Road rage

[Andrew D]

Would it be possible for him to defend his position by some means other than cheering the fact that his "wife" keeps herself armed to commit murder (or attempted murder)?

Try actually reading the thread.

[@meric@nwom@n]

I have read the thread. What I see is you, who presents himself to be more intelligent than others who post act like a complete dipshit. It's a shame. I will simply put you on the ignore list, easy enough.

[@meric@nwom@n]

*Poof* another pain in the ass bites the dust.

[Andrew D]

I have read the thread. What I see is you, who presents himself to be more intelligent than others who post act like a complete dipshit.

Yes, except for the fact that no one has been able to demonstrate that I am wrong. Oh, and the fact that no one has offered a defense of the positions that killing all the prisoners at Gitmo is the right thing to do, that killing a whole bunch of Iraqis to take Iraq's oil is the right thing to do, and that exterminating an entire nation (for some unarticulated reason) is the right thing to do. But other than that, I am self-evidently a complete dipshit.

It's a shame. I will simply put you on the ignore list, easy enough.

Of course you will. When you find yourself in an indefensible position, the easiest thing to do is run away.

[Andrew D]

*Poof* another pain in the ass bites the dust.

Ah, @meric@n wom@n has put herself on her own ignore list.

[Crackpot]

YOu have been shown wrong OTR trucking is both a big business and a necessity holding your hands over your ears and screaming otherwise doesn't change that fact.

If you were complaining about improper lane usage OTOH you might have a point. Then again that seems to be a regional problem due lergely to (lack of) enforcement and/or meaningful fines.

[Andrew D]

Improper lane usage is a problem. And I wish that California's relevant laws were more diligently enforced.

And it bears noting -- emphatically noting -- that I have no objection to large, slow-moving trucks' hauling stuff on public roadways when those roadways have multiple lanes in the direction in question, and the trucks stay to the right. That is the end of all objections based on the flow of traffic on such roadways. Further such objections are nothing but evasions.

Having trucks that cannot proceed without impeding traffic on the roadways is not a necessity. On the contrary, there are numerous solutions available.

The trucks which -- largely unnecessarily, given that long-range hauling by rail could and should take the place of long-range hauling by truck -- impede the flow of traffic could be reengineered to function without impeding traffic.

The things being hauled could, at least in most cases, be hauled by smaller vehicles which would not impede the flow of traffic.

The law could be that any vehicle that is impeding the flow of traffic could be required, when a specified number of other vehicles have accumulated behind it, to pull over (or at least to use a turnout), and that law could be enforced. (California has such a law; I do not recall ever seeing it's actually being enforced).

And I am confident that there are other remedies which either I have not encountered or thought of or have allowed to slip my mind.

But the people involved in trucking and the people who rely on trucking do not appear to be interested in any such (at least partial) solutions to the problem of vehicles' impeding the flow of traffic. (If you see any such interest displayed in this thread, please bring it to my attention; I make no claim to perfection either in reading threads or in answering the contentions made by others.)

Those people's actions and assertions demonstrate a simply amoral attitude: We don't want to address the problem of our (or our associates') vehicles' impeding the flow of traffic. We prefer simply to dump the burden of the consequences of our behavior on them.

In other words, we matter; they don't.

That attitude is an expression of absolute self-centeredness. (Which is its connection to the attitude that we should kill all the detainees at Gitmo, ransack Iraq, and eradicate millions -- tens of millions -- of innocent Afghans.)

If you wish to defend the position that the burden of vehicles' impeding the flow of traffic should rightly be dumped on the vehicles whose progress is impeded, please feel free to do so. (Likewise with respect to Gitmo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.) If you can articulate a position pursuant to which the burden of a probem's consequences should be borne by those who suffer those consequences rather than by those who inflict them, please have at it.

It seems to me that morality requires that those who cause problems which inflict burdens should be the ones who bear the burdens of those consequences. Perhaps it seems otherwise to you.

[Sean]

I don't particularly want to get involved in any shit slinging but IMO what Andrew posted (using the words "should not be allowed" or somesuch) was his opinion. Nothing more or less. An opinion I believe he is perfectly entitled to and also one I wholeheartedly share.

So there!

[dales]

[Jarlaxle]

The point is that advocating the killing of speeders

Are you drunk? The point is to "kill" the CAMERAS, you dipshit.

Ange is incapable of arguing without flinging highly-sexualized personal attacks directed at the other poster and his/her family. He should probably be locked up.

[Andrew D]

Uh-huh. And the point of carpeting Afghanistan with neutron bombs and nerve gas is, no doubt, to make it clean and safe for the Afghans. How wonderfully benevolent.

[dales]

Give it a rest.

[Andrew D]

Nothing that I have said about Jarlaxle is anywhere near as bad as what he has told us about himself.

[Joe Guy]

The things being hauled could, at least in most cases, be hauled by smaller vehicles which would not impede the flow of traffic.

First of all, that would result in a lot more vehicles being on the road.

(and I'd like to know how you explain 'most cases')

Secondly, the price we pay for things being hauled would be higher since the people paying for more delivery vehicles would pass the price on to the consumer.

Thirdly, 40 foot trailers are mostly used for hauling freight cross country. Are you saying we'd be better off with four 10 foot trailers for every 40 footer - because traffic would flow better???

Fourthly, Long-range hauling by rail IS used, but is severely limited to where tracks are laid. Further, 40 ft trailers are loaded with the freight from trains for local delivery.

Unless you want to lay train tracks everywhere, trains aren't the answer. And obviously, if trains went everywhere, they would be impeding traffic.

Some people worry too much about things that don't matter.

[Andrew D]

The things being hauled could, at least in most cases, be hauled by smaller vehicles which would not impede the flow of traffic.

First of all, that would result in a lot more vehicles being on the road.

And they would be vehicles which were not impeding the flow of traffic.

(and I'd like to know how you explain 'most cases')

I do not claim to have analyzed every possible example. But it does seem clear to me that when a house is being hauled in halves, attempting to haul one half of it with a minivan would be doomed to failure.

Secondly, the price we pay for things being hauled would be higher since the people paying for more delivery vehicles would pass the price on to the consumer.

That ignores other factors. What is more cost-effective: a truck grinding up the roadway at 15 mph or several vehicles buzzing along at or near the applicable speed limit?

And, more importantly, what about the vehicles that are stuck behind that truck? Ordinary-sized vehicles are far more fuel-efficient when driving at roughly-speed-limit speeds than when grinding along at the 15 mph imposed upon them by a truck driver who refuses to make way (or believes, rightly or wrongly, that (s)he cannot make way) for the more efficient vehicles. So measure the cost to an average consumer: You might pay a bit more for delivered goods which you purchase, but your monthly gas bill will also be lower.

Thirdly, 40 foot trailers are mostly used for hauling freight cross country. Are you saying we'd be better off with four 10 foot trailers for every 40 footer - because traffic would flow better???

Cross-country hauling is done largely on interstate freeways. Those freeways generally have more than one lane in each direction. On such freeways, trucks could simply stay to the right, thereby not impeding the flow of traffic. As I have said more than once, trucks which do not impede the flow of traffic are not my concern. Nor do they have, as far as I can tell, anything more than a trivial impact on road rage, the nominal subject of this thread.

Fourthly, Long-range hauling by rail IS used, but is severely limited to where tracks are laid. Further, 40 ft trailers are loaded with the freight from trains for local delivery.

Unless you want to lay train tracks everywhere, trains aren't the answer. And obviously, if trains went everywhere, they would be impeding traffic.

I pointed out the advantages of rail traffic over truck traffic for long-haul deliveries. Your reference to local delivery is irrelevant. (But it does bear pointing out that when it comes to "freight from trains for local delivery," smaller vehicles would make driving cheaper for everyone: Contrast how much it costs you to drive ten miles at highway speed against how much it costs you to drive those ten miles at 15mph.)

I have not suggested laying train tracks everywhere. I have pointed out that for long-haul freight transportation, railroads are far more efficient than are trucks.

And we have many, many miles of existing rail lines (and many, many more which have fallen into desuetude but are recoverable). In general, the long-haul lines do not travel on the public roadways; they travel on dedicated lines which automobiles can't use anyway. I fail to see how trains which are not traveling on public roadways can impede the flow of traffic on public roadways.

Some people worry too much about things that don't matter.

And others worry not enough about things that matter very much.

[loCAtek]

Sadly no, the rails suffered a slow decline after WWII, with trucking being more convenient and air freight being more swift. As much as I'd love to laud the trains, they being in the family lineage and all; truth is, their time has passed.




...how often have you heard of a FedEx Shipping Train?

[Rick]

I would love to see trucks off the highways and buy ways, if for nothing else but smoother roads.

The practicality of that is something else.

Certainly not that rail is inefficient, it's very efficient as Andrew points out.

However what and size of what is being shipped is another matter.

The decline of rail started with the advent of the interstate.

I really doubt we can reverse that trend and I believe Andrew has also pointed that out (not defending him, he is more than capable).

I do hate that truckers tend to be road bosses, I have seen times when two will get side by side and intentionally slow traffic, not allowing anyone to pass for SEVERAL miles.

Just travel I40...

[Joe Guy]

I fail to see how trains which are not traveling on public roadways can impede the flow of traffic on public roadways.

Have you never waited in your car at a railway crossing with a freight train passing?

You have enough time to order a pizza and have it delivered to your car.

[Rick]

Train vs truck

[dales]