"UPGRADE" on a VMS
Elliott P
that's why. A friend sent me this picture and maybe someone can
explain.
It is a VMS (Variable Message Sign) With the following message:
UPGRADE
1/2 MILE AHEAD
MAINTAIN SPEED
Without seeing the road its hard to say. I was thinking maybe the sign
needs a firmware upgrade? :) What else could that mean?
Picture: http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk147/eplack1/Screenshot2011-04-18at31122AM.png
A quick google search reveals this is likely on I-278 in NY
richard
duhhhhhhh.
the message is not software related dufus.
I've seen these in tunnels where the roadway begins to slope upward as you
return back to land.
Elliott P
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 17:17:47 -0700 (PDT), Elliott P wrote:
> > Greetings from the middle east. Its been a while since I've posted and
> > that's why. A friend sent me this picture and maybe someone can
> > explain.
>
> > It is a VMS (Variable Message Sign) With the following message:
>
> > UPGRADE
> > 1/2 MILE AHEAD
> > MAINTAIN SPEED
>
> > Without seeing the road its hard to say. I was thinking maybe the sign
> > needs a firmware upgrade? :) What else could that mean?
>
>
> > A quick google search reveals this is likely on I-278 in NY
>
> duhhhhhhh.
> the message is not software related dufus.
> I've seen these in tunnels where the roadway begins to slope upward as you
> return back to land.
Well that is pretty lame. I thought the whole point of those signs is
to make it easier for people to get the information they need. UPGRADE
as in up the grade? What is this 1903. Engineers...
Paul D. DeRocco
>
> Well that is pretty lame. I thought the whole point of those signs is
> to make it easier for people to get the information they need. UPGRADE
> as in up the grade? What is this 1903. Engineers...
Engineers may call it an "upgrade", but most people use that word to refer
to something they do to their software every once in a while, and refer to
an increasing slope as "uphill". UPHILL 1/2 MILE AHEAD MAINTAIN SPEED makes
perfect sense, although it's a shame that half the people on the road need
to be reminded that the slope is changing and they need to push harder on
the gas pedal in order to avoid slowing down the line of cars behind them.
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pder...@ix.netcom.com
Larry Sheldon
It means: There is a little hill ahead--for some reason everybody wants
to slow down for it. Don't--that causes a standing wave in traffic that
will clog things up for a fairtheewell as people jam on their brakes
because the care in front of them did.
--
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by
its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole
life believing that it is stupid."
— Albert Einstein
John David Galt
>> Well that is pretty lame. I thought the whole point of those signs is
>> to make it easier for people to get the information they need. UPGRADE
>> as in up the grade? What is this 1903. Engineers...
Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
> Engineers may call it an "upgrade", but most people use that word to refer
> to something they do to their software every once in a while, and refer to
> an increasing slope as "uphill". UPHILL 1/2 MILE AHEAD MAINTAIN SPEED makes
> perfect sense, although it's a shame that half the people on the road need
> to be reminded that the slope is changing and they need to push harder on
> the gas pedal in order to avoid slowing down the line of cars behind them.
"UPHILL" would be wrong because it is an adjective. UPGRADE is a noun.
richard
> On 4/17/2011 7:17 PM, Elliott P wrote:
>> Greetings from the middle east. Its been a while since I've posted and
>> that's why. A friend sent me this picture and maybe someone can
>> explain.
>>
>> It is a VMS (Variable Message Sign) With the following message:
>>
>> UPGRADE
>> 1/2 MILE AHEAD
>> MAINTAIN SPEED
>>
>> Without seeing the road its hard to say. I was thinking maybe the sign
>> needs a firmware upgrade? :) What else could that mean?
>>
>> Picture: http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk147/eplack1/Screenshot2011-04-18at31122AM.png
>>
>> A quick google search reveals this is likely on I-278 in NY
>
> It means: There is a little hill ahead--for some reason everybody wants
> to slow down for it. Don't--that causes a standing wave in traffic that
> will clog things up for a fairtheewell as people jam on their brakes
> because the care in front of them did.
I've seen many a driver refuse to push the pedal down to get up the obvious
incline in front of them. They don't give a damn 20 cars behind them have
to suffer and wait.
Larry Sheldon
Most annoying if you are driving 80,000 pounds of truck and have to stop
at the bottom. Well, pretty annoying. Most annoying is to be in a
4-wheeler trapped behind the truck.
richard
That's only because the driver doesn't know how to handle his truck.
I found a simple way of getting the speed up in that situation in short
order.
Start in 2nd gear, punch the pedal to the floor. When you get to 15mph,
shift into 5th and away you go.
Tom Mogadore
mkeen
guessing the upgrade isn't a new or temporary situation. So if the
message is warranted it should probably be posted on a fixed static
sign. Likewise, I wouldn't expect to see "Curve Ahead" or "Fallen
Rock Zone" on a VMS.
Having said that, the Port Authority (of New York and New Jersey) has
a VMS on Route 3 in Secaucus that seems to have just one permanent
message about the height clearance of the Lincoln Tunnel. I've never
ever seen a timely message of value posted there even if a serious
incident has impacted tunnel traffic.
M Keen
Ringwood, NJ
Tom Mogadore
> The only strange about this message is that it's posted on a VMS. I'm
> guessing the upgrade isn't a new or temporary situation. So if the
> message is warranted it should probably be posted on a fixed static
> sign. Likewise, I wouldn't expect to see "Curve Ahead" or "Fallen
> Rock Zone" on a VMS.
>
Yeah-usually NYCDOT will either turn the VMS off or have some sort of allowed cloud message on it. Honestly, I can't recall any really significant rises on the SIE.
Paul D. DeRocco
>
> "UPHILL" would be wrong because it is an adjective. UPGRADE is a noun.
Well, who cares? Either way, it's not a complete sentence anyway. If it said
UPHILL 1/2 MILE AHEAD MAINTAIN SPEED, everyone would have understood it,
Elliott P wouldn't have made his original post, and we wouldn't be
discussing it.
Paul D. DeRocco
>
> The only strange about this message is that it's posted on a VMS. I'm
> guessing the upgrade isn't a new or temporary situation. So if the
> message is warranted it should probably be posted on a fixed static
> sign. Likewise, I wouldn't expect to see "Curve Ahead" or "Fallen
> Rock Zone" on a VMS.
It's probably a default message, for when they've got nothing better to say.
One day, they may realize the default message could be a paid advertisement,
and that would be even more annoying.
gpsman
> UPHILL 1/2 MILE AHEAD MAINTAIN SPEED makes
> perfect sense,
I disagree. What if your speed is low?
I don't think the state should presume to instruct motorists so
vaguely.
Donner Pass is a great example of a state getting it right for truck
drivers. If one follows those instructions, some of which are
admittedly vague (HAMMER DOWN - UPGRADE AHEAD), they could need to
apply the brakes less than a half dozen times (and a little adjustment
can lead to 0 times).
> although it's a shame that half the people on the road need
> to be reminded that the slope is changing and they need to push harder on
> the gas pedal in order to avoid slowing down the line of cars behind them.
If it's half the people, might not half the people need to let their
speed drop a few mph going over a hill...?
Can we assume at least half are operating at 15-25 mph over the SL?
-----
- gpsman
Larry Sheldon
I've seen what look like permanent conditions announced on the electric
signs and guessed that one of the following has a occurred:
A marketing engineer has decided that nobody pays attention to the fixed
signs so they use the electric signs because they think people are
impressed by the "emergency" aura of them.
Somebody got "free" money and couldn't think of anything else to spend
it on.
There was the nth occurrence that requires that Something Must Be Done
And Quickly and that was quick and somebody else's money.
There are other possibilities.
Larry Sheldon
> Can we assume at least half are operating at 15-25 mph over the SL?
Some people think the most important speed for a given car is that is
"equal the the traffic around it".
gpsman
> On 4/19/2011 7:41 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > Can we assume at least half are operating at 15-25 mph over the SL?
>
> Some people think the most important speed for a given car is that is
> "equal the the traffic around it".
I don't think that's thinking. That's basing your velocity on the
judgment of strangers, who may likewise not be thinking.
