View Full Version : Driving Pet Peeves
Mental Gridlock
Jun2-05, 08:19 PM
Which aspect of the highway transportation system do you despise the most? For me it's two things, SUV's blocking my vision and people not using their turn signals.
People driving under the speed limit, not using their turn signals, having thier turn signal on and not intending to turn, tailgaters.
BicycleTree
Jun2-05, 09:07 PM
People not taking buses when they can.
People who drive slowly in the leftmost lanes, and/or don't let people pass them.
BicycleTree
Jun2-05, 09:12 PM
People not taking bicycles when they can.
People riding bicycles in those expensive little outfits on single lane roads with no shoulders and so hilly/curvy that there is no passing allowed for 10 mile stretches and it's extremely dangerous to attempt going over into the oncoming lane due to the inability to see uncoming traffic.
My feeling is if I need to go around one of these suckers and I'm faced with an oncoming car, the bicycle guy is going to die. tsk I guess they should have picked a less dangerous route. :devil:
Moonbear
Jun2-05, 09:27 PM
People riding bicycles in those expensive little outfits on single lane roads with no shoulders and so hilly/curvy that there is no passing allowed for 10 mile stretches and it's extremely dangerous to attempt going over into the oncoming lane due to the inability to see uncoming traffic.
My feeling is if I need to go around one of these suckers and I'm faced with an oncoming car, the bicycle guy is going to die. tsk I guess they should have picked a less dangerous route. :devil:
Oh, the worst was when I lived in Ann Arbor. The idiot bicyclists created half the traffic in the town as they wove in and out of traffic, the wrong way down one-way streets, and had complete disregard for traffic safety. They should have all been ticketed! If you want to share the road with cars, then follow the laws or get ticketed...or squashed!
Huckleberry
Jun2-05, 09:32 PM
Around here it is the roads. Pot holes all over the place and they have been fixing the same stretch of road for about 3 months now. What about all the other pot holes that need fixing before the next winter?
Out here the roads are still a bit "rural" but these rich snotwads put on their expensive designer bike outfits and get on the main arteries thinking they're in the "Tour de France" and tie up traffic for miles. We get a lot of farm equipment on the roads here, but every mile or so, they pull to the side and let traffic go by. You'd think these brain dead cyclists would do the same.
The child of evo used to make fun of my ranting about the bicyclists until she started driving and barely missed a serious collision thanks to one, now she's on my side.
zoobyshoe
Jun2-05, 09:38 PM
Speeding is the #1 cause of accidents. I dislike fast, impatient drivers, especially of the teenage variety. Last year, two days in a row I passed flipped over cars on the highway. Both had a gaggle of teenagers standing next to them, trembling, waiting for the authorities.
DaveC426913
Jun2-05, 09:42 PM
Other people driving on my roads.
Huckleberry
Jun2-05, 09:45 PM
Them youngsters think they are invulnerable. A car load of them ran into my brother in law. They were all drunk. All four of them died when they collided with a guard rail, flipped, and ran into my brother in law driving under an overpass. One of my brother in laws friends died also. Very much a tragedy for everyone. My brother in law walks with a cane now.
And living in Arizona I became very wary of elderly drivers. I don't know if they can't see or they forget where they are going, but they should have both adequate vision and memory to be allowed to drive. There was even one old guy who got on the highway in a golf cart. Where was he going?
Huckleberry
Jun2-05, 09:46 PM
Other people driving on my roads. If you want the roads all to yourself then you should go for a drive Thanksgiving morning.
DaveC426913
Jun2-05, 09:51 PM
If you want the roads all to yourself then you should go for a drive Thanksgiving morning.Which one? Yours or ours?
I was frankly surprised at how much you guys invest in this holiday. 'Trains, Planes and Automobiles' made a lot more sense to me after someone clued me in on your Thanksgiving tradition.
from observation, just about anyone in arizona that is on the road...in tenisee, they have you pull the car out, drive around the building, and park, in their driving tests...and they still have better drivers than us!
Huckleberry
Jun2-05, 09:57 PM
Oops, I didn't realize you weren't from the U.S. I'm sure there must be a holiday where you are that everybody takes a day off work.
Yeah, Thanksgiving is a big holiday here for many families.
Ivan Seeking
Jun2-05, 10:31 PM
Driving pet peeves, well, I would say driving pet disasters! (http://www.catass.com/toonces/toonces1.avi)
More driving tragedies (http://www.catass.com/toonces/)
TheStatutoryApe
Jun2-05, 10:39 PM
The people who forget how to drive in the rain between every rainy season.
People who tail gate infuriate me. When ever I have someone close to my bumper for more than 20 seconds I take my foot off the gas and coast until they get irritated enough to change lanes. Then sometimes I'll spead up to keep them from getting in front of me. Occasionally I just tap my break but it seems people get pissed at me and flip me off alot when I do that.
OH! And those bastards with the super bright headlights get under my skin too. A couple times I have gotten myself behind them and turned my brights on in hopes that they get the picture.
Curious3141
Jun3-05, 01:35 AM
The people who forget how to drive in the rain between every rainy season.
People who tail gate infuriate me. When ever I have someone close to my bumper for more than 20 seconds I take my foot off the gas and coast until they get irritated enough to change lanes. Then sometimes I'll spead up to keep them from getting in front of me. Occasionally I just tap my break but it seems people get pissed at me and flip me off alot when I do that.
OH! And those bastards with the super bright headlights get under my skin too. A couple times I have gotten myself behind them and turned my brights on in hopes that they get the picture.
Well, if you're road-hogging in the fast lane you deserve it. You shouldn't be going in the fast lane in a multi-lane road even if you're driving at the speed limit. If you see a faster car coming up behind you, you really should signal and move to the slower lane, that's just common courtesy.
Have you considered that the people who need to get by you are perhaps in a real hurry ? Like maybe they have a medical reason ? In any case, what does it profit you to play dog-in-the-manger ?
A lot of the time, drivers are forced to overtake people like you by using the designated slower lane, but this is dangerous. And in some places in the UK, doing this is actually illegal, so people are forced to endure roadhogging in the fast lane in mute rage.
Tailgating is wrong, and I don't do it or condone it, but if the road-hogging moron in front doesn't "get it" and move over, just how does one drive home the point ? The only unequivocal way to get the message across is with a brief flash of the headlights, but that can be irritating and dazzling to the driver in front. So sometimes considerate people in faster cars *and* in a hurry will just have to suffer in silence behind an inconsiderate driver going slow in the fast lane.
The driving behaviour you claim to practise and endorse in your post is inconsiderate. And dangerous too, because you're greatly increasing the chances of an accident by speeding up to prevent that poor car behind you from merging in front of you.
*You* would be one of my driving pet peeves, if I met you on the road.
Speeding is the #1 cause of accidents. I dislike fast, impatient drivers, especially of the teenage variety. Last year, two days in a row I passed flipped over cars on the highway. Both had a gaggle of teenagers standing next to them, trembling, waiting for the authorities.
hmmm... how about you hate the way those teens drive, instead of hating the teens themselves? i'm sometimes fast and impatient... but i'm fond of you zoob... i don't want you to hate me!
i used to hate fast drivers until i became one. now i really hate slow people. especially if they won't let me pass. its fine if someone else wants to take their time... pull over then and let me go by. (hmm, i also sorta have a death wish these days)
I also HATE road rage! i can't stand being in the car with people who get road rage easy. even when i'm really annoyed by a slow driver, i don't freak. someone can cut me off, and mostly i just get scared a sec, then move on. my mum is crazy though, and she scares me. She's one of those who'll yell out the window so you know she's pissed that you did whatever.
oh, and people who block intersections during traffic. i hate that. and people who don't stop for pedestrians. and people who don't smile and wave when i do something nice for them. oh, and in general, i hate all drivers from massachusettes, (mass-holes.)
zoobyshoe
Jun3-05, 02:23 AM
hmmm... how about you hate the way those teens drive, instead of hating the teens themselves? i'm sometimes fast and impatient... but i'm fond of you zoob... i don't want you to hate me!
Course I don't hate teenagers.
I don't like people who are so caught up in there cell phone conversation that they forget there driving. Oh and also people who see the lane is ending, yet wait till the last second to merge.
Course I don't hate teenagers.
you didn't finish your thought... you meant "course i don't hate teenagers.... i love you gale!" there ya go! i knew ya loved me. you're like the zoobie i never had, but always wanted growing up. and erm... i'm the gale you always wanted? or something eh...
zoobyshoe
Jun3-05, 03:37 AM
you didn't finish your thought... you meant "course i don't hate teenagers.... i love you gale!"
Goes without saying, sweetie.
I hate people who undertake, and the people who cause it by driving in the middle lane when the nearside lane is empty.
And I hate people who drive too close to the car in front on motorways, because as soon as someone slows down slightly, the person behind has to put their brakes on, and the person behind them puts their brakes on, and then there's a sea of red lights, and the whole carriageway grinds to a halt for no fegging reason at all.
And I hate being raped up the arse for my insurance premiums just because I'm stastistially a risk. They should make an advanced driver course specifically for young blokes which gives you the equivalent of 3 years no-claims or something, if you pass. Pass-Plus is a waste of time.
FredGarvin
Jun3-05, 07:56 AM
For me it's the overall lack of attention drivers pay to the act of driving. For some reason, people have the notion that driving is something that can be done unconsciously, like breathing. People do not put forth any mental effort to be aware of what is going on with their vehicle and their surroundings. The act of driving is something that requires a lot more attention than people put forth.
If people would be more aware of the actual task of driving and not be so taken in with looking at the accident or construction on the side of the road or playing with the radio or smacking their kids in the back seat or eating food or talking on the phone or putting on make-up or reading the paper...
My other pet peeve is people that wait 10-15 seconds before moving after the light turns green, especially on a turn arrow.
If people would be more aware of the actual task of driving and not be so taken in with looking at the accident or construction on the side of the road or playing with the radio or smacking their kids in the back seat or eating food or talking on the phone or putting on make-up or reading the paper...
I really wouldn't mind if these people were only a danger to themselves, - the non fatal accidents they cause would teach them a lesson, and the fatal ones would take them off my roads. But they're a danger to me, and that's just not cricket. I've been a careful driver ever since I was following my friend one night through the Peak District. I went round a bend to to see his car was shiny-side down on the wrong side of the road. It scared the cack out of me, and I've been cautious ever since. He still drives like a twat though.
honestrosewater
Jun3-05, 09:14 AM
I don't drive- it's just too dangerous. It would be nice if there was a real alternative to using personal autos for daily transporation. I don't think bicycles are an alternative, but better public transportation systems certainly could be. So everyone in a big enough city, write your mayor and tell them to get on it! Oh, and write your congressmen and tell them to send money! :smile:
Yeah I am with honestrosewater. Personally, I think the whole US car dependence is terrible. And maybe we will see some good changes in the next 10 years or so, unless some magic fuel comes out. The problem is, of course, that public transportation, no matter how good, is not the American way. Public transportation has no freedom, which all of us Americans need. At least with driving there is freedom, no matter how inefficient and terribly designed it is.
honestrosewater
Jun3-05, 09:58 AM
Yeah I am with honestrosewater. Personally, I think the whole US car dependence is terrible. And maybe we will see some good changes in the next 10 years or so, unless some magic fuel comes out. The problem is, of course, that public transportation, no matter how good, is not the American way. Public transportation has no freedom, which all of us Americans need. At least with driving there is freedom, no matter how inefficient and terribly designed it is.I lived in Boston/Cambridge for a while, and they have a great public transportation system. The subway or buses can take you within a 10 minute walk of just about anywhere you want to go, and they are frequent enough that you don't need to wait for long. As more and more people in a city use public transportation, the system can afford to become more and more versatile and convenient. I would also consider taxis public transportation.
FredGarvin
Jun3-05, 11:23 AM
I really wouldn't mind if these people were only a danger to themselves, - the non fatal accidents they cause would teach them a lesson, and the fatal ones would take them off my roads.
But at the same time, those are the idiots you can thank for your jacked up insurance premiums!
his car was shiny-side down on the wrong side of the road. Shiny-side down. I like that one.
But at the same time, those are the idiots you can thank for your jacked up insurance premiums!
Nah, I thoroughly understand why 21 year old male drivers get high premiums (I was once quoted £5,500 for a 1.3 litre Fiesta). I just think it's wrong that I (after 4 years and 40,000 miles of accident-free experience, 2 years of which were in moderately powerful cars) would get charged exactly the same premium as a friend of the same age who has only just passed his test.
Shiny-side down. I like that one.
I don't. It's the scariest thing I've ever contended with; a car upside down with my mate trapped inside, on a blind bend on a remote 60mph road in the middle of the night. He was ok, dangling inside from his seatbelt worrying about his no-claims...
I dunno who came up with the term 'shiny side down', but there's a traffic safety partnership around the same area now called the "Shiny Side Up Partnership", trying to keep bikers (like AdrianBaker!) on their own two wheels.
FredGarvin
Jun3-05, 02:11 PM
I was referring to the phrase only. Not the event itself.
In the states, every single person that has insurance with your company effects your premiums. The people in your local area effect it more, but everyone does. That's why I cringe when I hear people say that they file insurance claims for very minor things. Also, if enough people in your area get into accidents, then you automatically get put into a higher risk category just because of where you live in relation to those people. It completely sucks.
Also, if enough people in your area get into accidents, then you automatically get put into a higher risk category just because of where you live in relation to those people. It completely sucks.This actually makes sense though, if you are surrounded by bad drivers, you would be more likely to get hit.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 03:03 PM
My other pet peeve is people that wait 10-15 seconds before moving after the light turns green, especially on a turn arrow.
Or worse, the ones who don't pull up to the stop line and so never trip the sensor to get the green arrow! :grumpy: Why on earth do they need more than a car length between them and the stop line?!!!
Oh, or the ones who turn on their turn signal AS they are turning, not before hand.
I agree with hypatia on the ones who wait until the last minute to merge and then clog up traffic expecting someone to let them cut in (and someone always does let them in), even if there are miles of warnings to merge ahead.
Or the nitwits who don't accelerate when entering a highway on the merge lane, and then cut in front of you so you have to slow down (or else they slam on the brakes last minute so nobody behind them can get up to speed for the merge either).
Or the ones who drive 15 mph under the speed limit for no reason...always in the no-passing zone or left lane. Or worse, they move out into the passing lane and then pace the car they should be passing!
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 03:10 PM
Yeah I am with honestrosewater. Personally, I think the whole US car dependence is terrible. And maybe we will see some good changes in the next 10 years or so, unless some magic fuel comes out. The problem is, of course, that public transportation, no matter how good, is not the American way. Public transportation has no freedom, which all of us Americans need. At least with driving there is freedom, no matter how inefficient and terribly designed it is.
I don't avoid public transport because of some odd sense of freedom (how is sitting in traffic for 30 min freedom?), I avoid it because it doesn't exist here to any useful degree. The bus stops aren't in safe locations, and then run too infrequently at night, and if I'm in the lab until 2 AM after the buses stop running, how do I get home?
zoobyshoe
Jun3-05, 03:15 PM
I don't think bicycles are an alternative, but better public transportation systems certainly could be. So everyone in a big enough city, write your mayor and tell them to get on it! Oh, and write your congressmen and tell them to send money! :smile:
Public transportation is not a bad idea as an idea. Every city has its own unique problems, though. In Minneapolis things are OK in the Summer but in Winter riding the bus is unmitigated hell because waiting a mere ten minutes for a bus in sub-freezing cold every day becomes torture. Here in San Diego, where the whole place is cut up by canyons, there is never a direct route from point A to point B, and the bus that ends up where you want to go can meander three miles away before it curls back to your destination. A 15 minute drive by car can take an hour and a half by bus, not including wait time at the bus stop and the ten minute walk after you're dropped off. They've tried all kinds of improvements like more buses, better buses, adding a trolley, but they can't fight the geography.
In Minneapolis they have a "Skyway" system. You can walk all over the place in the downtown business district without ever going outside, via second story bridges from one building to the next. Outside downtown, though, you're a human popsicle.
franznietzsche
Jun3-05, 03:19 PM
I don't like people who are so caught up in there cell phone conversation that they forget there driving. Oh and also people who see the lane is ending, yet wait till the last second to merge.
I've seen jackasses in BMWs, who knowing the lane they were in would, and were some 50 yards behind me, with plenty of room to just merge in behind me, would instead floor it to get ahead of me, leaving me with the option of either slowing down for their stupidity, or forcing them into the divider and a crash. Next time, I'm letting the ******* crash at 90 mph (i was driving 75 at the time).
zoobyshoe
Jun3-05, 03:43 PM
The five major causes of accidents are, in order of frequency:
1) speeding
2) tailgating
3) driving under the influence
4) inattention
5) yeild violation (running red lights and stop signs)
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 03:45 PM
People riding bicycles in those expensive little outfits on single lane roads with no shoulders and so hilly/curvy that there is no passing allowed for 10 mile stretches and it's extremely dangerous to attempt going over into the oncoming lane due to the inability to see uncoming traffic.
My feeling is if I need to go around one of these suckers and I'm faced with an oncoming car, the bicycle guy is going to die. tsk I guess they should have picked a less dangerous route. :devil:
Then you would be guilty of murder. It's against the law to pass when there is not room; you must slow to the speed of the bicyclist and wait until there is a passing opportunity. If there's a double yellow line it's illegal to pass anyway, even if it's a bicycle, although people usually don't complain if you do.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 03:51 PM
Bicycles on a highway are iffy--dangerous, though of course we do have the right to be there. In the city, they are incomparably better than cars, buses, or walking. What irritates me is when there is a huge traffic jam full of 1-occupant vehicles. Unless I'm on my bike and can slide past all of them while flipping the bird, I just have to shake my head at how stupid these people are.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 04:00 PM
Imagine if all federal highways were declared off-limits to cars during commuting hours, and large quantities of buses were made available at low cost for commuters. Say goodbye to rush hour traffic jams.
While I don't consider it particularly dangerous, I find "passive merging" to be one of my pet peeves. You know the type -- a right-hand lane is ending, merging into the one on the left. Despite all the signs, arrows, dotted white lines, etc., the driver does not actively move from the ending lane. Instead, without signalling or apparently even acknowledging the traffic to be merged into, he/she just continues along, hugging the right-hand white line as it gradually pushes him/her into the next lane over. No one has any idea what the person is doing, and they end up having to think for him/her, slowing down to leave space, trying to anticipate when (if ever) the driver is actually going to make use of it. This is particularly annoying when the driver continues along side-by-side with another vehicle, neither slowing down nor speeding up nor signalling, nor making any indication whatsoever that he/she is even aware that he/she needs to find an opening.
My other pet peeve is the way people park in parking garages. We have five- or even ten-story parking garages around here. Everyone knows that there are more spots on the top floors than anywhere else. Everyone also knows that it's completely immaterial which floor you park on, because you'll be taking an elevator either way. So, why on the earth do people stop traffic for five minutes while they wait for someone to vacate a spot on the first level? I say people should fill in parking garages from the top down, the same way people already know to fill in buses: starting from the back, moving forwards. There are ten billion spots available two floors up, but no one can get to them because some dope is holding up traffic for five minutes waiting for someone to pull out of a lower-level spot. After this happens a couple of times, and it ends up taking 15 minutes to get to a spot in a garage with ten billion empty spaces.
- Warren
Bicycles on a highway are iffy--dangerous, though of course we do have the right to be there. In the city, they are incomparably better than cars, buses, or walking. What irritates me is when there is a huge traffic jam full of 1-occupant vehicles. Unless I'm on my bike and can slide past all of them while flipping the bird, I just have to shake my head at how stupid these people are.
While I agree that bicycles are better than cars if you both live and work in the city, you seem to be missing the point that many people don't both live and work in the city. Many of the "stupid people" in the single-occupant cars are waiting to get on the freeway and leave the city to go to their houses in other places. They have a reason to be in a car, rather than on a bike. Deal with it.
- Warren
gravenewworld
Jun3-05, 04:11 PM
people who drive under the speed limit
people who brake for no reason
damn tractor trailors in the left lane
people who try to box you in so you can not get over when lanes merge (it takes more than 100 cars to get in front of you to make you 5 minutes late).
PEOPLE ON THE CELL PHONE
people who don't use blinkers
old people
people who have those damn sound systems in their car blasting bass that can be heard 2 miles away
people who treat stop signs as yield signs when they try to get onto a major highway/road
idiots who turn right and don't yield to people who are turning left from the other lane when there is clearly a yield sign
idiots who speed up so you can't change into their lane
jackasses who try to cut in line and get off on an exit at teh very end so they can cut infront of everyone who was waiting
jackasses who don't turn left on red and wait for a green light when it is from a 1 way street onto another 1 way street.
jackasses with the xenon lights that make you go blind
jackasses who drive in two lanes and can't make up their mind whether to stay in their lane or change lanes.
jackasses who turn on their blinkers slow down 500000000 yards before their turning lane is even close
jackasses who try to get onto a highway from a store or something and pull out too much so the front of their car sticks out in your lane and youhave to go around them.
i think thats it for now
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Ivan Seeking
Jun3-05, 04:18 PM
Where we live, the biggest problem is the occasional tractor. I think I had to wait for one last year, for a few minutes. You do have to watch out for deer crossing the road.
I love rural living.
Imagine if all federal highways were declared off-limits to cars during commuting hours, and large quantities of buses were made available at low cost for commuters. Say goodbye to rush hour traffic jams.
If all the commuters were going from a single location to another single location, then your "solution" would make perfect sense. This kind of solution is better known as a "train."
The problem is that most people are travelling five miles in one direction to get on the freeway, then exiting another place and driving another ten miles. Are you proposing a bus that goes from each center of business to each residential area? Would you care to calculate how many buses that would require? Hint: it'd likely only be about 1/2 of the number of cars already on the road.
Of course, you can introduce switching stations and hubs and the like, but all that would do is double the amount of time it takes to go anywhere. Now, instead of waiting in traffic, people are just wasting even more time going out of their way to get to the hub, or waiting for the next bus out of the hub.
I appreciate all of your sentiments, BicycleTree -- people should use public transportation whenever possible, and many people would actually be better served by public trans than by private automobile. On the other hand, I think you have a very narrow-minded view of the transportation world -- you seem to think the bike and the bus will answer every problem. You have generalized the situation to the point where you think anyone driving a car alone in a city is "stupid," and you think simply scaling the bus system by a thousand times will make traffic go away. Neither of these assertions are true, or supported by any evidence. You seem to be stuck on page one, frankly.
The only way that I can imagine alleviating our traffic woes is this: put the houses within walking or biking range of the businesses. That's what European planners have done for centuries. Our fundamental problem in this country is that we put the most desirable houses five miles from the grocery store, six miles in the other direction from the cinema, eighteen miles from the industrial center, and fourteen miles from the university. No public transportation system is going to be a magic bullet that will make this problem go away. You cannot simply throw more buses at it.
- Warren
Then you would be guilty of murder. It's against the law to pass when there is not room; you must slow to the speed of the bicyclist and wait until there is a passing opportunity. If there's a double yellow line it's illegal to pass anyway, even if it's a bicycle, although people usually don't complain if you do.
I'm with Bicycle Tree on this one. The same traffic laws and same traffic rights apply, regardless of the vehicle - whether auto, semi, farm equipment, motorcycles, or bicycles. Of course, motorcycles and bicycles have a little more problem claiming their rights than a semi does. The sensible bicycle rider only claims his right to ride down the middle of the lane when it would be riskier to allow someone to try to pass them.
My pet peeve is people that talk on cell phones while driving. You usually only have to worry about drunk drivers at bar closing time. Cell phone users tend to aimlessly drift into your lane any time of day, change speeds constantly (slowly slow down - suddenly speed up - slowly slow down), don't notice the light has turned green, and seem to need both turn lanes to complete a left turn.
The hands free devices don't really help. It's the fact that people quit paying attention to the road when they're talking on the phone. You have the same problem when drivers fiddle with the stereo, light their cigarette, or other distraction, but those kinds of things are short distractions while phone conversations can last forever. Most (not all) drivers can wait to change the station or light their cigarette until they've completed a turn - cell phone users would never do something so rude as to interrupt an important phone conversation for something as trivial as avoiding an accident. Can you imagine someone on the other end of the line saying, "Just a sec, I need to make a turn here" and leaving you in silence for a whole 30 seconds?
They should make it illegal to use a cell phone while driving.
(For the record, I also hate barbers that take cell phone calls while in the middle of giving a hair cut. Get real!)
Can you imagine someone on the other end of the line saying, "Just a sec, I need to make a turn here" and leaving you in silence for a whole 30 seconds?
I actually do this. I try to avoid phone conversations while driving anyway, but sometimes they are, frankly, necessary. I often just toss the phone into the passenger seat when having to merge or make some other tricky move, usually without saying anything more than "hold on." My friends know I do it, and don't mind.
The reason phone calls are dangerous, while chatting with passenger is not, is that the person on the phone can't tell when you need to give your full attention to driving. Solution: tell them, and put the phone down.
- Warren
zoobyshoe
Jun3-05, 04:44 PM
Tips for the Southern California Highway:
1) Never, ever drive in the fast lane. This is the "cop magnet" lane. They will scrutinize you. If you are pulled over from the fast lane they will ticket the maximum number of things they can find.
2) Always drive in the slow lane at about the same speed everyone else in that lane is driving. Cops will often ignore minor infractions. If you are pulled over from the slow lane you're more likely to get the minimum ticket they can think of.
3) Never ask a cop why he doesn't have some more serious crime to persue.
4) Never do anything that might be construed as a subtle attempt at bribery; no flashing cash. They'll find more things to ticket.
5) Women: never appear to be coming on to the cop, i.e., don't pop another button on your blouse. They view this the same way they view a bribery attempt. They will find something else to ticket. (Wailing and crying might have a beneficial effect, but only if it seems completely sincere.)
The only way that I can imagine alleviating our traffic woes is this: put the houses within walking or biking range of the businesses. That's what European planners have done for centuries. Our fundamental problem in this country is that we put the most desirable houses five miles from the grocery store, six miles in the other direction from the cinema, eighteen miles from the industrial center, and fourteen miles from the university. No public transportation system is going to be a magic bullet that will make this problem go away. You cannot simply throw more buses at it.
- Warren
Exactly! :approve:
Ivan Seeking
Jun3-05, 04:54 PM
I once pointed out to a cop that the sign said, "Speed 55", not "maximum speed". Technically there is a difference but he really wasn't interested. :biggrin:
But it is possible to contest a ticket where it can be argued that the condititions allowed for faster than posted speeds; provided that the speed wasn't indicated as a "speed limit", and provided that the driver didn't exceed the basic maximum speed limit for the state, or the maximum speed for that type of road.
The only way that I can imagine alleviating our traffic woes is this: put the houses within walking or biking range of the businesses. That's what European planners have done for centuries. Our fundamental problem in this country is that we put the most desirable houses five miles from the grocery store, six miles in the other direction from the cinema, eighteen miles from the industrial center, and fourteen miles from the university. No public transportation system is going to be a magic bullet that will make this problem go away. You cannot simply throw more buses at it.
- Warren
The fundamental difference is that there is some planning of European cities and none in American cities. A lot of that has to do with necessity. Overall, Europe's a lot more crowded than the United States. Aside from the major metropolises like NYC, Boston, DC, etc, US cities have room for folks to build wherever they please. The two go hand-in-hand. Public transportation doesn't work in most US cities because there is no city planning.
Not that I'd want to live in a city big enough for public transportation to work well. But I would accept the idea of living in a city that was designed for efficiency - I'm not sure expanding randomly across the country side just because you can really yields many benefits.
Then you would be guilty of murder. It's against the law to pass when there is not room; you must slow to the speed of the bicyclist and wait until there is a passing opportunity. If there's a double yellow line it's illegal to pass anyway, even if it's a bicycle, although people usually don't complain if you do.No it wouldn't because I have to make a decision, collide head on with another vehicle (possibly killing them and all passengers) or avoid the collision by returning to my lane. Even on sections without the double line it's a very short space and limited vision of uncoming traffic.
These brain dead morons on bikes are on major roads tooting around for fun when they could be on less traveled roads, they're not going anywhere in particular and are a complete nuisance. Not to mention there are a LOT of bicycle paths for these people to use, but these jerks don't use them. These aren't serious cyclists like you BT. These people care more about how they look than the condition of their bike.
zoobyshoe
Jun3-05, 05:16 PM
I once pointed out to a cop that the sign said, "Speed 55", not "maximum speed". Technically there is a difference but he really wasn't interested. :biggrin:
But it is possible to contest a ticket where it can be argued that the condititions allowed for faster than posted speeds; provided that the speed wasn't indicated as a "speed limit", and provided that the driver didn't exceed the basic maximum speed limit for the state, or the maximum speed for that type of road.
Laws may be different in different states, I don't know. The cop who told me most of the stuff I'm posting here said that the speed limit is always the maximum allowed under ideal conditions. They can give a ticket to someone going 30 in a 40 zone if the weather and what not make actually going 40 too dangerous at that time. Almost no one realizes this. This is the sort of thing they can pull out of a hat to ticket you with if you tick them off, here.
zoobyshoe
Jun3-05, 05:23 PM
Aside from the major metropolises like NYC, Boston, DC, etc, US cities have room for folks to build wherever they please.
This isn't the case. There is no place to put anything in most cities. To build, you have to tear something down first. I think in Europe, there are far fewer things they'll let anyone tear down. There's too much historical value.
Ivan Seeking
Jun3-05, 05:42 PM
Laws may be different in different states, I don't know.
I'm pretty sure that this is, or was true for both Ca and Or, but then again I haven't lived down there for a long time now. So I could just be out of date. I know that this was still true here within the last few years.
The cop who told me most of the stuff I'm posting here said that the speed limit is always the maximum allowed under ideal conditions. They can give a ticket to someone going 30 in a 40 zone if the weather and what not make actually going 40 too dangerous at that time. Almost no one realizes this. This is the sort of thing they can pull out of a hat to ticket you with if you tick them off, here.
That is also true - that you can get a ticket going while 30MPH in a 40MPH zone - .but as for the speed, you again cited "speed limit", some signs only say "Speed", and the distinction in the law was very clear.
Also, I wondered a little about the number two item. I am pretty sure that left hand turns across traffic was number two, though this may have been for fatal accidents. "Too fast for conditions" was absolutely number one.
One of the stranger things that I've done was to be trained by an insurance company trainer [a very smart guy btw], and to then give classes for Ca. Class 2 vehicles - full sized busses. It's a long story but in short I had suggested that the CT and MRI bus drivers needed training, so guess who got the job?!? :eek:.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 05:43 PM
jackasses who don't turn left on red and wait for a green light when it is from a 1 way street onto another 1 way street.
That's not legal everywhere. When I moved to Ann Arbor, I was wondering why all the jackasses kept turning left on red lights, until someone pointed out that in MI, that's legal if it's a one-way street. But, in neither case are you REQUIRED to turn on red, it's just permitted if you feel safe doing so.
Even a right on red isn't legal in some places, like NYC, let alone a left on red!
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 05:57 PM
Laws may be different in different states, I don't know. The cop who told me most of the stuff I'm posting here said that the speed limit is always the maximum allowed under ideal conditions. They can give a ticket to someone going 30 in a 40 zone if the weather and what not make actually going 40 too dangerous at that time. Almost no one realizes this. This is the sort of thing they can pull out of a hat to ticket you with if you tick them off, here.
Yes, at least in all the states I've lived in, the driving manual explicitly states that the white sign with black numbers that says "speed" or "speed limit" is enforceable as the maximum speed limit. If it's a yellow sign, then it's a suggestion (i.e., you might want to slow down so you don't careen through that guard rail on the sharp curve ahead).
You can get away with speeding when a road is unmarked. That's been challenged many times that you can't always "divine" whether you're in a residential zone when no houses are visible from the road and you're on a double yellow line road that looks like it should allow highway speeds.
I do get a chuckle over the signs you see when you're approaching toll booths that say, "Slow Down Get Ticket." I don't want a ticket, so I better not slow down, right? :rofl:
matthyaouw
Jun3-05, 06:03 PM
Young fast drivers are bad, but what makes them worse is when they put big tyres, flashy lights and a loud exhaust pipe on their little Vauxhall nova and race* around town in an evening.
*read: go single file around the same block of buildings 8 times being as loud as possible.
I often wonder if I'm the only cyclist in this city that realises road laws actually apply to me (i.e. red light = STOP), and that the traffic will not unconditionally part to make way for me if i pull into a lane of oncoming traffic without warning.
Ivan Seeking
Jun3-05, 06:05 PM
Yes, at least in all the states I've lived in, the driving manual explicitly states that the white sign with black numbers that says "speed" or "speed limit" is enforceable as the maximum speed limit.
It was only meant as an aside, but since you mentioned it, :biggrin: that does not mean that it always must be enforced as the maximum speed, as is a speed limit.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 06:06 PM
While I agree that bicycles are better than cars if you both live and work in the city, you seem to be missing the point that many people don't both live and work in the city. Many of the "stupid people" in the single-occupant cars are waiting to get on the freeway and leave the city to go to their houses in other places. They have a reason to be in a car, rather than on a bike. Deal with it.
You're right, they should not be riding bicycles. They should be riding buses. Consider: 10 buses, which will be able to do 60 mph... or 500 cars, carrying the same number of people, which will only be able to do 30 mph because of jamming. Plus, you can do work while riding in a bus, which you cannot do (safely) while riding in a car.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 06:15 PM
When I was talking about single-occupant cars in massive jams I was talking about on a federal highway into Boston. I'm sure similar situations exist for commuters to other cities, and they can all be solved by the use of buses.
zoobyshoe
Jun3-05, 06:18 PM
but as for the speed, you again cited "speed limit", some signs only say "Speed", and the distinction in the law was very clear.
Why, what could "Speed" be construed to mean if not "Maximum Speed"?
Also, I wondered a little about the number two item. I am pretty sure that left hand turns across traffic was number two, though this may have been for fatal accidents.
He defintely said tailgating was #2: not leaving the proper amount of space between yourself and the car in front of you in proportion to your speed.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 06:21 PM
These brain dead morons on bikes are on major roads tooting around for fun when they could be on less traveled roads, they're not going anywhere in particular and are a complete nuisance. Not to mention there are a LOT of bicycle paths for these people to use, but these jerks don't use them. These aren't serious cyclists like you BT. These people care more about how they look than the condition of their bike.
Yep, they aren't people on their way home from work or school, they're out in their fancy shorts to bike nowhere in particular.
I don't mind having to share roads with bicyclists as long as they follow the rules they're supposed to follow too, and have the courtesy to move aside if they can so someone in a car can pass. Of course the folks I know who live close enough to bike to work still appreciate that some of us have cars when the skies open up with a thunderstorm just about the time to head home. :biggrin:
Yeah, buses aren't terribly practical either. By the time they're done making all their stops and zigzagging around town, it takes twice as long to get home. Again, back to when I lived in Ann Arbor, my first half year there, I lived within walking distance of the lab...a long walk...took me about a half hour, but most days it was very pleasant. Parking near campus was impossible to find, so driving wasn't a good option at all if you didn't want to pay through the nose for a parking permit for one of the lots. So, once in a while, if the weather was really bad (freezing or the sidewalks were badly snow-covered or it was raining really hard), I'd take the bus from a stop close to the building I worked in (actually, I'd just start walking along the bus route...if I saw a bus, I took it, and if I missed it, I kept walking). It would take longer to get home by bus than it did to walk. But, when the alternative was freezing halfway home or trudging through snow halfway to my knees (oh did I hate people who didn't shovel their sidewalks), it was worth the extra time. Once I moved out of the city to where I could afford the apartments and have more quiet, buses were no longer an option, nor was walking or biking (30 min drive when there was no traffic...and there usually wasn't because I'd take dirt roads most of the way, at least when it wasn't snowing...no speed limits on dirt roads, or at least nobody enforces them...I had an old enough car I didn't care what I did to the suspension...yee haw!) Then I had to pay for parking, but that plus the additional gas usage still didn't add up to what I was saving by living away from campus.
So, that is really the problem. As soon as you get an area urbanized enough to make it worth having public transportation, the housing costs go up exhorbitantly in the area. I saw that happen in my hometown. As soon as they put in a park & ride with service to NYC, property values soared, because the commuters with city salaries were suddenly moving in. I couldn't afford to move back to my old neighborhood anymore.
Oh, though I'm also thinking now of Davis, CA. Have any of you been there? They say there are more bicycles than people there. People even have bicycle carts and sidecars for their kids and for towing groceries. I've heard they also have bicycle traffic jams. I've never seen a bicycle traffic jam though.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 06:30 PM
Buses in cities are stupid because bicycles are superior to them (and to cars) in cities. It's buses BETWEEN cities that beat cars. Plus, buses are cheaper, and you can get work done on them.
Here are some traffic zones I have noticed, with rankings:
Within city, in general:
1. Bicycle
2. Car
3. Bus
Within city, at peak rush hour:
1. Bicycle
2. Pedestrian
3. Car
4. Bus
Between cities during rush hours:
1. Bus
2. Car
3. Bicycle
Other short-range travel:
1. Car (usually)
2. Bus or bicycle (depending on the situation)
Long-range travel:
1. Airplane
2. Bus
3. Car
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 06:35 PM
When I was talking about single-occupant cars in massive jams I was talking about on a federal highway into Boston. I'm sure similar situations exist for commuters to other cities, and they can all be solved by the use of buses.
:rofl: Did you read what Chroot posted? Where will those buses be taking people? I can't even find one other person in my part of town who works similar hours to mine and works on or close to the campus to carpool let alone make it worthwhile having a bus running this direction at those hours.
And, do you know where those people are heading after work? Are they stopping at the grocery store on their way, or picking their kids up from daycare or soccer practice, or dropping off the dry-cleaning, or maybe they have a trunk full of files to take home from the office to work on at night, or maybe they are driving out to the middle of nowhere where they live, maybe meeting friends for dinner or picking up take-out, or heading out of town for the weekend? You're taking an overly simplistic view of the problem.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 06:54 PM
Yes, I read and replied to Chroot's post, and he was confused about where I was talking about the single-occupancy-vehicles causing jamming.
Perhaps for your special situation there would not be an advantage in taking a bus, since so few people have similar commuting plans to yours. Realize, however, that you are an exception.
A bus need only get you within a mile or two of your destination--from there you can bike. If your destination is within the city, at rush hour, then just getting dropped off "inside the city" is sufficient because from then on the bike beats anything else.
The advantages of the bus for commuting between cities at rush hour (distances of 10+ miles) are these: many people can fit into buses, thereby avoiding traffic jams. Buses pollute less than single-occupancy vehicles and are cheaper. And you can do work on buses, which you can't do in cars.
Your arguments about doing laundry and other non-work related activities that demand cars have some merit. However, one could easily take a car to the bus station and then immediately use it again upon one's return; indeed, most bus commuters in my town do this.
Young fast drivers are bad, but what makes them worse is when they put big tyres, flashy lights and a loud exhaust pipe on their little Vauxhall nova and race* around town in an evening.
Now I'm scared that you're going to put me into this category. I've had my car about a year (I'm not gonna tell you what sort), and when I picked it up it had this stupid massive (4" diameter?) exhaust pipe on it. It annoys me to hell, I can't go above 60 without deafening myself, although it is pretty nippy and it does sound quite nice... I just feel embarassed every time I drive through a built up area in anything less than 4th. Anyway, it's hanging on by a thread, so I'm kinda waiting for it to drop off, when I can put the OEM exhaust on it again...
A bus need only get you within a mile or two of your destination--from there you can bike. If your destination is within the city, at rush hour, then just getting dropped off "inside the city" is sufficient because from then on the bike beats anything else.
Here the busses carry only 2, maybe 3, bikes, how would this work for more than 2 or 3 people?
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 08:14 PM
Matt, I suppose you would add more bike storage to the buses, eh? Remove the front couple seats, for example. Any way you cut it. People could also store their bikes at the bus stop at the other end. And remember, not everyone is going to be dropped off so far from work that they really need a bike.
The bus has several advantages over the single-occupancy car: speed instead of traffic jams, economy, doing work while riding instead of being occupied driving, and environmental friendliness.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 08:23 PM
Here the busses carry only 2, maybe 3, bikes, how would this work for more than 2 or 3 people?
On both buses and trains that I've been on, they didn't allow any bikes to be carried on during rush hour. The rest of the day on buses, it was the driver's discretion, so if the bus was particularly crowded, they wouldn't let you take your bike on with you. Recently, I've seen a few buses that have a bike rack on the front, but yeah, it doesn't look like it would carry more than 2 or 3 bikes either. I'm not sure how many of the professionals are going to want to bike though, especially women going to work in suits with skirts and high heels. You'd have to change clothes twice, hope your suit didn't get wrinkled in, what, a backpack?, figure out where to stash the briefcase, get your hair messed up with wind, wind up all sweaty...yeah, I don't think that's going to work for those commuting to work in a city.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 08:25 PM
The bus has several advantages over the single-occupancy car: speed instead of traffic jams, economy, doing work while riding instead of being occupied driving, and environmental friendliness.
Until that bus is stuck in the traffic jam with all the other cars and can't stay on schedule.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 08:26 PM
Additionally, a commuter by bus does not need to pay parking fees in a garage or rented lot, or if he would not otherwise put his car in one of those places, he does not need to waste time finding a parking space. Some people may have free parking spaces provided by their places of employment, making this less of a concern, but these people compose quite a small minority. (And even for these people, the other advantages of the bus apply to an equally great degree)
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 08:28 PM
The point of buses is that the more people take buses, the fewer traffic jams you have. There aren't "all the other cars" if most commuters take the bus. 1 bus takes 50 single-occupancy cars off the road at a stroke.
A bus need only get you within a mile or two of your destination--from there you can bike. If your destination is within the city, at rush hour, then just getting dropped off "inside the city" is sufficient because from then on the bike beats anything else.
You don't get it.
As Moonbear said, hardly anyone lives in the same area she lives, and also works in the same area she works. If you were to introduce a direct bus route from Moonbear's work to Moonbear's home, perhaps three or four people would ride it, in total. The number of different combinations of home bus stops and work bus stops is staggering. The number of such direct bus routes you'd have to provide to put everyone on a direct bus with suitably-close endpoints would therefore also be staggering. As I said, I believe you'd have almost as many buses as cars.
The only other option to direct buses are switched buses. You can introduce hubs on the bus lines, and make people transfer a dozen times. You've now made better use of the buses' capacity, but you've killed the speed. The buses would take 2, 3, or 4 times as long as the equivalent car ride, and no one would use the service due to the inconvenience.
Either way, your "carpet the land with buses" idea will fail. If you provide too many direct bus routes, the buses will be underutilized, and will fail economically. If you provide too few direct bus routes, the bus rides will be too lengthy, and no one will use them.
Again, as I and others have explained, the problem cannot be solved simply by throwing more buses at it. It is a very complex problem, and thousands of people have spent a lot more time than you considering solutions. The bottom line, as I've said, is that the only real solution to the transportation problem is to eliminate the need for transportation altogether. This can only be accomplished by inventing teleportation, or better city planning.
- Warren
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 08:34 PM
And might I add that a great many people already do enjoy the practical advantages of bike and bus. There simply aren't enough of us.
Yes, you change your clothes when you ride a bike, and get 5 or 10 minutes of good exercise. For a woman wearing a skirt, there are these silly "women's bikes" with low top bars which weigh more and are weaker, but enable one to ride a bike with a skirt on, although the better option may be to change.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 08:39 PM
As Moonbear said, hardly anyone lives in the same area she lives, and also works in the same area she works. If you were to introduce a direct bus route from Moonbear's work to Moonbear's home, perhaps three or four people would ride it, in total. The number of different combinations of home bus stops and work bus stops is staggering. The number of such direct bus routes you'd have to provide to put everyone on a direct bus with suitably-close endpoints would therefore also be staggering. As I said, I believe you'd have almost as many buses as cars.
Perhaps for your special situation there would not be an advantage in taking a bus, since so few people have similar commuting plans to yours. Realize, however, that you are an exception.
Those people who are isolated will go by car. However, there aren't so many of these.
Rather than switching bus onto bus, probably the best way is to unite an area or two into a bus stop just before the highway, so that you jump in your car, go to the bus stop, and take the bus from there. The bus doesn't take you from home to work; it takes you from start of highway to city.
Basically, you ask, where are the traffic jams? And for the most part there are two answers for commuters: in main arteries, and in cities. The main artery jam is solved through buses, and the city jam is solved through bikes.
Perhaps for your special situation there would not be an advantage in taking a bus, since so few people have similar commuting plans to yours. Realize, however, that you are an exception.I don't think it's an exception, that's how it is here also. Which is probably why there is no mass transportation. They're trying buses in some of the popular parts of the county, but whenever I see one, it's empty.
A bus need only get you within a mile or two of your destination--from there you can bike. Are you saying people should take their bikes on the bus?
If your destination is within the city, at rush hour, then just getting dropped off "inside the city" is sufficient because from then on the bike beats anything else.Where are these inner city bikes coming from?
The advantages of the bus for commuting between cities at rush hour (distances of 10+ miles) are these: many people can fit into buses, thereby avoiding traffic jams. Buses pollute less than single-occupancy vehicles and are cheaper. And you can do work on buses, which you can't do in cars.Not too many people aren't going to need a car when they get to the distant city.
Taking the bus has never been practical where ever I lived, if they had buses at all. When I lived in Houston, the traffic was terrible and I would car pool, but even that meant driving 35 minutes to a location to meet the person I carpooled with for the remaining 1-2 hour drive.
In Chicago, you have trains from the suburbs into the city, those I used because you could then take the subway once you got downtown.
Additionally, a commuter by bus does not need to pay parking fees in a garage or rented lot, or if he would not otherwise put his car in one of those places, he does not need to waste time finding a parking space. Some people may have free parking spaces provided by their places of employment, making this less of a concern, but these people compose quite a small minority. (And even for these people, the other advantages of the bus apply to an equally great degree)
You know, BicycleTree, this discussion is getting on my nerves -- you keep changing the subject. You started by harping about how great bikes are in cities. I agree, they are. Public transportation makes good sense in urban environments, also. Then you started talking about turning the freeways into bus-only conduits, and continue to ignore the glaring problems with that approach.
Now you're trying to argue your point by saying that bus riders won't have to pay for personal vehicle parking -- but the only places where you have to pay to park in America are the cities, and we all already agree that cars are not best option in cities.
The problem is that most Americans don't work in major cities, and city-style public transportation is not a viable option for their locales.
- Warren
Those people who are isolated will go by car. However, there aren't so many of these.
This is the situation for the vast majority of people. I don't know anyone who works in my area who also lives in my area.
Rather than switching bus onto bus, probably the best way is to unite an area or two into a bus stop just before the highway, so that you jump in your car, go to the bus stop, and take the bus from there. The bus doesn't take you from home to work; it takes you from start of highway to city.
But I don't work in a city; I work in another suburban-sprawl area.
The main artery jam is solved through buses
You can keep saying it all you like; the simple fact is that buses (even lots of them) won't solve it. People live and work in too many different combinations of places for buses to be effective.
- Warren
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 08:44 PM
Chroot, I'm not sure you understand what I am talking about. I am talking about commuters who live in the suburbs and commute into a city. I am not talking about other categories of workers.
The bus is better on the highway because it eliminates congestion; the bike is better in the city. Taking a car on the highway to commute with is inferior because once you get to the city, you must park it; the in-city considerations are closely tied to the to-city considerations.
Chroot, I'm not sure you understand what I am talking about. I am talking about commuters who live in the suburbs and commute into a city. I am not talking about other categories of workers.
This is a relatively small percentage of the population, BicycleTree. It's already mostly solved in most metropolitan areas, anyway -- DC has the metro, NYC has the subway, SF has BART, and so on. If everyone were going to the same destination, the problem would be quite simple. In real life, however, there are a thousand different destinations.
- Warren
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 08:48 PM
In many respects, the XBL is a victim of its own success.
Commuting by bus via the XBL has become so popular
that the lane is nearly full. With the XBL at or near capac-
ity, the operation has been subject to periodic travel
delays, affecting the reliability of commuting by bus
through the Lincoln Tunnel. To further compound con-
gestion, if a bus breaks down in the XBL there is no alter-
native but for buses to use the eastbound roadway of
Route 495. These situations completely erode the travel
advantages of the XBL for bus riders and create an acute
congestion condition for the entire corridor.
www.panynj.gov/tbt/pdf/XBL-II_nwslttr_285fri.pdf
(hopefully the link works)
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 08:48 PM
I read an idea by someone, Richard, of Richard's Bicycle Book, wherein each city produces its own bicycles which are available for free public use. The city takes responsibility for fixing the bicycles in the form of repair stations, and each city has its own distinctive bicycle frame so that if anyone is seen riding that type of frame outside the city, they can be identified as thieves. The bikes are just left wherever someone finishes with them, and anyone who sees a city bike anywhere is free to use it within the city. This eliminates all trouble of ensuring your bike is in the right place at the right time. I think it's a pretty good idea.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 08:51 PM
This is a relatively small percentage of the population, BicycleTree. It's already mostly solved in most metropolitan areas, anyway -- DC has the metro, NYC has the subway, SF has BART, and so on. If everyone were going to the same destination, the problem would be quite simple. In real life, however, there are a thousand different destinations.
I think it's more than you think. I have recently started going into and out of Boston via a 3-lane highway, which even has the breakdown lane designated as available for use during rush hours, effectively making it a 4-lane highway. Thousands of single-occupancy vehicles reduce the speed on the highway to 5, 10, 15 mph for long stretches, so that it takes an hour to travel thirty miles. This is the situation I refer to, and the problem has not been solved.
Bicycle (and car) sharing programs are already in place in many major metropolitan cities.
- Warren
zoobyshoe
Jun3-05, 08:51 PM
In China just about everyone rides bicycles. Speak any Chinese BicycleTree? You'd feel at home there.
I think it's more than you think.
Provide evidence to support your assertion.
- Warren
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 08:53 PM
zooby, many people ride bicycles in the USA as well. I know of two other people on this site who ride street bikes recreationally.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 08:55 PM
Chroot, isn't the 4-lane single-occupancy-vehicle massive traffic jam going into Boston evidence enough?
I read an idea by someone, Richard, of Richard's Bicycle Book, wherein each city produces its own bicycles which are available for free public use. The city takes responsibility for fixing the bicycles in the form of repair stations, and each city has its own distinctive bicycle frame so that if anyone is seen riding that type of frame outside the city, they can be identified as thieves. The bikes are just left wherever someone finishes with them, and anyone who sees a city bike anywhere is free to use it within the city. This eliminates all trouble of ensuring your bike is in the right place at the right time. I think it's a pretty good idea.The problem in a city is that most people are professionals and need to carry their laptop and files, presentations, samples, among other things, and can't be showing up for a meeting disheveled and sweaty.
I would never be able to use a bike because I have to visit clients and there is usually at least 26 miles between clients and very little time between appointments.
Chroot, isn't the 4-lane single-occupancy-vehicle massive traffic jam going into Boston evidence enough?A bus in this case wouldn't work, people will still need a car to get around the Boston area, which is why so many people drive there and don't take the bus.
Chroot, isn't the 4-lane single-occupancy-vehicle massive traffic jam going into Boston evidence enough?
No. You've made the assertion -- several times, in fact -- that the majority of Americans live in the suburbs, but work inside city limits. I am challenging you to provide evidence of this assertion, because I do not believe it at all.
- Warren
Chroot, isn't the 4-lane single-occupancy-vehicle massive traffic jam going into Boston evidence enough?
You know Boston has a commuter rail and a subway system that many many people already use. Perhaps you should move to a smaller city if you don't like the idea of a large influx of people in the morning.
Chroot, I wouldn't say that the majority of Americans live in the suburbs, but it is the growing trend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbanization
The problem in a city is that most people are professionals and need to carry their laptop and files, presentations, samples, among other things, and can't be showing up for a meeting disheveled and sweaty.
This is certainly a problem.
I'd also like to discuss the myth of BicycleTree's work-on-the-bus proposal. My professional work involves hundreds of thousands of dollars of test and measurement equipment sprawled over several benches -- obviously I cannot do any real work on the bus. Many other people have the same problem: buses don't provide enough room per passenger to actually do any serious work. Some professionals could bring a laptop and work on a presentation, perhaps, but many people find the fifty sweating bodies crammed into your personal space to be a bit of a distraction. Needless to say, unless your "work" involves reading novels, most people aren't going to get a whole lot done on a bus.
- Warren
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:02 PM
No. You've made the assertion -- several times, in fact -- that the majority of Americans live in the suburbs, but work inside city limits. I am challenging you to provide evidence of this assertion, because I do not believe it at all.
I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant that the majority of commuters to the city live in areas where there are other commuters.
Huckleberry
Jun3-05, 09:03 PM
Rush hour traffic jams are a pain. I don't see bicycles replacing cars any time soon. Maybe if gas prices go over 5 dollars a gallon people will start taking bicycles seriously.
I think a large part of the problem is that some people take a car to go 1 block to the corner store and back. Last semester I walked to school about a mile away. Almost nobody there walked. They drove the same mile and parked in a 5 story parking garage and drove the one or two miles back to their houses. It took me about the same time to walk as it did for them to drive. If I were riding a bicycle I would have been home long before them.
Banning cars from the highway so only buses can use them is pretty ridiculous. Some people need their cars. Their may be no bus route. People often do chores on their way home from work, or have to pick up their children from day care somewhere. Some people are not able to ride a bicycle or walk very far to a bus stop. I think that if people would use public transportation and walk or bike when it was convenient then there would be much less traffic.
I once bicycled 50 miles in about 2.5 hours. I hope to bicycle across Australia someday.
Chroot, I wouldn't say that the majority of Americans live in the subarbs, but it is the growing trend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbanization
I didn't ask this; the number of people living in the suburbs is not directly related to the number who actually commute to the central city each day. I am one such person -- I live in the suburbs of San Francisco, but I do not work there; I only go there for nightlife and culture. Almost everyone I know is in the same situation.
- Warren
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:03 PM
You know Boston has a commuter rail and a subway system that many many people already use. Perhaps you should move to a smaller city if you don't like the idea of a large influx of people in the morning.
I know that, and I also use that system. However, it doesn't reach out very far.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 09:03 PM
YThe problem is that most Americans don't work in major cities, and city-style public transportation is not a viable option for their locales.
The reality is that those who DO work in cities and CAN take public transportation already do that. I grew up in NJ suburbs where a large part of the population commutes to NYC for work. I don't know of anyone who had work hours compatible with taking buses or trains who didn't do so. The people who drove into the city are those who didn't have predictable hours compatible with bus routes (they might be in rush hour traffic in the morning, but then worked until 10 PM), or needed to carry a lot of files back and forth with them that were too heavy to lug around on buses. Yes, they were not the norm among commuters, but when you start adding them up, a few from this town a few from that town, that's where all those cars come from. Adding more buses isn't going to get them off the road, and in major cities, the buses themselves are creating congestion because there are so many of them.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 09:05 PM
I know that, and I also use that system. However, it doesn't reach out very far.
Whose homes would you like to tear down to expand it?
I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant that the majority of commuters to the city live in areas where there are other commuters.
As I've said, the problem of moving many people from the suburbs to a small number of destinations in the city is already a solved problem. The metro, subway, BART, etc. already accomplish this. This is great, but only useful for a small percentage of the population.
- Warren
Chroot, I wouldn't say that the majority of Americans live in the subarbs, but it is the growing trend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuburbanizationTwo things - it says 45% of the population live in what is deemed suburbs, quite a large percent of the population live in small towns that are not considered suburbs, this means that the number of people living in the suburbs of a large city vastly outnumbers city dwellers (which supports chroot) and the statistics are 15 years old.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:06 PM
If a bus has even two people on it, it's not causing congestion, it's reducing congestion. A bus with one person on it increases congestion by a small amount compared to a car in most traffic conditions (ten extra feet out of fifty, perhaps, counting the space needed between vehicles). But the average bus contains a great deal more than one person.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:09 PM
Two things - it says 45% of the population live in what is deemed suburbs, quite a large percent of the population live in small towns that are not considered suburbs, this means that the number of people living in the suburbs of a large city vastly outnumbers city dwellers (which supports chroot)
How much attention are you paying to this discussion?? The people I am talking about are suburb dwellers who commute. People who live in the city are not people I am concerned with at the moment. These statistics support me in saying that there is a need for more buses from the suburbs and for more people who take buses from the suburbs.
and the statistics are 15 years old.
If a bus has even two people on it, it's not causing congestion, it's reducing congestion.
What??
Buses are slow. They accelerate poorly from stop lights. They have to turn slowly. They have low top speeds. They have to stop all the time. A bus probably has to continually carry a dozen people or more to make it a net "congestion savings!"
But the average bus contains a great deal more than one person.
Again, this is true in the city. It would not be true anywhere else -- and your proposed "sea of buses" was aimed not at cities, but at freeway traffic jams. As we've all already tried to explain, that won't work.
- Warren
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:13 PM
Chroot, you didn't even know that we were talking exclusively about highway traffic jams going into the city from the suburbs until a short time ago.
Consider this, which I have alluded to before in this discussion: before entrance ramps to the highway, there is a bus station and parking lot. You park your car and board a bus, and because people do this there is no jam.
Also, having to walk from a parking garage is as much inconvenience as having to walk from where the bus drops you off.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:14 PM
Point taken about the acceleration of buses (although they can attain highway speeds). However, the fair number of people who ride any given bus make buses a space-saver.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 09:14 PM
This is certainly a problem.
I'd also like to discuss the myth of BicycleTree's work-on-the-bus proposal. My professional work involves hundreds of thousands of dollars of test and measurement equipment sprawled over several benches -- obviously I cannot do any real work on the bus. Many other people have the same problem: buses don't provide enough room per passenger to actually do any serious work. Some professionals could bring a laptop and work on a presentation, perhaps, but many people find the fifty sweating bodies crammed into your personal space to be a bit of a distraction. Needless to say, unless your "work" involves reading novels, most people aren't going to get a whole lot done on a bus.
- Warren
I've been on packed commuter buses. You're lucky if you get a seat, let alone space to sprawl out and do work. Those who do get a seat sometimes take a nap, which makes up for the extra half hour earlier they have to leave home to make sure they catch the bus (because if the first bus is full, you're waiting until the next one comes along).
How much attention are you paying to this discussion?? The people I am talking about are suburb dwellers who commute. People who live in the city are not people I am concerned with at the moment. These statistics support me in saying that there is a need for more buses from the suburbs and for more people who take buses from the suburbs.Apparently I'm paying more attention than you, I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to knavish.
And the statistics do not support you, with the surburban sprawl, fewer and fewer jobs are in inner cities, they are in suburban areas, as chroot mentioned. Most of the jobs in this area are in a suburb of the "city".
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:17 PM
Moonbear, about bus scheduling: yes, not having hours consistent with the bus is a good reason not to take the bus. But if many people have this problem, it's only another good reason to have regular buses that come and go until 10 or 11 PM.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 09:17 PM
Chroot, you didn't even know that we were talking exclusively about highway traffic jams going into the city from the suburbs until a short time ago.
No, this is where we started this discussion, but you keep changing the topic. When one argument doesn't work, you circle around back to another.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:18 PM
Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work.
Does this mean "commuting to a different place in the same town"? I think it means "commuting to the city."
Chroot, you didn't even know that we were talking exclusively about highway traffic jams going into the city from the suburbs until a short time ago.
You didn't decide this yourself until a short time ago, kiddo. You were originally talking about buses on freeways, and I don't see many freeways inside cities.
Consider this, which I have alluded to before in this discussion: before entrance ramps to the highway, there is a bus station and parking lot. You park your car and board a bus, and because people do this there is no jam.
I'll say it again for perhaps the fourth time: I consider the problem of getting people from the suburbs into the downtown areas to be already solved. The majority of the cars making up a freeway traffic jam are not going to a city.
- Warren
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 09:21 PM
Moonbear, about bus scheduling: yes, not having hours consistent with the bus is a good reason not to take the bus. But if many people have this problem, it's only another good reason to have regular buses that come and go until 10 or 11 PM.
No, it's not, and the reason is that you only have a handful of people at any given destination who need to get home at those hours. You'd also want to reduce the frequency of buses to account for reduced travelers (you wouldn't want to run a bus every 15 min when three out of 4 buses an hour will run empty and one of them will have two people on it; that ADDS to traffic). If it's 9 or 10 at night and I'm ready to leave the office and get to the bus stop at 10:05, I'm not going to want to wait another 55 minutes for a bus when I could drive and be home in that time, especially if I woke up at 5 AM. That is a very typical professional schedule in a big city.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:21 PM
Also, Evo, whoever you were responding to, you were making statements which were not true relating to things I have said.
Moonbear, it is a fact that chroot was not aware of that until recently. If you read back you can establish this.
I am responding to every point made; if I have missed one by now (I think I've covered them) then please draw my attention to it.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 09:22 PM
Moonbear, it is a fact that chroot was not aware of that until recently. If you read back you can establish this.
Only chroot can establish what he was or was not aware of. I know what I was aware of and his arguments have been consistent with that.
Does this mean "commuting to a different place in the same town"? I think it means "commuting to the city."
What makes you feel so comfortable making assumptions like this with no supporting evidence? Almost everyone I know commutes from what is considered one suburb to another. I live in the San Francisco bay area, however, so there may be some bias here due to the weird geography. I will continue to believe that the majority of suburbanites actually do not work in their parent cities, however, unless you can prove otherwise.
- Warren
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:24 PM
No, it's not, and the reason is that you only have a handful of people at any given destination who need to get home at those hours. You'd also want to reduce the frequency of buses to account for reduced travelers (you wouldn't want to run a bus every 15 min when three out of 4 buses an hour will run empty and one of them will have two people on it; that ADDS to traffic). If it's 9 or 10 at night and I'm ready to leave the office and get to the bus stop at 10:05, I'm not going to want to wait another 55 minutes for a bus when I could drive and be home in that time, especially if I woke up at 5 AM. That is a very typical professional schedule in a big city.
The buses could easily be coordinated to arrive when people need them. If there are only a few people coming out of work at a given time, then buses would not come until later. If people come out of work at 10:05 and want a bus at 10:15, the buses would be there at 10:15.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:26 PM
What makes you feel so comfortable making assumptions like this with no supporting evidence? Almost everyone I know commutes from what is considered one suburb to another. I live in the San Francisco bay area, however, so there may be some bias here due to the weird geography. I will continue to believe that the majority of suburbanites actually do not work in their parent cities, however, unless you can prove otherwise.
Actually, there's a subtle issue in the Wikipedia sentence:
Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work.
It says the Americans live in the suburbs instead of living where they work. This means that where they work is someplace else, i.e. not the suburbs. So you have them working in cities or rural areas--which is more likely to be the meaning of the sentence?
If people come out of work at 10:05 and want a bus at 10:15, the buses would be there at 10:15.
:rofl: I'd like a bus to stop at my doorstep at exactly 8:52 am each morning, and then another to stop at my office at exactly 6:12 pm. Both buses, of course, will take me directly from home to office, and back. Oh, except on the days when I work late, I'd like the bus to stop at exactly 7:24 pm. Can you arrange that for me, glorious public transportation master?
- Warren
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 09:28 PM
Consider this, which I have alluded to before in this discussion: before entrance ramps to the highway, there is a bus station and parking lot. You park your car and board a bus, and because people do this there is no jam.
These are called park and rides. They already exist. They haven't solved the problem.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:29 PM
It would probably be practical to have a bus arrive whenever there is a prediction of, say, fifty people who want to use it within the preceding 15 minutes.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 09:30 PM
The buses could easily be coordinated to arrive when people need them. If there are only a few people coming out of work at a given time, then buses would not come until later. If people come out of work at 10:05 and want a bus at 10:15, the buses would be there at 10:15.
Until the day I'm done early and want to leave at 8? You know what that sort of door-to-door transportation-on-demand is called? A car.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:30 PM
These are called park and rides. They already exist. They haven't solved the problem.
Well, that's interesting, and something I didn't know. Certainly they have helped solve the problem as opposed to hindering the its solution. What do you think the reason is that park-and-rides haven't solved it?
Actually, there's a subtle issue in the Wikipedia sentence:
It says the Americans live in the suburbs instead of living where they work. This means that where they work is someplace else, i.e. not the suburbs. So you have them working in cities or rural areas--which is more likely to be the meaning of the sentence?
So now we're speculating on the meaning of an ambiguous sentence, are we BicycleTree? Does that strike you as a particularly strong argument?
I live in a suburb. I work in a different suburb. Many other people do, also. In fact, you've thus far annoyed me enough with your all-talk-and-no-numbers dance that I'm considering doing your research for you.
- Warren
Actually, there's a subtle issue in the Wikipedia sentence:
It says the Americans live in the suburbs instead of living where they work. This means that where they work is someplace else, i.e. not the suburbs. So you have them working in cities or rural areas--which is more likely to be the meaning of the sentence?They don't work in their suburb, they could work in a different suburban area, like chroot. That's also the case here, business moved out of the high priced downtown area and took advantage of lucrative tax cuts in suburban areas. Most of the office space in our downtown area is vacant.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 09:31 PM
It would probably be practical to have a bus arrive whenever there is a prediction of, say, fifty people who want to use it within the preceding 15 minutes.
Which is why there aren't any buses running to the suburbs after 8 or 9 PM.
It would probably be practical to have a bus arrive whenever there is a prediction of, say, fifty people who want to use it within the preceding 15 minutes.
:rofl: I don't even think I can muster the strength to counter this kind of brilliance.
- Warren
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:32 PM
They don't work in their suburb, they could work in a different suburban area, like chroot. That's also the case here, business moved out of the high priced downtown area and took advantage of lucrative tax cuts in suburban areas. Most of the office space in our downtown area is vacant.
If they were moving from one suburb to another, would it be called "Suburbanization"? No.
The sentence is not ambiguous. It might require a moment to understand it, but there is no ambiguity.
If they were moving from one suburb to another, would it be called "Suburbanization"? No.
Okay, BicycleTree -- I'm calling BS on this, as a referee. Unless you can provide some evidence that most people living in the suburbs actually commute to the parent city, I'm not going to permit you to keep using it as a premise in your arguments. Suitable evidence will include neither the supposed definitions of words, nor the open interpretation of a single sentence from a publicly-editable website.
- Warren
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:35 PM
Which is why there aren't any buses running to the suburbs after 8 or 9 PM.
So there aren't buses running to the suburbs after 8 or 9 pm... because people aren't there to use them. And your reason why people aren't there to use them is... they have to take cars back because... there aren't any buses after 8 or 9 pm. Is that an accurate representation?
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:36 PM
Fair enough, Chroot. I'll go look for some statistics now.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 09:39 PM
Well, that's interesting, and something I didn't know. Certainly they have helped solve the problem as opposed to hindering the its solution. What do you think the reason is that park-and-rides haven't solved it?
All of the reasons I've been telling you more buses is not the solution. There are already LOTS of buses heading from suburbs to major cities, where congestion is a problem. Did you read the blurb about the XBL lanes through the Lincoln Tunnel? They've already maxed out the capacity of the exclusive bus lanes to the point where adding more buses isn't feasible. If the buses are going to sit in traffic as long as the cars will, then people will drive their own cars rather than sit on a crowded bus. When the bus lanes are just as congested as the car lanes because there are so many buses, more buses just make the problem worse. There are huge volumes of people moving in and out of cities at rush hour.
Here in Cincinnati, there isn't much "suburban" space and everything opens up pretty quickly into rural areas where public transportation isn't at all feasible. Some of the larger corporations have instead taken a different approach to alleviating congestion on the interstates by staggering their shift start and end times. Some start the day at 7:30 and end at 4:30, others 8 to 5, others 8:30 to 5:30. It keeps everyone from spilling out at exactly the same time. But we only have a few large corporations like that. In a bigger city, like NY or Boston, that's not feasible either.
Huckleberry
Jun3-05, 09:40 PM
We could make a public transportation system that uses a BT powered thread treadmill. That would solve everyones transportation problems.
From the US Department of Transportation
Changing demographic and travel behavior characteristics have
resulted in significant challenges for transportation decision-
makers, planners, and practitioners throughout the U.S. Efforts
to meet these challenges have had varying degrees of success
and/or failure and, as we look to the future, it appears that
dealing with existing and evolving transportation needs will
only become more difficult. Commuting in the U.S. has evolved
substantially over the past several decades, from the more
traditional commute with a majority of destinations in the
central business district to new travel patterns where commuting
from suburb to suburb has grown to be the dominant commuting
pattern.
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/CAUS.html
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:48 PM
http://www.uncc.edu/bgraves/City/lectures/Subover.htm
This indicates that suburb-to-suburb commuting actually composed twice as much commuting as suburb-to-city commuting in 1994. Also, "Suburbs to central city has not been dominant since 1970." So it seems that suburb-to-city commuting does not compose the greatest amount of transportation. Nevertheless, when you consider the 40 million workers in suburbs, it is definitely a significant problem, accounting for about six million people.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 09:48 PM
So there aren't buses running to the suburbs after 8 or 9 pm... because people aren't there to use them. And your reason why people aren't there to use them is... they have to take cars back because... there aren't any buses after 8 or 9 pm. Is that an accurate representation?
No. It's because there aren't ENOUGH people to make it worth running buses AT ANY GIVEN TIME going to ANY GIVEN LOCATION. Scattered over the evening, and across all the various suburban areas, this is still a lot of people. Oh, and don't forget that all of these roads are shared all the time by interstate travelers and vacationers; on Fridays in the summer, anyone heading south out of NYC not only faces the usual rush hour commuter traffic, but also the roads jam-packed with travelers to the Jersey shore (with their cars jam-packed with kids and stuff for the beach).
http://www.uncc.edu/bgraves/City/lectures/Subover.htm
This indicates that suburb-to-suburb commuting actually composed twice as much commuting as suburb-to-city commuting in 1994. Also, "Suburbs to central city has not been dominant since 1970." So it seems that suburb-to-city commuting does not compose the greatest amount of transportation. Nevertheless, when you consider the 40 million workers in suburbs, it is definitely a significant problem, accounting for about six million people.That's the problem BT, these workers in the suburbs aren't going to any specific area, they're going all over the place, which is why buses aren't feasible.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 09:52 PM
http://www.uncc.edu/bgraves/City/lectures/Subover.htm
This indicates that suburb-to-suburb commuting actually composed twice as much commuting as suburb-to-city commuting in 1994. Also, "Suburbs to central city has not been dominant since 1970." So it seems that suburb-to-city commuting does not compose the greatest amount of transportation. Nevertheless, when you consider the 40 million workers in suburbs, it is definitely a significant problem, accounting for about six million people.
Nobody said it's not a problem, they're saying that putting more buses on the roads isn't necessarily the right solution. In some places it might be, but not everywhere.
This indicates that suburb-to-suburb commuting actually composed twice as much commuting as suburb-to-city commuting in 1994. Also, "Suburbs to central city has not been dominant since 1970." So it seems that suburb-to-city commuting does not compose the greatest amount of transportation. Nevertheless, when you consider the 40 million workers in suburbs, it is definitely a significant problem, accounting for about six million people.
As I've been saying since page one of this thread:
Gettting people back and forth from large cities to suburbs is essentially a solved problem with regards to public transportation. If you commute from suburbs to a major city, you almost certainly already have at least one kind of public transportation available to you. The major problem, again -- for the last time I'll say it tonight -- is the suburb-to-suburb commuters, by far the largest portion of the commuting public. There are many different places to work, and many different places to live, and there is no clear way to make public transportation work in those situations.
You sure do seem to think you have all the answers, BicycleTree -- that's surprising to me, since you don't even have a real understanding of the problem.
- Warren
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 09:58 PM
All of the reasons I've been telling you more buses is not the solution. There are already LOTS of buses heading from suburbs to major cities, where congestion is a problem. Did you read the blurb about the XBL lanes through the Lincoln Tunnel? They've already maxed out the capacity of the exclusive bus lanes to the point where adding more buses isn't feasible. If the buses are going to sit in traffic as long as the cars will, then people will drive their own cars rather than sit on a crowded bus. When the bus lanes are just as congested as the car lanes because there are so many buses, more buses just make the problem worse. There are huge volumes of people moving in and out of cities at rush hour.
So to decide whether buses help or hurt, consider: if the people taking buses took cars instead, would congestion increase or decrease?
It would increase.
If the buses must sit in traffic because of too many cars, causing people to take cars instead, thus causing more congestion, then which is the problem: cars, or buses?
Cars.
The fact is that the more people you can put in cars and HOV's as opposed to SOV's, the fewer vehicles are on the road and the less congestion there is.
Please state again the reasons that you think apply to this specific situation of park-and-rides. I have presented counter-arguments to much of what you said, and not all of the things you said would apply to park-and-rides.
Here in Cincinnati, there isn't much "suburban" space and everything opens up pretty quickly into rural areas where public transportation isn't at all feasible. Some of the larger corporations have instead taken a different approach to alleviating congestion on the interstates by staggering their shift start and end times. Some start the day at 7:30 and end at 4:30, others 8 to 5, others 8:30 to 5:30. It keeps everyone from spilling out at exactly the same time. But we only have a few large corporations like that. In a bigger city, like NY or Boston, that's not feasible either.
In many places, buses will not help. In many places, buses will help.
Don't change the subject away from park-and-rides.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 10:01 PM
* Private Vehicle Boom--All alternatives to driving alone to work by private vehicle declined between 1980 and 1990. In fact, the increase in the number of commuters in single occupant vehicles (SOV) exceeded the total increase in commuters. This means, in effect, that not only did all new workers choose to drive alone, but also a few million persons not new to the labor force also switched from other modes to SOV's. Only working at home (telecommuting) showed growth. Will this trend continue? Although it is difficult to predict the future, it is expected that continued growth in jobs and population in the suburbs will foster private vehicle use. Also, continued low costs of fuel and continued pressures of time on multiworker households will keep single occupant vehicle commuting an attractive mode.
* Suburban Commuting Boom--Overall, the suburbanization of population and jobs is not only continuing, but its rate of growth has accelerated. Fifty percent of the nation's commuters live in the suburbs, and 42 percent of the jobs are located there. Of the 19 million new jobs created between 1980 and 1990, 70 percent were located in the suburbs. Suburb-to-suburb commuting accounted for 44 percent of metropolitan commuting flows in 1990 and reverse commuting (central city-to-suburb) accounted for 12 percent. At the same time, the traditional suburb-to-central city commute decreased its share of growth.
* Travel Time Implications--Surprisingly, even though single occupant vehicle usage increased for the work trip, average travel time to work increased only by 40 seconds, from 21.7 minutes in 1980 to 22.4 minutes in 1990. The commuting patterns described above help explain this phenomena--there is a time advantage of suburb-to-suburb commuting over suburb-to-central city commuting.
Another explanation for the very small increase in travel time is due to the shift from slower modes to faster modes (e.g. transit to carpooling, or carpooling to SOV). This will not continue in the future--the transportation system will not be able to absorb much more mode shift to the SOV.
http://www.commuter-register.org/crtrends.html
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 10:02 PM
As I've been saying since page one of this thread:
Gettting people back and forth from large cities to suburbs is essentially a solved problem with regards to public transportation. If you commute from suburbs to a major city, you almost certainly already have at least one kind of public transportation available to you. The major problem, again -- for the last time I'll say it tonight -- is the suburb-to-suburb commuters, by far the largest portion of the commuting public. There are many different places to work, and many different places to live, and there is no clear way to make public transportation work in those situations.
In these situations, perhaps, buses would not be practical. Nevertheless, I am only concerned with one problem at the moment, since this thread is about driving pet peeves, and my peeve is the traffic situation on the southeast expressway into Boston, and by extension similar situations in other cities. What I see when commuting on that road is people in traffic jams that don't need to exist. People who could take buses or park-and-rides. But who don't.
The reason park n rides haven't solved traffic problems are:
1)They go into the city, if you don't work in the city, you can't take them.
2)Not conveniently located from many suburbs
3)A nuisance - The lots for these things are over crowded, there are lines into and out of the parking area, you have to wait for the bus, you're exposed to the elements while waiting and while walking long distances to and from your car.
4)Not practical - if you need to work late, you could miss the last bus and not be able to get home.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 10:07 PM
Getting back to that, instead of the argument, here's why I think they don't: They like the comfort and luxury of their own car, the psychological concept of "protected space." They like getting to work slightly faster selfishly at the expense of the traffic situation overall, which causes everyone to be slower.
In these situations, perhaps, buses would not be practical. Nevertheless, I am only concerned with one problem at the moment, since this thread is about driving pet peeves, and my peeve is the traffic situation on the southeast expressway into Boston, and by extension similar situations in other cities. What I see when commuting on that road is people in traffic jams that don't need to exist. People who could take buses or park-and-rides. But who don't.In many cases buses wouldn't work because the people need transportation once they get there. Boston may not be their final destination, it's more likely that they are destined for the suburbs, which means the bus won't work.
You keep changing your subject.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 10:11 PM
The reason park n rides haven't solved traffic problems are:
1)They go into the city, if you don't work in the city, you can't take them.
2)Not conveniently located from many suburbs
3)A nuisance - The lots for these things are over crowded, there are lines into and out of the parking area, you have to wait for the bus, you're exposed to the elements while waiting and while walking long distances to and from your car.
4)Not practical - if you need to work late, you could miss the last bus and not be able to get home.
They are overcrowded? You know what the solution to that is... have more of them.
1 is not relevant because I am only concerned with suburb-to-city commuting.
I don't understand what you mean by 2. If they are located at on-ramps to roads you would take anyway, how much more convenience do you need?
4--well, as I said you need later buses.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 10:14 PM
In many cases buses wouldn't work because the people need transportation once they get there. Boston may not be their final destination, it's more likely that they are destined for the suburbs, which means the bus won't work.
No, believe me, Boston is their final destination. If you'd seen the traffic I've seen there would be no debate here. If they were going somewhere else they would take a different road. As for transportation once they get to the city, the same consideration applies to the car, which must be parked (not an easy task) and then one must go from the car into the place of employment.
No, I am not changing any subject. There are several things going on here and I am replying to several different people at once. I'm not always going to be talking about the same thing you're talking about, but I'm always in the same general region.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 10:19 PM
5. The short-distance, suburb-to-suburb commute is the
segment of the commute market that is expanding most
rapidly. Suburb-to-suburb commuting has increased
congestion on suburban freeways without a corresponding
increase in the average worker's travel times. This is
because the typical suburb-to-suburb commuter uses the
freeway system for relatively short trips that are not
subject to prolonged delays.
6. The reverse commute is another growth segment of the
commute market. Reverse commuting has made "efficient"
use of lightly used highway and transit capacity.
7. Commuters have saved time by adjusting their arrival
and departure times-thus avoiding the peak of the rush
hour crush. Staggered working hours have extended the
duration of the peak period congestion but increased the
mobility that commuters can secure from the transportation
system.
8. Working mothers account for an increasing proportion of
the workforce. To balance their roles at home and in the
workplace, many working mothers make shopping and childcare
trips on their way to and from work. Coupling trips
together during commute hours has saved time, but added to
peak-period congestion.
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/ipm.html
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 10:25 PM
I notice you excise #4, the reference to how the Bay Area Rapid Transit improves the situation. Also, most of that is not terribly relevant.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 10:38 PM
Now, let's make this interesting. Obviously, some of the commuters could use buses and thereby improve the traffic situation, and if there were such a demand, more buses could be put into production to accomodate those people.
So the question is, what percentage of those people in SOV's on the southeast expressway would it be practical to accomodate by bus if they so had the mind? I'm going to guess 60%.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 10:39 PM
I notice you excise #4, the reference to how the Bay Area Rapid Transit improves the situation. Also, most of that is not terribly relevant.
Nope, #4 refers to commuters into the cities of San Francisco and Oakland, not the suburb-to-suburb commute, which is discussed beginning with point #5.
And it is relevant. It shows why people are in cars and not on buses. It also shows that the congestion does not necessarily mean longer commute times. And lastly, it shows that part of the cause of the congestion is NOT the commuters from the cities to suburbs, as you claim, but that suburb-to-suburb commuters are hopping on and off freeways for shorter spans, who you were claiming would take alternative routes.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 10:41 PM
Moonbear, suburb to suburb commuting is not under consideration. It is not relevant. Suburb to city commuting is the only kind of commuting that at the moment I am claiming would be greatly improved by more buses, the reason for that being, it is the only kind of commuting which I have had direct experience of and noted the number of SOV's. Suburb-to-city commuting is the only kind of commuting that my peeve concerns.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 10:43 PM
Now, let's make this interesting. Obviously, some of the commuters could use buses and thereby improve the traffic situation, and if there were such a demand, more buses could be put into production to accomodate those people.
So the question is, what percentage of those people in SOV's on the southeast expressway would it be practical to accomodate by bus if they so had the mind? I'm going to guess 60%.
Why guess 60%? I can pull any number out of my butt, but it doesn't make it meaningful. If you want to establish an argument, go do your research and give us a figure that is based on some evidence.
Some might be accomodated by buses between suburbs, I don't know what percentage, but, as soon as you alleviate some of that congestion with buses, people will move further away because they can live further from the loud city without any longer of a commute, and gradually congestion builds up again.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 10:43 PM
This is something I have said many times.
No, believe me, Boston is their final destination. I don't know how you can say this with any certainty. I've lived in DC & upstate NY & Philadelphia and driven to the Boston "area" many times, but Boston itself was never my final destination.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 10:44 PM
Why guess 60%? I can pull any number out of my butt, but it doesn't make it meaningful. If you want to establish an argument, go do your research and give us a figure that is based on some evidence.
Some might be accomodated by buses between suburbs, I don't know what percentage, but, as soon as you alleviate some of that congestion with buses, people will move further away because they can live further from the loud city without any longer of a commute, and gradually congestion builds up again.
I guessed 60% as a starting point, basically a wild guess. If you want to argue it is much higher or lower, make such an argument.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 10:45 PM
Moonbear, suburb to suburb commuting is not under consideration. It is not relevant. Suburb to city commuting is the only kind of commuting that at the moment I am claiming would be greatly improved by more buses, the reason for that being, it is the only kind of commuting which I have had direct experience of and noted the number of SOV's. Suburb-to-city commuting is the only kind of commuting that my peeve concerns.
It IS relevant, because those suburb-to-suburb commuters are on the SAME highways/interstates/freeways as the city-to-suburb commuters, and ALL contribute to the congestion.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 10:46 PM
I don't know how you can say this with any certainty. I've lived in DC & upstate NY & Philadelphia and driven to the Boston "area" many times, but Boston itself was never my final destination.
Did you use the southeast expressway going into boston during rush hour, just casually, and knowing what you were getting into?
Did you use any direct arteries to Boston during rush hour? (you know it's rush hour because you're doing 10 mph on the freeway). If you did, did you know what you were getting into?
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 10:46 PM
I guessed 60% as a starting point, basically a wild guess. If you want to argue it is much higher or lower, make such an argument.
Nope, it's your argument, you can do your own research. If you don't want to substantiate your numbers, then I don't have to give your argument any credibility.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 10:47 PM
It IS relevant, because those suburb-to-suburb commuters are on the SAME highways/interstates/freeways as the city-to-suburb commuters, and ALL contribute to the congestion.
There are off-ramps along the southeast expressway. Very few people use them.
BT, many people that commute from suburb to city do so for all the reasons that have been mentioned, the need to work odd hours, the need to come and go during the work day, the need to go places other than directly home after work. Of course there will be some that do it for convenience, but probably not that many.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 10:49 PM
Nope, it's your argument, you can do your own research. If you don't want to substantiate your numbers, then I don't have to give your argument any credibility.
I'm trying to start a discussion here, I'm not trying to make an argument. 60% seems like a nice middle-of-the-line value. What do you think? You must have some figure in mind, seeing as how you've been arguing about it for so long.
There are off-ramps along the southeast expressway. Very few people use them.Probably because they don't need to stop before they hit Boston.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 10:49 PM
Did you use the southeast expressway going into boston during rush hour, just casually, and knowing what you were getting into?
Did you use any direct arteries to Boston during rush hour? (you know it's rush hour because you're doing 10 mph on the freeway). If you did, did you know what you were getting into?
It happens. Travelers using the interstates don't always manage to plan their trip to avoid rush hour, especially if you're trying to plan a trip along the East coast that includes passing through or near DC, NYC and Boston. You're bound to hit one of them smack dab in the middle of rush hour no matter how hard you try to avoid it.
Huckleberry
Jun3-05, 10:50 PM
I don't know how you can say this with any certainty. I've lived in DC & upstate NY & Philadelphia and driven to the Boston "area" many times, but Boston itself was never my final destination.
I'd agree with BT on this one. It is usually easier to go around Boston on 495 than go through it if it isn't your destination. And when I watch the news in the morning Boston traffic is always horrible. I assume that this is from people going to work and the same for the afternoon when they are returning home. Many people don't carpool.
I'm trying to start a discussion here, I'm not trying to make an argument. 60% seems like a nice middle-of-the-line value. What do you think? You must have some figure in mind, seeing as how you've been arguing about it for so long.I say it's 1%, come up with published figures so that there can be a realistic discussion.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 10:51 PM
BT, many people that commute from suburb to city do so for all the reasons that have been mentioned, the need to work odd hours, the need to come and go during the work day, the need to go places other than directly home after work. Of course there will be some that do it for convenience, but probably not that many.
So what would your guess be as to the percentage that could use a bus without much trouble, if buses were put into service wherever they could get a fair bunch of people assuming those who can are willing?
Edit: it's not 1%. Come up with a rational guess. I'm pretty sure there are no published figures.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 10:51 PM
Probably because they don't need to stop before they hit Boston.
Or they don't know enough about alternate routes, so stick with the main road even if it means sitting in traffic.
So what would your guess be as to the percentage that could use a bus without much trouble, if buses were put into service wherever they could get a fair bunch of people assuming those who can are willing?Guessing is pointless.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 10:58 PM
What travellers without regional knowledge do with respect to the arteries leading into Boston is not relevant because travellers from other regions do not constitute a significant amount of the load during rush hour.
Evo, if you have no guess, then what have you been arguing for the past hour or two? You don't know whether 90% or 10% could be helped by more buses, but you still think buses are a bad idea?
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 11:02 PM
So what would your guess be as to the percentage that could use a bus without much trouble, if buses were put into service wherever they could get a fair bunch of people assuming those who can are willing?
Edit: it's not 1%. Come up with a rational guess. I'm pretty sure there are no published figures.
And I say it's not 60%; come up with a rational guess. 1% sounds more reasonable to me, especially given your assumptions. Please clarify what you mean by:
1) without much trouble
2) a fair bunch of people
Evo, if you have no guess, then what have you been arguing for the past hour or two? You don't know whether 90% or 10% could be helped by more buses, but you still think buses are a bad idea?Guessing is irrelevant and a discussion based on guesses would be pointless, come up with some published numbers we can discuss.
I never said buses are a bad idea, they're just not the answer. Did you read that DOT link I furnished?
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 11:10 PM
And I say it's not 60%; come up with a rational guess. 1% sounds more reasonable to me, especially given your assumptions. Please clarify what you mean by:
1) without much trouble
2) a fair bunch of people
1.) who could drive to a bus stop, if such a stop were feasible for the bus company to create given that people who could use it were willing, in their town or in another town closer in that the bus stops at, and who both go to work and return from work during rush hours (more people than this could do it "without much trouble" but let's cut things clean)
2.) let's say 10 people as a lower bound
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 11:15 PM
Guessing is irrelevant and a discussion based on guesses would be pointless, come up with some published numbers we can discuss.
Whenever you make a qualitative statement about the effectiveness of busing, you're making a guess. An unquantitative guess, arguably less discussable than a quantitative guess.
If there were somehow published figures on this (how would you even harvest this type of information?) there wouldn't be a discussion at all.
honestrosewater
Jun3-05, 11:21 PM
Does anyone want to talk about possible solutions? :biggrin:
Huckleberry
Jun3-05, 11:27 PM
SOS has a good solution. She drives right over traffic with her M1 Abrams wheelchair. She doesn't even get ticketed for driving under the influence. Who is going to stop her?
http://www.sportbikes.ws/images/smilies/tank.gif
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 11:28 PM
Sure:
--Lots of advertising about the benefits of public transportation
--Taxes levied on SOV's (except for truckers) at tolls to discourage use
--More buses, and intelligently located bus stops and stations
According to the DOT study:
In 1985, 18.4 percent indicated having public transportation
available but did not use transit for any trip purpose. This
proportion increased to 21.5 percent in 1989 and 21.7 percent
in 1991.
Ok, so 21.7% of commuters have the option to use public transportation, this could mean bus or train most likely. Let's say 14% have bus transportation available but don't use it.
Ok, so 14% have buses available, but then we need to subtract those that can't use it because of the reasons previously posted. That could realistically drop the percent of people that could realistically use the bus to about 5% or less.
There you go, there are your numbers.
SOS has a good solution. She drives right over traffic with her M1 Abrams wheelchair. She doesn't even get ticketed for driving under the influence. Who is going to stop her?
http://www.sportbikes.ws/images/smilies/tank.gifI was thinking about SOS earlier today, there was a traffic jam near my office. Some guy in a wheelchair was driving down the road and had cars backed up for blocks. What was really crazy was that there was a perfectly good sidewalk right next to the road that was wheelchair accessable.
Moonbear
Jun3-05, 11:40 PM
Here's yet another source corroborating that public transportation is not going to solve a number of current commuter problems (they do suggest more public transportation between cities, but not suburbs, would be good).
And, again, they mention the type of travel people do is quite different than it used to be and contributes to them not using public transportation.
It seems likely that the remaining small gaps in labor force participation and driver's license rates will be effectively closed. As a result, schedules become very complex. Travel is increasingly organized into "chains" of trips (work, shopping, child-related), and such trips are difficult to serve with public transportation.
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/septoct00/skinner.htm
Huckleberry
Jun3-05, 11:42 PM
I was thinking about SOS earlier today, there was a traffic jam near my office. Some guy in a wheelchair was driving down the road and had cars backed up for blocks. What was really crazy was that there was a perfectly good sidewalk right next to the road that was wheelchair accessable.
That would be hilarious if you weren't stuck in it. Was it this thread that I told the golf cart on the highway story? I wonder what goes through people's minds when they do things like this.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 11:45 PM
Thanks for those figures, they give us something to work with.
But no, those are not my numbers. The availability of buses depends on the willingness of people to ride them. If people were willing to ride buses, the proportion of commuters with the option to ride public transportation would be much higher because more buses would be in operation. Also, the population for those statistics is all commuters, whereas I am only interested in suburban-to-city commuters, who probably have greater-than-average access to public transportation because of their central destinations. Finally, one would expect the amount reporting that they are aware of access to public transportation to be somewhat lower than the amount who actually have access to public transportation. And some of those polled would have answered "no" because they can't get _back_ by public transportation because of their workday; these people should have answered "yes" for our purposes.
Given these considerations, I think a reasonable shot at the figure of those who presently would be able to use public transportation is maybe 40%, and those who might in the future be able to use it, given that public transportation is established where it potentially could be used, maybe 50-60%. So for buses, using your guess of about 14/20 accesses to public transportation including buses, that would be 40% in the future who would have access to buses.
Now, your guess is that about 9/14 people can't take public transportation because it doesn't suit their workday. That gives around 15% who could reasonably use the bus if buses were established to meet the capacity of those who might use them.
That would be hilarious if you weren't stuck in it. Was it this thread that I told the golf cart on the highway story? I wonder what goes through people's minds when they do things like this.I'm sure a golf cart can go faster than a wheelchair. I read about a guy here a couple of years ago that drove almost 50 miles on a lawnmower to visit his son.
Thanks for those figures, they give us something to work with.
But no, those are not my numbers. The availability of buses depends on the willingness of people to ride them. If people were willing to ride buses, the proportion of commuters with the option to ride public transportation would be much higher because more buses would be in operation. Also, the population for those statistics is all commuters, whereas I am only interested in suburban-to-city commuters, who probably have greater-than-average access to public transportation because of their central destinations. Finally, one would expect the amount reporting that they are aware of access to public transportation to be somewhat lower than the amount who actually have access to public transportation. And some of those polled would have answered "no" because they can't get _back_ by public transportation because of their workday; these people should have answered "yes" for our purposes.
Given these considerations, I think a reasonable shot at the figure of those who presently would be able to use public transportation is maybe 40%, and those who might in the future be able to use it, given that public transportation is established where it potentially could be used, maybe 50-60%. So for buses, using your guess of about 14/20 accesses to public transportation including buses, that would be 40% in the future who would have access to buses.
Now, your guess is that about 9/14 people can't take public transportation because it doesn't suit their workday. That gives around 15% who could reasonably use the bus if buses were established to meet the capacity of those who might use them.No when the total percentage of ALL public transportation is only 21.7%, your estimate is WAY too high. I compromise and say 8%, tops. But realize, that 8% is not from one location, it is from ALL suburban locations and wouldn'y amount to very many people per locale.
Huckleberry
Jun3-05, 11:51 PM
No traffic in this thread. It seems to be moving along quite nicely. I see my BT powered thread treadmill idea is working as planned.
BicycleTree
Jun3-05, 11:52 PM
But you know, those are depending on your guesses. I think that public transportation could be established to meet the capacity of 90% of those in suburbs who could possibly use them; simply put a bus stop or station in every town surrounding the city. This would be something like 80 bus stops for Boston, and then everyone with a car can get to one of the bus stops. That would work out, given your guess of 5/14, to about 32%.
No traffic in this thread. It seems to be moving along quite nicely. I see my BT powered thread treadmill idea is working as planned.Treadmill as in "going nowhere"? :tongue:
this thread has gone 4 pages in 1 day! do you people have enough complaints or what?!
BicycleTree
Jun4-05, 12:00 AM
No when the total percentage of ALL public transportation is only 21.7%, your estimate is WAY too high. I compromise and say 8%, tops. But realize, that 8% is not from one location, it is from ALL suburban locations and wouldn'y amount to very many people per locale.
In my experience there is hardly any public transportation between suburbs unless the suburbs are on a radial line from the city, and the majority of commuters travel from suburb to suburb. So almost all of those suburb-to-suburb commuters are going to answer no, bumping the figures up by about 50%. And then when you factor in the other considerations, it easily goes up as high as I said. But I dramatically underestimated the potential for new buses as explained in my other post; to put a bus stop in every town within 30 miles of Boston would not be too much trouble. If every commuter who could use the bus, did, there would easily be more than 10 people at every stop. How many commuters are there from the suburbs to Boston? Better find that out.
Moonbear
Jun4-05, 12:05 AM
1.) who could drive to a bus stop, if such a stop were feasible for the bus company to create given that people who could use it were willing, in their town or in another town closer in that the bus stops at, and who both go to work and return from work during rush hours (more people than this could do it "without much trouble" but let's cut things clean)
2.) let's say 10 people as a lower bound
Well, with the long series of conditions required for (1), I'd say slim to none.
As for 2, do you mean 10 people per bus, or 10 people in a town, total? If it's 10 people in a town, it's not even worth running a bus. If it's 10 people per bus going from the same origin to the same destination, maybe 100 people total to make it worth running 10 or 12 buses a day, assuming they can be concentrated during the rush hour travel time and all 100 people fit the criteria in (1), then that might be worth running a bus route for.
Though, if there's just one bus worth of people, then it's probably not worthwhile. The reason is that there's no flexibility at all. If you miss your bus, you're stuck. Not a huge problem if you miss it in the morning and can go back home and drive to work (except that by then you're probably already late and the extra time to and from the bus stop would make you even later), but a really big problem if you miss the bus home and don't have any other way to get back home.
Setting up a busing system and routes, even just adding one route, is a lot more complicated than you seem to think it is.
On a smaller scale, if you really mean just 10 people, then solutions other than buses work better. Some towns have smaller carpool lots near interstate or highway on-ramps. So, if I can locate a group of people who have compatible schedules with mine and are going to a close location to where I am headed, instead of driving all over town picking up people for a carpool, you can meet near the freeway entrance and everyone else can park their cars and the driver for the day drives everyone in. This gives more flexibility at the end of the day. If one person is running a bit late, you do get stuck waiting for them, but at least it's not like running for a bus that won't wait. In addition, if you miss your carpool in the morning (if people need to be at work at a certain time, they can't stand around waiting for the one habitually late person), then you already are in your car and on the way to the freeway anyway, so you're not stuck anywhere without a ride or being made any later like if you miss your bus in the morning.
In some places, there are efforts to help people find carpoolers.
But, this still doesn't solve the problem of increasing numbers of people who are combining their trip home with half a dozen errands, and all the other assorted reasons that prevent someone from traveling a fixed daily route on a fixed schedule.
Huckleberry
Jun4-05, 12:12 AM
Treadmill as in "going nowhere"? :tongue: Kind of like a car tire. Relative to itself and the car it goes nowhere. But I can use it to actually go somewhere relative to the ground. If I were to print out this thread and stand on the end of it I would be moving rapidly, like George Jetson on those airport walkway things.
honestrosewater
Jun4-05, 12:18 AM
I don't think buses, subways, and trains can fix everything. Indeed, in some places nothing needs fixing; If you only have one stoplight in your town... . I think they're the best option in some circumstances and could be improved.
My main concern about driving is the drivers. Just look at zooby's top 5: speeding, tailgating, driving under the influence, inattention, and yeild violation. This is why I added taxis. With professional drivers, I imagine those accidents would almost certainly drop. If their being professionals doesn't convince you, would you pay for a ride from a safe or unsafe driver/company? Unless price is a huge factor, I think safety would be a major deciding factor for most people, so competition should help improve safety even more. I'll check for some examples to see if this has been the case.
As for convenience, cost, etc., you can already schedule a taxi to be where you want, when you want, on a regular or temporary basis, go where you want, etc. If you need a ride at the last minute, I usually wait less than 20 minutes (and you can usually call a few minutes before you're ready). They are at least as convenient as private autos for most purposes. I'm not sure about the cost. They may be more expensive now, but this could change. People can share taxis, and so on.
Some possible drawbacks: Taking taxis and renting cars may cost more than owning your own (this doesn't worry me so much). But if people were driving less often, they may be more dangerous when they return to the road. I don't drive, so I don't really know if this would happen, or how often you need to drive in order to keep your skills sharp.
I spent about the first 45 minutes after I got home from work reading this thing, and got only half-way through it. Now that you're into political (?) stuff, I'm not going to go back and finish it. Your situation in the States is similar to here in some ways, and different in others. I will say that if I have to go to downtown Calgary, I park at a mall and take the C-train. I might drive if I had something with better visibility and more manoeuvrable in traffic (and low enough to get into parkades). Anywhere else in the city, I drive. Calgary also has the 'Plus 15' network of 2nd floor enclosed catwalks. I haven't been in that particular section for several years, but I think that you can cover about 50 square blocks (no, we don't have round blocks in Canada*) without going outside.
*Godrich, Ontario, is layed out like a bulls-eye, so its blocks are a little weird.
Moonbear
Jun4-05, 12:26 AM
EPA and the Commonwealth announced a campaign to triple – from 33 to 100 – the number of Commuter Choice Employers in New England by Earth Day 2004. Commuter Choice Employers must offer their employees at least one major commuter benefit such as $30 per month in transit passes, vanpool subsidies or cash instead of subsidized parking spaces. Additionally, they must offer three other commuter benefits from a list, including carpool matching, bike lockers, compressed work schedules and membership in a transportation management association (TMA).
...
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts offers excellent commuter services, including a comprehensive transit system and services of the statewide commuter transportation organization, CARAVAN for Commuters Inc., to more than one million daily commuters. In addition, Massachusetts is one of a handful of states in the country with a statewide ridesharing rule, which requires all large employers to develop and implement a strategy to reduce single occupancy commuting among their employees.
http://www.epa.gov/boston/pr/2003/may/030512.html
honestrosewater
Jun4-05, 12:32 AM
I don't think the taxi or other people being late is a real problem. Accidents and traffic jams make people late now and society hasn't crumbled. Of course, if you happen to ride with someone who is repeatedly late, it would be a problem- so just drop them. For those people who don't want to risk being late because of a taxi, they can just not use them. But how many such people can there be?
BicycleTree
Jun4-05, 12:32 AM
Well, with the long series of conditions required for (1),
Ahem? There are two conditions. They must be able to drive to a bus stop, and they must go to and return from work during rush hour. And the first condition is virtually a given.
I mean 10 people per stop, for each stop the bus makes. I can't find the total commuters to Boston at the moment, but it's in something like a hundred thousand (my mom has seen the figure but doesn't remember exactly). 80 towns, with a stop in each town... using Evo's guess of 5/14, that leaves roughly five hundred in each town who could take the bus. Plenty of possible demand. My figure of 10 people was an absolute minimum; actually, if buses pass through the average town 10 times they could be filled to capacity each time.
I will easily dismiss your other objection in the following manner: Miss a bus? you got to the bus stop by car.
Huckleberry
Jun4-05, 12:34 AM
I went about a year without driving and then I got a different car. IT did feel awkward for about a month as I adjusted to both. It's kind of like riding a bicycle, once you learn it is a skill that you have. There are cases where people lose confidence in their ability to drive and become unsafe drivers. I have an aunt who has this problem. She has panic attacks when she drives far from the small town she lives in. Very unsafe. I imagine someone who was recently in an accident might be afraid and react poorly to dangerous driving situations.
honestrosewater
Jun4-05, 12:39 AM
I went about a year without driving and then I got a different car. IT did feel awkward for about a month as I adjusted to both. It's kind of like riding a bicycle, once you learn it is a skill that you have. There are cases where people lose confidence in their ability to drive and become unsafe drivers. I have an aunt who has this problem. She has panic attacks when she drives far from the small town she lives in. Very unsafe. I imagine someone who was recently in an accident might be afraid and react poorly to dangerous driving situations.Oh, yes, I forgot that adjusting to a new car takes time. So this may be a concern. Anyone have a suggestion? I guess awareness would help. I don't know how well restrictions like having to take a test after not having dirven for extended amounts of time would work...
BicycleTree
Jun4-05, 12:39 AM
And your other other objection, errands... you left your car at the bus stop and can do errands once you return to your town.
Moonbear
Jun4-05, 12:44 AM
My main concern about driving is the drivers. Just look at zooby's top 5: speeding, tailgating, driving under the influence, inattention, and yeild violation.
I wonder how many of those are all related to inattention? Maybe not the speeding, but following too close can be due to not paying attention, and not yielding could be not paying attention. DUI is of course clearly a separate issue. At least around here, I'd say there are a LOT of drivers who just plain aren't paying attention to anything going on around them.
This is why I added taxis. With professional drivers, I imagine those accidents would almost certainly drop. If their being professionals doesn't convince you, would you pay for a ride from a safe or unsafe driver/company? Unless price is a huge factor, I think safety would be a major deciding factor for most people, so competition should help improve safety even more.
Once in a city, taxis are a convenience I like having. I certainly think the ready availability of a taxi to get around in a city is an incentive to use public transportation. If I know I can get a ride across town if I catch a bus or train to a station that's not close to where my final destination is, then that's not bad. On the other hand, I don't know if I could vouch for safety or not. Though, it would be hard to get any decent stats on it since there probably are a LOT of taxi accidents just because they are driving in places where there are a lot of cars and accidents are bound to happen even with the safest drivers.
If you need a ride at the last minute, I usually wait less than 20 minutes (and you can usually call a few minutes before you're ready). Once outside a city, they aren't as convenient. And of course it's double the car travel time if they have to come out to your house to pick you up and then take you where you're going. In a city where they always have a passenger and people share cabs, it's more like carpooling.
When I first moved here, I needed to get a cab because my car was still in another state, and it was pretty expensive, plus the waiting time was really long.
But, they really aren't a solution to congestion or a form of public transportation, because generally, it's just having someone drive you instead of driving yourself, other than giving someone incentive to take public transportation into a city knowing they won't have to walk 15 blocks once there.
BicycleTree
Jun4-05, 12:49 AM
Walking from a parking garage in the city is no different from walking from a bus stop in the city. Is it?
Taxis are almost non existant downtown (I see one maybe once every three months and I drive downtown every day). They do not exist in the suburbs here. I needed a cab once and my only option was renting a limo and I had to wait over two hours.
Walking from a parking garage in the city is no different from walking from a bus stop in the city. Is it?
Yes it is, because you can leave your stuff in the car and go back for it.
BicycleTree
Jun4-05, 01:06 AM
That's right, as opposed to carrying a briefcase you can keep stuff in your car and spend 20 minutes going back for it. I forgot.
Also a parking garage costs $20 for the day.
Moonbear
Jun4-05, 01:07 AM
Ahem? There are two conditions. They must be able to drive to a bus stop, and they must go to and return from work during rush hour. And the first condition is virtually a given.
Uh, nope, you had more conditions than just that. Remember this part?
if such a stop were feasible for the bus company to create given that people who could use it were willing, in their town or in another town closer in that the bus stops at
I mean 10 people per stop, for each stop the bus makes. I can't find the total commuters to Boston at the moment, but it's in something like a hundred thousand (my mom has seen the figure but doesn't remember exactly). 80 towns, with a stop in each town... using Evo's guess of 5/14, that leaves roughly five hundred in each town who could take the bus. Plenty of possible demand. My figure of 10 people was an absolute minimum; actually, if buses pass through the average town 10 times they could be filled to capacity each time.
What makes you think this doesn't already exist? It seems there is more to the problem than that.
More than three quarters of the 927,000 trips to the City of Boston daily are by private motor vehicle: 30% to downtown neighborhoods and 70% to the rest of Boston. While about half of the downtown trips were by public transit, only 22% of the trips to the rest of Boston were by transit, indicating poor transit connections across neighborhoods. The number of trips is increasing in every mode of travel. This increase is attributed to the growing complexity of people’s lives (only 30% of all trips today are work-related), growing household income, and increasing residential sprawl. The completion of the Central Artery/Tunnel project may reorganize trip patterns in Boston, since new connections have become possible, and recurring delay has been reduced.
Looking at commuting trips from home to work, Boston residents drove alone only 40% of the time, the second-lowest rate of any city or town in Massachusetts and far lower than the 64% drive-alone share for Metropolitan Boston and the 74% drive-alone share statewide. Boston residents used public transit for 32% of commuting trips, nearly double the 17% transit share for Metropolitan Boston commuting trips. This high rate of transit use occurs despite the fact that public transit commuters have the longest average commutes of all Massachusetts workers, with average travel times of greater than 60 minutes for commuter rail and ferry riders and 40 minutes for bus and subway riders, compared to 25 minutes for commuters who drive alone.
http://www.tbf.org/indicators2004/transportation/indicators.asp?id=2226
Moonbear
Jun4-05, 01:15 AM
Walking from a parking garage in the city is no different from walking from a bus stop in the city. Is it?
It depends on where the bus stop is. For example, when I travel from NJ to NY, I take the bus to the Port Authority. My friend's office is not walking distance from there (despite my ignoring his instructions to take a cab thinking it was a nice day for a walk, I had to give up and hail a cab eventually :rolleyes:). He parks in a parking garage a half block from his office. Parking is expensive, but you get a monthly pass, so you're not paying the same rate as if you were just parking for one day. In Cincinnati, most downtown employers have parking garages for employees with assigned spaces, so you know you'll find parking (of course we don't have any real traffic problems either...not that people don't complain, but compared to NY, it's nothing).
honestrosewater
Jun4-05, 01:16 AM
I wonder how many of those are all related to inattention?I presume the authors of the stats took that into consideration and didn't overlap, but I don't know.
Though, it would be hard to get any decent stats on it since there probably are a LOT of taxi accidents just because they are driving in places where there are a lot of cars and accidents are bound to happen even with the safest drivers.Right, I thought of that- and in busy cities the traffic may go much slower due to congestion, pedestrian safety and such, so this would also need to be considered.
Once outside a city, they aren't as convenient. And of course it's double the car travel time if they have to come out to your house to pick you up and then take you where you're going. In a city where they always have a passenger and people share cabs, it's more like carpooling.
When I first moved here, I needed to get a cab because my car was still in another state, and it was pretty expensive, plus the waiting time was really long.
But, they really aren't a solution to congestion or a form of public transportation, because generally, it's just having someone drive you instead of driving yourself, other than giving someone incentive to take public transportation into a city knowing they won't have to walk 15 blocks once there.Wow, I didn't think of the double-time situation. For regular trips, like to work, you can just keep a running appointment so they know to be there the same time everyday. For one-time trips, you can call and make an appointment (at least, you can here). For last-minute trips, I guess you just have to wait. But I think cost and convenience could improve with larger demand.
BicycleTree
Jun4-05, 01:18 AM
Uh, nope, you had more conditions than just that. Remember this part?
if such a stop were feasible for the bus company to create given that people who could use it were willing, in their town or in another town closer in that the bus stops at
Now here is another example of how I have unusually good reading comprehension. The astute reader would notice that this conditional I have quoted ("if such a stop were ... bus stops at") causes the condition it modifies, namely:
who could drive to a bus stop,
to be satisfied in more situations than if the conditional "if such a stop were ... bus stops at" had been left out. i.e. the conditional increases, rather than decreases, the number of people falling into the class of people who might take the bus.
Let's draw a comparative example with similar structure for illustrative purposes:
"Fred has property X if he can escape from his prison if someone gives him a hacksaw and machine gun."
Now, the phrase in green would tend to cause you to be more likely to think that Fred has property X. See? In fact, the only way that Fred would _not_ have property X would be if someone gave him a hacksaw and machine gun yet he could not escape from his prison. If nobody gives him a hacksaw or machine gun then he automatically has property X.
honestrosewater
Jun4-05, 01:19 AM
927,000 trips to the City of Boston dailyOMG!! .................
BicycleTree
Jun4-05, 01:25 AM
Yes, public transportation takes longer. But the figures are skewed because public transportation commuters tend to travel longer distances; they are not hopping from town to adjacent town, because public transportation does not exist from that. And the point is that public transportation causes the total congestion to reduce, decreasing transit time for everyone.
And never forget that you can do work while riding public transportation, a thing you cannot do while riding in your car.
If the bus stops too far from work, solution perhaps might be to have the bus go into town. I know this contradicts what I was saying earlier (take the bike) but I suppose wimps need their unnecessary motor vehicle assistance.
Moonbear
Jun4-05, 01:27 AM
For regular trips, like to work, you can just keep a running appointment so they know to be there the same time everyday. For one-time trips, you can call and make an appointment (at least, you can here). For last-minute trips, I guess you just have to wait. But I think cost and convenience could improve with larger demand.
The only times I've taken a cab around here (meaning from my house rather than downtown) are that one time when I first moved here and I think it took around an hour for them to show up, and then once for a ride to the airport. Otherwise, I've always gotten cabs in cities. In NY, they're everywhere, so just step out to the curb and hail the first one available. In other cities, they're usually at least around the hotels, or there are a few that will frequent the areas where the bars are (the other place I have on occassion required a cab ride home).
If you just need an occassional ride, cabs are a good option. If you need to travel any distance regularly, then it's going to be cheaper to get a decent used car, even when you factor in insurance, tags and fuel. If I lived in the downtown area of a city, I probably wouldn't even own a car, though I'd never want to live downtown in a city. Just too much noise and bright lights. I have enough trouble sleeping. :frown:
Moonbear
Jun4-05, 01:32 AM
Now here is another example of how I have unusually good reading comprehension.
Just a tad full of yourself there? :rofl:
The astute reader would notice that this conditional I have quoted ("if such a stop were ... bus stops at") causes the condition it modifies, namely:
to be satisfied in more situations than if the conditional "if such a stop were ... bus stops at" had been left out. i.e. the conditional increases, rather than decreases, the number of people falling into the class of people who might take the bus.
That is why this astute reader called you on it when you later changed it to the less qualified statement. I asked you to define your term, you defined it with a highly qualified statement, to which I told you the likelihood of fitting that category was rather slim, at which point you tried refuting my statement by removing qualifiers from your definition. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Huckleberry
Jun4-05, 01:36 AM
If the bus stops too far from work, solution perhaps might be to have the bus go into town. I know this contradicts what I was saying earlier (take the bike) but I suppose wimps need their unnecessary motor vehicle assistance.Why do people make statements like this? Are elderly people wimps? Are disabled people wimps? Not fair at all.
BicycleTree
Jun4-05, 01:39 AM
Sorry for you, because you still don't understand. Look, I will symbolize it logically:
1.) who {could drive to a bus stop} = A, if {such a stop were feasible for the bus company to create} = B given that {people who could use it were willing} = C, {in their town or in another town closer in that the bus stops at} [this phrase is part of B], and {who both go to work and return from work during rush hours} = D
This is symbolized thus:
(C --> (B --> A)) & D
So this can only be false under two circumstances:
1. D is false
or 2. (C is true, and B is true), and A is false
As opposed to the phrase without the B and C, which could be false if
1. D is false
or 2. A is false
Now do you see how the astute reader realizes that B and C are not additional conditions imposed on the potential bus-rider?
That's right, as opposed to carrying a briefcase you can keep stuff in your car and spend 20 minutes going back for it. I forgot.
Also a parking garage costs $20 for the day.
I don't know what kind of life you lead, but if I'm downtown I have at least 20 kgs of stuff to lug around. I prefer to drop it off in stages instead of aggravating my arthritis unnecessarily by carrying it the average 30 kms that I walk around. And I never stay more than 4 hours.
Moonbear
Jun4-05, 01:44 AM
Yes, public transportation takes longer. But the figures are skewed because public transportation commuters tend to travel longer distances; they are not hopping from town to adjacent town, because public transportation does not exist from that. And the point is that public transportation causes the total congestion to reduce, decreasing transit time for everyone.
I'll give you that the commuters in to Boston are probably commuting further distances than other commuters, but that's part of why a problem exists. Whenever congestion is reduced and travel into a city gets faster, people tend to move further from the city. They can live in a less expensive area in a quieter, possibly more rural, town, and still take just as long to get to work as when the roads were congested. It's this part of human behavior you're not at all factoring into the problem.
And never forget that you can do work while riding public transportation, a thing you cannot do while riding in your car.
And never forget that we already refuted that a few pages back. Sitting on a crowded bus, if you even have a seat, is not conducive to getting work done.
If the bus stops too far from work, solution perhaps might be to have the bus go into town. I know this contradicts what I was saying earlier (take the bike) but I suppose wimps need their unnecessary motor vehicle assistance.
What town? You've lost me now. Is this your argument for suburb to city transport or suburb to suburb transport? I thought the bus was already going from town to town?
In addition, you know, not everyone is able to bike or walk long distances, and that has nothing to do with being a wimp.
BicycleTree
Jun4-05, 01:52 AM
Well, I still have things to say but my brilliant logical analysis of that phrase will have to close it for the night. I have to get up tomorrow. Briefly, "town" means "city" (it's not an uncommon usage), I didn't really mean to call the old and infirm "wimps," getting work done on public transportation is a matter of sitting down and doing it, and I'll save the other points for later.
Moonbear
Jun4-05, 01:53 AM
Now do you see how the astute reader realizes that B and C are not additional conditions imposed on the potential bus-rider?
The astute reader knows that you can't make a decent argument to support your point, so you're resorting to insults.
By the way, no, it is not a condition placed on the rider, it is a condition placed on the bus stop. It would be hard for the rider to catch a bus if there aren't any feasible locations for a bus stop.
honestrosewater
Jun4-05, 01:55 AM
Okay, my experience: I live in the most densely populated county in Florida (pop. 921,482 in 2000, pretty even distribution), the peninsula of Tampa Bay. If I need to take two buses ($1.25 each and daily, weekly & monthly pass discounts), it can easily take an hour (each way). Cabs usually take less than 20 minutes to arrive, rates:
$1.75 for the first 1/5 of a mile
.35 cents each additional 1/5 of a mile
.35 cents for every 70 seconds of waiting time.
- http://www.yellowcaboftampa.com/rates.htmlNo subway or train- but I think a train is on the way or started recently in Tampa.
The weather is usually fine for me, sometimes too humid during summer, but I'm young (and wouldn't want to walk far in a suit). There are at least a dozen grocery stores within 5 miles of home. (Heck, there are grocery stores directly across the street from each other.) Other errand-running type stuff is just as close and dense. Plenty of businesses- most people I know work in the county. The county is also very small (the second smallest), so servicing commuters to Tampa would be easier. Almost everyone drives. There are traffic jams (one intersection is better known as Malfunction Junction) and several accidents everyday.
So I'm seeing the challenge now. :frown:
Mental Gridlock
Jun4-05, 02:03 AM
Public transportation isn't always an option. If you commute North/South west of Chicago between suburbs that are spaced apart, your only choice to get to work is a car. http://metrarail.com/System_map/index.html
No bus is going multiple towns over. Taxis anywhere, including in the city (though not as much) are too expensive.. So all of these commuters must have cars to go to work. The N/S roadways are therefore more conjested. For E/W Roads, you can take the train instead. Which one is faster varies based on your situation. There is still comparable traffic in this direction, because more people are going to/from the city.
Whether you have to take the bus/train or car or bike or pogo stick, you do what is most convenient for you. It depends on your proximity, traffic, commute times, public transportation availability, preferences etc. I can't imagine why you'd want to make other peoples transport decisions for them.
I READ EVERYTHING! i deserve a freaking prize or something....
so i came up with this really cool completely fictional idea... and the more i thought about it, the more flaws i realized you guys'd find.... so...
i hate almost every biciclists in NH. all our roads are windy, (erm, not like breezey, but lots of turns...) and hilly, and have very small shoulders. however, our roads are very scenic, and biciclists love to ride on them. frankly though, its just too dangerous.
biciclists in the city are so cute with all their nifty hand signals.
i hate busses. everyone uses them at school.... i'd rather walk most places. i guess they're practical for longer distances.... i'll still take my car.
TheStatutoryApe
Jun4-05, 08:29 AM
Well, if you're road-hogging in the fast lane you deserve it. You shouldn't be going in the fast lane in a multi-lane road even if you're driving at the speed limit. If you see a faster car coming up behind you, you really should signal and move to the slower lane, that's just common courtesy.
Have you considered that the people who need to get by you are perhaps in a real hurry ? Like maybe they have a medical reason ? In any case, what does it profit you to play dog-in-the-manger ?
A lot of the time, drivers are forced to overtake people like you by using the designated slower lane, but this is dangerous. And in some places in the UK, doing this is actually illegal, so people are forced to endure roadhogging in the fast lane in mute rage.
Tailgating is wrong, and I don't do it or condone it, but if the road-hogging moron in front doesn't "get it" and move over, just how does one drive home the point ? The only unequivocal way to get the message across is with a brief flash of the headlights, but that can be irritating and dazzling to the driver in front. So sometimes considerate people in faster cars *and* in a hurry will just have to suffer in silence behind an inconsiderate driver going slow in the fast lane.
The driving behaviour you claim to practise and endorse in your post is inconsiderate. And dangerous too, because you're greatly increasing the chances of an accident by speeding up to prevent that poor car behind you from merging in front of you.
*You* would be one of my driving pet peeves, if I met you on the road.
You've never met me on the road, as far as I know, so don't jump the gun.
For one I don't drive slowly. Though the jerks going 100mph until they're about to stuff themselves into my trunk might think so. Incase you aren't familiar the speed limit around here is 65mph and most people drive at least 10mph above that. If I'm driving at 80 in the fast lane, where I ought to be at that speed, then it's not my fault if that isn't fast enough for some jerk who feels like getting chummy with my bumper. Secondly most of these people like to do this in traffic. That is to say there's no easy way of getting out of their way because I have cars to all sides of me and even if I did he would just wind up tail gating the person that was a couple car lengths in front of me and I'm now stuck in the slower of the lanes. If I take my foot off the gas and slow down it's as much to annoy him as it is to make sure that I'm as far behind the person in front of me as possible if I have to slam on my brakes and hopefully he wont rearend me, destroy my vehicle, and possibly make me hit the person infront of me, whose damages I would be responsable for by the laws around here. When I speed up I don't gun my car and I don't tailgate the person in front of me I just want the jerk to know that I was going slow for a reason. And if I tap my brakes and it freaks him out GOOD. At least I'm not breaking for real and he's not plowing into the back end of my car which aside from a bit of a jump in heart rate would probably land us both in the hospital. If that jerk wants to risk getting into an accident because he's in a damn hurry he sure as hell better not be risking my neck too.
Curious3141
Jun4-05, 10:02 AM
You've never met me on the road, as far as I know, so don't jump the gun.
I'm going purely by what you've posted. What else am I to do ?
For one I don't drive slowly. Though the jerks going 100mph until they're about to stuff themselves into my trunk might think so. Incase you aren't familiar the speed limit around here is 65mph and most people drive at least 10mph above that.
That's all well and good. But even if you're above the speed limit, and there's somebody behind you who obviously wants (or needs) to go faster, you should move as long as it's safe for you to do so. If you think you're entitled to the fast lane (when the other lanes are empty) just because you're going "fast enough", in your opinion, you are wrong.
If I'm driving at 80 in the fast lane, where I ought to be at that speed, then it's not my fault if that isn't fast enough for some jerk who feels like getting chummy with my bumper.
As I said, I don't condone tailgating, it is dangerous. At the same time, you are decidedly in the wrong for failing to yield to faster traffic. You are not some vigilante pace car put there to enforce the limit (or your notion of an "acceptable" speed).
Secondly most of these people like to do this in traffic. That is to say there's no easy way of getting out of their way because I have cars to all sides of me and even if I did he would just wind up tail gating the person that was a couple car lengths in front of me and I'm now stuck in the slower of the lanes.
Fine. Here's how I would break it down.
A) There is absolutely nowhere for you to go because there's a solid wall of slow moving traffic in the slow lane.
- In this case, I would not fault you at all for failing to move over, and I would agree that you are the aggrieved party here.
B) There is room for you to move over, yet you decide to stay in the fast lane, rationalising that the "idiot" behind you will just get stuck behind the car in front of you anyway.
- Here, you're wrong. If somebody is driving dangerously, e.g. by tailgating, any sane driver will immediately tell you it is always better to be behind that person than in front of him. At least you can control the situation by driving defensively and adjusting the following distance for your own safety. And so what if you end up in slower traffic for an instant ? You can always move over into the fast lane once a gap opens up, right ? Or is this a private race in your head where you're concerned with your position ?
If the tailgater now gets stuck behind traffic (the car that was originally in front of you) that refuses to yield to him, then it's just too bad, and you can have a jolly good time laughing about it. But in this case, your safety will be in your hands because now the danger is in front of you rather than directly behind you.
I have the suspicion that you would refuse to give way solely because of some misplaced pride or sense of entitlement to your "place" in traffic. This is wrong.
If I take my foot off the gas and slow down it's as much to annoy him as it is to make sure that I'm as far behind the person in front of me as possible if I have to slam on my brakes and hopefully he wont rearend me, destroy my vehicle, and possibly make me hit the person infront of me, whose damages I would be responsable for by the laws around here. When I speed up I don't gun my car and I don't tailgate the person in front of me I just want the jerk to know that I was going slow for a reason. And if I tap my brakes and it freaks him out GOOD. At least I'm not breaking for real and he's not plowing into the back end of my car which aside from a bit of a jump in heart rate would probably land us both in the hospital. If that jerk wants to risk getting into an accident because he's in a damn hurry he sure as hell better not be risking my neck too.
I have no problems with a gentle brake check (when you have nowhere else to go to escape the situation). I myself have used this when the slow lane has no gaps for me to escape to, and usually, the tailgater "gets it". But when a gap opens up, I always signal and move over. I worry that you will not be so careful.
BTW, I was not addressing the brake-check issue in my post. I was saying that speeding to prevent the guy from undertaking you (which you claimed you would do) is wrong and dangerous. This essentially amounts to playing chicken with him in traffic. In any case, either of two things is true. a) If there's enough of a gap between you and the car in front of you to permit you to speed to prevent him from merging, either you were going too slowly in the fast lane to begin with, or b) by speeding out of spite, you've now closed the gap to the "innocent" car in front of you to a dangerous level, congratulations. Ironically, you're now tailgating that car in front of you. :rolleyes:
I can't figure out how much is because some of you people are crazy, and how much is because your laws might be. Here, the posted limit is maximum allowable speed under any circumstances. The slow lane is for people who chose not to use that maximum. It isn't even legal to exceed the limit while passing, although we all do it. Tailgating and use of highbeams within a certain range of another vehicle is also illegal. If you are driving at or even somewhat below the limit under adverse conditions, you can be charged with dangerous driving, or driving without due care and attention, both of which are criminal rather than traffic offenses. You are really screwed if an accident ensues from it.
I must admit that I have one advantage not available to some, but I've only used it when I was in a serious hurry. If there's a blockage that looks like it's going to last forever, I just hit the ditch and go around it.
edit: Also, there are specific speed limits applicable to places where there isn't one posted.
Moonbear
Jun4-05, 10:19 AM
You've never met me on the road, as far as I know, so don't jump the gun.
For one I don't drive slowly. Though the jerks going 100mph until they're about to stuff themselves into my trunk might think so. Incase you aren't familiar the speed limit around here is 65mph and most people drive at least 10mph above that. If I'm driving at 80 in the fast lane, where I ought to be at that speed, then it's not my fault if that isn't fast enough for some jerk who feels like getting chummy with my bumper. Secondly most of these people like to do this in traffic. That is to say there's no easy way of getting out of their way because I have cars to all sides of me and even if I did he would just wind up tail gating the person that was a couple car lengths in front of me and I'm now stuck in the slower of the lanes. If I take my foot off the gas and slow down it's as much to annoy him as it is to make sure that I'm as far behind the person in front of me as possible if I have to slam on my brakes and hopefully he wont rearend me, destroy my vehicle, and possibly make me hit the person infront of me, whose damages I would be responsable for by the laws around here. When I speed up I don't gun my car and I don't tailgate the person in front of me I just want the jerk to know that I was going slow for a reason. And if I tap my brakes and it freaks him out GOOD. At least I'm not breaking for real and he's not plowing into the back end of my car which aside from a bit of a jump in heart rate would probably land us both in the hospital. If that jerk wants to risk getting into an accident because he's in a damn hurry he sure as hell better not be risking my neck too.
To begin with, that "fast" lane is really a "passing" lane. That means you shouldn't be driving in it unless you're passing someone. If someone else overtakes you in that lane, you should pull back into the lane next to you and allow them to pass. You've already admitted you're speeding too.
Tapping on the brakes or going even slower when someone is tailgating is just plain stupid. All it does is result in TWO bad drivers on the road instead of just one. Instead of just that moron behind you, you're also contributing to the likelihood of an accident happening. Of course, had you been paying attention to your surroundings while driving, you'd have already seen that car approaching and gotten out of the way BEFORE they were on your rear bumper. Your job isn't to teach other drivers a lesson, it's to be the safest driver YOU can be and try to avoid accidents, even those that might be mainly caused by another driver. That's just common sense to get out of the way of someone driving badly. You can put the tailgater on your list of pet peeves, I do too, but it doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to reduce the risk of the situation if you can foresee a way to do that, such as moving to the right and letting them pass. If you can drive 80 mph on the highway, there's not so much traffic you can't move to another lane (even if...gasp...you have to slow down to the legal speed limit). If there is so much traffic that you can't change lanes, then you too should not be speeding in a lane where you have no place to go (indeed, if the road is that congested, driving the speed limit may be too fast given the conditions). The roads might not be so congested if everyone didn't think they could set their own personal speed limit independent of everyone else on the road. One person wants to drive 80, another 45, another is driving 62, you've got that real nut driving 97, and the person who keeps changing speed and driving with one tire on the line because they're talking on the cell phone and oblivious that everyone is afraid to pass them as they keep weaving toward the second lane.
Curious3141
Jun4-05, 10:33 AM
To begin with, that "fast" lane is really a "passing" lane. That means you shouldn't be driving in it unless you're passing someone. If someone else overtakes you in that lane, you should pull back into the lane next to you and allow them to pass. You've already admitted you're speeding too.
Tapping on the brakes or going even slower when someone is tailgating is just plain stupid. All it does is result in TWO bad drivers on the road instead of just one. Instead of just that moron behind you, you're also contributing to the likelihood of an accident happening. Of course, had you been paying attention to your surroundings while driving, you'd have already seen that car approaching and gotten out of the way BEFORE they were on your rear bumper. Your job isn't to teach other drivers a lesson, it's to be the safest driver YOU can be and try to avoid accidents, even those that might be mainly caused by another driver. That's just common sense to get out of the way of someone driving badly. You can put the tailgater on your list of pet peeves, I do too, but it doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to reduce the risk of the situation if you can foresee a way to do that, such as moving to the right and letting them pass. If you can drive 80 mph on the highway, there's not so much traffic you can't move to another lane (even if...gasp...you have to slow down to the legal speed limit). If there is so much traffic that you can't change lanes, then you too should not be speeding in a lane where you have no place to go (indeed, if the road is that congested, driving the speed limit may be too fast given the conditions). The roads might not be so congested if everyone didn't think they could set their own personal speed limit independent of everyone else on the road. One person wants to drive 80, another 45, another is driving 62, you've got that real nut driving 97, and the person who keeps changing speed and driving with one tire on the line because they're talking on the cell phone and oblivious that everyone is afraid to pass them as they keep weaving toward the second lane.
Very well said. I agree completely.
Moonbear
Jun4-05, 10:43 AM
I can't figure out how much is because some of you people are crazy, and how much is because your laws might be. Here, the posted limit is maximum allowable speed under any circumstances. The slow lane is for people who chose not to use that maximum. It isn't even legal to exceed the limit while passing, although we all do it. Tailgating and use of highbeams within a certain range of another vehicle is also illegal. If you are driving at or even somewhat below the limit under adverse conditions, you can be charged with dangerous driving, or driving without due care and attention, both of which are criminal rather than traffic offenses. You are really screwed if an accident ensues from it.
All those laws exist in the US as well, people just don't follow them, or decide to interpre them "creatively." I admit that I speed, but only on wide-open roads (I didn't grow up in a place where there were ever wide open roads, so it was quite a novelty when I moved away from the coast; though it doubly frustrates me to be stuck behind slow people when there's no congestion to cause them to be slow...I can tolerate sitting in bumper to bumper traffic more easily, but I'm getting better at it, realizing it just seems to be too common to keep getting agitated about around here). As soon as it's congested or a populated area, I slow down to the proper speed limit, or slower if the conditions require. Oh, that's another pet peeve...there are a number of fairly busy roads that pass by schools and are marked with lower speed limits and additional markings for even slower speed limits right in front of the schools, and people still speed right past. I was happy to see a string of cars all pulled over in front of one of them recently (the cops decided to show up en masse and enforce the limit), but there's another school that has the same problem, and nobody enforces it, so even with the flashing lights warning that it's school dismissal time, people fly past at 40 mph!
I must admit that I have one advantage not available to some, but I've only used it when I was in a serious hurry. If there's a blockage that looks like it's going to last forever, I just hit the ditch and go around it.
Rut roh, Danger, you just made it onto my pet peeves list! When I'm stuck in traffic, and people start passing in the shoulder, that drives me nuts, not to mention that sort of standstill traffic around here usually means there's a serious accident that has closed one or more lanes ahead, and often the emergency vehicles need to use the shoulder to get around the traffic and get to the scene of the accident to treat victims and clear vehicles, so besides being rude, and driving illegally on the shoulder, they are also impeding emergency vehicles from clearing the scene sooner. (I don't mind so much if the exit is within site 300 ft away and someone uses the shoulder for a short distance just to get to the exit lane, but often, you just run into them again merging back in further ahead). Technically, they could be ticketed for this, but usually the emergency vehicles are more worried about getting to the scene than handing out tickets. Though, when I lived in NJ, they did enforce that. If you were in traffic on the Parkway and tried passing on the shoulder, you were bound to run headlong into a motorcycle cop sitting near the shoulder waiting for you. That's the antidote to road rage, to see one of those hotshots pulled over and then I stop being irritated and get to laugh and laugh! I also used to laugh when those nitwits in their SUVs would go flying past me on snow-covered roads and then I'd pass them stuck in a ditch a few miles ahead. :rofl:
Rut roh, Danger, you just made it onto my pet peeves list! When I'm stuck in traffic, and people start passing in the shoulder, that drives me nuts
You misunderstand, my dear. Driving on the shoulder here, whether to pass or not, is illegal unless your vehicle is incapable of reasonable speed and I would never do it. I mean that I literally hit the ditch, or an adjacent field. My car is full-time 4x4 with off-road tires and a 455 motor. I can go through or over just about anything, including climbing a 60º slope if necessary. There is no law against off-road passing, unless someone wants to file trespassing charges.
BicycleTree
Jun4-05, 12:07 PM
The astute reader knows that you can't make a decent argument to support your point, so you're resorting to insults.
Now let's get this straight: you are insulting me in the same sentence you claim I am insulting you. Well done. By the way, could you quote me an instance where I actually insult you? All I do is refer to an "astute reader." If you consider yourself not part of that category, that's your business. You, on the other hand, unambiguously insult me here. I believe I have been insulted a good deal more than I have insulted anyone in this thread.
Furthermore, you don't consider formal logic to be a decent argument? Run that by me again? Do you reject modus ponens? Hum? Or are you a logical intuitionist? Because I can't think of any other reason that might cause you not to understand the argument presented.
[/quote]By the way, no, it is not a condition placed on the rider, it is a condition placed on the bus stop. It would be hard for the rider to catch a bus if there aren't any feasible locations for a bus stop.[/QUOTE]
This point is more important than you might think. It is an example of unambiguous error on your part and a refusal to admit, and it reflects on your general fitness for discussion. If you are unable to admit that statements B and C do not limit, but in fact rather increase, the number of people falling into the category of "people who could ride the bus without much trouble," and that you were in error in originally claiming they limit it, then you are not ethically prepared for discussion. I do not consider the above quote as sufficient evidence that you have admitted your error in this regard, particularly since you precede it by insulting the same argument that would produce your admission.
I can explain it a third way, and will do so, if it might help (as if the formal logic treatment were not enough). First I will quote, just to put this entire situation in one place:
1.) [people who could ride the bus without much trouble are people] who could drive to a bus stop, if such a stop were feasible for the bus company to create given that people who could use it were willing, in their town or in another town closer in that the bus stops at, and who both go to work and return from work during rush hours (more people than this could do it "without much trouble" but let's cut things clean)
Well, with the long series of conditions required for (1), I'd say slim to none.
And later on you claim that "if such a stop were feasible for the bus company to create given that people who could use it were willing, in their town or in another town closer in that the bus stops at" are some of the
"series of conditions" required for 1.
Now look, here is the quote without those statements. Call the quote with the statements quote X, and the following quote (without the conditions) Y.
1.) [people who could ride the bus without much trouble are people] who could drive to a bus stop, and who both go to work and return from work during rush hours
Now, consider a hypothetical commuter, Fred. Fred cannot drive to a bus stop for work because none exists anywhere near him. However, one might be set up in his town, and many people would use that stop, including Fred, if the stop were set up, so setting up the stop would be economically reasonable. Now, by X, Fred would fall into the class of people who could ride the bus without much trouble. By Y, Fred would not fall into that class, because at present he could not drive to a bus stop for work. And there are no entities which fit Y and do not fit X. Therefore Y is more, not less, general than X; and the additional statements in Y that are not in X do not detract from (as you originally claimed), but rather increase, the number of people falling into the class in question.
I know you're not dumb, and I'm pretty sure you already understand the passage by now. It's whether or not you are able to admit something like this that concerns me. I am also not greatly concerned over this point by itself; it is only your code of discussion ethics which concerns me.
Hold on one second...
In the US, they have different road traffic laws in different states?!
That's absolutely ridiculous!
Moonbear
Jun4-05, 02:04 PM
Furthermore, you don't consider formal logic to be a decent argument?
All you were doing is breaking down your own statement. That's not an argument, that's reiterating in a way that is simply for the purpose of showing off because you failed to clearly make your point the first time.
This point is more important than you might think. It is an example of unambiguous error on your part and a refusal to admit, and it reflects on your general fitness for discussion. If you are unable to admit that statements B and C do not limit, but in fact rather increase, the number of people falling into the category of "people who could ride the bus without much trouble," and that you were in error in originally claiming they limit it, then you are not ethically prepared for discussion.
It was your claim, not mine. You set up a set of assumptions and then changed your assumptions. Nobody can discuss anything with you if you keep changing the conditions of the discussion. In one post, you're talking about suburb to city driving, then suddenly you're following with suburb-to-suburb driving after saying you don't want to discuss suburb-to-suburb driving.
I do not consider the above quote as sufficient evidence that you have admitted your error in this regard, particularly since you precede it by insulting the same argument that would produce your admission.
[quote]Now look, here is the quote without those statements. Call the quote with the statements quote X, and the following quote (without the conditions) Y.
1.) [people who could ride the bus without much trouble are people] who could drive to a bus stop, and who both go to work and return from work during rush hours
But you didn't say it without those statements. You qualified it. You wanted a number based on your hypothetical. When based on your hypothetical we told you the number would be very low, you continued to argue the number is higher, even though both Evo and I have presented ACTUAL numbers when you're still just pulling them out of thin air. We've refuted your estimate of 60%. You've done nothing but argue grammar in attempting to refute our estimates of <5%.
Now, consider a hypothetical commuter, Fred. Fred cannot drive to a bus stop for work because none exists anywhere near him. However, one might be set up in his town, and many people would use that stop, including Fred, if the stop were set up, so setting up the stop would be economically reasonable. Now, by X, Fred would fall into the class of people who could ride the bus without much trouble. By Y, Fred would not fall into that class, because at present he could not drive to a bus stop for work. And there are no entities which fit Y and do not fit X. Therefore Y is more, not less, general than X; and the additional statements in Y that are not in X do not detract from (as you originally claimed), but rather increase, the number of people falling into the class in question.
That's not the way you originally constructed your statement of assumptions. And it's still all entirely hypothetical. Back up your argument with some evidence that people actually exist who fit that category.
Furthermore, I don't particularly care if you could, in some hypothetical world, put a bus stop on every corner that would get people to every other corner within a 30 mile radius. It's still not feasible in the real world and is not a practical solution. You're arguing hypotheticals and the rest of us are presenting you with real world examples that say your hypotheticals are unrealistic.
I am also not greatly concerned over this point by itself; it is only your code of discussion ethics which concerns me.
I will assure you it's not my ethics that are an issue, and frankly, I don't care if it concerns you or not.
Moonbear
Jun4-05, 02:07 PM
Hold on one second...
In the US, they have different road traffic laws in different states?!
That's absolutely ridiculous!
They don't vary a lot, but yes, they do differ, and our Constitution allows them to differ as much as they want. The Federal government tries to offer some incentive to enforce certain laws by making Federal highway funding conditional on having certain laws, but some states have been known to simply refuse the Federal highway funding and stick to their own laws (I can't recall which one it was that was brought to my attention some time ago).
Huckleberry
Jun4-05, 02:33 PM
Yes, each state has somewhat different traffic laws. A bit confusing if one does much interstate driving.
This is part of the reason why I rarely go over the speed limit. I have been pulled over for going 5mph over the speed limit. I was the only person on the road for miles and I guess the police officer had nothing better to do.
If I'm not in a hurry I go less than 5 mph over the speed limit. I cruise by in the slow lane and take my time. Of course if all the traffic is going faster I'm not going to slow everyone down. I'll speed up to whatever the slow lane is doing.
This way I don't have to be on the lookout for police officers sitting in ambush. I can concentrate on my driving and enjoy my ride. But several years ago I did cross the state of Virginia from west to east in under 4 hours.
FredGarvin
Jun4-05, 03:47 PM
Yeah. Speed limit is probably the most widely ranging thing out there. For me, the tough part is crossing over the Michigan-Ohio border. Michigan is 70 (suggested speed limit) and Ohio goes right down to 55 or 60. Plus, the Ohio State Troopers know this and just wait to pounce.
Moonbear mentioned NYC. That was a big change for me not being able to make rights on red. Got me caught a couple of times but no tickets. I applaud the "don't block the box" fines too. The funniest part for me was listening to the traffic and the parking sides of the street allowed for the day.
BicycleTree
Jun4-05, 03:51 PM
Well, Moonbear, that was a fairly incoherent string of off-topic and unrelated statements, in which the one thing you were morally obligated to say, you did not say. This concludes my discussion with you.
Well, Moonbear, that was a fairly incoherent string of off-topic and unrelated statements, in which the one thing you were morally obligated to say, you did not say. This concludes my discussion with you.I think that was her intention.
KingNothing
Jun4-05, 09:54 PM
Wow, so much fighting on a board full of intellectuals. I would not have thunk it!
Anyway, the one thing that angers me the most is people who do not signal. As far as our (MN) law is concerned, if you do not signal, you do not have the right to turn. Furthermore, if you have your signal on, you are only legally able to turn that way.
I wish I was a police officer sometimes. I would give everyone tickets for this. Knowing who is going where is essential to the safest driving experience. Even when safety is not at stake, it is still hindering to other people's driving.
Argentum Vulpes
Jun4-05, 10:02 PM
...but some states have been known to simply refuse the Federal highway funding and stick to their own laws (I can't recall which one it was that was brought to my attention some time ago).
You might be thinking of Montana who during the energy crisis of the 70's when the national 55 mph speed limit was impose didn't want to implement it. To this the federal government threatened to yank the highway funds so Montana instated the 55 mph limit but only made speeding a five dollar fine, and here is the kicker it was a "wasting of natural resources ticket" didn't count as a moving violation or show up on your record. Got to love creative law writing.
i just decided today that i really hate tourists. i was driving around the last few days... and tourists are everywhere for some reason. i don't even get it. maybe cause its graduation season? family's visiting maybe? or its summer so people come back north? but i'm driving around behind all these stupid people who're driving so slow on every road, and pointing and slowing down everytime there's something somewhat scenic. i hate that. i'm like "hey, wanna see something? watch this friendly native flip you the bird and honk her horn as she passes you because you're doing 20 in a 40!" but then i feel bad, cause us new hampshirites are s'posed to be friendly, small town folk...
zoobyshoe
Jun4-05, 10:09 PM
...
My Latin's rusty. Is that "Silver Wolf"?
dextercioby
Jun4-05, 10:11 PM
Zoobie,you gotta be kidding right...?
Daniel.
zoobyshoe
Jun4-05, 10:14 PM
Zoobie,you gotta be kidding right...?
Daniel.
Not kidding at all. I haven't opened a Latin text in 40 years.
Edit: Just recalled that "wolf" would be "lupus". "Vulpus" = what, "fox"?
dextercioby
Jun4-05, 10:16 PM
HINT:"Homo homini LUPUS" (Plautus,Roman drama writer).
Daniel.
Argentum Vulpes
Jun4-05, 10:25 PM
Not kidding at all. I haven't opened a Latin text in 40 years.
Edit: Just recalled that "wolf" would be "lupus". "Vulpus" = what, "fox"?
Ding ding ding ding ding......
We have a winner, yes my name is the latan form of "Silver fox"
zoobyshoe
Jun4-05, 10:56 PM
but then i feel bad, cause us new hampshirites are s'posed to be friendly, small town folk...
Hehehehe. Not in my sordid little home town. We used to give those "summah people" the old, New England Stephen King treatment.
Moonbear
Jun4-05, 11:13 PM
You might be thinking of Montana who during the energy crisis of the 70's when the national 55 mph speed limit was impose didn't want to implement it. To this the federal government threatened to yank the highway funds so Montana instated the 55 mph limit but only made speeding a five dollar fine, and here is the kicker it was a "wasting of natural resources ticket" didn't count as a moving violation or show up on your record. Got to love creative law writing.
Oh, yes yes yes yes! That was it! Thanks! :biggrin: Very clever of them.
hitssquad
Jun4-05, 11:58 PM
all our roads are windy, (erm, not like breezey, but lots of turns...)There is no such word as windy that is pronounced "whine dee." There are, however, winding roads and there are meandering roads which proceed windingly.
zoobyshoe
Jun5-05, 12:00 AM
There is no such word as windy that is pronounced "whine dee." There are, however, winding roads and there are meandering roads which proceed windingly.
There's no such word as "oncet" either, but it appears in Tom Sawyer many times.
Moonbear
Jun5-05, 12:20 AM
There is no such word as windy that is pronounced "whine dee." There are, however, winding roads and there are meandering roads which proceed windingly.
But it's more fun "hearing" her say it that way. :biggrin: If you're jumping into the melee, I think I'm the target for snipes tonight. :tongue2:
P.S. To everyone who's still busily expressing their pet peeves about driving, I apologize for being a contributor to the derailment of this thread. I'd be agreeable to a mentor splitting out the off-topic "discussion" about public transportation so that those who just want to continue griping about driving can do so without interruption. :smile:
But it's more fun "hearing" her say it that way. :biggrin: If you're jumping into the melee, I think I'm the target for snipes tonight. :tongue2:
P.S. To everyone who's still busily expressing their pet peeves about driving, I apologize for being a contributor to the derailment of this thread. I'd be agreeable to a mentor splitting out the off-topic "discussion" about public transportation so that those who just want to continue griping about driving can do so without interruption. :smile:You just were one of many, myself included. Perhaps I will split those off, it will have to wait until tomorrow, that's labor intensive.
There is no such word as windy that is pronounced "whine dee." There are, however, winding roads and there are meandering roads which proceed windingly.
BAH! i vote windy is a word, exactly how i used it. i don't need to be confined to by the restrictions placed on me by society....
But it's more fun "hearing" her say it that way.
....thanks....
Huckleberry
Jun5-05, 12:49 AM
I have also used windy referring to roads, as well as twisty, and turny. Those are the best roads for sightseeing.
zoobyshoe
Jun5-05, 12:49 AM
BAH! i vote windy is a word, exactly how i used it. i don't need to be confined to by the restrictions placed on me by society....
If enough people say it, it will be a word. You will go down in history as the pioneer of the adjective "windy".
Moonbear
Jun5-05, 12:55 AM
I have also used windy referring to roads, as well as twisty, and turny. Those are the best roads for sightseeing.
I call them fun roads, and they aren't for sightseeing, they're for zooming around the curves! :biggrin: I love driving windy roads. :tongue2:
Huckleberry
Jun5-05, 12:57 AM
I guess they are good for everything except getting to where you want to go quickly.
TheStatutoryApe
Jun5-05, 12:58 AM
I have the distinct impression that the people who don't like what I have related about the way I drive don't know the freeways here in California. The fast lane here is the fast lane not the passing lane. We have freeways with up to six or more lanes of traffic on either side of the freeway. There are also quite a few drivers out there. Unless you are driving in the middle of the night, and I mean 3 or 4 in the morning, there are very rarely several open lanes just fewer cars and bigger gaps to drive through in the traffic. It's no more dangerous for the person who has cozied up to my bumper to change lanes than it is for me to do so and condsidering that I will have to slow down in order to move into the slower traffic it is possibly more dangerous for me to be doing so considering that I have someone riding the bumper of my car.
Also I drive at about 80mph because that's about the speed of traffic. If I were to drive the speed limit I would probably be antagonizing far more people than I do driving above it. I am routinely passed by CHP while driving at that speed and have not once been stopped. Like I said previously, here it's normal. The speed limit signs might as well say 75mph is the speed limit. I'm personally considered a rather safe driver among the rest of the people on these roads.
Moonbear
Jun5-05, 01:02 AM
I have the distinct impression that the people who don't like what I have related about the way I drive don't know the freeways here in California. The fast lane here is the fast lane not the passing lane. We have freeways with up to six or more lanes of traffic on either side of the freeway. There are also quite a few drivers out there. Unless you are driving in the middle of the night, and I mean 3 or 4 in the morning, there are very rarely several open lanes just fewer cars and bigger gaps to drive through in the traffic. It's no more dangerous for the person who has cozied up to my bumper to change lanes than it is for me to do so and condsidering that I will have to slow down in order to move into the slower traffic it is possibly more dangerous for me to be doing so considering that I have someone riding the bumper of my car.
Also I drive at about 80mph because that's about the speed of traffic. If I were to drive the speed limit I would probably be antagonizing far more people than I do driving above it. I am routinely passed by CHP while driving at that speed and have not once been stopped. Like I said previously, here it's normal. The speed limit signs might as well say 75mph is the speed limit. I'm personally considered a rather safe driver among the rest of the people on these roads.
That does clarify a good deal of it. I still don't agree with the idea of tapping the brakes. Just remember to cool it when you travel to another state, 'kay? :wink:
Huckleberry
Jun5-05, 01:04 AM
I remember driving through LA during rush hour on my way to Pomona. It is pretty darn crazy. Bumper to bumper traffic for miles all moving along very quickly. Yeah, going the speed limit in that situation would be slowing everyone down and everyone is bumper to bumper all over the place. Very unsafe. I didn't like it one bit, not being familiar with the roads and where I needed to be on them to get where I wanted to go. Not something I would look forward to every day.
TheStatutoryApe
Jun5-05, 01:09 AM
a) If there's enough of a gap between you and the car in front of you to permit you to speed to prevent him from merging, either you were going too slowly in the fast lane to begin with...
If I take my foot off the gas and slow down it's as much to annoy him as it is to make sure that I'm as far behind the person in front of me as possible if I have to slam on my brakes...
...or b) by speeding out of spite, you've now closed the gap to the "innocent" car in front of you to a dangerous level, congratulations. Ironically, you're now tailgating that car in front of you.
When I speed up I don't gun my car and I don't tailgate the person in front of me I just want the jerk to know that I was going slow for a reason...
Did you miss these parts of what I said even as you quoted them?
TheStatutoryApe
Jun5-05, 01:11 AM
That does clarify a good deal of it. I still don't agree with the idea of tapping the brakes. Just remember to cool it when you travel to another state, 'kay? :wink:
I do... I already learned my lesson by getting a speeding ticket in OR of driving 80mph. :-)
Gale, I think I said 'windy' earlier in this thread too!
Tell you what, you get it approved in the US, I'll get it approved in the UK, and we can share the profits we make from copyrighting it.
zoobyshoe
Jun5-05, 06:45 AM
Gale, I think I said 'windy' earlier in this thread too!
Tell you what, you get it approved in the US, I'll get it approved in the UK, and we can share the profits we make from copyrighting it.
D you think "windey" would be a better spelling, or would that just complicate things?
D you think "windey" would be a better spelling, or would that just complicate things?
That's how I typed it first, and thought "that just looks daft, it must be windy".
I'm more than happy to introduce yet another word which is spelt the same as something else, but prononced differently. What's that called? A heterophone?
A heterophone?
I don't actually care whether or not your phone is gay. We also use the term 'windy' in reference to roads, strictly as a colloquialism. It sure has no 'e' in it. As you said, that's just daft.
zoobyshoe
Jun5-05, 07:26 AM
I'm more than happy to introduce yet another word which is spelt the same as something else, but prononced differently. What's that called? A heterophone?
I can't find "heterophone" in the Websters.
I can't find "heterophone" in the Websters.
I can't find it in my Oxford either. Anyway, the opposite of a homophone.
zoobyshoe
Jun5-05, 08:40 AM
I can't find it in my Oxford either. Anyway, the opposite of a homophone.
"Alterphone" maybe? Same spelling, other sound. I can't recall there being a word for that.
Gokul43201
Jun5-05, 09:03 AM
I can't find it in my Oxford either. Anyway, the opposite of a homophone.Surprising ! I can't find it in a dictionary either.
But I'm positive Brew is correct on this one. Heterophones are words that have the same spelling but different pronunciations. (Ref : Get Thee to a Punnery, Richard Lederer)
Egs : wind, desert
zoobyshoe
Jun5-05, 09:59 AM
Surprising ! I can't find it in a dictionary either.
But I'm positive Brew is correct on this one. Heterophones are words that have the same spelling but different pronunciations. (Ref : Get Thee to a Punnery, Richard Lederer)
Egs : wind, desert
I found it. It's homograph:one of two or more words spelled alike but different in meaning or derivation or pronounciaton (as the bow of a ship, a bow and arrow)
-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition
Good work zoob, good work. I thought for a moment that we were going to have to get Moonbear involved then.
zoobyshoe
Jun5-05, 10:16 AM
Good work zoob, good work. I thought for a moment that we were going to have to get Moonbear involved then.
It's really odd. I don't recall ever having heard it before, but that kind of thing is so common it's hard to believe we weren't taught that in grade school. I remember homonym perfectly, but homograph seems completely new to me.
Curious3141
Jun5-05, 11:18 AM
Did you miss these parts of what I said even as you quoted them?
It seems to me you're backtracking from your initial rather gung-ho post, where you said this :
... I take my foot off the gas and coast until they get irritated enough to change lanes. Then sometimes I'll spead up to keep them from getting in front of me.
Your intent seems quite clear there. You purposely slow down to get the tailgater irritated, then once they finally decide to undertake, you gleefully (and spitefully) speed up to prevent them from getting in front of you. This is called blocking, and it's dangerous and pointless. If, as you claim, you're already keeping a safe distance from the car in front of you in the fast lane, you're now assuredly closing in to an unsafe distance. So there is a contradiction in what you've been posting, and I think you're toning down your opinion because you've been rightly called on it.
Moonbear
Jun5-05, 12:44 PM
Good work zoob, good work. I thought for a moment that we were going to have to get Moonbear involved then.
Yeah, and you know what happens if I have to get involved. :grumpy: :tongue:
It's really odd. I don't recall ever having heard it before, but that kind of thing is so common it's hard to believe we weren't taught that in grade school. I remember homonym perfectly, but homograph seems completely new to me.
Actually, I'd have been no use on that one. I don't think I've ever heard the term homograph before either. Homonyms and homophones, but no recollection of homograph. Dammit Mrs. Gottleib, you gave us an incomplete grammar book in school! :grumpy: :rofl:
BicycleTree
Jun5-05, 02:12 PM
So, in conclusion, each of the 80 or so towns surrounding Boston that are not already served by the T or by other buses could be outfitted with a commuter bus stop with regular buses at a total cost of not more than about $20 million, enabling commuter access to bus to all those commuters whose workdays follow regular rush hour to rush hour times, which has been estimated as a bit less than half. Given the hundreds of thousands of daily commuters, this would reduce traffic jams, commuter expense, and environmental expense enormously, if only the stupid commuters would actually use the buses provided for them, which they wouldn't.
BicycleTree
Jun5-05, 02:52 PM
Well, I read back through the thread checking for the ability of posters to concede points. To some degree I found what I expected, but there was one thing that surprised me.
For myself:
Opposing points recognized as having merit: three
1.) errands commuters do after work, 2.) irregular work hour problem, 3.) public transportation takes longer for a single commuter alone than for a car (though quicker if everyone uses it)
Errors conceded on my part: two
1.) Bus acceleration making buses with only a couple people more trouble in traffic than cars with the same number of people
2.) Commuters from suburbs to city are outnumbered by commuters from suburbs to other places in suburbs
For Moonbear, 2 opposing points recognized as having merit:
1.) 100 people wanting to commute daily from a town would make a bus route feasible for that town
2.) Boston commuters travel farther than suburb-to-suburb commuters
3.) Park & Rides are already being used
For Chroot:
1.) Usefulness of bicycles
2.) It would be good if people could use more public transportation
For Evo:
1.) estimate of 8% of suburb-to-city commuters could feasibly use buses (a concession when you consider the number of suburb-to-city commuters there are)
As I expected, I conceded more than anyone else in the discussion. The surprise was that Moonbear came in second.
Anyway, that's the roundup.
If your information is valid, there's nothing to concede, is there?
BicycleTree
Jun5-05, 04:33 PM
It seems to me that you were confused numerous times about the topic and your information was not always valid. Remember that the one deciding your own information is valid is you, not the most impartial of people; taking your own argument as objectively valid is naive except in math, formal logic, or exceedingly simple situations. The ability to see and accept the merit of other people's points of view is very valuable.
I hate speed limits, other road users but the things I hate the most are buses!
TheStatutoryApe
Jun5-05, 09:39 PM
Your intent seems quite clear there. You purposely slow down to get the tailgater irritated, then once they finally decide to undertake, you gleefully (and spitefully) speed up to prevent them from getting in front of you. This is called blocking, and it's dangerous and pointless. If, as you claim, you're already keeping a safe distance from the car in front of you in the fast lane, you're now assuredly closing in to an unsafe distance. So there is a contradiction in what you've been posting, and I think you're toning down your opinion because you've been rightly called on it.
There is no contradiction. While driving normally there is a certain distance that is safe to maintain. With a vehicle driving too close behind me though, while I may be safe from hitting the person in front of me, I do not have time to safely stop and be sure that the person behind me doesn't hit me. If that person were to hit me it would likely result in my vehicle colliding with the vehicle in front of me even though I would have otherwise safely prevented that with my following distance. If this were to happen, even though it was due to the unsafe driving of another driver, I would legally be responsable for the damages incurred to the vehicle in front of me, as far as California law is concerned. It is then necessary in this instance to have an inordinately large space between yourself and the vehicle in front of you so you have adequate time to stop the vehicle hopefully avoiding the rearend collision and responsability for a secondary collision. I believe I touched on this in my responses already I'm sorry that you didn't pick up on it.
So for safety reasons my slowing down is actually necessary and once the person is no longer behind me I resume a normal driving speed which naturally will mean the person who just changed lanes will have difficulty in overtaking my vehicle. Admittedly I may slow a bit more than necessary and my desire to irritate the individual is probably somewhat childish but my actions are in no way overtly wreckless in nature.
Now my original post was rather flippant about the subject but under criticism I have elaborated and become more serious about the matter. This is in no way a back track of, or in contradiction to, my original post.
Curious3141
Jun5-05, 09:53 PM
There is no contradiction. While driving normally there is a certain distance that is safe to maintain. With a vehicle driving too close behind me though, while I may be safe from hitting the person in front of me, I do not have time to safely stop and be sure that the person behind me doesn't hit me. If that person were to hit me it would likely result in my vehicle colliding with the vehicle in front of me even though I would have otherwise safely prevented that with my following distance. If this were to happen, even though it was due to the unsafe driving of another driver, I would legally be responsable for the damages incurred to the vehicle in front of me, as far as California law is concerned. It is then necessary in this instance to have an inordinately large space between yourself and the vehicle in front of you so you have adequate time to stop the vehicle hopefully avoiding the rearend collision and responsability for a secondary collision. I believe I touched on this in my responses already I'm sorry that you didn't pick up on it.
So for safety reasons my slowing down is actually necessary and once the person is no longer behind me I resume a normal driving speed which naturally will mean the person who just changed lanes will have difficulty in overtaking my vehicle. Admittedly I may slow a bit more than necessary and my desire to irritate the individual is probably somewhat childish but my actions are in no way overtly wreckless in nature.
Now my original post was rather flippant about the subject but under criticism I have elaborated and become more serious about the matter. This is in no way a back track of, or in contradiction to, my original post.
It's "reckless", not "wreckless". Freudian slip ? :biggrin:
At any rate, you'd know best how safe your driving is. From what you've posted here, it doesn't seem to be the wisest, safest way to drive, but that's just my opinion (and that of some other posters).
Take care on the roads.
Pre-AlgebraDude
Jun6-05, 11:34 PM
I can't drive yet but there is some folks that tick me and my parents off. Like if someone starts to pull out in front of you and then you start out and then stop and they start and stop and let you come and then just absolutely take off. And I hate when we get behind some tractor and it makes us late. But I especially can't stand people driving stick-shifts and talking on cell phones! This one guy I saw yesterday was driving some old 70's Ford truck that I could tell was a stick-shift because he was moving his arm, but he had the phone in his left hand and then LET GO OF THE WHEEL shifted and then started gesturing and was getting really into his conversation and almost swerved over and hit us.
Oh yeah. I hate tailgaters too. We have gotten hit countless times from someone hitting us from behind.
Huckleberry
Jun7-05, 12:51 PM
Ever have those people on the highway that just hang behind you in the next lane. It's not really tailgating because they aren't directly behind you, but they are in a blind spot and feel very comfortable there. They just hang out for a while matching speed and then all of a sudden race forward to pass. What's up with that? Nobody in their lane and they like to sit in my blind spot.
Moonbear
Jun7-05, 01:41 PM
Ever have those people on the highway that just hang behind you in the next lane. It's not really tailgating because they aren't directly behind you, but they are in a blind spot and feel very comfortable there. They just hang out for a while matching speed and then all of a sudden race forward to pass. What's up with that? Nobody in their lane and they like to sit in my blind spot.
I really hate them because they're always in the lane to your right when you want to get over as your exit is approaching. They stick just close enough that you can't change lanes, they're oblivious to your turn signal, you speed up and they seem to speed up, you slow down to drop behind them, and they slow down. :grumpy: I don't seem to get the ones who race foward to pass though, I wish they would so I could drop in behind them and get over where I want to be, but no, I get the ones who just sit there.
8 pages and this thread still hasn't gone off topic
zoobyshoe
Jun7-05, 01:45 PM
8 pages and this thread still hasn't gone off topic
Allow me:
My pet peeve just now is Brewnog who has aparently abandoned the "what is it" thread with 8 unconfirmed or denied guesses backed up.
I've been waiting too...BREWNOG!
I've been waiting too...BREWNOG!
Sorry guys, mother had just thrown a tandoori chicken pizza on the table. I had to prioritise.
zoobyshoe
Jun7-05, 02:06 PM
Sorry guys, mother had just thrown a tandoori chicken pizza on the table. I had to prioritise.
Unmitigated selfishness. Dog of Pavlov!
Moonbear
Jun7-05, 02:08 PM
Sorry guys, mother had just thrown a tandoori chicken pizza on the table. I had to prioritise.
:bugeye: Talk about fusion cuisine! That's the oddest combination I've ever heard of!
:bugeye: Talk about fusion cuisine! That's the oddest combination I've ever heard of!
I know, I used to be a pizza purist (and having been to one of the world's oldest pizzarias in Naples only helped this).
But don't knock it till you've tried it!
Moonbear
Jun7-05, 03:04 PM
I know, I used to be a pizza purist (and having been to one of the world's oldest pizzarias in Naples only helped this).
But don't knock it till you've tried it!
Well, I like pizza and I like tandoori chicken. I never quite envisioned the two together. Do you substitute the pizza sauce with a different spicy sauce, or is it regular pizza with tandoori chicken on it? I've had chicken parmesan pizza, which is to die for if they don't overcook the chicken (no good if it gets all dried out during baking); I'm just trying to figure out the spice combination you get with tandoori chicken pizza. But, hey, if you're buying, I'll try it. I'll try any food; if I don't like it, I don't get it again (I'll usually order a "safe" dish on the side so I have food if I don't like the new one I'm trying).
Huckleberry
Jun7-05, 03:36 PM
8 pages and this thread still hasn't gone off topicAre you happy now?
Well, I like pizza and I like tandoori chicken. I never quite envisioned the two together. Do you substitute the pizza sauce with a different spicy sauce, or is it regular pizza with tandoori chicken on it? I've had chicken parmesan pizza, which is to die for if they don't overcook the chicken (no good if it gets all dried out during baking); I'm just trying to figure out the spice combination you get with tandoori chicken pizza. But, hey, if you're buying, I'll try it. I'll try any food; if I don't like it, I don't get it again (I'll usually order a "safe" dish on the side so I have food if I don't like the new one I'm trying).
I think it's just normal (well, Americanized :tongue:) pizza, but with some delicious big chunks of tandoori chicken on it. It was only a supermarket thing, but I've made my own in the past and put a teaspoon of chilli powder in the sauce.
Anyway, I quite like posting recipes, so here's brewnog's special tandoori chicken:
4 chicken breasts
1 tbsp lemon juice
1 tsp salt
2 cloves garlic
1 tbsp vegetable oil
1 tsp chilli powder
2 tsp ground cumin
2 tsp ground corriander
1/2 tsp turmeric
Blitz the lot, leave to marinade for as long as possible, then bake in the hottest oven you can manage. Substituting the chicken with lamb is divine. You can also stick them on sticks and grill them.
It's really good in pitta with lots of mango chutney, lettuce, cucumber and tomatoes.
Huckleberry
Jun7-05, 06:39 PM
A poll was taken of the highest and lowest scoring states on driver's exams. The three highest scoring states in this order were.
1. Oregon
2. Washington State
3. Iowa
And the worst,
1. Rhode Island
2. Massachusetts
3. New Jersey
Rhode Island doesn't really count because it is just a suburb of Mass. Phoenix and it's suburbs are bigger than the entire state. So I consider Rhode Island a part of Massachusetts. This means Mass takes both first and second place in the worst driving contest. Do I get some kind of a prize?
yup... mass-holes. funny though bout rhode island... new hampshire isn't much bigger... actually, i think of all of new england as one big state really... 'cept new hampshire. we're different. the rest though, one big state...
Huckleberry
Jun7-05, 07:00 PM
I was raised in a trailer park in Salem, New Hampshire. We never drove it though. It just sat there for 7 years. What a waste. If your gonna put wheels on a home you might as well use them.
I was raised in a trailer park in Salem, New Hampshire. We never drove it though. It just sat there for 7 years. What a waste. If your gonna put wheels on a home you might as well use them.
ya, but the key thing was new hampshire we're the best state in the union! no sales tax, no income tax, (awesome during tax season,) don't need car insurance, we have mountains, country side, cities, a coast, an international border... everything! we may be tiny, but we rock!
I was raised in a trailer park in Salem, New Hampshire. We never drove it though. It just sat there for 7 years. What a waste. If your gonna put wheels on a home you might as well use them.
Yeah, especially in a state with something I've just found out about, - NO CAR INSURANCE!!!!!
I'm there! Wooooo!
Huckleberry
Jun7-05, 07:20 PM
Yeah, especially in a state with something I've just found out about, - NO CAR INSURANCE!!!!!
I'm there! Wooooo! Yeah, sounds really good until you go to buy any property. That's where they rake in all the dough. Property taxes in New Hampshire are outrageous. Otherwise it is an awesome state for just about anything. A bit boring perhaps. What do you think Gale? What is there to do in NH?
Yeah, sounds really good until you go to buy any property. That's where they rake in all the dough. Property taxes in New Hampshire are outrageous. Otherwise it is an awesome state for just about anything. A bit boring perhaps. What do you think Gale? What is there to do in NH?
hehehe... yes, property taxes are definetly outrageous. but i think its worth it... we have really nice places to live i think.
and ya... we're a wee bit on the boring side of things.. but its not so bad. great area for outdoor sports like hiking, kayaking, fishing, and of course the outdoor sports like snow shoeing, skiing, ice skating... ya, the east coast has smaller mountains than out west, but NH has the biggest on our coast. lets see, we have the ocean, but its a bit chilly, and there's nearby canada, which is also a bit chilly. hmm... plus there's always cow tipping eh? or... is that not popular anymore??? (actually, i hate how people think there's so many cows in NH... there's really not...) Plus its soooo pretty here. our winters are pretty, our autumns are pretty, our summers are pretty our springs... well, 3 out of 4 aint bad.
Plus, if you really need something to do in NH, i know this really awesome girl who lives there, and in my opinion, seeing her alone is worth the trip... :biggrin:
[edit] now yomamma must be really pleased.... we're quite off topic now. but new hampshire is sooo awesome... it took going to college in Mass before i realized it...
BicycleTree
Jun7-05, 08:11 PM
I once read something about how drivers in a city in some South American country--it may have been in Colombia--enjoy pretty good traffic despite having a much greater concentration of cars than New York City. Their secret? Aggressive, tailgating driving. Their price? Accidents.
Moonbear
Jun7-05, 09:18 PM
A poll was taken of the highest and lowest scoring states on driver's exams. The three highest scoring states in this order were.
1. Oregon
2. Washington State
3. Iowa
And the worst,
1. Rhode Island
2. Massachusetts
3. New Jersey
Scary! I learned to drive in NJ. But, yeah, you only need to get 70% of the questions right to pass the written test (and people still failed it!). However, they also include a LOT of questions about drunk driving and penalties and things that really have nothing to do with how well you drive...as far as I'm concerned, as long as you know not to drink and drive, I don't care if someone knows what the fines are for first, second and third offenses, how much time in jail, how long you lose your license, etc. The test must have been written by lawyers. Nonetheless, I was only one of two students in my high school drivers' ed class that scored 100% correct on the test! :surprised And it did make me very nervous knowing that those people who didn't know 30% of the rules of the road were still allowed on the road, even after spending a full quarter learning about them!
There's also a lot of variability in the road test. At some testing centers, they have a little course you drive around, which is all very controlled (except when I took the test the same day as some tractor trailer driving student who failed...or I hope failed...considering he tried to run my car over...I think I could have done anything after that and still passed once I had my hand on the gear shift ready to throw it in reverse to get out of his way! I'd have hated to be the tester at that point not knowing if I was a good or bad driver yet and his fate was in my hands). Other testing centers take you out on the real streets. I don't think I'd want to park in that part of town where the student drivers are parallel parking all day...I'd hate to be parked near the open space where the student who fails parallel parking attempts to park.
Of course, I'm not sure how they can make those comparisons anymore. With computerized testing, you don't take the full test anymore. When I moved to OH, I had to retake the OH written test (I guess they didn't trust me since I showed up with a MI license, although since MI just traded in my NJ license for MI one without any testing required, maybe there's good reason for that). You have to get 80% correct to pass here, but as soon as you answer 80% of the questions right, the test just stops.
Moonbear
Jun7-05, 09:22 PM
I once read something about how drivers in a city in some South American country--it may have been in Colombia--enjoy pretty good traffic despite having a much greater concentration of cars than New York City. Their secret? Aggressive, tailgating driving. Their price? Accidents.
Are you sure that wasn't the NJ Turnpike? :rofl: I never noticed it when I lived there, but after being away a while, when I go back, it's a white-knuckle experience to be driving 65 in bumper to bumper traffic!
BicycleTree
Jun7-05, 09:26 PM
Probably they want you to learn the fines not because they help you drive better but because learning meticulously about the penalties for DUI might tend to discourage you from DUI.
Moonbear
Jun7-05, 09:32 PM
Probably they want you to learn the fines not because they help you drive better but because learning meticulously about the penalties for DUI might tend to discourage you from DUI.
Yeah, I do suspect that's their reasoning. Does it actually work though? I don't think it does, especially since you take the written test at or slightly before 16, before you get your learner's permit at 16. At that age, all you know about drinking and driving is you're not even legally supposed to drink at all. By the time you turn 21, nobody remembers those details about the penalties, and they've probably changed in 5 years' time anyway given the way laws change in NJ all the time.
Here in Kansas the test is on paper, something like 20 questions, only about driving rules and sign recognition, nothing about drinking. I believe if you miss 3 questions you fail.
Here in Kansas the test is on paper, something like 20 questions, only about driving rules and sign recognition, nothing about drinking. I believe if you miss 3 questions you fail.
basically the same thing here in NH. 3 Q's is a pass though, 4 is a fail. the actual driving is done in town. the drive is riddiculously easy. two lights, a rail road track, backing into a parking space, and then back to the dmv. my sister nearly hit the car next to her and still passed. actually, i believe its riddiculously hard to fail.
Also, getting my motorcycles liscense was very easy. i took the training course and did pretty well, then passed the test with only a few errors. The test was on a tiny bike though, and most of the tests were pretty easy. soon as i got my liscense i came home and tried to ride the harley... i dumped it like 4 times, and broke off a custom mirror and broke the headlight... i SO was not ready to be on the road... but of course, i needed my liscense just to practice riding... so i guess thats how it has to be.
Pre-AlgebraDude
Jul12-05, 08:29 PM
Here you can make SEVEN FREAKIN' MISTAKES and still get a liscense. That includes run red lights/stop signs, pass in no passing zones, etc.
I really hate the ones that stay right on your bumper and then pass you in a no-passing zone and then slow down and get right in front of you. They seem like they're in a hurry to pass you and then slow down once they're in front of you.
I also hate the ones that try to pass you so they can "get to the red light first". That's what my dad calls it. They get ahead of us then stop for the red light.
Here you can make SEVEN FREAKIN' MISTAKES and still get a liscense. That includes run red lights/stop signs, pass in no passing zones, etc.
I really hate the ones that stay right on your bumper and then pass you in a no-passing zone and then slow down and get right in front of you. They seem like they're in a hurry to pass you and then slow down once they're in front of you.
I also hate the ones that try to pass you so they can "get to the red light first". That's what my dad calls it. They get ahead of us then stop for the red light.
Running a red light during your driving test is automatic failure in most states (in general, if the tester shrieks in terror, you fail).
Passing someone to get to the red light first sometimes makes sense if you've been behind a driver and have figured out how he drives. Some drivers, you pass when the opportunity presents itself because you don't want to be behind them anymore. For example, some drivers seem particularly adept at timing things so the driver behind gets stuck at a red - a little frustrating if you know the timing of the lights and know how fast you need to go to keep getting greens (unfortunately, that's not always exactly the speed limit). Edit: actually, when I think about it, there's also the group that passes at a red just so they can be there waiting for you at the next red.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.