A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Daylight Running Lights



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 15th 14, 12:43 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,026
Default Daylight Running Lights

On 2014-12-14 23:33:01 +0000, said:

> Alan Baker wrote:
>
> "I'm not in FAVOUR of them myself...
>
> ...but I'm not particular against them, either.
>
> What I AM ALWAYS against, however, is stupid.
>
> And saying that daytime running lights cause accidents is stupid. "
>
> I don't know if they have reduced or increased accidents, all I know is
> that the first 70 or so years of automotive history were fine without
> them.


A lot of things were "fine" until we found a better way, you know.

That's a pretty common truth.

Like I said, I'm pretty neutral on the idea of making DRLs mandatory.
Frankly, I think our efforts would be far better spent actually
requiring people to learn to drive so that they were fully aware of the
vehicles around them regardless of whether or not they have lights on.

That having been said, I think the idea that DRLs have CAUSED accidents...

....let alone caused more than they've prevented (and you KNOW they've
prevented some)...

....is complete and utter bull****.

You note that "Ashton" has completely caved on providing any kind of
cite for his claim and can't even dream up a scenario where DRLs MIGHT
cause an accident.

It's pathetic.

Ads
  #22  
Old December 15th 14, 12:51 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 539
Default Daylight Running Lights

Alan Baker wrote: "A lot of things were "fine" until we found a better way, you know. That's a pretty common truth"


Even in the cases of progress for the sake of progress itself? We'll just have to respectfully disagree there.

Two things cars could do without: DRLS(one less drain on the battery), and power door locks(I don't like anything that automatically locks itself).
  #24  
Old December 17th 14, 01:51 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,026
Default Daylight Running Lights

On 2014-12-17 00:29:33 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:

> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:57:06 AM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2014-12-16 14:23:32 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>>
>>> On Monday, December 15, 2014 10:13:58 PM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey,> >
>>> Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On Monday, December 15, 2014 7:38:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>>>>> Free Spirit:
>>>>>
>>>>> Two-fold: A misplaced focus on speed, and on generating revenues to>
>>>>> >>> line the pockets of politicians.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like I said a couple posts back, speed is not the issue, it's what one>
>>>>> >>> is doing/focusing on at speed.
>>>>
>>>> Good drivers going fast can be better than bad drivers going slow. But>
>>>> >> bad drivers going fast are like an unguided missile.
>>>
>>> Let's assume a "good driver" going fast: An idiot walks into his path>
>>> > misjudging the distance and he's history. The good driver has a
>>> death> > on his record.

>>
>> Sorry, but:
>>
>> 1. A good driver can avoid an idiot who just walks into his path
>> pretty> often. In order to hit a good driver, you actually have to hide
>> your> intention to jump in front of him.
>>
>> 2. If someone can get in front of the good driver in the window where>
>> he cannot stop, and you're willing to call that person's death>
>> unacceptable, then you are forced to set traffic speeds unreasonably>
>> low for the risk this poses.
>>
>>>
>>> We have around here three lanes squeezed into two and the result is> >
>>> anyone opening the cars' doors on either side of the road is gambling>
>>> > his life. The speed in that area should be 20 mph but it's common to>
>>> > see drivers going 40 mph or more. We should not let the good driver>
>>> > make all kinds of judgement.

>>
>> Actually, the research from traffic engineers and others looking into>
>> it is that that is exactly what we should do.
>>
>>> There are all kinds of idiots out there, but the engineers are the
>>> main> > issue. Why? Because they don't care. You see accidents
>>> happening in the> > same area and they don't correct anything. Again,
>>> they don't care.

>>
>> You think that the engineers are the problem?
>>
>> LOL

>
> The engineers are the main problem, drivers and pedestrians can also be
> part of the problem.


No. They are not.

> They want to accommodate the maximum volume of cars, with little regard
> to safety. I remember the same winding road next to Woodbourne, NY,
> changing the speed limit wildly from 35 mph to 55 mph. If you followed
> those limits, it would get you killed.


Cite?

