Perhaps you've never been on rural roads that also have houses? There are many places where a 50+ mph speed limit is appropriate even though there are little clusters of houses dotted along the route. It's not practical to lower the speed limit for every house that has children.
It's not just inconvenience, although that is part of it. The transportation department would have a huge added burden by needing a way to determine which houses have children, a lot more signage to mark the designated slowdown areas, extra workers to make the adjustments as families move around, a way to update various mapping/GPS systems, etc. The number of passing zones would be drastically reduced. Jake braking would be a nuisance for those houses with children. And there are probably more side effects that I can't think of immediately.
I don't disagree with any intention of improving safety, but there are pragmatic reasons we shouldn't unconditionally implement reduced speed limits around children.
I think you're overcomplicating your proposed solution; if it's a hassle to track each family's residence, assume all residences may have families present. Compression braking is a nuisance, so post speed limit & compression breaking restriction signs well in advance of the houses so normal braking can be used.
In the UK, all this is done by putting up street lights. The Highway Code then dictates that the road has a speed limit of 30mph and is residential (no compression braking).
I don't understand your comment about overtaking. Are you thinking of long, straight roads with mostly-evenly distributed houses over a large distance?
I don't think we're talking about the same kinds of roads.
In an area zoned for residential, e.g. a small town or village, the speed limit will drop and there are noise restrictions. That's quite common, although also quite sparse within the land area.
I've been speaking to unincorporated areas that have no zoning. Many of them are as you described: long, straight roads with mostly-evenly distributed houses over a large distance. These are the types of rural roads that make up the vast majority of land area in the midwest area of the US.
Those houses are generally located far away from the road (farm houses) or are in some other way separated from the road way. If it’s a rural highway and houses are near the road, it typically results in a speed zone, even in desolate Nevada.
That's not true everywhere. My wife's parents live in rural Iowa on a highway that has a 45 mph speed limit. Their home is part of a small cluster of homes and their mailbox is across the road, similar to the circumstances in the OP story.
45 is a speed zone if the normal speed is 60 or 70. I just got done traveling on US 395 through most of California, and we would typically speed zone down to 45, then 40, then 35....around houses. I’m sure there are actually well defined rules about this in California.
Regardless, living on a highway is not prime real estate.
Sounds like CA and IA work differently. 45 is the speed limit for that highway because it's windy. On the straighter roads, the limit is usually 50-55. However, there are still no speed zones (as you call them) for small clusters of houses.
The whole west works different I think. I mean, who in their right mind would build their house right next to the highway (without a fairly long highway) if they didn't have to? As long as you have the land, you would build it 50-100 meters back!
The only time I see otherwise is if mountains or rivers are involved, or there is density (in which case it is sure to be zoned!).
There are many types of highways. You might even call these rural roads just roads, even if they share the default speed limit for the area (80 km/h here).
With very low traffic density, you might build the house closer to the road (maybe 10m off, separated with trees) for just that reason – to save land. (Not all rural houses are farms.)
It's common in the midwest and becoming an issue when towns expand and traffic picks up. Mailboxes on the opposite side of a county road should be illegal. I'm surprised actually that they are not.
Dragonlance offers much depth in its world and mythology, although its use of traditional high fantasy tropes may come off as cliche and make it unappealing.
I'm with you, but we're fighting the losing fight.
As an aside, what a brilliant marketing name. Daylight is in peril and we all adjust our clocks to save it from the treacherous grasp of morning. We're heroes!
My grandparents retired on the eastern shore of the Leelanau peninsula, very near the town where the recently discovered 93 pound stone was found. We would walk the shoreline after a fresh rain to find these. They kept buckets full of them that they would give away to whomever wanted them.
I never realized how unique the stones were until I was in my 20s and discovered most people know nothing about them. The buckets are long gone and one of my biggest regrets is not having claimed any before my grandparents moved back down to southeast MI.
"Red" is an objective attribute; "bad" is a subjective one.
I agree that self-evaluation and recognition of inferior practices will help one progress, but the article would be more effective if the author was less condemning.
The Analytics Edge[1] on edX might be what you're looking for. In one of the lessons, they do some rudimentary recreations of the analysis described in Moneyball.
Another course is Sabermetrics 101 https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1%3ABUx%2BSABR101x%2.... It's obviously focused on baseball and you have to understand baseball to get much out of it, but many of the lessons on how to map performance statistics to actual game results can probably be applied, at least conceptually, to other sports.
Be careful with too much french press. It has been linked with increased blood cholesterol levels[1]. I made the switch to filter-based coffee brewing methods because my levels were high. Obviously not a problem for everyone, but for those with a family history of high cholesterol levels (like myself), it's worth being aware of the potential impact.
I'll keep it in mind, but I had my yearly biometric screening done less than a month ago and was told my cholesterol was "fantastic."
Despite being in the tech world and a coffee enthusiast, I am not one of these guys who drinks four or five cups a day. I make exactly two pots during the day, both of which I share with coworkers, so my intake rarely exceeds two eight-ounce mugs' worth a day.
