Unpopular Anything Road-Related Opinions

[zachary_amaryllis]

You can say anything you want, without saying it.

"hypothetically, were I to call you a cheese-dip-covered skyline of Sutherland, Nebraska, how would you react?"

[Roadgeekteen]

I have two ones that might stirr up some shit

In America, more money should be spent on public transit than highways (though we still need to spend more money on highways and roads)

The future of driving should be self-driving electric cars. This is better for the enviorment and will be a net positive for the hobby.

[Max Rockatansky]

The future of driving should be self-driving electric cars. This is better for the enviorment and will be a net positive for the hobby.

How is not being able to manually operate a car a boon for the hobby?  If anything I see that as a road hobby killer.

[Roadgeekteen]

The future of driving should be self-driving electric cars. This is better for the enviorment and will be a net positive for the hobby.

How is not being able to manually operate a car a boon for the hobby?  If anything I see that as a road hobby killer.

I was more talking about the electric part due to not having to pay for gas and it being better for the enviornment, the self-driving car has benefits and drawbacks. Although I currently don't have a license, and I don't trust myself fully on the road due to my issues. So it would benefit me in particular to be able to go places without a license. And on scenic roads, it would be cool to look at the scenary without having to focus on the road.

[Max Rockatansky]

The future of driving should be self-driving electric cars. This is better for the enviorment and will be a net positive for the hobby.

How is not being able to manually operate a car a boon for the hobby?  If anything I see that as a road hobby killer.

I was more talking about the electric part due to not having to pay for gas and it being better for the enviornment, the self-driving car has benefits and drawbacks. Although I currently don't have a license, and I don't trust myself fully on the road due to my issues. So it would benefit me in particular to be able to go places without a license. And on scenic roads, it would be cool to look at the scenary without having to focus on the road.

One of the best things if not the best thing I've found about scenic roads is navigating them behind the wheel.  It's one thing to have a AI escort you from a standardized freeway, it would be quite another for it to negotiate an Ebbetts Pass type highway.  The prospect of the latter or something similar rings hollow and lacking. 

Then again, I've never really recall not wanting to be the wheel man on an active road trip.  I enjoy driving and finding new roads to experience/explore for myself.  I don't even enjoy being a passenger generally.

Regarding EVs, that's not exactly a totally free lunch in terms of charging.  We make a killing with what our gas station charges the EV drivers to plug-in as an example.  Don't forget, widespread proliferation of VMTs is likely coming soon.

[jeffandnicole]

The future of driving should be self-driving electric cars. This is better for the enviorment and will be a net positive for the hobby.

How is not being able to manually operate a car a boon for the hobby?  If anything I see that as a road hobby killer.

Being we're talking a few hundred people, it really doesn't matter either way 

In America, more money should be spent smartly on public transit than highways

This is how I would rewrite this. We can't throw money out the door trying to convince every rural homeowner to take a bus everywhere. Improve transit service in cities and urban areas where the *masses* can utilize mass transit. Don't pad a budget just to spend more than another mode of transportation, especially when roads help move buses too...and help get people to trains.

If people want to live 30 miles from a city, that's fine. But don't build train lines at tens of millions of dollars per mile, which will only operate at low frequencies and not 24 hours a day, ti be used very infrequently outside of rush hours.

[Roadgeekteen]

The future of driving should be self-driving electric cars. This is better for the enviorment and will be a net positive for the hobby.

How is not being able to manually operate a car a boon for the hobby?  If anything I see that as a road hobby killer.

Being we're talking a few hundred people, it really doesn't matter either way 

In America, more money should be spent smartly on public transit than highways

This is how I would rewrite this. We can't throw money out the door trying to convince every rural homeowner to take a bus everywhere. Improve transit service in cities and urban areas where the *masses* can utilize mass transit. Don't pad a budget just to spend more than another mode of transportation, especially when roads help move buses too...and help get people to trains.

If people want to live 30 miles from a city, that's fine. But don't build train lines at tens of millions of dollars per mile, which will only operate at low frequencies and not 24 hours a day, ti be used very infrequently outside of rush hours.

Yeah that's kind of what I meant. I'm mostly talking about in Urban and suburban areas, public transit doesn't work well in rural South Dakota.

[kphoger]

I wouldn't trust a self-driving car to find just the right parking position at a campsite in the Rockies–the best combination of unpacking convenience, tree branch clearance for the cargo box on top, morning sun exposure, and hiking access between road and tent pad.

[Scott5114]

Having experience with computer programming, I wouldn't trust a self-driving car, period.

Humans can make mistakes, but our pattern recognition is something that we still have trouble teaching computers. And most of driving is pattern recognition.

[US 89]

I wouldn't trust a self-driving car to do any more than drive without changing lanes on a rural interstate in the daylight. And even then, I don't trust it to slow down and watch out for the deer walking through the grass off to the side that might decide to jump onto the road at any given moment.

[Gnutella]

Given the combination of


1. Population
2. Traffic volume
3. Road network size
4. Mountainous terrain
5. Location in the freeze/thaw belt
6. Not being an especially rich state


"PennDOT engineer" ranks up there with "Jewish carpenter" and "meteorologist" on the list of the world's most thankless jobs.

[MultiMillionMiler]

Having experience with computer programming, I wouldn't trust a self-driving car, period.

Humans can make mistakes, but our pattern recognition is something that we still have trouble teaching computers. And most of driving is pattern recognition.

Not to mention all the glitches computer programs have, or wireless connectivity problems if they were all linked in some large network. Self driving cars would just be a dangerous form of a train on roads instead of on rails.

[Scott5114]

Having experience with computer programming, I wouldn't trust a self-driving car, period.

Humans can make mistakes, but our pattern recognition is something that we still have trouble teaching computers. And most of driving is pattern recognition.

Not to mention all the glitches computer programs have, or wireless connectivity problems if they were all linked in some large network. Self driving cars would just be a dangerous form of a train on roads instead of on rails.

Exactly. If you're going to do that, just build a train.

[ethanhopkin14]

The overwhelming majority of freeways are boring to drive on.

So are the overwhelming majority of conventional roads, for that matter. The argument for conventional roads is you get to "see more", by which they usually mean more small towns. Small towns are more or less interchangeable and have nothing unique to them that isn't a historic event (which probably isn't going on while you're passing through on the state highway) or some local business (sure, Nellie's Diner makes fantastic fried chicken, but so does Glenda's Diner in a town about the same size that's 50 miles down the road, and about 20 different restaurants in an actual city).

And let's face it, when you're on a trip, you don't have the time to stop in every single small town and learn all about the Oak Resin Rebellion of 1917 (when Jeridida Sawfunkler climbed the grain elevator and declared "No man should have to parallel park on the streets of Goltry!"), or which of the anonymous historic buildings on Main Street (or is it Broadway?) makes the best fried paperclips, or whatever. Most of them are just going to represent a 25 mph zone in between two 65 mph zones that you have to slow down for as you make your way through the historic downtown that will look exactly like the historic downtown of the next 25 mph zone you will encounter eighteen miles down the road.

Freeways at least give you the opportunity to cover distance so you get to actually interesting places faster.

Sorry for the old pull here but read this today and it might be the greatest thing I have ever read.  Basically, this is the reason I am such a fan of the interstate highway system.  Sure, cross country freeway travel might get repetitive, but you get through the minutia faster.  My childhood consisted of trips from Ausin, where I grew up, to Marshall, TX where my grandparents lived.  The whole trip albeit 30 miles was on US-79 through every small town downtown.  Sometimes it was fun, but after a while and as I grew up, I started to realize all the towns on the trip started to look the same, and the towns started to look the same as any rural drive I took in Texas.  This is one of the reasons I don't understand the sad story of the old US highway being bypassed by the interstate and what it did to the town.  The interstate helped everyone not have to deal with that town anymore and everyone was happier for it.  The few that needed to stop because they were hungry, needed gas or had to use the bathroom will still stop in your town.  I have said forever, forcing the cross-country traffic through your precious historic downtown does no good for anyone.  The myopia vision is it gets all those motorists to stop at the businesses in the downtown area, when the reality is no one wants to stop at all your stupid trinket stores and one good restaurant that's like every other town's best restaurant on the trip and instead your downtown drag just ends up congested and pedestrians run for their life not to be run over by the 18-wheelers.  Most on the road just want to get another 400 miles down the road as quickly as they can so they can get to Wally World.   

All this to say, I am not a small-town hater, but they pretty much end up looking the same.  Seen one, you seen them all. 

[hotdogPi]

I do, however, appreciate good punny business names or advertising signs. For example, traveling on NH 125, What's The Scoop ice cream. (The business wasn't on 125 itself; a sign pointed to it.)

[ethanhopkin14]

I do, however, appreciate good punny business names or advertising signs. For example, traveling on NH 125, What's The Scoop ice cream. (The business wasn't on 125 itself; a sign pointed to it.)

Funny thing is, I do too.  I love those shop names like that, but I like driving over 2,000 miles in a day and a half way more. 

[Scott5114]

I do, however, appreciate good punny business names or advertising signs. For example, traveling on NH 125, What's The Scoop ice cream. (The business wasn't on 125 itself; a sign pointed to it.)

Even those get copypasted a few times if you drive through enough small towns.

[Quillz]

The overwhelming majority of freeways are boring to drive on.

So are the overwhelming majority of conventional roads, for that matter. The argument for conventional roads is you get to "see more", by which they usually mean more small towns. Small towns are more or less interchangeable and have nothing unique to them that isn't a historic event (which probably isn't going on while you're passing through on the state highway) or some local business (sure, Nellie's Diner makes fantastic fried chicken, but so does Glenda's Diner in a town about the same size that's 50 miles down the road, and about 20 different restaurants in an actual city).

And let's face it, when you're on a trip, you don't have the time to stop in every single small town and learn all about the Oak Resin Rebellion of 1917 (when Jeridida Sawfunkler climbed the grain elevator and declared "No man should have to parallel park on the streets of Goltry!"), or which of the anonymous historic buildings on Main Street (or is it Broadway?) makes the best fried paperclips, or whatever. Most of them are just going to represent a 25 mph zone in between two 65 mph zones that you have to slow down for as you make your way through the historic downtown that will look exactly like the historic downtown of the next 25 mph zone you will encounter eighteen miles down the road.

Freeways at least give you the opportunity to cover distance so you get to actually interesting places faster.

Sorry for the old pull here but read this today and it might be the greatest thing I have ever read.  Basically, this is the reason I am such a fan of the interstate highway system.  Sure, cross country freeway travel might get repetitive, but you get through the minutia faster.  My childhood consisted of trips from Ausin, where I grew up, to Marshall, TX where my grandparents lived.  The whole trip albeit 30 miles was on US-79 through every small town downtown.  Sometimes it was fun, but after a while and as I grew up, I started to realize all the towns on the trip started to look the same, and the towns started to look the same as any rural drive I took in Texas.  This is one of the reasons I don't understand the sad story of the old US highway being bypassed by the interstate and what it did to the town.  The interstate helped everyone not have to deal with that town anymore and everyone was happier for it.  The few that needed to stop because they were hungry, needed gas or had to use the bathroom will still stop in your town.  I have said forever, forcing the cross-country traffic through your precious historic downtown does no good for anyone.  The myopia vision is it gets all those motorists to stop at the businesses in the downtown area, when the reality is no one wants to stop at all your stupid trinket stores and one good restaurant that's like every other town's best restaurant on the trip and instead your downtown drag just ends up congested and pedestrians run for their life not to be run over by the 18-wheelers.  Most on the road just want to get another 400 miles down the road as quickly as they can so they can get to Wally World.   

All this to say, I am not a small-town hater, but they pretty much end up looking the same.  Seen one, you seen them all. 

I had this experience when I visited a small town on Alaska's North Slope. It was really neat to visit for the first couple days because it was on the frozen-over Arctic Ocean and it was in a part of the world I never visited before. But by the third day, I realized that was all it had to offer. It otherwise was just another small town with little to do. I booked an entire week there and by the third day I was bored out of my mind. (It's the kind of town you can only get in and out of with a boat or plane).

[JoePCool14]

Sometimes you see a small town that's different than the rest. Maybe they'll have a town square/roundabout type intersection in the middle, such as Lancaster, WI (outdated GMSV). Or maybe you some towns have a different road design. Very wide, or tight and narrow. Or even as something as simple as different street blade designs. What I mean is that there can still be some variety had in different towns. Of my time travelling around SW Wisconsin, I can still give at least one thing I remember about most of the towns.



