Appalling Police Action in Palo Alto

>Arif Khokar wrote:
>>How do *you* know they won't be safe or will even choose a speed more
>>appropriate to their vehicle capabilities and/or skill level?
>>For instance, I have nowhere near the skill of the average race car
>>driver, but I still am capable of choosing a reasonable speed to drive
>>on the interstate (which is around 80 to 85 mph) and not come even close
>>to crashing or losing control. In parking lots with lots of pedestrians
>>and vehicles backing out of parking spaces, I don't drive more than 5 to
>>10 mph.

Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you suggesting that no one drives
> faster than their auto's capabilities or skill level? I'd say many people
> do.

Only your preconceived notion supports your position. If many people
drove too fast, then the crash rate would be much higher than it is now
and would continue to increase as traffic speeds increase.

Obviously, data trumps your assumptions.

> I certainly wouldn't make the assumption that if we raise the speed
> limit to 85, every inexperienced teenager will choose to drive slower than
> that,

Studies have shown that changing the speed limit doesn't result in
significant changes in traffic speeds. Your suppositions to the
contrary do not change the result.

> for example. I'd predict that many inexperienced teenagers -
> especially males - will in fact choose to drive faster than that.

Your predictions would be wrong. If they were true, the conclusions of
the Parker study and the WVDOT speed survey would be the opposite of
what they were.

> It's like a yellow-signed advisory speed around a sharp curve. Somebody who
> has been through a Skip Barber driving course may be capable of taking that
> curve at 50. But 50 would not be the speed I would put on that sign,
> especially if I determine that most drivers would wipe out at above 35.

Advisory curve speeds are based on the 85th percentile speed of drivers
of a 1930 model Ford vehicle. That corresponds to a 10 degree ball bank
deviation. There is discussion to change that deviation to 16 degrees
to correspond with the 85th percentile speed of today's drivers in
today's vehicles.

That's the reason that curves with advisory speeds of 35 can be easily
taken at 45 to 50 mph with little difficulty by average drivers.

> I
> might put 30 or 25 mph so that the LEAST experienced driver can safely make
> it around the curve.

If it's raining hard or if the road is covered in 3 inches of snow, then
should the inexperienced driver rely on that 55 mph speed limit sign or
30 mph advisory speed sign to determine the appropriate speed to drive?

It's a known fact that practically all drivers slow down in such
conditions. This goes to show that drivers, regardless of their
experience know that they have to drive slower when conditions worsen.
I even knew that before I got a learner's permit.

Why do you think that drivers lose this capability under normal conditions?

> The idea of the roads is NOT to provide a fun park for people who want to
> drive fast, get thrills, test their hemi or prove their manhood.

When you stop putting words in other peoples' mouths, then we can
continue this discussion.

On Sat, 21 May 2005, Anthony Giorgianni wrote:

> Are you suggesting that no one drives faster than their auto's
> capabilities or skill level?

Most people drive within their skill level and their auto's capabilities,
most of the time.

> I certainly wouldn't make the assumption that if we raise the speed
> limit to 85, every inexperienced teenager will choose to drive slower
> than that

This is not the first time you've mentioned "raising the speed limit to
85", which nobody's suggested. As I asked in another post, do you not
understand the difference between 85 mph and 85th percentile?

> I might put 30 or 25 mph so that the LEAST experienced driver can safely
> make it around the curve.

On what basis do you assume that the number on the sign enables or
prevents any particular driver doing any particular thing? It's this kind
of unsupportable assertion that undermines your position. It's just very
obvious that not only have you no grasp of the fundamental principles and
interactions at work, but also that you haven't given the matter much
careful thought, if any. Opinions, guesses and preferences are fine, but
facts and data trump them every time.

> The idea of the roads is NOT to provide a fun park for people who want
> to drive fast, get thrills, test their hemi or prove their manhood.

Nobody's advocating that. Why do you keep refuting something nobody has
seriously proposed?

> The idea is NOT EVEN to get us from point A to point B as quickly as
> possible. It is to get us to point A to point B as safely as practical,
> and that means that some drivers will have to accept being compelled to
> drive slower than their capabilities

Incorrect. V85 speed limits (which are NOT the same as 85mph speed
limits!) are known to maximize traffic safety AND minimize travel time. It
doesn't have to be an either/or choice.

> And I don't think there is much political will in this country to change
> it

This is the first reasonably cogent observation I've seen you make in this
thread.

Thomas Avery wrote:
> "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> ...
> (the posted speed limit is 65).
>
> Nuff said!

Are you really that stupid? Or just trying to be annoying?

Furious George wrote:

> If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including the
> posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you want
> to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to whatever
> you want.

You're either a troll or a poor old scared geezer no longer
capable of keeping up with traffic

In article >, Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
>> Why stop there? Let's limit the kinds of cars you can buy to only
>> those affordable by the poorest people. Go trade in your Lexus for
>> that Kia right now!
>
>
> I don't think that's a good analogy. Buying a car is not a safety issue. But
> driving rules ARE a safety issue.

