Traffic Engineering term for "Sloth"
in [Cars]
|
From: Elmer on 25 Apr 2010 14:28 On Apr 25, 12:50 pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Elmer <elmer...(a)gmail.com> said: > > >On Apr 24, 12:34 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> However, outside of this newsgroup, these > >> are among the few people who are actually trying to study the Sloth > >> phenomenon. > > >Are they studying that phenomenon? (slow drivers failing to keep > >right) > > No, traffic flow in general. > > >From the paper, it sounds like they have yet to even discover it. > > Their careers have barely begin. Give them time. :) I say, give them a daily commute on a miserably congested highway. That'll give 'em plenty of time to study the situation. Elmer
From: Arif Khokar on 25 Apr 2010 17:22 On 4/25/2010 5:04 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: > If only it were limited to that. But most of the research done by the > State DOTs is controlled by the same cabal of people. I recently > reviewed a major synthesis and policy paper on highway friction that > is intended to set federal policy for the next decade. You would not > believe the absolute lack of knowledge of vehicle dynamics and skid > properties in the document. It was written by some of the "best" in > the field and the committee that oversaw it's devolvement and reviewed > it before me had several of the "best" in teh field on it. Yet none > of them noticed some of the most rudimentary of errors, stuff that > many of the regulars here would have caught or at least questioned. > Some of the stuff they stated as "current knowledge" hasn't been > current since radial tires replaced bias ply tires and disk brakes > replaced drums. This was the product of nearly $500,000 of tax money > and if I had been grading it as a students term paper it would have > gotten an D. That would certainly explain why curve advisory speeds are, for all practical purposes, consistently too low. Did that policy paper on highway friction have a recommendation for the degree of "ball bank deviation" with regard to setting curve advisory speeds?
From: Ashton Crusher on 25 Apr 2010 21:26 On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:22:40 -0400, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote: >On 4/25/2010 5:04 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: > >> If only it were limited to that. But most of the research done by the >> State DOTs is controlled by the same cabal of people. I recently >> reviewed a major synthesis and policy paper on highway friction that >> is intended to set federal policy for the next decade. You would not >> believe the absolute lack of knowledge of vehicle dynamics and skid >> properties in the document. It was written by some of the "best" in >> the field and the committee that oversaw it's devolvement and reviewed >> it before me had several of the "best" in teh field on it. Yet none >> of them noticed some of the most rudimentary of errors, stuff that >> many of the regulars here would have caught or at least questioned. >> Some of the stuff they stated as "current knowledge" hasn't been >> current since radial tires replaced bias ply tires and disk brakes >> replaced drums. This was the product of nearly $500,000 of tax money >> and if I had been grading it as a students term paper it would have >> gotten an D. > >That would certainly explain why curve advisory speeds are, for all >practical purposes, consistently too low. Did that policy paper on >highway friction have a recommendation for the degree of "ball bank >deviation" with regard to setting curve advisory speeds? No, that's a separate specialty then this thing addressed. Unfortunately, many curves are now given advisory signs based on sight distance restrictions, not ball bank limits. While sight restrictions are a problem, drivers assume a yellow warning sign is for sharp curvature and it makes them ignore ones they should pay attention to (although those are actually very rare). And while I can't be sure, I'm getting suspicious that some of these pinhead traffic engineers are only looking at the amount of curve and not considering the amount of bank/super elevation when deciding a curve needs an advisory sign - I see way too many needless signs on banked curves that can easily be taken at normal or even high speeds.
From: Nate Nagel on 25 Apr 2010 21:58 On 04/25/2010 09:26 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:22:40 -0400, Arif Khokar<akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> > wrote: > >> On 4/25/2010 5:04 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: >> >>> If only it were limited to that. But most of the research done by the >>> State DOTs is controlled by the same cabal of people. I recently >>> reviewed a major synthesis and policy paper on highway friction that >>> is intended to set federal policy for the next decade. You would not >>> believe the absolute lack of knowledge of vehicle dynamics and skid >>> properties in the document. It was written by some of the "best" in >>> the field and the committee that oversaw it's devolvement and reviewed >>> it before me had several of the "best" in teh field on it. Yet none >>> of them noticed some of the most rudimentary of errors, stuff that >>> many of the regulars here would have caught or at least questioned. >>> Some of the stuff they stated as "current knowledge" hasn't been >>> current since radial tires replaced bias ply tires and disk brakes >>> replaced drums. This was the product of nearly $500,000 of tax money >>> and if I had been grading it as a students term paper it would have >>> gotten an D. >> >> That would certainly explain why curve advisory speeds are, for all >> practical purposes, consistently too low. Did that policy paper on >> highway friction have a recommendation for the degree of "ball bank >> deviation" with regard to setting curve advisory speeds? > > No, that's a separate specialty then this thing addressed. > Unfortunately, many curves are now given advisory signs based on sight > distance restrictions, not ball bank limits. While sight > restrictions are a problem, drivers assume a yellow warning sign is > for sharp curvature and it makes them ignore ones they should pay > attention to (although those are actually very rare). And while I > can't be sure, I'm getting suspicious that some of these pinhead > traffic engineers are only looking at the amount of curve and not > considering the amount of bank/super elevation when deciding a curve > needs an advisory sign - I see way too many needless signs on banked > curves that can easily be taken at normal or even high speeds. But the ball bank indicator would take that into account and indicate a higher advisory speed, no? nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
From: gpsman on 25 Apr 2010 23:11
On Apr 25, 9:26 pm, Ashton Crusher <d...(a)moore.net> wrote: > > Unfortunately, many curves are now given advisory signs based on sight > distance restrictions, not ball bank limits. Perhaps you would care to elaborate on why advisory speeds based on sight distance are unfortunate...? > While sight > restrictions are a problem, drivers assume a yellow warning sign is > for sharp curvature and it makes them ignore ones they should pay > attention to (although those are actually very rare). Perhaps you would favor us with the method by which you have determined this which you profess to know...? > And while I > can't be sure, I'm getting suspicious that some of these pinhead > traffic engineers are only looking at the amount of curve "The amount of curve"...?! > and not > considering the amount of bank/super elevation when deciding a curve > needs an advisory sign - I see way too many needless signs on banked > curves that can easily be taken at normal or even high speeds. Are you suggesting advisory speeds should be relative to the limits of traction...? ----- - gpsman |