On a global scale, there is a good chance you actually are.
4 Likes
The rich developed nations account for about 10% of the population of the world, so there is at least a 9 in 10 chance that you are not.
2 Likes
That’s what makes it terrifying and not just inconveniently steep: the fact that it’s just about equally steep on both sides of Alvarado. The cross traffic on Alvarado is obliged to stop because the hill-climbers on either direction of Baxter simply cannot stop without losing all traction when they try to get going again… and they can’t see anything but the sky! It’s like cresting a rollercoaster; you can’t see what (or who) is on the other side of the crest until you’re already going down it.
And if you’re driving, say, a light pickup with a stick shift and no payload in the back to put some extra weight over the drive wheels, you’d better have a very educated foot on your clutch, especially when it’s wet, but even when it’s dry and some other driver is obliging you to change speeds or gears on the grade. I lived on Lakeshore, a block off Baxter, for a year or so in the mid 00s, and I drove Baxter every day. It puts hair on your chest, and then turns it white. I have seen both school buses and not-very-stretched limos teetering on the crest, all four wheels off the ground, when they tried to make it over.
I’d pay ca$h money to see that road closed off for a half hour so someone could barrel up it (maybe in a '69 Charger) at full throttle and go for distance. The back side is so steep, I’m tempted to think they wouldn’t touch ground until the actual bottom of the hill. You’d definitely need to drive it by remote control.
6 Likes
Looking at the area on Street View, it appears that the top of Baxter Street could be shut off, turning it in to a cul de sac.
1 Like
breaker one nine
1 Like
Ranked by income, on a global scale, earning US$ 32,400 / € 30,250 per year will allow you to make the cut.
For the USA, that’s pretty much in the neighbourhood of median (not average) wage, so if you live in the US and have a job, arguably your chances are 50/50 or better.
I’ll accept that at face value but surely you must admit that there are varying degrees of unsafe. A steep gradient where people have problems stopping is going to be a bit more dangerous than Rodeo between Wilshire and Little Santa Monica Boulevard so let’s not dismiss reports of a road being dangerous simply because other roads have their own dangers.
As to the remainder of your post, I’m not sure what your local governmental problems have to do with the question of whether to address the dangerous road or the application that may route people on to that road. If your local government is too dysfunctional to act in order to provide a safer and better environment for its citizens, then that’s an issue to be addressed separately and does not speak to the question of what choice would be best when dealing with an unsafe public road.
Income isn’t the best measure on that scale, due to the countervailing force of cost of living within different countries. USD$32k/annum goes a lot farther in Mumbai than it does in L.A.
Are the article indicates, wealth is the better measure of who’s in the global 1%. If you’ve been able and fortunate enough to amass USD$770+ in net worth you could conceivably realise that USD$32k/annum income – funds to be applied in the country or countries of your choice – without doing a lick of work.
If you’re an American, think about how many people you run into every day who make $32000+/year. Now think about how many of those people have USD$770k+ in the bank and their home equity and possessions and are effectively debt-free.
In these discussions, I always make a point of illustrating this distinction because conservatives* constantly use the income measure as a cudgel against “spoiled” and “ungrateful” Americans who argue not for Communist wealth re-distribution but simply for a domestic society that isn’t dangerously unequal.
[* which I know you are not]
9 Likes
True, but not the point I was trying to make (1-in-10 chance vs 50-50 chance).
Which is why I used median wage and global scale.
Which of course is arranging the facts just so, but this is what statistics is all about.
Nevertheless, the premise is still valid: if you live in North America or Europe, it is far, far more likely that you are in the top X%, for whatever value of X (and for whatever “being in the top” is supposed to mean anyway).
Because the distribution of wealth between the so-called “first world” and the rest of it is extremely uneven - no surprise after centuries of colonialism, exploitation, cultural and economical suppression, and casual genocide.
