Slashdot Mirror


Using Non-Newtonian Fluids To Fill Potholes

sciencehabit writes in with a link about a group of students who have come up with an interesting idea about how to fill potholes. "Non-Newtonian fluids are the stars of high school science demonstrations. In one example, an ooey-gooey batter made from corn starch and water oozes like a liquid when moved slowly. But punch it, or run across a giant puddle of it, and it becomes stiff like a solid. Now, a group of college students has figured out a new use for the strange stuff: filler for potholes."

260 comments

  1. More Patents by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The students plan to patent their invention, so they won't divulge their exact formulation,

    Exact formulation isn't necessary for this application, as every 7th grade science class learns it by trial and error with a $1.29 box of corn starch.
    You can do this in your kitchen in 10 minutes, and the stuff is fun to play with but nobody has found a real good application for it in over a
    hundred years.

    The trick in keeping the right proportions of water and starch, something that rain and sun will contrive to disrupt. Burst their bag and you have a big mess.
      If you stop with a tire one of these, such as at a traffic light, you will sink into it, because given constant pressure, it will flow. It only resists changing pressure, or active kneading, not static weights.

    But the beauty here is the rapidity with which these can be thrown down, and they fact that they flow into the pothole, conform to its shape, and thereby resist being ejected by cars.

    P.S. It will be a cold day in hell before you find Police patching potholes.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:More Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      P.S. It will be a cold day in hell before you find Police patching potholes.

      True. Though I'd never thought about... that would be a really good idea. They're out there anyway, 99% of their job is idle time and they've got the vehicle and equipment to block off a lane of traffic.

    2. Re:More Patents by Fned · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A better candidate would be the fire department. Get them off the lazy boys, out of the station and doing some work.

      Yeah, it's not like they have to be ready to put out fires or anything.

    3. Re:More Patents by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they have something that's really worthwhile, it's a combo system that uses the NNF to fill the hole to a level surface, the a traditional asphalt cap over that. The beauty of the NNF is that it fills the gaps and voids quickly, but still provides strong resistance for shock from cars driving over.

      I also assume that they've used something non-biodegradable, corn starch wouldn't make it very long exposed on a highway.

      Of course I could RTFA, but what would happen to my Karma if I did that?

    4. Re:More Patents by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Corn Starch mixtures also have a nasty side effect of growing mold after a period of time.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    5. Re:More Patents by nschubach · · Score: 1

      If they are out and about with the trucks and gear... they may be even closer to any incident. All they'd need was a GPS synced to Dispatch.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    6. Re:More Patents by geekoid · · Score: 1

      assuming they are using corn starch.

      Maybe the have some material that is non Newtonian, but hardens with applied heat? that way you could pour the liquid in at room temperature. Which would be awesome and much cheaper.Assuming it meet required material guidelines.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:More Patents by knarf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the stuff is fun to play with but nobody has found a real good application for it in over a hundred years.

      Viscous couplings have been made using dilatant (non-newtonian) fluids for quite a while now, at least since the 1985 VW Transporter 'Syncro' (4WD rear-engined van made by Volkswagen, quite popular here in Europe).

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    8. Re:More Patents by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      The trick in keeping the right proportions of water and starch, something that rain and sun will contrive to disrupt. Burst their bag and you have a big mess.

      Caption of the first image at the top of the page of TFA "Prototype. Waterproof bags filled with a shear-thickening fluid that resists compression when run over by traffic."

    9. Re:More Patents by kelemvor4 · · Score: 0, Troll

      P.S. It will be a cold day in hell before you find Police patching potholes.

      True. Though I'd never thought about... that would be a really good idea. They're out there anyway, 99% of their job is idle time and they've got the vehicle and equipment to block off a lane of traffic.

      Potholes and the asshole of a citizen are two different things. They are only interested in putting things into one of the two.

    10. Re:More Patents by julesh · · Score: 2

      Corn Starch mixtures also have a nasty side effect of growing mold after a period of time.

      That's what benzylkonium chloride is for.

    11. Re:More Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cops I've ridden with stayed very busy dealing with a constant queue of calls that had been dispatched to them. I'd imagine that 99% number is a touch lower. A better candidate would be the fire department. Get them off the lazy boys, out of the station and doing some work.

      SHHHHHH...... they're sleeping man!

    12. Re:More Patents by Snodgrass · · Score: 1

      The beauty of the NNF is that it fills the gaps and voids quickly, but still provides strong resistance for shock from cars driving over.

      Except that it's in a bag, which would prevent that, wouldn't it?

    13. Re:More Patents by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      What are the bags made of and how long will they last with traffic constantly running over them? How long can the material maintain its waterproof characteristics?

      If it works, I'd love to have a pair of boots made from that miracle material.

    14. Re:More Patents by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      never seen em on lazy boys, always see em out at their controlled burn site, setting something on fire and putting it out. if the police are the biggest gang on the block, firefighters are the most organized arsonists. like hackers who work to defeat crackers, these guys are pyros who work to defeat firebugs. there's a joke in there somewhere for hackers and firebugs, i just can't find it right now. help me out here

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    15. Re:More Patents by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 3, Funny

      of course! benzykllul...lolo...konoleum chloride! why didn't i think of that?

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    16. Re:More Patents by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

      Question:

      Do you see cops sitting in the neighborhood donut shops or do you see fire fighters sitting there?

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    17. Re:More Patents by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh even better, lets abandon a closed off section of road quickly without making sure it remains safe for the traffic.

      Here's a bit of info for you, to repair a pothole 90% of the time is spent setting up, packing up, and managing traffic flow. The actual job is over in a few minutes.

    18. Re:More Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I see cops doing 10 calls for every one a firefighter does. I see cops 'never welcome' until needed and then they're 'never fast enough'.
      I've seen firefighters do NOTHING but get in the way on medical calls yet they hang out to give interviews about they 'stabilized' the patient. I'd take a sprinkler system, bystander CPR, and a seatbelt/airbag over a firefighter anyway.

    19. Re:More Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and many firetruck-riders work 2nd jobs in construction so they can probably handle the roadwork aspect no problem.

    20. Re:More Patents by ancienthart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe that's because they're so busy, they have to get some food into themselves as fast as possible?
      When I worked in a warehouse, you quickly notice everyone's diet getting progressively worse (chips, softdrinks, pre-packaged food, breakfast burgers) whenever we hit a busy time of the year.

    21. Re:More Patents by Jessified · · Score: 2

      Right. Cause if you have a heart attack all you need is for the fire department to need to take a bunch of minutes to put all their roadwork gear away and take down the cones and traffic redirection equipment before they come save your sorry ass.

      Part of the reason they send fire first for first aids is because they are ready for quick responses. But yea, lets drop that part.

    22. Re:More Patents by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This site puts it well http://www.davis-stirling.com/MainIndex/Asphalt/tabid/3350/Default.aspx. Potholes simply reflect cheap ass government focusing taxpayers dollars on kickbacks rather than on routine road maintenance. When you have pot holes, that represent either an unusual problem (flooding, water main burst etc.) or quite simply a break down in the proper duties of local government and or state government.

      If you have pot holes in a major city and you ain't firing your elected representatives and replacing them with new representatives than you're bloody idiots and, yes according to Google street view US infrastructure roads and footpaths largely looks like shit.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    23. Re:More Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or slow flowing and non-water-soluable, like pitch, so that it won't just wash away with the next rainstorm....

    24. Re:More Patents by jasonq · · Score: 1

      Are you effing kidding? These guys run into burning buildings to rescue idiots like you trapped in their mom's basement. They deserve the downtime between risking their lives.

    25. Re:More Patents by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 1

      Is this just corruption? Or does it have anything to do with the average voter thinking TAX is a four letter word?

      --
      If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
    26. Re:More Patents by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      This is about pinching pennies to spend pounds. Money always will have to be spent to maintain roads. You either spend a little along the all of the time or you end up spending 10 or even a hundred times as much at irregular intervals having to complete rebuild roads and footpaths. So not tax simply incompetent management.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    27. Re:More Patents by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      I call dibs on the patent for a Non-Newtonian Chicken Game. The players stick both feet into a pothole that's in the middle of the road and has been filled with a non-Newtonian fluid. Then they wait for an oncoming car. The winner is whoever stays in his hole the longest. Scoring is in binary (nod to the geeks).

    28. Re:More Patents by SeaFox · · Score: 0

      The students plan to patent their invention, so they won't divulge their exact formulation,

      Exact formulation isn't necessary for this application, as every 7th grade science class learns it by trial and error with a $1.29 box of corn starch.
      You can do this in your kitchen in 10 minutes, and the stuff is fun to play with but nobody has found a real good application for it in over a
      hundred years.

      But it wont really matter if it's easy to figure out the formula as long as they're first to file the patent, right? After that they can just sue anyone who tries to commercialize if after spending those ten minutes figuring it out.

    29. Re:More Patents by perbu · · Score: 2

      I think there are uses for non-newtonian fluids. My wife's car uses such fluids to power the 4x4 drive. When there is a difference in speed on the front and back axial the fluids tense up and block, delivering power of the rear axial. A very simple and robust solutions that works fairly well.

    30. Re:More Patents by stiggle · · Score: 1

      You don't need the police to patch the potholes, you just need all the municipal trucks and emergency services to carry a couple of bags in the back and patch them as they come across them, then phone in the repair so that they can be booked in for a permanent repair at a later date when the bag and cover mat gets re-used.

      This isn't to be a permanent replacement to fixing potholes - its to make them less of a hazard until they are properly repaired.

    31. Re:More Patents by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When you have pot holes, that represent either an unusual problem (flooding, water main burst etc.) or quite simply a break down in the proper duties of local government and or state government.

      In my locality (Lake County, California) it's because we have a bunch of mafia road service companies being awarded all contracts and doing a shit job on purpose for job security. This last run over it seems to have been okay but Main Street in Lakeport has been getting lumpier every time they work on it for years and years. Like, 20 that I know of.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:More Patents by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Here's a bit of info for you, to repair a pothole 90% of the time is spent setting up, packing up, and managing traffic flow. The actual job is over in a few minutes.

      If you could just lay a blob into the street, though, you could fix that with a well-designed truck. Front of the truck is like any other truck. Middle of the truck has a facility for dropping the blob. Rear of the truck has one of those collision absorption systems and some lights. Turn on traffic control lights directing traffic around the vehicle, roll up, drop the patch, turn off the lights, roll away.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    33. Re:More Patents by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's because they're so busy, they have to get some food into themselves as fast as possible?

      They're rolling around in a source of 12V power, so they can run one of those insulated peltier junction boxes that plugs into your lighter socket to keep their food cold or warm while they drive around. They could pack healthy snacks into the cruiser at the beginning of the shift. They're eating doughnuts because of tradition and addiction.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    34. Re:More Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, don't knock the fire fighters... they're the only ones whose job it is to save your ass when nobody else can or will and with no intention of billing you for it later.

    35. Re:More Patents by voidphoenix · · Score: 1

      Because they don't spend the small amounts on routine maintenance, they can allocate huge amounts for major roadwork. It's easier to hide kickbacks when the budget is big.

    36. Re:More Patents by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Heck no... we have a plenitude of police cars on the roads... some of them are just sitting there along the side not moving. Let's get them moving by using the police as traffic cones. 90% setup time is solved!

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    37. Re:More Patents by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      Except - I live in a town where this was put to the voters, and one time they voted money for road maintenance (we're grossly behind) and another time they turned it down. Current thinking is that given inadequate funds, some roads should be allowed to decay to dirt, since repairing them at this stage will require a full rebuild anyway.

      Everybody in town government knows how this works, one of the guys who made presentations explaining this years ago is now selectman, and another is a state senator. No amount of "competent management" can make $1million do the work of $10million.

      We're also below state average and state median in per-pupil school spending. What we've got, is voters with crazy ideas about what it takes to run a government.

    38. Re:More Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A perfect example of this:
      The Ronald Reagan Cross-County Highway in Cincinnati, OH. It took decades for the construction to be completed, and the very *first* winter after it's completion damaged it enough that the entire thing had to be repaved. It's a stretch of road that's about 30-40 miles long.

