Krissy and I had a fun and eventful weekend, one of the few this year. Missy’s wedding on Saturday, then hiking in Starved Rock State Park on Sunday.

Missy has an important role in Krissy and my life, so her wedding had a special meaning to me (and Krissy). Krissy met Missy in Geology classes at NIU, which is how they became friends. The important role comes to Missy’s neighbor in college, Justin. I’ve known Justin since we lived on the same floor in the dorms. Justin and Missy were neighbors, and would combine parties, which is how Krissy and I met.

So being I was at a wedding, I couldn’t leave my camera in its bag, so here are the photos:

<< Mike and Missy's Wedding Photos >>

To download a larger image in the album, click on the thumbnail and click the download link at the top right of the image.

Congrats Mike and Missy!

When driving this summer, remember that slowing down can really add up.
Be Safe.
85% of work zone crashes in Illinois injure motorists, not workers.
Be Wise.
Keep tires properly inflated - fuel economy decreases by 10-20% when your tires are low.
Save Gas.
Every 5 mph you go above 60 mph is like spending $0.22 more per gallon for gas.
Save Lives.
In Illinois, an average of 7,000 crashes occur in highway work zones every year. (www.illinoistollway.com)

Wait, what? Save gas? Really?

To: Illinois Tollway Media Questions
From: Phil

I just received the Illinois Tollway newsletter about construction and safety. It's an interesting letter I just had one question regarding it, the "Save Gas" statement on it. It said "Save gas, Every 5 mph you go above 60 mph is like spending $0.22 more per gallon for gas." Could I get the source to where this fact came from? Could you supply the data that supports this statement?

Thanks for your help.

Do you believe this statement? I can see that it is somewhat true, but I want proof. Speeds above ~45 mph affect gas mileage but only because of wind resistance. That is if there was no wind resistance, it would be the same gas to go 5 mph as it would be to go 100 mph. So this said, how can they relate such a general statement to the cost of gas? What price are they paying for the gas? What vehicle are they considering? Is this a car? Truck? SUV? Semi? Airplane?

Aerodynamics is critical to the gas mileage you get at higher speeds. I have a 2002 Grand AM GT 3.4L V6 and as a test I drove no more than 70mph, for just over 300 miles (Chicago to Detroit), and I got 33.6 miles per gallon. Granted 200 of those miles I never stopped, but this is what your “highway miles” should be rated at. According to the window sticker that came with my car, it is rated at 20 city and 29 highway. So how can I get over 29 mpg? Well this is what happens when you reduce the gas consuming habits in driving.

Taking off fast, stopping at traffic lights, sitting in traffic, repeatedly speeding up/slowing down, all cause low gas mileage. You can see this topic comes back, Traffic Lights.

I would like to see the Illinois Tollway Newsletter say “If we eliminate unnecessary traffic lights and time the ones that are in use, make roads that can handle the traffic better, we will save you $300/year on gas” because that is as much true as their statement above. Granted they aren’t in control of traffic lights, only toll booths (to take your money in another way), but still.

Not to get too off topic but my car is rather aerodynamic, which lets me go faster and still get good gas mileage. If your driving your new Hummer at 70 mph, guess what, you’ll get bad gas mileage. Hummers are good for doing 15 mph over sand and rocks in the mountains, or driving through 3 feet of water, but not for doing 70 on IL roads. Hell, the Hummer is not even good for doing 15 through downtown traffic. That is unless your driving through the Chicago river, then it’d pay off getting that Hummer.

So moral to the story, don’t give fallacies, give real facts: Stopping less saves more than not going over 60 mph.

So Krissy has wanted another pet for a while. We tried a dog, that didn’t work out. Yes Mica is still doing well, he is with Krissy’s aunt. The 5 pound small puppy we got is now a 35 pound ball of energy. A dog is just what her aunt needed, so it worked out good. We just weren’t home enough for him; he is a very energetic dog.

So what is the other American pet? Yes, a cat. Well I like cats, and have had cats almost all my life; problem is they’ve all been outside cats because I am allergic to cats. Well after many hours of research and looking at the options Krissy found that Siberian cats have less of the protein that produces the allergen. This is not a cure for everyone, some are still allergic to Siberians, but she has wanted to get a kitten for a while. Then she found a 9 year old Siberian cat that was looking for a new home.

So we finally got the time to get up to Wisconsin and pick Sasha up.

Today is day two of the one week trial to see if I’m allergic to her and so far I’d have to say I’m still allergic to her. Krissy is also reacting to her, which she usually isn’t allergic to cats. She did make a nice feather duster by going behind the fridge and washer when we brought her home as it seems that the stress of the car ride home made her really tired because she hid for the first 6 hours she was here. Then she came out, and as friendly as could be just wanted to explore. Jump on anything she could, get to all different altitudes, etc. She is not destructive, but if it looks like she can jump on it, she will. She took to her litter box very well, no problems yet.

Now we’re trying to determine if we are allergic to her, or her shedding and the dust she stirred up. I had more of a reaction yesterday than today, so maybe that’s a good sign, for Krissy that is :).

She has also made a bed of Krissy’s desk.

Well I would say Happy New Year, but that is old news now, only 11 days late.

This post has had a long time coming:

Being I’m a late person and tend to be out late at night, like say, after 11 PM, when the traffic is basically nothing, I cannot stress how much I hate traffic lights. They are stupidly designed, horrible in the way the sense when you are there, and always turn just before you get to them. At least they do for me.

I don’t understand how we can have cars that have advanced control systems, smart tuned engines that require the computer to be there and tell them if anything is wrong, and shut down if there is something wrong. The car knows if there is someone in the passenger seat, knows weather or not to turn on the airbag, knows if you are spinning out and corrects your dumb driving to get you back driving in a straight line.

Advanced cars, advanced computers, in the world of computer controlled everything how have we forgotten about stop lights?

Lets say your driving down a 4 lane road, a main drag, basically no one on the road, (it is late remember, maybe 11:30 PM), coming up to a green light.

Guess what, you found one more person on this lonely road, and they are coming up the side street. In about 4 seconds you would be through the light, but NO, it turns right at that point where you would have to floor it to make it through (and hope that other person is not a cop ready to pull you over for speeding) or you would have to run the red light.

Not only do you have to urgently stop, this person coming from the side road just wants to turn right. He doesn’t even have to stop for the right turn, and is long gone, and there you are sitting at a red light with no one else around.

This is when you have the time to think, “NO one else is coming, why is the light not changing?!?”

Then you realize that only if the light had stayed green for 4 more seconds you would have been through the intersection and the other person would have made their turn, not even waiting 2 seconds.

Well, this seems to happen to me all the time, I don’t understand why we cannot make lights that are more intelligent and not turn the instant a person comes up the side road, especially when there is a break in the traffic that has the green light.

This brings up many issues: Traffic Backups, Gas Mileage, and travel times.

Given I’ve had a real job now for a couple years and get to drive back and forth to work, I see more how traffic works, how to improve it, and well, just where the shortcuts are, which usually include just avoiding as many lights as possible.
-- That’s a good note, ever realize that? Look at many shortcuts people take in their daily commute, does it involve avoiding a traffic light? Well, for damn good reason!

So intelligent lights could allow more time for traffic to get through the light, and allow more than 3 cars through each green light, prime example of this is going westbound on Devon coming up to Arlington Heights road, for those in the NW Chicago area. This light is so quick only 3 cars (or 4) can get through the light, given why there is such a backup.

Oh, and here’s a good example of avoiding a light, I call it the business park shortcut, just because Hamilton Pkw is a business park area and is a great shortcut to get on the Elgin O’hare Expressway heading west, to avoid that light at Rohlwing and Thorndale.

Fewer backups mean better gas mileage, as well as my scenario I described earlier. When I have to abruptly stop like that, that means I have to accelerate again, which only causes me to use more fuel. The government needs to do something about this, don’t just make laws about our cars emissions, make laws to reduce reasons we need to produce emissions.

Some areas have timed lights, when this is done correctly, it works, problem is it seems that most lights are not intelligently timed, only on a 2 minute this way 2 minute that way timing. You’ll really notice this on those “turn arrow” turn lanes; you’ll sit there for a few minutes.

There are many more scenarios and examples I can give, but I think we get the idea; stop lights need lots of improving. Maybe I should have gotten into Civil engineering rather than Mechanical. Either way, maybe you can also see how easily traffic lights could be improved.