Prev: "Interstate 52"?
Next: What I hate about Big Oil
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 17 Jun 2010 00:55 "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hvc8dq$m8u$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 2010-06-17, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > >> I'm not a troll, so please tell me how I would be "incredibly stupid" >> when >> basic physics can prove the speed limits are set correctly for the road >> conditions. > > What "physics" would those be? The no body roll in your vehicle kind? > Here's something to consider... your vehicle, if it matches with > chicago area speed limits must be something made in the 1930s, is not > the same as everybody elses. Many many vehicles on the road can shatter > the posted speed limits yet still pass all your comfort and traction > requirements of blandness. "Blandness" in driving still maintains full control, that is indisputable in all cases where the driver is not distracted nor impaired. In obvious contrast, the performance driver who might be seeking a more fun or thrilling higher speed drive is often just one late brake and/or too much of a steering overcorrection away from not only crashing their vehicle, but also possibly causing a multicar pileup type of collison if there is more than one lane going the same direction.
From: Alan Baker on 17 Jun 2010 02:44 In article <c7adnSVfHbg6AoTRnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d(a)nethere.com>, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > "Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message > news:e0ci16lmv9i2htc0mr2n7cftbjcot9qs5q(a)4ax.com... > > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:43:36 -0700, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > > <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > > > >> > >>"T.J. Higgins" <ernest.p.worrell(a)vernal.equinox.edu> wrote in message > >>news:cZ-dnZ6C4Ine1YvRnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d(a)posted.hiwaay2... > >>> Coming to a roadway near you: unmanned aerial vehicles. > >>> > >>> <http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/14/government-pressure-open-skies-unman > >>> ned-drones-despite-safety-concerns/> > >>> > >>Fine by me. > >> > >>The speed limit need not be set by the 85th (or higher) percentile of the > >>fastest/most reckless drivers out there. It's clear enough to me that the > >>speed limits are posted adequately so anything the government can do to > >>ensure compliance with the posted limits gets approval from me. > >> > >>Consider--look what happens driving the speed limit, then going into a > >>curve > >>or a sharper turn. Very little lateral pull forces, gentle forces at most, > >>usually quite non-existent if the curve has banking. Negligible vehicle > >>chassis lean. Tires are at no risk whatsoever of losing traction. That > >>means > >>full control over the vehicle going in and out of the turn. > >> > >>The same cannot be said of exceeding the speed limit, where the laterals > >>are > >>noticeable, the vehicle chassis leans, the tires may even start to make > >>audible noises that they are losing traction. Clearly, the fastest and > >>most > >>reckless drivers out there should not determine the speed limit. > >> > >>So if the car, SUV, motorcycle, and/or helicopter law enforcement can't or > >>won't do their job sufficiently, I see absolutely no problem with the > >>unmanned drones doing the extra work. > > > > > > You are either incredibly stupid or a troll. > > I'm not a troll, so please tell me how I would be "incredibly stupid" when > basic physics can prove the speed limits are set correctly for the road > conditions. What "basic physics" prove that? Please: don't be afraid to be specific. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 17 Jun 2010 02:45 In article <SoOdnf9tJ8JnN4TRnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d(a)nethere.com>, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:hvc8dq$m8u$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > On 2010-06-17, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > > > >> I'm not a troll, so please tell me how I would be "incredibly stupid" > >> when > >> basic physics can prove the speed limits are set correctly for the road > >> conditions. > > > > What "physics" would those be? The no body roll in your vehicle kind? > > Here's something to consider... your vehicle, if it matches with > > chicago area speed limits must be something made in the 1930s, is not > > the same as everybody elses. Many many vehicles on the road can shatter > > the posted speed limits yet still pass all your comfort and traction > > requirements of blandness. > > "Blandness" in driving still maintains full control, that is indisputable in > all cases where the driver is not distracted nor impaired. > > In obvious contrast, the performance driver who might be seeking a more fun > or thrilling higher speed drive is often just one late brake and/or too much > of a steering overcorrection away from not only crashing their vehicle, but > also possibly causing a multicar pileup type of collison if there is more > than one lane going the same direction. Really? There is no level between "completely safe" and "right on the edge"? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Brent on 17 Jun 2010 08:57 On 2010-06-17, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > > "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:hvc8dq$m8u$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> On 2010-06-17, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: >> >>> I'm not a troll, so please tell me how I would be "incredibly stupid" >>> when >>> basic physics can prove the speed limits are set correctly for the road >>> conditions. >> >> What "physics" would those be? The no body roll in your vehicle kind? >> Here's something to consider... your vehicle, if it matches with >> chicago area speed limits must be something made in the 1930s, is not >> the same as everybody elses. Many many vehicles on the road can shatter >> the posted speed limits yet still pass all your comfort and traction >> requirements of blandness. > > "Blandness" in driving still maintains full control, that is indisputable in > all cases where the driver is not distracted nor impaired. Blandness, that is total control with a margin of safety somewhere in the double digits in a porsche 911 is considerably faster than in a 1952 Buick. You want to set the upper bound to the slowest most impaired most distracted driver in the fleet with the worst possible vehicle such that he feels no lateral forces what so ever. What if, in the interest of safety, your fellow control freaks decided to pass a law that nobody should run and furthermore nobody should walk faster than the average 95 year old woman with a bad hip could do in comfort without fear of falling. Do you really think there would be widespread compliance with such a law? If not, why would there be with driving? > In obvious contrast, the performance driver who might be seeking a more fun > or thrilling higher speed drive is often just one late brake and/or too much > of a steering overcorrection away from not only crashing their vehicle, but > also possibly causing a multicar pileup type of collison if there is more > than one lane going the same direction. And yet trillions upon trillions of miles of driving shows that this exceedingly rare and then almost entirely limited to teenagers with freshly minted licenses who were taught driving via blood on the highway films and other forms of fear, force, and punishment rather than a trip to the track. Meanwhile the vast majority of drivers exceed the posted speed limits by considerable margins in total comfort without incident.
From: N8N on 17 Jun 2010 09:16
On Jun 17, 2:44 am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article <c7adnSVfHbg6AoTRnZ2dnUVZ_uGdn...(a)nethere.com>, > "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > > > > > > > "Ashton Crusher" <d...(a)moore.net> wrote in message > >news:e0ci16lmv9i2htc0mr2n7cftbjcot9qs5q(a)4ax.com... > > > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:43:36 -0700, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > > > <dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > > > >>"T.J. Higgins" <ernest.p.worr...(a)vernal.equinox.edu> wrote in message > > >>news:cZ-dnZ6C4Ine1YvRnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d(a)posted.hiwaay2... > > >>> Coming to a roadway near you: unmanned aerial vehicles. > > > >>> <http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/14/government-pressure-open-skies-u... > > >>> ned-drones-despite-safety-concerns/> > > > >>Fine by me. > > > >>The speed limit need not be set by the 85th (or higher) percentile of the > > >>fastest/most reckless drivers out there. It's clear enough to me that the > > >>speed limits are posted adequately so anything the government can do to > > >>ensure compliance with the posted limits gets approval from me. > > > >>Consider--look what happens driving the speed limit, then going into a > > >>curve > > >>or a sharper turn. Very little lateral pull forces, gentle forces at most, > > >>usually quite non-existent if the curve has banking. Negligible vehicle > > >>chassis lean. Tires are at no risk whatsoever of losing traction. That > > >>means > > >>full control over the vehicle going in and out of the turn. > > > >>The same cannot be said of exceeding the speed limit, where the laterals > > >>are > > >>noticeable, the vehicle chassis leans, the tires may even start to make > > >>audible noises that they are losing traction. Clearly, the fastest and > > >>most > > >>reckless drivers out there should not determine the speed limit. > > > >>So if the car, SUV, motorcycle, and/or helicopter law enforcement can't or > > >>won't do their job sufficiently, I see absolutely no problem with the > > >>unmanned drones doing the extra work. > > > > You are either incredibly stupid or a troll. > > > I'm not a troll, so please tell me how I would be "incredibly stupid" when > > basic physics can prove the speed limits are set correctly for the road > > conditions. > > What "basic physics" prove that? > > Please: don't be afraid to be specific. Now I'm wondering... is it possible that Daniel is C*rl T*yl*r after an adjustment of meds? nate |