Traffic Engineering term for "Sloth"
in [Cars]
|
From: Elmer on 30 Apr 2010 10:22 On Apr 30, 8:24 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-04-30, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Patrick Scheible <k...(a)zipcon.net> > > said: > > >>Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > >>> On 2010-04-29, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alan Baker <alangba...(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. " AH, but nobody ever said life was fair, Christina. " IOW, people who expect a perfect world will always be disappointed. With experience, most drivers learn that many signs should be taken with a grain of salt (except perhaps in a watershed protection area). More valuable is learning how to "read the road". Over time, you should begin to recognize that there are other kinds of "signs", not erected by highway departments, that are more useful in being able to drive safely at the maximum practical speed, while avoiding getting tickets. Those who rely solely on "advisory speed" signage (or posted speed limit signage, for that matter) to set their own driving speeds are obviously quite naive and inexperienced as drivers. Expecting all signs to be perfect is akin to expecting that no one will ever run a red light or that a "No Stopping" sign on a freeway means that traffic will never come to a halt. " I'm bigger and I'm faster. I will always beat you. " (Also true, if you're racing to the morgue.) Elmer
From: Brent on 30 Apr 2010 10:27 On 2010-04-30, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: > >>If you're saying we shouldn't trust the >>signs, then all the signs should be removed. > > Just like everything else, these signs are dumbed-down to the lowest > common denominator. There is undoubtedly some combination of a poor > driver with an unwieldy vehicle for which the speed on the sign is > entirely appropriate. Besides, it will cost taxpayers money to take > the signs down. If they were all dumbed down, they'd be slow by roughly the same margin. That wouldn't be all that misleading. The point is that some signs do not follow the pattern. The point of having signs is convey a meaning. Without consistency the signs are pointless and should be removed.
From: Brent on 30 Apr 2010 10:31 On 2010-04-30, Elmer <elmercat(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 30, 8:24�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-04-30, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Patrick Scheible <k...(a)zipcon.net> >> > said: >> >> >>Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> writes: >> >> >>> On 2010-04-29, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alan Baker <alangba...(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. > > > " AH, but nobody ever said life was fair, Christina. " > > IOW, people who expect a perfect world will always be disappointed. > With experience, most drivers learn that many signs should be taken > with a grain of salt (except perhaps in a watershed protection area). > More valuable is learning how to "read the road". Over time, you > should begin to recognize that there are other kinds of "signs", not > erected by highway departments, that are more useful in being able to > drive safely at the maximum practical speed, while avoiding getting > tickets. > > Those who rely solely on "advisory speed" signage (or posted speed > limit signage, for that matter) to set their own driving speeds are > obviously quite naive and inexperienced as drivers. Expecting all > signs to be perfect is akin to expecting that no one will ever run a > red light or that a "No Stopping" sign on a freeway means that traffic > will never come to a halt. > > " I'm bigger and I'm faster. I will always beat you. " (Also true, if > you're racing to the morgue.) So get rid of the MUTCD, since it's entire reason for being is produce consistent signage and other signalling. If the problem with inconsistent signage is entirely with the driver, why have a MUTCD? We can then have some cities use blue triangles for stop signs. You see a blue triangle and you're supposed to stop. Wait, you're from out of town and in your city they use purple circles so you drove right past the blue triangle not seeing any reason for the top of the T to stop there. Of course what you did was perfectly safe... but the cop watching just slapped you with a $300 ticket for not stopping.
From: gpsman on 30 Apr 2010 11:48 On Apr 30, 10:31 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-04-30, Elmer <elmer...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Those who rely solely on "advisory speed" signage (or posted speed > > limit signage, for that matter) to set their own driving speeds are > > obviously quite naive and inexperienced as drivers. Expecting all > > signs to be perfect is akin to expecting that no one will ever run a > > red light or that a "No Stopping" sign on a freeway means that traffic > > will never come to a halt. > > So get rid of the MUTCD, since it's entire reason for being is produce > consistent signage and other signalling. A n o t h e r slow day at the ol' engineering factory...? Signaling...? False premise. No such MUTCD guideline exists. > If the problem with > inconsistent signage is entirely with the driver, why have a MUTCD? Go, you magnificent nitwit, go... > We can then have some cities use blue triangles for stop signs. You see > a blue triangle and you're supposed to stop. Wait, you're from out of > town and in your city they use purple circles so you drove right past > the blue triangle not seeing any reason for the top of the T to stop > there. Of course what you did was perfectly safe... but the cop watching > just slapped you with a $300 ticket for not stopping. You could probably get a lot more engineering done if you merely summarized your posts with "I'm stupid, and I'm prepared to prove it to your satisfaction". It'd be more relevant, too. ----- - gpsman
From: Alan Baker on 30 Apr 2010 13:04
In article <g1plt5hrk48k9pgmjsetff9e6g6cltpvgq(a)4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent > <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: > > >If you're saying we shouldn't trust the > >signs, then all the signs should be removed. > > Just like everything else, these signs are dumbed-down to the lowest > common denominator. There is undoubtedly some combination of a poor > driver with an unwieldy vehicle for which the speed on the sign is > entirely appropriate. Besides, it will cost taxpayers money to take > the signs down. No. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CONSISTENT! -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |