Is technological regression a thing?

[Beltway]

It's not about the mpg.  It's about the control.  I'll wager anything that I, with a manual, can come to a complete stop faster in snow and ice than you can with a slushbox (even with ABS).

That doesn't seem to pass engineering muster.  I've never heard that transmission type had anything to do with stopping distance.

It's called downshifting.  That causes the engine to brake and turn the wheels slower.  Look it up.

Yes, I know what downshifting is.  Every automatic I have had has the ability to shift manually.  I regularly downshift on long downhill grades.

[empirestate]

50 mile for TV is at the very edge, if not beyond, line-of-sight reception distance for a reasonable tower height.. SO yes, totally fringe of zone.

Right, but you weren't referring to the physical fringe, you were talking about the fringes of society, of common experience. Many people live near me, all within the same 50 miles of the city–and many more live farther out. So, the situation is something that can be experienced by a broad segment of the population; and indeed, when I bring this up in conversation, people immediately understand what I'm referring to and can immediately relate. By contrast, if I were to tell a story of having to fashion a new stone axe to replace one I'd broken, this isn't something most people would find familiar. And that's true whether I told the story in Times Square, or downtown Poughkeepsie.

Communications... Once again, you were talking about call transfer - option probably unused in personal communications and mostly important for business.

That's correct, phone transfers mostly occur in business situations–I even directly mentioned customer service, if I recall correctly. So, again, not a fringe occurrence, but something many people will have experienced.

Or putting things in more roadgeeky style... NMSL, if implemented today - better at 45-50 MPH - would save a lot of lives. 99.999% of the rides would benefit from increased speed - but last fraction of percent is where you loose. Percentage of killed or injured on a road is not that big - but if you are in that small group... it sucks big time..  So, speed limit increase is Elmer as well?

I don't think so, as the selection of a speed limit is not a technological system.

[abefroman329]

I once rented a Cadillac that had paddle shifters on the steering wheel for the Tap-Shift/Auto-Stick feature.

[kalvado]

50 mile for TV is at the very edge, if not beyond, line-of-sight reception distance for a reasonable tower height.. SO yes, totally fringe of zone.

Right, but you weren't referring to the physical fringe, you were talking about the fringes of society, of common experience. Many people live near me, all within the same 50 miles of the city–and many more live farther out. So, the situation is something that can be experienced by a broad segment of the population; and indeed, when I bring this up in conversation, people immediately understand what I'm referring to and can immediately relate. By contrast, if I were to tell a story of having to fashion a new stone axe to replace one I'd broken, this isn't something most people would find familiar. And that's true whether I told the story in Times Square, or downtown Poughkeepsie.

Communications... Once again, you were talking about call transfer - option probably unused in personal communications and mostly important for business.

That's correct, phone transfers mostly occur in business situations–I even directly mentioned customer service, if I recall correctly. So, again, not a fringe occurrence, but something many people will have experienced.

Or putting things in more roadgeeky style... NMSL, if implemented today - better at 45-50 MPH - would save a lot of lives. 99.999% of the rides would benefit from increased speed - but last fraction of percent is where you loose. Percentage of killed or injured on a road is not that big - but if you are in that small group... it sucks big time..  So, speed limit increase is Elmer as well?

I don't think so, as the selection of a speed limit is not a technological system.

TV: as a thought... would expansion of urban areas, putting more people at physical edge of reception zone, be part of a problem?
Phone: I think we're more or less converging... Business developed  alternative communication protocols - e.g. e-mail, where unneeded part (emotions) are removed; and personal communication developed a different set of protocols with new features (like video) where unneeded features (transfers) are not used. Those stuck to old protocols (plain phone, snail mail) get service degradation due to reduced demand for those systems.
Speed: of course that is part of technological environment, as everything - roads, vehicles - is designed with target speed limit in mind...

[mgk920]

As for stopping on snow and ice, a trick I learned years ago is to put the car in neutral. This completely eliminates engine power to the wheels. Downshifting still means the wheels are being turned.

I do that all the time in snowy weather around here, too.  It's amazing how easy it is to stop and hold the car when one is only fighting the momentum of the car and not the tractive power of its engine.  So much so that I'll often do that in clear, dry weather, too.

Mike

[Beltway]

As for stopping on snow and ice, a trick I learned years ago is to put the car in neutral. This completely eliminates engine power to the wheels. Downshifting still means the wheels are being turned.

I do that all the time in snowy weather around here, too.  It's amazing how easy it is to stop and hold the car when one is only fighting the momentum of the car and not the tractive power of its engine.  So much so that I'll often do that in clear, dry weather, too. Mike

Cars I had with manual transmission, with any brake application that might lock up the wheels, I would depress the clutch pedal to disengage the engine from the drive train.  The only problem is that with the stress of a sudden emergency stop I forgot to do that a few times and didn't realize it until I heard the engine chugging to a stop.

[empirestate]

TV: as a thought... would expansion of urban areas, putting more people at physical edge of reception zone, be part of a problem?

No, the problem–as far as it pertains to Elmer–is nothing more than that digital broadcast signals are received less well than analog signals, all else being equal (including, we'd presume, the number of people trying to receive them).

Speed: of course that is part of technological environment, as everything - roads, vehicles - is designed with target speed limit in mind...

But you didn't say "speed", you said the NMSL. As far as I'm aware, that was enacted for purely non-technological reasons.

[kalvado]

TV: as a thought... would expansion of urban areas, putting more people at physical edge of reception zone, be part of a problem?

No, the problem–as far as it pertains to Elmer–is nothing more than that digital broadcast signals are received less well than analog signals, all else being equal (including, we'd presume, the number of people trying to receive them).

Speed: of course that is part of technological environment, as everything - roads, vehicles - is designed with target speed limit in mind...

But you didn't say "speed", you said the NMSL. As far as I'm aware, that was enacted for purely non-technological reasons.

TV- I don't believe this is quite the case. Frankly speaking, comparison of same location same time is the best approach - and I doubt we have that, people tend to move around...
Building up, more EM noise (more electronics, cell phones, etc) can affect background quite a bit. My understanding always was that digital gives up when analog has minimum reception below acceptable for many people. I guess I have to lookup dbm-dbu numbers.

NMSL could be introduced for different reason, but speed control for safety reasons is a thing. I am suggesting that you consider a new NMSL as a safety feature - and setting up mandated vehicle performance parameters to actually enforce those speeds. Once you can imagine that, what do you think would be more elmerish: actually implementing that for significant benefit to everyone (safety, fuel consumption) - but at a cost (time) to everyone;  or increasing speed limit to - and above- current values? Only unfortunate few who crash would pay the price..

[empirestate]

TV- I don't believe this is quite the case. Frankly speaking, comparison of same location same time is the best approach - and I doubt we have that, people tend to move around...

To get around that, we can compare the day that the digital switchover happened to the day before. I'm not going to, but we can.

NMSL could be introduced for different reason, but speed control for safety reasons is a thing. I am suggesting that you consider a new NMSL as a safety feature - and setting up mandated vehicle performance parameters to actually enforce those speeds. Once you can imagine that, what do you think would be more elmerish: actually implementing that for significant benefit to everyone (safety, fuel consumption) - but at a cost (time) to everyone;  or increasing speed limit to - and above- current values? Only unfortunate few who crash would pay the price..

I'll be honest with you, my conviction that NMSL is not an example of Elmer is exceedingly weak; so, if you have the idea that it is indeed an example, that's perfectly well. I have no dog in that fight.

And generally speaking, my motivation to pursue the tangential topics that have arisen from my inquiry is rather less than yours; so, I'll probably bow out from the most part, now.

[vdeane]

Personally, I'd consider NMSL to be a regression from the more reasonable speed limits we had before then.  In fact, NMSL created our current culture of speeding and speeding tickets.  Before then, people actually obeyed the limit, and enforcement was much less too.

If you want to reduce crashes, why not raise the standards for getting a licence to what exists in Europe, and drop the whole "speed kills" paradigm that has been debunked again and again?

But then, this is a matter of law, not technology.

[kalvado]

Personally, I'd consider NMSL to be a regression from the more reasonable speed limits we had before then.  In fact, NMSL created our current culture of speeding and speeding tickets.  Before then, people actually obeyed the limit, and enforcement was much less too.

If you want to reduce crashes, why not raise the standards for getting a licence to what exists in Europe, and drop the whole "speed kills" paradigm that has been debunked again and again?

But then, this is a matter of law, not technology.

I am bringing NMSL here as a possible example of different paradigm  of development. And yes, this is opposite to what I would call "realistic speed limit" paradigm with the objective of getting most of existing infrastructure.
Since those are two opposite directions for things to develop, @empirestate must consider one more elemrish and the other anti-elmerish.
Following the basic logic, something that benefits most - but hurts a minority is Elmerish, and the choice is fairly obvious. But apparently being on a winning side prevents that recognition.

[empirestate]

Like I said, I'm out. You guys can hash out the speed limit thing. :-)

[kalvado]

Like I said, I'm out. You guys can hash out the speed limit thing. :-)

Slow down, slow down
If you want to discuss the overall trend, you cannot just leave a big example aside. It can be part of overall trend, and your personal dislike of countereAnd actually I should have used words "vision ZERO" somewhere in discussion as an example of progressive-regressive approach. And this is an example where everyone on this forum is likely to have a pretty strong opinion - so you cannot just shy away from it

But overall I suspect this is more about personal preferences, to be honest - as in "best approach is the one I used when I was young. Older is so outdated, and newer - who needs those bells and whistles?"

[empirestate]

Like I said, I'm out. You guys can hash out the speed limit thing. :-)

Slow down, slow down
If you want to discuss the overall trend, you cannot just leave a big example aside. It can be part of overall trend, and your personal dislike of countere

Exactly. Totally happy to acknowledge speed as an example, if you observe it to be such. (And I'll have you know, I'm actually super fond of countere.)

And actually I should have used words "vision ZERO" somewhere in discussion as an example of progressive-regressive approach. And this is an example where everyone on this forum is likely to have a pretty strong opinion - so you cannot just shy away from it

Unless, of course, I don't have a strong opinion, and as to whether speed is an example of Elmer, I have next to no opinion at all. So, I totally concede the point. Consider me 100% persuaded.

[kalvado]

Unless, of course, I don't have a strong opinion, and as to whether speed is an example of Elmer, I have next to no opinion at all. So, I totally concede the point. Consider me 100% persuaded.

Cm'on, this is not fun!
Seriously,  though, I am trying to find an example where you personally would be on a winning side (of course, hard to do so without knowing personally) and have a strong opinion. THen that would be a fun discussion.

As for me, I am thoroughly agnostic on TV issue as I don't even have a TV;  not willing to pay twice the ticket price for supersonic flight to save 3-4 hours; and think that digital phone is better than analog - even if that results in occasional call drop (as if that never happen with analog) or voice menu (and i HATE those). So hard to discuss when we don't have a point where we both have vested interest..

[empirestate]

Unless, of course, I don't have a strong opinion, and as to whether speed is an example of Elmer, I have next to no opinion at all. So, I totally concede the point. Consider me 100% persuaded.

Cm'on, this is not fun!
Seriously,  though, I am trying to find an example where you personally would be on a winning side (of course, hard to do so without knowing personally) and have a strong opinion. THen that would be a fun discussion.

Well, I believe I am on the winning side of whether conversion to mile-based exits is necessary in New York.

[abefroman329]

Unless, of course, I don't have a strong opinion, and as to whether speed is an example of Elmer, I have next to no opinion at all. So, I totally concede the point. Consider me 100% persuaded.

Cm'on, this is not fun!
Seriously,  though, I am trying to find an example where you personally would be on a winning side (of course, hard to do so without knowing personally) and have a strong opinion. THen that would be a fun discussion.

Well, I believe I am on the winning side of whether conversion to mile-based exits is necessary in New York.

Other than cost to update signage, advertisements/websites for businesses located off the exit, etc. what would be the argument against doing so?

[J N Winkler]

Unless, of course, I don't have a strong opinion, and as to whether speed is an example of Elmer, I have next to no opinion at all. So, I totally concede the point. Consider me 100% persuaded.

C'mon, this is not fun!

Seriously,  though, I am trying to find an example where you personally would be on a winning side (of course, hard to do so without knowing personally) and have a strong opinion. Then that would be a fun discussion.

As for me, I am thoroughly agnostic on TV issue as I don't even have a TV;  not willing to pay twice the ticket price for supersonic flight to save 3-4 hours; and think that digital phone is better than analog - even if that results in occasional call drop (as if that never happens with analog) or voice menu (and I HATE those). So hard to discuss when we don't have a point where we both have vested interest..

TBH, I am happy to let discussions die down when they whittle down to two parties and it is clear neither wishes to be persuaded to the other's position.  It keeps the thread in question from popping back every time I check "New replies to your posts."  It also keeps the hairsplitting and special pleading to a minimum.

Well, I believe I am on the winning side of whether conversion to mile-based exits is necessary in New York.

I was under the impression you and Kalvado were on the same side in that discussion.

Other than cost to update signage, advertisements/websites for businesses located off the exit, etc. what would be the argument against doing so?

The relevant discussion is here:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.0

Empirestate was in favor of keeping sequential exit numbering and eventually posted links to MTR threads from the early noughties in which he made it clear he was opposed to mileage-based exit numbering because his "home" exit on the Thruway, Exit 50 (Rochester), would change to something less elegant.  I gave up on the thread at that point.

As was belabored heavily in that discussion, distance-based exit numbering is currently mandated by the MUTCD.  NYSDOT and the Thruway Authority will comply, or not--that is up to them.  If they choose not to comply, FHWA will take enforcement action, or not--that is up to FHWA.  Current indications (cf. recently advertised I-84 signing contract with mileage-based exit numbers) are that NYSDOT is moving into compliance progressively on its own infrastructure.

I have since moved on to looking at the history of exit numbering in broader terms.  One argument against distance-based exit numbering that received little play in the thread is that when a projected through road exists only in short disconnected segments, it is harder to settle on a baseline for mileage-based exit numbering than it is on a count of access points to be used for sequential numbering.  This is why many states that have had sequential exit numbering in the past (Colorado, Georgia) have moved to mileage-based numbering only comparatively recently (very recently in the case of Georgia), while others that had mileage-based from the start (like Arizona) waited until fairly late in their primary Interstate construction before they started posting exit numbers at all.  In Arizona's case, exit numbers east of Phoenix do not correspond to actual mileage because the route of I-10 through downtown Phoenix and the western suburbs is different from the one projected in 1970.  In the early noughties, Utah changed mileage-based exit numbers on I-15 to correct a similar milepointing issue.

[empirestate]

Other than cost to update signage, advertisements/websites for businesses located off the exit, etc. what would be the argument against doing so?

I'll refer you to the existing epic thread on that subject for my answer (linked below). :-)

TBH, I am happy to let discussions die down when they whittle down to two parties and it is clear neither wishes to be persuaded to the other's position.  It keeps the thread in question from popping back every time I check "New replies to your posts."  It also keeps the hairsplitting and special pleading to a minimum.

Yep–no dog in that fight, as I say. I'm persuaded that Elmer is a thing, and as for the side topics like whether x and y are specific examples of it, or what the reasons are for it, I either have no strong conviction, or no particular interest. Others may pursue those topics, of course, but if I'm one of only two people left talking about it, and I'm not interested myself, I think that means it's officially dead. (As we can see, I'm literally less motivated to discuss it than I am to discuss whether to discuss it.)

Well, I believe I am on the winning side of whether conversion to mile-based exits is necessary in New York.

I was under the impression you and Kalvado were on the same side in that discussion.

That's my recollection as well.

Empirestate was in favor of keeping sequential exit numbering and eventually posted links to MTR threads from the early noughties in which he made it clear he was opposed to mileage-based exit numbering because his "home" exit on the Thruway, Exit 50 (Rochester), would change to something less elegant.  I gave up on the thread at that point.

Hmm, check your sources there–you may have been sold some fake news. My home exit was never Exit 50, nor is that the number for any of the Rochester. And if I had a frivolous reason for opposing the change, it was memorizability, not elegance. However, you do sum up my position well to say that my reasons against renumbering were frivolous, and yet I still found them more persuasive than the reasons in favor. That may actually be the best way it's been stated thus far! 

[J N Winkler]

Hmm, check your sources there–you may have been sold some fake news. My home exit was never Exit 50, nor is that the number for any of the Rochester. And if I had a frivolous reason for opposing the change, it was memorizability, not elegance. However, you do sum up my position well to say that my reasons against renumbering were frivolous, and yet I still found them more persuasive than the reasons in favor. That may actually be the best way it's been stated thus far! 

I was going by what you said here:

But yeah, I'm hoping it's about time to wind down, now. And to be honest, it's probably been a little while now since I reached the point of purposely not changing my mind under any circumstances, just because.

EDIT: And just in case anyone's still holding out hope about swaying me, I've been clinging fast to my opinion for at least 18 years...and that means I'm now 18 years older and stodgier.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/misc.transport.road/nw$20perry$20sequential$20numbering%7Csort:date

And yes, I was misremembering.  The Thruway exit for I-490 near Rochester is Exit 45 and that was the number you mentioned in the following snippet from a post written on 2000-03-28:

My reasons for preferring sequential are purely selfish ones. I fully appreciate the value of mileage-based, and have used it myself to calculate distances and all that, but the simple fact is that I like sequential numbering because I've grown up with it for so long. My Thruway exit has been 45 for all my life and it would be weird for me if it changed. Also I'm the type of guy who likes to have things in order...it bothers me on some level to have a list of things with numbers left out. (Plus mileage-based exits are harder to memorize.) It's like metrics: the simplicity and logic of it are not lost on me, but metrics is just so damn bland and uninspiring. The Imperial system, and the various other quirky measurements we use, just have more balls.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/misc.transport.road/nw$20perry$20sequential$20numbering%7Csort:date/misc.transport.road/P9q2PGnU7RI/wEZ2c58KJCMJ

I make no judgment as to whether your reasons for opposing mileage-based exit numbering are frivolous or not.  They are yours, so the only person they really need to make sense to is you.  I would just have liked to have known much earlier in this discussion that you were not really persuadable on this issue.  This would have made it easy to disengage sooner and shift my focus to other aspects of the exit numbering problem.

[hbelkins]

As was belabored heavily in that discussion, distance-based exit numbering is currently mandated by the MUTCD.  NYSDOT and the Thruway Authority will comply, or not--that is up to them.  If they choose not to comply, FHWA will take enforcement action, or not--that is up to FHWA.  Current indications (cf. recently advertised I-84 signing contract with mileage-based exit numbers) are that NYSDOT is moving into compliance progressively on its own infrastructure.

Does anyone else find it ironic that FHWA has been letting New York slide for years on mileage-based exit numbering, which is something that is fairly important, yet it brought down the Hammer of the Gods (yes, I'm a Led Zeppelin fan) over the Cuomo signs, which are a nothingburger compared to mileage-based exits?

[kalvado]

As was belabored heavily in that discussion, distance-based exit numbering is currently mandated by the MUTCD.  NYSDOT and the Thruway Authority will comply, or not--that is up to them.  If they choose not to comply, FHWA will take enforcement action, or not--that is up to FHWA.  Current indications (cf. recently advertised I-84 signing contract with mileage-based exit numbers) are that NYSDOT is moving into compliance progressively on its own infrastructure.

Does anyone else find it ironic that FHWA has been letting New York slide for years on mileage-based exit numbering, which is something that is fairly important, yet it brought down the Hammer of the Gods (yes, I'm a Led Zeppelin fan) over the Cuomo signs, which are a nothingburger compared to mileage-based exits?

You have some strange priorities... Yes, they didn't bother with a non-issue of exit numbering, but took on a very aggressive sign clutter...

[Brandon]

As was belabored heavily in that discussion, distance-based exit numbering is currently mandated by the MUTCD.  NYSDOT and the Thruway Authority will comply, or not--that is up to them.  If they choose not to comply, FHWA will take enforcement action, or not--that is up to FHWA.  Current indications (cf. recently advertised I-84 signing contract with mileage-based exit numbers) are that NYSDOT is moving into compliance progressively on its own infrastructure.

Does anyone else find it ironic that FHWA has been letting New York slide for years on mileage-based exit numbering, which is something that is fairly important, yet it brought down the Hammer of the Gods (yes, I'm a Led Zeppelin fan) over the Cuomo signs, which are a nothingburger compared to mileage-based exits?

You have some strange priorities... Yes, they didn't bother with a non-issue of exit numbering, but took on a very aggressive sign clutter...

Exit numbering a non-issue?  The Cuomo signs are easy to ignore.  It's a right royal pain in the ass to tell where you are with that half-assed sequential exit numbering garbage.

[kkt]

Good for them.  Yes, the exit numbering should have been fixed sooner, but it is an expensive project.  The Cuomo signs should never have happened and they deserved to be made an example of.  The purpose of signs isn't to promote name recognition for elected officials.

[kalvado]

As was belabored heavily in that discussion, distance-based exit numbering is currently mandated by the MUTCD.  NYSDOT and the Thruway Authority will comply, or not--that is up to them.  If they choose not to comply, FHWA will take enforcement action, or not--that is up to FHWA.  Current indications (cf. recently advertised I-84 signing contract with mileage-based exit numbers) are that NYSDOT is moving into compliance progressively on its own infrastructure.

Does anyone else find it ironic that FHWA has been letting New York slide for years on mileage-based exit numbering, which is something that is fairly important, yet it brought down the Hammer of the Gods (yes, I'm a Led Zeppelin fan) over the Cuomo signs, which are a nothingburger compared to mileage-based exits?

You have some strange priorities... Yes, they didn't bother with a non-issue of exit numbering, but took on a very aggressive sign clutter...

Exit numbering a non-issue?  The Cuomo signs are easy to ignore.  It's a right royal pain in the ass to tell where you are with that half-assed sequential exit numbering garbage.

Relax, take a deep breath, enjoy the weather.. Slow down to speed limit+20 and enjoy beautiful sequential numbers..
IN A DEDICATED THREAD!!!!

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.0