 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2008Construction Zone BS
http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/construction-zone-tickets-what-the y-dont-want-you-to-know/ Construction Zone Tickets: What They Dont Want You To Know February 11th, 2008 Posted in Traffic Tickets By Jim Baxter, NMA President Highway work zone accidents and fatalities have been a hot topic over the past decade. Like most hot topics dealing with highway safety issues the misinformation, distortions, and propaganda are dominant in the headlines. For example, the political elite would have us believe that highway workers are the primary victims of callus, reckless, and impaired drivers who take their pleasure by careening amongst orange plastic barrels. You might find in a footnote that eight out of nine work zone fatalities are motorists and not workers. Another even more remote footnote might mention that most of the highway workers that are injured or die in work zone accidents are the victims of direct work related accidents that do not involve passing cars and trucks. However, not to be dissuaded by facts or reality, state legislators have pumped out numerous laws that increase traffic fines in work zones, assess more fines for harming highway workers, and promote enforcement campaigns aimed at applying these new penalties. So what are the results of all this legislative flogging? A recent University of Kansas Study that explored the causes of work zone accidents referenced a telling national statistic: * In 1999 work zone fatalities totaled 872. * By 2003 the number of work zone fatalities had increased 18 percent (1028 fatalities). While it wouldnt be fair to lay the blame for these deaths on the legislative disinformation campaigns and doubling and tripling of fines, its clear they havent improved the situation. To the degree that this political hucksterism displaced and sidetracked programs and policies that could have reduced work zone accidents it IS partially responsible for the end result; more accidents, more injuries and more deaths. [...]  SignaturePlease don't give financial rewards to trolls - DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com" Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> had written: | A recent University of Kansas Study that explored the causes of work | zone accidents referenced a telling national statistic: | | * In 1999 work zone fatalities totaled 872. | * By 2003 the number of work zone fatalities had increased 18 | percent (1028 fatalities). Of course, what the writer *doesn't* tell you is whether those statistics had been controlled for the actual amount of work being done, or even how that work would be measured. For example, in a broad sense, fatalities could have gone up because there was more construction and thus more opportunity for fatal accidents to occur. The author also uses the term "fatalities" but does not clearly indicate the *causes* of those fatalities, merely attempting to leave an implication that auto-related accidents caused them. But, say, would a box culvert getting dropped on someone's head also count as a fatality? SignatureMark Roberts - Oakland, CA - NO HTML MAIL Permission to archive this article in any form is hereby explicitly denied. If you quote, please quote only relevant passages and not the whole article. > http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/construction-zone-ticke... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > issues the misinformation, distortions, and propaganda are dominant in > the headlines. Lol. Which headlines...? > For example, the political elite would have us believe that highway > workers are the primary victims of callus, reckless, and impaired > drivers who take their pleasure by careening amongst orange plastic > barrels. You might find in a footnote that eight out of nine work zone > fatalities are motorists and not workers. Uh huh... I "might* find in a footnote...?! In English, that means I also might not. Your implied conclusion is that drivers involved in fatal crashes in construction zones pose no hazard to construction workers. This ought to be good.... > Another even more remote footnote might mention that most of the > highway workers that are injured or die in work zone accidents are the > victims of direct work related accidents that do not involve passing > cars and trucks. It... *might*... mention that....?! By now, Occam's Razor suggests it doesn't, or you would have cited it. > However, not to be dissuaded by facts or reality, state legislators > have pumped out numerous laws that increase traffic fines in work [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > legislative disinformation campaigns and doubling and tripling of > fines, it's clear they haven't improved the situation. No, it's not clear. You haven't compared the number of construction zones to the increase of VMT. > To the degree that this political hucksterism displaced and > sidetracked programs and policies that could have reduced work zone > accidents it IS partially responsible for the end result; more > accidents, more injuries and more deaths. ISTM getting people to slow down so they don't crash, or their crashes are less severe would make the most sense. Please, tell me what little more you have to say that wouldn't fit in Scott's post, for some reason... "Work zones can be managed to move traffic safely. Better signage, better lane management, better timing of active work projects, relevant speed regulation, and giving first priority to traffic movement during peak travel periods, such as holidays, are all constructive objectives." Depends on how you look at it, I guess. Like a complete idiot doesn't seem to be the best way to me. Highway construction companies need enough work and profit to remain in business so there's competitive bidding. I suppose it would be nice to optimize construction for the convenience of drivers, it just isn't realistic, because it increases costs. "These measures, and others, require the recognition that work zone safety is primarily about drivers, not highway workers, and in fact it is the highway project managers that should be held responsible for improving work zone safety." Drivers can operate so that they don't crash at no additional expense. Rubber baby buggy bumpers for morons doesn't make sense. You are advocating nanny state measures you vehemently oppose, if you don't mind my pointing that out. "Certainly, drivers need to exercise caution in construction zones, but they are not in control of the traffic environment, the project managers are. Ladling on more fines and penalties may work, as long as the recipients are the people responsible for managing construction and work zones." Aren't you the president of an idiot organization that lobbies for higher speed limits for all those ultra-competent drivers that you imagine, and here it seems you think construction project managers are responsible for their crashes in construction zones where speed limits are lowest. Drivers may not control the construction environment, but they are in sole control of their vehicles. Might I suggest finishing grade school before placing fingers to keyboard in the future...? ----- - gpsman (a bunch of crap as usual) STFU you moron. Your idiocy isn't welcome here. >(a bunch of crap as usual) > >STFU you moron. Your idiocy isn't welcome here. That GPSTroll just LOVES to argue, doesn't he? Did he manage to dispute the essential facts presented in the article, i.e. that most work zone deaths don't involve workers at SignaturePlease don't give financial rewards to trolls - DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com" > >(a bunch of crap as usual) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Please don't give financial rewards to trolls - > DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com" Well I have some reservations about the 'facts' 'Things like How many of the traffic accidents were while work was in progress' How many of the injured workers (by traffic) were caused by egregious disregard of th signage'. etc. The whole article reads like it was written by a person with a mission vice honest reporting. His stats may be correct but 'liars can figure' springs to mind. Harry K > Did he manage to dispute the essential facts presented in the article, > i.e. that most work zone deaths don't involve workers at Actually, the ratio of 10:1 construction zone fatalities of motorists to workers sounds about right, from the statistics I've seen. However, personally knowing a few fellow state inspectors and union laborers who got killed in a construction zone puts a different light on it...Stalin's quote about death and statistics eerily applies here. As far as non-traffic related incidents being lumped in, I don't think so. A police traffic accident report is the common thread here, and off-traffic construction accidents are not reported this way, at least in IL. Such as the female engineer I knew, fresh out of college, who was run over by a cement truck backing up. Her feet got caught in the reinforcing bars on a bridge deck and she couldn't get out of the way. OTOH, a construction resident engineer who got run into when a car swerved onto the shoulder was reported as a CZ roadway fatality. RP >http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/construction-zone-tickets-what-the y-dont-want-you-to-know/ > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > >[...] This crap is exactly why I have zero respect for any attempt by NMA to change rules they don't like. Highway construction deaths by motor vehicle are somehow the fault of lower speed limits, and that motorist safety, not the workers, are the ones that should be protected? GMAFB. It's crap like this that gives the NMA a bad name and is generally laughed at whenever they show up whining about highway speed limits. John Lansford, PE -- John's Shop of Wood http://wood.jlansford.net/ >>http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/construction-zone-tickets-what-the y-dont-want-you-to-know/ >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > >John Lansford, PE I think that the best way to reduce work zone accidents would be not to have so many work zones. I noted before leaving Indiana over 10 years ago that the state would open many, many work zones on its interstate highways, keep them open pretty much until the snow was in the air, and then do it all over again the next year. Driving thru these work zones, one could observe that work was actually in progress in only a very small section of each work zone. How about opening just 1 or 2 work zones at a time, taking everybody and all their equipment from those other work zones that would otherwise have also been opened, and putting them to work on close to 100% of the length of the 1 or 2 open work zones in the state, 24/7, and get those jobs done in a few weeks or months rather than all year? Most of the nasty stuff that happens in work zones seems to mostly occur at the beginning of the work zone where traffic is transitioning from highway speeds to work zone speeds, so having only 1 or 2 of these transitions in operation in the state of Indiana would seem to be pretty much guaranteed to reduce the number of such accidents in Indiana. Do the same thing nationwide, and I think there would be fewer workzone accidents. Dave Head: > I think that the best way to reduce work zone accidents would be not to have so > many work zones. Amen to that! > I noted before leaving Indiana over 10 years ago that the state would open > many, many work zones on its interstate highways, keep them open pretty much > until the snow was in the air, and then do it all over again the next year. > Driving thru these work zones, one could observe that work was actually in > progress in only a very small section of each work zone. What I've noted about many work zones lately is there will be mile upon mile of barrels and that's it. No construction equipment, no workers and no evidence that any work has been done in the recent past. About all you have is weeds gaining a foothold in the shoulder and alligators and other aasorted debris gathering in the lane where the barrels are. > How about opening just 1 or 2 work zones at a time, taking everybody and all > their equipment from those other work zones that would otherwise have also been [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > much guaranteed to reduce the number of such accidents in Indiana. Do the same > thing nationwide, and I think there would be fewer workzone accidents. That would make too much common sense. Also it would cut into the revenue stream that the states have created with this enhanced penalty crap. As such, it will never happen. -- D umber O ver T ime >I think that the best way to reduce work zone accidents would be not to have so >many work zones. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >much guaranteed to reduce the number of such accidents in Indiana. Do the same >thing nationwide, and I think there would be fewer workzone accidents. People already bitch and moan about how long a particular stretch of road takes to build, and that is directly related to contractors having to maintain traffic through the work zone. Letting "megaprojects" under one contract so there's only one work zone (but a longer one) doesn't work that well either, due to manpower, cost and equipment limitations. Multiple work zones on one road means different contractors are performing the work at the same time, which speeds up the time the road is under construction. Putting an entire stretch under one contract would lengthen the construction time, not reduce it. John Lansford, PE -- John's Shop of Wood http://wood.jlansford.net/ >>I think that the best way to reduce work zone accidents would be not to have so >>many work zones. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > John's Shop of Wood > http://wood.jlansford.net/ How about simply changing the wording on work zone speed limit signs to "when workers are present" or "when lights are flashing" (I've actually seen this in some states) and setting a reasonable work zone speed limit? (40 MPH on an Interstate highway is not reasonable.) This would go a long way towards reducing motorist noncompliance and frustration. IMHO it is clear which states are actually concerned about safety and which just want to get more revenue. Those few that do as I describe above probably care about safety. The rest are just trying to get more money from motorists under the guise of safety. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>I think that the best way to reduce work zone accidents would be not to have so > >>many work zones. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > - Show quoted text - 40 mph in a work zone, interstate or not, can be very reasonable. The posted _should_ be set by what work is being done, not by referring to a statute, e.g., 'speed limit in work zone shall be 40 mph...' even if all that is going on is clearing barrow pit obstructions. I have seen that done. I have also seen the 'when workers are present' which should be a federal mandate on interstates. Harry K > How about simply changing the wording on work zone speed limit signs to > "when workers are present" or "when lights are flashing" (I've actually > seen this in some states) and setting a reasonable work zone speed > limit? (40 MPH on an Interstate highway is not reasonable.) The only state that I've seen with reasonable work zone limits is North Carolina. I don't remember if that state has the lights flashing or workers present on their construction zone signs, but some of their highway work zones have speed limits of 60 or 65 mph (where the regular limit is 65 or 70 mph). >> How about simply changing the wording on work zone speed limit signs >> to "when workers are present" or "when lights are flashing" (I've [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > highway work zones have speed limits of 60 or 65 mph (where the regular > limit is 65 or 70 mph). Thanks for making me realize just how much DC area roads suck, yet again. I wish we had REGULAR speed limits that high! nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >> How about simply changing the wording on work zone speed limit signs > >> to "when workers are present" or "when lights are flashing" (I've [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel There's a construction zone on I-95 just North of Daytona that is 70MPH. >> How about simply changing the wording on work zone speed limit signs to >> "when workers are present" or "when lights are flashing" (I've actually [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >highway work zones have speed limits of 60 or 65 mph (where the regular >limit is 65 or 70 mph). I believe we do have the "when workers are present" signs for some workzones. The penalty for speeding in a workzone was raised a few years ago, but the legislature required signs saying the above as well for it to be in effect. NCDOT also only reduces the SL down 10mph in an interstate workzone, unless there's something incredibly special about it that requires a greater SL reduction. I have seen 45mph on a 65mph stretch near Charlotte, for example, but that was due to an "S curve" temporary lane shift that was very abrupt. John Lansford, PE -- John's Shop of Wood http://wood.jlansford.net/ > >> How about simply changing the wording on work zone speed limit signs to > >> "when workers are present" or "when lights are flashing" (I've actually [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 65mph stretch near Charlotte, for example, but that was due to an "S > curve" temporary lane shift that was very abrupt. I could accept that as reasonable; however, I don't drive in NC very much and the construction zones that I do see generally have at least a 15 MPH reduction in speed (if not more) and also never have the "when workers are present" verbiage. Therefore, anyone that *does* obey the construction zone speed limit is definitely the odd man out. nate >How about simply changing the wording on work zone speed limit signs to >"when workers are present" or "when lights are flashing" (I've actually >seen this in some states) and setting a reasonable work zone speed >limit? (40 MPH on an Interstate highway is not reasonable.) This would >go a long way towards reducing motorist noncompliance and frustration. I've seen it as well, and "when lights are flashing" is just asking for abuse. The lights flash if there's a good battery in the sign; it has nothing to do with whether workers are present. Beating that, there's a sign on a curve, I think near Macon Georgia, which says that your speed is too high for the curve "when lights are flashing". They always flash; there's no speed detection device attached to them. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>I think that the best way to reduce work zone accidents would be not to have so >>many work zones. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >John Lansford, PE So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, and work from April until November, with a work crew that works on this 300 yard section today, and that 300 yard section tomorrow, and a different 300 yard section the next day, having extra people duplicating that effort every 1/2 mile would still take from April until November or even longer? >So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, and work >from April until November, with a work crew that works on this 300 yard section >today, and that 300 yard section tomorrow, and a different 300 yard section the >next day, having extra people duplicating that effort every 1/2 mile would >still take from April until November or even longer? I don't think I said that. I said that having smaller but more numerous workzones tends to speed up the process, since there are more construction firms working at the same time rather than one firm with a larger workzone. John Lansford, PE -- John's Shop of Wood http://wood.jlansford.net/ >>So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, and work >>from April until November, with a work crew that works on this 300 yard section [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >John Lansford, PE OK, but Indiana, at least, seems to have had large and numerous work zones, as in 10 - 25 mile work zones and multiple instances of them. Makes driving their interstates a lower speed experience than it would be if they had 1 or 2 work zones open in the state at the same time, and got done with the work in each one in a matter of 4 - 6 weeks instead of 9 months. It just seems that the application of more manpower and equipment should bring that about, although I can't say how the contractural arrangements would have to be to make it work. >>>So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, and work >>>from April until November, with a work crew that works on this 300 yard section [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >although I can't say how the contractural arrangements would have to be to make >it work. Contractors have to make an initial major outlay of money when they take on a highway contract; the bigger the contract, the more money they have to spend before they get anything back. Performance bonds, equipment purchase/rentals, hiring workers, etc, all must be done first. Most contractors can't afford a huge project, so states tend to break them into more affordable chunks. Plus, a big project can't be worked on all at once anyway, due to design or traffic control purposes. At least not without enormous amounts of manpower/equipment. Where there is an advantage with one big contract is in the administration of it; each smaller contract needs inspection and administration just the same as a big one does. That's a benefit to the state though, not the contractor. John Lansford, PE -- John's Shop of Wood http://wood.jlansford.net/ >>>>So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, and work >>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > John's Shop of Wood > http://wood.jlansford.net/ Then why have the whole thing signed as a construction zone, if work is only going on in one small section? That seems to be the question that everyone is asking and has not been answered. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > Then why have the whole thing signed as a construction zone, if work is > only going on in one small section? That seems to be the question that > everyone is asking and has not been answered. I don't "know", but I "suspect", that highway repairs are not as simple as they might seem to an "engineer". I "suspect" some deconstruction may be necessary to determine the extent of the work that needs to be done, and it appears to me that a lot of repair work involves drainage and a lot of work to the area in the vicinity of the highway, before work to the highway itself is commenced. I think the control of water flow didn't work out as anticipated during the original construction and/or the repairs and/or reconstruction that followed. I do not question the wisdom of designating a 3 or 4 miles of construction zone where construction may be ongoing at two 200 yard sections 2.5-3.5 miles apart when so many drivers seem to be inclined to race to be the first at the next construction zone if they were not combined as one. ----- - gpsman >>Then why have the whole thing signed as a construction zone, if work is >>only going on in one small section? That seems to be the question that [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - gpsman I'm talking about a "construction zone" on an Interstate highway 10 miles long with no work at all going on in it. Why? Nobody seems to be able to give me any good reason why a speed limit of 40-50 MPH or so should be imposed in that case, and yet I see it just about every time I visit PA. And it may not be just one of those, oh no - there have been years where it seemed like more of the Turnpike was a construction zone than not. (that's why most of the time I'll choose to take I-68 instead, even though it theoretically takes an hour longer.) nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>Then why have the whole thing signed as a construction zone, if work is >>>only going on in one small section? That seems to be the question that [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >nate Yeah - I once counted 38 construction zones on the Pa. Turnpike. I avoid the road as much as possible. It is dangerous and slow and a pain in the a.s to drive. >>>>Then why have the whole thing signed as a construction zone, if work is >>>>only going on in one small section? That seems to be the question that [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > to > drive. Agreed. Unless time is of the essence or I have passengers, I go the long way. >>>>So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, and work >>>>from April until November, with a work crew that works on this 300 yard section [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >first. Most contractors can't afford a huge project, so states tend >to break them into more affordable chunks. Hmmmm.... I think I'm seeing the problem. Contractors. Perhaps the state should be employing these people and buying this equipment and not letting contracts at all. Maybe the DOT should be doing this building and repairing of roads using state-owned equimpent and state employees. >Plus, a big project can't be worked on all at once anyway, due to >design or traffic control purposes. At least not without enormous >amounts of manpower/equipment. OK, if you take the people and equipment from the 4 construction zones on I 65 between Indy and Chicago, and those from the 3 construction zones on I-70 between Indy and Terre Haute, and those from the 2 construction zones in I-74 between Indy and Cincinnati, and those from the 3 construction zones in I-74 between Indy and Danville, and those from the remaining 2 construction zones on I-70 between Indy and Richmond, and stick them all in the 23 mile construction zone on I-70 between Indy and Richmond, then that construction zone with all those folks in it and all those trucks and paving machines and cement mixers in it might just take less than 9 months to get done. >Where there is an advantage with one big contract is in the >administration of it; each smaller contract needs inspection and >administration just the same as a big one does. That's a benefit to >the state though, not the contractor. >John Lansford, PE I'd say the focus should be shifted from benefitting the state toward benefitting the public by not providing 20 or so construction zones that last from April to November so that there are 40 opportunities (each end of the thing) to delay traffic and create hazardous travel. > >>>>So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, and work > >>>>from April until November, with a work crew that works on this 300 yard section [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > and not letting contracts at all. Maybe the DOT should be doing this building > and repairing of roads using state-owned equimpent and state employees. <snip> When have you _ever_ seen a government agency any where near as efficient as private business? That approach would result in projects costing 10 times as much, taking much longer to complete and with pee poor quality control. Harry K >> >>>>So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, and work >> >>>>from April until November, with a work crew that works on this 300 yard section [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Harry K I dunno, but this crap of having 20 construction zones open for most of the year sure ain't workin, either. > OK, but Indiana, at least, seems to have had large and numerous work zones, > as in 10 - 25 mile work zones and multiple instances of them. Makes driving [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > although I can't say how the contractural arrangements would have to be to make > it work. The extreme case of this I've seen was on I-80 in Wyoming. Picture a 4-lane interstate consisting of two 2-lane roadways, a LONG way apart (you could fit at least 4, usually 6 more lanes in between, with room left over for shoulders and a Jersey barrier). You're on this road, in the middle of 400 miles of nowhere. Suddenly all traffic gets diverted onto just one of the roadways, one lane each way, for 20-30 miles at a time. In that 20-30 miles you'll see maybe 4 pieces of construction equipment on the closed side, all of it sitting idle. But the work zone has a speed limit of 45, and both of the state's highway cops are out enforcing it. On Feb 