Traffic Engineering term for "Sloth"
in [Cars]
|
From: Alan Baker on 29 Apr 2010 19:40 In article <83ui5jFvf4U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/29/2010 17:54, Brent wrote: > > On 2010-04-29, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 4/29/2010 17:00, Brent wrote: > >> > >>> Missing the point... I hope. > >> > >> Could be I suppose--it looked to me like the point was to go faster than > >> the warning speed by degress until you failed. > > > > The point was blindly obeying nonsense because it comes from > > "authority". > > I don't blindly try to teach unseen and unresponsive authority.... > > >> I do not routinely do that--I drive at about the warning speed (or maybe > >> less if I'm hauling 8-foot rolls of paper standing on end, or a load of > >> copper rod that I didn't get to inspect). > > > > Do you drive the warning speed in your private automobile too? > > Truthfully? It depends. If it is a route segment that I know very > well, and the traffic conditions and weather conditions, and the price > of error tolerably low (sightlines, steep fall-offs, safe error zone (no > on-coming traffic), and the risk of right-seat static is acceptable, I > might shave it a bit. But I used to do four-wheel drifts because I > could, not because it was a good idea. > > But I've mostly matured past the drive-like-a-jerk-to-prove-something to > drive-because-I-want-to-get-somewhere or drive-like-I-want-to-see-something. Spending as little time possible getting where one is going is not "driv[ing]-like-jerk". -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Matthew Russotto on 29 Apr 2010 22:03 In article <54345674-6d25-4d16-9d26-e978fb9ded23(a)b21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, gpsman <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 28, 9:35=A0pm, 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. So consistency is a utopian requirement? >There seem to be a great number of curve configurations, and the speed >tolerance of advisory speeds is consistent with speed limits. Meaningless. >There is nothing to suggest advisory speeds are often set where they >are unsafe. Straw man. >Whether or not they are "reasonably fast" seems directly related to >measuring progress by motor vehicle in seconds, which is unreasonable. Meaningless. >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. Contains the germ of an answer in the premises. >> 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. Straw man. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 29 Apr 2010 22:07 In article <hrcs6p$ggl$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> 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. Not even all slaves. Just the ones who are either completely beaten down into submission, or those who are naturally the toadying type. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Alan Baker on 29 Apr 2010 22:16 In article <p4dkt55ggn0g3d7cb1g9cd6d2dbp4k4svd(a)4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Patrick Scheible <kkt(a)zipcon.net> > said: > > >Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > > >> On 2010-04-29, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alan Baker <alangbaker(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 the sign is > >> misleading by not being like the others, then some hard braking might be > >> needed when the curve comes into view such that it can be read well. > > > >Exactly. There's a right angle corner that could be taken at 20 mph > >near hear, but it's signed for 15 mainly because hedges obscure the > >view around it and traffic is often backed up to just past the corner. > > A competent driver never overdrives his sight lines; hence even this > warning sign is superfluous to the competent. Agreed. It's still better to have consistent information about road conditions. If all speed limits were properly posted at the 85th percentile and I suddenly encountered a stretch that was posted lower for no reason I could see, I'd be cued that there was a reason for it being lower. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: The Chief Instigator on 29 Apr 2010 23:24
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:05:16 -0700, Peter Lawrence <hummbaby(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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 Try crossing Black Mountain on KY/VA 160...there are more than a few curves posted at 40 or 50 MPH, and 35 at one 190� curve about a third of the way down (eastward) on the Virginia side. -- Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick(a)io.com) Houston, Texas www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11) NEXT GAME: The 2010-11 opener, in October 2010 |