The fact that the distribution of wealth inside the so-called “first world” is also extremely uneven, is, in this context (as defined by me), merely a subset that enters into it, but doesn’t really change the ratios on the global scale.
“Income isn’t the best measure on that scale, due to the countervailing force of cost of living within different countries. USD$32k/annum goes a lot farther in Mumbai than it does in L.A.”
Of course it does. But US$ 32k in India would still put you in the 1% slot globally and, simultaneously, in the 0.001% slot in India (totally made up % because I can’t be asked to look up India’s statistics right now, but you get the point).
“Are the article indicates, wealth is the better measure of who’s in the global 1%. If you’ve been able and fortunate enough to amass USD$770+ in net worth you could conceivably realise that USD$32k/annum income – funds to be applied in the country or countries of your choice – without doing a lick of work.”
Valid point, but in this context (see above) this only means that this person has a much better chance than 50-50; in fact their place in the globally 1% slot is practically a given.
“If you’re an American, think about how many people you run into every day who make $32000+/year. Now think about how many of those people have USD$770k+ in the bank and their home equity and possessions and are effectively debt-free.”
Trick question/muddled argument/rehash of your last paragraph, think about it. So I think I don’t need to answer that with a remix of my last answer.
“In these discussions, I always make a point of illustrating this distinction because conservatives* constantly use the income measure as a cudgel against “spoiled” and “ungrateful” Americans who argue not for Communist wealth re-distribution but simply for a domestic society that isn’t dangerously unequal.”
Excellent point. Which is why in this discussions maybe you should point out the difference between average and median income; the elephant’s trunk in the room is the ratio between them, see the graph below.
The disproportion is so insanely large now that you don’t even have to loose anything to become poor, the rich will do that to you simply by getting richer.
It is not conceivable that a liberal1) democratic1), stable1) society1) can survive this sort of disparity for long.
1) As used in the right-pondian sense.
“[* which I know you are not]”
Again, depending on the scale or metric one uses… and, to some extent, on the topic of the discussion.
Summing up:
I am perfectly aware that we are very much on the same page here… but there is a lot of truth in the old adage that arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud.
In this case, since the entire neighborhood is petitioning the council member and the Waze drivers are likely headed to homes outside of his district, they may get the fixes they need. Or the guy from the other city will show up if he thinks it’s part of the “road diet” conspiracy and who knows from there. But actually yes, the local governmental problems have everything to do with whether a dangerous road condition is addressed. If someone is maimed or dies and they or their family sue the city, then the city might do something. They are only fixing sidewalks because they have been compelled to do so by a massive ADA lawsuit.
No, too slow might apply only where there are multiple lanes and turnouts, and then only if the driver fails to pull over with five or more cars queued behind them and plenty of space in front of them. So I think on this street even at 2 MPH you cannot get a ticket for going too slow.
The danger is, they cannot ticket too fast drivers. Say the posted limit is 15 mph. If they have not surveyed that street in awhile, they cannot write speeding citations no matter how fast the car is going. So now they survey the street in order to write tickets again. If 85% or more of drivers are going 18 mph at the time they happen to survey the street, they have to raise the limit maybe to 25 mph to remove all doubt. Then they can cite drivers again, but only the ones who are violating that which really means >30mph.
What this potentially will lead to is 85% of the cars going even faster than the 18mph average once the 15mph sign is bumped up to 25 mph, and on the next survey the limit must be increased again.
There’s a direct and much studied correlation between the speed of vehicles at collision and traffic fatalities. What is a small difference in speed in the perception of drivers makes a significant difference between life and death for pedestrians and other road users.
1 Like
Cue theme to The Streets of San Francisco.
1 Like
FWIW, in Denver we have a socio-economic class nicknamed “Thirty-Thousandaires”. They make just enough money to buy ‘toys’: 50-inch flatscreens, a nice pickup, quads/ATV’s, etc.
Ages ago – some time in the 1990s – I saw a political cartoon showing 3 lanes of heavy freeway traffic on the left side of a freeway in the midst of a persistent drizzle, with an above-lanes sign indicating these lanes were for “NATIVE CALIFORNIANS”. Over to the right, a lane with a single driver zipping along was marked “PEOPLE WHO KNOW HOW TO DRIVE IN THE RAIN”.
I’ll see if I can find the image somewhere.
2 Likes
There’s an intersection with a major road (Alvarado) at the top of the hill. (Even if Alvarado is relatively minor there, it’s major elsewhere, and I believe it’s a signed state highway even way up on that ridge.). I don’t think a cul de sac at the top would work.
1 Like
Not quite.
If they have not surveyed that street in awhile, they cannot use radar (or lidar) speed guns to write speeding citations
But they can issue tickets to anyone violating the Basic Speed Law (essentially, ~“too fast for prevailing conditions”~ ) or Reckless Driving (presumptive at 20+ mph over posted limit).
Any obvious instance of speeding that doesn’t require radar or laser can still be ticketed. If you’re doing 30 in a 15 zone, “Officer’s expert estimate” is sufficient. No radar needed.
Ummm, again, no.
If the 85th percentile is doing 18, then the limit could be set to 18 (or 20 or 25), and then radar-enforced at ANY speed over that limit.
Also, a recent engineering survey that justifies the limit on the grounds of safety will permit radar surveillance regardless of drivers’ actual speeds.
So here’s the thing: Most urban roadways are set to speeds somewhat lower than the maximum safe engineered speed. About 85% of motorists will reflexively stay within a reasonable safety envelope,
regardless of posted speed. (The faster 15% are generally idiots, and are therefore ignored in these calculations.)
So the limit must be set to the speed of the 85th percentile (or above) if you want to use radar/lidar to issue citations.
Otherwise, you could be running an illegal speed trap: Setting the limit below anything justifiable by engineering safety or reasonable driver behavior, and then raking in ticket revenue from motorists who are driving in a perfectly sane and responsible manner.
NB: Your local jurisdiction may vary, but these are the rules on Baxter Street. (-:
1 Like
Well, see, you’re using it correctly. (-: It’s a Local street and you’re a local resident headed for a local destination.
LA’s General Circulation planning has a clear hierarchy of street designations: Primary and Secondary highways for through traffic; Local streets for local traffic; and Collectors to funnel traffic between the through highways and the web of Local streets.
Baxter is a Local street - not even a Collector. Even the safest, flattest Local streets are not designed to accommodate through traffic, and Waze and its ilk should not be routing through traffic onto Local streets – especially not Local streets as ill-suited to traffic as Baxter is.
It’s one thing, in the event of a jam, to temporarily use Collectors to re-route to other less-jammed through highways (though even that should only be done in unusual circumstances, and not just to shave 30 seconds off a routine commute).
Routing through-traffic onto Local streets is simply irresponsible, except in dire emergencies.
(And I really have to wonder: where ARE all these Waze-befuddled people on Baxter being sent to? Are they routing them down the sketchy hilltop Collector that is Alvarado, or all the way across to Echo Park Blvd. or something? Makes no sense to me, but I haven’t lived there in a while.)
I can imagine toodling down Lake Shore toward Sunset, in a pinch (I used that when I lived on Lake Shore), or conceivably Echo Park Ave, but coming from the 2 or Points Northeast I’d probably only do that if Glendale Blvd was on fire or something. I like driving on Baxter for fun, but the rest of that neighborhood is narrow, crowded, potholed, and residential, and not well suited for through traffic.
1 Like
I’ve always thought that most Californians fall into two categories. On the one hand you’ve got those people shocked and awed by the admittedly rare event of Water Falling From the Sky. Those people are going 30-40 mph on the freeway.
And then there’s the other category “What is weather it is my god-given right to go 85 at all times.”
The problem is that both categories are together in the rain and it’s not a good combo.
2 Likes
Hah! Yes, exactly. (-:
1 Like
