 |
| Still lights on that thing 'cuz you just never know when you will have to work late |
Monday, March 14, 2016
Daylight Savings
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
The Costs of Violence Are High, Regardless of the Implement
I got a tweet via Mark Follman of Mother Jones, telling a specific story about a pair of martial artists senselessly shot and badly injured in Arizona, destroying their lives as they knew them. Moving from the specific to the general, MJ tells us that the costs of gun violence to Americans is about 230 billion dollars a year.
Likewise if you look up numbers on the costs of car crashes, you get very similar results. A NHTSA article puts the 2010 cost of car crashes at about 242 billion dollars. A USA Today source extrapolates on the basis of economic and social costs, about 870 billion dollars for the same year. One can mess with either sets of numbers, depending on what you include in direct or indirect costs to the public, but they are pretty big ones.
I won't quibble with numbers. These two examples of violence include deliberate acts done to others, accidents, and self-destructive acts. Therefore these numbers conflate homicides and other crimes committed with firearms, DWI, reckless and careless driving and other acts performed with autos, suicides using guns and "traffic accidents" not due to deliberate misbehavior. What is important is we end up with broadly similar costs, whether expressed in greenbacks or grief. People who have been affected by gun violence tend to concentrate on reducing gun violence. People who have been impacted by car violence are motivated to reduce car violence. Vested interests such as the NRA or National Motorists Association protect their sacred cows and push back on controls. That said, not all suggestions for controls are bright ideas or politically feasible.
Seems to me we need to bring ourselves together and push back on society's acceptance of low standards of citizenship, lack of concern for others, and high tolerance for violence, whether caused by gunpowder or gasoline. I fail to be persuaded that there is much of a difference in violent death between the two after seeing, firsthand, the people represented by those two crosses below die on the road in front of me. I gave up hunting (and eating meat) when I took a bad shot and had to finish off at close range a terrified and struggling deer with a shattered pelvis. Cars are meant as lawful transportation. Guns are meant to shoot bullets at lawful targets. Bottom line is that neither guns nor cars are sold to Americans so they can be be misused to endanger the public.
With both cars and guns, we have higher unintended death rates than a fair number of other first world countries. I think it is time to take a time out and figure out if we really need to be competing for that honor, stop shouting past each other with excuses, and find workable and legally defensible means of harm reduction.
Likewise if you look up numbers on the costs of car crashes, you get very similar results. A NHTSA article puts the 2010 cost of car crashes at about 242 billion dollars. A USA Today source extrapolates on the basis of economic and social costs, about 870 billion dollars for the same year. One can mess with either sets of numbers, depending on what you include in direct or indirect costs to the public, but they are pretty big ones.
I won't quibble with numbers. These two examples of violence include deliberate acts done to others, accidents, and self-destructive acts. Therefore these numbers conflate homicides and other crimes committed with firearms, DWI, reckless and careless driving and other acts performed with autos, suicides using guns and "traffic accidents" not due to deliberate misbehavior. What is important is we end up with broadly similar costs, whether expressed in greenbacks or grief. People who have been affected by gun violence tend to concentrate on reducing gun violence. People who have been impacted by car violence are motivated to reduce car violence. Vested interests such as the NRA or National Motorists Association protect their sacred cows and push back on controls. That said, not all suggestions for controls are bright ideas or politically feasible.
Seems to me we need to bring ourselves together and push back on society's acceptance of low standards of citizenship, lack of concern for others, and high tolerance for violence, whether caused by gunpowder or gasoline. I fail to be persuaded that there is much of a difference in violent death between the two after seeing, firsthand, the people represented by those two crosses below die on the road in front of me. I gave up hunting (and eating meat) when I took a bad shot and had to finish off at close range a terrified and struggling deer with a shattered pelvis. Cars are meant as lawful transportation. Guns are meant to shoot bullets at lawful targets. Bottom line is that neither guns nor cars are sold to Americans so they can be be misused to endanger the public.
With both cars and guns, we have higher unintended death rates than a fair number of other first world countries. I think it is time to take a time out and figure out if we really need to be competing for that honor, stop shouting past each other with excuses, and find workable and legally defensible means of harm reduction.
 |
| Two crosses by the NM-4 and 502 interchange. I watched the two motorcyclists memorialized by these crosses die after being hit head on by a wrong way driver at an impact speed of about 100 mph. (I drove off the road to avoid a crash but the motorist hit the motorcyclists on a curve). |
 |
| Neil Allen Smith, minimum wage dishwasher at a seafood restaurant. An Invisible Rider killed by a hit and run motorist |
 |
| Former Tucson US House Rep. Gabby Giffords before being shot and badly injured by a lunatic. "After" picture is here. |
Monday, March 7, 2016
Around and Around We Go (Third Battle of the Roundabouts)
Note. Like the blog said, these are my own thoughts and don't represent any governmental organizations with which I am affiliated. Note that Council has approved this project.
The New Mexico DOT representative gave an update on the 4th St. roundabout,which is at the 90% design, last Thursday at the T board meeting. Unfortunately, it was all about land acquisition and nothing about design or comparative costs to other treatments. William Mead, however, handed out what I think is the latest design and he and Joel Williams critiqued it as well as asking about costs. Here are some further, general thoughts.
First of all, I am neither pro nor anti roundabout. These are not instruments of the devil, but engineering designs meant to solve traffic problems. Whether they do is the big question. Whether a roundabout works well or poorly in a location depends on situation-specific design and traffic patterns. Several have pointed out that there are asymmetries in both the design of the proposed 4th Street roundabout, and that heavy traffic moves primarily east-west on 502 during "rush hour" in the a.m. and p.m. These are very peaky and short lived surges, as Mr. Mead showed, and would be the real test of whether the design would ease or cork heavy traffic. The rest of the day, Trinity Drive, like our massively overbuilt Diamond Drive, is quite underutilized. The question of whether the roundabout would work well during rush hour is best left to competent engineering analysis (note that the March 5, 2015 – 90% design T Board presentation by NMDOT/Souder, Miller & Associates on pg. 26 of the Agenda packet indicates an acceptable peak level of service). That said, I think building roads to provide high level of service at peak load, when peak load occurs over such a short time interval, is a massive waste of public funds. This ain't the Long Island Expressway we are talking about.
As far as an engineering analysis of the proposed roundabout, I am told the current firm is a good one. Recall that in the case of the first analysis of the multiple Trinity Drive roundabouts, the local critics nailed it and the County's consultants blew it, as was demonstrated when we finally brought in a well respected Midwestern engineering firm to re-run the numbers. We should never disparage our local brain trusts as being able to do these numerical analyses. Its not rocket science, and bomb scientists seem to be able to run the numbers quite well.
Deflection angles and other design geometries in roundabouts are critical. For example, the design that Mr. Mead showed had a lot of deflection for westbound 502 and far less for eastbound 502 One can surmise that this will result in higher eastbound and lower westbound speeds entering the roundabout. Has this been considered? The Diamond roundabout has very little deflection for Diamond Drive traffic headed for North and Barranca Mesas, as others have mentioned, with resulting high speed traffic from Diamond slowing at the last minute, if at all.
Safety is a concern. Multi-lane roundabouts are more challenging than single lane roundabouts to bicyclists and motorcyclists because of the chance the small vehicle will be overlooked and cut off during lane changes where the two wheeler is in a motorist's blind spot. Multilane roundabouts are a challenge for pedestrians and I think there are ADA compliance issues. We hear that low speeds in roundabouts cause fender benders rather than high speed intersection crashes. But a low speed crash to someone on two wheels is nothing to sneeze at. Bicyclists don't have air bags or crumple zones.Having once hit Mr. Pavement with a shoulder at low speed, I sported a brace to let an A/C separation heal.
Finally, cost. We did not get a cost comparison between total costs for a roundabout design versus using a traditional street layout. Costs for a roundabout will include demolition (including our little triangle park), land acquisition, and construction. Add to that delays due to construction. No numbers were forthcoming.
Whether we build a roundabout or a signalized intersection is a decision that should be (or presumably, was) made on the basis of all of the above considerations and a cost benefit analysis of competing designs. Politics and preferences will obviously be included in the mix.
But the bottom line is Los Alamos, even at peak load, doesn't have a traffic problem. We will never make the Texas Transportation Institute's Top Ten of time lost to congestion. Furthermore, a lot of talk of traffic growth projections are fairy tales that keep engineering and construction firms employed on the public dole. Traffic growth needs to be calculated on the basis of real estimates of local population and economic growth coupled to single occupant vehicle growth (vehicle counts). I've not seen any local ones that are credible. Indeed, some East Coast cities have been tearing down expensive 1960's vintage transportation projects designed for growth that never happened.
Meanwhile, Trinity Drive is still for the most part a stroad designed to get commuters back and forth to the Laboratory. Recent commercial and residential developments to the south of Trinity (and any that might materialize in the future) have to cope with crossing a street that is not designed to be an urban mixed use arterial, and whether or not we put in a roundabout, the rest of the vexing problems will remain. So much for a comprehensive plan.
Whether we really should spend tax dollars, even if it is other people's tax dollars, on a roundabout (or any other public works project) is a good question. What is the cost-benefit? Is it worth the price? What is the economic benefit? In this case, is it just a pretty entrance to town, followed by the depressing empty lots of our underutilized business district? What does it fix that is broken? The DOT representative correctly pointed out that these are mostly Federal dollars. But Uncle Sam is constantly borrowing to make ends meet. Perhaps like the late Nancy Reagan said, we should "just say no" to some projects and set an example of fiscal frugality for a change? Let's see some true critical analysis of this project, in the context of what we need to do to make this a Strong Town.
The New Mexico DOT representative gave an update on the 4th St. roundabout,which is at the 90% design, last Thursday at the T board meeting. Unfortunately, it was all about land acquisition and nothing about design or comparative costs to other treatments. William Mead, however, handed out what I think is the latest design and he and Joel Williams critiqued it as well as asking about costs. Here are some further, general thoughts.
First of all, I am neither pro nor anti roundabout. These are not instruments of the devil, but engineering designs meant to solve traffic problems. Whether they do is the big question. Whether a roundabout works well or poorly in a location depends on situation-specific design and traffic patterns. Several have pointed out that there are asymmetries in both the design of the proposed 4th Street roundabout, and that heavy traffic moves primarily east-west on 502 during "rush hour" in the a.m. and p.m. These are very peaky and short lived surges, as Mr. Mead showed, and would be the real test of whether the design would ease or cork heavy traffic. The rest of the day, Trinity Drive, like our massively overbuilt Diamond Drive, is quite underutilized. The question of whether the roundabout would work well during rush hour is best left to competent engineering analysis (note that the March 5, 2015 – 90% design T Board presentation by NMDOT/Souder, Miller & Associates on pg. 26 of the Agenda packet indicates an acceptable peak level of service). That said, I think building roads to provide high level of service at peak load, when peak load occurs over such a short time interval, is a massive waste of public funds. This ain't the Long Island Expressway we are talking about.
As far as an engineering analysis of the proposed roundabout, I am told the current firm is a good one. Recall that in the case of the first analysis of the multiple Trinity Drive roundabouts, the local critics nailed it and the County's consultants blew it, as was demonstrated when we finally brought in a well respected Midwestern engineering firm to re-run the numbers. We should never disparage our local brain trusts as being able to do these numerical analyses. Its not rocket science, and bomb scientists seem to be able to run the numbers quite well.
Deflection angles and other design geometries in roundabouts are critical. For example, the design that Mr. Mead showed had a lot of deflection for westbound 502 and far less for eastbound 502 One can surmise that this will result in higher eastbound and lower westbound speeds entering the roundabout. Has this been considered? The Diamond roundabout has very little deflection for Diamond Drive traffic headed for North and Barranca Mesas, as others have mentioned, with resulting high speed traffic from Diamond slowing at the last minute, if at all.
Safety is a concern. Multi-lane roundabouts are more challenging than single lane roundabouts to bicyclists and motorcyclists because of the chance the small vehicle will be overlooked and cut off during lane changes where the two wheeler is in a motorist's blind spot. Multilane roundabouts are a challenge for pedestrians and I think there are ADA compliance issues. We hear that low speeds in roundabouts cause fender benders rather than high speed intersection crashes. But a low speed crash to someone on two wheels is nothing to sneeze at. Bicyclists don't have air bags or crumple zones.Having once hit Mr. Pavement with a shoulder at low speed, I sported a brace to let an A/C separation heal.
Finally, cost. We did not get a cost comparison between total costs for a roundabout design versus using a traditional street layout. Costs for a roundabout will include demolition (including our little triangle park), land acquisition, and construction. Add to that delays due to construction. No numbers were forthcoming.
Whether we build a roundabout or a signalized intersection is a decision that should be (or presumably, was) made on the basis of all of the above considerations and a cost benefit analysis of competing designs. Politics and preferences will obviously be included in the mix.
But the bottom line is Los Alamos, even at peak load, doesn't have a traffic problem. We will never make the Texas Transportation Institute's Top Ten of time lost to congestion. Furthermore, a lot of talk of traffic growth projections are fairy tales that keep engineering and construction firms employed on the public dole. Traffic growth needs to be calculated on the basis of real estimates of local population and economic growth coupled to single occupant vehicle growth (vehicle counts). I've not seen any local ones that are credible. Indeed, some East Coast cities have been tearing down expensive 1960's vintage transportation projects designed for growth that never happened.
Meanwhile, Trinity Drive is still for the most part a stroad designed to get commuters back and forth to the Laboratory. Recent commercial and residential developments to the south of Trinity (and any that might materialize in the future) have to cope with crossing a street that is not designed to be an urban mixed use arterial, and whether or not we put in a roundabout, the rest of the vexing problems will remain. So much for a comprehensive plan.
Whether we really should spend tax dollars, even if it is other people's tax dollars, on a roundabout (or any other public works project) is a good question. What is the cost-benefit? Is it worth the price? What is the economic benefit? In this case, is it just a pretty entrance to town, followed by the depressing empty lots of our underutilized business district? What does it fix that is broken? The DOT representative correctly pointed out that these are mostly Federal dollars. But Uncle Sam is constantly borrowing to make ends meet. Perhaps like the late Nancy Reagan said, we should "just say no" to some projects and set an example of fiscal frugality for a change? Let's see some true critical analysis of this project, in the context of what we need to do to make this a Strong Town.
Friday, March 4, 2016
God Damn The Drunken Man
 |
| Here we go again. Maybe this time the Greybar Hotel? |
Recalling that old Steppenwolf song. It is certainly, to be sure, not for me to damn someone, but these stories happen all too often. Its easy to get really, really, angry...
Stories here (New Mexican) and here (Arizona Daily Star). I heard from Lynn Pickard that folks can check the SoB Blog for periodic updates.
If you drink and drive, or know someone who does. Stop it. Now.
In the bigger picture, DWI is only one form of violence people perpetrate senselessly on others. Gun violence, road design violence, distracted driving/narcissistic behavior violence, etc. Hard to know where to start pushing back on all of it. If you can't handle technology, don't own it.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Is a man who is working as an Uber driver at the age of 45 surely better off dead?
Like most of us, I have no idea, yet, why Jason Dalton went batshit crazy and randomly gunned down six people (in addition to the wounded) in Kalamazoo. But for the sake of argument, I go back to a post I put up a few years back about Neil Allen Smith, the Crab Shack dishwasher who was nailed by a hit and run driver and left to die, and whose death was met with one of those anonymous and awful Internet comments "A man who is working as a dishwasher at the Crab Shack at the age of 48 is surely better off dead.".
Perhaps, fewer Jason Daltons would go off the deep end, and fewer Neil Allen Smiths would be left to die, if their lives were valued. My grandfather, an Italian immigrant who, according to my grandma, jumped from an Italian merchant ship and landed in the New World, found satisfaction in having a mundane blue collar job in a Chevy plant. Of course, back then, line workers were unionized, if not valued, and they put product out the door. In the case of that Tonawanda, NY plant, big Chevy engines that went into Corvettes were their prized product. With the paycheck from that job, Grandpa built a house a little south of Buffalo and had an acre of land he could farm after getting home from the assembly line. I learned gardening from him. Grandma had a basement canning factory that lined the walls of that basement with canned produce every fall. What finally brought Grandpa Mike down was not hard anonymous work, or even being forced to retire from GM in his sixties (he promptly found another job), but cancer. He flicked in his own life when his body gave out and he could no longer work his ass off. Did Mr. Dalton lack my grandpa's self respect and quiet fortitude, or have times changed? Beats me.
While the politicians and spokespeople for the pro and anti gun movements go on blathering, or as the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia would say, engaging in argle-bargle, the Neil Smiths and Jason Daltons go on dying or doing things that are really stupid and deadly. I see no end in sight. But I did really enjoy Scalia on the Supreme Court, even when I was cussing him out. One has to respect intellect. But one has to respect middle aged Uber drivers and dishwashers, too, and not just with empty platitudes.
Perhaps, fewer Jason Daltons would go off the deep end, and fewer Neil Allen Smiths would be left to die, if their lives were valued. My grandfather, an Italian immigrant who, according to my grandma, jumped from an Italian merchant ship and landed in the New World, found satisfaction in having a mundane blue collar job in a Chevy plant. Of course, back then, line workers were unionized, if not valued, and they put product out the door. In the case of that Tonawanda, NY plant, big Chevy engines that went into Corvettes were their prized product. With the paycheck from that job, Grandpa built a house a little south of Buffalo and had an acre of land he could farm after getting home from the assembly line. I learned gardening from him. Grandma had a basement canning factory that lined the walls of that basement with canned produce every fall. What finally brought Grandpa Mike down was not hard anonymous work, or even being forced to retire from GM in his sixties (he promptly found another job), but cancer. He flicked in his own life when his body gave out and he could no longer work his ass off. Did Mr. Dalton lack my grandpa's self respect and quiet fortitude, or have times changed? Beats me.
While the politicians and spokespeople for the pro and anti gun movements go on blathering, or as the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia would say, engaging in argle-bargle, the Neil Smiths and Jason Daltons go on dying or doing things that are really stupid and deadly. I see no end in sight. But I did really enjoy Scalia on the Supreme Court, even when I was cussing him out. One has to respect intellect. But one has to respect middle aged Uber drivers and dishwashers, too, and not just with empty platitudes.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Update on Bike Day at the Capitol from the New Mexico Motorcycle Rights Organization (NMMRO)
This is from Annette Torrez, Chair, NMMRO
The NMMRO and motorcycle community would like to thank you all for your support at Bike Day last Saturday. It was great to see so many of you there as we promote safety on our roads and higher penalties for those who injury us and are not held accountable.
I have some good and bad news:
Good news I saw Senator Lisa Terriaco last night at the Republican convention and she will sponsor our Careless Driving Bill next year and is really passionate about it. We need to start documenting all crashes on both sides.
Bad news is committee which she was heading to review current laws and updating the penalties has been put on hold indefinitely. So for now pushing the bill is our only chance to get this done.
Thank you again for your support it was our honor to team up with your community.
Sorry for delay in sending this email, Raymond and I both caught a cold after bike day
I included Rick Miera in this email.
Please forward this to the rest of your group.
We are putting video on Bike day to post on U Tube we will share with you.
Annette Torrez
NMMRO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)