coming cars and only cross one lane. Compared to parking on the "wrong" side, where you're sit…

This is in the UK highway code too

Re: Högertrafikomläggningen

#156

Post by scarytom »

gmac wrote: post #149
gerikson wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Swede it amazes me that some countries allow parking "in the wrong direction". I've never even thought about it, and I don't know if it's a written rule (I'm sure it is, just it;s been a long time since I got my license).

As a Brit it amazes me that this is even a concept. I've certainly never heard of it. We park whichever way is convenient.

If you read the British highway code, you will find that we have this rule too.

Re: Högertrafikomläggningen

#157

Post by dagurp »

alkonaut wrote: post #89

Having a non-binding referendum and moving against the 85% vote takes balls. And we're forever greatful that they did. Presumably people thought it would be inconvenient and voted no, while politicians realized the cost of doing it later would be much larger than just ripping the band aid off. At the time, the number of massive motorway crossings and similar was probably nearly zero. Today the cost would be unimagina…

New York should show the same courage

Re: Högertrafikomläggningen

#158

Post by type0 »

mistrial9 wrote: post #146
rags2riches wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar jokes were made when the outlook for a Swedish NATO ascension was bad. The much more cool-headed and diplomatically grounded Finns were set to join NATO without trouble. So the solution was obvious: Sweden should join Finland instead of NATO. Relevant context is that Norway was the junior partner of a personal union with Sweden for most of the nineteenth century and until 1905. Also Sweden and Finland was one…

also some other Scandinavians captured and sold Finns as slaves until about 1100.. some things are hard to forget once known widely

Yeah, but Lithuanians were the biggest slave traders on the Baltic sea up until until Christianity was widely adopted in the 15th century

Re: Högertrafikomläggningen

#159

Post by type0 »

Tade0 wrote: post #72
gerikson wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Swede it amazes me that some countries allow parking "in the wrong direction". I've never even thought about it, and I don't know if it's a written rule (I'm sure it is, just it;s been a long time since I got my license).

Over here in Poland it's allowed in areas of "low traffic" - a term not defined anywhere in the law. I did it the other day and it felt illegal.

It feels much more illegal in Italy

Re: Högertrafikomläggningen

#160

Post by Someone »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #118
agency wrote: post #105

The "see also" section links to a similar changeover in Okinawa which mentions that a country having more than one traffic direction is in violation of the Geneva convention (on road traffic) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention_on_Road_Tr...

If this is a violation, the United States needs to fix its own problem. Left driving is the rule in the US Virgin Islands, and it's especially dangerous because (like Sweden before 1967) most cars there have left-hand steering and the roads are narrow.

I don’t think the US Virgin Islands are part of the country called the United States of America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_Stat...:

“American territories are under American sovereignty and, consequently, may be treated as part of the United States proper in some ways and not others (i.e., territories belong to, but are not considered to be a part of, the United States). Unincorporated territories in particular are not considered to be integral parts of the United States, and the Constitution of the United States applies only partially in those territories.”

(This kind of stuff can be very convolutrd. There are parts of France that aren’t in the EU, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_France: “Overseas France (French: France d'outre-mer, also France ultramarine)[note 3] consists of 13 French territories outside Europe, mostly the remains of the French colonial empire that remained a part of the French state under various statuses after decolonization. Most, but not all, are part of the European Union”)

Post reply on HN