 | | Re: Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice') —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | (...) Who are smart enough to know what level or risk is appropriate in all situations. Right? (...) The 'correct' speed. (...) What Larry is saying is that while they might be exceeding the posted speed limit, the problem is that the posted speed (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice') —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snip> The theory of how to set speeds isn't just some neato thing I dreamed up, it's commonly accepted practice, as outlined in Transportation Engineering texts... you can look it up or take (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice') —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Hmm Civil engineering. This does work for some roads, but, for most, the 85th percentile speed just keeps rising (if my memory serves my right). For most roads, all the 85th percentile rule shows is that 15 percent of drivers are willing to (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice') —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) What would be cool is signage that responds to the weather. Based on the temperature and state of precipitation (or even reflective characteristics of the road and atmospheric light-transmission characteristics), the signs could display a (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Can't Drive 65 (was 'Re: Tolerance of vice') —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) In the UK this is already done indirectly. I think speed is altered based on how close the cars are travelling together on some roads leading to London - slow moving cars travel closer together. In these type of conditions, reducing the speed (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
