Texas idiots on ice (NMC)

What is that cold, shiny stuff on the road, mamma? It shore looks slippery.

"No worry, son, we have a 4WD, 5000 pound vehicle with terrible handling
and tires that were never intended for weather this cold, but the fact
that it is 4WD will make up for that. After all, 4 wheels spinning out
is so much better than just 2."



This is my state and I have lived here my entire life, but I am not
proud of the intelligence level of the average resident.

The fact that we do nothing but pour sand on top of the ice, which then
leaves sand on the road as another hazard, helps to prove my point.
Every time the roads freeze we have additional accidents later from
vehicles sliding on these leftover sand piles after the ice is gone.

In the words of the great Dennis Miller, "This place makes Mayberry look
like a think tank".

Pat

"pws" > wrote in message
...
> What is that cold, shiny stuff on the road, mamma? It shore looks
> slippery.
>
> "No worry, son, we have a 4WD, 5000 pound vehicle with terrible handling
> and tires that were never intended for weather this cold, but the fact
> that it is 4WD will make up for that. After all, 4 wheels spinning out is
> so much better than just 2."
>
>
>
> This is my state and I have lived here my entire life, but I am not proud
> of the intelligence level of the average resident.
>
> The fact that we do nothing but pour sand on top of the ice, which then
> leaves sand on the road as another hazard, helps to prove my point.
> Every time the roads freeze we have additional accidents later from
> vehicles sliding on these leftover sand piles after the ice is gone.
>
> In the words of the great Dennis Miller, "This place makes Mayberry look
> like a think tank".
>
> Pat

Or, given the relative infrequency of snow and ice, the local response is
cost-effective.

Frank Berger wrote:

> Or, given the relative infrequency of snow and ice, the local response is
> cost-effective.


We had over 100 vehicle accidents in Austin last night. How
cost-effective is that? No word on fatalities yet, it is kind of hard to
put a monetary value on lives.

Just because something doesn't happen often doesn't mean that a
dangerous *solution* like pouring sand on the road is the answer.

Causing further accidents with intentionally placed leftover loose sand
is also something that I do not consider "cost-effective". Instead, I
consider it idiotic, hence the title of the post.

We have a bus system here that takes 1 penny out of every sales tax
dollar to put these huge machines on the road that are usually about 80%
empty at best, so the resources are there, even for "infrequent"
emergencies, if people would just think intelligently once in a while.

Pat

"pws" > wrote in message
...
> Frank Berger wrote:
>
>> Or, given the relative infrequency of snow and ice, the local response is
>> cost-effective.
>
>
> We had over 100 vehicle accidents in Austin last night. How cost-effective
> is that? No word on fatalities yet, it is kind of hard to put a monetary
> value on lives.

Would you be in favor of footing the bill for the same snow response
capability as, say, Minneapolis? If you answer no, you've just put monetary
value on lives. If you say yes, you're entitled to your opinion, but the
taxpayers will not agree.

>
> Just because something doesn't happen often doesn't mean that a dangerous
> *solution* like pouring sand on the road is the answer.

In Dallas, they use sand and salt. Pretty standard, I think. They don't use
salt in Austin? The salt helps melt the ice. Sand is to provide traction.
Which scenario do you think would produce more total accidents, sand or no
sand? Just because there are (I take your word for it) some accidents
resulting from cars skidding on sand doesn't mean there would be less total
accidents if they didn't use sand.


>
> Causing further accidents with intentionally placed leftover loose sand is
> also something that I do not consider "cost-effective". Instead, I
> consider it idiotic, hence the title of the post.

both guys make a couple good points, I guess Franks best point IMHO is if
the sand causes 'x' # of accidents but in effect saves 'x times 10' # of
accidents maybe it's not so horrible. The Minnesota (or whatever it was)
reference seemed more pointless.

