YOU CAN'T DRIVE TOO SLOW

Around 4/15/2005 8:33 AM, Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea)
<http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote:

> Then they're not "accidents." Almost every collison on the highways is
> due to driver recklessness.

IMO, it's not so much conscious recklessness as simple stupidity and
ignorance. You're a shining example of that, Judy.

Lucky for us, I know something that could help fix that: Improved driver
training!


--
~/Garth
"I am patient with stupidity
but not with those who are proud of it." - Edith Sitwell
(Mail for secure contact information)

In article >,
Dave Head > wrote:
>On 14 Apr 2005 19:11:52 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
> wrote:
>
>>Not while we have 110 americans killed EVERY DAY on our highways. And
>>thousands more injured. Terrorists are a microscopic problem compared
>>to speeders.
>
>Welll... you can't much do a lot about it - you can go as slow as you want, and
>the death toll will still be unacceptable.
>
>It is amazing that we put up with this, on an absolute scale. I mean, if there
>_were_ terrorists taking down 110 Americans a day, there would be armed citizen
>patrols, curfews, etc. But, we're just USED TO THIS.

If there were terrorists taking down 110 Americans a day, the solutions
would be obvious.

>Question: If there were a solution that would cut the carnage in half
>_without_ slowing down commerce, how much would it be worth?

Quite a bit. But there isn't. Your fantasy ideas require technology
that would require significant breakthroughs in order to exist.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article .com>,
says...
>
>
>Not while we have 110 americans killed EVERY DAY on our highways. And
>thousands more injured. Terrorists are a microscopic problem compared
>to speeders.
>
Oh God! Are yu back?

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
>>Question: If there were a solution that would cut the carnage in half
>>_without_ slowing down commerce, how much would it be worth?
>
> Quite a bit. But there isn't. Your fantasy ideas require technology
> that would require significant breakthroughs in order to exist.

There is already technology on the market to reduce accidents and death.
The technology is in higher priced cars which will migrate down to lower
priced cars as always. All you have to do it buy it.

That technology collision avoidance with Radar or laser and automatic lane
following. Next there needs to be communications between cars to prevent
pile ups and to tell where there are bad road conditions like fog.

This is not breakthrough technology. Its mainly a matter of the technology
getting cheaper and standards for things like road side and car to car
communications to prevent accidents.

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jack May wrote:
>> "Roger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Feed your car crash fetish elsewhere. This has nothing to do with
>> > alt.politics.
>>
>> This person has an extremely low IQ and is insane. The person is
> incapable
>> of understanding any request you make.
>
> HAHA. More childish namecalling cause you don't have any arguments.
> HAHA

Thanks for confirming my assessment of your capabilities.

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Roger wrote:
>> Feed your car crash fetish elsewhere. This has nothing to do with
>> alt.politics.
>
> Of course it concerns politics, you nitwit. Speeders are the same as
> terrorists except there's a lot more of them.
>

Thanks for your confirmation again of my assessment that you have a very low
IQ and are insane :-)

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Roger wrote:
>> Feed your car crash fetish elsewhere. This has nothing to do with
>> alt.politics.
>
> Of course it concerns politics, you nitwit. Speeders are the same as
> terrorists except there's a lot more of them.
>

Terrorists and speeders are running for political office now!?

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote:
>
>> Not while we have 110 americans killed EVERY DAY on our highways. And
>> thousands more injured. Terrorists are a microscopic problem compared
>> to speeders.
>
> People driving slower than the speed of traffic are responsible for as
> many accidents as people driving faster. More actually, the speed with
> the lowest involvement in accidents is actually a little *faster* than
> the median.
>
> But those slower drivers are more likely to cause accidents involving
> other vehicles than their own.
>
> --

I've been looking for statistics on this at the NHTSA and other places. I
can't find anything to substantiate this. Any link you can provide?

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:09:20 -0400, ill > wrote:

>Magnulus wrote:
>> "Jack May" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Cars already have collision avoidance systems on some models. There is at
>>>least one model that also prevents your car from wandering out of a lane
>>
>> for
>>
>>>example if you fall asleep at the wheel.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I trust that technology (Honda's lane holding tech)- suppose
>> you had to swerve out of a lane for an emergency? I'm not sure computers
>> are up to being that intelligent yet.
>>
>> Some of it makes sense, though. BMW has a cruise control that works with
>> a radar to keep a safe cruising distance behind other cars, even if they
>> slow down.
>>
>> Also, about half of all accidents are simply somebody losing control of a
>> car/truck (often speed is a factor). That's where ABS, stability control,
>> etc., will come in.
>>
>>
>
>The problem is people are driving the car.

Yep.

Now, lets invent something that takes the car off the road, and carries it
automatically under computer control. Preferably on rails (if you've ever read
any of my old posts on this subject, you'll know why I think it could be done.)

>I know a number of stupid
>people with licenses.

I don't know any but read about 'em in the paper all the time.
>
>They're not difficult to get and somewhat hard to lose.

Have to be - or it'd cripple the economy, which isn't doing all that well
anyway if you look at this year's stock market.

Dave Head

On 15 Apr 2005 08:29:00 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
> wrote:

>
>Dave Head wrote:
>>
>> Plus, remember the unintended consequences. Human beings are not
>designed to
>> do an easy job for hours on end without losing their concentration.
>People
>> would run off the road and hit trees just from going to sleep at the
>wheel,
>> even in the daytime, if they did try to obey unreasonably low speed
>limits.
>>
>> All in all, it doesn't work.
>
>Hey stupid. It's already been tried - in the 1970s and it worked.

Didn't.

>In
>1974 when we went to the 55, highway fatalities dropped 16% while miles
>driven only dropped 2%.

There was an accompanying shift in the way the data was gathered, too, and...
almost nobody was _actually_ going that slow after the 1st few months.

>This matter was setttled 30 years ago.

Not by a long shot.

DPH