-----
- gpsman
Larry Sheldon
> On Apr 19, 10:53 am, Larry Sheldon<lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/19/2011 7:41 AM, gpsman wrote:
>>
>>> Can we assume at least half are operating at 15-25 mph over the SL?
>>
>> Some people think the most important speed for a given car is that is
>> "equal the the traffic around it".
>
> I don't think
I've noticed.
John David Galt
> The only strange about this message is that it's posted on a VMS. I'm
> guessing the upgrade isn't a new or temporary situation. So if the
> message is warranted it should probably be posted on a fixed static
> sign.
Then it probably means the permanent sign got knocked down, or is going to
be moved or replaced.
> Likewise, I wouldn't expect to see "Curve Ahead" or "Fallen
> Rock Zone" on a VMS.
"Fallen Rock Zones" can easily be temporary, especially after a quake.
What the heck, I'd much rather see these messages than idiotic nannying
about how texting isn't worth it. Nannying messages will only lead to
drivers tuning out all VMSes, and/or justifiably vandalizing them.
Paul D. DeRocco
>
> I disagree. What if your speed is low?
The point, I think, is to remind people to compensate for the grade. If
people are already going slow, so be it, but we don't want them going slower
still, just because they're chattering away on the phone and not noticing
the hill climb.
CalTrans has a WATCH DOWNHILL SPEED diamond sign. Maybe we need the
opposite, perhaps worded like MAINTAIN SPEED UPHILL.
> If it's half the people, might not half the people need to let their
> speed drop a few mph going over a hill...?
Why? It's not like going uphill represents a danger, like a curve.
I use cruise control whenever possible. It's possible a lot less often than
it ought to be, since most people don't use cruise control, and don't
maintain a constant speed.
Tom Mogadore
> mkeen wrote:
> > The only strange about this message is that it's posted on a VMS. I'm
> > guessing the upgrade isn't a new or temporary situation. So if the
> > message is warranted it should probably be posted on a fixed static
> > sign.
>
> Then it probably means the permanent sign got knocked down, or is going to
> be moved or replaced.
>
Nope. There were no fixed signs bearing this legend on the Staten Island Expressway that I can recall in either direction.
>
> What the heck, I'd much rather see these messages than idiotic nannying
> about how texting isn't worth it. Nannying messages will only lead to
> drivers tuning out all VMSes, and/or justifiably vandalizing them.
'Justifiably vandalising'?
Larry Sheldon
I find that it turns out that there is a relatively stable "average
speed" and I adjust the cruise control to that. (Technique: establish
a safe following distance, set cruise control. adjust up or down a bit
as required. After a while you will find that if you are not anal about
the exatc following distance you can drive long distances (long enough
to forget it is on) without adjustments.
Paul D. DeRocco
> I find that it turns out that there is a relatively stable "average speed"
> and I adjust the cruise control to that. (Technique: establish a safe
> following distance, set cruise control. adjust up or down a bit as
> required. After a while you will find that if you are not anal about the
> exatc following distance you can drive long distances (long enough to
> forget it is on) without adjustments.
My experience, too. Until you come to that upgrade...
gpsman
> > "gpsman" <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote
>
> > I disagree. What if your speed is low?
>
> The point, I think, is to remind people to compensate for the grade.
Yeah, I get that.
> If
> people are already going slow, so be it, but we don't want them going slower
> still, just because they're chattering away on the phone and not noticing
> the hill climb.
Why...? If you're "distracted" a lower velocity seems like, if not a
good idea, not a bad one.
> CalTrans has a WATCH DOWNHILL SPEED diamond sign. Maybe we need the
> opposite, perhaps worded like MAINTAIN SPEED UPHILL.
I don't know why.
> > If it's half the people, might not half the people need to let their
> > speed drop a few mph going over a hill...?
>
> Why? It's not like going uphill represents a danger, like a curve.
Acause the extra fuel it takes to maintain speed up a grade provides
no benefit.
But, my point is, if we're going to measure "correct" velocity by
popularity and "half" are choosing one that's "lower", who is to say
which is "right"...?
> I use cruise control whenever possible. It's possible a lot less often than
> it ought to be, since most people don't use cruise control, and don't
> maintain a constant speed.