    39. Re:More Patents by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

      Not sure if you're whooshing the parent or not. I've seen these trucks out and about. So have you, I think.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    40. Re:More Patents by operagost · · Score: 1

      Philadelphia had to pay the superintendent of schools nearly a million dollars to fire her. Instead of finding ways to reduce costs, they paid a firm over $200,000 to lobby the state for more money.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    41. Re:More Patents by operagost · · Score: 1

      Like concrete?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    42. Re:More Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Canada potholes are a fact of spring. They form from frost wedging during the winter so they indicate nothing of the local government. With regards to the /. aspect of the article why does everyone and their dog assume that once you have a patent it is worth money. Of course the patent will be ambiguous enough that they can fix issues in the formula after the patent is issued which is absurd since the patent would then be meaningless.

    43. Re:More Patents by doston · · Score: 1

      The cops I've ridden with stayed very busy dealing with a constant queue of calls that had been dispatched to them. I'd imagine that 99% number is a touch lower. A better candidate would be the fire department. Get them off the lazy boys, out of the station and doing some work.

      Somebody already thought of that. Firefighters are all being trained as medics now, so they can show up at every accident and administer life saving procedures. I know because I drink with them. One told me "Nothing ever burns anymore". I don't think they'd fill pot holes.,,,most I know make six figures with OT (a lot more than cops) and would feel they're above that work, practically being in the medical profession. You'd have to find somebody even more useless and lazy. How about the average corporate office worker?

    44. Re:More Patents by doston · · Score: 1

      "P.S. It will be a cold day in hell before you find Police patching potholes."

      There was an incident where a police had shot a black man in the back, and then went and plant a gun next to him and said the guy had drawed a gun on him. What we found out after the investigation is: guy didn't have no gun. Police just shot a man in cold blood.

      Nothing real surprising about that. The duty of the police is to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." at the local level, not serve the community (unless you're talking about the "landed") and certainly not to fix potholes for the brainwashed "wage slaves" getting back and forth from their cubicle.

      "The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability." James Madison

    45. Re:More Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to see really shitty roads, go to Russia.

      It suffers from three problems: corruption or lack of funding for proper maintenance, lack of maintenance, long periods of snow and ice which widen cracks.

    46. Re:More Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at Dutch roads. No potholes. There is a rolling programme here to replace everything every seven years, with work on electricity lines, plumbing, telephone / internet cables etc. occurring at the same time as the surface is replaced.

      It's logical and affordable for a rich nation like the Netherlands.

    47. Re:More Patents by Kultiras · · Score: 1

      Potholes are an unavoidable fact of life on asphalt roads that exist in climates that experience Winter. Not a single asphalt road in my city has survived it's first Winter/Spring after being repaved during my lifetime. Some of our highways are completely concrete, and they usually look great for several years with only some minor maintenance needed. The constant freeze/thaw cycles and snow plow blades just aren't friendly to road surfaces.

    48. Re:More Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better candidate would be the fire department. Get them off the lazy boys, out of the station and doing some work.

      Yeah, it's not like they have to be ready to put out fires or anything.

      Every now and them some genius suggests using the Fire Dept for public works projects. Dumb idea. Do you want someone who has been patching potholes or scraping paint for five hours then sent to an auto accident and deal with fire, hazardous materials and medical treatment?

      If you are in a "knowledge job" you aren't constantly typing, coding or drawing - should your boss suggest in that down time that you wash windows or clean the toilets?

    49. Re:More Patents by Amouth · · Score: 1

      also make note that most fire departments are volunteer and only the chief and a few other support are actual paid (if even that)..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    50. Re:More Patents by ghostdoc · · Score: 1

      This is the thing that worries me. That this will be a replacement for asphalt, not a temporary patch to let them put the asphalt in better.

      It's cheaper, it'll last until the next election, what's the issue?

      --
      Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
    51. Re:More Patents by bcong · · Score: 1

      you mean using something like concrete or asphalt to fix potholes? That's crazy talk!

    52. Re:More Patents by craash420 · · Score: 2

      "...to rescue idiots like you trapped in their mom's basement."

      I've only known a couple of firefighters, but I seriously wouldn't want one of them to find me in their mom's basement!

      --
      Extra medication for all!
    53. Re:More Patents by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      So not tax simply incompetent management.

      Take a look at the process of how officials are elected.

      What percentage of the voters actually directly know anything about how in/competent people are? It's largely based on a "telephone game" starting with who shouts the loudest, followed by which stories are the most interesting to repeat. Most information about how un/qualified a candidate is has been repeated and colored at least 4 times before it reaches the eyes and ears of the voting public.

      Is it any wonder that we get the kind of people we get in government, especially at the county level?

    54. Re:More Patents by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And now a purpose built firetruck needs to cram additional special purpose equipment in it?

      Let's face it there's no way of saving the idea. Although I like the idea of a purpose built quick pothole fixing vehicle it the idea of having firefighters do it is pointless when there's already road maintenance people employed by the council.

    55. Re:More Patents by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Not sure if you're whooshing the parent or not. I've seen these trucks out and about. So have you, I think.

      Nope. I live in California, where we can't afford them. We do pay the taxes that get distributed to the other states that THEY used to buy shit like that, though, so though my state PAID for it, I've never SEEN one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Stopping on it? by int2str · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Neat idea and looks to be working well for cars moving fast.
    What about traffic jams though where cars come to a stop on these bags. I'd imagine they'd sing in somewhat and might have trouble moving out of the hole from there.

    1. Re:Stopping on it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      potholes, not sinkholes

    2. Re:Stopping on it? by istartedi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Worst case scenario, you're back to having a pothole. As long as the bag can "bounce back" after being sqeezed it's not so bad. Also, it would feel weird to slowly sink but it wouldn't ruin your suspension and you should be able to drive out of it. The problem with the potholes is when you hit them at speed and ruin your tires and/or suspension.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    3. Re:Stopping on it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neat idea and looks to be working well for cars moving fast.
      What about traffic jams though where cars come to a stop on these bags. I'd imagine they'd sing in somewhat and might have trouble moving out of the hole from there.

      Could it be formulated to harden over time?

      It couldn't be any worse than painting the lines on a road, anything that gets the road crews out of the way sooner is good in my book.

    4. Re:Stopping on it? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fluid is kept in a bag that is then covered by a black cloth to make it less visible to drivers. Even if they did sink into the pothole while at rest, they could still get out easily, and the bag would simply flow back into its original shape after a few seconds. The only hazard or concern I see there is if the next car drives over it before it flows back to being flat, in which case they may get a bit of a bump, but still no worse than the original pothole itself.

    5. Re:Stopping on it? by crutchy · · Score: 0

      will create more traffic jams, use more petrol

      the invention is probably funded by exxonmobil

    6. Re:Stopping on it? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      I would love to see what happens when it rains.

      The quickest way to ruin this stuff is to over-dilute it with water. Then it acts like....water...with some powder dissolved in it. Not great, or non-newtonian at all.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    7. Re:Stopping on it? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Still better than stopping on an empty pothole.

    8. Re:Stopping on it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Assuming the bags they used to hold the stuff were waterproof (likely), they continued to perform their function.

    9. Re:Stopping on it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about traffic jams though where cars come to a stop on these bags?

      Many comments are quick to jump at this non-issue. It's not like the proposal it to replace roads with this stuff.

      The worst part about pot holes is hitting them at speed. This would alleviate that problem.

    10. Re:Stopping on it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What would happen if the temperature drops below the freezing point of water in winter time. Is the mixture still a NNF or simply becomes a solid?

    11. Re:Stopping on it? by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      are the waterproof bags also being-driven-over-by-semi-trucks-proof? some of those reflective dots that i see smashed and warped are also waterproof. hopefully the bags don't rip over time either.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    12. Re:Stopping on it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh- Westheimer -was- an uneven, two-lane dirt road west of the Beltway when I started driving. Westbelt itself was even worse.

    13. Re:Stopping on it? by eyrieowl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I see another problem...what happens if the bag gets knocked out of the hole? Now you have a sizable road hazard which acts a lot like a big rock to all the cars hitting it. You'd have to ensure that the bag is fully anchored into the hole. Worst case, you could have the bag get pulled up by the friction of a tire and thrown back into a car behind...I'd imagine that would not lead to good things.

    14. Re:Stopping on it? by Alien+Being · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Buy a car that has tires instead of rubber bands on the wheels you fucking moron.

    15. Re:Stopping on it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe bump the tire pressure up a bit? Or check your suspension, it may not be stiff enough, causing you to bang into the backstop instead of having a nice springy cushion.

      I drive 110 miles a day on low profile tires in a state whose approach to road repair is, "no effort is the best effort." Every patch looks like a bad solder job (I often wonder if it's for analogous reasons.) If hitting potholes at 20 mph had even a remote chance of deforming the rims, I would have to replace them like six times a day....

    16. Re:Stopping on it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong inference, I think. Impacting a pothole while running a low-profile tire usually results in wheel damage, not tire damage.

    17. Re:Stopping on it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have no idea how much asphalt costs or the costs of tearing down and repaving a whole fucking road.

      Seriously, don't speak outside your knowledge.
      So I guess that pretty much restricts you to hentai porn and the hotpocket product line.

    18. Re:Stopping on it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me. You mentioned something about some line involving pr0n and hot pockets. Sir, could you please direct me to it. And thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'm so excited, I can't wait!

  3. What happens when people take them? by samazon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I cannot foresee a way to prevent people from stealing these. I mean, I know it sounds silly, but renters steal light fixtures, for crying out loud.

    --
    I have the hiccups.
    1. Re:What happens when people take them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you'd want the compound to 'cure' over time.

    2. Re:What happens when people take them? by sixtyeight · · Score: 2

      A free cement bag of Silly Putty? What couldn't you do with one of those?

      It's similar to a city leaving Giant Slinkies all around town.

      --
      The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
    3. Re:What happens when people take them? by InsaneLampshade · · Score: 1

      May as well just use cement then!

    4. Re:What happens when people take them? by cynyr · · Score: 1

      wait! we can steal the light fixtures? I've seen bulbs, and I've put in crappy incandescents instead of leaving my LEDs behind, but that's different.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  4. What happens when a car stands still on them? by CityZen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Traffic isn't always flowing, after all. (And traffic itself acts like a non-Newtonian fluid, as well.)

    1. Re:What happens when a car stands still on them? by hamjudo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, this is a feature. These can be used to pave "no parking/no standing" zones. Rule breaker's vehicles will get eaten, by the pavement. If used on streets, it will encourage drivers to avoid congested areas.

    2. Re:What happens when a car stands still on them? by backslashdot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interesting. .. actually on the same vein .. why not make speed bumps out of non newtonian fluids? Just fill a cylindrical rubber (like a hose with a huge diameter) with the fluid .. people going slow will feel hardly any bump while speeders get the full effect?

    3. Re:What happens when a car stands still on them? by TihSon · · Score: 1

      That is so nuts it makes sense ... this coming from someone who now drives heavy vehicles all day long on city roads.

      --
      In B.C., our fascism is green.
    4. Re:What happens when a car stands still on them? by KliX · · Score: 1

      This is.. genius. I think I might build a prototype!

    5. Re:What happens when a car stands still on them? by CubicleView · · Score: 1
    6. Re:What happens when a car stands still on them? by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      Very cool idea but I think the speed bump would go solid even at low speeds.

      --
      ics
    7. Re:What happens when a car stands still on them? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's the patentable part. You need a blob that will flow so slowly that it doesn't matter, and yet which flows enough to conform to the pothole, and meanwhile does all this at a fairly broad range of temperatures.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:What happens when a car stands still on them? by supermank17 · · Score: 1

      Now that is a use I could get behind. In my area the speed bumps are shaped so drastically that no matter how slowly you drive over them, you still end up feeling like you've shattered your teeth fillings. I'd love it if they used a system that punished only those moving too quickly.

  5. Well then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should just make roads out of it.

    1. Re:Well then by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 2

      Actually, that'd do wonders to keep traffic flowing. And fast. Because who'd want to stop?

  6. Wonderful idea ... by Auroch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a great idea ... until you read that "The bag might cost a hundred dollars but you can reuse it a hundred times, and by that time you'd be saving a ton of money". So yes, great idea ... until kids start stealing them BECAUSE THEY CAN.

    Also : Read the AC posts in any slashdot story and you'll be quick to agree : the world is filled with angry kids.

    --
    Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    1. Re:Wonderful idea ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a great idea ... until you read that "The bag might cost a hundred dollars but you can reuse it a hundred times, and by that time you'd be saving a ton of money". So yes, great idea ... until kids start stealing them BECAUSE THEY CAN.

      Also : Read the AC posts in any slashdot story and you'll be quick to agree : the world is filled with angry kids.

      I'm going to steal these and beat the neighbors cat with them.... fuckers.

    2. Re:Wonderful idea ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      There are angry kids. It's not even a majority though. You won't here about the other ones.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Wonderful idea ... by Hentes · · Score: 1

      That assumes that kids can steal them. Mind you, it's in the middle of traffic. Also, the protective layer on the top could be painted to the colour of the surrounding asphalt, acting as a disguise. Even if they can, this would still be useful on roads outside of the city, or in streets with cameras.

    4. Re:Wonderful idea ... by c0lo · · Score: 5, Funny
      Another idea: let's use pitch - it maybe not a non newtonian fluid (but again, it may be... just haven't had enough time to check), but it is a fluid nonetheless.

      Now, because it tends to stick on the tires (and the use of mats tends to be expensive over time), I suppose we can mix the pitch with sand and/or fine gravel before filling in the holes - should keep the pothole filled for some years without the need of revisiting it... what a boon for the taxpayers. (hmmm... I think I'm going to patent this)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:Wonderful idea ... by trout007 · · Score: 1

      As a kid I had a friend that would steal anything. I went to his room once and saw this big metal box and about 20 feet of black hose. I asked him WTF it was. He said someone put it on the side of the road to count cars and he just had to have it.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    6. Re:Wonderful idea ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traffic barricades cost on the order of a hundred dollars and kids steal them because they can. They are still pretty functional and most get plenty of reuse.

    7. Re:Wonderful idea ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you plan to close the street while your filler material drys?

    8. Re:Wonderful idea ... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      So you plan to close the street while your filler material drys?

      So you plan to close the street why your NNF (in a bag, none the less!) fills the pothole? What about the pouring the exact volume for the liquid to fill the gap flush (no bump, no cavity)?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    9. Re:Wonderful idea ... by TihSon · · Score: 1

      Whooooooosh!! ... did I spell that right?

      --
      In B.C., our fascism is green.
  7. This couldn't happen last week? by XPeter · · Score: 2

    If it's cheap, and will get towns to fix shit fast, then I'm all for it.

    Blew $300 on a new tire last week. Had to swerve so I wouldn't hit a deer, and went straight over a pothole.

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Use cheaper tires?

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    2. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      swerving to miss a dear often leads to much more dangerous accidents. don't swerve.

    3. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Had to swerve so I wouldn't hit a deer, and went straight over a pothole.

      If you had to swerve you didn't go straight over.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    4. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You don't happen to drive an SUV/Soccer Mum car do you?

    5. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by XPeter · · Score: 1

      I drive a honda accord! I had no idea the tires were so expensive. Pilot Mxm4

      --
      "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    6. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      This isn't "fixing" anything. It's a temporary thing and as other have pointed out if it's not stolen its likely to be destroyed by water or birds or chemical contamination or any number of things. A "real" cheap temporary fix is cold mix asphalt applied to the pothole until hotmix asphalt is available. Cold mix is durable and reliable, lasts long enough to get you through a winter hot plant shutdown and has no value to thieves nor is it any different chemically from the regular hot mix asphalt other than the petroleum product it's cut with.

      If you want your city or state to fix the roads petition to get the gas tax raised so they have the funds to actually fix the roads.

    7. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too.

      They aren't, you got fleeced.
      Probably by the dealership.

      Source: New tire last week, $115.

    8. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      That's a huge amount for a single tyre. Someone is ripping you off

    9. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by XPeter · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's because I live in right outside NYC, but the dealer quoted me for the same amount. I ordered it from tirerack

      --
      "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    10. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      Hit the deer then it's a 250 deductible and you get road kill. ;)

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    11. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Blew $300 on a new tire last week. Had to swerve so I wouldn't hit a deer, and went straight over a pothole.

      $300 for a tire? Either you drive an 6 figure exotic something, or you are an idiot, or you got fleeced. Or some combination of those.

      Oh, and you know you should almost never replace only one tire, right? Both fronts or both rears, unless they are really, really new.

    12. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the make and model of the tire? What's the wheel size?

    13. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      If cold mix asphalt is so great, then what's the advantage of hot mix asphalt?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's not actually that bad a price for that tire, but it's not really that great a tire. You could get something better from Kumho for half the price.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      If cold mix asphalt is so great, then what's the advantage of hot mix asphalt?

      It lasts longer.

    16. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Did you consider actually checking prices? A Michelin Pilot MXM4 is not a fantastic tire, but it nonetheless retails for about $250. $300 mounted, balanced, and out the door is not unreasonable if it comes with free lifetime road hazard protection. I would personally buy a better tire for less money, probably a Kumho touring tire. I have them on my Mercedes (which is substantially heavier than any Accord except maybe a hybrid, which I imagine has similar weight since I have the lightest S-Class) and I like 'em. Had Kumhos on my Impreza, good there. Had some different Kumhos on my 240SX, fantastic. 25k miles even with frequent spirited driving on highly textured roads and excellent grip in all weather conditions. I sound like an ad but those guys are doing something right.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      That's a huge amount for a single tyre. Someone is ripping you off

      I hope this NNF patch idea works out. As far as tire prices go, if you've got a $50 car, by all means go ahead and put $50 tires on it. The Goodyear F1 for my 'Vette C4 rears are $311 today at Tirerack. Toss in shipping, mounting/balancing and disposal fees and you are hitting $400 per tire. Ditto the Yokohama A048s for my BMW 318Ti Sport -- they are $222 today at Tirerack, and when you add shipping, M/B, disposal, and heat cycling/shaving, they are pushing $300 each. You can compromise on a lot of things when it comes to a vehicle, but tires should not be one of them. Hitting a pothole at speed with a $400 tire is a cringe-inducing experience, but I'd rather have good rubber under me for all the other miles that aren't peppered with potholes...

    18. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      Blew $300 on a new tire last week. Had to swerve so I wouldn't hit a deer, and went straight over a pothole. $300 for a tire? Either you drive an 6 figure exotic something, or you are an idiot, or you got fleeced. Or some combination of those. Oh, and you know you should almost never replace only one tire, right? Both fronts or both rears, unless they are really, really new.

      Hmmm, my "exotic" 'Vette C4 cost me all of $16k when I bought it ten years ago, but I run Goodyear F1 tires on it, which are about $400 each. My equally "exotic" BMW 318Ti Sport cost me $12k seven years ago, and the Yokohama A048 tires that I run on it are about $300 each. Tires are the last thing you want to compromise on your vehicle, whether you are driving a beater or a track-worthy speed demon. It's like buying a motorcycle helmet -- if you have a $10 head, by all means buy a $10 helmet. :)

    19. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I also stained a $200 suit while playing paintball. I hope someone finds a solution.

    20. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Well, what about his road hazard coverage? If he's only got 2/32" of tread left he needed to replace the tire anyway. Unless it's really an $800 tire he's been driving hard for 2 years, which doesn't make a lot of sense.

    21. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by operagost · · Score: 1

      But the guy has a boring mid size family sedan, an Accord. I put 225-50-16 Goodyear Eagle GTs on my slightly less boring mid size sedan for $120 each, I think. They handle and wear quite well.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    22. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Deer tend to somehow contrive the accident so that they always get hit on the hip. Don't ask me how the hell this happens, but it is true in every deer hit I've seen, and I didn't even take note of it until some avid deer hunters told me about it. When they get hit on the hip, it will bust their bladder and ruin the meat.

      Just a piece of useless trivia.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    23. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by Lord_Alex · · Score: 1

      There are many vehicles around that can't take the old 16" rims and big cheap balloon tires. My car comes in 18" rims with 17" being the smallest that will clear the calipers. Those are expensive sets of rubber.

      And as anybody with a limited slip differential can tell you, both powered tires must be the same diameter. One worn tire and a new tire are not compatible; so if you blow one tire, you have to replace both. :(

      --
      How much work could a network work if a network could net work?
    24. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      That someone is Michelin then. I just bought some Bridgestone RE002's for my Legacy for $220NZ fitted and balanced.

    25. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had to swerve so I wouldn't hit a deer, and went straight over a pothole.

      If you had to swerve you didn't go straight over.

      I love english.
      "I went straight" - Means you moved in straight path of travel.
      "I went straight over (or into) x" - means you moved over (or into) x, which is generally something undesirable. It could have been emphasized by hyphenating to straight-over.

      Obtuse - a large angle
      Deliberately obtuse - A person pretending to be ignorant of another meaning for the sake of being difficult.

    26. Re:This couldn't happen last week? by Confusador · · Score: 1

      I believe the difference is in the value of $DURABLE, since the GP only says it "lasts long enough to get you through a winter hot plant shutdown." That's all the material under discussion would be good for either.

  8. hmmm by CSMoran · · Score: 1

    I think the auxetics people are ahead on the whole thing.

    --
    Every end has half a stick.
  9. A new problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the tendency bacteria cultures have of finding their way into this stuff, you may start out with a patched pothole but end up with a slightly squishy speed bump after a short while.

  10. Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The problem with this is that it won't last. You see they put a cover over it. Why is that? Because goop would get stuck to the tires and that would erode the "fluid" away. So they have to put a cover over it. And the cover might move, or fluid might evaporate or god knows what else.

    Consider the current solutions of putting sand in the pothole which works for a little while until the sand is eroded away. You could put a little mat over the sand just like they did in for the fluid to get the same result at a cheaper price. And of course, the real solution is to just fill the god damn pot hole in with some asphalt. THIS is why pot holes are so annoying. It's not because they're hard to fix. It's because they're stupid easy to fix and they're not because the transit authority is lazy.

    We could say they're underpaid or underfunded or it's hard to keep track of where the problems are but there are some problems with that little theory.

    1. the transit budgets are more then sufficient to handle the pot holes if they stopped looting the transit funds to build over priced mass transit systems and instead put the money to what it was for in the first place... roads, bridges, etc. If you have something left over after that... after all the pot holes are filled... then you can put what's left into little pet projects. But not a penny from the fund for anything but road maintenance until the roads have been actually maintained.

    2. The notion that they can't keep track of all the pot holes would be understandable if it took them a few days to catch a pot hole. However, they often don't address a pot hole for months. That's not a question of not being able to track it. They know it's there. It's in the middle of on of the busiest streets in a city of millions of people. Probably a hundred thousand people in a week see that pot hole at a minimum. So they know it's there.

    3. There aren't even that many of them. In a given square mile how many pot holes form in a given week? It only gets out of control when they're left to build up and whole street turns into potholes.

    it's crap like that is that makes Americans want SUVs. The urban street is increasing turning into an off road experience between the god damn speed bumps and the god damn potholes. Try this guys... flat. Just try it.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by geekoid · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. Mass TRANSIT is part of the transit budget.

      2. There are more then one pothole. There a lot, and the queue is often very long. Plus, if work is going to be done for some other reason, they put off the pot hole repair. And some street required special permissions to close, as well as cost a lot of money in diversions.

      3. Depends on your environment, and weather or not the budget allows for quality material and labor.

      You need to close off portion of the street, have it located*, check for other work.
      That means back ups, delays, store owners angry.

      *marked to determine whats under the road at that spot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      it's crap like that is that makes Americans want SUVs

      And the more bigger, heavier SUV's, the quicker the roads wear out... same with them hybrids, they're a few hundred kilograms heavier than a similar sized non-hybrid car.

    3. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by CycleMan · · Score: 1

      I agree they're not hard technically to fix. They are hard logistically. When there's one hole, you have to divert traffic from that lane for a period of time. You then need several pieces of heavy equipment to grind the surrounding road in order to make a rough surface for adhesion, heat and apply the asphalt mix, flatten it into place, and finally replace any damaged road striping. And if that pothole is seen by 100,000 people in a week, that's a lot of cars you inconvenience while doing your fix, so they'll get annoyed if you just plop down and fix a pothole that you find without putting out signs for a week that you'll be doing construction and they should find an alternate route. You're right that cities make other items higher priorities -- in some places it's transit, in other places it's exorbitant retirement pensions -- because you don't get voted into City Hall on the basis of potholes.

