You want to prevent a private company from offering a product for sale? I am not sure that I agree. I hate the very idea of Google Glass and what it could become but I do not want to ban it. I would be okay with restricting some uses of it, I would have to think about the uses carefully before I agreed with them, but I am not a fan of banning them outright and I absolutely abhor what they are capable of doing. If that does not make sense to you then I am not sure how to respond.
It is hardly secret if we know about it. I still do not agree with it but it is not secret. Additionally, I do not know of any intent to retain the database. I suppose we can assume they are going to but still... The summary, I did not RTFA or look up the bill, says that retention will happen in "some cases." I would be more comfortable assuming those are limited cases where the data is retained for prosecution sake and would be covered by evidence retention regulations.
To be honest, and this is ONLY my observations, it is usually the right-leaning (not right as in correct) folks that I know who argue about invasions of privacy. They still do not mind the government invading for pregnancy or for marriages but they certainly are vocal about the fourth amendment and privacy violations. It is the right-leaning folks that I hear complain about the PATRIOT ACT, FREEDOM ACT, TSA, NSA, etc... The left-leaning are usually just calling them names and ignoring the man behind the curtain. I am, for the record, pretty far left of the Democrat party which is not really salient but should preclude prejudice insisting that I am on the right.
And yet another person being obtuse intentionally. Let me show you the flaw in your witty plan... They asked if anyone else owned it. In the case of an IP address the answer is that they do not know. Such should also probably be the answer in the case of the automobile but we will ignore that.
You are saying, basically, "His hair is black, this makes it different, and I am unable to understand the analogy because I am daft."
The end result is the same - is a license plate enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt? Is an IP address, think an open wireless router being utilized by someone on the street, enough evidence to be beyond a reasonable doubt? The first is stolen, the second is debatable, but the end result is the same and is not hard to envision nor a huge leap in the analogy. If I can understand it, and I type things like affect change, then certainly you can understand this. Why be obtuse? The fact that one is stolen physical property is not pertinent to their point and you know this. So, again, why be obtuse?
I am not okay with them. I do not fear them either. They can soundly go fuck themselves. They know who I am and the little punks can come find me if they want to. I thought we weren't supposed to be scared of the terrorists and that that was the best way to fight them? I am certain I have heard this view and seen it supported. Why is cowardice okay when it is your government? Screw that. The NSA, CIA, FBI, and the likes can pound sand in their asses and come pay me a whiny visit if they are afraid of my attitude. They can black bag me or haul me off to Gitmo. I am not scared and I will not allow their transgressions to change my life, opinions, or choices. Why do you limit yourself to two choices?
How the hell is this person's comment a troll? Moderate how you want but -1 Troll is not an acceptable, to me, substitute for, "I do not get it." I may not agree with the person above, it happens that I do, but this certainly is not a troll by any definition I can think of. Feel free to enlighten me if somebody would like but I do not get how that is a troll post. Not agreeing does not make it not a troll. Not understanding is not a reason to moderate it as a troll.
Islam could be a culture. The word has multiple definitions. This is from TheSage which is a nice application but is not the OED or Webster's:
Lemma: culture
Noun
1. The raising of plants or animals.
2. (Biology) The growing of microorganisms in a nutrient medium (such as gelatin or agar).
3. The tastes in art and manners that are favored by a social group. 4. All the knowledge and values shared by a society.
5. The attitudes and behavior that are characteristic of a particular social group or organization.
6. A particular society at a particular time and place.
7. A highly developed state of perfection; having a flawless or impeccable quality.
Verb
1. Grow in a special preparation.
The three bold definitions, more so the fifth, could apply but I am not sure there is such a thing as a ubiquitous Islamic culture. All the Muslims that I know are quite peaceful and rather Westernized.
No, I can assure you that nobody who is actually in charge (in any area where I have worked) aims for a zero. They aim for the fewest accidents within the allowed budget. They aim to be as safe as possible. I suspect you are in full agreement but disagree with the verbiage. When they say they would like to have zero work-related accidents this year they do not mean that they are aiming for zero accidents, they mean they will work to reduce hazards and increase safety awareness.
If they wanted zero accidents they could achieve this by simply stopping the work entirely and there would be no more accidents. Thus the stated goal is usually zero but nobody is actually working towards that as the end result, they are more realistic than that. The goal is reduction of harm and increased safety and this is limited by things like budget, work-output goals, productivity vs. safety equipment, and things of that nature.
Like I said, we seem to be saying much the same thing but the difference is semantics. I know of nobody who truly works for a null value but rather looks for a value greater than the level where it is unacceptable. Unacceptable varies per industry, activity, and goals - it has many factors.
Actually, I should not say 'nobody.' I have known a few people who did things like insist that their teen wore a life-jacket while swimming in a pool.
I see where, I think, you are making your mistake... No, it was not limited to free or not free to those people the offer applied to. The product could have been free (and was, by most accounts) prior to the clarification. It was going to be free the entire time. It was not mysteriously not free before hand, it just was not clear and officially stated. That does not mean it was not free before this, it just means that they had to clarify it because people, such as you, were not comprehending and there was no official announcement that made it clear.
If I say that air is free that does not mean it was not free yesterday. It just means that I have made it clear today.
Correct - I have no idea why that is so hard to grasp.
It's like asking how many bug pieces are acceptable in grain for sale.
The obvious answer is none at all.
I have no idea what prompts people to do these things. I can only assume it is in our nature to strive for perfection when perfection is impossible. We do not want people to die and will ignore reality in favor of insisting on an ideal that is not going to happen.
I think some of the problem is that safety culture is so entrenched and invasive, that there are a lot of people who would have no issue with bankrupting us for an impossible dream.
Forest for the trees, perfection getting in the way of good, and all that... You see this in the form of regulation where choices are being taken away in the name of safety and what is "good" for you. I guess it is nice to have people so concerned about my wellbeing and so aware of my desires that they know what is best for me and are willing to restrict my liberties to do ensure that I follow along.
What bothers me is that some folks also like to couch their reasoning by saying that people have a right to choose. Umm... No? You just took away my right to choose. I may have been quite open to making the "correct" choice in the first place but now I am being told that I must and that this, somehow, is increasing my choice. Why take away my choice to ingest trans-fat only to tell me that this is increasing my choice? Read the various comments in that thread. I, of course, do not want trans-fats but the reality is that they are taking my liberty away from me by telling companies that they can no longer provide products that contain it. There is nothing being increased here. Simply enforcing labeling laws would be good - make them display any trans-fat content on the front in a size 14 font.
Anyhow, I suspect that I am preaching to the choir. We are never going to reduce the accident rate to zero - anywhere. Why? Because accidents are, by their nature, an anomaly where things have gone wrong. Accidents are caused by people and people are prone to making mistakes - those mistakes sometimes have dire consequences. The adage about building a better idiot comes to mind and we will, no doubt about it, continue to produce better and better idiots. Folks think autonomous cars are going to solve things like this. The reality is that there will not only be stupid pedestrians but there will also be some stupid bastard that figures out a way to turn their vehicle completely off while driving down the road at highway speed.
Innocent until guilty and all that jazz... One exception, justified by driving being a privilege and not a right, is that the DMV can revoke licenses immediately for a few specific violations. Perhaps you can add this clause. I wonder if they will accept the storage and any potential renewal fees as being within the bounds of the law? I suspect they will as one can lose their license immediately for drunk driving (even without going to court - not applicable in all states as far as I know) and if you are found not-guilty they can still charge you a license reinstatement fee. I was not, and am not, fond of such policies as it is directly punishing those who have not been convicted and it is financially punishing those who have been acquitted as they are still obligated to pay the renewal fee. Throwing it under the "it is a privilege and not a right" umbrella does not make it acceptable to me. It is akin to not getting all of your bail money back after you have been acquitted. A certain amount, $60 USD where I live, goes to the bail commissioner and is not refundable even if you are found not guilty. This is a dreadful practice. The onus of payment should reside with the State when one is found to be not guilty.
Nah, they take less space actually. It seems like more because there is the unused space in the middle but they *typically* take less space than would be required by a traditional intersection that allows for the same flow of traffic. Now if they were all single lanes, without the (increasingly frequent) three lane spacing, then the circle, especially two-lane, will take up more space. This is hardly ever a factor. Rotaries are an excellent routing method IF you have educated drivers. Another one is to disallow the four-way stop and to change them to yield signs. That, too, requires educated drivers who are aware of the laws regarding the right of way. You can actually get rid of most stop signs just by using yield signs but this requires that drivers be logical and aware of the rules concerning the right of way. I wonder how much fuel we would save if we eliminated stop signs where it is feasible.
Pedestrians should always cross up-stream from a rotary. If they must cross at a rotary they should cross on an elevated surface. This is less important with single-lane rotaries but is really important where they are double-lane. It is very dangerous to have pedestrian traffic on a rotary as drivers are, and should be, paying attention to traffic more than they are paying attention to pedestrians. Slow rotary speeds can help this but it still not the best practice and should be avoided whenever possible (which is pretty much every time and every place). Again, you can get away with it with single-lane rotaries but it is still a bad idea in practice. Elevating pedestrian traffic is not hugely expensive provided there is enough land to do so but it does have some impact for some folks with certain handicaps so you generally need to provision for pedestrian traffic up-stream anyhow.
Every rotary (ie. roundabout) that I have been on or that I have designed has the yield signs on the outside. Traffic entering the traffic circle must give way to the vehicles already in the circle. Of course this should be seamless and speedy but people do not always use the inside lane (where applicable). There are, also, some very varied rotaries - including a design where it is backwards and one where traffic flows in both directions. Those are fairly rare and I have neither recommended one nor have I driven on one.
The best functioning roundabout, in my opinion, is in a middling town in Vermont. It is not round, it is square. It is single lane (and obviously single direction) and goes around the town square. The exits and entrances are in the middle of the straight sections which provides great visibility. I have seen the same thing in a small town in Mississippi as well but that one had the worst signage ever - to know which road you are on you had to actually take that exit and go up that exit in order to see the route number. It was absurd.
The one in Vermont is nice but it does have a pedestrian crossing (paved) through the middle of it - making a cross - and I once drove across it, it was dark and raining, by taking the pedestrian route. I was unaware of the rotary and it turns out there was a sign but it was hidden behind some bushes so I never saw it. The police officer who stopped me was actually really polite. I realized the mistake as I was halfway through the town square but, alas, I had no choice but to keep going at that point. I did not get a ticket or anything and it turns out that I am not the only one that the officer had stopped for the same offense.
No one walks into the road expecting traffic to stop for them, and to do so is foolish because if it doesn't you'll simply get yourself killed.
Where I currently reside, Maine, the law is that the pedestrian always - ALWAYS - has the right of way. This means that if they walk out in front of you that you are legally obligated to yield the right of way to them. This is of little importance where I actually live but the nearest real town is a college town. They have since changed the layout and signage but students used to frequently just walk into traffic without looking and would expect the vehicles to stop.
This resulted in a number of vehicular accidents and nothing changed. Then, in a span of a single school-year, some four students were hit and two of them died. This is when they put in a crosswalk that is not on the top of a blind hill and added a button that makes lights flash instantly - at which time traffic stops and the students cross. The number of pedestrian vs. vehicle accidents has dropped to zero as far as I know.
However, yes, a pedestrian could walk out into traffic and be "in the right." As far as I know there was fairly decent justice serving after this. I do not recall anyone getting successfully sued over stunts like that. The only one that I am aware of was where the driver was intoxicated and they ended up being sued and, if I recall the paper well enough, were sued for hospital bills and a fairly small pain and suffering judgment. It seems to be pretty rational here which is contrary to what, I suppose, may be suspected. (That is an unwieldy sentence.)
Is Dog Park still where one goes to see the gangsters and to open-air buy heroin or crack? I spent some six months at Pendleton and then did some consulting work in the area. Other than that I have driven through but I have not spent any time there since the mid-90s. I assume things have changed. The crime rate is noticeably lower now, which is nice. The area is very nice and I would not mind living there except I prefer seasons and actually enjoy the cold weather.
You forget affordability. (Opera insists that is not a word, I am going to leave it.) You do not aim for zero accidents. You aim for as safe as possible within budget. You could make the highways much safer but the cost is great and the benefit little after a certain number of dollars are spent. Additionally, these safe practices are not going to be looked at favorably. Do you really want a restricted access highway to have a heavily enforced speed limit of 30 MPH? No? Me either.
They will be unsatisfied until the death or injury number is no greater than zero. This will never happen - even if we automate the cars and move pedestrian traffic to isolation. This means that they will be able to complain, able to get attention, able to seek funding - forever. We are never going to be safe and, I hate to say this, our highway deaths are already at an acceptably low level. At some point you reach a state where throwing money at the problem or making changes is no longer effective enough to warrant the expense. Accidents and death are, realistically, an acceptable event. It sucks when it happens to you, few of us have not lost someone to a vehicle accident, but the reality is different than what people want.
It is much more difficult to explain this to a room full of the "genuinely concerned" and PTA mothers. It sucks to be called in to explain what is happening, why it is happening, and how it will change things to the public - they simply do not understand. They do, however, have a right to know how their money is being spent and they have a right to know why. I would also say that they have an obligation to be willing to be educated and an obligation to think logically.
Anyhow, I know the people doing this project - the people who consulted on it and made the recommendations, and they are not dumb. You start with a model, it is generic, and you check it against reality. You then tweak the algorithms until the model matches reality, this is the most important step. If you do not match reality, in terms of observation and data, then you keep tweaking until you are "close enough." (You will not get perfection.) Then you make the changes to your model and crunch the numbers again. Then you tell the people who hired you what the changes should be (and never get even half of them accomplished or paid for) and what the expected results will be. Those people then lie to the public and tell them what they want to hear. (I can assure you that not one consultant expects to eliminate fatalities or accidents.) Then you are called into a few meetings where they ask you to tell them what the most important aspects of your plan are. Then they trim those down to whichever streets they personally live on or where the money is. Then you get to go to a public hearing (or ten) where the administration lies to the public about the effectiveness and you simply try to explain the science behind the changes.
The people will listen, or not, and not actually take the time to think it through. They will ask silly questions like, "Will this make us completely safe?" Or, "I live at ____ and my commute is ____ hours. How much quicker will this be after the changes are made?" The first question is silly but you answer it as politically as you can. This usually upsets people because you do not lie to them and tell them that they will be completely safe and that Little Johnny is still ill advised to play in the road. The latter question you attempt to answer with qualifications such as how it may decrease their commute time while making them safer and then you go on to point out that commute times can be rapidly decreased if people do things like maintain a steady speed that keeps up with traffic, if they move to the left at a merge (or allow them to merge more easily), if they use clear signals and obey traffic laws, if they maintain their speed in the right lane, etc... You even go so far as to have the municipality put electronic signs up that they can use to tell people these things. Instead they convey information that should be on situational signs and then slam a bunch of traffic into the congestion caused by road construction.
The other thing? Take the damned billboards down! Especially those that are bright and flashy. Make sure to keep signs in good repair - a sign that can not be read is less than acceptable. If there is construction or some other hazard put the warning signs up WITH a distance and do not put them up too early or too late. When merging construction traffic into a single lane do s
Do you live in Georgia? They have more signs than any state that I know of. Anyhow, I modeled traffic as a business. I am going to go out on a limb and say that this plan will not be as effective as they are hoping. A smart and informed driver is the solution. The rest is just stuffing. Who is going to buy further consulting if it does not cover everything? Recommend 100 changes, really, short-list 50, get 20, pay for 10, and hope that they go with 10 priority changes.
I much prefer to follow General Principle, to the chagrin of those who know me.
"Why did you do that?" "General Principle gave me direct orders to do so." "Huh?" "You know, General Principle and all that." "You're a fucking freak." "I know. I know." "Seriously, has anyone ever told you that you are insane?" "As in today or...?" "Weirdo." "General Principle."
You're just saying that so that you can keep the comet to yourself. What else could Shirley Temple have been talking about when she was singing about the Good Ship Lollipop? A comet! That is what.
Slashdot Mirror
You want to prevent a private company from offering a product for sale? I am not sure that I agree. I hate the very idea of Google Glass and what it could become but I do not want to ban it. I would be okay with restricting some uses of it, I would have to think about the uses carefully before I agreed with them, but I am not a fan of banning them outright and I absolutely abhor what they are capable of doing. If that does not make sense to you then I am not sure how to respond.
It is hardly secret if we know about it. I still do not agree with it but it is not secret. Additionally, I do not know of any intent to retain the database. I suppose we can assume they are going to but still... The summary, I did not RTFA or look up the bill, says that retention will happen in "some cases." I would be more comfortable assuming those are limited cases where the data is retained for prosecution sake and would be covered by evidence retention regulations.
To be honest, and this is ONLY my observations, it is usually the right-leaning (not right as in correct) folks that I know who argue about invasions of privacy. They still do not mind the government invading for pregnancy or for marriages but they certainly are vocal about the fourth amendment and privacy violations. It is the right-leaning folks that I hear complain about the PATRIOT ACT, FREEDOM ACT, TSA, NSA, etc... The left-leaning are usually just calling them names and ignoring the man behind the curtain. I am, for the record, pretty far left of the Democrat party which is not really salient but should preclude prejudice insisting that I am on the right.
And yet another person being obtuse intentionally. Let me show you the flaw in your witty plan... They asked if anyone else owned it. In the case of an IP address the answer is that they do not know. Such should also probably be the answer in the case of the automobile but we will ignore that.
You are saying, basically, "His hair is black, this makes it different, and I am unable to understand the analogy because I am daft."
The end result is the same - is a license plate enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt? Is an IP address, think an open wireless router being utilized by someone on the street, enough evidence to be beyond a reasonable doubt? The first is stolen, the second is debatable, but the end result is the same and is not hard to envision nor a huge leap in the analogy. If I can understand it, and I type things like affect change, then certainly you can understand this. Why be obtuse? The fact that one is stolen physical property is not pertinent to their point and you know this. So, again, why be obtuse?
I am not okay with them. I do not fear them either. They can soundly go fuck themselves. They know who I am and the little punks can come find me if they want to. I thought we weren't supposed to be scared of the terrorists and that that was the best way to fight them? I am certain I have heard this view and seen it supported. Why is cowardice okay when it is your government? Screw that. The NSA, CIA, FBI, and the likes can pound sand in their asses and come pay me a whiny visit if they are afraid of my attitude. They can black bag me or haul me off to Gitmo. I am not scared and I will not allow their transgressions to change my life, opinions, or choices. Why do you limit yourself to two choices?
How the hell is this person's comment a troll? Moderate how you want but -1 Troll is not an acceptable, to me, substitute for, "I do not get it." I may not agree with the person above, it happens that I do, but this certainly is not a troll by any definition I can think of. Feel free to enlighten me if somebody would like but I do not get how that is a troll post. Not agreeing does not make it not a troll. Not understanding is not a reason to moderate it as a troll.
Islam could be a culture. The word has multiple definitions. This is from TheSage which is a nice application but is not the OED or Webster's:
Lemma: culture
Noun
1. The raising of plants or animals.
2. (Biology) The growing of microorganisms in a nutrient medium (such as gelatin or agar).
3. The tastes in art and manners that are favored by a social group.
4. All the knowledge and values shared by a society.
5. The attitudes and behavior that are characteristic of a particular social group or organization.
6. A particular society at a particular time and place.
7. A highly developed state of perfection; having a flawless or impeccable quality.
Verb
1. Grow in a special preparation.
The three bold definitions, more so the fifth, could apply but I am not sure there is such a thing as a ubiquitous Islamic culture. All the Muslims that I know are quite peaceful and rather Westernized.
Murder has a definition and why restrict it to 25 years?
No, I can assure you that nobody who is actually in charge (in any area where I have worked) aims for a zero. They aim for the fewest accidents within the allowed budget. They aim to be as safe as possible. I suspect you are in full agreement but disagree with the verbiage. When they say they would like to have zero work-related accidents this year they do not mean that they are aiming for zero accidents, they mean they will work to reduce hazards and increase safety awareness.
If they wanted zero accidents they could achieve this by simply stopping the work entirely and there would be no more accidents. Thus the stated goal is usually zero but nobody is actually working towards that as the end result, they are more realistic than that. The goal is reduction of harm and increased safety and this is limited by things like budget, work-output goals, productivity vs. safety equipment, and things of that nature.
Like I said, we seem to be saying much the same thing but the difference is semantics. I know of nobody who truly works for a null value but rather looks for a value greater than the level where it is unacceptable. Unacceptable varies per industry, activity, and goals - it has many factors.
Actually, I should not say 'nobody.' I have known a few people who did things like insist that their teen wore a life-jacket while swimming in a pool.
I see where, I think, you are making your mistake... No, it was not limited to free or not free to those people the offer applied to. The product could have been free (and was, by most accounts) prior to the clarification. It was going to be free the entire time. It was not mysteriously not free before hand, it just was not clear and officially stated. That does not mean it was not free before this, it just means that they had to clarify it because people, such as you, were not comprehending and there was no official announcement that made it clear.
If I say that air is free that does not mean it was not free yesterday. It just means that I have made it clear today.
Correct - I have no idea why that is so hard to grasp.
It's like asking how many bug pieces are acceptable in grain for sale.
The obvious answer is none at all.
I have no idea what prompts people to do these things. I can only assume it is in our nature to strive for perfection when perfection is impossible. We do not want people to die and will ignore reality in favor of insisting on an ideal that is not going to happen.
I think some of the problem is that safety culture is so entrenched and invasive, that there are a lot of people who would have no issue with bankrupting us for an impossible dream.
Forest for the trees, perfection getting in the way of good, and all that... You see this in the form of regulation where choices are being taken away in the name of safety and what is "good" for you. I guess it is nice to have people so concerned about my wellbeing and so aware of my desires that they know what is best for me and are willing to restrict my liberties to do ensure that I follow along.
What bothers me is that some folks also like to couch their reasoning by saying that people have a right to choose. Umm... No? You just took away my right to choose. I may have been quite open to making the "correct" choice in the first place but now I am being told that I must and that this, somehow, is increasing my choice. Why take away my choice to ingest trans-fat only to tell me that this is increasing my choice? Read the various comments in that thread. I, of course, do not want trans-fats but the reality is that they are taking my liberty away from me by telling companies that they can no longer provide products that contain it. There is nothing being increased here. Simply enforcing labeling laws would be good - make them display any trans-fat content on the front in a size 14 font.
Anyhow, I suspect that I am preaching to the choir. We are never going to reduce the accident rate to zero - anywhere. Why? Because accidents are, by their nature, an anomaly where things have gone wrong. Accidents are caused by people and people are prone to making mistakes - those mistakes sometimes have dire consequences. The adage about building a better idiot comes to mind and we will, no doubt about it, continue to produce better and better idiots. Folks think autonomous cars are going to solve things like this. The reality is that there will not only be stupid pedestrians but there will also be some stupid bastard that figures out a way to turn their vehicle completely off while driving down the road at highway speed.
Innocent until guilty and all that jazz... One exception, justified by driving being a privilege and not a right, is that the DMV can revoke licenses immediately for a few specific violations. Perhaps you can add this clause. I wonder if they will accept the storage and any potential renewal fees as being within the bounds of the law? I suspect they will as one can lose their license immediately for drunk driving (even without going to court - not applicable in all states as far as I know) and if you are found not-guilty they can still charge you a license reinstatement fee. I was not, and am not, fond of such policies as it is directly punishing those who have not been convicted and it is financially punishing those who have been acquitted as they are still obligated to pay the renewal fee. Throwing it under the "it is a privilege and not a right" umbrella does not make it acceptable to me. It is akin to not getting all of your bail money back after you have been acquitted. A certain amount, $60 USD where I live, goes to the bail commissioner and is not refundable even if you are found not guilty. This is a dreadful practice. The onus of payment should reside with the State when one is found to be not guilty.
Nah, they take less space actually. It seems like more because there is the unused space in the middle but they *typically* take less space than would be required by a traditional intersection that allows for the same flow of traffic. Now if they were all single lanes, without the (increasingly frequent) three lane spacing, then the circle, especially two-lane, will take up more space. This is hardly ever a factor. Rotaries are an excellent routing method IF you have educated drivers. Another one is to disallow the four-way stop and to change them to yield signs. That, too, requires educated drivers who are aware of the laws regarding the right of way. You can actually get rid of most stop signs just by using yield signs but this requires that drivers be logical and aware of the rules concerning the right of way. I wonder how much fuel we would save if we eliminated stop signs where it is feasible.
Pedestrians should always cross up-stream from a rotary. If they must cross at a rotary they should cross on an elevated surface. This is less important with single-lane rotaries but is really important where they are double-lane. It is very dangerous to have pedestrian traffic on a rotary as drivers are, and should be, paying attention to traffic more than they are paying attention to pedestrians. Slow rotary speeds can help this but it still not the best practice and should be avoided whenever possible (which is pretty much every time and every place). Again, you can get away with it with single-lane rotaries but it is still a bad idea in practice. Elevating pedestrian traffic is not hugely expensive provided there is enough land to do so but it does have some impact for some folks with certain handicaps so you generally need to provision for pedestrian traffic up-stream anyhow.
Every rotary (ie. roundabout) that I have been on or that I have designed has the yield signs on the outside. Traffic entering the traffic circle must give way to the vehicles already in the circle. Of course this should be seamless and speedy but people do not always use the inside lane (where applicable). There are, also, some very varied rotaries - including a design where it is backwards and one where traffic flows in both directions. Those are fairly rare and I have neither recommended one nor have I driven on one.
The best functioning roundabout, in my opinion, is in a middling town in Vermont. It is not round, it is square. It is single lane (and obviously single direction) and goes around the town square. The exits and entrances are in the middle of the straight sections which provides great visibility. I have seen the same thing in a small town in Mississippi as well but that one had the worst signage ever - to know which road you are on you had to actually take that exit and go up that exit in order to see the route number. It was absurd.
The one in Vermont is nice but it does have a pedestrian crossing (paved) through the middle of it - making a cross - and I once drove across it, it was dark and raining, by taking the pedestrian route. I was unaware of the rotary and it turns out there was a sign but it was hidden behind some bushes so I never saw it. The police officer who stopped me was actually really polite. I realized the mistake as I was halfway through the town square but, alas, I had no choice but to keep going at that point. I did not get a ticket or anything and it turns out that I am not the only one that the officer had stopped for the same offense.
No one walks into the road expecting traffic to stop for them, and to do so is foolish because if it doesn't you'll simply get yourself killed.
Where I currently reside, Maine, the law is that the pedestrian always - ALWAYS - has the right of way. This means that if they walk out in front of you that you are legally obligated to yield the right of way to them. This is of little importance where I actually live but the nearest real town is a college town. They have since changed the layout and signage but students used to frequently just walk into traffic without looking and would expect the vehicles to stop.
This resulted in a number of vehicular accidents and nothing changed. Then, in a span of a single school-year, some four students were hit and two of them died. This is when they put in a crosswalk that is not on the top of a blind hill and added a button that makes lights flash instantly - at which time traffic stops and the students cross. The number of pedestrian vs. vehicle accidents has dropped to zero as far as I know.
However, yes, a pedestrian could walk out into traffic and be "in the right." As far as I know there was fairly decent justice serving after this. I do not recall anyone getting successfully sued over stunts like that. The only one that I am aware of was where the driver was intoxicated and they ended up being sued and, if I recall the paper well enough, were sued for hospital bills and a fairly small pain and suffering judgment. It seems to be pretty rational here which is contrary to what, I suppose, may be suspected. (That is an unwieldy sentence.)
Is Dog Park still where one goes to see the gangsters and to open-air buy heroin or crack? I spent some six months at Pendleton and then did some consulting work in the area. Other than that I have driven through but I have not spent any time there since the mid-90s. I assume things have changed. The crime rate is noticeably lower now, which is nice. The area is very nice and I would not mind living there except I prefer seasons and actually enjoy the cold weather.
You forget affordability. (Opera insists that is not a word, I am going to leave it.) You do not aim for zero accidents. You aim for as safe as possible within budget. You could make the highways much safer but the cost is great and the benefit little after a certain number of dollars are spent. Additionally, these safe practices are not going to be looked at favorably. Do you really want a restricted access highway to have a heavily enforced speed limit of 30 MPH? No? Me either.
They will be unsatisfied until the death or injury number is no greater than zero. This will never happen - even if we automate the cars and move pedestrian traffic to isolation. This means that they will be able to complain, able to get attention, able to seek funding - forever. We are never going to be safe and, I hate to say this, our highway deaths are already at an acceptably low level. At some point you reach a state where throwing money at the problem or making changes is no longer effective enough to warrant the expense. Accidents and death are, realistically, an acceptable event. It sucks when it happens to you, few of us have not lost someone to a vehicle accident, but the reality is different than what people want.
It is much more difficult to explain this to a room full of the "genuinely concerned" and PTA mothers. It sucks to be called in to explain what is happening, why it is happening, and how it will change things to the public - they simply do not understand. They do, however, have a right to know how their money is being spent and they have a right to know why. I would also say that they have an obligation to be willing to be educated and an obligation to think logically.
Anyhow, I know the people doing this project - the people who consulted on it and made the recommendations, and they are not dumb. You start with a model, it is generic, and you check it against reality. You then tweak the algorithms until the model matches reality, this is the most important step. If you do not match reality, in terms of observation and data, then you keep tweaking until you are "close enough." (You will not get perfection.) Then you make the changes to your model and crunch the numbers again. Then you tell the people who hired you what the changes should be (and never get even half of them accomplished or paid for) and what the expected results will be. Those people then lie to the public and tell them what they want to hear. (I can assure you that not one consultant expects to eliminate fatalities or accidents.) Then you are called into a few meetings where they ask you to tell them what the most important aspects of your plan are. Then they trim those down to whichever streets they personally live on or where the money is. Then you get to go to a public hearing (or ten) where the administration lies to the public about the effectiveness and you simply try to explain the science behind the changes.
The people will listen, or not, and not actually take the time to think it through. They will ask silly questions like, "Will this make us completely safe?" Or, "I live at ____ and my commute is ____ hours. How much quicker will this be after the changes are made?" The first question is silly but you answer it as politically as you can. This usually upsets people because you do not lie to them and tell them that they will be completely safe and that Little Johnny is still ill advised to play in the road. The latter question you attempt to answer with qualifications such as how it may decrease their commute time while making them safer and then you go on to point out that commute times can be rapidly decreased if people do things like maintain a steady speed that keeps up with traffic, if they move to the left at a merge (or allow them to merge more easily), if they use clear signals and obey traffic laws, if they maintain their speed in the right lane, etc... You even go so far as to have the municipality put electronic signs up that they can use to tell people these things. Instead they convey information that should be on situational signs and then slam a bunch of traffic into the congestion caused by road construction.
The other thing? Take the damned billboards down! Especially those that are bright and flashy. Make sure to keep signs in good repair - a sign that can not be read is less than acceptable. If there is construction or some other hazard put the warning signs up WITH a distance and do not put them up too early or too late. When merging construction traffic into a single lane do s
Do you live in Georgia? They have more signs than any state that I know of. Anyhow, I modeled traffic as a business. I am going to go out on a limb and say that this plan will not be as effective as they are hoping. A smart and informed driver is the solution. The rest is just stuffing. Who is going to buy further consulting if it does not cover everything? Recommend 100 changes, really, short-list 50, get 20, pay for 10, and hope that they go with 10 priority changes.
Just to entertain the thought, you may opt not to, would you consider humans to be natural?
I much prefer to follow General Principle, to the chagrin of those who know me.
"Why did you do that?"
"General Principle gave me direct orders to do so."
"Huh?"
"You know, General Principle and all that."
"You're a fucking freak."
"I know. I know."
"Seriously, has anyone ever told you that you are insane?"
"As in today or...?"
"Weirdo."
"General Principle."
You're just saying that so that you can keep the comet to yourself. What else could Shirley Temple have been talking about when she was singing about the Good Ship Lollipop? A comet! That is what.
I do the same thing myself from time to time.