Discussion:
xkcd, "Robot Future"
(too old to reply)
Lynn McGuire
2018-03-16 17:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
xkcd, "Robot Future"
https://xkcd.com/1968/

Lynn
Quadibloc
2018-03-16 17:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 11:45:42 AM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> xkcd, "Robot Future"
> https://xkcd.com/1968/

In other words: for a source of malicious action, we already have an existing one,
other human beings, and we don't have to wait for rebellious robots.

John Savard
Juho Julkunen
2018-03-16 19:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <edfba6d7-ca89-4ea3-9bcd-***@googlegroups.com>,
***@ecn.ab.ca says...
>
> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 11:45:42 AM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > xkcd, "Robot Future"
> > https://xkcd.com/1968/
>
> In other words: for a source of malicious action, we already have an existing one,
> other human beings, and we don't have to wait for rebellious robots.

"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this
would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to
enslave them." --Frank Herbert, _Dune_

--
Juho Julkunen
Ahasuerus
2018-03-16 19:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:45:42 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> xkcd, "Robot Future"
> https://xkcd.com/1968/

"I mean, we already live in a world of flying robots killing people."

I am not sure I would call remote-controlled UAVs (drones) "robots".
Let's wait until they start making decisions autonomously and see how
well that works.

OfSF: "Watchbird" (1953, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46236)
Lynn McGuire
2018-03-16 19:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/16/2018 2:07 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:45:42 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> xkcd, "Robot Future"
>> https://xkcd.com/1968/
>
> "I mean, we already live in a world of flying robots killing people."
>
> I am not sure I would call remote-controlled UAVs (drones) "robots".
> Let's wait until they start making decisions autonomously and see how
> well that works.
>
> OfSF: "Watchbird" (1953, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46236)

It is my understanding that the newest models can takeoff, fly to a
predetermined point, fire a missile at anything that moves, and return
home without any remote control.

Lynn
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-03-16 20:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:p8h73l$7uk$***@dont-email.me:

> On 3/16/2018 2:07 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:45:42 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire
>> wrote:
>>> xkcd, "Robot Future"
>>> https://xkcd.com/1968/
>>
>> "I mean, we already live in a world of flying robots killing
>> people."
>>
>> I am not sure I would call remote-controlled UAVs (drones)
>> "robots". Let's wait until they start making decisions
>> autonomously and see how well that works.
>>
>> OfSF: "Watchbird" (1953,
>> http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46236)
>
> It is my understanding that the newest models can takeoff, fly
> to a predetermined point, fire a missile at anything that moves,
> and return home without any remote control.
>
And research continues, into things like facial recognition.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2018-03-17 02:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:49:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/16/2018 2:07 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:45:42 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> xkcd, "Robot Future"
>>> https://xkcd.com/1968/
>>
>> "I mean, we already live in a world of flying robots killing people."
>>
>> I am not sure I would call remote-controlled UAVs (drones) "robots".
>> Let's wait until they start making decisions autonomously and see how
>> well that works.
>>
>> OfSF: "Watchbird" (1953, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46236)
>
>It is my understanding that the newest models can takeoff, fly to a
>predetermined point, fire a missile at anything that moves, and return
>home without any remote control.

They can but they are not allowed to. Unless things have changed
there is always a human in the loop when a firing decision is made.
>
>Lynn
Lynn McGuire
2018-03-19 17:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/16/2018 9:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:49:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2018 2:07 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:45:42 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> xkcd, "Robot Future"
>>>> https://xkcd.com/1968/
>>>
>>> "I mean, we already live in a world of flying robots killing people."
>>>
>>> I am not sure I would call remote-controlled UAVs (drones) "robots".
>>> Let's wait until they start making decisions autonomously and see how
>>> well that works.
>>>
>>> OfSF: "Watchbird" (1953, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46236)
>>
>> It is my understanding that the newest models can takeoff, fly to a
>> predetermined point, fire a missile at anything that moves, and return
>> home without any remote control.
>
> They can but they are not allowed to. Unless things have changed
> there is always a human in the loop when a firing decision is made.
>>
>> Lynn

Yeah, pull the other leg, it has a bell on it.

If there is an automated run setting then the user will use it.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2018-03-20 00:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:26:39 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/16/2018 9:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:49:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/16/2018 2:07 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:45:42 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> xkcd, "Robot Future"
>>>>> https://xkcd.com/1968/
>>>>
>>>> "I mean, we already live in a world of flying robots killing people."
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure I would call remote-controlled UAVs (drones) "robots".
>>>> Let's wait until they start making decisions autonomously and see how
>>>> well that works.
>>>>
>>>> OfSF: "Watchbird" (1953, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46236)
>>>
>>> It is my understanding that the newest models can takeoff, fly to a
>>> predetermined point, fire a missile at anything that moves, and return
>>> home without any remote control.
>>
>> They can but they are not allowed to. Unless things have changed
>> there is always a human in the loop when a firing decision is made.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>
>Yeah, pull the other leg, it has a bell on it.
>
>If there is an automated run setting then the user will use it.

If somebody tells a drone to automatically engage without a human in
the loop and it kills somebody, he's going to be in the slammer for a
very long time.

And you've clearly never been in the service if you think that people
can get away with that sort of thing.
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-03-20 03:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
J. Clarke <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:26:39 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 3/16/2018 9:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:49:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/16/2018 2:07 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:45:42 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> xkcd, "Robot Future"
>>>>>> https://xkcd.com/1968/
>>>>>
>>>>> "I mean, we already live in a world of flying robots killing
>>>>> people."
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure I would call remote-controlled UAVs (drones)
>>>>> "robots". Let's wait until they start making decisions
>>>>> autonomously and see how well that works.
>>>>>
>>>>> OfSF: "Watchbird" (1953,
>>>>> http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46236)
>>>>
>>>> It is my understanding that the newest models can takeoff,
>>>> fly to a predetermined point, fire a missile at anything that
>>>> moves, and return home without any remote control.
>>>
>>> They can but they are not allowed to. Unless things have
>>> changed there is always a human in the loop when a firing
>>> decision is made.
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>
>>Yeah, pull the other leg, it has a bell on it.
>>
>>If there is an automated run setting then the user will use it.
>
> If somebody tells a drone to automatically engage without a
> human in the loop and it kills somebody, he's going to be in the
> slammer for a very long time.

Can you cite the specific statue in the UCMJ on that? (No, of
course not.)
>
> And you've clearly never been in the service if you think that
> people can get away with that sort of thing.
>
Laws can change. Even the UCMJ. You're only required to disobey an
illegal order if it's illegal.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2018-03-19 17:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 3:49:12 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/16/2018 2:07 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
> > On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:45:42 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> xkcd, "Robot Future"
> >> https://xkcd.com/1968/
> >
> > "I mean, we already live in a world of flying robots killing people."
> >
> > I am not sure I would call remote-controlled UAVs (drones) "robots".
> > Let's wait until they start making decisions autonomously and see how
> > well that works.
> >
> > OfSF: "Watchbird" (1953, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46236)
>
> It is my understanding that the newest models can takeoff, fly to a
> predetermined point, fire a missile at anything that moves, and return
> home without any remote control.
>
> Lynn

Cite? In particularly the 'fire a missile unattended' bit.
'They can do it' is not the same as 'this has been done'.

OTOH, most distance weapons, once launched, are independent, and some
home in on targets (but don't pick them).

pt
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-03-19 18:00:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <7f30dacd-91d8-4d2a-b03f-***@googlegroups.com>,
Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 3:49:12 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 3/16/2018 2:07 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>> > On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:45:42 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> >> xkcd, "Robot Future"
>> >> https://xkcd.com/1968/
>> >
>> > "I mean, we already live in a world of flying robots killing people."
>> >
>> > I am not sure I would call remote-controlled UAVs (drones) "robots".
>> > Let's wait until they start making decisions autonomously and see how
>> > well that works.
>> >
>> > OfSF: "Watchbird" (1953, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46236)
>>
>> It is my understanding that the newest models can takeoff, fly to a
>> predetermined point, fire a missile at anything that moves, and return
>> home without any remote control.
>>
>> Lynn
>
>Cite? In particularly the 'fire a missile unattended' bit.
>'They can do it' is not the same as 'this has been done'.
>
>OTOH, most distance weapons, once launched, are independent, and some
>home in on targets (but don't pick them).
>
>pt
>
>

Only tangentially related, but I've always gotten a smile out of this
very true-to-life xkcd:

https://xkcd.com/970/
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Lynn McGuire
2018-03-19 19:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/19/2018 12:48 PM, Peter Trei wrote:
> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 3:49:12 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 3/16/2018 2:07 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:45:42 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> xkcd, "Robot Future"
>>>> https://xkcd.com/1968/
>>>
>>> "I mean, we already live in a world of flying robots killing people."
>>>
>>> I am not sure I would call remote-controlled UAVs (drones) "robots".
>>> Let's wait until they start making decisions autonomously and see how
>>> well that works.
>>>
>>> OfSF: "Watchbird" (1953, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46236)
>>
>> It is my understanding that the newest models can takeoff, fly to a
>> predetermined point, fire a missile at anything that moves, and return
>> home without any remote control.
>>
>> Lynn
>
> Cite? In particularly the 'fire a missile unattended' bit.
> 'They can do it' is not the same as 'this has been done'.
>
> OTOH, most distance weapons, once launched, are independent, and some
> home in on targets (but don't pick them).
>
> pt

Nothing specific, just various news articles over the years.

Lynn
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-03-19 21:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:p8p395$aeq$***@dont-email.me:

> On 3/19/2018 12:48 PM, Peter Trei wrote:
>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 3:49:12 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire
>> wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2018 2:07 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:45:42 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> xkcd, "Robot Future"
>>>>> https://xkcd.com/1968/
>>>>
>>>> "I mean, we already live in a world of flying robots killing
>>>> people."
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure I would call remote-controlled UAVs (drones)
>>>> "robots". Let's wait until they start making decisions
>>>> autonomously and see how well that works.
>>>>
>>>> OfSF: "Watchbird" (1953,
>>>> http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?46236)
>>>
>>> It is my understanding that the newest models can takeoff, fly
>>> to a predetermined point, fire a missile at anything that
>>> moves, and return home without any remote control.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> Cite? In particularly the 'fire a missile unattended' bit.
>> 'They can do it' is not the same as 'this has been done'.
>>
>> OTOH, most distance weapons, once launched, are independent,
>> and some home in on targets (but don't pick them).
>>
>> pt
>
> Nothing specific, just various news articles over the years.

And we all know, the new media is 100% reliable on all storeies,
and never makes mistakes. It's nearly as reliable as Wikipedia!

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-03-16 19:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <p8gvs3$gp9$***@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>xkcd, "Robot Future"
> https://xkcd.com/1968/

But see also

https://what-if.xkcd.com/5/

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Quadibloc
2018-03-17 00:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I don't take that "serious scientific answer" seriously.

By the time mobile robots are advanced enough to form an intent to
rebel, they would be far from as helpless as today's electronic devices.
David DeLaney
2018-03-21 09:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-17, Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> I don't take that "serious scientific answer" seriously.
>
> By the time mobile robots are advanced enough to form an intent to
> rebel, they would be far from as helpless as today's electronic devices.

Note the recent manslaughter of an innocent pedestrian by a driverless car.
I'm sure that fits in here somehow.

Dave, crossing guard just got a difficulty modifier
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Kevrob
2018-03-21 11:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 5:22:56 AM UTC-4, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2018-03-17, Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > I don't take that "serious scientific answer" seriously.
> >
> > By the time mobile robots are advanced enough to form an intent to
> > rebel, they would be far from as helpless as today's electronic devices.
>
> Note the recent manslaughter of an innocent pedestrian by a driverless car.
> I'm sure that fits in here somehow.
>

The dismounted bicyclist may have been at fault, crossing
from a median, signed to confuse. Cyclist turned pedestrian
does something stupid, responding to bad street design, with
the car's autonomous system making the same mistake a human
driver might? Withholding judgment, here.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/442829002/

See also:

[quote]

Experts have long attributed the state’s high rate of pedestrian
deaths to exceptionally wide streets that are engineered to move
cars fast and do not provide adequate safety infrastructure for
people who are on foot or bike.

[/quote] - https://www.curbed.com/transportation/2018/3/20/17142090/uber-fatal-crash-driverless-pedestrian-safety

Where I live, we only have 8 lanes on the interstate, and then
only rarely. You'd never see that outside a controlled access
highway.

Kevin R
Chrysi Cat
2018-03-24 10:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/21/2018 5:57 AM, Kevrob wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 5:22:56 AM UTC-4, David DeLaney wrote:
>> On 2018-03-17, Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> I don't take that "serious scientific answer" seriously.
>>>
>>> By the time mobile robots are advanced enough to form an intent to
>>> rebel, they would be far from as helpless as today's electronic devices.
>>
>> Note the recent manslaughter of an innocent pedestrian by a driverless car.
>> I'm sure that fits in here somehow.
>>
>
> The dismounted bicyclist may have been at fault, crossing
> from a median, signed to confuse. Cyclist turned pedestrian
> does something stupid, responding to bad street design, with
> the car's autonomous system making the same mistake a human
> driver might? Withholding judgment, here.
>
> https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/442829002/
>
> See also:
>
> [quote]
>
> Experts have long attributed the state’s high rate of pedestrian
> deaths to exceptionally wide streets that are engineered to move
> cars fast and do not provide adequate safety infrastructure for
> people who are on foot or bike.
>
> [/quote] - https://www.curbed.com/transportation/2018/3/20/17142090/uber-fatal-crash-driverless-pedestrian-safety
>
> Where I live, we only have 8 lanes on the interstate, and then
> only rarely. You'd never see that outside a controlled access
> highway.
>
> Kevin R
>

If you read all of that, they're basically suggesting that anything
faster than a horse-drawn carriage should be grade-separated.

And considering the same people hate freeways, they're basically arguing
to make cars worthless.

You'll forgive me if I think that's trying to take things to a level of
*too* pedestrian-friendly. We _need_ to be able to move between points
at more than 25 MPH, or it will take all day just to get across most cities!

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
J. Clarke
2018-03-24 12:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:05:40 -0600, Chrysi Cat <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/21/2018 5:57 AM, Kevrob wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 5:22:56 AM UTC-4, David DeLaney wrote:
>>> On 2018-03-17, Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> I don't take that "serious scientific answer" seriously.
>>>>
>>>> By the time mobile robots are advanced enough to form an intent to
>>>> rebel, they would be far from as helpless as today's electronic devices.
>>>
>>> Note the recent manslaughter of an innocent pedestrian by a driverless car.
>>> I'm sure that fits in here somehow.
>>>
>>
>> The dismounted bicyclist may have been at fault, crossing
>> from a median, signed to confuse. Cyclist turned pedestrian
>> does something stupid, responding to bad street design, with
>> the car's autonomous system making the same mistake a human
>> driver might? Withholding judgment, here.
>>
>> https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/442829002/
>>
>> See also:
>>
>> [quote]
>>
>> Experts have long attributed the state’s high rate of pedestrian
>> deaths to exceptionally wide streets that are engineered to move
>> cars fast and do not provide adequate safety infrastructure for
>> people who are on foot or bike.
>>
>> [/quote] - https://www.curbed.com/transportation/2018/3/20/17142090/uber-fatal-crash-driverless-pedestrian-safety
>>
>> Where I live, we only have 8 lanes on the interstate, and then
>> only rarely. You'd never see that outside a controlled access
>> highway.
>>
>> Kevin R
>>
>
>If you read all of that, they're basically suggesting that anything
>faster than a horse-drawn carriage should be grade-separated.

If they think that that will help they need to read some 1800s vintage
newspapers. Getting hit by a horse is not pleasant. A half a ton or
more of animal walking on your with steel-shod hooves will ruin your
day, especially if 5 others walk over you followed by a fully laden
beer wagon before the whole shebang can be stopped.
>
>And considering the same people hate freeways, they're basically arguing
>to make cars worthless.
>
>You'll forgive me if I think that's trying to take things to a level of
>*too* pedestrian-friendly. We _need_ to be able to move between points
>at more than 25 MPH, or it will take all day just to get across most cities!
Dimensional Traveler
2018-03-24 17:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/24/2018 3:05 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> On 3/21/2018 5:57 AM, Kevrob wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 5:22:56 AM UTC-4, David DeLaney wrote:
>>> On 2018-03-17, Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> I don't take that "serious scientific answer" seriously.
>>>>
>>>> By the time mobile robots are advanced enough to form an intent to
>>>> rebel, they would be far from as helpless as today's electronic
>>>> devices.
>>>
>>> Note the recent manslaughter of an innocent pedestrian by a
>>> driverless car.
>>> I'm sure that fits in here somehow.
>>>
>>
>> The dismounted bicyclist may have been at fault, crossing
>> from a median, signed to confuse. Cyclist turned pedestrian
>> does something stupid, responding to bad street design, with
>> the car's autonomous system making the same mistake a human
>> driver might?  Withholding judgment, here.
>>
>> https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/03/20/tempe-police-chief-fatal-uber-crash-pedestrian-likely-unavoidable/442829002/
>>
>>
>> See also:
>>
>> [quote]
>>
>> Experts have long attributed the state’s high rate of pedestrian
>> deaths to exceptionally wide streets that are engineered to move
>> cars fast and do not provide adequate safety infrastructure for
>> people who are on foot or bike.
>>
>> [/quote] -
>> https://www.curbed.com/transportation/2018/3/20/17142090/uber-fatal-crash-driverless-pedestrian-safety
>>
>>
>> Where I live, we only have 8 lanes on the interstate, and then
>> only rarely.  You'd never see that outside a controlled access
>> highway.
>>
>> Kevin R
>>
>
> If you read all of that, they're basically suggesting that anything
> faster than a horse-drawn carriage should be grade-separated.
>
> And considering the same people hate freeways, they're basically arguing
> to make cars worthless.
>
> You'll forgive me if I think that's trying to take things to a level of
> *too* pedestrian-friendly. We _need_ to be able to move between points
> at more than 25 MPH, or it will take all day just to get across most
> cities!
>
Some cities already take all day to get across.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Kevrob
2018-03-24 18:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 1:20:27 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 3/24/2018 3:05 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> > On 3/21/2018 5:57 AM, Kevrob wrote:

> >> [/quote] -
> >> https://www.curbed.com/transportation/2018/3/20/17142090/uber-fatal-crash-driverless-pedestrian-safety
> >>
> >>
> >> Where I live, we only have 8 lanes on the interstate, and then
> >> only rarely.  You'd never see that outside a controlled access
> >> highway.
> >>
> >> Kevin R
> >>
> >
> > If you read all of that, they're basically suggesting that anything
> > faster than a horse-drawn carriage should be grade-separated.
> >
> > And considering the same people hate freeways, they're basically arguing
> > to make cars worthless.
> >
> > You'll forgive me if I think that's trying to take things to a level of
> > *too* pedestrian-friendly. We _need_ to be able to move between points
> > at more than 25 MPH, or it will take all day just to get across most
> > cities!
> >
> Some cities already take all day to get across.
>

I'm more of a John Forester, "effective cycling" devotee.* But,
when I have had to push a bike, rather than ride it, due to a
mechanical breakdown I couldn't fix with tools at hand, I try to
be very careful: walk against traffic, stay on the sidewalk if
there is one, keep my lights on, and I always ride with a visibility
vest, or at least a bright colored shirt. I cross at corners,
generally, and even on a working bike, I stay out of a crosswalk
unless I am walking. Broken down on a highway like that at night?
If I were faced with a long walk, I'd call a buddy who could
bring his van or truck and act as the "SAG wagon."

If this lady was homeless, as reported, I could understand her
traveling this way, but one has to assume the drivers are "out
to get you." Even if they are just oblivious, "rational paranoia"
is a useful attitude.

Kevin R

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_cycling
J. Clarke
2018-03-24 20:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 11:23:25 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <***@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 1:20:27 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 3/24/2018 3:05 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
>> > On 3/21/2018 5:57 AM, Kevrob wrote:
>
>> >> [/quote] -
>> >> https://www.curbed.com/transportation/2018/3/20/17142090/uber-fatal-crash-driverless-pedestrian-safety
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Where I live, we only have 8 lanes on the interstate, and then
>> >> only rarely.  You'd never see that outside a controlled access
>> >> highway.
>> >>
>> >> Kevin R
>> >>
>> >
>> > If you read all of that, they're basically suggesting that anything
>> > faster than a horse-drawn carriage should be grade-separated.
>> >
>> > And considering the same people hate freeways, they're basically arguing
>> > to make cars worthless.
>> >
>> > You'll forgive me if I think that's trying to take things to a level of
>> > *too* pedestrian-friendly. We _need_ to be able to move between points
>> > at more than 25 MPH, or it will take all day just to get across most
>> > cities!
>> >
>> Some cities already take all day to get across.
>>
>
>I'm more of a John Forester, "effective cycling" devotee.* But,
>when I have had to push a bike, rather than ride it, due to a
>mechanical breakdown I couldn't fix with tools at hand, I try to
>be very careful: walk against traffic, stay on the sidewalk if
>there is one, keep my lights on, and I always ride with a visibility
>vest, or at least a bright colored shirt. I cross at corners,
>generally, and even on a working bike, I stay out of a crosswalk
>unless I am walking. Broken down on a highway like that at night?
>If I were faced with a long walk, I'd call a buddy who could
>bring his van or truck and act as the "SAG wagon."
>
>If this lady was homeless, as reported, I could understand her
>traveling this way, but one has to assume the drivers are "out
>to get you." Even if they are just oblivious, "rational paranoia"
>is a useful attitude.

It amazes me the number of people who walk with traffic and who
bicycle against it. And the number of cyclists who treat stop signs
and traffic lights as suggestions.
Kevrob
2018-03-25 13:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 4:41:56 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:

> It amazes me the number of people who walk with traffic and who
> bicycle against it.

The "salmon biker" must think he's safer because he can see
cars coming, but a simple investment in a bike-mounted or
helmet-mounted mirror solves that problem. Collisions from
behind are much less common, and getting whacked by folks turning
onto the roadway from sidestreets and driveways is much likelier
when you ride against traffic.

> And the number of cyclists who treat stop signs
> and traffic lights as suggestions.

That's true, though in a limited number of US jurisdictions, what
is called an "Iowa stop"* is legal. Like "right turn on red after
stopping," this requires following the instructions to be safe.

Kevin R

* In Iowa, a cyclist may treat a red traffic signal as if it
were a STOP sign. One can't advance if there is traffic on the
cross street that has the green signal, but if there is none,
you may proceed. One must still come to a full stop, though.

Auto drivers have the "California stop".....

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=233668

Name changes based on where you drive.
Joy Beeson
2018-03-27 05:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:41:52 -0400, J. Clarke
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

> It amazes me the number of people who walk with traffic

One walks against traffic to signal that one intends to yield
right-of-way to anything that comes along. If you won't or can't get
out of the roadway, it's better to walk with the traffic to give
drivers an extra split second to deal with you.

I feel very strongly about this because I once met a foot race coming
at me in my lane. Luckily, I was able to come to a complete stop
before we met, and the runners were able to split and flow around my
car.

If I had come up behind them, it would have been easy to slow down to
their speed and follow them.

I cringe when I see a mobility scooter with a curb on its left. Still
worse is the baby carriage with the baby "safely" strapped in so that
the mother couldn't possibly take him with her if she had to jump out
of the way.

On one of the streets where I yield to everything that comes along, I
walk right up the middle -- because the places where it's possible to
get out of the way are sometimes on the left and sometimes on the
right. Sometimes I go up on someone's back steps.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Greg Goss
2018-03-27 11:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Joy Beeson <***@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:


>I cringe when I see a mobility scooter with a curb on its left. Still
>worse is the baby carriage with the baby "safely" strapped in so that
>the mother couldn't possibly take him with her if she had to jump out
>of the way.

