Traffic Engineering term for "Sloth"
in [Cars]
|
From: gpsman on 29 Apr 2010 23:29 On Apr 29, 4:36 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article > <eb3cc26e-094c-4b9f-9336-49a3341d4...(a)s2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > > > Let me rephrase; the tolerance in setting limit speeds is identical to > > advisory speeds. > > Sorry, but you'll have to produce a reference for that... Get'cher Google runnin' Head out on the highway... > > > > There is nothing to suggest advisory speeds are often set where they > > > > are unsafe. > > > > > Whether or not they are "reasonably fast" seems directly related to > > > > measuring progress by motor vehicle in seconds, which is unreasonable. > > > > There is no reason to cause anyone to be unduly delayed, > > > Oh, do shut up. > > Why? Because you don't like what you read? Because there is no such thing as undue delay attributable to road signage. There is no code directly related to exceeding advisory speeds, go as fast as you like not to include exceeding the speed limit. > > > and giving > > > people correct, consistent information would seem to be self-evidently a > > > better idea than lying to them. > > > Find a curve you can't handle at the advisory speed and get back to > > me. > > Strawman. Let's set them all to 5 mph and it will be just as true. Straw man. You are obviously and admittedly ignorant of your subject. > > Well, what did you mean by CONSISTENT? > > By consistent, I mean that one should expect that if you can drive your > vehicle on one ramp at x times the advisory limit posted, then you > should be able to drive it on *every* ramp at x times their advisory > speeds. If you were not ignorant of your subject you would have no such expectation. > > 1. What are the 2 methods by which advisory speed are set? > > > 2. How might they each suggest a similar speed except by coincidence? > > It is irrelevant. How is your willful ignorance of your subject irrelevant? If you had the first idea of what you are talking about you would have forwarded specific criteria and a superior method of setting advisory speeds, but you remain obviously willfully ignorant of those currently in use, and obviously are not the least bit embarrassed to admit it. > > It's "advisory", Einstein. Read: "You should have no difficulty in > > good conditions taking this curve a x mph. Above that speed or in > > other conditions you're on your own." > > So it would make sense to you if some were capable of being taken at 4 > times the speed posted and some no more than the speed posted at all? Straw man. There are no roadway sections unnavigable in good conditions at no more than the advisory speed. It is impossible to participate in intelligent debate with those ignorant of their subject. The rationale of the current 2 methods of setting advisory speeds are logical and reasonable. If you knew what they were, you might understand and agree. ----- - gpsman
From: Floyd Rogers on 30 Apr 2010 01:14 "Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote > ,Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> said: >>Only where you can see all of the curve. > > Agreed. However, offhand I can't recall seeing any blind curves on any > freeways in CA. IIRC, I5 north of Redding along the Shasta resevoir has a few. FloydR
From: Alan Baker on 30 Apr 2010 03:37 In article <dc82347e-01e3-4ce2-8b19-01a1bcc7b1f6(a)s29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, gpsman <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 29, 4:36�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > In article > > <eb3cc26e-094c-4b9f-9336-49a3341d4...(a)s2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > �gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Let me rephrase; the tolerance in setting limit speeds is identical to > > > advisory speeds. > > > > Sorry, but you'll have to produce a reference for that... > > Get'cher Google runnin' > Head out on the highway... Nope. Sorry. Not my job to look up support for your claims. > > > > > > There is nothing to suggest advisory speeds are often set where they > > > > > are unsafe. > > > > > > > Whether or not they are "reasonably fast" seems directly related to > > > > > measuring progress by motor vehicle in seconds, which is unreasonable. > > > > > > There is no reason to cause anyone to be unduly delayed, > > > > > Oh, do shut up. > > > > Why? Because you don't like what you read? > > Because there is no such thing as undue delay attributable to road > signage. There is no code directly related to exceeding advisory > speeds, go as fast as you like not to include exceeding the speed > limit. If the limits posted are slower than speeds that can be safely attained, there is undue delay. The fundamental principle of our society is the right to do whatever we like that doesn't present unreasonable risk to others. > > > > > and giving > > > > people correct, consistent information would seem to be self-evidently a > > > > better idea than lying to them. > > > > > Find a curve you can't handle at the advisory speed and get back to > > > me. > > > > Strawman. Let's set them all to 5 mph and it will be just as true. > > Straw man. You are obviously and admittedly ignorant of your subject. Parroting does make you look bright. > > > > Well, what did you mean by CONSISTENT? > > > > By consistent, I mean that one should expect that if you can drive your > > vehicle on one ramp at x times the advisory limit posted, then you > > should be able to drive it on *every* ramp at x times their advisory > > speeds. > > If you were not ignorant of your subject you would have no such > expectation. LOL > > > > 1. What are the 2 methods by which advisory speed are set? > > > > > 2. How might they each suggest a similar speed except by coincidence? > > > > It is irrelevant. > > How is your willful ignorance of your subject irrelevant? I'm not ignorant of the subject, but I notice you keep ducking. > > If you had the first idea of what you are talking about you would have > forwarded specific criteria and a superior method of setting advisory > speeds, but you remain obviously willfully ignorant of those currently > in use, and obviously are not the least bit embarrassed to admit it. My first and foremost criterion is *consistency* which we clearly do not have. > > > > It's "advisory", Einstein. �Read: "You should have no difficulty in > > > good conditions taking this curve a x mph. �Above that speed or in > > > other conditions you're on your own." > > > > So it would make sense to you if some were capable of being taken at 4 > > times the speed posted and some no more than the speed posted at all? > > Straw man. There are no roadway sections unnavigable in good > conditions at no more than the advisory speed. That would be true if the advisory speeds were set to 1 mph as well. Does that therefore mean that would be an appropriate speed to set them. If not, why not? > > It is impossible to participate in intelligent debate with those > ignorant of their subject. > > The rationale of the current 2 methods of setting advisory speeds are > logical and reasonable. If you knew what they were, you might > understand and agree. And yet you refuse to present them or any support that there any such. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: gpsman on 30 Apr 2010 08:12 On Apr 30, 3:37 am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article > <dc82347e-01e3-4ce2-8b19-01a1bcc7b...(a)s29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 29, 4:36 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > In article > > > <eb3cc26e-094c-4b9f-9336-49a3341d4...(a)s2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > > gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Let me rephrase; the tolerance in setting limit speeds is identical to > > > > advisory speeds. > > > > Sorry, but you'll have to produce a reference for that... > > > Get'cher Google runnin' > > Head out on the highway... > > Nope. Sorry. > > Not my job to look up support for your claims. tee hee. > > > > > > There is nothing to suggest advisory speeds are often set where they > > > > > > are unsafe. > > > > > > > Whether or not they are "reasonably fast" seems directly related to > > > > > > measuring progress by motor vehicle in seconds, which is unreasonable. > > > > > > There is no reason to cause anyone to be unduly delayed, > > > > > Oh, do shut up. > > > > Why? Because you don't like what you read? > > > Because there is no such thing as undue delay attributable to road > > signage. There is no code directly related to exceeding advisory > > speeds, go as fast as you like not to include exceeding the speed > > limit. > > If the limits posted are slower than speeds that can be safely attained, > there is undue delay. Usenet rule: You make a claim: you provide the support. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/f1a57c971f489570?hl=en&dmode=source > The fundamental principle of our society is the right to do whatever we > like that doesn't present unreasonable risk to others. Straw man/Red herring... and/or reading comprehension fail. Advisory speeds are not "limits". > > > > > and giving > > > > > people correct, consistent information would seem to be self-evidently a > > > > > better idea than lying to them. > > > > > Find a curve you can't handle at the advisory speed and get back to > > > > me. > > > > Strawman. Let's set them all to 5 mph and it will be just as true. > > > Straw man. You are obviously and admittedly ignorant of your subject.. > > Parroting does make you look bright. Only one of us has correctly applied the straw man argument, and it isn't the guy who can't spell it. > > > > Well, what did you mean by CONSISTENT? > > > > By consistent, I mean that one should expect that if you can drive your > > > vehicle on one ramp at x times the advisory limit posted, then you > > > should be able to drive it on *every* ramp at x times their advisory > > > speeds. > > > If you were not ignorant of your subject you would have no such > > expectation. > > LOL Usenet rule: You make a claim: you provide the support. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/f1a57c971f489570?hl=en&dmode=source > > > > 1. What are the 2 methods by which advisory speed are set? > > > > > 2. How might they each suggest a similar speed except by coincidence? > > > > It is irrelevant. > > > How is your willful ignorance of your subject irrelevant? > > I'm not ignorant of the subject, but I notice you keep ducking. If declining to educate you is "ducking". > > If you had the first idea of what you are talking about you would have > > forwarded specific criteria and a superior method of setting advisory > > speeds, but you remain obviously willfully ignorant of those currently > > in use, and obviously are not the least bit embarrassed to admit it. > > My first and foremost criterion is *consistency* which we clearly do not > have. Usenet rule: You make a claim: you provide the support. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/f1a57c971f489570?hl=en&dmode=source > > > > It's "advisory", Einstein. Read: "You should have no difficulty in > > > > good conditions taking this curve a x mph. Above that speed or in > > > > other conditions you're on your own." > > > > So it would make sense to you if some were capable of being taken at 4 > > > times the speed posted and some no more than the speed posted at all? > > > Straw man. There are no roadway sections unnavigable in good > > conditions at no more than the advisory speed. > > That would be true if the advisory speeds were set to 1 mph as well. > Does that therefore mean that would be an appropriate speed to set them. > > If not, why not? Your straw man is on fire. > > It is impossible to participate in intelligent debate with those > > ignorant of their subject. > > > The rationale of the current 2 methods of setting advisory speeds are > > logical and reasonable. If you knew what they were, you might > > understand and agree. > > And yet you refuse to present them or any support that there any such. Rational thought suggests there are criteria and methods other than ignorant opinion by which advisory speeds are determined. The burden to explain their deficiencies in support of the superiority of your single criteria and method is yours. Good luck with that. ----- - gpsman
From: Brent on 30 Apr 2010 08:24
On 2010-04-30, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Patrick Scheible <kkt(a)zipcon.net> > said: > >>Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> On 2010-04-29, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> >>> > said: >>> > >>> >>Everywhere I've ever driven, advisory limits have been set too low for >>> >>typical passenger vehicles under good driving conditions... >>> >> >>> >>...except... >>> >> >>> >>...every now and then you find one that is set approximately correctly. >>> >> >>> >>And at that point, you're suddenly in trouble, because in your head >>> >>you've assumed it will be like all the others. >>> > >>> > You're only in trouble if you're an incompetent driver. People who >>> > actually know how to drive can judge the appropriate speed for a curve >>> > with an incorrect sign or even no sign at all. >>> >>> sometimes you can't quite see what sort of curve it is where the first >>> sign is posted so when the sign is there you use it. If the sign is >>> misleading by not being like the others, then some hard braking might be >>> needed when the curve comes into view such that it can be read well. >> >>Exactly. There's a right angle corner that could be taken at 20 mph >>near hear, but it's signed for 15 mainly because hedges obscure the >>view around it and traffic is often backed up to just past the corner. > > A competent driver never overdrives his sight lines; hence even this > warning sign is superfluous to the competent. You've never encountered a curve that you could clearly see had no obstructions within your braking distance but looked like it could be taken faster until up close to it? Being able to brake down to the slower speed is not out driving the sight lines, but a misleading sign is still a misleading sign. If you're saying we shouldn't trust the signs, then all the signs should be removed. |