On 21 Nov 2000, at 7:40, Ma Be wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:25:07 Howard Ressel wrote:
> >Also, the US chose what I think is a more rational approach to lane
> >width. We use 3.0 m, 3.3 m and 3.6 m wide lanes which corresponds
> >nicely to 10, 11 & 12 feet....
> The observation above made me seriously think and ask a hard question:
> is it *really* more "rational" to adopt "rationalized" multiples of
> old ifp units???
> With all due respect to our friend, Howard, here I should say the
> answer should be no! Why? We ought to distance ourselves *as much as
> possible* from ifp thinking! Adopting such approach above is akin to
> simply rationalizing conversion factors in the end, or put it slightly
> differently, to *rationalize* conversion factors to nice values, like
> an inch would be 2.5 cm, a foot, 30 cm, etc. The added "benefit"
If you choose to "rationalize" lane whidt it would mean redesigning
and changing ALL trucks on the roads ...
Leonardo Boselli (NIT)
Dipartimento Ingegneria Civile
Universita` di Firenze
Via Santa Marta 3
I-50139 Firenze
+39()055-4796-431