> But they figure nobody can follow such wild changes from one section
> of the road to another. Same road! Hey, they are hiding everywhere
> waiting for unsuspecting drivers who failed to adjust from 55 mph to 35
> mph.
> And that's the whole point about it. Money, mucho dinero, predation...


Cite?

  #25  
Old December 17th 14, 08:28 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,026
Default Daylight Running Lights

On 2014-12-17 03:54:18 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:

> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 7:51:17 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2014-12-17 00:29:33 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:57:06 AM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2014-12-16 14:23:32 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, December 15, 2014 10:13:58 PM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey,> >
>>>>> Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, December 15, 2014 7:38:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>>>>>>> Free Spirit:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two-fold: A misplaced focus on speed, and on generating revenues to>
>>>>>>>>>> line the pockets of politicians.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like I said a couple posts back, speed is not the issue, it's what one>
>>>>>>>>>> is doing/focusing on at speed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good drivers going fast can be better than bad drivers going slow. But>
>>>>>>>> bad drivers going fast are like an unguided missile.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's assume a "good driver" going fast: An idiot walks into his path>
>>>>>> misjudging the distance and he's history. The good driver has a
>>>>> death> > on his record.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but:
>>>>
>>>> 1. A good driver can avoid an idiot who just walks into his path
>>>> pretty> often. In order to hit a good driver, you actually have to hide
>>>> your> intention to jump in front of him.
>>>>
>>>> 2. If someone can get in front of the good driver in the window where>
>>>> he cannot stop, and you're willing to call that person's death>
>>>> unacceptable, then you are forced to set traffic speeds unreasonably>
>>>> low for the risk this poses.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have around here three lanes squeezed into two and the result is> >
>>>>> anyone opening the cars' doors on either side of the road is gambling>
>>>>>> his life. The speed in that area should be 20 mph but it's common to>
>>>>>> see drivers going 40 mph or more. We should not let the good driver>
>>>>>> make all kinds of judgement.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, the research from traffic engineers and others looking into>
>>>> it is that that is exactly what we should do.
>>>>
>>>>> There are all kinds of idiots out there, but the engineers are the
>>>>> main> > issue. Why? Because they don't care. You see accidents
>>>>> happening in the> > same area and they don't correct anything. Again,
>>>>> they don't care.
>>>>
>>>> You think that the engineers are the problem?
>>>>
>>>> LOL
>>>
>>> The engineers are the main problem, drivers and pedestrians can also be
>>> part of the problem.

>>
>> No. They are not.

>
> It's no secret that you can count some idiots among pedestrians and drivers...
>
> But the engineers couldn't even make passing lanes part of the design.
> The end result is chaos and mayhem. It's not they are stupid. They are
> corrupt or they simply don't care.


I'm sorry, but you're laying the blame at the feet of the wrong people.

>
> This sign got me in trouble when riding a bicycle and a driver spit in
> my face because of it: "Walk bicycle across bridge."


Perhaps it was your charming personality.

>
>
>>
>>> They want to accommodate the maximum volume of cars, with little regard
>>> to safety. I remember the same winding road next to Woodbourne, NY,
>>> changing the speed limit wildly from 35 mph to 55 mph. If you followed
>>> those limits, it would get you killed.

>>
>> Cite?

>
> Eyewitness account (myself).


So you're dead, then?

>
>>
>>> But they figure nobody can follow such wild changes from one section
>>> of the road to another. Same road! Hey, they are hiding everywhere
>>> waiting for unsuspecting drivers who failed to adjust from 55 mph to 35
>>> mph.
>>> And that's the whole point about it. Money, mucho dinero, predation...

>>
>> Cite?

>
> You think they are trying to make roads any safer? They would lower the
> speed limits after so many accidents, right? Well, they don't. They
> just pick up the bodies, and sweep the debris.


Let's see some actual statistics...

