And what causes traffic congestion? In my particular case, it is because the main artery is one lane. There maybe 25 cars in line at most of the time. And what causes the line of 25 cars to go 25 in the 40? ONE car somewhere in the line going 25, making all the cars behind him/her also have to go 25. This has NOTHING to do with congestion, except for the fact that "maybe" the chance of 1 idiot impeding the flow of traffic increases with the more cars there are on the road and this constitutes "congestion".
Sorry to dismiss you as random slashdot guy, even if you are a research scientist. My point being that yammering on about "sample size" and "correlation != causation" usually is an indication of a fledgling knowledge or research design. For now, I'm going to stick with the article's premise and esme's rationale, because they both sound far more authoritative and convincing on the subject than you, random slashdot guy, do. But hey, what do I know, I'm a random slashdot guy too!
Yes, traffic flow IS improved by prohibiting use of the left lane for anything but passing. I'm not a traffic engineer, but this is pretty much a universally accepted truth. Germany makes it a pretty severe penalty to drive in the left lane or to pass on the right, and coincidentally they have the safest highways in the world.
I guess you haven't been following the entire thread, because the Supreme Court case cited somewhere above clearly shows that the third strike (in California law) does not have to be a felony, and indeed can be as petty as Minor in Possession or shoplifting golf-clubs. That's the ENTIRE point I'm trying to make, that the arbitrary application of the third strike (but not the first or second) is really, well, arbitrary. Why should a guy with a felony, misdemeanor, felony be free, but a guy with a felony, felony, misdemeanor has to have mandatory minimum sentencing under three strikes?
I love when people (usually right-wing talk show nut jobs) dismiss a study because they (don't agree with it) think the sample size was inadequate. Any time somebody throws out that mantra without demonstrating their own sound understanding of research design, I just assume, I dunno, the scientist working for a University probably knows more than random guy on slashdot.
Um, I was driving straight ahead, going 35 in a 35 and a bad driver coming from the other direction turned (her left) directly in front of me causing me to collide with her rear passenger door. I had maybe 15 feet to stop my car traveling at 35 mph. I'm a bad driver because I "participated" in a collision? I had no reason to suspect her to make an illegal turn and I indeed was even watching her when she did it, so I was about as alert as one could be in the situation.
Apparently making a right hand turn on red is safe in some states and not in others.
The most succinct rebuttal of the "laws are there for a reason" argument I've ever seen. Yes, laws are there for a reason, but the reason is completely arbitrary, as evidenced by the 80mph speed limits on San Antonio, Texas highways versus the 55mph speed limits on Portland, Oregon highways...or by the legality of a right on red varying wildly across jurisdictions...or the fact a road can go from 45 to 35 within 50 feet, although nothing on the street has changed (no turn lanes, no school, no parking lot entrances, no obstructed sight lines...nothin')
How about this scenario--on my morning commute I'm frequently the only car that is actually going 65 in the 65. Everyone else is usually doing 45-50 mph. Who's wrong? I'm obviously not following the "norm" (whatever that is), but I'm also the only one not impeding traffic. I know it sounds like a ridiculous scenario, but since I've moved to Texas from Oregon, German, then England, I've realized that Texans don't know what "rain" is, and when it happens, they lose all ability to drive.
Seriously? If I get stuck in the traffic going 10mph under the speed limit on my 30 minute commute to work, it takes me an hour to get to work. If I get ahead of all the idiots (i.e., I'm the first car in line at the light) then drive 10 mph faster than the idiots behind me, my commute is now 20 minutes instead of 1 hour. I'm not sure what "advanced math" you are talking about that I'm not getting, but masses of people who don't go when the light turns green or who tap their brakes excessively are what add time to my commute, not me driving 10mph over the speed limit.
You make an excellent point, except in Germany, knowing the rules is 95% of being a good driver. Most of my German friends aren't as good of drivers from a physical control/skill point as I am, but they do all know all the rules of the road. Here in the US, not only are our vehicles big, dumb and unsafe, but our drivers don't have to know ANYTHING about the rules of the road to get a license.
