Stop and stay stopped or face big fine come 1-1-04
news
flying into my windshield and I hit it, is it my fault?
:)
"David Zeit" <dave...@telesport.com> wrote in message
news:3F98CA4F...@telesport.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=69431
>
>
>
>
> News Thursday, October 23, 2003
>
> E-mail this story Print this story Submit a letter to the editor
>
> Stepping into trouble on Salem's streets
>
>
> LORI CAIN / Statesman Journal
>
> Vehicles pass through the intersection of Chemeketa and High streets NE
> as pedestrians walk across the street.
>
> Pedestrians increasingly are being hit by vehicles.
>
> JODY LAWRENCE-TURNER
> Statesman Journal
> October 19, 2003
>
> Salem resident Beth Gregg learned the hard way about the importance of
> yielding to pedestrians.
>
> She hit a neighbor in a downtown crosswalk who also happens to be the
> city's police chief.
>
> Gregg received a citation for $273, but perhaps more importantly, she
> learned a lifelong lesson - slow down.
>
> Walt Myers, Salem police chief, was understanding about the incident.
>
> "What happened to me and that lady driver could happen to anybody," he
> said. "But as we get more and more crowded on the roadways, and our
> schedules get busier and busier, it's easy to forget the importance of a
> human life, and in the twinkling of an eye one can be lost."
>
> Pedestrian-versus-vehicle incidents have increased since 1999 despite
> educational efforts and police stings at crosswalks.
>
> In 2002, four pedestrians were killed on Salem streets and police issued
> 176 citations citywide to drivers for failure to yield to pedestrians.
>
> That is up from 41 citations in 2001.
>
> Police Lt. Dan Cary attributed the increase in citations to more bike
> patrols in the downtown area.
>
> Scott Kofoid of the Salem Police Department said that increased traffic
> congestion is the leading cause of pedestrian-vehicle accidents.
>
> Of the 226 crashes reported this year through Sept. 30, 52 involved
> pedestrians. One pedestrian was killed.
>
> The most common traffic offense committed in the downtown area probably
> is people running red lights, Cary said, but that also puts pedestrians
> at risk.
>
> Salem police said the top 10 intersections for crashes in the city are
> in some of the most congested areas of town, many of them near malls.
>
> "People are paying attention to the light," Kofoid said, "not the people
> in the crosswalk."
>
> No. 7 on the list - Commercial and Marion streets NE - is downtown near
> Salem Center Mall and Rite Aid.
>
> Myers was crossing at the northeast corner of Trade and High streets SE
> after the "walk" sign lit up.
>
> Another car narrowly missed him before Gregg hit him. He suffered only
> bumps and bruises and still was recovering last week.
>
> Aside from congestion, distractions in vehicles are another factor that
> police think causes the accidents.
>
> "There are too many distractions in vehicles, like cell phones and
> radios," Kofoid said. "They have everything but a kitchen sink in cars
> these days."
>
> Downtown employee Bob Shike said he has been more careful crossing the
> street since a co-worker was hit.
>
> "People won't even stop for you even when you are halfway through the
> crosswalk," said Shike, who has worked downtown for 18 years. "I stepped
> off a curb once and a car zoomed right in front of me."
>
> Tiffany Myers, a downtown employee for three years, said she keeps an
> eye on the Cherriots buses because they can't always see people crossing
> the street.
>
> "But I'm pretty aggressive," she said. "I stare right at the drivers
> when they are trying to turn while I am crossing the street."
>
> The fine for failing to yield to pedestrians increased from $175 to to
> $237 on Sept. 1.
>
> If a driver hits a pedestrian, the fine is $273. If the violation
> happens in a school zone when the warning lights are on, the fine goes
> up to $349, a fixed amount that can't be reduced.
>
> The number of pedestrian-versus-vehicle fatal accidents in Portland
> during recent years also had state lawmakers taking a closer look at the
> situation during the past Legislative session.
>
> On Jan. 1, a new law known as "stop and stay stopped," goes into effect.
> If a driver crosses the white line of a crosswalk before the pedestrian
> is out of it and on the opposite curb, it is considered an offense.
>
> David House, a spokesman for the state Driver and Motor Vehicle
> Services, said Oregon's pedestrians are luckier than those in other
> states.
>
> "A lot of states don't give the pedestrian the right-of-way like we do
> in Oregon," House said.
>
> People taking the state driver's license test need to know the law about
> yielding to pedestrians, but there isn't a question about it on every
> exam. The questions that test takers answer are selected randomly.
>
> Salem's police chief said he thinks that the law is only part of what it
> takes to keep pedestrians safe.
>
> "It seems to me that one of the most of important things we can do as
> human beings in our community, to increase our sense of community, is to
> show great curtesy and respect to each other," Myers said. "That means
> by being very careful in the way we drive."
>
>
>
> Jody Lawrence-Turner can be reached at (503) 399-6721.
>
> Subscribe now!
>
>
>
>
> Yielding to pedestrians
>
> According to the Oregon Driver's Manual, drivers must yield to
> pedestrians when:
>
> A pedestrian is crossing with a green light or "walk" signal or when the
> pedestrian has not cleared the crosswalk. You must yield to pedestrians
> as soon as they step off the curb.
>
> In a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection with no
> traffic-control devices when the pedestrian is on your half of the road
> or so close to your half of the road that he or she is in a position of
> danger.
>
> Crossing a sidewalk, such as when entering or leaving an alley, driveway
> or private road.
>
> Making a left or right turn at any intersection, as soon as pedestrians
> step off the curb.
>
> At a school crossing where there is a traffic patrol. Stop and yield if
> a traffic patrol member signals you to do so.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
>
> "On Jan. 1, a new law known as "stop and stay stopped," goes into
> effect. If a driver crosses the white line of a crosswalk before the
> pedestrian is out of it and on the opposite curb, it is considered an
> offense."
>
> SO............if you are headed east and want to turn right and a
> pedestrian on the north side steps off the curb we will have to wait for
> them to cross 2 lanes plus a center turn lane and 2 more traffic lanes
> before we can turn right. OR........if we want to turn right and a
> pedestrian steps off the curb in front of us we must wait until they
> have crossed all 5 lanes and stepped on the curb before we can turn
> right. Can you say............revenue enhancement?
>
> Sure, we all want pedestrians to be safe. Even drivers become
> pedestrians once we park. But isn't this going too far?
Fishface
> http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=69431
Sheesh. I've been on both sides. Well, I guess they don't
want it to appear that they have done nothing.
In Rhode Island, when some children were run over by the
bus that dropped them off, in separate incidents within a short
time period, the solution was to hire someone to ride on the
bus whose job was to prevent this from ever happening again.
Every time the bus stops, this person gets out, looks in front
of the bus, walks to the rear and looks *in back* of the rear
tires. If you think being stuck behind a bus is bad here, give
that a try.
Yesterday, I was turning right on Scholls Ferry Rd. from
North Dakota. A hoarde of wise-ass middle school kids
thought it would be funny to take their time crossing the road.
When the light changed, they were still in the crosswalk, smirks
on their faces. I waited an entire light and was not able to turn.
Needless to say, I wasn't pleased.
The best solution to the problem of pedestrians being struck
may be a blinking yellow light instead of green when the walk
signal has been activated. That way, motorists would be
reminded to look. Now, to protect those bicyclists...
Paul Johnson
> Streets are for cars. Pedestrians are the ones in the way. If a bug is
> flying into my windshield and I hit it, is it my fault?
Maybe in California. Look at state law, pedestrians have right of way.
Also, quote conversationally, it's easier to read and maintain
context. http://learn.to/quote/
--
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:36:12 -0700, Fishface <inv...@ddress.ok?> wrote:
> In Rhode Island, when some children were run over by the
> bus that dropped them off, in separate incidents within a short
> time period, the solution was to hire someone to ride on the
> bus whose job was to prevent this from ever happening again.
> Every time the bus stops, this person gets out, looks in front
> of the bus, walks to the rear and looks *in back* of the rear
> tires. If you think being stuck behind a bus is bad here, give
> that a try.
In Oregon, school busses tend to be either cab-over-engine deals, if
not (thus having a hood), they have several mirrors on either side
allowing the driver to see what is normally a blind spot immediately
in front of the bus.
But why were those Rhode Island students not informed that if you
cannot see the driver, the driver cannot see you?
> Yesterday, I was turning right on Scholls Ferry Rd. from
> North Dakota. A hoarde of wise-ass middle school kids
> thought it would be funny to take their time crossing the road.
> When the light changed, they were still in the crosswalk, smirks
> on their faces. I waited an entire light and was not able to turn.
> Needless to say, I wasn't pleased.
That's what a horn is for.
> The best solution to the problem of pedestrians being struck
> may be a blinking yellow light instead of green when the walk
> signal has been activated. That way, motorists would be
> reminded to look.
In Canada, they use a flashing green light to warn motorists about
pedestrian hazards. I've long maintained that the US should adopt the
flashing green light.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/mbo0UzgNqloQMwcRAp+zAJ9LeASJErqolgnisIuP9X0uATtjdgCgsbDK
MZCNgZRECOJ9u0o769Z1n50=
=RdR4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
gatt
"Paul Johnson" <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote in message
news:laqo61-...@ursine.ca...
> > Yesterday, I was turning right on Scholls Ferry Rd. from
> > North Dakota. A hoarde of wise-ass middle school kids
> > thought it would be funny to take their time crossing the road.
> > When the light changed, they were still in the crosswalk, smirks
> > on their faces. I waited an entire light and was not able to turn.
> > Needless to say, I wasn't pleased.
I had a similar experience on Alberta last week. Homie decided to stand in
the middle of the lane and wait for the light to change except he was
looking at me to make sure I wasn't going to hit him, walked to far and
almost got clobbered by the guy coming from the other direction.
Folks in the office here today were ranting about shitty drivers in
Beaverton and I pointed out that out in Gresham, we don't have those kinds
of problems. People are polite, courteous, deferential and, for the most
part, sane. I think it has something to do with Harding...
...I mean, ever since Tonya got out and whacked that dumb bitch's car with a
baseball bat for driving stupid out in east Portland, and what with the
occasional spree of shootings, it's amazing how much respect and courtesy
people extend each other.
> In Canada, they use a flashing green light to warn motorists about
> pedestrian hazards.
Near as I can tell from driving in Vancouver BC, Canadian drivers are better
than Oregonian drivers. Cars
and trucks turning and weaving everywhere, people rushing into traffic,
bikes flying past in the mix, hookers and drunks on the corner and pimps
saying "Eh?", stuff all busted up from hockey riots and not a single damned
car accident that I saw ever. I felt downright inadequate at times.
-c
news
bandwidth to continually include a previous postings text. Also I hate
scrolling through pages to see one persons blurb at the end.
Yes the law states pedestrians have the right of way, but that doesn't mean
it's right. Since when is every law just?
In my neighborhood, and most I've seen around here, kids think the streets
are their own personal playgrounds and treat it as if they were in their
front yard and you the driver are in their way. There's no reason for that.
Streets are for cars mainly, that's why there are sidewalks and parks.
There are two parks one block away, but no kids prefer the street.
Cars are more predicatable in their movements, and it's far easier for a
pedestrian to see a car coming than for a driver to figure out which way or
when a pedestrian is going to get in the way.
If an adult walks in front of a car and is struck, the he should bear some
blame.
Rewrite the laws.
Troy
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:20:34 GMT, gatt <ga...@jugfurbot.com> wrote:
> "Paul Johnson" <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote in message
> news:laqo61-...@ursine.ca...
>
>> > Yesterday, I was turning right on Scholls Ferry Rd. from
>> > North Dakota. A hoarde of wise-ass middle school kids
>> > thought it would be funny to take their time crossing the road.
>> > When the light changed, they were still in the crosswalk, smirks
>> > on their faces. I waited an entire light and was not able to turn.
>> > Needless to say, I wasn't pleased.
No, Gatt, I did not write this. 8:o) http://learn.to/quote
> Folks in the office here today were ranting about shitty drivers in
> Beaverton and I pointed out that out in Gresham, we don't have those kinds
> of problems. People are polite, courteous, deferential and, for the most
> part, sane. I think it has something to do with Harding...
I noticed that when I was bumming it a couple months ago in Wood
Village. With a few morons, the vast majority drives almost like
they're Canadian. A refreshing change.
> Near as I can tell from driving in Vancouver BC, Canadian drivers are better
> than Oregonian drivers.
I think it has to do with the increased distance and an international
boundary between them and California.
> Cars and trucks turning and weaving everywhere, people rushing into
> traffic, bikes flying past in the mix, hookers and drunks on the
> corner and pimps saying "Eh?", stuff all busted up from hockey riots
> and not a single damned car accident that I saw ever. I felt
> downright inadequate at times.
Well, Canadians (Quebec excepted) understand three basic things that
some people just don't understand here:
1. Turn signals. If one comes on ahead of you, drop back and let
whoever's ahead in or out, not run down people trying to exit the
road or prevent people from merging.
2. Watch what's going on around you.
3. Obey the traffic law. They're there to get you there, faster.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/mdqnUzgNqloQMwcRAo5wAJ4+dUEUNohRCWVafnEe/SsSndKiegCggced
CW/bIKZg247Fb1Bv9lPNduE=
=x1b+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Sat, 25 Oct 2003 01:26:36 GMT, news <fuckoffyoustupid...@bitemyass.stickybrownhole.diarehia.comcast.net> wrote:
> Was it that hard to follow my post? It used to be considered a waste of
> bandwidth to continually include a previous postings text. Also I hate
> scrolling through pages to see one persons blurb at the end.
Go learn to quote. TRIM your posts and intersperse your response.
You shouldn't have to scroll more than a screen to see a response. If
you top post, people still have to scroll past the end to make sure
nothing's new. You're allowed (and encouraged) to edit for context.
> Yes the law states pedestrians have the right of way, but that doesn't mean
> it's right. Since when is every law just?
Actually, it does. Ever try to cross a busy street?
> In my neighborhood, and most I've seen around here, kids think the streets
> are their own personal playgrounds and treat it as if they were in their
> front yard and you the driver are in their way.
That's essentially the case. Licensed drivers are privledged to thier
use of the road. Pedestrians and cyclists have a right to it. If you
don't like it, surrender your license, you shouldn't be driving to
begin with. Neighborhoods aren't your personal freeway.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/meJaUzgNqloQMwcRAl9cAKCICDJye7pJbWwx3Q9SCSUl02Hp5ACg5T2U
m+uXh/aSc9gplaJbEYrt1J8=
=o5EP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
osote
reminds me to slow my butt down and knock off the "California Stops" where I
slow down and look both ways but keep rolling around the corner...
However, I too see this increase in fine as a source of revenue enhancement
and as very annoying to drivers who will have to wait an excessive amount of
time for pedestrians to hurry the hell up. This is also a way to encourage
people to walk instead of drive to lower the environmental burden of car
exhaust and the problem of traffic congestion and Oregon has historically
promoted the rights of pedestrians and cyclists but there is always conflict
with the mainstream, which are mostly drivers. Drivers tend to feel
superior to pedestrians and cyclists and are largely unaware of the impact
their vehicle's much larger size and power has on others on the road anyway.
Creating laws to address these issues is a delicate balance between the
rights and responsibilities of drivers versus those of others on the road
who are inherently more vulnerable as they are not behind the wheel, safely
inside a fast and powerful and heavy vehicle with the potential to harm and
kill others so unintentionally but yet so quickly.
osote
Tim Roberts
>
>Stepping into trouble on Salem’s streets
>
>LORI CAIN / Statesman Journal
>
>On Jan. 1, a new law known as “stop and stay stopped,” goes into effect.
>If a driver crosses the white line of a crosswalk before the pedestrian
>is out of it and on the opposite curb, it is considered an offense.
What?? When did that change pass?
The current O.R.S. says you have to stop when the pedestrian is in or about
to enter your HALF of the roadway, which seems to me a perfectly reasonable
approach (if drivers would actually follow it). There have been several
attempts to change that in past decades, but my understanding was they had
always died in committee.
--
- Tim Roberts, ti...@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
HankC
wrote:
>North Dakota. A hoarde of wise-ass middle school kids
> thought it would be funny to take their time crossing the road.
>When the light changed, they were still in the crosswalk, smirks
>on their faces.
I've noticed this a *lot*, and not confined to any particular state or
region. Being a wise-ass, I guess, could be understandable but
standing in the middle of a street (I don't mean a crosswalk) with a
car bearing down on you reaches far into the realm of stupidity. My
only explanation of this is that this is the result of a generation
that hasn't been raised by their parents resulting in utter lack of
respect for everyone around them. This has pretty damn scary
ramifications for the future.
Bob Tiernan
Fishface wrote:
> The best solution to the problem of pedestrians being struck
> may be a blinking yellow light instead of green when the walk
> signal has been activated. That way, motorists would be
> reminded to look.
No, a better solution would be to paint
body silhouettes along the cross walks.
> Now, to protect those bicyclists...
Body silhouettes with bycicle silhouettes.
The message is clear.
Bob Tiernan
Wherever there is a jackboot stepping on a human
face, there will be a well-heeled Western liberal
there to assure us that the face enjoys free health
care and a high degree of literacy.
--John Derbyshire
Bob Tiernan
Paul Johnson wrote:
> In Canada, they use a flashing green light to warn
> motorists about pedestrian hazards. I've long
> maintained that the US should adopt the flashing
> green light.
Won't work. Too many ignore the ambers
and the reds. And green will always
mean Go.
Bob t
Aaron "Katt" O'Donnell
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote:
>I had a similar experience on Alberta last week. Homie decided to stand in
>the middle of the lane and wait for the light to change except he was
>looking at me to make sure I wasn't going to hit him, walked to far and
>almost got clobbered by the guy coming from the other direction.
You should see the PSU street crossings on SW Broadway or 6th and
Montgomery at about 8 or 9 in the morning when gaggles of Vikings are
crossing the street. Or pretty much any time of day between 8am-5pm.
You'd think they think they own the street.
I walk back and forth between Smith and the Urban Plaza at least 4
times a day and you have no idea how many times I've seen people cross
against the pedestrian signal or jaywalk apparently thinking a Tri-Met
bus is going to stop for them despite it having the green light. Half
of them are lucky they aren't pavement pancakes.
Of course, then there's the homeless guy in the blue hat that stands
in the middle of the x-walk for no apparent reason. And Marvin the
motor-wheelchair coffee guy that scoots around in the street.
--
aaron 'katt' o'donnell
http://www.aaroncity.com
Brian
"Tim Roberts" <ti...@probo.com> wrote in message
news:q66kpv4magq6knerk...@4ax.com...
> The current O.R.S. says you have to stop when the pedestrian is in or
about
> to enter your HALF of the roadway, which seems to me a perfectly
reasonable
> approach (if drivers would actually follow it). There have been several
> attempts to change that in past decades, but my understanding was they had
> always died in committee.
But Oregon's budget crisis has bolstered the fact that traffic citations
generate revenue. Before the lawmakers and police always said it was about
safety...now they are at least admitting a lot of it has to do with revenue.
So the crosswalk idea is just another way to generate more revenue.
Gen...@noanswer.com
wrote:
>http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=69431
>
>
> News Thursday, October 23, 2003
>
>
>Stepping into trouble on Salem’s streets
>
>Salem resident Beth Gregg learned the hard way about the importance of
>yielding to pedestrians.
>
>She hit a neighbor in a downtown crosswalk who also happens to be the
>city’s police chief.
>
>
>Pedestrian-versus-vehicle incidents have increased since 1999 despite
>educational efforts and police stings at crosswalks.
>
In Washington, they have a walkway for pedestrians which when you
hit the button, starts yellow flashing lights embedded in the street
to warn drivers to stop.
Have yet to see even a "Close call" at these places.
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Sat, 25 Oct 2003 03:14:33 -0700, "Aaron \"Katt\" O'Donnell" <not-my-email...@aaroncity.com> wrote:
> Of course, then there's the homeless guy in the blue hat that stands
> in the middle of the x-walk for no apparent reason. And Marvin the
> motor-wheelchair coffee guy that scoots around in the street.
I'm amazed I haven't seen both of them greased by now. Blue Hat Man
is such a regular fixture in the streets around my neighborhood and
PSU that traffic goes around him unfazed (he usually stands on the
lane lines from what I have seen). Yesterday, Marvin (or at least
someone in a motorized wheelchair and a huge 7-Eleven mug on the
armrest) was scooting up 10th Avenue, streetcar behind him, driver
impatiently alternating between the bell and the horn...
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/moacUzgNqloQMwcRAvSNAJ4tlwCdEDQqa8OwTr3C8cqN12rfBACdElKj
ejWcl/ShxJ+xrr3qXi1izxc=
=VmiH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:43:38 -0700, Bob Tiernan <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
> Won't work. Too many ignore the ambers
> and the reds. And green will always
> mean Go.
Duh. Flashing green means Go and frequently replaces the pedestrian
signal as well (in which case it also means Walk for the peds). It
just warns motorists making a turn that there may be a pedestrian
crossing to the side. Flashing green lights turn solid green, then
yellow, then red when it's time for them to turn red.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/mocIUzgNqloQMwcRAksFAKDX6fnG/ztF8zwseQUUqIEDZAK37gCgkyJT
I556ePU1yZ8rwz+/iIphofc=
=ZaaY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Sat, 25 Oct 2003 07:00:35 GMT, HankC <ha...@nospam.com> wrote:
> My only explanation of this is that this is the result of a
> generation that hasn't been raised by their parents resulting in
> utter lack of respect for everyone around them.
It doesn't help that the generation of which you speak has just as
little respect for their fellow man.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/modHUzgNqloQMwcRAjb+AJ4nHrz9DczVsXOBQ2/DNyChth/zlQCgoWbT
WZIbT0fOYrWv04/g3yYrLR0=
=jjea
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:30:52 -0700, Bob Tiernan <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
> No, a better solution would be to paint
> body silhouettes along the cross walks.
> Body silhouettes with bycicle silhouettes.
>
> The message is clear.
You're an asshole?
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/modiUzgNqloQMwcRAk2mAKCmfQfaZ8aldOUjY+/OYFOxYo2DRQCfVIgc
SehFCvkH+Vdyuts/bvBoewQ=
=PDlF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lobby Dosser
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDIR...@shell1.pacifier.net:
>
> Fishface wrote:
>
>> The best solution to the problem of pedestrians being struck
>> may be a blinking yellow light instead of green when the walk
>> signal has been activated. That way, motorists would be
>> reminded to look.
>
>
> No, a better solution would be to paint
> body silhouettes along the cross walks.
But what do you do for the morons that insist on dragging their kids
across the street 30 feet from the damn crosswalk? I see this all the
time in Beavertoon.
Lobby Dosser
news:9sWdncSMWYP...@comcast.com:
> A very interesting article and topic. Thank you for posting this. It
> reminds me to slow my butt down and knock off the "California Stops"
> where I slow down and look both ways but keep rolling around the
> corner...
>
> However, I too see this increase in fine as a source of revenue
> enhancement and as very annoying to drivers who will have to wait an
Speaking of revenue enhancement. that was precisely the excuse used for the
recent doubling of traffic fines. I was pretty amazed that they'd come
right out and say it. Of course, they also paid lip service to traffic
safety.
snip
>
Lobby Dosser
> David Zeit <dave...@telesport.com> wrote:
>>
>>Stepping into trouble on Salem’s streets
>>
>>LORI CAIN / Statesman Journal
>>
>>...
>>On Jan. 1, a new law known as “stop and stay stopped,” goes into
>>effect. If a driver crosses the white line of a crosswalk before the
>>pedestrian is out of it and on the opposite curb, it is considered an
>>offense.
IIRC, the law actually says they have to clear the *adjacent* lane. Thus,
on a 4 lane they would need to clear your half of the road.
Harry Haller
"Brian" <Witch*D...@usa.nojunkemail.net.ru> wrote in message
news:Votmb.41761$h47....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Several people have mentioned "revenue enhancement" but it seems hard for me
to be believe that that is a significant reason for this law when there are
already plenty of unenforced traffic laws already. I walk to work every
morning in NW Portland, and the police could generate plenty of revenue by
ticketing cars that don't stop at the stop signs along NW Johnson.
Especially at NW 12th and Johnson, where there is a 4-way intersection, cars
run the stop signs there all the time. I'm sure this is reproduced at
hundreds of intersections throughout the city. So, if they want to generate
revenue, they could just put cruisers at these intersections and ticket
people. Or they could ticket people who drive 50 or 60 in 35 MPH zones. They
don't need a new law to generate revenue.
This is probably just something that someone thought sounded like a good
idea, which will be another unobeyed and unenforced traffic law.
Bob Tiernan
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> osote wrote:
> > However, I too see this increase in fine as a source
> > of revenue enhancement and as very annoying to drivers
> > who will have to wait an
> Speaking of revenue enhancement. that was precisely the
> excuse used for the recent doubling of traffic fines. I
> was pretty amazed that they'd come right out and say it.
And locally (if not covered by the same legislation)
Portland has ended the ability of the courts to
lower traffic citation fines from the amount kisted
on the citations themselves. No more "refunds"
etc.
> Of course, they also paid lip service to traffic safety.
Yup. If the authorities really cared about safety
(instead of pretending to like with banning self-serve
and it miniscule accident rate), they up the fines
to an amount that would really get almost all motorists
to stay below the posted speed-limit + nine.
But no, they keep it low enough in order to maximize
revenues. That's the world of Bill Shatzer. Very
insincere.
Bob
Bob Tiernan
Harry Haller wrote:
> Several people have mentioned "revenue enhancement" but it seems hard
> for me to be believe that that is a significant reason for this law when
> there are already plenty of unenforced traffic laws already. I walk to
> work every morning in NW Portland, and the police could generate plenty
> of revenue by ticketing cars that don't stop at the stop signs along NW
> Johnson.
Sure, but since safety is not the concern at all it's
easy for the authorities to miss a lot of these
minor items. After all, the fines are not high enough
to curb speeding, California stops, illegal turns and
so on. And not high enough on purpose. So what's
the big deal about a bunch of California stops that
are missed? The authorities will get a few if
they happen to see them, just to keep the catch
rate for that intersection above 0%.
Bob T
sta...@agora.rdrop.com
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The Sat, 25 Oct 2003 01:26:36 GMT, news <fuckoffyoustupid...@bitemyass.stickybrownhole.diarehia.comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In my neighborhood, and most I've seen around here, kids think the streets
> > are their own personal playgrounds and treat it as if they were in their
> > front yard and you the driver are in their way.
>
> That's essentially the case. Licensed drivers are privledged to thier
> use of the road. Pedestrians and cyclists have a right to it. If you
> don't like it, surrender your license, you shouldn't be driving to
> begin with. Neighborhoods aren't your personal freeway.
Gee Paul, I guess from the height of that high horse your riding, you didn't
notice he was complaining about kids playing in the street. I noticed you
didn't address this illegal activity. It's illegal for kids to play in the streets
or didn't you know that?
And what's this crap about driver being "privileged" to use the street,
and pedestrians and cyclists have a "right," not privilege to use it?
--
-TTFN
-Steven
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:37:23 GMT, sta...@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
> And what's this crap about driver being "privileged" to use the street,
> and pedestrians and cyclists have a "right," not privilege to use it?
You forgot you had to get a revocable driver's license to drive, eh?
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/mxGIUzgNqloQMwcRAuwjAJsGuMGec8ArbSs+MwisUPF67394NgCfcczo
qZIrWu0mALit9hc/ot4Ek5o=
=nkYy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Fishface
> And locally (if not covered by the same legislation)
> Portland has ended the ability of the courts to
> lower traffic citation fines from the amount kisted
> on the citations themselves. No more "refunds"
> etc.
Yeah, good. I was hit by an idiot who went flying through a
stop sign (hedge, couldn't see until my nose was out). He
pleaded not guilty, then lied and said it was I who didn't stop
and that I hit him. The penalty for lying? A reduced fine. I,
the innocent victim had to appear in court and waste several
hours. Nice system...
Lobby Dosser
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDIR...@shell1.pacifier.net:
>
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> osote wrote:
>
>> > However, I too see this increase in fine as a source
>> > of revenue enhancement and as very annoying to drivers
>> > who will have to wait an
>
>
>> Speaking of revenue enhancement. that was precisely the
>> excuse used for the recent doubling of traffic fines. I
>> was pretty amazed that they'd come right out and say it.
>
>
> And locally (if not covered by the same legislation)
> Portland has ended the ability of the courts to
> lower traffic citation fines from the amount kisted
> on the citations themselves. No more "refunds"
IIRC, that was part of the same legislation.
snip
Bob Tiernan
Fishface wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
Yeah, thanks for making my point as well. The amounts
of the fines are not designed to stop almost everybody
from doing these things but are designed to get
revenues from snaring *many* the government knows
will still do these things because it's not that
cost prohibitive.
Your friend's well-being was a low prioroty for
the state--collecting the fine from anyone
hitting him was more important. That's why
the fines aren't high enough to make such a
motorist more responsible and aware of what
he's doing.
Thanks again!
Bob t
Bob Tiernan
Portions from: The Oregonian
Oct. 24, 2003
MONEY PROBLEM SHADOW DEVELOPER
by JEFF MANNING and DYLAN RIVERA
Homer Williams' past debt is news to city officials, but
they stand by their pick to resurrect the South Waterfront
In spring 2001, the star developer who had helped transform
Portland's gritty Pearl District into a ritzy new neighborhood
set his sights on the waterfront just south of downtown.
Portland officials were delighted.
The city had for many years wanted to turn the South Waterfront
District into Portland's newest urban neighborhood -- a bookend
to the vibrant Pearl District north of downtown. Homer Williams
was an influential leader of the Pearl District transformation
and his company, Williams & Dame Development, was poised to buy
about 30 acres at the South Waterfront site.
He seemed the ideal choice to lead the project.
....
Commission officials say they didn't look too closely at Williams'
financial past....
But Williams' record was more complicated than Katz and city officials
were aware.
For much of the 1990s, he walked a financial high-wire, falling behind
on payments of millions of dollars of debt. He was in arrears for years
on more than $1 million he owed Capital Consultants, the local pension
fund manager that subsequently failed. Separately, he owed more than $11
million to his chief partner in the Pearl project.
City officials say they also did not know that Williams' partner in the
South Waterfront venture, Thorndike "Dike" Dame, had been convicted of
bank fraud in 1988. Nor were they aware that Williams had been banned from
any management or oversight role at federally insured savings and loans.
......
Williams' problems....cast a different light on the financial
underpinnings
of a man who has long been viewed as one Portland's most successful real
estate developers.
.....
The PDC [Portland Development Commission, which gives away tax dollars]
also did not run a criminal background check on any of the North
Macadam principals.
Some other cities ask for considerably more detailed background
information
of their development partners. The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, for
example, asks its potential partners whether they have been convicted or
indicted on felony charges within the past decade and whether they ever
filed for bankruptcy. [Not in Portland!]
The Minneapolis Community Development Agency routinely asks developers
to list any court action -- civil and criminal -- that they may have
been involved in. [Not in Portland!]
...
The agency also asks for real estate-related debts that are not current.
[Not in Portland!]
"This is important information that the public needs to know," Lutz said.
"If we're investing public dollars, there needs to be a level of
transparency."
[Not in Portland--the "City that Works" !(sic)].
...
Williams refused repeated requests to comment about his personal
financial situation and declined to address several written questions
submitted to him. [Why should he? He's a "visionary"!]
Williams did comment on Dame's criminal record, which he said "is
relevant and should be answered."
....
Williams' personal financial challenges are no secret in the real
estate community. [But Portland officials had to find out about
from a newspaper!]
But he remains immensely popular among the politicians
whose campaigns he has helped finance [!!!!!] and the
bureaucrats whose vision of urban planning he has helped
fulfill. [He's got the vision thing!]
...
In the early '80s, [Williams] borrowed millions of dollars
from Lincoln Savings and Loan, which was then headed by [his
current partner] Dame. [!!!]
Federal agents who investigated the Lincoln case looked into
a series of questionable loans the thrift made, including at
least one to Williams.
....
In 1985, Williams agreed to what amounted to a lifetime ban
on serving as a savings and loan officer or director. [He
can't even sit on a stool in the corner of the meeting room!]
...
"I think we all need to say thank you to Homer Williams, for taking
risks all over this city, [Yeah, with at least $100 million in
tax dollars] for his role in making the Pearl District
what it is," [Mayor] Katz said.
------------
For full article, see Friday's Oregonian - main section.
[www.oregonlive.com]
___________________________________________
Lobby Dosser
>
> Portions from: The Oregonian
>
> Oct. 24, 2003
>
> MONEY PROBLEM SHADOW DEVELOPER
>
> by JEFF MANNING and DYLAN RIVERA
>
> Homer Williams' past debt is news to city officials, but
> they stand by their pick to resurrect the South Waterfront
*******************
There's a song in there somewhere. :o)
appalling 'oversight' snipped
Bill Shatzer
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Bob Tiernan wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> > Speaking of revenue enhancement. that was precisely the
> > excuse used for the recent doubling of traffic fines. I
> > was pretty amazed that they'd come right out and say it.
> And locally (if not covered by the same legislation)
> Portland has ended the ability of the courts to
> lower traffic citation fines from the amount kisted
> on the citations themselves. No more "refunds"
> etc.
"Portland" can hardly have done any such thing.
The City of Portland has no municipal courts and, indeed, is forbidden
by state law from having any such thing. All traffic offenses in Portland
-must- be prosecuted through the state courts - the judges of which take
their marching orders from the state and the state court administrators
and not from the City of Portland.
Honestly, bt, you've an opinion on nearly everything and knowledge of
almost nothing.
> > Of course, they also paid lip service to traffic safety.
> Yup. If the authorities really cared about safety
> (instead of pretending to like with banning self-serve
> and it miniscule accident rate),
The "authorities" are hardly banning self-serve. That directive
comes directly from state law and that law comes directly from
the voters themselves.
What would you have the "authorities" do? Disregard the applicable
voter-approved state laws?
> they up the fines
> to an amount that would really get almost all motorists
> to stay below the posted speed-limit + nine.
>
> But no, they keep it low enough in order to maximize
> revenues. That's the world of Bill Shatzer. Very
> insincere.
I'm sure you think the forgoing makes some sort of sense.
It doesn't.
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 sta...@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
> Gee Paul, I guess from the height of that high horse your riding, you didn't
> notice he was complaining about kids playing in the street. I noticed you
> didn't address this illegal activity. It's illegal for kids to play in the
> streets
> or didn't you know that?
Perhaps you'd like to cite the statute which makes "playing in the
streets" illegal?
SFAIK, there is no such statutory provision.
> And what's this crap about driver being "privileged" to use the street,
> and pedestrians and cyclists have a "right," not privilege to use it?
Neither pedestrians nor bicyclists need be licensed. They are not
required to maintain insurance. Their "right" to use the streets
cannot be revoked or even limited.
Motorists, OTOH, may not use the streets and roads unless both they
and their vehicles are properly licensed. They must maintain
appropriate insurance. And, motorists may have their priveleges to
use the streets and roads [as motorists] revoked under appropriate
circumstances.
Sounds pretty much like pedestrians have a "right" and motorists
have a "privelege".
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Fishface wrote:
-snips-
> Yeah, good. I was hit by an idiot who went flying through a
> stop sign (hedge, couldn't see until my nose was out). He
> pleaded not guilty, then lied and said it was I who didn't stop
> and that I hit him. The penalty for lying? A reduced fine. I,
> the innocent victim had to appear in court and waste several
> hours. Nice system...
Would you prefer a system where the "innocent victim" didn't
have to appear?
Where s/he could just write a note and it would automatically
be accepted as Gospel?
Indeed, where we could just dispense with courts altogether and
decide these sorts of things merely on the accusations of
self-designated "innocent victims"?
Be careful how you answer. THIS time you were the "innocent victim".
Next time around, it may be the "innocent victim" who is accusing you.
The right to confront one's accuser was not included in the 6th
amendment on a whim.
Peace and justice,
Fishface
> Would you prefer a system where the "innocent victim"
> didn't have to appear?
No, I would simply prefer a system where lying is NOT rewarded.
Bob Tiernan
Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
> > > Speaking of revenue enhancement. that was precisely the
> > > excuse used for the recent doubling of traffic fines. I
> > > was pretty amazed that they'd come right out and say it.
> > And locally (if not covered by the same legislation)
> > Portland has ended the ability of the courts to
> > lower traffic citation fines from the amount listed
> > on the citations themselves. No more "refunds"
> > etc.
> "Portland" can hardly have done any such thing.
>
> The City of Portland has no municipal courts
Alright - *Multnomah County* then.
> and, indeed, is forbidden by state law from
> having any such thing.
Quit wasting your breath over an error. Besides,
the above sounds like a law you must hate.
> All traffic offenses in Portland
> -must- be prosecuted through the state courts -
Whatever -- but I've had money returned to me in
the past. So have many others.
> > Yup. If the authorities really cared about safety
> > (instead of pretending to like with banning self-serve
> > and it miniscule accident rate),
> The "authorities" are hardly banning self-serve. That directive
> comes directly from state law and that law comes directly from
> the voters themselves.
Read for clarity, Billy. They use the safety B.S.
to defend challenged to self serve. No credit
to the banning itself was made in the above.
> What would you have the "authorities" do? Disregard
> the applicable voter-approved state laws?
This is funny. You always see government through
these rose colored glasses - "They care so much".
Then there are examples when they try to cheat
people out of their land despite what the 5th Amendment
says And you're nowhere to be found (oh, sometimes
you pop up and defend the cheating).
> > they up the fines to an amount that would really
> > get almost all motorists to stay below the posted
> > speed-limit + nine.
> >
> > But no, they keep it low enough in order to maximize
> > revenues. That's the world of Bill Shatzer. Very
> > insincere.
> I'm sure you think the forgoing makes some sort of sense.
Of course it does. If speeding (to name one) was
something that the government really wanted to curb
for safety reasons, they would make the fines so
high that all but a very few would speed. But
they'd rather use speeding tickets as a revenue
source so they keep the fines low enough to stop
only a few. So people die and it goes on, and
people rarely get injured in self serve in 48
states combined and Oregon authorities trot out
the "safety" issue.
Bob T
Bill Shatzer
The difficulty, as always, is determining just -who- is lying or,
perhaps more commonly, figuring out whether there are any "lies" at
all - as opposed to misrecollection or recalling events through one's
own particular prism.
I've heard perhaps 5,000 cases and most involved at least some conflict
in testimony. In probably less than a dozen of those cases was I
convinced that one side or the other was actually lying.
Seldom is -anyone's- testimony 100% accurate. We all recall
events through our own glasses of our own particular color.
With sudden and trumatic events like automobile accidents, that
error rate goes up rather dramatically.
Seldom can a fact finder assess with any certainty that someone
has actually "lied". Erred or misremembered, certainly. But
being able to definitively identify a "lied" is a rather uncommon
occurance.
Peace and justice,
Bob Tiernan
Bobby Dosser wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Fishface wrote:
> >
> >> The best solution to the problem of pedestrians being struck
> >> may be a blinking yellow light instead of green when the walk
> >> signal has been activated. That way, motorists would be
> >> reminded to look.
> > No, a better solution would be to paint
> > body silhouettes along the cross walks.
> But what do you do for the morons that insist on
> dragging their kids across the street 30 feet
> from the damn crosswalk?
Silhouettes of little ones. What else?
Bob T
Bill Shatzer
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Bob Tiernan wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > > Lobby Dosser wrote:
> > > > Speaking of revenue enhancement. that was precisely the
> > > > excuse used for the recent doubling of traffic fines. I
> > > > was pretty amazed that they'd come right out and say it.
> > > And locally (if not covered by the same legislation)
> > > Portland has ended the ability of the courts to
> > > lower traffic citation fines from the amount listed
> > > on the citations themselves. No more "refunds"
> > > etc.
> > "Portland" can hardly have done any such thing.
> > The City of Portland has no municipal courts
> Alright - *Multnomah County* then.
Multnomah County has no courts, either.
> > and, indeed, is forbidden by state law from
> > having any such thing.
> Quit wasting your breath over an error.
Errors are unimportant? Especially when the error is integral
to the point you were attempting to make - or at least the one
I -think- you were attempting to make. It's always difficult
to be sure with you, bob.
> Besides,
> the above sounds like a law you must hate.
Why would you think that? The pre-merger scheme was ineffective
and wasteful with both the county and the city maintaining two
sets of courts and two separate jails. Consolidation saved a
lot of money by eliminating duplication and enabled both the
courts and the jail to be significantly improved.
It similarly made a great deal of sense when the state took over
the county court systems state-wide for similar reasons - the
public received a better product with significant cost savings.
> > All traffic offenses in Portland
> > -must- be prosecuted through the state courts -
> Whatever -- but I've had money returned to me in
> the past. So have many others.
Interesting, but totally non-germaine so far as I can figure.
> > > Yup. If the authorities really cared about safety
> > > (instead of pretending to like with banning self-serve
> > > and it miniscule accident rate),
> > The "authorities" are hardly banning self-serve. That directive
> > comes directly from state law and that law comes directly from
> > the voters themselves.
> Read for clarity, Billy. They use the safety B.S.
> to defend challenged to self serve.
No one is "challenging" self-serve at all, save yerself in
yer rather Quixotic campaign. So far, the "authorities" haven't
seen the need to defend anything ag'in yer squawking or even
to notice you at all.
> No credit
> to the banning itself was made in the above.
However, bob, are we to understand statements like:
"If the authorities really cared about safety
(instead of pretending to like with banning self-serve
and it miniscule accident rate)" ?
Specifically the part which reads, "like banning self-serve"?
The only subject in that sentence in "the authorities". Basic
English grammar would indicate that "the authorities" are the
ones doing the "banning" as they -are- the subject of the sentence.
> > What would you have the "authorities" do? Disregard
> > the applicable voter-approved state laws?
> This is funny. You always see government through
> these rose colored glasses - "They care so much".
I think government should follow the law - not just the laws
it likes and most particularly not just the laws you like.
For the laws which either government or yerself dislike, the
remedy is rather obvious. it involves changing the law, not
merely disregarding disliked laws.
But, really, neither "the authorities" nor government has
any particular dog in the self-service fight. On an institutional
level, what's in it for them?
No one has created a bureaucratic empire of self-service inspectors.
No one loses power or influence or budget were the rules different.
Life is not somehow easier nor work less demanding because self-service
is banned.
On an institutional level, both "the authorities" and government are
quite indifferent to the subject and are quite willing to go with
whatever the voters prefer. The voters, OTOH, has proven less than
indifferent.
> Then there are examples when they try to cheat
> people out of their land despite what the 5th Amendment
> says And you're nowhere to be found (oh, sometimes
> you pop up and defend the cheating).
You're ranting and wondering off to altogether different
subjects entirely which is sorta summed up as The Bob Tiernan
Universal Rant Against Government In All Its Manefestations.
Please try and stay on one subject for once - as if the
drift from traffic law enforcement and fines to self-service
gas wasn't drift enouhg.
> > > they up the fines to an amount that would really
> > > get almost all motorists to stay below the posted
> > > speed-limit + nine.
> > > But no, they keep it low enough in order to maximize
> > > revenues. That's the world of Bill Shatzer. Very
> > > insincere.
> > I'm sure you think the forgoing makes some sort of sense.
> Of course it does. If speeding (to name one) was
> something that the government really wanted to curb
> for safety reasons, they would make the fines so
> high that all but a very few would speed.
Hmmm, I suppose the same rationale would support dispensing
with fines altogether and substituting capital punishment?
Now THAT should cut down on speeding a bit!
> But
> they'd rather use speeding tickets as a revenue
> source so they keep the fines low enough to stop
> only a few. So people die and it goes on, and
> people rarely get injured in self serve in 48
> states combined and Oregon authorities trot out
> the "safety" issue.
And what would be the fine level high enough to deter Bill Gates?
The fines are set high enough to deter speeding for most folks.
OTOH, we don't wish to bankrupt folks over a moments indiscretion
or inattention.
In any case, the increased insurance costs for traffic violations
is usually several times larger than any fines.
Which I suppose is your clue to drift off into another irrelevent
rant 'gainst mandatory insurance. Take that one up with Ray Karczewski.
You and he seem to have much in common on that 'un.
Peace and justice,
Fishface
> I've heard perhaps 5,000 cases and most involved at least some
> conflict in testimony. In probably less than a dozen of those cases
> was I convinced that one side or the other was actually lying.
Perhaps it is often difficult. However, in this case, the liar managed
to do $9000 worth of damage to my car, which would be very
difficult to do if he had been stopped twenty feet back. Three people
were kind enough to give me their names, having witnessed the event.
Regarding lying, there seems to be a lot of that. Recently, I came to
a three way stop. Another car was approaching. I stopped, the
other car was about 30 feet from the intersection, and I began to
make my turn. The other car zoomed around the corner without
stopping, and nearly hit me but didn't. I leaned on the horn, which
I understand is illegal, and gave him the finger. He stopped, called
me a jackass, and yelled, "Didn't you see the stop sign?!" I had a
baby in the car. I don't want people like this driving, I don't need
them. It seems to be awfully difficult to lose your license around
here, or have it suspended. Apparently, if you can get insurance,
you can drive-- with the only exceptions being alcohol related.
c...@oblivion.world
<Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDIR...@shell1.pacifier.net>,
Bob Tiernan <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
> If speeding (to name one) was
> something that the government really wanted to curb
> for safety reasons, they would make the fines so
> high that all but a very few would speed. But
> they'd rather use speeding tickets as a revenue
> source so they keep the fines low enough to stop
> only a few.
Cummon, Bob, stopping a few for a small fine is certainly not a revenue
enhancing mechanism.
> So people die and it goes on, and
> people rarely get injured in self serve in 48
> states combined and Oregon authorities trot out
> the "safety" issue.
BT, the use of hyperbole and inuendo in public campaigns is rampant on
both sides. There is no way to average out the effect of those
techniques on the outcome of the election.
Hank Oredson
"Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.03102...@lab.oregonvos.net...
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 sta...@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
>
> > Gee Paul, I guess from the height of that high horse your riding, you
didn't
> > notice he was complaining about kids playing in the street. I noticed you
> > didn't address this illegal activity. It's illegal for kids to play in the
> > streets
> > or didn't you know that?
>
> Perhaps you'd like to cite the statute which makes "playing in the
> streets" illegal?
It is variously called "blocking traffic", "impeding a public right of way"
and various other things, depending on jurisdiction. Perhaps I would
let you do your own homework and discover the other issues involved.
--
... Hank
Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net
W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net
Tim Roberts
>Tim Roberts <ti...@probo.com> wrote in
>news:q66kpv4magq6knerk...@4ax.com:
>
>> David Zeit <dave...@telesport.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Stepping into trouble on Salem’s streets
>>>
>>>LORI CAIN / Statesman Journal
>>>
>>>...
>>>On Jan. 1, a new law known as “stop and stay stopped,” goes into
>>>effect. If a driver crosses the white line of a crosswalk before the
>>>pedestrian is out of it and on the opposite curb, it is considered an
>>>offense.
>
>IIRC, the law actually says they have to clear the *adjacent* lane. Thus,
>on a 4 lane they would need to clear your half of the road.
Actually, it doesn't. It specifically says "half of the roadway". Quoting
from the ORS website at www.oregon.gov:
--- quote ---
811.010 Failure to yield to pedestrian in crosswalk; penalty. (1) The
driver of a vehicle commits the offense of failure to yield to a pedestrian
in a crosswalk if:
(a) A pedestrian is crossing a roadway within a marked or unmarked
crosswalk where there are no traffic control devices in place or in
operation; and
(b) The driver does not stop before entering the crosswalk and yield the
right of way to the pedestrian when the pedestrian is:
(A) Approaching so closely to the half of the roadway along which the
driver is proceeding so as to be in a position of danger by closely
approaching or reaching the center of the roadway; or
(B) On the half of the roadway on and along which the driver is proceeding.
--- end quote ---
I still have not heard anybody confirm that this section of O.R.S. will
change as of 1/1/2004. Does anybody actually know that?
--
- Tim Roberts, ti...@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDIR...@shell1.pacifier.net...
Mandatory Capital Punishment, eh, Bob T?
>
Bill Shatzer
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Hank Oredson wrote:
> "Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
> > On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 sta...@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
> > > Gee Paul, I guess from the height of that high horse your riding, you
> > > didn't
> > > notice he was complaining about kids playing in the street. I noticed you
> > > didn't address this illegal activity. It's illegal for kids to play in the
> > > streets
> > > or didn't you know that?
> > Perhaps you'd like to cite the statute which makes "playing in the
> > streets" illegal?
> It is variously called "blocking traffic",
Nope, no such offense in this state.
> "impeding a public right of way"
Nope again. Keep trying though.
> and various other things, depending on jurisdiction.
Not in this jurisdiction. Now children playing in the street
-may- have an obligation to yield the right of way to vehicles
but playing in the street is not, per se, illegal.
> Perhaps I would
> let you do your own homework and discover the other issues involved.
Perhaps that's jest another way of saying you've no freakin' idea
and are trying to cover with vague blusters? Not even a very good try.
The statute concerning pedestrians in the right-of-way are covered in ORS
chapter 814. It is available on line and I invite you to peruse it at yer
leisure - you might even learn something.
And, yes, children playing in the right-of-way ARE pedestrians - see
ORS 801.385. Unless, of course, they're riding tricycles.
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Tim Roberts wrote:
-snips-
> I still have not heard anybody confirm that this section of O.R.S. will
> change as of 1/1/2004. Does anybody actually know that?
Yes indeed. It is SB 315 which becomes effective Jan. 1, 2004.
SB 315 makes two principal changes.
1) It requires motorists to "stop and stay stopped for pedestrians
in a crosswalk (marked or unmarked) rather than merely yield the
right of way to such pedestrians, and,
2) It covers pedestrians in the motorist's traffic lane and any adjacent
traffic lanes rather than just the motorist's "half" of the roadway.
Thus, on a two-lane roadway, it covers pedestrians any place on the entire
width of the roadway rather than merely the motorist's half of the
roadway. Appropriate modifications are required on four-lane roadways as
well if the motorist is in the outside lane.
SB 315 is available on line at the Oregon Legislature's webpage.
Peace and justice,
Bob Tiernan
CLW wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > If speeding (to name one) was something
> > that the government really wanted to curb
> > for safety reasons, they would make the fines so
> > high that all but a very few would speed. But
> > they'd rather use speeding tickets as a revenue
> > source so they keep the fines low enough to stop
> > only a few.
> Cummon, Bob, stopping a few for a small fine is
> certainly not a revenue enhancing mechanism.
Charlie, there's more than "a few" in the
current scheme of things. And in case you
didn't quite read the above carefully, "the
few" refered to the few speeders there'd be
if the fines were in the thousands of dollars,
i.e. designed to really curb speeding rather
than collect revenues from the many who are
hardly intimidated by $150 fines.
Bob T
Aaron "Katt" O'Donnell
Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>The Sat, 25 Oct 2003 03:14:33 -0700, "Aaron \"Katt\" O'Donnell" <not-my-email...@aaroncity.com> wrote:
>> Of course, then there's the homeless guy in the blue hat that stands
>> in the middle of the x-walk for no apparent reason. And Marvin the
>> motor-wheelchair coffee guy that scoots around in the street.
>
>I'm amazed I haven't seen both of them greased by now. Blue Hat Man
>is such a regular fixture in the streets around my neighborhood and
>PSU that traffic goes around him unfazed (he usually stands on the
>lane lines from what I have seen). Yesterday, Marvin (or at least
>someone in a motorized wheelchair and a huge 7-Eleven mug on the
>armrest) was scooting up 10th Avenue, streetcar behind him, driver
>impatiently alternating between the bell and the horn...
It might have been him. Marvin is the guy with Seattle's Best coffee
tanker on his moto-scooter. There's a couple motorized wheelchair
people around PSU, but he's the only one with coffee. I guess he's a
regular neighborhood fixture, he made the front page of the Vanguard
once.
A professor in PSU's College of Urban & Public Affairs was applying
for a grant to attach a GPS tag to Marvin and track him in real-time
on the web. It had something to do with a GIS project they were
working on.
--
aaron 'katt' o'donnell
http://www.aaroncity.com
sinistersteve
> and pedestrians and cyclists have a "right," not privilege to use it?
Well hell, if they have a "right" to it, then they have an obligation to
start forking over money to maintain those roads. I think a bike-tax and a
walking-tax is in order here.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDIR...@shell1.pacifier.net...
>
What kind of fines would it take to intimidate the Bazers, Bob T?
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Sun, 26 Oct 2003 21:10:30 -0800, Bill Shatzer <bsha...@oregonvos.net> wrote:
>> It is variously called "blocking traffic",
>
> Nope, no such offense in this state.
Actually, there is. But it only applies if there's more than five
vehicles blocked.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/nT/FUzgNqloQMwcRAma5AKCx79KZB0RrxyoRxbVQM4dq6AIupgCg3U0W
wO3KL5KG2ZaX9fYo4Is8VSI=
=D4pY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:37:11 GMT, sinistersteve <sinist...@999111nospammeabi.moc> wrote:
> Well hell, if they have a "right" to it, then they have an obligation to
> start forking over money to maintain those roads. I think a bike-tax and a
> walking-tax is in order here.
Most pedestrians and cyclists don't weigh 3000 pounds and cut grooves
into the sidewalk with steel cleats in the winter.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/nT/qUzgNqloQMwcRAhP9AKCFsi3HeVJRSYRiNjfBniVysRezlwCdFOhx
bTijY20foza+X429rVU8K84=
=xijd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Mon, 27 Oct 2003 01:50:37 -0800, "Aaron \"Katt\" O'Donnell" <not-my-email...@aaroncity.com> wrote:
> It might have been him. Marvin is the guy with Seattle's Best coffee
> tanker on his moto-scooter. There's a couple motorized wheelchair
> people around PSU, but he's the only one with coffee. I guess he's a
> regular neighborhood fixture, he made the front page of the Vanguard
> once.
Yeah, OK, that's him.
> A professor in PSU's College of Urban & Public Affairs was applying
> for a grant to attach a GPS tag to Marvin and track him in real-time
> on the web. It had something to do with a GIS project they were
> working on.
What does Marvin think about this? I'd be interested to see it,
though...one up it: MarvinCam. Attach a camera to the bottom of the
armrest pointing forward.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/nUBSUzgNqloQMwcRAhx0AKDd0vxCRLqxpCygwPSNCVPBacb9JQCg1SZC
Pzc6HmTdRgFwBxq7o+GR78U=
=tUvs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hank Oredson
"Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Hank Oredson wrote:
>
> > "Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
>
> > > On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 sta...@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
>
> > > > Gee Paul, I guess from the height of that high horse your riding, you
> > > > didn't
> > > > notice he was complaining about kids playing in the street. I noticed
you
> > > > didn't address this illegal activity. It's illegal for kids to play in
the
> > > > streets
> > > > or didn't you know that?
>
> > > Perhaps you'd like to cite the statute which makes "playing in the
> > > streets" illegal?
>
> > It is variously called "blocking traffic",
>
> Nope, no such offense in this state.
>
> > "impeding a public right of way"
>
> Nope again. Keep trying though.
You didn't read what I wrote.
But thanks for playing anyway.
> > and various other things, depending on jurisdiction.
>
> Not in this jurisdiction. Now children playing in the street
> -may- have an obligation to yield the right of way to vehicles
> but playing in the street is not, per se, illegal.
Sure. Who cares? That's just legalistic nonesense babble.
The "children" in question were not playing, they were intentionally
blocking traffic and harassing drivers. Different issue. Try and stay on track.
> > Perhaps I would
> > let you do your own homework and discover the other issues involved.
>
> Perhaps that's jest another way of saying you've no freakin' idea
> and are trying to cover with vague blusters? Not even a very good try.
It's another way of saying that your bombastic legalistic babble
has little if anything to do with the issue. It's a diversion or if you
prefer digression or perhaps an obfuscation. Stay on topic.
> The statute concerning pedestrians in the right-of-way are covered in ORS
> chapter 814. It is available on line and I invite you to peruse it at yer
> leisure - you might even learn something.
The issue was not about "pedestrians".
Oh well.
> And, yes, children playing in the right-of-way ARE pedestrians - see
> ORS 801.385. Unless, of course, they're riding tricycles.
Sure. Who cares?
Legalistic nonesense babble does not address the issue.
Lobby Dosser
news:vpqf6p2...@corp.supernews.com:
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, we could have 'progressive' fines based on income, but the
Libertarians would have a fit over that. Supremes might also say
something about it.
>
>
>
>
Lobby Dosser
news:vpp60b8...@corp.supernews.com:
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
The one thing missing from his scheme is point values on the
silhouettes.
>>
>
>
>
John Lienhart
"osote" <os...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:9sWdncSMWYP...@comcast.com...
> A very interesting article and topic. Thank you for posting this. It
> reminds me to slow my butt down and knock off the "California Stops" where
I
> slow down and look both ways but keep rolling around the corner...
>
> However, I too see this increase in fine as a source of revenue
enhancement
> and as very annoying to drivers who will have to wait an excessive amount
of
> time for pedestrians to hurry the hell up. This is also a way to
encourage
> people to walk instead of drive to lower the environmental burden of car
> exhaust and the problem of traffic congestion and Oregon has historically
> promoted the rights of pedestrians and cyclists but there is always
conflict
> with the mainstream, which are mostly drivers. Drivers tend to feel
> superior to pedestrians and cyclists and are largely unaware of the impact
> their vehicle's much larger size and power has on others on the road
anyway.
> Creating laws to address these issues is a delicate balance between the
> rights and responsibilities of drivers versus those of others on the road
> who are inherently more vulnerable as they are not behind the wheel,
safely
> inside a fast and powerful and heavy vehicle with the potential to harm
and
> kill others so unintentionally but yet so quickly.
>
> osote
>
I don't end up driving downtown a whole lot, especially during the day, but
I don't have to wait for pedestrians more often than once per week FTMP.
Not bad when you consider that I probably stop at 50 plus lights per week.
The number of times some jerk deliberately walk out into or stays in harm's
way is probably less than 10% of that time.
OTOH - There are few days that I drive that I don't see a driver doing
something squirrelly, putting himself and others in harm's way. This
morning it was a BMW making about 20 lane changes to get across the Glenn
Jackson Bridge. Last night it was somebody following another car on 205 by
less than 2 car lengths ..... or was it the three motorcyclists who burst
their speed up to 80 for 200 yards so that they could slam on their brakes
when they approached the cars going 55?
Bob Tiernan
Paul Johnson wrote:
> sinistersteve wrote:
> > Well hell, if they have a "right" to it, then they have
> > an obligation to start forking over money to maintain
> > those roads. I think a bike-tax and a walking-tax is in
> > order here.
> Most pedestrians and cyclists don't weigh 3000 pounds
> and cut grooves into the sidewalk with steel cleats in
> the winter.
Bicycles are supposed to be using the bike lanes,
not the sidewalks.
Bob T
Bob Tiernan
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Baxter" wrote:
> > "Bob Tiernan" wrote:
> >> Charlie, there's more than "a few" in the
> >> current scheme of things. And in case you
> >> didn't quite read the above carefully, "the
> >> few" refered to the few speeders there'd be
> >> if the fines were in the thousands of dollars,
> >> i.e. designed to really curb speeding rather
> >> than collect revenues from the many who are
> >> hardly intimidated by $150 fines.
> > What kind of fines would it take to intimidate
> > the Bazers, Bob T?
> Well, we could have 'progressive' fines based on income,
> but the Libertarians would have a fit over that.
And why wouldn't we? Anyway, a "Bazer" would be able
to pay the very high fines for speeding, California stops,
going through reds and yellows etc. But a "Bazer"
would also be one of the few still doing such things if
the fines were very high as I suggested. No intimidation
of "Bazers" was suggested as probable if you read my
explanation above.
Bob T
Bob Tiernan
Slobby Dosser wrote:
> Baxter wrote:
> > Bob Tiernan wrote:
> >> [Slobby] Dosser wrote:
> >> > But what do you do for the morons that insist on
> >> > dragging their kids across the street 30 feet
> >> > from the damn crosswalk?
> >> Silhouettes of little ones. What else?
> > Mandatory Capital Punishment, eh, Bob T?
> The one thing missing from his scheme is point
> values on the silhouettes.
What's there to not understand? Unless we put
guards along the length of all streets (an
impossibility) there are always going to be
people who take risks while crossing those streets.
Body silhouettes (an unlikely idea) would be a
reminder of what can happen. No points for
different sizes would be needed. What purpose
would that serve? Do you make stupid comments
just to say something?
Bob t
Lobby Dosser
I think the Supremes might consider it 'unequal' treatment.
>
> Bob T
>
Lobby Dosser
I'll be looking for your sense of humor out there by 217. Bax already has
the Progress Exit, so you'll have to choose another. Greenberg Road isn't
too bad. Bax sign says 'Lost Sense of Humor - Anything Helps'. Might be a
good idea to use different wording.
It was a Joke, Bob. Point values as in number of points you get for
pedestrians hit at various places in the crosswalk. Bonus points if you
have to drive into oncoming traffic to make the hit.
>
>
> Bob t
>
Bill Shatzer
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Paul Johnson wrote:
> The Sun, 26 Oct 2003 21:10:30 -0800, Bill Shatzer <bsha...@oregonvos.net> wrote:
> >> It is variously called "blocking traffic",
> > Nope, no such offense in this state.
> Actually, there is. But it only applies if there's more than five
> vehicles blocked.
A ORS citation would be nice - I'm unaware of any such provision.
There is an offense of "impeding traffic" (ORS 811.150) but it
applies only to folks operating motor vehicles, not to pedestrians.
Peace and justice
Bill Shatzer
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> > sinistersteve wrote:
Only if bicycle lanes are present. Iffen they are, bicyclists
are to ride in the available lane. Iffen there is not a bicycle
lane, bicyclists may use the sidewalk - subject to a requirement
to yield to pedestrians.
Most streets and roads don't, of course, have bicycle lanes. In
those locations, use of the sidewalk by bicyclists is perfectly legal.
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Bob Tiernan <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in
> > And why wouldn't we? Anyway, a "Bazer" would be able
> > to pay the very high fines for speeding, California stops,
> > going through reds and yellows etc. But a "Bazer"
> > would also be one of the few still doing such things if
> > the fines were very high as I suggested. No intimidation
> > of "Bazers" was suggested as probable if you read my
> > explanation above.
> I think the Supremes might consider it 'unequal' treatment.
Actually, the USSC decisions point in exactly the opposite direction -
ability to pay MUST be taken into account when setting the amount
of any fines.
Peace and justice,
Darrell Fuhriman
> lane, bicyclists may use the sidewalk - subject to a requirement
> to yield to pedestrians.
It's a bit more complicated than that. They, functionally, are
not allowed to behave in ways that one would not expect a
pedestrian to. i.e. crossing driveways at higher than pedestrian
speeds. That means you are extremely unlikely to be able to go
at any speed higher than pedestrian speeds anywhere in the city.
Of course, automobiles have an obligation to treat bicyclists
mostly like any other automobile when they aren't riding in a
bicycle lane. The primary exception being that they are allowed
to pass a bicyclist on the left, iff they can do so without
illegally crossing the center line.
Bicyclists are not afforded the same consideration re: passing on
the right, however.
> those locations, use of the sidewalk by bicyclists is perfectly legal.
Except within downtown Portland, of course.
Darrell
Lobby Dosser
I doubt they meant that if you can afford more you pay more. We'll just
up the fine until it hurts?
>
>
> Peace and justice,
>
>
>
>
Bill Shatzer
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:
> Bill Shatzer <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> writes:
> > lane, bicyclists may use the sidewalk - subject to a requirement
> > to yield to pedestrians.
> It's a bit more complicated than that. They, functionally, are
> not allowed to behave in ways that one would not expect a
> pedestrian to. i.e. crossing driveways at higher than pedestrian
> speeds. That means you are extremely unlikely to be able to go
> at any speed higher than pedestrian speeds anywhere in the city.
The "speed limit" for bicycles crossing driveways, etc., does not
apply "when motor vehicles are not present". (814.410(1)(d)(B)
As a practical matter, this doesn't place much of a restriction
on bicyclists except in situations where it would be prudent to
slow down in any event.
-snips-
> > those locations, use of the sidewalk by bicyclists is perfectly legal.
> Except within downtown Portland, of course.
And excepting the South Park Blocks from that exception, of course.
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Bill Shatzer <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in
> >> I think the Supremes might consider it 'unequal' treatment.
> > Actually, the USSC decisions point in exactly the opposite direction -
> > ability to pay MUST be taken into account when setting the amount
> > of any fines.
> I doubt they meant that if you can afford more you pay more. We'll just
> up the fine until it hurts?
Is there any practical difference between ramping up the fine if you
can afford to pay and ramping it down if you can't?
Obviously, there must be a statutory maximum fine but there's a lot
of room between the maximum and zero and one of the factors in determining
just were the fine amount is set must be the ability to pay.
Peace and justice,
Bob Tiernan
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Body silhouettes (an unlikely idea) would be a
> > reminder of what can happen. No points for
> > different sizes would be needed. What purpose
> > would that serve? Do you make stupid comments
> > just to say something?
[snip]
> It was a Joke, Bob.
Duh! So are body silhouettes on crosswalks (even if they
might be effective).
Bob T
Hank Oredson
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:TNdnb.14551$Ui3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Double bonus points if you nail 'em on the sidewalk.
Hank Oredson
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDIR...@shell1.pacifier.net...
Been done. Dunno if it worked. Stockholm.
Did get your attention though :-)
Hank Oredson
"Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.031027...@lab.oregonvos.net...
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> > Bill Shatzer <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in
>
> > >> I think the Supremes might consider it 'unequal' treatment.
>
> > > Actually, the USSC decisions point in exactly the opposite direction -
> > > ability to pay MUST be taken into account when setting the amount
> > > of any fines.
>
> > I doubt they meant that if you can afford more you pay more. We'll just
> > up the fine until it hurts?
>
> Is there any practical difference between ramping up the fine if you
> can afford to pay and ramping it down if you can't?
Yes. Think it through ...
One has a cap, the other a floor.
Bob Tiernan
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >> Well, we could have 'progressive' fines based on income,
> >> but the Libertarians would have a fit over that.
> > And why wouldn't we? Anyway, a "Bazer" would be able
> > to pay the very high fines for speeding, California stops,
> > going through reds and yellows etc. But a "Bazer"
> > would also be one of the few still doing such things if
> > the fines were very high as I suggested. No intimidation
> > of "Bazers" was suggested as probable if you read my
> > explanation above.
> I think the Supremes might consider it 'unequal' treatment.
If they'd object it wouldn't be for that reason
(after all, we don't have "progressive" prison
sentences).
If the idea of prohibitive fines doesn't sound
good to you, perhaps you might accept an
alternative solution such as taking away
people's driving licenses for speeding, California
stops, red/amber light running more than once
per year. That is, *if* you really think it's
important for safety reasons. Anything less and
you're talking about maximization of revenue
collecting, no more and no less.
Bob T
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:22:45 -0800, Bob Tiernan <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
> Bicycles are supposed to be using the bike lanes,
> not the sidewalks.
Well, whichever lane is appropriate for what they're doing. Most of
the time, this is the center of the rightmost lane, or paved shoulder
if there's no bicycle lane and a shoulder available. In downtown and
slow moving traffic, bicycles can use any lane as long as they keep up
with traffic. Bicycles must use the leftmost lane to turn left and
may not pass on the right unless they have a shoulder or open lane
there.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/ngFZUzgNqloQMwcRAjDnAJ0Sz1sNTV7CV+2wey59jrk/H9FrygCgovd/
0qpBH48DiTWdZvLwita40ck=
=+Phl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:22:40 -0800, Bill Shatzer <bsha...@oregonvos.net> wrote:
> Only if bicycle lanes are present. Iffen they are, bicyclists
> are to ride in the available lane. Iffen there is not a bicycle
> lane, bicyclists may use the sidewalk - subject to a requirement
> to yield to pedestrians.
And bicycles are restricted to 5MPH on the sidewalks (walking speed).
Joggers would be moving faster than bicycles.
> Most streets and roads don't, of course, have bicycle lanes. In
> those locations, use of the sidewalk by bicyclists is perfectly legal.
Bicycles are prohibited entirely on downtown sidewalks, except police.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/ngHkUzgNqloQMwcRAhKQAJ9YUHD1QkHkPLhz8oMhvugPy4GNOwCeNPKK
VMiuGNdvF533CV7SydmkcK0=
=G62Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:58:47 GMT, Darrell Fuhriman <dar...@grumblesmurf.net> wrote:
> Of course, automobiles have an obligation to treat bicyclists
> mostly like any other automobile when they aren't riding in a
> bicycle lane.
If bicycles are operating as a vehicle (as opposed to as a
pedestrian), motorists treat cyclists as any other vehicle on the
road, regardless of lane.
> The primary exception being that they are allowed
> to pass a bicyclist on the left, iff they can do so without
> illegally crossing the center line.
Only when there is room enough in the same lane to do so safely.
Normally, this is not the case.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/ngJZUzgNqloQMwcRAuggAJ9oo0CkcfEjLo+bK4Ra1Eky7/HbSQCgkxcY
kl6Z3Al85NIe4jMfTNXrzQg=
=1YTT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Old Mossyfarts
"Paul Johnson" <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote in message
news:pbc171-...@ursine.ca...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:58:47 GMT, Darrell Fuhriman
<dar...@grumblesmurf.net> wrote:
> > Of course, automobiles have an obligation to treat bicyclists
> > mostly like any other automobile when they aren't riding in a
> > bicycle lane.
>
> If bicycles are operating as a vehicle (as opposed to as a
> pedestrian), motorists treat cyclists as any other vehicle on the
> road, regardless of lane.
>
> > The primary exception being that they are allowed
> > to pass a bicyclist on the left, iff they can do so without
> > illegally crossing the center line.
>
> Only when there is room enough in the same lane to do so safely.
> Normally, this is not the case.
Safely? So someone wants to talk about safety who wants people to burn to
death and lose all their property merely because they live in California?
So where do you stand on safety, Paul, when it comes to people dying
agonizing deaths in their cars or having their entire adult lives burn to
the ground? Do you approve because they live in California? Is it okay
because you don't like the state they are from? Should people get run over
in your world because they are not Oregonians?
Maybe if you had moved to Canada earlier you would be gloating over how
people in the U.S. died horribly during 9-11? You certainly don't like
Americans. You're even posting from a Canadian domain. What prompted this
hatred for your own countrymen? Is a Californian banging your ex-girlfriend?
Did she start dating a lesbian and move to Los Angeles? Just what sort of
inadequacy on your part would prompt you to hate people so much that you
would want them to burn to death?
I'm sorry that you are such a stupid kid. I really am. You don't like people
with educations. You don't like Californians. You don't like Americans. Just
what kind of world do you want to inherit? One run by idiot kids like
yourself with no clue regarding the real world willing to let people die and
gloat about it openly because they live somewhere unacceptable or don't
think the way they do?
You should treat your brain like a jewel, not a speed bump. Please do
yourself a favor and pick your brain up, dust it off, and take it to
Cah-nah-dah with you.
You little fuckstick.
Lobby Dosser
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> Bill Shatzer <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in
>
>> >> I think the Supremes might consider it 'unequal' treatment.
>
>> > Actually, the USSC decisions point in exactly the opposite
>> > direction - ability to pay MUST be taken into account when setting
>> > the amount of any fines.
>
>> I doubt they meant that if you can afford more you pay more. We'll
>> just up the fine until it hurts?
>
> Is there any practical difference between ramping up the fine if you
> can afford to pay and ramping it down if you can't?
Sure there is. On the one hand you're saying the fine is going to be an
unreasonable burden. On the other you're saying let's make sure this
hurts.
>
> Obviously, there must be a statutory maximum fine but there's a lot
> of room between the maximum and zero and one of the factors in
> determining just were the fine amount is set must be the ability to
> pay.
It's not obvious there must be a statutory maximimum. Even if it were,
the maximum could be set at X% of annual income.
>
> Peace and justice,
>
>
>
>
Lobby Dosser
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDIR...@shell1.pacifier.net:
>
>
Duh! It still went clean over your head.
>
>
> Bob T
>
>
>
Lobby Dosser
news:vGinb.196649$0v4.15...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Triple if they were young, fit and running.
>
Lobby Dosser
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDIR...@shell1.pacifier.net:
>
If you're talking safety, pulling the license is more effective. Drive
with a pulled license and you go to a work camp.
>
> Bob T
>
Tim Roberts
>Bill Shatzer <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Tiernan <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in
>>
>>> > And why wouldn't we? Anyway, a "Bazer" would be able
>>> > to pay the very high fines for speeding, California stops,
>>> > going through reds and yellows etc. But a "Bazer"
>>> > would also be one of the few still doing such things if
>>> > the fines were very high as I suggested. No intimidation
>>> > of "Bazers" was suggested as probable if you read my
>>> > explanation above.
>>
>>> I think the Supremes might consider it 'unequal' treatment.
>>
>> Actually, the USSC decisions point in exactly the opposite direction -
>> ability to pay MUST be taken into account when setting the amount
>> of any fines.
>
>I doubt they meant that if you can afford more you pay more. We'll just
>up the fine until it hurts?
That's exactly what they do in Finland. Fines are based partly on income.
There was a news story last April about a wealthy gentleman being assessed
a $103,000 fine for doing 46 in a 30 MPH zone.
--
- Tim Roberts, ti...@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Tim Roberts" <ti...@probo.com> wrote in message
news:vlnupvcv421384fdu...@4ax.com...
'Course, Finland is socialist and anything that happens under a socialist
regime is evil. (excuse my sarcasm).
Lobby Dosser
osote
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
news:mljmb.1168$%e3...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...> news:laqo61-...@ursine.ca...
>
> > > Yesterday, I was turning right on Scholls Ferry Rd. from
> > > North Dakota. A hoarde of wise-ass middle school kids
> > > thought it would be funny to take their time crossing the road.
> > > When the light changed, they were still in the crosswalk, smirks
> > > on their faces. I waited an entire light and was not able to turn.
> > > Needless to say, I wasn't pleased.
>
> I had a similar experience on Alberta last week. Homie decided to stand
in
> the middle of the lane and wait for the light to change except he was
> looking at me to make sure I wasn't going to hit him, walked to far and
> almost got clobbered by the guy coming from the other direction.
>
> Folks in the office here today were ranting about shitty drivers in
> Beaverton and I pointed out that out in Gresham, we don't have those kinds
> of problems. People are polite, courteous, deferential and, for the most
> part, sane. I think it has something to do with Harding...
>
> ...I mean, ever since Tonya got out and whacked that dumb bitch's car with
a
> baseball bat for driving stupid out in east Portland, and what with the
> occasional spree of shootings, it's amazing how much respect and courtesy
> people extend each other.
>
> > In Canada, they use a flashing green light to warn motorists about
> > pedestrian hazards.
>
> Near as I can tell from driving in Vancouver BC, Canadian drivers are
better
> than Oregonian drivers. Cars
> and trucks turning and weaving everywhere, people rushing into traffic,
> bikes flying past in the mix, hookers and drunks on the corner and pimps
> saying "Eh?", stuff all busted up from hockey riots and not a single
damned
> car accident that I saw ever. I felt downright inadequate at times.
>
> -c
ha ha ha. exactly. Seeing you on here reminds me, Floater concert
Halloween night at 9pm at The Ohm... $10 each at ticketswest.com Did you
know Johnny Lang was here tonight? Dammit, dammit, dammit. I never find out
these things until afterward. And BB King is playing The Roseland November
23! I'm going to that one.
Check out floatermusic.com because they are doing a documentary and you
should definitely be in it. They are looking for fans with memorabilia in
their homes to be interviewed onsite. I can only imagine the stories you
have to tell in that special Gatt way, LOL.
OHM
31 NW 1st
Portland, OR 97209
PHONE: (503) 224-3147
osote
jbohren
> Folks in the office here today were ranting about shitty drivers in
> Beaverton and I pointed out that out in Gresham, we don't have those kinds
> of problems. People are polite, courteous, deferential and, for the most
> part, sane. I think it has something to do with Harding...
>
> ...I mean, ever since Tonya got out and whacked that dumb bitch's car with a
> baseball bat for driving stupid out in east Portland, and what with the
> occasional spree of shootings, it's amazing how much respect and courtesy
> people extend each other.
It doesn't matter where you live or drive in Oregon. The same crummy
drivers are everywhere.
The weirdest thing was driving from Cornelius to Hwy 26 the other day
and encountering a roundabout... How many accidents have happened
before and after construction at that intersection?
Don Homuth
wrote:
>It doesn't matter where you live or drive in Oregon. The same crummy
>drivers are everywhere.
Everywhere, as in Places Other Than Oregon as well.
bras...@despammed.com
<eno...@spam.com> wrote:
Try driving in Bolivia sometime.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
Lobby Dosser
01110312...@69-30-10-88.pxd.easystreet.com:
> In article <9ii7qv0fpthsruimd...@4ax.com>, Don Homuth
> <eno...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:44:04 -0900, jbohren <jeff_...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It doesn't matter where you live or drive in Oregon. The same crummy
>> >drivers are everywhere.
>>
>> Everywhere, as in Places Other Than Oregon as well.
>
>
> Try driving in Bolivia sometime.
Or New Jersey.
>
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:44:04 -0900, jbohren <jeff_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The weirdest thing was driving from Cornelius to Hwy 26 the other day
> and encountering a roundabout... How many accidents have happened
> before and after construction at that intersection?
I like roundabouts, but only if they're large enough to not require
more than a Yield sign. They're pretty good at eliminating idiots.
Beaverton's got a lot of roundabouts, but driving roundabouts in
Beaverton is kinda scary because Beaverton drivers try to turn left
going clockwise instead of the standard counterclockwise. Thankfully,
the Beaverton Police know about this and tend to be fairly good about
citing roundabout violations.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/pLqWUzgNqloQMwcRAgOhAJ4+P+jYcaIDbYL1XIq8dsjyxuNkMACgjiAE
F7+Og73jZt4eenEcePszO90=
=zQ4C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lobby Dosser
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:44:04 -0900, jbohren <jeff_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> The weirdest thing was driving from Cornelius to Hwy 26 the other day
>> and encountering a roundabout... How many accidents have happened
>> before and after construction at that intersection?
>
> I like roundabouts, but only if they're large enough to not require
> more than a Yield sign. They're pretty good at eliminating idiots.
> Beaverton's got a lot of roundabouts, but driving roundabouts in
> Beaverton is kinda scary because Beaverton drivers try to turn left
> going clockwise instead of the standard counterclockwise. Thankfully,
> the Beaverton Police know about this and tend to be fairly good about
> citing roundabout violations.
Roundabouts in Beaverton? Where?