Cities Turning to Bicycles



In article <[email protected]>,
Matthew Russotto <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <4b39d.135425$wV.11486@attbi_s54>,
>Brent P <[email protected]> wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, braking with the brakes, Brent. While in a curve. Every day.
>>>>> It's quite normal.
>>>>>
>>>> google for "friction circle" to see why that's a bad idea (yes, on a
>>>> bike too.)
>>>
>>> I don't need to google friction circles. I know all about them.
>>>
>>> It's interesting that Brent claimed _I_ was talking about racing, i.e.
>>> limit of adhesion situations, now that you are using a term that really
>>> pertains only to that situation.
>>
>>It was your quote about what a 'skilled bike racer' does. You are
>>basically telling us we are wrong to apply racing techniques to
>>driving on the public roads while at the same time chastising us for
>>not doing so and prefering not to have to.
>
>Hmm. Recap here. Frank thinks it is perfectly reasonable to
>
>a) Post the exact same warning signs on a constant curve, and increasing
>radius curve with the same entry radius as the constant curve.
>
>b) Have the increasing radius of the curve be hidden to traffic
>entering the curve
>
>c) Excoriate drivers who enter the increasing radius curve in the
>same way as the constant curve, and then have to use racing maneuvers
>to avoid leaving the roadway

Ack. Substitute "decreasing" for "increasing" above. Everyone but
Frank knew what I meant, of course.

>using as evidence
>
>d) The "fact" that most drivers, even those unfamiliar with the road,
>get through without such maneuvers and without leaving the roadway
>
>even though
>
>e) Barriers at the side of the roadway show many signs of impact, and
>no data is available on the maneuvers most of those who DIDN'T hit had to take
>to avoid doing so.
>
>And he "thinks" he's being perfectly reasonable.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
greg byshenk <[email protected]> wrote:

> Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The huge mistake is for advisory limits to be set so inconsistently that
> > one doesn't have an honest idea for what speeds can be used in such
> > situations.
>
> This is almost certainly true (and it is at least arguably true that
> advisory speed limits are indeed seriously inconsistent), as is the
> earlier comment that decreasing radius turns are to be avoided if
> possible.
>
> I would note, though, that such things have absolutely nothing to do
> with speed humps or residential speed limits (or even speed limits on
> urban surface arterials). I don't know if anyone is actually suggesting
> that they do; I am justing noting the fact.

Actually, they have a lot to do with it.

In the same way that seriously underposted advisory limits lead people
to ignore them, seriously underposted legal limits lead people to ignore
them; even where they're appropriate, such as in residential
neighbourhoods.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <Dn19d.19776$n%[email protected]>,
> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>An off-ramp from a freeway that has a stop light at the end of the ramp.
>>>>One must slow or stop anyway, and the forced slowing with a decreasing
>>>>radius geometric additionally sends the message that the road about to
>>>>be entered is not a freeway.
>>>>
>>>>Wayne
>>>
>>>
>>>Why not have a constant radius turn of the same radius as your proposed
>>>decreasing radius ramp at its tightest? What would be the disadvantage?
>>>
>>
>>Starting with a larger radius is more consistent with the high speed
>>entering the off ramp. As speed is lost, the turn can be tighter to
>>ensure just that.
>>
>>Wayne
>
>
> But you create a situation where driver's can't *see* (in many cases,
> anyway) the radius where it tightens.
>

That is why there is a sign warning of it.

Wayne
 
In article <jWg9d.19959$n%[email protected]>,
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <Dn19d.19776$n%[email protected]>,
> > Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Alan Baker wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>An off-ramp from a freeway that has a stop light at the end of the ramp.
> >>>>One must slow or stop anyway, and the forced slowing with a decreasing
> >>>>radius geometric additionally sends the message that the road about to
> >>>>be entered is not a freeway.
> >>>>
> >>>>Wayne
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Why not have a constant radius turn of the same radius as your proposed
> >>>decreasing radius ramp at its tightest? What would be the disadvantage?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Starting with a larger radius is more consistent with the high speed
> >>entering the off ramp. As speed is lost, the turn can be tighter to
> >>ensure just that.
> >>
> >>Wayne
> >
> >
> > But you create a situation where driver's can't *see* (in many cases,
> > anyway) the radius where it tightens.
> >
>
> That is why there is a sign warning of it.
>
> Wayne

The problem being that such warning signs are so often wildly wrong,
that when one is right you get surprised.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
>> Again: people who defend night driving at 75+ mph on rural two-lane
>> roads lack the judgement to comment on mitigating neighborhood speeding.

