Cars talking to one another could help reduce fatal crashes on US roads
...
The secret to avoiding red lights during rush hour in Utah’s largest city might be as simple as following a bus.
Transportation officials have spent the past few years refining a system in which radio transmitters inside commuter buses talk directly to the traffic signals in the Salt Lake City area, requesting a few extra seconds of green when they approach.
Congestion on these so-called smart streets is already noticeably smoother, but it’s just a small preview of the high-tech upgrades that could be coming soon to roads across Utah and ultimately across the U.S.
Buoyed by a $20 million federal grant and an ambitious calling to “Connect the West,” the goal is to ensure every vehicle in Utah, as well as neighboring Colorado and Wyoming, can eventually communicate with one another and the roadside infrastructure about congestion, accidents, road hazards and weather conditions.
With that knowledge, drivers can instantly know they should take another route, bypassing the need for a human to manually send an alert to an electronic street sign or the mapping apps found on cellphones.
“A vehicle can tell us a lot about what’s going on in the roadway,” said Blaine Leonard, a transportation technology engineer at the Utah Department of Transportation. “Maybe it braked really hard, or the windshield wipers are on, or the wheels are slipping. The car anonymously broadcasts to us that blip of data 10 times a second, giving us a constant stream of information.”
When cars transmit information in real time to other cars and the various sensors posted along and above the road, the technology is known broadly as vehicle-to-everything, or V2X. Last month, the U.S. Department of Transportation unveiled a national blueprint for how state and local governments and private companies should deploy the various V2X projects already in the works to make sure everyone is on the same page.
The overarching objective is universal: dramatically curb roadway deaths and serious injuries, which have recently spiked to historic levels.
A 2016 analysis by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded V2X could help. Implementing just two of the earliest vehicle-to-everything applications nationwide would prevent 439,000 to 615,000 crashes and save 987 to 1,366 lives, its research found.
Dan Langenkamp has been lobbying for road safety improvements since his wife Sarah Langenkamp, a U.S. diplomat, was killed by a truck while biking in Maryland in 2022. Joining officials at the news conference announcing the vehicle-to-everything blueprint, Langenkamp urged governments across the U.S. to roll out the technology as widely and quickly as possible.
“How can we as government officials, as manufacturers, and just as Americans not push this technology forward as fast as we possibly can, knowing that we have the power to rescue ourselves from this disaster, this crisis on our roads,” he said.
Most of the public resistance has been about privacy. Although the V2X rollout plan commits to safeguarding personal information, some privacy advocates remain skeptical.
Critics say that while the system may not track specific vehicles, it can compile enough identifying characteristics — even something as seemingly innocuous as tire pressure levels — that it wouldn’t take too much work to figure out who is behind the wheel and where they are going.
“Once you get enough unique information, you can reasonably say the car that drives down this street at this time that has this particular weight class probably belongs to the mayor,” said Cliff Braun, associate director of technology, policy and research for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which advocates for digital privacy.
The federal blueprint says the nation’s top 75 metropolitan areas should aspire to have at least 25% of their signalized intersections equipped with the technology by 2028, along with higher milestones in subsequent years. With its fast start, the Salt Lake City area already has surpassed 20%.
Of course, upgrading the signals is the relatively easy part. The most important data comes from the cars themselves. While most new ones have connected features, they don’t all work the same way.
Before embarking on the “Connect the West” plan, Utah officials tested what they call the nation’s first radio-based, connected vehicle technology, using only the data supplied by fleet vehicles such as buses and snow plows. One early pilot program upgraded the bus route on a busy stretch of Redwood Road, and it isn’t just the bus riders who have noticed a difference.
“Whatever they’re doing is working,” said Jenny Duenas, assistant director of nearby Panda Child Care, where 80 children between 6 weeks and 12 years old are enrolled. “We haven’t seen traffic for a while. We have to transport our kiddos out of here, so when it’s a lot freer, it’s a lot easier to get out of the daycare.”
Casey Brock, bus communications supervisor for the Utah Transit Authority, said most of the changes might not be noticeable to drivers. However, even shaving a few seconds off a bus route can dramatically reduce congestion while improving safety, he said.
“From a commuter standpoint it may be, ‘Oh, I had a good traffic day,’” Brock said. “They don’t have to know all the mechanisms going on behind the scenes.”
This summer, Michigan opened a 3-mile (4.8-kilometer) stretch of a connected and automated vehicle corridor planned for Interstate 94 between Ann Arbor and Detroit. The pilot project features digital infrastructure, including sensors and cameras installed on posts along the highway, that will help drivers prepare for traffic slowdowns by sending notifications about such things as debris and stalled vehicles.
Similar technology is being employed for a smart freight corridor around Austin, Texas, that aims to inform truck drivers of road conditions and eventually cater to self-driving trucks.
Darran Anderson, director of strategy and innovation at the Texas Department of Transportation, said officials hope the technology not only boosts the state’s massive freight industry but also helps reverse a troubling trend that has spanned more than two decades. The last day without a road fatality in Texas was Nov. 7, 2000.
Cavnue, a Washington, D.C.-based subsidiary of Alphabet’s Sidewalk Infrastructure partners, funded the Michigan project and was awarded a contract to develop the one in Texas. The company has set a goal of becoming an industry leader in smart roads technology.
Chris Armstrong, Cavnue’s vice president of product, calls V2X “a digital seatbelt for the car” but says it only works if cars and roadside infrastructure can communicate seamlessly with one another.
“Instead of speaking 50 different languages, overnight we’d like to all speak the same language,” he said.
Нам, в ИСО>ЕСО, такой метод бесполезен по тому, что пробки на наших дорогах образуются из игнорируемых Возничим Всадников ставших Водителями и пришедших в города вслед за Пешеходами превращённых и закрепощённых Возничим в Пассажирах.
А большую часть аварийных ситуаций, минимизацией которых занимается описываемая система безопасности, в ИСО>ЕСО, создают Водители ставшие Всадниками и Всадники не ставшие Водителями.
У них же, в ЕСО>ИСО, пробки образуют Пассажиры которых Возничий вынуждает стать Водителями. По этому создание системы безопасности, которая будет компенсировать низкий уровень профессионализма Пассажиров, как Водителей, действительно может практически снизить количество аварий.
Другое дело, что между Всадниками и закрепощёнными в Пассажирах Возничим Пешеходами существует обратная связь, которая реализуется за пределами Дороги, через Среды их образующие.
То есть, если создать аналог такой Системы для Пешеходов, закрепощённых в Пассажирах, из этого может выйти толк.
Вот только Возничий на это никогда не согласится, по тому, что Пассажир для него, по прежнему, только Груз.
_________________
С пониманием и отраслевыми пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
Russia’s First Secret Influence Campaign: Convincing the U.S. to Buy Alaska
[img]https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/27ae84e/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2000x1338+0+0/resize/1290x863!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F89%2F6c%2F71b6e4c94c80bafb37157ad5c26d%2Falaska-treaty-by-leutze.jpg[/img]
For many Americans, foreign influence-peddling seems like a modern threat. But foreign regimes have attempted to target and sway American policymakers for centuries, going all the way back to the earliest days of the American republic.
It was in the middle of the 19th century that the U.S. saw its first big foreign lobbying scandal — and arguably its most impactful one before 2016. That was when czarist Russia, hoping to unload the giant frozen expanse of Alaska, hatched a scheme to manipulate Washington into buying a territory nobody really wanted. It worked. Not only that, it set a playbook that other dictatorships, including future governments in the Kremlin, would be eager to follow.
In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, U.S. officials were looking for opportunities to patch the country together. One salve for the nation’s divisions was territorial expansion. As some American officials saw it, if the U.S. could conquer or seize new lands, perhaps it could ignore its domestic disputes, at least for a bit.
[img]https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/c65f2e7/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1000x1171+0+0/resize/770x902!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F96%2F91%2Fb3f430ed4e849c84a974e8d72fc3%2Fseward-07-1309.jpg[/img]
Secretary of State William Seward was the most prominent proponent of expansion. And he argued that one region in particular provided the perfect opportunity to not only improve America’s global and economic standing, but to further tether a fractured country together: Alaska.
At the time, the vast expanse we now know as Alaska was a colony of czarist Russia. Indigenous Alaska Natives had suffered for generations at the hands of Russian settlers, using massacre after massacre to cement Russian rule. By the mid-1860s, though, the province was little more than dead weight for the Russian regime. It was too far from Russia’s capital, with too little infrastructure, for the czarist regime to keep pumping it with money and men. And with Russia’s own finances slowly imploding, czarist officials began casting about for someone to take Alaska off their hands.
But there were only so many options. Selling to the British, which still controlled the adjacent Canadian provinces, was a nonstarter; Britain was Russia’s primary colonial rival, and anything that could strengthen London’s hand had to be avoided. The Americans, though, presented an attractive alternative. Selling Alaska to the U.S. would allow Washington to act as a counterweight to British influence in the region. Plus, in Russia’s eyes, America appeared likely to one day conquer the entirety of North America — so why not sell out early, and at least make a little money along the way?
[img]https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/14df666/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2000x1120+0+0/resize/1350x756!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Faa%2Fda%2F61a5c8ff49eca080680213c701fc%2Fkarluk-alaska-late-1800s.jpg[/img]
There was only one problem. Few Americans outside of Seward saw any reason to purchase Alaska from the Russians. To many Americans, Russian Alaska in the 1860s — decades before the discovery of the gold and oil that would eventually make Alaska one of the wealthiest American states — was little more than empty tundra. It was an “icebox,” or a “polar bear garden” that the Americans didn’t need. Plus, Washington had more pressing issues, from the military occupation of the former Confederate states to the passage of basic civil rights protections for Black Americans. “American interest in Alaska wobbled between ho-hum interest and disinterest,” one scholar described.
But the Russians couldn’t wait. Selling the province — and persuading the Americans to spend a gargantuan sum on something Washington didn’t want — was one of the easiest ways to help stabilize Russian finances. If only the Americans could be convinced.
And so began one of the most consequential foreign influence-peddling schemes in U.S. history, one with lasting resonance today. Not only did it involve Russia, which is still being accused of surreptitious efforts to affect U.S. politics and policy, but it also demonstrated how easily lobbying can slide from legal to illegal, from attempted persuasion to overt corruption, and how hard the whole nefarious game is to police and combat.
Fortunately for the Russian government,
their ambassador in Washington, a man named Edouard de Stoeckl, had an idea for how to circumvent American opposition — without the American populace, or even much of the American government, realizing what was happening.
In 1867, Stoeckl began working. Huddling with Seward, the two hammered out a tentative deal, largely in secret. For $7.2 million in gold (which would be about $160 million in today’s dollars), the U.S. would take Alaska off Russia’s hands. But Seward still needed to overcome congressional opposition, as only Congress could actually appropriate the funds. Nor did the difficulties stop there. Seward’s primary ally, President Andrew Johnson, began facing a tornado of criticism for his racist policies — and suddenly saw himself the target of the country’s first impeachment crisis, which sucked up all of the energies, and all of the focus, in Washington.
[img]https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/31a09fc/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1421x2000+0+0/resize/770x1084!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F55%2F1e%2F54d0d01e4f30b1f2743403d8337c%2Feduard-de-stoeckl.jpg[/img]
By early 1868, Seward’s Alaska deal appeared all but dead, with plenty of American officials publicly airing concerns and questions about why the U.S. needed to spend millions on what was viewed as little more than barren tundra. Which is when Stoeckl stepped in and developed a playbook that would roar back to relevance in the mid-2010s, when Russia once more attempted to direct American policy without anyone realizing what was happening.
First, Stoeckl identified and recruited an American who could help rally the congressional votes to actually fund the purchase. He targeted Robert J. Walker, a former Treasury secretary and senator from Mississippi. To Stoeckl, Walker was someone who could pose as an independent voice to persuade American legislators to back the funding — without anyone realizing that Walker had become a secret mouthpiece for Russia. The Russian official “paid Walker to use his influence wherever and however he could,” wrote Ronald Jensen, whose 1975 book provides the most detailed analysis of the affair.
Walker was happy to oblige. The former senator and White House official began planting anonymous articles with unsuspecting newspapers, including front-page columns denouncing opponents of the projected sale. (Walker, never known for his creativity, signed his anonymous articles as “Alaska.”) He also publicly defended both Stoeckl and the Alaska purchase, predicting “dire consequences” if the purchase fell through. He pushed for the purchase in Washington wherever, and however, he could — and when questioned, Walker denied that any of his efforts ever qualified as what was coming to be known as “lobbying.”
[img]https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/305822e/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1705x2000+0+0/resize/770x903!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F9e%2F76%2F6a5fcf59417b941d1463a00cb9bc%2Fhon-robert-j-walker-miss-nara-528738.jpg[/img]
Walker’s effort, with Stoeckl bankrolling him behind the scenes, appeared to succeed. By the middle of June 1868, enough members of Congress had changed their minds that suddenly, and unexpectedly, the funding measures passed both chambers of Congress and the U.S. saw its second-largest expansion in American history.
In fact, the move was so sudden, and so unexpected, that something seemed off. And soon, details began leaking out confirming opponents’ suspicions. One journalist, Uriah Painter, who wrote for the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Sun, reported that thieves in New York had supposedly stolen thousands of dollars from Walker — but when authorities nabbed the thieves, Walker refused to press charges. (A handy move, Painter pointed out, to move money without anyone being able to track its ultimate destination.) Painter also reported that “large sums” from the purchase funds were suddenly missing. Russia still got about $7 million, but as a later write-up in the National Archives detailed, nearly $140,000 of the funds the U.S. had earmarked — the equivalent of about $3 million today — somehow didn’t make it back to the czarist government, and no one seemed to know where the funds had gone. Combined with new rumors of bribery swirling in Congress, all of it pointed to the “biggest lobby swindle ever put up in Washington,” as Painter wrote.
The accusations of financial malfeasance grew so pronounced that Congress opened its first formal investigation into foreign lobbying. And it didn’t take long for congressional investigators to confirm that the entire affair was a swindle and a scandal. And all signs pointed to one inescapable conclusion: bribery and secretive foreign lobbying, all on behalf of Russia.
There was, naturally, one person who could
help reveal what happened to the missing money: Stoeckl. Yet by the time congressional investigators discovered the disappearance, the ambassador had himself vanished, heading back to Russia. As Jensen wrote, “The Russian minister was probably the only man who knew the destination of all the missing funds from the Alaska appropriation, and that secret apparently left with him.”
[img]https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/6465a0f/2147483647/strip/true/crop/876x1200+0+0/resize/770x1055!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Ffe%2F3c%2F8464d5fa4c50979f8cb7604ca856%2Falaska-treaty-00721-2005-001-ac.jpg[/img]
To this day, questions remain about what happened to the missing millions. But as Jensen detailed, there seems one obvious answer. Tucked amid President Johnson’s papers was a memo outlining a conversation the president had with Seward — the man who’d jump-started the Alaska purchase in the first place. As the two sat in a “shady grove,” Seward revealed to the president that Stoeckl himself had “bought the support” of one major newspaper — and that Stoeckl had directly bribed congressional officials to flip their votes, with a total of 10 members of Congress taking Russian funds. Nor were these anonymous officials. Among those bribed to support the Alaska purchase were the “incorruptible” Rep. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, a member of the Radical Republicans and one of the era’s greatest proponents for civil rights protections for Black Americans — and someone who, according to Johnson’s note of his conversation with Seward, took $10,000 to change his vote. For his lobbying work, Walker received north of $20,000, according to various documents, about a half-million in 2024 dollars.
Unfortunately for investigators, even while the bribery became an open secret in Washington, no hard proof ever emerged. Seward denied any knowledge, and Johnson refused to comment publicly. The congressional investigation concluded in frustration. As the committee report found, the investigation ended “barren of affirmative or satisfactorily negative results.”
[img]https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/f3277e6/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2000x988+0+0/resize/1350x667!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fe4%2F0e%2Fe60a9bee4c8eb6766bd17cd2084a%2Falaska-purchase-hi-res.jpg[/img]
Still, even as Alaska became part of America proper, investigators wanted to make a stand. Part of the investigative committee chastised Walker “for representing a foreign power without public knowledge,” calling him out for working as an agent for a foreign government. And a few of the investigators even floated a potential solution: banning former American officials outright from ever working as lobbyists for foreign governments. As congressional investigators wrote:
Certainly no man whose former high public position has given him extraordinary influence in the community has the right to sell that influence, the trust and confidence of his fellow-citizens, to a foreign government, or in any case where his own is interested.
As they argued, no American official, once out of office, should work as a foreign lobbyist or a foreign agent for any other government. It was, in many ways, a statement ahead of its time, pointing directly to the kinds of foreign lobbying practices that would emerge in the decades to come. But it was also a statement that gained little notice, and that went nowhere.
And that was it. In this first foreign lobbying scandal in American history — in which a Russian official bribed American legislators and journalists, all while hiring a former high-level American lawmaker to act as his mouthpiece in Washington — no one was found guilty. No one lost their job, or ended up in prison. No one, aside from the Russian official at the center of it, even ended up having the full picture of where all the missing millions ended up.
[img]https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/a2aecf2/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1799x1307+0+0/resize/770x559!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F75%2Fe1%2F04ba3fff4abd9d9dd22c7ca6f340%2Falaska1895.jpg[/img]
And maybe that’s understandable. After all, the Alaska purchase is now recognized as one of the great successes of American foreign policy: as a pennies-on-the-dollar purchase of a territory that enhanced American power, American finances, and American influence in ways that are still paying off.
But it was also something else: a story whose lessons, not least as it pertained to foreign lobbying (and bribery) of American officials, were promptly forgotten. Lessons about how foreign regimes can recruit former U.S. officials and leading media figures to become their mouthpieces. Lessons about how easy it can be to bribe sitting members of Congress, especially when a foreign government is footing the bill. Lessons about just how wide open Washington was, and still is, to these kinds of foreign influence campaigns — and just how much of an outsize role these foreign lobbyists have played in American history and American policy.
It was all a formula that in coming years would only become more and more familiar — and that would, in the 21st century, allegedly stretch all the way from foreign governments to the White House itself.
Цитата:
_________________
С сожалением и понятными пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
Что бы понять, как и зачем Россия высылает 6 «дипломатов» «Мелкобритании», полезно посмотреть на реакцию островитян.
Вот цитата из заметки «BBC» по этому поводу:
Цитата:
Решение о высылке шестерых британских дипломатов из Москвы было принято перед встречей в Вашингтоне президента США Джо Байдена и премьер-министра Великобритании Кира Стармера.
Бывший советник по национальной безопасности Британии лорд Питер Рикеттс сказал в эфире Би-би-си, что решение Кремля — не что иное, как ответ на переговоры в Вашингтоне.
По его словам, причины для высылки, которые ФСБ приводит в своем заявлении, не имеют ничего общего с действительностью.
Предыдущий эпизод дипломатической напряжённости между Лондоном и Москвой произошел в мае этого года, когда Британия выслала российского военного атташе и лишила дипломатического статуса некоторые объекты недвижимости российского посольства....
Очевидно, что островитяне в негодовании.
Почему?
А вот по этому: цитата из статьи, другой фрагмент которой был опубликован вчера.
Цитата:
What Starmer’s Washington visit could mean for Ukraine
...
Listening was not the only purpose of the Blinken-Lammy day trip to Kyiv, however. It was clearly designed also as a show of unity between Ukraine’s two most prominent Western backers after several months of confused signalling by the UK about whether Ukraine could use British Storm Shadow missiles to strike targets far into Russia.
Back in May, the then foreign secretary, Lord Cameron, had appeared to say they could. This was followed by a pledge of policy continuity from the new Labour government, which Ukraine appeared to interpret as giving the green light to the use of the missiles, only for this to be almost immediately overruled – somewhat abruptly, or so it seemed – by the US, prompting unusual public criticism of the UK from a disappointed Zelensky.
...
То есть, на самом деле Лондон боится не реакции Москвы, а гнева Вашингтона.
Вашингтон «паршивую овцу», как Маленький принц крысу, конечно простит, но осадок останется.
А осадка от проделок пиратов «Мелкобритании» в Вашингтоне, судя по мандражу островитян, уже более, чем достаточно.
_________________
С удовлетворением и понятными пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
Наша профессия требует вдумчивого подхода и глубокого анализа продвигаемых и обслуживаемых Продуктов и Процедур.
Этот путь труден и от ошибок и оплошностей не застрахован никто.
Но, иногда на свет Божий рождаются выдающиеся творения и опусы.
Особенно, когда они возникают на почве бездумного импорта чужих технологий.
Цитата:
Резиновые «шипы» на жд путях остановят бесстрашных пешеходов в Подмосковье
20.11.2023
...
Теперь на железнодорожных путях установлены специальные конструкции, которые призваны обезопасить пассажиров от передвижения в неположенных местах на платформах, сообщили в пресс-службе администрации Сергиево-Посадского округа.
Идея использования противопешеходных матов уже давно применяется за рубежом и показала свою эффективность. Теперь Россия присоединяется к этому списку стран, где такие конструкции используются для обеспечения безопасности пассажиров.
Конструкция состоит из твердой резины и имеет форму остроугольных пирамид. Она размещается между платформой и переездом на железнодорожной станции. Это создает физическое препятствие для пешеходов и предотвращает их передвижение в неположенных местах.
Цитата:
Не опасен ли для людей эксперимент с укладкой противопешеходных матов на железнодорожных путях?
21 ноября 2023
...
Павел Иванкин президент Национального исследовательского центра перевозок и инфраструктуры «Заборы и пешеходные переходы их не останавливают. Потому что были уже и заборы, в которых даже выпиливали проход, были мосты построены, но люди все равно там ходят рядом. Поэтому, к сожалению, это такая особенность менталитета, наверное, не знаю, как правильно сказать. Но, к сожалению, даже переход на цивилизованные, скажем так, запретительные строения, как заборы или строительство подземных или наземных переходов, людей не останавливают от того, чтобы перейти железную дорогу в неположенном месте».
...
Цитата:
И дело конечно не в том, что тропы подобно руслам рек - живые и если в одном месте вырастает преграда, то тропа меняет свой путь. А в том, что изначально предшественники этих устройств были предназначены для предотвращения … выхода копытных домашних животных (лошадей, коров, коз, овец и т.д.) на дороги общего пользования, в т.ч. на ж/д пути!
Цитата:
...
In the UK, Network Rail had been piling angled wooden slats on the ground next to pedestrian track crossings, including vehicular grade crossings to deter trespassing as, so arranged, they present a difficult surface to stand and walk on.
These were based on cattle grids, long used around the world to prevent grazing livestock from straying off their pasture, or onto tracks or roads where they might be injured or killed in collisions.
(выделенно а.п.) Humans and vehicles can pass them while large animals with hooves become trapped. The design ultimately derives from stiles of stone slats placed to facilitate human passage over pits that developed on public footpaths in Britain, a practice that predates Roman times.
...
Цитата:
Цитата:
Цитата:
И в таком античном качестве эти устройства для скота дожили почти до 2000 годов, когда наконец их решили приспособить под людей.
Для этого их скрестили с орудием наказания на манер «спиц для хождения/стояния» - наказания для солдат и инструмента пытки инквизиции, активно практиковавшихся в Европе 17-19 веков:
Цитата:
Цитата:
То есть скрестив рёбра для скота с колышками для людей они получили пирамидки и конусы для Пешеходов и назвали гибрид: «anti-trespass panels» (ATPs)…
Цитата:
Anti-trespass panels
(ATPs) are a type of hostile architecture used by railroads to improve safety by reducing pedestrian accidents. They consist of materials such as wood or rubber arranged in such a way that they are difficult to walk on stably, and are placed adjacent to pedestrian crossings or stations, where there is a possibility that people might trespass on the railroad's right-of-way and be struck and killed or seriously injured by passing trains.
The panels were first used in the United Kingdom. Many are still in place; they consist of wooden planks arrayed in a sawtooth pattern, on which it is difficult to stand or walk steadily. Modern variants, introduced in the early 2000s, used rubber shaped into pyramids, and later cones, a configuration that has led to the nickname witches' hats.
Since their introduction anti-trespass panels have been used elsewhere in Europe and in Australia, Canada and the United States. Studies have confirmed their effectiveness in preventing accidents and suicide attempts. A U.S. Federal Railroad Administration study found that one use reduced incursions into the track area by 38 percent, and one in Belgium found a near-total elimination of trespasses.
…
Description.
Older anti-trespass panels are not panels as such but rather sets of long wooden or fiberglass planks arranged in a skewed pattern, derived from cattle grids, that is difficult to walk on. The modern kind, introduced in the early 21st century, consists of rubber panels, 90–130 centimetres (35–51 in) long, with conical or pyramidal upward projections around 150 millimetres (5.9 in) high One manufacturer makes the pyramids on the panels it designs for use away from the tracks as high as 300 millimetres (12 in). Regardless of height, they are tightly spaced to discourage walking, again by making stable footing almost impossible. Commonly the projections are of equal height, but not always.
When fully installed, on a plastic substrate, the panels weigh 74–90 kilograms (163–198 lb) each.[5]: 10 Small-scale versions have been made for use in model railroading.
…
Implementation.
The panels come in a width equivalent to roughly four feet (120 cm), allowing their use within standard gauge tracks. Rosehill makes three varieties: double-flanged versions for in-track use, single-flange versions for installation aside tracks, and flangeless versions for areas not abutting tracks. They are held in place by long screws attached to plastic panels underneath.
In addition to areas adjacent to foot or road crossings at grade, panels have often been installed near the ends of station platforms, sometimes even on the ends of those platforms, since trespassers have been known to enter the right-of-way from those points. It has been recommended that the panels be installed in strips at least 3 meters (9 ft) wide to deter potential trespassers from attempting to circumvent them by jumping. Best practices also include complementing anti-trespass panels with signage and fencing, preferably fencing that cannot be cut or easily climbed,[d] for distances as long as 500 m (1,600 ft) from the station or crossing.
Installation of CCTV near the access points protected by the panels is also recommended. The area near the crossing should be lit at night so that panels, possibly painted for high visibility as well, are visible around the clock. Anti-climb paint can also be placed on the panels to enhance their effectiveness and mark the clothing and footwear of any attempted trespassers, along with warnings to that effect on signage.
Advantages
Unlike rocks, the larger versions of the roughly cut stones used as track ballast, anti-trespass panels can be placed inside tracks without interfering with operations. Their appearance is also a visual deterrent as well as a physical one. The panels can be installed and removed quickly, and they can be recycled after use.
Disadvantages
The panels do not discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate crossers. It may be necessary to remove portions of the panels to provide access to the track area for regular maintenance of way work and replace them afterwards. Conversely, if a train must stop for emergency reasons and discharge passengers between stations, it may be difficult for them to reach safety without similar temporary removal of the panels or escape routes in any fencing adjacent to the tracks.
Over time, soil and vegetative debris may accumulate in the spaces between the cones or pyramids, blunting their effectiveness at preventing trespass. Snow may also have the same effect in colder weather. The panels must be regularly monitored to make sure this does not occur.[4] Also in wintertime, it is necessary to put up signs warning engineers to lift snowplows, or to add boards in the track forcing that to happen, prior to passing over sections of track with the panels inside in order that they not damage them.
It has also been noted that the panels may in one way cause the accidents they are intended to prevent. Despite their presence, some people may attempt to cross them to enter the track area anyway. They may then, particularly if they do so while under the influence of drugs or alcohol (the latter of which research has suggested is a factor in a majority of pedestrian fatalities ), become trapped in the right-of-way and unable to free themselves from a train's path should one come along.
В России со времен Петра появилось наказание для солдат в крепостях, когда их за проступок заставляли «ходить по спицам»:
Цитата:
...
«Вождение по спицам» («поставить на спицы») упоминается только несколько раз. Об этой пытке говорится в деле Варлама Левина в 1722 г., а также в деле брянского архимандрита Иосифа. Согласно экстракту Тайной канцелярии, он дал показания «и с огня, и с вожения по спицам» (8–1, 303 об.). Вождение по спицам упомянуто в деле Феофилакта Лопатинского (около 1735 г.), когда «причастник» Феофилакта архимандрит Иоасаф Маевский был не только пытан на дыбе, но и «вожен по спицам три четверти часа» (484, 286; 775, 662). Какова была техника этой пытки, точно мы не знаем. Известно только, что для этого Левина выводили на двор в Преображенском. Можно предположить, что спицы (заостренные деревянные колышки) были вкопаны в землю и пытаемого заставляли стоять на них голыми ногами или ходить по ним (325-1, 45). О таких спицах, которые находились на площади в Петропавловской крепости, пишет первый историограф Петербурга А. Богданов. Он сообщает, что спицы эти были врыты в землю под столбом с цепью, и когда кого «станут штрафовать, то в оную цепь руки его замкнут и на тех спицах оный штрафованный должен несколько времени стоять». Площадь эту у Комендантского дома в крепости народ, склонный к мрачному юмору, прозвал «Плясовой», так как стоять неподвижно на острых спицах человеку было невозможно и он быстро перебирал босыми ногами, как в пляске. Как пишет австрийский дипломат Плейер, Степан Глебов в 1718 г. кроме обычных пыток кнутом, жжения железом и углями натри дня был привязан к «столбу на доске, с деревянными гвоздями» (752, 224; 734,442).
...
В России это наказание большого применения не имело.
За то в Европе Вы можете встретить эти «спицы» в каждом городе у каждого позорного столба. Достаточно внимательно посмотреть на гравюры и живописные полотна отображающие виды европейских городов 17-19 веков.
Например.
Казармы в Дрездене.
По центру перед фасадом казарм.
С лева на право: виселица, позорный столб для порки и у его основания колышки (спицы) и далее деревянная лошадь.
Цитата:
Оно конечно пытаться увидеть колышки высотой 20 см с другой стороны площади на живописном полотне позапрошлого века, удовольствие ещё то, по этому, кто не верит может посмотреть аналогичное место казарм во Франкфурте с другого ракурса на гравюре того же времени:
Цитата:
Откройте по ссылке полный размер и увидите в основании позорного столба для порки (между колодцем и деревянной лошадью) невысокие заострённые колья. Это и есть спицы…
Обратите внимание, что все эти инструменты наказания находятся за оградой казарм.
То есть в Европе этот вид наказания считался массовым и применялся и для гражданских и для военных.
Но, в России, гражданским он был практически незнаком, да и военные его вспоминали не часто.
Иначе,
никакого многовекового страха перед этим модифицированным орудием наказания и пытки у россиян нет и не может быть!
.
Именно по этому у РЖД есть только один естественный выход из этой позорной ситуации, а именно демонтировать эту глупость, извинится за «скотство» и постараться загладить свою вину строительством нормальных переходов на Путях следования россиян.
...
Что бы не заканчивать пост на грустном, чудная реклама прибалтов на эту тему:
Цитата:
P.S.
Площадка «Аdvertology» - форум отраслевой.
За малым исключением, у Уважаемых авторов нет необходимости в дополнительных разъяснениях и повторении базовых знаний.
Поскольку среди Уважаемых читателей этого поста могут оказаться люди не подготовленные, не имеющие базового отраслевого образования, а.п. считает своим долгом уточнить:
Для успешной работы рекламоносителя по технологии «anti-trespass panels» (ATPs) (как впрочем и по любой другой подобной импортируемой технологии) необходимо, что бы у граждан страны где планируется его применить имелся стойкий многовековой опыт общения с прототипами этого носителя.
Если такового опыта нет, то административно командное применение технологии «anti-trespass panels» (ATPs) (как впрочем и любой другой подобной импортируемой технологии) вызовет сперва непонимание, после оскорбление и наконец отторжение навязываемых таким вероломным образом средств защиты (сувенир послушания апеллирующий к многовековому опыту поколений превратится в горбатый коврик на земле).
Как следствие, между РЖД и гражданами начнется никому не нужное соревнование «брони и снаряда», что понятно не просто не изменит ситуацию с безопасностью к лучшему, а совершенно закономерно такую ситуацию усугубит.
Когда в результате непродуманных либеральных действий совершенно закономерный протест граждан начнёт переходить из плоскости единоличной борьбы в борьбу коллективную, политическую.
_________________
С пониманием и отраслевыми пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
Zelensky’s Star Power Fades on Capitol Hill
As the war drags on, Ukraine’s president receives a quieter welcome in Washington and faces angry questions from some Republicans.
Senators Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in July. They met with him again on Thursday, but Speaker Mike Johnson snubbed him.Credit...Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times
As the war drags on, Ukraine’s president receives a quieter welcome in Washington and faces angry questions from some Republicans.
...
When President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine visited Capitol Hill less than two years ago, he was feted with standing-room-only crowds, rollicking ovations and an aid package worth nearly $50 billion to help his country fight off a Russian invasion.
His reception on Thursday was far more muted, as a few dozen lawmakers huddled with him behind closed doors while the speaker of the House snubbed him.
Mr. Zelensky is widely regarded as Ukraine’s most persuasive advocate, gifted in his ability to cut through partisan congressional gridlock with appeals to speed weapons and other supplies to Kyiv. But as the war against Russia drags on, his star power in Washington has noticeably faded, with potentially dire consequences for the future of U.S. military assistance to Ukraine.
Ukraine is working its way through a nearly $61 billion military aid package that Congress approved in the spring and that the Pentagon is trying to get out the door before President Biden leaves office. On Thursday, Mr. Biden announced that the United States would send Ukraine $8 billion worth of weapons, including glide bombs, air defense missiles and an additional Patriot battery.
But when that military assistance runs out, Ukraine’s fate will once again depend in large part on Congress’s willingness to keep replenishing Mr. Zelensky’s war chest.
Mr. Zelensky held two meetings at the Capitol on Thursday, first taking questions from a bipartisan group of about 20 senators, including Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, and Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader. He then met with a bipartisan group of about a dozen House members, including Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader.
Mr. Zelensky, who gave a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, had the bad luck of arriving on Capitol Hill the morning after both chambers of Congress adjourned for the campaign season, which was a factor in the low attendance. Congressional leaders did little to raise the profile of his visit: Neither Mr. Schumer nor Mr. McConnell addressed the news media, in person or via an emailed statement, as has happened after Mr. Zelensky’s earlier visits, nor did Mr. Jeffries.
Nearly every lawmaker who attended the sessions had previously and repeatedly voted in strong support of military assistance for Ukraine.
“I think he’s an admirable person, obviously showed a lot of courage and leadership in very, very difficult times,” Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said of Mr. Zelensky. “The will of the Ukrainian people to fight and defend their country has been something that I think most of us have found inspirational.”
He noted that Ukraine’s president had stressed the importance of having longer-range missiles to strike military targets inside Russia, and of having weapons delivered to Kyiv faster, to help Ukraine gain momentum.
Yet in other circles, Mr. Zelensky’s visit was met with anger over what some Republicans said was a display of favoritism by the Ukrainian government for Democrats and the Biden administration during an election season.
On Wednesday, Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, demanded that Mr. Zelensky recall his ambassador to the United States for organizing a trip to a munitions factory in Scranton, Pa., that has been making 155-millimeter artillery rounds that are a staple of Ukraine’s war machine.
The same day, Representative James R. Comer, Republican of Kentucky and the chairman of the Oversight Committee, opened an investigation into whether the Biden administration misused public funds by flying Mr. Zelensky on military aircraft to visit the plant.
Mr. Zelensky’s tour of the factory was led by Gov. Josh Shapiro, Democrat of Pennsylvania, which promises to be the most hotly contested swing state in the presidential election.
“The facility was in a politically contested battleground state, was led by a top political surrogate for Kamala Harris and failed to include a single Republican,” Mr. Johnson wrote in a letter to Mr. Zelensky, calling the appearance a “shortsighted and intentionally political move.”
Mr. Johnson also appeared to refer to comments Mr. Zelensky made to The New Yorker in which he called Senator JD Vance, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential nominee, “too radical.”
“Support for ending Russia’s war against Ukraine continues to be bipartisan, but our relationship is unnecessarily tested and needlessly tarnished when the candidates at the top of the Republican presidential ticket are targeted in the media by officials in your government,” Mr. Johnson wrote.
The episodes frustrated some of Mr. Zelensky’s Republican supporters, who expressed concern that the Ukrainian president had weighed in on American politics.
“I think he got some bad advice,” said Mr. Cornyn, who also separately told reporters it was a “monumental miscalculation.”
Other Republicans pushed back on the speaker’s characterization of the Scranton tour.
“It was not supposed to be political, but it’s very understandable that it could be interpreted to be political,” Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina and a co-chairman of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus, told reporters of the Scranton event. “I’m confident that the government of Ukraine was not meant to be political.”
The spat is a reminder of the challenges Mr. Zelensky could face in coming months if Republicans take full control of Congress and if former President Donald J. Trump, who has been vocal about his opposition to arming Ukraine, wins the election.
Mr. Johnson, under pressure from right-wing Republicans opposed to funding Ukraine’s war effort, spent months resisting efforts to put a military aid bill on the House floor, eventually relenting last spring when Congress approved $61 billion for Kyiv as part of a package of national security bills. Though Congress eventually passed military assistance for Ukraine with strong bipartisan support, a majority of Republicans in the House, and about a third of Senate Republicans, voted against it.
Mr. Zelensky, who visited Capitol Hill last year in September and December, seemed to be cognizant of the hurdles Ukraine aid faces — and careful about sidestepping them. During Thursday’s meetings, attendees said that he studiously avoided asking lawmakers to approve any additional assistance.
When asked by reporters whether he could bring the war with Russia to an end, Mr. Zelensky responded affirmatively.
“Of course,” he said. “We have to.”
Цитата:
Harris Has a Lot of Strengths. Giving Interviews Isn’t One of Them.
Vice President Kamala Harris is a sharp debater and a tireless campaigner, but televised interviews are a weakness. Her professional experience may explain why.
Vice President Kamala Harris’s background as a prosecutor prepared her to be the person asking difficult questions. She has had less experience on the other side of the microphone.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times
...
The first question Vice President Kamala Harris faced on Wednesday night, in her first solo interview with a major cable network as the Democratic presidential nominee, was posed as a gentle hypothetical: What would she say to the many Americans who do not see how her economic policies would serve them?
“Well,” Ms. Harris began, shaking her head, “if you are hardworking, if you have the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations — of what I believe you do — you’re in my plan.”
She paused and smiled.
“You know, I have to tell you,” she said, eyes lightly closed, hands raised, “I really love and am so energized by what I know to be the spirit and character of the American people.”
In her dizzying ascent to the top of the Democratic ticket, Ms. Harris has proved to be a disciplined and effective debater and a tireless campaigner, nimble and energetic in rallies. But one-on-one televised interviews with journalists have long been a weakness in her political arsenal. She often winds her way slowly toward an answer, leaning on jargon and rehearsed turns of phrase, using language that is sometimes derided as “word salad” but might be better described as a meringue.
As a presidential candidate, Ms. Harris has largely eschewed such interviews, a calculation by her campaign that she can reach more of the voters who matter through town-hall events with celebrities, local television spots, curated videos and social media, without the risks of a prime-time spotlight.
But the avoidance also appears to reflect something deeper, a nervousness that is palpable from the moment Ms. Harris takes her seat across from an interviewer, looking as if she were bracing for a hostile cross-examination — from the witness stand.
Ms. Harris’s background as a prosecutor and as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee prepared her to be the one asking difficult questions in high-stakes exchanges; she has had less experience on the other side of the microphone.
It has opened her up to mockery from her opponents and detractors — if she does not do an interview, she is hiding something; if she does, she is a lightweight. It has also led to grumbling in the news media, where it is an article of faith that somebody seeking the presidency should be willing and able to answer questions from nonpartisan journalists about her plans for that role.
It is a fundamental imbalance of the campaign, not lost on Ms. Harris’s supporters, that while her every remark is scrutinized, her opponent, former President Donald J. Trump, seems to suffer few consequences for his public remarks, which are often undisciplined explorations of grudges, rumors and preoccupations, laden with innuendo and outright falsehood, often untethered from standard syntax and, at times, reality.
To many, the disconnect smacks of sexism. While her responses are parsed for proof of slipperiness or incompetence, Mr. Trump’s can drift out of public consciousness, evidence only of his persistence in being Donald J. Trump.
Consider an answer Mr. Trump gave last month in an interview with Dr. Phil McGraw, in response to a question about what he thought about Ms. Harris: “She’s a Marxist. Well, I can see, by action, she’s a person that wanted to defund the police very strongly, bailed out a lot of people in Minnesota from jails who did some really bad things. I saw that very loud and clear then, when that took place, a lot of bad things. She’s done a lot of bad things. There will be no fracking. There’ll be no drilling. She doesn’t want to drill, which will mean our country is going to shrivel up and die. You can’t run the country without fossil fuel, at least not for quite a while because you don’t have the power. They don’t have the power. You have all sorts of nice contraptions, but they don’t have — wind is fine, but it kills the birds. It destroys the fields. Destroys the fields, what it does.”
Reporters and fellow prosecutors who have known Ms. Harris over the years say that she has always been polite but cautious with the press, even in informal settings, a wariness that stems not from lack of preparation or curiosity but from a fear of saying the wrong thing.
“She can be very engaging, very quick; she’s witty, a lot of eye contact,” said Dan Morain, a longtime political journalist in California who covered Ms. Harris starting with her run for state attorney general in 2010, and who wrote a biography of her in 2020. “She was well briefed. She knew the issues. She was very good at answering questions, and very good at not answering questions.”
With few exceptions, Mr. Morain said, she did not “go out of her way” to speak with the press, and he did not expect that to change. “Why would she take the risk?”
Ms. Harris is acutely aware of the consequences of a public misstep. Her clumsy 2021 interview with the NBC anchor Lester Holt, in which she responded to a question about the crisis on the southern border with a retort about going to Europe, deeply bruised her confidence. She avoided interviews for a year and, according to people who covered her, she became fearful of making mistakes that would upset the White House.
