More criminal coddling - State of VA drops red light cameras
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
free.
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=52932
LAST YEAR legislators in Virginia did something every member of the New
Hampshire House should carefully consider today. They ended
Virginia's 10-year experiment with red-light cameras. They did it for
two reasons: safety and civil rights.
"Crash statistics from intersections in four Northern Virginia
jurisdictions, with numbers from before and after the cameras were
installed, showed that crashes at those intersections actually rose
after the cameras were turned on," The Washington Post reported last
weekend. "In Fairfax County, the research council study found,
rear-end crashes increased 50 to 71 percent at intersections with
cameras."
While the cameras did reduce side-impact crashes, they increased
rear-end crashes, creating a net rise in accidents at intersections.
Furthermore, Fairfax County found that simply keeping the yellow light
on for another 1.5 seconds reduced side-impact crashes more sharply
than red-light cameras did.
The red-light camera bill up for a vote today, House Bill 679, states
that the "driver of a motor vehicle shall be guilty" of a violation
if "such a vehicle" is found by a camera to have run a red light.
But, as the Virginians found, there is no way for a camera to tell if
the driver who "shall be guilty" is the same as the owner of the
vehicle, to whom this bill directs the ticket (for a fine up to $100)
be sent.
The mere picture of a person's car traveling under the red light
"shall constitute a presumption that such person was the person who
committed the violation," the bill reads. That would establish in
state law the presumption of guilt. The bill even uses the word
"presumption."
If a police officer pulls you over for running a red light, you are
presumed innocent. But if a camera snaps a photo of your car running a
red light, you will be presumed guilty. It is jaw-dropping that the
Republican-led New Hampshire House of Representatives would even
consider passing a bill (sponsored by a Concord Democrat) that would do
this.
Legislators might be tempted to vote for this bill because it would not
allow camera-caught violations to count as a conviction on one's
driving record or as points against a driver's license or insurance
rates. But once these cameras are in place, it is only a matter of time
before bills are introduced to turn the violations into tougher
penalties.
Even worse, letting red-light cameras into the state will give law
enforcement an intrusive tool with which to police other behaviors. Why
stop at red lights? Why not use cameras to catch speeders? It could
easily be done. Cameras could track all sorts of violations.
It is tempting to want to replace law enforcement officers with
machines that can do similar work. But red light cameras cannot do the
same work as a police officer. They cannot ask for a driver's license
and write the driver - as opposed to the car's owner - a ticket.
This bill would attempt to automate a law enforcement function that
cannot be fully automated - and in doing so it would violate the
rights of citizens.
N8N
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Red light runners are killers and maimers but Virginia wants them to
go
> free.
>
> http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=52932
Did you READ the article and UNDERSTAND it, you idiot? The state of VA
had very good reasons for doing what they did, and I applaud their
decision. Now if we could get them to set more rational speed limits
VA would be a very nice place to drive. (well, not counting the DC
suburbs, but there's no hope for them.)
nate
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
Fork off, criminal coddler. And as for rational speed limits - yeah,
lets lower the max to 55.
Alan Baker
Once again, why is 55 the magical number? Why not 60? Or 50? Or...
Why not actually train people how to driver properly and then see the
accidents really fall off even though some people are driving 100mph+.
Like, for instance, in Germany.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Garth Almgren
<http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote:
> And as for rational speed limits - yeah,
> lets lower the max to 55.
No, you're thinking of an *ir*rational speed limit. Try again.
(Hint: It's got something to do with the number 85, and I'm not talking MPH)
--
~/Garth
"I am patient with stupidity
but not with those who are proud of it." - Edith Sitwell
(Mail p...@v6stang.com for secure contact information)
Xeton2001IsAM...@spamgourmet.com
Xeton2001IsAM...@spamgourmet.com
were installed. Or did you miss that, too?
Magnulus
cameras are bad. If it deters somebody from speeding through an
intersection, all the better.
Rear end collisions kill far fewer people than side impact collisions.
That should factor into the equation. Side-impact crashes are now the
leading causes of traumatic brain injury in automobile accidents, and
running red lights are a major cause of side-impact collisions (that, and
failing to yield, or speeding, at T-intersections). My guess is that a few
well-heeled, politically influential types conspired to have red light
cameras killed.
Automated speed cameras need to be used more often. People need to know
they will be caught and fined for breaking the rules.
Some people in Clearwater had similar complaints about the roundabout when
it first went up there (admittedly, it had a few bad points, such as a large
fountain obscuring the view). There was a temporary increase in minor
collisions, but people failed to notice a reduction in severe collisions.
Fortunately, eventually people caught onto it.
someda...@hotmail.com
crashes. I don't see how they did this unless they were swinging into
the intersections and distracting drivers on cell phones. IMO handing
out tickets when the driver's ID can't be established is wrong, but the
cameras would be good for accident investigations.
Big Bill
<xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Did you not read what you quoted?
>"Crash statistics from intersections in four Northern Virginia
>jurisdictions, with numbers from before and after the cameras were
>installed, showed that crashes at those intersections actually rose
>after the cameras were turned on," The Washington Post reported last
>weekend. "In Fairfax County, the research council study found,
>rear-end crashes increased 50 to 71 percent at intersections with
>cameras."
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Dave Head
>Why not actually train people how to driver properly and then see the
>accidents really fall off even though some people are driving 100mph+.
>
>Like, for instance, in Germany.
Well... because...
Lotsa people here could _never_ pass the test. That would mean that they'd be
economically crippled because they would be unable to hold the job they're
capable of doing, but would have to accept a job just because it was within
walking distance or bicycling distance.
If you believe all the writings here and elsewhere, it is _not_ necessary to
drive in Europe because of the outstanding public transport they have. We
(USA) have crappy public transport almost everywhere. People without licenses
are _screwed_, big time.
That's why.
Dave Head
Allen Seth Dunn
<someda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112819517.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> It also states that the cameras caused or reduced certain types of
> crashes. I don't see how they did this unless they were swinging into
> the intersections and distracting drivers on cell phones.
In my view, it's quite simple. The sight of the camera by a driver changes
the driver's habits. I am much more likely to slam on my brakes when
deciding whether or not I should stop when I see a light turn yellow at a
nearby intersection, regardless of whether or not it's safe to do such (this
in Fairfax County, which the article mentions). On the rare occasion I drive
in Korrupt DC, I will automatically slam on my brakes if I see a yellow
light, since there were reports of "red light" cameras going off on yellow
lights after they had first installed them. Oh and if I'm driving DC and
emergency vehicles approach from behind and need me to move on red as to get
through an intersection, tough shit (thankfully this has never happened
before) because even if there is a cop present at or near the intersection,
they probably would still testify against me in court (assuming I could even
get that far, but that's another story) if I tried to argue that I had real
legitimate reasoning in running the light.
> IMO handing
> out tickets when the driver's ID can't be established is wrong, but the
> cameras would be good for accident investigations.
>
In that case they should be cameras that are going non-stop, not just
activated when a driver runs a red light.
Alan Baker
Dave Head <rall...@att.net> wrote:
Sorry, but I don't buy it.
Driving properly isn't so hard that it can't be learned, but we (the US
and Canada) don't bother to *teach* it.
There's no set training curriculum; just a test which hardly covers
anything other than "can you keep it pointed in the right direction?".
Xeton2001IsAM...@spamgourmet.com
Furious George
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <7n985155vm6q734ea...@4ax.com>,
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6 Apr 2005 11:08:49 -0700, "N8N" <njn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> > >> Red light runners are killers and maimers but Virginia wants
them to
> > >go
> > >> free.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=52932
> > >
> > >Did you READ the article and UNDERSTAND it, you idiot? The state
of VA
> > >had very good reasons for doing what they did, and I applaud their
> > >decision. Now if we could get them to set more rational speed
limits
> > >VA would be a very nice place to drive. (well, not counting the
DC
> > >suburbs, but there's no hope for them.)
> > >
> > >nate
> >
> > Fork off, criminal coddler. And as for rational speed limits -
yeah,
> > lets lower the max to 55.
>
> Once again, why is 55 the magical number? Why not 60? Or 50? Or...
>
> Why not actually train people
Good idea, but that asshole Bush is intent on killing AMTRAK.
> how to driver properly and then see the
> accidents really fall off even though some people are driving
100mph+.
A hi-speed train can easily top 300mph with fewer accidents than the
current highway disaster.
Dave Head
>In article <75k851havbgagqli1...@4ax.com>,
> Dave Head <rall...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:42:33 GMT, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Why not actually train people how to driver properly and then see the
>> >accidents really fall off even though some people are driving 100mph+.
>> >
>> >Like, for instance, in Germany.
>>
>> Well... because...
>>
>> Lotsa people here could _never_ pass the test. That would mean that they'd be
>> economically crippled because they would be unable to hold the job they're
>> capable of doing, but would have to accept a job just because it was within
>> walking distance or bicycling distance.
>>
>> If you believe all the writings here and elsewhere, it is _not_ necessary to
>> drive in Europe because of the outstanding public transport they have. We
>> (USA) have crappy public transport almost everywhere. People without licenses
>> are _screwed_, big time.
>>
>> That's why.
>
>Sorry, but I don't buy it.
>
>Driving properly isn't so hard that it can't be learned, but we (the US
>and Canada) don't bother to *teach* it.
Again, from my understanding from what has been written here, there's lots of
_Germans_ and other Europeans that _don't_ have driver's licenses exactly
because of the stiff requirements for getting them. IOW, they can't and never
will be able to pass the test. I've known people that would fit this category
if such licensing standards were applied here.
This economy and this country's transportation system basically requires
_everybody_ be able to drive. There's a big enough percentage, say 5 to 10
percent probably, that'd never make it. These people would drag down the
economy.
>There's no set training curriculum; just a test which hardly covers
>anything other than "can you keep it pointed in the right direction?".
Yeah, here in the USA. Introduce the European standards, with all the minutia
such as "did you look in the rearview before braking" and they would fail the
test, time after time, when forgetting many instances of trivialities such as
this. There's lotsa people here that _just barely_ pass the USA tests as they
are - introduce even 1 more level of difficulty and these guys are walking.
It would just never work here - at least until we have a viable alternative
(which is not trains, buses, etc. in this country due to our vast land mass
that must be serviced) for these people to get around and make money / spend
money just like everybody else, and therefore contribute to the economy. Even
a guy that can get to work on a bus, and doesn't have a license, is likely to
be prevented from touring the Grand Canyon or millions of other attractions,
'cuz there's no (economical) public transport to it, and therefore impact the
travel and recreation industries.
Dave Head
Scott M. Kozel
>
> > Red light runners are killers and maimers but Virginia wants them to go
> > free.
> >
> > http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=52932
>
> Did you READ the article and UNDERSTAND it, you idiot? The state of VA
> had very good reasons for doing what they did, and I applaud their
> decision.