    4. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      1. Don't loot the road maintenance budget to fund other projects. Next time you want to add a feature, put it on the ballot and tell everyone that taxes are going up to pay for it. And then take ONLY the EXTRA funds collected by the raise to pay for your project. Leave the existing programs alone or you'll starve them and they'll fall appart.

      2. The queue is long because you don't fill any of the holes. They sit there for months. If you have so many holes that you leave them there for months then clearly you need more people filling the holes. Yes, that costs money. Like maybe the money that was set aside for road maintenance in the first place before it was looted. As to closing streets, do it at night. Why is it that public officials make average citizens look like rocket scientists? This shit is obvious. Lots of businesses do disruptive activities at night. For example, grocery stores restock goods at around 2AM so they don't disrupt customers during the day. Why close a busy street in the middle of rush hour to fill a pothole? Oh that's right, because the transit union charges extra for the night shift. Which is one of many reasons we shouldn't even have a transit union in the fist place. It should just be subcontracted to construction companies that are more then competent to run around with asphalt and fill in some god damn holes. As to permission to fill the holes, you have to be kidding me. The communities are begging to get the holes filled. Recently we offered to fill them in ourselves and the city threatened us with legal action if we did it ourselves. So no. Permission is not an issue unless the permission is from the city to for it to do it's f'ing job.

      3. I can't speak for every place on earth. But in my city, it's one hundred percent laziness. They could fill them on contract very easily. License a bunch of small construction companies and pay them PER pothole. Set a flat rate for pothole filling and then rather then paying someone per hour, overtime, health benifits, etc... you're just paying a flat rate for each hole. Lots of companies would jump at that.

      You create jobs in the city. The city saves money. The potholes get filled. Everyone wins.

      There's no counter argument to that.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's crap like that is that makes Americans want SUVs.

      SUVs suck at going over bumps. SUVs and sports cars come to dead stops before going over speed bumps. I've heard it's because SUVs are so bouncy (something you need to survive going off-road, but it makes bumps very uncomfortable). Me in my normal car, I hardly slow down for speed bumps. Sometime I even pass those morons in SUVs. Americans want SUVs because they look cool, period. If you ask them to list specs, some other vehicle is always better, but no one want to be seen in a mini-van, for example.

    6. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by hawguy · · Score: 1

      And the more bigger, heavier SUV's, the quicker the roads wear out... same with them hybrids, they're a few hundred kilograms heavier than a similar sized non-hybrid car.

      Toyota Yaris - 2295 lbs - 153 inches long
      Toyota Corolla - 2800 lbs - 179 inches
      Toyota Prius - 3042 lbs - 175 inches
      Toyota Camry - 3190 lbs - 189 inches
      Toyota RAV4 SUV - 3360 lbs - 181 inches
      Toyota Sequoia SUV - 5670 lbs - 205 inches

      So the Prius is closest to the Corolla in size, and weighs only about 110 kg more. It's lighter than the Camry and around half the weight of the Sequoia. It's only 2 inches shorter than the RAV4, but the Prius is 140 kg *lighter*. (sorry for mixing metric and non-metric units, but the poster was talking about kg, but Toyota uses lbs and inches when they publish specs)

      Perhaps you meant a full electric car...the Nissan Leaf is 175 inches long and weights 3300 lbs, or about 220kg heavier than the similarly sized Corolla.

    7. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I got to thinking about this several years go. There are sections of the road that often requires major servicing in high traffic areas. It's a lot of work, I know. But if they could pre-plan construction of the roads like a suspended server room floor, it would be that much easier. Right? Just lift one tile of road, perform work quickly, and lower the tile back down. I'm sure it's a lot more complicated then that with load bearing and all. But I thought the idea sounded pretty nifty if I do say so myself.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      Oh like cars in the 50s were light? Have you seen what a 1956 Cadillac looks like? It's an all steel boat on wheels. Don't tell me the cars today are too heavy. That's just whining. Yes, cars in the 1980s were lighter then today. They mostly got heavier when the safety standards were changed which required more steel reinforcement. That's like the utilities saying we use too much water or use too much electricity. We use less water per capita then we did 50 years ago and apparently we're still too wasteful for the local utilities.

      Funny that this wasn't a problem 50 years ago. What changed? Oh, the population doubled a few times and they didn't build any new dams or aqueducts to handle the population increase. So is the problem really that we use too much water or that there are too many people in this region for the infrastructure to handle? See, if that's their game they should either restrict new construction once they hit saturation or they should... you know... maybe build some new facilities.

      Sorry if I'm coming off crazy and angry... I'm just fed up with this stupid crap.

      Fill the pot holes. Offer it on commission if you must. It will probably cost less that way. Just offer construction companies a flat rate to fill each hole. Magically the streets will be free of pot holes overnight as about thousand construction companies all run of in a thousand different directions and together fill all the potholes.

      I love that they'll leave a stupid pothole unfilled for months sometimes on the grounds that they're thinking about doing roadwork soon. Never mind that the pot hole shouldn't cost more then a couple hundred bucks to fill max and that the damage done to cars in that time period is magnitudes of whatever the city is saving.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not if you do it at night which is the only time you should ever do it.

      Grocery stores restock at around 2AM. If they can get 20 guys to show up in a truck every night to unload and restock the shelves in a SINGLE store... I should think the city should be able to fill some god damn pot holes in the wee hours of the night. This is not complicated. It's obvious and easy.

      Businesses across the country do disruptive things at night. Most server updates don't happen during business hours. They happen at midnight or 2 am.

      If practically every business does this already, why can't the city? And don't give me that it's too many people. Think about how many people it takes to restock every grocery store in the city every night? That workforce ALONE dwarfs what the city would need to take care of pot holes several times over. And bargain grocery stores find the practice entirely economical.

      The problem is not the asphalt. The problem is the city, the transit unions, and people that find it acceptable to leave pot holes unfilled for months on end.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    10. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by prehistoricman5 · · Score: 1

      I have no idea if this story is true, but reportedly old Cadillacs contained a couple hundred pounds of lead weights just to make the ride smoother.

      --
      Fuck Beta
    11. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Exactly... and it's not the weight that's an issue... it's the possibly an increase in traffic which should be more then countered by a relative increase in gasoline tax revenue, and other road related taxes... the vast majority of which should go to building and maintaining roads. I suspect that increasingly that isn't where the money is going... which is why our roads are resembling post apocalyptic cityscapes.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    12. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Depends on if your suspension sucks. Mine doesn't. I cruise over speed bumps. The ones you need to watch out for are the really aggressive bumps. Those can be a problem. But I have a solution for that too:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSi6J-QK1lw

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    13. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by SomeJoel · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's no counter argument to that.

      There's always a counter argument.

      If you fill the potholes, property values would go up, and with them property taxes. I am firmly against your plan to raise taxes. You must be some sort of democrat.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    14. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Gas was so cheap then it didn't matter. Good times.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    15. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is the problem really that we use too much water or that there are too many people in this region for the infrastructure to handle? See, if that's their game they should either restrict new construction once they hit saturation or they should... you know... maybe build some new facilities.

      Maybe they should use some of that transit money to fix the cause instead of just the symptoms, like invest it in some sort of public system that concentrates people into a smaller number of vehicles, having the double benefit of reducing traffic and reducing road maintenance.

    16. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Its a problem caused by many factors. Number of vehicles and the impact each vehicle has on the road. Why do you think trucks pay more in road taxes and are charged based on weight? A modern SUV weighs more than a modern sedan, and the sedan is probably safer too.

    17. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Your specs confirmed my previous post. The Prius, which is slightly smaller than a corolla is 240lbs heavier. The cause is they may have a slightly smaller engine but they also have two electric motors and a rather heavy battery pack to go with it, along with a larger more complex transmission.

      SUV's are also heavier than regular cars, as your data shows.

    18. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by TheAlgebraist · · Score: 1

      1. Most towns don't call it a road maintenance budget. It's called a transit budget for a reason. Mass transit for cities of any size are not optional. Individual transportation does not scale as evidenced by every moderately large city ever. Growing medium sized cities would do well to learn from 100 years of cities trying and failing to build and maintain roads fast enough to support their entire population travelling alone in a car. If we hadn't had 100 years of government subsidized automotive travel, we would have gotten to better mass transit solutions sooner and have less road maintenance issues for the people who do drive and continuing to insist that cars should the sole mode of transit in a city of any size whatsoever is stupid.

      2. If one pothole shows up in a given region of town each week. You can pay to have a truck and 3 guys go out and patch that one hole and charge a half or a whole days work. Or you can weight until a days worth of potholes show up and pay slightly more to have a truck and 3 guys go out and patch out all of those holes at the same time if you have a record of where all the potholes show up. Then you get in trouble because you wasted money fixing holes on a street that got resurfaced 2 weeks later or dug up to lay fiber optic cable. And you still need a list of locations because you don't want to pay 3 guys to drive around looking for potholes and charging for every mile they drive. Some cities have developed phone apps that let citizens report damaged city property, including potholes, so it is easier to track where maintenance is needed and it has greatly improved maintenance efficiency in terms of cost and time to repair. Nearly every business pays a premium for night shift or it is staffed with their lackies who are slow or incompetent. Either way this increases costs, because the business has to pay for more time or someone has to pay to fix a crappy job. If you think a business isn't going to factor this in when they decide how much to charge, you are nuts.

      3. You aren't going to get a contractor to go out and patch one hole one day for the 1/10th the price of patching 10 holes in one day. Any company jumping at that deal is either recognizing that you pay way too much for filling one hole, are going to do a piss poor job, or are going to make sure they have a lot of holes to fill before they go out, which you are so up in arms against. Where do you think this flat rate comes from? The business is factoring in overtime, benefits, wages, etc into what they are willing to accept to fix a hole. You are also adding the headache of verifying hole fixes are done properly. Are you going to have someone on staff who just goes out and inspects holes and keep track of which ones have been paid for? How are you going to make sure they are filling "holes" that an eighth inch deep? Do they need to have photo documentation of each hole prior to being filled or are you going to have your pothole inspector go around measuring holes before they get filled? Either way increases costs and time to filling.

    19. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by TheAlgebraist · · Score: 1

      Gas taxes don't pay for local roads. Gas taxes don't even cover the bulk of the cost of the highway system. Hybrid use effect on local road funding is minimal. Especially since most hybrids only reduce gas consumption by at most a factor of 1/3rd. Assuming 25% of local road funds come from gas tax (which is the high end of normal from what I can tell) and assuming that vehicles accounting for one quarter of gas usage switched to hybrids, you are looking at reducing road funding by 2-3% on the high end. Actual hybrid adoption is in the low single digits and probably is replacing vehicles already getting good mileage and so representing a small portion of gas use. Our roads look like postapocalyptic cityscapes because we have built so much that it would cost more to maintain them than the maintenance adds in value to the economy.

    20. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Guppy · · Score: 1

      the quicker the roads wear out...

      As a engineering rule of thumb, road damage is roughly proportional to the 4th power of axle weight:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating

    21. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      So there you go, 10% more weight = 46% more road damage. ( 0.1^4 = 1.46)
      So according to the weights of cars in another post, a Prius (mid-sized hybrid) does 140% the damage of a Corolla (mid-sized non-hybrid) and a Sequoia (the big toyota suv) does 1000% the damage of a Camry (the big toyota car).

    22. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      THIS is why pot holes are so annoying. It's not because they're hard to fix. It's because they're stupid easy to fix and they're not because the transit authority is lazy.

      No, no they aren't easy to fix. They're very difficult to fix, because water keeps getting back in there. The only really good way to fix them is to repave the section.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Hybrids are more harmful to the road than ordinary cars for the same reason big trucks are, pressure per square inch. And the hybrids have narrow tires so not only is the PSI high but they are more likely to cover less of the pothole and thus cause more side to side buckling. The worst though is probably modern 3/4 or 1 ton trucks with 4x4 and narrow, hard (high-mileage) tires, which have a small contact patch and can easily weigh over 8,000 pounds unloaded.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Grocery stores restock at around 2AM. If they can get 20 guys to show up in a truck every night to unload and restock the shelves in a SINGLE store... I should think the city should be able to fill some god damn pot holes in the wee hours of the night.

