Orange county, speed limit reduced?

Peter Bozz wrote:
>> time. That is just an argument for variable limits on selected
>> sections of road -- no big deal to implement.
>
> They have that in Germany. They use electronic overhead signs that
> come on (automatically or otherwise) during specific traffic
> conditions to cap the speed limit (usually, to 120kph, or 100kph) on
> sections of the road where there's usually no limit. There's only one
> problem with this system, which otherwise should work fine: people
> need to stick to the temporary restrictions. I'm sure only the
> Germans are disciplined enough to do this :^
>
>> I don't think that there is much evidence that raising the speed
>> limit would have a detrimental effect on road casualties. Except
>> for last year there has been a steady decline in deaths and injuries
>> (and motorways are already the safest roads in Britain) over a long
>> period, and this has more to do with other factors. (In that time
>> the speed limits have been unchanged.)
>
> I believe that one reason they can't simply abolish or even raise the
> speed limits is the fact that the current freeways in England (or
> Holland for that matter) are not designed for very high speed traffic.
> Most if not all German Autobahns *are* specifically designed for that:
> for instance, the maximum road inclination allowed is 4%. Also the
> apron is much more robust (a German Autobahn is twice as thick as an
> American freeway), and corners have been constructed with high speed
> in mind. Stir in some Cherman obsession with Maitenance and some good
> old Cherman Discipline, and you can see why their roads are safe even
> at very high speeds :-)

I have been told that the roads here in California are better maintained
then a majority of the US. I somehow doubt this since many of the roads and
freeways are in very poor condition. With politics here its easier to get
half the funding now and build something that will fall apart, and then
spend three times as much in repairing it.

Jeff Strickland wrote:

> As for construction zones, it is good and proper to double the fines
> for violations in construction zones. Mostly because, if cars CAN do
> 85, it wouldn't be a construction zone, and since it is a
> construction zone, the lanes are narrower, the walls are closer, and
> there are pedestrians within 20 feet of the cars speeding by even if
> they are separated by a wall. If a car hits the wall and bounces off
> back into the traffic lanes, it can take out several other cars, any
> one of which could take out the guys trying to make the freeway wider.

You missed the point. I'm all for construction zones -- I'd hate to be working
around the nitwits on CA freeways. Enough Caltrans workers are killed every
year to prove the danger is real.

The problem is, miles of freeway are cordoned off for years, while actual
construction takes place in only a few hundred yards of it at a time. 95% or
whatever of the "construction zone" has no construction happening within it for
months, or even years. The public sees this and learns to ignore the warning.

I am well aware of the practical, bureacratic, and traffic engineering issues
involved in creating construction zones. But there's no question that if they
were just a little more dynamic in the way they were applied, the roads would be
safer for everyone.

Smart people are working on this, and change is coming. It's high time.

Matt O.

Trey wrote:

> I know people that drive as much as 90+ miles each way. (Apple Valley
> to Disneyland, Lake Ellsinore to Santa Ana, Temecula to Newport) I
> really don't know who in their right mind would do that, but its
> rather popular. However, with that long of a commute, the speed
> limit, 55 or 65 would drive me INSANE of I had to commute 90 miles
> each way. So what do they do? they pound the gas! Is it smart? I wont
> answer that. That's just how it is.
> Wow, 180 miles a day, five days a week, 46,800 a year. ave 65, and
> that's 720 hours a year, at 85 that's 550 hours a year, What would
> you like to be doing for that extra 170 hours a year you save?

Think of the money you're ****ing away driving. Just going by the standard IRS
reimbursement of what, 36 cents a mile -- do the math for yourself. Of course,
many people drive cars costing much more than that. Late model BMWs definately
fall into that category, probably around 50 cents a mile. According to the
figures you just quoted, that's a couple hundred thousand dollars more house you
could afford! Which is a better place for your money -- your house
(appreciating at over 20% in southern CA), or out your tailpipe?

> I think a good solution would be creating jobs closer to people's
> homes, so they don't have to drive as far.

The jobs are there and the homes are there, but people don't even think to look
for them. They work a certain place and then get it in their minds they have to
live a certain place, without exploring the alternatives.

