The problem here is the total impact is unknown. It's unknown if something in your field of vision is actually going to impact your driving. A HUD with e-mail on it might impair driving less than, say, checking your speedometer--I've almost caused a collision twice on the highway for taking one or two seconds to check my speed when it seemed fast (driver ahead of me took that time to brake, and I had to re-assess when I looked back up and didn't realize cruising at 65 was suddenly a bad thing).
If it takes you 2 seconds to check your speedometer (which should require no more than a quick glance), how can you possibly read an email in less time and with less distraction?
If maintaining a safe speed is getting in the way of driving safely, you really ought to take a driving course - the life you save may be your own.
Earlier this month Atlas struck the Black Hills of South Dakota. 4-8 inches of snow were forecast for the higher elevations (5000+ feet), but here on the foot hills at 3500', we got 31" of snow. It was a wet, heavy snow that snapped power lines and tree limbs. 60+ mph winds made for zero visability and took out a large number of power poles.
Our little datacenter lost utility power Friday evening, and promptly switched to UPS, which had a lifespan of about 2 hours. Power was restored after 85 minutes, but the decision was made to power off all the servers in case we lost power again, with an eye towards starting recovery procedures in a day or two. The data center was restored to full functionality by Sunday noon, even though the businesses didn't re-open until Monday noon.
We have a complete DR plan, so if the outage persisted for another day, we could have resumed operations at a sister site. The key takeaways here were backup validation for off-site replication, lines of communication between Operations and the affected managers, and validated, sequenced shut-down and power-on check-list. I was able to get on-site through the storm thanks to my big 4x4 and coordinate the shutdown and power-on processes. Without being onsite, we would have had some more challenges due to area wide loss of network connectivity.
Let your UPS tell the servers when to shut down when the batteries get low -- you can script any shutdown sequence you need. Then you don't have only 2 hours to drive your big 4x4 through 31 inches of snow and 60mph winds and risk becoming someone that needs to be rescued.
I put a flashlight down there, batteries, a mattock to "break out" if necessary, and 2 cases of water. No food, but I figure if I'm down there that long, I've got bigger problems than eating.
A basement might not be the best place to stock supplies you may need after an earthquake or flooding.
I wonder if anybody is thinking twice about having a datacenter on the 17th floor of an office building, in a city by the ocean? Unless there is some specific need for you to be close to Wall Street, It's probably a good idea to make sure your servers are hosted where there is minimal likelihood of natural disasters, and also in a place that is easily serviceable from the ground. Although having it on the ground would have likely been worse in some cases, being a lot further inland where flooding is pretty much impossible would be even better.
Depends what that datacenter is for. If you need it for day to day operations in that building, having the datacenter close to the employees that use it probably isn't a terrible idea. Just make sure you have a backup datacenter for the assets you need accessible outside the company (or needed for a skeleton crew to keep the company alive during a disaster)
The best thing for a disaster is a small motorhome or campervan. Not just for bug-out reasons, but the ability to live comfortably for an indefinite amount of time until power and utilities are restored.
Well indefinitely, or until you run out of propane for the heater and stove, fuel for the generator and fresh water.
No tornadoes here either. (Ohio Valley, Central Ohio). We don't get any natural disasters... I guess God figures that living in Ohio is punishment enough.
Destructive storms tore through the Ohio Valley Friday producing numerous large and devastating tornadoes and carving a path of destruction that left dozens of people dead. There was a total of 107 tornado reports across 11 states on Friday. At least 39 people were killed by the massive tornado outbreak.
Heavy rainfall, equivalent to two to three months worth, fell across the Ohio Valley between March 23 and March 27th of 1913. The resulting runoff produced cataclysmic floods and damages never before seen over such a large area extending from Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New York, and later communities along the Mississippi River
Maybe that was just a freak 100 year storm.... but it was 100 years ago.
And neither does a mileage based tax! What a coincidence! No one is required to report their mileage for taxes, and there's no infrastructure to handle the case where someone drives outside of the state.
You're apparently unfamiliar with the logistics and politics surrounding the particular crossing that I spoke of.
No politician, sane or not, would propose putting even a voluntary border stop at that particular crossing without also solving the current congestion issues in the area - which requires replacing the bridge, and that is currently DOA because of the politics involved.
You didn't describe any particular crossing - the Washington/Oregon border is nearly 300 miles wide with several interstate and state highway crossings.
But if you're describing a crossing that's already capacity constrained due to the size of the roadway, an optional border crossing checkpoint needn't add to the congestion - just make it an exit - cars/trucks that want to report their mileage can take the exit, others can proceed on.
If you want to see a border checkpoint, drive farther south to California where you'll see agricultural check stations.
I'm well aware of the border stops in California for the purpose of enforcing California laws. Know of any operated by Oregon? Or operated by anyone else for the purpose of enforcing Oregon law?
Read backwards through the thread - this thread is discussing something that Oregon is apparently not considering -- doing simple odometer reads instead of a GPS or other electronic solution. So this thread is discussing how such a system might work, including border crossings that don't yet exist, but that could exist and would likely be cheaper than buying a tracking device for every car.
What if I take my car and drive across the country and back?
You stop at the border inspection station [...]
I'm sorry, you stop at the what?
I cross the Oregon-Washington border at least twice every weekday, and I can assure you that no such thing exists on that particular border crossing - or any other within the state of Oregon, for that matter.
And neither does a mileage based tax! What a coincidence! No one is required to report their mileage for taxes, and there's no infrastructure to handle the case where someone drives outside of the state.
If you want to see a border checkpoint, drive farther south to California where you'll see agricultural check stations.
Dude, the patient didn't DRIVE HIMSELF to the hospital. Any medical professional who decides to triage based on whether the patient arrived in the back seat of a private vehicle or the back of an ambulance should never work again.
I don't think you understand -- the patient in the ambulance is *already* triaged - the doctors in the ER know the condition of that patient because the EMT's in the ambulance told them. While the patient in the back seat of the car might be having a heart attack, or might have indigestion -- the ER doctors don't know how serious he is until someone examines him.
So the 15 minute ambulance ride wasn't wasted - it got the patient 15 minutes further ahead in line and the doctors know exactly what to expect when he gets there and have time to prepare.
Note the 5 minutes is the amount of time it took me to get there after my brother saying "dad is having a heart attack", I lived a 15 minute drive from their house.
Which us why self driving cars are better for all road users.... They won't drive at triple the speed limit.
And if your dad had a self driving car, your brother could have helped your dad to the car and told the car to drive to the hospital.
Great, now I'll be stuck behind some cyclist for 20 minutes since the auto-car is too much of a wuss to pass, and won't do it until I get to a passing lane which might not even exist on some roads.
You're not seeing the benefit of self driving cars.... Your car can interrogate other cars to see if they are coming and if not then it can send out a beacon to say that its taking the passing lane for 5.326 seconds to pass the bike so any oncoming cars can anticipate and adjust accordingly.
Except, if you've read any of the news for the last few years, it IS changing. Young people aren't entering into the automobile culture the way their parents did. They are favoring bicycles, walking, public transit, and other non-car ways to get around. It's something the big car mfgs are worried about a lot because their customer base is rapidly aging.
And as a cyclist, I trust the self-driving cars *much* more than human piloted cars. I see drivers texting while driving every day, and I'm confident that a self-driving car will never be reading a break-up text from its boyfriend and plow into me while txting a reply.
call me when your injured and they want one of these to drive you to the hospital. then tell me how you think of these "autonomous" cars. i'm alive because someone put me in their car as kid and drove me to the hospital as a kid doing 80 the entire drive. believe me these things are going to kill people and the makers are going to be all "it's a flawless system"
Of course, a parent rushing a child to the hospital is not in the best frame of mind for driving, and is more likely to get into an accident, like this:
So maybe the 2 minutes saved by driving 15 miles to the hospital at 80mph instead of 65 mph isn't worth the risk to others on the road. And definitely the 6 minutes saved by driving 80mph instead of 45mph isn't worth the risk to other drivers from driving nearly twice the speed limit on that 45 mph road. There's a reason why emergency vehicles have those bright flashing lights and sirens - and even emergency vehicles get into accidents while rushing to and emergency.
In most cases, you're going to be better off calling an Advanced Life Support ambulance so the paramedics can evaluate and stabilize you on the way to the hospital, but if you choose to drive there yourself, you're likely going to be safer in a self-driving car that's not going to take unwise risks.
Yeah, but if they build new 'backbone' routes that don't pass through the US, then everyone benefits.
Do any countries not on this continent route significant amounts of traffic through the USA on purpose? Seems like the double ocean crossing would add quite a bit of latency for no good reason.
As an American, I don't care if someone in Iceland accesses my website. It would be nice, but it isn't necessary for the site to function or make money. If iceland decides to wall of it's internet, then it's citizens won't get access to things like, say, Facebook, which hey may want This is then known as the "Iranian solution"
As an American that pays attention to what happen outside of our borders, I appreciate being able to reach any site anywhere in the world and vice versa.
Additionally, much of the FOSS software that I use and count on to do my job has heavy contributions from developers across the world. I'd sure hate to lose that easy collaboration because Iceland doesn't trust the USA's internet.
I think Facebook as more to lose from cutting off access from the rest of the world than the rest of the world has to lose without facebook - it wouldn't take long for home-grown competitors to arise.
Imagine a fractured internet, where if you want your site accessible from the world, you have to buy domain names and have your site be vetted by every country that you want your site accessible from.
And the legal requirements are very weak -- I'd like to see a rear light become mandatory because reflectors are hard to see when you're off axis from the bike (i.e. going around a curve). But more than that, I'd like to see these legal requirements *enforced*. I see too many unlit unreflectorized bikes on the road.
Dude, I've read most of your responses. You do realize you assert that drivers should change the time of day they drive to avoid hitting some jackass cycling in the middle of the road?
Of course, not, I'm saying that if a driver can't see well enough to spot a cyclist in the road, then he needs to slow down enough to where he *can* see something as large as a human in the road and not run over it.
It's not just bikes that could be in the road, it could be a pedestrian, a dog, a cow, or a stalled car - if you can't see well enough to drive, then why are you driving?
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
You know how fucking entitled that makes you sound? I hate cyclists, and I think they should be illegal on all roads. Two people I know (was not close to them) were hit from behind by a driver in a 45 MPH zone. The sun blinded him. It was at sunset. They were side-by-side on a busy city road, riding into the sun, in 45 MPH traffic, taking up the entire lane.
Care to post the details of the accident? On a busy city road it's even more likely that there will be something unexpected in the road. If the sun "blinded" the driver, then why was he driving while blinded? What part of driving responsibly means driving while "blind"?
It's a lot easier to see a car driving at the same speed as you than it is to see two jackasses on bikes riding at a walking pace in the middle of the fucking road.
One of them was killed. The other seriously injured. And a 17-year old's life ruined.
It's a lot easier to slow down when you can't see ahead of you than to blindly plow into anything that may be in your way.
You firmly believe that he should have just pulled over for half an hour while the sun went down. You don't think the cyclist were being irresponsible at all, do you?
Well I don't know, I've only heard your side of the story, two cyclists riding at "walking pace" in the middle of a city street. Could be irresponsible, or could be two cyclists approaching a left turn. Post the details.
What a cock sucker you are.
Well, not regularly, but I guess the word is out now. Is that even an insult these days? Do cock suckers have more or less right to the road as others?
Wow, don't they teach Driver's Ed in schools any more? Here's a legal definition of prudent speed:
And like many legal definitions, it's a broad blanket definition to make sure they have something on the books just in case. If I'm doing 20mph in a 25 and you suddenly drive your bike out of a side street and I hit you, technically I violated the prudent speed definition you gave. That's never going to hold up in court though, especially if there were any witnesses.
Especially if the judge read the entire definition that I quoted:
A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others.
So even the law states that the other users need to be operating legally and with reasonable care. And it'd be hard to argue that a bike on a road where he's legally allowed to be is not operating with reasonable care.
So your problem isn't in avoiding cyclists, it's that it's hard to see them? How could you see a pedestrian in the road if you can't see a cyclist, since they are about the same size?
Cayenne gave a specific example about stupid cyclists being on the road in poor visibility conditions. That's what this is about. And yes, pedestrians doing the same are equally stupid and equally likely to get hit.
He gave no proof that the cyclists were behaving stupidly, just that they were on the road and the sun was in *his* eyes. If your visibility is impaired to the point where you can't the road or other road users clearly, then it's incumbent on you to slow down. Many people seem to be able to drive at sunrise and sunset without plowing into cyclists and pedestrians, so if you feel that you can't see clearly, either slow down or get off the road until you can drive safely. Seems pretty simple.
As you said, cyclists already face *far* more punishment and face disproportionate risk for traffic accidents.
And yet they refuse to obey the laws of the road and do stupid shit all the time, and want to blame car drivers if they get hit.
You should never use absolutes because it always detracts from your argument. If you want to argue that some cyclists do stupid shit some of the time, well that I can agree with, but merely biking during commute hours is not "stupid shit".
I'm sorry, did I use words that were too big for you?
Condescend much?
What did you think I meant when I said "Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics
I thought you meant exactly what you said. You know you can get killed, and yet you'd still rather point fingers and yell about your rights than do the prudent thing. What did you think I meant when I said your attitude about it was stupid?
Well no, my goal is to increase the liability of drivers to the point where running into a cyclist is so costly that they take the time to *look* for cyclists instead of driving fast and complaining that their high speed makes the road unsafe for cyclists -- if they are driving so fast that the road is unsafe for cyclists, it's unsafe for others on the road too.
otherwise drivers will continue to do things like drive when the sun is in their eyes
Yes, drivers will on occasion drive with the sun in their eyes because they have no other reasonable choice.
Bikes aren't just for exercise - try commuting on one.
I'm sure your office mates love spending all day near you after you've biked an hour with no shower.
That's a common misconception about bike commuting.
My current commute is just 30 minutes, so I generally just change my shirt when I get to the office. Previously I had a 75 minute commute and brought a full change of clothes, but still didn't need a shower. I'm lucky to live in a climate where my morning commute temperature rarely goes above the 60's (F).
I spent a few years in Hawaii, and that was a different story, no matter how early I left (70 degrees and 85% humidity early in the morning, or 85 degrees and 70% humidity in the afternoon), I'd arrive at work too sweaty to go without a shower so I biked to the nearby gym and took a quick shower before work.
Cars may rarely proceed straight through a stop light in SF, but it's quite common to see cars roll through a red light to make a right turn on red if there's no opposing traffic..
There is a significant difference between a "California stop" and how a bicyclist treats a red light. The former is an admission that "yes, there is a law that says I must stop and I'm almost complying with it", the latter is "what law?". And the incomplete stop on a turn on red is a failure to come to a complete stop while executing an otherwise legal maneuver, while a bicyclist blowing through a red light is not only a failure to stop, but a failure in that he 'go-ed' when it was still illegal to do so. There is no "straight through on red" law anywhere in the country.
How does that logic work in court? Your honor, I did not blow through the light like a cyclist, I merely performed an innocent "California stop" and everyone knows there's no harm in that.
So are you saying that as long as the cyclist slows down and looks for opposing traffic then that's ok since he at least looked? After all, that sounds awfully similar to the car that just slowed down before cruising through the intersection to make his right turn. And both the car and bike cross 2 pedestrian crosswalks in their illegal maneuver.
I'm not really trying to defend bikes blowing stop lights, just trying to point out that it's ludicrous to claim that a car performing an illegal maneuver is some how better than a bike performing an illegal maneuver. Both are required to stop and look for traffic and pedestrians before performing the maneuver, and neither did.
Neither bikes nor cars in downtown SF can claim moral superiority when it comes to following traffic laws.
The percentage of drivers who can claim moral superiority for actually obeying the law is significantly higher than the percentage of bicyclists who can claim the same thing. Continuing to argue that bikers aren't wrong for their flagrant disregard for traffic laws because some drivers break the law is a logical fallacy.
I'm not arguing that bikes are not wrong, I'm arguing that bikes *and* cars need to follow the law. But it's disingenuous for a car driver to smugly point out "But bikes break the law all the time!" when car drivers are also guilty of traffic violations *and* cars injure and kill far more people.
That's one of my biggest pet peeves - I can maintain a stopped trackstand for only a few seconds before i've got to unclip and put my feet down - when a car has the right of way at a stop sign, I wish they would just take it because then I can get through the intersection faster. Encouraging cyclists to take the right of way when they don't have right of way just further encourages them to not respect right of way laws
I understand your frustration here, but I hope you understand that if a cyclist goes out of turn and a car hits them, the driver is at fault and will be fined, published (not a misspelling) and possibly end up in jail. Sorry if it's inconvenient for you to have to wait your turn, but it's most certainly better to err on the side of caution and not do anything until you're sure what the other person is doing. If I pull up to a stop sign at the same time as another car pulls up to one I don't go until I'm sure they other guy isn't going, doing the same with a cyclist is only prudent.
Where do you live that the car is always at fault? Around here, the motorist rarely gets any punishment even if they run over and kill a cyclist. In fact, the local police department will do a shoddy investigation and deliberately antagonize cyclists claiming that the cyclist is at fault even if it ultimate it's the driver that's at fault.
That appears to be a problem with your driving. You don't drive at a speed that's safe for the automobile traffic around you, you drive at a speed that's safe for the road you're on, and apparently you're on a road that's frequented by cyclists. If you were on a limited access highway, maybe you could get away with your style of driving, but anywhere else you need to drive at a safe and prudent speed and expect obstacles in the road - bikes, pedestrians, stalled cars, dogs, cows, etc. I once narrowly avoided a refrigerator that was left in the middle of the road after it fell off a truck.
So basically, you expect drivers to do 15mph in a 35 just because you're too much of a dick to get the fuck out of the way.
Wow, don't they teach Driver's Ed in schools any more? Here's a legal definition of prudent speed:
A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others.
Do you think that a speed necessary to avoid colliding with a stationary object on the road means driving at zero mph?
All drivers have trouble avoiding something unexpected in the road when it's hard to see.
So your problem isn't in avoiding cyclists, it's that it's hard to see them? How could you see a pedestrian in the road if you can't see a cyclist, since they are about the same size?
Actually, many roads were first built because of lobbying by cyclists -- it wasn't until cars came later that bikes were pushed off to the shoulders.
Actually, roads were first built for horse-drawn vehicles. Then they were improved for automobiles. If you want to make extraordinary claims, you need some actual data to back it up. Otherwise, it's just bullshit.
Sorry, sometimes I assume that others have the same access to Google that I do:
Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics, I've continued to encourage my legislators to write laws that hold cars more responsible when they are at-fault in collisions with cyclists. If car drivers thought they might face jail time for side swiping a cyclist, or hitting a cyclist "because I didn't see him" or "I was going too fast to stop", then perhaps they'll drive a little more carefully.
And if cyclists thought they might face jail time for not obeying the laws of the road as the majority constantly do, then perhaps they'd bike a little more intelligently. (Actually, that's obviously not true because cyclists already face serious injury and death for being stupid on the road, and they do it all the time anyway.) But no, let's make legislature with outrageous penalties to punish people for using the roads as they were intended.
You even admit that your argument makes no sense, yet you still use it? As you said, cyclists already face *far* more punishment and face disproportionate risk for traffic accidents.
After all, your right to bike is clearly more important than the right of ANYONE to drive a car.
Bottom line though is you're being quite stupid about all this.
Well no, sorry that you misunderstood me, I don't think that drivers should be banned from roa
I live in San Francisco. I bicycle to work a few times a week.
Cyclists almost never obey stop signs, for various reasons, when there are no cars or pedestrians coming in either directions. Cyclists will almost always proceed through a stop sign. And on my way to work, if there are no cars coming, cyclists will often proceed through stop lights. They will almostalways proceed through a red light if it is a T-intersection.
I also drive a car. I almost never see cars proceed through a red light.
Cars may rarely proceed straight through a stop light in SF, but it's quite common to see cars roll through a red light to make a right turn on red if there's no opposing traffic... or they'll cruise to a stop in the crosswalk and only look to the left for opposing traffic and don't even notice the pedestrians in the crosswalk to the right of their car.
Neither bikes nor cars in downtown SF can claim moral superiority when it comes to following traffic laws.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem here is the total impact is unknown. It's unknown if something in your field of vision is actually going to impact your driving. A HUD with e-mail on it might impair driving less than, say, checking your speedometer--I've almost caused a collision twice on the highway for taking one or two seconds to check my speed when it seemed fast (driver ahead of me took that time to brake, and I had to re-assess when I looked back up and didn't realize cruising at 65 was suddenly a bad thing).
If it takes you 2 seconds to check your speedometer (which should require no more than a quick glance), how can you possibly read an email in less time and with less distraction?
If maintaining a safe speed is getting in the way of driving safely, you really ought to take a driving course - the life you save may be your own.
Earlier this month Atlas struck the Black Hills of South Dakota. 4-8 inches of snow were forecast for the higher elevations (5000+ feet), but here on the foot hills at 3500', we got 31" of snow. It was a wet, heavy snow that snapped power lines and tree limbs. 60+ mph winds made for zero visability and took out a large number of power poles.
Our little datacenter lost utility power Friday evening, and promptly switched to UPS, which had a lifespan of about 2 hours. Power was restored after 85 minutes, but the decision was made to power off all the servers in case we lost power again, with an eye towards starting recovery procedures in a day or two. The data center was restored to full functionality by Sunday noon, even though the businesses didn't re-open until Monday noon.
We have a complete DR plan, so if the outage persisted for another day, we could have resumed operations at a sister site. The key takeaways here were backup validation for off-site replication, lines of communication between Operations and the affected managers, and validated, sequenced shut-down and power-on check-list. I was able to get on-site through the storm thanks to my big 4x4 and coordinate the shutdown and power-on processes. Without being onsite, we would have had some more challenges due to area wide loss of network connectivity.
Let your UPS tell the servers when to shut down when the batteries get low -- you can script any shutdown sequence you need. Then you don't have only 2 hours to drive your big 4x4 through 31 inches of snow and 60mph winds and risk becoming someone that needs to be rescued.
I put a flashlight down there, batteries, a mattock to "break out" if necessary, and 2 cases of water. No food, but I figure if I'm down there that long, I've got bigger problems than eating.
A basement might not be the best place to stock supplies you may need after an earthquake or flooding.
I wonder if anybody is thinking twice about having a datacenter on the 17th floor of an office building, in a city by the ocean? Unless there is some specific need for you to be close to Wall Street, It's probably a good idea to make sure your servers are hosted where there is minimal likelihood of natural disasters, and also in a place that is easily serviceable from the ground. Although having it on the ground would have likely been worse in some cases, being a lot further inland where flooding is pretty much impossible would be even better.
Depends what that datacenter is for. If you need it for day to day operations in that building, having the datacenter close to the employees that use it probably isn't a terrible idea. Just make sure you have a backup datacenter for the assets you need accessible outside the company (or needed for a skeleton crew to keep the company alive during a disaster)
The best thing for a disaster is a small motorhome or campervan. Not just for bug-out reasons, but the ability to live comfortably for an indefinite amount of time until power and utilities are restored.
Well indefinitely, or until you run out of propane for the heater and stove, fuel for the generator and fresh water.
No tornadoes here either. (Ohio Valley, Central Ohio). We don't get any natural disasters... I guess God figures that living in Ohio is punishment enough.
Are you sure?
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/tornadoes-wreak-havoc-in-the-o/62353
Destructive storms tore through the Ohio Valley Friday producing numerous large and devastating tornadoes and carving a path of destruction that left dozens of people dead.
There was a total of 107 tornado reports across 11 states on Friday. At least 39 people were killed by the massive tornado outbreak.
And don't forget about the floods:
http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/1913Flood/awareness/materials/TalkingPoints1913.pdf
Heavy rainfall, equivalent to two to three months
worth, fell across the Ohio Valley between March
23 and March 27th of 1913. The resulting runoff
produced cataclysmic floods and damages never
before seen over such a large area extending
from Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania,
New York, and later communities along the Mississippi River
Maybe that was just a freak 100 year storm.... but it was 100 years ago.
And neither does a mileage based tax! What a coincidence! No one is required to report their mileage for taxes, and there's no infrastructure to handle the case where someone drives outside of the state.
You're apparently unfamiliar with the logistics and politics surrounding the particular crossing that I spoke of.
No politician, sane or not, would propose putting even a voluntary border stop at that particular crossing without also solving the current congestion issues in the area - which requires replacing the bridge, and that is currently DOA because of the politics involved.
You didn't describe any particular crossing - the Washington/Oregon border is nearly 300 miles wide with several interstate and state highway crossings.
But if you're describing a crossing that's already capacity constrained due to the size of the roadway, an optional border crossing checkpoint needn't add to the congestion - just make it an exit - cars/trucks that want to report their mileage can take the exit, others can proceed on.
If you want to see a border checkpoint, drive farther south to California where you'll see agricultural check stations.
I'm well aware of the border stops in California for the purpose of enforcing California laws. Know of any operated by Oregon? Or operated by anyone else for the purpose of enforcing Oregon law?
Read backwards through the thread - this thread is discussing something that Oregon is apparently not considering -- doing simple odometer reads instead of a GPS or other electronic solution. So this thread is discussing how such a system might work, including border crossings that don't yet exist, but that could exist and would likely be cheaper than buying a tracking device for every car.
What if I take my car and drive across the country and back?
You stop at the border inspection station [...]
I'm sorry, you stop at the what?
I cross the Oregon-Washington border at least twice every weekday, and I can assure you that no such thing exists on that particular border crossing - or any other within the state of Oregon, for that matter.
And neither does a mileage based tax! What a coincidence! No one is required to report their mileage for taxes, and there's no infrastructure to handle the case where someone drives outside of the state.
If you want to see a border checkpoint, drive farther south to California where you'll see agricultural check stations.
Dude, the patient didn't DRIVE HIMSELF to the hospital. Any medical professional who decides to triage based on whether the patient arrived in the back seat of a private vehicle or the back of an ambulance should never work again.
I don't think you understand -- the patient in the ambulance is *already* triaged - the doctors in the ER know the condition of that patient because the EMT's in the ambulance told them. While the patient in the back seat of the car might be having a heart attack, or might have indigestion -- the ER doctors don't know how serious he is until someone examines him.
So the 15 minute ambulance ride wasn't wasted - it got the patient 15 minutes further ahead in line and the doctors know exactly what to expect when he gets there and have time to prepare.
Note the 5 minutes is the amount of time it took me to get there after my brother saying "dad is having a heart attack", I lived a 15 minute drive from their house.
Which us why self driving cars are better for all road users.... They won't drive at triple the speed limit.
And if your dad had a self driving car, your brother could have helped your dad to the car and told the car to drive to the hospital.
Great, now I'll be stuck behind some cyclist for 20 minutes since the auto-car is too much of a wuss to pass, and won't do it until I get to a passing lane which might not even exist on some roads.
You're not seeing the benefit of self driving cars.... Your car can interrogate other cars to see if they are coming and if not then it can send out a beacon to say that its taking the passing lane for 5.326 seconds to pass the bike so any oncoming cars can anticipate and adjust accordingly.
Except, if you've read any of the news for the last few years, it IS changing. Young people aren't entering into the automobile culture the way their parents did. They are favoring bicycles, walking, public transit, and other non-car ways to get around. It's something the big car mfgs are worried about a lot because their customer base is rapidly aging.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/5-reasons-young-people-are-not-buying-cars-or-getting-their-drivers-license/
And as a cyclist, I trust the self-driving cars *much* more than human piloted cars. I see drivers texting while driving every day, and I'm confident that a self-driving car will never be reading a break-up text from its boyfriend and plow into me while txting a reply.
call me when your injured and they want one of these to drive you to the hospital. then tell me how you think of these "autonomous" cars. i'm alive because someone put me in their car as kid and drove me to the hospital as a kid doing 80 the entire drive. believe me these things are going to kill people and the makers are going to be all "it's a flawless system"
Of course, a parent rushing a child to the hospital is not in the best frame of mind for driving, and is more likely to get into an accident, like this:
http://millburn.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/local-girl-hit-by-a-car
So maybe the 2 minutes saved by driving 15 miles to the hospital at 80mph instead of 65 mph isn't worth the risk to others on the road. And definitely the 6 minutes saved by driving 80mph instead of 45mph isn't worth the risk to other drivers from driving nearly twice the speed limit on that 45 mph road. There's a reason why emergency vehicles have those bright flashing lights and sirens - and even emergency vehicles get into accidents while rushing to and emergency.
In most cases, you're going to be better off calling an Advanced Life Support ambulance so the paramedics can evaluate and stabilize you on the way to the hospital, but if you choose to drive there yourself, you're likely going to be safer in a self-driving car that's not going to take unwise risks.
Yeah, but if they build new 'backbone' routes that don't pass through the US, then everyone benefits.
Do any countries not on this continent route significant amounts of traffic through the USA on purpose? Seems like the double ocean crossing would add quite a bit of latency for no good reason.
As an American, I don't care if someone in Iceland accesses my website. It would be nice, but it isn't necessary for the site to function or make money. If iceland decides to wall of it's internet, then it's citizens won't get access to things like, say, Facebook, which hey may want This is then known as the "Iranian solution"
As an American that pays attention to what happen outside of our borders, I appreciate being able to reach any site anywhere in the world and vice versa.
Additionally, much of the FOSS software that I use and count on to do my job has heavy contributions from developers across the world. I'd sure hate to lose that easy collaboration because Iceland doesn't trust the USA's internet.
I think Facebook as more to lose from cutting off access from the rest of the world than the rest of the world has to lose without facebook - it wouldn't take long for home-grown competitors to arise.
As the FOSSolytes say: It's all open, fork your own if you don't like our implementation.
That's the problem, if countries *do* fork off their own internet, it's going to make things worse for everyone.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/09/17/brazil-fights-us-internet-hegemony-wants-to-shield-brazilian-data-from-nsa/
Imagine a fractured internet, where if you want your site accessible from the world, you have to buy domain names and have your site be vetted by every country that you want your site accessible from.
And if you hit them, you will be the one in the wrong.
No, you won't. Not if they haven't taken the proper steps to be visible.
Here, for example, is the California law that includes what cyclists must do to legally ride on the road after dark.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21201.htm
And the legal requirements are very weak -- I'd like to see a rear light become mandatory because reflectors are hard to see when you're off axis from the bike (i.e. going around a curve). But more than that, I'd like to see these legal requirements *enforced*. I see too many unlit unreflectorized bikes on the road.
Dude, I've read most of your responses. You do realize you assert that drivers should change the time of day they drive to avoid hitting some jackass cycling in the middle of the road?
Of course, not, I'm saying that if a driver can't see well enough to spot a cyclist in the road, then he needs to slow down enough to where he *can* see something as large as a human in the road and not run over it.
It's not just bikes that could be in the road, it could be a pedestrian, a dog, a cow, or a stalled car - if you can't see well enough to drive, then why are you driving?
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
You know how fucking entitled that makes you sound? I hate cyclists, and I think they should be illegal on all roads. Two people I know (was not close to them) were hit from behind by a driver in a 45 MPH zone. The sun blinded him. It was at sunset. They were side-by-side on a busy city road, riding into the sun, in 45 MPH traffic, taking up the entire lane.
Care to post the details of the accident? On a busy city road it's even more likely that there will be something unexpected in the road. If the sun "blinded" the driver, then why was he driving while blinded? What part of driving responsibly means driving while "blind"?
It's a lot easier to see a car driving at the same speed as you than it is to see two jackasses on bikes riding at a walking pace in the middle of the fucking road.
One of them was killed. The other seriously injured. And a 17-year old's life ruined.
It's a lot easier to slow down when you can't see ahead of you than to blindly plow into anything that may be in your way.
You firmly believe that he should have just pulled over for half an hour while the sun went down. You don't think the cyclist were being irresponsible at all, do you?
Well I don't know, I've only heard your side of the story, two cyclists riding at "walking pace" in the middle of a city street. Could be irresponsible, or could be two cyclists approaching a left turn. Post the details.
What a cock sucker you are.
Well, not regularly, but I guess the word is out now. Is that even an insult these days? Do cock suckers have more or less right to the road as others?
Wow, don't they teach Driver's Ed in schools any more? Here's a legal definition of prudent speed:
And like many legal definitions, it's a broad blanket definition to make sure they have something on the books just in case. If I'm doing 20mph in a 25 and you suddenly drive your bike out of a side street and I hit you, technically I violated the prudent speed definition you gave. That's never going to hold up in court though, especially if there were any witnesses.
Especially if the judge read the entire definition that I quoted:
A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others.
So even the law states that the other users need to be operating legally and with reasonable care. And it'd be hard to argue that a bike on a road where he's legally allowed to be is not operating with reasonable care.
So your problem isn't in avoiding cyclists, it's that it's hard to see them? How could you see a pedestrian in the road if you can't see a cyclist, since they are about the same size?
Cayenne gave a specific example about stupid cyclists being on the road in poor visibility conditions. That's what this is about. And yes, pedestrians doing the same are equally stupid and equally likely to get hit.
He gave no proof that the cyclists were behaving stupidly, just that they were on the road and the sun was in *his* eyes. If your visibility is impaired to the point where you can't the road or other road users clearly, then it's incumbent on you to slow down. Many people seem to be able to drive at sunrise and sunset without plowing into cyclists and pedestrians, so if you feel that you can't see clearly, either slow down or get off the road until you can drive safely. Seems pretty simple.
As you said, cyclists already face *far* more punishment and face disproportionate risk for traffic accidents.
And yet they refuse to obey the laws of the road and do stupid shit all the time, and want to blame car drivers if they get hit.
You should never use absolutes because it always detracts from your argument. If you want to argue that some cyclists do stupid shit some of the time, well that I can agree with, but merely biking during commute hours is not "stupid shit".
I'm sorry, did I use words that were too big for you?
Condescend much?
What did you think I meant when I said "Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics
I thought you meant exactly what you said. You know you can get killed, and yet you'd still rather point fingers and yell about your rights than do the prudent thing. What did you think I meant when I said your attitude about it was stupid?
Well no, my goal is to increase the liability of drivers to the point where running into a cyclist is so costly that they take the time to *look* for cyclists instead of driving fast and complaining that their high speed makes the road unsafe for cyclists -- if they are driving so fast that the road is unsafe for cyclists, it's unsafe for others on the road too.
otherwise drivers will continue to do things like drive when the sun is in their eyes
Yes, drivers will on occasion drive with the sun in their eyes because they have no other reasonable choice.
Slo
Bikes aren't just for exercise - try commuting on one.
I'm sure your office mates love spending all day near you after you've biked an hour with no shower.
That's a common misconception about bike commuting.
My current commute is just 30 minutes, so I generally just change my shirt when I get to the office. Previously I had a 75 minute commute and brought a full change of clothes, but still didn't need a shower. I'm lucky to live in a climate where my morning commute temperature rarely goes above the 60's (F).
I spent a few years in Hawaii, and that was a different story, no matter how early I left (70 degrees and 85% humidity early in the morning, or 85 degrees and 70% humidity in the afternoon), I'd arrive at work too sweaty to go without a shower so I biked to the nearby gym and took a quick shower before work.
Cars may rarely proceed straight through a stop light in SF, but it's quite common to see cars roll through a red light to make a right turn on red if there's no opposing traffic..
There is a significant difference between a "California stop" and how a bicyclist treats a red light. The former is an admission that "yes, there is a law that says I must stop and I'm almost complying with it", the latter is "what law?". And the incomplete stop on a turn on red is a failure to come to a complete stop while executing an otherwise legal maneuver, while a bicyclist blowing through a red light is not only a failure to stop, but a failure in that he 'go-ed' when it was still illegal to do so. There is no "straight through on red" law anywhere in the country.
How does that logic work in court? Your honor, I did not blow through the light like a cyclist, I merely performed an innocent "California stop" and everyone knows there's no harm in that.
So are you saying that as long as the cyclist slows down and looks for opposing traffic then that's ok since he at least looked? After all, that sounds awfully similar to the car that just slowed down before cruising through the intersection to make his right turn. And both the car and bike cross 2 pedestrian crosswalks in their illegal maneuver.
I'm not really trying to defend bikes blowing stop lights, just trying to point out that it's ludicrous to claim that a car performing an illegal maneuver is some how better than a bike performing an illegal maneuver. Both are required to stop and look for traffic and pedestrians before performing the maneuver, and neither did.
Neither bikes nor cars in downtown SF can claim moral superiority when it comes to following traffic laws.
The percentage of drivers who can claim moral superiority for actually obeying the law is significantly higher than the percentage of bicyclists who can claim the same thing. Continuing to argue that bikers aren't wrong for their flagrant disregard for traffic laws because some drivers break the law is a logical fallacy.
I'm not arguing that bikes are not wrong, I'm arguing that bikes *and* cars need to follow the law. But it's disingenuous for a car driver to smugly point out "But bikes break the law all the time!" when car drivers are also guilty of traffic violations *and* cars injure and kill far more people.
That's one of my biggest pet peeves - I can maintain a stopped trackstand for only a few seconds before i've got to unclip and put my feet down - when a car has the right of way at a stop sign, I wish they would just take it because then I can get through the intersection faster. Encouraging cyclists to take the right of way when they don't have right of way just further encourages them to not respect right of way laws
I understand your frustration here, but I hope you understand that if a cyclist goes out of turn and a car hits them, the driver is at fault and will be fined, published (not a misspelling) and possibly end up in jail. Sorry if it's inconvenient for you to have to wait your turn, but it's most certainly better to err on the side of caution and not do anything until you're sure what the other person is doing. If I pull up to a stop sign at the same time as another car pulls up to one I don't go until I'm sure they other guy isn't going, doing the same with a cyclist is only prudent.
Where do you live that the car is always at fault? Around here, the motorist rarely gets any punishment even if they run over and kill a cyclist. In fact, the local police department will do a shoddy investigation and deliberately antagonize cyclists claiming that the cyclist is at fault even if it ultimate it's the driver that's at fault.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?id=9238300
http://sf.streetsblog.org/category/issues-campaigns/bicycle-safety/
That appears to be a problem with your driving. You don't drive at a speed that's safe for the automobile traffic around you, you drive at a speed that's safe for the road you're on, and apparently you're on a road that's frequented by cyclists. If you were on a limited access highway, maybe you could get away with your style of driving, but anywhere else you need to drive at a safe and prudent speed and expect obstacles in the road - bikes, pedestrians, stalled cars, dogs, cows, etc. I once narrowly avoided a refrigerator that was left in the middle of the road after it fell off a truck.
So basically, you expect drivers to do 15mph in a 35 just because you're too much of a dick to get the fuck out of the way.
Wow, don't they teach Driver's Ed in schools any more? Here's a legal definition of prudent speed:
A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others.
Do you think that a speed necessary to avoid colliding with a stationary object on the road means driving at zero mph?
All drivers have trouble avoiding something unexpected in the road when it's hard to see.
So your problem isn't in avoiding cyclists, it's that it's hard to see them? How could you see a pedestrian in the road if you can't see a cyclist, since they are about the same size?
Actually, many roads were first built because of lobbying by cyclists -- it wasn't until cars came later that bikes were pushed off to the shoulders.
Actually, roads were first built for horse-drawn vehicles. Then they were improved for automobiles. If you want to make extraordinary claims, you need some actual data to back it up. Otherwise, it's just bullshit.
Sorry, sometimes I assume that others have the same access to Google that I do:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads
Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics, I've continued to encourage my legislators to write laws that hold cars more responsible when they are at-fault in collisions with cyclists. If car drivers thought they might face jail time for side swiping a cyclist, or hitting a cyclist "because I didn't see him" or "I was going too fast to stop", then perhaps they'll drive a little more carefully.
And if cyclists thought they might face jail time for not obeying the laws of the road as the majority constantly do, then perhaps they'd bike a little more intelligently. (Actually, that's obviously not true because cyclists already face serious injury and death for being stupid on the road, and they do it all the time anyway.) But no, let's make legislature with outrageous penalties to punish people for using the roads as they were intended.
You even admit that your argument makes no sense, yet you still use it? As you said, cyclists already face *far* more punishment and face disproportionate risk for traffic accidents.
After all, your right to bike is clearly more important than the right of ANYONE to drive a car.
Bottom line though is you're being quite stupid about all this.
Well no, sorry that you misunderstood me, I don't think that drivers should be banned from roa
I live in San Francisco. I bicycle to work a few times a week.
Cyclists almost never obey stop signs, for various reasons, when there are no cars or pedestrians coming in either directions. Cyclists will almost always proceed through a stop sign. And on my way to work, if there are no cars coming, cyclists will often proceed through stop lights. They will almostalways proceed through a red light if it is a T-intersection.
I also drive a car. I almost never see cars proceed through a red light.
Cars may rarely proceed straight through a stop light in SF, but it's quite common to see cars roll through a red light to make a right turn on red if there's no opposing traffic... or they'll cruise to a stop in the crosswalk and only look to the left for opposing traffic and don't even notice the pedestrians in the crosswalk to the right of their car.
Neither bikes nor cars in downtown SF can claim moral superiority when it comes to following traffic laws.
Bikes aren't just for exercise
Bike's are for children.
The apostrophe isn't just for decoration, it has a real meaning. Even children know that.