      That's not how it works. The night crew is like five or six people, unless it's a 24 hour store in a busy area. But in a non-busy area even for a whole Safeway store you only need a half-dozen people. A guy shows up and unloads a truck with a pallet jack and the midnight down crew breaks down the shipment and stocks and faces the shelves.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by benhattman · · Score: 1

      If a section of road is frequently falling apart, that usually means that patch of road just wasn't built robustly enough. E.g. the foundation should have been deeper. That won't stop any potholes, but it is the main issue in some locations.

    26. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I can assure you that the vast majority of the gas tax does in fact go to building and maintaining roads. The problem is that the gas tax is paid per gallon, not per dollar (so that it doesn't rise with inflation) and hasn't been increased in decades. It varies by jurisdiction, but around here we're spending somewhere around half as much as we did 20 or 30 years ago, adjusted for inflation. The fact that materials and construction costs are increasing at a rate considerably faster than general inflation only exacerbates the problem.

      In other words, our roads are resembling post-apocalyptic moonscapes not because we're misappropriating the funds to build transit (Ha! As if the suburban and rural politicians would ever let that fly anyway -- the very thought is absurd!), but rather because we collectively refuse to pay the cost to maintain them in the name of "cheap gas."

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    27. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Oh like cars in the 50s were light? Have you seen what a 1956 Cadillac looks like? It's an all steel boat on wheels. Don't tell me the cars today are too heavy

      The 50s Cadillac weighed the same, but it paid more than twice as much fuel tax, since it was so much less efficient and fuel is taxed per gallon, not per dollar.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    28. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by benhattman · · Score: 1

      Sometimes...just sometimes, I wish those of us who actually like mass transit were as big of a------s about all the money "wasted on roads that only a few people use" as guys like you are about mass transit. Maintaining the estimated 4 million miles of road in the US is not free. That costs real money. Real money that is always massively. subsidized to rural areas by urban areas.

      it's crap like that is that makes Americans want SUVs. The urban street is increasing turning into an off road experience between the god damn speed bumps and the god damn potholes. Try this guys... flat. Just try it.

      [cough, cough]bull[cough, cough]it. American's wants SUVs because 1) they like complaining about "high gas prices" 2) they live so far from work their car has to be a little home and 3) they want to make sure that when they do cause an accident they kill the other guys instead of themselves.

    29. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by DaleSwanson · · Score: 2

      Gas was so cheap then it didn't matter. Good times.

      http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm

      Inflation adjusted gas prices in the 1950s seems to be pretty average, and higher than they were in the 1990s.

    30. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      In other places, there are underground water flows that degrade the roads. That happens frequently around my area of Pennsylvania. This may also be fixed by laying a deeper foundation; I don't know. Given PennDOT's penchant for half-assing things I wouldn't be surprised if there is an easy fix.

      (What's big and yellow and sleeps seven? A PennDOT truck.)

    31. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      You create jobs in the city. The city saves money. The potholes get filled. Everyone wins.

      There's no counter argument to that.

      Right!

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    32. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a thousand of any of those cars amounts to a quarter of the damage of ONE 20 ton semi....

    33. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      By that argument we should spread broken needles around the neighborhood to give the impression of a drug problem... or better yet host crack heads in some homes just to make sure there's a steady supply of dead junkies found naked on park benches to keep the property values low.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    34. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to not scaling, there's no reason why you can't keep the budgets separate.

      Tax the drivers for using the road and charge the passengers for using the bus. Why subsidize the bus with road taxes? They're already paying for the road the bus travels on. Why rob more money from the program to pay for subsidized mass transit? If the service is truly so good then people should be willing to pay the actual cost.

      As to how budgets are combined, they actually like to have everything in ONE money pool. It lets them raise money for schools and then raid the fund to pay for other things. Or raise money for police and then raid the fund for something else.

      I believe in compartmentalized budgets because it makes government more accountable and less corrupt. If the government says they're raising taxes for a given purpose, I want to know they're not going to just take out whatever money was added to that account and shift it to another hidden purpose. If you want to raise taxes to increase employee pensions then just admit it. Don't tell me you're going to improve schools and then steal the money to shift to the pensions.

      If I pay something for roads. Then spend it on the roads. If I pay something for the bus. Then spend it on the bus. The games that are being played with budgets is in large part responsible for our fiscal problems.

      We spend a great deal on education and yet have failing schools. We spend a great deal on medical care and yet get less for our money all the time.

      There are hidden costs that are eating our contributions. Reveal them. Bring them out into the light of day. And once there we can decide if a given idea is worth a trillion annually.

      As to wasting money by filling holes that will be taken care of in two weeks. that isn't acceptable. The holes need to be filled immediately. The cost of filling them is nothing in the context of the traffic and commerce that flows on major streets.

      If the city doesn't like paying for holes it makes in the road... don't make holes. And if you do make one, fill it or put a steel plate over it. if you leave a giant hole in the road then you're incompetent.

      As to flat rates being just as expensive as the transit union. This has been tried. You are empirically wrong. Some communities do rely on private contractors to do road maintenance amongst other things and it tends to slash costs dramatically. Largely because the contractor employs fewer people that work harder... eg like everyone else.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    35. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      By that logic you should try to make gas cheaper and thus increase consumption rather then try to choke off consumption.

      So... I can only assume you support the keystone pipeline, right? Or do you believe in reducing consumption... thus making the problem worse?

      If you go out of your way to make my gas expensive and then want to pile an increasingly higher tax on top of it as I start cutting back... you've got another thing coming.

      Stop standing in the way of consumption and then MAYBE you'll have a case if the problem doesn't go away as a direct consequence.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    36. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      How does water get into gravel bound together by tar?

      And in any case, I have no doubt that the spot probably wears differently then the rest of the road. So what? So you have to retouch it every year or so.

      If the logistics of keeping the road flat are too much for the transit authority to handle then they should delegate the task to someone more competent.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    37. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to subsidies... I don't have a problem with that. Just do the work and don't divert funds. If I'm paying gas taxes that should go to roads. If I'm paying bus fare that should go to the bus. Never the twain should meet. If you want to stack additional tax money on either side, then go for it. But the gas tax should be reserved exclusively for road maintenance.

      Something that bothers me is when money intended for one program is used to pay for something else. Especially since politicians will often campaign on the point that the money is for X when really they know you don't want to pay more for Y. So they talk about X and when you fund it they take the extra money from X and give it to Y on the sly.

      I find that to be deeply corrupt.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    38. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Whether it's six guys or twenty it doesn't change the fact that there are hundreds of stores across a large city all doing the same thing at roughly the same time. if they can do that every day in the bargain budget market then the city can sure as f' figure it out unless they're so incompetent that they lace up their shoes with Velcro.

      Any time a crew shuts down a major street in the middle of the day to do road work... you're dealing with a transit union that found it more reasonable to inconvenience tens of thousands of people then the 10-20 guys doing the work.

      It's like doing server maintenance on monday morning. Know any IT department that does that? Not one that keeps it's job. Outside of government, that sort of flagrant disrespect for everyone else results in heads rolling.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    39. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Honestly? Mostly because they can. Taxes tend to increase until the political force to impose them and the political force to evade them equalizes.

      Look at the new soda tax they're proposing. They're saying they want to fight obesity. But their tax would include diet soda as well. Why? Because they can.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    40. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      hybrids are so uncommon that they're not statistically relevant.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    41. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I pay something for roads. Then spend it on the roads. If I pay something for the bus. Then spend it on the bus.

      What if the bus drives on roads. Oh wait.

    42. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How does water get into gravel bound together by tar?

      Sigh. Are you new? Have you ever seen a pothole? Ever filled a pothole? ANY qualifications to participate in this conversation? Like a brain?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    43. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Whether it's six guys or twenty it doesn't change the fact that there are hundreds of stores across a large city all doing the same thing at roughly the same time. if they can do that every day in the bargain budget market then the city can sure as f' figure it out unless they're so incompetent that they lace up their shoes with Velcro.

      The actual problem is that patching potholes doesn't work. You have one and only one chance to get tarmac right. When it fails you can patch it for a while but it WILL continue to degrade, and then you have to relay the section of road surface. There are now machines that eat the road surface and lay down new road, but they are expensive and far from ubiquitous.

      See, the patch is never identical to the road surface to begin with, so it has different thermal properties. And the road is not only being run over by cars weighing in from a ton and up, but also subjected to immense thermal cycling owing to its color and environment. (As for the color, don't get me started on concrete roads...)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    44. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      What if the bus system removes enough cars from the road that you only need 95% as many road-miles as you otherwise would? Or even 99%?

      Do you have any idea how phenomenally expensive it is to build a road?

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    45. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      If practically every business does this already, why can't the city? And don't give me that it's too many people. Think about how many people it takes to restock every grocery store in the city every night? That workforce ALONE dwarfs what the city would need to take care of pot holes several times over. And bargain grocery stores find the practice entirely economical.

      Let's see. Working at night with dangerous equipment and supplies is tricky, so you'll need lights (which will annoy anyone nearby wanting to sleep). And generators, of course, to power the lights. Both of those items cost money, of course, both to purchase and to run/maintain. You'll also probably need to pay more money to attract people to the night shift (almost always the case, no matter what the industry - which is why the bulk of computer and grocery work does, indeed, get done during normal business hours).

      How many people would actually vote to double the cost of pothole maintenance, and promise to not complain if they were woken up at night, just to get the crews off the streets during the day? This is not a case of an unsolvable problem, but this is what happens when you demand that costs get cut to the bone on a department-by-department basis. Working at night might cost less for the city as an organism (fewer disruptions, better traffic flow, etc) but would require that more funds be allocated to that department without increasing the number of potholes they can work on. Being honest, especially after re-reading your post, would you have voted for that?

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    46. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by KillaBeave · · Score: 1

      ...

      it's crap like that is that makes Americans want SUVs. The urban street is increasing turning into an off road experience between the god damn speed bumps and the god damn potholes. Try this guys... flat. Just try it.

      [cough, cough]bull[cough, cough]it. American's wants SUVs because 1) they like complaining about "high gas prices" 2) they live so far from work their car has to be a little home and 3) they want to make sure that when they do cause an accident they kill the other guys instead of themselves.

      4) They have a boat (one of my reasons) 5) They have a motorcycle they need to drag to the racetrack (another one of my reasons) 6) They have a couple kids and a dog that all like to go camping (another one ... this is starting to look like the vehicle fit my needs) 7) They actually take them off road (another reason of mine ... sand dunes are great fun and the kids love them) 8) They drag a utility trailer multiple times a month for Home Depot / Lowes trips, but would rather not buy a truck AND have the SUV for all the people hauling, and the SUV gets better mileage (just) 9) They live in the snow belt and enjoy pulling Priuii (ok anybody that's stuck, not just hybrids) out of the snowbanks/ditches in the winter ... they never seem to complain about my Jeep and it's 20mpg on a good day then :) 10) They love the look on a 3 year old's face when they pull the top off their Jeep and drive to the ice-cream stand on a nice summer day.

      There are lots out there with usages like mine that actually have a need for a vehicle that can haul a bunch of people and their stuff to someplace a few hundred miles away. A van won't cut it in the states either (really low tow ratings for some reason), unless of course it's a fullsize van which makes my Jeep look like a SmartCar in terms of efficiency!

      Do people buy them just for the look? Sure! Should they be allowed to? We've rarely enacted a law to stop stupid people from wasting their money on stuff they don't "need" so I say sure waste away! It's their money they are wasting getting 20mpg when they could be getting 30mpg+ in a smaller car that fits their needs.

    47. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, weight is the only issue. Road damage is proportional to axle weight cubed. Buses and semis destroy roads.

