[Submitted] Truckers Demand Revolution

by **Cretox State** » Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:10 pm

Another car-related issue. This one deals with setting aside a special lane on major highways.

Draft 2: Reworked options 2 and 3 to be more in line with the issue's premise.

Truckers Demand Revolution

Validity: Must have cars.

Description
The @@NAME@@ Truckers Union went on a nationwide strike after a flatbed truck carrying several smaller flatbed trucks swerved to avoid a small car that suddenly stopped on a major highway outside of @@CAPITAL@@... only to smash into a semi-trailer full of circus clowns and end up in a ditch. The Union's demands? That the government set aside a lane on major thoroughfares exclusively for commercial shipping.

Option 1a
Validity: Must have market economy.

"Can't say I blame 'em,” states Bighampton Milhous Rigginald III, CEO of Big Rig Trucking. "It makes perfect sense, too. There's no good reason why truckers should have to deal with all those lesser vehicles swarmin’ all over. Set aside a lane or two exclusively for large commercial shipping, depending on highway size. It'll stall traffic a bit, but it’ll sure as heck make all our lives a lot easier."

Effect: motorists carry office supplies in their cars to beat rush hour traffic

Option 1b
Validity: Must have state-planned economy.

“Your lane is my lane, but my lane sure ain't yours!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, head of the @@NAME@@ Truckers Union and two-time winner of a local steak-eating contest. "There’s no good reason why us truckers should have to deal with all them lesser vehicles swarmin' all over. Set aside a lane or two exclusively for large commercial shipping, depending on highway size. It’ll stall traffic a bit, but it’ll sure as heck make all our lives a lot easier."

Effect: motorists carry office supplies in their cars to beat rush hour traffic

Option 2
"Yes, yes! I can feel the wheels turning!" exclaims your Minister of Logistics, a sinister smile spreading across his face. "Why do we need to rely on truckers for commercial shipping in the first place? If you give my department relaxed oversight and a blank check, we can quickly connect every major town in @@NAME@@ with a high-speed commercial railway system. It'll allow for faster shipping than any truck, and it'll take all the air out of those truckers' tires. I call that a win-win! Unless you're a trucker, in which case I guess it's a lose-lose.

Effect: black marketeers despair as things just don't fall off the back of a truck anymore

Option 3
"Once again, bureaucracy has the answer!" proclaims your Director of Procedural Enhancement, to the groans of everyone in the room. "A special lane on major thoroughfares could prove immensely useful, and not just for shipping! Essential resources- I mean workers, like doctors and police officers, could also benefit from being able to beat traffic, as could high-occupancy personal vehicles and carpools. Give me the go-ahead, and I'll schedule a pre-meeting to plan a conference to discuss the implementation of a framework for considering procedural guidelines for a review board to establish paperwork that will ensure these special lanes are available to those who need them."

Effect: motorists spend more time presenting vehicle documentation than being stuck in traffic

Option 4a
Validity: Must have market economy.

"Back in my day, we just learned to drive better!" rants Bighampton Milhous Rigginald I, who hasn't set foot in a car for over twenty years. "We didn't expect no special lanes, either! If you just toughen standards for driving tests and tear up the license of anyone who drives funny, I'm sure the problem'll just solve itself!"

Effect: traffic cops tear up their own licenses for improper parking when pulling someone over

Option 4b
Validity: Must have state-planned economy.

"Back in my day, we just learned to drive better!" rants former driving instructor @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ "Braker" @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@, who hasn't set foot in a car for over twenty years. "We didn't expect no special lanes, either! If you just toughen standards for driving tests and tear up the license of anyone who drives funny, I'm sure the problem'll just solve itself!"

Effect: traffic cops tear up their own licenses for improper parking when pulling someone over

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:55 am

I like this issue, but the focus seems to disappear very quickly. How do options 2 and 3 address the actual premise of the issue?

by **Cretox State** » Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:54 am

Reworked options 2 and 3 to be more in line with the issue's premise.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:36 am

Very nice. The new option 3 has real character!

Effect line wise, I think you get the gist, but they don't all connect. Option 2, for example, is a reasonable consequence but doesn't really feel like it has humour or poetry to it, its just a thing that happens.

by **Cretox State** » Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:12 pm

I changed some of the effect lines. Hopefully these ones work better.

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:29 am

Can we assume that nation has turnpikes?

by **Cretox State** » Sun Jul 12, 2020 6:08 am

Australian rePublic wrote:Can we assume that nation has turnpikes?

I recall previous issues using highways, so I think using a turnpike in this one is acceptable.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:20 am

Well, only the US calls toll roads turnpikes. In most nations a turnpike is the single admission gate itself. In contrast, different English-speaking nations may or may not have different legal definitions of highway, but the concept remains similar: it's always a road or route through which traffic passes. The word is used all over the world to describe roads, whereas using "turnpike" to describe a road is a purely US phenomenon.

by **Australian rePublic** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:39 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Well, only the US calls toll roads turnpikes. In most nations a turnpike is the single admission gate itself. In contrast, different English-speaking nations may or may not have different legal definitions of highway, but the concept remains similar: it's always a road or route through which traffic passes. The word is used all over the world to describe roads, whereas using "turnpike" to describe a road is a purely US phenomenon.

A turnpike is a road? I thought it was a gate for a cash toll booth. Wouldn't go down too well in a cashless society

by **Cretox State** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:33 am

Okay, it's no longer a turnpike.

by **Australian rePublic** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:01 pm

Option 1 assumes that nation has the population density to support this. I mean, I live in Australia, and this is our biggest throughfare, despite the omnipresence of semi-trailers

Despite the omnipresence of trucks, this our second biggest throughfare

The issue cannon suggests that some parts of the nation have that level of population density to support that, whilst others don't.

Also, define "commercial vehicle". A hatchback Uber is technically a commercial vehicle. Hell, a motorbike used by UberEats drivers is technically a commercial vehicle

by **Cretox State** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:04 pm

The point of option 1 is that it's impractical, but I changed it nevertheless.

Edit: The context makes it pretty clear that "commercial vehicle" doesn't refer to motorbikes. This isn't a GA proposal.

by **Australian rePublic** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:33 pm

Cretox State wrote:The point of option 1 is that it's impractical, but I changed it nevertheless.

Edit: The context makes it pretty clear that "commercial vehicle" doesn't refer to motorbikes. This isn't a GA proposal.

No it's not. Does a bus count as a commercial vehicle? What a coach (long distance bus). What about a free shuttle bus? How is that a commercial vehicle if passangers aren't required to pay to board? How is a bus which carries passangers for free a commercial vehicle, whilst symaltaneously, a motorbike carrying meals for UberEats is not a commercial vehicle? I think you should destinguish by vehicle size rather than vehicle usage (e.g. set aside a lane for large vehicles which small vehicles aren't permitted to use). Exactly how large a vehicle has to be in order to qualify is irrelevant to the overall issue, and could be determined by later legislation

by **Cretox State** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 5:34 pm

Alright, I added the qualifier of "large" to commercial shipping.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:05 am

Australian rePublic wrote:Option 1 assumes that nation has the population density to support this. I mean, I live in Australia, and this is our biggest throughfare, despite the omnipresence of semi-trailers

(Image)

Despite the omnipresence of trucks, this our second biggest throughfare
(Image)

The issue cannon suggests that some parts of the nation have that level of population density to support that, whilst others don't.

Also, define "commercial vehicle". A hatchback Uber is technically a commercial vehicle. Hell, a motorbike used by UberEats drivers is technically a commercial vehicle

I mean, it might seem silly for me to disagree with you about the country I live in, but some quick googling told me that the main road in and out of Sydney is the M4, and a google of M4 traffic gave me this:

Plus I can find lots of articles about people in Australia complaining about traffic congestion coming in and out of the cities.

I know Australia has a much lower population density than the US overall, but near your major cities the density is certainly high enough to have traffic problems, right?

I'd also note that at 25 million, Australia has a much smaller population than pretty much every NS nation...

by **Cretox State** » Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:30 am

In the US, every major city that I know of has congestion issues. In New York, congestion is often so bad it feels like the city is about to enter cardiac arrest. Volume of commercial shipping increases as you get out of a city and onto the interstate highway system, though the traffic there depends on where you are in the country and what time of day it is.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:36 am

In England our population density is to the US as the US is to Australia, so we get traffic congestion even in small villages. I think though that it's a reasonable assumption for any NS nation to have at least some major roads where congestion is enough of a problem for option 1 to be feasible.

by **Australian rePublic** » Wed Jul 15, 2020 6:16 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:Option 1 assumes that nation has the population density to support this. I mean, I live in Australia, and this is our biggest throughfare, despite the omnipresence of semi-trailers

(Image)

Despite the omnipresence of trucks, this our second biggest throughfare
(Image)

The issue cannon suggests that some parts of the nation have that level of population density to support that, whilst others don't.

Also, define "commercial vehicle". A hatchback Uber is technically a commercial vehicle. Hell, a motorbike used by UberEats drivers is technically a commercial vehicle

I mean, it might seem silly for me to disagree with you about the country I live in, but some quick googling told me that the main road in and out of Sydney is the M4, and a google of M4 traffic gave me this:

Plus I can find lots of articles about people in Australia complaining about traffic congestion coming in and out of the cities.

I know Australia has a much lower population density than the US overall, but near your major cities the density is certainly high enough to have traffic problems, right?

I'd also note that at 25 million, Australia has a much smaller population than pretty much every NS nation...

Wow, that's impressive, but I doubt that that's the M4. Ever since the toll was increased to (AU$4?) (AU$8?) per car per direction (and even more for trucks), or something ridiculous like that, nobody actually uses the M4 any more. Instead, everybody uses Parramatta Road. Parramatta Rd was already a shit hole when it came to congestion and overcrowding, so increasing the toll price made the problem worse, because more motorists wanted to avoid the toll and use Parramatta Rd. In either case, however, I wasn't showing the roads into and out of cities. I don't even know what the tolls are, because, like many Sydneysiders, I avoid tolls, (which is becoming almost impossible due to the sheer number of them).

I was showing you the roads between cities. One of the two photos depicts the Hume Highway- the main road between Sydney (Australia's largest city) and Melbourne (Australia's second largest city). The other photo shows you the Pacific Highway, which is the road between Sydney and Brisbane (Australia's third largest city). Both roads have some sections where they operate as one lane per direction for at least some of the length.

Either case, @@NAME@@ doesn't neccasserily have to have a huge population density everywhere. We already have issues in the cannon which state that there are remote and empty swarths of @@NAME@@. In addition to that, there arecountries where population density is low. The USA, for example has the entire state of Alaska, and Russia has European Russia vs Siberia. Just because parts of @@NAME@@ have high population densities doesn't mean that all of @@NAME@@ does, especially when considering how geograhically large we assume the nation to ve. Any country with a large land area will inevitably have extreme disparties in distribution of population density. Being a relative a relatively small country with a large population, the UK would be quite crowded everywhere, but large countries are different. And that's not even limited to nations with small population densities. China, the world's largest population, has a high population density, but even that's unevenly distributed. Everyone east of The Heihe–Tengchong Line might be crammed in like sardines, whilst the western portion consists of large swarths of nothingness.

by **Cretox State** » Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:22 am

I think you're missing the point. The purpose of option 1 is not to address traffic congestion; if anything, restricting the lanes that can be used by personal vehicles would make congestion worse. That's the tradeoff. The point of option 1 is that personal and commercial vehicles shouldn't be sharing the same road space, as demanded by the Union.

Edit: "It’ll stall traffic a bit, but it’ll sure as heck make everyone’s lives a lot easier."

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:20 am

Plus the premise does say "a major highway outside of @@CAPITAL@@", so it's not as if we're talking about these big roads between distant cities, right?

by **Cretox State** » Fri Jul 17, 2020 6:01 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Plus the premise does say "a major highway outside of @@CAPITAL@@", so it's not as if we're talking about these big roads between distant cities, right?

Right.

by **Westinor** » Sat Jul 18, 2020 11:08 am

Looks fairly good, a few things.

“make everyone’s lives...” in option 1 can do without the “everyone”, which can be switched to something like “our”, since if it causes more traffic it wouldn’t make everyone’s lives easier from an outward standpoint (even if it somehow does in the long haul).

Though i’m fairly sure that the last sentence of the third option is meant to be a joke, it is far too complex and long and probably could use shortening, since it honestly threw me waaayy off.

Those are the only notable problems i have with this at first glance. Looks good!

by **Cretox State** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:10 pm

Westinor wrote:“make everyone’s lives...” in option 1 can do without the “everyone”, which can be switched to something like “our”, since if it causes more traffic it wouldn’t make everyone’s lives easier from an outward standpoint (even if it somehow does in the long haul).

It would make everyone's lives easier in the context of option 1, since cars and trucks won't be competing for road space.

Westinor wrote:Though i’m fairly sure that the last sentence of the third option is meant to be a joke, it is far too complex and long and probably could use shortening, since it honestly threw me waaayy off.

The entire point is that it's hard to follow. He is the Director of Procedural Enhancement, after all.

by **Westinor** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:45 pm

Cretox State wrote:
Westinor wrote:“make everyone’s lives...” in option 1 can do without the “everyone”, which can be switched to something like “our”, since if it causes more traffic it wouldn’t make everyone’s lives easier from an outward standpoint (even if it somehow does in the long haul).

It would make everyone's lives easier in the context of option 1, since cars and trucks won't be competing for road space.

Westinor wrote:Though i’m fairly sure that the last sentence of the third option is meant to be a joke, it is far too complex and long and probably could use shortening, since it honestly threw me waaayy off.

The entire point is that it's hard to follow. He is the Director of Procedural Enhancement, after all.

ah, got the second point, just think that it goes a bit over the top with that. Though, reading it back, one could choose based off of the first half of the option. Well done.

As to the first point, it seems contradictory since you frame it as causing traffic, and then right after say its helpful for everyone. I understand that it may end up being beneficial, but it doesn't seem surface-wise that one would think about it in that way. It is a tiny nitpick though, so whatever.

by **Cretox State** » Tue Jul 21, 2020 8:05 pm

I'll try and submit at some point next week if there aren't any big changes that should be made.

[Submitted] Truckers Demand Revolution

[Submitted] Truckers Demand Revolution

Who is online