Talk:Continuous-flow intersection

Definition

What is a "turn conflict?"--Greatjones 00:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the path of one vehicle intersects with the path of another vehicle. --Thisisbossi 15:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good source for info

[1] --SPUI (T - C) 03:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Added it into the External Links. --Thisisbossi 15:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My recent revert

Perhaps I am nitpicking on semantics, but I just undid an edit that replaced "Motorists sometimes cite discomfort" with "Motorists sometimes cite safety issues". In the same sense as a square is a rectangle, but not vice-versa; safety concerns include discomfort, but discomfort does not necessarily indicate a safety issue. An adequately designed CFI can still violate driver expectancy due to the "keep left" configuration and therefore will cause discomfort to motorists, but such does not necessarily translate to a safety risk in excess of other typical intersections.

Also, included in the same revert, was the mention of using Jersey walls for delineation. These are not typically recommended due to the crash risk that they pose in the event of collision and also due to sight distance limitations. While their use is definitely feasible and I'm sure that there is or will be a CFI using such barrier walls, the phrasing used appeared to indicate that Jersey walls are a requirement for an adequately-designed CFI.

Lastly, length is not the sole trait of an adequately-designed acceleration lane, though I will agree it is an important trait. I feel that my phrasing provides a more vague approach rather than singling out only one trait. On a CFI involving lower speeds, length tends to become less relevant; rather the form of merge control becomes a higher priority. Turning radii and lane widths are other important factors.

--Thisisbossi 05:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agencies must pay royalites?

It seems U.S. agencies don't have to pay because this US patent expired October 15, 2003.

http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair enter 5049000 as the patent number.

Juxtapos99 10:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Checked this out, and it seems to be true. I'll add this to the article. — Val42 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about clarity

I find the narrative and the monochrome diagram to be quite confusing. I have good spacial skills but am not a traffic professional or maven. Perhaps a color-coded diagram would be the single most helpful improvement. --Jdmstl 03:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on redoing the diagram because of other issues, but tell me about this color coding idea that you have. — Val42 05:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment requests that each movement be color-coded. For example, the path of northbound lefts might be blue; northbound throughs red; eastbound lefts yellow; etc... --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 21:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"outside Mexico" vs "in the US"

I changed the section title "Locations outside Mexico" to "CFI Locations in the United States". I found the title confusing when reading the article. Though the article mentions the original development being in Mexico, there's nothing to indicate that all other CFI implementations are in Mexico, leaving it open whether examples exist other than in MX and US. If there really are no others, then it would make sense to clarify this both in the text and by further altering the section title as appropriate.Paleolith (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US versus the world... Since Wikipedia is deliberately a global resource, the authors of this article should reference the fact that CFIs are an import from Mexico. That would certainly help clarify your "outside Mexico vs in the US" problem. Obviously, Wikipedia is user-based, but you should at least include one original reference. It's almost like claiming that Shakespeare was from Connecticut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.16.135 (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]