So a simple solution is to price each space according to demand such that there's always a space or two available in every parking aisle, and allow the handicapped to park anywhere for free.
I would counter, as a handicapped person, that there are too few... I have been to places during holidays and other usually busy times where the reserved spots are all legitimately used.
In a free market, efficient pricing prevents chronic shortages, no matter how little supply is available. A demand curve proves this.
As long as there's nobody waiting to use a handicapped stall, what's the problem? If all the non-handicapped stalls are taken, is an able-bodied person supposed to wait for one to become available when the handicapped stall is empty?
This fee screws the people who can least afford it.
It also disproportionately benefits the poor. For you and me, $2 may not mean much, but for a person on a fixed income, saving $2 could make a real difference.
Because you know without this fee, Verizon will find some other way to raise prices. And when they do, they may not be so obvious about it, and that means they may not give the poor that opportunity to save money.
A la carte pricing is great. It lets me economize simply by changing behaviors. In this case, I can save $2 by using my bank's online bill pay.
Now that they've changed their minds about this fee, you know they will find another way to charge us. That was never in doubt. But how they charge us might not be so obvious next time, and that means we may not be given the opportunity to save money.
So are we really better off today than we were yesterday?
If velocity is distance divided by time, and you're using the curb-to-curb distance and the curb-to-curb time (from the time you enter the airport to the time you exit the airport at the other end), then airplanes are not so quick for shorter distances.
This is what makes high speed rail faster than airplanes for distances up to about 400 miles.
The original question was, "How does [flying] compare to rail/car/ship travel?" And the answer given was, "Airplanes are much, much faster." But that is not always true.
I notice he doesn't blame the Democrat Party, progressives, labor unions, etc either for their "anti-science" positions.... For example, perhaps the number one, serial abuse of science is in the field of economics.
An example of this is the recent stimuli, which weren't awarded on the basis of a cost-benefits analysis. As such, they are barely any better than hiring a bunch of people to dig holes and fill them back in again.
Now that we've established that both the Republicans and the Democrats discard science whenever it conflicts with their "religions," let me ask this question: which other political party is the pro-science party?
Similar to cell plans with unlimited nights and weekends, usage-based-billed broadband also ought to be cheaper during periods of low demand when there's plenty of spare capacity. If I were on such a plan, I would stream movies less and download movies more, during the wee hours, to save money. The ISP would also save money by not having to add capacity just to prevent the network from getting congested a couple of hours each day.
However, I changed my mind once a I listened to a local police chief explain that in his city traffic accidents had actually risen at the intersections where the cameras were in use.
Show me an accident like that, and I'll show you a dangerous driver who wasn't the one driving slow. Like I said, in the absence of dangerous drivers, slowing down is perfectly safe.
That is the reason there are laws against driving slower than the flow of traffic.
The purpose of that law is not for safety but to avoid "impeding or blocking the reasonable and normal speed of traffic." In fact, it provides an exception for "safe operation." Does it make sense that driving your automobile slowly for safe operation would be unsafe?
And yet, a study done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that states with cellphone bans have seen no real decrease in accident rates.
All that proves is that laws aren't very effective without enforcement.
If they speed up yet maintain the same following distance, then they will be tailgating.
You've defined tailgating a number of times, but never in a manner that would make your statement true.
If we use the three second rule to define tailgating, and you and the person ahead of you are going 65 mph, then by the three second rule you should be 286 feet behind the person in front of you. But if you and the person ahead of you simultaneously speed up to 75 mph but you keep the same 286 foot following distance, that's only 2.6 seconds, and that's tailgating
That is why I said, "If they speed up yet maintain the same following distance, then they will be tailgating."
But the question was whether someone who brakes hard for no reason on a crowded road, resulting in a crash behind them "caused" the crash or is 100% blameless in the crash.
Actually, the original question was, "So you are saying that the person in front did have anything to do with the crash?" And I answered that.
But let's restate it a different way: "If you are tailgating someone and they brake and you run into them, whose fault is it?"
But for a person on a given road, slower will reduce, not increase throughput.
If everyone is obeying the three second rule, then a given road will carry 1,200 cars per hour (1 car/3 sec * 3600 sec/h). The speed isn't even part of the equation.
Or are you asserting that, all other things equal, if everyone speeds up and maintains the same distance, the road will be carrying less traffic?
If they speed up yet maintain the same following distance, then they will be tailgating.
How about you answer my question first
Okay, yes, the person who was hit from behind was involved in the accident by virtue of being in the wrong place (in front of a tailgater) at the wrong time.
Now will you answer my question? If someone is broken down in the middle of the road, and someone else rear ends them, who caused the accident?
Well, it was done by traffic engineers... You assert them to be "insane"...
I was repeating what one of your fellow traffic engineers wrote. If one of your peers isn't qualified to call your profession insane, then who is?
Or the obvious that they didn't study anything other than listing the average speed at the highest throughput times, not anything else. The general number is 45 mph...
So you agree then that 45-60 mph is the speed of highest throughput during the highest throughput times?
If you'll remember from traffic engineering school, higher throughputs occur at lower levels of service, so 45-60 mph shouldn't surprise you.
That's irrelevant to my question.
Let's put it another way. If someone is broken down in the middle of the road, and someone else rear ends them, who caused the accident? The one who broke down, or the one who rear ended them?
If a bicyclist takes the lane and is rear ended, who caused the accident, the bicyclist or the one who rear ended him/her?
That's simply untrue. Cars travel faster the less the congestion.
Reality disagrees with you, as the source I provided proves.
If the guy in front had been driving safely, nobody would have crashed.
If the guys behind hadn't been tailgating, which is "driving on a road too close to the vehicle in front, at a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible," then they wouldn't have crashed.
Speed almost never causes crashes no matter what your TV says.
False. Driver behavior is the cause of most crashes, and slowing down sufficiently would prevent almost all crashes in which driver behavior is responsible. If you rear end someone while you're yapping on the phone, it means your velocity was too high for your following distance and your reaction time which was reduced by talking on the phone.
often safe speed is WAY above the set speed limit
And often it is WAY below the posted speed limit, due to weather, visibility, water or ice on the road, etc.
Safe Speed says you can take your Evo at 140MPH down a dry empty road, if you know how to do this.
Possibly. But if you're going so fast that you don't notice a broken down car in the middle of the road until it's too late, then you're going too fast.
Slashdot Mirror
If there aren't enough unoccupied spaces close to the entrance for everyone who wants one, it's only because they aren't priced efficiently. A demand curve proves this.
So a simple solution is to price each space according to demand such that there's always a space or two available in every parking aisle, and allow the handicapped to park anywhere for free.
In a free market, efficient pricing prevents chronic shortages, no matter how little supply is available. A demand curve proves this.
Therefore, if not enough parking spaces are unoccupied, it's only because the price is too low. The right price for curb parking is the lowest price you can charge and still have one or two vacant spaces on every block.
As long as there's nobody waiting to use a handicapped stall, what's the problem? If all the non-handicapped stalls are taken, is an able-bodied person supposed to wait for one to become available when the handicapped stall is empty?
It also disproportionately benefits the poor. For you and me, $2 may not mean much, but for a person on a fixed income, saving $2 could make a real difference.
Because you know without this fee, Verizon will find some other way to raise prices. And when they do, they may not be so obvious about it, and that means they may not give the poor that opportunity to save money.
A la carte pricing is great. It lets me economize simply by changing behaviors. In this case, I can save $2 by using my bank's online bill pay.
Now that they've changed their minds about this fee, you know they will find another way to charge us. That was never in doubt. But how they charge us might not be so obvious next time, and that means we may not be given the opportunity to save money.
So are we really better off today than we were yesterday?
If velocity is distance divided by time, and you're using the curb-to-curb distance and the curb-to-curb time (from the time you enter the airport to the time you exit the airport at the other end), then airplanes are not so quick for shorter distances.
This is what makes high speed rail faster than airplanes for distances up to about 400 miles.
The original question was, "How does [flying] compare to rail/car/ship travel?" And the answer given was, "Airplanes are much, much faster." But that is not always true.
Except when they're slower than bicycles!
An example of this is the recent stimuli, which weren't awarded on the basis of a cost-benefits analysis. As such, they are barely any better than hiring a bunch of people to dig holes and fill them back in again.
Now that we've established that both the Republicans and the Democrats discard science whenever it conflicts with their "religions," let me ask this question: which other political party is the pro-science party?
Actually, there is.
If it ultimately saves CO2, consider this computer's carbon footprint an "investment."
Similar to cell plans with unlimited nights and weekends, usage-based-billed broadband also ought to be cheaper during periods of low demand when there's plenty of spare capacity. If I were on such a plan, I would stream movies less and download movies more, during the wee hours, to save money. The ISP would also save money by not having to add capacity just to prevent the network from getting congested a couple of hours each day.
Everybody wins with efficient pricing.
This is not unusual. The Federal Highway Administration found that red-light cameras increase rear-end collisions but reduce more severe right-angle collisions, saving $50,000 in collisions per intersection per year in medical and repair costs.
That only happens in the presence of dangerous drivers. I'll say it a third time: in the absence of dangerous drivers, slowing down is perfectly safe.
Only dangerous drivers change lanes when there isn't enough room in the new lane.
When they aren't tailgating, there isn't a problem.
When you aren't tailgating, there isn't a problem.
Now do you understand why driving slowly is perfectly safe in the absence of dangerous drivers?
Show me an accident like that, and I'll show you a dangerous driver who wasn't the one driving slow. Like I said, in the absence of dangerous drivers, slowing down is perfectly safe.
The purpose of that law is not for safety but to avoid "impeding or blocking the reasonable and normal speed of traffic." In fact, it provides an exception for "safe operation." Does it make sense that driving your automobile slowly for safe operation would be unsafe?
In the absence of dangerous drivers, slowing down is perfectly safe.
And if you're distracted 30% but you're going 30% under the speed limit, are you as safe as someone who is distracted 0% and going the speed limit?
All that proves is that laws aren't very effective without enforcement.
If we use the three second rule to define tailgating, and you and the person ahead of you are going 65 mph, then by the three second rule you should be 286 feet behind the person in front of you. But if you and the person ahead of you simultaneously speed up to 75 mph but you keep the same 286 foot following distance, that's only 2.6 seconds, and that's tailgating
That is why I said, "If they speed up yet maintain the same following distance, then they will be tailgating."
Actually, the original question was, "So you are saying that the person in front did have anything to do with the crash?" And I answered that.
But let's restate it a different way: "If you are tailgating someone and they brake and you run into them, whose fault is it?"
If everyone is obeying the three second rule, then a given road will carry 1,200 cars per hour (1 car/3 sec * 3600 sec/h). The speed isn't even part of the equation.
If they speed up yet maintain the same following distance, then they will be tailgating.
Okay, yes, the person who was hit from behind was involved in the accident by virtue of being in the wrong place (in front of a tailgater) at the wrong time.
Now will you answer my question? If someone is broken down in the middle of the road, and someone else rear ends them, who caused the accident?
I was repeating what one of your fellow traffic engineers wrote. If one of your peers isn't qualified to call your profession insane, then who is?
So you agree then that 45-60 mph is the speed of highest throughput during the highest throughput times?
If you'll remember from traffic engineering school, higher throughputs occur at lower levels of service, so 45-60 mph shouldn't surprise you.
Let's put it another way. If someone is broken down in the middle of the road, and someone else rear ends them, who caused the accident? The one who broke down, or the one who rear ended them?
If a bicyclist takes the lane and is rear ended, who caused the accident, the bicyclist or the one who rear ended him/her?
"The [traffic] engineering profession is insane," so please forgive me if I don't hold your experience in high regard.
Meanwhile, you didn't explain why my interpretation of the 60 mph study is flawed.
Why would someone who isn't "driving on a road too close to the vehicle in front, at a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible" run into the person in front? Or do you disagree with this definition of tailgating?
Reality disagrees with you, as the source I provided proves.
If the guys behind hadn't been tailgating, which is "driving on a road too close to the vehicle in front, at a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible," then they wouldn't have crashed.
If there were such a thing as "driving too slow for conditions," people would get ticketed all the time for driving farm equipment on public roads.
That statement contradicts itself.
Because a freeway's greatest throughput happens at 60 mph, if you drive above 60, you are making the freeway less efficient.
False. Driver behavior is the cause of most crashes, and slowing down sufficiently would prevent almost all crashes in which driver behavior is responsible. If you rear end someone while you're yapping on the phone, it means your velocity was too high for your following distance and your reaction time which was reduced by talking on the phone.
And often it is WAY below the posted speed limit, due to weather, visibility, water or ice on the road, etc.
Possibly. But if you're going so fast that you don't notice a broken down car in the middle of the road until it's too late, then you're going too fast.