On the subject of self-driving cars: noooooooooo. I would much rather drive from the aspect of safety and enjoyment. It's way more engaging. Also, I do not trust computers that much. I don't care if jet planes are flown using computers. Cars and planes are not the same with the number of variables.

And electric cars are not overall better for the environment. The electricity likely comes from oil or coal. Batteries require resources to be mined. Batteries are also consumable, and their capacity will degrade each cycle. Imagine having to replace an expensive battery every few years if you drive long distances frequently. And of course, even the best charge times using DC Fast Charge or a Tesla Supercharger can take 20-30 minutes.

The best use case for electric cars are in cities. They cut down on local emissions, which have been problematic, and are easier to charge for driving short distances. I'm not completely against them. Wyoming supposedly wants to place a ban on the sale of all EVs, which is equally as wrong as California banning the sale of all gasoline vehicles.

Replacing all gas vehicles with electric is nothing more than a politicians' fantasy.

[SEWIGuy]

The overwhelming majority of freeways are boring to drive on.

So are the overwhelming majority of conventional roads, for that matter. The argument for conventional roads is you get to "see more", by which they usually mean more small towns. Small towns are more or less interchangeable and have nothing unique to them that isn't a historic event (which probably isn't going on while you're passing through on the state highway) or some local business (sure, Nellie's Diner makes fantastic fried chicken, but so does Glenda's Diner in a town about the same size that's 50 miles down the road, and about 20 different restaurants in an actual city).

And let's face it, when you're on a trip, you don't have the time to stop in every single small town and learn all about the Oak Resin Rebellion of 1917 (when Jeridida Sawfunkler climbed the grain elevator and declared "No man should have to parallel park on the streets of Goltry!"), or which of the anonymous historic buildings on Main Street (or is it Broadway?) makes the best fried paperclips, or whatever. Most of them are just going to represent a 25 mph zone in between two 65 mph zones that you have to slow down for as you make your way through the historic downtown that will look exactly like the historic downtown of the next 25 mph zone you will encounter eighteen miles down the road.

Freeways at least give you the opportunity to cover distance so you get to actually interesting places faster.

Sorry for the old pull here but read this today and it might be the greatest thing I have ever read.  Basically, this is the reason I am such a fan of the interstate highway system.  Sure, cross country freeway travel might get repetitive, but you get through the minutia faster.  My childhood consisted of trips from Ausin, where I grew up, to Marshall, TX where my grandparents lived.  The whole trip albeit 30 miles was on US-79 through every small town downtown.  Sometimes it was fun, but after a while and as I grew up, I started to realize all the towns on the trip started to look the same, and the towns started to look the same as any rural drive I took in Texas.  This is one of the reasons I don't understand the sad story of the old US highway being bypassed by the interstate and what it did to the town.  The interstate helped everyone not have to deal with that town anymore and everyone was happier for it.  The few that needed to stop because they were hungry, needed gas or had to use the bathroom will still stop in your town.  I have said forever, forcing the cross-country traffic through your precious historic downtown does no good for anyone.  The myopia vision is it gets all those motorists to stop at the businesses in the downtown area, when the reality is no one wants to stop at all your stupid trinket stores and one good restaurant that's like every other town's best restaurant on the trip and instead your downtown drag just ends up congested and pedestrians run for their life not to be run over by the 18-wheelers.  Most on the road just want to get another 400 miles down the road as quickly as they can so they can get to Wally World.   

All this to say, I am not a small-town hater, but they pretty much end up looking the same.  Seen one, you seen them all. 

I think two things can be true:

1. The interstate system has made travel faster and easier, which for many people is going to be their choice when decided what route to take between two cities.

2. The former route through cities and small towns, can bring variety to a trip and may be a better choice for those who have time time.

An example.  When I drive home to Green Bay from Milwaukee, I will take I-43 about 95% of the time. However if I have the time, I will often take WI-57 just because it has a little more variety to the drive.

[ethanhopkin14]

On the subject of self-driving cars: noooooooooo. I would much rather drive from the aspect of safety and enjoyment. It's way more engaging. Also, I do not trust computers that much. I don't care if jet planes are flown using computers. Cars and planes are not the same with the number of variables.

I know how many times my iPhone wigs out in a day.  If that technology was in my car driving for me, no thank you.

