Article: Five Tips for Safer Driving

Ed Pirrero wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted>
> gpsman wrote:

> The answer was simple because it's not too ****ing hard to figure out
> how to minimize your impact on other drivers. Sort of like Scott's
> Golden Rule of Driving. Simple, easy, and to-the-point. (Well, simple
> for *most* folks.)

["For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple,
and wrong."]

Yeah, too simple... but it seems a perfect fit for *most* people these
days; never delve any deeper than what fits your preconcieved
conclusion and just accept the first thing that pops into your head as
fact.

> > But IMO, inflicting "the least effect on anyone else's travel" and/or
> > "staying out of everyone else's way" would also have to include
> > operating within the SL.
>
> No. It wouldn't. If I drove at the speed limit on the highways around
> here, I would interact with a very large amount more traffic than going
> at or slightly above the "flow" speed.

But at their initiation, not your own.

> In addition, by keeping space
> around me at all times (or trying to), I allow myself room to manoeuver
> in the case that some other driver is not paying as much attention.
>
> If I went the limit, I would be literally passed by every other car and
> truck on the highway, until I got to the mountain passes.
>
> Going the speed limit on the highways here is the definition of
> "getting in everyone elses' way."

I'm sure all ethically challenged drivers look at it that way, little
could be further from fact.

> > Another thing to consider, IME, is conflicting with and delaying
> > traffic traveling in the other directions.
>
> On a divided highway? Give me a break.

Who limited roads or the subject to divided highways? Don't you, and
"everybody" and "anybody" drive on surface streets?

> > I think the widepsread
> > belief in r.a.d. is that if you are the fastest driver within your
> > sphere of influence you are staying out of everyone else's way and not
> > delaying anyone, and I disagree.
>
> Without one piece of supporting evidence. Explain how keeping right
> except to pass delays anyone, ever.

Traffic flowing at 70 in the R lane in an area where the limit is 55
ramps can and does delay mergers. And, -those- drivers shouldn't be
near -that- ramp to conflict with -that- traffic in the -first place-.

> > I think that so many drivers exceeding the SL are causing all sorts of
> > conflicts and delays they never consider, such as delaying another
> > driver pulling into their path, or causing another driver to miss a
> > light cycle, or delaying another driver's L turn, bunching up vehicles
> > on the freeway, exits, etc., because they wouldn't be within x distance
> > of traffic they might affect had they not exceeded the SL.
>
> Sophistry that has no proof, nor any shred of reason behind it.

Duh. In a minute you are interacting with vehicles that are 1/4 mile
from where you *should* be after driving at 70 in a 55 for one minute.
It's really pretty simple, but I'm not surprised you don't get it.

> If
> I'm exceeding the limit on a limited-access highway, and interact with
> three cars going in my direction (passing them on the left.) and one
> car in the opposite direction (I just happen to be coming up on the car
> turning across the highway), I have interacted with 3 cars, holding up
> one. Who, BTW, might have been speeding also, or who may have had to
> wait for some other car anyway.
>
> Contrast this with going the SL. The faster cars behind will have to
> interact with me, getting held up or not as other traffic may or may
> not be present. Some may get held up, but ALL with had to do
> *something* to avoid me.

Ah, but due to their own fault, not yours. Had they not been exceeding
the SL they wouldn't be anywhere near you to interact with and/or be
delayed by you, in the -first place-. (And take my word for it,
operating at the SL I encounter damn few delays and delay damn few
other law abiding drivers.)

The right to exceed the SL does not exist. If you are delayed by
traffic while operating in excess of the SL that delay doesn't really
exist since you occupy that space illegally... you shouldn't be -there-
to *be* delayed by -that- driver; you have no right to be -there-.

This logic has been substantiated in court. A driver who would
normally be found at fault for a crash, crashes into a drunk driver and
is found to be not at fault since the drunk had no right to occupy that
space on the roadway in the -first place-. If the drunk had not been
there, the crash could not have occured.

People go speedioting around and somebody crashes into them. It
*never* occurs to them that, hey, if I'd been operating within the law
I wouldn't have been at that spot at that moment. What *does* occur to
them is, if I'd just left home a few seconds earlier or, if I'd not
been caught by that traffic light or been delayed by that sloth that
would not have happened. True, either way... but there's a difference.

The driver could have consciously exercised the greatest control over
-one- variable... and they'll never consider what they might have
consciously and deliberately done to avoid that crash, in the -first
place-, or any other crash, in the -first place-, by not being -there-
in the -first place-. Nope, they chalk it up to bad luck.