The Virginia Transportation Research Council (VRTC) was commissioned to
do the study, by the state secretary of transportation, in order to
provide input to the General Assembly's 2005 session which ran from
mid-January to mid-February, because the 10-year legislation for a pilot
for red light cameras started in 1995 and would terminate on July 1,
2005, unless the General Assembly passed new legislation to extend the
authorization for RLC usage.
The VTRC issued an interim report for the General Assembly session,
saying that the safety net gain/loss for RLC is questionable, and VTRC
recommended a one-year extension to the law, so that more data could be
obtained and analyzed before they could issue a final exhaustive report.
The General Assembly refused to pass any extension in the law,
undoubtedly partly due to the interim findings of the VTRC research team
being not favorable to RLC, and while it might have been interesting to
see the one-year extension and enough data to provide a final,
definitive VTRC report, the point is moot because RLC will end in
Virginia on July 1, 2005.
Here is the VTRC report that the news article cites --
http://virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/05-r21.htm
_An Evaluation of Red Light Camera (Photo-Red) Enforcement Programs in
Virginia: A Report in Response to a Request by Virginia’s Secretary of
Transportation_
N. J. Garber, J. S. Miller, S. Eslambolchi, R. Khandelwal, K. M.
Mattingly, K. M. Sprinkle, and P. L. Wachendorf
Virginia Transportation Research Council
[see link for link to full report]
Abstract
"Red light running, which is defined as the act of a motorist entering
an intersection after the traffic signal has turned red, caused almost
5,000 crashes in Virginia in 2003, resulting in at least 18 deaths and
more than 3,800 injuries. In response to a June 2, 2004, directive from
Virginia Secretary of Transportation Whittington W. Clement, an
evaluation of the photo-red enforcement programs that operate in
Virginia was undertaken".
"Generally, Virginia’s photo-red programs are technically feasible.
Case law strongly indicates that the programs pass legal muster in the
three key areas: privacy, equal protection, and due process, and public
opinion surveys suggest that roughly two thirds of respondents support
red light cameras. There is, however, a practical issue with regard to
issuing citations for out-of-state motorists, as noted in the report.
Although an economic analysis was not feasible in the study time frame,
a limited fiscal analysis suggests that, in general, Virginia localities
are not generating net revenue".
"Finally, an operational analysis based on violations and crashes shows
a potential but not definite safety improvement. The cameras clearly
affect driver behavior: across the 23 intersections where reliable
citation data could be obtained, citations decreased by an average of 21
percent per intersection. Further the data show that the cameras are
correlated with a definite decrease in crashes that are directly
attributable to red light running, a definite increase in rear-end
crashes, a possible decrease in angle crashes, a net decrease in injury
crashes attributable to red light running, and an increase in total
injury crashes. More time is needed to determine whether the severity
of the eliminated red light running crashes was greater than that of the
induced rear-end crashes".
"The report recommends that Virginia’s photo-red enforcement programs be
continued for an additional year to resolve this question and to collect
additional data that was not feasible during the 6-month time frame of
this report".
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Nate Nagel
> "N8N" <njn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Red light runners are killers and maimers but Virginia wants them to go
>>>free.
>>>
>>>http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=52932
>>
>>Did you READ the article and UNDERSTAND it, you idiot? The state of VA
>>had very good reasons for doing what they did, and I applaud their
>>decision.
>
>
> The Virginia Transportation Research Council (VRTC) was commissioned to
> do the study, by the state secretary of transportation, in order to
> provide input to the General Assembly's 2005 session which ran from
> mid-January to mid-February, because the 10-year legislation for a pilot
> for red light cameras started in 1995 and would terminate on July 1,
> 2005, unless the General Assembly passed new legislation to extend the
> authorization for RLC usage.
Scott,
I appreciate the additional info, but you realize that this kinda falls
under the category of "pearls before swine" do you not? Or have you not
read any of "LBMHBF" aka Judy's posts before? She ain't gonne read it
nor give a crap, just keep driving her old clunker with $100-for-four
Pep Boys "tars" and non-functional parking brake in the passing lane at
exactly 55 MPH until someone finally gets pissed off enough to PIT her
into the Big Jersey Barrier In The Sky. And, of course, rant about
"criminal coddling" despite the fact that she could neither pass a
decent driver's test nor get her POS through any rudimentary safety
inspection.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
Scott M. Kozel
I wasn't thinking of trying to change Judy's static worldview when I
posted it... it was for the benefit of the whole readership.
L Sternn
>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:42:33 GMT, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>Why not actually train people how to driver properly and then see the
>>accidents really fall off even though some people are driving 100mph+.
>>
>>Like, for instance, in Germany.
>
>Well... because...
>
>Lotsa people here could _never_ pass the test.
That would be an improvement.
> That would mean that they'd be
>economically crippled because they would be unable to hold the job they're
>capable of doing, but would have to accept a job just because it was within
>walking distance or bicycling distance.
No, that would simply mean a boon for the transportation industry.
Maybe it would even eliminate the need for public transportation.
That would be a good thing.
>
>If you believe all the writings here and elsewhere, it is _not_ necessary to
>drive in Europe because of the outstanding public transport they have. We
>(USA) have crappy public transport almost everywhere. People without licenses
>are _screwed_, big time.
>
But because these idiots have licenses, we're ALL screwed, big time.
Jim Yanik
news:rfj851lf150k2pksv...@4ax.com:
IOW,RLCs trade an occasional T-bone crash for a lot of rear-end crashes.B-)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Jim Yanik
news:SyY4e.337$L64.108@okepread07:
>
><someda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1112819517.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> It also states that the cameras caused or reduced certain types of
>> crashes. I don't see how they did this unless they were swinging
>> into the intersections and distracting drivers on cell phones.
>
> In my view, it's quite simple. The sight of the camera by a driver
> changes the driver's habits. I am much more likely to slam on my
> brakes when deciding whether or not I should stop when I see a light
> turn yellow at a nearby intersection, regardless of whether or not
> it's safe to do such (this in Fairfax County, which the article
> mentions).
Yes,you cannot depend on the duration of the yellow to be constant or even
set to proper specs.It would be gambling to not stop on the yellow.
Xeton2001IsAM...@spamgourmet.com
John Harlow
> LAST YEAR legislators in Virginia did something every member of the
> New Hampshire House should carefully consider today. They ended
> Virginia's 10-year experiment with red-light cameras. They did it for
> two reasons: safety and civil rights.
Jesus h christ in a chicken basket - Virgina did something RIGHT for a
change?
Something is fishy about this...
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> IOW,RLCs trade an occasional T-bone crash for a lot of rear-end
crashes.B-)
That's what they're claiming and it's crazy. If the guy in the lead
thinks it's too late to continue thru the intersection, then it is
certainly too late for the dood BEHIND him.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Red light runners are killers and maimers. Why do you want them to
avoid apprehension? Are you a criminal coddler.
Magnulus
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112850236....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > That's what they're claiming and it's crazy. If the guy in the lead
> thinks it's too late to continue thru the intersection, then it is
> certainly too late for the dood BEHIND him.
>
The real culprit here is tailgating, not redlight cameras. Tailgating is
illegal in many states, but its hard to enforce, I suppose.
Magnulus
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
news:Xns9630D5D51A8...@129.250.170.86...
> Yes,you cannot depend on the duration of the yellow to be constant or even
> set to proper specs.It would be gambling to not stop on the yellow.
>
I always stop on a yellow. If it turns yellow while I'm driving through
the intersection, that's different- keep going. If the driver behind me
doesn't like it, that's their problem.
People are confused into thinking a yellow light gives them permission to
enter an intersection. Yellow is not green.
Magnulus
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-9DCA3...@news.telus.net...
> Sorry, but I don't buy it.
There is some truth to it. Driving is such a necessity in the US, and
public transportation so poor, that forcing many people to use other means
of transportation would be a burden. In Europe, driving is more an option,
a luxury for many people (although very useful in some situations). In the
US, taking away an elderly persons keys is a big deal, with alot of
emotional and even political baggage. IMO, we have our national priorities
wrong (private automobile vs. public transportation), but that's another
story.
When the automobile started out, it was mostly a toy for the wealthy and
a way for farmers to haul goods- I suppose there was some small utility for
point-to-point travel, too. It was only after motor companies went around
buying up interurban lines and trolleys in the US, and destroying them, and
mass transit denounced as a "socialist plot", that automobile demand took
off (ie, create a false demand, then sell a product to meet that false
demand). Even in the 50's many cities had trolley lines, and many people
took the trolley even if they had a car (often they had only one car). I
suspect Europe went a different route because two world wars got them used
to energy instability- that and many European cities are rather
car-unfriendly (many towns in the UK when I lived there, the best strategy
was to drive into town, park the car in a carpark and walk around town).
I'd argue, though, that its still not a good excuse. Driving is a
privelege, not a right, no matter how dependent our society has become on
that illusion.
>
> Driving properly isn't so hard that it can't be learned, but we (the US
> and Canada) don't bother to *teach* it.
>
> There's no set training curriculum; just a test which hardly covers
> anything other than "can you keep it pointed in the right direction?".
I agree. The driving test I took in Florida was a joke- it didn't even
involve any traffic, real or simulated. Its scary to think there are folks
out there on the road who took this "test" (a closed circuit course- all I
had to do was demonstrate my card had working lights, that I knew how to do
a 3-point turn, park between some cones, stop at a stop sign, and knew how
to use my signals and apply the brakes hard). Perhaps they were worried
about liability, so they did the closed circuit course that was dead simple.
But it seems to me, they could rig up a decent driving simulator, plop the
candidate behind the wheel, and have him drive around and demonstrate some
basic skills.
Magnulus
"Dave Head" <rall...@att.net> wrote in message
news:5bn851p3p7v35ak64...@4ax.com...
> This economy and this country's transportation system basically requires
> _everybody_ be able to drive. There's a big enough percentage, say 5 to
10
> percent probably, that'd never make it. These people would drag down the
> economy.
It's not uncommon for some people in some urban areas to not know how to
drive or have a license- New York, for instance. On a side note, the
average New Yorker walks 5 miles per day. The average American walks only
about 1 1/2 miles- many walk less than a mile total per day.
Nate Nagel
So are people who drive with defective equipment on their vehicles. So
stop driving or get your damned car fixed, you criminal.
Gogarty
xeto...@yahoo.com says...
>
>Red light runners are killers and maimers. Why do you want them to
>avoid apprehension? Are you a criminal coddler.
>
Why is it that to you anyone who protests overreaching state actions is a
criminal coddle? Is there no gray in your world?
Dave Head
Yeah, there are no absolutes, it seems. I said that public transport in the
USA sucks almost everywhere. NYC is the exception, maybe Chicago is another
exception.
But a guy living 20 miles out of town, like me, that can't get a license, is
neither going to be optimally employed nor will he be spending what he makes on
the kinds of things I can spend my money on now. If I couldn't drive, I'd
likely have to take a job at the Food Lion or the Subway, about 1 mile away,
for about 1/5th the $$$ I'm making now. Or, alternatively, I could maybe get a
bike and ride 34 miles round trip to work every day, which on these roads would
last maybe 5 years before some sleepy person hit me and the bike (the roads
have sharp curves and serious hills making for really sudden encounters)
resulting in either a disability retirement or a 1-way trip to the cemetary.
Of course people would say move closer to work, and I might be able to do that,
but that would put me about 35 miles from population centers where I could
spend the money I'd be able to make. I'd likely retire with a lot of savings,
but have a really, really boring life.
No, in _most_ places around the country, a person that can't drive is really
hosed.
Dave Head
Larry Bud
Because, the OP has been brainwashed.
The Etobian
<xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do it the old-fashioned way. First make sure the yellow lights are on
long enough to meet traffic safety standards, and then use cops to
patrol and where necessary, hand out tickets.
Larry Bud
To REDUCE the number of fucking crashes you moron.
Matthew Russotto
Magnulus <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
>news:Xns9630D5D51A8...@129.250.170.86...
>> Yes,you cannot depend on the duration of the yellow to be constant or even
>> set to proper specs.It would be gambling to not stop on the yellow.
>>
>
> I always stop on a yellow. If it turns yellow while I'm driving through
>the intersection, that's different- keep going. If the driver behind me
>doesn't like it, that's their problem.
When you get "KCAM" pressed into your back bumper, don't come crying
to us.
> People are confused into thinking a yellow light gives them permission to
>enter an intersection. Yellow is not green.
In most states, a yellow light DOES mean it is legal to enter the
intersection. Stopping on yellow when you can know you can make it
through is just wasting your time and that of everyone behind you.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Matthew Russotto
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>Most people are so wedded to their cars that they cannot even conceive
>of a lifestyle that doesn't involve getting into a car ANY time you
>want to go ANYwhere. The fact is, if 5% of the current driving
>population were to suddenly lose their licenses, there would be enough
>demand to not only make public transportation truly profitable (as it
>was 100 years ago) but you'd see the system expand.
Depends on which 5%. If it is the most likely 5% -- that is the most poor,
most clueless, and most incompetent -- no such effect would take place.
Magnulus
"Matthew Russotto" <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:QsydnYq93da...@speakeasy.net...
> In most states, a yellow light DOES mean it is legal to enter the
> intersection. Stopping on yellow when you can know you can make it
> through is just wasting your time and that of everyone behind you.
It is legal to enter an intersection on yellow, but not prudent.
I don't like running red lights, so I stop on yellow if I can. If I
can't, I drive through.
Magnulus
"Scott en Aztlán" <sloth...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:glia51d1pteld815k...@4ax.com...
>
> Most people are so wedded to their cars that they cannot even conceive
> of a lifestyle that doesn't involve getting into a car ANY time you
> want to go ANYwhere. The fact is, if 5% of the current driving
> population were to suddenly lose their licenses, there would be enough
> demand to not only make public transportation truly profitable (as it
> was 100 years ago) but you'd see the system expand.
There would be increased demand, but not necessarily enough to justify
the cost in a purely free-market system. Public transportation is often
not profitable. Subways often run at a loss. But subways contribute to an
urban areas liveability. See what I mean? Without a subway, a city like
NY would less liveable.
I think there should be a specific tax on diesel/gasoline to pay for
public transportation projects. But that's just my opinion.
Garth Almgren
<http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>>IOW,RLCs trade an occasional T-bone crash for a lot of rear-end crashes.B-)
>
> That's what they're claiming and it's crazy.
But true.
--
~/Garth
"I am patient with stupidity
but not with those who are proud of it." - Edith Sitwell
(Mail p...@v6stang.com for secure contact information)
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
It's nearly impossible to convict anyone of TGing unless an actual
crash occurs.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Nothing wrong with my car and besides, when you drive slow and careful
it doesn't matter.
zzbunker
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 02:37:33 -0400, "Magnulus" <magn...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>This economy and this country's transportation system basically requires
>>>_everybody_ be able to drive. There's a big enough percentage, say 5 to 10
>>>percent probably, that'd never make it. These people would drag down the
>>>economy.
>>
>> It's not uncommon for some people in some urban areas to not know how to
>>drive or have a license- New York, for instance.
>
>
> My grandmother NEVER learned how to drive. She contributed to the
> economy via public transportation for 40+ years (she worked in an
> office at the state capital in St. Paul). When she would take me
> shopping downtown at Daytons, we'd take the bus to get there and back.
> Most people are so wedded to their cars that they cannot even conceive
> of a lifestyle that doesn't involve getting into a car ANY time you
> want to go ANYwhere. The fact is, if 5% of the current driving
> population were to suddenly lose their licenses, there would be enough
> demand to not only make public transportation truly profitable (as it
> was 100 years ago) but you'd see the system expand. The net effect on
> the economy would be POSITIVE, because suddenly all the people who
> cannot (or choose not to) drive today would have usable alternatives.
But what your grandmother didn't know is that no public
transportion is profitable. Since buses are a tiny part of
the overfall tranportion budget. Since the governments
figured out long ago that the profitable part of
public transporation is condeming public housing and
building highways where houses used to be.
