Wrong Way MFFY!

Brent P wrote:

> Heaven forbid people learn about how to actually set a speed limit
> properly as per all the engineering studies and offical guidelines.
> (which are rutinely ignored)

Didja ever ask yourself, "How do they get away with that"?

> So, where's your pile of studies that show setting speed limits by
> pulling a number out of an elected offical's ass results in a minimum of
> collisions? Or anything else that counters the 85th percentile method.

Where's your evidence speed limit criteria is pulled out of someone's
ass? Where's your *data* of what the 85th percentile speed actually
*is*?

> All I ever see as counter arguement is nonsense like you two demonstrate
> above. Never any real data.

Where in the **** is your *data* supporting your argument? Here's some
of mine and it doesn't seem as if it was pulled from someone's ass.
Montana is about as liberal as it can be regarding speed limits having
actually abolished the highway limits back in the '90's.

- Design Speed for Montana Highways -

Design speed is "the maximum safe speed that can be maintained over a
specified section of highway when conditions are so favorable that the
design features of the highway govern." A design speed is selected
for each highway project and according to MDT's road design manual it
relates to the driver's comfort and not the speed at which a vehicle
will lose control. Design speed is based on several road National
Highway System (interstate and principal arterials)

Terrain Type - Design Speed
Level - 110 Km/h (70 mph)
Rolling - 100 Km/h (62 mph)
Mountainous - 80 Km/h (50 mph)

Surface Transportation Program (remainder of
primary, secondary, urban and state highways)

Terrain Type - Design Speed
Level - 100 Km/h (62 mph)
Rolling - 90 Km/h (56 mph)
Mountainous - 70 Km/h (43 mph)
-----

- gpsman

"JohnH" > wrote in message
...
>
>> All I ever see as counter arguement is nonsense like you two
>> demonstrate above. Never any real data.
>
> The "nonsense" is "85th percentile". From who's ass shat the number 85?
>

YOURS. Read up on it. It includes YOU. -Dave

>> The "nonsense" is "85th percentile". From who's ass shat the number
>> 85?
>
> YOURS. Read up on it. It includes YOU. -Dave

Not me; I use the number 77.3. Yep, it's 77.3th percentile for me. It's
just as arbitrary, but sounds more precise.

Dave wrote:
> http://tinypic.com/iwucew.jpg
>
> Since some of the class hasn't been paying attention and doesn't
> understand MFFY, I've posted a picture to demonstrate.
>
> The photo shows a car that, after a block of going the wrong way on a
> one way street, had flipped off four other drivers who honked at him.
> You can even see the one way signs in the background.
>
> gpsman or DYM: this is where you spout off about how those other
> drivers had no right to create noise pollution like that.

I'll bet anything this moron didn't speed at all while they were
traveling the wrong way on that block. Our resident "safety turd, er,
expert" will be more than happy to insist this driver was driving
safely since the driver wasn't speeding.

Fortunately the moron in the pic, as well as Aunt Judy, are in the
"most likely to make fine Darwin candidates" club.

In article >, JohnH wrote:
>
>> All I ever see as counter arguement is nonsense like you two
>> demonstrate above. Never any real data.
>
> The "nonsense" is "85th percentile". From who's ass shat the number 85?

The 85th percentile speed is where collision involvement is minimal. It
comes directly from analysis of data. Since it made sense that the safest
speed to drive should be legal, setting the speed limit to this value was
born. Studies of setting the speed limit in this manner show a decrease
in collisions and little change in actual driver speeds.

I believe you've already been pointed to the reference material.
http://www.dot.state.az.us/ROADS/traffic/speed.htm
http://www.sha.state.md.us/safety/oo...eedlimits2.asp
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/traffico...ffic/rules.htm
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/traffico...fic/limits.htm
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//////tfhrc/s...mages/fig1.gif
http://www.sha.state.md.us/images/85thchart.gif

Cirillo, J.A., Interstate System Accident Research Study II Interim
Report II. Public Roads, Vol 35, No 3, August 1969, pp. 71-75.
Federal Highway Administration. Synthesis of Speed Zoning Practice.
Report No. FHwA/RD-85/096. Washington, D.C. July 1985.
Federal Highway Administration. Traffic Speed Trends. Washington, D.C.
1969-1975.
Solomon, D., Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver,
and Vehicle. Bureau of Public Roads (precursor to FHwA). July 1964.
Federal Highway Administration. Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed
Limits. Report No. FHwA/RD-92/084. McLean, VA. June 1996.
Tignor, Samuel C. and Warren, Davey. Driver Speed Behavior on U.S.
Streets and Highways. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1990
Compendium of Technical Papers. Orlando, FL August, 1990.
David L. Harkey, et. al., "Assessment of Current Speed Zoning
Criteria," Transportation Research Record, no. 1281, 1990.