For all you buhbuhbuh <spittle> "but going with the flow is the safest
blahblahblah" types, save it, it's bull****. The flow is the problem,
drivers operating within the SL are not.

The SL is the "system", those in conflict with the system create the
conflict, and it doesn't matter if they are in the majority. A
driver's responsibility in the -first place- is to not hit anything;
the lower your velocity the more likely that is. That's why you creep
in close quarters, instinctively.

If "not being hit/run over" was a primary driver's responsibility they
would be charged and found at fault in court for failing to do so.
There's really not much of that you can do about that anyway, bad
"accidents" usually happen too quick... due to, what else, higher
velocity/s.

> > "Staying out of everyone else's way" or having "the least effect on
> > anyone else's travel" and considering "everyone" and "anyone" to be
> > always traveling in the same direction and always to the rear is a
> > pretty simple minded POV, IMO.
>
> You're the only one making that ASSumption. I sure didn't, and it
> wasn't even implied by Scott's Golden Rule of Driving. Or, you are
> attempting to create a strawman.

Don't strawman me, ya moron. In order to understand Scott's Golden
Rule you must first know something about Scott. It's no assumption to
say Scott feels every vehicle he encounters to his front are "in his
way" and driving too slow and that's what he cares most about. Scott
seems fairly intelligent... until he gets behind the wheel. He can't
see- when it's everybody else driving too slow, it's him driving too
fast. He would never even *think* about examining his own majority
contribution to his own driving misery.

> > > Of course, this is not the same thing as have NO effect on other
> > > peoples' travel. Which, of course, is what you meant to ask.
> >
> > Duh. I didn't originate the phrase "the least effect on anyone else's
> > travel", you nitwit. Try to guess who I was quoting... and what he
> > meant.
>
> No, you were just trying to recast it in a strawman attempt. LOL.

They're your words, I just asked how you did it. You declined to
elaborate based on my ease of picking them apart... and that appeared
to be pretty easy, didn't it?

I *know* whenever I delay or interact with another driver I have the
right to delay/interact w/him because I operated within the law to get
to that space, at that moment, and you can't say that if you operate in
violation of the SL and "go with the flow".

> > At some point a man needs to evaluate what his mom told
> > him about his looks and his intelligence.

> Since my mom died when I was 14 months old, that's not really an issue
> for me.

Well, some idiot must have told you you were smart... well, on second
thought, I guess it's equally likely you decided that on your own.
-----

- gpsman

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:17:16 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> > wrote:
>
>>Bernd Felsche > said in
>>rec.autos.driving:
>>
>>>>>>>>>A freeway is "full" when all lanes are at 1800 vehicles/hour.
>>>
>>>>>>>>Upon what assumptions is this number based?
>>>
>>>>>>>Minimum "safe" following interval of 2 seconds.
>>>
>>>>>>So if everyone is in a traffic jam and moving at 0 MPH the road is not
>>>>>>"full?"
>>>
>>>>>It's then ZERO vehicles/hour. That's the same as when there are no
>>>>>vehicles using the freeway.
>>>
>>>>Obviously not. In one case there are NO cars on the road; in the other
>>>>there are THOUSANDS.
>>>
>>>>Let me phrase my question another way: what is the formula you used to
>>>>arrive at the 1800 vehicles/hour figure you tossed out earlier? What
>>>>variables are part of the formula? Hint: vehicle velocity is one of
>>>>the terms.
>>>
>>>This is independent of vehicle speed.
>>
>>That's ridiculous.
>>
>>Suppose you had a bunch of cars, each exactly 20 feet long. If you
>>parked them in one lane, bumper-to-bumper, you could fit 5280/20 = 264
>>of them into one mile. However, since they are parked, the number of
>>vehicles passing any given reference point is 0 vehicles/hour.
>>
>>Now let's increase the speed of the cars to 1 MPH. If they remain
>>bumper-to-bumper, those 264 vehicles will pass your reference point in
>>exactly 1 hour. Add in a 2-second following distance between them
>>(~2.93 feet at 1 MPH) and the maximum you can expect is 5280/22.93 =
>>~230 vehicles/hour.
>>
>>Now let's double their speed to 2 MPH. Following distance increases to
>>5.87 feet, and the maximum number of vehicles that can pass a given
>>spot in the road increases to 2 * 5280 / 25.87 = ~408 vehicles/hour.
>>
>>Clearly the number of cars which can potentially pass any given fixed
>>point during one hour varies directly with vehicle speed as well as
>>vehicle length (and perhaps other things I haven't thought of). It
>>seems to me that the actual formula ought to look something like this:
>>
>>lane capacity (vehicles/hour) = vehicle speed (miles/hour) * 5280
>>(feet/mile) / (vehicle length in feet + following distance in feet)
>>
>>By holding the car length constant at 20 feet, plugging and chugging
>>gets up the following maxima:
>>
>>1070 v/h at 10 MPH
>>1342 v/h at 20 MPH
>>1466 v/h at 30 MPH
>>1537 v/h at 40 MPH
>>1584 v/h at 50 MPH
>>1616 v/h at 60 MPH
>>1640 v/h at 70 MPH
>>1658 v/h at 80 MPH
>>1673 v/h at 90 MPH
>>1685 v/h at 100 MPH
>>
>>Hmm... Seems to be approaching some sort of asymptotic limit...
>>
>>>>Understood. I'm just asking for the non-dumbed-down version.
>>>
>>>Ahhh.. you're trying to be stupid. You're very good at it.
>>
>>Yeah, I guess so. So since you're so smart, suppose you tell us what
>>combination of vehicle length and vehicle speed will result in a total
>>of 1800 vehicles/hour passing by a given refernce point?
>
> Its unlikely that there is any strict math formula. Because cars are
> driven by humans, which introduces randomness, there is a point at
> which smooth flow breaks down due to the number of vehicles and then
> any formula (other then an empirically derived one) goes out the
> window. I believe I read once that there are two "maximums" so to
> speak, a volume at which you can go fast and still get a lot of cars
> thru, and a bigger volume where you get even more cars thru but at a
> much lower speed, something like 40 mph. It's likely that the 1800 is
> the empirical result for max volume, which in one sense is regardless
> of speed, but actually means, at whatever speed it works out to be on
> a given road.

Maybe they were only using 15foot long cars?
Anyway if the therotecal number can't be met then it's got no chance in real
life.

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:04:26 GMT, "Rainbow Warrior" >
wrote:

>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:17:16 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Bernd Felsche > said in
>>>rec.autos.driving:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>A freeway is "full" when all lanes are at 1800 vehicles/hour.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Upon what assumptions is this number based?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Minimum "safe" following interval of 2 seconds.
>>>>
>>>>>>>So if everyone is in a traffic jam and moving at 0 MPH the road is not
>>>>>>>"full?"
>>>>
>>>>>>It's then ZERO vehicles/hour. That's the same as when there are no
>>>>>>vehicles using the freeway.
>>>>
>>>>>Obviously not. In one case there are NO cars on the road; in the other
>>>>>there are THOUSANDS.
>>>>
>>>>>Let me phrase my question another way: what is the formula you used to
>>>>>arrive at the 1800 vehicles/hour figure you tossed out earlier? What
>>>>>variables are part of the formula? Hint: vehicle velocity is one of
>>>>>the terms.
>>>>
>>>>This is independent of vehicle speed.
>>>
>>>That's ridiculous.
>>>
>>>Suppose you had a bunch of cars, each exactly 20 feet long. If you
>>>parked them in one lane, bumper-to-bumper, you could fit 5280/20 = 264
>>>of them into one mile. However, since they are parked, the number of
>>>vehicles passing any given reference point is 0 vehicles/hour.
>>>
>>>Now let's increase the speed of the cars to 1 MPH. If they remain
>>>bumper-to-bumper, those 264 vehicles will pass your reference point in
>>>exactly 1 hour. Add in a 2-second following distance between them
>>>(~2.93 feet at 1 MPH) and the maximum you can expect is 5280/22.93 =
>>>~230 vehicles/hour.
>>>
>>>Now let's double their speed to 2 MPH. Following distance increases to
>>>5.87 feet, and the maximum number of vehicles that can pass a given
>>>spot in the road increases to 2 * 5280 / 25.87 = ~408 vehicles/hour.
>>>
>>>Clearly the number of cars which can potentially pass any given fixed
>>>point during one hour varies directly with vehicle speed as well as
>>>vehicle length (and perhaps other things I haven't thought of). It
>>>seems to me that the actual formula ought to look something like this:
>>>
>>>lane capacity (vehicles/hour) = vehicle speed (miles/hour) * 5280
>>>(feet/mile) / (vehicle length in feet + following distance in feet)
>>>
>>>By holding the car length constant at 20 feet, plugging and chugging
>>>gets up the following maxima:
>>>
>>>1070 v/h at 10 MPH
>>>1342 v/h at 20 MPH
>>>1466 v/h at 30 MPH
>>>1537 v/h at 40 MPH
>>>1584 v/h at 50 MPH
>>>1616 v/h at 60 MPH
>>>1640 v/h at 70 MPH
>>>1658 v/h at 80 MPH
>>>1673 v/h at 90 MPH
>>>1685 v/h at 100 MPH
>>>
>>>Hmm... Seems to be approaching some sort of asymptotic limit...
>>>
>>>>>Understood. I'm just asking for the non-dumbed-down version.
>>>>
>>>>Ahhh.. you're trying to be stupid. You're very good at it.
>>>
>>>Yeah, I guess so. So since you're so smart, suppose you tell us what
>>>combination of vehicle length and vehicle speed will result in a total
>>>of 1800 vehicles/hour passing by a given refernce point?
>>
>> Its unlikely that there is any strict math formula. Because cars are
>> driven by humans, which introduces randomness, there is a point at
>> which smooth flow breaks down due to the number of vehicles and then
>> any formula (other then an empirically derived one) goes out the
>> window. I believe I read once that there are two "maximums" so to
>> speak, a volume at which you can go fast and still get a lot of cars
>> thru, and a bigger volume where you get even more cars thru but at a
>> much lower speed, something like 40 mph. It's likely that the 1800 is
>> the empirical result for max volume, which in one sense is regardless
>> of speed, but actually means, at whatever speed it works out to be on
>> a given road.
>
>Maybe they were only using 15foot long cars?
>Anyway if the therotecal number can't be met then it's got no chance in real
>life.
>

The maximum figures on vehicles per lane per hour on a freeway is 2000
- 2200. It would be interesting to compare them to actual figures
such as the number of vehicles per hour on the MacKay and MacDonald
bridges in Halifax, the Garden State Parkway at peak traffic tolls and
other locations where there is a count of vehicles. The method would
be to take collections per hour and divide by the number of lanes on
the bridge or roadway feeding the toll area.

Scott en Aztlán > writes:
>"Rainbow Warrior" > said in rec.autos.driving:

>>Maybe they were only using 15foot long cars?

>Hence my original question to Bernd regarding the assumptions behind
>the magic number. Speaking of Bernd, it has not excaped my notice that
>he has gotten awfully quiet all of a sudden...

Oh you think that you're right because I don't respond to puerile
"arguments"?

You want to join the Brainblown Worrier in my killfile?
Your continued trolling will get you there and in lots of other
killfiles...

I'm not in the business of teaching rudimentary arithmetic.
There is no need to make the maths any more complicated.

3600 seconds per hour means 1800 intervals of 2 seconds between cars
in that hour. The length of cars is NOT significant at freeway speeds.

If the claimed flow rates are higher than 1800, then there is an
average of less than 2 seconds gap between vehicles which'd require
all the drivers to be alert. The gap is required for a minimum
driver reaction time of 0.7 seconds plus 0.3 seconds of mechanical
reaction times before the brakes _start_ to work.

If the driver is not anticipating the need to react, is tired,
distracted or even just sneezing, then the reaction time can easily
double. That means that by the time that they begin to apply the
brakes, that the car in front can already be braking at maximum
retardation. A starting gap of less than 2 seconds makes a collision
nearly inevitable.

The vehicles behind, with similar passengers at the wheel, will then
contribute to the pile-up.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
X against HTML mail | they threaten."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

"Bernd Felsche" > wrote
> Scott en Aztlán > writes:
>>"Rainbow Warrior" > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>>Maybe they were only using 15foot long cars?
>
>>Hence my original question to Bernd regarding the assumptions behind
>>the magic number. Speaking of Bernd, it has not excaped my notice that
>>he has gotten awfully quiet all of a sudden...
> ...
> 3600 seconds per hour means 1800 intervals of 2 seconds between cars
> in that hour. The length of cars is NOT significant at freeway speeds.

Come, come, Bernd. 88 feet per second means that a 15-foot car
is 1/12th (actually 1/13th) the length of a segment. If that's not
significant, please send me a check for 1/13th of your gross income.

FloydR

Bernd Felsche wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán > writes:
>> "Rainbow Warrior" > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>> Maybe they were only using 15foot long cars?
>
>> Hence my original question to Bernd regarding the assumptions
>> behind the magic number. Speaking of Bernd, it has not excaped my
>> notice that he has gotten awfully quiet all of a sudden...
>
> Oh you think that you're right because I don't respond to puerile
> "arguments"?
>
> You want to join the Brainblown Worrier in my killfile?
> Your continued trolling will get you there and in lots of other
> killfiles...
>
> I'm not in the business of teaching rudimentary arithmetic.
> There is no need to make the maths any more complicated.
>
> 3600 seconds per hour means 1800 intervals of 2 seconds between cars
> in that hour. The length of cars is NOT significant at freeway
> speeds.
>

At 100 ft/sec (about 68 mph) it takes a 20 ft car .2 seconds to pass
any given point. For 1 car, that isn't much. For 1800 cars, that's
an extra 6 minutes. The actual number for the hour with this extra
time factored in would be 1636 which is pretty much where Scott's
table would put it.

--
--Andy
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Tompkins
Software Engineer
Beaverton, OR
http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways
--------------------------------------------------

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> "Rainbow Warrior" > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>> Maybe they were only using 15foot long cars?
>
> Hence my original question to Bernd regarding the assumptions behind
> the magic number. Speaking of Bernd, it has not excaped my notice that
> he has gotten awfully quiet all of a sudden...

Do you actually pronounce "escaped" the way you just typed it ("excaped") ?

Ben

"Bernd Felsche" > wrote in message
...
> Scott en Aztlán > writes:
>>"Rainbow Warrior" > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>>Maybe they were only using 15foot long cars?
>
>>Hence my original question to Bernd regarding the assumptions behind
>>the magic number. Speaking of Bernd, it has not excaped my notice that
>>he has gotten awfully quiet all of a sudden...
>
> Oh you think that you're right because I don't respond to puerile
> "arguments"?
>
> You want to join the Brainblown Worrier in my killfile?
> Your continued trolling will get you there and in lots of other
> killfiles...
>
> I'm not in the business of teaching rudimentary arithmetic.
> There is no need to make the maths any more complicated.
>
> 3600 seconds per hour means 1800 intervals of 2 seconds between cars
> in that hour. The length of cars is NOT significant at freeway speeds.
>
> If the claimed flow rates are higher than 1800, then there is an
> average of less than 2 seconds gap between vehicles which'd require
> all the drivers to be alert. The gap is required for a minimum
> driver reaction time of 0.7 seconds plus 0.3 seconds of mechanical
> reaction times before the brakes _start_ to work.
>
> If the driver is not anticipating the need to react, is tired,
> distracted or even just sneezing, then the reaction time can easily
> double. That means that by the time that they begin to apply the
> brakes, that the car in front can already be braking at maximum
> retardation. A starting gap of less than 2 seconds makes a collision
> nearly inevitable.
>
> The vehicles behind, with similar passengers at the wheel, will then
> contribute to the pile-up.
> --
> /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
> \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
> X against HTML mail | they threaten."
> / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

Well **** it, Bernde, if you're going to get nasty because I stated a
possible & plausible reason for different results, you can join my killfile
then, enjoy your time with your other 2 lodgersm silent serialpest &
knobhead.

"Floyd Rogers" > writes:
>"Bernd Felsche" > wrote
>> Scott en Aztlán > writes:
>>>"Rainbow Warrior" > said in rec.autos.driving:

>>>>Maybe they were only using 15foot long cars?

>>>Hence my original question to Bernd regarding the assumptions behind
>>>the magic number. Speaking of Bernd, it has not excaped my notice that
>>>he has gotten awfully quiet all of a sudden...
>> ...
>> 3600 seconds per hour means 1800 intervals of 2 seconds between cars
>> in that hour. The length of cars is NOT significant at freeway speeds.

>Come, come, Bernd. 88 feet per second means that a 15-foot car
>is 1/12th (actually 1/13th) the length of a segment. If that's not
>significant, please send me a check for 1/13th of your gross income.

It's less than the tolerance of judging the gap.
(typically +/- 10% with practice)

If the dimension is less than the tolerance, then the dimension is
not significant.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
X against HTML mail | they threaten."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>Right there you have the cause of at least 50% of merging problems:
>MFFY mergers who pass up a perfectly good gap and instead try to cut
>in front of as many cars as possible, even though that means forcing
>their way in where no natural gap exists. The real problem is the
>enablers who slam on their brakes and let these jokers in; these MFFYs
>*know* that there will ALWAYS be some JLEDI fool who will let them in
>when they pull their MFFY maneuvers. If it weren;t for these enablers,
>the MFFYs would never try this crap.

Case in point -- I'm driving on the left lane of a road (not a limited
access highway) in which the right lane ends. I'm just at the point
where the lane lines end; the road is still wide beyond this point
though. An idiot in a pickup who is in the right lane and just off my
back bumper floors it to try to get in the spot in front of me, which
would be a tight squeeze even if I didn't close it up (which I did).
Needless to say, there was a huge gap behind me where he should have
been merging.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.