Traffic Engineering term for "Sloth"
in [Cars]
|
From: Peter Lawrence on 28 Apr 2010 22:52 On 4/28/10 6:35 PM, Alan Baker wrote: > > It wouldn't matter than advisory limits are set too low if they were > always set too low by the same proportion. The trouble comes when you > occasionally encounter one that is actually indicating what speed you > really need to be driving. But in California (and I've driving all over California), I've never ran into that problem. All that advisory signs have been set consistently too low, IMHO. Again, I don't know about other states (or provinces), but in California they have always been on the low side, consistently. - Peter
From: gpsman on 28 Apr 2010 23:34 On Apr 28, 9:35 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > Advisory limits should reflect what is safe and reasonable for average > cars in good conditions and be CONSISTENT. Nirvana fallacy. There seem to be a great number of curve configurations, and the speed tolerance of advisory speeds is consistent with speed limits. There is nothing to suggest advisory speeds are often set where they are unsafe. Whether or not they are "reasonably fast" seems directly related to measuring progress by motor vehicle in seconds, which is unreasonable. To suggest that advisory speeds set by two disparate methods should return consistent G forces at some number beyond the advisory speed is just silly. > It wouldn't matter than advisory limits are set too low if they were > always set too low by the same proportion. It doesn't matter anyway. Advisory speeds are not calculated by factoring what any motorist/imaginary engineer/superior driver might think. > The trouble comes when you > occasionally encounter one that is actually indicating what speed you > really need to be driving. You really need to be somewhere near the advisory speed. How hard is that to figure out? ----- - gpsman
From: Alan Baker on 29 Apr 2010 05:52 In article <hras8j$op7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Peter Lawrence <hummbaby(a)aol.com> wrote: > On 4/28/10 6:35 PM, Alan Baker wrote: > > > > It wouldn't matter than advisory limits are set too low if they were > > always set too low by the same proportion. The trouble comes when you > > occasionally encounter one that is actually indicating what speed you > > really need to be driving. > > But in California (and I've driving all over California), I've never ran > into that problem. All that advisory signs have been set consistently too > low, IMHO. Again, I don't know about other states (or provinces), but in > California they have always been on the low side, consistently. 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. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 29 Apr 2010 05:56 In article <54345674-6d25-4d16-9d26-e978fb9ded23(a)b21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, gpsman <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 28, 9:35�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > Advisory limits should reflect what is safe and reasonable for average > > cars in good conditions and be CONSISTENT. > > Nirvana fallacy. How does that apply to what I said? What I suggest is not in any way an "unrealistic, idealized alternative" to the way things are now. In fact, it is a very realistic and obviously sensible alternative. > > There seem to be a great number of curve configurations, and the speed > tolerance of advisory speeds is consistent with speed limits. No. It is not. > > There is nothing to suggest advisory speeds are often set where they > are unsafe. > > Whether or not they are "reasonably fast" seems directly related to > measuring progress by motor vehicle in seconds, which is unreasonable. There is no reason to cause anyone to be unduly delayed, and giving people correct, consistent information would seem to be self-evidently a better idea than lying to them. > > To suggest that advisory speeds set by two disparate methods should > return consistent G forces at some number beyond the advisory speed is > just silly. Where was that ever suggested by me? > > > It wouldn't matter than advisory limits are set too low if they were > > always set too low by the same proportion. > > It doesn't matter anyway. Advisory speeds are not calculated by > factoring what any motorist/imaginary engineer/superior driver might > think. And I didn't say they were. What I said was that whatever you set them by would be fine if they were set consistently. > > > The trouble comes when you > > occasionally encounter one that is actually indicating what speed you > > really need to be driving. > > You really need to be somewhere near the advisory speed. No. That's the point. Experience teaches that you don't *need* to be anywhere even vaguely near the advisory speed in almost every case. > > How hard is that to figure out? > ----- > > - gpsman -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Peter Lawrence on 29 Apr 2010 06:05
On 4/29/10 2:52 AM, Alan Baker wrote: > In article<hras8j$op7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Peter Lawrence<hummbaby(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On 4/28/10 6:35 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>> >>> It wouldn't matter than advisory limits are set too low if they were >>> always set too low by the same proportion. The trouble comes when you >>> occasionally encounter one that is actually indicating what speed you >>> really need to be driving. >> >> But in California (and I've driving all over California), I've never ran >> into that problem. All that advisory signs have been set consistently too >> low, IMHO. Again, I don't know about other states (or provinces), but in >> California they have always been on the low side, consistently. > > 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. Except that's a straw man argument in regards to California, because in all my years of driving in California, from the Oregon border down to the Mexican border, from the Pacific, through Central Valley and the Sierras and in the desert, not once have I encountered an advisory sign where I couldn't take the curve *easily* at 30% above the advisory speed. Not once. - Peter |