It still doesn’t make sense, because it is impossible for passengers to get to a cell phone parking lot to be picked up. The lots are geographically separated from the terminal.
I’m not sure I understand the point of them then, if the passengers can’t use them to get to the terminal.
Say I’m supposed to pick my husband up from the airport. Instead of driving around the airport for an unknown amount of time while I wait for him to emerge from the terminal (which causes congestion when hundreds of people are doing it) I park in the cellphone lot. He calls when he’s ready , and I drive over to the terminal. He can’t walk to the cellphone lot, and I have no need to leave the vehicle. No handicapped parking is needed in the cellphone lot.
It probably only makes sense for busy airports.
Here is a map that might help it make more sense. The red box is the cell phone lot (note that there’s no buildings anywhere nearby) and the terminal is at the bottom of the map, about a 5 minute drive away.
Ah, OK. I’ve never heard of them. I guess there’s no need for the handicapped spaces there then, I agree.
I always thought they put them in places where visibility was low (sharp curve) or otherwise deceptive (like people are coming very quickly and it’s a much longer turn than is obvious when you are sitting them).
It depends on the average level of douchebaggery among the local drivers. In some areas, it’s pretty common for drivers with a green light to pull into the intersection, to wait for the opposite flow of traffic to get a red light. Once they’re in the intersection, it’s legal for them to make that left turn…even if their own light is red. And if everyone, or nearly everyone, does this, you get gridlock. And any driver who DOESN’T do this when making a left turn might very well have to sit through two or three light changes.
There’s a law here that you can only turn left on a green arrow when crossing oncoming traffic that has three or more through lanes. Mostly, the two lane streets also have green turn arrows, which switch to a flashing yellow turn arrow after through traffic starts up. I find that odd.
Odd. I have never used the one in Denver, but it does have port a potties. Perhaps the handicap parking is closer to them? And you can get out to use the restroom?
Not so much a law, but road design. I do a LOT of mountain driving in Colorado on two and 4 lane roads. Many of the roads I drive transition multiple times between one lane in each direction to two lanes in each direction due to hills, passing lanes and such.
Colorado CDOT can’t make up their damn mind. When transitioning from 2 lanes to one, sometimes the left lane ends, sometimes the right. It’s about 50/50. IMHO, it should always be one or the other so you can predict what you have to do. It should always be the left lane that ends since those that may be passing have the responsibility to know if they have the room to do so.
But no, you get some idiot that decides to pull up next to you and camp there forcing you to slow down or pass them on the right.
Yes it’s a pet peeve of mine.
Well, I think that speed limit laws where there’s no real danger are absurd. Why is it safe to drive 75 mph in Texas, 250 km/h in Germany, 120 km/h in South Africa, but only 55 mph in Detroit?
I’ve violated speed limits all over the world now (except China, where I’ve not yet driven), and when appropriate, it’s appropriate.
This is pure, unadulterated conjecture, but I feel like posting it anyway. 
I wonder if the presence of handicapped spots in a location where no one is supposed to leave their car (e.g. the aforementioned cell phone lot) is so that handicapped folks can leave their car in the event of an emergency. Say when they are instructed to evacuate the garage/lot without their vehicle.
I don’t even drive 55 in Detroit due to the potholes and large craters in the roads.
Quality of the road. Density of the traffic. Whether or not there are cross streets or entrances/exits.
Or for places where folks would park three-deep in the pickup area rather than go to Short Term Parking and pay three bucks to get out of the car and meet the person at baggage claim then walk back to the car directly (e.g. SJU). The latter was more popular (a) when you could actually accompany people into the terminal or greet them at gateside and (b) where you would have short-term parking within 100 feet of the terminal. Nowadays nonpassengers are unwelcome in the concourses and parking at larger airports is generally a goodly distance away…
I agree with this and go so far as to include consumption laws. Why is it legal for me to stop a bar on the way home from work, have one drink, then drive home, but it is illegal for me to have that drink on the way home?
Or why would it be illegal for a passenger to drink a case of beer and be blotted out of his mind? How is that different than me picking him up from a bar piss drunk and giving him a ride home?
I think that it is more nanny state, “alcohol doesn’t belong in cars” nonsense that overlooks the real purpose of the laws.
I have to admit, I have never heard of these areas before. We do have an airport in Lincoln and Omaha, but I’ve always used the short term lot when picking someone up. Sounds like a good idea, though.
New York State used to require the word “OPERATOR” to be displayed on any “vehicle of public conveyance”. They may still do; it’s still a frequent sight. Here’s some examples:
http://the3travellingprincipals.global2.vic.edu.au/files/2010/05/DSC01909.JPG
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4931856727_beb3284c26_z.jpg
I have a hard time believing that. Cite?
I missed this post before. This sounds down right comical to me. Honk before passing? That sounds like a recipe for an accident to me. I’d also like to see a cite for this. :dubious: