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

Clump



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old January 17th 05, 05:24 AM
Dave Head
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 17 Jan 2005 00:47:52 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>> On 15 Jan 2005 03:33:18 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:13:58 -0500, Nate Nagel >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Dave Head wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> and those of the others as I move back into the right lane, or stay
>>>>>> left, and let 200 other cars (that probably shouldn't be going that
>>>>>> fast anyway),which I
>>>>>
>>>>>that ain't your call to make, unless you're a cop.
>>>>
>>>> Just glossed right over the numbers that have an extra 1800 lane
>>>> changes being performed on a 2000 mile trip for no good reason other
>>>> than to satisfy an archaic notion and/or religious treatment of the
>>>> subject.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Archaic only in your mind.

>>
>> Still sidestepped the numbers
>>
>>

>
>"your" "numbers".(fictional,I suspect)


What? That a car that is doing the 90th percentile speed and staying left will
only have to change lanes 200 times when encountering 2000 cars, as opposed to
having to change lanes 1800 times if he stayed right and passed left? I think
it's rather obviously in the definition of "90th percentile".

>Still just your rationalization for not following law


Oh, yet another law to break? Big whoop - anyone that simply _catches_ me is
breaking the law by speeding. Add yet another law that gets broken, by all
parties involved? So what...

>and safe driving
>practices.


Its plenty safe. I've been doing it for about 1.5 million miles and haven't
got my name into an accident report yet...

>Even the Euros believe in KRETP.


"Even?"

Ads
  #92  
Old January 17th 05, 06:19 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> Minimize != Eliminate.


I already minimize my lane changes. I practice KRETP.

> And, if there's someone in the left lane going slower, I think I've said about
> 1000 times that I'd pass 'em on the right without hesitation.


1) It's often not easily possible outside of the light traffic world you
claim to drive in. A claim I believe to be false given each story of
clumps, etc you post.

2) Without lane displine you'd be making just as many if not more lane
changes than a KRETP driver.

> One can do all the things one normally does, but try not to do 'em as much as
> possible. That means, if you're at the 90th percentile speed, you would be in
> theleft lane, 'cuz most of the slow traffic is in the right lane. If you're
> somewhere that most of the slow traffic is in the left lane (like I-90 around
> Madison, WI most times I drive it), you drive your 90th percentile in the right
> lane, and let the slow people be slow in the left lane(s).


In areas with real traffic I don't return to the right unless I'll be
there for awhile or someone is catching up to me. I don't see what your
problem is other than you're a lazy, self-centered driver.


  #93  
Old January 17th 05, 06:19 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> Minimize != Eliminate.


I already minimize my lane changes. I practice KRETP.

> And, if there's someone in the left lane going slower, I think I've said about
> 1000 times that I'd pass 'em on the right without hesitation.


1) It's often not easily possible outside of the light traffic world you
claim to drive in. A claim I believe to be false given each story of
clumps, etc you post.

2) Without lane displine you'd be making just as many if not more lane
changes than a KRETP driver.

> One can do all the things one normally does, but try not to do 'em as much as
> possible. That means, if you're at the 90th percentile speed, you would be in
> theleft lane, 'cuz most of the slow traffic is in the right lane. If you're
> somewhere that most of the slow traffic is in the left lane (like I-90 around
> Madison, WI most times I drive it), you drive your 90th percentile in the right
> lane, and let the slow people be slow in the left lane(s).


In areas with real traffic I don't return to the right unless I'll be
there for awhile or someone is catching up to me. I don't see what your
problem is other than you're a lazy, self-centered driver.


  #94  
Old January 17th 05, 06:32 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

>>What do you mean slows? they are both 30th percentile drivers.


> Think about it. If they are going the same speed, nobody's gonna catch anyone
> so they can be beside them. The only way they could be beside each other is if
> one entered the road at the exact same speed as the other, and did right beside
> the other.


There are no on-ramps in your universe are there.

Here's how it often works here in the real world with real traffic.
Sloth driver A is driving along in the left lane. Sloth driver B comes
down an on ramp and now cruises along side sloth driver A. At some point
sloth driver B will move to the middle lane and sloth driver C will enter.

> I would like automated roads because:
>
> I can quit driving and read the paper, or sleep, or almost anything that's more
> interesting that steering a car mile after mile, which is almost anything else
> you'd care to name. Driving is boring. The challenge with driving is mostly
> to remain alert.


So because you and the rest of the LLBing toaster-driving crowd don't
want to put any effort in and your LLBing etc etc isn't making things
miserable enough for the rest of us, you'll have the machines take over.

> I can't be ticketed for any sort of "driving error" - the computer's in
> control.


Figures you'd be the type not to want to have any responsibility.

> The car can be made to go faster - the only reason that they can't right now is
> that the human being is not capable of reliably operating the car safely at
> that high of a speed - or at least that's the government line, in spite of the
> German experience with the Autobahn. There would be no excuse not to operate
> an automated highway at 100 mph.


Cars can go quite fast under human control safely. Because the will
doesn't exist in the control-freak dominated lowest common demonator USA
doesn't make it impossible.

>>Automated control or not, it's the same result. Clumps. CLUMPS. To follow
>>your ideas generates clumps.


> The only things really objectionable about clumps is that they tend to slow
> traffic and that they put cars in close proximity so more will be involved in
> an accident if it occurs.


Clumps are created by people who don't KRETP or cops driving under the
flow speed. When the passing lane isn't blocked by some LLB who has to
drive a fixed speed like 7 over, clumps don't form.

> Automated highways would allow neither slow clumps nor would they have "things
> going wrong" for the reason of human failure. System failure, sure, but that
> should be extremely rare.


At the very best it would be all one big slow clump. Here's a hint. It
won't be you or I that get to pick the speed of the automated roads. It's
going to the ralph naders and the joan claybrooks. The heros of people
like carl talyor and the other troll judy. The clumps you find -slow- the
ones that move at 5 over, will be FAST by comparison.

> On an automated highway, you could probably expect to be following the car
> ahead at a distance of inches or a few feet, and have cars on either side
> maintaining inches of clearance, and probably at 100 mph. Do I think its
> feasible in our lifetimes? Nope, but that would still be the automated highway
> ideal situation.


100mph will -NEVER- happen on an automated road system. Control freaks
who favor such things are the same people who demand things like the
return of the 55mph NMSL or worse. They will set the pace.

>>Again, where-you-drive isn't everywhere. I am glad traffic densities
>>where you drive are somewhere below that of 3am on a weekday in NE IL,
>>but your methods don't scale. Those who follow your driving methods here
>>cause all sorts of clumps all the time. I went through about a dozen
>>tonight where some LLB was doing your 'keeping left except to pass' and
>>caused a clump. There isn't room to go around your dumb asses on the
>>right all the time.


> There is when I do it.


Yet you complain about clumps. Just like before, both can't be true.
Either there is room to go around all the time and clumps don't form or
there isn't and they do.

>>Just the traffic volume alone allows one LLB to cause
>>a clump just by slowing the _RATE_ that other traffic can pass him.


> Well, you got a problem with traffic volume, then. You're problem child pulls
> over, it'll just be the next guy a car or 2 up that's the new problem.


That's why KRETP is so very important. We don't have enough lanes to cope
with such nonsense. We aren't getting more pavement so the only way to
get more out of the roads is through lane displine.




  #95  
Old January 17th 05, 06:32 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

>>What do you mean slows? they are both 30th percentile drivers.


> Think about it. If they are going the same speed, nobody's gonna catch anyone
> so they can be beside them. The only way they could be beside each other is if
> one entered the road at the exact same speed as the other, and did right beside
> the other.


There are no on-ramps in your universe are there.

Here's how it often works here in the real world with real traffic.
Sloth driver A is driving along in the left lane. Sloth driver B comes
down an on ramp and now cruises along side sloth driver A. At some point
sloth driver B will move to the middle lane and sloth driver C will enter.

> I would like automated roads because:
>
> I can quit driving and read the paper, or sleep, or almost anything that's more
> interesting that steering a car mile after mile, which is almost anything else
> you'd care to name. Driving is boring. The challenge with driving is mostly
> to remain alert.


So because you and the rest of the LLBing toaster-driving crowd don't
want to put any effort in and your LLBing etc etc isn't making things
miserable enough for the rest of us, you'll have the machines take over.

> I can't be ticketed for any sort of "driving error" - the computer's in
> control.


Figures you'd be the type not to want to have any responsibility.

> The car can be made to go faster - the only reason that they can't right now is
> that the human being is not capable of reliably operating the car safely at
> that high of a speed - or at least that's the government line, in spite of the
> German experience with the Autobahn. There would be no excuse not to operate
> an automated highway at 100 mph.


Cars can go quite fast under human control safely. Because the will
doesn't exist in the control-freak dominated lowest common demonator USA
doesn't make it impossible.

>>Automated control or not, it's the same result. Clumps. CLUMPS. To follow
>>your ideas generates clumps.


> The only things really objectionable about clumps is that they tend to slow
> traffic and that they put cars in close proximity so more will be involved in
> an accident if it occurs.


Clumps are created by people who don't KRETP or cops driving under the
flow speed. When the passing lane isn't blocked by some LLB who has to
drive a fixed speed like 7 over, clumps don't form.

> Automated highways would allow neither slow clumps nor would they have "things
> going wrong" for the reason of human failure. System failure, sure, but that
> should be extremely rare.


At the very best it would be all one big slow clump. Here's a hint. It
won't be you or I that get to pick the speed of the automated roads. It's
going to the ralph naders and the joan claybrooks. The heros of people
like carl talyor and the other troll judy. The clumps you find -slow- the
ones that move at 5 over, will be FAST by comparison.

> On an automated highway, you could probably expect to be following the car
> ahead at a distance of inches or a few feet, and have cars on either side
> maintaining inches of clearance, and probably at 100 mph. Do I think its
> feasible in our lifetimes? Nope, but that would still be the automated highway
> ideal situation.


100mph will -NEVER- happen on an automated road system. Control freaks
who favor such things are the same people who demand things like the
return of the 55mph NMSL or worse. They will set the pace.

>>Again, where-you-drive isn't everywhere. I am glad traffic densities
>>where you drive are somewhere below that of 3am on a weekday in NE IL,
>>but your methods don't scale. Those who follow your driving methods here
>>cause all sorts of clumps all the time. I went through about a dozen
>>tonight where some LLB was doing your 'keeping left except to pass' and
>>caused a clump. There isn't room to go around your dumb asses on the
>>right all the time.


> There is when I do it.


Yet you complain about clumps. Just like before, both can't be true.
Either there is room to go around all the time and clumps don't form or
there isn't and they do.

>>Just the traffic volume alone allows one LLB to cause
>>a clump just by slowing the _RATE_ that other traffic can pass him.


> Well, you got a problem with traffic volume, then. You're problem child pulls
> over, it'll just be the next guy a car or 2 up that's the new problem.


That's why KRETP is so very important. We don't have enough lanes to cope
with such nonsense. We aren't getting more pavement so the only way to
get more out of the roads is through lane displine.




  #96  
Old January 17th 05, 03:15 PM
Dave Head
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:32:26 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>
>>>What do you mean slows? they are both 30th percentile drivers.

>
>> Think about it. If they are going the same speed, nobody's gonna catch anyone
>> so they can be beside them. The only way they could be beside each other is if
>> one entered the road at the exact same speed as the other, and did right beside
>> the other.

>
>There are no on-ramps in your universe are there.
>
>Here's how it often works here in the real world with real traffic.
>Sloth driver A is driving along in the left lane. Sloth driver B comes
>down an on ramp and now cruises along side sloth driver A. At some point
>sloth driver B will move to the middle lane and sloth driver C will enter.


OK, I can see that. Shouldn't happen, and its not what I mean to happen, and
I'd never be part of it, but yeah, I guess it could work that way.

>
>> I would like automated roads because:
>>
>> I can quit driving and read the paper, or sleep, or almost anything that's more
>> interesting that steering a car mile after mile, which is almost anything else
>> you'd care to name. Driving is boring. The challenge with driving is mostly
>> to remain alert.

>
>So because you and the rest of the LLBing toaster-driving crowd don't
>want to put any effort in and your LLBing etc etc isn't making things
>miserable enough for the rest of us, you'll have the machines take over.


And they asked the farmer why he was plowing with a team of mules instead of a
tractor, and he said, "If it was good enough for Grandad, its good enough for
me."

>> I can't be ticketed for any sort of "driving error" - the computer's in
>> control.

>
>Figures you'd be the type not to want to have any responsibility.


You _like_ getting traffic tickets?

>> The car can be made to go faster - the only reason that they can't right now is
>> that the human being is not capable of reliably operating the car safely at
>> that high of a speed - or at least that's the government line, in spite of the
>> German experience with the Autobahn. There would be no excuse not to operate
>> an automated highway at 100 mph.

>
>Cars can go quite fast under human control safely. Because the will
>doesn't exist in the control-freak dominated lowest common demonator USA
>doesn't make it impossible.


Yep, but they're wrong.

>>>Automated control or not, it's the same result. Clumps. CLUMPS. To follow
>>>your ideas generates clumps.

>
>> The only things really objectionable about clumps is that they tend to slow
>> traffic and that they put cars in close proximity so more will be involved in
>> an accident if it occurs.

>
>Clumps are created by people who don't KRETP or cops driving under the
>flow speed. When the passing lane isn't blocked by some LLB who has to
>drive a fixed speed like 7 over, clumps don't form.


Clumps are formed when people drive other people's speed instead of their own
speed.

>
>> Automated highways would allow neither slow clumps nor would they have "things
>> going wrong" for the reason of human failure. System failure, sure, but that
>> should be extremely rare.

>
>At the very best it would be all one big slow clump. Here's a hint. It
>won't be you or I that get to pick the speed of the automated roads. It's
>going to the ralph naders and the joan claybrooks. The heros of people
>like carl talyor and the other troll judy. The clumps you find -slow- the
>ones that move at 5 over, will be FAST by comparison.


They don't seem to have had much luck keeping passenger trains from doing 80 -
110 mph in this country. Not sure why you think they could influence an
automatc roadway.

>> On an automated highway, you could probably expect to be following the car
>> ahead at a distance of inches or a few feet, and have cars on either side
>> maintaining inches of clearance, and probably at 100 mph. Do I think its
>> feasible in our lifetimes? Nope, but that would still be the automated highway
>> ideal situation.

>
>100mph will -NEVER- happen on an automated road system.


Automated roads will -NEVER- happen in our lifetimes... the challenges are too
great.

>Control freaks
>who favor such things are the same people who demand things like the
>return of the 55mph NMSL or worse. They will set the pace.


Again, they haven't slowed down passenger trains... They may _want_ to, but
they won't be allowed the power, just as the 55 mph morons have been defeated.

>>>Again, where-you-drive isn't everywhere. I am glad traffic densities
>>>where you drive are somewhere below that of 3am on a weekday in NE IL,
>>>but your methods don't scale. Those who follow your driving methods here
>>>cause all sorts of clumps all the time. I went through about a dozen
>>>tonight where some LLB was doing your 'keeping left except to pass' and
>>>caused a clump. There isn't room to go around your dumb asses on the
>>>right all the time.

>
>> There is when I do it.

>
>Yet you complain about clumps. Just like before, both can't be true.
>Either there is room to go around all the time and clumps don't form or
>there isn't and they do.


Clumps don't form around me (unless I'm in the right lane like a few nights
ago, and allow it to happen.)

>
>>>Just the traffic volume alone allows one LLB to cause
>>>a clump just by slowing the _RATE_ that other traffic can pass him.

>
>> Well, you got a problem with traffic volume, then. You're problem child pulls
>> over, it'll just be the next guy a car or 2 up that's the new problem.

>
>That's why KRETP is so very important. We don't have enough lanes to cope
>with such nonsense. We aren't getting more pavement so the only way to
>get more out of the roads is through lane displine.


You're not getting out that way, either. You're just going to have an
impossible situation until people get the idea that they absolutely have to
build more roads and there's no other solution, which is the truth.

Either that, or they have to start moving the jobs to places like Boise, Idaho
and Tucmcari, New Mexico, instead of concentrating all the people in places
like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles.
  #97  
Old January 17th 05, 03:15 PM
Dave Head
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:32:26 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>
>>>What do you mean slows? they are both 30th percentile drivers.

>
>> Think about it. If they are going the same speed, nobody's gonna catch anyone
>> so they can be beside them. The only way they could be beside each other is if
>> one entered the road at the exact same speed as the other, and did right beside
>> the other.

>
>There are no on-ramps in your universe are there.
>
>Here's how it often works here in the real world with real traffic.
>Sloth driver A is driving along in the left lane. Sloth driver B comes
>down an on ramp and now cruises along side sloth driver A. At some point
>sloth driver B will move to the middle lane and sloth driver C will enter.


OK, I can see that. Shouldn't happen, and its not what I mean to happen, and
I'd never be part of it, but yeah, I guess it could work that way.

>
>> I would like automated roads because:
>>
>> I can quit driving and read the paper, or sleep, or almost anything that's more
>> interesting that steering a car mile after mile, which is almost anything else
>> you'd care to name. Driving is boring. The challenge with driving is mostly
>> to remain alert.

>
>So because you and the rest of the LLBing toaster-driving crowd don't
>want to put any effort in and your LLBing etc etc isn't making things
>miserable enough for the rest of us, you'll have the machines take over.


And they asked the farmer why he was plowing with a team of mules instead of a
tractor, and he said, "If it was good enough for Grandad, its good enough for
me."

>> I can't be ticketed for any sort of "driving error" - the computer's in
>> control.

>
>Figures you'd be the type not to want to have any responsibility.


You _like_ getting traffic tickets?

>> The car can be made to go faster - the only reason that they can't right now is
>> that the human being is not capable of reliably operating the car safely at
>> that high of a speed - or at least that's the government line, in spite of the
>> German experience with the Autobahn. There would be no excuse not to operate
>> an automated highway at 100 mph.

>
>Cars can go quite fast under human control safely. Because the will
>doesn't exist in the control-freak dominated lowest common demonator USA
>doesn't make it impossible.


Yep, but they're wrong.

>>>Automated control or not, it's the same result. Clumps. CLUMPS. To follow
>>>your ideas generates clumps.

>
>> The only things really objectionable about clumps is that they tend to slow
>> traffic and that they put cars in close proximity so more will be involved in
>> an accident if it occurs.

>
>Clumps are created by people who don't KRETP or cops driving under the
>flow speed. When the passing lane isn't blocked by some LLB who has to
>drive a fixed speed like 7 over, clumps don't form.


Clumps are formed when people drive other people's speed instead of their own
speed.

>
>> Automated highways would allow neither slow clumps nor would they have "things
>> going wrong" for the reason of human failure. System failure, sure, but that
>> should be extremely rare.

>
>At the very best it would be all one big slow clump. Here's a hint. It
>won't be you or I that get to pick the speed of the automated roads. It's
>going to the ralph naders and the joan claybrooks. The heros of people
>like carl talyor and the other troll judy. The clumps you find -slow- the
>ones that move at 5 over, will be FAST by comparison.


They don't seem to have had much luck keeping passenger trains from doing 80 -
110 mph in this country. Not sure why you think they could influence an
automatc roadway.

>> On an automated highway, you could probably expect to be following the car
>> ahead at a distance of inches or a few feet, and have cars on either side
>> maintaining inches of clearance, and probably at 100 mph. Do I think its
>> feasible in our lifetimes? Nope, but that would still be the automated highway
>> ideal situation.

>
>100mph will -NEVER- happen on an automated road system.


Automated roads will -NEVER- happen in our lifetimes... the challenges are too
great.

>Control freaks
>who favor such things are the same people who demand things like the
>return of the 55mph NMSL or worse. They will set the pace.


Again, they haven't slowed down passenger trains... They may _want_ to, but
they won't be allowed the power, just as the 55 mph morons have been defeated.

>>>Again, where-you-drive isn't everywhere. I am glad traffic densities
>>>where you drive are somewhere below that of 3am on a weekday in NE IL,
>>>but your methods don't scale. Those who follow your driving methods here
>>>cause all sorts of clumps all the time. I went through about a dozen
>>>tonight where some LLB was doing your 'keeping left except to pass' and
>>>caused a clump. There isn't room to go around your dumb asses on the
>>>right all the time.

>
>> There is when I do it.

>
>Yet you complain about clumps. Just like before, both can't be true.
>Either there is room to go around all the time and clumps don't form or
>there isn't and they do.


Clumps don't form around me (unless I'm in the right lane like a few nights
ago, and allow it to happen.)

>
>>>Just the traffic volume alone allows one LLB to cause
>>>a clump just by slowing the _RATE_ that other traffic can pass him.

>
>> Well, you got a problem with traffic volume, then. You're problem child pulls
>> over, it'll just be the next guy a car or 2 up that's the new problem.

>
>That's why KRETP is so very important. We don't have enough lanes to cope
>with such nonsense. We aren't getting more pavement so the only way to
>get more out of the roads is through lane displine.


You're not getting out that way, either. You're just going to have an
impossible situation until people get the idea that they absolutely have to
build more roads and there's no other solution, which is the truth.

