"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

no spam wrote:


>>Roads are designed with a stopping sight distance such that lawful drivers
>>are able to come to a complete stop prior to striking a stationary object.
>>A vehicle moving in the same direction provides a margin for error, and
>>the following driver need only slow to that speed (rather than stop) to
>>avoid collision.
>
>
> Maybe in the wonderful land where you drive roads are built this way but not
> in the places I have lived. I could take you to the county I used to live
> in and show you 5 curves (two in state highways, three on paved county
> roads) within 10 minutes of my house where there is NO way you could avoid
> hitting a stationary object if you were doing half the posted limit. Add to
> that the fact that even on the straight runs there are places where there
> are dips that could hide a stalled tractor trailer.
>
> One infamous place, on a state highway, is called redtop. It has an
> intersection about 100 yards from the top of a hill. If there is a car
> waiting to turn left and two or three cars are behind him stopped and you
> top that hill doing the posted 55 mph you have about 50 yards to stop.
>

Such locations are supposed to have reduced speed warning signs so that
stopping from the reduced speed is possible. If these signs don't exist,
the transportation engineer in charge should be notified.

Wayne

Anonymous no spam wrote:


>
> Simple, I don't give them the chance to do it easy. I don't pull out in
> front of cars with their turn signals on until they slow down and I see
> their wheels turning. I look both ways as I approach every intersection
> even if I have right of way or the green light. I keep an eye on the backup
> and taillights on cars in parking lots. Stay alert and stay alive.
>

Let's be real. Defensive driving is a must, but if all drivers were out
kill you like you sensationalized, you'd be dead. Fact is, people don't
want to hit others. Too messy.

Wayne

In article >,
Wayne Pein > wrote:

> Anonymous no spam wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Simple, I don't give them the chance to do it easy. I don't pull out in
> > front of cars with their turn signals on until they slow down and I see
> > their wheels turning. I look both ways as I approach every intersection
> > even if I have right of way or the green light. I keep an eye on the
> > backup
> > and taillights on cars in parking lots. Stay alert and stay alive.
> >
>
> Let's be real. Defensive driving is a must, but if all drivers were out
> kill you like you sensationalized, you'd be dead. Fact is, people don't
> want to hit others. Too messy.
>
> Wayne

Motorcyclists and bicyclists and pedestrians would all do well to assume
that drivers by and large are on the road to injure and kill others. No
lethally at-fault driver *ever* admits to a desire to kill his victim,
even when obviously impaired.

And there are no more vulnerable targets on the road than cyclists and
pedestrians (excluding animals, perhaps-- see how common is roadkill).
Given the statistics involved in interactions between larger vehicles
and their smaller prey, such a belief would be entirely justified,
hardly paranoid.

As a matter of fact, drivers themselves would do well to assume that
other drivers want to collide with them. It's called driving
defensively, and it is largely responsible for keeping drivers'
attention where it belongs: on the *job* of driving. It also motivates
intelligent drivers to improve their vehicular operational and strategic
skills. Nothing at all wrong with assuming that drivers are on the road
to injure or kill you. It's a much safer-- and perhaps more realistic--
attitude than any other.

Unless of course, you KNOW differently about everyone sharing the road
with you. Good luck with that.

(note: such beliefs and attitudes are no excuse for aggressive or
dangerous behavior behind the wheel; indeed they should be a constant
advisor *against* such action)

lid wrote:

>
> Motorcyclists and bicyclists and pedestrians would all do well to assume
> that drivers by and large are on the road to injure and kill others. No
> lethally at-fault driver *ever* admits to a desire to kill his victim,
> even when obviously impaired.
>
> And there are no more vulnerable targets on the road than cyclists and
> pedestrians (excluding animals, perhaps-- see how common is roadkill).
> Given the statistics involved in interactions between larger vehicles
> and their smaller prey, such a belief would be entirely justified,
> hardly paranoid.
>
> As a matter of fact, drivers themselves would do well to assume that
> other drivers want to collide with them. It's called driving
> defensively, and it is largely responsible for keeping drivers'
> attention where it belongs: on the *job* of driving. It also motivates
> intelligent drivers to improve their vehicular operational and strategic
> skills. Nothing at all wrong with assuming that drivers are on the road
> to injure or kill you. It's a much safer-- and perhaps more realistic--
> attitude than any other.
>

More on drivers out to kill and collide with others! Yes, there are a
very few psychotics out there. Am I going to assume they are after me?
No. Should anybody assume that? No. If you did, then you'd have to yield
inappropriately at every junction out of fear that the boogey man had
finally found you.

I think a safer and more realistic attitude is to assume that people
don't want to hit you, but might make a mistake and accidentally do so.
So you drive your vehicle in such a way as to mitigate that risk.

Wayne
Paranoia will destroy ya.

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Bill Baka > wrote:
>
>> Someone who gets the point. I have been trying to figure out how to put
>> a 6 speed with the double overdrive (.69 and .50) into my Chrysler. The
>> other future project is to get a Ford Falcon or Fairlane with a 6 and
>> try to get a full sized car (by today's standards) over 40 MPG.
>
> I got a pile of money I'll be happy to wager you can't (assuming the
> verification involves actually driving the car at highway speeds on a
> flat highway). Interested in taking that bet?

I'd win because I know it can be done. Your comprehension of physics
leaves a lot to be desired.
>
>> It can't happen with a new car since they are all going to front wheel
>> drive.
>
> Why not? The losses associated with turning the driving force to the
> wheels 90 degrees through the differential is one of the main reasons
> we don't have rear wheel drive cars any more (with the obvious few
> exceptions). Seems obvious to me that if you can get 40mpg out of a
> rear drive Falcon, you should be able to get more than that out of a
> FWD version. Heh.

Once again you have missed the point. Gearing is the way to do that and
on a front wheel drive you can't do ****. The cracker boxes they are
selling now are only front wheel drive because they are easier to put
together at the plant. More profit for them and damn near unmodifiable
for us. That is why I am on a quest for a 60's Falcon or Fairlane so I
can twiddle around with it. The only newer car I would mess with would
be a Mustang.
Bill Baka
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

no spam wrote:
>>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide and
>>> euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the population.
>>>
>>> Are those options acceptable to you?
>> I would prefer to limit the baby factories somehow, whether trough
>> education or, if need be, by a fertility inhibitor in the food.
>> Now the choice would be food and no children or children and starve.
>
> And who gets to pick the breeders? What criteria do we use? Do we only
> allow the 'perfect' people to breed?
>
>
It isn't a popular subject but over the last 20 years or so we have been
handing out welfare to the lowest achievers and paying them to have more
of the same. The over achievers some times never have kids because they
are the "I want it all" mindset. So our population is coming mainly from
bottom of the barrel. That's "Reverse evolution" to me.
Care to comment on the obvious?
Bill Baka

In article >,
Wayne Pein > wrote:

> More on drivers out to kill and collide with others!

It reflects the reality of the bloodstained public highways and byways
in the United States. Most of those big brown splotches on the pavement
are not from oil leaks.

> Yes, there are a very few psychotics out there.

Very few. What does that have to do with the fact that all studies and
data show that driving mishaps are among the leading cause of
unnecessary deaths and crippling injuries in the United States today?

> Am I going to assume they are after me?No. Should anybody assume
> that? No.

If you are using public roads, yes. That's where the fatalities and the
injuries and the massive property damage occur.

> If you did, then you'd have to yield inappropriately at every
> junction out of fear that the boogey man had finally found you.

Your premise is faulty. That any other driver on the road is a potential
killer is a *fact*, regardless of intent. It does not lead inevitably to
the behavior you describe.

> I think a safer and more realistic attitude is to assume that people
> don't want to hit you, but might make a mistake and accidentally do so.
> So you drive your vehicle in such a way as to mitigate that risk.

Whatever works for you. When I am driving, I don't have time nor
appropriate facilities to evaluate the reasons for the risk they
present, nor is it germane. There are far too many drivers repeatedly
and consistently "making a mistake". Those drivers rely on my assumption
that they are (pick one or mo stupid, psycho, emotionally unfit,
inexperienced, inebriated, etc., etc., etc.) to avoid the collisions
which their (pick one or mo neglect, distraction, aggression, etc.,
etc., etc.) would otherwise cause.

Practically every police agency in the nation has data indicating that
almost *all* vehicular "accidents" (GOD, I HATE that term) are
AVOIDABLE.

That means that when "accidents" happen, they happen because drivers
don't want to avoid them. Ergo, most "accidents" happen because the
driver at fault wishes, at some level, for them to happen.

In article >,
Wayne Pein > wrote:

> Paranoia will destroy ya.

Ignoring reality will get you much sooner. Unless you are the Roadrunner.

In article >, Wayne Pein wrote:
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>
>> In article >, Wayne Pein wrote:
>>>
>>>Most people automatically assume that transit is environmentally
>>>friendly and haven't taken the effort to examine the claim.
>>>
>>>http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...ion_statistics
>>>/2004/html/table_04_20.html
>
>> OK, so I checked that one out. For the latest year they give BTU per
>> passenger mile for buses, I worked that out to about 32 passenger miles
>> per gallon of diesel.
>>
>> I even checked out their source for bus data - the American Public
>> Transit Association "Fact Sheet". Their numbers check out. They also
>> say on average a diesel bus gets 3.65 MPG, so we must have a lot of
>> underutilized buses.
>>
>> But one more thing: Although the average per-passenger fuel consumption
>> for cars is no worse, the figure for the cars that buses are competing
>> aginst for passengers is worse by driving in urban areas and generally
>> carrying only one person.
>
>The BTUs per passenger mile for busses is a mix of long and short haul
>systems. Short haul systems in urbans areas will get poorer economy.
>Further, a short haul transit system will have ancillary vehicles,
>usually using gasoline, that merely shuttle bus drivers around for
>transfers. If this is factored into system economy it is reduced quite a
>bit more.

You got any figures by how much?

>It is also important to realize that not every transit
>passenger is a converted car driver. Many short haul transit trips are
>would-be pedestrians and bicyclists who have been lured into being
>chauffered motorists.

So if someone changes from walking to work to using a vehicle to save
time, why is it so bad for that vehicle to be a bus? You want them to
drive cars or SUVs instead? I like bikes, but push too hard to push too
many people onto bikes (or make too many motorists slow down too much for
anything) and see what politicians can run on at election time!

On the other hand, some car drivers are so because transit fails to make
some needed improvements.

One reason I can cite for some: Take a 101 or 102 trolley into 69th St
in the midmorning, to transfer to the El to go downtown, and have to run
or else see the El departing and have to wait for the next one. I did a
lot of getting ticked off whenever I used the transit system back when I
lived within walking distance of Garrett Road.
I biked a little more and used transit a little less because of that,
but I don't think any transit mode should have any unneeded
artificial/arbitrary disadvantage. Most of my neighbors ticked off by the
scheduling drove rather than cycled as a result.

(Although my example does not use buses, I do suspect it exemplifies
a way urban mass transit can improve.)
If both the middle management of the city transit division and of the
"red arrow" division can both cooperate and get their acts together, they
can reduce Delco-downtown commute time by about 6 minutes.

> Lastly, cars are generally assumed to have 1.2 passengers on average.

Including the conversion factors stated in the above-cited table, cars
averaged 34.7 passenger miles per gallon in 2002 and 35.2 passenger miles
per gallon in 2003.

Divide by 1.2, and that means 28.9 29.3 MPG respectively.

For one thing, that looks like this excludes SUVs. (The chart has an
entry for "other 2-axle 4-tire vehicles", which appears to me to be SUVs
and vans, and that one got a little worse per-passenger energy usage than
cars. I wonder why they did not separate SUVs and various vans - some of
which often have more than one person aboard.)

For another, I surely doubt cars average anywhere near 29 MPG when
driven by commuters who could take buses, since this is mainly in urban
areas. And I doubt cars taking people to work who could be taking buses
average 1.2 persons - I think more like averaging less than 1.1. And,
some of the people driving to work who could take buses are not driving
cars but SUVs. So I am not expecting cagers who could be riding buses to
be averaging anywhere near 35 passenger miles per gallon but closer to 20.

I can say something else about some bus routes: Some of their
passengers transfer to or from subway or elevated lines. Those are
quite energy-efficient and often profitable.

- Don Klipstein )

Bill Baka > wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Bill Baka > wrote:
>>
>>> Someone who gets the point. I have been trying to figure out how to put
>>> a 6 speed with the double overdrive (.69 and .50) into my Chrysler. The
>>> other future project is to get a Ford Falcon or Fairlane with a 6 and
>>> try to get a full sized car (by today's standards) over 40 MPG.
>>
>> I got a pile of money I'll be happy to wager you can't (assuming the
>> verification involves actually driving the car at highway speeds on a
>> flat highway). Interested in taking that bet?
>
>I'd win because I know it can be done. Your comprehension of physics
>leaves a lot to be desired.

OK, so this is easy money for you. $1000? $10,000? All you gotta do
is take a stock Falcon and get 40mpg out of it at highway speed
(65mph) on level ground with no wind, by modifying the drive ratio in
the differential.

Or maybe you'd just be contributing to my retirement. ;-)

Just how SURE are you? Enough to put money on it?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame