http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMzeiMJQrvk

  I have heard that in many places in the US they don't even know about
the concept of winter tires (such as studded tires, which are used in
Finland in winter), even at places where it snows. Seeing videos like
this one seems to confirm this.

  In some countries studded tires are prohibited by law (all year round)
because they wear the road faster. Well, I suppose it's better to have
tons of car accidents than having to repave once in a while.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMzeiMJQrvk
> 
>   I have heard that in many places in the US they don't even know about
> the concept of winter tires (such as studded tires, which are used in
> Finland in winter), even at places where it snows. Seeing videos like
> this one seems to confirm this.
> 
>   In some countries studded tires are prohibited by law (all year round)
> because they wear the road faster. Well, I suppose it's better to have
> tons of car accidents than having to repave once in a while.

Up here the lowlanders don't seem to know the difference between valley 
driving and mountain driving. They think the same speed can be used for 
summer and winter conditions. Yesterday my brother spotted two 
off-the-road-again motorheads during the seven mile drive to the next town.

Of course, I'm not one to talk. I've found myself in at least six sticky 
situations in my life. Three were in sand, the rest were in snow. It 
didn't help that my Mazda truck was rear-wheel drive with a light back end.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMzeiMJQrvk
> 
>   I have heard that in many places in the US they don't even know about
> the concept of winter tires (such as studded tires, which are used in
> Finland in winter), even at places where it snows. Seeing videos like
> this one seems to confirm this.
> 
>   In some countries studded tires are prohibited by law (all year round)
> because they wear the road faster. Well, I suppose it's better to have
> tons of car accidents than having to repave once in a while.


I live a couple hundred miles away from the city where that video was 
taken, assuming that the weather there is similar to here (and I believe 
it is) I think part of the problem is that it generally snows there 
between zero and a couple of times per year, and most of the time it's 
only a an inch or two which melts before the day is done.  Thus it's not 
really worthwhile buying snow tires, since it's only very rarely that it 
snows enough that it would be at all useful (having a tire built for 
rain would be much more important).  Anyone here form Portland who can 
confirm / disagree with this?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMzeiMJQrvk
> 
>   I have heard that in many places in the US they don't even know about
> the concept of winter tires (such as studded tires, which are used in
> Finland in winter), even at places where it snows. Seeing videos like
> this one seems to confirm this.

There are parts of the US where it snows once every decade, at the very 
most.  Where I lived in California, it wasn't even cold enough to snow 
except on exactly one night during the three years I lived there.  It is 
generally the case that snow tires purchased will wear out and require 
replacement before they are needed.

One of the biggest laughs I ever had was watching a news report of snow 
in a part of California where snow falls once every two or three years. 
  A car was coming up to a traffic light.  The light came on.  The brake 
lights of the car came on very clearly and brightly.  The car continued 
to move with the same speed and in the same direction.

I grew up in Michigan, which routinely gets a 30cm snowfall on at least 
one night every winter, and more at other times throughout the year. 
Even there the first snowfall of the year throws people for a loop 
(because after seven months of not dealing with it, the skills get 
rusty).  The Detroit area has one of the largest natural salt supplies 
in the world (decades ago, ten percent of the world's salt production 
came from the area), so the salt trucks are deployed very quickly.  The 
cars there are rusted out very quickly, but since the car industry is 
big there, this is considered a good thing.

In the South, a 1 cm snowfall is reputed to paralyze entire cities.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMzeiMJQrvk
>
>   I have heard that in many places in the US they don't even know about
> the concept of winter tires (such as studded tires, which are used in
> Finland in winter), even at places where it snows. Seeing videos like
> this one seems to confirm this.
>
>   In some countries studded tires are prohibited by law (all year round)
> because they wear the road faster. Well, I suppose it's better to have
> tons of car accidents than having to repave once in a while.
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

Many places in the US, studded tires have been banned, as being too hard on the
pavement.

20-30 years ago, studded tires were allowed for certain months of the year where
I grew up (Nebraska.)  I really miss not being able to use them anymore....

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMzeiMJQrvk
> 
>   I have heard that in many places in the US they don't even know about
> the concept of winter tires (such as studded tires, which are used in
> Finland in winter), even at places where it snows. Seeing videos like
> this one seems to confirm this.
> 
>   In some countries studded tires are prohibited by law (all year round)
> because they wear the road faster. Well, I suppose it's better to have
> tons of car accidents than having to repave once in a while.
> 
As others have said it is just not likely people will to buy snow gear 
for one or two storms. Though personally I could see maybe have some 
tire chains around.  Kind of like overshoes. Also it looked that those 
conditions were particularily severe and on a slope. Growing up in 
Hamilton Ont., it was a little snowier back in the day but also Hamilton 
folks bought studded tires routinely because the Niagara Escarpment runs 
right through the city and there was nothing more embarassing for a 
hometown motorist than to get stuck on the 'Jolly Cut' going up the 
escarpment.
I was out in something like the conditions in the video one night last 
winter.  The amazing thing was it took very little snow. When I picked 
up a group heading for Bklyn there was no snow.  By the time I made 
three turns and was on the ramp of the Manhattan Br. the snow was nearly 
blinding.  By the time I got to Ft Greene, the conditions were perfect 
for the snow to pack down into maybe a few millimeters of ice.    And of 
course finding a NYC fleet-owned Crown Vic with good tires would be a 
rare thing. It's a weird thing to feel the ABS kick in at 3 mph.
Which is another point.  I think with the newer smart braking and 
transmission systems in cars, people feel less need for heavy duty tires 
in winter.

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.

Post a reply to this message

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.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMzeiMJQrvk

I remember the news on this. It was exceptional conditions. It had 
rained, frozen, snowed, rained, frozen again, something like that.

I'm pretty sure studded snow tires aren't going to make it safe to drive 
if you get the kind of conditions that let the car slide sideways at a 
sedate speed without slowing for fifty meters (like at 1:02 into the 
video).

-- 
   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

Last year we had the first snow in 50 years. Only lasted for a day, and 
wasn't really too much snow anyway.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMzeiMJQrvk

> I remember the news on this. It was exceptional conditions. It had 
> rained, frozen, snowed, rained, frozen again, something like that.

> I'm pretty sure studded snow tires aren't going to make it safe to drive 
> if you get the kind of conditions that let the car slide sideways at a 
> sedate speed without slowing for fifty meters (like at 1:02 into the 
> video).

  I don't remember ever seeing that happening here, even though that
kind of climate (varying from below and over zero celsius repeatedly
over a relatively short timespan) happens quite often.

  Studded tires do not only increase grip, they also roughen the ice,
so the more cars drive along a road, the less slippery it gets.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New a écrit :
> Warp wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMzeiMJQrvk
> 
> I remember the news on this. It was exceptional conditions. It had 
> rained, frozen, snowed, rained, frozen again, something like that.
> 
> I'm pretty sure studded snow tires aren't going to make it safe to drive 
> if you get the kind of conditions that let the car slide sideways at a 
> sedate speed without slowing for fifty meters (like at 1:02 into the 
> video).
> 

I've read somewhere that this particular street was on a hill, although 
it doesn't really show in the video, which explains why the car 
continues sliding like that.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   sympatico.ca  */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> 
> One of the biggest laughs I ever had was watching a news report of snow 
> in a part of California where snow falls once every two or three years. 
>  A car was coming up to a traffic light.  The light came on.  The brake 
> lights of the car came on very clearly and brightly.  The car continued 
> to move with the same speed and in the same direction.
> 

I remember my brother driving once and doing that very same thing.
Luckily the drivers from the crossing light didn't go until he slid 
through the intersection.


> I grew up in Michigan, which routinely gets a 30cm snowfall on at least 
> one night every winter, and more at other times throughout the year. 
> Even there the first snowfall of the year throws people for a loop 
> (because after seven months of not dealing with it, the skills get 
> rusty).  The Detroit area has one of the largest natural salt supplies 

I was in the Detriot area for one of those events.  It was funny, yet 
scary.  People were losing control on straight stretches.  I was puzzled 
until I was told about the first snow thing.


Tom

Post a reply to this message

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?

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:06:11 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> di
d  

spake, saying:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMzeiMJQrvk
>
>   I have heard that in many places in the US they don't even know abou
t
> the concept of winter tires (such as studded tires, which are used in
> Finland in winter), even at places where it snows. Seeing videos like
> this one seems to confirm this.
>
>   In some countries studded tires are prohibited by law (all year roun
d)
> because they wear the road faster. Well, I suppose it's better to have

> tons of car accidents than having to repave once in a while.

Exactly. To repave the road the state has to shut it down, redirect  

traffic, pay for the contractors and materials and the only thing they g
et  

back is indirect from any *possible* extra business having a nice road  

brings in to the local stores.

OTOH a good car crash still shuts down the road, but for a shorter perio
d  

of time; tow-trucks get paid from the insurance, scrap dealers get  

material, and HMOs fund any medical costs incurred at the local hospital
.

So repaving a road *might* generate income for the 'area', but car  

accidents always will.

Oh and yes I'm not being (totally) serious.

-- 

Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   In some countries studded tires are prohibited by law (all year round)
> because they wear the road faster. Well, I suppose it's better to have
> tons of car accidents than having to repave once in a while.
> 

Naturally you know (but everybody here don't) that studded tire and a 
winter tire are not 100% equal terms. There are also good winter tires 
on the market, which are not studded (ie. Nokian RSi, Bridgestone 
Blizzak etc).

One of the usual flamewars at sfnet newsgroups are studded vs. 
non-studded winter tires, I don't think we wan't to raise it here :p.

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

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> I live a couple hundred miles away from the city where that video was 
> taken, assuming that the weather there is similar to here (and I believe 
> it is) I think part of the problem is that it generally snows there 
> between zero and a couple of times per year, and most of the time it's 
> only a an inch or two which melts before the day is done.  Thus it's not 
> really worthwhile buying snow tires, since it's only very rarely that it 
> snows enough that it would be at all useful (having a tire built for 
> rain would be much more important).  Anyone here form Portland who can 
> confirm / disagree with this?

I grew up in Seattle, but I'm currently living in Portland.

This year, we had snow four times.  Each time, we got less than an inch, 
and it melted within 2 hours.

Anyway, if you think that's bad, remember that at least they had the 
(poor) excuse of an icy road.  The driving here isn't much better in the 
rain (which is rather alarming, seeing as it rains here almost as much 
as in Seattle).

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMzeiMJQrvk
> 
>   I have heard that in many places in the US they don't even know about
> the concept of winter tires (such as studded tires, which are used in
> Finland in winter), even at places where it snows. Seeing videos like
> this one seems to confirm this.
> 
>   In some countries studded tires are prohibited by law (all year round)
> because they wear the road faster. Well, I suppose it's better to have
> tons of car accidents than having to repave once in a while.
> 

My personal feeling is that if conditions are bad enough that you need 
more than your regular tires, you should just be safe and throw on some 
chains.

Our first apartment was at the top of a rather steep hill.  I loved the 
feeling of calmly driving down the lane in the morning, grinning and 
waving at all the people who had been stupid enough to try going down 
without any extra traction - and there were at least two dozen cars on 
the side :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> My personal feeling is that if conditions are bad enough that you need 
> more than your regular tires, you should just be safe and throw on some 
> chains.

  I have the feeling that chains wear out the road 100 times faster than
studs. Additionally they wear out the tires pretty fast, they don't allow
driving very fast (ie. you probably don't want to drive along a highway
with them), they make a lot of noise, and probably can't be used for very
long distances (like 100's of km).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> 
> My personal feeling is that if conditions are bad enough that you need 
> more than your regular tires, you should just be safe and throw on some 
> chains.
> 

Chains should go well at extreme conditions on ice, but when you'll hit 
the tarmac or gravel (or even plain snow iirc), real winter tires can 
get you better grip. It's possible that we don't actually have the most 
extreme conditions here - at least often -, but I don't recall a single 
day from past 8 years (ie. while I've had a driver's license) that I'd 
even thinked of chains instead of winter tires.

Of course the suspension of the car itself makes a lot, too.

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

Post a reply to this message

>  I have heard that in many places in the US they don't even know about
> the concept of winter tires (such as studded tires, which are used in
> Finland in winter), even at places where it snows. Seeing videos like
> this one seems to confirm this.

A lot of them use "all-weather" tyres, which are better than summer tyres in 
winter, but not as good as proper winter tyres.  The benefit is you don't 
need to swap tyres twice a year, the disadvantage is the rubber is so hard 
that the grip is terrible compared to proper summer tyres in summer.  So 
long as everybody uses them and knows how grippy they are it shouldn't be a 
problem.

FWIW here in Germany we use winter/snow tyres, but not studded tyres.  The 
winter tyres help a lot in snow, but are just as useless as summer tyres on 
ice.  It looks in that video to be ice, only studs will help you there.

>  In some countries studded tires are prohibited by law (all year round)
> because they wear the road faster. Well, I suppose it's better to have
> tons of car accidents than having to repave once in a while.

Yes it is actually - repaving every single road "once in a while" would 
cause orders of magnitude more chaos than a few accidents when it's icy. 
Unless you live somewhere with snow and ice for *a lot* of the year, it's 
just not worth it.

Post a reply to this message

> I'm pretty sure studded snow tires aren't going to make it safe to drive 
> if you get the kind of conditions that let the car slide sideways at a 
> sedate speed without slowing for fifty meters (like at 1:02 into the 
> video).

You've never seen cars racing on ice then?  They have metal studs that dig 
into the ice and create grip - it's amazing how much grip they have.  I was 
in a taxi once in Finland and was pretty unbelievable how hard he could 
brake on the snow/ice and how fast he could go round a corner without 
skidding at all.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Yes it is actually - repaving every single road "once in a while" would 
> cause orders of magnitude more chaos than a few accidents when it's icy. 

  Yes, losing lives is a small price for not having one lane of a road
closed for a couple of days.

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

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Yes it is actually - repaving every single road "once in a while" would
>> cause orders of magnitude more chaos than a few accidents when it's icy.
>
>  Yes, losing lives is a small price for not having one lane of a road
> closed for a couple of days.

As much as you may dislike it, there is a price on human life, as well as a 
price on disruption and delays.  Would you choose that 60 million people 
were all delayed by an extra 30 minutes every day to save one single life? 
Where do you draw the line?  The line has already been drawn, and it's not 
worth countries that get snow/ice infrequently using studded tyres.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> 
> A lot of them use "all-weather" tyres, which are better than summer 
> tyres in winter, but not as good as proper winter tyres.  The benefit is 
> you don't need to swap tyres twice a year, the disadvantage is the 
> rubber is so hard that the grip is terrible compared to proper summer 
> tyres in summer.  So long as everybody uses them and knows how grippy 
> they are it shouldn't be a problem.

Lose-lose -situation, since the tires are bad at winter and terrible at 
summer ;).

> FWIW here in Germany we use winter/snow tyres, but not studded tyres.  
> The winter tyres help a lot in snow, but are just as useless as summer 
> tyres on ice.  It looks in that video to be ice, only studs will help 
> you there.

Nope. Of course there are different kinds of unstudded winter tires, but 
ie. the examples I took earlier (Nokian RSi and Bridgestone Blizzak) 
perform surprisingly well even on ice, waaay better than summer tires. 
Naturally studded tire is even better on ice, I'm not going to deny that.

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

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Would you choose that 60 million people 
> were all delayed by an extra 30 minutes every day to save one single life? 

  Yes?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 26 Feb 2008 07:41:22 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> Would you choose that 60 million people 
>> were all delayed by an extra 30 minutes every day to save one single life? 
>
>  Yes?

Double Yes
It gets my vote.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Would you choose that 60 million people
>> were all delayed by an extra 30 minutes every day to save one single 
>> life?
>
>  Yes?

Because you are looking at the problem selfishly and not the whole system. 
Of course, if you said to an individual that if they were forced to wait an 
extra 30 minutes every day to save a life, they might say yes.  But 
goverments need to look at the whole system in order to make a decision, try 
the following:

How much would someone have to pay you if it meant you lost 30 minutes each 
day to being stuck in traffic?

Ask 60 million people that question and add up all their answers, what do 
you think the total would be?  I'd guess around $10 per person on average, 
so say $600 million.

A hospital near you wants to buy some new piece of equipment that will save 
more lives than the old bit.  It's very expensive, let's say it will save an 
extra 10 lives, and costs 10 million dollars.

So, what you are effectively saying is that you'd rather waste $600m of 
peoples time, to avoid having to spend $1m to save a single life.  Good job 
you aren't an economic adviser for your government ;-)

BTW you can substitute the hospital equipment for anything that puts a value 
on human life.  Actually, whenever you buy or use anything that is not 100% 
safe, you are putting a value on your life.

Post a reply to this message

scott escribió:
>>> Would you choose that 60 million people
>>> were all delayed by an extra 30 minutes every day to save one single 
>>> life?
>>
>>  Yes?
> 
> Because you are looking at the problem selfishly and not the whole 
> system. Of course, if you said to an individual that if they were forced 
> to wait an extra 30 minutes every day to save a life, they might say 
> yes.  But goverments need to look at the whole system in order to make a 
> decision, try the following:
> 
> How much would someone have to pay you if it meant you lost 30 minutes 
> each day to being stuck in traffic?
> 
> Ask 60 million people that question and add up all their answers, what 
> do you think the total would be?  I'd guess around $10 per person on 
> average, so say $600 million.
> 
> A hospital near you wants to buy some new piece of equipment that will 
> save more lives than the old bit.  It's very expensive, let's say it 
> will save an extra 10 lives, and costs 10 million dollars.
> 
> So, what you are effectively saying is that you'd rather waste $600m of 
> peoples time, to avoid having to spend $1m to save a single life.  Good 
> job you aren't an economic adviser for your government ;-)
> 
> BTW you can substitute the hospital equipment for anything that puts a 
> value on human life.  Actually, whenever you buy or use anything that is 
> not 100% safe, you are putting a value on your life.

I hate it when people put economics in the way of human lives. The "it's 
not worth saving them" conclusion after doing maths with money.

Post a reply to this message

> I hate it when people put economics in the way of human lives.

Then you haven't completely understood.

> The "it's not worth saving them" conclusion after doing maths with money.

That's not the conclusion at all.  The conclusion is that instead of 
"spending" $600m on traffic jams to save a single life, we might as well 
spend $600m on hospital equipment to save 600 lives.

The maths is only showing you how bad a decision it is to spend $600m on 
saving one life.  The fact that we put a price on a life helps us save more 
lives by spending wisely.  If you put an infinite price on life, you end up 
with all sorts of stupid decisions, because there isn't an infinite supply 
of money.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> How much would someone have to pay you if it meant you lost 30 minutes each 
> day to being stuck in traffic?

  Let's ask this in another way:

  How long would you be ready to be stuck in traffic if it means that one
life is saved because of the wait?

  Also, you assume that traffic accidents are cheaper for the government
than having to re-pave once in a while. Do you have any hard numbers on this?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  Let's ask this in another way:
>
>  How long would you be ready to be stuck in traffic if it means that one
> life is saved because of the wait?

