Re: Cars, speed and entitlement

On Nov 19, 3:14 pm, gpsman <gps...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 19, 11:24 am, N8N <njna...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 19, 10:26 am, gpsman <gps...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 15, 11:11 am, N8N <njna...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 15, 10:38 am, gpsman <gps...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:35 am, N8N <njna...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 15, 8:44 am, gpsman <gps...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I see lots of speed enforcement, but no enforcement at all of any
other laws, save for DUI checkpoints (which I have a real problem
with, but that's another thread that's been done to death.)

Your incredible bias and simplistic and one dimensional perspective
prevents you from comprehending that speeding is the most easily
enforceable violation and that people tend to clean up their acts when
LE is easily visible.

In my experience, that's a false statement. I see all sorts of poor
driving behavior, in the presence of LE. And the LEO doesn't seem to
care, so long as there's no speeding involved. Tailgating, improper
use of lights, lack of signals, cutting people off, all OK. Just
don't speed.

You seem to be forwarding the premise that you routinely observe
drivers reducing their velocity to legal limits while otherwise
continuing to drive carelessly while they are knowingly being observed
by LE.

That is EXACTLY what I'm saying.

If true, doesn't that further shoot the *** out of your argument that
increasing speed limits would not be unwise?

In what way? It's not going to change the behavior of drivers any
other than to reduce the likelihood that they will slam on the brakes
when they observe a LEO parked in the median, which will only increase
safety.

That's "engineer" "thinking"; only one thing will result from one
change?!

What else would change, if one revised the speed limits to reflect
actual travel speeds?

Drivers wouldn't drive significantly faster than they already do
(outside the visible presence of LE) as studies have already shown in
areas where speed limits have been raised.

What other changes do you anticipate?


It will also reduce the ability of LE to write speeding
tickets, which would theoretically allow them more time to ticket
drivers for other violations, which would also increase safety.

Duh. So, no "rubbernecker: effects... no drivers running into those
vehicles on the shoulder, that only happens when a speeding ticket is
being issued?!

Tickets are already being issued, the only thing that would change
would be the *nature* of the tickets.


There would be no need for red light or speed cameras if a more
significant portion of drivers merely drove as if they had some sense,
and LE could devote more resources to infractions other than speeding.

There still is no need for red light or speed cameras. They generally
are used as revenue enhancers at roads or intersections that have
problems that could be better solved through engineering means.

Duh. Please outline the engineering deficiencies of one intersection,
besides the timing of yellow lights.

That's the obvious one.

Please include a list of the
design improvements you would make, their impact upon the surrounding
area, and their associated costs.

Time the yellow lights correctly. Costs would be labor for however
long it takes to a) calculate the correct timing and b) have someone
actually retime the lights. Hey presto, a 90% reduction in RLR
incidents. Sounds a hell of a lot better than a camera, no?

"Presto" seems an excellent description of your statistical
analysis...

I didn't do the analysis, the state of Virginia (among others) did.

Their conclusion conflicts with your own.

I drew my conclusions based on reading their studies. Their decision
to suspend their RLC program for several years based on the downsides
that they discovered really doesn't sound to me like they "conflicted"
too greatly.


Generally if there are *other* deficiencies (poor lines of sight,
etc.) they can also be allowed for by either adjusting the yellow
timing more conservatively or a short all red clearance interval. But
those solutions aren't ideal as they just make the intersection safer,
they don't increase revenue.

In a circumstance of poor lines of sight wouldn't your exceptional
drivers so well versed in determining appropriate velocities approach
such an intersection with plenty of time to assess the intersection
and light?

yes, for the most part. The inattentive are the ones that cause
problems.

Buhbuhbuhbuh... they're only "inattentive" in the presence of a RLC?
If a RLC is present any crashes are the fault of the camera?

Not necessarily, but some of them can be attributed to the short
yellow timing required to make the RLC profitable.


That wouldn't cost anything, but if their judgment should not be
relied upon wouldn't posting a lower speed limit and enforcing it with
a camera seem a more cost efficient solution?

No, certainly not. It costs next to nothing to adjust light timing,
while cameras are very costly. The only way it *could* be a cost-
effective solution would be to somehow artificially increase the
number of violations.

So... "inattentive" drivers don't run red lights or operate too fast
for conditions or their attentiveness unless a RLC is present?

*sigh* no, what I'm saying is that using other methods can reduce the
danger to other drivers, which RLCs do not do. In fact, RLCs in most
common implementations (intersection with a "history" of RLR
incidents, usually coupled with short yellows) generally result in an
increase in rear-enders, which I'm sure isn't what you want.


When you're finished with that please outline the engineering
deficiencies of one mile of interstate highway and your list of
improvements and their associated costs.

Actually, most Interstate highways are very well engineered indeed.
The only glaring deficiency is improperly set speed limits.

Yes, of course. "Tailgating, improper use of lights, lack of signals,
cutting people off, all OK"... the only thing missing from a safety
standpoint is higher velocity...?

Those aren't functions of design or engineering, those are behaviors.
You do know the difference, right?

Duh. How would you propose those behaviors mitigated by higher
velocities?

