Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

highways.dot.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#61

Post by mikestew »

Swizec wrote: post #39
YZF wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You weren't hydroplaning. Hydroplaning is when there's so much water your tires can't funnel that water out and you're driving on the surface of the water. You "just" lost traction. And yes the first rains of the season that bring up all the c*ap from the road are notorious for being slippery. In situations like that you can try to regain traction by making sure the wheels are pointing at the same direction you are t…

> You can also take lessons... In my part of Europe (Slovenia) they now make you take a “safety driving” course within 2 years of getting your license. Skid plates, hydroplaning, all the fun stuff. My sister got to do it. I missed the fun by a few years and instead practiced with lots of late night drifting fun on fresh snow (don’t tell mom :P)

At my U. S. high school back in the early 80s, we'd take our cars out in the parking lot after a fresh Indiana snow and do "doughnuts" (whip your car around in tight circles while on the gas). We did it after school, after the parking lot had mostly cleared out (and it's rural America, the parking lot was way bigger than needed). The principal/head master/whatever-you-call-it-in-your-country stated that he did not care, as it gave kids a safe environment to learn. And in Indiana, you better learn to drive on snow.

That school principal was cool in a lot of ways like that. He'd never keep his job these days.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#62

Post by giraffe_lady »

philwelch wrote: post #31
giraffe_lady wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same argument works for banning pedestrians from streets that cars use though. What kind of world are we trying to make here.

We do ban pedestrians from the streets; that’s what sidewalks are for.

Not all streets have sidewalks but you can still walk on them....

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#63

Post by marssaxman »

atoav wrote: post #46
Swizec wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can also take lessons... In my part of Europe (Slovenia) they now make you take a “safety driving” course within 2 years of getting your license. Skid plates, hydroplaning, all the fun stuff. My sister got to do it. I missed the fun by a few years and instead practiced with lots of late night drifting fun on fresh snow (don’t tell mom :P)

Same in Austria. It is so helpful to learn how to handle a (your) car in extreme situations, before having to encounter these in the wild. I loved the skid plates — for those who don't know: this is basically a "moving floor" that yerks your rear wheels randomly left or right when you drive over it. This happens right before a wet section of track and depending on the speed you have while going over it recovering can…

> for those who don't know: this is basically a "moving floor"

Thank you for this explanation! There is a completely different kind of device called a "skid plate" in the context of 4x4 off-road driving, so I was imagining some gnarly things must be happening in this "safety driving" course!

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#64

Post by giraffe_lady »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #43
frosted-flakes wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sidewalks don't mean you're not allowed to walk on the street. Streets are for everyone, including cyclists and pedestrians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#United_States

Could link to a lot of american perversions if you wanted to but that's a very narrow "we."

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#65

Post by philwelch »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #64
shepherdjerred wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#United_States

Could link to a lot of american perversions if you wanted to but that's a very narrow "we."

TFA is published by the US Department of Transportation.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#66

Post by philwelch »

enriquto wrote: post #45
philwelch wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a problem IMO. Bicycles aren’t very useful vehicles compared to cars, which is why a very small share of the US population uses them on the roads in the first place. Unfortunately that tiny minority of people are very outspoken about attempting to socially and physically engineer the world to cater to their preferences.

> Bicycles aren’t very useful vehicles compared to cars I find this point of view amusing because it is so contradictory to my personal experience. In my case, I started commuting by bike after years of being tired to spend an unpredictable amount of time stuck on traffic, looking through the window at cyclists merrily passing by. Since becoming one of these cyclists, I feel a bit of pity every time that I see people…

> Because there is no safe infrastructure for cycling, and that is the main problem.

Which, as I pointed out, could be addressed with more effective barriers between motor vehicle and bicycle lanes. But I think you’re very much overestimating the willingness of Americans to ride bicycles to get around in a Florida or Texas summer, or a Minnesota winter, or up the hills of Seattle or San Francisco, as well as the degree to which Americans are willing to tolerate constantly stinking of sweat.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#67

Post by philwelch »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #59
enriquto wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bicycles aren’t very useful vehicles compared to cars I find this point of view amusing because it is so contradictory to my personal experience. In my case, I started commuting by bike after years of being tired to spend an unpredictable amount of time stuck on traffic, looking through the window at cyclists merrily passing by. Since becoming one of these cyclists, I feel a bit of pity every time that I see people…

I mean, sure, yesterday I made a trip that was less than 10km. It took around fifteen minutes. I'm a pretty quick cyclist and it would have taken over half an hour. It was also 6 degrees C outside and raining. I don't consider cycling particularly unsafe even on the road. But, aside from it being pretty good exercise, it's objectively inferior for me to do it, unless the car infrastructure is unavailable or deliberat…

Which is why these people want to cripple the car infrastructure.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#68

Post by philwelch »

dmitriid wrote: post #50
philwelch wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a problem IMO. Bicycles aren’t very useful vehicles compared to cars, which is why a very small share of the US population uses them on the roads in the first place. Unfortunately that tiny minority of people are very outspoken about attempting to socially and physically engineer the world to cater to their preferences.

> Bicycles aren’t very useful vehicles compared to cars, which is why a very small share of the US population uses them on the roads in the first place. It's because the infrastructure for biking is almost non-existent. Thanks to people who keep saying "just ban bycicles because cars!". Read and watch this: How the Dutch got their cycling infrastructure https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/how-the-dutch-...

The infrastructure is almost non-existent because the vast majority of Americans don’t use bicycles to travel, not the other way around. There is not any sort of untapped well of demand in the American population to use bicycles to get around, outside of a very small and vocal activist minority who mostly already ride their bicycles in motor traffic already.

The Netherlands is an extremely dense, flat, temperate country, which is ideal for bicycles. The United States is none of those things. Bicycles predate automobiles by decades, but in the US they never even displaced horses or horse-drawn vehicles because even those are more practical than bicycles here.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#69

Post by giraffe_lady »

philwelch wrote: post #65
giraffe_lady wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could link to a lot of american perversions if you wanted to but that's a very narrow "we."

TFA is published by the US Department of Transportation.

My point was more that "things that americans do", "things that everyone does", and "things we should be doing" is a venn diagram with a very small center when it comes to car use.

Re: Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000)

#70

Post by philwelch »

yarky wrote: post #53
bscphil wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motorized roads would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else). To me this sounds like the equivalent of permanently shutting down a public park because it's infested with disease carrying rats rather than trying to get rid of the rats.

> would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else). Wasn't this the same kind of argument we used in the past to justify slavery?

Slaveholders were a minority of the population who managed to structure all of society to suit their wishes to the detriment of everyone else. As you might have gathered, I’m opposed to this sort of thing.
Post reply on HN