Now There's Proof You're in a Traffic Jam For No Good Reason
fclaugus
mode -- reporting a jackknifed tractor-trailer on the highway, extra volume
at the bridge, a protest blocking traffic two blocks from your
destination -- you are sure you can arrive on time by outfoxing the fools
who are wedded to their usual routes and finding the road less traveled.
Scientists have some news for you: Don't bother.
Theoretical physicists began delving into traffic in the late 1990s, sicking
equations of nonlinear dynamics and models of cellular automata (yes, they
are as opaque as they sound) on such mysteries as why stop-and-go traffic
can, for no evident cause, start zipping along again. Although the research
has yet to produce a practical way to eliminate congestion, it has shown
that there are empirical causes for such miseries as traffic slowing to a
crawl even when there is no accident or rough pavement in sight.
It isn't that the highway gods have it in for you. Physics does.
Many of the successes applying theoretical physics to traffic mysteries
spring from the fact that cars behave much as molecules in a gas. The
equations of gas dynamics, therefore, do a pretty decent job of modeling and
predicting traffic.
In a flowing gas, a random fluctuation in molecular movement -- analogous to
a car slowing down briefly, perhaps while the driver tunes the radio --
flips smooth flow into a clogged mess. A compression wave, which is simply a
zone where the molecules/cars have gotten very packed, propagates backward
from the bottleneck.
So far, so intuitive. But the compression wave can persist for hours. That
leaves drivers who never saw the first car decelerate totally mystified
about why they have slowed to a crawl. By one estimate, three-quarters of
traffic jams have no visible culprit. The cause came and went hours ago, but
its effects linger.
A defining trait of nonlinear phenomena, such as moving cars and moving gas
molecules, is that minuscule fluctuations can have effects disproportionate
to their size, like the proverbial butterfly flapping its wings in Beijing
creating a hurricane across the ocean.
One such fluctuation is a brief burst of cars from an on-ramp. It makes
sense that if you suddenly get, say, a 20-car funeral cortege entering a
road, cars behind it will likely have to slow down. But even after the
cortege is at the cemetery and the on-ramp traffic has dropped below normal,
a bottleneck can persist at the merge. Not trusting the memory of drivers,
German physicists confirmed this effect with data from sensors on European
highways. Next time you have to slow down as you pass an on-ramp that's
empty, blame the butterfly effect.
In the most recent research, three physicists (including one in Rome, where
they know a thing or two about driving in maddening tie-ups) modeled urban
traffic. The goal was to see whether drivers have any chance of avoiding
jams. In other words, if you know that on Avenue A traffic often flows like
refrigerated honey, but on Avenue B it zips along, can you find a fast
route?
When the city is relatively empty, says physicist Andrea De Martino of the
University of Rome, drivers who choose a way to avoid jams manage to find
fast routes. If you listen to traffic reports at 5 a.m., you'll know that
you should head for Avenue B.
But as the streets fill up, the density of cars reaches a tipping point.
They become equally distributed over the grid, as in midtown Manhattan at
rush hour.
In such a traffic-dense city, the savvy driver has a problem. "Finding a
fast route becomes extremely hard," says Prof. De Martino, who led the
research described in a paper submitted to the journal Europhysics Letters.
"Drivers start changing their route every day. This leads to a dramatic
increase in traffic fluctuations."
Fluctuations mean that some arteries are clogged on Monday, others on
Tuesday. You have no better chance of finding the fast road than of choosing
the fastest line at the grocery checkout.
Overall, these smart drivers have an even lower chance of avoiding snarls
than do drivers who choose their route randomly. According to the model,
when traffic is heavy throughout the urban grid, the laid-back drivers
actually fare better than drivers intently seeking out the fastest route.
"Being traffic-smart is good in an uncrowded situation, but it's extremely
inefficient in a congested one," says Prof. De Martino.
Memo to road warriors whose brilliant alternative routes don't spare them
snarls: Give up.
Theoretical physicists haven't exactly endeared themselves to the civil
engineers, who long had traffic to themselves. Their approach to congestion
has been to build more roads, time vehicle entry and eliminate bottlenecks,
such as bad merges. Unfortunately, the power of tiny, chance fluctuations to
cause gargantuan snarls means that such rational measures are destined to
fail often. Stuff happens.