    48. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Is that really true? My 1960 Dodge Dart 2dr ("Phoenix") weighed 4700 pounds. A 1970s Dart is a lot less, I don't even know how much but a LOT less. A modern car usually bangs around 2800-3500 pounds depending on the class, with luxury cars approaching 4000 pounds, much of it asphalt (amusingly enough.) On the other hand, the very first cars don't look to have weighed much at all. Or have offered ANY safety features aside from being slow.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    49. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by necro81 · · Score: 1

      The problem is not the asphalt

      Filling potholes at night, when the roadway and air are cooler and there is no sun to bake out the volatiles, may not work as well.

    50. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      A full year out of a pot hole patch is pretty damn good in my experience. But even if every patch lasted a full year it's an unmaintainable situation. Patching all of last years potholes, plus all of the new ones every year quickly gets out of hand.

      And it's not like potholes are a critical issue. The vehicles suffering the most damage are usually modified with suspension setups meant for a track or using stupidly low profile tires with outsized rims. In my entire life the only time I've seen suspension or tire damage of the type you'd expect to see from a pothole it was actually because my idiot friend ran over a curb at an angle going more than 20mph.

    51. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Grocery stores restock at around 2AM. If they can get 20 guys to show up in a truck every night to unload and restock the shelves in a SINGLE store... I should think the city should be able to fill some god damn pot holes in the wee hours of the night.

      They do this in Japan. I am still not sure how. I would walk from my apartment to the train station and back, and every morning some of the pavement would be new. Then one time I was out late and came back home in the very early morning. I found a whole crew digging up the street, laying some cable, and then paving over it. I don't know where they stored their equipment or how they managed to do this, but every morning they were gone and the road was filled in and paved over.

      I suspect this is also the reason that some roads near Fukushima were completely restored and repaved a week after being wrecked by the earthquake.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    52. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      This is why I only ever build my roads out of yellow bricks.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    53. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by MrAngryForNoReason · · Score: 1

      fill some god damn pot holes in the wee hours of the night.

      That is fair enough if the pot holes aren't in a residential area but if there are any houses nearby then repairing potholes using extremely noisy equipment at 2am is not an option. It is bad enough when they are revving up circular saws or other machinery at 7am on a weekend morning let alone being woken up in the middle of the night by them.

    54. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was in Tennessee, I saw a guy driving a city/county pickup truck slowly, with another working behind the truck. There were no cones. The guy behind the truck was wearing a safety vest and had a shovel. He was scooping something out of the back of the truck, tamping it in the hole, and moving on. It was truly a WTF moment.

      In Florida, there is always some sort of construction going on, but I've never seen guys in a pickup truck patching anything. Down here they block off the road and replace miles at a time. Seems to make more sense.

    55. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Dude, don't give those Democrats any more ideas. Obama will be running on the "broken needle in every pot" platform.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    56. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by TheAlgebraist · · Score: 1

      Quick googling gives flat fee per year for contractors fixing pot holes and that seems like it would be cost saving, but didn't find any info on a per hole system. The fact is that many streets are so badly designed that is not economically feasible to keep them pothole free. They are poorly designed and built because the voters pressured their city leaders to cut costs. So drainage is poor, streets don't get resealed frequently enough if it at all, small cracks are left unfilled, etc. Any given street can be fixed relatively easily, but most of America has more infrastructure than it can afford to maintain. Check out what the American Society of Civil Engineers says about this if you want details. The fact is that a lot of our roads will never pay for themselves in economic benefit even without taking into account maintenance and repairs.

      I agree that drivers should actually pay the bulk of the costs for the roads. They should also have to pay fees to pay back all the subsidies they've gotten over the last 100 years to get the infrastructure in place that they are now using. As it is nondrivers subsidize drivers. I am willing to accept that a small portion of road funds should come from general revenue to account for use by emergency services and general economic benefits that accrue. If you don't think drivers should have to pay off all the subsidies then I don't see why mass transit should be forced to compete without subsidies. This is like making special accommodations for a cable provider and helping them pay for new cable being put down and after they are established declare that everything works better with a free market and all new cable providers should compete on merit and price. Also mass transit provides much greater benefit to nonusers than auto travel in that if you remove 10% of peak traffic you reduce congestion and travel times by far more than 10%. Mass transit also exposes nonusers to much less risk than autos do. Mass transit also helps to keep dangerous drivers who know they are dangerous off the roads, saving lives and property. Mass transit also helps people the too poor to own a vehicle to work, reducing drain on other public resources and reducing poverty induced crime. These are all cost savings to nonusers. So if project B improves the value and cuts the cost of project A, it would seem reasonable to that project A share some of its saving with project B.

      As for compartmentalizing funds, in addition to not always making sense, I don't think that will help when city leaders feel comfortable lying about what is happening to money. If you had a direct reporting of all money transfers to and from the city, you might be able to see how money is spent but I wouldn't be surprised if they still can obfuscate even if you could get such a report. In any case, compartmentalization or no, there are no consequences for city leaders who spend money in a way the public doesn't like, unless it is so bad and gets so much attention that they get voted out. That is small punishment since they have already benefited and is small consolation to the public that was ripped off, especially since there is no reason to believe a replacement will be more responsible.

    57. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Again, hire a company to manage it. They'll have an incentive both to maintain the road or lose the contract and build the road properly so there is low maintenance.

      The whole transit authority is a mistake. Oh, we should have one. But they should be entirely administrative and manage subcontractors which would be vastly cheaper. And even the administrators should be mostly automated.

      There are a few cities that have had such terrible budget problem that they went to a full subcontractor system. They subcontracted everything but the police. They even subcontracted the city's accounting to a local accounting firm.

      We'll see what the long term consequences are but so far they've been able to eliminate their deficit, increase services, improve the quality of existing services, and lower taxes.

      That for me looks like overwhelming evidence that the public system was wildly inefficient and low quality.

      A nice thing with subcontractors is that you can scale your needs up and down rapidly without having to take responsibility for people. So if I need a lot of workers for a project, I just hire the subcontractor to do it. And when the job is done I don't need those people anymore. If they're public they stay on my employment rolls collecting pay checks. If I subcontract, I only pay for the workers I need when I need them.

      Imagine if you had to get some work done on your house and then had to employ your builders for the years in between every repair? It's silly. Obviously portions of the city need maintenance all the time. But often different types. Another thing that is good about subcontractors is that you get specialists. You might work with someone that only builds bridges. Where as if you're dealing with the transit union you could be dealing with a bunch of guys that have done everything at one point or another but aren't really expert at anything.

      Anyway, my overriding point is that there is no excuse in a city of tens of millions of people for a pot hole to exist in one of the major streets for months on end. I don't care if they're going to do work on the street later. It's not acceptable. Hundreds of thousands of people flow that that street daily. Fix it. And it is also not acceptable for work to be done on that street during the day. Possibly this might be okay on a week end but probably not. It has to be done at night. It's like doing maintenance on an email server. Imagine if your gmail went down in the middle of the day and gmail said "oh sorry about that we're doing maintenance"... it's not acceptable. It can't do that it. And the roads are the same way. You can't do that in the middle of rush hour. And in some cities rush hour can last four or more hours. Traffic can be miserable. And no one appreciates a road crew making everyone's commute worse.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    58. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      If you need the sun to bake the surface then how does this work in places that are overcast or are naturally cold? They don't pave roads in iceland?

      I'm extremely dubious of the notion that they need the sun to bake anything out of the pavement. I know concrete needs oxygen to cure but I've never heard for asphalt needing sun to bake out volatiles.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    59. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      If you claim filling pot holes is rocket science I'm going to laugh at you derisively.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    60. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      ...so give me details that are useful. How long would the patch last? A day a year? Because we're not building anything to last forever. It's just a matter of it lasting a few years. The whole road gets relaid with some frequency.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    61. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      asphalt machines aren't noisy. At least the ones I've seen aren't. They patched a hole in my neighborhood not long ago and you couldn't hear the machine if you walked by it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    62. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      We've been building quiet excellent roads for thousands of years. So I don't know why you find the practice to be so exceptional. Further, roads tend to pay for themselves a hundred times over.

      The question is why don't buses?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    63. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by TheAlgebraist · · Score: 1

      Okay. I was reading your comment to imply that no potholes on any roads for any length of time are acceptable. I agree that potholes on major roads seeing that much traffic are unacceptable and there is no reason to disrupt day traffic to fix them. I stand by my statement that you will pay more to have it done at night, however it is more than offset by savings of all the travelers during the day on much trafficked roads. I have never lived in a town that let potholes sit on the busiest avenues, and I don't visit multimillion person cities very often so I probably underestimate the scale of what is left undone in some places.

      The only issue I had with the contractor idea was the per pothole part because that adds a layer of unnecessary complexity. It is easier to evaluate one or a few contractors on how well they kept the whole or their part of the city pothole free than to evaluate lots of contractors on lots of individual potholes.

    64. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The city is too large to give to any one or even a few contractors. You'd need to farm it out to dozens or even hundreds.

      I live in Los Angeles. The city built OUT instead of UP. So we have a lot more roads then most cities of our population. You have to drive everywhere for everything. We have a bus system but it takes roughly two to five times longer to get anywhere using the bus. It's fine if you only go to one place and back every day. But if you actually do anything in the city that isn't in one area you need a car.

      The whole city is built around the concept of the car. We have many major streets that hundreds of thousands of people flow down daily. Even on weekends we get traffic jams in some parts of the city.

      Potholes in some areas will persist for months. Or roads will be closed causing the transport equivalent of a heart attack. On tiny off streets you can work during the day since no one is one those most of the time regardless. But for the major streets it has to be at night only.

      As to the notion that it's more expensive to work at night. MAYBE. The current system is not cheaper however. So the net cost should be cheaper by switching to a contractor system.

      We can do it slowly. Calculate what it costs us to do a job. Offer the job with that as the top price and then let construction companies bid for it with the lowest bidder winning.

      Either we'll get a company that will do the work for less or we'll keep the work public.

      Do you really doubt we won't get a contractor that will do it for less? Come on.

      And while I'm sure you're going to say they'll do a sloppy job or something, we're not paying people to do a bad job. That's another thing that's nice about working with contractors rather then the public unions. If the union does a good or a bad job you have to pay them regardless. If a contractor does a bad job you can tell them to do it again and refuse payment until it's done right.

      Point being, we will pay less and get a higher level of quality. It's almost impossible for that not to be true if you just think about it.

      As to the complexity of dealing with all these various contractors. If you find it complicated then just subcontract that as well.

      Calculate what it costs for you to manage all these little firms and offer the task out for bid. I'm sure you'll get one of the larger accounting firms or real estate management firms that will jump on the chance. And you'll pay less while getting better quality work.

      I'm firmly of the belief that about 90 percent of what government does should be subcontracted. The only things we can't subcontract are politicians, police, and courts. Everything else could be subcontracted.

      And in case I haven't brought this up, some cities and towns have tried this with the results I've described.

      Costs fall, quality increases, and they're even able to add new services at no additional cost due to the massive cost savings.

      Look, does it surprise you that government confuses itself and there is mismanagement due to scaling issues?

      Human management systems get increasingly inefficient as they get larger unless they maintain an ad hock quality throughout. This is why command economies are less effective then capitalist economies.

      Theoretically, a command economy should be much more efficient because there is no competition. No waste on advertising. No unnecessary consumption. And yet in practice, capitalist systems are radically more efficient then command economies. Why? Because no centralized authority is competent to manage such large systems. It's like trying to light a stadium with a single giant bulb. Whereas the adhock systems give everyone their own flashlight and everyone walks around lighting their own way. Thus everyone can see. It's inelegant and chaotic but it works.

      If you'd like, I can link you to the cities that are doing things this way so you can see that it works.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    65. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Put the contract up for bid. Bet they'll bid a fraction of what we're currently paying.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    66. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      It's nothing special. They're just competent. Our transit workers aren't. I don't know if it's their fault. I suspect it's their administrators but it's possibly politics or the union. You don't know. The problem is that this is a wide spread issue over most states and most cities in the US. So it's unlikely to be the local administration and is more likely some national law or political force that can systematically screw something up over the whole country.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    67. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by TheAlgebraist · · Score: 1

      I meant few in regards to a city that doesn't have more roads than some states. LA is on the extreme end of things obviously. The point I was trying to make was that making contractors responsible for a zone of the city would be more easily managed than letting any contractor in town sign up to fix individual potholes. It would also encourage prevention as opposed to waiting for a pothole to get large enough to get paid a chunk to fix it. And I did not mean to give the impression that contractors are a bad idea. I just don't think hiring contractors will suddenly make it economical to fix _all_ of the potholes right away, which was what I thought you were originally saying.

