From: jgar the jorrible on
On Apr 29, 6:38 pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent
> <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> said:
>
>
>
> >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 it's a blind curve then yes. Not too many of those on CA
> Interstates or secondary urban freeways, however.

There are too many anyways. Just now I'm thinking of the crapool lane
405NB in a number of spots. Near the 605, yikes, especially when they
were doing construction.

But I thought this was mostly about ramps and transition roads, where
I see plenty.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/28/multi-car-pileup-i-5-pershing-offramp/
(since the paper was delivered late, I did not see that front page
article until after I posted about oil on ramps. howboutdat.)

From: Peter Lawrence on
On 4/29/10 2:13 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 4/29/2010 16:03, Brent wrote:
>> On 2010-04-29, Alan Baker<alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <eb3cc26e-094c-4b9f-9336-49a3341d43b7(a)s2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> gpsman<gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <usual gpstroll stuff>
>>> 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?
>>
>> In the gpstroll world you just obey the arbitrary whims of your masters.
>> Don't think, just obey. It's the thought process of a slave.
>
> Based on a lot of evidence, California's Highway 17 used to be
> playground for people that knew better than the signs.
>
> Or had a death wish.
>
> One or the other.

The problem with Hwy 17 in California is that people don't change their
driving behavior in regards to the road condition.

While the speed limit on Hwy 17 over the Santa Cruz Mountains is now 50 MPH,
is used to be 65 MPH back in the days of bias-ply tires and no k-rail center
divide. And while one can still go easily 65 MPH up and down that highway
(in a sedan) without even stepping on the break pedal (and one can take many
curves even at 75 MPH) it's really not safe to do so anymore because the
changing traffic conditions (congestion) on the road. And even worse is
when people still try to drive 65 MPH on that highway when the road
conditions are miserable, either wet and slippery (with torrents of water
cascading down the road) or when the road is cold and icy.

I used to commute on Hwy 17 daily when I had a job in Scotts Valley and it
was guaranteed that Hwy 17 would come to standstill every rush hour when
there was bad weather because some idiots thought they didn't need to slow
down when the driving conditions went bad.

- Peter

From: Patrick Scheible on
Peter Lawrence <hummbaby(a)aol.com> writes:

> On 4/29/10 2:13 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> > On 4/29/2010 16:03, Brent wrote:
> >> On 2010-04-29, Alan Baker<alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <eb3cc26e-094c-4b9f-9336-49a3341d43b7(a)s2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> gpsman<gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <usual gpstroll stuff>
> >>> 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?
> >>
> >> In the gpstroll world you just obey the arbitrary whims of your masters.
> >> Don't think, just obey. It's the thought process of a slave.
> >
> > Based on a lot of evidence, California's Highway 17 used to be
> > playground for people that knew better than the signs.
> >
> > Or had a death wish.
> >
> > One or the other.
>
> The problem with Hwy 17 in California is that people don't change their
> driving behavior in regards to the road condition.
>
> While the speed limit on Hwy 17 over the Santa Cruz Mountains is now 50 MPH,
> is used to be 65 MPH back in the days of bias-ply tires and no k-rail center
> divide. And while one can still go easily 65 MPH up and down that highway
> (in a sedan) without even stepping on the break pedal (and one can take many
> curves even at 75 MPH) it's really not safe to do so anymore because the
> changing traffic conditions (congestion) on the road. And even worse is
> when people still try to drive 65 MPH on that highway when the road
> conditions are miserable, either wet and slippery (with torrents of water
> cascading down the road) or when the road is cold and icy.
>
> I used to commute on Hwy 17 daily when I had a job in Scotts Valley and it
> was guaranteed that Hwy 17 would come to standstill every rush hour when
> there was bad weather because some idiots thought they didn't need to slow
> down when the driving conditions went bad.

It's not just congestion, the road's really not designed for 65 mph.
The curves are sharper than can be handled by trucks and unskilled
drivers at 65, the canyon is narrow so you can't see if someone's
stopped just around the corner, there's no shoulders for stopped
traffic to get out of the road. Way back when, there were also
several left turns across the roadway.

-- Patrick
From: Peter Lawrence on
On 4/30/10 4:05 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
> Peter Lawrence<hummbaby(a)aol.com> writes:
>> On 4/29/10 2:13 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>>>
>>> Based on a lot of evidence, California's Highway 17 used to be
>>> playground for people that knew better than the signs.
>>>
>>> Or had a death wish.
>>>
>>> One or the other.
>>
>> The problem with Hwy 17 in California is that people don't change their
>> driving behavior in regards to the road condition.
>>
>> While the speed limit on Hwy 17 over the Santa Cruz Mountains is now 50 MPH,
>> it used to be 65 MPH back in the days of bias-ply tires and no k-rail center
>> divide. And while one can still go easily 65 MPH up and down that highway
>> (in a sedan) without even stepping on the break pedal (and one can take many
>> curves even at 75 MPH) it's really not safe to do so anymore because the
>> changing traffic conditions (congestion) on the road. And even worse is
>> when people still try to drive 65 MPH on that highway when the road
>> conditions are miserable, either wet and slippery (with torrents of water
>> cascading down the road) or when the road is cold and icy.
>>
>> I used to commute on Hwy 17 daily when I had a job in Scotts Valley and it
>> was guaranteed that Hwy 17 would come to standstill every rush hour when
>> there was bad weather because some idiots thought they didn't need to slow
>> down when the driving conditions went bad.
>
> It's not just congestion, the road's really not designed for 65 mph.
> The curves are sharper than can be handled by trucks and unskilled
> drivers at 65, the canyon is narrow so you can't see if someone's
> stopped just around the corner, there's no shoulders for stopped
> traffic to get out of the road. Way back when, there were also
> several left turns across the roadway.

The road was designed for 65 MPH, which why that was the original speed
limit when they made the highway four lanes across. Of course even when the
speed limit on Hwy 17 was 65 MPH, there were advisory signs posted with
lower speeds for its sharpest turns.

What's interesting is when Caltrans installed the concrete center divider,
the number of accidents on Hwy 17 went up. The good news though was that
the amount of fatalities went down.

And there are still a number of intersections with left turns on the
highway, the worst one probably being the turnoff to Glenwood Road near the
summit.


- Peter

From: Guy Olsen on
On Apr 30, 8:43 pm, Peter Lawrence <hummb...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On 4/30/10 4:05 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Peter Lawrence<hummb...(a)aol.com>  writes:
> >> On 4/29/10 2:13 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
> >>> Based on a lot of evidence, California's Highway 17 used to be
> >>> playground for people that knew better than the signs.
>
> >>> Or had a death wish.
>
> >>> One or the other.
>
> >> The problem with Hwy 17 in California is that people don't change their
> >> driving behavior in regards to the road condition.
>
> >> While the speed limit on Hwy 17 over the Santa Cruz Mountains is now 50 MPH,
> >> it used to be 65 MPH back in the days of bias-ply tires and no k-rail center
> >> divide.  And while one can still go easily 65 MPH up and down that highway
> >> (in a sedan) without even stepping on the break pedal (and one can take many
> >> curves even at 75 MPH) it's really not safe to do so anymore because the
> >> changing traffic conditions (congestion) on the road.  And even worse is
> >> when people still try to drive 65 MPH on that highway when the road
> >> conditions are miserable, either wet and slippery (with torrents of water
> >> cascading down the road) or when the road is cold and icy.
>
> >> I used to commute on Hwy 17 daily when I had a job in Scotts Valley and it
> >> was guaranteed that Hwy 17 would come to standstill every rush hour when
> >> there was bad weather because some idiots thought they didn't need to slow
> >> down when the driving conditions went bad.
>
> > It's not just congestion, the road's really not designed for 65 mph.
> > The curves are sharper than can be handled by trucks and unskilled
> > drivers at 65, the canyon is narrow so you can't see if someone's
> > stopped just around the corner, there's no shoulders for stopped
> > traffic to get out of the road.  Way back when, there were also
> > several left turns across the roadway.
>
> The road was designed for 65 MPH, which why that was the original speed
> limit when they made the highway four lanes across.  Of course even when the
> speed limit on Hwy 17 was 65 MPH, there were advisory signs posted with
> lower speeds for its sharpest turns.
>
> What's interesting is when Caltrans installed the concrete center divider,
> the number of accidents on Hwy 17 went up.  The good news though was that
> the amount of fatalities went down.
>
> And there are still a number of intersections with left turns on the
> highway, the worst one probably being the turnoff to Glenwood Road near the
> summit.
>

What's preventing Caltrans from upgrading CA-17 -- aside from funding
issues?

Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), pTOE