Cities Turning to Bicycles



>> 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 this: both the advisory speeds and the legal limits are
posted by the same highway department, and now that that department has
thoroughly earned a reputation for "crying wolf" on most of its signs,
all of its signs tend to be disregarded -- including the small percentage
that drivers really need to heed.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
John David Galt <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> 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 this: both the advisory speeds and the legal limits are
> posted by the same highway department, and now that that department has
> thoroughly earned a reputation for "crying wolf" on most of its signs,
> all of its signs tend to be disregarded -- including the small percentage
> that drivers really need to heed.

I knew it wasn't that hard to get! <g>

--
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."
 
[email protected] (Nate Nagel) writes:

> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > Tim McNamara wrote:
>> >
>> >> [email protected] (Brent P) writes:
>> >>
>>> >>>A smooth flow can sustain a higher throughput delaying the
>>> >>>onset
>> >>>of traffic jams and lessening how long they last.
>> >>
>> >> In an ideal world, sure. But you're dealing with a situation
>> >> where by definition 85% of drivers are driving below the posted
>> >> limit- which means the faster drivers are tailgating, trying to
>> >> pass, and creating turbulence in the traffic flow. This rapidly
>> >> becomes congestion. You're also dealing with drivers of
>> >> radically different driving skills and driving preferences, so
>> >> you get people driving 45 mph in the center lane on a road
>> >> posted at 80 mph (in your ideal scenario of using the 85th
>> >> percentile).
>> >
>> > Whoa! Hod it right there! That person should get a ticket - no
>> > matter what the speed limit is. That's a completely separate
>> > issue, and another pet peeve of mine.
>>
>> Well, then you're having to control people's behavior further by
>> forcing the minimum speed limit higher than the current 45 mph
>> posted on most interstate highways. Brent already complained
>> vociferously about people telling him how to drive, but here we go
>> again- this time on the slower rather than faster drivers.
>
> Not necessarily. I don't have a problem with people driving 45 MPH
> on the freeway, but I have a problem with them doing it in lanes
> other than the right while everyone else is going a minimum of 70.

Driving 45 in the middle lane gums things up, to be sure. But it's
common enough around here (Minneapolis/St. Paul). We also have lots
of crappy highway design, including many left-lane exits resulting in
people trying to get from the right lane, where they reasonably
expected the exit to be located, across traffic to the left lane- in
the space of a quarter mile or less. Saw about 9 cars do that today,
AAMOF. Frightening.

>> > Slow traffic stays to the right, faster traffic passes to the
>> > left, that way nobody gets "held up" until the highway is
>> > completely full. that's the way it's *supposed* to work, anyway.
>>
>> Well, that's what *I* was taught in driver's ed lo those many many
>> years ago. I see a *lot* of people, though driving 50 and slower
>> in the middle lane.
>
> As do I. But that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal in all
> but a few states, so we don't even need to legislate anything. The
> law just simply needs to be enforced... (not sure where you're
> reading this from, but in RAD there is another thread going about
> the utter and complete lack of enforcement of a supposedly new,
> stronger KRETP law.)

Dunno what KREPT means. I'm reading this thread in
rec.bicycles.rides, so the r.a.d terminology conventions are unknown
to me.

>> My mother- an alert and oriented 75 year old- claims she was taught
>> that slow traffic should drive slow in the middle lane so that
>> people can pass on either side. I've not had a lot of success
>> convincing her this is a Bad Idea. Fortunately for all concerned
>> she almost never drives on the highways.
>
> Indeed, and I concur with your assessment.

Yup.

>> > The idea is to make it more like a laminar flow than a completely
>> > turbulent one.
>>
>> If we can.
>
> Sure we can. Other civilized countries seem to manage it fairly
> well, and I have even experienced rare, blissful moments in this
> country where I've found myself on a highway where everyone was
> KRETP. Just for the record, I do tend to drive faster than the
> median speed of traffic, but I'm rarely the *fastest* driver on the
> road, and yes, I do do my part by yielding to faster traffic. Even
> when I'm not the fastest driver on the road I still find things much
> less stressful when I'm more able to accurately predict how those
> around me will behave.

I drive much the same, I suspect, and seem to be a cause of
consternation for many when I'm only going 10 mph over the limit. Of
course, I've later passed many of those people in the ditch during the
winter around here... It is much less stressful when you have some
idea of what to expect. Unfortunately, driving skills are so poor in
general that this is difficult to do.
 
[email protected] (Brent P) writes:

> In article <[email protected]>, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> [email protected] (Brent P) writes:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> [email protected] (Brent P) writes:
>>>
>>>>> A smooth flow can sustain a higher throughput delaying the onset
>>>>> of traffic jams and lessening how long they last.
>>>>
>>>> In an ideal world, sure. But you're dealing with a situation
>>>> where by definition 85% of drivers are driving below the posted
>>>> limit- which means the faster drivers are tailgating, trying to
>>>> pass, and creating turbulence in the traffic flow. This rapidly
>>>> becomes congestion.
>>>
>>> Less rapidly with 85th% limits and KRETP, than the current LLBing
>>> situation with under posted limits.
>>
>> Uhh... KREPT? LLB?
>
> Keep Right Except To Pass. Left Lane Block(er)

Ah. Thanks.

>>>> Seems to me you are only looking at the up side which fulfills
>>>> your desire to drive faster than you legally can now.
>>>
>>> 85th percentile limits won't allow me to drive any faster than I
>>> do now. Legally isn't even a consideration because enforcement of
>>> the underposted limits is effectively zero for the speeds I drive.
>>>
>>> I am selfish in that I want better flow. I grow tired backups
>>> caused by one LLB who refuses to yield the passing lane to the 15
>>> people behind him.
>>>
>>>> There are serious problems to raising speed limits and with the
>>>> 85th percentile proposal.
>>>
>>> A loss of revenue being the only one.
>
>> You are contradicting yourself. If enforcement of the speed limit
>> is effectively zero, there is no significant revenue being
>> generated and therefore there could be no significant loss of
>> revenue. You are also showing a severe lack of willingness to look
>> at the issue objectively if you think a "loss of revenue" is the
>> only problem posed by higher speed limits.
>
> Effectively zero for the speeds I drive when and where I drive. I
> apologize for the error, the additional text I edited out by
> mistake. Yes, there would be little of revenue going through the
> city of chicago since it is so lightly patrolled that it is
> effectively zero. However, there would be a huge loss of revenue on
> I294 on weekends.

Revenue over and above the bizarre toll booth system which seems to
result in 1 to 5 mile long backups several times over the course of 50
miles from Wisconsin into Woodfield. Haven't driven the inbound
Kennedy in years.

> But even effectively zero enforcement is still can bring in about
> alot revenue for the government when there are enough people. The
> odds of any one motorist being stopped is low. But even .1% of a
> huge number is still significant money. But for any one driver it's
> effectively zero.

Which encourages them to gamble on getting caught.
 
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> If a vehicle is not undergoing extreme lateral acceleration, there is
>> plenty of friction available for braking as well as turning. And, as
>> on freeway exit ramps, I have sense to stay away from ten-tenths
>> cornering moves.
>>
>
> But that's exactly what you were busting me on earlier - entering a
> corner at, say, 6/10 and suddenly discovering that I needed 10/10 or
> more - which can happen.

Overestimating a safe cornering speed by 40%? That can happen, I
suppose, but not to anyone who's even marginally competent.

I'm continually astounded that you aren't embarrassed by your own posts.
You routinely make yourself sound like you can barely find the pavement!

You also suggested that I slow down in that
> situation, implying braking...

It was meant to imply driving at a slower speed.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
Nate Nagel wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>
>>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.

Please, Nate, at least estimate! Did the headlights on that old car
shine two miles down the road? Or would you say three? Or more?


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 think memory has nothing to do with it. I think you're beginning to
realize that your headlights won't show a normal (i.e. non-reflective)
object even half a mile down the road, and you're trying to find ways of
changing the subject away from your nonsensical claims.

It's probably better to just admit you were exaggerating. And, of
course, admit the 75+ mph car was overdriving the beams - a classic and
elementary driving mistake.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >>
> >>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.
>
> Please, Nate, at least estimate! Did the headlights on that old car
> shine two miles down the road? Or would you say three? Or more?
>
>
> 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 think memory has nothing to do with it. I think you're beginning to
> realize that your headlights won't show a normal (i.e. non-reflective)
> object even half a mile down the road, and you're trying to find ways of
> changing the subject away from your nonsensical claims.
>
> It's probably better to just admit you were exaggerating. And, of
> course, admit the 75+ mph car was overdriving the beams - a classic and
> elementary driving mistake.

They don't have to show objects half a mile away. And a couple of quick
tests driving to and from my hockey games have shown that low-beams
illuminate objects at far more than 160 ft.

--
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."
 
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:00:30 -0700, John David Galt
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.


More accurately, CONTROLLED fusion is still not evolved into a
workable system. Fusion itself is easy enough to achieve.....
--
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . .
Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House
of Representatives, August 17, 1789
 
Alan Baker wrote:
> I think you're beginning to
>>realize that your headlights won't show a normal (i.e. non-reflective)
>>object even half a mile down the road, and you're trying to find ways of
>>changing the subject away from your nonsensical claims.
>>
>>It's probably better to just admit you were exaggerating. And, of
>>course, admit the 75+ mph car was overdriving the beams - a classic and
>>elementary driving mistake.
>
>
> They don't have to show objects half a mile away. And a couple of quick
> tests driving to and from my hockey games have shown that low-beams
> illuminate objects at far more than 160 ft.

I'm trying to take things in small steps here.

Nate had previously talked about being able to see "miles" down the road
at night. He needs to be brought back to reality. People who think
their lights extend for "miles" are likely to overdrive them.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:00:30 -0700, John David Galt
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Not if you have hydrogen FUSION to generate the necessary energy...
>>>
>>>
>>Is anyone still working on developing fusion?
>>
>>
>
>Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
>fuels run out before there is a good alternative.
>
>

Here's a chart showing the known and calculated peak oil dates for
various countries and regions.

http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/WORLD_SUMMARY_html.htm

Jack Dingler
 
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:58:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Alan Baker wrote:
>> I think you're beginning to
>>>realize that your headlights won't show a normal (i.e. non-reflective)
>>>object even half a mile down the road, and you're trying to find ways of
>>>changing the subject away from your nonsensical claims.
>>>
>>>It's probably better to just admit you were exaggerating. And, of
>>>course, admit the 75+ mph car was overdriving the beams - a classic and
>>>elementary driving mistake.
>>
>>
>> They don't have to show objects half a mile away. And a couple of quick
>> tests driving to and from my hockey games have shown that low-beams
>> illuminate objects at far more than 160 ft.
>
>I'm trying to take things in small steps here.
>
>Nate had previously talked about being able to see "miles" down the road
>at night. He needs to be brought back to reality. People who think
>their lights extend for "miles" are likely to overdrive them.

What seems to be ignored in this discussion sometimes is that the
'overdriving' your lights is much more applicable to a situation where
you are the ONLY driver/car on the highway. In most cases you are not
and the dozens of people ahead of you have already "cleared" the path.
Aside from an area where there is a real likelihood of a large animal
jumping out onto the road, there's not a whole not of danger in going
90 mph at night as long as you have all those clearing cars ahead of
you, esp if you can see their tail lights. There isn't going to be an
accident you don't notice that will suddenly surprise you, or a car
stopped in the lane ahead unless it purposely pulled out without it's
lights on and then managed to stop in the several seconds between when
the last car ahead of you went past and when you arrive at that spot.

At 90 mph and if cars are no closer then 1 mile apart, you have 40
second intervals between when each car passes any fixed point. If
cars are half a mile apart, then the interval is only 20 seconds.
Just how much is going to happen and create a hazard on that spot in
that 20 second interval when things are dark there. And that's
discounting the fact that your headlights do more then illuminate just
a few hundred feet. If you allow that they will probably let you see
at least a quarter mile then the 40 seconds becomes about 30 seconds
and the 20 seconds becomes more like 15 seconds or less.
--
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . .
Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House
of Representatives, August 17, 1789
 
AZGuy wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:58:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Nate had previously talked about being able to see "miles" down the road
>>at night. He needs to be brought back to reality. People who think
>>their lights extend for "miles" are likely to overdrive them.
>
>
> What seems to be ignored in this discussion sometimes is that the
> 'overdriving' your lights is much more applicable to a situation where
> you are the ONLY driver/car on the highway. In most cases you are not
> and the dozens of people ahead of you have already "cleared" the path.
> Aside from an area where there is a real likelihood of a large animal
> jumping out onto the road, there's not a whole not of danger in going
> 90 mph at night as long as you have all those clearing cars ahead of
> you, esp if you can see their tail lights. There isn't going to be an
> accident you don't notice that will suddenly surprise you, or a car
> stopped in the lane ahead unless it purposely pulled out without it's
> lights on and then managed to stop in the several seconds between when
> the last car ahead of you went past and when you arrive at that spot.

Understood. However, in the post that originally got us on this
sub-topic, the poster was bragging about an old vehicle doing "75+ mph"
on a rural two lane road.

Can you count on nobody walking across that road at night? If, say, the
speed limit is 55 mph and a pedestrian is waiting for several cars to
pass, he will likely be judging the time available based on the motion
of the 55 mph cars, since ordinary depth perception is fairly useless in
such circumstances.

So we'd likely have this situation: the pedestrian saying, after
waiting a while as cars pass, "OK, based on what I just saw with the
last 5 cars, if the next car is at least as far as that distant
billboard, I'll have just enough time to safely cross."

But if the next car is doing 90 instead of 55, there's not time to
cross. And pedestrians are no more illuminated than deer and dogs and
tree branches.

So briefly, we have our hypothetical driver exceeding his capabilities
and those of his vehicle based on certain assumptions. Often the
assumptions are true, but sometimes they're not.

The benefits go to the driver, and are - let's face it - not worth much.
They are: getting home to watch the beginning of the Simpsons; and/or
feeling really cool while pretending to be a race car driver.

The detriments go to everyone else: more risk, less mobility, more
noise, more taxes for police enforcement, more funding for emergency
personnel and ER teams who have to scrape Speed Racer out of the ditch
and put him back together, etc.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > I think you're beginning to
> >>realize that your headlights won't show a normal (i.e. non-reflective)
> >>object even half a mile down the road, and you're trying to find ways of
> >>changing the subject away from your nonsensical claims.
> >>
> >>It's probably better to just admit you were exaggerating. And, of
> >>course, admit the 75+ mph car was overdriving the beams - a classic and
> >>elementary driving mistake.
> >
> >
> > They don't have to show objects half a mile away. And a couple of quick
> > tests driving to and from my hockey games have shown that low-beams
> > illuminate objects at far more than 160 ft.
>
> I'm trying to take things in small steps here.
>
> Nate had previously talked about being able to see "miles" down the road
> at night.

I never made any such claim.

> He needs to be brought back to reality. People who think
> their lights extend for "miles" are likely to overdrive them.

Possibly true, but irrelevant if you're talking about me.

nate
 
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:00:30 -0700, John David Galt
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>Not if you have hydrogen FUSION to generate the necessary energy...
>>
>>Is anyone still working on developing fusion?
>
>
> Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
> fuels run out before there is a good alternative.

There already is: biofuels. They'll last as long as the sun.
 
On 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 -0700, [email protected] (Nate Nagel) wrote:

>Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>> > I think you're beginning to
>> >>realize that your headlights won't show a normal (i.e. non-reflective)
>> >>object even half a mile down the road, and you're trying to find ways of
>> >>changing the subject away from your nonsensical claims.
>> >>
>> >>It's probably better to just admit you were exaggerating. And, of
>> >>course, admit the 75+ mph car was overdriving the beams - a classic and
>> >>elementary driving mistake.
>> >
>> >
>> > They don't have to show objects half a mile away. And a couple of quick
>> > tests driving to and from my hockey games have shown that low-beams
>> > illuminate objects at far more than 160 ft.
>>
>> I'm trying to take things in small steps here.
>>
>> Nate had previously talked about being able to see "miles" down the road
>> at night.
>
>I never made any such claim.

FK: "Perhaps you should start with how you see miles in the dark in
Nevada. Then tell how it works in Virginia."

NN: "It's really easy, you just flip on the high beams."

Message ID: [email protected]

>> He needs to be brought back to reality. People who think
>> their lights extend for "miles" are likely to overdrive them.
>
>Possibly true, but irrelevant if you're talking about me.

FK: "Perhaps you should start with how you see miles in the dark in
Nevada. Then tell how it works in Virginia."

NN: "It's really easy, you just flip on the high beams."

Message ID: [email protected]
 
John David Galt wrote:

> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:00:30 -0700, John David Galt
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Not if you have hydrogen FUSION to generate the necessary energy...
>>>
>>>
>>> Is anyone still working on developing fusion?
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
>> fuels run out before there is a good alternative.
>
>
> There already is: biofuels. They'll last as long as the sun.


How many millions of barrels a day do you think the US can produce?

Jack Dingler
 
In article <[email protected]>,
John David Galt <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
> > fuels run out before there is a good alternative.
>
> There already is: biofuels. They'll last as long as the sun.

No,

1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally replace
fossil fuels, and

2. they cause just as much global warming and air pollution.

--
Mike DeMicco <[email protected]>
(Remove the REMOVE_THIS from my email address to reply.)
 
Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> Please, Nate, at least estimate! Did the headlights on that old car
> shine two miles down the road? Or would you say three? Or more?

Nah, maybe a quarter mile, but that's a WAG. Maybe less. Defintely
more than 400 feet though.

>
>
> 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 think memory has nothing to do with it. I think you're beginning to
> realize that your headlights won't show a normal (i.e. non-reflective)
> object even half a mile down the road, and you're trying to find ways of
> changing the subject away from your nonsensical claims.

Where have I ever claimed that I could see half a mile down the road?
Where have you demonstrated that for safe 75 MPH travel, it's necessary
to see that far?

>
> It's probably better to just admit you were exaggerating. And, of
> course, admit the 75+ mph car was overdriving the beams - a classic and
> elementary driving mistake.
>

I disagree. Yes, it's a classic and elementary mistake, but IMHO my
friend was not guilty of it.

BTW, as promised:

http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel/images/superhawk.pdf

sorry about the inverted image, I had to walk halfway across the
building to scan it and I didn't feel like hiking back to rescan once I
saw it was upside down.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
 
Frank Krygowski wrote:

> AZGuy wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:58:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nate had previously talked about being able to see "miles" down the
>>> road at night. He needs to be brought back to reality. People who
>>> think their lights extend for "miles" are likely to overdrive them.
>>
>>
>>
>> What seems to be ignored in this discussion sometimes is that the
>> 'overdriving' your lights is much more applicable to a situation where
>> you are the ONLY driver/car on the highway. In most cases you are not
>> and the dozens of people ahead of you have already "cleared" the path.
>> Aside from an area where there is a real likelihood of a large animal
>> jumping out onto the road, there's not a whole not of danger in going
>> 90 mph at night as long as you have all those clearing cars ahead of
>> you, esp if you can see their tail lights. There isn't going to be an
>> accident you don't notice that will suddenly surprise you, or a car
>> stopped in the lane ahead unless it purposely pulled out without it's
>> lights on and then managed to stop in the several seconds between when
>> the last car ahead of you went past and when you arrive at that spot.
>
>
> Understood. However, in the post that originally got us on this
> sub-topic, the poster was bragging about an old vehicle doing "75+ mph"
> on a rural two lane road.

Not bragging. your words, not mine. I was using an anecdote to
illustrate a point, which you've repeatedly missed.

>
> Can you count on nobody walking across that road at night? If, say, the
> speed limit is 55 mph and a pedestrian is waiting for several cars to
> pass, he will likely be judging the time available based on the motion
> of the 55 mph cars, since ordinary depth perception is fairly useless in
> such circumstances.

Yes, when a road is enclosed by cyclone fence on both sides, that's a
fairly safe bet.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back