Worst traffic impediments to good FE?

[RunningStrong]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

#2 Too high a speed limit. John and Jane Doe use the PSL as their minimum speed, so they get 28 mpg driving 75 mph v. 40 mpg driving 60 mph. That's a 42% FE loss because of the state's speed limit decision.

There's no legal requirement to travel at the speed limit, and certainly little pressure to do so on a multi-lane road.

In the UK for example the speed limit is 70 mph for most vehicles, but I would regard the lowest safe speed at 56 mph (Or more specifically 90 km/h). This is because this is the speed at which HGVs are limited to on the motorway in the UK. To go any slower would lead to lane changes from HGVs which while not illegal or immediately unsafe it is unnecessary for minimum FE improvement.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

Actually, I was referring to your use of a personal attack against rmay635703 rather than focusing on his argument. But, I guess, following that up with another is just in keeping with your character. If you want to argue the point that restricting days on which people can drive is despotic and dictatorial without resorting to hurling insults at the proposer (for instance, I could, instead, have just called you stupid for your inability to cogently construct and communicate a counterpoint... after all, a spade is a spade, no?), then that's fine. I can do that. But I'm done with these personal attacks as a substitute for a healthy, productive debate.

You do not understand the difference between an actual insult (calling someone "stupid" is a good example) as opposed to my assigning an appropriate label of authoritarian to you who advocates inappropriate use of authority (based upon your authoritarian proposal). The former is a personal attack, the latter is not.

Driving is a privilege, NOT a right. Owning a car (personal property) is a right, but driving it whenever, wherever, and however I want is not. The idea that individuals have unlimited and unrestricted freedom to do what they want when they want is patently wrong, even in the freest of societies.

We understand all that and it is not in dispute. But there is no compelling circumstance that calls for drastic measures. According to your personal opinion and whim you have decided that there is too much traffic on the road for to your personal liking, therefore you seek to restrict the movement of others. It is similar to invoking martial law when there is no clear and present danger. Sure, draconian measures keep people in line, but at a very high cost indeed, as seen in authoritarian societies. There is no "greater good of society" achieved that you invoke with your proposed prohibition.

The people own the roads, and if the people decide that a particular road is too congested, they may choose to restrict it in anyway they deem necessary. A more realistic manifestation of my argument would probably be to turn the entire interstate/freeway system into a carpool lane. Having a single lane provided to carpoolers, people with yellow stickers, and cheats is not effective, in my opinion. It causes too many buildups and traffic jams due to people attempting to take advantage of it. Now, on the other hand, if we were to restrict the entire freeway system to use only by those individuals who are traveling two or more per car, traffic and congestion would reduce by up to half. The removal of a privileged carpool lane would reduce the number of traffic jams and accidents further.

As your first proposal weren't bad enough, now you want to ban single occupant vehicles. Why not ban vehicle travel altogether? That's the road you are going down with such absurd proposals. It sounds to me like you are literally anti-car, which is apart from the focus of this list (as well as very off-topic).

So in practice, my snide but relevant remark might actually have some merit, and it is not without historical precedent. Remember when people could only fill up with gasoline based on their license plate numbers?

Yes I do, and it was because there was not ample gasoline available and it was something of a national crisis. Your disapproval of encountering heavier traffic in your vicinity is nowhere near that situation - it is based only upon your personal preference or whim, and that is dictatorial in nature.

Seat belt laws? Motorcycle helmet laws?

Those are nanny state mandates devised to alleviate society from personal responsibility. Hey, if you don't want to wear a seatbelt or helmet that should be your choice - and if you are injured or die you shouldn't get to collect on your claim, as you have no one to blame but yourself. But that's soooo CRUEL! say the nanny statists. We only want to protect people and save their lives. So they want to pretend to cure all the ills of society by making more and more things restricted or illegal - but at a very high price: the abrogation of liberty.

Those were apparently dictatorial too, right? Restrictions are often put in place by our government, and they are sometimes unpopular. I'll grant you, this is a touchy subject, and many Americans would be very upset to realize that they are spending almost a year's wages on something that could be made to be essentially useless.