Your CC does not maintain a constant speed, nor does traffic. Those
are both among the most common misperceptions of motorists, followed
by "higher speed equals shorter trip time".
-----
- gpsman
Larry Sheldon
> Why...? If you're "distracted" a lower velocity seems like, if not a
> good idea, not a bad one.
If you are a distracted driver you want to be traveling at the same
speed as they are so you won't blindly and stupidly run into them.
> But, my point is, if we're going to measure "correct" velocity by
> popularity and "half" are choosing one that's "lower", who is to say
> which is "right"...?
You are the only one who has suggested mindless driving.
> Your CC does not maintain a constant speed, nor does traffic. Those
> are both among the most common misperceptions of motorists, followed
> by "higher speed equals shorter trip time".
Go back to high school and pay attention when the mention "average".
> -----
>
> - gpsman
And get somebody to show you how to make a .sig separator.
gpsman
> > Why...? If you're "distracted" a lower velocity seems like, if not a
> > good idea, not a bad one.
>
> If you are a distracted driver you want to be traveling at the same
> speed as they are so you won't blindly and stupidly run into them.
Wouldn't a slower velocity provide a greater margin of error?
> > But, my point is, if we're going to measure "correct" velocity by
> > popularity and "half" are choosing one that's "lower", who is to say
> > which is "right"...?
>
> You are the only one who has suggested mindless driving.
No, I suggested one choose velocity based on their own judgment and
not a single criteria of the flow speed.
You extrapolated from that to "mindless".
> > Your CC does not maintain a constant speed, nor does traffic. Those
> > are both among the most common misperceptions of motorists, followed
> > by "higher speed equals shorter trip time".
>
> Go back to high school and pay attention when the mention "average".
I covered "average" in 3rd grade, and "average" is not part of our
equation.
Maybe you should consider the quality of your education.
-----
- gpsman
Larry Sheldon
> On Apr 20, 10:34 am, Larry Sheldon<lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why...? If you're "distracted" a lower velocity seems like, if not a
>>> good idea, not a bad one.
>>
>> If you are a distracted driver you want to be traveling at the same
>> speed as they are so you won't blindly and stupidly run into them.
>
> Wouldn't a slower velocity provide a greater margin of error?
This will be my last attempt to establish contact. Going with nthe flow
means n ot colliding with anything, nor anything colliding with you.
Normal people would consider that at a Good Thing. Traveling
obliviously at a speed different from near-by objects pretty much
guarantees a collision, most people consider that a Bad Thing.
Fortunately, I am an aware driver and have learned to identify and avoid
death-wish drivers like you.
gpsman
> On 4/20/2011 10:25 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > On Apr 20, 10:34 am, Larry Sheldon<lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Why...? If you're "distracted" a lower velocity seems like, if not a
> >>> good idea, not a bad one.
>
> >> If you are a distracted driver you want to be traveling at the same
> >> speed as they are so you won't blindly and stupidly run into them.
>
> > Wouldn't a slower velocity provide a greater margin of error?
>
> This will be my last attempt to establish contact.
Does "establishing contact" = "manufacture non sequiturs and red
herrings as fast as you can"...?
> Going with nthe flow
> means n ot colliding with anything, nor anything colliding with you.
Can you cite any independent credible source that feels that way...?
> Normal people would consider that at a Good Thing.
Normal people don't know shit about driving.
> Traveling
> obliviously at a speed different from near-by objects pretty much
> guarantees a collision,
What mechanism or law of physics guarantees that?
> Fortunately, I am an aware driver and have learned to identify and avoid
> death-wish drivers like you.
How?
-----
- gpsman
Paul D. DeRocco
>
> Why...? If you're "distracted" a lower velocity seems like, if not a
> good idea, not a bad one.
If they're that distracted they should "hang up and drive". But it's missing
the point to say that if they're not paying attention enough to notice that
they're slowing down, they ought to slow down. They ought to pay attention.
> Acause the extra fuel it takes to maintain speed up a grade provides
> no benefit.
Extra fuel? It always takes extra fuel to go faster (once you're up to
normal driving speeds), so you could always justify driving slower to save
fuel.
People who maintain a pretty constant speed are generally attentive drivers,
while people who slow down because they haven't noticed the upgrade are lazy
and sloppy, and probably not very good drivers. I'd prefer it if the latter
deferred to the former, but physics say that the former, if following, must
defer to the latter. Hence my complaint.
> But, my point is, if we're going to measure "correct" velocity by
> popularity and "half" are choosing one that's "lower", who is to say
> which is "right"...?
Because the people I'm talking about aren't "choosing" to go slower, they
just haven't realized that they're going slower.
> Your CC does not maintain a constant speed, nor does traffic. Those
> are both among the most common misperceptions of motorists, followed
> by "higher speed equals shorter trip time".
My CC does an excellent job of maintaining a speed within about +/-0.5mph as
long as it doesn't have to downshift; if it does, I manually downshift
earlier to allow the CC to continue to maintain the speed. Of course traffic
doesn't maintain a constant speed: that's something you're very aware of if
you yourself are consciously maintaining a constant speed.
I'm not sure why higher speed doesn't equal shorter trip time.
Larry Sheldon
> My CC does an excellent job of maintaining a speed within about +/-0.5mph as
> long as it doesn't have to downshift; if it does, I manually downshift
> earlier to allow the CC to continue to maintain the speed. Of course traffic
> doesn't maintain a constant speed: that's something you're very aware of if
> you yourself are consciously maintaining a constant speed.
It is important to know that there is a meaningful difference between
"constant speed" and "average speed".
A moving object has an average speed. Always. You can't avoid it. (In
fact you could say all objects do since one that is not moving has an
average speed of zero in what ever units yoiu are using.)
A cruise control will cause a vehicle to maintain an average speed of
some value--ideally it would be a constant speed, but it doesn't really
matter. And cruise control is not required anyway, a competent driver
can maintain lane and speed discipline without assistance until the
capability of the vehicle is exceeded.
I maintain that the safest, most hassle-free speed condition is when
your vehicle travels at the average speed of surrounding traffic. Some
times the traffic speed varies so wildly that there is no useful
"average", but that is pretty rare, and in general I want to have big
cushions in that kind of traffic anyway, so I can maintain an average
speed that is relatively constant.
> I'm not sure why higher speed doesn't equal shorter trip time.
Trip time is a function of average speed, not maximum speed.
Nathan Perry
"Paul D. DeRocco" <pder...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> CalTrans has a WATCH DOWNHILL SPEED diamond sign. Maybe we need the
> opposite, perhaps worded like MAINTAIN SPEED UPHILL.
Those exist; I've seen them somewhere (maybe I'm thinking of this I-278
example).
Another variation right near my home is MAINTAIN SPEED THRU TUNNEL on
I-376 at the Squirrel Hill Tunnel, which happens also to contain an
upgrade going westbound. Unnecessary brake applications are rampant here
(also exacerbated by the tunnel's confining geometry).
Nathan Perry
"Paul D. DeRocco" <pder...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure why higher speed doesn't equal shorter trip time.
Because it has, for example, to be combined with "lowest number of
miles" and "fewest interruptions of said speed", etc., to also equal
"shortest trip time", I assume.
Another dictum I don't hold to is "shortest trip time" equals "best
route" or "only option any right-minded person would choose".
Nathan Perry
<e6515b6a-f398-4e97...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com
>,
Tom Mogadore <ttm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah-usually NYCDOT will either turn the VMS off or have some sort of allowed
> cloud message on it. Honestly, I can't recall any really significant rises on
> the SIE.
I've noticed that too, when I've passed the spot in question. You
wouldn't notice the grade there; only after reading the sign have I then
thought "oh yeah, hey look we are going up a hill, and have been for
some time!"
I suppose that's why they found the need to post it. Now if only they'd
clearly mark the grade on Gravity Hill so we'd know what the #$%^ was
going on there!
Nathan Perry
<c08e9a2b-2124-4556...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com
> 'Justifiably vandalising'?
Yeah, that's similar to the hypothetical, never-seen opposite of a "No
Trespassing" sign.
Paul D. DeRocco
>
> Another dictum I don't hold to is "shortest trip time" equals "best
> route" or "only option any right-minded person would choose".
Well, that's true. I often drive 50mph on a frontage road instead of 60mph
on a crowded freeway, just because it's relaxing.
gpsman
> > "gpsman" <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote
>
> > Why...? If you're "distracted" a lower velocity seems like, if not a
> > good idea, not a bad one.
>
> If they're that distracted they should "hang up and drive". But it's missing
> the point to say that if they're not paying attention enough to notice that
> they're slowing down, they ought to slow down. They ought to pay attention.
But they won't, so...
(We're -all- distracted vehicle operators All you must do to prove
this to yourself is remember/note your internal monologue the last/
next time you get behind the wheel. Planning how to get in front of
that truck before one's exit or setting other intermediate goals are
distractions, not attentive driving.)
> > Acause the extra fuel it takes to maintain speed up a grade provides
> > no benefit.
>
> Extra fuel? It always takes extra fuel to go faster (once you're up to
> normal driving speeds), so you could always justify driving slower to save
> fuel.
There's no need to justify driving slower, within any speed limits, at
all.
> People who maintain a pretty constant speed are generally attentive drivers,
> while people who slow down because they haven't noticed the upgrade are lazy
> and sloppy, and probably not very good drivers.
Non sequitur/s. An attentive driver is a very rare thing. I imagine
there are fewer than 10K with the education and training to remain
attentive, and maybe 10% of those remember and practice stopping
thoughts not integral to the driving task.
> I'd prefer it if the latter
> deferred to the former, but physics say that the former, if following, must
> defer to the latter. Hence my complaint.
Is your complaint supported by law?
> > But, my point is, if we're going to measure "correct" velocity by
> > popularity and "half" are choosing one that's "lower", who is to say
> > which is "right"...?
>
> Because the people I'm talking about aren't "choosing" to go slower, they
> just haven't realized that they're going slower.
You do not know that. Maybe their CCs are not as sensitive as yours.
> > Your CC does not maintain a constant speed, nor does traffic. Those
> > are both among the most common misperceptions of motorists, followed
> > by "higher speed equals shorter trip time".
>
> My CC does an excellent job of maintaining a speed within about +/-0.5mph as
> long as it doesn't have to downshift;
There ya go.
Does your CC apply the brakes going downgrade?
Does your CC anticipate steep upgrades and not let your speed drop
more than 0.5 mph?
> Of course traffic
> doesn't maintain a constant speed: that's something you're very aware of if
> you yourself are consciously maintaining a constant speed.
You can just take my word for it. Motorists are not skilled drivers.
They can't be. They don't practice, and if they would practice they
wouldn't know what or how to practice.
> I'm not sure why higher speed doesn't equal shorter trip time.
Traffic, and traffic control devices.
Sure, if you're blasting across Montana between Billings and Butte at
95 instead of 75, your trip time will be shorter.
If you're on the typical 20 mile commute/trip and you hit the end of
the exit ramp and wait 2 minutes to turn, you've just given back the 2
minutes you thought/felt you were "saving".
Motorists are fooled into feeling they arrived sooner by operating
faster between traffic clusters and traffic control devices.
Motorists do not operate vehicles by thinking, they do it by feeling,
emotionally. The evidence is clear and overwhelming there isn't much
if any thought applied to the choices of motorists.
-----
- gpsman
Larry Sheldon
> Another dictum I don't hold to is "shortest trip time" equals "best
> route" or "only option any right-minded person would choose".
Playing with the GPS toy on my Blackberry (toy within a toy, within a
toy---ought to be able to make a song out of that) the other day, asked
for the shortest route home from a store (normal route -- left out of
the parking lot, two blocks, left on Q, right on 216, left on F, right
on Homestead, right on 225th Circle).
The GPS started with a side street that you can't get to from the
parking lot and continued with turns at just about every intersection as
it zig-zagged through neighborhoods (that probably has a speed-bump or a
stop sign every 500 feet.
Nathan Perry
Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I maintain that the safest, most hassle-free speed condition is when
> your vehicle travels at the average speed of surrounding traffic.
In other words, maintaining a speed of zero, *relative* to other
traffic. Two objects with a relative speed of zero can't collide with
each other.
Of course, it's not speed that is unsafe, but rather changes in speed.
(Just as falling off a building doesn't kill, but rather the stop at the
end.) So the trick is being able to keep your relative speed at zero in
the face of abrupt changes in the speed of what you're relating to as it
in turn relates to something else, like a bridge abutment...
Larry Sheldon
> In article<919pq7...@mid.individual.net>,
> Larry Sheldon<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I maintain that the safest, most hassle-free speed condition is when
>> your vehicle travels at the average speed of surrounding traffic.
>
> In other words, maintaining a speed of zero, *relative* to other
> traffic. Two objects with a relative speed of zero can't collide with
> each other.
Exactly. And it is a lot less distraction. (It does assume
buffer-space big enough to absorb deviations that will occur in normal
traffic.)
> Of course, it's not speed that is unsafe, but rather changes in speed.
> (Just as falling off a building doesn't kill, but rather the stop at the
> end.) So the trick is being able to keep your relative speed at zero in
> the face of abrupt changes in the speed of what you're relating to as it
> in turn relates to something else, like a bridge abutment...
I find that if I am not focused on brake lights five feet away I can pay
attention to things like lane discipline, location of and relative path
of other moving and fixed obstacles and so on.
Larry Sheldon
> Of course, it's not speed that is unsafe, but rather changes in speed.
That is a really really important point and I want to isolate it for
comment. (I prefer the wording "Of course, it's not speed that is
unsafe, but rather differences in speed" because I think it is a tinny
bit more to the point.)
In my mind the National Safety Council has run two disastrous
advertizing campaigns that should have made them and their supporters
liable for a lot of destruction and death.
The lesser of the two is the "Speed Kills" mantra. Speed does NOT
kill--a difference in speed does, sometimes, injures lots of times,
serves useful purposes in lots of situations (consider a baseball and a
bat). (I have routinely traveled at several hundred MPH--the fastest I
think was Mach 1.2. But a low-speed collision between a toe and a part
of a bed-frame 50 years ago slightly crippled me and I suffer the pain
still.)
The worst of the two is not really relevant here, but it has to do with
the "Highway Hypnosis" travesty. I am not any kind of expert on
hypnosis, but my understanding if the phenomenon is that a person is
place in a state (as by a droning voice--TV sound track, for example,
flashing lights, repetitive motions, and other common TV presentations)
where a suggestion can be "planted" (for want of a term) that when
certain triggers are presented, the victim----er---subject will do
something. They say that the victim will not do anything against their
mores, but all the examples suggest otherwise,
So, the advertisements show a badly maintained, rain-covered automobile
windshield with glaring flashing bright lights appearing rhythmically
behind the smear. All the while accompanied by selected
emotion-triggering music and a droning voice. I forget what the desired
actions were--driving into the oncoming traffic, driving into the ditch,
driving into a bridge abutment--something.
So later, when the driver sees the smeared windshield in real life, with
the windshield wipers slapping back and forth, the bright lights
flashing on cue, what do they do?
Left as an extra credit assignment.
gpsman
> In article <919pq7F53...@mid.individual.net>,
> Larry Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I maintain that the safest, most hassle-free speed condition is when
> > your vehicle travels at the average speed of surrounding traffic.
>
> In other words, maintaining a speed of zero, *relative* to other
> traffic. Two objects with a relative speed of zero can't collide with
> each other.
Your theory seems to be missing an axis.
-----
- gpsman
Paul D. DeRocco
>
> Non sequitur/s. An attentive driver is a very rare thing. I imagine
> there are fewer than 10K with the education and training to remain
> attentive, and maybe 10% of those remember and practice stopping
> thoughts not integral to the driving task.
You and I have entirely different definitions of "attentive", I guess. I
would say the majority of people are paying enough attention to their
driving that they manage to get where they're going safely, and without
doing needless, unconscious things that annoy other drivers. The inattentive
ones include the unintentional LLBs, the people who don't notice the light
has turned green (or worse, the ones who sit at a stop sign waiting for it
to turn green), the ones who don't notice pedestrians in the crosswalk, and
the ones who maintain constant pressure on the gas pedal when they get to a
hill.
> Is your complaint supported by law?
Of course not. Unless there's a minimum speed, and they "exceed" that.
> You do not know that. Maybe their CCs are not as sensitive as yours.
I'm talking about cars that slow down a lot, like 10mph.
> Does your CC apply the brakes going downgrade?
My Merc downshifts when its speed exceeds the set point by a couple mph.
> Does your CC anticipate steep upgrades and not let your speed drop
> more than 0.5 mph?
No. As I said, when I approach a significant hill (up or down) in traffic, I
manually downshift so that the CC can maintain a constant speed.
> If you're on the typical 20 mile commute/trip and you hit the end of
> the exit ramp and wait 2 minutes to turn, you've just given back the 2
> minutes you thought/felt you were "saving".
If the lights aren't synchronized to a particular speed, then going faster
is as likely to help you to make a green before it turns red, as it is to
get you to a red before it turns green. Statistically, driving faster will
get you there sooner.
gpsman
> > "gpsman" <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote
>
> > there are fewer than 10K with the education and training to remain
> > attentive, and maybe 10% of those remember and practice stopping
> > thoughts not integral to the driving task.
>
> You and I have entirely different definitions of "attentive", I guess.
And driving.
> I
> would say the majority of people are paying enough attention to their
> driving that they manage to get where they're going safely,
They manage to not crash, which is also not my definition of safely.
> and without
> doing needless, unconscious things that annoy other drivers.
Motorists. Drivers don't get annoyed at inattentive motorists because
they understand they are inattentive motorists.
Would you consider speeding a needless and unconscious thing that
annoys other motorists?
> The inattentive
> ones include the unintentional LLBs, the people who don't notice the light
> has turned green (or worse, the ones who sit at a stop sign waiting for it
> to turn green), the ones who don't notice pedestrians in the crosswalk, and
> the ones who maintain constant pressure on the gas pedal when they get to a
> hill.
Yes, I know.
> > Is your complaint supported by law?
>
> Of course not. Unless there's a minimum speed, and they "exceed" that.
How do you feel about motorists exceeding the maximum limit?
> Because the people I'm talking about aren't "choosing" to go slower, they
> just haven't realized that they're going slower.
> > You do not know that. Maybe their CCs are not as sensitive as yours.
>
> I'm talking about cars that slow down a lot, like 10mph.
You still don't know if that is or is not a conscious decision. Maybe
fuel mileage is more important to them than time.
I suspect much human misery is predicated on people thinking they know
what others are or are not thinking, or what they should think.
> > Does your CC anticipate steep upgrades and not let your speed drop
> > more than 0.5 mph?
>
> No. As I said, when I approach a significant hill (up or down) in traffic, I
> manually downshift so that the CC can maintain a constant speed.
Your CC does not disengage when you manually shift? (I'm starting to
feel the need for a new car...)
> > If you're on the typical 20 mile commute/trip and you hit the end of
> > the exit ramp and wait 2 minutes to turn, you've just given back the 2
> > minutes you thought/felt you were "saving".
>
> If the lights aren't synchronized to a particular speed, then going faster
> is as likely to help you to make a green before it turns red, as it is to
> get you to a red before it turns green.
Non sequitur. They have to be synchronized to -some- spread of
velocity, if only unintentionally. Make one and you catch the next,
or the next, and traffic catches up.
And your theory excludes turning.
Catching slower traffic and a couple red or green lights is most
likely to determine whether operating faster between will result in
arriving sooner or later, and we're talking a couple minutes at the
very best.
Then, there is the chance of a crash. Drivers consider that in the
event of a crash their legal operation gave them every legal right to
occupy that space on the planet, at that moment.
Motorists -never- -never- -e v e r- consider that anything other than
an uncontrollable matter of chance.
> Statistically, driving faster will
> get you there sooner.
You mean mathematically, without factoring the likely and unknown
variables, and motorists -never- factor the time elapsed getting fuel
more often.
“Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think
they think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die
than think.”
-----
- gpsman