Traffic Engineering term for "Sloth"
in [Cars]
|
From: jgar the jorrible on 26 Apr 2010 16:06 On Apr 26, 5:04 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-04-25, Ashton Crusher <d...(a)moore.net> 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. > > And that's par for the course for government policy research. The > research they do and what they fund. Government needs intellectuals to > build a case for what government wants to do. Much of the best of it is > just outdated information. The very worst of it is out right lies. > > Driving and road research usually can achieve the goals by just using > out of date information and methods. It's really easy to justify a low > speed limit when the 'average' car is a 1962 ford falcon and the desired > factor of safety is really high. This morning I was staring out the train window, noticed the far corner of an odd-shaped parking lot had a bunch of balloons, flowers, crosses, etc. next to an embankment. I wasn't sure exactly where it was, but it was where the train goes under the 5, so later I looked it up on google maps - it was the La Paz onramp on the SB 5 in Mission Viejo. I'm thinking it's http://missionviejolife.org/2009/08/04/tragic-freeway-crash/ (Probably the right-hand tree here: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Mission+Viejo,+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.592876,93.076172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Mission+Viejo,+Orange,+California&ll=33.595354,-117.673767&spn=0.002426,0.005681&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=33.595387,-117.673703&panoid=dHZa1FLhxb1oQ_QUUBsRmg&cbp=12,221.35,,0,5 ) What I don't have a handle on is the actual proportion of mechanical failures (including stupid ones like bald tires) that override any safety measures, or muddled ramp statistics like here, where the accident is next to the ramp, but started on the freeway. jg -- @home.com is bogus. http://rumors.automobilemag.com/6670977/miscellaneous/geiger-tunes-chevrolet-corvette-grand-sport-to-zr1-levels/index.html
From: Ashton Crusher on 27 Apr 2010 00:51 On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:58:03 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote: >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 If they actually went into the field and ran it. I think they just look at the plans in the office, look at the curve data, ignore the super data, and spec out a warning sign.
From: Brent on 27 Apr 2010 01:01 On 2010-04-27, Ashton Crusher <demi(a)moore.net> wrote: > Recent article in the newspaper was about how the latest statistics on > fatality rates are the lowest ever. Then they went on to quote > several "experts" who uniformly said "Its not low enough, we HAVE to > do more!!!!" In round figures, it now takes a million miles of > driving to kill one person. And the drop is always due to some new government control program that came from their research. Never mind that their research has made roads far less safe. The roads would be safer yet without it.
From: gpsman on 27 Apr 2010 08:00 On Apr 27, 1:01 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-04-27, Ashton Crusher <d...(a)moore.net> wrote: > > > Recent article in the newspaper was about how the latest statistics on > > fatality rates are the lowest ever. Then they went on to quote > > several "experts" who uniformly said "Its not low enough, we HAVE to > > do more!!!!" How many traffic fatalities do the real experts find acceptable? > In round figures, it now takes a million miles of > > driving to kill one person. Ewe! Swing and a miss, by just a round hair more than 99,000,000 miles. The fatality rate for 2009 declined to the lowest on record, to 1.16 fatalities per 100 million "vehicle miles traveled" or VMT in government parlance, down from 1.25 fatalities per 100 million VMT in 2008. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/03/feds-say-highway-traffic-deaths-lowest-since-1954/1?csp=obnetwork > And the drop is always due to some new government control program that > came from their research. Nice catch. > Never mind that their research has made roads > far less safe. The roads would be safer yet without it. Fascinating analysis. ----- - gpsman
From: jgar the jorrible on 27 Apr 2010 16:37
On Apr 27, 5:00 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 27, 1:01 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On 2010-04-27, Ashton Crusher <d...(a)moore.net> wrote: > > > > Recent article in the newspaper was about how the latest statistics on > > > fatality rates are the lowest ever. Then they went on to quote > > > several "experts" who uniformly said "Its not low enough, we HAVE to > > > do more!!!!" > > How many traffic fatalities do the real experts find acceptable? > > > In round figures, it now takes a million miles of > > > driving to kill one person. > > Ewe! Swing and a miss, by just a round hair more than 99,000,000 > miles. Thank goodness, thought I was overdue :-) > > The fatality rate for 2009 declined to the lowest on record, to 1.16 > fatalities per 100 million "vehicle miles traveled" or VMT in > government parlance, down from 1.25 fatalities per 100 million VMT in > 2008.http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/03/feds-... > Hey thanks for making me look and see this cool tool (to 2008 only, apparently): http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Crashes/CrashesTime.aspx jg -- @home.com is bogus. CLEP was FR33BSD: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/27/police-missing-mission-valley-man-may-have-left-hi/ http://finderickwales.com/ |