If everyone would drive GEO metros

[Aardwolf]

David Kerber wrote:

>
> > How can you be so sure that the cars that followed the old limit will increase their speed to
> > match the new one instead if driving at the speed they did before ?
>
> My question exactly.

You can't ever be "sure", but there have been studies that have shown this, most recently the
results of Michigan's limit change. And when compliance already hovers around 35%-1%, you can have a
pretty good idea what will happen.

--Aardwolf.

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
> > >That isn't technical research, it's a survey.
> >
> > It's research.
>
> Not meeting the standard for technical purposes.
>
>
> > There's other research as well. Some which shows that drivers split pretty much equally between
> > safe, injudicious, dissociated-active and dissociated-passive, for example. Plenty out there.
>
> Those types might.
>
>
> > >What people think about their skills does not necessarily bear any relation to what they
> > >actually are.
> >
> > And there I was thinking that was the whole point ;-)
>
> It is.
>
>
> > >> But when average speeds reduce, crashes and fatalities reduce.
> >
> > >To what level?
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Not necessarily, if average speeds are skewed by increasing one tail of the distribution. In which
> case it is quite possible that the likelihood of collision will increase with lower speeds
> sufficiently to offset the greater likelihood of serious injury in collisions at higher speeds.
>
>
> > >And if you aren't pushing for the minimum possible, who has any right to say that their chosen
> > >point is any more reasonable than anyone else's?
> >
> > Irrelevant. The point at issue is whether going faster increases safety. The evidence says the
> > opposite. You can argue for faster limits if you want, just don't try to pretend that it's for
> > safety reasons.
>
> I have not been. But sometimes it is. In fact that would virtually always be the case in the
> U.S., in any environment that it would be even remotely likely that those in power would let
> limits be raised.
>
>
> > Faster limits are always about the desire to go faster, in the knowledge that the one who dies
> > will probably not be you.
>
> True. And especially if it (a.) actually decreases _everyone's_ likelihood of being involved in a
> collision, or (b.) does not significantly change that possibility, you're right.
>
>
> > This is a very weak argument, as it ignores the possibility of using automated enforcement, say,
> > to remove the speed variatiuon pretty much completely. It's funny how in so many things the
> > response to spiralling lawlessness is zero-tolerance and increased enforcement, whereas in
> > motoring offences it's to cave in.
>
> Zero tolerance does not allow for individual responsibility, and presumes guilt. I do not see that
> as a constructive way to run a democratic nation unless the activity being suppressed is always,
> by definition, harmful. Besides, even cameras don't catch everyone, nor do they completely
> eliminate speed variance.
>
>
> > You speak from ignorance as well as bigotry here. The point is that the 85th centile creeps over
> > time. A limit originally set at 85th centile has over time migrated to significant lawbreaking.
> > Increased enforcement has brought the average spees back down, and with them the fatality rate.
>
> I remain suspicious as to whether speed was the major factor in that, unless there was
> _significant_ migration from the limit. "Speed" enforcement could have accounted for the cessation
> of other behaviors as well, and if done with cameras, paradoxically might not be observable. At
> any rate I don't have the specific data so I can't really comment.
>
> Speeds have gone up over time, very slightly, in the United States, and fatality rates have been
> on a steady downward trend since prior to 1970.

Fatality rates, yes, but not accident rates. The fatalities have dropped because of safer car
design: seat belts, air bags, crush zones, etc.

....

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 

[Charles Soto]

"Margaret M." <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Zippy the Pinhead" <[email protected]> wrote
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Put a new player in the game on level 20 and they last about 2 seconds.
> >
> > How many people are killed annually by excessive Tetris, butthead?
>
> C'mon, you can do better than that. I'm a female. At least call me a

> Tetris as an analogy. Then again, I understand if your brain can't keep up with the speed of this
> thread. Mag

After a couple of years in College, I figured out a "Tetris System" of exam-taking. I would get a
few quarters and just before an exam, go play Tetris (back when it was a new arcade game) for about
an hour or so. It got my brain focused on an entirely different subject, so I was no longer all
twisted and confused from hours of cramming. Basically, it ejects anything you *thought* you knew
and left only the stuff you *actually* knew. Even when I didn't get better results, I at least felt
better. This started after my first semester of Organic Chemistry (which made me feel literally
stupid after the first exam - my brain hurt).

Charles

--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

 

[Charles Soto]

"Margaret M." <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bownse wrote:
> > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> Crash risk increases with speed,
>
> >>> No, crash risk increases with stupidity.
>
> >> And speed.
>
> > EXCESSIVE speed (for conditions)
>
> And lack of skill.

Skill is one of the "conditions" to which this refers.

Charles

--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

 

[C.R. Krieger]

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

> So I get some moron tailgating me at literally 4 feet from my bumper in a small town where the
> speed limit is 30. Tapping the brake did nothing, so I just coasted to a complete stop and parked.
> The asshole had the nerve to flip me the finger. I got his license number and just called the
> police. They said there is nothing they can do unless the guy caused an accident or did damage.
> What ever happened to citizens arrest? At least they could have phoned the guy and said there was
> a complaint.

Hell, I was recently *stopped* based on a cell phone call from a moron who didn't like that I passed
him out in the country. Of course, this was in a little nazified town in Ohio where they don't have
much else to do ...

> Maybe next time I should just beat the **** out of the guy !!!

Try Plan B:

Make a call to your local traffic prosecutor's office to complain. They'll tell you the same thing
the police did about getting a conviction out of a citation, but they *can* call the guy in to have
a 'conference' under the guise of 'investigation'. As long as they're willing to do this and as long
as you understand that's all that will come of it, it's a good idea to pursue. I once did this with
a drunk driver who almost rear-ended me on my bike. After I explained what happened to a prosecutor
pal of mine, he was happy to call the woman in and try to throw a little scare into her.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)

 

[Nate Nagel]

David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:48:33 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>Speed by itself is not the major contributor to accidents. Mixing different speeds and
> > >>>>zigzaging on roads is. We can safely say our roads are "slow and dangerous".
> > >
> > >
> > >>>Speed is the major contributor to whether accidents kill or not,
> > >
> > >
> > >>No it isn't. The speed at which the vehicle impacts another object is a causational factor in
> > >>the degree of injury in some vehicles.
> > >
> > >
> > > Speed is the major determinant factor in the severity of outcome of crashes. How does your
> > > relative speed happen if there is no speed in the first place? Joksch calculates that the
> > > probability of fatality increases with the fourth power of average speed on a road. It's basic
> > > physics: energy = 1/2 mv^2.
> >
> > But the probability of a wreck in the first place is much lower at higher speeds, probably due
> > to the design of interstate highways (where higher speeds are usually seen.)
>
> No it's not. You are confusing cause and effect. The added safety is due to the road design, not
> due to the higher speeds. The added safety *allows* higher speeds with a relatively small loss of
> safety. However, if *everybody* slowed to 40mph (I don't mean lowering the speed limit; I mean
> actually slowing everybody down to approximately the same speed), the death rates would drop
> significantly because of both the reduce incidence of crashes, and their reduced severity.
>
> ....

I disagree that crashes would be reduced. At the current time in the US 85th percentile speeds in
most interstate locations are still 80 MPH or less which is still well within the envelope for most
modern vehicles. Therefore we have no choice but to assume that most crashes are caused by
inattention, lack of skill, or mechanical failure, which are just as likely to occur at 40 MPH as 80
MPH. In any case, the experiment you suggest will never be carried out, because most road users
would never agree to it, as current traffic conditions show that most road users are willing to
accept the slight added risk of exceeding even current posted speed limits.

nate

 

[Loki]

Then their would be mass confusion in the parking lots of the world.

--
'Just because you're wearing a tie Doesn't mean you're bloody important'

- chumbawumba

 

[Don Quijote]

David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Might I suggest that it is not the bike limiting your route, but the law.
>
> No, it's the bridge design which is unsafe for bikes which is stopping me. On one of them, I could
> ride the narrow sidewalk if there was any approach to it, which there is not. The other one is not
> safe for bikes to ride on, period. At least not enough for me...
>
>
> > You can work to change the law.
>
> The local cycling club is pushing to have them finish the approaches to the newer bridge, so
> cyclists and peds can cross it.

The laws are made for the lions. Regrettably it's not a matter of "priorities"... The Moon
and Mars are:

HOW THE LION BENEFITS FROM THE LITTLE ANIMALS' POVERTY

One day all the little animals went up to the King of the Jungle and complained about their poverty,
and in particular about the fact that every time, during the dry season, they had to travel long
distances to drink the precious fluid, and demanded a water well be built for them... They cited how
the resources that they contributed to the kingdom were wasted in wars and extravagant projects to
the tastes of the King... He, however, replied with all kinds of excuses: the lack of resources,
that it wasn't a matter of him not wanting it, but that it was a matter of "priorities" --which was
one of his favorite words...

Meanwhile, an Owl --who had very good eyes-- had been observing life in the jungle, and thought this
way: "Every time there's a dry season the little animals must come to the little dirty waterhole
where the Lion waits for them... Had they been well fed and strong, he would have had to run after
them and even risk resistance..."

And that's how the Owl landed an important --and well paid-- post in the brand new Astronomy
Department created by the King of the Jungle --to the effect of exploring life in other planets...

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

 

[Don Quijote]

"." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Don Quijote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > "Be patient," said a little mammal comforting another, "some day the dinosaurs will run out of
> > style or become extinct." And the patient furry animals waited for another 5 million years--
> > which seemed like an eternity to them.
>
> Exactly. That's life. Equality doesn't exist in nature and you can never have 100% equality in a
> free country - the two are mutually exclusive concepts. That's why our government (in theory
> anyway) punishes people for their conduct, not how they run their lives or what they own.

What's life, the law of the jungle? What if some "violent monkeys" tired of being beat up decide to
fight back? I take it that such primitive law works both ways, does it not? Or is that the Lion
wants to monkeys to always be submissive and entertained with peanuts?

I don't know, it sounds risky to me...

THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE

Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One day the Monkey, tired of the
Lion always getting the lion share, and seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all the
species of the jungle, demanded justice... The Lion, yawning and stretching, said: "You would have
to have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the Monkey, who was very clever, devised a plan: He would go
to the costume store, and look like a lion...

When the Lion saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match for him, and fearing competition,
killed him on the spot --before the indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And
that's how the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time...

NOTE: Other monkeys survived him...

Moral: We don't need lions or violent monkeys that become lions. No Lion No Problem!

>
> - [email protected]
>
>
> "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It
> may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber bar-
> on's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torm-
> ent us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their
> consciences. "
> -- C. S. Lewis

Do the Robber Barons have a consciense? Let me see, Africa, Latin America, Russia, the ghetto...

Any government that imposes anything on the people is tyrannical. Options is the best option, to be
eaten or to be truly free. The little animals, I'm afraid, must build their own water well...

HOW THE LION BENEFITS FROM THE LITTLE ANIMALS' POVERTY

One day all the little animals went up to the King of the Jungle and complained about their poverty,
and in particular about the fact that every time, during the dry season, they had to travel long
distances to drink the precious fluid, and demanded a water well be built for them... They cited how
the resources that they contributed to the kingdom were wasted in wars and extravagant projects to
the tastes of the King... He, however, replied with all kinds of excuses: the lack of resources,
that it wasn't a matter of him not wanting it, but that it was a matter of "priorities" --which was
one of his favorite words...

Meanwhile, an Owl --who had very good eyes-- had been observing life in the jungle, and thought this
way: "Every time there's a dry season the little animals must come to the little dirty waterhole
where the Lion waits for them... Had they been well fed and strong, he would have had to run after
them and even risk resistance..."

And that's how the Owl landed an important --and well paid-- post in the brand new Astronomy
Department created by the King of the Jungle --to the effect of exploring life in other planets...

 

[Don Quijote]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 18 Jan 2004 13:37:43 -0800, [email protected] (Don Quijote) wrote:
>
> >So the situation in the UK would be so much better than in Holland, where they are under
> >"apartheid."
>
> The situation in Holland is influenced by presumed fault, and they have more problems at
> intersections than we do.

Is it something we can't do?

>
> >Would you bring out your kids to ride at a major street?

Which would probably bring us back to the time when an extended family was necessary for
survival...

 

[Don Quijote]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 18 Jan 2004 13:37:43 -0800, [email protected] (Don Quijote) wrote:
>
> >So the situation in the UK would be so much better than in Holland, where they are under
> >"apartheid."
>
> The situation in Holland is influenced by presumed fault, and they have more problems at
> intersections than we do.

Is it something we can't do?

>
> >Would you bring out your kids to ride at a major street?

Which would probably bring us back to the time when an extended family was necessary for
survival...

 

[Don Quijote]

Aardwolf <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> A 100mph blowout should not be that dangerous provided you know how to handle it--the vehicle
> won't settle onto that tire until you slow down, so as long as you let it coast and don't slam on
> the brakes you should be fine. Years ago when I was a new driver the car I was driving suffered a
> catastrophic blowout--a piece of metal tore a chunk out of a tire--at ~70mph and it wasn't a
> problem. I'd been told a car with a flat tire would pull to one side, but it didn't, until I got
> down to about 20 or so. By that time I was already pulling onto the shoulder.

Were you on "It's a Miracle" recently?

> > Yes. I'm confident we agree on the need for moderate speeds in residential areas. The question
> > is on the less obviously peopled streets where cycling and walking are in decline. Setting that
> > decline in stone by allowing increased speeds may not be the smartest long-term move.
>
> Nor may doing so by building roads that facilitate that if they aren't really necessary.

Keeping the cars slow may not save the young cyclist riding on the street anyway more that good old
fashion bike lanes. If it did it would take a real Miracle.

 

[Bownse]

Charles Soto wrote:

> "Margaret M." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Bownse wrote:
>>
>>>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>> Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>Crash risk increases with speed,
>>
>>>>>No, crash risk increases with stupidity.
>>
>>>>And speed.
>>
>>>EXCESSIVE speed (for conditions)
>>
>>And lack of skill.
>
>
> Skill is one of the "conditions" to which this refers.
>
> Charles
>
Perzakly

 

[Bernie]

Tom Keats wrote:

>[ng's pruned to a rational level]
>
>In article <[email protected]>, "." <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>Same old yada yada "it's all about the oil". As for tyranny of the car over the bicycle, how would
>>you like to have to ride your bike 30 miles to and from work every day, carry all your groceries,
>>in the snow and rain as well? Besides, bicyclists regularly ignore the rules of the road, they
>>don't need licenses or insurance, and the cops rarely ever bother them, so they have their
>>advantages as well as their drawbacks.
>>
>
>Sounds good to me. Except I really don't experience any serious drawbacks.
>
>The part about not getting hassled by the cops is really good. I've been jacked for routine checks
>while afoot, but have never been hassled while awheel. I guess there's something Calvinistically
>guileless about the appearance of someone doing honest, physical work to get around. I guess
>drivers don't look so innocent.
>
>
>cheers, Tom
>
We've had this sort of discussion before... Bicyclists tend to infiltrate quietly into many
environments, usually not raising any static. You find them on pedestrian malls, highways, trails,
nearly anywhere. As bruited about here last year, bicyclists slide thru like canoes in a stream, not
causing any big ripples or noise. (Critical Mass notwithstanding...) Bernie

 

[Robert Bolton]

"Zippy the Pinhead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:05:54 GMT, "Margaret M." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> How many people are killed annually by excessive Tetris, butthead?
> >
> >C'mon, you can do better than that. I'm a female. At least call me a

>
> You didn't rise to that level.
>
> > You totally missed the point I was making using Tetris as an analogy.
>
> No. Your analogy is totally flawed. You want to weave in and out of traffic, treating other
> motorists as obstacles in your little private game. It would be OK if yours was the only life
> at stake.
>
I missed the part of Mag's post where she said this. Strawman?

> Public roadways aren't a Tetris game. You're among those who observe no speed limit. Why don't you
> just decide on the fly which side of the road to drive on as well?

My guess is she rides relatively with the traffic so as not to become a road hazard. Because traffic
is usually flying low, she's probably become adept at high speed riding. A defensive driver in high
speed traffic is very much in a game, and keeps their eye on everything around them.

Robert

 

[Extreme-Cc'S]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Oh goody, not just a festering troll, but a foul-mouthed festering troll.
>
> Guy

I see you 2 met. but seriously - im sure there must be some kind of documentation on the speeds of
motorcycle accidents and what speeds are more likely to cause death. what I would think is fast for
me - would probably be slow for you. not to mention other road obstacles.

 

[Margaret M.]

Zippy the Pinhead wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:05:54 GMT, "Margaret M." wrote:

>> You totally missed the point I was making using Tetris as an analogy.
>
> No. Your analogy is totally flawed. You want to weave in and out of traffic, treating other
> motorists as obstacles in your little private game. It would be OK if yours was the only life
> at stake.
>
> Public roadways aren't a Tetris game. You're among those who observe no speed limit. Why don't you
> just decide on the fly which side of the road to drive on as well?

AGAIN, you went completely around the point to try to find something to argue. NOWHERE, did I say I
want to weave in and out of traffic, treating other motorists as obstacles in my little private
game. The point I was making, was that if you are exposed to driving in a pack of traffic AT A
CERTAIN SPEED, your brain tends to "adjust" to the rate of speed and process faster. If you are from
an environment that is much slower, when thrust into the fast pack, most people panic, because their
brains aren't calibrated to adjust to seeing the cars going that fast. Most people don't make it to
level 20 in Tetris the first time they play, but if they stick with it, their brains tend to get
used to the faster and faster levels as they gain experience. Then, when they go back, say after
playing level 15 for a while, level one looks ridiculously slow.

Your last paragraph AGAIN was a total fabrication. Nowhere did I say I observe no speed limit. I'm
beginning to understand where you arrived at your nickname, and I don't think it was from watching
Hellraiser movies. Mag

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:48:33 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>>Speed by itself is not the major contributor to accidents. Mixing different speeds and
> > > >>>>zigzaging on roads is. We can safely say our roads are "slow and dangerous".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>Speed is the major contributor to whether accidents kill or not,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>No it isn't. The speed at which the vehicle impacts another object is a causational factor
> > > >>in the degree of injury in some vehicles.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Speed is the major determinant factor in the severity of outcome of crashes. How does your
> > > > relative speed happen if there is no speed in the first place? Joksch calculates that the
> > > > probability of fatality increases with the fourth power of average speed on a road. It's
> > > > basic physics: energy = 1/2 mv^2.
> > >
> > > But the probability of a wreck in the first place is much lower at higher speeds, probably due
> > > to the design of interstate highways (where higher speeds are usually seen.)
> >
> > No it's not. You are confusing cause and effect. The added safety is due to the road design, not
> > due to the higher speeds. The added safety *allows* higher speeds with a relatively small loss
> > of safety. However, if *everybody* slowed to 40mph (I don't mean lowering the speed limit; I
> > mean actually slowing everybody down to approximately the same speed), the death rates would
> > drop significantly because of both the reduce incidence of crashes, and their reduced severity.
> >
> > ....
>
> I disagree that crashes would be reduced. At the current time in the US 85th percentile speeds in
> most interstate locations are still 80 MPH or less which is still well within the envelope for
> most modern vehicles. Therefore we have no choice but to assume that most crashes are caused by
> inattention, lack of skill, or mechanical failure, which are just as likely to occur at 40 MPH as
> 80 MPH. In any case, the

I disagree. A momentary inattention will have to last twice as long at 40mph before you get to the
bridge abutment as it would at 80. Also, you can yank the steering wheel at 40 an have a reasonable
chance of not completely losing control, while at 80 you are most likely to spin out completely, or
even flip over if your vehicle has a high CG.

> experiment you suggest will never be carried out, because most road users would never agree to it,
> as current traffic conditions show that most road users are willing to accept the slight added
> risk of exceeding even current posted speed limits.

Certainly true.

>
> nate
>

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 

[Tony W]

We have a joke here in Jersey CI not USA!. If everyone drove around in metro's how would the rich people know who to make friends with!

And please remember that age and experience nearly always triumphs over youth and ability.



QUOTE]Originally posted by Don Quijote
I found this opinion quite interesting. Firstly, I drive a Geo Metro... Secondly, should everyone
drive a GEO Metro or should everyone drive an SUV?

"If everyone would drive GEO metros, we would be safe. It these people who drive the SUVs that scare
the hell out of me. Although they may be safe when they smash into my little saturn, i am gonna be
dead meat. It is all about the physics. People want a safe car, but if everyone keeps getting
heavier (thus safer) cars, the little cars are going to be deathtraps." -Brontes

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=245429

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote [/QUOTE]

 

[puma]

A bigger car is safer when it hits a tree than a small car. But anyways. I'm thinking of an old K-
car commercial "If everyone in America drove a K-car, we wouldn't need a single drop of OPEC oil"

Well....not exactly, don't forget things such as inhertia. The safety of a vehicle is derived primarily from things such as cage structures, airbags, etc. Not simply mass. And SUVs are not known for their great safety features.