These days, when Ms. Harris gives an interview, she hews to a set of well-rehearsed talking points, at times swimming in a sea of excess verbiage. Her first answer is often the most unsteady, a discursive journey to the point at hand. Like all politicians, she sometimes answers the question she would prefer to address, rather than the one actually asked of her — but not always artfully.
She tends to muddy clear ideas with words or phrases that do not have a precise meaning. On Wednesday night, in response to a question about how the federal government could encourage the building of affordable housing despite stringent local regulations, she used the word “holistic” three times in the space of one long sentence:
“For example, some of the work is going to be through what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance to state and local governments around transit dollars, and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing, and looking holistically at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people.”
She relies on rhetorical touchstones: In many ways. Let’s be clear. And when she is asked about her economic agenda, in particular, she tends to begin with a familiar windup:
I grew up in a middle-class family.
“I think we can’t and we shouldn’t aspire to have an economy that just allows people to get by,” she said on Wednesday night. “People want to do more than just get by. They want to get ahead. And I come from the middle class.”
She is best with a live audience, especially when she has a script but also when she has a foil (like Mr. Trump at the debate), where she can work an applause line or a long silence, marshal a theatrical brow or hand gesture, or react to something unexpected.
Ms. Harris’s background as a local prosecutor, including as the district attorney of San Francisco, gave her a different kind of media training than almost any presidential candidate in recent history.
Prosecutors are not expected, like a mayor or an elected political representative might be, to speak — let alone spar — regularly with the press, and they are constrained, by law, in what they can and cannot share with reporters. While prosecutors in some places, like New York City, tend to engage more openly with the press, that is not the norm. The power dynamics are different, too: Reporters are eager for details about a case and might be more inclined to be solicitous of prosecutors, who hold the secrets, and the cards.
“There’s a little bit of walking on a balancing line, telling the truth, but not telling things you shouldn’t be telling,” said Summer Stephan, the district attorney of San Diego County and the president of the National District Attorneys Association.
As district attorney, Ms. Harris spoke with the press, including live television hits with a local news station — for example, she spoke in 2005 about a case involving a woman charged with killing her three young children by dropping them into San Francisco Bay. Ms. Harris’s role was to provide clear answers, within the limits of the law and ethical guidelines, about a complicated and tragic episode. She seemed quite at ease.
Still, her own description of the early days of her career hints at another factor in her uneasy relationship with reporters.
Last week, in a panel discussion with the National Association of Black Journalists, Ms. Harris pivoted from an answer about the Trump ticket’s disproved claims about the Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio, to a reflection on the power of public speech, and a lesson she learned “a long time ago in my career, having a background as a prosecutor.”
In those positions, she said, “when you have that kind of microphone in front of you, you really ought to understand at a very deep level how much your words have meaning. I learned at a very young stage of my career that the meaning of my words could impact whether somebody was free or in prison.”
“When you are bestowed with a microphone that is that big, there is a profound responsibility that comes with that.”
Один не компетентен уже, другая - ещё.
Один олицетворяет прошлое, другая - будущее.
Кто бы мог подумать, что Эпоха Либерализма, в пике своего могущества, сведётся к триумфу непрофессионализма?
Отношение прошлого и будущего Либералов лучше всего проиллюстрировать на известном примере:
Цитата:
_________________
С интересом и понятными ожиданиями, Dimitriy.
Премьер Грузии Ираклий Кобахидзе заявил, что его партия продолжит использовать войну в Украине в своей предвыборной кампании.
…
Ранее его партия "Грузинская мечта" представила серию уличных баннеров и видеоролик, где превращенные в руины украинские города изображены рядом с мирными городами Грузии.
В ответ на демарш со стороны МИД Украины Ираклий Кобахидзе заявил, что считает принципиальным сравнение войны в Украине и мира в Грузии.
Журналисты спросили, как бы он оценил, если бы Украина использовала кадры Сухуми в предвыборных целях.
"Я помню, что украинцы активно использовали эти кадры с разной, в том числе и с юмористической целью, но это другой вопрос. Сегодня мы говорим о последствиях войны в целом и о том, чего мы избежали для нашей страны в 2022 году", – сказал он.
Кобахидзе вспомнил события августовской войны 2008 года и обвинил в начале войны "режим Саакашвили".
"Да, Россия оккупировала наши территории, но войну начал режим Саакашвили. И сейчас в случае прихода к власти коллективное "Национальное движение" через неделю откроет второй фронт в Грузии. Почему Россия не вошла в Грузию в 2022 году? У вас есть объяснение? Мы спасли, да! Мы спасли Грузию, и если бы мы следовали требованиям, которые выдвигались высшими должностными лицами украинского руководства, войска России вошли бы в Грузию в 2022 году", – заявил Кобахидзе.
Цитата:
Цитата:
Грузинская мечта" сравнила уничтоженные украинские города с мирными грузинскими.
Такие кадры с подписью "Скажи нет войне! Выбери мир!" появились на билбордах Грузии и в соцсетях правящей партии.
Отметим, что «Мечта» с начала вторжения РФ в Украину продвигает идею о необходимости сотрудничества с Москвой, чтобы избежать войны, подобной украинской. При этом с Западом Тбилиси вступил в конфликт из-за законов «об иноагентах» и «запрете ЛГБТ-пропаганды».
Через месяц в стране состоятся парламентские выборы.
Цитата:
Цитата:
Цитата:
Цитата:
Цитата:
Цитата:
_________________
С уважением и отраслевыми пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
Изначально, пост планировалось привязать к программе «Вести FM», но к сожалению ни записи программы ни её распечатки а.п. достать не удалось.
По этому воспользуемся суррогатом.
Цитата:
Цитата:
Красная сетка для апельсинов.
...
Если вы присмотритесь к апельсинам в супермаркете, то заметите, что все они упакованы в сетку красного цвета. Не синего, не зелёного, не жёлтого, а именно красного. Давайте разберёмся почему.
…
Оказывается ответ до безобразия прост – это очередной маркетинговый ход с целью сделать товар более привлекательным. Оранжевый цвет апельсинов больше всего ассоциируется с красным. Поэтому, когда человек видит эти фрукты в красной секте, они кажутся ему более красивыми и более спелыми.
Если бы сетка была любого другого цвета, то такого эффекта не получилось бы.
Кстати грейпфруты и мандарины то же продаются в сетках красного цвета.
…
А вот для лимонов чаще всего предлагают зелёную упаковку, чтобы на её фоне ярче выделялась жёлтая кожура. Лаймы то же кладут в зелёные сетки, по тому, что этот цвет подчёркивает «кислинку».
...
Цитата:
… ну да, а незрелый картофель пакуют в сетку жёлтую.
К этому следует добавить голубой спектр «дневного» света в большинстве магазинов затрудняющий выбор овощей и фруктов по цвету.
Подобно с распределением, с расстановкой Продуктов на полках и полок на торговых площадях сетевых магазинов.
Подобно с ценниками, их размерами, ориентацией и содержанием.
Про упаковку производителей Продуктов и нечего говорить.
Такое впечатление, что сетевые магазины - поле боя, а покупатель продавцу и производителю – непримиримый враг.