Your point is valid except when it comes to speed limit signs. Bad drivers are people who don't know the rules, like "driving in left lane unlawful except when passing", or "at unmarked intersections, you must yield to the vehicle on your RIGHT", or "when lights are blinking yellow, YOU DON'T HAVE TO FRIGGIN' STOP", or "Yield means yield the right of way to traffic...it doesn't mean STOP if there is no traffic coming". Shall I go on?
Actually that isn't exactly right. Car and Driver cited a study that shows most people will only drive their vehicle at the maximum rate they feel safe. So, if the speed limit is 100mph on a narrow road, most people won't drive 100mph, but if the speed limit is 55 on a wide 3 lane desert highway, most people will have no problem driving 80mph. I wish I could find the study, but I'm lazy.
And "lane jockeys" wouldn't exist if all the sheeple would just get over to the right like they are supposed to. I'll have a beer with a lane jockey any day, but you left-lane bandits can just suck it.
Most traffic rules are designed to generate revenue. Most speed limits in the US are artificially low on purpose. I've lived in Germany, England and America and the German and English roads, albeit smaller, windier and having more elevation, usually have higher speed limits than US roads. Why do the US roads have an arbitrary speed limit of 35, when the same road in Germany would be 100km/h or 50mph in England? Better yet, why is the US obsessed with speed limits, when Germany and England tend to enforce/emphasize them only when there is a real danger?
Anyone who dismisses NASCAR over other forms of auto racing simply doesn't understand the physics of auto racing. There is absolutely no difference in turning left four times or turning right four times (or any combination in between) Car control is paramount in all forms of racing, and the circuit doesn't dictate how "good" a particular driver is.
Responding to an unexpected reaction from your vehicle (i.e. slidding, skidding, fishtailing) is one indicator of a good/bad driver, but so is not putting your vehicle in that position to start (and so is understanding the rules of the road, which is the #1 problem with bad drivers). Cars are pretty idiot-proof (seriously, if an 80 year old can still drive most of the time without causing an accident, then cars are pretty idiot proof). All the "idiots" on the road are the people who don't know the rules or just disregard them totally.
Germany has lots of wildlife yet it's ILLEGAL to drive anywhere but the far right lane, except when passing. It's not like you hear about a rash of German accidents that were caused because the car had no reaction room to the right hand side. The benefits of improved traffic flow far outweigh the minor chance that you might strike a deer on the shoulder of the road.
I've not met anyone (with an open mind) that thinks PowerPoint is better than Keynote. Granted, Excel and Word are still far ahead of anything Apple offers, (Pages is not a direct competitor to Word, and Numbers, or whatever it's called has a 20 year late start to Excel).
It is hard to take a site seriously that is evaluating technology when the authors can't even demonstrate a decent grasp of technology via their web design. I think that was the most optimized ad-generating web layout of any site I've been to in the past month. I read through the entire thing, and probably generated $1000 for the site.
The data referenced in this thread show that wearing a seat belt does not decrease the likelihood of vehicle accidents. The data do not address the issue of when there IS an accident, what are the consequences of wearing a seat belt (or not)? I posit, without even needing to look it up, that wearing a seat belt greatly improves survivability in the event of an accident, thus is good public policy to require the use of seat belts.
But in the second case, it is stupid and arbitrary to count the "third strike" even if it's only a misdemeanor. If the law says "3 felonies and your out", I think I could support that, but it doesn't. It says if you get three strikes (and we'll change the rules whenever we want about what counts as a strike, but as of right now strikes one and two have to be felonies, but strike three can be a minor-in-possession), you are out. Put it this way. A guy gets a felony, a misdemeanor, then a felony, and he only has two "strikes", but if he gets a felony, felony, misdemeanor, he goes away for 25-to-life. Or, a guy gets, felony, misdeanor, misdemeanor, misdemeanor, misdemeanor, misdeanor, misdemeanor, misdemeanor, misdemeanor, and then felony #2 and he's better off than the guy who commits a third strike misdemeanor. That makes exactly 0% sense.
This thread alone has identified two such cases in California alone. Two people going away for life for stealing golf clubs and bubble gum (forget what the second case was) concerns me. NO people going away for life (the potential alone) concerns me.
