31–40 of 216 posts
To save you a click on this clickbait: the sign is "Maintain Top Safe Speed", and the intent is to tell you to spend minimum time on this road to get out of this area as soon as you can because of nuclear contamination.
As clickbait goes it's not even that bad. It's quite informative/entertaining.
Interstitial autoplay videos is wild.
Interestingly enough, the Fukushima exclusion zone has roads that pretty much fit the bill. They're the pink lines on this map (PDF), with the exclusion zone in gray: https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/roadmap/pd... You are permitted to drive through but not stop or get out of your car. I presume ordinary speed limits apply though, so no exciting post-apocalyptic signage.
Weird. I wonder how those signs were supposed to be installed. So dangerous you need to blow through at 120mph, but safe enough for a worker to stand there for awhile installing a new sign.
Radioactive contamination is mostly dangerous from the alpha/beta emitting dust, not the gamma rays. The dust is only dangerous if you get it on you or stir it up and breathe it.
Trained crews with proper procedures and gear can manage a risk like that, your average citizen can't. And since there is a hazard, you're obligated to give correct advice - i.e. leave as soon as possible.
Driving in montana before the state implemented a max speed, I'd have my cruise control set at 100 mph. I remember seeing limos pass me like I was sitting still. I miss those days.
Speed limits are an imperfect tool for an important problem. They were generally much higher, or nonexistent, on US highways before the 1973 oil crisis [0]. They were intended to save fuel, but weren't very effective. Nowadays, most people discuss them as a safety tool.
They aren't great for that, either. Speed disparity is the best way to cause an accident, with those going at least 5MPH under or 15MPH over the 85th percentile speed being the most dangerous drivers on the road. Limits force people to choose between going a comfortable speed and following the rules. When the difference between comfortable and legal speed is too high, you get situations where raising the limit can reduce the rate of accidents (citation discusses stats, my suggested reasoning is more speculative) [1]. There are still of course many cases where setting a slower speed limit has reduced accidents [2], but that effect is not universal. Also worth considering is that, even if higher limits reduce the rate of accidents, accidents at higher speeds are almost universally more severe.
Consider long, straight, flat roads with 2+ lanes on each side, a median, no sidewalks, infrequent turn and/or merge lanes, with ample room to speed up or slow down, and speed limits of 50 MPH or lower. There are several near me. They are painful to drive, because they breed traffic tickets, tailgating, and accidents. Hell, the people on either side of the "go a comfortable speed" and "go a legal speed" even fight each other, making rolling roadblocks to slow traffic, or giving way to road rage.
Either raise the limit, or add curves, trees, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc to convince people to slow down. I tend more towards the "I can't drive 55" side [3] because I think it's generally better for the economy when people and goods can move faster. Edit: For a specific example, from Kansas City, the 9+ hour drive to Colorado Springs or Denver (at 70MPH) makes it nearly impossible to go there. There's very little traffic on I70 past Topeka. Without a speed limit, I could easily do the trip in a little over 4 hours in my C350. That would be FANTASTIC for the economies on either side of that stretch (not to mention along it).
If you're not familiar with Brock Yates and his influence, check out [4, 5, 6].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
[1]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181212135021.h...
[2]: https://jalopnik.com/iihs-finds-that-lowering-speed-limits-a...
[3]: https://youtu.be/RvV3nn_de2k?si=mLYQIkwlHCDPr6ec
[4]: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/a15143608/the-...
Who would be willing to take the risk to do road maintenance in a radiation zone? Hitting a pothole at 120 mph would be devastating.
[flagged]
Hey, publisher here. We tend to look at our competition and do half or less the number of ads. That means there's an ad unit every sixth node, not every two paragraphs (so three paragraphs, two images an embed or five paragraphs or whatever). The video player doesn't stick if you're a member, because we are partially member-supported. If you'd like to see fewer ads you can become a member!
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Visit Germany. The right stretch of Autobahn at the right time and you can still experience this. I just did two days ago.
It depends where in Germany. Many parts of Autobahn have local speed regulations.
There are also some other roads that are not included in these figures because they are not classified as Autobahn, but Autobahn-like carriageways. Germany has around 3,350 km of them, a few without speed limit.[2]
[1] Source: ADAC report from 2024-04-22 (in German), see https://www.adac.de/verkehr/standpunkte-studien/positionen/t...
[2] For examples see the German Wikipedia article "Autobahnähnliche Straße" at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn%C3%A4hnliche_Stra%C3%...
[flagged]
Not only autoplaying, but I've got my browser settings so screwed with and tuned that I haven't had a video autoplay on me in at least a year, and this one broke right through.
They should be proud. It's probably the most invasive ad on the web.