Worst traffic impediments to good FE?

[SentraSE-R]

#1 Unnecessary stop signs. Unlike the poll leader (poorly timed traffic lights), stop signs stop you every time.
#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.
#3 Poorly timed traffic lights.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Imagine what the encumbrance to an appointment schedule would be like if people were not permitted to drive on certain days.

If cities were properly planned and the "local" mentality would be enforced it would not be an issue. If public transport actualy existed in a real way appointments would be a non-issue and if cities were properly planned I could bike or walk there safely.

Perhaps we need motivation to eliminate the (1) 10,000 bed subsidized hospital 30 miles away with the mega Chinamart on the outskirts and maybe use some sort of impedus to have smaller local businesses to reduce the amount of travel people have to do to get anywhere usefull?

Europe nicked this is the bud years ago for the most part.

I would be willing to pay a couple cents more to have a local grocer.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

If cities were properly planned and the "local" mentality would be enforced it would not be an issue. If public transport actualy existed in a real way appointments would be a non-issue and if cities were properly planned I could bike or walk there safely.

That assumes a lot. For starters not everyone lives in a city, and not everyone wants to live in one.

Perhaps we need motivation to eliminate the (1) 10,000 bed subsidized hospital 30 miles away...

Name where there is such a facility. Or do you just like to be dramatic by making wild exaggerations?

with the mega Chinamart on the outskirts and maybe use some sort of impedus to have smaller local businesses to reduce the amount of travel people have to do to get anywhere usefull?

If Walmart were such a terrible idea no one would shop there. They'd be out of business.

Europe nicked this is the bud years ago for the most part.

Since you like Europe so much and think it is better than America, you should move there.

I would be willing to pay a couple cents more to have a local grocer.

If there were a market for it, there would be one. If you were entreprenureal (instead of being critical of successful business) you could start one yourself.
If any business is what people want, it will be successful. If it's not what people want they should not need to be forced to accept it.

[Ladogaboy]

Wow, an ad hominem argument. How compelling. You made up an extremely exaggerated hypothetical example in order to shoot down the idea of restricted driving days, but you cry foul when someone else uses another, exaggerated example? Please.

My suggestion would be to separate the ideas from the people making them. I'm sure we'll all get a long better that way. Thus far, little else has been done to promote carpooling, ride sharing, and public transportation. People might moan at first, but when they encounter free-flowing traffic on routes and at times that normally would be congested, they'll soon stop complaining.

And in terms of rural areas, there are fewer traffic problems, so they should need fewer restrictions/regulations, no?

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

If Wal-Mart were such a terrible idea no one would shop there. They'd be out of business.

Actually they, even with the china price advantage have had issues with sales which they are slowly working out, if they did not have government healthcare subsidizing their employees their existence would be impossible. If laws were pre-nixon they also could not exist today.

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Or do you just like to be dramatic by making wild exaggerations?

You catch on quick, I do have a tendancy of responding to things in kind. Like drama it makes the point, I make it wild so everyone knows it is not factual but an example that I believe (insert word here) is excessive in the way I expouse. In this area for example we have the equivalent of a 10,000 bed hospital far in excess of what would ever get used but divided between multiple hospitals all in mostly distant areas of the county. They are oversized and nearish population areas but would be far more effective if a little more distribution were possible.

And no I didn't much care for the NECA 40-point plan movie.

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Since you like Europe so much and think it is better than America, you should move there.

Which part? I prefer northern Canada or Brazil personally. And yes I have been thinking strongly about making sure I can move should I find things going down the pipes more than I can swalllow.

Northern canada I would probably burn more wood than gas.

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

If there were a market for it, there would be one. If you were entrepreneurial (instead of being critical of successful business) you could start one yourself.
If any business is what people want, it will be successful. If it's not what people want they should not need to be forced to accept it.

Actually I probably have as much real entrepreneurial experience as you do, if you did have as much as you appear to believe, you would understand that as things stand today most enterprises are doomed to failure unless they are propped up by heavy government support (indirectly or directly) or heavy foreign cash, even twenty years ago during some of my more successful years this simply wasn't necessary.
AKA what I mean is you need ABSOLUTELY NO ENTREPENURIAL EXPERIENCE TO BE SUCESSFULL TODAY, you do need the skills to play politics and play money games, aka be a panderer if you will, its more about who you know today than any paticular skill. Few successful businesses actually make anything, they instead are good at being resellers or money shufflers, which to me is not a true entrepreneur. An investor is no longer an entrepreneur and today there really are very few who build anything themselves, dare I say few even have the entrepreneurial skills to do it. Instead they just strip cash off husks and toss them into bankrupcy, then sell their overseas lineup that they buy off a totally independantly managed foreign firm and have relabled here. Historically those practices would have had heavy public reaction, even jailtime and at the least those individuals would never be allowed to operate in business again because they would have been considered complete and total failures, since they were unable to make the actual business profitable and functional, which should be the goal, not just the act of making money for oneself with no regard for the brick and mortor or the people.

But I digress. Now to the thread closing and being banned forever

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

Wow, an ad hominem argument. How compelling. You made up an extremely exaggerated hypothetical example in order to shoot down the idea of restricted driving days, but you cry foul when someone else uses another, exaggerated example? Please.

If you recall, you began the (rather off-topic) contention in this thread by injecting the tangential remark:

I do like the idea of restricting people to only driving certain days of the week. That way, people could be forced to carpool or take public transportation.

Your proposal shows an authoritarian mindset – where the end justifies the means. Undeniably you are advocating reshaping society by restricting freedom of movement and by using ‘force’.

There is nothing exaggerated in my observation made in response that this would result in people being greatly inconvenienced in the imposition of rearranging their schedules to fit your proposed, government dictated plan of rationing days on which they would not be permitted to drive. It shows the draconian inconvenience imposed in the tyrannical nature of your proposal, not to mention the abrogation of personal freedom and choice. Such would be the consequences of your idea, and anyone advocating such things is a despot.

You sound like an aspiring dictator or at least a wannabe transportation czar. I'm not backing down from calling a spade a spade, and if you want to whine and moan that this is an ad hominem attack, so be it. I am pointing out that you have cloaked yourself in the mantle of advocating authoritarianism. Wear it with pride, if you will, as you cannot deny it.

[abogart]

Our little town has one traffic light... and it hates me. I hit red most of the time, not sure how. But it easily turns a one minute trip to the store into a two minute trip.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

tripe

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.

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. Your personal freedoms end where the personal liberties of others and the greater good of society begin. I have a horse, but you won't see me stamping in protest because I'm not permitted to ride her down the interstate.

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.

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? Seat belt laws? Motorcycle helmet laws? 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.

[ProDarwin]

Personally, Volume is the biggest problem (what Frank said). The roads simply can't handle the volume. Call it what you will (not enough lanes, poorly timed lights, etc.), its all driven by too many people with not enough road.

The other big one (but not that big) is speed limits too low. I spend about 30% of my commute on roads with a speed limit of 35mph. I usually go 40mph if nobody is in front of me (impossible), but sometimes I get stuck behind someone going exactly the speed limit. This means on every little hill my car will downshift to 3rd. When this happens once or twice a minute, it is beginning to have a significant impact on economy I'd assume.

[Ladogaboy]

My car actually likes it best at about 35-40, but I'm probably much lower geared than you. Hence why my highway mileage suffers so much.