In article >, JohnH wrote:
>
>>> The "nonsense" is "85th percentile". From who's ass shat the number
>>> 85?
>>
>> YOURS. Read up on it. It includes YOU. -Dave
>
> Not me; I use the number 77.3. Yep, it's 77.3th percentile for me. It's
> just as arbitrary, but sounds more precise.

The 85th percentile is not arbitary. It's the valley of the curve.
http://www.sha.state.md.us/images/85thchart.gif

"JohnH" > wrote in
:

>
>>> The "nonsense" is "85th percentile". From who's ass shat the number
>>> 85?
>>
>> YOURS. Read up on it. It includes YOU. -Dave
>
> Not me; I use the number 77.3. Yep, it's 77.3th percentile for me.
> It's just as arbitrary, but sounds more precise.
>
>
>

John,

They are referring to MUTCD, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
You can read it here.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

Specifically, they are talking about their Holy Grail, setting speed
limits to the 85th Percentile. For this we go to Section 2B.13 Speed
Limit Sign.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/p...tm#section2B13

I'll qute the relevant passage here for you:

Standard:
After an engineering study has been made inaccordance with established
traffic engineering practices, the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see Figure
2B-1) shall display the limit established by law, ordinance, regulation,
or as adopted by the authorized agency. The speed limits shown shall be
in multiples of 10 km/h or 5 mph.

Guidance:
At least once every 5 years, States and local agencies should reevaluate
non-statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways that have
undergone a significant change in roadway characteristics or surrounding
land use since the last review.

No more than three speed limits should be displayed on any one Speed
Limit sign or assembly.

When a speed limit is to be posted, it should be within 10 km/h or 5 mph
of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic.

Option:
Other factors that may be considered when establishing speed limits are
the following:

1. Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and
sight distance;
2. The pace speed;
3. Roadside development and environment;
4. Parking practices and pedestrian activity; and
5. Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period.

End quoted material.

See, it right there in black and white. The speed limit must be set to
the 85th Percentile.

Doug

gpsman wrote:

> Design speed is "the maximum safe speed that can be maintained over a
> specified section of highway when conditions are so favorable that the
> design features of the highway govern."

That's an outdated definition. Check the current edition of AASHTO's A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book) for the
most up to date definition. Hint: It no longer says that the design
speed is the maximum safe speed.

Dave wrote:
> http://tinypic.com/iwucew.jpg
>
> Since some of the class hasn't been paying attention and doesn't
> understand MFFY, I've posted a picture to demonstrate.
>
> The photo shows a car that, after a block of going the wrong way on a
> one way street, had flipped off four other drivers who honked at him.
> You can even see the one way signs in the background.
>
> gpsman or DYM: this is where you spout off about how those other
> drivers had no right to create noise pollution like that.
>
> Dave

Two days in a row I've been able to photograph a dumbass driving the
wrong way on a road. Today, it was a dumbass driving on the left side
of a double yellow. San Diego has a one way road grid about 2 miles
south, but not here. And even if they were downtown, 7th ave is
northbound there and they were going southbound.

http://tinypic.com/iy28b7.jpg

The light went green as I was getting my camera from my pocket, turning
it on, and zooming. I was about 2/3 a block away when this started,
and was running while the camera turned on, but at least I got a shot
of them on the wrong side of the double yellow. They were sitting
there for about 5-10 seconds of a red cycle before the picture was
taken.

Though they didn't get hit, they definitely caused some confusion and
changes of plans.

Dave

Responding so nobody uses the false points in arguing back.

gpsman wrote:

> No, it doesn't. It seems to show a car traveling the "wrong" direction
> on a one-way street. It shows nothing else you describe. No four
> other drivers, no honking, no flips. Your description though, shows a
> lack of cognitive ability.

A digital camera is not always on, and sometimes not in your hands at
the time of seeing something worth photographing. The camera that took
the picture was in my pocket. I only took it out after the first honk,
and then had to turn it on.

Once it was on, I made it very clear I was taking a picture, and the
driver's female passenger took notice. She was yelling at the driver
by this point, loud enough I could hear most of it even over traffic
noise.

> The picture shows the 100th percentile on that block at that moment was
> driving in the same direction. By the common standard of r.a.d. the
> violation of law is excused by the majority of drivers willing to do
> so. He looks like a majority to me.

The picture shows about 1/8 of the length of the block. From the
sidewalk where I was, with the limited time available before he drove
away, I wanted to get a clear picture of the dumbass causing the
situation.

Taking pictures of the innocent bystanders was uncalled for,
espescially since my intent with the camera is to make a MFFY realize
some of their dumbassery has been captured for all to see.

In addition, the picture was slightly cropped to allow for a larger
frame when shrunken. Hosting sites won't take the 4 megapixel
original, way too big.

http://tinypic.com/iy2xw4.jpg

As can be seen the parked cars on the block made it clear the direction
of traffic flow. In addition, if the dumbass MFFY had bothered to look
at a map prior to driving, he'd have noticed it's a one-way street.
Link provided:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=92109&...0274&t=h&hl=en

Enjoy,
Dave