Either that, or they have to start moving the jobs to places like Boise, Idaho
and Tucmcari, New Mexico, instead of concentrating all the people in places
like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles.
  #98  
Old January 17th 05, 04:50 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

> OK, I can see that. Shouldn't happen, and its not what I mean to happen, and
> I'd never be part of it, but yeah, I guess it could work that way.


Everything that I see everytime I drive on the interstate 'shouldn't
happen' in your driving it seems. Your LLBing concept simply does not
scale up to the sort of traffic volumes I deal with. Sure, it's no big
deal passing someone like you on the right at 3am. I am already on the
right. But most of the time, there is someone to pass on the right and
someone like you blocking the left and middle lanes.


>>> I would like automated roads because:
>>> I can quit driving and read the paper, or sleep, or almost anything that's more
>>> interesting that steering a car mile after mile, which is almost anything else
>>> you'd care to name. Driving is boring. The challenge with driving is mostly
>>> to remain alert.


>>So because you and the rest of the LLBing toaster-driving crowd don't
>>want to put any effort in and your LLBing etc etc isn't making things
>>miserable enough for the rest of us, you'll have the machines take over.


> And they asked the farmer why he was plowing with a team of mules instead of a
> tractor, and he said, "If it was good enough for Grandad, its good enough for
> me."


Um no. like carl taylor, you don't understand. Let me put it this way, I
enjoy riding a bicycle to get from a to b. It has nothing to do with
technology level, but that I enjoy it. However, control freaks and others
who don't enjoy it decide since they don't, nobody should.

>>> I can't be ticketed for any sort of "driving error" - the computer's in
>>> control.


>>Figures you'd be the type not to want to have any responsibility.

> You _like_ getting traffic tickets?


I am reading in the context of your other statements and posts and my
interepetation of driving error. Exceeding the posted speed limit is not
a driving error in my book.

>>> The car can be made to go faster - the only reason that they can't right now is
>>> that the human being is not capable of reliably operating the car safely at
>>> that high of a speed - or at least that's the government line, in spite of the
>>> German experience with the Autobahn. There would be no excuse not to operate
>>> an automated highway at 100 mph.


>>Cars can go quite fast under human control safely. Because the will
>>doesn't exist in the control-freak dominated lowest common demonator USA
>>doesn't make it impossible.


> Yep, but they're wrong.


define 'they'.

>>>>Automated control or not, it's the same result. Clumps. CLUMPS. To follow
>>>>your ideas generates clumps.


>>> The only things really objectionable about clumps is that they tend to slow
>>> traffic and that they put cars in close proximity so more will be involved in
>>> an accident if it occurs.


>>Clumps are created by people who don't KRETP or cops driving under the
>>flow speed. When the passing lane isn't blocked by some LLB who has to
>>drive a fixed speed like 7 over, clumps don't form.


> Clumps are formed when people drive other people's speed instead of their own
> speed.


Or they just happen to be close enough in speed to slow the rate other
traffic can get by them. Or too lazy to move out of the left lane.
I was behind a micropasser last night. In the left lane, slowly passing
other traffic. I had somebody on my bumper and traffic stacking up behind
me while this turd refused to duck right for a moment. This is another
thing your concept does not account for. The gap to go AROUND on the
right has to be signficantly _larger_ than the gap needed for the
micropasser/LLB to duck in for a moment. Eventually a gap large enough to
go around appeared, but it didn't last long enough for the clump to break
up. Only enough for me to get around. The guy behind me had to wait
behind this guy for who knows how much longer.

>>> Automated highways would allow neither slow clumps nor would they have "things
>>> going wrong" for the reason of human failure. System failure, sure, but that
>>> should be extremely rare.


>>At the very best it would be all one big slow clump. Here's a hint. It
>>won't be you or I that get to pick the speed of the automated roads. It's
>>going to the ralph naders and the joan claybrooks. The heros of people
>>like carl talyor and the other troll judy. The clumps you find -slow- the
>>ones that move at 5 over, will be FAST by comparison.


> They don't seem to have had much luck keeping passenger trains from doing 80 -
> 110 mph in this country. Not sure why you think they could influence an
> automatc roadway.


There have never been speed kills advocates for trains.

>>Control freaks
>>who favor such things are the same people who demand things like the
>>return of the 55mph NMSL or worse. They will set the pace.


> Again, they haven't slowed down passenger trains... They may _want_ to, but
> they won't be allowed the power, just as the 55 mph morons have been defeated.


They only exist for driving, not for trains. They haven't been defeated.
I see that everytime I drive on an interstate here in IL. Isn't VA still
under the 55/65mph tyranny as well?

>>Yet you complain about clumps. Just like before, both can't be true.
>>Either there is room to go around all the time and clumps don't form or
>>there isn't and they do.


> Clumps don't form around me (unless I'm in the right lane like a few nights
> ago, and allow it to happen.)


Again, either you have to deal with clumps or you can always go around.
It cannot be both.

>>> Well, you got a problem with traffic volume, then. You're problem child pulls
>>> over, it'll just be the next guy a car or 2 up that's the new problem.


>>That's why KRETP is so very important. We don't have enough lanes to cope
>>with such nonsense. We aren't getting more pavement so the only way to
>>get more out of the roads is through lane displine.


> You're not getting out that way, either. You're just going to have an
> impossible situation until people get the idea that they absolutely have to
> build more roads and there's no other solution, which is the truth.


Who's homes are you going to tear down? which busniesses? The dan ryan is
already as much as 14 lanes wide!

> Either that, or they have to start moving the jobs to places like Boise, Idaho
> and Tucmcari, New Mexico, instead of concentrating all the people in places
> like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles.


Or we could start driving properly to cope with the sort of population
densities that europe figured out how to deal with in this regard decades
ago.


  #99  
Old January 17th 05, 04:50 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

> OK, I can see that. Shouldn't happen, and its not what I mean to happen, and
> I'd never be part of it, but yeah, I guess it could work that way.


Everything that I see everytime I drive on the interstate 'shouldn't
happen' in your driving it seems. Your LLBing concept simply does not
scale up to the sort of traffic volumes I deal with. Sure, it's no big
deal passing someone like you on the right at 3am. I am already on the
right. But most of the time, there is someone to pass on the right and
someone like you blocking the left and middle lanes.


>>> I would like automated roads because:
>>> I can quit driving and read the paper, or sleep, or almost anything that's more
>>> interesting that steering a car mile after mile, which is almost anything else
>>> you'd care to name. Driving is boring. The challenge with driving is mostly
>>> to remain alert.


>>So because you and the rest of the LLBing toaster-driving crowd don't
>>want to put any effort in and your LLBing etc etc isn't making things
>>miserable enough for the rest of us, you'll have the machines take over.


> And they asked the farmer why he was plowing with a team of mules instead of a
> tractor, and he said, "If it was good enough for Grandad, its good enough for
> me."


Um no. like carl taylor, you don't understand. Let me put it this way, I
enjoy riding a bicycle to get from a to b. It has nothing to do with
technology level, but that I enjoy it. However, control freaks and others
who don't enjoy it decide since they don't, nobody should.

>>> I can't be ticketed for any sort of "driving error" - the computer's in
>>> control.


>>Figures you'd be the type not to want to have any responsibility.

> You _like_ getting traffic tickets?


I am reading in the context of your other statements and posts and my
interepetation of driving error. Exceeding the posted speed limit is not
a driving error in my book.

>>> The car can be made to go faster - the only reason that they can't right now is
>>> that the human being is not capable of reliably operating the car safely at
>>> that high of a speed - or at least that's the government line, in spite of the
>>> German experience with the Autobahn. There would be no excuse not to operate
>>> an automated highway at 100 mph.


>>Cars can go quite fast under human control safely. Because the will
>>doesn't exist in the control-freak dominated lowest common demonator USA
>>doesn't make it impossible.


> Yep, but they're wrong.


define 'they'.

>>>>Automated control or not, it's the same result. Clumps. CLUMPS. To follow
>>>>your ideas generates clumps.


>>> The only things really objectionable about clumps is that they tend to slow
>>> traffic and that they put cars in close proximity so more will be involved in
>>> an accident if it occurs.


>>Clumps are created by people who don't KRETP or cops driving under the
>>flow speed. When the passing lane isn't blocked by some LLB who has to
>>drive a fixed speed like 7 over, clumps don't form.


> Clumps are formed when people drive other people's speed instead of their own
> speed.


Or they just happen to be close enough in speed to slow the rate other
traffic can get by them. Or too lazy to move out of the left lane.
I was behind a micropasser last night. In the left lane, slowly passing
other traffic. I had somebody on my bumper and traffic stacking up behind
me while this turd refused to duck right for a moment. This is another
thing your concept does not account for. The gap to go AROUND on the
right has to be signficantly _larger_ than the gap needed for the
micropasser/LLB to duck in for a moment. Eventually a gap large enough to
go around appeared, but it didn't last long enough for the clump to break
up. Only enough for me to get around. The guy behind me had to wait
behind this guy for who knows how much longer.

>>> Automated highways would allow neither slow clumps nor would they have "things
>>> going wrong" for the reason of human failure. System failure, sure, but that
>>> should be extremely rare.


>>At the very best it would be all one big slow clump. Here's a hint. It
>>won't be you or I that get to pick the speed of the automated roads. It's
>>going to the ralph naders and the joan claybrooks. The heros of people
>>like carl talyor and the other troll judy. The clumps you find -slow- the
>>ones that move at 5 over, will be FAST by comparison.


> They don't seem to have had much luck keeping passenger trains from doing 80 -
> 110 mph in this country. Not sure why you think they could influence an
> automatc roadway.


There have never been speed kills advocates for trains.

>>Control freaks
>>who favor such things are the same people who demand things like the
>>return of the 55mph NMSL or worse. They will set the pace.


> Again, they haven't slowed down passenger trains... They may _want_ to, but
> they won't be allowed the power, just as the 55 mph morons have been defeated.


They only exist for driving, not for trains. They haven't been defeated.
I see that everytime I drive on an interstate here in IL. Isn't VA still
under the 55/65mph tyranny as well?

>>Yet you complain about clumps. Just like before, both can't be true.
>>Either there is room to go around all the time and clumps don't form or
>>there isn't and they do.


> Clumps don't form around me (unless I'm in the right lane like a few nights
> ago, and allow it to happen.)


Again, either you have to deal with clumps or you can always go around.
It cannot be both.

>>> Well, you got a problem with traffic volume, then. You're problem child pulls
>>> over, it'll just be the next guy a car or 2 up that's the new problem.


>>That's why KRETP is so very important. We don't have enough lanes to cope
>>with such nonsense. We aren't getting more pavement so the only way to
>>get more out of the roads is through lane displine.


> You're not getting out that way, either. You're just going to have an
> impossible situation until people get the idea that they absolutely have to
> build more roads and there's no other solution, which is the truth.


Who's homes are you going to tear down? which busniesses? The dan ryan is
already as much as 14 lanes wide!

> Either that, or they have to start moving the jobs to places like Boise, Idaho
> and Tucmcari, New Mexico, instead of concentrating all the people in places
> like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles.


Or we could start driving properly to cope with the sort of population
densities that europe figured out how to deal with in this regard decades
ago.


  #100  
Old January 17th 05, 05:11 PM
Dave Head
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:50:29 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>> You're not getting out that way, either. You're just going to have an
>> impossible situation until people get the idea that they absolutely have to
>> build more roads and there's no other solution, which is the truth.

>
>Who's homes are you going to tear down?


The ones that are on a line between point A and point B.

Give them 2X the value of their property - 1X for the property, the other for
the inconvenience of having to relocate suddenly, and get on with the concrete
and rebar. Homeowner opposition to relocating would virtually evaporate
overnight. The problem might become people bribing engineers to locate the
roadway thru their property.

>which busniesses?


The ones that are cheap enough to pay 2X their value for and not cost the
roadbuilding project too much money. IOW, don't put the road straight thru the
new Chrysler assembly plant, put it thru the drycleaner's place across the
street.

>The dan ryan is already as much as 14 lanes wide!


Yep - its why you also need _new roads_. Might want to see about "stacking"
them up high, with multiple levels - if feasible and if that would be cheaper
than buying new right of way.
>
>> Either that, or they have to start moving the jobs to places like Boise, Idaho
>> and Tucmcari, New Mexico, instead of concentrating all the people in places
>> like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles.

>
>Or we could start driving properly to cope with the sort of population
>densities that europe figured out how to deal with in this regard decades
>ago.


That won't do it. Europe has things like a good public transport system and $4
- $6 a gallon gas that keep people from driving excessively. We have so much
expanse in this country that we can't deal with it that way. We all _have_ to
drive, unless we figure out a viable (different) transport system too.
Automobile-carrying trains would be one thing that would work, if they could be
made fast - 150 mph or so, in order to get the thruput up - but that isn't even
contemplated yet.

>


 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:47 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.