Nobody uses a carriage anymore. And an umbrella stroller is so light
that you pick up the whole thing, baby and vehicle in one hand to
jump.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Lynn McGuire
2018-03-27 22:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/27/2018 6:45 AM, Greg Goss wrote:
> Joy Beeson <***@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> I cringe when I see a mobility scooter with a curb on its left. Still
>> worse is the baby carriage with the baby "safely" strapped in so that
>> the mother couldn't possibly take him with her if she had to jump out
>> of the way.
>
> Nobody uses a carriage anymore. And an umbrella stroller is so light
> that you pick up the whole thing, baby and vehicle in one hand to
> jump.

Some of the jogger carriages that I see the ladies using around here are
fairly stout. Especially the lady with the nine month twins.

Lynn
Gene Wirchenko
2018-03-27 21:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:16:03 -0400, Joy Beeson
<***@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:41:52 -0400, J. Clarke
><***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It amazes me the number of people who walk with traffic
>
>One walks against traffic to signal that one intends to yield
>right-of-way to anything that comes along. If you won't or can't get
>out of the roadway, it's better to walk with the traffic to give
>drivers an extra split second to deal with you.

I never knew that was the reasoning. It makes sense. Is it
official?

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Dimensional Traveler
2018-03-27 22:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/27/2018 2:18 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:16:03 -0400, Joy Beeson
> <***@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:41:52 -0400, J. Clarke
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It amazes me the number of people who walk with traffic
>>
>> One walks against traffic to signal that one intends to yield
>> right-of-way to anything that comes along. If you won't or can't get
>> out of the roadway, it's better to walk with the traffic to give
>> drivers an extra split second to deal with you.
>
> I never knew that was the reasoning. It makes sense. Is it
> official?
>
As far as I know the reasoning for walking "against" traffic is so you
can see the idiot driver and try to get out of their way. I've never
heard anything about that not applying because the pedestrian "won't"
get out of the way. As for "can't" get out of the way, the pedestrian
shouldn't be walking on the road in that situation.


--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-03-27 22:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote in
news:p9efnc$n9v$***@dont-email.me:

> As for "can't" get out
> of the way, the pedestrian shouldn't be walking on the road in
> that situation.
>
There are places and circumstances where that's not really possible.
Generally speaking, though, those are places and circumstances where
there is very, very little vehicle traffic.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
2018-03-27 23:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 3/27/2018 2:18 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:16:03 -0400, Joy Beeson
> > <***@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:41:52 -0400, J. Clarke
> >> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It amazes me the number of people who walk with traffic
> >>
> >> One walks against traffic to signal that one intends to yield
> >> right-of-way to anything that comes along. If you won't or can't get
> >> out of the roadway, it's better to walk with the traffic to give
> >> drivers an extra split second to deal with you.
> >
> > I never knew that was the reasoning. It makes sense. Is it
> > official?
> >
> As far as I know the reasoning for walking "against" traffic is so you
> can see the idiot driver and try to get out of their way. I've never
> heard anything about that not applying because the pedestrian "won't"
> get out of the way. As for "can't" get out of the way, the pedestrian
> shouldn't be walking on the road in that situation.

UK's government supplied Highway code
<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35>
just says

"If there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so
that you can see oncoming traffic"

For Americans reverse the pavement and right-hand side :)

So it is just so that you can see the driver

Also later it says
"Strap very young children into push-chairs or use reins. "

I think that is to stop the child falling or leaving out of the push
chair. Which is much more likely that having to grab them out.


but I suspect ovberridden by

"Pedestrians MUST NOT be on motorways ..." so in UK no pedestrian should
be in the position of the woman.
--
Mark
Peter Trei
2018-03-27 23:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 7:09:31 PM UTC-4, Mark Bestley wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > On 3/27/2018 2:18 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:16:03 -0400, Joy Beeson
> > > <***@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:41:52 -0400, J. Clarke
> > >> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> It amazes me the number of people who walk with traffic
> > >>
> > >> One walks against traffic to signal that one intends to yield
> > >> right-of-way to anything that comes along. If you won't or can't get
> > >> out of the roadway, it's better to walk with the traffic to give
> > >> drivers an extra split second to deal with you.
> > >
> > > I never knew that was the reasoning. It makes sense. Is it
> > > official?
> > >
> > As far as I know the reasoning for walking "against" traffic is so you
> > can see the idiot driver and try to get out of their way. I've never
> > heard anything about that not applying because the pedestrian "won't"
> > get out of the way. As for "can't" get out of the way, the pedestrian
> > shouldn't be walking on the road in that situation.
>
> UK's government supplied Highway code
> <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35>
> just says
>
> "If there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so
> that you can see oncoming traffic"
>
> For Americans reverse the pavement and right-hand side :)
>
> So it is just so that you can see the driver
>
> Also later it says
> "Strap very young children into push-chairs or use reins. "
>
> I think that is to stop the child falling or leaving out of the push
> chair. Which is much more likely that having to grab them out.
>
>
> but I suspect ovberridden by
>
> "Pedestrians MUST NOT be on motorways ..." so in UK no pedestrian should
> be in the position of the woman.
> --
> Mark

IIRC, in Britain, “Motorway “ refers to what USAians would call an “interstate “

Pt
news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
2018-03-28 09:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 7:09:31 PM UTC-4, Mark Bestley wrote:
> > Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 3/27/2018 2:18 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:16:03 -0400, Joy Beeson
> > > > <***@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:41:52 -0400, J. Clarke
> > > >> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>

> >
> > UK's government supplied Highway code
> > <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to
> > -35> just says
> >
> > "If there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so
> > that you can see oncoming traffic"
> >
> > For Americans reverse the pavement and right-hand side :)
> >
> > So it is just so that you can see the driver
> >
> > Also later it says
> > "Strap very young children into push-chairs or use reins. "
> >
> > I think that is to stop the child falling or leaving out of the push
> > chair. Which is much more likely that having to grab them out.
> >
> >
> > but I suspect ovberridden by
> >
> > "Pedestrians MUST NOT be on motorways ..." so in UK no pedestrian should
> > be in the position of the woman. -- Mark
>
> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians would call an
> "interstate "
>

Yes an interstae would be a Motorway but there are many Motorways that
are just short multi lane highways with no pavements.

Ah there was at least one single lane motorway
<http://www.pathetic.org.uk/former/a6144m/> See that site for other non
Interstate like Motorways.





--
Mark
Greg Goss
2018-03-28 12:42:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:

>Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians would call an
>> "interstate "
>>
>
>Yes an interstae would be a Motorway but there are many Motorways that
>are just short multi lane highways with no pavements.

Sigh. A highway with no pavement. Another case of a language that
almost, but not quite, is the same as mine.

>
>Ah there was at least one single lane motorway
><http://www.pathetic.org.uk/former/a6144m/> See that site for other non
>Interstate like Motorways.

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Kevrob
2018-03-28 14:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:43:09 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
> news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
>
> >Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians would call an
> >> "interstate "
> >>
> >
> >Yes an interstae would be a Motorway but there are many Motorways that
> >are just short multi lane highways with no pavements.
>
> Sigh. A highway with no pavement.

In the US, we call that a "dirt road," as opposed to one
that has been paved, or had gravel laid down.

We have highways with either sidewalks (pavements) or dirt
or grass "rights-of-way" between the shoulder (verge) and
the properties lining them. Some call the shoulder the
"breakdown lane." One can walk on most highways that
don't have sidewalks, but it is wise to keep to the right-
of-way if its passable. Bicylists should use the right-most
lane, and are NOT required to ride on a shoulder. Shoulders
are catch basins for every kind of road debris, much of it
unsafe to run over.

We have two-lane highways, and ones with more lanes, and
some are divided by a median down the center. Some
allow intersections, while others have on/off ramps.
Many state highways are, like interstates, "controlled
access" - no bikes or pedestrians. In New York and
some of the surrounding states we have "parkways,"
controlled access highways that ban certain types of
vehicles, mostly large commercial trucks (lorries) that
would get stuck under the overpasses (flyovers.) Truck
drivers on their first trip to the Northeast who rely
too much on their GPS do wind up on them, from time to time,
and do get stuck.

> Another case of a language that
> almost, but not quite, is the same as mine.
>
> >
> >Ah there was at least one single lane motorway
> ><http://www.pathetic.org.uk/former/a6144m/> See that site for other non
> >Interstate like Motorways.
>

Kevin R
Peter Trei
2018-03-28 15:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:26:30 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:43:09 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
> > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
> >
> > >Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians would call an
> > >> "interstate "
> > >>
> > >
> > >Yes an interstae would be a Motorway but there are many Motorways that
> > >are just short multi lane highways with no pavements.
> >
> > Sigh. A highway with no pavement.
>
> In the US, we call that a "dirt road," as opposed to one
> that has been paved, or had gravel laid down.

Nope another Transatlantic confuseal....

British pavement == American sidewalk.

So, a motorway is an (almost certainly) paved highway with no sidewalks.
Sort of makes sense - if it has no sidewalks all users are in vehicles of
some kind, none are expected on foot.

Highway is also confusing - while in current popular US usage, its a multilane,
high speed road, legally in many places its any public road.

pt
Kevrob
2018-03-28 15:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:23:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Trei wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:26:30 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:43:09 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
> > > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians would call an
> > > >> "interstate "
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Yes an interstae would be a Motorway but there are many Motorways that
> > > >are just short multi lane highways with no pavements.
> > >
> > > Sigh. A highway with no pavement.
> >
> > In the US, we call that a "dirt road," as opposed to one
> > that has been paved, or had gravel laid down.
>
> Nope another Transatlantic confuseal....
>
> British pavement == American sidewalk.
>

You read my next line, didn't you:

[gauchely quoting myself]

We have highways with either sidewalks (pavements) or dirt ...

[/quote]

> So, a motorway is an (almost certainly) paved highway with no sidewalks.
> Sort of makes sense - if it has no sidewalks all users are in vehicles of
> some kind, none are expected on foot.
>

Do you not have unpaved areas, each side of the road, one
can walk on? In an old town, dating to medieval times,
with buildings sitting right on the curb (kerb), perhaps not.

Here in the US, in residential neighborhoods, residents often
oppose putting in sidewalks, as they have to pay for the
installation through a special tax assessment. Even where the
cost isn't an issue, people value a "rural look," and don't want
pedestrian-friendly features, as they don't want unknown peds
wandering into their neighborhoods. "We moved out of the city
to get away from the concrete," as it was often put.

> Highway is also confusing - while in current popular US usage, its a multilane,
> high speed road, legally in many places its any public road.
>

Kevin R
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-03-28 17:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Kevrob <***@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:be9fb2bf-3540-4253-ab10-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:23:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Trei
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:26:30 AM UTC-4, Kevrob
>> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:43:09 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss
>> > wrote:
>> > > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians
>> > > >> would call an "interstate "
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >Yes an interstae would be a Motorway but there are many
>> > > >Motorways that are just short multi lane highways with no
>> > > >pavements.
>> > >
>> > > Sigh. A highway with no pavement.
>> >
>> > In the US, we call that a "dirt road," as opposed to one
>> > that has been paved, or had gravel laid down.
>>
>> Nope another Transatlantic confuseal....
>>
>> British pavement == American sidewalk.
>>
>
> You read my next line, didn't you:
>
> [gauchely quoting myself]
>
> We have highways with either sidewalks (pavements) or dirt ...
>
> [/quote]
>
>> So, a motorway is an (almost certainly) paved highway with no
>> sidewalks. Sort of makes sense - if it has no sidewalks all
>> users are in vehicles of some kind, none are expected on foot.
>>
>
> Do you not have unpaved areas, each side of the road, one
> can walk on? In an old town, dating to medieval times,
> with buildings sitting right on the curb (kerb), perhaps not.
>
> Here in the US, in residential neighborhoods, residents often
> oppose putting in sidewalks, as they have to pay for the
> installation through a special tax assessment. Even where the
> cost isn't an issue, people value a "rural look," and don't want
> pedestrian-friendly features, as they don't want unknown peds
> wandering into their neighborhoods. "We moved out of the city
> to get away from the concrete," as it was often put.
>
I believe the refernce is to interstate type highways, where there
are, in fact, no sidewalks nor other pedestrian suitable walking
paths (and where pedestrians are actually illegal).

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-03-28 18:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kevrob <***@my-deja.com> wrote in
>news:be9fb2bf-3540-4253-ab10-***@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:23:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Trei
>> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:26:30 AM UTC-4, Kevrob
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:43:09 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > >Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > >> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians
>>> > > >> would call an "interstate "
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >
>>> > > >Yes an interstae would be a Motorway but there are many
>>> > > >Motorways that are just short multi lane highways with no
>>> > > >pavements.
>>> > >
>>> > > Sigh. A highway with no pavement.
>>> >
>>> > In the US, we call that a "dirt road," as opposed to one
>>> > that has been paved, or had gravel laid down.
>>>
>>> Nope another Transatlantic confuseal....
>>>
>>> British pavement == American sidewalk.
>>>
>>
>> You read my next line, didn't you:
>>
>> [gauchely quoting myself]
>>
>> We have highways with either sidewalks (pavements) or dirt ...
>>
>> [/quote]
>>
>>> So, a motorway is an (almost certainly) paved highway with no
>>> sidewalks. Sort of makes sense - if it has no sidewalks all
>>> users are in vehicles of some kind, none are expected on foot.
>>>
>>
>> Do you not have unpaved areas, each side of the road, one
>> can walk on? In an old town, dating to medieval times,
>> with buildings sitting right on the curb (kerb), perhaps not.
>>
>> Here in the US, in residential neighborhoods, residents often
>> oppose putting in sidewalks, as they have to pay for the
>> installation through a special tax assessment. Even where the
>> cost isn't an issue, people value a "rural look," and don't want
>> pedestrian-friendly features, as they don't want unknown peds
>> wandering into their neighborhoods. "We moved out of the city
>> to get away from the concrete," as it was often put.
>>
>I believe the refernce is to interstate type highways, where there
>are, in fact, no sidewalks nor other pedestrian suitable walking
>paths (and where pedestrians are actually illegal).

True. We see hitchhikers on occasion at freeway on-ramps, where
they're not supposed to be either; you are supposed to be getting
up to freeway speed on the on-ramp,* not slowing down to pick up
hitchhikers.

_____
*Unless, of course, the on-ramp has metering lights, at which you
have to *stop*, and then get up to freeway speed once you get a
green light. My experience is that you only have to stop for a
second or two, unless the freeway is massively jammed -- in which
case freeway speed is going to be like 20 mph anyway.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-03-28 21:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:***@kithrup.com:

> In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Kevrob <***@my-deja.com> wrote in
>>news:be9fb2bf-3540-4253-ab10-***@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:23:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Trei
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:26:30 AM UTC-4, Kevrob
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:43:09 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> > > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > >Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > >> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians
>>>> > > >> would call an "interstate "
>>>> > > >>
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >Yes an interstae would be a Motorway but there are many
>>>> > > >Motorways that are just short multi lane highways with
>>>> > > >no pavements.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Sigh. A highway with no pavement.
>>>> >
>>>> > In the US, we call that a "dirt road," as opposed to one
>>>> > that has been paved, or had gravel laid down.
>>>>
>>>> Nope another Transatlantic confuseal....
>>>>
>>>> British pavement == American sidewalk.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You read my next line, didn't you:
>>>
>>> [gauchely quoting myself]
>>>
>>> We have highways with either sidewalks (pavements) or dirt ...
>>>
>>> [/quote]
>>>
>>>> So, a motorway is an (almost certainly) paved highway with no
>>>> sidewalks. Sort of makes sense - if it has no sidewalks all
>>>> users are in vehicles of some kind, none are expected on
>>>> foot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you not have unpaved areas, each side of the road, one
>>> can walk on? In an old town, dating to medieval times,
>>> with buildings sitting right on the curb (kerb), perhaps not.
>>>
>>> Here in the US, in residential neighborhoods, residents often
>>> oppose putting in sidewalks, as they have to pay for the
>>> installation through a special tax assessment. Even where the
>>> cost isn't an issue, people value a "rural look," and don't
>>> want pedestrian-friendly features, as they don't want unknown
>>> peds wandering into their neighborhoods. "We moved out of the
>>> city to get away from the concrete," as it was often put.
>>>
>>I believe the refernce is to interstate type highways, where
>>there are, in fact, no sidewalks nor other pedestrian suitable
>>walking paths (and where pedestrians are actually illegal).
>
> True. We see hitchhikers on occasion at freeway on-ramps, where
> they're not supposed to be either; you are supposed to be
> getting up to freeway speed on the on-ramp,* not slowing down to
> pick up hitchhikers.
>
> _____
> *Unless, of course, the on-ramp has metering lights, at which
> you have to *stop*, and then get up to freeway speed once you
> get a green light. My experience is that you only have to stop
> for a second or two, unless the freeway is massively jammed --
> in which case freeway speed is going to be like 20 mph anyway.
>
Come visit southern California, and witness the awesome
clusterfuck that is the 405 freeway in rush hour (which runs from
approximately 3:00 AM to approximately 3:00 AM every day).

