From: Peter Lawrence on 30 Apr 2010 14:17 On 4/30/10 5:24 AM, Brent wrote: > On 2010-04-30, Scott in SoCal<scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> A competent driver never overdrives his sight lines; hence even this >> warning sign is superfluous to the competent. > > You've never encountered a curve that you could clearly see had no > obstructions within your braking distance but looked like it could be > taken faster until up close to it? No. Not yet. I've been driving for close to 30 years, many years averaging over 25,000 miles (mostly in California though) and haven't yet encountered a situation like that. - Peter
From: Peter Lawrence on 30 Apr 2010 14:23 On 4/30/10 7:27 AM, Brent wrote: > 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. > That wouldn't be all that misleading. The point is that some signs do > not follow the pattern. In California, they do. That's the point of my posts. The advisory signs in California (I can't say about elsewhere) are consistently "dumb downed" by roughly the same margin. Every one I have encountered. The traffic engineers, at least here in California, seem to apply the same formula to determine the speed posted on every advisory sign here in California. - Peter
From: Peter Lawrence on 30 Apr 2010 14:24 On 4/30/10 10:04 AM, Alan Baker wrote: > In article<g1plt5hrk48k9pgmjsetff9e6g6cltpvgq(a)4ax.com>, > 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. > > No. > > BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CONSISTENT! They *are* consistent here in California. - Peter
From: Alan Baker on 30 Apr 2010 14:43 In article <hrf790$ru6$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Peter Lawrence <hummbaby(a)aol.com> wrote: > On 4/30/10 10:04 AM, Alan Baker wrote: > > In article<g1plt5hrk48k9pgmjsetff9e6g6cltpvgq(a)4ax.com>, > > 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. > > > > No. > > > > BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CONSISTENT! > > They *are* consistent here in California. > > > - Peter Lucky for California! We've got a bunch of idiots here who cannot see the logic that consistency is better in the many, many areas of the continent where there is no such luck. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Patrick Scheible on 30 Apr 2010 17:15
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> writes: > A competent driver never overdrives his sight lines; hence even this > warning sign is superfluous to the competent. Let me know when competence becomes a requirement for a driver's license. -- Patrick |