> I can't think of any two lane roads near where I live that I would
> consider doing 75+ mph at night. Too risky when you consider
> that it isn't just other motorists that you need to be concerned
> with. Wild animals tend to roam about at night and may wander
> out onto the roadway. Hitting a deer would ruin your night.

I can -- in the Sacramento Delta. No animal life there except cows and the
occasional dog, and with the road on top of a levee it's unlikely that a cow
will wander up there. Visibility is also excellent, with isolated exceptions.
 
Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> greg byshenk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > The huge mistake is for advisory limits to be set so inconsistently that
> > > one doesn't have an honest idea for what speeds can be used in such
> > > situations.
> >
> > This is almost certainly true (and it is at least arguably true that
> > advisory speed limits are indeed seriously inconsistent), as is the
> > earlier comment that decreasing radius turns are to be avoided if
> > possible.
> >
> > I would note, though, that such things have absolutely nothing to do
> > with speed humps or residential speed limits (or even speed limits on
> > urban surface arterials). I don't know if anyone is actually suggesting
> > that they do; I am justing noting the fact.
>
> Actually, they have a lot to do with it.
>
> In the same way that seriously underposted advisory limits lead people
> to ignore them, seriously underposted legal limits lead people to ignore
> them; even where they're appropriate, such as in residential
> neighbourhoods.

Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to illustrate.

nate
 
Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > [email protected] (Nate Nagel) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>news:<[email protected]>...
> > >>
> > >>>Alan Baker wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>I've driven my brother's Nissan Pathfinder (even before it had its
> > >>>>shocks replaced) and it can easily -- easily -- more than double the
> > >>>>advisory speeds on most ramps.
> > >>>
> > >>>Advisory speeds are based on the comfort level of a driver driving a
> > >>>1939 Ford Vehicle. The lateral force would be enough to have a "ball on
> > >>>a string" deviate 10 degrees from the vertical position. Most drivers
> > >>>take curves such that the deviation would be between 12 and 14 degrees,
> > >>>IIRC.
> > >>
> > >>found this site:
> > >>
> > >>http://manuals.dot.state.tx.us/dynaweb/coltraff/szn/@Generic__BookTextView/4
> > >>00
> > >>9;cs=default;ts=default
> > >>
> > >>I don't see any mention of a 1939 Ford, but essentially that appears
> > >>to be correct. They do apparently allow higher G-forces for very slow
> > >>speed turns, but 10 degrees is the recommended value for 35 MPH or
> > >>higher. In any case the maximum value allowed is 14 degrees, still
> > >>far less than people seem to find acceptable in day to day driving. I
> > >>wouldn't be surprised if a 10 degree ball bank indicator reading *was*
> > >>perfectly safe and comfortable in a bone stock '39 Ford, honestly.
> > >>Perhaps it's time to revisit these standards; how often is a vehicle
> > >>in regular use anywhere in the US older than the mid-late 1960's?
> > >>
> > >>Key quote: "The speed to be posted on the curve should not be reduced
> > >>arbitrarily below that determined by the procedures provided in this
> > >>section." Hmm, looks like *that* recommendation isn't followed across
> > >>the board...
> > >>
> > >>Note that there really isn't *any* hard standard for advisory speeds
> > >>for exit ramps, although obviously I have no way of knowing if that
> > >>section of this document is derived from the Green Book or is unique
> > >>to the state of TX.
> > >>
> > >>nate
> > >
> > >
> > > It also shows how stupid the system is.
> > >
> > > A ball bank indicator? One big problem with it: in addition to the
> > > movement of the ball due to lateral g forces, you also get movement due
> > > to the roll of the vehicle. And since different vehicles roll different
> > > amounts, you automatically get inconsistent results.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe *YOUR* car has perceptible roll at under 0.5G <G>
> >
> > nate
>
> *Every* car does.


You missed the "perceptible" and the <G> - some of us like stiff
suspensions, such as:

http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel/daytona6.html

nate
 
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Perhaps you should start with how you see miles in the dark in Nevada.
> >> Then tell how it works in Virginia.
> >>
> >
> > It's really easy, you just flip on the high beams.
>
> It's fantasy time! ;-)
>
>
> >
> > A nice bonus of the flat terrain is that the moonlight actually helps
> > you, as the only shadows are from the trees.
>
> So, how many miles would you say you can normally see? I'm curious
> about your estimate. (Those are some headlights!)

Couldn't honestly say. It's been a couple months since that road trip
and I haven't been in the car since. Also, even though we were out in
the country, there was a full or near-full moon that night, it never
really did get completely dark, so even if my memory were better I
couldn't give you an estimate of range.

I would guess that in my daily driver 944 which has
not-quite-legal-in-the-US but excellent Cibie H4 E-code lights with a
custom relay harness, I have never actually seen the range of my
headlights because the only road I know of near me dark enough to
really test same is curvy and hilly enough that there's not enough
distance for a real test. There's usable light 1/4 mile or more out
there, and that's with legal wattage bulbs. (I have some 90/100W
bulbs on the shelf, but I'm a little hesitant to try them because I'm
afraid I might fry some poor guy's retinas if I don't dim them quickly
enough.)

nate
 
"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > Tung-Sol '62 vintage sealed beams on that car seem to give better light
> > than the halogens did on the p-car.
>
> On low beam: Yes, the beam focus and formation is definitely better, peak
> intensity is higher and upward stray light is much lower. Light color is
> poor, though.
>
> On high beam: No, the halogen sealed beams are better.

I disagree, at least subjectively - or is it possible that a 40 year
old Studebaker wiring harness actually has less voltage drop than a 16
year old Porsche wiring harness? When I got the 944, the headlights
were sickly and yellow, and I really didn't enjoy driving it at night
until I addressed that problem (in a massive overkill sort of way, of
course.)

nate
 
Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > greg byshenk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > > The huge mistake is for advisory limits to be set so inconsistently that
> > > > one doesn't have an honest idea for what speeds can be used in such
> > > > situations.

> > > This is almost certainly true (and it is at least arguably true that
> > > advisory speed limits are indeed seriously inconsistent), as is the
> > > earlier comment that decreasing radius turns are to be avoided if
> > > possible.

> > > I would note, though, that such things have absolutely nothing to do
> > > with speed humps or residential speed limits (or even speed limits on
> > > urban surface arterials). I don't know if anyone is actually suggesting
> > > that they do; I am justing noting the fact.

> > Actually, they have a lot to do with it.

> > In the same way that seriously underposted advisory limits lead people
> > to ignore them, seriously underposted legal limits lead people to ignore
> > them; even where they're appropriate, such as in residential
> > neighbourhoods.

> Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to illustrate.

IOW if I'm reading correctly, you are saying that there is some sort of
analogy that one can draw between the two. Which means that the two
don't actually have anything to do with each other.

Poorly maintainance can cause one's programs to crash, and poor
maintainance can cause one's car to crash. The cases are analogous in
a certain way, but actually have nothing to do with each other.


--
greg byshenk - [email protected] - Leiden, NL
 
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/full/041004-13.html

Hydrogen economy looks out of reach
Published online: 07 October 2004
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/full/041004-13.html

Mark Peplow
US vehicles would require a million wind turbines, economists claim.

Converting every vehicle in the United States to hydrogen power would demand
so much electricity that the country would need enough wind turbines to
cover half of California or 1,000 extra nuclear power stations.

So concludes a British economist, whose calculation is intended to highlight
the difficulties of achieving a truly green hydrogen economy.

"This calculation is useful to make people realize what an enormous problem
we face," says Andrew Oswald, an economist from the University of Warwick.

The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.

Most hydrogen is currently made from methane, in a process that releases
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Splitting water molecules with
electricity generates hydrogen - but the electricity is likely to have been
generated from fossil fuels.

Although this may shift urban pollution to out-of-town electricity plants,
it makes little difference to greenhouse-gas output. "Today, hydrogen is not
a clean, green fuel," says Oswald's brother Jim, an energy consultant who
assisted with the calculation. "You've got to ask: where did the hydrogen
come from?"

The only technology that can currently make large amounts of hydrogen
without using fossil fuels relies on renewable power sources or nuclear
energy, the Oswalds argue. Hydrogen will only mitigate global warming when a
clean source of the gas becomes available, they say.

Unpopular options

The duo considered the United Kingdom and the United States. Transport
accounts for about one third of each country's energy consumption.

UK transport uses only a tenth as much energy as the United States, but
there is less land available: the hydrogen switch would require 100,000 wind
turbines, enough to occupy an area greater than Wales.

It unlikely that enough turbines could ever be built, says Jim Oswald. On
the other hand, public opposition to nuclear energy deters many politicians.
"I suspect we will do nothing, because all the options are so unpopular."

"I don't think we'll ever have a true hydrogen economy. The outlook is
extremely bleak," he adds. The brothers outline their calculation in the
current issue of Accountancy magazine.

"Hydrogen is not a near-term prospect," agrees Paul Ekins, an energy
economist at the Policy Studies Institute, London. "There will have to be a
few fundamental breakthroughs in technology first," he says.

Politicians eager to promote their green credentials, yet unaware of the
realities, have oversold the hydrogen dream, says Ekins. "I'm amazed by the
number of politicians who think you can dig hydrogen out of the ground," he
says.

However, he thinks that the Oswalds are too pessimistic about the
possibilities of new technology. "An enormous amount of attention is being
paid to generating hydrogen cleanly," he says.

If we could trap the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuels underground, we
could convert them to hydrogen, says Ekins. "It's not tried and tested, but
it's a possibility." And it could become a reality by the time we have
enough hydrogen-powered cars to make it necessary, he says.

So do the Oswalds have a more immediate answer to the hydrogen problem? "We
could always use less energy, but that doesn't seem very likely," Jim Oswald
says ruefully.

© 2004 Nature Publishing Group
 
In article <[email protected]>,
greg byshenk <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > greg byshenk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > The huge mistake is for advisory limits to be set so inconsistently
> > > > > that
> > > > > one doesn't have an honest idea for what speeds can be used in such
> > > > > situations.
>
> > > > This is almost certainly true (and it is at least arguably true that
> > > > advisory speed limits are indeed seriously inconsistent), as is the
> > > > earlier comment that decreasing radius turns are to be avoided if
> > > > possible.
>
> > > > I would note, though, that such things have absolutely nothing to do
> > > > with speed humps or residential speed limits (or even speed limits on
> > > > urban surface arterials). I don't know if anyone is actually
> > > > suggesting
> > > > that they do; I am justing noting the fact.
>
> > > Actually, they have a lot to do with it.
>
> > > In the same way that seriously underposted advisory limits lead people
> > > to ignore them, seriously underposted legal limits lead people to ignore
> > > them; even where they're appropriate, such as in residential
> > > neighbourhoods.
>
> > Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to illustrate.
>
> IOW if I'm reading correctly, you are saying that there is some sort of
> analogy that one can draw between the two. Which means that the two
> don't actually have anything to do with each other.
>
> Poorly maintainance can cause one's programs to crash, and poor
> maintainance can cause one's car to crash. The cases are analogous in
> a certain way, but actually have nothing to do with each other.

Actually, the problems we were discussing are very similar. Nothing like
you're describing at all.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<KHV9d.151496$wV.117342@attbi_s54>...
>
> So do the Oswalds have a more immediate answer to the hydrogen problem? "We
> could always use less energy, but that doesn't seem very likely," Jim Oswald
> says ruefully.
>

Nevertheless, that's the answer. Go to smaller cars and lower speeds
like america did in the 70s save gas and 10,000 lives a year in
america as a bonus. Most obvious thing in the world, but nobody wants
it cause boobus americanus is told big cars and fast driving are good.
 
vichercules <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Mark Leuck Wrote:
> > "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > [email protected] (DonQuijote1954) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > It makes sense to me, but will "the powers that be" make it happen?
> I
> > > > see SUVs in full control of the road in America.
> > > >
> > >
> > > People aren't forced to buy 3 ton SUVs. They do it cause they think
> > > it's cool to be a highway terrorist. If america imprisoned
> reckless
> > > drivers that kill and maim, then people would opt for small cars and
> > > bikes.
> >
> > Thats the biggest load of **** I've seen posted in ages, got some
> > documentation supporting it?
> >
> > Of course you don't
>
>
> I have included some information from Safecarguide.com at the bottom of
> this post it demonstrates a gradual increase in road fatalities from
> 1994 to 1998., in addition I have included a link to the 2003 traffic
> fatality report from the National Center of Statistics and Analysis
> which demonstrates a continuation of the trend in an increase in road
> fatalities per year over the last ten years(42,643 deaths in 2003)
> (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nr...2003/809767.pdf)
> The increase correponds directly to the increase of light trucks as a
> percentage of passenger vehicles in the United states.
>
> In addition, if you look at the rollover statistics posted recently by
> the feds (http://www.suvrollovernews.com/html/article7.html) you will
> find that 53% of all traffic fatalities are due to SUV rollovers and
> that SUV's have a 25% higher fatality rate per accident than
> passenger vehicles. (http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=388)
>
> Imprisonment for driving dangerous SUV's would probably have no effect
> especially considering that the rollover rate and corresponding deaths
> would make few of the defendants available for trial. However, there
> is much to support that SUV's considerably more dangerous to their
> occupants and to the occupants of passenger cars that are struck by
> them than other vehicles. It is clear that from a fuel consumption
> standpoint that SUV's are supremely wasteful when it comes to natural
> resources.
>
> I find it shocking that in an age where safety features in automobiles
> are advancing at a record rate, the irrational and selfish vehicle
> choices of a nation actually increase the number of road fatalities.
> Imagine the numbers if EAS, side airbags, and anti lock brakes weren't
> around to soften the blow.
>
> Is that enough documentation?
>
> It took about 10 minutes of googling to find thousands of pages, I can
> include more links if you would like.
>
>
>
> "United States - The death toll on our highways makes driving the
> number one cause of death and injury for young people ages 5 to 27.
> Highway crashes cause 94 percent of all transportation fatalities and
> 99 percent of all transportation injuries, yet traffic safety programs
> receive only one percent of the funding of the U.S. DOT budget. The
> staggering loss of life and the incidence of life-threatening injuries
> occurring each year is best described as a public health crisis.
> According to a WHO report, "The Injury Pyramid," for every motor
> vehicle injury resulting in death in the US, 13 people sustain injuries
> severe enough to require hospitalization.
>
> In the US DOT publication "The Economic Costs Of Motor Vehicle
> Crashes," NHTSA investigator Lawrence J. Blincoe reports that in 1994,
> motor vehicle crashes accounted for 40,676 fatalites, and 4,100,000
> injuries (of which 533,000 or 13% were serious). The total lifetime
> cost to the US economy for automobile accidents that occured in 1994
> was $150.5 billion. The 1996 NHTSA report "1996 Traffic Safety Facts"
> (pdf) came up with similar though somewhat improved statistics: 41,907
> fatalities and 3,511,000 injuries, 456,430 of them serious. The 1997
> NHTSA report "Traffic Safety Facts 1997" reports 41,967 fatalities and
> 3,399,000 injuries, 441,870 of them serious. The 1998 NHTSA report
> "Traffic Safety Facts 1998 Annual Report" reports 41,471 fatalities and
> 3,192,000 injuries, 414,960 of them serious. "

Very dramatic information, but since SUVs generate so much business,
nobody will do a thing about it.

SUVs are a sign of how much "armor" we need on American roads.
Ironically, along with posing a much greater risk to others, the armor
exposes their own Achilles' heel. We are the victims of our own
success...

If we measure "success" in terms of the junk we own.
 
Jack Dingler wrote:
> The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
> which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
> warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.

But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
one.

If you're going to troll us with these scams, at least come up with some
new material every year or two. The "hydrogen economy" was debunked long
ago.
 
John David Galt <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Jack Dingler wrote:
> > The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
> > which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
> > warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.
>
> But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
> energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
> one.

That's what the guy said, you dimwit. You didn't read the whole post.
 
Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
> greg byshenk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > greg byshenk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > > > > The huge mistake is for advisory limits to be set so inconsistently
> > > > > > that one doesn't have an honest idea for what speeds can be used in
> > > > > > such situations.

> > > > > This is almost certainly true (and it is at least arguably true that
> > > > > advisory speed limits are indeed seriously inconsistent), as is the
> > > > > earlier comment that decreasing radius turns are to be avoided if
> > > > > possible.

> > > > > I would note, though, that such things have absolutely nothing to do
> > > > > with speed humps or residential speed limits (or even speed limits on
> > > > > urban surface arterials). I don't know if anyone is actually
> > > > > suggesting that they do; I am justing noting the fact.

> > > > Actually, they have a lot to do with it.

> > > > In the same way that seriously underposted advisory limits lead people
> > > > to ignore them, seriously underposted legal limits lead people to ignore
> > > > them; even where they're appropriate, such as in residential
> > > > neighbourhoods.

> > > Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to illustrate.

> > IOW if I'm reading correctly, you are saying that there is some sort of
> > analogy that one can draw between the two. Which means that the two
> > don't actually have anything to do with each other.

> > Poorly maintainance can cause one's programs to crash, and poor
> > maintainance can cause one's car to crash. The cases are analogous in
> > a certain way, but actually have nothing to do with each other.