  #26  
Old December 17th 14, 08:30 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default Daylight Running Lights

On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 4:03:08 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 03:54:44 UTC, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 7:51:17 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > On 2014-12-17 00:29:33 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:57:06 AM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > >> On 2014-12-16 14:23:32 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Monday, December 15, 2014 10:13:58 PM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey,> >
> > > >>> Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> > > >>>> On Monday, December 15, 2014 7:38:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > >>>>> Free Spirit:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Two-fold: A misplaced focus on speed, and on generating revenues to>
> > > >>>>> >>> line the pockets of politicians.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Like I said a couple posts back, speed is not the issue, it's what one>
> > > >>>>> >>> is doing/focusing on at speed.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Good drivers going fast can be better than bad drivers going slow. But>
> > > >>>> >> bad drivers going fast are like an unguided missile.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Let's assume a "good driver" going fast: An idiot walks into his path>
> > > >>> > misjudging the distance and he's history. The good driver has a
> > > >>> death> > on his record.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sorry, but:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. A good driver can avoid an idiot who just walks into his path
> > > >> pretty> often. In order to hit a good driver, you actually have to hide
> > > >> your> intention to jump in front of him.
> > > >>
> > > >> 2. If someone can get in front of the good driver in the window where>
> > > >> he cannot stop, and you're willing to call that person's death>
> > > >> unacceptable, then you are forced to set traffic speeds unreasonably>
> > > >> low for the risk this poses.
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We have around here three lanes squeezed into two and the result is> >
> > > >>> anyone opening the cars' doors on either side of the road is gambling>
> > > >>> > his life. The speed in that area should be 20 mph but it's common to>
> > > >>> > see drivers going 40 mph or more. We should not let the good driver>
> > > >>> > make all kinds of judgement.
> > > >>
> > > >> Actually, the research from traffic engineers and others looking into>
> > > >> it is that that is exactly what we should do.
> > > >>
> > > >>> There are all kinds of idiots out there, but the engineers are the
> > > >>> main> > issue. Why? Because they don't care. You see accidents
> > > >>> happening in the> > same area and they don't correct anything. Again,
> > > >>> they don't care.
> > > >>
> > > >> You think that the engineers are the problem?
> > > >>
> > > >> LOL
> > > >
> > > > The engineers are the main problem, drivers and pedestrians can also be
> > > > part of the problem.
> > >
> > > No. They are not.

> >
> > It's no secret that you can count some idiots among pedestrians and drivers...
> >
> > But the engineers couldn't even make passing lanes part of the design. The end result is chaos and mayhem. It's not they are stupid. They are corrupt or they simply don't care.
> >
> > This sign got me in trouble when riding a bicycle and a driver spit in my face because of it: "Walk bicycle across bridge."
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > They want to accommodate the maximum volume of cars, with little regard
> > > > to safety. I remember the same winding road next to Woodbourne, NY,
> > > > changing the speed limit wildly from 35 mph to 55 mph. If you followed
> > > > those limits, it would get you killed.
> > >
> > > Cite?

> >
> > Eyewitness account (myself).
> >
> > >
> > > > But they figure nobody can follow such wild changes from one section
> > > > of the road to another. Same road! Hey, they are hiding everywhere
> > > > waiting for unsuspecting drivers who failed to adjust from 55 mph to 35
> > > > mph.
> > > > And that's the whole point about it. Money, mucho dinero, predation....
> > >
> > > Cite?

> >
> > You think they are trying to make roads any safer? They would lower the speed limits after so many accidents, right? Well, they don't. They just pick up the bodies, and sweep the debris.

>
> It's not possible to place an infinite value on human life when doing road planning. Almost every human economic activity involves some deaths, placing an infinite value on human life would bring our whole society to a standstill (and we'd all starve).
>
> So, as I understand it, road planners place a high, but finite value on road deaths. The last figure I heard was £700,000 per death but that was years ago (and in the UK).
>
> (This figure strikes me as being in the same ballpark as the total, lifetime production cost of an adult westerner, once you take into account food, medical care, education etc.).
>
> Of course this isn't widely advertised, its not something people want to deal with but road planners have no choice. They are one of the few groups of decision makers who can't fudge the question.
>
> Its simply not possible to reduce road deaths to zero. Ultimately there's no choice but to balance lives and utility.
>
> Likewise if they lowered the speed limit every time there was an accident speed limits would be everywhere zero.
>
> As a society we've concluded that a certain level of road deaths is a price we're willing to pay for the huge economic benefits of road transport.