А кто сказал, что это законно?
Да, эти отношения законны в либеральных Системах с преобладанием ЕСО>ИСО.
И да, в Системах ЕСО>ИСО, потребитель продавцу и производителю – лютый враг.
И разумеется, между ними идёт вечная война.
Но, к нам, к России, с её ИСО>ЕСО это никакого отношения не имеет!
У нас совершенно другие отношения между производителем, продавцом и покупателем.
И соответственно, у россиян, в отличии от жителей либеральных Систем ЕСО>ИСО, нет и не может быть способностей к сопротивлению торговому и промышленному произволу, обкатанных веками либеральных потребительских войн.
…
От того, что обман незначителен или является неотъемлемой частью заимствованной либеральной субкультуры покупателя, продавца, производителей, он обманом быть не перестаёт.
Почему, встав на путь реставрации патриотических ценностей мы продолжаем такой торговой политике потакать?
К стати, как Вы помните, производитель, продавец и потребитель это ещё не все участники этого Цикла Обмена.
Кого в ней не хватает?
Правильно - Политика, Управленца.
А как мы помним, в Системах ИСО>ЕСО, Управление, Политика относится к подавляемой второстепенной функции.
(выделено а.п. – см. следующий пост расширения)
Казалось бы, ну и хорошо, раз её влияние не велико, то и учитывать её незачем.
Ан-нет, «свято место пусто не бывает».
Если на этой позиции, в этой субкультурной торговой модели мало/нет нашего Управления, то его место занимает Управление чужое, либеральное.
Оно нам, в ИСО>ЕСО, там зачем?
_________________
С пониманием и отраслевыми пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
«Дураки» и «Дороги»: «
расширение к посту №151849
».
В предыдущем
было показано, что используемые в торговле приемы маркетинга ЕСО>ИСО не имеют к нам, к России, к ИСО>ЕСО никакого прямого отношения.
В том числе, а.п. было указано, что помимо производителя, продавца и покупателя в этой цепочки присутствует ещё один участник – управленец, политик, деятельность которого в Системах ИСО>ЕСО не приветствуется и подавляется.
Цитата:
…
А как мы помним, в Системах ИСО>ЕСО, Управление, Политика относится к подавляемой второстепенной функции.
....
Этот момент нуждается в пояснении.
Весь смысл неравенства ИСО и ЕСО показывает, кто над кем преобладает.
• ИСО>ЕСО – искусственные Распределение и Управление над естественными Производством и Потреблением.
• ЕСО>ИСО – естественные Производство и Потребление над искусственными Управлением и Распределением.
Поэтому в России Распределение и Управление важнее Потребления и Производства.
Это преобладание закреплено в последовательности преобразования Опыта.
Так:
• в России, в ИСО>ЕСО, сперва распределяют, а после производят и сперва управляют, а после потребляют;
• в США, в ЕСО>ИСО, сперва производят, а после распределяют и сперва потребляют, а после управляют.
Другое дело, что для ИСО>ЕСО, для России, коллективное важнее частного.
По этому:
• господствующее Распределение не доверяет и недолюбливает свое Управление;
• подавляемое Производство не доверяет и недолюбливает свое Потребление.
И именно по этому, наше Распределение доверяет чужому Управлению больше, чем своему
.
Именно по этому чиновники в России препятствуют внедрению своих технологий, генерируемых своим Управлением, до тех пор пока их не реализуют в либеральном Управлении ЕСО>ИСО.
То есть, буквально, Вам очень трудно внедрить Вашу технологию в России, до тех пор, пока Вашу разработку у Вас не украдут и не внедрят от своего имени в ЕСО>ИСО (если аналогов за рубежом нет – разговор ни о чём). Когда чиновники скорее купят краденную у Вас технологию в ЕСО>ИСО, чем позволит Вам, её автору, реализовать её в разы дешевле в России.
Вернёмся к торговле.
Чиновников ИСО>ЕСО в России вполне устраивает внешнее либеральное технологическое Управление отечественного Производителя, Продавца и Потребителя и по доброй воле, без царственного пинка, ни один чиновник ничего к изменению сложившегося положения вещей делать не станет.
Тем не менее, нам придётся эту схему ломать. Никуда мы от этого не денемся. Другое дело, что пока у нас нет современных форматов торговли подобных архаичным форматам рынков, базаров и ярмарок.
_________________
С пониманием и очевидными пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
Уровень доступа: Вы не можете начинать темы, Вы не можете отвечать на сообщения, Вы не можете редактировать свои сообщения, Вы не можете удалять свои сообщения, Вы не можете голосовать в опросах
Генеральный директор агентства мобильного маркетинга Mobisharks (входит в ГК Kokoc Group) — об эффективном мобильном маркетинге и примерах успешных стратегий.
За последние пару лет реклама банков изменилась. Появились новые сюжеты и герои. Реклама по-прежнему — не только инструмент продвижения услуг, но и способ формирования доверия к финансовым организациям. Главный тренд, который отмечают эксперты,— переход от сухого перечисления выгод к эмоционально окрашенным коммуникациям.
Антитрендами наружной рекламы в текущем году стали прямолинейность и чрезмерная перегруженность сообщений. Наружная реклама продолжает показывать рост: число рекламных конструкций за последний год увеличилось более чем на 2 тысячи.
В компании Sellty спрогнозировали развитие рынка электронной коммерции в сегменте СМБ на ближайший год. По оценке основателя Sellty Марии Бар-Бирюковой, число собственных интернет-магазинов среднего, малого и микробизнеса продолжит расти и увеличится минимум на 40% до конца 2025 года. Компании будут и дальше развиваться на маркетплейсах, но станут чаще комбинировать несколько каналов продаж.
10 сентября – Всемирный день психического здоровья. Специально к этой дате компания HINT опросила коллег в сфере маркетинга, рекламы и пиара, чтобы понять, как представители этих профессий могут помочь себе и другим поддержать в норме психическое здоровье.
Чего не хватает радио, чтобы увеличить свою долю на рекламном рынке? Аудиопиратство: угроза или возможности для отрасли? Каковы первые результаты общероссийской кампании по продвижению индустриального радиоплеера? Эти и другие вопросы были рассмотрены на конференции «Радио в глобальной медиаконкуренции», спикерами и участниками которой стали эксперты ГПМ Радио.
Деловая программа 28-й международной специализированной выставки технологий и услуг для производителей и заказчиков рекламы «Реклама-2021» открылась десятым юбилейным форумом «Матрица рекламы». Его организовали КВК «Империя» и «Экспоцентр».
28 марта в Центральном доме художника состоялась 25-ая выставка маркетинговых коммуникаций «Дизайн и реклама NEXT». Одним из самых ярких её событий стал День социальной рекламы, который организовала Ассоциация директоров по коммуникациям и корпоративным медиа России (АКМР) совместно с АНО «Лаборатория социальной рекламы» и оргкомитетом LIME.
На VII Международном форуме «Матрица рекламы», прошедшем в ЦВК «Экспоцентр» в рамках международной выставки «Реклама-2018», большой интерес у профессиональной аудитории вызвала VI Конференция «Интернет-реклама».
RSS