Traffic Engineering term for "Sloth"
in [Drive]
|
From: gpsman on 29 Apr 2010 07:44 On Apr 29, 5:56 am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article > <54345674-6d25-4d16-9d26-e978fb9de...(a)b21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, > > gpsman <gps...(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. Read next below. > > 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. Let me rephrase; the tolerance in setting limit speeds is identical to advisory speeds. > > 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, Oh, do shut up. > and giving > people correct, consistent information would seem to be self-evidently a > better idea than lying to them. Find a curve you can't handle at the advisory speed and get back to me. > > 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? Well, what did you mean by CONSISTENT? > > > 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. 1. What are the 2 methods by which advisory speed are set? 2. How might they each suggest a similar speed except by coincidence? > > > 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. Then define "need". It seems to mean to you that "advisory speed" should mean "you need to be at or below x mph or you are likely to crash". It's "advisory", Einstein. Read: "You should have no difficulty in good conditions taking this curve a x mph. Above that speed or in other conditions you're on your own." ----- - gpsman
From: Brent on 29 Apr 2010 11:17 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.
From: Patrick Scheible on 29 Apr 2010 12:32 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. -- Patrick
From: jgar the jorrible on 29 Apr 2010 13:18 On Apr 29, 3:05 am, Peter Lawrence <hummb...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On 4/29/10 2:52 AM, Alan Baker wrote: > > > > > In article<hras8j$op...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > Peter Lawrence<hummb...(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 I have twice that made an actual difference. Both times were oil spills on the curves. One was Manchester to SB405, 90 degree followed by long straightaway. I came around at or below the limit in my big block Ford, slid right into the guardrail before I could even punch it. Popped the tailight assembly clean out. Another was Artesia to SB405, I slowed to go around biker standing next to dropped bike. I'm still haunted by his 1000 yard stare and half his face ripped off. We're all assuming dry clear conditions here, but there can be problems with that. There is a lot of inconsistency too, sometimes engineers don't do it right at first and have to lower the speed or reconfigure the curve (there were a bunch of accidents SB163 to SB5 transition road when they got rid of one lane, they changed it back after a month or so). Or put up a truck tipping over sign. Then there's those warning signs with odd numbers for the speed. Where was that, the Orange Crush? http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3084/3137178654_0796758be3.jpg?v=1231223629 jg -- @home.com is bogus. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2653/3742480316_c30bc20333.jpg
From: Alan Baker on 29 Apr 2010 16:36
In article <eb3cc26e-094c-4b9f-9336-49a3341d43b7(a)s2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, gpsman <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 29, 5:56�am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > In article > > <54345674-6d25-4d16-9d26-e978fb9de...(a)b21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > �gpsman <gps...(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. > > Read next below. > > > > 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. > > Let me rephrase; the tolerance in setting limit speeds is identical to > advisory speeds. Sorry, but you'll have to produce a reference for that... > > > > 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, > > Oh, do shut up. Why? Because you don't like what you read? > > > and giving > > people correct, consistent information would seem to be self-evidently a > > better idea than lying to them. > > Find a curve you can't handle at the advisory speed and get back to > me. Strawman. Let's set them all to 5 mph and it will be just as true. What is required is *consistency* so that drivers know what to expect. Along with that, it would be nice if the advisory speeds were in accord with reality, but that isn't necessary as long as they are always unrealistic by the same proportion. > > > > 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? > > Well, what did you mean by CONSISTENT? By consistent, I mean that one should expect that if you can drive your vehicle on one ramp at x times the advisory limit posted, then you should be able to drive it on *every* ramp at x times their advisory speeds. > > > > > 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. > > 1. What are the 2 methods by which advisory speed are set? > > 2. How might they each suggest a similar speed except by coincidence? It is irrelevant. > > > > > 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. > > Then define "need". It seems to mean to you that "advisory speed" > should mean "you need to be at or below x mph or you are likely to > crash". > > It's "advisory", Einstein. Read: "You should have no difficulty in > good conditions taking this curve a x mph. Above that speed or in > other conditions you're on your own." 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? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |