From SF Gate:
Controversial California bill would physically stop new cars from speedingQuoteA California lawmaker wants drivers to stop speeding, and he wants to make it nearly impossible for your car to do so. On Wednesday, State Sen. Scott Wiener introduced Senate Bill 961, which would require cars models built and sold in California from 2027 onward to come equipped with speed governors that would prevent drivers from increasing their speed over a certain limit.
The technology would use GPS and a database of roadway speeds to prevent cars from going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit wherever they are. For example, if a highway's speed is 65 miles per hour, drivers with this technology wouldn't be able to go faster than 75 miles per hour. Wiener told SFGATE that the bill as written applies to all roads, but he expects it to be a topic of discussion. He said emergency vehicles would be exempt from the requirement.
If passed into law, the California Highway Patrol commissioner would have to grant exceptions based on "specific" criteria for vehicles to disable the technology. The bill does not specify exactly what would qualify, but drivers and manufacturers who met the criteria would be able to fully disable the speed control, according to the bill.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (https://markholtz.info/2tv)
Already discussed in
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=34151.0
If you consider 10 MPH over stopping speeding... The premise of this being based off GPS data is questionable at best. Said data probably only exists for the largest of cities and probably isn't the most accurate to begin with. The Governor vetoed a similar bill fairly recently. But yeah, this coupled with the PHEV mandate probably will be a boon to out of state car sales if it passes.
Great, since every hair-brained idea California comes up with regarding cars is automatically put into place by my state, it'll be forced on me soon as well if passed.
It becomes a problem when the software's database doesn't match what the signs actually say. Our rental Tesla earlier this month displayed the speed limit on the dashboard screen, but there were multiple situations where it was incorrect, usually because the posted speed limit was higher than the screen showed (and it wasn't a situation of the software being confused as to whether we were on a frontage road or the main highway, either).
There's also a safety problem if the software can cause the car to brake hard when the speed limit drops. I can recall places in North Carolina where the speed limit used to drop from 70 to 55 (may still do that, I just haven't driven through those locations in a few years). If someone's tailgating you and your car automatically brakes hard to comply with the lower speed limit, you stand a fair chance of getting rear-ended.
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 09:36:38 AM
Great, since every hair-brained idea California comes up with regarding cars is automatically put into place by my state, it'll be forced on me soon as well if passed.
I wouldn't hold your breath on that happening. Recall during the 1970s and 1980s there was California specific engines due to CARB emission standards being more strict. I suspect the PHEV mandate will lead to something similar and possibly this if it passes.
Should be noted that the guy sponsoring the bill (SB 961 and 960) is a hard core urbanist out of the 11th District (San Francisco and San Mateo County). Outside his immediate sphere of influence his ideals don't seem to be held as truisms. He was also the guy behind trying to push for the removal of what is left of the Central Freeway stub.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 26, 2024, 09:42:22 AM
It becomes a problem when the software's database doesn't match what the signs actually say.
I get these on some rental cars; last fall, I was travelling on Missouri Highway 100 west of St. Louis and the "Speed Limit Warning" on the dash displayed "100" in the box. Presumably it the car's millimeter wave radar is just looking for a black-and-white rectangular sign with a prominent number on it that's divisible by five.
I wish I took a photo of it...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2024, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 09:36:38 AM
Great, since every hair-brained idea California comes up with regarding cars is automatically put into place by my state, it'll be forced on me soon as well if passed.
I wouldn't hold your breath on that happening. Recall during the 1970s and 1980s there was California specific engines due to CARB emission standards being more strict. I suspect the PHEV mandate will lead to something similar and possibly this if it passes.
Should be noted that the guy sponsoring the bill (SB 961 and 960) is a hard core urbanist out of the 11th District (San Francisco and San Mateo County). Outside his immediate sphere of influence his ideals don't seem to be held as truisms. He was also the guy behind trying to push for the removal of what is left of the Central Freeway stub.
Yeah but Massachusetts has gotten worse. You won't be able to buy a gas-only car in my state in 2035 merely because California passed a law stating so. No one ever voted for a bill banning gas cars, only that if California jumps off a cliff we have to follow them. Our state supreme court also said that was somehow OK.
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 11:53:26 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2024, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 09:36:38 AM
Great, since every hair-brained idea California comes up with regarding cars is automatically put into place by my state, it'll be forced on me soon as well if passed.
I wouldn't hold your breath on that happening. Recall during the 1970s and 1980s there was California specific engines due to CARB emission standards being more strict. I suspect the PHEV mandate will lead to something similar and possibly this if it passes.
Should be noted that the guy sponsoring the bill (SB 961 and 960) is a hard core urbanist out of the 11th District (San Francisco and San Mateo County). Outside his immediate sphere of influence his ideals don't seem to be held as truisms. He was also the guy behind trying to push for the removal of what is left of the Central Freeway stub.
Yeah but Massachusetts has gotten worse. You won't be able to buy a gas-only car in my state in 2035 merely because California passed a law stating so. No one ever voted for a bill banning gas cars, only that if California jumps off a cliff we have to follow them. Our state supreme court also said that was somehow OK.
Consider the present automotive market conditions. Does it seem like having nothing but EV cars by 2035 is the slightest bit plausible? Even the PHEV mandate by California isn't a true EV mandate. A certain percentage of cars (35% I think off the top of my head) can be sold with ICEs so long as they have plug-in hybrid capabilities. All PHEV really means is what CARB defines as zero emissions vehicles. CARB didn't up their standards on what they consider to be "zero emission."
To that end, these are measures I certainly don't endorse or agree with. The market was trending towards EVs and cars with plug-in hybrid capabilities to begin with. So much of the PHEV mandate is dependent on California's wider clean energy initiatives which aren't exactly going as smoothly as planned. I suspect there will be delays in the mandate or California's waiver on setting their own standards might not survive the next decade.
There are a few choice words in regards to the California Air Resources Board aka CARB. During the 1990s, they were mandating a gasoline additive which was causing engine issues and gas line deterioration on certain cars.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2024, 12:03:42 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 11:53:26 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2024, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 09:36:38 AM
Great, since every hair-brained idea California comes up with regarding cars is automatically put into place by my state, it'll be forced on me soon as well if passed.
I wouldn't hold your breath on that happening. Recall during the 1970s and 1980s there was California specific engines due to CARB emission standards being more strict. I suspect the PHEV mandate will lead to something similar and possibly this if it passes.
Should be noted that the guy sponsoring the bill (SB 961 and 960) is a hard core urbanist out of the 11th District (San Francisco and San Mateo County). Outside his immediate sphere of influence his ideals don't seem to be held as truisms. He was also the guy behind trying to push for the removal of what is left of the Central Freeway stub.
Yeah but Massachusetts has gotten worse. You won't be able to buy a gas-only car in my state in 2035 merely because California passed a law stating so. No one ever voted for a bill banning gas cars, only that if California jumps off a cliff we have to follow them. Our state supreme court also said that was somehow OK.
Consider the present automotive market conditions. Does it seem like having nothing but EV cars by 2035 is the slightest bit plausible? Even the PHEV mandate by California isn't a true EV mandate. A certain percentage of cars (35% I think off the top of my head) can be sold with ICEs so long as they have plug-in hybrid capabilities. All PHEV really means is what CARB defines as zero emissions vehicles. CARB didn't up their standards on what they consider to be "zero emission."
To that end, these are measures I certainly don't endorse or agree with. The market was trending towards EVs and cars with plug-in hybrid capabilities to begin with. So much of the PHEV mandate is dependent on California's wider clean energy initiatives which aren't exactly going as smoothly as planned. I suspect there will be delays in the mandate or California's waiver on setting their own standards might not survive the next decade.
California's PHEV allowed after the ban is 20%. Massachusetts is 0%.
You seriously don't realize how toppled over politically my state is that they'll push this through even if the results are impossible to deal with. They're even talking about banning registration of non-full EV cars after 2035, meaning you buy in another state or move to the state you're screwed. That's pretty damn extremist. Thankfully at least if California delays it, Mass gets (probably?) delayed, but it's absolutely bat-shit crazy that we have to depend on that to happen.
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 12:12:37 PMCalifornia's PHEV allowed after the ban is 20%. Massachusetts is 0%.
You seriously don't realize how toppled over politically my state is that they'll push this through even if the results are impossible to deal with. They're even talking about banning registration of non-full EV cars after 2035, meaning you buy in another state or move to the state you're screwed. That's pretty damn extremist. Thankfully at least if California delays it, Mass gets (probably?) delayed, but it's absolutely bat-shit crazy that we have to depend on that to happen.
Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. (https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-size-comparison/massachusetts-usa/california-usa) It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.
As far as I'm aware, there are several states which have passed legislation to emulate California when it comes to stuff such as this. Part of the challenge is that there are several "bowls" in California that traps pollution, especially the Los Angeles basin. It's BLEEP like this that had me considering escaping California for over a decade before being able to do so five years ago. Remember, almost 45% of California's population is in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA (https://markholtz.info/msa-losangeles) (32.98%) or the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario (https://markholtz.info/msa-riverside) (11.96%) MSAs.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2024, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 09:36:38 AM
Great, since every hair-brained idea California comes up with regarding cars is automatically put into place by my state, it'll be forced on me soon as well if passed.
I wouldn't hold your breath on that happening. Recall during the 1970s and 1980s there was California specific engines due to CARB emission standards being more strict. I suspect the PHEV mandate will lead to something similar and possibly this if it passes.
Should be noted that the guy sponsoring the bill (SB 961 and 960) is a hard core urbanist out of the 11th District (San Francisco and San Mateo County). Outside his immediate sphere of influence his ideals don't seem to be held as truisms. He was also the guy behind trying to push for the removal of what is left of the Central Freeway stub.
But also worth noting: many states are using California as a loophole to get around the fact that they can't set their own standards. So, if they want stricter standards than what the federal government sets, they pass a law saying "vehicles in our state need to meet the same standards as California". Thus, they're able to use that to get around not setting their own standards, because California is allowed to, and they're saying the California standard applies to them too.
Quote from: ZLoth on January 26, 2024, 12:37:08 PM
Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. (https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-size-comparison/massachusetts-usa/california-usa) It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.
And? What does that somehow entitle me to be forced to do what California does?
- Obviously, the federal government should set one common standard in this field, as in most fields. This is called "preemption" and it certainly should apply here.
- California is the home to junk science. Ever notice the little stickers about cancer. In California, EVERYTHING causes cancer. Which, IMHO, just blunts the effectiveness of warnings about the few things that do.
- The states have no interest in 100% compliance with SLs. The technology to force people to comply with underposted SLs has existed forever. In fact California tried it back in the days of the failed NMSL. Cop leaves LA, drives 55, no one passes him, pulls off when he gets to the Nevada line. Problem solved. Except, of course, the NO MONEY in that. And no power either, the cop doesn't get to conduct a mini-trial beside the road and let the people he is not oppressing go with a warning. And, since SLs are all about money, this proposal will go nowhere. Why, if everybody obeyed the SLs, then the traffic cops might have to deal with actual criminals, and that is dangerous and generally unprofitable.
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 01:12:19 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on January 26, 2024, 12:37:08 PM
Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. (https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-size-comparison/massachusetts-usa/california-usa) It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.
And? What does that somehow entitle me to be forced to do what California does?
This all sounds eerily like we're heading towards what pissed Americans off back in 1775. And I think that Americans care a little more about cars than they did about tea.
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 26, 2024, 01:23:19 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 01:12:19 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on January 26, 2024, 12:37:08 PM
Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. (https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-size-comparison/massachusetts-usa/california-usa) It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.
And? What does that somehow entitle me to be forced to do what California does?
This all sounds eerily like we're heading towards what pissed Americans off back in 1775. And I think that Americans care a little more about cars than they did about tea.
Impossible. There were no Americans in 1775.
I'm sure nobody would find a way to get around it. Like say, putting RF shielding over the GPS module.
Quote from: bm7 on January 26, 2024, 01:53:05 PM
I'm sure nobody would find a way to get around it. Like say, putting RF shielding over the GPS module.
Error 128: GPS signal unavailable, maximum speed limited to 25 MPH
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 26, 2024, 09:42:22 AM
I can recall places in North Carolina where the speed limit used to drop from 70 to 55 (may still do that, I just haven't driven through those locations in a few years).
Still a good amount on US-17 I recall, including in Windsor where it drops from 70 mph to 45 mph... yeah that would certainly be problematic.
Waiting for the governor to ping a location on a parallel 30mph frontage road enough times to trigger an immediate slowdown on the Interstate...
Quote from: kphoger on January 26, 2024, 02:22:58 PM
Waiting for the governor to ping a location on a parallel 30mph frontage road enough times to trigger an immediate slowdown on the Interstate...
Was it you that pointed out the problems with parallel and crossing roads with slower speed limits pinging an advisory of drivers going too fast in a business setting?
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 03:14:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 26, 2024, 02:22:58 PM
Waiting for the governor to ping a location on a parallel 30mph frontage road enough times to trigger an immediate slowdown on the Interstate...
Was it you that pointed out the problems with parallel and crossing roads with slower speed limits pinging an advisory of drivers going too fast in a business setting?
Yes, in the previous thread. We used to have speed monitoring for our tech vehicles, back when they were W2 employees. It would occasionally ping them as speeding by a LOT, but, when we dug into the data, it was pinging the speed limit on the side street crossing over or under the highway.
Then there are also speed limits that are just plain stupid and everyone ignores them for good reason. For example, the 600 yards of US-54/400 westbound out of Augusta, KS that exist between the final cross-road and the bump up to 65 mph. It would be stupid to physically prevent anyone getting up to 65 on the bridge.
Quote from: bm7 on January 26, 2024, 01:53:05 PM
I'm sure nobody would find a way to get around it. Like say, putting RF shielding over the GPS module.
Or just drive to Reno or Las Vegas to get your next post-2027 or 2035 car. I bought my Challenger in November 2015 in Florida right before I moved to California. Going one state over by comparison is not a big deal.
Unless it's your first car and you can't drive to the state line because you don't have one.
Quote from: 1 on January 26, 2024, 05:54:15 PM
Unless it's your first car and you can't drive to the state line because you don't have one.
https://www.flixbus.com/
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2024, 05:45:17 PM
Quote from: bm7 on January 26, 2024, 01:53:05 PM
I'm sure nobody would find a way to get around it. Like say, putting RF shielding over the GPS module.
Or just drive to Reno or Las Vegas to get your next post-2027 or 2035 car. I bought my Challenger in November 2015 in Florida right before I moved to California. Going one state over by comparison is not a big deal.
I feel like needing to go to another state for something (whether it's restricted by the left or right of the spectrum) is getting incredibly damn tedious.
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 06:21:15 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2024, 05:45:17 PM
Quote from: bm7 on January 26, 2024, 01:53:05 PM
I'm sure nobody would find a way to get around it. Like say, putting RF shielding over the GPS module.
Or just drive to Reno or Las Vegas to get your next post-2027 or 2035 car. I bought my Challenger in November 2015 in Florida right before I moved to California. Going one state over by comparison is not a big deal.
I feel like needing to go to another state for something (whether it's restricted by the left or right of the spectrum) is getting incredibly damn tedious.
Yes, but for my specific niche purposes it works out. All three neighbor states have plenty of "test roads" to sort out new cars on. As a side bonus, I don't have to worry about removing P65 stickers from out of state cars.
Quote from: 1 on January 26, 2024, 05:54:15 PM
Unless it's your first car and you can't drive to the state line because you don't have one.
How many first time drivers are buying new though? 2035-PHEV doesn't prohibit the purchase of used cars that originated out of state to my knowledge. Likewise I don't recall seeing anything similar for all this 2027 stuff.
Quote from: 1 on January 26, 2024, 05:54:15 PM
Unless it's your first car and you can't drive to the state line because you don't have one.
Too bad there are no commercial flights from California....
Going out of state for a car has additional hassles beyond traveling there (which also includes time, both to look at the car and purchase it, and then to pick it up when it's ready). If you buy in your local area, the dealer handles things like sales tax and DMV transactions for you. If you go out of state, you're responsible for doing that yourself.
Quote from: vdeane on January 26, 2024, 10:10:12 PM
Going out of state for a car has additional hassles beyond traveling there (which also includes time, both to look at the car and purchase it, and then to pick it up when it's ready). If you buy in your local area, the dealer handles things like sales tax and DMV transactions for you. If you go out of state, you're responsible for doing that yourself.
I definitely saw an out of state dealer doing the legwork for NY DMV. For a bit extra money, of course
Quote from: vdeane on January 26, 2024, 10:10:12 PM
Going out of state for a car has additional hassles beyond traveling there (which also includes time, both to look at the car and purchase it, and then to pick it up when it's ready). If you buy in your local area, the dealer handles things like sales tax and DMV transactions for you. If you go out of state, you're responsible for doing that yourself.
Yes, but if the state you live limits your options to nothing but cars you don't want then one must do what it takes.
So how would this work when it comes to more variable/temporary speed limits such as work zones, school zones (particularly those with the already vague "when children are present"), or places where the speed limit can be altered for traffic congestion (as planned for part of I-465) and weather conditions?
Quote from: 1 on January 26, 2024, 05:54:15 PM
Unless it's your first car and you can't drive to the state line because you don't have one.
Book a cheap flight to Vegas or Reno, take a ride share to the airport, buy your car in Nevada, and drive home.
Quote from: formulanone on January 26, 2024, 11:50:34 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 26, 2024, 09:42:22 AM
It becomes a problem when the software's database doesn't match what the signs actually say.
I get these on some rental cars; last fall, I was travelling on Missouri Highway 100 west of St. Louis and the "Speed Limit Warning" on the dash displayed "100" in the box. Presumably it the car's millimeter wave radar is just looking for a black-and-white rectangular sign with a prominent number on it that's divisible by five.
I wish I took a photo of it...
This would be a problem in Indiana and Illinois as well.
Quote from: tidecat on January 28, 2024, 07:54:06 AMBook a cheap flight to Vegas or Reno, take a ride share to the airport, buy your car in Nevada, and drive home.
Slight problem if it's a new "49 state" (non-California/CARB) vehicle whose emission system is not designed to be compliant with California emissions standards. If you are a resident of CA, you cannot register a vehicle that has less than 7,500 miles in CA if it does not comply with CA emission standards --regardless of model year. If you are moving to CA from another state, and you are bringing your vehicles which have less than 7,500 miles and are currently registered out of state, there is an exemption and you can register them in CA; even though they do not comply with CA emission standards. You must show proof the vehicle was registered out of state to qualify. Also, sales tax is based upon where you register the vehicle, not where the vehicle is sold.
BTW: The states adopting CARB standards include Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.
(For reference, it was especially important when I moved to Texas to register my vehicle within 30 days of residency, as Texas does a "flat rate" sales tax, causing the initial registration to be just less than $200+vehicle inspection. After 30 days, they takes the value of your vehicle into consideration unless you are jumping through hoops.)
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 01:12:19 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on January 26, 2024, 12:37:08 PM
Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. (https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-size-comparison/massachusetts-usa/california-usa) It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.
And? What does that somehow entitle me to be forced to do what California does?
If you don't like it, take it up with your state's government, not California's.
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 27, 2024, 11:03:06 PM
So how would this work when it comes to more variable/temporary speed limits such as work zones, school zones (particularly those with the already vague "when children are present"), or places where the speed limit can be altered for traffic congestion (as planned for part of I-465) and weather conditions?
I would imagine for simplicity's sake it would just use the normal speed limit of the road.
Quote from: kkt on January 28, 2024, 04:03:01 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 01:12:19 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on January 26, 2024, 12:37:08 PM
Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. (https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-size-comparison/massachusetts-usa/california-usa) It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.
And? What does that somehow entitle me to be forced to do what California does?
If you don't like it, take it up with your state's government, not California's.
My point was what does Mass being 20 times smaller than Cali have anything to do with it.
Quote from: bm7 on January 28, 2024, 04:04:26 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 27, 2024, 11:03:06 PM
So how would this work when it comes to more variable/temporary speed limits such as work zones, school zones (particularly those with the already vague "when children are present"), or places where the speed limit can be altered for traffic congestion (as planned for part of I-465) and weather conditions?
I would imagine for simplicity's sake it would just use the normal speed limit of the road.
So where safety is most important, the law will offer the least amount of help.
As far as "When Children Are Present" goes, the states have guidelines as to what that message represents.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 28, 2024, 10:29:17 PM
Quote from: bm7 on January 28, 2024, 04:04:26 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 27, 2024, 11:03:06 PM
So how would this work when it comes to more variable/temporary speed limits such as work zones, school zones (particularly those with the already vague "when children are present"), or places where the speed limit can be altered for traffic congestion (as planned for part of I-465) and weather conditions?
I would imagine for simplicity's sake it would just use the normal speed limit of the road.
So where safety is most important, the law will offer the least amount of help.
As far as "When Children Are Present" goes, the states have guidelines as to what that message represents.
Almost as though it was written as a virtue signal rather than being an effective and well thought out piece of legislation.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2024, 01:29:31 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 26, 2024, 01:23:19 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 01:12:19 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on January 26, 2024, 12:37:08 PM
Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. (https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-size-comparison/massachusetts-usa/california-usa) It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.
And? What does that somehow entitle me to be forced to do what California does?
This all sounds eerily like we're heading towards what pissed Americans off back in 1775. And I think that Americans care a little more about cars than they did about tea.
Impossible. There were no Americans in 1775.
Gestationally, there were.
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 29, 2024, 09:42:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2024, 01:29:31 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 26, 2024, 01:23:19 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 01:12:19 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on January 26, 2024, 12:37:08 PM
Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. (https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-size-comparison/massachusetts-usa/california-usa) It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.
And? What does that somehow entitle me to be forced to do what California does?
This all sounds eerily like we're heading towards what pissed Americans off back in 1775. And I think that Americans care a little more about cars than they did about tea.
Impossible. There were no Americans in 1775.
Gestationally, there were.
New Spain didn't even have much of a grip on what now California in 1775.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 29, 2024, 09:42:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2024, 01:29:31 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 26, 2024, 01:23:19 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 01:12:19 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on January 26, 2024, 12:37:08 PM
Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. (https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-size-comparison/massachusetts-usa/california-usa) It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.
And? What does that somehow entitle me to be forced to do what California does?
This all sounds eerily like we're heading towards what pissed Americans off back in 1775. And I think that Americans care a little more about cars than they did about tea.
Impossible. There were no Americans in 1775.
Gestationally, there were.
New Spain didn't even have much of a grip on what now California in 1775.
Who did?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 29, 2024, 09:42:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2024, 01:29:31 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 26, 2024, 01:23:19 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 01:12:19 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on January 26, 2024, 12:37:08 PM
Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. (https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-size-comparison/massachusetts-usa/california-usa) It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.
And? What does that somehow entitle me to be forced to do what California does?
This all sounds eerily like we're heading towards what pissed Americans off back in 1775. And I think that Americans care a little more about cars than they did about tea.
Impossible. There were no Americans in 1775.
Gestationally, there were.
New Spain didn't even have much of a grip on what now California in 1775.
Someone needs to get a grip on California 249 years later.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 01:03:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 28, 2024, 10:29:17 PM
Quote from: bm7 on January 28, 2024, 04:04:26 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 27, 2024, 11:03:06 PM
So how would this work when it comes to more variable/temporary speed limits such as work zones, school zones (particularly those with the already vague "when children are present"), or places where the speed limit can be altered for traffic congestion (as planned for part of I-465) and weather conditions?
I would imagine for simplicity's sake it would just use the normal speed limit of the road.
So where safety is most important, the law will offer the least amount of help.
As far as "When Children Are Present" goes, the states have guidelines as to what that message represents.
Almost as though it was written as a virtue signal rather than being an effective and well thought out piece of legislation.
Or, playing devil's advocate here, they figured they could cover some cases even if they couldn't cover all of them.
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 29, 2024, 12:46:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 29, 2024, 09:42:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2024, 01:29:31 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 26, 2024, 01:23:19 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 01:12:19 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on January 26, 2024, 12:37:08 PM
Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. (https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-size-comparison/massachusetts-usa/california-usa) It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.
And? What does that somehow entitle me to be forced to do what California does?
This all sounds eerily like we're heading towards what pissed Americans off back in 1775. And I think that Americans care a little more about cars than they did about tea.
Impossible. There were no Americans in 1775.
Gestationally, there were.
New Spain didn't even have much of a grip on what now California in 1775.
Someone needs to get a grip on California 249 years later.
Trouble is that there is a sizable crowd out there in this state that advocates for stuff like SB 960 and 961. That "grip" you speak of seemingly often is in the eye of the beholder.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 03:41:31 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 29, 2024, 12:46:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 29, 2024, 09:42:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2024, 01:29:31 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 26, 2024, 01:23:19 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 01:12:19 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on January 26, 2024, 12:37:08 PM
Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. (https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-size-comparison/massachusetts-usa/california-usa) It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.
And? What does that somehow entitle me to be forced to do what California does?
This all sounds eerily like we're heading towards what pissed Americans off back in 1775. And I think that Americans care a little more about cars than they did about tea.
Impossible. There were no Americans in 1775.
Gestationally, there were.
New Spain didn't even have much of a grip on what now California in 1775.
Someone needs to get a grip on California 249 years later.
Trouble is that there is a sizable crowd out there in this state that advocates for stuff like SB 960 and 961. That "grip" you speak of seemingly often is in the eye of the beholder.
Tyranny of the majority.
Quote from: SectorZ on January 29, 2024, 06:47:14 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 03:41:31 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 29, 2024, 12:46:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 29, 2024, 09:42:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2024, 01:29:31 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 26, 2024, 01:23:19 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 26, 2024, 01:12:19 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on January 26, 2024, 12:37:08 PM
Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. (https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-size-comparison/massachusetts-usa/california-usa) It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.
And? What does that somehow entitle me to be forced to do what California does?
This all sounds eerily like we're heading towards what pissed Americans off back in 1775. And I think that Americans care a little more about cars than they did about tea.
Impossible. There were no Americans in 1775.
Gestationally, there were.
New Spain didn't even have much of a grip on what now California in 1775.
Someone needs to get a grip on California 249 years later.
Trouble is that there is a sizable crowd out there in this state that advocates for stuff like SB 960 and 961. That "grip" you speak of seemingly often is in the eye of the beholder.
Tyranny of the majority.
Is it though? I cannot think of a regular person I know that would be enthusiastic about Senate Bills like this. Trouble is that most of the same people probably don't even know what a Senate Bill is or what is actively being pursued as legislation.
I don't know, I've worked in the safety managment field for over two decades of my life. I feel as though as there is a poor understanding about what actual safety measures are. Worse is that anything that tends to have some sort of cursory safety element gets lumped into a category of "you can't question safety" even though when it is totally outlandish or impractical.
Frankly I'd be impressed if a state leg did the opposite: Prohibit all governors from all vehicles. It was a better world when I could draft like Dale Earnhardt off the back of an 18-wheeler doing 90.
(This move would be on brand for about 13 states off the top of my head.)
I can envision somewhere like Arizona putting something like that into a legislative bill as a response. Some states did something similar (or tried) when the PHEV mandate was first becoming a thing.
Quote from: Road Hog on January 29, 2024, 06:59:53 PM
Frankly I'd be impressed if a state leg did the opposite: Prohibit all governors from all vehicles. It was a better world when I could draft like Dale Earnhardt off the back of an 18-wheeler doing 90.
(This move would be on brand for about 13 states off the top of my head.)
I actually think this is what should happen. Trucks struggling to pass each other on a two lane highway both going 5 miles an hour below the speed limit due to governors sucks, and there are times where speeding is required for safety purposes.
If excessive speed is an issue, reduce road design standards. You won't need any governors or speed cameras if going five over the speed limit turns drivers' knuckles as white as snow. There's better ways to do this than have a component on my car that can cause additional issues, and probably be circumvented with technical expertise anyways.
Quote from: Road Hog on January 29, 2024, 06:59:53 PM
Frankly I'd be impressed if a state leg did the opposite: Prohibit all governors from all vehicles. It was a better world when I could draft like Dale Earnhardt off the back of an 18-wheeler doing 90.
(This move would be on brand for about 13 states off the top of my head.)
I get the idea that a too-low speed maximum (say 65 or 55) would lead to NASCAR-style* drafting on freeways due to impatience, and I don't think it would actually make roads safer for that reason alone.
* or whatever floats your slipstream
The best fuel economy run I had in my 2011 Ford Fiesta was when I drafted a fast semi doing 80 MPH west of Phoenix. There was a line of two other cars doing the same thing and it resulted in a 54.1 MPG run.
Not that I'm advocating I was in anyway being safe. I just wanted to see if I could hit a high number.
Quote from: Hobart on January 29, 2024, 07:11:31 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on January 29, 2024, 06:59:53 PM
Frankly I'd be impressed if a state leg did the opposite: Prohibit all governors from all vehicles. It was a better world when I could draft like Dale Earnhardt off the back of an 18-wheeler doing 90.
(This move would be on brand for about 13 states off the top of my head.)
I actually think this is what should happen. Trucks struggling to pass each other on a two lane highway both going 5 miles an hour below the speed limit due to governors sucks, and there are times where speeding is required for safety purposes.
If excessive speed is an issue, reduce road design standards. You won't need any governors or speed cameras if going five over the speed limit turns drivers' knuckles as white as snow. There's better ways to do this than have a component on my car that can cause additional issues, and probably be circumvented with technical expertise anyways.
Wouldn't it just make more sense to set the speed limit based on the road design standards rather than the other way around? Seems more reasonable than to make the road more unsafe as a response to frequent speeding.
Quote from: DriverDave on January 29, 2024, 07:25:12 PM
Quote from: Hobart on January 29, 2024, 07:11:31 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on January 29, 2024, 06:59:53 PM
Frankly I'd be impressed if a state leg did the opposite: Prohibit all governors from all vehicles. It was a better world when I could draft like Dale Earnhardt off the back of an 18-wheeler doing 90.
(This move would be on brand for about 13 states off the top of my head.)
I actually think this is what should happen. Trucks struggling to pass each other on a two lane highway both going 5 miles an hour below the speed limit due to governors sucks, and there are times where speeding is required for safety purposes.
If excessive speed is an issue, reduce road design standards. You won't need any governors or speed cameras if going five over the speed limit turns drivers' knuckles as white as snow. There's better ways to do this than have a component on my car that can cause additional issues, and probably be circumvented with technical expertise anyways.
Wouldn't it just make more sense to set the speed limit based on the road design standards rather than the other way around? Seems more reasonable than to make the road more unsafe as a response to frequent speeding.
It depends on the context. A rural highway? Sure, of course it makes sense to set the speed limit based on the road design rather than adjust the road design to prefer a particular speed. A city street with lots of pedestrian traffic? There it makes more sense to slow down the cars, by changing the design when necessary.
Quote from: ZLoth on January 28, 2024, 12:30:56 PM
Quote from: tidecat on January 28, 2024, 07:54:06 AMBook a cheap flight to Vegas or Reno, take a ride share to the airport, buy your car in Nevada, and drive home.
Slight problem if it's a new "49 state" (non-California/CARB) vehicle whose emission system is not designed to be compliant with California emissions standards. If you are a resident of CA, you cannot register a vehicle that has less than 7,500 miles in CA if it does not comply with CA emission standards --regardless of model year.
Nevada is a pretty big state, so a lap around it is a hair under 1200 miles (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/las+vegas/reno/West+Wendover,+NV/Las+Vegas,+NV/@38.6166641,-119.5807586,7z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m26!4m25!1m5!1m1!1s0x80beb782a4f57dd1:0x3accd5e6d5b379a3!2m2!1d-115.1391009!2d36.171563!1m5!1m1!1s0x809940ae9292a09d:0x40c5c5ce7438f787!2m2!1d-119.8142691!2d39.529919!1m5!1m1!1s0x80ac270a3fd12af5:0xf9335e58ce501155!2m2!1d-114.073345!2d40.739097!1m5!1m1!1s0x80beb782a4f57dd1:0x3accd5e6d5b379a3!2m2!1d-115.1391009!2d36.171563!3e0?entry=ttu). So buy the car in NV, do 7 laps around the state, and you should be good to go to register it in CA.
I'm pretty confident I'll do 7,500 miles within four/five months of regular driving just around where I live now. Come 2035 I'll definitely be inclined to purchase out east and knock out a solid 3,000 miles right off the dealer lot heading home. It is also a pretty big assumption I'll be in California by 2035 given how the previous 12 years have gone.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 29, 2024, 11:55:15 PM
Nevada is a pretty big state, so a lap around it is a hair under 1200 miles (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/las+vegas/reno/West+Wendover,+NV/Las+Vegas,+NV/@38.6166641,-119.5807586,7z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m26!4m25!1m5!1m1!1s0x80beb782a4f57dd1:0x3accd5e6d5b379a3!2m2!1d-115.1391009!2d36.171563!1m5!1m1!1s0x809940ae9292a09d:0x40c5c5ce7438f787!2m2!1d-119.8142691!2d39.529919!1m5!1m1!1s0x80ac270a3fd12af5:0xf9335e58ce501155!2m2!1d-114.073345!2d40.739097!1m5!1m1!1s0x80beb782a4f57dd1:0x3accd5e6d5b379a3!2m2!1d-115.1391009!2d36.171563!3e0?entry=ttu). So buy the car in NV, do 7 laps around the state, and you should be good to go to register it in CA.
I escaped California five years ago, so it's a non-issue for me. Plus, the list of reasons for not moving back keeps getting longer.
Quote from: ZLoth on January 30, 2024, 12:02:42 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 29, 2024, 11:55:15 PM
Nevada is a pretty big state, so a lap around it is a hair under 1200 miles (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/las+vegas/reno/West+Wendover,+NV/Las+Vegas,+NV/@38.6166641,-119.5807586,7z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m26!4m25!1m5!1m1!1s0x80beb782a4f57dd1:0x3accd5e6d5b379a3!2m2!1d-115.1391009!2d36.171563!1m5!1m1!1s0x809940ae9292a09d:0x40c5c5ce7438f787!2m2!1d-119.8142691!2d39.529919!1m5!1m1!1s0x80ac270a3fd12af5:0xf9335e58ce501155!2m2!1d-114.073345!2d40.739097!1m5!1m1!1s0x80beb782a4f57dd1:0x3accd5e6d5b379a3!2m2!1d-115.1391009!2d36.171563!3e0?entry=ttu). So buy the car in NV, do 7 laps around the state, and you should be good to go to register it in CA.
I escaped California five years ago, so it's a non-issue for me. Plus, the list of reasons for not moving back keeps getting longer.
Yes, the state one user on this forum lives in (and whether he'd like to take the opportunity to toot his own horn about it) is definitely a determining factor for whether the joke works or not.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 06:52:01 PM
what a Senate Bill is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cassidy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Hagerty
Quote from: Road Hog on January 29, 2024, 06:59:53 PM
Frankly I'd be impressed if a state leg did the opposite: Prohibit all governors from all vehicles. It was a better world when I could draft like Dale Earnhardt off the back of an 18-wheeler doing 90.
(This move would be on brand for about 13 states off the top of my head.)
You mean, the states actually experiencing continued healthy growth?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 06:52:01 PM
I cannot think of a regular person I know that would be enthusiastic about Senate Bills like this.
I'm at least somewhat supportive of something similar. I suspect this sort of Senate Bill will not do very well at the statewide level, but some version of this can make sense in a place like San Francisco. I don't think there are many high-speed roads in Scott Weiner's district where people regularly go over the speed limit by more than 10mph, except for I-280 --- where 80mph is pretty safe most of the time!
Most of this thread has been about freeways and rural highways, and I don't think that's actually where the attention needs to be. On a purpose-built road designed for higher speeds, with no pedestrians at all, I don't see an issue with higher speeds. The problems that I've seen have involved dangerous driving at excessive speed on city streets where there are lots of pedestrians, bikes, and generally a high level of road users (and parking) of all types. See also: some recent proposals to ban right turn on red in San Francisco (which I think makes sense for a good part of the city, although maybe not all of it - again, because we have high pedestrian density and RTOR has led to dangerous or at least rage-inducing situations).
My prediction is that this will die at the statewide level but some local version may happen in certain places. And if localized, it would have to be camera / photo based rather than required hardware on the vehicle.
I suppose if you believe that speeding is a problem (I do, on many city streets), and you also believe that selective enforcement of speeding is a problem (I do, although definitely a debate), something like this is a logical conclusion because it takes the "selective" out of enforcement.
Quote from: citrus on January 30, 2024, 11:42:41 AM
My prediction is that this will die at the statewide level but some local version may happen in certain places. And if localized, it would have to be camera / photo based rather than required hardware on the vehicle.
So, now we're talking about photo speed enforcement (speed cameras), not internal speed limiters.
The state did authorize San Francisco to test pilot a speed enforcement program already.
Quote from: Road Hog on January 29, 2024, 06:59:53 PM
Frankly I'd be impressed if a state leg did the opposite: Prohibit all governors from all vehicles.
I mean, I've always wanted to tell the governor to take a hike, so I support any legislation requiring it as his only means of getting around.
Kind of sucks for the governors of large western states to be prohibited from all vehicles though. It's a long way from Carson City to Las Vegas.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2024, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on January 29, 2024, 06:59:53 PM
Frankly I'd be impressed if a state leg did the opposite: Prohibit all governors from all vehicles.
I mean, I've always wanted to tell the governor to take a hike, so I support any legislation requiring it as his only means of getting around.
Kind of sucks for the governors of large western states to be prohibited from all vehicles though. It's a long way from Carson City to Las Vegas.
Well that's too bad, but it's a part of the job I guess. They better get a good pair of walking shoes...
Does a bicycle count as a vehicle?
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2024, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on January 29, 2024, 06:59:53 PM
Frankly I'd be impressed if a state leg did the opposite: Prohibit all governors from all vehicles.
I mean, I've always wanted to tell the governor to take a hike, so I support any legislation requiring it as his only means of getting around.
Kind of sucks for the governors of large western states to be prohibited from all vehicles though. It's a long way from Carson City to Las Vegas.
That thought kept going to my mind too, thinking the wrong governor.
Mine can take the MBTA Red Line to work as she lives within walking distance of its northern terminus, but instead lets the staties drive her around in a Chevy Suburban.
Quote from: Brandon on January 31, 2024, 10:51:33 AM
Quote from: kphoger on January 31, 2024, 09:11:09 AM
Does a bicycle count as a vehicle?
Yes.
Well, I suppose that's good. Back when I used to get calls from India about my extended warranty's expiration, and they asked me what kind of vehicle I owned, I used to tell them it was a
2008 Mercedes-Benz Trailblazer (https://www.tuvie.com/the-trailblazer-mercedes-benz-bike/).
Quote from: kphoger on January 31, 2024, 10:59:31 AMBack when I used to get calls from India about my extended warranty's expiration, and they asked me what kind of vehicle I owned, I used to tell them it was a 2008 Mercedes-Benz Trailblazer (https://www.tuvie.com/the-trailblazer-mercedes-benz-bike/).
Oh, you are
evil. For those extended warranty calls, that's a
good thing.
Quote from: ZLoth on January 31, 2024, 12:25:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 31, 2024, 10:59:31 AM
Back when I used to get calls from India about my extended warranty's expiration, and they asked me what kind of vehicle I owned, I used to tell them it was a 2008 Mercedes-Benz Trailblazer (https://www.tuvie.com/the-trailblazer-mercedes-benz-bike/).
Oh, you are evil. For those extended warranty calls, that's a good thing.
I also used to keep a slip of paper in my wallet with
a phony name and address (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24655.msg2562934#msg2562934), so I could be consistent in giving them the wrong information. (It's no longer in my wallet. Hmm. I probably removed it last time I traveled out of the country.) Also a bogus Visa credit card number whose check digit worked out correctly but wasn't actually tied to any bank.
Before that, I once had a scammer convinced—after 20 minutes of stringing him along—that I owned a Disney Diners Club credit card. He was amazed, but he actually believed it. His "supervisor" didn't.
Quote from: kphoger on January 31, 2024, 01:35:02 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on January 31, 2024, 12:25:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 31, 2024, 10:59:31 AM
Back when I used to get calls from India about my extended warranty's expiration, and they asked me what kind of vehicle I owned, I used to tell them it was a 2008 Mercedes-Benz Trailblazer (https://www.tuvie.com/the-trailblazer-mercedes-benz-bike/).
Oh, you are evil. For those extended warranty calls, that's a good thing.
I also used to keep a slip of paper in my wallet with a phony name and address (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24655.msg2562934#msg2562934), so I could be consistent in giving them the wrong information. (It's no longer in my wallet. Hmm. I probably removed it last time I traveled out of the country.) Also a bogus Visa credit card number whose check digit worked out correctly but wasn't actually tied to any bank.
Before that, I once had a scammer convinced—after 20 minutes of stringing him along—that I owned a Disney Diners Club credit card. He was amazed, but he actually believed it. His "supervisor" didn't.
They're fun to string along, aren't they. I've actually gotten them to the point where they cuss me out for having wasted their time.
Quote from: Brandon on January 31, 2024, 01:52:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 31, 2024, 01:35:02 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on January 31, 2024, 12:25:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 31, 2024, 10:59:31 AM
Back when I used to get calls from India about my extended warranty's expiration, and they asked me what kind of vehicle I owned, I used to tell them it was a 2008 Mercedes-Benz Trailblazer (https://www.tuvie.com/the-trailblazer-mercedes-benz-bike/).
Oh, you are evil. For those extended warranty calls, that's a good thing.
I also used to keep a slip of paper in my wallet with a phony name and address (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24655.msg2562934#msg2562934), so I could be consistent in giving them the wrong information. (It's no longer in my wallet. Hmm. I probably removed it last time I traveled out of the country.) Also a bogus Visa credit card number whose check digit worked out correctly but wasn't actually tied to any bank.
Before that, I once had a scammer convinced—after 20 minutes of stringing him along—that I owned a Disney Diners Club credit card. He was amazed, but he actually believed it. His "supervisor" didn't.
They're fun to string along, aren't they. I've actually gotten them to the point where they cuss me out for having wasted their time.
A few years ago I had some fun watching YT clips of foreign scammers being strung along for such rides and then having serious ransomeware being installed on their PCs. Hilarious!
Mike
I would have loved to have that support desk "fix" the issues that were occurring with the "windows" of a Ubuntu desktop running on a virtualization. I don't see a big blue e on my desk. How do I get the Internet? I click on a icon called "Web Browser". Describe that icon? It looks like a donut.
Quote from: Brandon on January 31, 2024, 01:52:35 PM
I've actually gotten them to the point where they cuss me out for having wasted their time.
On the other hand . . .
Quote from: kphoger on March 13, 2019, 01:56:54 PM
Once, I had a five-minute-long conversation about pooping with the guy on the other end.
OK, continuing off topic:
Back when you used to get phone calls almost daily about changing your long distance service, my sister in law would say, "Oh, sorry, we don't have a phone." Often the reply would be, "Sorry for bothering you."
Quote from: GaryV on January 31, 2024, 03:01:23 PM
OK, continuing off topic:
Back when you used to get phone calls almost daily about changing your long distance service, my sister in law would say, "Oh, sorry, we don't have a phone." Often the reply would be, "Sorry for bothering you."
Yep. Again, from the other thread:
Quote from: kphoger on April 26, 2022, 04:47:10 PM
Quote from: GaryV on April 26, 2022, 04:44:39 PM
Back when signing up for a long-distance provider was a thing, my sister-in-law would respond to telemarketers who wanted her to change. "Oh, sorry, we don't have a phone." Some of them bought it and apologized for the bother.'
My dad has done that before. What are they going to do, call you a liar?
I tried it once recently. The guy asked me how I was talking to him then. I said I didn't know. That conversation didn't last long.
Quote from: kphoger on January 31, 2024, 02:48:44 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 31, 2024, 01:52:35 PM
I've actually gotten them to the point where they cuss me out for having wasted their time.
On the other hand . . .
Quote from: kphoger on March 13, 2019, 01:56:54 PM
Once, I had a five-minute-long conversation about pooping with the guy on the other end.
Bandit would be proud.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2024, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on January 29, 2024, 06:59:53 PM
Frankly I'd be impressed if a state leg did the opposite: Prohibit all governors from all vehicles.
I mean, I've always wanted to tell the governor to take a hike, so I support any legislation requiring it as his only means of getting around.
Kind of sucks for the governors of large western states to be prohibited from all vehicles though. It's a long way from Carson City to Las Vegas.
NY governor has a personal service helicopter. Keeping them off the road a bit.
Business jet flights for long trips, 40 miles and above, also happen.
Do helicopters and jets count as vehicles?
Quote from: algorerhythms on January 29, 2024, 11:43:16 PM
Quote from: DriverDave on January 29, 2024, 07:25:12 PM
Quote from: Hobart on January 29, 2024, 07:11:31 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on January 29, 2024, 06:59:53 PM
Frankly I'd be impressed if a state leg did the opposite: Prohibit all governors from all vehicles. It was a better world when I could draft like Dale Earnhardt off the back of an 18-wheeler doing 90.
(This move would be on brand for about 13 states off the top of my head.)
I actually think this is what should happen. Trucks struggling to pass each other on a two lane highway both going 5 miles an hour below the speed limit due to governors sucks, and there are times where speeding is required for safety purposes.
If excessive speed is an issue, reduce road design standards. You won't need any governors or speed cameras if going five over the speed limit turns drivers' knuckles as white as snow. There's better ways to do this than have a component on my car that can cause additional issues, and probably be circumvented with technical expertise anyways.
Wouldn't it just make more sense to set the speed limit based on the road design standards rather than the other way around? Seems more reasonable than to make the road more unsafe as a response to frequent speeding.
It depends on the context. A rural highway? Sure, of course it makes sense to set the speed limit based on the road design rather than adjust the road design to prefer a particular speed. A city street with lots of pedestrian traffic? There it makes more sense to slow down the cars, by changing the design when necessary.
Even in that context, if I am understanding this correctly, that means deliberately getting rid of a lane for the purpose of slowing cars down? Why not just put all that effort into increasing pedestrian safety such as building overpasses or improving the traffic light system? Instead of closing a perfectly good lane that may be needed in heavy traffic.
Quote from: GaryV on January 31, 2024, 03:01:23 PM
Back when you used to get phone calls almost daily about changing your long distance service, my sister in law would say, "Oh, sorry, we don't have a phone." Often the reply would be, "Sorry for bothering you."
When I was like 8, I answered the phone to one of these guys once. I responded by asking how long is it? He said nationwide. I said which nation? Some nations are wider than others. Chile, for instance, isn't very wide at all. He called me an asshole and hung up.
Quote from: DriverDave on January 31, 2024, 09:19:51 PM
Even in that context, if I am understanding this correctly, that means deliberately getting rid of a lane for the purpose of slowing cars down? Why not just put all that effort into increasing pedestrian safety such as building overpasses or improving the traffic light system? Instead of closing a perfectly good lane that may be needed in heavy traffic.
In most (all?) cases of a road diet that I'm familiar with, the lane wasn't really needed to begin with, and flow was just fine even in heavy traffic afterward. And restriping lanes is a lot cheaper than most any other type of improvement.
I don't know. I doubt someone who drives 50 mph through residential areas would be deterred by a slightly thinner road. Just increase normal enforcement in those areas.
Again - in most places road diets are done, there's not a need for 2 or 3 lanes each way (whatever it may be), therefore that lane can be repurposed.
I've seen several instances of a 4 lane undivided road with light traffic volumes turned into a 3 lane street with a center turn lane, that actually is safer since it can remove turning traffic from the travel lane.
Quote from: DriverDave on February 01, 2024, 12:35:36 PM
I don't know. I doubt someone who drives 50 mph through residential areas would be deterred by a slightly thinner road. Just increase normal enforcement in those areas.
The purpose is not so much to stop that kind of driver from speeding (there's basically nothing you can do to stop that), but to stop the people who mean well but don't really pay attention to the speed limit sign (or forgot what it said) and do 5-10 over because the road feels like it was designed for that speed.
It's kind of interesting how easy it is to influence driver speed with what are essentially psychological tricks. There's some freeway interchange (I think in Milwaukee?) where they were able to slow drivers down on the ramps just by painting oddly-spaced lines across the lanes. They trick drivers into thinking they're going faster than they actually are, so they slow down.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2024, 09:08:55 PM
It's kind of interesting how easy it is to influence driver speed with what are essentially psychological tricks. There's some freeway interchange (I think in Milwaukee?) where they were able to slow drivers down on the ramps just by painting oddly-spaced lines across the lanes. They trick drivers into thinking they're going faster than they actually are, so they slow down.
That was done until they reconstructed the Mitchel Interchange by Milwaukee. There is also one still used by Atlanta: https://maps.app.goo.gl/rwDv5PD4yjjjXnjLA
A physically narrower road does wonders to slow average motorists down. Drivers tend to go as fast as the road "feels". We've all experienced this on divided arterials with under-fit speed limits. The road looks and feels like one I should be doing about 40 on, but if it's posted for 25, it's going to be super hard to comply with that, psychologically.
Take that same four lane divided arterial and shrink the lanes from 12 feet to 10 feet wide, bring landscaping right up to the left should, add curb bump-outs and on-street parking. Maybe textured concrete at intersections if there's money for it. Now 25 doesn't feel so mis-matched for the road I'm on and I'll drive close to that speed.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2024, 09:08:55 PM
There's some freeway interchange (I think in Milwaukee?) where they were able to slow drivers down on the ramps just by painting oddly-spaced lines across the lanes. They trick drivers into thinking they're going faster than they actually are, so they slow down.
Very common in Mexico.
Random example here. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/rNPREbtLQirqcRXM8) And, somewhere around there, I've seen a passive-aggressive nanny sign whose translation is basically "slow down / avoid installation of speed bumps".
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2024, 12:52:20 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2024, 09:08:55 PM
There's some freeway interchange (I think in Milwaukee?) where they were able to slow drivers down on the ramps just by painting oddly-spaced lines across the lanes. They trick drivers into thinking they're going faster than they actually are, so they slow down.
Very common in Mexico.
Random example here. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/rNPREbtLQirqcRXM8) And, somewhere around there, I've seen a passive-aggressive nanny sign whose translation is basically "slow down / avoid installation of speed bumps".
Those speed bumps are often placed at major highway junctions. I had the misfortune of coming up on some which weren't painted headed south on Federal Highway 15 approaching Federal Highway 23 and hit them way too damn fast. Luckily I was in a truck and nobody was around.
Quote from: Big John on February 01, 2024, 09:13:51 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2024, 09:08:55 PM
It's kind of interesting how easy it is to influence driver speed with what are essentially psychological tricks. There's some freeway interchange (I think in Milwaukee?) where they were able to slow drivers down on the ramps just by painting oddly-spaced lines across the lanes. They trick drivers into thinking they're going faster than they actually are, so they slow down.
That was done until they reconstructed the Mitchel Interchange by Milwaukee. There is also one still used by Atlanta: https://maps.app.goo.gl/rwDv5PD4yjjjXnjLA
The ramp from I-495 inner to I-95 north in College Park MD has this too (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.019054,-76.9587238,3a,68.6y,94.38h,83.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNLuurXEWijKnO_vtKP4w-A!2e0!5s20221001T000000!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu) - the ticks get closer together as you continue down the ramp as well (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0191887,-76.9577853,156m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu).
Quote from: Big John on February 01, 2024, 09:13:51 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2024, 09:08:55 PM
It's kind of interesting how easy it is to influence driver speed with what are essentially psychological tricks. There's some freeway interchange (I think in Milwaukee?) where they were able to slow drivers down on the ramps just by painting oddly-spaced lines across the lanes. They trick drivers into thinking they're going faster than they actually are, so they slow down.
That was done until they reconstructed the Mitchel Interchange by Milwaukee. There is also one still used by Atlanta: https://maps.app.goo.gl/rwDv5PD4yjjjXnjLA
I was worried that those chevrons would be a driving hazard in wet weather. Yea, I remember WisDOT trying that for a slow curve that many drivers were 'missing'.
Mike
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2024, 12:52:20 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2024, 09:08:55 PM
There's some freeway interchange (I think in Milwaukee?) where they were able to slow drivers down on the ramps just by painting oddly-spaced lines across the lanes. They trick drivers into thinking they're going faster than they actually are, so they slow down.
Very common in Mexico.
Random example here. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/rNPREbtLQirqcRXM8) And, somewhere around there, I've seen a passive-aggressive nanny sign whose translation is basically "slow down / avoid installation of speed bumps".
This has been bugging me: I could swear I remember seeing this treatment where I-39 meets US-20 at Rockford, IL. However, I am totally unable to find any evidence of it now.
Quote from: kphoger on February 07, 2024, 12:36:38 PM
This has been bugging me: I could swear I remember seeing this treatment where I-39 meets US-20 at Rockford, IL. However, I am totally unable to find any evidence of it now.
I think they had that on the SB ramp following I-39 at the Cherry Valley Interchange prior to the last repaving.
^The 2005 and 2006 Google Earth imagery shows them on NB I-39 prior to the bridge over the I-90 mainline.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 09, 2024, 10:58:12 PM
^The 2005 and 2006 Google Earth imagery shows them on NB I-39 prior to the bridge over the I-90 mainline.
That would've been back when I-39 went through the loop ramp there. In 2006-07, IIRC, it was reconstructed to remove the loop and to the current configuration.
Thanks, guys! Good to know I was remembering correctly, even if not quite the right interchange.