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-03-28 22:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>news:***@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Kevrob <***@my-deja.com> wrote in
>>>news:be9fb2bf-3540-4253-ab10-***@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:23:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Trei
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:26:30 AM UTC-4, Kevrob
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:43:09 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> > > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > >Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > >> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians
>>>>> > > >> would call an "interstate "
>>>>> > > >>
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >Yes an interstae would be a Motorway but there are many
>>>>> > > >Motorways that are just short multi lane highways with
>>>>> > > >no pavements.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Sigh. A highway with no pavement.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In the US, we call that a "dirt road," as opposed to one
>>>>> > that has been paved, or had gravel laid down.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope another Transatlantic confuseal....
>>>>>
>>>>> British pavement == American sidewalk.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You read my next line, didn't you:
>>>>
>>>> [gauchely quoting myself]
>>>>
>>>> We have highways with either sidewalks (pavements) or dirt ...
>>>>
>>>> [/quote]
>>>>
>>>>> So, a motorway is an (almost certainly) paved highway with no
>>>>> sidewalks. Sort of makes sense - if it has no sidewalks all
>>>>> users are in vehicles of some kind, none are expected on
>>>>> foot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you not have unpaved areas, each side of the road, one
>>>> can walk on? In an old town, dating to medieval times,
>>>> with buildings sitting right on the curb (kerb), perhaps not.
>>>>
>>>> Here in the US, in residential neighborhoods, residents often
>>>> oppose putting in sidewalks, as they have to pay for the
>>>> installation through a special tax assessment. Even where the
>>>> cost isn't an issue, people value a "rural look," and don't
>>>> want pedestrian-friendly features, as they don't want unknown
>>>> peds wandering into their neighborhoods. "We moved out of the
>>>> city to get away from the concrete," as it was often put.
>>>>
>>>I believe the refernce is to interstate type highways, where
>>>there are, in fact, no sidewalks nor other pedestrian suitable
>>>walking paths (and where pedestrians are actually illegal).
>>
>> True. We see hitchhikers on occasion at freeway on-ramps, where
>> they're not supposed to be either; you are supposed to be
>> getting up to freeway speed on the on-ramp,* not slowing down to
>> pick up hitchhikers.
>>
>> _____
>> *Unless, of course, the on-ramp has metering lights, at which
>> you have to *stop*, and then get up to freeway speed once you
>> get a green light. My experience is that you only have to stop
>> for a second or two, unless the freeway is massively jammed --
>> in which case freeway speed is going to be like 20 mph anyway.
>>
>Come visit southern California, and witness the awesome
>clusterfuck that is the 405 freeway in rush hour (which runs from
>approximately 3:00 AM to approximately 3:00 AM every day).

I probably have seen that, but since I don't drive I wouldn't
have known a massive jam on the 405 from one on any other
freeway.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
2018-03-28 21:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Kevrob <***@my-deja.com> wrote in
> news:be9fb2bf-3540-4253-ab10-***@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:23:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Trei
> > wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:26:30 AM UTC-4, Kevrob
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:43:09 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians
> >> > > >> would call an "interstate "
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Yes an interstae would be a Motorway but there are many
> >> > > >Motorways that are just short multi lane highways with no
> >> > > >pavements.
> >> > >
> >> > > Sigh. A highway with no pavement.
> >> >
> >> > In the US, we call that a "dirt road," as opposed to one
> >> > that has been paved, or had gravel laid down.
> >>
> >> Nope another Transatlantic confuseal....
> >>
> >> British pavement == American sidewalk.
> >>
> >
> > You read my next line, didn't you:
> >
> > [gauchely quoting myself]
> >
> > We have highways with either sidewalks (pavements) or dirt ...
> >
> > [/quote]
> >
> >> So, a motorway is an (almost certainly) paved highway with no
> >> sidewalks. Sort of makes sense - if it has no sidewalks all
> >> users are in vehicles of some kind, none are expected on foot.
> >>

Yep always paved highway - also pedal cyclists aren't allowed so all
traffic is motorized.

> >
> > Do you not have unpaved areas, each side of the road, one
> > can walk on? In an old town, dating to medieval times,
> > with buildings sitting right on the curb (kerb), perhaps not.
> >

The areas by the side of roads where pedestrians walk are usually paved
(and called pavements (possibly because they are paved)), buildings
don't sit right next to the kerb.

> > Here in the US, in residential neighborhoods, residents often
> > oppose putting in sidewalks, as they have to pay for the
> > installation through a special tax assessment. Even where the
> > cost isn't an issue, people value a "rural look," and don't want
> > pedestrian-friendly features, as they don't want unknown peds
> > wandering into their neighborhoods. "We moved out of the city
> > to get away from the concrete," as it was often put.
> >

Even in UK villages there is usually a sidewalk - even if just tracks on
grass.
People need to be able to get around their neighbourhood.

I think in all new places there will be a pavement. (Except very
expensive new housing in large grounds)

> I believe the refernce is to interstate type highways, where there
> are, in fact, no sidewalks nor other pedestrian suitable walking
> paths (and where pedestrians are actually illegal).

Yes.

--
Mark
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-03-28 15:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <031bcfcf-961b-4cae-b85c-***@googlegroups.com>,
Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:26:30 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:43:09 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
>> > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
>> >
>> > >Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians would call an
>> > >> "interstate "
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >Yes an interstae would be a Motorway but there are many Motorways that
>> > >are just short multi lane highways with no pavements.
>> >
>> > Sigh. A highway with no pavement.
>>
>> In the US, we call that a "dirt road," as opposed to one
>> that has been paved, or had gravel laid down.
>
>Nope another Transatlantic confuseal....
>
>British pavement == American sidewalk.
>
>So, a motorway is an (almost certainly) paved highway with no sidewalks.
>Sort of makes sense - if it has no sidewalks all users are in vehicles of
>some kind, none are expected on foot.
>
>Highway is also confusing - while in current popular US usage, its a multilane,
>high speed road, legally in many places its any public road.
>
>pt

Then there's "high street" the meaning of which I've never been completely
clear on. I think it may be the main commercial street in a town, but
I'm not sure if there has to be just one with that designation..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Kevrob
2018-03-28 15:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:41:12 AM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <031bcfcf-961b-4cae-b85c-***@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:26:30 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:43:09 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
> >> > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians would call an
> >> > >> "interstate "
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >Yes an interstae would be a Motorway but there are many Motorways that
> >> > >are just short multi lane highways with no pavements.
> >> >
> >> > Sigh. A highway with no pavement.
> >>
> >> In the US, we call that a "dirt road," as opposed to one
> >> that has been paved, or had gravel laid down.
> >
> >Nope another Transatlantic confuseal....
> >
> >British pavement == American sidewalk.
> >
> >So, a motorway is an (almost certainly) paved highway with no sidewalks.
> >Sort of makes sense - if it has no sidewalks all users are in vehicles of
> >some kind, none are expected on foot.
> >
> >Highway is also confusing - while in current popular US usage, its a multilane,
> >high speed road, legally in many places its any public road.
> >
> >pt
>
> Then there's "high street" the meaning of which I've never been completely
> clear on. I think it may be the main commercial street in a town, but
> I'm not sure if there has to be just one with that designation..
> --

Here in New England, "High Street" has survived as a synonym for
"Main Street." I've lived in several towns that had one, and
in some places I've been, they have both. [then we get "Old Main,"
"E Main" "W Men" etc. tacked on, sometimes.]

Kevin R
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2018-03-28 18:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:55:20 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <***@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:41:12 AM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <031bcfcf-961b-4cae-b85c-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:26:30 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:43:09 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
>> >> > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
>> >> >
>>
>> Then there's "high street" the meaning of which I've never been completely
>> clear on. I think it may be the main commercial street in a town, but
>> I'm not sure if there has to be just one with that designation..
>> --
>
>Here in New England, "High Street" has survived as a synonym for
>"Main Street." I've lived in several towns that had one, and
>in some places I've been, they have both. [then we get "Old Main,"
>"E Main" "W Men" etc. tacked on, sometimes.]

And then there's The Great Road, found in a few towns in
Massachusetts. (If it happens in other New England states I wouldn't
be surprised, but I'm not aware of any.)

I grew up in Bedford, MA, where the main drag is The Great Road. My
family always found this charmingly quaint. I was very disappointed
to find out, decades later, that it had been Main Street until the
1920s, when the name was changed, apparently to sound more like Old
New England.

At least one town has ALWAYS had a The Great Road, though -- Acton, I
think. I suppose Bedford was imitating them.



--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2018-03-28 22:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:23:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:26:30 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:43:09 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
>> > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
>> >
>> > >Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians would call an
>> > >> "interstate "
>> > >
>> > >Yes an interstate would be a Motorway but there are many Motorways that
>> > >are just short multi lane highways with no pavements.
>> >
>> > Sigh. A highway with no pavement.
>>
>> In the US, we call that a "dirt road," as opposed to one
>> that has been paved, or had gravel laid down.
>
>Nope another Transatlantic confuseal....
>
>British pavement == American sidewalk.
>
>So, a motorway is an (almost certainly) paved highway with no sidewalks.

It may or may not be interesting to know that the technical term for the
US "paved" in the UK is "metalled". It doesn't really get used in
conversation, except occasionally as "unmetalled road" to mean an actual
dirt track which is nevertheless intended to be reliably navigable by
car.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
I like my coffee how I like my women... frothing.
Kevrob
2018-03-28 22:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:12:34 PM UTC-4, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:23:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:26:30 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:43:09 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
> >> > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians would call an
> >> > >> "interstate "
> >> > >
> >> > >Yes an interstate would be a Motorway but there are many Motorways that
> >> > >are just short multi lane highways with no pavements.
> >> >
> >> > Sigh. A highway with no pavement.
> >>
> >> In the US, we call that a "dirt road," as opposed to one
> >> that has been paved, or had gravel laid down.
> >
> >Nope another Transatlantic confuseal....
> >
> >British pavement == American sidewalk.
> >
> >So, a motorway is an (almost certainly) paved highway with no sidewalks.
>
> It may or may not be interesting to know that the technical term for the
> US "paved" in the UK is "metalled". It doesn't really get used in
> conversation, except occasionally as "unmetalled road" to mean an actual
> dirt track which is nevertheless intended to be reliably navigable by
> car.

And the US "gravel road" is, for some values, the same as a
UK "metal road?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_road

Where I grew up, side streets were often of gravel embedded in tar,
rather than paved in concrete, asphalt or tarmac. Actual dirt roads,
with no surfacing at all, were way out in the boonies: fire roads
through the woods, beach roads, usually, but not always on private
property. They were sometimes on parkland as a way to get emergency
vehicles and maintenance vehicles where needed, but only park
staff and police/fire/ambulance would ever use them. A good storm
might turn them to mud, or result in sever ponding on them.

Kevin R
Peter Trei
2018-03-29 01:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:26:37 PM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:12:34 PM UTC-4, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:23:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:26:30 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:43:09 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
> > >> > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians would call an
> > >> > >> "interstate "
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Yes an interstate would be a Motorway but there are many Motorways that
> > >> > >are just short multi lane highways with no pavements.
> > >> >
> > >> > Sigh. A highway with no pavement.
> > >>
> > >> In the US, we call that a "dirt road," as opposed to one
> > >> that has been paved, or had gravel laid down.
> > >
> > >Nope another Transatlantic confuseal....
> > >
> > >British pavement == American sidewalk.
> > >
> > >So, a motorway is an (almost certainly) paved highway with no sidewalks.
> >
> > It may or may not be interesting to know that the technical term for the
> > US "paved" in the UK is "metalled". It doesn't really get used in
> > conversation, except occasionally as "unmetalled road" to mean an actual
> > dirt track which is nevertheless intended to be reliably navigable by
> > car.
>
> And the US "gravel road" is, for some values, the same as a
> UK "metal road?"
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_road
>
> Where I grew up, side streets were often of gravel embedded in tar,
> rather than paved in concrete, asphalt or tarmac. Actual dirt roads,
> with no surfacing at all, were way out in the boonies: fire roads
> through the woods, beach roads, usually, but not always on private
> property. They were sometimes on parkland as a way to get emergency
> vehicles and maintenance vehicles where needed, but only park
> staff and police/fire/ambulance would ever use them. A good storm
> might turn them to mud, or result in sever ponding on top.

I have an unpaved road a couple hundred yards from my house. It’s an official town road,
signposted, and plowed in winter. About once a year they send a grader through to flatten out
the ruts. I drive it regularly.

Pt
Kevrob
2018-03-29 03:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 9:22:01 PM UTC-4, Peter Trei wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:26:37 PM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:12:34 PM UTC-4, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:23:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
> > > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:26:30 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> > > >> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:43:09 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
> > > >> > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> IIRC, in Britain, "Motorway " refers to what USAians would call an
> > > >> > >> "interstate "
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >Yes an interstate would be a Motorway but there are many Motorways that
> > > >> > >are just short multi lane highways with no pavements.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sigh. A highway with no pavement.
> > > >>
> > > >> In the US, we call that a "dirt road," as opposed to one
> > > >> that has been paved, or had gravel laid down.
> > > >
> > > >Nope another Transatlantic confuseal....
> > > >
> > > >British pavement == American sidewalk.
> > > >
> > > >So, a motorway is an (almost certainly) paved highway with no sidewalks.
> > >
> > > It may or may not be interesting to know that the technical term for the
> > > US "paved" in the UK is "metalled". It doesn't really get used in
> > > conversation, except occasionally as "unmetalled road" to mean an actual
> > > dirt track which is nevertheless intended to be reliably navigable by
> > > car.
> >
> > And the US "gravel road" is, for some values, the same as a
> > UK "metal road?"
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_road
> >
> > Where I grew up, side streets were often of gravel embedded in tar,
> > rather than paved in concrete, asphalt or tarmac. Actual dirt roads,
> > with no surfacing at all, were way out in the boonies: fire roads
> > through the woods, beach roads, usually, but not always on private
> > property. They were sometimes on parkland as a way to get emergency
> > vehicles and maintenance vehicles where needed, but only park
> > staff and police/fire/ambulance would ever use them. A good storm
> > might turn them to mud, or result in sever ponding on top.
>
> I have an unpaved road a couple hundred yards from my house. It’s an official town road,
> signposted, and plowed in winter. About once a year they send a grader through to flatten out
> the ruts. I drive it regularly.

I spent my summers as a schoolboy and a college boy in a seaside
village* where the intertidal zone in the harbor was designated
as an official road. You couldn't drive it to high tide but
you could wade through it.

Kevin R

* The area was unincorporated until the early 1930s, when the local
power company proposed a generating plant right on the harbor, in the
adjoining, not-yet incorporated village. For plant security, they fenced
the property in, cutting off foot or wheeled traffic to the local
shops and other amenities. My great-uncle, who had bought various
properties during the Crash to rent out, led the fight, against the
fence, which was lost. The plant was built. As a result, the local
voters and property owners applied for, and received a village charter
from the state legislature. This at least allowed for zoning that
prevented further industrial development on the new village's side
of the fence. Instead, it was sparsely populated for 2/3rds of the
year, and sprang to life as "summer people" arrived in May. There
was one retail outlet in the village, a farmstand fronting the
state highway, attached to a small farm that grew amazing sweet corn,
tomatoes, etc.
Quadibloc
2018-04-01 02:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Well, if someone is going to point a firearm at people and ask them to
"stand and deliver", I suppose the kind of highway with automobiles
racing past at 55 miles an hour is not the best place to do it.
William Hyde
2018-03-28 20:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 6:14:06 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 3/27/2018 2:18 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:16:03 -0400, Joy Beeson
> > <***@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:41:52 -0400, J. Clarke
> >> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It amazes me the number of people who walk with traffic
> >>
> >> One walks against traffic to signal that one intends to yield
> >> right-of-way to anything that comes along. If you won't or can't get
> >> out of the roadway, it's better to walk with the traffic to give
> >> drivers an extra split second to deal with you.
> >
> > I never knew that was the reasoning. It makes sense. Is it
> > official?
> >
> As far as I know the reasoning for walking "against" traffic is so you
> can see the idiot driver and try to get out of their way. I've never
> heard anything about that not applying because the pedestrian "won't"
> get out of the way. As for "can't" get out of the way, the pedestrian
> shouldn't be walking on the road in that situation.

Which leads to a dilemma when it is the only way.

On a related note:

Walking back from DC to my then apartment near Greenbelt on one fine sunny Sunday morning (hence no subway), I was halfway through my four mile stint on a parkway when I saw a sign: "No Pedestrians".

Scofflaw that I am, I declined to hike home through the woods and continued my evil walking ways.

But the Curse of the Parkway was not to be evaded. Though broad, the shoulders were covered in very sharp crushed rock. A new pair of shoes was required.

William Hyde
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-03-21 14:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <y-idnSyibeH6uS_HnZ2dnUU7-***@earthlink.com>,
David DeLaney <***@vic.com> wrote:
>On 2018-03-17, Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> I don't take that "serious scientific answer" seriously.
>>
>> By the time mobile robots are advanced enough to form an intent to
>> rebel, they would be far from as helpless as today's electronic devices.
>
>Note the recent manslaughter of an innocent pedestrian by a driverless car.
>I'm sure that fits in here somehow.

Note: there was a human in the car, observing but not driving,
and the pedestrian stepped right in front of the car. The
observer said if he had been driving, there was no way he could
have stopped in time.

Death wish? More likely, texting.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Peter Trei
2018-03-21 14:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 10:30:06 AM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <y-idnSyibeH6uS_HnZ2dnUU7-***@earthlink.com>,
> David DeLaney <***@vic.com> wrote:
> >On 2018-03-17, Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> I don't take that "serious scientific answer" seriously.
> >>
> >> By the time mobile robots are advanced enough to form an intent to
> >> rebel, they would be far from as helpless as today's electronic devices.
> >
> >Note the recent manslaughter of an innocent pedestrian by a driverless car.
> >I'm sure that fits in here somehow.
>
> Note: there was a human in the car, observing but not driving,
> and the pedestrian stepped right in front of the car. The
> observer said if he had been driving, there was no way he could
> have stopped in time.
>
> Death wish? More likely, texting.

Hopefully, the car was recording video, and we can get an idea what happened.

I'd hope that robocars would have *better* reaction times than humans, but
there's only so much you can do to stop a car in motion.

Zero accidents is an unreasonable requirement. '(Much) better than humans'
should be attainable.

One factor I worry about is deterioration of skills - most human drivers are
on the road several hours a week, honing their skills and reflexes. In the
future, we're going to have robocars dumping abnormal situations into the
hands of inexperienced drivers, with zero notice. I expect this will lead
to bad results.

pt
Peter Trei
2018-03-21 15:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 10:38:55 AM UTC-4, Peter Trei wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 10:30:06 AM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > In article <y-idnSyibeH6uS_HnZ2dnUU7-***@earthlink.com>,
> > David DeLaney <***@vic.com> wrote:
> > >On 2018-03-17, Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > >> I don't take that "serious scientific answer" seriously.
> > >>
> > >> By the time mobile robots are advanced enough to form an intent to
> > >> rebel, they would be far from as helpless as today's electronic devices.
> > >
> > >Note the recent manslaughter of an innocent pedestrian by a driverless car.
> > >I'm sure that fits in here somehow.
> >
> > Note: there was a human in the car, observing but not driving,
> > and the pedestrian stepped right in front of the car. The
> > observer said if he had been driving, there was no way he could
> > have stopped in time.
> >
> > Death wish? More likely, texting.
>
> Hopefully, the car was recording video, and we can get an idea what happened.
>
> I'd hope that robocars would have *better* reaction times than humans, but
> there's only so much you can do to stop a car in motion.
>
> Zero accidents is an unreasonable requirement. '(Much) better than humans'
> should be attainable.
>
> One factor I worry about is deterioration of skills - most human drivers are
> on the road several hours a week, honing their skills and reflexes. In the
> future, we're going to have robocars dumping abnormal situations into the
> hands of inexperienced drivers, with zero notice. I expect this will lead
> to bad results.

Here's a followup. At least one cop who's reviewed footage says the accident
would probably have occurred with a human driver too.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Exclusive-Tempe-police-chief-says-early-probe-12765481.php

However, I do note that the Uber car was (slightly) speeding - 38 in a 35.

pt
Gene Wirchenko
2018-03-21 18:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:49:23 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>However, I do note that the Uber car was (slightly) speeding - 38 in a 35.


https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/03/something-went-seriously-wrong/556004/
has this paragraph:

The Uber vehicle, which was in autonomous mode with a backup operator
behind the wheel, was going 38 mph at the time of the crash (some
stories stated the car was speeding, but it was in a 45 mph zone), and
the driver made no attempt to slow down or brake, according to police
reports.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Greg Goss
2018-03-22 03:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:


>Hopefully, the car was recording video, and we can get an idea what happened.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/03/tempe-police-release-video-of-uber-pedestrian-collision/

>I'd hope that robocars would have *better* reaction times than humans, but
>there's only so much you can do to stop a car in motion.
>
>Zero accidents is an unreasonable requirement. '(Much) better than humans'
>should be attainable.
>
>One factor I worry about is deterioration of skills - most human drivers are
>on the road several hours a week, honing their skills and reflexes. In the
>future, we're going to have robocars dumping abnormal situations into the
>hands of inexperienced drivers, with zero notice. I expect this will lead
>to bad results.
>
>pt

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Quadibloc
2018-03-17 00:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I don't take that "serious scientific answer" seriously.

By the time mobile robots are advanced enough to form an intent to
rebel, they would be far from as helpless as today's electronic devices.
J. Clarke
2018-03-17 02:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 19:33:45 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <p8gvs3$gp9$***@dont-email.me>,
>Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>xkcd, "Robot Future"
>> https://xkcd.com/1968/
>
>But see also
>
>https://what-if.xkcd.com/5/

<https://www.bostondynamics.com/handle>
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-03-17 02:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
J. Clarke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 19:33:45 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>In article <p8gvs3$gp9$***@dont-email.me>,
>>Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>xkcd, "Robot Future"
>>> https://xkcd.com/1968/
>>
>>But see also
>>
>>https://what-if.xkcd.com/5/
>
><https://www.bostondynamics.com/handle>

Oh, that's beautiful. Its balance is better than mine. When is
some top choreographer going to design a ballet for BD's
critters?

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
J. Clarke
2018-03-17 11:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 02:39:44 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>J. Clarke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 19:33:45 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <p8gvs3$gp9$***@dont-email.me>,
>>>Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>xkcd, "Robot Future"
>>>> https://xkcd.com/1968/
>>>
>>>But see also
>>>
>>>https://what-if.xkcd.com/5/
>>
>><https://www.bostondynamics.com/handle>
>
>Oh, that's beautiful. Its balance is better than mine. When is
>some top choreographer going to design a ballet for BD's
>critters?

That could be interesting.
Loading...