That depends on how much I value life, and how much my time is worth.  It 
will be different for every person, but if you average it over 60 million 
people you'll get a figure.  Assume I value life at $1m, and I earn $100k a 
year - that means I would be willing to wait 10 years in a jam to save a 
life.

>  Also, you assume that traffic accidents are cheaper for the government
> than having to re-pave once in a while. Do you have any hard numbers on 
> this?

No, but you can do some simple estimates.  It's going to depend on many 
factors like how often it is snowy, how many roads you have, and how much 
traffic there is.  The numbers for a country like Finland are going to be 
totally different than somewhere like the UK.  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).

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news: 
47c4355b@news.povray.org...

>  Also, you assume that traffic accidents are cheaper for the government
> than having to re-pave once in a while. Do you have any hard numbers on 
> this?

Here's the ruling that banned studded tires in Ontario in 1971.
http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=111434

Basically, this is a typical case of (probabilistic) risk assessment. It's 
an entire field of research and it goes beyond than simply balancing lives 
against budget. Unless there's a specialist of this particular case here I 
don't think that any of us have the data and the skills to run the 
simulations...

G.

-- 
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> to be totally different than somewhere like the UK.  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).

Actually, they do. The place needs to get cleaned up, there's possible 
need for police and firemen and there's a big possibility to get huge 
payloads for medical staff, who repair you after your accident (if they 
can). If a life is lost, all the work that person would've been doing in 
the future is zeroed.

I'm between you as calculating this. I agree with your great lines, but 
not with all the calculation.

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

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure studded snow tires aren't going to make it safe to 
>> drive if you get the kind of conditions that let the car slide 
>> sideways at a sedate speed without slowing for fifty meters (like at 
>> 1:02 into the video).
> 
> You've never seen cars racing on ice then?  They have metal studs that 
> dig into the ice and create grip 

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.

-- 
   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

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

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >  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.

  What if it was nobody's fault? What if there was no insurance?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp escribió:
>   What if it was nobody's fault? What if there was no insurance?

In Argentina, I bet they would keep blaming each other and leave the car 
in the middle of the road for months :)

(ok, big exaggeration; but it *has* happened that two city governments 
argue about who is in charge of fixing something and meanwhile the thing 
doesn't get fixed)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:59:36 -0500, Warp wrote:

> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> >  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.
> 
>   What if it was nobody's fault? What if there was no insurance?

In the US, at least in my experience, if it's "nobody's" fault, it's 
"everybody's" fault (everyone who was involved), so each insurance 
company pays some.  But usually they can pin it on one party or t'other.  
Or ISTR there's something called "no fault insurance" available.

If there's no insurance, part of the premium those of us who are legal 
(because, at least with driving a car or owning a home, there's a legal 
requirement to have insurance) end up paying a little extra to cover the 
costs of the uninsured.  Or maybe it's that there's a separate rider we 
can pay for that covers those situations.

But at least in the case of a car accident, if you don't have insurance, 
you're looking at a fine at the least.  For homeowners, unless you own it 
outright, the bank won't lend you money for the mortgage without it, and 
if your insurance policy is canceled, they'll be notified (as part owner 
in the property) and most lenders will send a nasty letter saying 
essentially that if you don't correct the situation, they'll foreclose.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>  What if it was nobody's fault?

That never happens, the insurance companies always agree between them who 
will pay (sometimes it's split 50/50).

> What if there was no insurance?

Not having a minimum of 3rd party insurance is illegal in most countries - 
of course that doesn't mean it never happens, but it's only a very small 
minority of cases.  Under that situation it means the insurance company of 
whoever owns the damaged property must pay up themselves - even if it wasn't 
their fault.  Of course you can try to sue the uninsured driver to get some 
money back, but for small amounts it usually isn't worth it.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> In the US, at least in my experience, if it's "nobody's" fault, it's 
> "everybody's" fault (everyone who was involved)

  Sounds fair. First you are in a dangerous car accident which might
have even costed your life, and then you have to pay money for it.
Yeah, fair.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message