As engineers validate more of the physicists' traffic models, theorists are
prepared to refine their work. As Prof. De Martino admits, "Whether the
models are a good description of human drivers, I do not know. I assure you
that there are no good models of Rome's drivers."
SCIENCE JOURNAL
By SHARON BEGLEY
Ivan Sever
"fclaugus" <clau...@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> Memo to road warriors whose brilliant alternative routes don't spare them
> snarls: Give up.
>
> Theoretical physicists haven't exactly endeared themselves to the civil
> engineers, who long had traffic to themselves. Their approach to congestion
> has been to build more roads, time vehicle entry and eliminate bottlenecks,
> such as bad merges. Unfortunately, the power of tiny, chance fluctuations to
> cause gargantuan snarls means that such rational measures are destined to
> fail often. Stuff happens.
Oh great, "stuff happens..." Forget about keeping to the right, using
merge lanes for actually merging into traffic (instead of stopping in
them), using blinkers to change lanes, anticipating traffic changes
instead of shaving or gossiping over the phone. Forget about setting
speed limits to reasonable values, minimizing constructions or outlawing
for-profit speed traps that upset perfectly safe traffic patterns.
Forget all that, because finally we have theoretical physicists to tell
it doesn't matter - it's all random anyway.
Ivan
Nate Nagel
<snip>
All the more reason why people who can't merge, people who LLB, and
people who gratuitously cut other drivers off in traffic (i.e. do
anything that disrupts smooth traffic flow) should have their driver's
licenses shredded on the spot. Hmm, sorta what we've been saying all
along here. It's bad enough when you have a funeral procession hold
you up, but when some bleeding moron does it for no good reason other
than that he's an inconsiderate idiot... well...
nate
Matthew Russotto
>mode -- reporting a jackknifed tractor-trailer on the highway, extra volume
>at the bridge, a protest blocking traffic two blocks from your
>destination -- you are sure you can arrive on time by outfoxing the fools
>who are wedded to their usual routes and finding the road less traveled.
>
>Scientists have some news for you: Don't bother.
Scientists need to enter the real world. Having on occasion driven
around massive backups, easily beating those who remained in them, I
kow this isn't true.
>So far, so intuitive. But the compression wave can persist for hours.
The compression wave persists for hours only when traffic density
stays above a critical level for hours. Given traffic density at that
level, almost any perturbation can set off a wave; worrying about the
initial cause is theoretically interesting but usually practically
irrelevant. The practical cause is the unstable high density flow.
>about why they have slowed to a crawl. By one estimate, three-quarters of
>traffic jams have no visible culprit.
Obviously, an estimate pulled out of someone's ass. Most traffic
jams have a very visible culprit -- sun glare, merging traffic,
rubbernecking, geographical features.
>When the city is relatively empty, says physicist Andrea De Martino of the
>University of Rome, drivers who choose a way to avoid jams manage to find
>fast routes. If you listen to traffic reports at 5 a.m., you'll know that
>you should head for Avenue B.
Wrong. If there are two similar routes to an area, if you hear about
a traffic jam that's not caused by an accident on one of them, your
best bet is to take that route. This is where the physics model
breaks down.
>Memo to road warriors whose brilliant alternative routes don't spare them
>snarls: Give up.
Now I suspect an ulterior motive -- they want the alternatives all to themselves.
>Theoretical physicists haven't exactly endeared themselves to the civil
>engineers, who long had traffic to themselves. Their approach to congestion
>has been to build more roads, time vehicle entry and eliminate bottlenecks,
>such as bad merges. Unfortunately, the power of tiny, chance fluctuations to
>cause gargantuan snarls means that such rational measures are destined to
>fail often. Stuff happens.
Incorrect. Building more roads or more lanes can reduce traffic
density below the critical level of unstable flow. Eliminating
bottlenecks makes a huge difference, as anyone travelling the
Schuylkill Expressway to King of Prussia for the past few years can
tell you.
A bottleneck is basically a continuous perturbation; whenever traffic
density gets above the critical level at the bottleneck, there WILL be
a backup. And it'll keep being reinforced, preventing density from
dropping back below the critical level at that point, even if it has
dropped elsewhere on the road. This backup itself then becomes a
disturbance for the rest of the road.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Matthew Russotto
Scott in Aztlan <qine...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 08:58:28 -0500, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
>Russotto) wrote:
>
>>Wrong. If there are two similar routes to an area, if you hear about
>>a traffic jam that's not caused by an accident on one of them, your
>>best bet is to take that route.