In the process they have killed many communities, giving rise to the infamous gated communities. Are you willing to pay to live in a community where the kids can play? Then go to a gated communities.

I believe there's a medium ground between unleashed traffic and controlled traffic, where the pedestrians feel safer. It may be argued that the SUV (the American supersized SUV) has no place in civilized cities.

In many ways, I think the trend is toward feudalism. The knights and lords rule over the land. We just need to get rid of the terminology of "democracy." The lords rule from gated communities and castles. They don't live with the commoners, whose concerns are always ignored.

I don't think the "freedom of movement" is negotiable. It's not that you don't accept certain risks involved with walking/riding a bike, just that many solutions are really common sense. Speed cameras are just one example.
  #27  
Old December 17th 14, 08:37 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,026
Default Daylight Running Lights

On 2014-12-17 19:30:50 +0000, Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises said:

> On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 4:03:08 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 03:54:44 UTC, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
>> Humble Philosopher wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 7:51:17 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2014-12-17 00:29:33 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:57:06 AM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> On 2014-12-16 14:23:32 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, December 15, 2014 10:13:58 PM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey,> >>
>>>>>>> > > >>> Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 15, 2014 7:38:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Free Spirit:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Two-fold: A misplaced focus on speed, and on generating revenues to>>
>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>> >>> line the pockets of politicians.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like I said a couple posts back, speed is not the issue, it's what
>>>>>>>>> one>> > > >>>>> >>> is doing/focusing on at speed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good drivers going fast can be better than bad drivers going slow.
>>>>>>>> But>> > > >>>> >> bad drivers going fast are like an unguided missile.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's assume a "good driver" going fast: An idiot walks into his path>>
>>>>>>> > > >>> > misjudging the distance and he's history. The good driver has
>>>>>>> a> > > >>> death> > on his record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. A good driver can avoid an idiot who just walks into his path> > >
>>>>>> >> pretty> often. In order to hit a good driver, you actually have to
>>>>>> hide> > > >> your> intention to jump in front of him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. If someone can get in front of the good driver in the window where>>
>>>>>> > > >> he cannot stop, and you're willing to call that person's death>>
>>>>>> > > >> unacceptable, then you are forced to set traffic speeds
>>>>>> unreasonably>> > > >> low for the risk this poses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have around here three lanes squeezed into two and the result is> >>
>>>>>>> > > >>> anyone opening the cars' doors on either side of the road is
>>>>>>> gambling>> > > >>> > his life. The speed in that area should be 20 mph
>>>>>>> but it's common to>> > > >>> > see drivers going 40 mph or more. We
>>>>>>> should not let the good driver>> > > >>> > make all kinds of judgement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, the research from traffic engineers and others looking into>>
>>>>>> > > >> it is that that is exactly what we should do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are all kinds of idiots out there, but the engineers are the> > >
>>>>>>> >>> main> > issue. Why? Because they don't care. You see accidents> > >
>>>>>>> >>> happening in the> > same area and they don't correct anything.
>>>>>>> Again,> > > >>> they don't care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You think that the engineers are the problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>
>>>>> The engineers are the main problem, drivers and pedestrians can also
>>>>> be> > > > part of the problem.
>>>>
>>>> No. They are not.
>>>
>>> It's no secret that you can count some idiots among pedestrians and drivers...
>>>
>>> But the engineers couldn't even make passing lanes part of the design.
>>> The end result is chaos and mayhem. It's not they are stupid. They are
>>> corrupt or they simply don't care.
>>>
>>> This sign got me in trouble when riding a bicycle and a driver spit in
>>> my face because of it: "Walk bicycle across bridge."
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> They want to accommodate the maximum volume of cars, with little
>>>>> regard> > > > to safety. I remember the same winding road next to
>>>>> Woodbourne, NY,> > > > changing the speed limit wildly from 35 mph to
>>>>> 55 mph. If you followed> > > > those limits, it would get you killed.
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> Eyewitness account (myself).
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But they figure nobody can follow such wild changes from one section> >
>>>>> > > of the road to another. Same road! Hey, they are hiding everywhere>
>>>>> > > > waiting for unsuspecting drivers who failed to adjust from 55 mph
>>>>> to 35> > > > mph.
>>>>> And that's the whole point about it. Money, mucho dinero, predation...
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> You think they are trying to make roads any safer? They would lower the
>>> speed limits after so many accidents, right? Well, they don't. They
>>> just pick up the bodies, and sweep the debris.

