YOU CAN'T DRIVE TOO SLOW

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:

> Hey dood. Measures like lower speed limits and suspended licenses or
> jail time for reckless drivers would pay for itself. Tens of billions
> of $ would be saved every year in medical bills and property damage.
>

Lower speed limits, where?
People are already driving too damn slow, which makes things unsafe and
hazardous. Outa my way.

Dave Head wrote:


>
> I've got the design of the key element - a railway switch that will allow a
> railcar to be added or subtracted from a series of railcars running together,
> without slowing any of them down. Build rails instead of roads, put
> automobiles inside the railcars, use nuclear generated electricity, it'd work.

WHOA, nuclear power has already proven itself to be the worst sort of
killer of humanity, both literally and economically. Nuclear gets
billions of government subsidies, your money and mine, just to keep it
afloat, and we and many generations after us will have to pay forever
just to keep watch on the highly radioactive SPENT fuel that we have no
place to put. This will have to be safeguarded for tens of thousands of
years, for a little electric power that has already been used up and spent.

Nuclear power is suicide for all.

GK

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

>>
>>Thanks for your confirmation again of my assessment that you have a very low
>>IQ and are insane :-)
>
>
> I agree... Judy has a very low IQ and she is psychologically sick.
>
> She is also a chronic and persistent Usenet troll.
>
But maybe for once she is correct,,,as in You CAN'T Drive Too Slow, IOW,
step on the pedal and accelerate and get out of everyone's way. It is
quite unsafe when people driving the normal flow of traffic have to deal
with obstructionists. This unnecessary interaction causes a lot of
accidents, particularly when obstructionists don't know their left lane
from their right lane.

GK

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:42:35 -0700, "Jack May" > wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
>news
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:09:20 -0400, ill > wrote:
>> 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.)
>
>Why would anyone build rail and millions of mechanical rail switches to
>route each vehicle to specific locations they want to be at.

Because it would virtually eliminate auto accidents for autos using the system,
travel maybe 2 - 3 times as fast as a car normally could, run on electricity
allowing less importing of foreign energy, eliminate tailpipe emissions
completely so long as the car is carried by the rail system, allow the "driver"
to relax and watch the tube or do office type work, use zero-pollution nuclear
power in place of the high-emissions auto exhaust, allow much less energy usage
via having the railcars "draft" each other NASCAR style, etc.

>Can you
>imagine a ten lane wide freeway with rail in every lane with mechanical
>switches everywhere to get on the freeway, change lanes, and get off a
>freeway.

Naw, I can't imagine it, since a single rail with railcars running 150 mph
would equal a 30 lane highway in carrying capacity. Only need 1 rail most
places.

>The unreliability of such a mechanical Rube Goldberg contraption would kill
>lots of people and bankrupt every transportation organization.

Each railcar would have maybe 4 - 10 moving parts in the switching mechanism.

>This is the 21st century. Electronics is far cheaper and more reliable to
>do these functions on normal roads at low cost with far higher safety.

Electronics will likely not be smart enough to drive a car on an open road
within our lifetimes while understanding the paper hamburger wrapper blowing
across the road is not something that needs to be avoided, or that the
apparantly empty highway has black ice on it, etc.

>Electronic rails cost a few thousand per lane mile at most and is far more
>flexible. Mechanical rails would cost at least a hundred million per lane
>mile

>With the next generation GPS we can build virtual rails in electronics
>without any changes to the road.

GPS is not that accurate, even with selective availability off and the local
area differential receiver working - assuming too that the GPS receiver doesn't
lose the satellite lock on a rainy day like mine has several times, and the
local differential transmitter is working 100% as well. Now, about collision
avoidance with sudden objects, such as deer... not gonna happen.

>The electronics would be in the car.

And therefore would not be maintained as it should be. Saturday mechanics
would be fiddling with it too. Plus, it'd cost each car owner a whole pile of
money that a lot of 'em couldn't afford.

>It
>is far better to use reliable, low cost 21st Century technology than build
>something based on 19th Century mechanical approaches.

19th century never saw anything like this...

Dave Head

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:00:41 -0700, "Jack May" > wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:25:35 -0700, "Jack May" >
>> wrote:
>> No, _anything_ that includes a driver controlling the transportation has
>> the
>> same flaw of human error. The key is to get the human out of the control
>> loops.
>
>What the existing devices do is over ride the driver with hitting the brakes
>when the computer determine that an accident will occur if there is no
>intervention.

And will it do that when there's an 18 wheeler tailgating 10 feet back, under
conditions where a swerve into the other lane would be more safe?

>>>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.
>>
>> That would be good, for sure. Its just far short of what's needed.
>
>We are certainly in the early days and caustion is required to be sure the
>technology development is safe and can be affordable.

Yep.

>There is a lot more technology being developed to improve safety.

They can't progress fast enough! Hope they have some breakthrus!

>>>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.
>>
>> Its sort of a manner of money, too - each person has to buy the extra
>> gadgetry.
>
>Yes and we all know that the cost of technology is improving rapidly as cost
>drops dramatically. We already have tens of computers in many cars. The
>cost of cars is still dropping in real dollars even with all the new
>technology that is being developed.

I just don't think the computers are going to be as smart as a human within our
lifetimes. There are no computers that "understand" anything yet, even if they
can recognize voices.

>> A public transport system that moved a person's _car_ instead of just the
>> person, so (s)he isn't stranded at the terminus, is the technology that
>> would
>> solve a lot of the problem by getting the driver error out of the
>> equation, at
>> least for the part of the trip that the automation is handling the
>> automobile.
>
>The delays and cost of such an approach are unacceptable.

What delays? There would be _no_ waiting - the railcar would be available upon
the car's arrival at the terminal.

> Effectively any
>commute option is limited by people to a total door to door trip time of
>about an hour per day of total travel.

With railcars making 150 mph, it will be faster.

>That includes loading the cars,

Should take about as long as driving into a car wash, plus maybe 20 seconds to
secure the automobile to the railcar.

>stopping at all the locations to pick up and let off cars,

The system handles cars individually, so once you get on the system, you stay
on until you get to _your_ final destination, then the computers take you off,
where you drive away.

>and the time to
>unload at each of those stops.

About the same time it takes to drive out of the car wash at the end...
>
>I doubt there is any practical way a train could ever meet the hour
>requirement and cost would be outrageous.

The cost would not be insignificant, but it would be the fastest transportation
for trips in and out of the city up to 600 miles, door-to-door, even beating
airliners.

>You are trying to solve 21st
>century transportation problems with 19th century train technology.

The 19th century never saw anything like this...

>That is
>a totally dead end approach.

Trains with cars couple together, yes...

>
>BTW, trains have a very high accident and death rates with people and
>vehicles outside of the train.

One would have to build the rails so there are no grade crossings, preferably
off the ground. Anything getting up there's going to get squished, but not as
likely as running out on a regular roadway.

> Loading and unloading cars will in
>particular be very dangerous with drivers doing the work.

It'd take about as much skill as driving into a car wash.

> Having paid
>people to do it would be far too expensive and slow.

There may only need to be some human intervention to lock down the automobile
to the railcar once the driver stops inside it. It wouldn't be a highly
skilled job, but require some hustle and presence of mind. 30 people would be
a fairly high-traffic terminal. 1 or 2 people for low-traffic terminals would
probably work. And... perhaps even the tie-down could be automated.

>Public transportation is an abject failure that is slowly dying.

All of them currently run on a schedule, which is most of the reason for their
undoing. This would run on demand, 24/7/365. That would make the difference.

>There are
>no realistic public transportation solutions because of the monumental
>problems associated with public transit.

There are some but they are not yet implemented. The key is to not run on a
schedule, but be available when and where needed.

Dave Head

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:10:09 -0700, "Jack May" > wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:31:07 -0500, (Matthew
>> Russotto) wrote:
>>
>> I've got the design of the key element - a railway switch that will allow
>> a
>> railcar to be added or subtracted from a series of railcars running
>> together,
>> without slowing any of them down. Build rails instead of roads, put
>> automobiles inside the railcars, use nuclear generated electricity, it'd
>> work.
>>
>> I think that switch is all that's really necessary, at least its the only
>> thing
>> that is difficult.
>
>You have to switch individual personal car carried by rail cars to be even
>remotely useful.

Yes, that's what it would do.

>You would also have to load and unload individual cars
>with rail cars running non-stop.

Yes, the railcars already on the system would not have to slow or stop for the
one that is exiting to deliver an automobile to its final destintion, nor would
it have to slow or stop to accept another railcar joining the "train".

>You have not solved the most important
>part of the problem,

Yes, I think those things are covered.

>You also have to be cheaper than the electronic type solutions. Little
>chance you can do that.

There are no electroinc solutions to take the driver out of the control loop.
There's likely not going to be a computer capable of understanding all the
variables on the road to make a decision as correct as a good driver. The only
edge the computer really has is not getting emotional and experiencing road
rage. But until it can actually drive a car independently, the rail system has
the edge - it is doable now.

Dave Head

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 00:49:39 GMT, GK > wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I've got the design of the key element - a railway switch that will allow a
>> railcar to be added or subtracted from a series of railcars running together,
>> without slowing any of them down. Build rails instead of roads, put
>> automobiles inside the railcars, use nuclear generated electricity, it'd work.
>
>WHOA, nuclear power has already proven itself to be the worst sort of
>killer of humanity, both literally and economically.

Who's it killed, other than nuclear bombs?

>Nuclear gets
>billions of government subsidies, your money and mine, just to keep it
>afloat, and we and many generations after us will have to pay forever
>just to keep watch on the highly radioactive SPENT fuel that we have no
>place to put.

We have spent fuel, and it must be _someplace_ right now. Wherever that is,
its not killing anybody - we'd have heard about it on the news.

>This will have to be safeguarded for tens of thousands of
>years, for a little electric power that has already been used up and spent.

It doesn't need to be safeguarded 1 second more than the people available to
guard it. If there are no people left to guard it, then it doesn't matter
where it is, since it won't kill any people (IOW, they're all dead anyway,
which is why there are no guards.)

>Nuclear power is suicide for all.

Don't think so...

DPH

>GK

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Not while we have 110 americans killed EVERY DAY on our highways.
And
> thousands more injured.

Wow. I will take your advice and be sure that I *never* *ever* drive
too slow. I wasn't aware it was forbidden to drive too slow until I
read your subject line saying that I can't.

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:42:35 -0700, "Jack May" >
> wrote:
>>Why would anyone build rail and millions of mechanical rail switches to
>>route each vehicle to specific locations they want to be at.
>
> Because it would virtually eliminate auto accidents for autos using the
> system,
> travel maybe 2 - 3 times as fast as a car normally

You have to load and unload vehicles since we are talking about commutes,
not long distance travel. Trains in urban environment run slower than cars
because of the need to pick up and let off people. 20MPH is about as good
as it gets for non-express trains (where they eliminate most station stops).
Running more trains will strongly increase accidents above present rates.

>could, run on electricity
> allowing less importing of foreign energy, eliminate tailpipe emissions

You just transfer the pollution to a power station which is often extremely
dirty in much of the US. Most trains are not electric so this is
irrelevant.

> allow the "driver"
> to relax and watch the tube or do office type work,

So will ITS which will be a lot cheaper and won't have the incredible stack
of cars waiting to be loaded and unloaded while burning lots of idle fuel.

> power in place of the high-emissions auto exhaust,

The emissions are very low these days and continuing to decrease faster than
Government requirements. Trains will produce more pollution, far more
particulate matter in the large part of the US that burns coal for
electricity.


> Naw, I can't imagine it, since a single rail with railcars running 150 mph
> would equal a 30 lane highway in carrying capacity. Only need 1 rail most
> places.

Total lie. Average rail in urban area seldom gets about a half lane of
traffic. Trains don't run full all the time and they are widely spaced for
safety and because they are so expensive you can't run many

http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-fwy&lrt.htm

> Electronics will likely not be smart enough to drive a car on an open road
> within our lifetimes while understanding the paper hamburger wrapper
> blowing
> across the road is not something that needs to be avoided, or that the
> apparantly empty highway has black ice on it, etc.

We have been handling those problems on production cars for several years
now with the intelligent cruise control (Radar, laser) that you can buy NOW

> GPS is not that accurate, even with selective availability off and the
> local
> area differential receiver working - assuming too that the GPS receiver
> doesn't
> lose the satellite lock on a rainy day like mine has several times, and
> the
> local differential transmitter is working 100% as well. Now, about
> collision
> avoidance with sudden objects, such as deer... not gonna happen.

We are talking about GPS 3 which starts in about 2008 which solves a lot of
the problems of GPS 1. We also have cheap laser gyroscopes to fill in when
their is a signal loss. Remember we can get high accuracy with differential
GPS to keep cars from "touching" each other. We are talking about mm
differential and 20 inches absolute for GPS 3. In fact there is a good
chance GPS 3 will be used for automated control of cars possibly in this
decade.

> And therefore would not be maintained as it should be. Saturday mechanics
> would be fiddling with it too. Plus, it'd cost each car owner a whole
> pile of
> money that a lot of 'em couldn't afford.

People are not maintaining the tens of computers they have in new cars now.
They don't have the capability, the computers are reliable, and they are
cheap. Electronics if DECREASING in price by more than 40% per year. Rail
construction in urban areas is INCREASING over 30% per year.

People still have to pay for the rail out of taxes. Your cost comments
don't make any sense.

> 19th century never saw anything like this...

It typical 19th century mechanical type solutions.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> 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.
> >
> > Question: If there were a solution that would cut the carnage in
> half
> > _without_ slowing down commerce, how much would it be worth?
>
> Hey dood. Measures like lower speed limits and suspended licenses or
> jail time for reckless drivers would pay for itself. Tens of
billions
> of $ would be saved every year in medical bills and property damage.

What about those individuals who drive without a license in the first
place?

How about those who drink and drive?

What about those individuals drinking and driving without a license,
and then kill someone?