Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition
-
Very blakey.
-
If you're having a debate, don't expect other's to finish your arguments for you.
Given the Snowden revelations - about which anyone who's not a vegetable should be aware - I don't know why I need to be so bleedin' obvious about the conclusion. It'd be quite condescending to do that, don't you think?
-
If you have a point to make, make it. I will read it. I may reply to it. I may learn something. You may learn something.
I think my response is going to be "You are assuming facts not in evidence" but then I'm again just guessing about what you're going to say because you still haven't said anything.
-
A global monitoring solution isn't the only way to implement autonomous cars; it's not even necessarily the best way to do so.
-
A global monitoring solution isn't the only way to implement autonomous cars; it's not even necessarily the best way to do so, especially off of highways.
Agreed, it isn't the only way. However, given the all-knowing surveillance state that we've allowed to come into existence, do you really want to give that state even a chance to acquire more monitoring and control capabilities?For example, after the Boston Marathon bombing, the cops were going door to door, conducting warrantless searches for the suspects. The entire neighborhood was on lockdown. If cars could be controlled remotely, how much of a stretch would it have been for them to "lock down" everyone's cars within the neighborhood? Not much of a stretch at all.
-
@Intercourse said:
Or, here is a midpoint solution:
As someone who has suffered through hours of waits for entitled boaters, I would vote for that.
-
which they do so often, it's crazy.
I know. I've been paying close attention to this for ten years or maybe longer, since I first heard about speed cams in England being set in places that clearly weren't there for safety: there's no good reason to ignore a blind curve but put three cams on the straight section beyond the curve, and hide some of them behind other signs.
-
Except that anybody that stupid is probably too stupid to realize that sitting on the tracks is a bad decision.
Heh, remember the story I linked a while back about the woman sitting on the tracks?
To be fair she apparently didn't know she was on them, and it was dark.
-
A very noticable anti-pattern. I can't remember if this was linked here.
Don't know about this particular vid, but that bridge probably has.
I bet they could mitigate the problem a little bit by running a wire across the road on the other side of the intersection, with a sign hanging from it reading "if you hear a crunch in a few seconds STOP!"
-
That's ridiculous. Fix it.
Here, call 'em yourself and complain: (214) 671-4065 They're open M-F 8 AM to 5 PM Central.
-
Rear-end collisions are safer than T-bones from running reds.
Oops--I meant to reply to this in my other reply. Apparently in some cases, the amount of damage from the increase in rear-ending exceeded the amount of damage saved by fewer T-bonings in Virginia, an early adopter.
I agree that stopping tailgating is a great idea. But red light cameras are still a bad idea.
-
The bonee is travelling at low speed, the boner is trying to beat a red so he's flying.
Nope. The way it typically happens is the light is at an intersection with a short yellow, whether because it was shortened, or because the intersection was chosen because it already had a short yellow, so the light flips to yellow, and the driver stomps on the brakes to avoid a ticket, and gets rear-ended.
You can say "think of it as evolution in action" and hope that drivers get smarter if you want, but that's kind of callous.
-
I bet they could mitigate the problem a little bit by running a wire across the road on the other side of the intersection, with a sign hanging from it reading "if you hear a crunch in a few seconds STOP!"
See those flashing lights? They're triggered by overheight vehicles. A physical barrier doesn't work because a right at the intersection is a legitimate route trucks follow.
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
get the trailer back under the house.
Do you have to lift the house up?Will assume this is a serious question and accept a whoosh if it's not..
The house is already lifted up; it's a high-set Queenslander which has a single livable storey raised up on stumps. They typically look like this....
The ground level storey is not initially built in but is at or around livable height. In our house about 1/3 is occupied by the trailer and our car and the remaining 2/3 is storage, my work bench and the washing machine.
They are built like this for the following reasons:
@Wikipedia said:
Queenslanders all have this underfloor area that is used to cool the building through ventilation and also for protection of the main structure from termite attack and other pests. The stumps also help to overcome any variations in the terrain that would normally require earthworks to flatten for construction and allow for the natural flow of water across the terrain in the event of excessive rain and downpours.
-
See those flashing lights? They're triggered by overheight vehicles.
Naw, I missed them. The reason I suggested the thing I did--although something like a PVC pipe would work better--is that I've seen parking garages do it so it can work in some situations.
A physical barrier doesn't work because a right at the intersection is a legitimate route trucks follow.
I figured that. Theoretically you could put a barrier up that street too, but I admit I don't know the layout.
-
Will assume this is a serious question and accept a whoosh if it's not..
Nah, just going for the cheap joke. I've seen plenty of similar houses since I've lived within an hour of the coast my entire life.
-
A global monitoring solution isn't the only way to implement autonomous cars; it's not even necessarily the best way to do so.
Imagine the expense! Self-drive cars are already going to be expensive, pervasive infrastructure to monitor and control them just isn't going to happen. We can't even get decent broadband to most houses and they don't move around.
I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size#Total_road_network
I think "Length of public roads per capita" is probably most interesting. That's a lot of road.
-
Apparently in some cases, the amount of damage from the increase in rear-ending exceeded the amount of damage saved by fewer T-bonings in Virginia, an early adopter.
That's damage to vehicles, I assume. What about injuries to people?
-
short yellow
Stop doing this. We don't do it, amber light timings are pretty well standardised here.
the driver stomps on the brakes to avoid a ticket, and gets rear-ended.
In the post you replied to I was talking about T-bones as a result of running reds, not the rear-end that is a result of following too close.
You can say "think of it as evolution in action" and hope that drivers get smarter if you want, but that's kind of callous.
I agree with both those things. I don't know how to make drivers smarter and reduce tailgating but it's worth swapping one or two rear-end collisions for one T-bone simply because T-bones are so much worse for the people involved, especially the person going on green, who presumably did nothing wrong.
-
That's damage to vehicles, I assume. What about injuries to people?
I don't remember. A quick search turned up this, which mentions 5 studies that all talk about increased accidents but the article doesn't break out injuries. The first study was in Australia, as it happens.
"The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes."
http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/
Wait, spoke too soon--the 5th one was in Canada and says "Contributed to a 4.9 per cent increase in fatal and injury rear-end collision."
-
something like a PVC pipe would work better
I've seen chains hung vertically like a bead curtain over the road to just below bridge height. They make a racket when they hit the top of the truck, it's hard to miss that.
Parking garages often have a pipe hanging horizontally, probably steel more than PVC because it's to protect the structure, not the vehicle.
-
Stop doing this.
I dunno what to tell you. There are widely-used recommendations for the timings of yellow lights, and yet multiple places have had people time them independently and report that intersections with RLCs have timings below state standards. Tennessee is one of them because Instapundit used to talk about it.
In the post you replied to I was talking about T-bones as a result of running reds, not the rear-end that is a result of following too close.
Sure, but if fewer T-bones is offset by more rear-ends, that's not an improvement. The quotes I've seen suggest that on net, the accidents are worse/more frequent/whatever.
T-bones are so much worse for the people involved
You aren't going to get an argument from me about that but I don't feel like going into any more detail about that.
-
Parking garages often have a pipe hanging horizontally, probably steel more than PVC because it's to protect the structure, not the vehicle.
You'll sometimes see it at fast-food drive-throughs as well, to protect the building. McDonalds, in particular, likes to put up an arch back by the speaker.
-
I figured that. Theoretically you could put a barrier up that street too, but I admit I don't know the layout.
You can't put a barrier on either street, because trucks use that route.
-
You can't put a barrier on either street, because trucks use that route.
Geez. Are trucks somehow unable to pass through the kind of barrier we're talking about?
Oh, wait, you're talking about stuff like 18-wheelers, with a clearance a foot or more higher than the bridge, that don't go UNDER the bridge, right?
I know what they say, but they should just bite the bullet and dig the damn road lower.
-
Oh, wait, you're talking about stuff like 18-wheelers, with a clearance a foot or more higher than the bridge, that don't go UNDER the bridge, right?
Doesn't have to be 18 wheelers (I'm more talking about smaller, delivery style trucks, that likely seems more common), but yes. Trucks that (are driven by people who) have no intention of going under the bridge.Really, I don't think the road should be dug lower. (Apparently there's a sewer main under the road which would make doing even that complicated, but that's not what breaks it for me.) I would put a traffic light on each side of the bridge. Normally, it would be flashing yellow for the through street. When the overheight warning was triggered, it would be flashing red. Would be much cheaper than the alternatives, and would achieve satisfactory benefit.
-
Rear-end collisions are safer than T-bones from running reds. They're also easier to avoid: Don't follow so close.
Nobody in the history of driving has ever had a T-bone because they stretched the red a little. Red light cameras do nothing to reduce T-bones because T-bones are due to driver inattention, and an extra fine does nothing to raise the stakes when running a very-red light. The stakes are already a startlingly high chance of death.
-
T-bones are do to driver inattention
I'd characterise it as recklessness. A failure to take the care which they should know they should take. The driver at fault should be up on a felony charge, it's that dangerous.
-
Imagine the expense! Self-drive cars are already going to be expensive, pervasive infrastructure to monitor and control them just isn't going to happen. We can't even get decent broadband to most houses and they don't move around.
You're not thinking like an Evil Dictatorâ„¢. You don't need the ability to control every car, just the ability to control any car. In some cases, just having a remote kill capability will be sufficient.
-
Fine. But putting cameras at the intersection won't help. BTW, I already said -
The stakes are already a startlingly high chance of death.
-
Sure, we'll just give a 16 year old who belgium up a felony because he ran a stop sign. It's not like they are the most likely to be involved in an accident or anything.
-
I'd characterise it as recklessness. A failure to take the care which they should know they should take. The driver at fault should be up on a felony charge, it's that dangerous.
What about stuff like hydroplaning?
-
@dkf: said:
I'd characterise it as recklessness. A failure to take the care which they should know they should take. The driver at fault should be up on a felony charge, it's that dangerous.
What about stuff like hydroplaning?Reckless. Driving too fast for conditions.
-
What about stuff like hydroplaning?
Speaking of which, with it raining in my city...
I already mentioned how bad SoCal drivers are in the rain.
That morning, it was combined with another anti-pattern that I don't think has been posted yet.
Work trucks. They tend to ignore speed limits and red lights. They're on a schedule, they need to do everything as fast as possible. Combined with rain, you have these guys that aren't slowing down in bad road conditions, and they often end up hydroplaning. Saw one on my way to work this morning, not sure what had happened, but the truck had rolled over.
-
Work trucks. They tend to ignore speed limits and red lights
That's surprising. Professional drivers depend on their license for employment. Cops also tend to be pretty hard on them because they should know better.
-
That's surprising. Professional drivers depend on their license for employment. Cops also tend to be pretty hard on them because they should know better.
Not here. Cops are more lenient on them.
-
They tend to ignore speed limits and red lights.
Tend to ignore red lights? That sounds really serious. Drivers here have pretty bad reputation, but I don't remember seeing anybody really ignore red. Running it, yes, but not ignore it when it's clearly on.
Speed limits is another thing; I see ignoring those all the time, usually combined with rather reckless overtaking. Like one night a couple of years back I was driving a first class highway (nice, shallow curves, but not multi-lane) long after dark. I maintained the speed limit of 90 km/h quite exactly (and that was according to unbiased GPS; the speedometer read about 97; it always shows ~8% more) and was thinking to myself that it might be a little too much and that I would probably have hard time stopping if something turned up at the far edge of what even high lights could illuminate. Nevertheless other cars were overtaking me all the time. There was a junction with 70 km/h speed limit before it, so I dutifully slowed down (I was not sure what the visibility was to the sides in the dark, too) and three damn lorries started overtaking me right on the junction.
-
@FrostCat said:
What about stuff like hydroplaning?
Reckless. Driving too fast for conditions.
What about hyrdoplaning because they've let their tires go bald?
-
Where does the word lorry come from? They're just trucks or 18-wheelers in the US.
-
Drivers here have pretty bad reputation, but I don't remember seeing anybody really ignore red.
I take it you haven't been to Detroit lately. Unless it's a major intersection, they won't always even slow down to see if anyone's coming the other way.
-
Where does the word lorry come from? They're just trucks or 18-wheelers in the US.
It's British and we learn mainly from British materials here in Europe. And I only ever heard it to mean the 3.5-6t category I meant while "truck" may be used about anything from pick-up to the 18-wheeler.
I take it you haven't been to Detroit lately.
I've never been to Detroit. Or USA for that matter. I live in central Europe in post-communist Czechia.
-
Reckless. Driving too fast for conditions.
[intemperate comment removed]
What about the case where you're already going slow, eh? I once lost control--on ice, actually, not in water--on a turn where I had already slowed down well below the normal speed, and wound up hitting a tree in the median.
-
-
Reckless. Driving too fast for conditions.
Agree
What about hyrdoplaning because they've let their tires go bald?
Reckless; improper maintenance of motor vehicle[intemperate comment removed]
HANZO'D.... i was going to make a wisecrack about that.
-
-
-
Reckless; improper maintenance of motor vehicle
This. Exactly this.
The tyres are the only thing that connects the car to the road, you should definitely keep an eye on them.
-
Had you channelled the 'rat?
Nah. Let's just say I have personal experience that not all hydroplaning is due to recklessness.
-
this is a story i'mma gonna need to hear.
even if true, can we agree that th common canse for hydroplaning is recklessness?
-
this is a story i'mma gonna need to hear.
I already provided one of them above; I'm not going to give out the other one.
even if true, can we agree that th common canse for hydroplaning is recklessness?
Yes.