>>
>> It's not possible to place an infinite value on human life when doing
>> road planning. Almost every human economic activity involves some
>> deaths, placing an infinite value on human life would bring our whole
>> society to a standstill (and we'd all starve).
>>
>> So, as I understand it, road planners place a high, but finite value on
>> road deaths. The last figure I heard was £700,000 per death but that
>> was years ago (and in the UK).
>>
>> (This figure strikes me as being in the same ballpark as the total,
>> lifetime production cost of an adult westerner, once you take into
>> account food, medical care, education etc.).
>>
>> Of course this isn't widely advertised, its not something people want
>> to deal with but road planners have no choice. They are one of the few
>> groups of decision makers who can't fudge the question.
>>
>> Its simply not possible to reduce road deaths to zero. Ultimately
>> there's no choice but to balance lives and utility.
>>
>> Likewise if they lowered the speed limit every time there was an
>> accident speed limits would be everywhere zero.
>>
>> As a society we've concluded that a certain level of road deaths is a
>> price we're willing to pay for the huge economic benefits of road
>> transport.

>
> In the process they have killed many communities, giving rise to the
> infamous gated communities. Are you willing to pay to live in a
> community where the kids can play? Then go to a gated communities.


I'm sorry, but what evidence do you have that cars have "killed many
communities"?

>
> I believe there's a medium ground between unleashed traffic and
> controlled traffic, where the pedestrians feel safer. It may be argued
> that the SUV (the American supersized SUV) has no place in civilized
> cities.
>
> In many ways, I think the trend is toward feudalism. The knights and
> lords rule over the land. We just need to get rid of the terminology of
> "democracy." The lords rule from gated communities and castles. They
> don't live with the commoners, whose concerns are always ignored.
>
> I don't think the "freedom of movement" is negotiable. It's not that
> you don't accept certain risks involved with walking/riding a bike,
> just that many solutions are really common sense. Speed cameras are
> just one example.


Speed cameras are simply a revenue grab. One can tell this because
they're typically placed where almost everyone is exceeding the posted
limit, and as has been studied and revealed, where that is happening,
it is almost always the limit that is wrong and not the drivers.

  #28  
Old December 17th 14, 08:43 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default Daylight Running Lights

On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:28:21 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2014-12-17 03:54:18 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 7:51:17 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 2014-12-17 00:29:33 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
> >>
> >>> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:57:06 AM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>> On 2014-12-16 14:23:32 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Monday, December 15, 2014 10:13:58 PM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey,> >
> >>>>> Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, December 15, 2014 7:38:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> >>>>>>> Free Spirit:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Two-fold: A misplaced focus on speed, and on generating revenues to>
> >>>>>>>>>> line the pockets of politicians.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Like I said a couple posts back, speed is not the issue, it's what one>
> >>>>>>>>>> is doing/focusing on at speed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good drivers going fast can be better than bad drivers going slow. But>
> >>>>>>>> bad drivers going fast are like an unguided missile.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let's assume a "good driver" going fast: An idiot walks into his path>
> >>>>>> misjudging the distance and he's history. The good driver has a
> >>>>> death> > on his record.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, but:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. A good driver can avoid an idiot who just walks into his path
> >>>> pretty> often. In order to hit a good driver, you actually have to hide
> >>>> your> intention to jump in front of him.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. If someone can get in front of the good driver in the window where>
> >>>> he cannot stop, and you're willing to call that person's death>
> >>>> unacceptable, then you are forced to set traffic speeds unreasonably>
> >>>> low for the risk this poses.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have around here three lanes squeezed into two and the result is> >
> >>>>> anyone opening the cars' doors on either side of the road is gambling>
> >>>>>> his life. The speed in that area should be 20 mph but it's common to>
> >>>>>> see drivers going 40 mph or more. We should not let the good driver>
> >>>>>> make all kinds of judgement.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, the research from traffic engineers and others looking into>
> >>>> it is that that is exactly what we should do.
> >>>>
> >>>>> There are all kinds of idiots out there, but the engineers are the
> >>>>> main> > issue. Why? Because they don't care. You see accidents
> >>>>> happening in the> > same area and they don't correct anything. Again,
> >>>>> they don't care.
> >>>>
> >>>> You think that the engineers are the problem?
> >>>>
> >>>> LOL
> >>>
> >>> The engineers are the main problem, drivers and pedestrians can also be
> >>> part of the problem.
> >>
> >> No. They are not.