Many of my friends have migrated from the suburbs to the middle of Los Angeles,
so they could either live right near work, or do a "reverse commute," against
the normal traffic patterns.

> If I could, I would walk
> or ride a bicycle to work.

You probably can. Where do you live, and work? I know a couple of people who
commute from Laguna Beach to Long Beach (that's a long one, 28 mi), a whole
bunch who go from Huntington or Costa Mesa to Irvine Spectrum (15 mi), one who
goes from Manhattan Beach to Santa Monica College (12 mi), and two who go from
Echo Park to Santa Monica (probably 12 mi). In all cases except the first,
riding a bike is faster than driving at rush hour.

Bike to work, and save the BMW for pleasant road trips.

Matt O.

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

> I agree that lower speeds in very busy periods can actually speed up
> the flow of traffic (queuing theory etc). However, rush hour isn't
> most of the time. That is just an argument for variable limits on
> selected sections of road -- no big deal to implement.

In southern CA it is, or almost -- 5:30-10AM, and 2-8PM, in most places. The
window of opportunity to get anywhere easily is outside these hours.

Matt O.

Trey wrote:

> I have been told that the roads here in California are better
> maintained then a majority of the US. I somehow doubt this since many
> of the roads and freeways are in very poor condition. With politics
> here its easier to get half the funding now and build something that
> will fall apart, and then spend three times as much in repairing it.

I guess the growth has been too rapid for the roads to keep up with. Getting
repairs done while keeping traffic moving is difficult.

CA roads probably *were* the best unitl a decade or so ago. I've certainly
noticed the downfall. For the last couple of years I've been driving all over
the east coast. In comparison, CA roads are atrocious. NYC, New England, and
even Detroit, all once known for terrible, car eating roads, all have better
roads than CA these days. Repairs, when they finally do happen, seem to be very
poor quality too.

One thing CA does have going for it is clear signage and road architecture.
Half the traffic on the east coast seems to be people driving back and forth
looking for where they were supposed to turn!

Matt O.

Peter Bozz wrote:

> I believe there is a similar thing in England, where they recently
> decided to cut the points in half for minor speeding offences, usually
> those caught on speed cameras. "Get up to twice the number of offences
> with only one license!"

The British may not have invented taxation, but the've honed the art to where
they're better at it than anyone else.

Matt O.

Trey wrote:

> ohh, I wish a cop would sit out in front of my house with a speed
> gun!! double the speed limit would be rather common.

If you and your neighbors complain enough, they probably will. All it takes is
a few complaints -- even just 2 or 3.

Matt O.

Trey wrote:

> and since "people with sports cars have cash to burn" they are more
> likely to just pay the ticket then fight it? This could be why I
> always see the Porsche 911 turbo's over in the slow lane, doing 10
> under the speed limit. They know the cops think they are loaded and
> will just pay what ever amount the cop says they owe.

Maybe. More likely, the Porsche Turbo driver has already had several points on
his license. The local police probably know who he is, are watching him like a
hawk, and he knows it.

Like anyone else, police aren't always perfectly competent or honest, but
they're way smarter, better at their jobs, and more honest than you probably
think.

Also, most people can't afford such expensive cars until they're older, and more
cautious -- both about driving itself, *and* getting tickets. I don't know how
old the average Porsche buyer is, but most Corvette buyers are over 60, and BMW
buyers over 50.

Matt O.

"Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
...

> If you and your neighbors complain enough, they probably will. All it
takes is
> a few complaints -- even just 2 or 3.

Only if the area in question is a better revenue producer than another being
complained about. Outside of school areas, I really believe traps are set up
where they will make the most money....not do the most good.

In article >, Jeff Strickland says...
>
>I drive from Riverside into San Diego, and back, daily.

I drive San Diego to Orange County, so I feel your pain. You are correct about
the speeds here. 65 would drive me insane even if it didn't get me run off the
road.

God bless my Valentine One! That puppy paid for itself within one week.
Blasting my 330Cic through Pendleton in light traffic is a lot more fun now.


--
Jason G
"This isn't a matter of being tolerant,
it's a matter of being sane." --REP, a.s.c.