Pat, don't forget, that salt is horribly corrosive. Just ask any
transplanted yankee like me. Your point is well taken, I do my best to avoid
vehicular travel here around Houston if icing occurs, it can even make many
seasoned snow drivers look quite idiotic!

be carefull,
Chris
"Frank Berger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "pws" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Frank Berger wrote:
>>
>>> Or, given the relative infrequency of snow and ice, the local response
>>> is cost-effective.
>>
>>
>> We had over 100 vehicle accidents in Austin last night. How
>> cost-effective is that? No word on fatalities yet, it is kind of hard to
>> put a monetary value on lives.
>
> Would you be in favor of footing the bill for the same snow response
> capability as, say, Minneapolis? If you answer no, you've just put
> monetary value on lives. If you say yes, you're entitled to your opinion,
> but the taxpayers will not agree.
>
>>
>> Just because something doesn't happen often doesn't mean that a dangerous
>> *solution* like pouring sand on the road is the answer.
>
> In Dallas, they use sand and salt. Pretty standard, I think. They don't
> use salt in Austin? The salt helps melt the ice. Sand is to provide
> traction. Which scenario do you think would produce more total accidents,
> sand or no sand? Just because there are (I take your word for it) some
> accidents resulting from cars skidding on sand doesn't mean there would be
> less total accidents if they didn't use sand.
>
>
>>
>> Causing further accidents with intentionally placed leftover loose sand
>> is also something that I do not consider "cost-effective". Instead, I
>> consider it idiotic, hence the title of the post.
>
>
>

Chris D'Agnolo wrote:

> Pat, don't forget, that salt is horribly corrosive. Just ask any
> transplanted yankee like me. Your point is well taken, I do my best to avoid
> vehicular travel here around Houston if icing occurs, it can even make many
> seasoned snow drivers look quite idiotic!

They've just started using a salt and molasses mix here in the UK. It
measn less salt is needed and it doesn't wash away quite as easily.

Frank Berger wrote:

> Would you be in favor of footing the bill for the same snow response
> capability as, say, Minneapolis?

Of course not, we do not have the same requirements, though our
situation does become worse here when it happens because it is usually
not even a yearly event.

If you answer no, you've just put monetary
> value on lives.

There is monetary value on lives, I am aware of that. We see it in
lawsuits every day. It is just hard to establish, especially when that
life is a loved one.

If you say yes, you're entitled to your opinion, but the
> taxpayers will not agree.

We lost our representation on taxes long before I was born to big
business on most issues.
Who do you really think makes the decisions, the taxpayers or the
lawmakers who get their pockets lined by giant businesses dealing in
things like oil, tobacco and pharmaceuticals?

That is why I have to give a penny to a bus system that I never use
every time I spend a taxed dollar in Austin. The choice was not made by
me or other Austin taxpayers, it was made by corrupt businessmen and
government officials.

> In Dallas, they use sand and salt. Pretty standard, I think. They don't use
> salt in Austin? The salt helps melt the ice. Sand is to provide traction.
> Which scenario do you think would produce more total accidents, sand or no
> sand? Just because there are (I take your word for it) some accidents
> resulting from cars skidding on sand doesn't mean there would be less total
> accidents if they didn't use sand.

I am far from an expert on road ice removal. We get it here even less
frequently than you do in Dallas. Maybe someone from up north can chime in.
It just seems to me that spreading a substance on the road that causes
cars to slide later on is not very smart, especially considering how
short a period our freezes tend to last.

If that is the way they do it where ice is frequently a problem, then I
will accept it as the best solution. If it is not the best solution,
then we should not be doing it here.

Pat

Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
> both guys make a couple good points, I guess Franks best point IMHO is if
> the sand causes 'x' # of accidents but in effect saves 'x times 10' # of
> accidents maybe it's not so horrible. The Minnesota (or whatever it was)
> reference seemed more pointless.
>
> Pat, don't forget, that salt is horribly corrosive. Just ask any
> transplanted yankee like me. Your point is well taken, I do my best to avoid
> vehicular travel here around Houston if icing occurs, it can even make many
> seasoned snow drivers look quite idiotic!
>
> be carefull,
> Chris

Yes, I am not completely disagreeing with Frank. But as far as salt,
here is Austin we would see it on the road about once a year, maybe
twice, for one or two days at a time.

