Searching \ for '[OT]: Road safety' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=road+safety
Search entire site for: 'Road safety'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Road safety'
2004\06\15@123705 by Mike Hord

picon face
Russell-

Thanks for posting this.  I was beginning to think that I was the only one
who had considered these points and things along these lines.

I personally feel that there should be 100% passive speeding detection
checkpoints every few hundred feet, everywhere.  A mailbox with 200
tickets after a trip to visit the family would certainly apply the brakes to
those who feel no obligation to obey posted speed limits, and at much
less cost than the corpse of a child.

Basically, I have weighed the options and decided not to risk it.

And now an anecdote...I live in Iowa, Central US, and a prominent
politician in a neighboring state recently struck and killed a motorcyclist
because he was speeding and ran a stop sign.

The man fell apart.  I never saw him that he wasn't weeping.  He
resigned from Congress and is currently serving his penance (I don't
think he got any jail time).  His life is ruined, and I think it's less than
he deserves.

There are numerous records of him saying "If I'm willing to pay the
fine, why shouldn't I speed?"  The man he killed wasn't willing to
pay, nor was his family, but they paying they are.

Look, the long and the short of it is this:  kinetic energy increases
as the square of velocity.  IF you wreck, or hit someone, or
whatever, the difference between 25 whatevers/h and 26
whatevers/h is the difference in scaling KE by 625 or 676.

Let's not even get started on the mass element and what that
shiny new Hummer H2 is going to do to my little car...

Mike H.

{Quote hidden}

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar   get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\15@124119 by Shawn Wilton

flavicon
face
This is getting political, could you please move all further
conversations regarding this topic off list.

Thanks.



Mike Hord wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\15@135128 by Robert B.

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Hord" <spam_OUTgaidinmdTakeThisOuTspamHOTMAIL.COM>
> Russell-
>
> Thanks for posting this.  I was beginning to think that I was the only one
> who had considered these points and things along these lines.
>
> I personally feel that there should be 100% passive speeding detection
> checkpoints every few hundred feet, everywhere.  A mailbox with 200
> tickets after a trip to visit the family would certainly apply the brakes
to
> those who feel no obligation to obey posted speed limits, and at much
> less cost than the corpse of a child.
<snip>
> Look, the long and the short of it is this:  kinetic energy increases
> as the square of velocity.  IF you wreck, or hit someone, or
> whatever, the difference between 25 whatevers/h and 26
> whatevers/h is the difference in scaling KE by 625 or 676.
<snip>
> Mike H.

I don't see your point of the scaling, Mike.  Are you saying that scaling
the energy by a lesser coeff would somehow make hitting something less
deadly?  The energy in even a slowly moving car is more than enough to kill
someone.  Even though it *does* scale exponentially, such scaling becomes a
moot point at speeds over above 35mph or so, since any collision with person
or property would be catastrophic.  The only grounds for that argument I see
is one based on stopping distance or reaction times, both of which are
compensated for on roads designed for high-speed traffic.  IMO the auto
safety regulations should concentrate more upon keeping the energy inherent
to a moving car from being released in a harmful way instead of trying to
limit the total amount of energy in a moving vehicle.  Elevated crosswalks
near highways, protected sidewalks and/or enclosures around busy streets,
and liberal use of human traffic safety enforcers all seem like much better
ways to ensure pedestrian safety than the zero-tolerance use of passive
devices.  Of course these things do not generate revenue for anybody and
thus are rarely seen.

Mike - if you're going to complain about the H2's, then perhaps you should
consider the amount of energy contained in a semi-truck at highway speeds.

Next time I'm sitting at a red light, at an intersection so straight and
clear that I can see the empty roads bending over the horizon, I'm sure I'll
think about this thread as I let my foot off the brake and drive on through.
Who needs a light to think for them, anyway. :-D


> >I often hear people waxing lyrical over the inequity of speed cameras,
red
> >light cameras, traffic radar and traffic police in general. I do wonder
> >what
> >such people (and there is of course a range of opinions) would feel
> >genuinely comfortable and happy with? No traffic rules? No speed
limits*? -
> >or perhaps limits but no enforcement. Maybe limits with very wide
> >enforcement margins. (50 mph with 30 mph margin = typically 90 mph in
> >town).
> >I also wonder what they would do that they don't do now to protect their
> >children under such utopian arrangements.

Russel - since you asked I'll tell ya.  I'd be very comfortable with
reasonable speed limits (as are mostly already in place) enforced on a
gray-scale basis.  Zero-tolerance is great for some things (rape, homicide,
kidnapping) but not so much for traffic violations.  I object to passive
devices not because they enforce the laws, but because they do so in an
indescriminate fashion.  There are (and will always be) good reasons for
speeding and running red lights, if the conditions permit and do not
endanger others.  If there is a passive system which can differentiate
between an acceptable such case and an unacceptable case, then I'd probably
be a lot more receptive to it.  A quick example.  Imagine sitting at a
red-light waiting for a green, the intersecting road is clearly visible and
clearly empty, and a fast-approaching semi is coming from behind at a
velocity such that a collision is inevitable.  By simply running the
redlight, a wreck and potential personal injury could be avoided.  Under the
stoplight camera system a ticket would almost certainly be issued, but
certainly no traffic cop would issue one in this situation.  IMO this
situation demonstrates the importance of  subjective human thought regarding
matters of personal safety.  I agree with Mike that safety is very
important, but also propose that the method used to achieve such safety
should be as non-invasive as possible, and should not sacrifice the
subjective assessment which can (thus far) only be achieved through a human.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\15@140208 by Fred Hillhouse

picon face
"Imagine sitting at a red-light waiting for a green, the intersecting road
is clearly visible and clearly empty, and a fast-approaching semi is coming
from behind at a velocity such that a collision is inevitable."

You must use your rear-view mirrors for something other than make-up. :^)



{Original Message removed}

2004\06\15@141702 by Robert B.

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Hillhouse" <.....fmhillhouseKILLspamspam@spam@COMCAST.NET>
>
> You must use your rear-view mirrors for something other than make-up. :^)
>

yeah, one of the advantages of being male lol

rather, of being male and not involved in movies, plays, television, or
cross-dressing

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\15@142557 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
I've seen people sitting at a red light, with an ambulance sitting behind them, unwilling to move on through to let the ambulance pass.

Autopilot engaged..

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\16@142052 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
David,

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:25:39 -0500, David VanHorn wrote:

> I've seen people sitting at a red light, with an ambulance sitting behind them, unwilling to move on through
to let the ambulance pass.
>
> Autopilot engaged..

I saw something even more daft:  I was pulling up to a junction that had 4 lanes, the second had a car waiting
for Green, no other traffic about.  I heard a siren and looked in my mirror - a fire engine was coming up
behind with everything going.  I pulled up behind the waiting car, leaving one empty lane to our left, two to
our right, that the fire engine could choose from.  It chose left, and as it got about 20 yards from us, the
car in front of me hurriedly pulled across to the left, blocking its route and nearly causing it to ram him...
All he had to do was sit there and wait, but no, he had to do something, and he chose something incredibly
stupid and dangerous.  I hope the fire crew got his number and passed it on to the Boys in Blue, because he
deserves a severely slapped wrist...

Many years ago I was sitting behind a car that had stopped at a pedestrian crossing ("Zebra") and a police
Landrover came from behind with its Blues going, but making no noise.  It pulled up to my right, with the
front level with my (open) window.  The car in front didn't move, even though the crossing was clear.  The
police driver turned on his two-tone air horns (those were the days!) which were probably about 18" from my
ear... It wasn't a quick blast, but a continuous noise that was the loudest thing I have ever heard.  I
couldn't think, act, or do anything (not that I was in a position to) but put my hands over my ears (and even
then it was agonisingly loud) because the noise completely took over my being.  I don't know how loud it was,
but my ears were ringing for a couple of days afterwards!  The driver in front was frozen, and when the far
side of the road cleared the police went that way round the traffic island and on their way.  Perhaps I should
have sued them for assault?  It was as painful as being hit round the head with a cricket bat, and the shock
of the adrenaline lasted for quite a while...

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\06\16@201018 by Robert B.

flavicon
face
WELLINGTON (Reuters) - A New Zealand man caught driving at more than twice
the legal speed limit claimed he needed to step on the gas in order to blow
dry his car. Roger Daniel, 37, made the novel excuse after he was nabbed
traveling at more than 75 mph in a 30 mph zone in the northern town of
Whangarei, the Dominion Post newspaper reported on Wednesday.

"I have a bad back and just thought I would do that to dry the car instead
of having to chamois it dry," he told police.

The explanation failed to impress and Daniel was fined $191 and had his
license suspended for six months.


{Original Message removed}

2004\06\17@132409 by Mike Hawkshaw

flavicon
face
In my opinion, seat belts and air bags have had a detrimental effect on road
saftey. All such devices should be outlawed, to be replaced with an 8 inch
steel spike sticking out of the centre of the steering wheel.

I recon the maximum speed anyone would do would be about 15MPH. Pedestrians
would be able to go about their business in absolute saftey.

Mike.


---
Outgoing mail is certified as Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.706 / Virus Database: 462 - Release Date: 14/06/2004

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\06\17@133429 by Fred Hillhouse

picon face
Then maybe the commuter trains in the US will actually make a profit.

Now if my car only goes 15 MPH, it would take me 3 hours to get to work and
I would take the train. Oops, there is no train between here and there.

How about a Segway for all the commutes less than 4 miles or so? And at 12
MPH, no need for the spike. :^)



{Original Message removed}

2004\06\17@133841 by Shawn Wilton

flavicon
face
Yeah, it only costs $5k for a segway.



Fred Hillhouse wrote:

> Then maybe the commuter trains in the US will actually make a profit.
>
> Now if my car only goes 15 MPH, it would take me 3 hours to get to work and
> I would take the train. Oops, there is no train between here and there.
>
> How about a Segway for all the commutes less than 4 miles or so? And at 12
> MPH, no need for the spike. :^)
>
>
>
> {Original Message removed}

2004\06\17@215354 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
how about a push bike lol?

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2004 , 2005 only
- Today
- New search...