Replacing all gas vehicles with electric is nothing more than a politicians' fantasy.

I agree.  It's all pandering to the masses and words said to get votes.  I have no problem with one day having electric cars usurp gas powered cars, but not today.  Not five years from now.  Maybe not in my lifetime.  The technology just isn't there yet to make them as efficient as gas powered cars for long road trips and when they do figure out how to make an electric car go 400 miles to the charge and the next charge up is 5 to 10 minutes long, there will still be a trial-and-error period before we can all say, yes, this will work.  I am all for the electric car succeeding, just don't force it down my throat when you know we are not ready to make the switch any time soon. 

[ethanhopkin14]

The overwhelming majority of freeways are boring to drive on.

So are the overwhelming majority of conventional roads, for that matter. The argument for conventional roads is you get to "see more", by which they usually mean more small towns. Small towns are more or less interchangeable and have nothing unique to them that isn't a historic event (which probably isn't going on while you're passing through on the state highway) or some local business (sure, Nellie's Diner makes fantastic fried chicken, but so does Glenda's Diner in a town about the same size that's 50 miles down the road, and about 20 different restaurants in an actual city).

And let's face it, when you're on a trip, you don't have the time to stop in every single small town and learn all about the Oak Resin Rebellion of 1917 (when Jeridida Sawfunkler climbed the grain elevator and declared "No man should have to parallel park on the streets of Goltry!"), or which of the anonymous historic buildings on Main Street (or is it Broadway?) makes the best fried paperclips, or whatever. Most of them are just going to represent a 25 mph zone in between two 65 mph zones that you have to slow down for as you make your way through the historic downtown that will look exactly like the historic downtown of the next 25 mph zone you will encounter eighteen miles down the road.

Freeways at least give you the opportunity to cover distance so you get to actually interesting places faster.

Sorry for the old pull here but read this today and it might be the greatest thing I have ever read.  Basically, this is the reason I am such a fan of the interstate highway system.  Sure, cross country freeway travel might get repetitive, but you get through the minutia faster.  My childhood consisted of trips from Ausin, where I grew up, to Marshall, TX where my grandparents lived.  The whole trip albeit 30 miles was on US-79 through every small town downtown.  Sometimes it was fun, but after a while and as I grew up, I started to realize all the towns on the trip started to look the same, and the towns started to look the same as any rural drive I took in Texas.  This is one of the reasons I don't understand the sad story of the old US highway being bypassed by the interstate and what it did to the town.  The interstate helped everyone not have to deal with that town anymore and everyone was happier for it.  The few that needed to stop because they were hungry, needed gas or had to use the bathroom will still stop in your town.  I have said forever, forcing the cross-country traffic through your precious historic downtown does no good for anyone.  The myopia vision is it gets all those motorists to stop at the businesses in the downtown area, when the reality is no one wants to stop at all your stupid trinket stores and one good restaurant that's like every other town's best restaurant on the trip and instead your downtown drag just ends up congested and pedestrians run for their life not to be run over by the 18-wheelers.  Most on the road just want to get another 400 miles down the road as quickly as they can so they can get to Wally World.   

All this to say, I am not a small-town hater, but they pretty much end up looking the same.  Seen one, you seen them all. 

I think two things can be true:

1. The interstate system has made travel faster and easier, which for many people is going to be their choice when decided what route to take between two cities.

2. The former route through cities and small towns, can bring variety to a trip and may be a better choice for those who have time.

An example.  When I drive home to Green Bay from Milwaukee, I will take I-43 about 95% of the time. However if I have the time, I will often take WI-57 just because it has a little more variety to the drive.

I wish I was wired that way.  Many people talk about this back way to get to Corpus Christi from Austin using US-183, SH-80 and US-181.  I have contemplated possibly going that way a few times, but I just can't bring myself to do it.  I just don't want to slow down for Luling, Nixon, Karnes City and Kenedy.  I just can't justify doing it when I can drive interstate the whole way, even if I have to burn.  I have always thought that way, but I really think that way now that I am a motorhome driver.  The variations in speed are murder when you drive a vehicle that takes forever to get to highway speed. 

[FrCorySticha]

On the subject of self-driving cars: noooooooooo. I would much rather drive from the aspect of safety and enjoyment. It's way more engaging. Also, I do not trust computers that much. I don't care if jet planes are flown using computers. Cars and planes are not the same with the number of variables.

I know how many times my iPhone wigs out in a day.  If that technology was in my car driving for me, no thank you.

Replacing all gas vehicles with electric is nothing more than a politicians' fantasy.

I agree.  It's all pandering to the masses and words said to get votes.  I have no problem with one day having electric cars usurp gas powered cars, but not today.  Not five years from now.  Maybe not in my lifetime.  The technology just isn't there yet to make them as efficient as gas powered cars for long road trips and when they do figure out how to make an electric car go 400 miles to the charge and the next charge up is 5 to 10 minutes long, there will still be a trial-and-error period before we can all say, yes, this will work.  I am all for the electric car succeeding, just don't force it down my throat when you know we are not ready to make the switch any time soon.

I have become convinced that electric cars are paralleling internal combustion engine vehicles by about 100 years. 1920's vehicles were nowhere near as reliable as we expect today, and it really wasn't until the 1930's to post-WWII era that cars became ubiquitous and more reliable. EVs are generally mechanically reliable, even more so than ICE vehicles, but the electronic and software technology that runs these cars still has serious reliability gaps.

The infrastructure wasn't there either in the 1920's. Remember that Eisenhower's famous disastrous cross-country trip was in 1919, just 104 years ago. While the road infrastructure is vastly superior to the 1920's, the recharging capabilities are similar to gas stations back then. Staying on major corridors means finding plenty of charging stations, but going onto even important highways within rural areas can be risky. Just as gasoline production and distribution had to ramp up throughout the first half of the 20th century, electricity production and distribution will need a corresponding increase throughout the first half of the 21st century.

I do believe, however, that EVs can and likely will largely replace ICE vehicles within the next 20 years. As the technological and infrastructure problems are resolved, EVs will sell more in cities and suburbs. Rural areas, such as where I live, will likely lag behind in EV adoption, as the infrastructure will be late in developing here.

[Quillz]

Wyoming supposedly wants to place a ban on the sale of all EVs, which is equally as wrong as California banning the sale of all gasoline vehicles.

Both are supposed to happen in 2035, which is basically code for "politicians saying stuff with no intention of actually following through on them." Both of those statements likely appeal to the primary voting demographic in each state. And I doubt either will ever actually happen. (And even if they do, are easy enough to work around).

[Max Rockatansky]

Wyoming supposedly wants to place a ban on the sale of all EVs, which is equally as wrong as California banning the sale of all gasoline vehicles.

Both are supposed to happen in 2035, which is basically code for "politicians saying stuff with no intention of actually following through on them." Both of those statements likely appeal to the primary voting demographic in each state. And I doubt either will ever actually happen. (And even if they do, are easy enough to work around).

California doesn't exactly have a "EV mandate"  but rather what CARB defines as "Zero Emission Vehicles"  mandate.  Under the CARB definition there is a certain percentage of vehicles that can be sold in 2035 in California with ICEs so long as they have plug-in capability.  Specifically this is what is cited on the CARB website:

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035

"Plug-in hybrid, full battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles count toward an automaker's requirement. PHEVs must have an all-electric range of at least 50 miles under real-world driving conditions. In addition, automakers will be allowed to meet no more than 20% of their overall ZEV requirement with PHEVs.

Battery-electric and fuel cell vehicles will need a minimum range of 150 miles to qualify under the program, include fast-charging ability and come equipped with a charging cord to facilitate charging, and meet new warranty and durability requirements."

All the same, I don't really think the EV market needed to be pushed on consumers.  Consumer choice was swinging the direction of EVs without regulation.  All regulation is going to do is drive the price up on new vehicles and potentially price certain consumers totally out of the new car market.  (Personal aside, the lack of new cars under 25k is particularly disconcerting considering I'm about two years from a daily driver purchase.)

Also worth considering is that California's planned electric grid expansion is largely contingent upon meeting a narrow window for a short term capacity boost by 2035.  Paint me skeptical that 15GW worth of floating wind turbine capacity is going to be ready on time:.

https://www.pacbiztimes.com/2022/12/07/u-s-announces-winners-of-morro-bay-offshore-wind-farm-lease-auctions/