You are correct in one aspect. If your absurd proposal were ever implemented there would be a great amount of resentment at the loss of freedom and mobility, as freedom is still known and loved by some in America. If you want to carpool or ride a bus instead of drive, that's fine. But that's based upon your personal opinion and your voluntary choice - and it should not be imposed upon anyone other than yourself.

"If you want to change the world, begin with yourself."

[Ladogaboy]

You should really look up ad hominem; I'm sorry the concept is so difficult to understand. Let me see if I can help you construct a cogent argument that doesn't rely on "labeling" the person who disagrees.

I left the second paragraph (in bold). It should be removed and is pointless because it is what is referred to as a straw man argument, but I left it because it is a good example of how not to make a point. Essentially, you are associating me with an argument I did not make but which is easy to disprove.

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

We understand all that and it is not in dispute. But there is no compelling circumstance that calls for drastic measures. According to your personal opinion, there is too much traffic on the road and, therefore you seek to restrict the movement of others. I do not see a "greater good of society" achieved by your proposed prohibition.


As your first proposal weren't bad enough, now you want to ban single occupant vehicles. Why not ban vehicle travel altogether? That's the road you are going down with such absurd proposals. It sounds to me like you are literally anti-car, which is apart from the focus of this list (as well as very off-topic).

Yes I do, and it was because there was not ample gasoline available and it was something of a national crisis. Your disapproval of encountering heavier traffic in your vicinity is nowhere near that situation.

Those are nanny state mandates devised to alleviate society from personal responsibility. Hey, if you don't want to wear a seatbelt or helmet that should be your choice - and if you are injured or die you shouldn't get to collect on your claim, as you have no one to blame but yourself. But that's soooo CRUEL! say the nanny statists. We only want to protect people and save their lives. So they want to pretend to cure all the ills of society by making more and more things restricted or illegal - but at a very high price: the abrogation of liberty.

You are correct in one aspect. If your proposal were ever implemented there would be a great amount of resentment at the loss of freedom and mobility. If you want to carpool or ride a bus instead of drive, that's fine. But that's based upon your personal opinion and your voluntary choice - and it should not be imposed upon anyone other than yourself.

"If you want to change the world, begin with yourself."

[MetroMPG]

Guys, take it elsewhere, please.

If you want to see authoritarian behaviour, I'm happy to oblige.

[Frank Lee]

LOL

Anything less than volume reduction is a band-aid at best and a joke at worst.

[larrybuck]

Multiple times I've seen you two guys go at it. I'm happy you are not close neighbors
where I live. I guess you need the whole country between you two! (LOL)

I guess this could increase readership to a point.

One horrible detriment to mpg is to be in the wrong time slot, and have to follow a school bus on their route. The frustration level means that a pull o the side: read a book for 10-12 minutes might work out better.

The nastiest thing I've seen near here are garbage trucks making PU's on curvy,
hilly, heavily wooded back highways in the rural area near here. They literally stop,
blocking the highway, the trucks are so high that people can't see well enough to pass safely in this terrain; and even out in the tullies, all of a sudden, here's a 10-12 veh.
backup, that would make the above school bus situation welcome!

More garbage cans than children!

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Guys, take it elsewhere, please.

If you want to see authoritarian behaviour, I'm happy to oblige.

There's no need to take elsewhere the debate of a provocative and tangential proposition that was completely irrelevant to this thread. However, seeing that the interjection was made and allowed to stand, a response to it must also be allowed. I thank you for the tolerance of allowing it and agree to drop the matter so we can return to the actual topic of discussion.

[abogart]

Originally Posted by larrybuck

One horrible detriment to mpg is to be in the wrong time slot, and have to follow a school bus on their route. The frustration level means that a pull o the side: read a book for 10-12 minutes might work out better.

Around here the buses are pretty good about helping out other drivers. Most of them pull off to the side of the road after their stop, throw on their four-ways, and let the line of traffic pass before continuing their route.

[ProDarwin]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

LOL

Anything less than volume reduction is a band-aid at best and a joke at worst.

I will say, traffic circles are a band-aid that has been applied and working well in some areas around here. Replacing a light with a traffic circle (or 3 or 4) can have a huge impact on traffic in some instances.

[Frank Lee]

For how long? When the breeders figure out how "easy" that route is, they will move in to fill it up to over-capacity again.