Re: Who to contact about a deadly stretch of road.

"gpsman" <gpsman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>John Lansford wrote: <brevity snip>
>> "gpsman" <gpsman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> >Maybe, I guess.  I don't know anything about road design.  But I think
>> >any expectation that any road will be safe at any velocity would be
>> >presumtuous.
>
>> Well, there's your error.  I never said "any road will be safe at any
>> velocity".  I DID say that drivers have an expectation that a road
>> would be safe at the posted speed, and that a design that does not
>> convey that expectation would be considered unsafe.
>
>Your error is that I said that you said: "any road will be safe at any
>velocity".  You didn't say it and neither did I.
>
>I effectively said that drivers should not expect the road to be "safe"
>at any velocity regardless of the speed limit... and that the speed
>limit is -not- an indication of a safe velocity and is not -intended-
>to convey the expectation that the limit -is- a safe velocity.  A speed
>limit is a limit, nothing more.

Uhhh, no, it is more than that. Perhaps you feel it is just "a limit",
but motorists have come to view a speed limit as a certification that
a road is safe -at that speed-.  When it is not, then the state is
misleading the motorists.

>Any state dictating that any velocity is safe would be opening a door
>to litigation, pretty damn wide.  No velocity is inherently "safe"
>regardless of the vehicle.

Well I never said that, nor have I ever seen a state make such a
statement.  If a road is signed at say, 65mph, however, it damn well
had better be safe to travel at that speed or there certainly WILL be
lawsuits.

>  Driving, contrary to popular opinion, is a
>dangerous activity at every speed.

Well I don't disagree with that either.

>> >  Drivers often assume 45 is a safe speed if the speed
>> >limit is 45.  I'd agree that wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption, it
>> >just isn't true.
>>
>> It should be.  Considering that the design standards used by the vast
>> majority of states disagrees with you, I think I'll go with their
>> explanation over yours.
>
>Well... what "should" be and what actually "is" are quite often 2
>different things.
>
>Please cite one state's design standard that says the intention of the
>design or standard is to provide safety at x velocity.  You won't find
>it.  The function of design and speed limits are to "facilitate"
>safety, not to ensure it, or provide it, or to provide the
>-expectation- of it.  Only drivers can do that.

The Green Book disagrees with you, then.  When a road is designed to
their standards for a given speed, then the state has certified it to
be safe at that speed for drivers operating their vehicles in the
proper manner.  

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
.
Loading