    68. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      how you manage it isn't really important so long as you force them to compete for the privilege in open bids and hold them to reasonable standards.

      At the other end of the spectrum there are places that use contractors frequently but they make a point of only using contractors RELATED to the politicians or their political contributors. As a result, the bid tend to be very high and the work quality low if it happens at all. The contractors become in this case a means of hiding bribes and kickbacks.

      Making things public doesn't fix the problem either because the union can just as easily be involved as the contractor. The virtue of the contractor is that it's easier to have 20 contractors working for you then to have 20 different transit unions. And further, you can fire a contractor without a lot of fuss. But firing a whole union is almost impossible.

      What going contractor really gives you is flexibility and it forces those doing the work to respect where their paycheck comes from. That means working efficiently and doing quality work. Because if you don't do both someone else will come up behind you and take the job from you.

      And before someone boohoos that's situation, everyone else in the country deals with that all the time. I have people sniffing around my job all the time. I have to make a point of turning in work quickly and of high quality such that no one can make an argument against me. Further, I have to maintain a professional relationship with everyone.

      Look at the teachers that get caught molesting children and they can't fire them. Same situation with the transit unions. They basically do nothing most of the time and it's politically impossible to get rid of them.

      Go contractor and there will probably still be problems but at LEAST the f'ing pot holes will get filled. It's difficult to express exactly how infuriating the issue is...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    69. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So, you're going to complain about potholes and you're going to complain about paying your fair share to fix the potholes? Fuck you; you just want a free lunch!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    70. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Where did I say I wouldn't pay my share?

      I merely object to people screwing with our energy supply and then complaining about the consequences.

      How about this, if you want oil to be more expensive. YOU pay for it. I'll pay what the price would be if you hadn't interfered.

      DO NOT F*CK with energy. It's like screwing with food or water. This is the sort of stuff that causes wars. People get their throats cut or just shot in the face for this sort of thing. And I think I guessed correctly in assuming you belong to a political faction that believes it has a right to make energy artificially expensive.

      People are already dying for your stupidity, arrogance, and ignorance. The whole global economy is being affected by a series of feel good proposals that have backfired massively.

      Want to buy homes for poor people? Welcome to the housing bubble.

      Want to help people get college educations? Welcome to the spiraling cost of higher education and the collapsing public schools.

      Want to provide cheaper or free healthcare? How is that working out?

      It's not that you can't do these things it's that there are ways to do it and there are stupid ways to do it. And these political factions are stuck on stupid. Am I claiming that their oposition is perfect and makes no errors? Hardly. But neither are they so consistently self destructive.

      Everything these factions touch turns to shit. How many billions have you wasted on renewable energy and look at the result? You spend the wealth of empires like water on NOTHING. You have nothing to show for it all and you sacrifice EVERYTHING for it.

      If I've misread you... forgive me... your statement made me fairly certain.

      If I'm right... Kill yourself.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    71. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      If I wanted to ride the bus to work every day. I would.

      How about this, next time you go out to eat, I'll order for you. Because you apparently think people have a right to make decisions for other people.

      If I want to drive and I paid for the privilege, then leave me alone. And if I owe a fee, then I'll pay that. But don't bill me for a system I don't use and have no interest in using. And if I pay money into a system for a given service. SPEND it on that service or give me my money back.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    72. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So the friction of the tires isn't relevant? I'm not contradicting you. I don't know... I just figured that would matter.

      Further, if weight is all that matters that doesn't mean traffic doesn't matter. If you have a lot of little cars driving on a road even by your own calculation they would wear out the road. Not as fast as the same number of semis but heavy traffic clearly would have to matter. If tens of thousands of cars collectively weighing tens of thousands of tons move down a street every day then that has to add up.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    73. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually saw something about this on PBS last night.

      What Japan did after after the quake was to use more expensive than typical road-building - using materials which were more expensive than normal and of course they threw a lot of people at the job. I wish I had paid more attention to it now, but they did an amazing job considering the scope of the problem.

      Another difference of course is that the scope of the problem was so big that impassable roads would delay commerce, rescue and other repair efforts.

    74. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Where did I say I wouldn't pay my share?

      Right about the point you started whining about making gas cheaper, i.e., subsidizing it.

      How about you answer the question of where did I say I wanted to screw with the energy supply?! All I did was explain what's going on with the gas tax, and you attack me no apparent reason!

      First you fail at reading comprehension, then you careen into an irrelevant tirade that reads as if it were pulled straight out of Glen Beck's ass. Clearly, you're one of the dumbasses who cause so many of the problems in our country by voting in demagogues instead of people with actual solutions.

      Here's a newsflash for you: continuing to try to solve congestion by increasing road capacity doesn't work. All it does is give people an excuse to sprawl even further out into the exurbs, making the problem worse than before. This is not an issue of ideology; it's an issue of economic feasibility. It cannot be done. We can't afford it!

      And here's another newsflash: You think people are fighting over energy now? You ain't seen nothin' yet! Just wait another decade or so, when the oil really starts to become scarce. Then the folks who still have reserves will survive, and the folks that squandered it won't. Nobody wants energy to be expensive out of spite or principle or anything ridiculous like that; they just think it's worth a relatively little pain now in order to not be fucked in the long run. You know who is a leader in alternative fuels research? The US Military. You know why? It's not because they're tree-hugging hippies; it's because ending reliance on fossil fuels is an issue of goddamn national security!

      Pop Quiz: You're running out of oil. Do you:

      1. A) Conserve what you have left while researching alternatives, or
      2. B) Use it up even faster, so that you'll be extra screwed when it runs out?

      This should not be a difficult question!

      You may not like it, but I refuse to mortgage my future so that you can drive your 4x4 mommy-mobile 50 miles from bumfuck nowhere to the city and back everyday!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    75. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Confusador · · Score: 1

      Sounds like this needs to become a campaign issue in your area. Around here (Twin Cities, MN) we usually get a bunch of potholes during the spring melt, and about a month after the melt is done they're all fixed. It's definitely not an intractable problem.

    76. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      How many months are they allowed to sit there unfilled in the middle of major streets?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    77. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Nope. I don't need gas subsidized. I need you to stop undermining it's extraction and making it artifically more expensive.

      If you want gas to be more expensive that's fine. You pay for the extra cost. You and just you. I see no reason why I should be punished for your bad judgment.

      I am more then happy to pay my fair share. But my fair share does not include your subsidies for alternative energy or your animosity for fossil fuels. I'm not paying extra for gas because you don't like gas. I'm not paying more for gas because you want to litter the desert with yet another failed solar power plant.

      Come to California. We have DEAD solar and wind power plants going back to the 70s. That's how long we've been building them. They always work for a year or five and then shut down roughly when their debts come due. There isn't even money left to tear them down. So they sit out there in the desert like monuments to stupidity. And yet... every couple years another idiot comes along and says "hey lets build another one."

      I'm not saying alternative energy will always be a pointless money sink. Its going to be the future eventually. But today it isn't. And it's counter productive for you to attack existing industry as a means to make uncompetitive systems artificially competitive.

      So... if you want to pay for all that stuff, you pay for it.

      Pave the f'ing road and stop looting the transit funds.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    78. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I need you to stop undermining it's extraction and making it artifically more expensive...If you want gas to be more expensive that's fine.

      You just refuse to get the point, don't you? Go re-read my post, and respond to what I actually said, mmkay?

      Wait, you're too stupid to manage that. Maybe using small words will work: I don't want gas to be more expensive than it has to be; I just want us to STILL HAVE SOME when we will REALLY need it IN THE FUTURE!

      Sure, we could sell off all our reserves at $100/barrel today, but then we'd be stuck paying Saudi Arabia $1000/barrel in 2020. Instead, we should buy Saudi oil at $100/barrel today, and make everyone else pay us $1000/barrel in 2020. Only shortsighted morons (such as your self) would pick the first option!

      Besides, this conversation was originally about the gas tax. We're already using all of it for maintaining the roads, and it's still not enough. Where do you suggest we get more money?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    79. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Your impression of our resources is inaccurate. If you've been paying attention to new developments it should be obvious to you that we have lots of domestic oil. More then saudi arabia ever had. It's simply not light sweet crude. It's heavy and much of it is in shale formations. But using new technology we can extract it.

      In any case, that has nothing to do with your interference with off shore extraction. Currently we're only issuing permits to drill in the gulf of mexico. No permits are being issued for the east or west coast.

      Anyway, you've proved my point. Your interference justifies almost anything from me in response. You have no right to interfere with the US energy supply. None. And I can respond to that hostility in practically any way I see fit.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    80. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Confusador · · Score: 1

      Depends on how long spring takes to finally break, but they start filling them about the same time it's safe to plant. It's no more than 2 months from when they start appearing, and significantly less than that from the time they get bad. Obviously it depends on how bad the winter is; with the lack of winter we had this year, they got dealt with immediately. Last year took longer because the road crews got diverted to deal with flooding.

    81. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      WHAT interference?! Seriously, quote where I said I was trying to interfere with anything whatsoever!

      And then when you realize you can't quote me because I didn't say it, please fuck off and die!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    82. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The same place I said I didn't want to pay my fair share?

      The problem with fuel taxes is similar to the problem with tobacco taxes.

      You set up policies to reduce consumption and having grown dependent on the revenue you need to increase taxes further or put them upon something else.

      Many states are considering putting a tax on Soda for example simply to make up for all the people that aren't smoking. Does Soda cause lung cancer? No. Nor does diet soda cause a health problem but they want to put a special tax on it all the same. Why? Because they need the money.

      This is what you get when you don't compartmentalize your budget. You get mission drift, various programs stealing from each other, and stealth subsidization.

      Keep the revenue streams compartmentalized and any excess in a given program becomes evident. And you can of course increase taxes if required to supply that service. Or perhaps the public will decide that rather then raising taxes that service should be limited.

      The potholes are a basic issue. It's one of the few things you take care of after paying the police and fire department. It's fundamental. And we pay several taxes that supposidly go to fund nothing but road maintenance. But the money is often diverted to ANYTHING else.

      My state for example is building a high speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco at a cost of probably over 100 billion dollars. Do we need it? No. We have air traffic between these destinations that is faster, cheaper, more flexible, and has radically lower maintenance costs.

      Why are we building it? Feel good, slack jawed, drooling, idiocy. That or rank corruption by justifying a huge public bond which may or may not be spent on the rail at all and may find its way into side projects and private hands.

      It's a continuous issue. Enough.

      Take care of basic services. Pay off all the debt. And THEN propose a new idea.... in twenty years because that's about how long it will take to pay the debt off assuming no new debt is suffered in the meantime.

      I am more then happy to pay my share. Stop making my share unaffordable. I don't want to pay for the f'ing moon. I want to pay for my road to not have pot holes in it. If people can't manage that then f' it. We might as well just declare the US a third world country, release a bunch of wild chickens onto the streets, and give up any pretense at having a modern society.

      For f*cks sake. The god damn Romans were better at patching potholes then some of these idiots and I doubt very much a request to fix a pot hole that had been sitting there for months would have been answered with infantile whining.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    83. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The problem with fuel taxes is similar to the problem with tobacco taxes. You set up policies to reduce consumption...

      Stop right there, because you're already wrong.

      The fuel tax is not designed to reduce consumption; it's designed to pay for the roads. And the entire amount of revenue from it does get spent on the roads, and then some general fund money also gets spent on the roads (subsidizing them), and then there are still potholes because even all that money is still less than the cost of all the maintenance the roads actually need!

      My state for example is building a high speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco at a cost of probably over 100 billion dollars. Do we need it? No. We have air traffic between these destinations that is faster, cheaper, more flexible, and has radically lower maintenance costs.