Some models are much safer than others. Some approach safety in different
ways. Daniel is right, under the lowest common demonator mandate that is
used to restrict speed limits to absurdly low levels can also be used to
restrict model choice.

"DTJ" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 06:15:34 GMT, "Bernard farquart"
> > wrote:
>
>
> 1) Well you beat me at history, I don't recall what platform Douglas
> ran on. Based on your comment, may I assume he was pro slavery?
>

"states rights"
http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ihy980232.html

> 2) However, my comment was based on what the people in the South
> wanted. If the will of the people were all that mattered, the SOUTH
> would still have slavery while the North would not.
>

Splitting the south off of the rest of the country didn't work
out so well for them though, did it?
http://www.civilwarhome.com/PetersAppo.htm

> 3) Actual point - there are lots of things that have changed because
> of laws in spite of what the public wanted. Some of them have been
> for the good.
>

Only when the people we elect to govern actually do thier
job and govern, instead of take polls, see which way the wind is
blowing or sent it back to the people though ballot measures on
issues that should be decided in the legislature.


Bernard

Bob Flaminio wrote:
> The cop immediately floors it onto the freeway, pulls up behind the
> first car he comes to, and hits his lights. Bang, a speeding ticket for
> this hapless commuter. He was a danger to no one; I imagine that he was
> just trying to get home to the wife and kids after another tough day at
> work. He wasn't doing anything different from thousands of other cars on
> the freeway. Now he's into the state for hundreds of dollars, not to
> mention the future insurance costs. That's food out of his family's
> mouths; clothes off their backs. And for what? So Joe Cop could make his
> quota this month?

Here's a guess as to why: Caltrans is about to do a "traffic survey"
to justify the current speed limit on I-280 (which they're required to
do every few years by the MUTCD), so they are preceding it with a week
or two of extra-heavy enforcement to make sure the survey produces the
result they want it to.

I _know_ Palo Alto police do this on city streets; I've seen it.
There's no way in hell an honest survey of Alma St. or Embarcadero Rd.
could justify anything close to the 35 limits there.

In article >,
"Bob Flaminio" > wrote:

> Coming onto northbound I-280 at the Page Mill interchange*, around 5:00
> in the evening. Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of
> around 75-80mph (the posted speed limit is 65). There's a cop in front
> of me on the onramp, so I get a nice clear view of what happens next.
>
> The cop immediately floors it onto the freeway, pulls up behind the
> first car he comes to, and hits his lights. Bang, a speeding ticket for
> this hapless commuter. He was a danger to no one; I imagine that he was
> just trying to get home to the wife and kids after another tough day at
> work. He wasn't doing anything different from thousands of other cars on
> the freeway. Now he's into the state for hundreds of dollars, not to
> mention the future insurance costs. That's food out of his family's
> mouths; clothes off their backs. And for what? So Joe Cop could make his
> quota this month?

Driving the speed limit would have absolved that guy from the ticket.
Sorry, I do not feel any sympathy for drivers who get speeding tickets
in that kind of situation, where the speed limit is presumably well
known and clearly posted. The guy chose to drive over the limit and he
got caught doing it. That's life. Deal.

On Sat, 21 May 2005 16:59:25 GMT, Anthony Giorgianni , said the following
in rec.autos.driving...

> Paul, in addition to making your arguments here, why don't you start a
> letter writing campaign or run for office on a platform of clearing up
> government?

Run for office?? I'm not *that* sleazy!


> Change doesn't come easily. It often takes hard work. But people do vote in
> this country. They throw out the government all the time because they are
> unhappy with this or that.

You mean like we the sheeple did in 1994 in exchanging ghetto welfare for
corporate welfare? ROTFLMAO!!!!

Shawn Hearn wrote:

> In article >,
> "Bob Flaminio" > wrote:
>
>
>>Coming onto northbound I-280 at the Page Mill interchange*, around 5:00
>>in the evening. Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of
>>around 75-80mph (the posted speed limit is 65). There's a cop in front
>>of me on the onramp, so I get a nice clear view of what happens next.
>>
>>The cop immediately floors it onto the freeway, pulls up behind the
>>first car he comes to, and hits his lights. Bang, a speeding ticket for
>>this hapless commuter. He was a danger to no one; I imagine that he was
>>just trying to get home to the wife and kids after another tough day at
>>work. He wasn't doing anything different from thousands of other cars on
>>the freeway. Now he's into the state for hundreds of dollars, not to
>>mention the future insurance costs. That's food out of his family's
>>mouths; clothes off their backs. And for what? So Joe Cop could make his
>>quota this month?
>
>
> Driving the speed limit would have absolved that guy from the ticket.
> Sorry, I do not feel any sympathy for drivers who get speeding tickets
> in that kind of situation, where the speed limit is presumably well
> known and clearly posted. The guy chose to drive over the limit and he
> got caught doing it. That's life. Deal.

So if someone passed a law tomorrow making it illegal to eat a cheese
sandwich would you stop doing so?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel