Bikes vs Autos - Need Info
ant...@desire.wright.edu
regions of Michigan and Wisconsin. Normally these trips are done in two
large gas-guzzling vans. We are trying to prove how doing this trip on
bicycles makes more sense than using the vans.
What we are looking for is:
Any documentation of Bikes vs Autos. Papers, studies, articles etc.
Any documentation of Calorie consumption of automobiles as opposed to
bicycles (on average).
And of course, any tips, resources, or comments are greatly appreciated too.
Thanks
Bethany & Joe
Antioch College, Yellow Springs, OH
Mark North
>We are organizing a bicycle/camping trip in the Great Lakes Upper Peninsula
>regions of Michigan and Wisconsin. Normally these trips are done in two
>large gas-guzzling vans. We are trying to prove how doing this trip on
>bicycles makes more sense than using the vans.
Watch out for the Yoopers and moose bites.
Mark
Carl Witthoft
>We are organizing a bicycle/camping trip in the Great Lakes Upper Peninsula
>regions of Michigan and Wisconsin. Normally these trips are done in two
>large gas-guzzling vans. We are trying to prove how doing this trip on
>bicycles makes more sense than using the vans.
>What we are looking for is:
>Any documentation of Bikes vs Autos. Papers, studies, articles etc.
As a practical standpoint: I'd suggest you consider how much gear
you want to bring, security issues (can't lock cash in a bike, although
a van ain't much better :=( ),
sensitivity to weather conditions, road safety, etc.
On a pure pollution and energy consumption basis, the bikes are
almost certain to win.
But, consider the stuff I listed, along w/ intangibles such as:
At the end of a long day's travel, are you more likely to have the
energy to make camp if you drove (and 6 of 7 people slept in the van)
or bicycled?
--
Bobby Newmark, aka Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates
aoa!ca...@bbn.com ca...@aoa.utc.com
54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201
**Just say NO to HMOs**
Mike Smith
In article <1992May29.1...@aoa.aoa.utc.com> ca...@aoa.aoa.utc.com (Carl W
itthoft) writes:
>In article <1992May25....@desire.wright.edu> ant...@desire.wright.edu
writes:
>>We are organizing a bicycle/camping trip in the Great Lakes Upper Peninsula
>>regions of Michigan and Wisconsin. Normally these trips are done in two
>>large gas-guzzling vans. We are trying to prove how doing this trip on
>>bicycles makes more sense than using the vans.
>As a practical standpoint: I'd suggest you consider how much gear
>you want to bring, security issues (can't lock cash in a bike, although
>a van ain't much better :=( ),
>sensitivity to weather conditions, road safety, etc.
>On a pure pollution and energy consumption basis, the bikes are
>almost certain to win.
Not necessarily so... if cost is any indicator of embeded energy
consumption (the premise is that energy consumed in the creation
of 'stuff' shows up as a major cost component and corelates with
total polution production) then a first approximation of relative
'fuel cycle' pollution could be made by comparing the costs of the
gasoline vs the costs of the people food.
I usually hog down about $5-$10/day of food. More if I'm on the road
on a bike. Given my range on a bike, I get about $.25 to $1 per mile.
I don't usually spend more than $.10 per mile on gasoline...
Of course, if you get more miles/day on a bike than I do, and if you
eat steamed rice rather than freeze dried hiker meals you can change
this ratio dramatically. I can't, won't, and don't ...
That food you're eating was fertilized with something, processed
through something, packaged in something, and all of that 'stuff'
was hauled around in something. All those somethings involve energy
consumption and, thus, pollution. And, of course, you WILL be packing
out all your 'poo' for proper disposal somewhere of YOUR pollution?
My guess is that you would be better off with the proverbial 'Geo Metro'
and a small cartop carrier of camping gear... if you can't fit it all
in the 'trunk' ...
--
E. Michael Smith ...!sun!apple!ems
'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but
not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
Shawn Honess
>>On a pure pollution and energy consumption basis, the bikes are
>>almost certain to win.
>
>Not necessarily so... if cost is any indicator of embeded energy
>consumption (the premise is that energy consumed in the creation
>of 'stuff' shows up as a major cost component and corelates with
>total polution production) then a first approximation of relative
>'fuel cycle' pollution could be made by comparing the costs of the
>gasoline vs the costs of the people food.
>
>I usually hog down about $5-$10/day of food. More if I'm on the road
>on a bike. Given my range on a bike, I get about $.25 to $1 per mile.
>I don't usually spend more than $.10 per mile on gasoline...
I guess I don't understand the last paragraph?
Whether you drive or bike you have to eat. The cost of gasoline is just
an addition to your transportation cost. Think of it as: $zero gas + food
for a bike trip, and $XXX gas + food for a car. We also know that it costs
more to operate a car than just gas money (repairs, insurance, registration,
etc.) There are also other minor costs for things like savings in health
costs, taxes for road repairs and noise abatements, oil drilling, etc.
I don't have any data, but my sense is that I use more of MY OWN energy
when I bike, but less TOTAL energy. This translates into a huge savings
in net pollution.
The only two reasons I can think of for driving are: saving time and not
getting wet. (I live in Oregon. :-)
-Shawn
Another thought: Use gasoline and it's gone. Food energy is essentially solar.
Ric Peregrino
Concerning the efficiency of bicycles vs. automobiles.
The way I see it, you have to compare the energy consumed to
transport a given mass a given distance. Of course the energies
are in different forms, gasoline vs. food, but a calorimeter
can decide how many Joules are in a given mass of the energy
medium. Perhaps some people familiar with this stuff can post
some numbers:
G = Joules/Kg of gas
P = J/Kg of "people food" (potatoes?)
The automobile version is easy. How much gas did you burn? Multiply
by the quantity G. This gives you how much energy was used.
The bike version is not so easy. How much food did you eat that was
used for bicycling? I think you would have to study a person's
consumption for no weight change with no excersize, and their consumption
with various levels of bicycling with no weight change, over several
days time. Perhaps this has been done.
The price makes no difference in efficiency, only economy!
To go back and demand the energy for production of food or gas to
be counted could be implemented by using a net energy/mass figure.
For instance, if it costs you 5J to deliver 10J of gas, then the
net figure G'=.5G. Here you could argue for ever.
The environmental impacts are also a concern. Incremental Human wastes vs.
automobile emissions could certainly be studied. One would have to ask
if there was any energy left in the Human waste which could be credited
towards their consumption. Here you could argue for ever also.
The thing to do of course, is bicycle! Not for efficiency, but because
it's a bicycle trip!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ric Peregrino c/o Hewlett Packard Co. I represent only myself
r...@spd.hp.com 1501 Page Mill Rd. Bldg. 5M Buy low, sell high
415-857-7526 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Eat your vegetables
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg F Walz Chojnacki
1) As far as your energy comsumption goes, how much more are you going
to eat bicycling vs sitting in the car? I have to believe the total
energy input (including fractional fertilizer and tractor fuel, etc) is
much lower for this marginal food vs the total energy input for
driving the car.
2) Beyond that, how in the world could it be more energy efficient
to turn an engine, drive a transmission and turn wheels to shove
a couple of thousand pounds of iron and plastic, PLUS the 250 or
so for yourself and your gear, than to pedal a bicycle? C'mon!
greg
Toon Moene
In article <1992Jun2.0...@uwm.edu> g...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Greg F
Walz Chojnacki) writes:
> This isn't really scientific, but here are my $0.02 worth.
>
> 1) As far as your energy comsumption goes, how much more are you going
> to eat bicycling vs sitting in the car? I have to believe the total
> energy input (including fractional fertilizer and tractor fuel, etc) is
> much lower for this marginal food vs the total energy input for
> driving the car.
Actually, if I just look around at my collegues who bike to their work -
it's more a matter of: well, as I'm biking I can eat this and that and why
watch my weigth ? (to put a data point to this: when I started I weighed
81 kgs, now it's more like 70-71 :-). But OK the original poster wrote
about a holiday ...
> 2) Beyond that, how in the world could it be more energy efficient
> to turn an engine, drive a transmission and turn wheels to shove
> a couple of thousand pounds of iron and plastic, PLUS the 250 or
> so for yourself and your gear, than to pedal a bicycle? C'mon!
Not only that, but they use incredibly inefficient internal combustion -
really loses when compared to our highly efficient enzyme-aided
metabolism. Furthermore, the kinematic energy efficiency of the bike's
transmission is extremely efficient - something like 99 % (kinetic energy
obtained / energy applied to the pedals)
> greg
Ever got onto highway 50 in the west with a bike (you know - from Delta
(Utah) to the Nevada border and onwards). 83 miles, no services - even
people who live there don't like to try it with their cars - It would be
too expensive to get them out if something went wrong :-)
--
Toon Moene (to...@moene.uucp)
Kantershof 269, 1104 GN Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel.: + 31 20 6982029; Fax: + 31 20 6003411
No Disclaimers; a NeXT at home protects against this occupational hazard.
Jonathan Gilligan 303-497-3861
cars for transportation. Let's ignore emissions in refining gas, exploring for
oil, shipping on tankers versus growing food and shipping it to market.
Let's look at carbon emissions into the atmosphere from operating a car versus
a bike.
Car: 25 mpg -> 0.040 gallon/mile
-> (85 % carbon) (.75 kg/litre) (3.8 litre/gal) 0.040 gal/mile
= 0.1 kg/mile of carbon emission.
I'm assuming that gasoline has a specific gravity of 0.75 (typical for alkanes)
and has stochiometry C_n H_{2n}
Bike: if I produced anywhere near 100 grams of carbon emission per mile, then
I'd need to take 10 kg of sugar along when I ride 100 miles and a five
mile (each way) ride to work would cause me to lose two pounds a day.
Another useful number is available in the Physics Vade Mecum:
Human metabolism consumes: at rest, 85 W. Steady work: 85 + (30-40) W
A car requires far more than 40 W to operate (40 W = 0.05 horsepower).
Thus, the only way that a car creates less environmental impact is if
food production is orders of magnitude more harmful to the environment
than gasoline production or if human excrement is orders of magnitude
more harmful than waste motor oil, antifreeze, etc.
---Jon
Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.
Moss Drake
is the dumbest in the world!!
You have to eat anyway!
What you eat doesn't necessarily have to be packaged,
processed, fertilized, shipped or prepared.
Your human wasted is washed into the earth to become
food for bacteria and worms (which is what happens in
most sewers anyway, you just don't see it).
Make getting there part of the trip, so it's not a chore,
and it's not something to be debated.
If you don't have time, drive the car. If you have time,
ride yr bike.
moss@agora
Chris Kostanick 806 1044
way to spread many diseases and parasites. They don't add the chlorine
or ozone at waste treatment plants just for fun. Remember, too natural
a life style can involve cholera, typhoid and dysentery.
Chris Kostanick
"Give me safe drinking water or you'll give me death"
Jym Dyer
> good way to spread many diseases and parasites. They don't
> add the chlorine or ozone at waste treatment plants just for
> fun. Remember, too natural a life style can involve cholera,
> typhoid and dysentery.
=\= There are alternatives that avoid these problems. Septic
tanks are one; composting toilets are another.
=\= I grant that these aren't the same as leaving the waste
untreated, but they are "natural," and don't involve chlorine
and such.
<_Jym_>
Mike Smith
> The argument of the cost of food & packing out people pollution
> is the dumbest in the world!!
Only to those who like their answers uncluttered by the need to think
critically or examine unpleasant facts.
> You have to eat anyway!
At full rest, I consume about 1100 C./day (documented in a NASA study in
which I participated for 105 days in a sealed environment).
At 'normal' activity levels, I consume about 2500 C./day (based on my
typical food intake).
At high activity levels, such as bike riding, I consume about 4000 C./day.
Take a look at what a serious bike racer eats. It can go up to 8000 C./day!
You have to eat anyway, but the quantity varies dramatically with work output.
One might HOPE that this was met by loss of excess body fat, buy HOPE isn't
FACT.
The dollar cost of food tends to represent the embodied energy, much of
which comes from oil. The raw calories don't directly compare. Ergo,
that 2KC/day extra (which costs about $5-$10) compares more directly
with an equivalent DOLLAR cost of gasoline, or about 5 gallons of gas.
That 5 gallons in a Geo Metro is good for about 200 miles. Me? I'm
not able to do a double century on 4KC/day ... every day ...
> What you eat doesn't necessarily have to be packaged,
> processed, fertilized, shipped or prepared.
Which I noted in my original posting. However, most bikers/hikers I've
seen on the trail are eating freeze dried wonder meals, NOT raw brown rice
or raw wild plants gathered on the trail. Are you suggesting that bikers
grow their own rice? Wheat? Oats?
> Your human wasted is washed into the earth to become
> food for bacteria and worms (which is what happens in
> most sewers anyway, you just don't see it).
Right. We should all Crap along the roadside. Ever hear of public health
law? How about {cholera, influenza, ghiardia, ...}. That is what sewage
treatment plants are all about. Please don't crap in MY parks!
> If you don't have time, drive the car. If you have time,
> ride yr bike.
IF you WANT to, but not due to some unproven appeal to 'reduced pollution'
that hasn't been proven one way or the other! I don't know which pollutes
less, the car or the person, but neither do you. You are speaking from
presumption, not established fact.
--
E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
"Nothing can keep an argument going like two persons who aren't
sure what they're arguing about." O.A.Battista
Kenneth James Clark
>
>At full rest, I consume about 1100 C./day (documented in a NASA study in
>which I participated for 105 days in a sealed environment).
>
>At 'normal' activity levels, I consume about 2500 C./day (based on my
>typical food intake).
>
>At high activity levels, such as bike riding, I consume about 4000 C./day.
>Take a look at what a serious bike racer eats. It can go up to 8000 C./day!
>
If I weren't riding my bike to work, I would go to the local gym and
row and lift for an hour a day. Ie., this analysis is very nice, but
for an equivalent scenario, I would have to both ride and work out
every day, which I do not. If you are suggesting that it is more
efficient to be as close to a vegetable as possible all day and drive a
metro to and from work, the American Heart and Lung Associations would
probably not be happy.
>The dollar cost of food tends to represent the embodied energy, much of
>which comes from oil. The raw calories don't directly compare. Ergo,
>that 2KC/day extra (which costs about $5-$10) compares more directly
>with an equivalent DOLLAR cost of gasoline, or about 5 gallons of gas.
>That 5 gallons in a Geo Metro is good for about 200 miles. Me? I'm
>not able to do a double century on 4KC/day ... every day ...
Assuming no hidden societal costs. Bad assumption. Also assuming
no human being operating the Geo (who would be simultaneously
burning calories).
>
>Which I noted in my original posting. However, most bikers/hikers I've
>seen on the trail are eating freeze dried wonder meals, NOT raw brown rice
>or raw wild plants gathered on the trail. Are you suggesting that bikers
>grow their own rice? Wheat? Oats?
Are you talking about backpacking? I thought we were talking about
bikes as utility/commuting vehicles. If you're talking off road, your
Geo becomes a Jeep with a 4.6 litre engine (that's how they spell it :-) )
>> If you don't have time, drive the car. If you have time,
>> ride yr bike.
>
>IF you WANT to, but not due to some unproven appeal to 'reduced pollution'
>that hasn't been proven one way or the other! I don't know which pollutes
>less, the car or the person, but neither do you. You are speaking from
>presumption, not established fact.
Of course, nothing can really be proven. Measuring tailpipe emissions
or gas burned is meaningless, maybe there is a little troll in the tank
drinking the gas and farting. Since these are natural bodily functions,
this is fine, and the car is pollution free. Remember, nothing has been
proven, and all measurements are statistically insignificant. Science
is a sham performed by magicians... :-) ;-)
Ken
mike
a calorie is the amount of energy to raise one pound of H2O one degree
Fahrenheit. So fat is actually 9000 calories/gram. Perhaps you should
re-examine the case being made.
Mike Ross
--
*********************************mi...@drseus.jsc.nasa.gov******
* Michael L. Ross * Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. *
* Standard Disclaimer regarding entities above................*
********************************************************(*)-(*)
Steve Chapin
}}
}} As I understand it, a food 'calorie' is actually a kilocalorie, where
}} a calorie is the amount of energy to raise one pound of H2O one degree
}} Fahrenheit. So fat is actually 9000 calories/gram. Perhaps you should
}} re-examine the case being made.
You are correct in your understanding about the relation of calories
to Kcal, but all "calories" mentioned in both articles were Kcal.
Usually these are distinguished by capitalizing the C in Calorie for a
Kcal.
For the record, a calorie is the amount of heat required to raise one
cc of pure water 1 degree C (at a specific starting temp, which I
forget).
If we accept Mike Smith's original numbers of 4000 Cal for a "highly
active" lifestyle, it is a difference of 1500 Cal from his resting
requirements, not 2000 Cal. That makes the extra food requirements
smaller (.166 kg fat, .375 kg protein/carbo), and the $5-10 claim even
less believable.
}} Mike Ross
s...@cs.purdue.edu Steve Chapin Today's Grammar Lesson:
"If you loose your arrow, you're likely to lose it in the weeds,"
was often heard in days of yore.
Beef: Real food for a dead planet.
Giles Morris
>> If you don't have time, drive the car. If you have time,
>> ride yr bike.
>IF you WANT to, but not due to some unproven appeal to 'reduced pollution'
>that hasn't been proven one way or the other! I don't know which pollutes
>less, the car or the person, but neither do you. You are speaking from
>presumption, not established fact.
Boy, I've followed some strange arguments, but this one is one of the best.
I suggest that you go out and stand in traffic for a while if you _really_
want to know whether cars or bicycles pollute more.
Do you ever wonder whether gravity still works on weekends?
We now return you to the Comedy Channel.
Giles Morris ...uunet!viusys!gilesm
Dean Economou
1. When your fitness increases and your muscles stop putting
on weight, you will obtain much more energy from each calorie of
food (your metabolic efficienct increases). I think the figures
go from something like 20% to about 55%.
2. The cost of the food is not all energy. Most is handling. I'd
use the cost on food which is handled least. Even something like pasta
which makes good bicycling fuel, costs about $1.20 for half a kilo (1 and
a bit pounds). That's a lot of pasta, and not all of it is energy
cost. Does anyone have figures on energy used to produce foods so
we can do some real comparisons here?
Cheers,
Dean
(use de...@qpsx.oz.au, not reply)
Jym Dyer
> that when tested the compost had scary levels of parasites.
=o= My understanding is that all composting toilets are not
equal. There is one in particular, designed by a Swede, that
is said to be the best in the world.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
ems> (based on my typical food intake). At high activity
ems> levels, such as bike riding, I consume about 4000 C./day.
ems> [Figures for "serious bike racer" omitted due to their
ems> irrelevance.] . . . You have to eat anyway, but the
ems> quantity varies dramatically with work output.
=o= You left out a few variables. Foremost is that not all
foods are the same. By focusing only on "quantity" you could
quite literally end up comparing apples with oranges.
=o= The best (i.e., most efficiently metabolized) food for
aerobic activities like bicycling are those high in carbo-
hydrates. Not too surprisingly, engaging in such activities
tends to yield cravings for such foods.
=o= High-carbohydrate foods are bulky. Thus it's unlikely
that somebody will eat them and then sit down to have a big
typical American low-carbohydrate meal. The more likely
scenario is that the high-carbohydrate foods will supplant
the low-carbohydrate foods as the centerpiece of the meal.
=o= Conveniently enough, high-carbohydrate foods are much,
much better for the environment than low-carbohydrate foods.
dean> When your fitness increases and your muscles stop putting
dean> on weight, you will obtain much more energy from each
dean> calorie of food (your metabolic efficienct increases). I
dean> think the figures go from something like 20% to about 55%.
=o= This is true, but I wish I knew more about how much cycling
it takes for the body to get into this condition. It's been
mentioned in another newsgroup (either talk.environment or my
local ca.environment) that the average work commute is 6 miles.
Is a 12-mile/day round trip sufficient for this change?
=o= (Of course, since most commutes are so short, it follows
that this spectre of massive increased calorie consumption is
mostly irrelevant anyhow.)
<_Jym_>
Andrew Merritt
>A couple of points:
>
>on weight, you will obtain much more energy from each calorie of
>food (your metabolic efficienct increases). I think the figures
>go from something like 20% to about 55%.
Have you a reference for this? I am interested because I suggested (without
any evidence) a similar effect when this topic was discussed on rec.bicycles
recently, but no-one was able to back me up with figures.
Andrew
Mike Smith
>In article <27...@goofy.Apple.COM> e...@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>>The dollar cost of food tends to represent the embodied energy, much of
>>which comes from oil. The raw calories don't directly compare. Ergo,
>>that 2KC/day extra (which costs about $5-$10) compares more directly
>Let's see.....
>How much food does 2000 C represent??
>If I remember right, fat is about 9 cal/g, and protein and carbos are each
>about 4 cal/g. So, 2000 calories is
> 2000/9 = .222 kg -> about 1/2 lb
> 2000/4 = .500 kg -> about 1 lb
>If it costs you $7.50 per day (the middle of what you said), then you
>claim you spend between $7.50 and $15.00 per pound of food.
This is bogus in that you are presuming all food has nothing in it
but dry fat, protein & carbs. I've gone out of my way to point out
that eating dry rice or beans would be 'better' than eating higher on
the food (processing) chain. I've also repeatedly pointed out that
the scenario was a 'camping trip' by bike where freeze dried camping
meals are a likely food source.
Yes, freeze dried camping meals can EASILY cost $7.50 to $15 / pound.
(and no, I don't claim that *I* spend this, only that the cost can
exists and has implications.)
But, one thinks, what about non-freeze dried meals? My Ravioli can
states that it has 420 Calories per 15 oz. That is 448 Calories/lb.
That would take 4.46 POUNDS of canned Ravioli to get 2000 Calories.
(I've made an earlier posting about Ravioli ... the first time I
used 210 Calories/can when it was 210 Calories/ 1/2 can serving.
I've, hopefully, got the article 'fixed' before it got sent on
and re-posted a version with right numbers in it ... but if the
prior article doesn't agree with this one on Calories/can then
please don't bother flaming me about it, I'll just have to repost
the corrected version...)
We're not talking gourmet food here. This is modest stuff. And it
still comes out to about $4/2KC ... and about $1/lb. Take a look
in your grocery store and see how much food has a similar or higher
price per lb and price per Calorie. The conclusion is simple to
reach: IF you make your bike trip on freeze dried camping food
or fresh meat, you will be spending more money and, presumably,
consuming more embodied energy than if you used gas in a Geo Metro.
If you eat soybean oil, dry beans & rice; you will be consuming less.
Now, if you want to eat those dry beans and brown rice, be my guest...
but be sure to include the cost of the fuel used to heat/cook them...
>Where do you shop???
Lucky's for the Ravioli, REI Co-op for the freeze dried camping meals,
COSTCO for the dry beans & rice, Reed's Sporting Goods for bikes and
guns & ammo, ARCO and BEACON for gasoline, Home Depot for building
materials, ...
Why do you ask?
Mike Smith
>In article <27...@goofy.Apple.COM> e...@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>>At high activity levels, such as bike riding, I consume about 4000 C./day.
>>Take a look at what a serious bike racer eats. It can go up to 8000 C./day!
>If I weren't riding my bike to work, I would go to the local gym and
>row and lift for an hour a day. Ie., this analysis is very nice, but
>for an equivalent scenario, I would have to both ride and work out
>every day, which I do not.
The original poster was talking about a 'special event' outside the
usual range of activity for them. They were going on a vacation bike
ride and not talking about day to day regular activities. These were
portrayed as extra calories.
>If you are suggesting that it is more
>efficient to be as close to a vegetable as possible all day and drive a
>metro to and from work, the American Heart and Lung Associations would
>probably not be happy.
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that if you want to exercise for your
heart and lungs, do so. Me? I do Karate 2xweek or more. A bike
ride doesn't build the skills I want... I'm also suggesting that
a blanket claim that riding bikes instead of driving cars polutes
less isn't well examined and needs more 'looking at' to prove the
claim.
(I've tried to avoid taking a posture on the expected outcome of
the question, but it is hard to do since all the replies have been
of the form 'you are wrong, bikes polute less' rather than of the
form 'you have asked an interesting question: which polute less under
which assumptions'.... I really am trying to just pose a question
and not take a stand on if there is or isn't more net environmental
damage from biker food or gasoline. It's bad science technique to
presume the answer to the question before doing the research ...)
In the process of 'looking at it' that has come from my asking the
question, it is starting to look (to me at least) that the conclusion
depends heavily on _what foods the biker eats_. To that extent,
I guess I'm suggesting that it is more efficient to EAT as close to
a vegetable as possible all day and drive a bike OR to eat as close
to a cow as possible and drive a Metro to and from work; but not
eat meat and ride a bike to reduce polution (though you may need to
do it to prevent the diseases that a high fat diet causes ...)
>>The dollar cost of food tends to represent the embodied energy, much of
>>which comes from oil. The raw calories don't directly compare. Ergo,
>>that 2KC/day extra (which costs about $5-$10) compares more directly
>>with an equivalent DOLLAR cost of gasoline, or about 5 gallons of gas.
>>That 5 gallons in a Geo Metro is good for about 200 miles. Me? I'm
>>not able to do a double century on 4KC/day ... every day ...
>Assuming no hidden societal costs. Bad assumption. Also assuming
>no human being operating the Geo (who would be simultaneously
>burning calories).
Um, I don't see this at all. I'm presuming EQUIVALENT hidden
societal costs for oil used in gasoline burning cars and oil used
in {tractors, Diesel Trucks, food processing plants, fertilizer plants,etc.}
Reasonable assumption. Not ideal, but reasonable. Good grounds for
further analysis, but reasonable.
I'm also presuming that it takes fewer food calories to operate a GeoMetro
for a given number of miles than to ride a bike with full camping gear on
it for the same miles. Reasonable assumption.
>>However, most bikers/hikers I've
>>seen on the trail are eating freeze dried wonder meals, NOT raw brown rice
>>or raw wild plants gathered on the trail. Are you suggesting that bikers
>>grow their own rice? Wheat? Oats?
>
>Are you talking about backpacking? I thought we were talking about
>bikes as utility/commuting vehicles.
Yes, the original poster posited a camping trip by bike for a vacation.
Not day to day commuting to work.
>If you're talking off road, your
>Geo becomes a Jeep with a 4.6 litre engine (that's how they spell it :-) )
No, not off road. Most parks have roads into them that don't need Jeeps
and are suitable for bikes as well.
>>> If you don't have time, drive the car. If you have time,
>>> ride yr bike.
>>
>>IF you WANT to, but not due to some unproven appeal to 'reduced pollution'
>>that hasn't been proven one way or the other! I don't know which pollutes
>>less, the car or the person, but neither do you. You are speaking from
>>presumption, not established fact.
>Of course, nothing can really be proven. Measuring tailpipe emissions
>or gas burned is meaningless, maybe there is a little troll in the tank
>drinking the gas and farting. Since these are natural bodily functions,
>this is fine, and the car is pollution free. Remember, nothing has been
>proven, and all measurements are statistically insignificant. Science
>is a sham performed by magicians... :-) ;-)
I hope that the smily refers to the whole paragraph, since it is
fallacious ... Things CAN be proven, but only if you ASK A QUESTION
first with an OPEN MIND and then LOOK AT UNBIASED DATA. The car is
hardly pollution free, but the bike(r) entails a long logistical
tail of embodied energy in food production which isn't pollution free
either. Real Science (TM) is a a difficult art since it requires that
something not be accepted un-examined no matter how much you would like
to think that it is true. Jumping to conclusions is allowed, but only
so long as you go back and prove that your conclusion is sound.
This thread seems to be leading to the conclusion that biking while
eating high on the food chain has more embodied energy (and MAY have
more implied polution due to that) than driving a car; while eating
low on the food chain has less embodied energy (and MAY have less
implied polution do to that) than driving a car.
I'd be interested in knowing what the overall environmental damage
was from a meat eater vs a vegetarian and how that damage correlates
with marginal work output for each. I'd like to know how they
measure up against a very fuel efficient auto (overall environmental
damage, not just tail pipe).
Refusing to ask the question, though, won't lead to the answers.
Presuming you already have the answer without need of proof won't cut it.
If noone else wants to examine the question, I'll stop asking it.
I'm not interested in defending cars as less polluting. I am interested
in asking which pollutes more and under what conditions.
Mike Smith
>e...@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>
>>> If you don't have time, drive the car. If you have time,
>>> ride yr bike.
>
>>IF you WANT to, but not due to some unproven appeal to 'reduced pollution'
>>that hasn't been proven one way or the other! I don't know which pollutes
>>less, the car or the person, but neither do you. You are speaking from
>>presumption, not established fact.
>
>Boy, I've followed some strange arguments, but this one is one of the best.
>I suggest that you go out and stand in traffic for a while if you _really_
>want to know whether cars or bicycles pollute more.
That only exposed you to the LOCAL pollution. I'd suggest that you
go suck a tractor exhaust pipe or soak in a fertilizer tank and then
ask the same question...
The issue is one of total pollution produce in providing food based
transportation vs gasoline based transportation. A Simple Mind will
look at the end point pollution only and jump to a conclusion...
I grew up in farm country and can assure you that a pound of beef
entails one heck of alot of pollution production ...
>Do you ever wonder whether gravity still works on weekends?
No, though I presume from your lack of a smiley face that you do? 1/2 ;-)
>We now return you to the Comedy Channel.
Please do return to the Comedy Channel, it looks like you have lots
of experience in watching it ...
Chris Malcolm
consumed begs an awful lot of questions. A much more direct method is
to consider it in terms of oxygen consumed. How much oxygen does a a
bike rider take to do, say, one urban mile, compared to a car?
I can't remember the calculations, but I recall that a local school
gave this as a science project question, and decided that the correct
answer was that the car used somewhere between 50 and 200 times the
oxygen per urban mile. The method was to compute the car's
consumption from its mpg, and to compute the cyclist's consumption by
measuring breathing rate, divided by %age of oxygen consumed in a
breath at this rate, and then subtracting from this the cyclist's
resting consumption ((i.e. the car driver's breathing consumption).
Once one has this basic energy ratio established, the consumable
(tyres etc) and capital (cost/life-mileage) costs can be factored in.
Anyone got the info handy to do the calculations?
--
Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aifh +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
Kenneth James Clark
>
>Um, I don't see this at all. I'm presuming EQUIVALENT hidden
>societal costs for oil used in gasoline burning cars and oil used
>in {tractors, Diesel Trucks, food processing plants, fertilizer plants,etc.}
>Reasonable assumption. Not ideal, but reasonable. Good grounds for
>further analysis, but reasonable.
Yes, and you're ignoring societal costs for automobile production, materials,
production and transportation of automotive fuels, environmental damage
from leaks of same fuels, air pollution (non-CO2), etc. Unreasonable
assumption.
>I'm also presuming that it takes fewer food calories to operate a GeoMetro
>for a given number of miles than to ride a bike with full camping gear on
>it for the same miles. Reasonable assumption.
Figures demonstrating that this is reasonable please.
>>Of course, nothing can really be proven. Measuring tailpipe emissions
>>or gas burned is meaningless, maybe there is a little troll in the tank
>>drinking the gas and farting. Since these are natural bodily functions,
>>this is fine, and the car is pollution free. Remember, nothing has been
>>proven, and all measurements are statistically insignificant. Science
>>is a sham performed by magicians... :-) ;-)
>
>I hope that the smily refers to the whole paragraph, since it is
>fallacious ... Things CAN be proven, but only if you ASK A QUESTION
>first with an OPEN MIND and then LOOK AT UNBIASED DATA. The car is
>hardly pollution free, but the bike(r) entails a long logistical
>tail of embodied energy in food production which isn't pollution free
>either. Real Science (TM) is a a difficult art since it requires that
>something not be accepted un-examined no matter how much you would like
>to think that it is true. Jumping to conclusions is allowed, but only
>so long as you go back and prove that your conclusion is sound.
Yes, for the sarcasm impaired, that was dripping with sarcasm.
>I'd be interested in knowing what the overall environmental damage
>was from a meat eater vs a vegetarian and how that damage correlates
>with marginal work output for each. I'd like to know how they
>measure up against a very fuel efficient auto (overall environmental
>damage, not just tail pipe).
>
>I'm not interested in defending cars as less polluting. I am interested
>in asking which pollutes more and under what conditions.
Then perhaps you should take an inclusive view of the inputs to both
systems, rather than only one of them.
Ken
dmitry pruss
>>Let's see.....
>>How much food does 2000 C represent??
>>If I remember right, fat is about 9 cal/g, and protein and carbos are each
>>about 4 cal/g. So, 2000 calories is
>> 2000/9 = .222 kg -> about 1/2 lb
>> 2000/4 = .500 kg -> about 1 lb
>>If it costs you $7.50 per day (the middle of what you said), then you
>>claim you spend between $7.50 and $15.00 per pound of food.
>
>This is bogus in that you are presuming all food has nothing in it
>but dry fat, protein & carbs.
>
>states that it has 420 Calories per 15 oz. That is 448 Calories/lb.
>That would take 4.46 POUNDS of canned Ravioli to get 2000 Calories.
>
>still comes out to about $4/2KC
Well, don't you think that a human being's gasmileage is not fairly
constant?
With carburetor producing too rich mixture and the engine revolving too
slow...
Sorry :) I should probably use more biological terms.
And for biological systems, their efficiency of energy consumption varies
very much.
Pregnant women can get 70% more energy from the same amount of food.
East Asia peasants eat a bit but work like horses.
Go to mountain trail for 2 weeks and see how much feces do you produce;
than come home, eat that Ravioli and see again.
So, I point out that commuting by bike just makes your enrgy conversion
more effective. A bike ride should be really long to make you to spend more
on food.
D
PS: A discussion of car vs. bike just went on at rec.bicycles. One article
suggested a following writing for a cyclist's T-shirt:
My health club
pays me 25c/mile
David M. Schiff
>[stuff deleted]
>
>So, I point out that commuting by bike just makes your enrgy conversion
>more effective. A bike ride should be really long to make you to spend more
>on food.
>
> D
>
>PS: A discussion of car vs. bike just went on at rec.bicycles. One article
I don't know if this was mentioned in that discussion, but biking
can also suppress appetite.
Thad Beier
turns out that cars need much less space than bikes to transport
the same amount of people. Buses even more so, of course, but
the fact that a car goes so much faster than a bike makes it use
space more efficiently (at least moving at highway speeds.) In
cities, when cars move slowly, they are more space-inefficient.
--
Thad Beier..Silicon Graphics..415)390-1028..thad@sgi.com..C-172A N7770T.....FLY!
John Sims
Assuming, of course, that _every_ car _always_ carries the maximum
passengers it is capable of. How many fully loaded cars do you see
going down the freeways in the Bay Area, hmm??? Maybe there its
different, but in LA and here in Denver, from my experience, I would
guess that more than 90% of the cars have precisely _one_ person in
them. Doesn't sound too fuel or space efficient to me....
John
--
John Sims si...@pogo.den.mmc.com
Chris Malcolm
>Speaking of the need for highways for cars, and not for bikes, it
>turns out that cars need much less space than bikes to transport
>the same amount of people. Buses even more so, of course, but
>the fact that a car goes so much faster than a bike makes it use
>space more efficiently (at least moving at highway speeds.) In
>cities, when cars move slowly, they are more space-inefficient.
Can we have the sums justifying this? On the face of it, since the
spacing between vehicles is dominated by the square of the speed
factor (braking distance) at higher speeds, it would seem that
although journey times will be shorter ay high speeds, the actual
throughput of the road in terms of people/hour will be less at high
speeds. In which case bikes win all the time. Or have I got it wrong?
p...@bellcore.com
> In article <n0g...@fido.asd.sgi.com> th...@sgi.com writes:
> >turns out that cars need much less space than bikes to transport
> >the same amount of people. Buses even more so, of course, but
> What is the average number of people per car on city streets? And on
> highways?
for my own amusement i did a small informal survey of the traffic that
passed my bike on the way home a while ago. (i stopped after the first
500 vehicles: got tired of watching).
500 vehicles carried exactly 560 people - 1.12 persons/vehicle. this
was between 15:00 and 17:00, and i surveyed everything that passed me.
autos, trucks, buses, mini-vans etc.
the number would have been even lower, had not there been a large number
of mothers picking up kids after school.
pretty depressing numbers, particularly when added to those indicating
that there is *less* carpooling going on now than there was in 1980.
peter clitherow <p...@bellcore.com> (201) 829-5162, DQID: H07692
bellcore, 445 south street, room 2f-085, morristown, nj 07962
Mike Smith
>In article <69...@apple.Apple.COM> e...@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>>
>>Um, I don't see this at all. I'm presuming EQUIVALENT hidden
>>societal costs for oil used in gasoline burning cars and oil used
>>in {tractors, Diesel Trucks, food processing plants, fertilizer plants,etc.}
>>Reasonable assumption. Not ideal, but reasonable. Good grounds for
>>further analysis, but reasonable.
>
>Yes, and you're ignoring societal costs for automobile production, materials,
>production and transportation of automotive fuels, environmental damage
>from leaks of same fuels, air pollution (non-CO2), etc. Unreasonable
>assumption.
AND the societal cost of tractor production, truck production, fertilizer
and other materials production and transportation of farm fuels,
environmental damage from leaks of same fuels, air pollution (non-CO2), etc.
A reasonable assumption that they would be similar for farms and non-farm
uses for a similar embodied energy. Again, not ideal, but a good
starting point.
The basic point is that motor fuel contains alot of direct energy and
not very much embodied energy from manufacture (and has a cost).
Food contains some to a little direct energy and has alot of embodied
energy from it's growing and processing (and has a cost).
The premise I've put forward is that the two costs are
likely to have strongly similar total energies for a given cost.
That is, the sum of direct and embodied energy is likely to be
strongly correlated with cost. This premise is not proven, but
neither is it shown to be false. It would be a likely grounds to
attack, though.
A corrolary to this would be that the pollution in the production
of that total energy is likely to be strongly correlated as well,
and can be set aside for future proof. This is also a likely area
to attack. Remember, though, that farm equipment isn't as smog
regulated as cars (has anyone seen a tractor with a cat. converter?)
It may well be that the variance in those two factors is totally swamped
by the .gt. order of magnitude varience in embodied energy in soy oil
vs beef.
>>I'm also presuming that it takes fewer food calories to operate a GeoMetro
>>for a given number of miles than to ride a bike with full camping gear on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>it for the same miles. Reasonable assumption.
>
>Figures demonstrating that this is reasonable please.
I sweat strongly when riding a bike. I don't sweat when driving my car.
QED.
(My respirations are also dramatically lower. And I've done a month
of driving on a food budget of 1400 C./day. This was about 1973 or
so (detail if needed) and was a 13,000 mile trip to the east coast
and back on $260. That $260 bought all the gas for the VW AND all
the food for 2 (!) people. We ate alot of soup ... Now, I'd like
to see you ride a bike 8 hours a day on 1400 C./day ... note that
that is only 200 C./day above what is defined as 'starvation' and
only 300 C./day above what was documented for me as my consumption in
the NASA social isolation study I was in. The trip immediately followed
the study. No, I didn't keep exact records of my food consumption on
the trip and cannot give a day by day diet. I DID 'count calories'
on sample days to see how much my food consumption had gone up and
I DID note that the gross volume of food and type of food hadn't
changed that much, other than more watered down soup ... and less
fats/meat. So, can you do 13,000 miles on 3.2 C./mile on a bike?)
...
>>I'd be interested in knowing what the overall environmental damage
>>was from a meat eater vs a vegetarian and how that damage correlates
>>with marginal work output for each. I'd like to know how they
>>measure up against a very fuel efficient auto (overall environmental
>>damage, not just tail pipe).
>>
>>I'm not interested in defending cars as less polluting. I am interested
>>in asking which pollutes more and under what conditions.
>
>Then perhaps you should take an inclusive view of the inputs to both
>systems, rather than only one of them.
I'd love to, but it would get rather tedious in a hurry. I'd expect
it to be more 'profitable' to look at just one factor at a time.
I started with embodied energy in the fuel (with, I think, resonable
expectations that embodied energy correlates with embodied pollution).
It would be valuable to explore the strength of the correlation,
though.
I'm not real interested in exploring the total embodied pollution of
the entire life cycle of bike vs. car for two reasons. 1) It looks
to me like a 'no brainer' since the car contains so much more stuff
and both cars and bikes are manufactured with similar technologies;
(though the embodied pollution/mile might be interesting since cars
can go for so many more miles in a year ...) and 2) The original
question was about a one time vacation trip which implies that the
car and bike both already exist and were purchased for other reasons,
i.e. their life cycles are dis-joint with the issue of the added
pollution in this one particular trip since they are 'sunk cost' at
this point.
I know, it's rather pedantic of me to stay stuck in the world defined
by the original poster and the original quesiton, but that's the
way I tend to look at problems. I think it is 'no fair' to
change the premises of the problem to fit the desired answer ...
"Given these conclusions, what assumptions can we draw?" is not my style...
Gary Coffman
>In article <n0g...@fido.asd.sgi.com> th...@sgi.com writes:
>
>>Speaking of the need for highways for cars, and not for bikes, it
>>turns out that cars need much less space than bikes to transport
>>the same amount of people. Buses even more so, of course, but
>>the fact that a car goes so much faster than a bike makes it use
>>space more efficiently (at least moving at highway speeds.) In
>>cities, when cars move slowly, they are more space-inefficient.
>
>Can we have the sums justifying this? On the face of it, since the
>spacing between vehicles is dominated by the square of the speed
>factor (braking distance) at higher speeds, it would seem that
>although journey times will be shorter ay high speeds, the actual
>throughput of the road in terms of people/hour will be less at high
>speeds. In which case bikes win all the time. Or have I got it wrong?
Only in drivers ed courses do following distances equal braking distance.
In the real world of expressways the following distance is usually equal
to or slightly less than the reaction time of the drivers. In Atlanta that
translates to three car lengths at 60 MPH. If you lag by more than that,
someone will cut in front of you. This is actually quite reasonable under
most conditions. Since the vehicle in front of you can likely not stop
any faster than you can, maintaining a full braking distance interval
is wasteful.
With this in mind, you wind up with a vehicle capacity of about 3600
vehicles per lane per hour past any given point. Looking at it another
way, the eight lane I-85 moves 1,728,000 person/miles an hour assuming
single occupancy vehicles. Now bicyclists can fit about 8 times as many
vehicles in the space occupied by the auto, side by side and 1/4 the
following distance. But they are only going 15-25 MPH, so the person/miles
per hour works out to 4,608,000, about 2.5 times that of single occupant
autos. Of course the travel time of any given individual is 4 times as
long. If cars averaged an occupancy level of 2.5, the person/miles per
hour would be equal to the bikes while travel time remains 1/4 that
of the bicycle commuter. Full buses would do even better, but as I've
posted previously, buses don't travel full except at certain hours and
often don't travel the most direct route for a given passenger's journey.
An economy car with four occupants beats the bus' economy during the
full 24 hour period. In most cities, and all suburban areas, car pooling
is much more energy efficient than mass transit. Unfortunately, few people
actually car pool.
Gary
Conrad Leviston
:
: With this in mind, you wind up with a vehicle capacity of about 3600
: vehicles per lane per hour past any given point. Looking at it another
: way, the eight lane I-85 moves 1,728,000 person/miles an hour assuming
: single occupancy vehicles. Now bicyclists can fit about 8 times as many
: vehicles in the space occupied by the auto, side by side and 1/4 the
: following distance. But they are only going 15-25 MPH, so the person/miles
: per hour works out to 4,608,000, about 2.5 times that of single occupant
: autos. Of course the travel time of any given individual is 4 times as
: long. If cars averaged an occupancy level of 2.5, the person/miles per
: hour would be equal to the bikes while travel time remains 1/4 that
: of the bicycle commuter. Full buses would do even better, but as I've
: posted previously, buses don't travel full except at certain hours and
: often don't travel the most direct route for a given passenger's journey.
: An economy car with four occupants beats the bus' economy during the
: full 24 hour period. In most cities, and all suburban areas, car pooling
: is much more energy efficient than mass transit. Unfortunately, few people
: actually car pool.
:
: Gary
estimates (was that an oxymoron) say about 1.4. I don't know about the
U.S. but I imagine it would be much the same.
--
Conrad Leviston | Got to find a brightness in the soul,
mongoose@yoyo. | Not look outside to find out where we are,
cc.monash.edu.au | Otherwise you won't be satisfied,
Save the gherkin | 'Til you've made posession of the stars. (K.Wallinger)
John McCarthy
In California, the left lane on a freeway at certain hours is reserved
for car pools - at least two persons in a car. Yesterday I was giving someone
a ride to a meeting in San Jose and was therefore eligible. The
cars were backed up in the other lanes for much of the 15 mile journey,
and the left lane was free all the time.
We Californians are law-abiding but refuse to be herded into car
pools.
Sorry about that, social engineers.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Keith Mancus
>>> [long message deleted]
In article <1992Jul15.1...@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> mong...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Conrad Leviston) writes:
>> The estimate of 2.5 people per car is high. In Australia reliable
>> estimates (was that an oxymoron) say about 1.4. I don't know about the
>> U.S. but I imagine it would be much the same.
I would guess even lower.
In article <JMC.92Ju...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> In California, the left lane on a freeway at certain hours is reserved
> for car pools - at least two persons in a car. Yesterday I was giving someone
> a ride to a meeting in San Jose and was therefore eligible. The
> cars were backed up in the other lanes for much of the 15 mile journey,
> and the left lane was free all the time.
>
> We Californians are law-abiding but refuse to be herded into car
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> pools.
>
> Sorry about that, social engineers.
Make that "We Americans" and I think you'll be closer.
Feel free to change to "We humans" if you think this is universal.
Folks, you just can't get people to car pool. 20th century Westerners,
at least, are just too independent. I think you will see increasingly
efficient cars, smaller cars, alternate fuel cars, and other variations,
but (1) most Americans, at least, hate mass transit; (2) people use cars
because they are *individual* transportation. I go where I want when
I want.
Getting back to the physics: what is needed is maximum "people flux"
between arbitrary points. Note that we cannot just say "between two points"
because people don't move from "Houston" to "Galveston"; they go from
"1250 Vine St, Philadelphia" to "RD6 Box 35, Greenwich, NJ". This is
especially noticeable inside a city. It is not possible to have efficient
mass transportation in this situation!
When computing the efficiency of car pools, does anyone take
into account the extra miles required for the driver to pick up the other
people?
One possible solution is to go to higher dimensions, i.e. fly.
Then you have to work out some kind of traffic control system to separate
traffic moving in arbitrary directions between arbitrary points at a
variety of altitudes. Fun, fun, fun.
The simpler solution is to just keep shrinking the cars. This
not only makes them more fuel efficient, it also reduces the amount
of road required. Has anyone formally documented the decrease in length
of the "car length" over the past 20 years?
-Keith <man...@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>
Greg F Walz Chojnacki
>
> In California, the left lane on a freeway at certain hours is reserved
> for car pools - at least two persons in a car. Yesterday I was giving someone
> a ride to a meeting in San Jose and was therefore eligible. The
> cars were backed up in the other lanes for much of the 15 mile journey,
> and the left lane was free all the time.
>
> We Californians are law-abiding but refuse to be herded into car
> pools.
>
Greg
Rodger Madison
> for car pools - at least two persons in a car. Yesterday I was giving someone
.
.
>
> We Californians are law-abiding but refuse to be herded into car
> pools.
>
> Sorry about that, social engineers.
Just so nobody gets the wrong idea, the last time I went to Orange County
(south of LA) I took the 405 freeway which also has a carpool lane. I was
driving alone and stuck in very slow traffic. To relieve the boredom I
counted the number of cars passing in the carpool lane with only one
driver. A rough estimate was that well over 1/2 had no passenger.
In the late '70s a lane in the eastbound Santa Monica Fwy from the coast to
downtown LA was designated a diamond lane and reserved for cars with 2 or
more occupants. It was quite closely policed. Several drivers were
ticketed while driving in the lane carrying dummy passengers. The diamond
lane was removed after several weeks. I'm not sure what the real reason
was but at least on person sued Caltrans claiming the since their tax
dollars paid for highway maintenance, they were being denied equal
protection under the law by not being able to drive in the carpool lane.
The suit was sucessfull in a lower court but was under appeal when the
diamond lane removal rendered it moot.
Rodger
Don Roberts
man...@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
> The simpler solution is to just keep shrinking the cars. This
>not only makes them more fuel efficient, it also reduces the amount
>of road required.
>
> -Keith <man...@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>
This also has the beauty of increasing the driver's likelihood of being
killed in an accident, thereby further reducing road congestion (after
a brief transient).
--
Don Roberts
d...@llnl.gov
John McCarthy
social engineers will hate, because they like engineering people. Namely,
computer controlled cars will permit safe travel at 80 miles per hour,
bumper to bumper, and with 6 foot lanes instead of 12 feet.
The present roads and freeways will than be adequate.
Daniel Bowen
> Getting back to the physics: what is needed is maximum "people flux"
>between arbitrary points. Note that we cannot just say "between two points"
>because people don't move from "Houston" to "Galveston"; they go from
>"1250 Vine St, Philadelphia" to "RD6 Box 35, Greenwich, NJ". This is
>especially noticeable inside a city. It is not possible to have efficient
>mass transportation in this situation!
Try telling that to the approxiamately 300 people that were on my train
this morning. (Not a peak hour one, either). The key to mass transit is
having services which:
- go where, or close to where people want to go
- go when people want to go (ie frequently)
- go fast enough to make driving there unneccesary
- are cheaper than paying for petrol, maintenance, etc etc for a car
And it is possible. Once that sort of service is achieved, people will
use it. Why wouldn't they? Why not throw away the stress, costs, and
pollution of driving?
I'm off to the city centre now. The station is about five minutes walk
away. I won't hurry; if I miss the next train, there's another one in
ten minutes.
Get the picture?
Daniel Bowen
--
Daniel Bowen, Monash University |
Melbourne Australia | POPE GETS GRIT IN MOUTH!
dan...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au |
TCWF: tc...@gnu.ai.mit.edu | [TCWF]
Mike Beede
>social engineers will hate, because they like engineering people. Namely,
>computer controlled cars will permit safe travel at 80 miles per hour,
>bumper to bumper, and with 6 foot lanes instead of 12 feet.
>The present roads and freeways will than be adequate.
There are a few interesting problems that come to mind with this:
1. You'd have to switch over at some point. Who will pay for the
zammo-car until they can use it during rush hour? Who will convert
their freeway to a zammo-way (even during rush hour) until there are
enough vehicles so it doesn't look like a joke to J. Q. Taxpayer?
Something like the problem with switching to an incompatible
television format.
2. How much does it cost to produce vehicles to the standards
necessary? It costs $100,000 to buy a small plane (including the
costs of product liability insurance, of course).
3. How do we get people to maintain the vehicles adequately after
purchase? People are notoriously unreliable when it comes to things
like this, and mandating it and checking it is going to cost _plenty_.
4. What are the failure modes?
5. Will anyone be able to bring themselves to ride in the things? I
suppose after they work reliably for a while (say a year) I'd feel
more comfortable, but till then you have another hump to get over
(similar to 1, but psychological).
6. Is this technically possible in the near future? I was under the
impression that computer-controlled driving exceeded by far the
current state of the art. I'd believe you could do a pretty dumb
automated throttle/brake minder that would keep a uniform small
distance from the similarly augmented vehicle in front. Haven't
they tried a number of autonomous vehicles that were pretty much
failures?
7. What happens with any large automated system? Someone hacks it.
As our chief scientist puts it: ``this introduces some interesting
variations on the old `potato-up-the-exhaust-pipe' trick.'' In the
simple case, what happens if you put gum over the sensors? In the
more complex case, what if Capt. Crunch whistles into Hal while he's
driving LA? Or, we could envision a real-life version of the gag
where Bugs Bunny repaints the median strip into a big rock wall and
everyone follows it.
On the up side, you can probably tolerate a much higher fatality rate
than, e.g., the airlines, since each accident is much less
spectacular, and people are pretty used to car accidents already.
--
Mike Beede Secure Computing
be...@sctc.com 1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100
------------------ Arden Hills, MN 55112
(612) 482-7420
Mark Flanagan
>In <1992Jul15....@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> man...@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>>especially noticeable inside a city. It is not possible to have efficient
>>mass transportation in this situation!
>
>Try telling that to the approxiamately 300 people that were on my train
>this morning. (Not a peak hour one, either). The key to mass transit is
>having services which:
>
>- go where, or close to where people want to go
>- go when people want to go (ie frequently)
>- go fast enough to make driving there unneccesary
>- are cheaper than paying for petrol, maintenance, etc etc for a car
>
>And it is possible. Once that sort of service is achieved, people will
>use it. Why wouldn't they? Why not throw away the stress, costs, and
>pollution of driving?
>
>I'm off to the city centre now. The station is about five minutes walk
>away. I won't hurry; if I miss the next train, there's another one in
>ten minutes.
>
>Get the picture?
>
>
>Daniel Bowen
This assumes that there is one place in particular that people are interested in
going e.g. a 'city centre'. In some areas, there is no such central location,
possibly due to poor city planning, and a mass transit system can not work. Mass
transit only works if 'massive' numbers of people wish to go to approximately the
same place at approximately the same time. A case in point: Hampton Roads, Virginia.
(population approx. 1.2 million) HOV-3 lanes were attempted here a couple of years
ago, but were eliminated because nobody was using them. People have suggested a light
rail system, but that has gotten nowhere, as no one can agree on the routes, the only
'downtown' is in Norfolk, but there are also 4 major military installations, and
many large companies spread all over the countryside. Mass transit *can* work - but
not in all situations
Mark Flanagan
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Mark Flanagan Unsteady Aerodynamics Branch
ma...@uab15.larc.nasa.gov NASA Langley Research Center
DISCLAIMER: The ideas and opinions are mine - only the machine is Uncle Sam's
John McCarthy
that will greatly increase the capacity of the highway system are some
scientific discoveries and much engineering away. I have an answer to
only two of his problems.
To be fully useful, a computer controlled car must work in an unmodified
environment, i.e. it must be able to use existing roads and driveways.
It must be able to transport a non-driver. It almost certainly must
use vision. This solves the problem of introduction. It will be
useful even if the owner is the only person who has one, just provided
its use is legal. It will become especially desirable when legislatures
are sufficiently convinced of its safety to allow such cars higher
speed limits. Whenever two computer controlled cars are in sequence,
the spacing between them can be reduced with safety, because they can
effectively have millisecond reaction time. Some reduction might be
possible when a computer controlled car is following a human controlled
car but tail-gating would make the human ahead nervous.
John McCarthy
1. They will need automatic checkout facilities, that will inform the
user when they need service and refuse to drive unsafely. Present
BMWs inform the user when they need service. Sabotage of other people's
cars will be no more of a problem in the future than it is now.
2. All this will take quite a bit of time, but I'll bet we will see
technological solutions before the social engineers succeed in
herding us into mass transit.
R. Cage
>>The actual solution to the traffic problem is technological - which the
>>social engineers will hate, because they like engineering people. Namely,
>>computer controlled cars will permit safe travel at 80 miles per hour,
>>bumper to bumper, and with 6 foot lanes instead of 12 feet.
>>The present roads and freeways will than be adequate.
>
>There are a few interesting problems that come to mind with this:
>
>1. You'd have to switch over at some point. Who will pay for the
>zammo-car until they can use it during rush hour? Who will convert
Look, we've been through this before.
Who paid for cars which burned only unleaded gas before there
were no-lead gas stations? Who paid to put in tanks and pumps
for unleaded gas before there were cars which burned it? We
solved the chicken/egg problem 15 years ago. We can do it again.
Specially equipped buses could use the IVHS lanes as soon as they
are ready. Since the highway is a public investment, there is no
reason that public vehicles shouldn't be equipped and become some
of the first users.
>2. How much does it cost to produce vehicles to the standards
>necessary? It costs $100,000 to buy a small plane (including the
>costs of product liability insurance, of course).
IVHS systems will be made in greater volume. Sensors need only
have a range of a few feet (or inches, to detect "lane markings"
embedded in the pavement). This all adds up to less unit cost.
>3. How do we get people to maintain the vehicles adequately after
>purchase? People are notoriously unreliable when it comes to things
>like this, and mandating it and checking it is going to cost _plenty_.
It checks itself, and if it isn't working properly it refuses to
operate in automatic mode. You're going to see something much
like this in 1995 engine-control computers, when the OBD II mandates
go into effect. An OBD II engine will monitor itself and will
shut down a misfiring cylinder rather than emit unburned fuel.
The driver will be notified of the malfunction immediately.
>4. What are the failure modes?
Depends a lot on the system architecture, no?
>5. Will anyone be able to bring themselves to ride in the things? I
>suppose after they work reliably for a while (say a year) I'd feel
>more comfortable, but till then you have another hump to get over
>(similar to 1, but psychological).
I'd feel safer riding in an automatically controlled car in
a 6-foot lane with crash barriers on either side than I would
in a manually-controlled car in a 12-foot lane. For one thing,
I know that the computers in other people's cars haven't been
drinking, and lack of sleep or senility won't affect them. If
the only failure modes are to plow into me from behind, or stop
in the road (which my own radar and auto-brakes can detect and
protect me against), I'm reasonably safe.
>6. Is this technically possible in the near future? I was under the
>impression that computer-controlled driving exceeded by far the
>current state of the art.
It depends what you want. If you want a car which can drive
down a 1992 highway among other cars, yes, it's a tall order.
If you "cheat" and give it magnetic lane-position and location
cues in the roadway, radar transponders on other vehicles and
for traffic information, and otherwise create a highly structured
enviroment tailored for ease of control, you eliminate all the
computer vision systems and other problem areas and the job
becomes much more tractable.
>7. What happens with any large automated system? Someone hacks it.
>As our chief scientist puts it: ``this introduces some interesting
>variations on the old `potato-up-the-exhaust-pipe' trick.'' In the
>simple case, what happens if you put gum over the sensors?
You're assuming the sensors are optical. Magnetic coils work
pretty well even covered with gunk; that's why we use them
inside engines and transmissions. Radars see through grime and fog.
>In the
>more complex case, what if Capt. Crunch whistles into Hal while he's
>driving LA?
There is no system that is 100% hack-proof. We can probably limit
the damage a hacker can cause with careful design.
>Or, we could envision a real-life version of the gag
>where Bugs Bunny repaints the median strip into a big rock wall and
>everyone follows it.
If the lane marker is a pattern of iron and aluminum conducting
loops embedded in the pavement several inches down, that's *tough*.
>On the up side, you can probably tolerate a much higher fatality rate
>than, e.g., the airlines, since each accident is much less
>spectacular, and people are pretty used to car accidents already.
Not necessarily. Any failure of the system gives the victim
someone to sue. However, as a public health matter, if the
IVHS is safer than manual driving it is an improvement.
(IVHS: Intelligent Vehicle Highway System. OBD II: On-Board
Diagnostics II.)
--
Russ Cage wr...@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com russ%r...@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
* When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *
_Bad_ cop. No donut.
Keith Mancus
>>The actual solution to the traffic problem is technological - which the
>>social engineers will hate, because they like engineering people. Namely,
>>computer controlled cars will permit safe travel at 80 miles per hour,
>>bumper to bumper, and with 6 foot lanes instead of 12 feet.
>>The present roads and freeways will than be adequate.
> There are a few interesting problems that come to mind with this:
> 1. You'd have to switch over at some point. Who will pay for the
> zammo-car until they can use it during rush hour? Who will convert
> their freeway to a zammo-way (even during rush hour) until there are
> enough vehicles so it doesn't look like a joke to J. Q. Taxpayer?
> Something like the problem with switching to an incompatible
> television format.
Two answers: (1) You could convert just the HOV lane at first. Or,
better, (2) the automatic car requires no modification to the road.
See below.
> 2. How much does it cost to produce vehicles to the standards
> necessary? It costs $100,000 to buy a small plane (including the
> costs of product liability insurance, of course).
Nonsense. That $100K price is purely artificial. Believe me, I know;
I've been following light aviation closely since 1973. I'm a pilot and
an aerospace engineer who once upon a time wanted to work for a General
Aviation company. That industry has folded for political reasons.
Liability insurance is the biggest problem, and unreasonable FAA regs
regarding certification costs et al have also contributed. Furthermore,
there have never been enough airplanes built to get the full benefit
of mass-production techniques.
By comparison, you can build a nice kitbuilt at home for about $20K,
or less if you want a small "sportplane" rather than a two-place "practical"
bird. And after looking at a LOT of homebuilt airplanes, I feel safe in
saying that the average quality is very high, probably higher than
that of certified aircraft. (Which is to be expected; you can take more
time to make your pet perfect than a manufacturer can.)
> 3. How do we get people to maintain the vehicles adequately after
> purchase? People are notoriously unreliable when it comes to things
> like this, and mandating it and checking it is going to cost _plenty_.
You would probably have to have something like annual inspections
(or more frequent), along with tell-me-three-times cross-checking and
self-diagnostics. There is no technical reason why maintaining it should
cost very much; we're probably talking about swapping out boards that
have died and self-diagnosed. The boards would be mass-produced and
therefore cheap.
> 5. Will anyone be able to bring themselves to ride in the things? I
> suppose after they work reliably for a while (say a year) I'd feel
> more comfortable, but till then you have another hump to get over
> (similar to 1, but psychological).
There will always be people willing to try something new. I grant
you that the cultural penetration time for this technology is fairly high.
> 6. Is this technically possible in the near future? I was under the
> impression that computer-controlled driving exceeded by far the
> current state of the art. I'd believe you could do a pretty dumb
> automated throttle/brake minder that would keep a uniform small
> distance from the similarly augmented vehicle in front. Haven't
> they tried a number of autonomous vehicles that were pretty much
> failures?
Nope, wrong. See if you can get any information on Carnegie Mellon's
Robotics Institute. They have built two self-driving vehicles called
NavLab I and NavLab II. NavLab II is a van that can drive itself
down an Interstate at 55 mph, using cameras and image enhancement techniques
to watch the edge of the road, and laser rangefinders to watch for obstacles.
If an object appears ahead of the van, it puts on the brakes. NavLab II
can also drive over rough terrain, heading for a point defined by latitude
and longitude. (It has a GPS receiver.) It can even drive through
intersections at slow speed by "feeling its way" until it picks up the
lines marking the edge of the road. The algorithm is even smart enough
to pick out a road edge that lacks the traditional white line.
The automatic car is near future technology!
> 7. What happens with any large automated system? Someone hacks it.
> As our chief scientist puts it: ``this introduces some interesting
> variations on the old `potato-up-the-exhaust-pipe' trick.'' In the
> simple case, what happens if you put gum over the sensors?
I would hope the sensors would "realize" that they're plugged when
they get no inputs.
> In the more complex case, what if Capt. Crunch whistles into Hal while
> he's driving LA? Or, we could envision a real-life version of the gag
> where Bugs Bunny repaints the median strip into a big rock wall and
> everyone follows it.
This could cause massive confusion, but not accidents, if the system
is properly designed. You need sensors to detect objects anyway in case
something is out in the road, or an accident plugs it, etc. If you
point the car at a rock wall, it will stop before it gets there.
I'm not denying there are problems, but it is practical.
-Keith Mancus <man...@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>
John De Armond
>The actual solution to the traffic problem is technological - which the
>social engineers will hate, because they like engineering people. Namely,
>computer controlled cars will permit safe travel at 80 miles per hour,
>bumper to bumper, and with 6 foot lanes instead of 12 feet.
>The present roads and freeways will than be adequate.
You have, of course, hit the nail on the head. Purely a statist issue.
Witness the response from the heavy control types, normally identified
as Econazis, to my proposal for "car caterpiller" concept that is
quite similar to yours. Mine involves the use of light rail (rolling
resistance of steel on steel is much less than rubber on pavement),
cars mounting smart "caterpillar segments" when entering the thoroughfair,
and clusters of segments grouping together to form caterpillers propelled
by electricity and only from the rear-most unit. The intelligence is
there to break the caterpillers up, eject a car at its exit and then recluster.
This scheme brings the best of all worlds to the table. It uses nuclear
generated electricity for zero environmental impact, uses rail for its
efficiency and density and maintains or even enhances personal mobility.
And it requires no new technology. All of this is, of course, the antithesis
of what the statists masquerading as environmentalists want. Check
sci.energy archives for the complete proposal.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC |Interested in high performance mobility?
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |Interested in high technology and computers?
Marietta, Ga |Write me about "Performance Engineering" (TM)
j...@dixie.com |Magazine.
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta? Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
John De Armond
>Try telling that to the approxiamately 300 people that were on my train
>this morning. (Not a peak hour one, either). The key to mass transit is
>having services which:
>- go where, or close to where people want to go
>- go when people want to go (ie frequently)
>- go fast enough to make driving there unneccesary
>- are cheaper than paying for petrol, maintenance, etc etc for a car
>And it is possible. Once that sort of service is achieved, people will
>use it. Why wouldn't they? Why not throw away the stress, costs, and
>pollution of driving?
>I'm off to the city centre now. The station is about five minutes walk
>away. I won't hurry; if I miss the next train, there's another one in
>ten minutes.
>Get the picture?
No, I don't. A 5 minute walk is more than I'm willing to make, as is
a 10 minute wait. I rarely travel more than 15 minutes from my house.
While you're waiting and walking, I'm already where I want to go.
I've not had to stand, I've not had to be placed in close proximity to
people who may stink (either body odor or excessive perfume), I've
not been forced in close proximity to people I probably don't want
to BE in close proximity to, I have all the accessories I'm normally used to
while driving (radio, car phone, etc.)
I will personally NEVER give up my personal mobility. If that mobility
comes someday in the form of some gadget that runs on matter-anti-matter
generated farts, so be it. But it WILL be personal mobility.
Greg Titus
>
>> ... In Atlanta [expressway braking distances are about] three car
>>lengths at 60 MPH. ... This is actually quite reasonable under
>>most conditions. Since the vehicle in front of you can likely not stop
>>any faster than you can, maintaining a full braking distance interval
>>is wasteful.
>
>else's all you need in enough space to cover your reaction time.
Assume car B is following car A, A and B are traveling at the same
speed, and have the same deceleration under braking. A's brakes are
applied, and after a certain reaction time, B's are applied as well.
Both cars come to a stop. Between the time A's brakes are applied
and B comes to a stop, B must be traveling faster than A. So, in
order to avoid hitting the car in front of you, you need room both
for your reaction time and to allow for the fact that as long as you
have not yet decelerated to the speed of the car in front of you,
you will be catching up to it.
You can't always brake harder than the car in front of you in order
to avoid this problem.
greg
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Titus (g...@zia.cray.com) Compiler Group (Ada)
Cray Research, Inc. Santa Fe, NM
Opinions expressed herein (such as they are) are purely my own.
SCOTT I CHASE
not related to breaking. For example, if the car in front of you hits a tree,
or another oncoming car, it will surely deccelerate faster than you can break!
I know someone who's engine fell out (!) while driving on a freeway. The
engine block dragged on the ground, bringing the car to a stop so fast that
the driver almost flew out through the front window. The fault was an
auto mechanic who forgot to put back some bolts after repairing the engine.
There certainly must be other occurrences (even common ones) which cause
sudden braking. What about a blowout, for example?
-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase "The question seems to be of such a character
SIC...@CSA2.LBL.GOV that if I should come to life after my death
and some mathematician were to tell me that it
had been definitely settled, I think I would
immediately drop dead again." - Vandiver
Greg Hennessy
#It uses nuclear
#generated electricity for zero environmental impact,
Anyone who makes this bogus claim should not be suprised when the
proposal is not taken seriously.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gs...@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Mark A Biggar
>this morning. (Not a peak hour one, either). The key to mass transit is
>having services which:
>- go where, or close to where people want to go
>- go when people want to go (ie frequently)
>- go fast enough to make driving there unneccesary
>- are cheaper than paying for petrol, maintenance, etc etc for a car
Not to mention the most important feature:
Lets you listen to the music you want to without desturbing anyone else :-)
--
Mark Biggar
m...@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
Rodger Madison
> j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>
> This scheme brings the best of all worlds to the table. It uses nuclear
> generated electricity for zero environmental impact, uses rail for its
> efficiency and density and maintains or even enhances personal mobility.
> And it requires no new technology. All of this is, of course, the antithesis
> of what the statists masquerading as environmentalists want. Check
> sci.energy archives for the complete proposal.
>
> John
Have you ever heard the term "vaporware"? The McCarthy/DeArmond proposal
for self driving cars is vaporware at it most absurd level. The
technology does not exist and even if it were to be developed the thought
of maintaining such a system should convince any objective person that it
is sheer lunacy.
As for environmentalists as statists, who do you think would build and be
responsible for this super car/freeway system? Do you think users would
escape without having additional licensing requirements that would
increase government knowledge of and control over their lives?
I think what will have to evolve is a combination of mass transit and
more efficient automobiles. Downtown areas should be declared off limits
to all but mass transit vehicles. Travel in suburban and rural areas will
be similar to how it is now, some buses for those without access to or
inclination to drive a car, and small private vehicles.
Rodger
Gary Coffman
>estimates (was that an oxymoron) say about 1.4. I don't know about the
>U.S. but I imagine it would be much the same.
Yes, I made an error in the original packing density of bicycles. I forgot
to allow for reaction time spacing. The corrected result agrees with yours.
Gary
Gary Coffman
>drivers over here don't have the keen reactions of you Atlanta
>motorists.
We have the chain reaction accidents too. As you noted, all it takes is
one inattentive driver and there always is one. That hasn't stopped the
close following though. Fortunately, the relative velocity in these
chain reaction accidents is small and damage and injuries are usually
slight.
Gary
John McCarthy
indeed doesn't exist yet and may take a long time. But then minor
patches on our present freeway system will last for a long time.
My reason for mentioning the futuristic technology is to fight off
proposals like Rodger Madison's to forbid access to downtown by
personal cars. All that is needed downtown is more underground
parking. The Paris system of putting parking garages under the
streets will do for quite a long time.
I'll still be that we'll get the technology, towards which I do
some work, before the social engineers succeed in driving us into
car pools.
Sudha Neelakantan
real.. by John De Arm...@dixie.com
> generated electricity for zero environmental impact, uses rail for its
> efficiency and density and maintains or even enhances personal mobility.
Thats definitely a mistaken claim. No one can ignore the nuclear waste
byproducts that persist for generations. I guess that you chose to make
the value judgement that as long as getting rid of nuclear waste is not
a problem that you have to face -- let the future take care of our
radioactive dumps -- the pollution is irrelevant.
Sudha
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sudha K. Neelakantan < Clouds come floating into my life,
The Heinz School of \ no longer to carry rain or usher storm
Public Policy and Management \ but to add color to my sunset sky.
Carnegie Mellon > - Rabindranath Tagore -
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stephen Holland
>
> A 5 minute walk is more than I'm willing to make, as is a 10 minute wait.
You've hit the nail exactly on the head. Many people are just to lazy to do
something if it means doing it slowly. They want instant gratification and
insist that this is some sort of natural right.
This is really quite a new way of thinking; not more than fifty or a hundred
years or so. It also doesn't seem to be a natural way of thinking for most
humans (witness the fantastic increase in stress-related illnesses since WWII).
A mass transit system certainly isn't going to solve this problem. People will
just insist that it moves them where-ever they want to go when-ever they want
to get there.
John De Armond
>In article <7z-...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>#It uses nuclear
>#generated electricity for zero environmental impact,
>Anyone who makes this bogus claim should not be suprised when the
>proposal is not taken seriously.
Hmm, First you should establish your qualification to comment in order
that me might take you half way seriously. From your .sig line, I'd suspect
you have none. Me, I'm a nuke who spent his first career making those
evil assault nuclear plants the safe and efficient things they are today.
Perhaps you're like the fellow who sent me mail pointing out all the
environmental damage done at TMI. I asked him to tell me where all
the damage happened, as I noticed none in my 3 years' working there.
His reply was, and I quote, "Oops."
Is this an Oops, Greg?
Chris Malcolm
True, but it is also true (in the UK) that the most incredible
carnage, with dozens killed in one accident, sometimes happens in
these serial accidents. Once one crash has happened, more and more
stuff keeps piling in, sooner or later spilt petrol ignites, and the
carnage only stops multiplying when the police set up warnings well
before the scene.
A frightening feature of many UK motorway accidents is the frequency
with which pedestrians are mown down, i.e., after a minor shunt the
two drivers leave their cars to exchange insurance notes, and are run
down and killed.
These horrors usually happens in conditions of reduced visibility,
such as fog or rain. There is a large minority of drivers who react to
poor conditions by speeding up. "Hey, it's starting to rain, better
step on the gas and get home quick before some idiot runs into us!"
--
Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aifh +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
Chris Malcolm
>The actual solution to the traffic problem is technological - which the
>social engineers will hate, because they like engineering people. Namely,
>computer controlled cars will permit safe travel at 80 miles per hour,
>bumper to bumper, and with 6 foot lanes instead of 12 feet.
>The present roads and freeways will than be adequate.
That's only a third of the solution -- the technology providing the
option. Another third is social engineering -- persuading people to
use it. A great deal of those who prefer to drive to work despite the
existence of cheaper or faster alternatives a) _like_ driving, b)
_don't_ like someone else driving them. How are you going to persuade
someone who doesn't like another human being driving them to let a
_computer_ drive them, and, what is more, at speeds and distances that
would be dangerous lunacy for a human driver?
Would your wife be willing to let a computer drive her to work? Faster
and closer than she'd ever dare to drive herself?
[And the other third? Ask the lawyers....]
System Janitor
*In article <7z-...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
*#It uses nuclear
*#generated electricity for zero environmental impact,
*Anyone who makes this bogus claim should not be suprised when the
*proposal is not taken seriously.
*-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
*USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
It would seem to me that someone who lives in such a beautiful part of the
country, which has been thrashed by the coal-power industry *and* who would
probably like to have the air be at least somewhat transparent would love
the (OK, almost zero) environmental impact of nukes.
-Mike
Chris Malcolm
>A 5 minute walk is more than I'm willing to make,
This kind of attitude is quite startling to Europeans! No doubt this
is the reason why at this university, sited in a hilly city with
plenty of staircases as well as streets, the staircases are sometimes
called "American filters". When a bunch of students arrive at the
bottom of a long staircase, they spread out as they ascend. When the
first students arrive at the top of the staircase, that bunch of
students struggling flat-footedly upwards less than half-way up are
the American motorists. You can recognise them easily on the flat too,
because their rather awkward and inefficient gait reveals them as
people who have never learnt to walk properly.
R. Cage
>Excerpts from netnews.sci.environment: 16-Jul-92 Re: Is car pooling for
>real.. by John De Arm...@dixie.com
>> This scheme brings the best of all worlds to the table. It uses nuclear
>> generated electricity for zero environmental impact, uses rail for its
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>byproducts that persist for generations.
But you seem to be able to ignore that the fuel isotopes
are RADIOACTIVE (the main gripe you seem to have with the
products), have been for billions of years, and will continue
to be for billions more, unless they are used to make energy.
Then they are only radioactive for a few tens or hundreds
of years.
Are you one of these Chicken Littles who frets about the
nuclear plant in the next state but hasn't checked your
basement for radon levels yet, because the radon is "natural"?
Greg Hennessy
#>#It uses nuclear
#>#generated electricity for zero environmental impact,
Me:
#>Anyone who makes this bogus claim should not be suprised when the
#>proposal is not taken seriously.
#Hmm, First you should establish your qualification to comment in order
#that me might take you half way seriously. From your .sig line, I'd suspect
#you have none.
I see you have no compulsion to establishing your qualifications
before spouting off. Why should I then?
Guessing people's qualifications from their .signature file is snobbish
at best. Moronic at worst.
#Is this an Oops, Greg?
Nope. I just realize (as you probably do when you don't get caught up
in your right wing ideology) that the number of things that humans do
that have ZERO enviromental impact can be counted on the thumbs of my
left foot.
Now if you want to make the claim that nuclear power has LESS
environmental impact than, for example, a coal burning power plant,
that is one thing, but to to argue that nuclear power has ZERO
environmental impact is just an idiotic statement.
When the regulations are properly followed, nuclear power is
reasonable safe. When regulations are properly followed, medical waste
is reasonable safe.
However, in order to save a buck, some people dump medical waste into
the Atlantic ocean, and then waste ends up on the coastline of New
Jersey.
When will happen WHEN someone shady operator dumps radioactive waste
somewhere? It has happened before (Brazil) and will happen again.
What happens when people DON'T follow regulations has to be considered
in any environmental impact.
Greg Hennessy
hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu (System Janitor) writes:
#It would seem to me that someone who lives in such a beautiful part of the
#country, which has been thrashed by the coal-power industry *and* who would
#probably like to have the air be at least somewhat transparent would love
#the (OK, almost zero) environmental impact of nukes.
I am, in general, supportive of nuclear power, even while realising
that the location of some current nuclear power plants verges on
stupidity.
The point I was making, was that claiming that nuclear power has ZERO
enviromental impact is a stupid claim to make.
And John De Armond, while I disagree with just about every political
view he has, is not stupid. He just made a stupid claim.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gs...@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Steve Austin
->> We Californians are law-abiding but refuse to be herded into car
->> pools.
->> Sorry about that, social engineers.
-> Make that "We Americans" and I think you'll be closer.
->Feel free to change to "We humans" if you think this is universal.
->Folks, you just can't get people to car pool. 20th century Westerners,
->at least, are just too independent. ...
With a decent (or even half-decent) public transportation you can get
people to do more than car-pool. In New York and London (UK) I feel
quite OK with being herded into busses and trains. I think the
same thing works in Tokyo and large European cities. In Boston
(with 1/4-decent public transport system) people can get along fine
without a car if they are near a T line. If not, they need a car.
Steve Austin
Dave Scidmore
>In article <1992Jul16.1...@sctc.com> be...@sctc.com (Mike Beede) writes:
>>5. Will anyone be able to bring themselves to ride in the things? I
>>suppose after they work reliably for a while (say a year) I'd feel
>>more comfortable, but till then you have another hump to get over
>>(similar to 1, but psychological).
>I'd feel safer riding in an automatically controlled car in
>a 6-foot lane with crash barriers on either side than I would
>in a manually-controlled car in a 12-foot lane.
Cars already have a number of computer controlled systems and the number
and extent of those controls is increasing every year. The latest gizmo
is anti-lock brakes where a computer monitors the revolution of the tires
and prevents them from slipping. Only a handful of people have expressed
concern over the drivers loss of control and I doubt that many people
will feel uncomfortable riding in a car with ABS installed. My point
is that in most cases people focus more on what the car can do than
on the technology required to get the car to do what it does. Car companies
capatalize on this by not selling ABS as a computer doing your braking
for you. They sell the feature not the technology.
Given the rate at which automation is being incorporated into current
cars auto-pilot cars may be more evolutionary than revolutionary. Either
way when the technology is here you can bet car dealers will be
selling transportation without the hastle and risk of driving rather
than selling a computer that drives for you.
--
Dave Scidmore, Heurikon Corp.
dave.s...@heurikon.com
John De Armond
>> This scheme brings the best of all worlds to the table. It uses nuclear
>> generated electricity for zero environmental impact, uses rail for its
>> efficiency and density and maintains or even enhances personal mobility.
>> And it requires no new technology. All of this is, of course, the antithesis
>> of what the statists masquerading as environmentalists want. Check
>> sci.energy archives for the complete proposal.
>>
>> John
>Have you ever heard the term "vaporware"? The McCarthy/DeArmond proposal
>for self driving cars is vaporware at it most absurd level. The
>technology does not exist and even if it were to be developed the thought
>of maintaining such a system should convince any objective person that it
>is sheer lunacy.
Of course it's vaporware. Only an idiot would think otherwise. Oh.
Seeing your organization, I understand why you'd bellow so. It is
much less vaporware than any of the smart highway proposals. NO new
technology needs to be developed. Only application engineering would
need to be done. That would mean, of course, that those jucy pie-in-the-
sky research grants would not materialize which makes the whole proposal
unacceptable to the establishment. It would help, btw, to actually
read my proposal before commenting.
>I think what will have to evolve is a combination of mass transit and
>more efficient automobiles. Downtown areas should be declared off limits
>to all but mass transit vehicles. Travel in suburban and rural areas will
>be similar to how it is now, some buses for those without access to or
>inclination to drive a car, and small private vehicles.
Excellent plan. A blueprint to accelerate flight to the 'burbs to hyperspeed.
I like it. If cars were outlaws in Atlanta, for instance, the few
companies I still deal with down there would move off to the 'burbs
and I'd never have to go there again. The big question. Will they
put up the barbed wire fences around each city. "To keep the cars out",
of course.
Carl J Lydick
>When the regulations are properly followed, nuclear power is
>reasonable safe. When regulations are properly followed, medical waste
>is reasonable safe.
>
>However, in order to save a buck, some people dump medical waste into
>the Atlantic ocean, and then waste ends up on the coastline of New
>Jersey.
>
>When will happen WHEN someone shady operator dumps radioactive waste
>somewhere? It has happened before (Brazil) and will happen again.
Of course, the case in Brazil was medical nuclear material (not waste), and
medical nuclear material is fairly loosely regulated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Carl J Lydick
>With a decent (or even half-decent) public transportation you can get
>people to do more than car-pool.
Given, of course, that population density is high enough.
>In New York and London (UK) I feel quite OK with being herded into busses and
>trains.
As it is, e.g., in New York and London.
>I think the same thing works in Tokyo and large European cities.
ditto
>In Boston (with 1/4-decent public transport system) people can get along fine
>without a car if they are near a T line. If not, they need a car.
But, of course, if the population density is somewhat lower, mass transit
doesn't work nearly as well.
John McCarthy
In article <JMC.92Ju...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> j...@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>The actual solution to the traffic problem is technological - which the
>social engineers will hate, because they like engineering people. Namely,
>computer controlled cars will permit safe travel at 80 miles per hour,
>bumper to bumper, and with 6 foot lanes instead of 12 feet.
>The present roads and freeways will than be adequate.
That's only a third of the solution -- the technology providing the
option. Another third is social engineering -- persuading people to
use it. A great deal of those who prefer to drive to work despite the
existence of cheaper or faster alternatives a) _like_ driving, b)
_don't_ like someone else driving them. How are you going to persuade
someone who doesn't like another human being driving them to let a
_computer_ drive them, and, what is more, at speeds and distances that
would be dangerous lunacy for a human driver?
Would your wife be willing to let a computer drive her to work? Faster
and closer than she'd ever dare to drive herself?
[And the other third? Ask the lawyers....]
Take any woman. Take my wife. No! Leave my wife out of it!
As with any new technology, and more than most, computer driven cars
will probably take some time to get used to. Chris Malcolm's post
induced me to think about the problem. Telephone answering machines
used to bother me, but now that I have got used to them, I rattle
away after the beep without hesitation.
Here are some stages that I envisage.
1. Only a few people have computer-chauffeurs and the law still requires
that a licensed driver be in the car. The law also puts some
restrictions on speed and on following distance. There may be a big
safety problem if the law requires that computers be programmed to
obey speed limits that the human drivers are violating. It would be
better if the user put in the speed at which he wanted to travel,
as he now can with cruise control, and was legally responsible for
the speed of travel. That way the lax enforcement of unrealistic
laws could continue.
2. People get used to being in a computer controlled car with other
people.
3. The law now permits computer controlled cars without a licensed
driver. There are restrictions on the program when following a
non controlled car that are different from following a controlled
car. As drivers get used to being on the same road with computer
controlled cars, these restrictions are relaxed.
4. We users of computer controlled cars develop the political muscle
to wrest the diamond lanes away from the tiny minority of car poolers.
These lanes then have higher speed limits and closer following. Travel
time in them is reduced. This induces many of the nervous to overcome
their nervousness and ride in them.
5. The next step is to allow two cars in parallel in the current
12 foot wide freeway lanes.
6. After 20 years, human controlled cars are not allowed on high speed
roads, just as horses and bicycles are not allowed on freeways today.
7. Long before this computer controlled cars win in the accident
statistics. Not only don't the computers get drunk but they maneuver
in a spectacular and co-ordinated way in order to protect their
passengers from getting clobbered by human drunks. At some point it
becomes bad form to transport children by human controlled car.
As I wrote before, I have always thought about the complete computer
chauffeur that can go anywhere a human can. However, it may be that
some less capable systems such as computer controlled high speed lanes
on freeways will be developed first.
The main delay will be mobilizing the resources for the billions of
dollars required to develop a system. The money will be small
compared to the benefits, but capitalists are timid and are always
looking for an innovation just like the innovation that made Xerox
rich.
Rodger Madison
> sn...@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudha Neelakantan) writes:
>
> Oh dis is gonna be fun. Another polysci geek steps onto my playground.
> So Sudha, tell us about all those problems in getting rid of that
> evil nuclear waste. Please try to define it first. Meanwhile I'm
> sharpening my knives for the butchering.
>
> John
While your sharpening your knives please relate to the uninformed among
us the current status of nuclear waste management in this country and the
world. The layman's (I count myself among them in this subject area) view
of this is that there are vast quantities of highly radioactive materials
in temporary storage waiting for a long term disposal stategy to be
developed.
How does this differ from reality?
Rodger
John Serafin
>In article <1992Jul17.1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gs...@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>>When the regulations are properly followed, nuclear power is
>>reasonable safe. When regulations are properly followed, medical waste
>>is reasonable safe.
>>
>>However, in order to save a buck, some people dump medical waste into
>>the Atlantic ocean, and then waste ends up on the coastline of New
>>Jersey.
>>
>>When will happen WHEN someone shady operator dumps radioactive waste
>>somewhere? It has happened before (Brazil) and will happen again.
>Of course, the case in Brazil was medical nuclear material (not waste), and
>medical nuclear material is fairly loosely regulated.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, then there is the case of the contractor that was supposed to dump nuclear
waste from the Navy far out to sea, dumped it just off the Farallon Islands
instead (about 30 miles from San Francisco Bay).
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
>understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
>unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
>organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
>hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
--
John P. Serafin | Operating a bicycle is more like driving than riding.
j...@netcom.com | Operating an automobile is more like riding than driving.
John De Armond
>In article <k1-...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>A 5 minute walk is more than I'm willing to make,
>This kind of attitude is quite startling to Europeans! No doubt this
>is the reason why at this university, sited in a hilly city with
>plenty of staircases as well as streets, the staircases are sometimes
>called "American filters". When a bunch of students arrive at the
>bottom of a long staircase, they spread out as they ascend. When the
>first students arrive at the top of the staircase, that bunch of
>students struggling flat-footedly upwards less than half-way up are
>the American motorists. You can recognise them easily on the flat too,
>because their rather awkward and inefficient gait reveals them as
>people who have never learnt to walk properly.
I thought Americans were recognizable by their obvious affluence.
Decadence I believe was the term used in the 70s.
Several thoughts come to mind. One is, our declination to walk is a
sign of a more advanced society. Another is, I would have probably been
somewhat more willing to walk before arthritis took care of the old
knees. Yet another is, I wonder where the European version of Ellis Island
is? Don't worry. Ya'll catch up one day ... maybe.
John De Armond
>In article <JMC.92Ju...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> j...@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>The actual solution to the traffic problem is technological - which the
>That's only a third of the solution -- the technology providing the
>option. Another third is social engineering -- persuading people to
>use it.
NO! That approach absolutely, positively WILL NOT work. The way to
get people to alter their personal mobility habits is to provide them
with an alternative that is so much better that they'll use it
automatically. Over the long term Americans will NOT be coerced
into doing something they don't want to do, as evidenced by the
near zero compliance with the national speed limit. When a new
mode of transportation offers an obvious benefit, people will use it.
An example is the fact that I use the MARTA train when going to the
airport despite the inconvenience on the boarding end (parking and walking)
because it dumps out in the luggage area of Hartsfield on the other end.
>How are you going to persuade
>someone who doesn't like another human being driving them to let a
>_computer_ drive them, and, what is more, at speeds and distances that
>would be dangerous lunacy for a human driver?
Same way you get 'em to let a computer fly them in a commercial airline.
You make it work so well and make it so transparent that the average
person does not give it a second thought. Still, not everyone will
use it but who cares? No one really expects 100% participation in
anything - except maybe when federal agencies extort United Way
"donations" from the employees.
Paul Houle
>While your sharpening your knives please relate to the uninformed among
>us the current status of nuclear waste management in this country and the
>world. The layman's (I count myself among them in this subject area) view
>of this is that there are vast quantities of highly radioactive materials
>in temporary storage waiting for a long term disposal stategy to be
>developed.
This is essentially correct. At least in the US, no permament
waste disposal sites are in operation. A site called WIPP in New Mexico
is under construction for low level waste, and another site is being
considered underneath Yucca Mountain in Nevada for high level waste.
Most advocates of nuclear power that I discuss this with claim that
all the technical problems of nuclear waste disposal are solved -- that it
is only the fault of the "god-damned environmentalists" that we don't have
any permament facilities. Many people who think that waste disposal is a
problem feel that way on a gut instinct -- there is just no safe way to
get rid of something that is as awful as a mixture of radioactive
Strontium, Technitium, Plutonium, etc. People on both sides of the issue
often lack an understanding of processes on a geologic time scale. One
friend of mine told me that it would be perfectly safe to deposit nuclear
waste canisters inside a subduction zone such as the Marianis Trench...
Not considering that many subduction zones are near mud volcanos that
allow liquids and gases evolved in the zone to escape.
Assuming that safe disposal is possible -- say, we find a good
standard for keeping the stuff confined, and nobody ever slacks off and
just figures he can grind up a fuel road and use it to pave the street
with, the cost of disposal must be added to the total cost of energy
from nuclear sources, as must the cost of extraction, processing,
decomissioning, etc... All the costs which are currently disassociated
with the operation of a nuclear power plant. I wouldn't be suprised if
we find that nuclear power simply costs too much to do it right.
--
Steve Austin
->In the late '70s a lane in the eastbound Santa Monica Fwy from the coast to
->downtown LA was designated a diamond lane and reserved for cars with 2 or
->more occupants. It was quite closely policed. Several drivers were
->ticketed while driving in the lane carrying dummy passengers.
That was my first idea -- obviously the cops are wise to it. Does
the pertinent ordinance (or whatever) stipulate the nature of the
occupant? Does Chubby, my pet hamster, count?
Failing that, if I had a child, could I count the child as a
passenger?
Steve Austin
Richard Bell
>The layman's (I count myself among them in this subject area) view
>of this is that there are vast quantities of highly radioactive materials
>in temporary storage waiting for a long term disposal stategy to be
>developed.
>
>How does this differ from reality?
Replace "developed" with "accepted by the laymen". Nature has shown us that
deep interrment will work, but the laymen refuse to accept it, and the
legislators do not have the balls to implement it (legislators worry too much
about being re-elected to make us take distasteful, but much needed, medicine).
And yes, if they covinced me that it would give off 5mrem, or less a year,
(average whole-body annual dose is 150mrem), I would store radwaste in my back
yard; although, I would doublecheck the levels periodically.
John McCarthy
Rodger_...@rand.ORG (Rodger Madison) writes:
Steve Austin
I'm sure they wouldn't count your hamster and would count your child.
At least they count don't jibe at my six year old.
It was reported that drivers crossing the Bay Bridge into San Francisco
would stop by the Bart (light rail) station and offer rides in order
to get three in a car to use the free and fast commuter lane on the
Bay Bridge. They would not offer rides back, since that direction is
free anyway. Bart forbade the practice (presumably by denying entrance
to their parking lot or something) but doesn't have the manpower to
enforce the prohibition. The considered the drivers to be stealing
their customers - a form of property.
When I drove from San Jose to Palo Alto on Wednesday, I was passed
by exactly six cars going in the car pool lane. Only one, with
four men in the car, struck me as other than an accidental car
pool, although a cars with one man and one woman could have been.
Steve Austin
->>In Boston (with 1/4-decent public transport system) people can get along fine
->>without a car if they are near a T line. If not, they need a car.
->But, of course, if the population density is somewhat lower, mass transit
->doesn't work nearly as well.
Yup. But in this case, there probably is no great overcrowding on
the roads. If you do not have a problem, you probably don't need the
solution.
If I lived in Wyoming, I doubt very much that I would rely on public
transportation. If I lived in central London, I would get myself a
season-pass for the Underground.
Steve Austin
dmitry pruss
>
>Nature has shown us that
>deep interrment will work, but the laymen refuse to accept it, and the
>legislators do not have the balls to implement it (legislators worry too much
>about being re-elected to make us take distasteful, but much needed, medicine).
:( hard to solve this particular problem, yeh? If legislators don't bother
about reelections at all, the impact on the environment tends to be much worse
(I mean XUSSR etc.)
Should we elect them for much longer terms ?
IMHO the only practical approach is to turn to a monarchy. Kings don't have
to get mad of reelections, but they should keep the environment for their
sons :) :) :)
>
>And yes, if they covinced me that it would give off 5mrem, or less a year,
>(average whole-body annual dose is 150mrem), I would store radwaste in my back
>yard; although, I would doublecheck the levels periodically.
>
Beware of your neighbors ;-)
BTW, my former boss once did stored his contaminated clothes in his closet.
He just hoped that short-lived P-32 will decay eventually. It did
decayed... with a wool sweater alltogether :)
John De Armond
>The point I was making, was that claiming that nuclear power has ZERO
>enviromental impact is a stupid claim to make.
>And John De Armond, while I disagree with just about every political
>view he has, is not stupid. He just made a stupid claim.
I'm honored. But I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the non-zero
impact of nuclear power is.
John De Armond
>In article <dbb...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>#I'm honored. But I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the non-zero
>#impact of nuclear power is.
>Spent fuel casings for example.
Hmm. Tell me what a "spent fuel casing" is. Must be some colloquialism
used by the neophyte. Certainly not a term used in the industry. Could
you be referring to the zirconium fuel cladding? I'm trying to figure
out what effect a rather inert metal would have on the environment.
Zirconium is harmless and does not become radioactive so after the
fuel is removed and the tramp contamination removed from the
surface, it is just, well, .. metal. Perhaps you're referring to
the spent fuel itself. We work this one out periodically in this
group. If you're a newbie and therefore missed the last round
AND you can convince me your interest is something other than
demagoguery, I'll mail you the whole archive. Since you've stepped
in way over your head and are simply attempting to save face through
arm waving, I'm going to spare the rest of the net a repeat.
Daniel Bowen
>In article <1992Jul16....@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> dan...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Daniel Bowen) writes:
>>Try telling that to the approxiamately 300 people that were on my train
>>this morning. (Not a peak hour one, either). The key to mass transit is
>>having services which:
>>- go where, or close to where people want to go
>>- go when people want to go (ie frequently)
>>- go fast enough to make driving there unneccesary
>>- are cheaper than paying for petrol, maintenance, etc etc for a car
>Not to mention the most important feature:
>Lets you listen to the music you want to without desturbing anyone else :-)
That's why God invented Walkmans. (Well, okay, so Sony might have had
something to do with it.)
Sometime I'd like to work out the costs I'd be paying if I drove
everywhere, but for now I can only estimate..
"Royal Auto" magazine estimates the current average costs of running a
car to be something above A$110 a week.. let's be kind and call it $100.
It depends on the type of car and how much it's used, of course.
Meanwhile, I spend $43 a month on my monthly ticket, which gets me
anywhere in zones 1&2 (covering the inner and mid suburbs of Melbourne)
and anywhere in all zones (1,2&3) on weekends. Note that this is the
concession rate because I'm a student. The adult rate is double this,
$86 a month. To get this concession rate, I paid about $80 for a
Tertiary Student concession card, which covers me for the year.
So, compared to $100 a week for a car, I'm spending about $11 for my
ticket, plus less than $2 for my concession card, per week. So, more
than $87 a week saved, and for that I have to live with the Met closing
down at midnight, waiting for the next bus, train or tram if I miss it
(frequencies vary), a walk to the railway station when I want to
catch a train to/from home*, and of course the occasional half-day train
strike.
But for $87 a week saved, which is something I couldn't currently afford
anyway, I'll take mass transit, thanks.
It may not work in all cases, but it sure works in mine.
(Yep, I really should get around to working it out with exact figures
sometime.)
Daniel Bowen
* - helps keep me fit actually, since I rarely exercise other than
walking or the occasional cycling.
--
Daniel Bowen, Monash University | DRIVING!
Melbourne Australia | - Physically risky
dan...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | - Financially hazardous
TCWF: tc...@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Environmentally disasterous
Chris Malcolm
>c...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>>That's only a third of the solution -- the technology providing the
>>option. Another third is social engineering -- persuading people to
>>use it.
>NO! That approach absolutely, positively WILL NOT work. The way to
>get people to alter their personal mobility habits is to provide them
>with an alternative that is so much better that they'll use it
>automatically. Over the long term Americans will NOT be coerced
Read what I said: I said "social engineering". You seem to think I
said "co-ercion". Of course co-ercion is _one_ way to try to get
people to do something; another is offering them incentives. That's
why I said "persuading". For example, a social engineer might say "my
figures suggest that a 30% differential in cost is necessary to
persuade 10% more of commuters to switch to using the service."
I certainly could make more sense of some of the postings in this
group if I interpreted "social engineering" to mean "forced against my
will to my considerable disadvantage." Is that what "social
engineering" means in US-speak? If so, what is the proper US-speak
term for planning how to co-ordinate resources and needs by means of
appropriate pricing?
Govender
<stuff deleted>
>1. Only a few people have computer-chauffeurs and the law still requires
>that a licensed driver be in the car. The law also puts some
>restrictions on speed and on following distance. There may be a big
>safety problem if the law requires that computers be programmed to
>obey speed limits that the human drivers are violating. It would be
>better if the user put in the speed at which he wanted to travel,
>as he now can with cruise control, and was legally responsible for
>the speed of travel. That way the lax enforcement of unrealistic
>laws could continue.
<stuff deleted>
i've followed this thread with interest
sometime ago in an article in the local (south african) "car" magazine
volkswagen unveiled a scheme similar to that proposed here. they claimed
that a single lane of traffic at 80 km/h would give greater throughput
that four lanes of human controlled traffic.anyone from vw care to comment?
BTW what all those aircraft that are computer controlled (airbus)? that's
potentially far more dangerous than any car pile up especially at lower
relative speeds on a compubahn (tm).
the main problem here seems to be one of assimilation.thirty years ago
the idea of roads where pedestrians would be illegal would have been
heretical in south africa.
morgan govender
gove...@shannon.ee.wits.ac.za
Larry Smith
>In article <10...@cis.rand.org> Rodger_...@rand.ORG (Rodger Madison) writes:
>>Have you ever heard the term "vaporware"? The McCarthy/DeArmond proposal
>>for self driving cars is vaporware at it most absurd level. The
>>technology does not exist and even if it were to be developed the thought
>>of maintaining such a system should convince any objective person that it
>>is sheer lunacy.
>First of all the technology needed to make self driving cars, if it does
>not already exist, is not very far away. Technology such as computer map
>systems in cars, and global positioning satalites that provide navagational
>information have been in the works for some time as a part of computer
>systems that can provide future drivers with maps pinpointing their
>location.
Yes, and no. You are both right.
The scifi pipe dream still proposed occasionally has an enormous central
traffic control. Drivers have no say in vehicle operation except deciding
the destination. We talked about this some weeks ago, and I noted then that,
speaking as a programmer familiar with the problems that would need to be
solved by such a system, I'd never get in one of the damn things. The order
of complexity is far, FAR higher than today's software methodology is capable
of dealing with. People had doubts about star wars, and they were right. And
this is a much tougher problem. Sensors, etc, are all trivial. The real
problem is the software.
Now, a DEcentralized system, placing the intelligence aboard the vehicles and
simply routing traffic data to the vehicles is much more doable and likely
just as effective. MIT's Insect Robots show the value of localized intel-
ligence, they have made more progress with their robots using this scheme than
the whole industry has had with their centralized systems. It turns out, a
couple of K and one or two microprocessors *can* control a robot better than
a Cray-2, if you hook 'em together right. The key words are "localized" and
"distributed".
>Auto pilot systems already exist for airplanes, helecopters, and
>boats.
Notice that all of these place decisions for operational control with the
*pilots*, not with ground control. The FAA is mad for centralized ground
control, has been for years, and whenever they manage to grab away more
decision-making power from the pilots they manage to make the air traffic
system less safe and more expensive. A classic case in point is their
recent decision to go with their own home-brew collision-avoidance system
over one proposed by a tiny start-up firm. The cost of the startups version
was $800 per plane, and demonstrations showed 100% avoidence. The FAA system
versions works out to $240,000 per plane and requires an air-traffic controller
in the loop, with something like 70% collision avoidence (the remaining 30%
were the controllers responsibility). But it put the decisionmaking on the
ground, where the FAA wanted it, rather than in the airplane. As it turns out,
that's not a good place for it, the startups system made decisions on-board,
locally. Yes, it didn't have as much data to work with, but it had enough.
No, the decisions it made weren't *necessarily* optimal for the air traffic
network as a whole - but if that's your concern over safety then you are in
the wrong job.
We need major breakthroughs in software to support either central or decent-
tralized control. In the case of the latter, I think it will be done. In
the case of the former, I don't think it can be at all.
I would certainly never willingly entrust my life to anything coded in C.
Larry Smith (sm...@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there. Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain. If one of those men had been present when the
Deity was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.
Kershner Wyatt
>Feel free to change to "We humans" if you think this is universal.
>efficient cars, smaller cars, alternate fuel cars, and other variations,
>but (1) most Americans, at least, hate mass transit; (2) people use cars
>because they are *individual* transportation. I go where I want when
>I want.
I use mass transit when it's available and convenient. I happen to live in
a city where mass transit goes nowhere near where I need to go. So I could
use it. Let's see, if I get down to the nearest pickup point about 5 miles
away, ride into downtown, wait and transfer, then catch the infrequent bus
service going towards where I work, and get off about 1.5 miles away, then
3 hours later I can be at work. Long and short of it is that I am not
going to use it when I can drive where I want in 20 minutes.
Contrast this to when we lived in Germany, we would catch the bus to the train
station (bus every hour about 5 minute walk away). Hop on the train, usually
had just enough time to grab an automatic vending ticket and walk out to the
platform and ride into town. Usually the train station was close enough, so
we could easily walk to where we needed to go. If not, the buses ran often
enough to that part of the city. Cost- couple dollars round trip and I didn't
have to find a parking place--that aggravation was worth any money.
Obviously, it's a circular argument. I would use IF. If there were Mass tran-
sit, I would use. Well there is, so why not? Well, it's not convenient. So
If we made it more convenient would you use it? Maybe. I can really understand
why Americans don't use it AND why municipal governments can't afford to run
it.
As for carpools, well, they can work--if everyone gives. I have pooled in
a number of locations that I have lived, and I usually end up hating it.
What happens is that the exceptions end up winning. I can't drive tomorrow
(the normal day for said person to drive) because ... I think we should
take your car because it's bigger/better A/C/you have a station wagon. Ugghh!
I need to go in an hour early tomorrow, I need to stay late tonight, actually
I don't know when I will be done, you all don't mind, do you? (Well, yes, I
want to go home...)
Fairness is a cardinal rule of carpooling, if one person gets constantly
abused, it probably won't work. Best compromise I have seen was when I was
doing the DC commute was a leased van. The VAN leaves for so and so at such
and such a time. Period. It returns to pick up at such and such. Designated
driver for the week is: Name. You don't fit the rules, you drive yourself or
arrange for alternate trans. Designated driver is responsible for his/her
week of driving, gas, and cleaning. They will not miss their assigned duties
without having made arrangements for another driver (usually a trading of days).Needs lots of people (usually 6 or more) to make it work, but it does work
nicely, saves wear and tear on the personal cars, etc. Also, bosses are more
understanding when they understand that you participate in this arrangement.
> The simpler solution is to just keep shrinking the cars. This
>not only makes them more fuel efficient, it also reduces the amount
>of road required. Has anyone formally documented the decrease in length
>of the "car length" over the past 20 years?
I don't think this affects amount of road used by a significant amount, just
because I think we all like having as much space in front of us as possible,
look at tailgaters -- they want your space...
I think there is a practical trade-off between small cars and safety. I don't
drive a small car, although by 1960's/1970's standards, I probably drive a
compact. Don't I wish I could rent a compact the size of my car! Now it's a
full size/premium/luxury. Actually, I think that length is a bit more
aerodynamic, that's why some cars have been getting longer. The shoebox
models that you can carry in and park behind you at work, achieve their
fuel efficiency by their micro-engines, and small frontal area.
Traditional trade-offs. Small car: More manueverability, easier to park,
probably better mileage. Large cars: More crush space, better ride, easier
to put people in (usually).
Before the flames on those generalities start -- I know there are exceptions
on both sides.
Just my opinion.
--
Kershner Wyatt
kwy...@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.ncr.com
My opinions are my own and aren't necessarily my employer's.
ni...@vnet.ibm.com
>In article <k1-...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>A 5 minute walk is more than I'm willing to make,
>This kind of attitude is quite startling to Europeans!
>is the reason why at this university, sited in a hilly city with
>plenty of staircases as well as streets, the staircases are sometimes
>called "American filters". When a bunch of students arrive at the
>bottom of a long staircase, they spread out as they ascend. When the
>first students arrive at the top of the staircase, that bunch of
>students struggling flat-footedly upwards less than half-way up are
>the American motorists.
Time is not so precious for students, they don't work for a living.
Let me assure you that at my hourly rate, the difference between
driving and walking is a lot !!
>You can recognise them easily on the flat too,
>because their rather awkward and inefficient gait reveals them as
>people who have never learnt to walk properly.
Funny that. I wonder what they did before reaching driving age ??
There are a lot of things I don't do, or do inefficiently. This is
because I have far better alternatives available. Don't mistake
necessity for virtue ..
-----------------------------------------------------------------
** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... ni...@vnet.ibm.com or ni...@cix.compulink.co.uk
voice/fax: 44-794-516038
Michael Zika
Comments on waste disposal deleted...
>
> Assuming that safe disposal is possible -- say, we find a good
>standard for keeping the stuff confined, and nobody ever slacks off and
>just figures he can grind up a fuel road and use it to pave the street
>with, the cost of disposal must be added to the total cost of energy
>from nuclear sources, as must the cost of extraction, processing,
>decomissioning, etc... All the costs which are currently disassociated
>with the operation of a nuclear power plant. I wouldn't be suprised if
>we find that nuclear power simply costs too much to do it right.
Every utility in America that runs a nuclear power plant _already_ pays into
a pool of money intending to go to the disposal of nuclear waste. For
every kilowatt (nuclear) produced, the utility pays DOE a charge. In turn,
the DOE is _supposed_ to have a permanent high level waste repository open
in 1995 (yeah, right...). To date, most of this money has gone to legal fees.
So, waste disposal costs are already being figured into the cost of nuclear
power...
--
|
Michael Zika (zi...@ecn.purdue.edu) | Hey don't ask me "why?",
Purdue University | I'm still working on "how?" !
School of Nuclear Engineering |
Thomas Palm
>computer controlled cars will permit safe travel at 80 miles per hour,
>bumper to bumper, and with 6 foot lanes instead of 12 feet.
>The present roads and freeways will than be adequate.
I agree that technology can at least partly solve the problem, however,
there may be more realistic solutions.
The first one is better electronic communications. With video telephones
electronic mail etc. in many cases people won't have to move as much as
today. One may e.g. work at home or in a small, local office.
In densely populated areas there is also the concept of light-rail,
automatic "taxis". The difference from todays mass transit is that you
may order a private vehicle to go just where you want to go. Using
larger, mass-transit vehicles would probably be cheaper, although slower,
though. Computers would allow you to mix them easily.
The advantages over automatic cars are several:
* Vehicles travel on their own, preferably elevated, track. This makes it
much easier to control the movement. No kids on the street etc.
* Driven by electricity from the rail. Less energy consumption and less
environmental inpact.
* The average car is used only a couple of hours a day. The rest of the
time it just wastes space. These vehicles would be working day round
(neglecting variations in traffic). Thus less capital cost, and parking
space.
* Compared to todays cars, would allow much higher vehicle densities and
speeds in cities. It would also allow the passenger to do something
other than drive.
Disadvantages:
* Requires a new infrastrucure. Advocates of the systems have on the other
hand calculated that just the saved land area could pay for the investment.
* It would be impractical to have tracks to every home, which would
necessitate a short walk to the closest stop.
* Even if you may travel alone it is not personal property, which may
annoy some. Some work left for the social engineers?
This system is under active research in Sweden, and hopefully there may be a
small experimental track in a couple of years.
--
"Goood planets are hard to find." Thomas Palm
Department of Microwave Engineering
Royal Institute of Technology
S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
tp...@mvt.kth.se
Gary Coffman
>
>Have you ever heard the term "vaporware"? The McCarthy/DeArmond proposal
>for self driving cars is vaporware at it most absurd level. The
>technology does not exist and even if it were to be developed the thought
>of maintaining such a system should convince any objective person that it
>is sheer lunacy.
Most of the technology *does* exist, some of it has been demonstrated as
over twenty years ago in the original DOT Detroit automated guideway
project. The Feds are funding a new system test in California as we write
this thread. Equipment that reliably follows an embedded wire is old hat.
Cheap GPS receivers that report absolute position are off the shelf. Both
ultrasonic and radar collision avoidance systems are off the shelf, ultrasonic
systems are mandated today in some areas, used on trucks to prevent backing
into unseen obstacles for example. Electronic speed control systems are
so commonplace as to cause no comment, even in passenger cars.
Starter systems that simply embed guide wires into existing lanes of
Interstates are possible, and affordable today. Terminal guidance on
local surface streets will likely remain manual for some time to come
because of the sheer number of streets. Nonetheless, the systems available
off the shelf today could be used on long haul trucks and other intercity
transport vehicles with an increase in safety and economy.
The Detroit demo used a single mainframe computer sending control signals
to the analogue control systems in the vehicles. Today, the system control
and absolute position sensing can be distributed into cheap microcomputers
in each vehicle. This makes the system much more robust. Central assistance
in calculating optimum trip routes is an option that requires more work,
queuing theory is a bitch, but bottleneck reporting and rerouting is possible
with today's technology.
>I think what will have to evolve is a combination of mass transit and
>more efficient automobiles. Downtown areas should be declared off limits
>to all but mass transit vehicles. Travel in suburban and rural areas will
>be similar to how it is now, some buses for those without access to or
>inclination to drive a car, and small private vehicles.
This is happening "defacto" now. More and more people, their cars, and their
jobs, are leaving the downtown areas of cities for the less densely populated
suburbs. The downtowns are left with their hugely expensive mass transit
systems feeding an increasingly rundown and abandoned area frequented in
daylight only by government workers and the other parasites, like lawyers
and institutional bankers, that feed off of them. At night, they are ghost
towns with empty streets and sidewalks, except for pockets containing the
people trapped in ghetto housing projects with nowhere to go and no way to
get there. They are cut off from jobs and opportunities because their only
transportation is a mass transit system that goes where the jobs *aren't*.
Downtowns are like dinosaurs, too dumb to know that they are dead even after
their corpses have started to rot and stink.
Gary
Gary Coffman
>
>away. I won't hurry; if I miss the next train, there's another one in
>ten minutes.
>
>Get the picture?
Yes. Now get this picture. The nearest MARTA station is 15 miles away.
The trip from there to the station nearest my usual destination takes
90 minutes after two transfers and much backtracking. Then it's a ten
minute cab ride from there to the final destination. Trains and buses
run once an hour in the evening and the trains don't run at all from
midnight to 5am. Did I mention I work at night? I can drive the trip
in 28 minutes door to door in complete comfort rain or shine carrying
tools, manuals, and my lunch. Systems designed like the spokes of a wheel
don't serve crosstown traffic well at all. Though they do cost much more
than the entire expressway system they pretend to replace.
Gary
John De Armond
>I certainly could make more sense of some of the postings in this
>group if I interpreted "social engineering" to mean "forced against my
>will to my considerable disadvantage." Is that what "social
>engineering" means in US-speak? If so, what is the proper US-speak
>term for planning how to co-ordinate resources and needs by means of
>appropriate pricing?
Yes. "persuade" is one of the code words used by the statists to mean
"pass a law forcing people to do what they don't want to and then
use the state gestapo to either enforce the law or collect a violation
tax." As in "We must pursuade people to obey the national speed limit."
Other code words include any use of the word "we" in relation to policy,
"incentives", "in the interest of society", "society requires that" and
so on.
Sorry about the excessive assertiveness in my reply. I did not note the
country of origin of your post. We all gotta learn to speak english, huh?
:-)
John De Armond
>In <1992Jul16.2...@wdl.loral.com> m...@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes:
>"Royal Auto" magazine estimates the current average costs of running a
>car to be something above A$110 a week.. let's be kind and call it $100.
>It depends on the type of car and how much it's used, of course.
>Meanwhile, I spend $43 a month on my monthly ticket, which gets me
>anywhere in zones 1&2 (covering the inner and mid suburbs of Melbourne)
>and anywhere in all zones (1,2&3) on weekends. Note that this is the
>concession rate because I'm a student. The adult rate is double this,
>$86 a month. To get this concession rate, I paid about $80 for a
>Tertiary Student concession card, which covers me for the year.
>But for $87 a week saved, which is something I couldn't currently afford
>anyway, I'll take mass transit, thanks.
My car uses a tank of the highest octane gas I can get each week. That's
about $16. The car has 300,000 miles on it and is 20 years old so it's
long since paid for. I spent $200 on non-scheduled maintenance last
year. One set of plugs a year ($8) and oil about every 6000 miles ($5
every 4 months.) Significantly below "Royal Auto's" estimate.
For that paltry sum, I get to walk out to my covered garage, climb into
an already air conditioned car, drive in an environment I've customized
to my own needs and when I arrive, I park within a few feet of my
ultimate destination.
I'll take my car, thanks.
Greg Hennessy
#Since you've stepped
#in way over your head and are simply attempting to save face through
#arm waving, I'm going to spare the rest of the net a repeat.
I'm not in over my head. I admit you know more about nuclear energy
than I do, but I am honest enough to admit that the solutions I
support have problems. An engineer who denies that there are problems
isn't someone I would trust to fix my bycicle.
You just refuse to admit you made a stupid claim ("nuclear energy has
ZERO environmental impact") and are now resorting to obfuscation and
jargon to try to snow job people.
"Now go away you silly english knigget!"
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gs...@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Rodger Madison
>
> Hmm. Tell me what a "spent fuel casing" is. Must be some colloquialism
> used by the neophyte. Certainly not a term used in the industry. Could
I think the insulting tone of this post in inappropriate. It also
attempts to misdirect the argument by focusing on semantics. I`m
willing to grant that you are more knowledgable about reactor design,
internals, etc then I am. You could prove it by not pretending to
misunderstand what is being talked about here.
> the spent fuel itself. We work this one out periodically in this
> group.
Then you must all be rich and famous.
On the subject of ZERO environmental impact, it was widely reported that
the Chernobyl event broadcast radioactive material over a large area of
Europe and Asia. I believe citizens of several countries were advised to
avoid certain types of food because of fear of contamination. There are
also areas nearby the reactor site that were once inhabited by humans
which now are not. To my way of thinking this to an environmental impact.
There are (at least two) potential concerns here. How do you
make sure that reactor by products are kept out of circulation?
How to you ensure that reactors are operated in such a way that risk of
mishap is minimized? Both of these problems are of the kind to which
there is no purely technical solution.
I suspect that some of the vitriol I read in this newsgroup stems from a
misunderstand of why people mistrust technology. I'll give my personal
view on that since I think, at least in general, it is shared by many
others. I'll talk specifically about nuclear reactors, which I understand
only generally, but what I say could be generalized to many technological
systems, such as automated freeways, or supermarket optical scanning
devices.
I don't doubt that a nuclear reactor can be build that will operate
perfectly for an indefinate period of time. This can happen only if
competant individuals dedicate themselves to making it happen. I DO
doubt that this will happen in every case in which a reactor is built
and operated. Somewhere along the line there will be human mistake,
inattention or malice that will cause a system failure. When this
happens it may illuminate a previous human mistake in the design or
construction of the facility and cause a catastrophe.
Has anyone ever read Foundation and Empire by Isaac Asimov (I know the
anwer to that)? In one part of that book there is an encounter between a
Foundationer and one the of Empire Atomic Priests. The Atomic priests are
guardians of the nuclear reactors which the empire built back in the days
when people understood such stuff. The priests oversee the automatic
operation of these devices, but have no idea at all how they work.
This is what I mostly fear with nuclear technology, that it will someday
fall into the hands of people who don't understand or care how dangerous
it can be. This is why I say there is no techological solution to making
reactors safe. My other concern is that it will fall into the hands of
people who know well enough how dangerous it can be and intend to use it
to achieve their own selfish ends. There have already been rumors that
weapons grade plutonium (maybe U235) has appeared on the weapons black
market. There is also no technical remedy for this.
When you consider the environmental impact of nuclear reactors, you have
to consider these human factors. And since the safety of the technology
rest so much with human behaviour you can never say that it has ZERO
impact.
Rodger