Neighborhood Electric Vehicles

[robertsondavies]

It's not the actual LSVs I object to, it's their use on 30-A. Better, greener, and safer options exist.

You must admit that the level of bad driving around here is astounding - people cannot figure out how to drive cars, use the bike path, cross the street, or obey basic signs.

The wenches decreed that I have to wear a helmet to ride on the bike path because they are worried I'll get run over.

And you want to add small, slow moving vehicles that don't meet crash test standards to that mix?

A LSV will not protect its occupants in an accident - even in a crash at low speeds with a tiny vehicle like a 2 seat Smart car.

A Smart car hitting a LSV at 30 mph will kill or severely injure the occupants (even if they have their seatbelts on). The Smart car driver will be physically unscathed.

Now imagine what happens when a LSV gets in an accident with a SUV, semi, or delivery truck - all daily users of 30-A.

It's not about the speed limit or keeping people from having fun, it's about safety.

Low Speed Vehicles do poorly in crash tests - May. 20, 2010

Pedestrians do poorly in crashes involving Smart Cars or SUV's too. Although I have no offical source on it. Should we limit walking?

You miss the overarching point, in defeding your rock hard positiion against us relative board outsiders, and so y'all are banding together, closing ranks. Normal human behaviour I suppose.

LSV's are safer, because they are involved in so many less crashes, it makes they a lot safer. Why do you distrust the Insurance Actuary on this? Please tell.

 

[robertsondavies]

Let me let you in on a little secret. I don't care. Seriously. If the speed limit is 35 where it is currently 45 it won't bother me. If you get to drive your golf cart from Gulf Trace to get groceries I have no issue with it.

Why then (you ask)- would I continue to discuss/debate strongly taking a side? Simple- because I like to argue. And when I see weak arguments I cannot resist pointing it out.

Please-
Will one of you just be real here and take the approach that we live in a really unique area and that it would be enjoyable for residents and visitors alike if we could cart around on smaller street legal recreational vehicles when we're on 30A rather than the big SUV's we use to get our people and our stuff here from Atlanta or over to Destin.

Please-
Would one of you who stand to gain financially from the lowering of the speed limit step up and say that you own or plan on owning an LSV rental company and that it is a joy to motor from town to town along 30A. Invite locals to stop in for a free trial rental.

Please-
Would all of you stop trying to convince us that by lowering the speed limit anyone here will be safer, that we will be better stewards of the planet, that we will be better members of the Sierra Club or that we will reduce our dependence on oil. No one is buying it and no one believes the speed limit should be changed under the guise of these talking points. I bolded the one sentence in your last post that resonates.



EDIT:

BTW- You forgot about the 45MPH stretch of 30A on the far west end. People staying at Topsail are currently unable to go to legally go to Tom Thumb in an LSV.

GEO, I've got no dog in the hunt financially at all. It won't ruin my life, if you guys defend the last vestage of 45 MPH heaven on 30A, in order to cut in half, the usability of NEVs or LSVs. I have no dog in the hunt.

I happen to think your arguments are very weak in this case, and you're relying quite heavily on concensus of your board friends. This is unusual for you, as I've seen almost every other post you've made in every other topic to be witty, on point, logical, argumentative at times, but always well reasoned.

So be real? sure. I thought I already indicated that 30A was such a unique area, it would be really neat, and no huge inconvenice to have LSV's have the run of 30A, and not be bisected by Deer Lake stretch on 30A. (and the west end stretch too, although lets fact it, that's not really necessary if folks have a hard time approving the Deer Lake speed drop.. we'll preserve the 45 MPH vestages for the locals so needing them that way.) If I was a property owner in Dune Allen, I would be on board however, I don't think having an LSV be able to go to the Red Bar is going to ruin anyones life over there, but as I said earlier, let's compromise and keep the west end of 30A's character as a looser collection of unrelated communites with many locals really desiring to not have LSV's on 30A, and not to reduce their speed in high season by 10MPH.

Despite the fact that the Green argument can be made, there are very logical counters to it, pointed out by Kurt a year ago, that negate them, or at least neutralize them even in my view - the Sierra Club, and countless state legislates including very liberal/green leaning legislatures have studied it in detail, and have concluded that LSV's are indeed Greener, after accounting for the net efficiency of coal fired electricity used to charge the vehicles, but perhaps they haven't fully accounted for Kurt's main point which is the carbon footprint of the manufacture of these vehicles, to replace peoples huge SUV's while on vacation negates that Green impact. I say, that's a good point, let's drop it, despite that 48 legislatures have studied it, and approved partly on environmental grounds in most instances.

30A as a unique cohesive set of communities would greatly benefit from the doubled usability of LSVs. They are neat, they would lend a better feel and look to the area aesthetically - YES YES and YES. The fact that the only active community message board/ web portal, is one of South Walton, and NOT of individual communities is testament to that. Further, there are some community traits that Watercolor, or Alys Beach etc actually have to themselves, but when looked at from a broader perspective, they're FAKE communities, and only exist to the extent the residents of each, can use the services/goods/establishments of the adjacent REAL community - SoWal. As an aside, I am against further development, including along Deer Lake. That's my choice, and currently there are no private property owners there, and I sincerely hope that continues, I think the lack of private land in South Walton very much makes the area unique and scarce and a treasure.

Also, I don't think anything will really make people safer other than being reasonable, and not being idiots, and that includes cyclists and LSV'sers pulling over and letting faster traffic go through. [apparently cyclists can't pull over due to tire pressure issues, but even that doesn't bother me, but I could see how it could really irk locals over time. I would hope and trust that both cyclists and LSV's would actually pull over for Fire Trucks or Ambulances for the love of god. Also, I recognize that vacationers are probably the worst offenders in regards to traffic, b/c they are on vacation. I don't expect much change in that regard.

Could you please remind me since its been a while on this topics, the two or three reasons why you are opposed to LSV's expanded usability? I honestly can't recall, nor are they immediately obvious to me. Did it boil down to an inconvenience to have that particular stretch (deer lake) or the others out west lowered? I think one of you (Scooter, or Kurt or SJ, or other popular commentator) admitted that one time in a 'get real' moment, that it did boil down to a few seconds of time. That is a fair argument if that's the case, but I don't see that as a STRONG argument, hence my passion for taking the other side.

 

[robertsondavies]

Ask the mother who's 3 year old she takes out. Where are you pulling this stuff from? Oh wait...

Hey, I'm not defending wife beating or running over 3 year olds. I'm asking a question about relative safety, like the ones insurance companies ask their actuaries when figuring out their liability for bodily injury payouts - and pricing the policy accordingly for Golf Carts used as LSV's vs. SUV's. The vast majority of people are good drives, but insurance companies like to prepare for still unfortunate realities (some people get tipsy and drive) as well as new ones (more and more now text and drive).
Thanks for your sarcsm

 

[Will B]

LSV's are safer, because they are involved in so many less crashes, it makes them a lot safer. Why do you distrust the Insurance Actuary on this? Please tell.

That's flawed logic, right there, despite the fact that an Actuary made that claim somewhere. No kidding that they are in less crashes. There are very very few of them. That's like saying taxiing an airplane down the interstate is 100% safe because there has never been an accident involving a semi and an airliner.

Put as many LSV's on the road as cars and watch the numbers climb.

Personally, I'm not taking a stand one way or another, but I do feel it responsible to point out bassakwards logic.

 

[Geo]

GEO, I've got no dog in the hunt financially at all. It won't ruin my life, if you guys defend the last vestage of 45 MPH heaven on 30A, in order to cut in half, the usability of NEVs or LSVs. I have no dog in the hunt.

I happen to think your arguments are very weak in this case, and you're relying quite heavily on concensus of your board friends. This is unusual for you, as I've seen almost every other post you've made in every other topic to be witty, on point, logical, argumentative at times, but always well reasoned.

So be real? sure. I thought I already indicated that 30A was such a unique area, it would be really neat, and no huge inconvenice to have LSV's have the run of 30A, and not be bisected by Deer Lake stretch on 30A. (and the west end stretch too, although lets fact it, that's not really necessary if folks have a hard time approving the Deer Lake speed drop.. we'll preserve the 45 MPH vestages for the locals so needing them that way.) If I was a property owner in Dune Allen, I would be on board however, I don't think having an LSV be able to go to the Red Bar is going to ruin anyones life over there, but as I said earlier, let's compromise and keep the west end of 30A's character as a looser collection of unrelated communites with many locals really desiring to not have LSV's on 30A, and not to reduce their speed in high season by 10MPH.

Despite the fact that the Green argument can be made, there are very logical counters to it, pointed out by Kurt a year ago, that negate them, or at least neutralize them even in my view - the Sierra Club, and countless state legislates including very liberal/green leaning legislatures have studied it in detail, and have concluded that LSV's are indeed Greener, after accounting for the net efficiency of coal fired electricity used to charge the vehicles, but perhaps they haven't fully accounted for Kurt's main point which is the carbon footprint of the manufacture of these vehicles, to replace peoples huge SUV's while on vacation negates that Green impact. I say, that's a good point, let's drop it, despite that 48 legislatures have studied it, and approved partly on environmental grounds in most instances.

30A as a unique cohesive set of communities would greatly benefit from the doubled usability of LSVs. They are neat, they would lend a better feel and look to the area aesthetically - YES YES and YES. The fact that the only active community message board/ web portal, is one of South Walton, and NOT of individual communities is testament to that. Further, there are some community traits that Watercolor, or Alys Beach etc actually have to themselves, but when looked at from a broader perspective, they're FAKE communities, and only exist to the extent the residents of each, can use the services/goods/establishments of the adjacent REAL community - SoWal. As an aside, I am against further development, including along Deer Lake. That's my choice, and currently there are no private property owners there, and I sincerely hope that continues, I think the lack of private land in South Walton very much makes the area unique and scarce and a treasure.