24, 9:51 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > The extreme case of this I've seen was on I-80 in Wyoming. Picture a > 4-lane interstate consisting of two 2-lane roadways, a LONG way apart [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > miles at a time. In that 20-30 miles you'll see maybe 4 pieces of > construction equipment on the closed side, all of it sitting idle. While I would admit this lack of activity is entirely possible, it is not the norm. > But the work zone has a speed limit of 45, and both of the state's > highway cops are out enforcing it. Uh, yeah, because in the middle of 400 miles of nowhere on a major E/W artery it takes a long, long time for medical and emergency crews to arrive and clear the road in the event of a crash. ----- - gpsman > On Feb 24, 9:51 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > While I would admit this lack of activity is entirely possible, it is > not the norm. In my experience it *is* the norm. (I grew up in PA, remember - that may explain why I'll go out of my way to avoid the turnpike even today.) > > But the work zone has a speed limit of 45, and both of the state's > > highway cops are out enforcing it. > > Uh, yeah, because in the middle of 400 miles of nowhere on a major E/W > artery it takes a long, long time for medical and emergency crews to > arrive and clear the road in the event of a crash. True, but how is a 45 MPH speed limit going to help matters any? nate >> While I would admit this lack of activity is entirely possible, it is >> not the norm. > >In my experience it *is* the norm. That's been my experience, as well - in many different states. SignaturePlease don't give financial rewards to trolls - DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com" >>> While I would admit this lack of activity is entirely possible, it is >>> not the norm. >> >>In my experience it *is* the norm. > >That's been my experience, as well - in many different states. Yes, absolutely. 10's of miles of closed interstate, with work happpening only in a couple-hundred yard stretch at a time. The thing to do is to get work happening in all 20, 30, or 40 miles of the closed section - the whole thing - all the time. Work on it until it is done, and it should be done in 4 - 6 weeks, maybe less, instead of 9 months. It should be possible by opening only 1 such section at a time, instead of having 10 - 15 of 'em scattered all over the state, slowing down that many areas, and dispersing workers thinly all over the various work zones, so they _all_ take 9 months to complete, and hold up traffic and create hazards for that long. Dave Head > >http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/construction-zone-ticke... > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > John Lansford, PE WTF? Go back to MTR, you idiot, until you can start making sense. Did you have an intelligent response to the point raised, which was that these laws did NOT result in an increase in safety, as promised? I didn't think so. (now HERE is an example of the effect I was referring to the other day. Notice how Mr. Lansford proudly displays his credentials in his .sig?) >> John Lansford, PE > >(now HERE is an example of the effect I was referring to the other >day. Notice how Mr. Lansford proudly displays his credentials in >his .sig?) BTW, I've always wanted to ask this question: what does a Penis Enlarger actually *do*? Does he operate the air pump device? Does he feed you Enzyte pills? Enquiring Minds Wanna Know! :) SignaturePlease don't give financial rewards to trolls - DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com" > > >http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/construction-zone-ticke... > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > Did you have an intelligent response to the point raised, which was > that these laws did NOT result in an increase in safety, as promised? Unfortunately for you and your simplistic POV toward statistics, no evidence was presented that "these laws" did not result in an "increase in safety". If construction zones increased in number 15%, and total US VMT increased 7%, an 18% increase in motorist fatalities would suggest a lower ratio of construction zone fatalities over the specified period. One statistic, alone, with no relevant qualifying data, doesn't reveal much of anything, except that those who swallow them hook, line and sinker, without embarrassment and/or with all the insolence of a child of such tender years that they still know everything, really ain't all that bright. > I didn't think so. Whatever it is that you do, few would refer to it as "thinking". ----- - gpsman > > > >http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/construction-zone-ticke... > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > evidence was presented that "these laws" did not result in an > "increase in safety". It would certainly appear to suggest that. Nobody has provided information to the contrary. > If construction zones increased in number 15%, and total US VMT > increased 7%, an 18% increase in motorist fatalities would suggest a > lower ratio of construction zone fatalities over the specified period. Do you have cites to that effect? > One statistic, alone, with no relevant qualifying data, doesn't reveal > much of anything, except that those who swallow them hook, line and > sinker, without embarrassment and/or with all the insolence of a child > of such tender years that they still know everything, really ain't all > that bright. Yes, that is exactly how we see you, despite the fact that you're old enough you should have matured by now. nate > > If construction zones increased in number 15%, and total US VMT > > increased 7%, an 18% increase in motorist fatalities would suggest a > > lower ratio of construction zone fatalities over the specified period. > > Do you have cites to that effect? Did you see the lead word "if"? He posted what could be a reasonable possibility, in that the total miles of highway construction zones may have increased, and the traffic volumes within the highway construction zones may have increased (actually that would have happened). What is needed, is an analysis that includes the amount of VMT that passed through highway construction zones over the study period. Simply posting the number of work zone fatalities in one year, and the number of work zone fatalities in the year 4 years later, and using that simplistic comparison to say that the number of work zone fatalities had increased XX percent, is a meaningless comparison by the "researcher". SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com >>>If construction zones increased in number 15%, and total US VMT >>>increased 7%, an 18% increase in motorist fatalities would suggest a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > simplistic comparison to say that the number of work zone fatalities had > increased XX percent, is a meaningless comparison by the "researcher". First of all, gpsman is a known troll and idiot. That said, I tend to agree with his criticism of the article and yet at the same time tend to believe that its conclusions are valid, for no other reason than in my experience there is more often than not no work and no construction workers present in any given construction zone. It seems to me to just be a new kind of speed trap. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > Did you see the lead word "if"? He posted what could be a reasonable > > possibility, in that the total miles of highway construction zones may [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and no construction workers present in any given construction zone. It > seems to me to just be a new kind of speed trap. Based on the limited data presented, the article was useless for any determination of highway construction zone safety. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com > > > Did you see the lead word "if"? He posted what could be a reasonable > > > possibility, in that the total miles of highway construction zones may [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yep! Harry K Scott M. Kozel: > Did you see the lead word "if"? He posted what could be a reasonable > possibility, in that the total miles of highway construction zones may [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > simplistic comparison to say that the number of work zone fatalities had > increased XX percent, is a meaningless comparison by the "researcher". OF course, X workers killed in workzones makes for better play on Fox News and these other bastions of, "free press," here in america (sic) than does a statistic like deaths per VMT in construction zones at its lowest point ever. I seem to remember, it was either NY or PA that was reprehensible enough to put some child's face on signs in workzones with some slogan or another on them to tug at emotions and make the populace buy the slower = better dogma hook, line and sinker. -- P lague O n T he U nited S tates > Scott M. Kozel: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > with some slogan or another on them to tug at emotions and make the > populace buy the slower = better dogma hook, line and sinker. Must have been NY, although at least a couple years ago PA had those obnoxious "Slow Down - My Daddy Works Here" signs, in crayon font no less. Usually in a "work zone" completely devoid of any actual work. They'd also put up an X-band radar source at the beginning of every work zone, making a radar detector completely worthless, as that pretty much meant if you were driving on the turnpike, it'd go off every 10 minutes. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel Nate Nagel: << snip >> > > OF course, X workers killed in workzones makes for better play on Fox > > News and these other bastions of, "free press," here in america (sic) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Must have been NY, although at least a couple years ago PA had those > obnoxious "Slow Down - My Daddy Works Here" signs, in crayon font no less. Probablly was. I do remember that being one of the slogans used. > Usually in a "work zone" completely devoid of any actual work. Absolutely. > They'd also put up an X-band radar source at the beginning of every work > zone, making a radar detector completely worthless, as that pretty much > meant if you were driving on the turnpike, it'd go off every 10 minutes. Don't know about that as I don't use a RD. Tried one once and it proved more of a distraction than anything else. -- D epartment of H ysterical S creaming > Nate Nagel: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Probablly was. I do remember that being one of the slogans used. To which my automatic mental response generally was "well, they ought to fire the lazy b*****d then, because he didn't show up for work today" :( nate > This crap is exactly why I have zero respect for any attempt by NMA to > change rules they don't like. Highway construction deaths by motor [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > generally laughed at whenever they show up whining about highway speed > limits. I suggest you drive a chicago area expressway that has no reduction in the number of lanes at the posted 45mph work zone limit on a weekend when there is no work going on but the work zone speed limit is in force. A semi a few feet off your rear bumper at anything above a speed of zero just doesn't seem safe to me. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.