Slashdot Mirror
And what causes traffic congestion? In my particular case, it is because the main artery is one lane. There maybe 25 cars in line at most of the time. And what causes the line of 25 cars to go 25 in the 40? ONE car somewhere in the line going 25, making all the cars behind him/her also have to go 25. This has NOTHING to do with congestion, except for the fact that "maybe" the chance of 1 idiot impeding the flow of traffic increases with the more cars there are on the road and this constitutes "congestion".
Sorry to dismiss you as random slashdot guy, even if you are a research scientist. My point being that yammering on about "sample size" and "correlation != causation" usually is an indication of a fledgling knowledge or research design. For now, I'm going to stick with the article's premise and esme's rationale, because they both sound far more authoritative and convincing on the subject than you, random slashdot guy, do. But hey, what do I know, I'm a random slashdot guy too!
Yes, traffic flow IS improved by prohibiting use of the left lane for anything but passing. I'm not a traffic engineer, but this is pretty much a universally accepted truth. Germany makes it a pretty severe penalty to drive in the left lane or to pass on the right, and coincidentally they have the safest highways in the world.
I guess you haven't been following the entire thread, because the Supreme Court case cited somewhere above clearly shows that the third strike (in California law) does not have to be a felony, and indeed can be as petty as Minor in Possession or shoplifting golf-clubs. That's the ENTIRE point I'm trying to make, that the arbitrary application of the third strike (but not the first or second) is really, well, arbitrary. Why should a guy with a felony, misdemeanor, felony be free, but a guy with a felony, felony, misdemeanor has to have mandatory minimum sentencing under three strikes?
I love when people (usually right-wing talk show nut jobs) dismiss a study because they (don't agree with it) think the sample size was inadequate. Any time somebody throws out that mantra without demonstrating their own sound understanding of research design, I just assume, I dunno, the scientist working for a University probably knows more than random guy on slashdot.
If you are in the right lane, where you are required to be by law, then a car going 90 mph in the left lane posses no danger to you.
Um, I was driving straight ahead, going 35 in a 35 and a bad driver coming from the other direction turned (her left) directly in front of me causing me to collide with her rear passenger door. I had maybe 15 feet to stop my car traveling at 35 mph. I'm a bad driver because I "participated" in a collision? I had no reason to suspect her to make an illegal turn and I indeed was even watching her when she did it, so I was about as alert as one could be in the situation.
Apparently making a right hand turn on red is safe in some states and not in others.
The most succinct rebuttal of the "laws are there for a reason" argument I've ever seen. Yes, laws are there for a reason, but the reason is completely arbitrary, as evidenced by the 80mph speed limits on San Antonio, Texas highways versus the 55mph speed limits on Portland, Oregon highways...or by the legality of a right on red varying wildly across jurisdictions...or the fact a road can go from 45 to 35 within 50 feet, although nothing on the street has changed (no turn lanes, no school, no parking lot entrances, no obstructed sight lines...nothin')
Why does everyone on my morning commute drive 25 in the 40 then?
I'm willing to bet there is a pretty strong positive correlation between bad driving behavior and driving skill, however.
How about this scenario--on my morning commute I'm frequently the only car that is actually going 65 in the 65. Everyone else is usually doing 45-50 mph. Who's wrong? I'm obviously not following the "norm" (whatever that is), but I'm also the only one not impeding traffic. I know it sounds like a ridiculous scenario, but since I've moved to Texas from Oregon, German, then England, I've realized that Texans don't know what "rain" is, and when it happens, they lose all ability to drive.
Seriously? If I get stuck in the traffic going 10mph under the speed limit on my 30 minute commute to work, it takes me an hour to get to work. If I get ahead of all the idiots (i.e., I'm the first car in line at the light) then drive 10 mph faster than the idiots behind me, my commute is now 20 minutes instead of 1 hour. I'm not sure what "advanced math" you are talking about that I'm not getting, but masses of people who don't go when the light turns green or who tap their brakes excessively are what add time to my commute, not me driving 10mph over the speed limit.
You make an excellent point, except in Germany, knowing the rules is 95% of being a good driver. Most of my German friends aren't as good of drivers from a physical control/skill point as I am, but they do all know all the rules of the road. Here in the US, not only are our vehicles big, dumb and unsafe, but our drivers don't have to know ANYTHING about the rules of the road to get a license.
Your point is valid except when it comes to speed limit signs. Bad drivers are people who don't know the rules, like "driving in left lane unlawful except when passing", or "at unmarked intersections, you must yield to the vehicle on your RIGHT", or "when lights are blinking yellow, YOU DON'T HAVE TO FRIGGIN' STOP", or "Yield means yield the right of way to traffic...it doesn't mean STOP if there is no traffic coming". Shall I go on?
Damn, mod me -1, redundant.
Actually that isn't exactly right. Car and Driver cited a study that shows most people will only drive their vehicle at the maximum rate they feel safe. So, if the speed limit is 100mph on a narrow road, most people won't drive 100mph, but if the speed limit is 55 on a wide 3 lane desert highway, most people will have no problem driving 80mph. I wish I could find the study, but I'm lazy.
And "lane jockeys" wouldn't exist if all the sheeple would just get over to the right like they are supposed to. I'll have a beer with a lane jockey any day, but you left-lane bandits can just suck it.
Most traffic rules are designed to generate revenue. Most speed limits in the US are artificially low on purpose. I've lived in Germany, England and America and the German and English roads, albeit smaller, windier and having more elevation, usually have higher speed limits than US roads. Why do the US roads have an arbitrary speed limit of 35, when the same road in Germany would be 100km/h or 50mph in England? Better yet, why is the US obsessed with speed limits, when Germany and England tend to enforce/emphasize them only when there is a real danger?
Anyone who dismisses NASCAR over other forms of auto racing simply doesn't understand the physics of auto racing. There is absolutely no difference in turning left four times or turning right four times (or any combination in between) Car control is paramount in all forms of racing, and the circuit doesn't dictate how "good" a particular driver is.
Responding to an unexpected reaction from your vehicle (i.e. slidding, skidding, fishtailing) is one indicator of a good/bad driver, but so is not putting your vehicle in that position to start (and so is understanding the rules of the road, which is the #1 problem with bad drivers). Cars are pretty idiot-proof (seriously, if an 80 year old can still drive most of the time without causing an accident, then cars are pretty idiot proof). All the "idiots" on the road are the people who don't know the rules or just disregard them totally.
Germany has lots of wildlife yet it's ILLEGAL to drive anywhere but the far right lane, except when passing. It's not like you hear about a rash of German accidents that were caused because the car had no reaction room to the right hand side. The benefits of improved traffic flow far outweigh the minor chance that you might strike a deer on the shoulder of the road.
I've not met anyone (with an open mind) that thinks PowerPoint is better than Keynote. Granted, Excel and Word are still far ahead of anything Apple offers, (Pages is not a direct competitor to Word, and Numbers, or whatever it's called has a 20 year late start to Excel).
It is hard to take a site seriously that is evaluating technology when the authors can't even demonstrate a decent grasp of technology via their web design. I think that was the most optimized ad-generating web layout of any site I've been to in the past month. I read through the entire thing, and probably generated $1000 for the site.
The data referenced in this thread show that wearing a seat belt does not decrease the likelihood of vehicle accidents. The data do not address the issue of when there IS an accident, what are the consequences of wearing a seat belt (or not)? I posit, without even needing to look it up, that wearing a seat belt greatly improves survivability in the event of an accident, thus is good public policy to require the use of seat belts.
But in the second case, it is stupid and arbitrary to count the "third strike" even if it's only a misdemeanor. If the law says "3 felonies and your out", I think I could support that, but it doesn't. It says if you get three strikes (and we'll change the rules whenever we want about what counts as a strike, but as of right now strikes one and two have to be felonies, but strike three can be a minor-in-possession), you are out. Put it this way. A guy gets a felony, a misdemeanor, then a felony, and he only has two "strikes", but if he gets a felony, felony, misdemeanor, he goes away for 25-to-life. Or, a guy gets, felony, misdeanor, misdemeanor, misdemeanor, misdemeanor, misdeanor, misdemeanor, misdemeanor, misdemeanor, and then felony #2 and he's better off than the guy who commits a third strike misdemeanor. That makes exactly 0% sense.
This thread alone has identified two such cases in California alone. Two people going away for life for stealing golf clubs and bubble gum (forget what the second case was) concerns me. NO people going away for life (the potential alone) concerns me.