Also, I don't think anything will really make people safer other than being reasonable, and not being idiots, and that includes cyclists and LSV'sers pulling over and letting faster traffic go through. [apparently cyclists can't pull over due to tire pressure issues, but even that doesn't bother me, but I could see how it could really irk locals over time. I would hope and trust that both cyclists and LSV's would actually pull over for Fire Trucks or Ambulances for the love of god. Also, I recognize that vacationers are probably the worst offenders in regards to traffic, b/c they are on vacation. I don't expect much change in that regard.

Could you please remind me since its been a while on this topics, the two or three reasons why you are opposed to LSV's expanded usability? I honestly can't recall, nor are they immediately obvious to me. Did it boil down to an inconvenience to have that particular stretch (deer lake) or the others out west lowered? I think one of you (Scooter, or Kurt or SJ, or other popular commentator) admitted that one time in a 'get real' moment, that it did boil down to a few seconds of time. That is a fair argument if that's the case, but I don't see that as a STRONG argument, hence my passion for taking the other side.

In paragraph 2, you said my argument is weak. In your last paragraph you say you don't really know what my argument is. good times.

Per my last post- I don't care. I'm not against LSV's. It won't affect me all that much if you are successful in lowering the speed limit to 35 so you can drive them up and down 30A. I'll probably at some point be riding on the back of someone else's three sheets to the wind. Sounds fun.

I have simply been calling BS on the following:

"LSV's are safe.
LSV's are green.
LSV's are fuel efficient.
LSV's are supported by the Sierra Club.
LSV's are liked by Canadians.
Gas prices are high.

Therefore- we should lower the speed limit.

And if you disagree then you support gas guzzling SUV's, you have your eyes closed and you are an insider of an online clique."

That is what I hear from your side in a nutshell. Have I missed anything?

Come on. Say it- it will be liberating---

I WANT TO DRIVE MY LSV EVERYWHERE ON 30A BECAUSE IT'LL BE FUN.

 

[robertsondavies]

It is not an issue of "driving fast past Deer Lake" - it's an issue of people's overall dumbarse behavior and lack of safety.

PROBLEM SOLVED - Thanks. So adopting the same speed limit on the deer lake stretch won't be an Issue. THANK HEAVENS. And all this time I thought you opposed that - my bad.

I'm with you on the dumbarse behaviour, I think we need to pass laws against unsafe driving or behaviour if we haven't enough laws already..... yeah man, definitely count me in against unsafe behaviour here.

 

[robertsondavies]

In paragraph 2, you said my argument is weak. In your last paragraph you say you don't really know what my argument is. good times.

Per my last post- I don't care. I'm not against LSV's. It won't affect me all that much if you are successful in lowering the speed limit to 35 so you can drive them up and down 30A. I'll probably at some point be riding on the back of someone else's three sheets to the wind. Sounds fun.

I have simply been calling BS on the following:

"LSV's are safe.
LSV's are green.
LSV's are fuel efficient.
LSV's are supported by the Sierra Club.
LSV's are liked by Canadians.
Gas prices are high.

Therefore- we should lower the speed limit.

And if you disagree then you support gas guzzling SUV's, you have your eyes closed and you are an insider of an online clique."

That is what I hear from your side in a nutshell. Have I missed anything?

Come on. Say it- it will be liberating---

I WANT TO DRIVE MY LSV EVERYWHERE ON 30A BECAUSE IT'LL BE FUN.

You are a part of an online clique, say it, it will be fun. You personally know all the people who post in agreement that LSV's shouldn't be allowed on 30A, even though they already are allowed all over 30A, except on the scant stretches with 45mph. I don't have a clue who AndrewG, or 30A shopper are, nor anyone else who supports expansion of LSV's usability.

So you don't have any arguments against LSV's increased usability on 30A, you just think all the arguments that could be made for it, are bogus. So basically you're neutral, and moreover, you think it will be so fun, you'll hop on board the back of one!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hilarious. This is a bit of a change from last year I must admit. Scotterbug even now says that the maintenance of a slightly higher speed limit on the stretch of Deer Lake freeway, is not an issue or concern now. sensing a real shift.

 

[scooterbug44]

You are misquoting me now. :roll:

What I said was that the issue is NOT (as you keep insisting) people wanting to drive fast on one stretch of 30-A.

Even if EVERY vehicle on 30-A went 30 mph or slower, LSVs would still be death traps.

 

[Geo]

You are a part of an online clique, say it, it will be fun. You personally know all the people who post in agreement that LSV's shouldn't be allowed on 30A, even though they already are allowed all over 30A, except on the scant stretches with 45mph. I don't have a clue who AndrewG, or 30A shopper are, nor anyone else who supports expansion of LSV's usability.

I personally have met Scooter and many other posters with whom I agree on most issues. And I have personally met posters with whom I disagree on most issues. We all live in the same place and frequent the same places and events and we all post our individual opinions in this online forum. I am unaware of a clique in which I am a member that you are not.



I hear certain people say all the time that the forum is "unfair" or "biased". To me, Sowal.com is like a bar. People go there in their spare time. Some more often than others. Occasionally people act like drunken buffoons. But mostly it's a casual conversation that anyone in the bar can hear while passing by and anyone can stop and listen and join in. Can a bar be unfair or biased?

 

[Douglas the Intrepid]

Geo, we need your secret decoder ring back. Sorry.