      Ah, California, the land of fruits and nuts. Perhaps the raiding-the-gas-tax problems you're talking about are a state thing, 'cause they don't happen Federally or here in Georgia.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    84. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to the tax issue, I know the gas tax isn't there to reduce consumption. However, much of the interference in energy is designed to obstruct consumption. So if you can see the big picture it operates much same way.

      One hand of the government acts to restrict consumption and then another hand starves for lack of funding because they reduced consumption.

      As to the issue in california, its an issue anywhere the roads are falling apart. California was merely an example of a place where the idiots got everything they wanted and it is destroying them. Ironically, Georgia is healthier because those political elements are not as relevant.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    85. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577333631864470566.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

      I called it. They spend less then 65 cents of every dollar from the gas tax on road maintenance. The rest is intercepted for other programs.

      I live in Los Angeles. I god damn called it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    86. Re:Seems inferior to the current solution. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I called it.
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577333631864470566.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

      They're diverting funds.

      Spend my gas tax on the f'ing road please. If you want to pay for mass transit or some other project that's fine. Just don't take it from the gas tax. The gas tax is FOR the roads. PERIOD. And it goes without saying that the mass transit if it uses gas should pay the gas tax too. No more of this tax exempt bs.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  11. As a former Clevelander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a former Clevelander (and in fact, and alum of CWRU) I could see this being about the greatest thing since sliced bread. Every year the major roads form pot holes over the winter, and they sit there open until somebody gets a chance to fill them with asphalt. Seriously, Chester is a mess until sometime in June every year.

    If they could put these down for a couple of weeks while the weather is too crappy to patch, it would save a lot of people a lot of wear and tear on their cars.

  12. Can these even be patented? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IANAIPL (I am not an IP Lawyer), but I thought mixtures of liquids generally can't be patented.

    Metal alloys can be patented because that's seen as somehow changing the "fundamental quality" of the metals, whilst something like fracking fluid is just a "mixture of liquids" and can only be covered as a Trade Secret. Someone confirm/deny?

    1. Re:Can these even be patented? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought mixtures of liquids generally can't be patented.

      (Does a quick Google Patent Search on Bukakke) I think you're correct.

  13. inverse problem by slew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Instead of allowing people on highways to drive faster w/o damaging their cars, why not deploy them to cause damage to cars that are driving too fast.

    Maybe this stuff can be used as a movable speed bumps in school zones and children play zones? If you drive slow enough, no problem. If you run over them too fast, you destroy your car's suspension. People are pointing out that it can be stolen, perhaps this mobility is just what you need for this problem. In the middle of the day (or the weekend), you can just move them away. That seems like this would be much more effective than the radar speed-signs that exist there now and less of a liability and expense for hiring lots of crossing guards. You might also sell this to HOAs that can't convince local fire departments to allow them to put in speed bumps or neighborhood groups that have lots of children playing in their front yards.

    Dibs on the patent for this use case. ;^)

    1. Re:inverse problem by bosef1 · · Score: 1

      Better yet, install fences that prevent pedestrians from entering the roadway except at expected places. They don't even need to be that high or spikey, just high enough so that any child (or adult) that gets over them is competent enough to not play in the street.

    2. Re:inverse problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: In many jurisdictions, front yard fences that you seem to be advocating are against municipal construction codes. Not to mention not very aesthetic...

  14. Can You Sue for Potholes? by jmactacular · · Score: 1

    I think suing should be a last resort, but our roads just seem to be falling apart. It's like an obstacle course now. Can you sue the city for negligence for not maintaining these roads? There are real and expensive damages to our cars every day.

    And why do we see so many potholes in the city, but not on the highway? Is it because they dig up the city roads every other day? Is there a better street architecture solution that would allow cable maintenance without digging up the roads?

    1. Re:Can You Sue for Potholes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The money has to come from some where, and usually when people ask for an increase to road budgets, they get run out of town by the voters who expect these roads to self maintain.

    2. Re:Can You Sue for Potholes? by TheAlgebraist · · Score: 1

      Better drainage on highways. Higher speeds make pothole cost on highways higher to users. It also easier and quick to resurface 10 miles of highway than 10 miles of city streets. We don't have the money to maintain our infrastructure.
      http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-07/news/30253498_1_ponzi-scheme-infrastructure-liability

  15. Gravel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How is this a better idea than filling a pothole with just loose gravel? It's cheaper, it can be easily emplaced, it can be easily reused (if you really want), and it resists deforming even better if I had to guess. They don't seem to have built a better mousetrap; just a more expensive one.

    1. Re:Gravel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using gravel makes a hazard for motorcycle and bicycle riders, as cars and trucks throw up loose gravel like shotgun pellets.

  16. Why fix the roads? by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Where does it say that the local government has to fix roads? Or even MAKE roads?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Why fix the roads? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Is that you, Ron?

    2. Re:Why fix the roads? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sign: END ROAD WORK

      Me: *cheers*

      But maybe everyone doesn't want to drive a lifted 4x4

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  17. Asphalt is Non-Newtonian by trout007 · · Score: 1

    Plus what the heck are we going to do with all of the asphalt?

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  18. "Non-Newtonian" =/= shear-thickening by manicb · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm getting fed up of the constant references to the magical properties on "non-Newtonian" fluids. Non-Newtonian fluids have a huge range of properties in terms of their response to shear and change over time. This is constantly abused by geeks who should know better. Off the top of my head:

    What people usually mean is a "shear-thickening" fluid such as corn starch and water. These become more effectively viscous in response to shear.

    "Shear-thinning" fluids are *also* non-Newtonian, are fairly common, and have the exact opposite behaviour. Ketchup is a great example - shaking the bottle helps it flow more easily.

    Another interesting case are Bingham plastics - these have a yield stress before they will flow. The classic example is toothpaste - it will stay as a lump on the bristles under its own weight, but spreads easily enough under pressure.

    So the next time somebody wants to demonstrate non-Newtonian properties on their speaker cone, pass the ketchup!

    1. Re:"Non-Newtonian" =/= shear-thickening by PPH · · Score: 2

      Precisely. I was just chatting with the paving crew working out in front of my house about how they handled the various possible solutions for the viscous stress tensor.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:"Non-Newtonian" =/= shear-thickening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA, it talks about ketchup and mayo. But it wouldn't be slashdot without complaining about nothing

    3. Re:"Non-Newtonian" =/= shear-thickening by Roger+Wilcox · · Score: 2

      I'm getting fed up of the constant references to the magical properties on "non-Newtonian" fluids. Non-Newtonian fluids have a huge range of properties in terms of their response to shear and change over time. This is constantly abused by geeks who should know better. Off the top of my head:

      What people usually mean is a "shear-thickening" fluid such as corn starch and water. These become more effectively viscous in response to shear.

      "Shear-thinning" fluids are *also* non-Newtonian, are fairly common, and have the exact opposite behaviour.

      So you recognize that others are using the term "non-newtonian fluid" in a technically correct fashion, but you are frustrated by the fact that they do so without using more specific terminology? Furthermore, their choice of words amounts to some kind of abuse?

      Come off it, really. Yes, you know more about the subject than others do--good for you. That you feel it necessary to speak out as you have only reveals the height of your hubris and the depth of your snobbery.

      Most people will never have a need in their lives to understand these substances even in terms as specific as "non-newtonian." If you expect people to give a damn about something so esoteric, you are setting yourself up for this kind of frustration.

      Also, if you had RTFA you would have seen that the author dedicated several paragraphs to non-newtonian fluids. He went into a good bit more detail than you have above.

    4. Re:"Non-Newtonian" =/= shear-thickening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with ketchup as an example is that it's totally non-interesting. Ooh! A substance works just like you'd expect it to! How cool is that!

    5. Re:"Non-Newtonian" =/= shear-thickening by manicb · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine they were "using concrete" rather than "using a solid"?

      Actually, what with the graduate employment situation it probably won't be long before paving crews *do* have mechanical engineering degrees

    6. Re:"Non-Newtonian" =/= shear-thickening by manicb · · Score: 1

      Most people will never have a need in their lives to understand these substances even in terms as specific as "non-newtonian." If you expect people to give a damn about something so esoteric, you are setting yourself up for this kind of frustration.

      I expect geeks to care. Sometimes I do forget just how IT-oriented the Slashdot community is, given the number of articles about general science/engineering.

      Also, if you had RTFA you would have seen that the author dedicated several paragraphs to non-newtonian fluids. He went into a good bit more detail than you have above.

      Ok, you got me. The article is pretty good.

    7. Re:"Non-Newtonian" =/= shear-thickening by benthurston27 · · Score: 1

      Also he probably just skimmed the wikipedia article to become an instant expert on the subject for the next half hour.

  19. Fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it me or in the video the bag explodes at 0:42?

  20. Dirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously the more expensive option.

  21. Sometimes. by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    Actually you can most places depending on the circumstances. If the pothole was reported and the city hadnt done anything about it in X number of days they can be held liable depending on local regulations.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:Sometimes. by NoahsMyBro · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even have to come to a lawsuit. The parent post is correct, at least in my experience.

      A couple of years ago I was driving at night in the rain and drove into a pothole at full-speed (probably around 35-40mph). Just didn't see it, at all.
      The next morning I discovered a large egg on the side of my tire.

      I returned to the location of the pothole and took a few pictures of it.

      I then emailed the pictures (and an explanation) to the streets dept of the town and asked if I could be reimbursed for the repair costs - about $200 for the tire replacement. Somebody within the town administration sent me a few forms to complete and explained that they would investigate the claim, and if the town had known about the pothole for a certain length of time before my incident and not repaired it, then they were liable to reimburse me.

      I returned the completed forms and a copy of my repair receipt, and a few weeks later I received a check from the town.

  22. What if you're braking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens if you happen to be on top of a patch when you hit the brakes? Will it tear the bag open and send you skidding?

  23. difficult to fill when temperatures fluctuating by Chirs · · Score: 1

    If it's spring and the temperatures are +10 during the day and -5 at night it can be tricky to fill the pothole properly, especially if there's still runoff from melting.

  24. Obligatory Big Bang Theory reference by dhart · · Score: 1
  25. Another fun use by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

    Slightly OT, but another fun use for these fluids is to fill a shallow container with one and place it above an upward-facing speaker. Hook up a tone generator and you can watch the fluid form increasingly intricate patterns as the frequency of the tone is increased.

    Stoners, take note!

  26. It's not the fluid that makes this idea by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

    It's the bag! You could put most anything in it and it'd work. Although you couldn't patent putting gravel in a bag.... or could you?

    1. Re:It's not the fluid that makes this idea by Confusador · · Score: 1

      You clearly haven't spent too much time thinking about the fubared US patent system. It's not putting the gravel in a bag that's novel, it's "putting a gravel filled bag in a pothole" or "choosing a material to put in a bag in a pothole based on $CRITERIA." You could get successive patents on it until you die!

  27. How about something other than cars? by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

    I wonder how it would hold up to a skinny-tired bike? Or if someone stepped on it?

  28. proposed years ago in New Scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That idea was proposed many years ago in the Feedback column of New Scientist. They went one better and proposed using a non-newtonian fluid for roadside areas where parking is prohibited; you could driver over it but if you parked then your car would sink into the goo ;-)

  29. never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moment that the unions for the workers who currently repair the pot holes find out about this, they will hit the roof. Also, most likely, the Police Unions will also object as it has the police officer doing work (fixing pot holes) which is not law enforcement related. Which would be an abuse of their members. Unless they were paid more, of course. That would set up a war between the unions in addition to the "Pot Holes Repairers" Union and the city/county/state.

  30. I'm sure it's a wonderous material, but by doston · · Score: 1

    the pot hole problem has nothing to do with improper filler, it has everything to do with lack of funding. When all of these pro corporate, anti government propaganda fodder finally get their way, I guess we can count on GE and AT&T to fix the roads or maybe some amazing new technology (the kind of new technology that's actually been in science projects since time immemorial), right? And an amazing new technology (Christianity, I'm assuming?) to educate the stupid kids and care for people's ailing parents. Guess what? It's not gonna happen. Jesus and new technology isn't going to fix your roads, deal with your elderly parents that pharma has barely alive in some zombie like state, educate your STUPID, fat kids and it's not going to pay for your retirement you couldn't afford to save for while you work two jobs. Get it?