I am guessing that they use salt here, (and in Houston), like they do in
Dallas. If I had to drive, I would make sure that I washed the car soon
afterwards.
With our weather, I might be wearing shorts and sandals next week. :-)

Since it happens so infrequently down here, your suggestion to avoid
vehicular traffic is the best one if it is an option, I have never seen
Austin stay iced over for more than about 3 days and I have been here
for 30 years.

Furthering the problem, imho, is the fact that so many people here drive
4WD pickups and SUV's, and now they finally get a chance to show off
all of that "capability" that the cars supposedly lack.

We have many exceptions, but I wince when I hear jokes about people from
Oklahoma, Arkansas, and such. Our average population in Texas has the
collective intelligence of a stump. ;-)

Pat

I lived in Portland Oregon for a while, (They have plenty of experience with
snow/ice). They use sand exclusively since salt is also horrible for the
environment. They also vacuum it up and recover 95% of what they put down.
One thing, most people up there put snow tires on or carry chains. Doesn't
make it fool-proof but it does make it possible to get around.
Squat


"Chris D'Agnolo" > wrote in message
...
> both guys make a couple good points, I guess Franks best point IMHO is if
> the sand causes 'x' # of accidents but in effect saves 'x times 10' # of
> accidents maybe it's not so horrible. The Minnesota (or whatever it was)
> reference seemed more pointless.
>
> Pat, don't forget, that salt is horribly corrosive. Just ask any
> transplanted yankee like me. Your point is well taken, I do my best to
> avoid vehicular travel here around Houston if icing occurs, it can even
> make many seasoned snow drivers look quite idiotic!
>
> be carefull,
> Chris
> "Frank Berger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pws" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Frank Berger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or, given the relative infrequency of snow and ice, the local response
>>>> is cost-effective.
>>>
>>>
>>> We had over 100 vehicle accidents in Austin last night. How
>>> cost-effective is that? No word on fatalities yet, it is kind of hard to
>>> put a monetary value on lives.
>>
>> Would you be in favor of footing the bill for the same snow response
>> capability as, say, Minneapolis? If you answer no, you've just put
>> monetary value on lives. If you say yes, you're entitled to your
>> opinion, but the taxpayers will not agree.
>>
>>>
>>> Just because something doesn't happen often doesn't mean that a
>>> dangerous *solution* like pouring sand on the road is the answer.
>>
>> In Dallas, they use sand and salt. Pretty standard, I think. They don't
>> use salt in Austin? The salt helps melt the ice. Sand is to provide
>> traction. Which scenario do you think would produce more total accidents,
>> sand or no sand? Just because there are (I take your word for it) some
>> accidents resulting from cars skidding on sand doesn't mean there would
>> be less total accidents if they didn't use sand.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Causing further accidents with intentionally placed leftover loose sand
>>> is also something that I do not consider "cost-effective". Instead, I
>>> consider it idiotic, hence the title of the post.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Squat wrote:
> I lived in Portland Oregon for a while, (They have plenty of experience with
> snow/ice). They use sand exclusively since salt is also horrible for the
> environment. They also vacuum it up and recover 95% of what they put down.
> One thing, most people up there put snow tires on or carry chains. Doesn't
> make it fool-proof but it does make it possible to get around.
> Squat

That is a big part of the problem, it would actually be pretty silly to
use snow tires here, though chains could still be used. I have
performance summer tires that I use year-round, so it is especially bad
for me when it freezes.

They don't do a good job of getting the sand back up around here,
probably from both lack of equipment and experience.

Frank, thanks for taking my word for it on the sand-related accidents,
but there is no need to. The last time it froze over in Austin there
were several news articles and newscasts warning of dangerous areas with
loose sand that was left over after the freeze, and the accidents that
had occured at those places.
Those stories are in the Austin American Statesman archives.

I expect to see similar stories tomorrow.

Pat