Traffic Engineering term for "Sloth"
in [Cars]
|
From: Patrick Scheible on 1 May 2010 00:03 Guy Olsen <guypolsen(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Apr 30, 8:43=A0pm, Peter Lawrence <hummb...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > On 4/30/10 4:05 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peter Lawrence<hummb...(a)aol.com> =A0writes: > > >> 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 thei= > r > > >> driving behavior in regards to the road condition. > > > > >> While the speed limit on Hwy 17 over the Santa Cruz Mountains is now 5= > 0 MPH, > > >> it used to be 65 MPH back in the days of bias-ply tires and no k-rail = > center > > >> divide. =A0And while one can still go easily 65 MPH up and down that h= > ighway > > >> (in a sedan) without even stepping on the break pedal (and one can tak= > e many > > >> curves even at 75 MPH) it's really not safe to do so anymore because t= > he > > >> changing traffic conditions (congestion) on the road. =A0And even wors= > e 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 wa= > ter > > >> 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 an= > d it > > >> was guaranteed that Hwy 17 would come to standstill every rush hour wh= > en > > >> 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. =A0Way 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. =A0Of course even whe= > n 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. =A0The good news though was th= > at > > 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 t= > he > > summit. > > > > What's preventing Caltrans from upgrading CA-17 -- aside from funding > issues? 1. It would need a mostly new alignment over the mountains. That would be expensive and require condemning quite a few cabins of the rich. 2. Santa Cruz people don't want to add to the commute traffic. -- Patrick
From: Brent on 1 May 2010 00:47 On 2010-05-01, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: > >>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. > > Only if every government bureaucrat who makes such signs were equally > (in)competent. > >>Without consistency the signs are pointless > > Yes. > >>and should be removed. > > But that would waste money. It would probably be cheaper to just fix > the inconsistent ones. I was staying with the theme that we are 'weak', 'lazy', and/or 'incompetent' for not liking inconsistent signage. If that's the case, get rid of the signs. All of them.
From: gpsman on 1 May 2010 10:41 On May 1, 12:47 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-01, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Yes. > > >>and should be removed. > > > But that would waste money. It would probably be cheaper to just fix > > the inconsistent ones. > > I was staying with the theme that we are 'weak', 'lazy', and/or > 'incompetent' for not liking inconsistent signage. False premise. Highway signage is, obviously, very consistent. The premise that advisory speeds should be set perfectly consistently according to some vague idealistic best case scenario could only be forwarded or supported by the very ignorant and/or intellectually weak and lazy. That's why no rational argument can be made for such consistency. > If that's the case, > get rid of the signs. All of them. Your genius seems effortless... ----- - gpsman
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 1 May 2010 14:27 "gpsman" <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote in message news:4fb5d573-db5f-4634-a5e3-8c2ca1ea94a9(a)e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... On May 1, 12:47 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-01, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Yes. > > >>and should be removed. > > > But that would waste money. It would probably be cheaper to just fix > > the inconsistent ones. > > I was staying with the theme that we are 'weak', 'lazy', and/or > 'incompetent' for not liking inconsistent signage. False premise. Highway signage is, obviously, very consistent. * No it's not. Here's one example: 1. Start at Downtown San Diego, use Interstate 5 North (hereafter just I-5 North) and the destination/control city signed as Los Angeles. 2. Continue along I-5 North, notice that all the way to Oceanside, the I-5 control city is Los Angeles. 3. Just past Oceanside, CA notice that the I-5 control city has changed to Santa Ana. 4. Continue along I-5 North, past Santa Ana. 5. Now notice, once again, the I-5 North control city is Los Angeles.
From: gpsman on 1 May 2010 15:37
On May 1, 2:27 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > "gpsman" <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4fb5d573-db5f-4634-a5e3-8c2ca1ea94a9(a)e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On May 1, 12:47 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On 2010-05-01, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Yes. > > > >>and should be removed. > > > > But that would waste money. It would probably be cheaper to just fix > > > the inconsistent ones. > > > I was staying with the theme that we are 'weak', 'lazy', and/or > > 'incompetent' for not liking inconsistent signage. > > False premise. Highway signage is, obviously, very consistent. > > * No it's not. Here's one example: > > 1. Start at Downtown San Diego, use Interstate 5 North (hereafter just I-5 > North) and the destination/control city signed as Los Angeles. > 2. Continue along I-5 North, notice that all the way to Oceanside, the I-5 > control city is Los Angeles. > 3. Just past Oceanside, CA notice that the I-5 control city has changed to > Santa Ana. > 4. Continue along I-5 North, past Santa Ana. > 5. Now notice, once again, the I-5 North control city is Los Angeles. I'll see your control city and raise you shape, size, color, font, reflectivity, illumination and clearance height. ----- - gpsman |