> >
> > It's no secret that you can count some idiots among pedestrians and drivers...
> >
> > But the engineers couldn't even make passing lanes part of the design.
> > The end result is chaos and mayhem. It's not they are stupid. They are
> > corrupt or they simply don't care.

>
> I'm sorry, but you're laying the blame at the feet of the wrong people.


So tell me who can change the system if not the engineers/politicians.
>
> >
> > This sign got me in trouble when riding a bicycle and a driver spit in
> > my face because of it: "Walk bicycle across bridge."

>
> Perhaps it was your charming personality.


Perhaps they thought I was usurping their road and having fun with my GF on a beautiful Saturday afternoon. The guy interpreted the sign above to mean "no bicycle riding on the road" and attacked, when it actually meant "no riding on the sidewalk." Well see, the sidewalk on the bridge is only two feet wide how can you ride a bike on it.

They said later they would fix it, but, of course, everything still remains the same. They actually brought the heavy machinery but nothing visible changed. The pedestrians are still walking through the mud and the cyclists are playing Russian roulette with their lives.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> They want to accommodate the maximum volume of cars, with little regard
> >>> to safety. I remember the same winding road next to Woodbourne, NY,
> >>> changing the speed limit wildly from 35 mph to 55 mph. If you followed
> >>> those limits, it would get you killed.
> >>
> >> Cite?

> >
> > Eyewitness account (myself).

>
> So you're dead, then?


Just hurt and humiliated, you know. Just the type of thing that makes people get a gun and gun down people. That's why I don't carry a gun.
>
> >
> >>
> >>> But they figure nobody can follow such wild changes from one section
> >>> of the road to another. Same road! Hey, they are hiding everywhere
> >>> waiting for unsuspecting drivers who failed to adjust from 55 mph to 35
> >>> mph.
> >>> And that's the whole point about it. Money, mucho dinero, predation....
> >>
> >> Cite?

> >
> > You think they are trying to make roads any safer? They would lower the
> > speed limits after so many accidents, right? Well, they don't. They
> > just pick up the bodies, and sweep the debris.

>
> Let's see some actual statistics...


Well, let's see. Florida, Texas and Arizona --I think-- lead the nation in pedestrian fatalities. I have the article somewhere. Naturally people are afraid to go out in order NOT to be part of the statistic.
  #29  
Old December 17th 14, 08:55 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,026
Default Daylight Running Lights

On 2014-12-17 19:43:24 +0000, Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises said:

