I'm really interested in hearing what the future holds for the Interstate system. How much more smarter will it be? What technology will be implemented to make it more safe, quick, and convenient? What can artificial intelligence do to meet the goals the interstate system intends to have? Lastly, why haven't we been working on this system, it has been centuries since we last funded a system like this from the 1950s. Assuming this country doesn't really like public transport, at least develop our system into something far more greater than it can already be.
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/02/smart-highway-i-94-michigan
Quote from: California5 on February 25, 2025, 01:49:13 AMI'm really interested in hearing what the future holds for the Interstate system. How much more smarter will it be? What technology will be implemented to make it more safe, quick, and convenient? What can artificial intelligence do to meet the goals the interstate system intends to have? Lastly, why haven't we been working on this system, it has been centuries since we last funded a system like this from the 1950s. Assuming this country doesn't really like public transport, at least develop our system into something far more greater than it can already be.
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/02/smart-highway-i-94-michigan
I think this applies to freeways in general, not just Interstates.
With high technology, I think we can only guess at the possibilities. You never know if ideas will work out until they're put into practice and you see if there are flaws that weren't forseen. Regular freeways are pretty simple, and while their design has evolved, there were no real surprises.
While everyone is mostly thinking about self-driving cars improving the flow of traffic, I often wonder if we'll discover some new construction techniques that will make elevated viaducts and tunnels much cheaper than they are now.
Quote from: California5 on February 25, 2025, 01:49:13 AMhttps://www.axios.com/2024/07/02/smart-highway-i-94-michigan
Let me tell you, that project is NOT popular around here. Taking away a lane of traffic in an area where it is desperately needed and giving it to a private company to attempt to showcase a concept - No thank you. Ridiculous.
That "article" screams AI to me. Doesn't even fully deacribe the projects.
Related topic: Fictional Highways ► Interstate Plus™ (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=32088.0)
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2025, 09:09:47 AMRelated topic: Fictional Highways ► Interstate Plus™ (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=32088.0)
Also 150 MPH Freeways
The Next Generation is the one with the D, right? I guess that means the interstates will look like Mexico (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5339447,-117.0835178,3a,24.9y,238.76h,101.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBBOsGMebqeRlG2_jgYD78w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-11.155960108896636%26panoid%3DBBOsGMebqeRlG2_jgYD78w%26yaw%3D238.7625712096341!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIxOS4xIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D).
Regarding "smart lanes": I-95 in northeastern Massachusetts between MA 128 and I-495 is four lanes in each direction and is overbuilt, so the fourth lane could be a test of the idea without taking a necessary lane.
Hooray! A second amateur futurist on this forum.
You are right that AI offers massive potential. Cars autonomous driven and able to communicate with each other will be able to maintain much smaller gaps with vehicles in front of them and to the side. We could bring the capacity of each lane from the current 2000 per hour up conservatively to 4000, possibly 8000 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35246.msg2944395#msg2944395) and one study suggested 12000 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261521000540). And traffic lanes could be made narrower since AVs will be able to maintain prefectly straight lines. 10 feet would be enough for general purpose lanes and 8 feet would be able to accommodate light duty vehicles. We may even be able to do without shoulders. All of this means highways will need a lot less right of way for a given capacity.
And removing error prone human drivers should allow higher speeds. Specially designed "superfreeways" with widely spaced interchanges could accommodate speeds of 150 mph.
And the way we build highways should change. New lightweight materials will allow bridges to be erected much faster and require fewer supports. Tunnels could be dug by melting through the earth rather than drilling. That will allow highways to be shoehorned into built up urban areas much more easily and make feasible routes that need to go through rugged mountain ranges or past deep bodies of water (ones that come to mind include a tunnel through the San Gabriels north of Los Angeles or across the Long Island Sound)
Quote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 01:35:14 PMYou are right that AI offers massive potential. Cars autonomous driven and able to communicate with each other will be able to maintain much smaller gaps with vehicles in front of them and to the side. We could bring the capacity of each lane from the current 2000 per hour up conservatively to 4000, possibly 8000 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35246.msg2944395#msg2944395) and one study suggested 12000 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261521000540). And traffic lanes could be made narrower since AVs will be able to maintain prefectly straight lines. 10 feet would be enough for general purpose lanes and 8 feet would be able to accommodate light duty vehicles. We may even be able to do without shoulders. All of this means highways will need a lot less right of way for a given capacity.
... until someone has a blowout.
Quote from: pderocco on February 25, 2025, 02:45:34 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 01:35:14 PMYou are right that AI offers massive potential. Cars autonomous driven and able to communicate with each other will be able to maintain much smaller gaps with vehicles in front of them and to the side. We could bring the capacity of each lane from the current 2000 per hour up conservatively to 4000, possibly 8000 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35246.msg2944395#msg2944395) and one study suggested 12000 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261521000540). And traffic lanes could be made narrower since AVs will be able to maintain prefectly straight lines. 10 feet would be enough for general purpose lanes and 8 feet would be able to accommodate light duty vehicles. We may even be able to do without shoulders. All of this means highways will need a lot less right of way for a given capacity.
... until someone has a blowout.
Runflat or airless tires
Quote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 06:56:22 PMQuote from: pderocco on February 25, 2025, 02:45:34 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 01:35:14 PMYou are right that AI offers massive potential. Cars autonomous driven and able to communicate with each other will be able to maintain much smaller gaps with vehicles in front of them and to the side. We could bring the capacity of each lane from the current 2000 per hour up conservatively to 4000, possibly 8000 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35246.msg2944395#msg2944395) and one study suggested 12000 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261521000540). And traffic lanes could be made narrower since AVs will be able to maintain prefectly straight lines. 10 feet would be enough for general purpose lanes and 8 feet would be able to accommodate light duty vehicles. We may even be able to do without shoulders. All of this means highways will need a lot less right of way for a given capacity.
... until someone has a blowout.
Runflat or airless tires
I wonder if those will ever really be perfected. They currently have enough downsides that they're not widely used. But blowouts aren't the only catastrophic failure that could wreck a bunch of closely following cars at high speeds. I saw someone's wheel half fall off when one of the ball joints broke, on the 405 in L.A. He had trouble keeping control of the car before he was able to pull over.
Doesn't matter how much silly tech gets thrown in. The most exciting thing on I-94 between Ann Arbor and Detroit is the giant Uniroyal tire. The Gateway Bridge at Telegraph (US 24) in Taylor isn't half bad either.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 01:35:14 PMHooray! A second amateur futurist on this forum.
I thought it was your alt account.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 06:56:22 PMRunflat or airless tires
What about the other several hundred ways a vehicle can break down mechanically? Or have IT issues involving the systems that would make this kind of thing operate...
Quote from: pderocco on February 25, 2025, 11:45:27 PMBut blowouts aren't the only catastrophic failure that could wreck a bunch of closely following cars at high speeds. I saw someone's wheel half fall off when one of the ball joints broke, on the 405 in L.A. He had trouble keeping control of the car before he was able to pull over.
I was once driving south down I-35 between San Antonio and Laredo, cruising along at 75 mph, and the entire driver's side front wheel of the car in front of me came off. The driver somehow managed to safely come to a stop, perfectly parallel-parked on the shoulder, with the hub scraping the pavement for the last couple of feet. The wheel, meanwhile, bounced along the highway, then the shoulder, then down the berm, up the other side, over a fence, and into a field. We stopped, checked to make sure she was OK, then hopped the fence and chased down her wheel for her. Note to self: always make sure the lug nuts are fully tightened after every brake job.
Or there was the time I was driving west on I-44 in Saint Louis city traffic. There was an Old Dominion truck pulling double trailers, and someone had apparently neglected to secure the roll-up door on the rear trailer. Empty pallets had been stacked on end at the tail of that trailer, and they were now falling down, one by one, onto the freeway at 60 mph. Each one would skitter back and forth from lane to lane until it finally came to rest in the middle of the highway, while all of us drivers did our best to avoid them. I eventually managed to beat this real-life video game and pull up alongside the trucker, then had my wife roll down the passenger window. I motioned for him to roll his window down, then I shouted across to him, "You're dropping pallets!" You should have seen his face once he finally understood! He then proceeded to get off at the next exit.
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 26, 2025, 07:51:23 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 06:56:22 PMRunflat or airless tires
What about the other several hundred ways a vehicle can break down mechanically? Or have IT issues involving the systems that would make this kind of thing operate...
He thinks EVs don't have to be maintained or don't have mechanical failures.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 09:42:10 AMQuote from: Mapmikey on February 26, 2025, 07:51:23 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 06:56:22 PMRunflat or airless tires
What about the other several hundred ways a vehicle can break down mechanically? Or have IT issues involving the systems that would make this kind of thing operate...
He thinks EVs don't have to be maintained or don't have mechanical failures.
He should get back to me when a straight battery-electric vehicle can go from Denver to Salina or Richfield, UT towing an Airstream trailer without stopping.
Mike
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 26, 2025, 07:51:23 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 06:56:22 PMRunflat or airless tires
What about the other several hundred ways a vehicle can break down mechanically? Or have IT issues involving the systems that would make this kind of thing operate...
Aircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:55:01 AMAircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
Do you know much more expensive passenger cars would be if all instances of "single point of failure" had to be eliminated, as they are for aircraft?
Quote from: kphoger on February 26, 2025, 11:15:13 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:55:01 AMAircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
Do you know much more expensive passenger cars would be if all instances of "single point of failure" had to be eliminated, as they are for aircraft?
Or inspected prior to every use by a qualified technician.
Quote from: California5 on February 25, 2025, 01:49:13 AMI'm really interested in hearing what the future holds for the Interstate system. How much more smarter will it be? What technology will be implemented to make it more safe, quick, and convenient? What can artificial intelligence do to meet the goals the interstate system intends to have? Lastly, why haven't we been working on this system, it has been centuries since we last funded a system like this from the 1950s. Assuming this country doesn't really like public transport, at least develop our system into something far more greater than it can already be.
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/02/smart-highway-i-94-michigan
Investing in new technology for the modern interstate system doesn't really mean anything if state governments continue to defer maintenance. Assuming a new Interstate Highway Act was passed to rebuild every interstate in the country, will we go back to doing nothing until 2090 when the highways that were built today crumble and collapse?
I've seen articles here and there about how bigger, heavier passenger trucks and SUVs are increasing fatalities in crashes and how existing guardrails and other features like pavement thickness might have to be redesigned to accommodate the heavier vehicles. So technological advancements might be seen in making vehicles lighter, or legislation to restrict their size and weight, or to relax/reform existing automotive laws.
The increase in cashless toll roads is something I have reservations about. I prefer the ability of being able to pay a toll then and there and not receive a bill after the fact with added fees and postage. I don't live in an area where I would use a toll transponder regularly. With tap technology for credit cards, I think replacing cash toll booths with card readers would be a compromise.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 11:25:27 AMQuote from: kphoger on February 26, 2025, 11:15:13 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:55:01 AMAircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
Do you know much more expensive passenger cars would be if all instances of "single point of failure" had to be eliminated, as they are for aircraft?
Or inspected prior to every use by a qualified technician.
That's doable, with the "technician" being the car's own electronic brain.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 01:43:37 PMThat's doable, with the "technician" being the car's own electronic brain.
There are so many points of failure that aren't monitored by the car's computer.
Just as an example, the a/c compressor seizing up at low speed. If the serpentine belt doesn't snap, then it can immediately stall the engine.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 01:43:37 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 11:25:27 AMQuote from: kphoger on February 26, 2025, 11:15:13 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:55:01 AMAircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
Do you know much more expensive passenger cars would be if all instances of "single point of failure" had to be eliminated, as they are for aircraft?
Or inspected prior to every use by a qualified technician.
That's doable, with the "technician" being the car's own electronic brain.
Ah yes, it isn't as though a human would ever ignore onboard diagnostics or defer maintenance.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:55:01 AMQuote from: Mapmikey on February 26, 2025, 07:51:23 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 06:56:22 PMRunflat or airless tires
What about the other several hundred ways a vehicle can break down mechanically? Or have IT issues involving the systems that would make this kind of thing operate...
Aircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
And yet they still have failures. The point that you are seeming to not understand is that there will be failures. And if those failures happen at 150 mph with very little vehicle spacing, the result will be catastrophic. And it doesn't even need to be a vehicle failure. What happens if a car in this 150 mph platoon hits a large animal on the road?
Quote from: GaryV on February 26, 2025, 02:06:14 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:55:01 AMQuote from: Mapmikey on February 26, 2025, 07:51:23 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 06:56:22 PMRunflat or airless tires
What about the other several hundred ways a vehicle can break down mechanically? Or have IT issues involving the systems that would make this kind of thing operate...
Aircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
And yet they still have failures. The point that you are seeming to not understand is that there will be failures. And if those failures happen at 150 mph with very little vehicle spacing, the result will be catastrophic. And it doesn't even need to be a vehicle failure. What happens if a car in this 150 mph platoon hits a large animal on the road?
Just add it to the long, long list of risks we all implicitly take in our everyday lives.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 01:52:27 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 01:43:37 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 11:25:27 AMQuote from: kphoger on February 26, 2025, 11:15:13 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:55:01 AMAircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
Do you know much more expensive passenger cars would be if all instances of "single point of failure" had to be eliminated, as they are for aircraft?
Or inspected prior to every use by a qualified technician.
That's doable, with the "technician" being the car's own electronic brain.
Ah yes, it isn't as though a human would ever ignore onboard diagnostics or defer maintenance.
They wouldn't do that if their cars refused to move in such cases.
Quote from: kphoger on February 26, 2025, 01:51:17 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 01:43:37 PMThat's doable, with the "technician" being the car's own electronic brain.
There are so many points of failure that aren't monitored by the car's computer.
Just as an example, the a/c compressor seizing up at low speed. If the serpentine belt doesn't snap, then it can immediately stall the engine.
That's one example of a problem that's eliminated in EVs
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 02:59:21 PMQuote from: GaryV on February 26, 2025, 02:06:14 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:55:01 AMQuote from: Mapmikey on February 26, 2025, 07:51:23 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 06:56:22 PMRunflat or airless tires
What about the other several hundred ways a vehicle can break down mechanically? Or have IT issues involving the systems that would make this kind of thing operate...
Aircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
And yet they still have failures. The point that you are seeming to not understand is that there will be failures. And if those failures happen at 150 mph with very little vehicle spacing, the result will be catastrophic. And it doesn't even need to be a vehicle failure. What happens if a car in this 150 mph platoon hits a large animal on the road?
Just add it to the long, long list of risks we all implicitly take in our everyday lives.
You still haven't answered the question.
Regardless, any vehicles that are going to be moving at 150 MPH on one of these highways
will have to be built to be able to handle hitting something (a large animal like a deer or moose, another vehicle, a pothole, a wall, etc.) at 150 MPH without killing the occupants of said vehicle.
And, in all honesty, every single time you make a post talking about 150 MPH highways, you keep ignoring that we as a species basically already have developed just that, and put it in the most optimal form:
(https://www.railway-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2023/05/shutterstock_2123019209.jpg)
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 03:00:40 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 01:52:27 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 01:43:37 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 11:25:27 AMQuote from: kphoger on February 26, 2025, 11:15:13 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:55:01 AMAircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
Do you know much more expensive passenger cars would be if all instances of "single point of failure" had to be eliminated, as they are for aircraft?
Or inspected prior to every use by a qualified technician.
That's doable, with the "technician" being the car's own electronic brain.
Ah yes, it isn't as though a human would ever ignore onboard diagnostics or defer maintenance.
They wouldn't do that if their cars refused to move in such cases.
Yes, because everyone is universally on board with more regulations over driving right?
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 03:01:52 PMThat's one example of a problem that's eliminated in EVs
OK, then, another example. One of the control arms breaks while driving at 150 mph. That's something that is not monitored by the car's computer, and it is not eliminated in EVs. Or if your front wheel bearing goes out. Or if a tie rod comes loose from the steering rack. Or a bunch of other stuff that isn't monitored by the computer and still exists on EVs.
Quote from: kphoger on February 26, 2025, 03:55:34 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 03:01:52 PMThat's one example of a problem that's eliminated in EVs
OK, then, another example. One of the control arms breaks while driving at 150 mph. That's something that is not monitored by the car's computer, and it is not eliminated in EVs. Or if your front wheel bearing goes out. Or if a tie rod comes loose from the steering rack. Or a bunch of other stuff that isn't monitored by the computer and still exists on EVs.
Surely none of those would break. These are EVs we are talking about, they don't have parts subject to wear and tear.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 03:00:40 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 01:52:27 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 01:43:37 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 11:25:27 AMQuote from: kphoger on February 26, 2025, 11:15:13 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:55:01 AMAircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
Do you know much more expensive passenger cars would be if all instances of "single point of failure" had to be eliminated, as they are for aircraft?
Or inspected prior to every use by a qualified technician.
That's doable, with the "technician" being the car's own electronic brain.
Ah yes, it isn't as though a human would ever ignore onboard diagnostics or defer maintenance.
They wouldn't do that if their cars refused to move in such cases.
That would be a lot of fun if you had a bad sensor. Nothing wrong with your car, but you can't go to work because it doesn't want you to.
Why is it that every one of your high-tech driving posts makes taking the damn bus seem like a more appealing option?
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 26, 2025, 04:29:55 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 03:00:40 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 01:52:27 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 01:43:37 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 11:25:27 AMQuote from: kphoger on February 26, 2025, 11:15:13 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:55:01 AMAircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
Do you know much more expensive passenger cars would be if all instances of "single point of failure" had to be eliminated, as they are for aircraft?
Or inspected prior to every use by a qualified technician.
That's doable, with the "technician" being the car's own electronic brain.
Ah yes, it isn't as though a human would ever ignore onboard diagnostics or defer maintenance.
They wouldn't do that if their cars refused to move in such cases.
That would be a lot of fun if you had a bad sensor. Nothing wrong with your car, but you can't go to work because it doesn't want you to.
Why is it that every one of your high-tech driving posts makes taking the damn bus seem like a more appealing option?
Basically what K12 wants is a personalized bus and/or train like vehicle.
Quote from: kphoger on February 26, 2025, 03:55:34 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 03:01:52 PMThat's one example of a problem that's eliminated in EVs
OK, then, another example. One of the control arms breaks while driving at 150 mph. That's something that is not monitored by the car's computer, and it is not eliminated in EVs. Or if your front wheel bearing goes out. Or if a tie rod comes loose from the steering rack. Or a bunch of other stuff that isn't monitored by the computer and still exists on EVs.
They could use fiber optic sensors that would provide information about when something is about to break.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 26, 2025, 03:46:09 PMAnd, in all honesty, every single time you make a post talking about 150 MPH highways, you keep ignoring that we as a species basically already have developed just that, and put it in the most optimal form:
That is not optimal. It doesn't go door to door and runs on a fixed schedule.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 05:10:03 PMThey could use fiber optic sensors that would provide information about when something is about to break.
And when the sensors break?
I'm amused at all the hand waving and dismissal over parts breaking down over time. All these threads have maintenance not being required as a basic assumption.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 05:10:03 PMThey could use fiber optic sensors that would provide information about when something is about to break.
And what then? You're going 150 mph in a closely spaced platoon of vehicles. The car stops because something might break?
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 26, 2025, 04:29:55 PMThat would be a lot of fun if you had a bad sensor. Nothing wrong with your car, but you can't go to work because it doesn't want you to.
That's kind of a reality already.
When my wife and I first got married, she came with a '99 Dodge Stratus. We drove from Herrin (IL) to Chicago and back one time and, on the way back, the speedometer needle started going berserk. It would shoot all the way up to 100 mph, then down to zero, and stuff like that. I got off I-57 at Whittington, pulled into a parking lot, turned the car off, then turned it back on again. From that point on, the car refused to shift into anything higher than second gear. So we drove
the 25½ miles home (https://maps.app.goo.gl/dRZdf2idLFaVvpNC6) at 25 mph. And Route 37 had no shoulders, so every driver coming up behind us was ticked off the whole way. We took it to the dealership the next day (which was also out of town, so another fun drive in second gear), and they determined that the only problem was a bad speed sensor.
|kernals12| wants to add even more sensors. More sensors that can fail. More sensors that prevent the car from operating when nothing is mechanically wrong with it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 26, 2025, 05:15:56 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 05:10:03 PMThey could use fiber optic sensors that would provide information about when something is about to break.
And when the sensors break?
As someone who works in an industry that uses fiber optic... Yeah, they'll break. All the time.
The fiber optic cables I now use for IP based CCTV systems break down all the time. The older coaxial stuff going to analog cameras usually lasted 15-20 years in-field.
I'm not even sure how a fiber optic sensor is supposed to tell you if the nuts on your car's tie rod ends are torqued down enough.
But, whatever. Let's just assume for giggles that every point of failure in the entire vehicle is hooked up with fiber optic sensors that can prevent all breakdowns without exception. How expensive is this vehicle?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 05:55:32 PMI'm amused at all the hand waving and dismissal over parts breaking down over time. All these threads have maintenance not being required as a basic assumption.
I'm amused that you think a car that can drive itself can't detect if one of its wheels is about to fly off.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 07:19:51 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 05:55:32 PMI'm amused at all the hand waving and dismissal over parts breaking down over time. All these threads have maintenance not being required as a basic assumption.
I'm amused that you think a car that can drive itself can't detect if one of its wheels is about to fly off.
Statements like this make it really apparent that you have never worked on a car nor run cabling of any kind. But don't let me get in the way of the blanket dismissals of anyone questioning your logic.
Not these 150 mph roadways with minimal vehicle spacing again...do you realize that an aircraft lands from approximately 120-140 mph, and requires at about 5000-7000 feet to come to a halt and that allows for spacing of approximately 60 seconds apart (for narrow-body aircraft) between landings, meaning that distance is about 2-4 miles of separation?
Now a road car will be much lighter, but will still require between 500 and 750 feet to come to a halt, using some firm braking. Thankfully, Car & Driver has already performed that kind of testing (https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a45765297/0-150-0-mph-speed-test-2023/), because...science!
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/2023-speed-test-the-results-65551bd623f45.jpg)
Since these are performance vehicles, the braking components can take a hammering; but from those speeds, it probably only do so a few dozen times before seriously wearing out. That's a $1000-3000 pad-and-rotor job (per axle). That kind of braking also feels somewhere between a "surprise punch to the gut" to "landing on a aircraft carrier". (Oh, just add a five-point harness...okay, then it's just a gentle kick in the glands.)
The amount of fuel consumed at those speeds also increases, as the amount of power required to go 10 more miles per hour at a top speed, requires 33% more horsepower, given weight, statics, and aerodynamics are held to a constant (more power takes up more engine weight, possible transaxle heft, and ancillary additions like cooling and bracing also play a part). The force by pushing the vehicle's frontal area into the air resisting that forward motion is to blame, there's no getting around that; it too, increases with speed. So going that much quicker is a drain on fuel or electricity.
Oh, and sensors on everything is absurdist. There's no realistic real-time way to measure under-torquing, over-torquing, vibration, flexing, and jouncing of every suspension component to see if it's functioning. The amount of movement would make it difficult to detect acceptable ranges of operation. Some types of active suspension can do these things, but they're monitoring road and bounding and rebounding of suspension, not waiting for cracks to appear.
Having the vehicle inspected every 6-12 months would probably reveal most of these problems before they occur but the increased speeds you're mentioning will exacerbate damage to these components much quicker than before. While the Porsche customer will likely fork over thousands for a repair in the name of safety without a second thought, many people do not have that kind of luxury.
Moving on from your guys' bad faith arguments that invoke exceedingly rare failure scenarios, another interesting advance in highway construction would be in the form of floating tunnels. Norway plans to build one (https://telegrafi.com/en/norway-plans-to-build-56-billion-dollar-floating-tunnel-details-and-what-it-looks-like-photo/). They are ideal for roads that need to cross over very deep bodies of water where a normal bridge would be technically infeasible like across Washington's Puget Sound or even between the Hawaiian islands.
How is people pointing out the things are saying aren't correct or not as easy you claim "bad faith?"
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 05:10:03 PMQuote from: freebrickproductions on February 26, 2025, 03:46:09 PMAnd, in all honesty, every single time you make a post talking about 150 MPH highways, you keep ignoring that we as a species basically already have developed just that, and put it in the most optimal form:
That is not optimal. It doesn't go door to door...
Do Interstates go "door to door"? Will the 150 MPH AI-driven "superhighways" you keep pointlessly proposing go "door to door"?
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 05:10:03 PMand runs on a fixed schedule.
You say that like a fixed schedule is:
#1. Inherently a bad thing
#2. Something that can't be worked around
#3. Can't have the headways reduced if needed
#4. What your proposed highways won't wind-up having to have with how you want them to be run, in order to better deal with things like breakdowns and/or accidents.
Again, what you keep proposing with these things is basically already achieved with proper high speed rail.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 07:35:40 PMHow is people pointing out the things are saying aren't correct or not as easy you claim "bad faith?"
If this all turned-out to be kernals is trying to make some kind of point about how he feels certain ideas from urbanists are, in his view, unrealistic and/or how they respond to said "unrealistic" ideas, then fair enough to him I guess...
But I also suspect he's a True Believer™ in this as well... :pan:
Aside from not wanting to share a vehicle he sure checks a lot of the boxes you'd expect from the Urbanism crowd.
As
@formulanone said, fuel consumption and wear and tear increase the faster we travel so any time savings and economic benefits would have to overcome these costs to the consumer. And as I somewhat mentioned earlier, vehicles in America are trending toward larger and heavier, including EVs, thus increasing maintenance costs for state DOTs.
Not to mention the more strict design standards of a highway capable of safely handling a design speed of 150 MPH and the liability the state DOTs would be taking on with the increase of unsurvivable, high-speed crashes.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 07:30:13 PMexceedingly rare failure scenarios
Oh, you've never owned a car before. That makes sense.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 26, 2025, 07:52:18 PMDo Interstates go "door to door"?
No, but the cars that use them do.
Racecars show that vehicles can be made survivable even in a crash at extremely high speed.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:10:48 PMRacecars show that vehicles can be made survivable even in a crash at extremely high speed.
You wear the fireproof suit.
^^^
Suits made of material which breaks down relatively quickly.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:10:48 PMRacecars show that vehicles can be made survivable even in a crash at extremely high speed.
And they can also cost millions of dollars in some series like F1. Most sources cite your average NASCAR Cup car as costing between 400-500k. Race cars don't include amenities expected in passenger vehicles.
Are you suggesting the price of cars should be raised to where the average consumer can no longer afford them? How very Urbanist of you.
Then you realize how destructive crashes in NASCAR races can be. Now apply that to an interstate with a grass median and oncoming traffic. Apply a winter pile-up involving 80 cars and trucks or so to a 150 MPH highway.
Are we expecting an average person, including children, to wear helmets and fire suits? Cars designed like NASCARS with roll cages would make extraction by first responders a nightmare.
Never mind the fact that Dale Earnhardt's death was the result of an almost 150 MPH direct impact into the retaining wall. He had a lap belt altered out of spec and it broke upon impact. If one of the most notable race car drivers ever wasn't constantly in spec for safety the average person won't be either. And that isn't even getting into stuff like the HANS device or safer barriers which came after Earnhardt's death.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 01:35:14 PMCars autonomous driven and able to communicate with each other will be able to maintain much smaller gaps with vehicles in front of them and to the side. We could bring the capacity of each lane from the current 2000 per hour up conservatively to 4000, possibly 8000 and one study suggested 12000. And traffic lanes could be made narrower since AVs will be able to maintain prefectly straight lines. 10 feet would be enough for general purpose lanes and 8 feet would be able to accommodate light duty vehicles. We may even be able to do without shoulders. All of this means highways will need a lot less right of way for a given capacity.
And removing error prone human drivers should allow higher speeds. Specially designed "superfreeways" with widely spaced interchanges could accommodate speeds of 150 mph.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:10:48 PMRacecars show that vehicles can be made survivable even in a crash at extremely high speed.
Our issue isn't necessarily that a crash wouldn't be survivable. My main issues are that, with a 15%–30% reduction in lane width, the removal of shoulders, and a doubling of traffic speeds:
(1) Even the near-elimination of perception time and reaction time wouldn't give the driverless vehicles enough time to avoid colliding with a hazard;
(2) Even with sufficient time for evasive or avoidance maneuvering, there would not be a suitable escape path in many situations; and
(3) You think this can all be prevented by simply upgrading the vehicles' tech.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:09:24 PMQuote from: freebrickproductions on February 26, 2025, 07:52:18 PMDo Interstates go "door to door"?
No, but the cars that use them do.
https://www.amtrak.com/auto-train
And for the "150 MPH AI-powered superhighways", just combine the above link with this:
Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 26, 2025, 03:46:09 PM(https://www.railway-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2023/05/shutterstock_2123019209.jpg)
Being "Futurist" seems to entail the following:
- Not having designed any new technology yourself.
- An assumption that every economic barrier is easy to overcome.
- Completely dismissing all human and political factors.
- Blaming others when your favorite idea aren't well received.
Quote from: kphoger on February 27, 2025, 02:28:52 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 01:35:14 PMCars autonomous driven and able to communicate with each other will be able to maintain much smaller gaps with vehicles in front of them and to the side. We could bring the capacity of each lane from the current 2000 per hour up conservatively to 4000, possibly 8000 and one study suggested 12000. And traffic lanes could be made narrower since AVs will be able to maintain prefectly straight lines. 10 feet would be enough for general purpose lanes and 8 feet would be able to accommodate light duty vehicles. We may even be able to do without shoulders. All of this means highways will need a lot less right of way for a given capacity.
And removing error prone human drivers should allow higher speeds. Specially designed "superfreeways" with widely spaced interchanges could accommodate speeds of 150 mph.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:10:48 PMRacecars show that vehicles can be made survivable even in a crash at extremely high speed.
Our issue isn't necessarily that a crash wouldn't be survivable. My main issues are that, with a 15%–30% reduction in lane width, the removal of shoulders, and a doubling of traffic speeds:
(1) Even the near-elimination of perception time and reaction time wouldn't give the driverless vehicles enough time to avoid colliding with a hazard;
(2) Even with sufficient time for evasive or avoidance maneuvering, there would not be a suitable escape path in many situations; and
(3) You think this can all be prevented by simply upgrading the vehicles' tech.
You're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 27, 2025, 03:56:05 PMYou're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.
See, between this and the bus, I think riding the bus sounds better. I don't want to fucking deal with that as a driver.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:01:18 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 27, 2025, 03:56:05 PMYou're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.
See, between this and the bus, I think riding the bus sounds better. I don't want to fucking deal with that as a driver.
What K12 is describing for a regular freeway is a Mexican Autopista. There are definitely safety drawbacks for having narrower lanes and a small exterior shoulder. It always fun dodging trucks broken down halfway into the travel lanes at 110 KMH.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2025, 04:04:41 PMWhat K12 is describing is a Mexican Autopista.
Or an Oklahoma work zone. I despised driving through those, with the concrete walls right up next to the edge lines—my family always called them "cattle chutes".
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:01:18 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 27, 2025, 03:56:05 PMYou're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.
See, between this and the bus, I think riding the bus sounds better. I don't want to fucking deal with that as a driver.
Except the buses will also be using these new highways.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2025, 04:04:41 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:01:18 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 27, 2025, 03:56:05 PMYou're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.
See, between this and the bus, I think riding the bus sounds better. I don't want to fucking deal with that as a driver.
What K12 is describing is a Mexican Autopista. There are definitely safety drawbacks for having narrower lanes and a small exterior shoulder. It always fun dodging trucks broken down halfway into the travel lanes at 110 KMH.
But you won't be dodging them, it'll all be automatic
Quote from: kernals12 on February 27, 2025, 04:07:07 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:01:18 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 27, 2025, 03:56:05 PMYou're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.
See, between this and the bus, I think riding the bus sounds better. I don't want to fucking deal with that as a driver.
Except the buses will also be using these new highways.
No they won't. I won't let them.
(Seriously, though, none of the buses here use the freeways, so I don't know why they'd suddenly start just because you made them worse.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:06:48 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2025, 04:04:41 PMWhat K12 is describing is a Mexican Autopista.
Or an Oklahoma work zone. I despised driving through those, with the concrete walls right up next to the edge lines—my family always called them "cattle chutes".
Caltrans has started to deploying the cattle chutes almost every construction zone on CA 99. I'm finding the right lane to be the safer bet since you can bail from the freeway if there is a problem. If someone crashes in the left lane you're just fucked.
Kernals is an urbanist who doesn't want anyone to drive and that is why he spends all of his time coming up with ways to make American highways worse.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2025, 04:09:17 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:06:48 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2025, 04:04:41 PMWhat K12 is describing is a Mexican Autopista.
Or an Oklahoma work zone. I despised driving through those, with the concrete walls right up next to the edge lines—my family always called them "cattle chutes".
Caltrans has started to deploying the cattle chutes almost every construction zone on CA 99. I'm finding the right lane to be the safer bet since you can bail from the freeway if there is a problem. If someone crashes in the left lane you're just fucked.
In Oklahoma they put the walls on both sides so even if you're in the right lane you're fucked.
Also, if you're getting on the highway, you get about two car lengths to merge, and then the wall is there. Better hope someone will let you in if you start getting up to speed. I've gotten in two accidents due to that horseshit.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 27, 2025, 04:07:07 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:01:18 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 27, 2025, 03:56:05 PMYou're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.
See, between this and the bus, I think riding the bus sounds better. I don't want to fucking deal with that as a driver.
Except the buses will also be using these new highways.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2025, 04:04:41 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:01:18 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 27, 2025, 03:56:05 PMYou're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.
See, between this and the bus, I think riding the bus sounds better. I don't want to fucking deal with that as a driver.
What K12 is describing is a Mexican Autopista. There are definitely safety drawbacks for having narrower lanes and a small exterior shoulder. It always fun dodging trucks broken down halfway into the travel lanes at 110 KMH.
But you won't be dodging them, it'll all be automatic
I'm curious, do you even realize that most of the world is 20-30 years behind the U.S. in terms of what vehicles they use? You might want to dig up my assessment I recently posted on the family vehicle fleet last week in Jalisco. The only "automatic" anything was two of three vehicle transmissions.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:10:32 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2025, 04:09:17 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:06:48 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2025, 04:04:41 PMWhat K12 is describing is a Mexican Autopista.
Or an Oklahoma work zone. I despised driving through those, with the concrete walls right up next to the edge lines—my family always called them "cattle chutes".
Caltrans has started to deploying the cattle chutes almost every construction zone on CA 99. I'm finding the right lane to be the safer bet since you can bail from the freeway if there is a problem. If someone crashes in the left lane you're just fucked.
In Oklahoma they put the walls on both sides so even if you're in the right lane you're fucked.
Also, if you're getting on the highway, you get about two car lengths to merge, and then the wall is there. Better hope someone will let you in if you start getting up to speed. I've gotten in two accidents due to that horseshit.
Ain't No Love in Oklahoma...
Here's some Oklahoma DOT cattle chute action (https://www.google.pl/maps/@35.526814,-97.5144852,3a,39.2y,16.1h,82.86t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sRzMd1TmZ7yCh5K35Cm0KUA!2e0!5s20220101T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D7.137407343423078%26panoid%3DRzMd1TmZ7yCh5K35Cm0KUA%26yaw%3D16.09589943146935!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) if you want to know what Kernals's future looks like for you and your family.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2025, 04:04:41 PMWhat K12 is describing for a regular freeway is a Mexican Autopista. There are definitely safety drawbacks for having narrower lanes and a small exterior shoulder. It always fun dodging trucks broken down halfway into the travel lanes at 110 KMH.
I was thinking of European motorways.
But yes... Mexico... You're lucky if the trucks you encountered were only halfway into the travel lanes. I've encountered broken-down trucks that were simply sitting there in the right lane. Also construction workers working in the right lane with zero advance warning signage. It's also very, very, very common for overloaded trucks to be doing about 15 mph up a steep grade—and every so often one of them gets out into the left lane to pass the others at about 18 mph. But the
most fun situations are when there's no shoulder, a two-foot drop-off immediately next to the white line, a cross-wind, and a turnpike double passing you with its second trailer wiggling all around in the wind.
Quote from: kphoger on February 27, 2025, 04:17:08 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2025, 04:04:41 PMWhat K12 is describing for a regular freeway is a Mexican Autopista. There are definitely safety drawbacks for having narrower lanes and a small exterior shoulder. It always fun dodging trucks broken down halfway into the travel lanes at 110 KMH.
I was thinking of European motorways.
But yes... Mexico... You're lucky if the trucks you encountered were only halfway into the travel lanes. I've encountered broken-down trucks that were simply sitting there in the right lane. Also construction workers working in the right lane with zero advance warning signage. It's also very, very, very common for overloaded trucks to be doing about 15 mph up a steep grade—and every so often one of them gets out into the left lane to pass the others at about 18 mph. But the most fun situations are when there's no shoulder, a two-foot drop-off immediately next to the white line, a cross-wind, and a turnpike double passing you with its second trailer wiggling all around in the wind.
I am surprised that doesn't cause enough accidents that someone demands someone do something about it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:16:52 PMHere's some Oklahoma DOT cattle chute action (https://www.google.pl/maps/@35.526814,-97.5144852,3a,39.2y,16.1h,82.86t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sRzMd1TmZ7yCh5K35Cm0KUA!2e0!5s20220101T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D7.137407343423078%26panoid%3DRzMd1TmZ7yCh5K35Cm0KUA%26yaw%3D16.09589943146935!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) if you want to know what Kernals's future looks like for you and your family.
So... basically the Ted Williams tunnel then?
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:19:02 PMI am surprised that doesn't cause enough accidents that someone demands someone do something about it.
:-D I see you haven't spent much time in Latin America...
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:19:02 PMQuote from: kphoger on February 27, 2025, 04:17:08 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2025, 04:04:41 PMWhat K12 is describing for a regular freeway is a Mexican Autopista. There are definitely safety drawbacks for having narrower lanes and a small exterior shoulder. It always fun dodging trucks broken down halfway into the travel lanes at 110 KMH.
I was thinking of European motorways.
But yes... Mexico... You're lucky if the trucks you encountered were only halfway into the travel lanes. I've encountered broken-down trucks that were simply sitting there in the right lane. Also construction workers working in the right lane with zero advance warning signage. It's also very, very, very common for overloaded trucks to be doing about 15 mph up a steep grade—and every so often one of them gets out into the left lane to pass the others at about 18 mph. But the most fun situations are when there's no shoulder, a two-foot drop-off immediately next to the white line, a cross-wind, and a turnpike double passing you with its second trailer wiggling all around in the wind.
I am surprised that doesn't cause enough accidents that someone demands someone do something about it.
Considering the lax standards of surface highways that's comparatively low on the scale of perceived risk. The Guadalajara Bypass is mostly like what kphoger is describing.
Quote from: kphoger on February 27, 2025, 04:26:32 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:19:02 PMI am surprised that doesn't cause enough accidents that someone demands someone do something about it.
:-D I see you haven't spent much time in Latin America...
Being the "safety manager" at work I do enjoy being totally divorced from safety anything for a week or two.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2025, 04:29:06 PMBeing the "safety manager" at work I do enjoy being totally divorced from safety anything for a week or two.
Some pictures from our roof demolition mission projects over the years. Are you saying OSHA would not approve?
(https://i.imgur.com/JziDX7k.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/8PJ6Yqn.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/r7VMMuR.png)
Quote from: kphoger on February 27, 2025, 04:26:32 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:19:02 PMI am surprised that doesn't cause enough accidents that someone demands someone do something about it.
:-D I see you haven't spent much time in Latin America...
Nope, never been there.
So someone just plows into a broken-down truck, dies, and...it's just shit happens, nobody cares enough to stop it from happening again? I mean, I guess if that the sort of life everyone wants to live, but it's certainly not for me.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 06:31:29 PMQuote from: kphoger on February 27, 2025, 04:26:32 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:19:02 PMI am surprised that doesn't cause enough accidents that someone demands someone do something about it.
:-D I see you haven't spent much time in Latin America...
Nope, never been there.
So someone just plows into a broken-down truck, dies, and...it's just shit happens, nobody cares enough to stop it from happening again? I mean, I guess if that the sort of life everyone wants to live, but it's certainly not for me.
Most regular folks probably don't drive on Autopistas enough to get a local movement of outrage going. Freight vehicles outnumber regular passenger vehicles by a wide margin. Probably a better chance the wreck would be freight on freight.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2025, 06:38:52 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 06:31:29 PMQuote from: kphoger on February 27, 2025, 04:26:32 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:19:02 PMI am surprised that doesn't cause enough accidents that someone demands someone do something about it.
:-D I see you haven't spent much time in Latin America...
Nope, never been there.
So someone just plows into a broken-down truck, dies, and...it's just shit happens, nobody cares enough to stop it from happening again? I mean, I guess if that the sort of life everyone wants to live, but it's certainly not for me.
Most regular folks probably don't drive on Autopistas enough to get a local movement of outrage going. Freight vehicles outnumber regular passenger vehicles by a wide margin. Probably a better chance the wreck would be freight on freight.
You'd think the business interests would say something, then. Trucks ain't cheap...
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:19:02 PMI am surprised that doesn't cause enough accidents that someone demands someone do something about it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 06:31:29 PMSo someone just plows into a broken-down truck, dies, and...it's just shit happens, nobody cares enough to stop it from happening again? I mean, I guess if that the sort of life everyone wants to live, but it's certainly not for me.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 06:40:36 PMYou'd think the business interests would say something, then. Trucks ain't cheap...
But you are approaching this—as is completely understandable—from a manifestly American perspective. You find these things unacceptable because, based on your driving history, they are not to be expected. They are outside the normal experience of driving for you, and that's why they're shocking.
But, for a Mexican, these things are normal.
You see a truck with its hood up in a travel lane on the Interstate, and you think, 'Whoa! that driver really should have pulled onto the shoulder!' or 'Whoa! they really need to add shoulders to this highway!' Meanwhile, a Mexican driver sees a truck with its hood up in a travel lane on the Autopista, and he thinks, 'Oh look, that truck broke down, poor guy', and then he simply changes lanes and keeps driving. Normal. No second thought.
You see a work crew with jackhammers and shovels working in a travel lane on the Interstate, with no warning signs or road cones, and you think, 'Whoa! they really need to warn drivers about the lane closure!' Meanwhile, a Mexican driver sees a work crew with jackhammers and shovels working in a travel lane on the Autopista, with no warning signs or road cones, and he thinks, 'Oh look, they're working on the highway', and then he simply changes lanes and keeps driving. Normal. No second thought.
You see an overloaded turnpike double chugging at 15 mph up a steep grade on the Interstate, and you think, 'Whoa! that guy needs to get off the road if his truck can't handle the grade!' or 'Whoa! there needs to be a set of weigh scales nearby!' or 'Whoa! they need to enforce weight limits better!' Meanwhile, a Mexican driver sees an overloaded turnpike double chugging at 15 mph up a steep grade on the Autopista, and he thinks, 'There's a truck', and then he simply changes lanes and keeps driving. Normal. No second thought. And if another overloaded truck pulls out to pass it at 18 mph, he thinks, 'Oh great', and then he simply slows down until he can pass. Normal. No horn honking, no flipping the bird, no second thought.
To you, these situations are alarming. To them, these situations are just... driving.
Makes me wonder if Mexican roads are just as safe as ours, then.
Drivers throwing on their emergency lights for traffic slowdowns throws me off all the time when I'm in the Guadalajara area. Another one that gets me (in a good way) is when slow cars or trucks will get over to the shoulder for faster traffic on surface highways.
Regarding Guadalajara, everyone I know in Jalisco is terrified to drive there (hence why I drive). I honestly can't figure out what they are so afraid of. Yeah Federal Highways 15 and 23 often are busy but not beyond what I would expect in an urban area. The streets are more difficult to navigate because of poor signage, but that doesn't exactly equate to much additional hazard.
Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2025, 11:19:03 AMMakes me wonder if Mexican roads are just as safe as ours, then.
No. There is a LOT of tailgating, including by big rigs. There is a LOT of death-defying overtaking with oncoming traffic. There are a LOT of cars on the road with no functioning brake lights. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 28, 2025, 11:30:02 AMRegarding Guadalajara, everyone I know in Jalisco is terrified to drive there (hence why I drive). I honestly can't figure out what they are so afraid of. Yeah Federal Highways 15 and 23 often are busy but not beyond what I would expect in an urban area. The streets are more difficult to navigate because of poor signage, but that doesn't exactly equate to much additional hazard.
The traffic is probably why. Obstacles in the road like what seems to be common or Mexico would seem to me to require there to be less traffic on the roads to not cause a problem. Heck, just having the "move over" law expanded to all vehicles (not just emergency or other vehicles with flashing lights) has increased my stress level. Vehicles with flashing lights are easy to see. Regular cars on the shoulder are often difficult to spot until you're right on top of them, and often by that point there's no room to move over because the other lane is occupied by a line of cars.
Honestly, things like working in the road with no warning while traffic is moving at 70+ mph sounds like asking to get hit and killed. It happens in the US even with our work zone warning/protection when motorists refused to move out of closed lanes, maneuver around barriers, etc. I can only imagine how much worse it would be if they were there with nothing.
Quote from: California5 on February 25, 2025, 01:49:13 AMit has been centuries since we last funded a system like this.
I met King James I at the groundbreaking ceremony for I-64. Very honored by that.
Quote from: vdeane on February 28, 2025, 12:41:01 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 28, 2025, 11:30:02 AMRegarding Guadalajara, everyone I know in Jalisco is terrified to drive there (hence why I drive). I honestly can't figure out what they are so afraid of. Yeah Federal Highways 15 and 23 often are busy but not beyond what I would expect in an urban area. The streets are more difficult to navigate because of poor signage, but that doesn't exactly equate to much additional hazard.
The traffic is probably why. Obstacles in the road like what seems to be common or Mexico would seem to me to require there to be less traffic on the roads to not cause a problem. Heck, just having the "move over" law expanded to all vehicles (not just emergency or other vehicles with flashing lights) has increased my stress level. Vehicles with flashing lights are easy to see. Regular cars on the shoulder are often difficult to spot until you're right on top of them, and often by that point there's no room to move over because the other lane is occupied by a line of cars.
Honestly, things like working in the road with no warning while traffic is moving at 70+ mph sounds like asking to get hit and killed. It happens in the US even with our work zone warning/protection when motorists refused to move out of closed lanes, maneuver around barriers, etc. I can only imagine how much worse it would be if they were there with nothing.
But these are surface highways I'm taking about. These essentially have no traffic lights and pedestrians have to cross overhead via bridges. Traffic chugs along but the speed seems to rarely get above 60 KMH in the urban core. To me that seems feels more annoying than hazardous.
You do get random shit in the roadway like you said though. Like this brick truck on Federal Highway 15 in Zapopan with a questionably secured load.
https://flic.kr/p/2ixBMEK
Quote from: vdeane on February 28, 2025, 12:41:01 PMHonestly, things like working in the road with no warning while traffic is moving at 70+ mph sounds like asking to get hit and killed. It happens in the US even with our work zone warning/protection when motorists refused to move out of closed lanes, maneuver around barriers, etc. I can only imagine how much worse it would be if they were there with nothing.
The last time I encountered this, the workers were also in the shade of an overpass, so less visible than they might otherwise have been. (I can remember if it was
this pedestrian overpass (https://maps.app.goo.gl/EDg92CYcdPJJr2RT7) or
the vehicular overpass just beyond it (https://maps.app.goo.gl/W8TKmWVzHCwwBvuQ7). The quality of the pavement in the GSV shots leads me to suspect it was the latter.
(And yes, in the first GSV shot, that bus just pulled out from a standstill in front of the Google car. Technically, it's in a 40 km/h speed zone, but nobody obeys that and instead treats it like the regular 100 km/h speed limit—which means out-of-state folks on long drives zoom through at 120-130 km/h. Also: https://maps.app.goo.gl/cJaeSfEUq8Y4kEZb9 ...)
Quote from: kphoger on February 28, 2025, 10:54:11 AMBut you are approaching this—as is completely understandable—from a manifestly American perspective. You find these things unacceptable because, based on your driving history, they are not to be expected. They are outside the normal experience of driving for you, and that's why they're shocking.
But, for a Mexican, these things are normal.
Right, and I understand that. What I don't understand is that these things seem like they would inevitably cause property damage and/or injury and/or death on a regular basis. (Even if all of these things are normal parts of the driving landscape, surely people get unlucky sometimes and an accident occurs, since they do even with US safety features.) When that happens, everyone just accepts it and doesn't ask themselves if maybe lessons could be learned to avoid it happening again in the future?
Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 26, 2025, 03:46:09 PMAnd, in all honesty, every single time you make a post talking about 150 MPH highways, you keep ignoring that we as a species basically already have developed just that, and put it in the most optimal form:
(https://www.railway-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2023/05/shutterstock_2123019209.jpg)
With you on this - that smart highways are basically reinventing the ~200 year old technology of the train, but I'm not sure a German train is the most optimal form right now!
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2025, 05:07:30 PMQuote from: kphoger on February 28, 2025, 10:54:11 AMBut you are approaching this—as is completely understandable—from a manifestly American perspective. You find these things unacceptable because, based on your driving history, they are not to be expected. They are outside the normal experience of driving for you, and that's why they're shocking.
But, for a Mexican, these things are normal.
Right, and I understand that. What I don't understand is that these things seem like they would inevitably cause property damage and/or injury and/or death on a regular basis. (Even if all of these things are normal parts of the driving landscape, surely people get unlucky sometimes and an accident occurs, since they do even with US safety features.) When that happens, everyone just accepts it and doesn't ask themselves if maybe lessons could be learned to avoid it happening again in the future?
Yes, pretty much. Much of the mindsets you see as normal in the United States regarding "safety anything" simply don't exist in Mexico.
Quote from: english si on February 28, 2025, 05:21:30 PMWith you on this - that smart highways are basically reinventing the ~200 year old technology of the train, but I'm not sure a German train is the most optimal form right now!
Except that cars are private and don't run on fixed schedules
Quote from: kernals12 on February 28, 2025, 05:54:43 PMQuote from: english si on February 28, 2025, 05:21:30 PMWith you on this - that smart highways are basically reinventing the ~200 year old technology of the train, but I'm not sure a German train is the most optimal form right now!
Except that cars are private and don't run on fixed schedules
So, the world should bend to what your specific niche wants are versus you being inconvenienced by sharing a train car or row on a bus? All these mental gymnastics you go through just to justify that you don't like being around people or driving must be exhausting.
I feel compelled to ask, what are your actual professional credentials? You keep linking articles and try to talk a big talk about future tech and your 150 MPH AI cars. Surely there must be something in your professional or educational background that backs up the things you keep trying to push on this forum. Why don't you explain why your ideas are due the respect you seem to think they deserving of?
I can't be the only who getting helicopter grappling hooks and Arctic Island Gulag vibes every time K12 gets into this 150 MPH AI car stuff.
Quote from: english si on February 28, 2025, 05:21:30 PMWith you on this - that smart highways are basically reinventing the ~200 year old technology of the train, but I'm not sure a German train is the most optimal form right now!
Admittedly I just googled for images of high speed rail and looked for something that was a good-quality image and wasn't:
-Amtrak Acela/Avelia Liberty (Acela 2)
-AI-generated
-A 3d render/model
But yeah, whatever Kernals is proposing is generally already done better by trains.
He's just a kid.
Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2025, 06:42:27 PMHe's just a kid.
While true enough is enough with all this 150 MPH AI car stuff. This isn't even a thread he started; it got hijacked.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 28, 2025, 06:19:18 PMSo, the world should bend to what your specific niche wants are versus you being inconvenienced by sharing a train car or row on a bus? All these mental gymnastics you go through just to justify that you don't like being around people or driving must be exhausting.
I love driving and hopefully tomorrow's highways will be able to accommodate manual driving. And even if I didn't like driving, I would hardly be alone.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 28, 2025, 07:10:28 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 28, 2025, 06:19:18 PMSo, the world should bend to what your specific niche wants are versus you being inconvenienced by sharing a train car or row on a bus? All these mental gymnastics you go through just to justify that you don't like being around people or driving must be exhausting.
I love driving and hopefully tomorrow's highways will be able to accommodate manual driving. And even if I didn't like driving, I would hardly be alone.
I'm finding that statement questionable given how little actual road content or general observations you have produced.
But yeah, go ahead and ignore the rest of what I said. I recall you once calling the bulk of us "strangers." Did it ever occur to you that you are talking to a lot of people with actual qualifications in transportation? Hell, a lot of us even know each other off forum. You're the one who is the unverified quantity here. If you want vindication in this hobby, do something to earn it. This futurism and AI car stuff isn't going to get you there.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 28, 2025, 05:54:43 PMExcept that cars are private and don't run on fixed schedules
Except they will form part of public 'trains' that will run on fixed schedules when they convoy up to run at 150mph....
IMHO, it will also be very interesting when the more 'European' style lighter passenger trains that were approved over the past few years by the FRA start appearing en masse here in the USA.
Mike
Quote from: english si on March 01, 2025, 03:45:08 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 28, 2025, 05:54:43 PMExcept that cars are private and don't run on fixed schedules
Except they will form part of public 'trains' that will run on fixed schedules when they convoy up to run at 150mph....
They'll only form convoys when traffic is heavy enough
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2025, 05:07:30 PMWhat I don't understand is that these things seem like they would inevitably cause property damage and/or injury and/or death on a regular basis. (Even if all of these things are normal parts of the driving landscape, surely people get unlucky sometimes and an accident occurs, since they do even with US safety features.) When that happens, everyone just accepts it and doesn't ask themselves if maybe lessons could be learned to avoid it happening again in the future?
In a way, you just admitted that Americans have accepted the property damage and/or injury and/or death that occur on
an occasional a regular basis here in the States.
Well, sure. But that's mostly because all the safety features in the world won't stop someone from driving drunk or doing 150 mph on a road designed for 35, or what have you. You can't make anything 100% safe. But that's no reason to not prevent the crashes you can prevent.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2025, 02:57:39 PMWell, sure. But that's mostly because all the safety features in the world won't stop someone from driving drunk or doing 150 mph on a road designed for 35, or what have you. You can't make anything 100% safe. But that's no reason to not prevent the crashes you can prevent.
But there are plenty of crashes in this country that we
could prevent but
don't prevent. How about vehicles that cross over the median of an Interstate because there's no physical center barrier? Or trains that hit vehicles because the crossing doesn't have a gate? Or other stuff that you don't complain about because it's just normal here.
Quote from: kphoger on March 03, 2025, 03:01:56 PMBut there are plenty of crashes in this country that we could prevent but don't prevent.
Sure, pretty much anything could be prevented for a cost, but resources are typically limited. This is what cost-benefit analyses are for.
Quote from: kphoger on March 03, 2025, 03:01:56 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2025, 02:57:39 PMWell, sure. But that's mostly because all the safety features in the world won't stop someone from driving drunk or doing 150 mph on a road designed for 35, or what have you. You can't make anything 100% safe. But that's no reason to not prevent the crashes you can prevent.
But there are plenty of crashes in this country that we could prevent but don't prevent. How about vehicles that cross over the median of an Interstate because there's no physical center barrier? Or trains that hit vehicles because the crossing doesn't have a gate? Or other stuff that you don't complain about because it's just normal here.
Uh, but we do try to prevent those. Oklahoma added cable barriers to miles and miles of freeway in the state, and ungated rail crossings are pretty uncommon on roads that have appreciable traffic (I'm aware that on rural backroads they still exist). Yes, coverage on both isn't at 100%, but that is more a matter of limited resources requiring prioritization than a belief that they are acceptable.
Remember, some states have a "Vision Zero" policy where they shoot for
zero deaths. We all know that's unrealistic to actually achieve, but that's the goal they work toward.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 01:43:37 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 11:25:27 AMQuote from: kphoger on February 26, 2025, 11:15:13 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:55:01 AMAircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
Do you know much more expensive passenger cars would be if all instances of "single point of failure" had to be eliminated, as they are for aircraft?
Or inspected prior to every use by a qualified technician.
That's doable, with the "technician" being the car's own electronic brain.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Oh you're serious?
:pan:
Quote from: Rothman on February 26, 2025, 10:11:39 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:10:48 PMRacecars show that vehicles can be made survivable even in a crash at extremely high speed.
You wear the fireproof suit.
No no. He doesn't get to wear the fireproof suit. He's invincible. He doesn't need any safety.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2025, 03:27:19 PMUh, but we do try to prevent those. Oklahoma added cable barriers to miles and miles of freeway in the state, and ungated rail crossings are pretty uncommon on roads that have appreciable traffic (I'm aware that on rural backroads they still exist). Yes, coverage on both isn't at 100%, but that is more a matter of limited resources requiring prioritization than a belief that they are acceptable.
Remember, some states have a "Vision Zero" policy where they shoot for zero deaths. We all know that's unrealistic to actually achieve, but that's the goal they work toward.
And plenty of Mexican highways have paved shoulders, and most construction zones have warning signs and orange barrels and/or dividers (and ridiculously low speed zones), etc.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 01:43:37 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2025, 11:25:27 AMQuote from: kphoger on February 26, 2025, 11:15:13 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:55:01 AMAircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
Do you know much more expensive passenger cars would be if all instances of "single point of failure" had to be eliminated, as they are for aircraft?
Or inspected prior to every use by a qualified technician.
That's doable, with the "technician" being the car's own electronic brain.
LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Quote from: kphoger on March 03, 2025, 04:13:15 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2025, 03:27:19 PMUh, but we do try to prevent those. Oklahoma added cable barriers to miles and miles of freeway in the state, and ungated rail crossings are pretty uncommon on roads that have appreciable traffic (I'm aware that on rural backroads they still exist). Yes, coverage on both isn't at 100%, but that is more a matter of limited resources requiring prioritization than a belief that they are acceptable.
Remember, some states have a "Vision Zero" policy where they shoot for zero deaths. We all know that's unrealistic to actually achieve, but that's the goal they work toward.
And plenty of Mexican highways have paved shoulders, and most construction zones have warning signs and orange barrels and/or dividers (and ridiculously low speed zones), etc.
I see. So these shoulderless highways and work zones with no warning, etc. are exceptions rather than something considered normal? That wasn't clear from the initial posts on this tangent.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2025, 04:24:36 PMQuote from: kphoger on March 03, 2025, 04:13:15 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2025, 03:27:19 PMUh, but we do try to prevent those. Oklahoma added cable barriers to miles and miles of freeway in the state, and ungated rail crossings are pretty uncommon on roads that have appreciable traffic (I'm aware that on rural backroads they still exist). Yes, coverage on both isn't at 100%, but that is more a matter of limited resources requiring prioritization than a belief that they are acceptable.
Remember, some states have a "Vision Zero" policy where they shoot for zero deaths. We all know that's unrealistic to actually achieve, but that's the goal they work toward.
And plenty of Mexican highways have paved shoulders, and most construction zones have warning signs and orange barrels and/or dividers (and ridiculously low speed zones), etc.
I see. So these shoulderless highways and work zones with no warning, etc. are exceptions rather than something considered normal? That wasn't clear from the initial posts on this tangent.
I dunno, they all seem like the norm to me.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2025, 04:24:36 PMI see. So these shoulderless highways and work zones with no warning, etc. are exceptions rather than something considered normal? That wasn't clear from the initial posts on this tangent.
They are normal, and they are also not as common as a safer situation.
We have shoulderless four-lane highways in the US too. They're not as common as ones with shoulders, but they're also normal.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 03, 2025, 04:10:25 PMQuote from: Rothman on February 26, 2025, 10:11:39 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:10:48 PMRacecars show that vehicles can be made survivable even in a crash at extremely high speed.
You wear the fireproof suit.
No no. He doesn't get to wear the fireproof suit. He's invincible. He doesn't need any safety.
It's okay, with the Neuralink implant, the AI will modify DNA to make you more resistant to fires and all other negative effects of a 150 MPH crash.
It'll also summon a chain of 150 MPH ambulances.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2025, 06:04:35 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on March 03, 2025, 04:10:25 PMQuote from: Rothman on February 26, 2025, 10:11:39 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:10:48 PMRacecars show that vehicles can be made survivable even in a crash at extremely high speed.
You wear the fireproof suit.
No no. He doesn't get to wear the fireproof suit. He's invincible. He doesn't need any safety.
It's okay, with the Neuralink implant, the AI will modify DNA to make you more resistant to fires and all other negative effects of a 150 MPH crash.
It'll also summon a chain of 150 MPH helicopter ambulances with grappling hooks.
FIFY
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2025, 06:04:35 PMwith the Neuralink implant, the AI will modify DNA to make you more resistant to fires
And some people thought vaccines were bad. /s
K12, honest question for you. Do you really think that AI or a computer is infallible?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2025, 06:08:59 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2025, 06:04:35 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on March 03, 2025, 04:10:25 PMQuote from: Rothman on February 26, 2025, 10:11:39 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:10:48 PMRacecars show that vehicles can be made survivable even in a crash at extremely high speed.
You wear the fireproof suit.
No no. He doesn't get to wear the fireproof suit. He's invincible. He doesn't need any safety.
It's okay, with the Neuralink implant, the AI will modify DNA to make you more resistant to fires and all other negative effects of a 150 MPH crash.
It'll also summon a chain of 150 MPH helicopter ambulances with graphing hooks.
FIFY
FIFY
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:19:02 PMI am surprised that doesn't cause enough accidents that someone demands someone do something about it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 06:31:29 PMSo someone just plows into a broken-down truck, dies, and...it's just shit happens, nobody cares enough to stop it from happening again? I mean, I guess if that the sort of life everyone wants to live, but it's certainly not for me.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 06:40:36 PMYou'd think the business interests would say something, then. Trucks ain't cheap...
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2025, 05:07:30 PMWhen that happens, everyone just accepts it and doesn't ask themselves if maybe lessons could be learned to avoid it happening again in the future?
This isn't a Mexico thing. This is, I suppose with a few exceptions, a "the whole world except for the most industrialized nations" thing.
Over the last ten years, Mexico has roughly tripled its minimum wage, from about 5 USD to its current minimum wage of more than 13 USD; it's even higher in the border zone. I can see you wiggling with excitement from here. But that's because you didn't realize that Mexico sets its minimum wage at a
daily rate, not an
hourly rate. A work-week in Mexico is considered to be 48 hours, or six days at eight hours each, but the seventh day is basically like a weekly paid holiday. This means that, if you adjust according to a 40-hour work week like what we have in the States, Mexico's minimum wage is currently about 2.36 USD per hour—
after having nearly tripled in the last ten years. I used to personally know an illegal immigrant, back in 2000, who was drawn to the US because people told him the minimum wage here was five bucks an hour instead of five bucks a day.
Despite Mexico's having a nominal GDP per capita that's roughly on par with the world as a whole, our most recent Vacation Bible School there was hosted by a family whose house is a single room and has an outhouse for a bathroom. To fill your car up with ten gallons of gas in Mexico costs about 3½ days of minimum wage; to fill your car up with ten gallons of gas in Nevada costs about 3½ hours of minimum wage. Try to understand the struggle that most people in most countries have just to make ends meet.
So, then, I ask you: when it comes to deficiencies in the highway network, who is it that you imagine would demand someone do something about it? To whom would they make their demands? What should they do about it? Who would pay for it?
The people most affected by such deficiencies are those who have enough money to not only own a car, but also enough money to actually drive it from town to town. That's not most people. So it stands to reason that it would be the most affluent who would be making the demands. To whom, but the government, by means of increased funding and stricter regulations? Increased funding would mean more taxes, which would likely disproportionately affect the poor, in order to help the rich, which isn't the kind of thing that wins votes.
In places like Mexico, the sight of a broken-down vehicle is a much more common occurrence than here in the States. There is no culture of preventive maintenance there. I couldn't tell you how many drivers I've seen pull off the side of the highway in the middle of nowhere and put the hood up because the engine was overheating. Every wide spot in the road village has a tire revulcanization shop. Smaller trucking operations can barely afford to keep their trucks running; stricter regulations on maintenance or load limits would disproportionately affect small business owners, in order to help the rich, which isn't the kind of thing that wins votes. Larger trucking operations have trucks in better condition, but they still load them as heavy as possible in order to not lose money running extra trucks.
When the new toll road from Monterrey to Saltillo was built a decade and a half ago, the original plan was to prohibit trucks on it, to avoid clogging it up, giving passenger cars a hassle-free (safer?) drive. The trucks would have to use the old free road. But that didn't end up happening. And it's completely understandable. What investor in a new toll road would be OK with skipping out on all the toll revenue that truck traffic could provide? What real benefit would doing so provide to drivers who are already completely used to dealing with trucks on every other highway they've ever driven?
Tying this all back into the conversation about the next generation of Interstate, and kernals12's ideas about dedicated super-fast freeways for platoons of sensor-laden problem-free electric smart cars... This sort of thing would only benefit the wealthy, those who could afford such a hugely expensive vehicle and keep up on the repairs to satisfaction. And who would fund the project? Taxpayers, most of whom would have no use for it? Private investors, who would surely prefer all the toll revenue possible—which would surely include older, dumber, less well-maintained, normal vehicles? It would be a huge waste of money, likely funded in large part by those who don't have much money to spare and would reap little to no benefit from it once it was completed.
Quote from: kphoger on March 03, 2025, 09:23:44 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 04:19:02 PMI am surprised that doesn't cause enough accidents that someone demands someone do something about it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 06:31:29 PMSo someone just plows into a broken-down truck, dies, and...it's just shit happens, nobody cares enough to stop it from happening again? I mean, I guess if that the sort of life everyone wants to live, but it's certainly not for me.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2025, 06:40:36 PMYou'd think the business interests would say something, then. Trucks ain't cheap...
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2025, 05:07:30 PMWhen that happens, everyone just accepts it and doesn't ask themselves if maybe lessons could be learned to avoid it happening again in the future?
This isn't a Mexico thing. This is, I suppose with a few exceptions, a "the whole world except for the most industrialized nations" thing.
Over the last ten years, Mexico has roughly tripled its minimum wage, from about 5 USD to its current minimum wage of more than 13 USD; it's even higher in the border zone. I can see you wiggling with excitement from here. But that's because you didn't realize that Mexico sets its minimum wage at a daily rate, not an hourly rate. A work-week in Mexico is considered to be 48 hours, or six days at eight hours each, but the seventh day is basically like a weekly paid holiday. This means that, if you adjust according to a 40-hour work week like what we have in the States, Mexico's minimum wage is currently about 2.36 USD per hour—after having nearly tripled in the last ten years. I used to personally know an illegal immigrant, back in 2000, who was drawn to the US because people told him the minimum wage here was five bucks an hour instead of five bucks a day.
Despite Mexico's having a nominal GDP per capita that's roughly on par with the world as a whole, our most recent Vacation Bible School there was hosted by a family whose house is a single room and has an outhouse for a bathroom. To fill your car up with ten gallons of gas in Mexico costs about 3½ days of minimum wage; to fill your car up with ten gallons of gas in Nevada costs about 3½ hours of minimum wage. Try to understand the struggle that most people in most countries have just to make ends meet.
So, then, I ask you: when it comes to deficiencies in the highway network, who is it that you imagine would demand someone do something about it? To whom would they make their demands? What should they do about it? Who would pay for it?
The people most affected by such deficiencies are those who have enough money to not only own a car, but also enough money to actually drive it from town to town. That's not most people. So it stands to reason that it would be the most affluent who would be making the demands. To whom, but the government, by means of increased funding and stricter regulations? Increased funding would mean more taxes, which would likely disproportionately affect the poor, in order to help the rich, which isn't the kind of thing that wins votes.
In places like Mexico, the sight of a broken-down vehicle is a much more common occurrence than here in the States. There is no culture of preventive maintenance there. I couldn't tell you how many drivers I've seen pull off the side of the highway in the middle of nowhere and put the hood up because the engine was overheating. Every wide spot in the road village has a tire revulcanization shop. Smaller trucking operations can barely afford to keep their trucks running; stricter regulations on maintenance or load limits would disproportionately affect small business owners, in order to help the rich, which isn't the kind of thing that wins votes. Larger trucking operations have trucks in better condition, but they still load them as heavy as possible in order to not lose money running extra trucks.
When the new toll road from Monterrey to Saltillo was built a decade and a half ago, the original plan was to prohibit trucks on it, to avoid clogging it up, giving passenger cars a hassle-free (safer?) drive. The trucks would have to use the old free road. But that didn't end up happening. And it's completely understandable. What investor in a new toll road would be OK with skipping out on all the toll revenue that truck traffic could provide? What real benefit would doing so provide to drivers who are already completely used to dealing with trucks on every other highway they've ever driven?
Tying this all back into the conversation about the next generation of Interstate, and kernals12's ideas about dedicated super-fast freeways for platoons of sensor-laden problem-free electric smart cars... This sort of thing would only benefit the wealthy, those who could afford such a hugely expensive vehicle and keep up on the repairs to satisfaction. And who would fund the project? Taxpayers, most of whom would have no use for it? Private investors, who would surely prefer all the toll revenue possible—which would surely include older, dumber, less well-maintained, normal vehicles? It would be a huge waste of money, likely funded in large part by those who don't have much money to spare and would reap little to no benefit from it once it was completed.
I forget which thread it was, but I recall looking up the average annual salary once in Jalisco. At the time the average income was something around 70-75K Pesos for your average Jalisco citizen. At the current USD exahnge rate that is just plain chump change if you look at how we live in our country. Down in Mexico most people I know can survive on that income for numerous reasons:
- Many items are way less expensive than in the U.S. Food and medicine immediately spring to mind but there is many more.
- Almost everyone in the family works and provides income. Imagine how much people would lose their shit over a child under 10 working at family store in the United States?
- Property tax is nominal by U.S. standards. Most homes are vastly more affordable than the U.S. because there isn't much in the way of standards. That and a great many families have owned their home for generations. When I asked for an estimate to add a room on the house the answer I got was about $12,000 Pesos. You're basically open to the environment so things like HVAC aren't a thing.
- Most towns and cities are small geographically. The town I visit is only 2.3 square miles and has a population of about 20,000 people. Unless you're leaving town there isn't much reason for a healthy person to drive. Bus service to Guadalajara is also pretty good and regular.
- Utilities and services are more affordable. I just paid $3,000 Pesos for the annual internet service bill my wife's aunt's house.
- Consider a basic new car costs over $200,000 Pesos. That is just a plain luxury most cannot afford. Older cars stay on the road pretty much as long as they will keep running. Considering how bad our own family fleet is I'll probably seriously considering paying whatever it takes to move my Corolla down to Jalisco when it is time for a new car.
Also, considering how much minimum wage is here in California most of the Ag guys who come up from Mexico make bank (relatively speaking) while they are here. Most workers I know in Firebaugh stay with family while here or in meager worker accommodations.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 03, 2025, 06:04:35 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on March 03, 2025, 04:10:25 PMQuote from: Rothman on February 26, 2025, 10:11:39 PMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:10:48 PMRacecars show that vehicles can be made survivable even in a crash at extremely high speed.
You wear the fireproof suit.
No no. He doesn't get to wear the fireproof suit. He's invincible. He doesn't need any safety.
It's okay, with the Neuralink implant, the AI will modify DNA to make you more resistant to fires and all other negative effects of a 150 MPH crash.
It'll also summon a chain of 150 MPH ambulances.
With the implant, the more likely scenario is that we all drive around in 6000 pound vehicles which actually max out at 35 miles an hour so we can entertain ourselves with ad-laden videos and curated newspinions while moving to our next on-the-grid adventure.
This way every lobbying power gets their input in the name of "freedom".
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:55:01 AMQuote from: Mapmikey on February 26, 2025, 07:51:23 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 06:56:22 PMRunflat or airless tires
What about the other several hundred ways a vehicle can break down mechanically? Or have IT issues involving the systems that would make this kind of thing operate...
Aircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
Travel by car usually doesn't cause death or injury when it "breaks down mechanically." Travel by airplane often does.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 04, 2025, 09:41:50 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2025, 10:55:01 AMQuote from: Mapmikey on February 26, 2025, 07:51:23 AMQuote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2025, 06:56:22 PMRunflat or airless tires
What about the other several hundred ways a vehicle can break down mechanically? Or have IT issues involving the systems that would make this kind of thing operate...
Aircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.
Travel by car usually doesn't cause death or injury when it "breaks down mechanically." Travel by airplane often does.
...also mechanical issues would result the aircraft to declare an emergency and land as soon as possible.
What happens if the 150 MPH AI car decides to pull a Blaine the Mono?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2025, 10:14:05 PMI forget which thread it was, but I recall looking up the average annual salary once in Jalisco. At the time the average income was something around 70-75K Pesos for your average Jalisco citizen.
- Consider a basic new car costs over $200,000 Pesos. That is just a plain luxury most cannot afford. Older cars stay on the road pretty much as long as they will keep running.
This. If all you do is drive down the
autopista, it's easy to forget how poor of a country Mexico is. The number of late-model SUVs zooming by you, with license plates from six states away, at 90 mph: it certainly isn't representative of the population as a whole. Long-distance driving is something most people cannot afford to do on more than rare occasions.
For those occasional trips, many Mexicans just take the bus. A bus ticket from Nuevo Laredo to Monterrey costs about 700 MXN, and there are dozens of buses running every day. Driving a car, at 25 mpg fuel economy, costs upwards of 500 MXN in gas; if you take the toll road, the tolls are upwards of 400 MXN.
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2025, 02:02:20 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2025, 10:14:05 PMI forget which thread it was, but I recall looking up the average annual salary once in Jalisco. At the time the average income was something around 70-75K Pesos for your average Jalisco citizen.
- Consider a basic new car costs over $200,000 Pesos. That is just a plain luxury most cannot afford. Older cars stay on the road pretty much as long as they will keep running.
This. If all you do is drive down the autopista, it's easy to forget how poor of a country Mexico is. The number of late-model SUVs zooming by you, with license plates from six states away, at 90 mph: it certainly isn't representative of the population as a whole. Long-distance driving is something most people cannot afford to do on more than rare occasions.
For those occasional trips, many Mexicans just take the bus. A bus ticket from Nuevo Laredo to Monterrey costs about 700 MXN, and there are dozens of buses running every day. Driving a car, at 25 mpg fuel economy, costs upwards of 500 MXN in gas; if you take the toll road, the tolls are upwards of 400 MXN.
I would say though that "poor" is a relative term. Just because life doesn't fully resemble that of the United States it doesn't mean it is the same thing as abject poverty.
I'm amused sometimes whenever K12 or one of these so called futurists post outlandish things like the 150 MPH AI car. It reeks as being completely divorced from how the rest of the world is. Latin America is barely getting EVs as uber high end luxury cars for the wealthy. I can't fathom a time in these next half century where small aging ICE sedans with manual transmissions won't be a thing on Mexican roads.
Quote from: kphoger on March 03, 2025, 09:23:44 PMTying this all back into the conversation about the next generation of Interstate, and kernals12's ideas about dedicated super-fast freeways for platoons of sensor-laden problem-free electric smart cars... This sort of thing would only benefit the wealthy, those who could afford such a hugely expensive vehicle and keep up on the repairs to satisfaction. And who would fund the project? Taxpayers, most of whom would have no use for it? Private investors, who would surely prefer all the toll revenue possible—which would surely include older, dumber, less well-maintained, normal vehicles? It would be a huge waste of money, likely funded in large part by those who don't have much money to spare and would reap little to no benefit from it once it was completed.
We actually have this model in the US; it's called a racetrack: Generally privately-funded, paid for and used by those with deep pockets (or some enthusiasts). The driving populace is generally unaffected.
Most racing tracks do not make a tremendous amount of money; they're vanity projects.
Back to the OP's intentions:
In the early 1990s, my employer decided that we should attend the Intelligent Transportation Systems conferences, since our firm's experience with fully automated fixed guideway transit systems kinda fell in the category of ITS (which is now better known as Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems). After a couple of years, we decided that the ITS Committee was [literally] going down the road rather than down the technology highway.
But my take at the time was that the most promising ITS technology was in the area of congestion management. And indeed, I witnessed the development of the Dynamic Traffic Management systems on the Rijsweg A4 (https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3243342,4.7717725,3a,75y,84.47h,85.97t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBeTe93lVMFi59IZSnjzJOg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D4.027127255658428%26panoid%3DBeTe93lVMFi59IZSnjzJOg%26yaw%3D84.46691240237799!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) in the Netherlands in 1998 and 1999 while I was working on several unrelated projects. That system (which appears to still be working) employs variable speed limits for the purpose of slowing down mainline freeway traffic in approach to bottlenecks or short-term congestion areas. In a nutshell, if the surge traffic can back off just a little bit, the average speeds in the bottleneck will remain significantly higher and thus result in a higher throughput (VPHPL).
After more than 25 years, this fairly simple and effective technology has yet to be considered here in the United States because Americans are not likely to adhere to the variable speed limits.
I've often wondered if there was a system like that in place somewhere - I also envisioned variable speed signs on on-ramps, telling people what speed they should be at to safely merge onto the freeway.
Quote from: DTComposer on March 06, 2025, 01:36:38 PMI also envisioned variable speed signs on on-ramps, telling people what speed they should be at to safely merge onto the freeway.
Except that...
Quote from: kphoger on May 14, 2013, 03:03:23 PMIt seems that the common opinion on here holds two things about merging traffic that don't jive very well in my driving experience:
(1) Entering traffic should be at full cruising speed by the time they get on the highway; and
(2) Through traffic should not alter its speed for merging traffic, rather merging traffic should alter its speed.
Too many times, this has put me side-by-side with a vehicle (sometimes an 18-wheeler) mere yards from the end of my acceleration lane. I, as entering traffic find it much easier to find a gap in traffic if there is at least 5 mph difference between my speed and the prevailing speed of through traffic. Since the through traffic in question is usually in the slow lane (most on-ramps come from the right), which means it is moving at the slower end of the speed continuum, I actually find it easier to merge at 5—10 mph under the posted speed limit. [...] If I accelerate to 60 mph and traffic is moving at 60 mph, then there's a good chance I'll be neck and neck with a truck and no wiggle room. [...] Instead, I find it much easier to approach the merge at about 45 mph–still slow enough to slam on my brakes if need be, but fast enough to accelerate to 55 or 60 by the time anyone else would have to hit their brakes–or at least do anything more than tap them.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 14, 2013, 03:17:50 PMa 5-10 mph difference in speed is indeed very helpful.
if the fast lane is moving 77, and the slow lane 67, then you can merge at one of two speeds:
1) 57mph. staid but respectable.
2) 77mph. it is elegantly also the speed of the fast lane.
under no circumstances is merging at slower than 57mph acceptable.
Quote from: kphoger on March 06, 2025, 01:51:11 PMQuote from: DTComposer on March 06, 2025, 01:36:38 PMI also envisioned variable speed signs on on-ramps, telling people what speed they should be at to safely merge onto the freeway.
Except that...
Quote from: kphoger on May 14, 2013, 03:03:23 PMIt seems that the common opinion on here holds two things about merging traffic that don't jive very well in my driving experience:
(1) Entering traffic should be at full cruising speed by the time they get on the highway; and
(2) Through traffic should not alter its speed for merging traffic, rather merging traffic should alter its speed.
Too many times, this has put me side-by-side with a vehicle (sometimes an 18-wheeler) mere yards from the end of my acceleration lane. I, as entering traffic find it much easier to find a gap in traffic if there is at least 5 mph difference between my speed and the prevailing speed of through traffic. Since the through traffic in question is usually in the slow lane (most on-ramps come from the right), which means it is moving at the slower end of the speed continuum, I actually find it easier to merge at 5—10 mph under the posted speed limit. [...] If I accelerate to 60 mph and traffic is moving at 60 mph, then there's a good chance I'll be neck and neck with a truck and no wiggle room. [...] Instead, I find it much easier to approach the merge at about 45 mph–still slow enough to slam on my brakes if need be, but fast enough to accelerate to 55 or 60 by the time anyone else would have to hit their brakes–or at least do anything more than tap them.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 14, 2013, 03:17:50 PMa 5-10 mph difference in speed is indeed very helpful.
if the fast lane is moving 77, and the slow lane 67, then you can merge at one of two speeds:
1) 57mph. staid but respectable.
2) 77mph. it is elegantly also the speed of the fast lane.
under no circumstances is merging at slower than 57mph acceptable.
IMO merging requires both the thru car and the incoming car to work it out together.
Assuming I'm in the right lane and can't get over and there's a car on the on ramp, I'll watch them and adjust if I need to. Same if I'm merging on, I'll try to either match the speed limit or the flow of traffic and find a gap.
Quote from: DTComposer on March 06, 2025, 01:36:38 PMI've often wondered if there was a system like that in place somewhere
Washington state has an extensive variable speed limit system. Interstates 11 and 15 in Las Vegas also have some variable speed limit systems.
I find it's easier to slide into a gap if I'm near the speed of traffic. That said, I'm also of the "merging/changing lanes traffic shouldn't be forcing people to slow down to let them in unless there's no choice" mindset, so I'm much more willing to slide into a gap if I'm at full speed and the car behind doesn't have to do anything than if I'm going much slower and they would have to slow down because of me. Granted, where I am there aren't usually a ton of trucks in the right lane, and even when there are, they usually drive the same speed regardless of whether the speed limit is 55 or 65, so they tend to go faster than me in the 55 zones where I merge in most often.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 06, 2025, 04:39:38 PMIMO merging requires both the thru car and the incoming car to work it out together.
I've mentioned a few times on this thread (including to Crash_It) that Illinois state law even makes this explicit in its Vehicle Code.
Quote from: kphoger on June 14, 2023, 03:26:36 PMIllinois state law puts equal responsibility on both drivers at a merge:
Quote from: Illinois Compiled StatutesVehicles
625 ILCS 5 – Illinois Vehicle Code
Article IX – Right-of-Way
Sec. 11-905 – Merging traffic – Notwithstanding the right-of-way provision in Section 11-901 of this Act, at an intersection where traffic lanes are provided for merging traffic the driver of each vehicle on the converging roadways is required to adjust his vehicular speed and lateral position so as to avoid a collision with another vehicle.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2025, 03:14:09 PMI'm amused sometimes whenever K12 or one of these so called futurists post outlandish things like the 150 MPH AI car. It reeks as being completely divorced from how the rest of the world is. Latin America is barely getting EVs as uber high end luxury cars for the wealthy. I can't fathom a time in these next half century where small aging ICE sedans with manual transmissions won't be a thing on Mexican roads.
This is why I kind of scoff at people who turn up their nose at public transit. Someone wanting to build a bike lane to encourage more bike riding isn't out to ruin the world. It's not an evil plot. Encouraging people to take a bus isn't evil or wrong. Odds are if a single bike lane is making you late to work, you probably already left too late anyway. Terms like "road diet" are deliberately scary-sounding phrases designed to invoke certain attitudes towards people who can see the value in not being in a car 24/7.
Some people always like to make the claim that we are being "forced" into mass transit. Well, if we are, "they" certainly aren't doing a very good job. And what exactly is going to force me? Is someone going to put a gun to my head and kill me if I don't ride a bus? I feel people who make that argument are not generally worth debating with.
As always, you have to look beyond yourself. Just because YOU can afford a car and like to drive it, doesn't mean everyone else can. Just because I'm not being persecuted doesn't mean others aren't. A lot of people live where I live, and every single one of them has different lives and world views than me. And that's a good thing.