>
>the 15 down to San Diego on a Friday afternoon. :)
If you're going to San Diego on a Friday afternoon, you have already
lost. Unless you have a helicopter.
There are reasons I won't move to the Wrong Coast.
Brent P
> Scientists have some news for you: Don't bother.
They are wrong. The problem is too few people bother.
> It isn't that the highway gods have it in for you. Physics does.
> Many of the successes applying theoretical physics to traffic mysteries
> spring from the fact that cars behave much as molecules in a gas. The
> equations of gas dynamics, therefore, do a pretty decent job of modeling and
> predicting traffic.
Yes, it's simple fluid dynamics. However since the particles are human
controlled, we can control the quality of the flow. Keeping a clean
laminar flow is within our power.
> So far, so intuitive. But the compression wave can persist for hours. That
> leaves drivers who never saw the first car decelerate totally mystified
> about why they have slowed to a crawl. By one estimate, three-quarters of
> traffic jams have no visible culprit. The cause came and went hours ago, but
> its effects linger.
The idea is that if people drove properly, there would be far fewer
events that start the problems.
> Overall, these smart drivers have an even lower chance of avoiding snarls
> than do drivers who choose their route randomly. According to the model,
> when traffic is heavy throughout the urban grid, the laid-back drivers
> actually fare better than drivers intently seeking out the fastest route.
> "Being traffic-smart is good in an uncrowded situation, but it's extremely
> inefficient in a congested one," says Prof. De Martino.
A lack of alternative routes I've found is primarily due to poor road
design and layout. Proper grid systems can delay the onset of congestion
to much higher levels than suburban cul-da-sacing. But, if one knows
the area well enough, non-conventional thinking and willingness to drive
further can get one somewhere faster.
Brent P
> Incorrect. Building more roads or more lanes can reduce traffic
> density below the critical level of unstable flow.
Additional lanes IMO are near worthless without displined driving.
Because it only takes an idiot or two to jam the additional lane.
> Eliminating bottlenecks makes a huge difference,
Boneheaded road design is the cause of most daily backups. Chicago
has it's own example at the I90/94 merge. Right hand lane of I90
merges with the left lane of I94. People try to exit from the left
lane of I90 to irving park road a ramp on the far right, off the
right lanes of what was I94. This bonehead piece of road design
is a constant source of congestion. get rid of the center lane
merge. either by adding a lane after the merge (total fix) or closing
one lane on *one* of the two interstates before the merge (less
congestion, slowing only *half* the number of road users) Make
a ramp that allows people to get from I90 to exit before the merge to
get to irving park road.
Matthew Russotto
Brent P <tetraet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <WYOdnSmiMfA...@speakeasy.net>, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> Incorrect. Building more roads or more lanes can reduce traffic
>> density below the critical level of unstable flow.
>
>Additional lanes IMO are near worthless without displined driving.
>Because it only takes an idiot or two to jam the additional lane.
With one lane, it takes one idiot to jam the whole road. With two
lanes, it takes two idiots in the same spot. With three, it takes
three idiots in the same spot. Additional lanes can convert the
idiots into bottlenecks rather than blockages. They also provide more
space for backed-up cars to sit in, possibly preventing a backup from
propagating an entire exit from the choke point.
Brent P
> In article <HIgfb.670624$Ho3.140059@sccrnsc03>,
> Brent P <tetraet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>In article <WYOdnSmiMfA...@speakeasy.net>, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>> Incorrect. Building more roads or more lanes can reduce traffic
>>> density below the critical level of unstable flow.
>>Additional lanes IMO are near worthless without displined driving.
>>Because it only takes an idiot or two to jam the additional lane.
> With one lane, it takes one idiot to jam the whole road. With two
> lanes, it takes two idiots in the same spot. With three, it takes
> three idiots in the same spot.
I am discussing roads that are already multilane and are jammed.
The extra idiots needed to jam the new lane(s) are already present.
> Additional lanes can convert the
> idiots into bottlenecks rather than blockages.
Not in 'filled-to-capacity' conditions. Because the additional idiots
are so prevelent that their blocking is maintained. In lighter traffic
conditions it helps because it provides another way of getting round
blockers, but once rush hour hits there are so many blockers that there
is no overcoming them with additional lanes.
> They also provide more
> space for backed-up cars to sit in, possibly preventing a backup from
> propagating an entire exit from the choke point.
Yep, just a bigger parking lot. The real problem is left unaddressed.
I've seen a 14 lane interstate (7 lanes each direction) jammed up
because of people who simply don't know how drive. Sure the local/express
merges give them the opertunity to be more stupid, but they aren't poorly
designed and should not cause any flow problems.
Ricardo
wrote:
>Additional lanes IMO are near worthless without displined driving.
>Because it only takes an idiot or two to jam the additional lane.
This is a fact that I never really used to appreciate, but having
been "educated" in this matter, I can say that there is an
"advantage" to having inadequate road capacity. People hafta at
least try to learn to drive, otherwise *nobody* goes *anywhere*. A
couple of LLBs can quickly bring the speed of traffic down to 0mph,
so that's a pretty good incentive to stay right if ever there was
one. Therefore, most people stay right and leave it to a small
number of brainless pheckwits to spoil the show. If we say doubled
this number, the whole region would be begging for mercy and the
economy would surely collapse, going down with a bang. :}
LLBs are just like any other type of bad apple: it only takes one...
>Boneheaded road design is the cause of most daily backups.
My biggest beef here vis-à-vis boneheaded road design is the few
interchanges/entrances that still have NO merge lane. They're
suicidally dangerous, no matter how fast your car, no matter how
sharp your observational skills.
--
ricardo, ex-euroslav vancouver bc canada
for liability purposes: I *always* obey the law.
'89 grand am le, garaged; '91 mx6 gt
Ricardo
<qine...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>Yep. Good thing the LA basin is such a fabulous place to live -
Is it *really*? Coulda fooled me, but what would I know?
>getting in and out is a complete BITCH. :)
Well I could clue you in on a more reLAXing way out, hint hint. ;)
Ricardo
<qine...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 03:42:21 GMT, rickyno...@speedersanonymous.org
>(Ricardo) wrote:
>
>>>Yep. Good thing the LA basin is such a fabulous place to live -
>>
>>Is it *really*? Coulda fooled me, but what would I know?
>
>If you don't like it, that's just fine with me. It's already crowded enough
>without more people deciding they like it here and moving in... :)
Now I'm not gonna squawk about how L.A. is a really s#!t place or
nutt'n', but big cities really aren't my thang, even though I live
in [a very large, albeit not by L.A. standards] one. In particular,
L.A. has all the big city "issues" generally, plus excessive
pollution and rampant crime. And afaics its public transit isn't
notably better than here in the Fraser Valley either. Some call this
place "Lotusland", I guess you could say it's L.A. (or maybe
Seattle) run by the Swiss. In fact, many Canajun cities are
considered to be similar looking yank metropolises "run by the
Swiss":
Vancouver = Seattle, L.A. or S.F. run by the Swiss
Calgary = Denver run by the Swiss?
Saskatchewan = Montana run by the Swiss?
Winnipeg = Minneapolis run by the Swiss?
Toronto = New York run by the Swiss
Montréal = Paris with street cleaners :}
Canada = USA run by the Swiss... or Switzerland run by the yanks?
Actually, this is all unfair to the poor Swiss, who actually know
how to provide public transportation to their citizens (ref.
www.sbb.ch?).
>Except that the only way to get to the airport is - you guessed it - via the
>congested freeway! :)
Fly red eye express. :}
Matthew Russotto
Scott in Aztlan <qine...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>Russotto) wrote:
>
>>If you're going to San Diego on a Friday afternoon, you have already
>>lost. Unless you have a helicopter.
>
>out is a complete BITCH. :)
>
>
Naa, hurricanes are more a Right Coast thing. And while watching the
weatherman get all lathered up about one coming is amusing, it's not
the #1 reason to stay on the Right Coast.
Ricardo
<qine...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>I've lived in the LA basin for most of the last 8 years, and I have yet to be
>the victim of a crime (unless you count being ripped off by a car delaers, which
>of course happens everywhere).
Well it's kinda sorta obvious that you fall into a higher income
bracket, such that you can live in a quiet suburb. Me, I live in a
slightly down market inner city area and from what I've seen there's
a world of difference between here and some other large cities in
the States or Europe. If you weren't so well off, how would you
enjoy living in Compton, for example? Now downtown East Vancouver
has its problems, its drugs, its gangs and what have you but it's
all relative. If this were the USA then it would likely be suicidal
to walk along East Hastings late at night, and the exclusive British
Properties on the North Shore would probably be a gated community of
multi-million dollar houses (it's currently an ungated community of
multi-million dollar houses :).
>Michael Moore hit the nail right on the head when he spoke of the
>"Culture of Fear" in the movie Bowling for Columbine.
With some L.A. 'burbs clocking in triple digit homicide rates, I'd
say that fear may be justified in some instances. Now of course not
everywhere in the USA is dangerous, not by a long shot. But if
you're not reasonably well off and cannot afford to live in an
upmarket neighbourhood, life could be decidedly dodgy down south. To
be fair, this is one point Canada has "up" on the U.S.: Canada's not
a good place to be poor, but it's probably preferable to the States.
If you're not dirt poor, however, I think it's quite possible to
have at least as good, if not better, a quality of life in the USA.
(Canajun socialists who are always overeager to make unsubstantiated
anti-yank diatribes wouldn't always agree on that one, however.)
Btw I cannot claim that this city or neighbourhood don't have
serious crime problems. I've been robbed (as in thieved from, not
violence) twice in quick succession this summer. I partly brought it
about on myself by being a little naīve and airheaded, but crime is
crime nonetheless.
>I won't argue the pollution point, however. In an ironic twist, the
>very weather and geography that combine to make SoCal such a paradise
>also conspire to trap polluted air, making LA smog the worst in the
>nation (and perhaps the world).
L.A. is filthy and yes, much of it is crime ridden and very
dangerous. But head 80 miles or so up I5 to Santa Barbara and
environs, and things look a little different. But I cannot begin to
imagine how much things COST in So. Cal. these days, and CA has
NEVER been a cheap place by anyone's standards (so long as you don't
count SE Britain, Japan, Switzerland...)
Ricardo
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>Naa, hurricanes are more a Right Coast thing. And while watching the
>weatherman get all lathered up about one coming is amusing, it's not
>the #1 reason to stay on the Right Coast.
I really wanna check out the (Canajun - already been to Boston MA)
Right Coast some time, although I'm kinda scared that I'll wanna
move for good if I do that. :} From what I can see, the big two
reasons for not moving "oot there" permanently are: (a) relatively
lack of career opportunities; and (b) a REAL winter, kinda like the
British Isles would be without the Gulf stream to warm 'em up. Plus
the awkward problem of not being able to use a RD while driving, of
course. *smirk*
John David Galt
> Except that the only way to get to the airport is - you guessed it - via the
> congested freeway! :)
Sepulveda Blvd. is usually faster than the 405, and it parallels it from
Sylmar down to at least Long Beach. HTH.
Kenneth Crudup
<qine...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>>Yep. Good thing the LA basin is such a fabulous place to live -
In article <3f7e4176.28465783@news>,
rickyno...@speedersanonymous.org (Ricardo) says:
>Is it *really*?
Yes, it is!
-Kenny
--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles
H: 3801 E. Pacific Coast Hw #9, Long Beach, CA 90804-2014 (888) 454-8181
W: 26601 Agoura Road, Calabasas CA 91302-1959 (818) 444-3685
Kenneth Crudup
rickyno...@speedersanonymous.org (Ricardo) says:
>and (b) a REAL winter
<snort>
I'm from Chicago, and have lived in Boston, both places where the snowfall
is measured in *feet*. You've gotta be 10 kinds of crazy to trade what's
pretty much one all-year summer for a "real Winter".
-Kenny, who'll die happy if I never have to see another
goddamn sn*wfl*k* again as long as I shall live
Kenneth Crudup
rickyno...@speedersanonymous.org (Ricardo) says:
>And afaics [L.A.'s] public transit isn't notably better than here
>in the Fraser Valley either.
Er, it *sucks*, and I'll admit that, 'cause nobody gives a shit
about public transit here. I was here for two years before I knew
L.A. had a subway (I thought the one in "Speed" was just a joke
for the movies). I know I'll never use it.
>run by the Swiss.
That's a benefit?
-Kenny, pretty happy with the current folks who run this place
Kenneth Crudup
rickyno...@speedersanonymous.org (Ricardo) says:
>If you weren't so well off, how would you enjoy living in Compton
Got that off TV, didja? I know three people who live in houses in Compton
I can't afford right now. They're also not moving, but see, they *live*
there, and don't let the TV news nor crime statistics tell 'em there's
something wrong with the part they're in.
L.A. is a *big* place.
-Kenny
Kenneth Crudup
rickyno...@speedersanonymous.org (Ricardo) says:
>With some L.A. 'burbs clocking in triple digit homicide rates, I'd
>say that fear may be justified in some instances.
Er, *no*. You're far more likely to get killed in a car accident
than die in a homicide.
-Kenny, who'll note that some people get off on living their
lives in fear, though
Ricardo
wrote:
>In article <3f7f2870.5031080@news>,
>rickyno...@speedersanonymous.org (Ricardo) says:
>
>>If you weren't so well off, how would you enjoy living in Compton
>
>Got that off TV, didja?
And other sources, like the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
>I know three people who live in houses in Compton
>I can't afford right now.
I guess even bad neighbourhoods ain't cheap in the big metropolis.
:}
>L.A. is a *big* place.
Vancouver is a *big* place. L.A. is a *huge* place. :}
Ricardo
wrote:
>In article <3f7f2870.5031080@news>,
>rickyno...@speedersanonymous.org (Ricardo) says:
>
>>With some L.A. 'burbs clocking in triple digit homicide rates, I'd
>>say that fear may be justified in some instances.
>
>Er, *no*. You're far more likely to get killed in a car accident
>than die in a homicide.
So the triple digit homicide rates in certain L.A. 'burbs have never
been real then? And sure as night follows day the traffic fatalities
don't get anywhere near that high, not in a month of Mondays.
> -Kenny, who'll note that some people get off on living their
> lives in fear, though
Not me, even though I live in the Province that topped the nation's
charts for murders per head last year, based on data just released.
Something like 3.4 per 100k here versus a national average of 1.85.
Ricardo
wrote:
>In article <3f7e5e95.35922102@news>,
>rickyno...@speedersanonymous.org (Ricardo) says:
>
>>And afaics [L.A.'s] public transit isn't notably better than here
>>in the Fraser Valley either.
>
>Er, it *sucks*,
It sucks here too, bigtime.
>and I'll admit that, 'cause nobody gives a shit
>about public transit here. I was here for two years before I knew
>L.A. had a subway (I thought the one in "Speed" was just a joke
>for the movies). I know I'll never use it.
In this city of 2 million we don't even have a subway. A limited
monorail system, yes, which admittedly is beginning to improve,
though these "improvements" are probably about 30 years behind the
times.
>>run by the Swiss.
>
>That's a benefit?
I didn't say it was! :}
Ricardo, never even been to Switzerland but would like to visit
Ricardo
<qine...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>What is a "triple digit" homicide rate? Does that mean 100% of the people die
>each year? :)
Oops, sorry for any lack of clarity, I meant triple digit in the
sense of 100+ recorded homicides in an area per 100k resident
population, the most commonly used system for recording very serious
crime statistics (for all they're worth - trends are often more
important than raw numbers, especially when comparing
non-uniformized stats), and the one used for FBI UCRs.
Kenneth Crudup
>>Got that off TV, didja?
In article <3f806621.3846190@news>,
rickyno...@speedersanonymous.org (Ricardo) says:
>And other sources, like the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
Yeah, and as I said, the folks I know there couldn't care less about
that.
>>I know three people who live in houses in Compton
>>I can't afford right now.
>I guess even bad neighbourhoods ain't cheap in the big metropolis.
Um, all of Compton is not a bad neighborhood. Folks like you wouldn't
know that, though. It's just as well, 'cause I hate gentrification,
and for now, it's going to be free from that.
I have a good income- and I'm in Long Beach. When I move to L.A.,
I'll probably find another 'hood, too.
Kenneth Crudup
rickyno...@speedersanonymous.org (Ricardo) says:
>So the triple digit homicide rates in certain L.A. 'burbs have never
>been real then?
But *so what* if they are? I live in an L.A. suburb with 556,000
people in it, and I'm sure Long Beach has a high homicide rate- but as
far as the death rate is concerned, I'll bet homicides rank fairly low.
>And sure as night follows day the traffic fatalities
>don't get anywhere near that high, not in a month of Mondays.
I'll have to go to the sources on this one. I can almost *swear*
w/o looking at a cite that more folks have died on the roads in
SoCal than have in homicides.
-Kenny
Ricardo
wrote:
>But *so what* if they are? I live in an L.A. suburb with 556,000
>people in it, and I'm sure Long Beach has a high homicide rate-
It probably does, though I don't have the FBI data for that commune
at hand. If so, though, it's probably closer to the single digit or
low double digit "high" rather than triple digit "astronomical".
>but as far as the death rate is concerned, I'll bet homicides rank
>fairly low.
Contrary to popular belief in other western countries, this has
always been true in the United States as a whole nation. While
murders are a more "significant" cause of death in countries such as
S. Africa and Colombia, they rank nearer to the "minor" end of the
relative scale in western countries, *including* the USA. Which
proves that it's not guns that kill, it's people that kill. :}
>I'll have to go to the sources on this one. I can almost *swear*
>w/o looking at a cite that more folks have died on the roads in
>SoCal than have in homicides.
According to FBI UCRs, CA as a whole state had a homicide rate of
13.1/100k residents in 1993 (it's probably a bit lower nowadays),
which is pretty comparable to the level of highway fatalities per
capita, though of course the latter are more usefully measured per
[100 million] vehicle mile[s] travelled, in real world comparisons.
Kenneth Crudup
In article <qeq1ov08lsa0elumo...@4ax.com>, you say:
>I take it you'll be voting NO on the Total Recall next Tuesday?
"Hell f*cking yeah", if only for the reason that the recall is being
fought for by a bunch of idiots, and it's waste of taxpayer (i.e.,
*my*) money.
-Kenny, who voted (R) in the last Gubernatorial election
Matthew Russotto
Kenneth Crudup <ke...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <3f7f2870.5031080@news>,
>rickyno...@speedersanonymous.org (Ricardo) says:
>
>>With some L.A. 'burbs clocking in triple digit homicide rates, I'd
>>say that fear may be justified in some instances.
>
>Er, *no*. You're far more likely to get killed in a car accident
>than die in a homicide.
Unless you deal in controlled substances for a living. Maybe
notmuggins has a nice lucrative sideline.
Abby Franquemont
Kenneth Crudup <ke...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Er, it *sucks*, and I'll admit that, 'cause nobody gives a shit
>about public transit here. I was here for two years before I knew
>L.A. had a subway (I thought the one in "Speed" was just a joke
>for the movies). I know I'll never use it.
Hah. Thanks for letting me know that actually exists, I thought they
made it up for that "Volcano" movie.
Someone once said to me tthat public transit in California exists not
for the reasons that public transit exists elsewhere, but instead, to
"send the right message," and to get domestic labor to rich people's
houses. The longer I live in Silicon Valley, the truer I think that is.
--
Abby Franquemont "Chevrolet does not condone being tailgated
J. Random BOFH by a giant ore hauler." -- Trailblazer ad
Hank Fung
Now where pray tell are these areas?
There are no suburbs in California with more than 100 homicides per 100,000
population. Go to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/02prelimannual.pdf and
do some division. That just blew your claim out of the water.
--
Hank Fung fun...@ocf.berkeley.edu
Go Bears! Yes on Recall... No on Bustamante
Hank Fung
Ricardo <rickyno...@speedersanonymous.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 22:13:05 -0000, ke...@panix.com (Kenneth Crudup)
>wrote:
>
>>But *so what* if they are? I live in an L.A. suburb with 556,000
>>people in it, and I'm sure Long Beach has a high homicide rate-
>
>It probably does, though I don't have the FBI data for that commune
>at hand. If so, though, it's probably closer to the single digit or
>low double digit "high" rather than triple digit "astronomical".
>
Long Beach had 67 murders in 2002, or 12 homicides per 100,000 (using
your population figures). Compared to the average listed below, hardly
anything to sneeze at.
By contrast, supposedly high-crime Pomona has 11.8 homicides per 100,000,
or 18 homicides for the 152,000 residents. So much for perception.
I'm sure there are safe places in Compton, much like there are safe
places in every city. On my block, there are no bars on the windows,
I park in the driveway with no problems, and I don't hear gunshots
every night. Yet home prices until recently for equivalent size houses
were 60 or 70% or next-door Claremont. Yes, the schools suck, but I
somehow managed to get to Berkeley and graduate. (Although to be fair
I did opt out of the Pomona school system for high school.)
>>but as far as the death rate is concerned, I'll bet homicides rank
>>fairly low.
>
>Contrary to popular belief in other western countries, this has
>always been true in the United States as a whole nation. While
>murders are a more "significant" cause of death in countries such as
>S. Africa and Colombia, they rank nearer to the "minor" end of the
>relative scale in western countries, *including* the USA. Which
>proves that it's not guns that kill, it's people that kill. :}
>
>>I'll have to go to the sources on this one. I can almost *swear*
>>w/o looking at a cite that more folks have died on the roads in
>>SoCal than have in homicides.
>
>According to FBI UCRs, CA as a whole state had a homicide rate of
>13.1/100k residents in 1993 (it's probably a bit lower nowadays),
>which is pretty comparable to the level of highway fatalities per
>capita, though of course the latter are more usefully measured per
>[100 million] vehicle mile[s] travelled, in real world comparisons.
Both, of course, are controllable. You can reduce your risk of dying
in an accident by buckling up and not driving drunk. You can reduce
your risk of being murdered by acting intelligently, knowing how to use
self defense, and being as aware of your friends and family as possible,
since the majority of people are murdered by someone they know.
Hank Fung
Sloopy <slo...@hangon.xyz> wrote:
>In article <kov2ov870fej45ti0...@4ax.com>,
> Scott in Aztlan <qine...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>
>>
>> >>> -Kenny, pretty happy with the current folks who run this place
>> >
>> >
>> >"Hell f*cking yeah", if only for the reason that the recall is being
>> >fought for by a bunch of idiots, and it's waste of taxpayer (i.e.,
>> >*my*) money.
>>
>> back. Might as well get some good use out of it... :)
>
>Right! The money is only wasted if Davis stays.
And if Gray stays, he can claim for reimbursement for his expenses. Although
he claims he won't use that option, some of the campaign contributors
might force his hand.
Ratbert
>>>The money is already spent; voting "no" on the recall won't bring that money
>>>back. Might as well get some good use out of it... :)
>>
>>Right! The money is only wasted if Davis stays.
>
>
> And if Gray stays, he can claim for reimbursement for his expenses. Although
> he claims he won't use that option, some of the campaign contributors
> might force his hand.
Right. They already bought him once. Why should they have to buy him
again?
Hank Fung
Scott in Aztlan <qine...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>
>>Someone once said to me tthat public transit in California exists not
>>for the reasons that public transit exists elsewhere, but instead, to
>>"send the right message," and to get domestic labor to rich people's
>>houses. The longer I live in Silicon Valley, the truer I think that is.
>
>comes near rich peoples' homes (or upper middle class peoples', for that
>matter). In my 7 years living here I have never had any domestic laborer arrive
>in anything other than a private automobile. Where I used to live, the closest
>public transit stop was over a mile away. Where I live now is better served, but
>I had to make a conscious effort to buy a house near public transit routes.
>Also, my neighborhood is older (by SoCal standards, anyway) and most "rich"
>people choose to live in the brand new housing tracts which are far, far away
>from public transit, especially in the early years.
Go to Palos Verdes where over a hundred maids came out to protest the MTA
cutting a bus line that served the Palos Verdes Peninsula. (One of the
arguments actually made was that they had to ride the bus because they
were illegal immigrants and couldn't drive. I had to smile at that one. :)
In Orange County, where you live, most of the maids ride the buses out
to Laguna Hills (205 and 70) and to Newport Beach and environs (47, 55,
57). At Laguna Hills Mall, there is regularly a taco truck and plain-
clothes taxis (the politically correct term) for the maids to make
the final leg of their trip.
Marc
>On my block, there are no bars on the windows,
>I park in the driveway with no problems, and I don't hear gunshots
>every night.
Aside from obviously non-aggressive times (New Year's Day, the 4th) I have
heard gunshots much less than once a year. I actually can't recall ever
having heard a gunshot while at my residence when there was any probability
that there was a human target. Is "don't hear them every night" mean you
hear them once every other night? Once a week? Once a month? Once a
year? Once a decade? Never?
That's certainly a backhanded compliment to your neighborhood. "I'm not
that bad of a person, I don't beat my wife every night."
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"