> Actually, the problems we were discussing are very similar. Nothing like
> you're describing at all.

Then perhaps you can explain _how_. The explanation above seems to be
precisely a statement of analogy: "A is to B as C is to D". Or, more
directly: "underposted advisory limits are related to people ignoring
advisory limits in the same way as underposted legal limits are to
people ignoring legal limits".

This may be true, but even if so, does nothing to connect _advisory_
limits to violation of legal limits.


--
greg byshenk - [email protected] - Leiden, NL
 
>> "We could always use less energy, but that doesn't seem very
>> likely ...."
> Nevertheless, that's the answer.

=v= Yep.

> Go to smaller cars and lower speeds like america did in the
> 70s save gas and 10,000 lives a year in america as a bonus.

=v= The gas savings was, alas, temporary. Basically, when the
price of gas came back down (though heavily-subsidized as
always, of course), people drove their fuel-efficient cars more
and farther. This ate up the gas savings, and even worse, took
some of the bite out of sprawl.

=v= So now the U.S. is covered with suburban sprawl that puts
many people hours away from their daily destinations, and so
they want luxury to spend those hours in, I guess. Meaning
bloated gas-guzzlers, and even though gas prices are low
(in constant dollars) they squeal about how "high" they are
because they're consuming so much of it.

=v= And the rest of us get to subsidize their equally-bloated
sense of entitlement.
<_Jym_>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
greg byshenk <[email protected]> wrote:

> Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > greg byshenk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > greg byshenk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The huge mistake is for advisory limits to be set so
> > > > > > > inconsistently
> > > > > > > that one doesn't have an honest idea for what speeds can be used
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > such situations.
>
> > > > > > This is almost certainly true (and it is at least arguably true
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > advisory speed limits are indeed seriously inconsistent), as is the
> > > > > > earlier comment that decreasing radius turns are to be avoided if
> > > > > > possible.
>
> > > > > > I would note, though, that such things have absolutely nothing to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > with speed humps or residential speed limits (or even speed limits
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > urban surface arterials). I don't know if anyone is actually
> > > > > > suggesting that they do; I am justing noting the fact.
>
> > > > > Actually, they have a lot to do with it.
>
> > > > > In the same way that seriously underposted advisory limits lead
> > > > > people
> > > > > to ignore them, seriously underposted legal limits lead people to
> > > > > ignore
> > > > > them; even where they're appropriate, such as in residential
> > > > > neighbourhoods.
>
> > > > Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to illustrate.
>
> > > IOW if I'm reading correctly, you are saying that there is some sort of
> > > analogy that one can draw between the two. Which means that the two
> > > don't actually have anything to do with each other.
>
> > > Poorly maintainance can cause one's programs to crash, and poor
> > > maintainance can cause one's car to crash. The cases are analogous in
> > > a certain way, but actually have nothing to do with each other.
>
> > Actually, the problems we were discussing are very similar. Nothing like
> > you're describing at all.
>
> Then perhaps you can explain _how_. The explanation above seems to be
> precisely a statement of analogy: "A is to B as C is to D". Or, more
> directly: "underposted advisory limits are related to people ignoring
> advisory limits in the same way as underposted legal limits are to
> people ignoring legal limits".
>
> This may be true, but even if so, does nothing to connect _advisory_
> limits to violation of legal limits.

The connection is that there are legal limits that *are* set correctly
where it is not obvious *why* the limit should be lowered. Not all road
hazards are observable from the driver's seat. But in those cases people
are pre-disposed not to trust the limit, because all of their driving
experience has shown them that legal limits tend to be set wrong.
Unaware of the hazards that they cannot see, they drive without regard
to the limit.

This is precisely what happens in with advisory limits. It's not
analogous, it's the same. It's just that everyone has experienced the
situation with advisory limits, where they may not realize that it
happens with legal limits.

Set limits appropriately *all the time*, and driver's will trust them.
Give drivers wrong information, and they'll tune it out *all the time*.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> Not if you have hydrogen FUSION to generate the necessary energy...

Is anyone still working on developing fusion? ISTR that it was "10 years away"
in the '70s when it could be funded out of the cold-war defense budget; but now
that the Cold War is over and "Cold Fusion" has been proven to be nonsense, I
doubt if anyone is even working on the idea any longer.

Fusion is still in the realm of science fiction, and indeed I expect to see
Pournelle's solar power satellites long before we see fusion, if we ever do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back