> On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:28:21 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2014-12-17 03:54:18 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 7:51:17 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2014-12-17 00:29:33 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:57:06 AM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> On 2014-12-16 14:23:32 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, December 15, 2014 10:13:58 PM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey,> >
>>>>>>> Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 15, 2014 7:38:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Free Spirit:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Two-fold: A misplaced focus on speed, and on generating revenues to>
>>>>>>>>>>>> line the pockets of politicians.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like I said a couple posts back, speed is not the issue, it's what one>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is doing/focusing on at speed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good drivers going fast can be better than bad drivers going slow. But>
>>>>>>>>>> bad drivers going fast are like an unguided missile.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's assume a "good driver" going fast: An idiot walks into his path>
>>>>>>>> misjudging the distance and he's history. The good driver has a
>>>>>>> death> > on his record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. A good driver can avoid an idiot who just walks into his path
>>>>>> pretty> often. In order to hit a good driver, you actually have to hide
>>>>>> your> intention to jump in front of him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. If someone can get in front of the good driver in the window where>
>>>>>> he cannot stop, and you're willing to call that person's death>
>>>>>> unacceptable, then you are forced to set traffic speeds unreasonably>
>>>>>> low for the risk this poses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have around here three lanes squeezed into two and the result is> >
>>>>>>> anyone opening the cars' doors on either side of the road is gambling>
>>>>>>>> his life. The speed in that area should be 20 mph but it's common to>
>>>>>>>> see drivers going 40 mph or more. We should not let the good driver>
>>>>>>>> make all kinds of judgement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, the research from traffic engineers and others looking into>
>>>>>> it is that that is exactly what we should do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are all kinds of idiots out there, but the engineers are the
>>>>>>> main> > issue. Why? Because they don't care. You see accidents
>>>>>>> happening in the> > same area and they don't correct anything. Again,
>>>>>>> they don't care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You think that the engineers are the problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>
>>>>> The engineers are the main problem, drivers and pedestrians can also be
>>>>> part of the problem.
>>>>
>>>> No. They are not.
>>>
>>> It's no secret that you can count some idiots among pedestrians and drivers...
>>>
>>> But the engineers couldn't even make passing lanes part of the design.>
>>> > The end result is chaos and mayhem. It's not they are stupid. They
>>> are> > corrupt or they simply don't care.

>>
>> I'm sorry, but you're laying the blame at the feet of the wrong people.

>
> So tell me who can change the system if not the engineers/politicians.


Why are you lumping the engineers and politicians together?

Figure that out, and you'll have answered your own question.

>>
>>>
>>> This sign got me in trouble when riding a bicycle and a driver spit in>
>>> > my face because of it: "Walk bicycle across bridge."

>>
>> Perhaps it was your charming personality.

>
> Perhaps they thought I was usurping their road and having fun with my
> GF on a beautiful Saturday afternoon. The guy interpreted the sign
> above to mean "no bicycle riding on the road" and attacked, when it
> actually meant "no riding on the sidewalk." Well see, the sidewalk on
> the bridge is only two feet wide how can you ride a bike on it.


I don't know what the laws are you in jurisdiction, but it sounds to me
like you were breaking one of them.

>
> They said later they would fix it, but, of course, everything still
> remains the same. They actually brought the heavy machinery but nothing
> visible changed. The pedestrians are still walking through the mud and
> the cyclists are playing Russian roulette with their lives.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> They want to accommodate the maximum volume of cars, with little regard
>>>>> to safety. I remember the same winding road next to Woodbourne, NY,
>>>>> changing the speed limit wildly from 35 mph to 55 mph. If you followed
>>>>> those limits, it would get you killed.
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> Eyewitness account (myself).

>>
>> So you're dead, then?

>
> Just hurt and humiliated, you know. Just the type of thing that makes
> people get a gun and gun down people. That's why I don't carry a gun.


You missed the point: you claim that you have an "eyewitness account"
from yourself of someone being killed...

....but you really don't, do you?

> >> >> >>> >>> But they figure nobody can follow such wild changes from

> one section
>>>>> of the road to another. Same road! Hey, they are hiding everywhere
>>>>> waiting for unsuspecting drivers who failed to adjust from 55 mph to 35
>>>>> mph.
>>>>> And that's the whole point about it. Money, mucho dinero, predation...
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> You think they are trying to make roads any safer? They would lower
>>> the> > speed limits after so many accidents, right? Well, they don't.
>>> They> > just pick up the bodies, and sweep the debris.

>>
>> Let's see some actual statistics...

>
> Well, let's see. Florida, Texas and Arizona --I think-- lead the nation
> in pedestrian fatalities. I have the article somewhere. Naturally
> people are afraid to go out in order NOT to be part of the statistic.


So you haven't actually provided anything...

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2002 VUE - Daylight Running Lights [email protected] Saturn 2 November 24th 06 09:25 PM
1994 LHS headlight daylight sensor does not work, lights always on random electron Chrysler 4 June 17th 06 05:09 AM
96 Honda Accord daylight running lights problem me Honda 2 February 18th 05 10:09 PM
Honda daylight running lights in Canada Veggie Honda 18 November 10th 04 04:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.