Warp wrote:
>   Also, car accidents often close the *entire* road instead of closing
> just one lane.

At least around here, you get "gaper block", where the traffic going the 
other direction is hindered by all the people slowing down to look at 
the accident. :-) So it's even worse than closing one direction.

My favorite traffic report was the truck on the George Washington Bridge 
(into New York City) full of roofing nails that rolled over. The GWB is 
a two-level bridge, the top level leaving the city, the bottom level 
entering, with tolls on both levels. And the top is grill-work to make 
it weigh less.

By the time they figured out it was roofing nails that spilled, every 
lane in both directions had dozens of cars with four flat tires blocking 
the toll lanes.

The truck rolled before 8AM, and the bridge was still f'ed at evening 
rush hour.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> I've driven on studded snow tires. I am probably misremembering, but I 
> don't know that the kinds of studs you get in the USA (at least) would 
> give you enough traction to make it *safe*. Safer, sure, but not like 
> you could drive normally, say.

Yes. Always, especially on slippery, the driver has to measure the 
conditions of the road to decide the safe driving speed and 
possibilities. *Always*.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Jim Charter wrote:
>>> P.S.
>>> So I am teaching a Defensive Driving course a week or so back.  We get
>>> to the topic of 'things that can cause collisions'  We are reviewing
>>> 'environmental conditions that can cause collisions'  I am asking the
>>> class about the road surface and what can make it slippery.  One guy
>>> puts up his hand and very enthusiastically suggests 'banana peels?' He
>>> was from either West Africa or West Indies. I honestly didn't know if he
>>> was serious.  I try to fudge it.  "Man you're killing me.  Banana
>>> peels?"  He got very offended.  Apparently he was serious.
>>
>> If you happen to be following a certain truck down the hill that leads
>> in to Scranton Pennsylvania, that could be a problem.
> 
>     What, having a guy from West Africa suggesting that a car can slip
> on a banana peel?
> 

No, the cars slipping on the peels. Everyone talks about the truck, no
one talks about the wrecks that must have followed it down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pZ3TTmm0n4 just in case, in all the
eclectic music tastes, no one has heard of Harry Chapin.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:54:40 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:

>No, the cars slipping on the peels. Everyone talks about the truck, no
>one talks about the wrecks that must have followed it down.

I've just had a thought, if Jim's student was from West Africa he might have
been talking about when the harmattan blows. Banana peels might give a little
more traction.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> 
> No, the cars slipping on the peels. Everyone talks about the truck, no
> one talks about the wrecks that must have followed it down.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pZ3TTmm0n4 just in case, in all the
> eclectic music tastes, no one has heard of Harry Chapin.

Unbelievable!

And he wrote the song about the looser cab driver too.  I feel haunted.

Post a reply to this message

>  I don't know which government you are talking about, but at least here
> accidents always cost tax money. Health care, for instance. Also cleaning
> up the mess is done by officials, not individuals, so it costs tax money
> too. If someone involved got paralyzed, that will cost a lot of tax money.

You're going way off topic here into the irrelevant details, my point was 
that there are much cheaper ways to save lives than 60 million people all 
stuck in traffic for 30 minutes.  You said "Yes" you'd like them to do that 
to save one life, I am making a point that what you agree with is a 
horrendously expensive way of saving a life...  That's all.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> Also don't forget that 
>> repaving creates traffic jams just the same way that accidents do, plus they 
>> actually cost the government financially (accidents don't).
> 
>   I don't know which government you are talking about, but at least here
> accidents always cost tax money. Health care, for instance. Also cleaning
> up the mess is done by officials, not individuals, so it costs tax money
> too. If someone involved got paralyzed, that will cost a lot of tax money.
> 

Here is the US the cost for tax money is much lower because so many 
things are not government run - health care, rescue and ambulance, tow 
truck service, etc...

Putting scott's example together with this can get a very twisted 
conclusion:

Accidents where people do not get killed are the most profitable for the 
hospitals.  Therefore if you get a few non-dead people through the door 
you can buy that $10m piece of equipment that can save the lives of 10 
people.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
> Here is the US the cost for tax money is much lower because so many 
> things are not government run - health care, rescue and ambulance, tow 
> truck service, etc...

  Then who pays those things?

  I have hard time believing that if the victims of the accident do not
have any money, they and their car wrecks are left in the middle of the
road. *Someone* has to at least remove the debris from the road. Who does
that if the government (or the accident victims) doesn't pay for it?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  Then who pays those things?

The insurance company of the one who was deemed to be at fault in the 
accident usually picks up all the direct costs (fixing any damaged 
vehicles/property, tow-trucks, any medical compensation etc).  The only 
general cost that is footed by the government will be the cost of any 
emergency services if they are needed on the scene.

Saying all that though, in countries like the UK where everyone is scared of 
driving on snow, all the accidents I've seen have been where people have 
slid off the road at very low speed and ended up hitting a wall or half-way 
into a ditch.  I doubt they even call the emergency services for this.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
>> Here is the US the cost for tax money is much lower because so many 
>> things are not government run - health care, rescue and ambulance, tow 
>> truck service, etc...
> 
>   Then who pays those things?
> 
>   I have hard time believing that if the victims of the accident do not
> have any money, they and their car wrecks are left in the middle of the
> road. *Someone* has to at least remove the debris from the road. Who does
> that if the government (or the accident victims) doesn't pay for it?
> 

I didn't say that there was no tax cost, it is just much lower.

People who get paid per service (ie tow truck, hospital, ambulance) will 
bill you for their services - after the fact.  Usually it is handled by 
the involved insurance companies.

People who are paid by taxes are just doing their job, there usually is 
no extra cost.  Exceptions may be where you cause damage to public 
property (ie destroy a bridge, etc...).

As scott said, insurance usually takes care of the bills.
Just about everyone has auto insurance - it's required here.
If you happen to not have insurance you get into legal trouble - and you 
are personally responsible for the bills.

The government does not pay to have your car towed.  They just call the 
tow truck to come get your car.  Then the tow truck driver bills you for 
service.

In the end it is through your insurance premiums that you pay the 'tax'.
The premiums are based on the insurance company still making a profit 
while shelling out the money for other people's stupidities.


Tom

Post a reply to this message