Enforcement.


I did forget one though, left
exits and onramps are poor engineering, but at least around here they
seem to be phasing those out, which I am very happy about.

Duh. How about the inadequate lengths of on ramps, those designed and
built during the NMSL days when the factor of any increase in speed
limits was not foreseen and for which there was no allowance?

Not a factor, at least in my area. Most onramps are quite adequate.


How about the inadequate lengths of off ramps where exiting traffic
blocks the R lane and where MFFYs try to force their way in from the
next lane, seemingly designed with the anticipation of zero growth
during which population and traffic increased more than 10% per year
for the preceding 20 years?

Don't see that either.


Never seen any of that? You should travel more.

Just got back from central PA. Didn't have any issues with onramp or
offramp lengths. In fact, US-22 has been quite improved over the last
time I drove on it, only a year ago.


Or shut up about "better engineering".

Why? are YOU the one with the engineering degree? I'd venture to say
probably 50% or more of the regulars at RAD hold some kind of
engineering degree, and AFAIK you do not.

Pffft. Everyone here who "claims" an engineering degree concludes at
a level of an average 5th grader, and it doesn't take any exceptional
education to see that.

Certainly you don't have enough education to properly evaluate
anything that's posted.

IME, engineers rarely speak in absolute terms.

True, but in this case it is justified


Case in point, you, and your conclusions that so many drivers are
incompetent except when you need competent drivers to fit your
arguments, and very often those drivers are exactly the same drivers.

Cite?

Speeding drivers are perfectly competent to assess what velocity is
"safe" unless they have to reduce their velocity for a speed camera or
merging driver at which point they become very likely to crash. Not
your words, but a perfectly accurate paraphrase.

Not at all what I said.

What I said was that generally, the rule that most drivers are capable
of assessing a safe speed is accepted as truth among engineering
circles, and that the 85th percentile method is generally accepted as
the best method for taking that into account and allowing LE to
concentrate on the truly unsafe outliers.

I *also* said that people should learn to merge correctly so that
through traffic didn't have to slow for them. This isn't a
groundbreaking concept, it's already codified into law in most states.

I *also* said that underposted speed limits combined with speed
cameras or visible LE presence could cause some drivers to panic-brake
in heavy traffic which is an undesirable situation. I don't think
that that is a particularly controversial statement, and I think you'd
have a hard time arguing with its truth.


Case in point: Brent, who will conclude a single example is sufficient
to render something ineffective. See: Red light camera catches Darwin
at work; "So much for the effectiveness of the red light camera
preventing this sort of thing."

You haven't shown yet that RLCs *don't* cause an increase in crashes.

Duh. There's no suggestion of any premise concerning any increase or
decrease of crashes.

Then there's really no point in continuing this discussion, as you are
clearly wilfully ignorant.

I would think any engineer would immediately
recognize a conclusion based on a false premise; that RLCs are
intended to prevent all crashes and that a single instance of a crash
not being so prevented is sufficient to render a conclusion that all
RLCs are therefore ineffective.

How about an *increase* in crashes commonly seen at RLC
intersections? What would that suggest to you?


If I were to conclude that a single instance of a crash avoided in the
presence of a RLC was the result of the camera, and therefore RLCs are
effective, you'd laugh your ass off at my stupidity.

I do that anyway. But you aren't addressing the point, which is why
do RLC intersections consistently show an increase in rear-enders and
sometimes even an increase in overall crash frequency? Shouldn't
there be *some* safety benefit from RLC's?


Do engineers so often form conclusions based on so obviously false
premises?

Are you always so unable to interpret the material you're presented
with?

Please support your premise that I have misinterpreted ""So much for
the effectiveness of the red light camera preventing this sort of
thing."

I don't recall ever having stated that.


Case in point, you, again. You seem to believe that any engineering
degree claimed by any obvious idiot might make one more qualified than
those engineers who are so *employed*, e.g., any electrical engineer
with a BS is knowledge and skill equipped to design an intersection
without any knowledge of the limitations placed upon that design, nor
any of the other design criteria.

No, all I'm saying is that anyone with an engineering degree ought to
have received enough education in statistics and the proper methods of
employing and interpreting them no matter what their specific
discipline that they ought to be able to at least catch when others
are using invalid statistical methods to support their assertions.

You ignorant fucktard, statistics may interpreted by more than one
method,

well, what's your method?

and statistics are not immune from error. If you know
anything about statistics it seems most likely you have misinterpreted
it.

Misinterpreted what? Give an example.


You obviously neglect to ever factor any "costs" of "re-engineering"
intersections and, AFAICT, constantly refer to simply changing the
light timing as (superior) "engineering". You claim that lengthening
yellow lights is superior "engineering" and results in fewer red light
collisions than are documented at intersections equipped with RLCs
while statistics are available that indicate that is, in fact, not
indicated.

Look it up, I did.

So did I. My reading indicates that you either interpreted what you
read incorrectly or that you are simply pulling figures out of your
ass.

What figures...?! I haven't offered any figures because I know you
don't have the VA study to which you so often refer. In fact,
statistics complied from both the VA study and NHTSA suggest that
changing the yellow light timings had little if any effect since RLs
are so often run intentionally.

Completely false. The VA study showed a DRAMATIC, as in almost
complete, reduction in RLR incidents in several NoVA intersections
after the yellow interval was lengthened, without the increase in rear-
enders seen in the initial RLC portion of the study (which did not
result in anywhere near the RLR reductions as the lengthened yellows
did.)

This is FACT, as plainly stated in the study report. You cannot
dispute this without accusing the NMA of changing the text of the
study for their archive.

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/studies/
http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/virginia-dot-study-red-light-cameras/
http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/2007Virginia.pdf


I think I may logically deduce that if a driver could not manage to
keep their vehicle from colliding with parked cars, fences, and off of
lawns and the children thereupon, their velocity was most likely in
some way excessive... without any official determination.

First of all, there's no grounds for that claim - it's entirely
possible for a driver to be driving at a safe and prudent speed but
wreck anyway, say due to fiddling with the radio, dialing a cell
phone, picking up a dropped cigarette from the floor, etc. - so your
whole assumption is in error.

Duh. If one crashes due to intentional allowance of distraction one
should have been parked with a velocity of zero instead.

Or perhaps one should just pay attention to one's driving. however,
that's no grounds to legislate a speed limit of zero, that's grounds
to charge the one offender.

And who is suggesting legislating a speed limit of "zero"?! That
doesn't make any sense.

Well, you are the one that suggested that certain drivers ought to be
operating their vehicles at zero velocity. I don't necessarily
disagree with that. What I do disagree with is your premise that we
need to legislate limits for *all* drivers based on the outliers with
exceptionally poor skills, perception, or attention.

Duh. I have never forwarded any such premises. I did suggest that if
a driver is going to distract themselves from driving they should not
be moving when they do so.

Then what exactly are you suggesting?


I agree that your premise doesn't make sense.

What would make sense is legislating a limit
on driver distractions, however unpleasant that prospect.

Why would that be unpleasant?

Duh. If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand.

I think you *do* have to explain. Legislation against distractions
while driving could only *improve* my daily commuting experience,
assuming that the laws were enforced.


It never fails to amaze me how many drivers I see holding cell phone
to their head, and with their L hands, when headsets are now so
affordable.

Unfortunately, it seems many people are too stupid to determine what
might be a reasonable level of multitasking, and which tasks are most
important while driving.

Agreed. It's your conclusions that I'm having a problem with.

Guy runs over SWMBO in your front yard, climbs out and says "Sorry, I
was adjusting the radio". I suppose you'd reply, "Perfectly
understandable. Want a Coke or something? No? Well, let me help you
push your car out of the yard before one of my idiot neighbors call
the cops. You and I know what assholes some people can be about
driving slow enough that you can do two things at once".

No, you charge *that one driver* with negligent driving, assault, even
vehicular homicide if appropriate. You do NOT punish the people who
are driving appropriately.

Uh, and who would those drivers be?! "Tailgating, improper use of
lights, lack of signals, cutting people off"... drivers so stupid they
continue to exhibit those behaviors in the presence of LE?

Exactly. We've got the laws, we've got the cops, why aren't we
enforcing the laws that are already in place? Probably because it's
far easier to set up speed traps and concentrate on one behavior and
one behavior only.

Duh. I've only been saying that for years.

Again, then, what's your point? Don't you agree that if *all* traffic
laws were enforced equally and fairly that perhaps the behavior on the
road of the average driver might improve? Wouldn't you make an extra
effort to ensure that you were in compliance with all laws if you
believed that you could receive a ticket for any offense, not just
exceeding the speed limit?


Further, even if a driver was driving
in excess of both a reasonable and prudent speed and the posted speed
limit, in what way would that justify penalizing the *rest* of the
motoring public with lower speed limits due to the failure of one
driver to operate his vehicle safely? Punish the *offenders* and
leave everyone else alone.

Again, there isn't even a suggestion that anyone is calling for any
reduction of any speed limits. Pull your panties out of your crack.

Sure there is. Read the beginning of the thread.

My apologies, the overzealous OP mentioned it.

Yup, and that's what rubbed my fur the wrong way. I don't know why I
bothered replying to that post, I guess the OP just hit a hot button.

I didn't even read his entire post before I noticed you had written
something incredibly stupid for a supposed "engineer": "Please explain
exactly how increased speed inevitably results in increased risk."

How is that a stupid question? There still hasn't been a single
coherent response posted yet.

Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't make it incoherent.
Here's them pichurs of your blessed statistics.... agin:http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/images/fig5.gifhttp://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/images/fig6.gif

please explain how that squares with the graph at the bottom of this
page:

http://www.sha.state.md.us/Safety/oots/trafficsignalsandlaws/speedlimits2.asp

obviously either one of those graphs is flawed or else taken out of
context.


There certainly exist instances where
*reduced* speed results in increased risk, so it's not a one-size-fits-
all statement.

Exactly what kind of idiot must one be to believe that pointing out
something is not always true is somehow significantly relevant?

Exactly what kind of idiot says that something *is* always true and
then makes a statement like the above when he's called on it?

nate
.

Loading