Which is why all state capitols like St Paul where abandoned
to Lawyers 100 years ago, where the idiots could have privacy
in their graft. And the Federal goverment hence formed the FBI
to make sure that idiots in state capitols like St Paul got taxed
twice for their brilliant bus plans. Once for cheep army
lead paint on the road signs, and once for reboiled navy tar.
> And society would benefit immeasurably: less traffic congestion, fewer
> incompetents on the roads, and no more Russell Weller incidents caused
> by elderly drivers who continue to drive past their expiration dates
> because they have no good alternatives.
>
> Elect me president and I'll make it happen. :)
>
Garth Almgren
<http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>>Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea) <http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote:
>>
>>>Red light runners are killers and maimers. Why do you want them to
>>>avoid apprehension? Are you a criminal coddler.
>>>
>>
>>So are people who drive with defective equipment on their vehicles. So
>>stop driving or get your damned car fixed, you criminal.
>
>
> Nothing wrong with my car
So, your parking brake magically fixed itself, did it?
> and besides, when you drive slow and careful it doesn't matter.
Sayz the troll who admitted to getting a ticket for 41 in a school zone,
defective brakes, crappy goo-filled "tars," and all. I can just
imagine the headlines when you finally mow down a crosswalk full of
children.
L Sternn
>On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 02:37:33 -0400, "Magnulus" <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dave Head" <rall...@att.net> wrote in message
>>news:5bn851p3p7v35ak64...@4ax.com...
>>> This economy and this country's transportation system basically requires
>>> _everybody_ be able to drive. There's a big enough percentage, say 5 to
>>10
>>> percent probably, that'd never make it. These people would drag down the
>>> economy.
>>
>> It's not uncommon for some people in some urban areas to not know how to
>>drive or have a license- New York, for instance. On a side note, the
>>average New Yorker walks 5 miles per day. The average American walks only
>>about 1 1/2 miles- many walk less than a mile total per day.
>
>
>Yeah, there are no absolutes, it seems. I said that public transport in the
>USA sucks almost everywhere. NYC is the exception, maybe Chicago is another
>exception.
>
>But a guy living 20 miles out of town, like me, that can't get a license, is
>neither going to be optimally employed nor will he be spending what he makes on
>the kinds of things I can spend my money on now. If I couldn't drive, I'd
>likely have to take a job at the Food Lion or the Subway, about 1 mile away,
If you are too stupid to pass an improved driving test, then perhaps
all you're good for is being a "sandwich artist" or a bag boy.
Matthew Russotto
Magnulus <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"Matthew Russotto" <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:QsydnYq93da...@speakeasy.net...
>> In most states, a yellow light DOES mean it is legal to enter the
>> intersection. Stopping on yellow when you can know you can make it
>> through is just wasting your time and that of everyone behind you.
>
> It is legal to enter an intersection on yellow, but not prudent.
It's both legal and often prudent.
> I don't like running red lights, so I stop on yellow if I can. If I
>can't, I drive through.
In some states and in Canada, that's required. In other states,
you're wasting everyone's time.
Furious George
They should just beat the shit out of the red light running assholes
and then confiscate their cars. Sending them a fine in the mail is too
easy.
John Harlow
> all you're good for is being a "sandwich artist" or a bag boy.
Don't you mean "nourishment configuration engineer" or "strategic
transportation containment system placement professional"?
L Sternn
I don't know about the latter, but Subway really does call their
employees "sandwich artists" - or maybe that's just the really good
ones. I've only seen it on a few of them.
Dave Head
>On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:34:00 GMT, Dave Head <rall...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 02:37:33 -0400, "Magnulus" <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Dave Head" <rall...@att.net> wrote in message
>>>news:5bn851p3p7v35ak64...@4ax.com...
>>>> This economy and this country's transportation system basically requires
>>>> _everybody_ be able to drive. There's a big enough percentage, say 5 to
>>>10
>>>> percent probably, that'd never make it. These people would drag down the
>>>> economy.
>>>
>>> It's not uncommon for some people in some urban areas to not know how to
>>>drive or have a license- New York, for instance. On a side note, the
>>>average New Yorker walks 5 miles per day. The average American walks only
>>>about 1 1/2 miles- many walk less than a mile total per day.
>>
>>
>>Yeah, there are no absolutes, it seems. I said that public transport in the
>>USA sucks almost everywhere. NYC is the exception, maybe Chicago is another
>>exception.
>>
>>But a guy living 20 miles out of town, like me, that can't get a license, is
>>neither going to be optimally employed nor will he be spending what he makes on
>>the kinds of things I can spend my money on now. If I couldn't drive, I'd
>>likely have to take a job at the Food Lion or the Subway, about 1 mile away,
>
>If you are too stupid to pass an improved driving test, then perhaps
>all you're good for is being a "sandwich artist" or a bag boy.
Well, I'm not, but I understand there are lotsa Europeans that can't pass their
own country's tests and therefore have to take their public transportation.
If it can happen there, it can happen here. Having it happening her wouold be
the road to an economic distruption.
Dave Head
>>
>>Dave Head
Alan Baker
Dave Head <rall...@att.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:33:02 GMT, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <75k851havbgagqli1...@4ax.com>,
> > Dave Head <rall...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:42:33 GMT, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why not actually train people how to driver properly and then see the
> >> >accidents really fall off even though some people are driving 100mph+.
> >> >
> >> >Like, for instance, in Germany.
> >>
> >> Well... because...
> >>
> >> Lotsa people here could _never_ pass the test. That would mean that
> >> they'd be
> >> economically crippled because they would be unable to hold the job they're
> >> capable of doing, but would have to accept a job just because it was
> >> within
> >> walking distance or bicycling distance.
> >>
> >> If you believe all the writings here and elsewhere, it is _not_ necessary
> >> to
> >> drive in Europe because of the outstanding public transport they have. We
> >> (USA) have crappy public transport almost everywhere. People without
> >> licenses
> >> are _screwed_, big time.
> >>
> >> That's why.
> >
> >Sorry, but I don't buy it.
> >
> >Driving properly isn't so hard that it can't be learned, but we (the US
> >and Canada) don't bother to *teach* it.
>
> Again, from my understanding from what has been written here, there's lots of
> _Germans_ and other Europeans that _don't_ have driver's licenses exactly
> because of the stiff requirements for getting them. IOW, they can't and
> never
> will be able to pass the test. I've known people that would fit this
> category
> if such licensing standards were applied here.
>
> This economy and this country's transportation system basically requires
> _everybody_ be able to drive. There's a big enough percentage, say 5 to 10
> percent probably, that'd never make it. These people would drag down the
> economy.
Your premise is faulty. *Some* would undoubtedly never pass the driving
test, but relatively few. The problem isn't that people are unable to
driver properly, it's that it has never been *expected* of them.
As for those who couldn't pass a proper test, do you really think they
should be on the road?
>
> >There's no set training curriculum; just a test which hardly covers
> >anything other than "can you keep it pointed in the right direction?".
>
> Yeah, here in the USA. Introduce the European standards, with all the
> minutia
> such as "did you look in the rearview before braking" and they would fail the
> test, time after time, when forgetting many instances of trivialities such as
> this. There's lotsa people here that _just barely_ pass the USA tests as
> they
> are - introduce even 1 more level of difficulty and these guys are walking.
Good, if they can't pass after being given adequate instruction. I
really don't want to have people on the roads who don't know that they
should no what's behind them before braking.
>
> It would just never work here - at least until we have a viable alternative
> (which is not trains, buses, etc. in this country due to our vast land mass
> that must be serviced) for these people to get around and make money / spend
> money just like everybody else, and therefore contribute to the economy.
> Even
> a guy that can get to work on a bus, and doesn't have a license, is likely to
> be prevented from touring the Grand Canyon or millions of other attractions,
> 'cuz there's no (economical) public transport to it, and therefore impact
> the
> travel and recreation industries.
>
> Dave Head
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Alan Baker
Dave Head <rall...@att.net> wrote:
From whence does this "understanding" spring? References, pleases.
>
> If it can happen there, it can happen here. Having it happening her wouold
> be
> the road to an economic distruption.
>
> Dave Head
> >>
> >>Dave Head
--
Magnulus
> > It is legal to enter an intersection on yellow, but not prudent.
>
> It's both legal and often prudent.
>
It's not prudent, it's fucking unsafe. The whole point of a yellow light
is to warn you that its about to turn red. To create a buffer in time
between traffic. Or don't you get it? So what if it takes a minute or two
off your life- maybe it won't take 50 years off somebody else's.
Magnulus
> It's nearly impossible to convict anyone of TGing unless an actual
> crash occurs.
>
Tailgating is not a criminal violation. You need to be careful when you
use the word "convict". The US has criminal and civil codes that have
different penalties. Running a red light, jaywalking, or tailgating is a
civil offense, driving while drunk or excessive speeding (ie, going 40 mph
over the speed limit) is a criminal offense.
Alan Baker
"Magnulus" <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
What if I am in a sports car and driving behind me is a fully loaded
cement truck; following too closely. Would it be prudent for me to stop
when a light turns yellow even though the truck would rear-end me?
Furious George
No dumbass:
yellow means hurry up,
red means proceed with caution, and
green means stop because all of the mothafucking red light runners.
Alan Baker
L Sternn <linc...@hm.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:01:08 GMT, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <XCk5e.31839$vL3....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Magnulus" <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Matthew Russotto" <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> >> news:9uudnc20k-X...@speakeasy.net...
> >> > > It is legal to enter an intersection on yellow, but not prudent.
> >> >
> >> > It's both legal and often prudent.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It's not prudent, it's fucking unsafe. The whole point of a yellow light
> >> is to warn you that its about to turn red. To create a buffer in time
> >> between traffic. Or don't you get it? So what if it takes a minute or two
> >> off your life- maybe it won't take 50 years off somebody else's.
> >
> >What if I am in a sports car and driving behind me is a fully loaded
> >cement truck; following too closely. Would it be prudent for me to stop
> >when a light turns yellow even though the truck would rear-end me?
>
>
> The way it was explained to me was that it means stop IF it is safe to
> do so. It would not be safe in the situation you describe, nor would
> it be safe to try to stop if you're only 10 feet away from the light
> and going 40 when it turned yellow.
Which is why I took issue with the previous poster's claim that it
wasn't prudent to enter an intersection on a yellow. Glad you agree.
Dave Head
Relatively few could be 5%. 5% that couldn't drive would drag down the economy
for the rest of us. Since we have a better economy the way it is, I guess I'd
like it to stay the way it is.
>
>As for those who couldn't pass a proper test, do you really think they
>should be on the road?
>
>>
>> >There's no set training curriculum; just a test which hardly covers
>> >anything other than "can you keep it pointed in the right direction?".
>>
>> Yeah, here in the USA. Introduce the European standards, with all the
>> minutia
>> such as "did you look in the rearview before braking" and they would fail the
>> test, time after time, when forgetting many instances of trivialities such as
>> this. There's lotsa people here that _just barely_ pass the USA tests as
>> they
>> are - introduce even 1 more level of difficulty and these guys are walking.
>
>Good, if they can't pass after being given adequate instruction. I
>really don't want to have people on the roads who don't know that they
>should no what's behind them before braking.
While this sounds "just", the bottom line is still the bottom line, and that
bottom line is an adverse economic impact for all of us. The Europeans can get
away with this sort of standard 'cuz of their great public transport. We
can't. And there's just too damn big of a land mass to build one that works
well in this country (unless maybe we went _all out_ and _completely_ replaced
driving with public transport...)
Dave Head
Dave Head
Many mentions of this "fact" here on usenet over many years. I couldn't find
'em if I wanted to..
Dave Head
L Sternn
>>Good, if they can't pass after being given adequate instruction. I
>>really don't want to have people on the roads who don't know that they
>>should no what's behind them before braking.
>
>While this sounds "just", the bottom line is still the bottom line, and that
>bottom line is an adverse economic impact for all of us. The Europeans can get
>away with this sort of standard 'cuz of their great public transport. We
>can't. And there's just too damn big of a land mass to build one that works
>well in this country (unless maybe we went _all out_ and _completely_ replaced
>driving with public transport...)
>
land mass, my ass. We don't need public transportation from NY to
LA. People who can't get licenses will work where they live or will
use other means of transportation, including car-pooling.
>Dave Head
Alan Baker
Alan Baker
Dave Head <rall...@att.net> wrote:
Might less people being injured and dying on our highways not have a
positive effect on the economy?
Sorry. You can't even substantiate your numbers nor the effect of those
numbers.
I *can* substantiate that better driver training results in fewer
accidents *and* with a concomitant raising of speed limits, less time
spent in traveling the highways. Both of which would have a *positive*
effect on the economy.
Dave Head
But
its
not
just
about
working!!!!
Its also about spending. If they can't move around like they can now, then
they essentially become economic slaves to work, and _don't_ spend like they
otherwise would on fun stuff, which is _still_ an economic impact.
Dave Head
Dave Head
Sure. We can do all kinds of extreme stuff to save lives, including
ridiculously low speed limits and the like. I don't wanna. You wanna? I
think you're in the minority, if so.
They would as long as _everybody_ gets a license, and no large pool of economic
cripples who can't legally drive is created. (Large pool == 2% more people
that can't drive - it calculates to a _lot_ of people when you take into
account the millions that _can_ drive _now_.)
Training would be nice (but you can't get people to take it) as long as it
doesn't screw up people's lives (by depriving them of their freedom.)
Dave Head
L Sternn
They'll learn to shop online and brick-and-mortar stores will offer
them rides. In fact, I recently saw a grocery store that would give
you a ride home free just for shopping there.
You still gotta get there yourself, but even handing out licenses like
candy business is already willing to help out with that.
Increase bus fares and allow poor people to apply for the 'poverty
pass' or something. Fewer drivers means higher demand and smaller
supply of cab drivers, so cab fares will increase too even further
driving the economy.
Private bus services might even crop up. You wanna go to the Grand
Canyon? Well, we'll take you there. Actually, I'm fairly certain
they already will take you there. They'll even fly you in from Japan,
I bet.
>Dave Head
ill
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 02:37:33 -0400, "Magnulus" <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Dave Head" <rall...@att.net> wrote in message
>>news:5bn851p3p7v35ak64...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>_everybody_ be able to drive. There's a big enough percentage, say 5 to
>>
>>10
>>
>>>percent probably, that'd never make it. These people would drag down the
>>>economy.
>>
>>drive or have a license- New York, for instance. On a side note, the
>>average New Yorker walks 5 miles per day. The average American walks only
>>about 1 1/2 miles- many walk less than a mile total per day.
>
>
>
> Yeah, there are no absolutes, it seems. I said that public transport in the
> USA sucks almost everywhere. NYC is the exception, maybe Chicago is another
> exception.
>
That's going to be any old East Coast City...DC, Baltimore, Boston,
Philly, Pittsburgh, ...
It's the newer Western and Southern Cities (Minus Portland, San Fran,
and Seattle) that will always face traffic problems. They laid their
cities out with the Automobile in mind.
ill
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:42:31 -0400, zzbunker <jimhu...@comcast.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> But what your grandmother didn't know is that no public
>> transportion is profitable.
>
>
> Irrelevant - roads are not profitable, either.
>
> And that's OK - transportation infrastructure need not be profitable
> in order to have benefits for society.
>
It's nice to know that everyone overlooks the energy wasted by everyone
having their own cars...by sheer physics, mass transit is more efficient.
Oil's not going to last forever. GM already showed their inclination to
electric by crushing all of the EV-1's (even though the owners begged
then not too.)
Pollution aslo causes massive losses via the Healthcare industry. More
Cars=More Pollution=Economic Loss due to illness.
Imagine the air in Houston without the car and truck traffic. It would
have a drastic impact on the city's quality of life.
Magnulus
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-B315F...@news.telus.net...
> Which is why I took issue with the previous poster's claim that it
> wasn't prudent to enter an intersection on a yellow. Glad you agree.
In general you shouldn't enter an intersection on a yellow if you can
avoid it. If you are a couple seconds away from a yellow light, you
should stop if possible. If the light turns yellow just as you are crossing
into the intersection, you should keep driving. Red means "do not enter".
And the cement truck tailgating you is violating the law. A cement truck
should have a couple seconds behind you- it takes a truck longer to stop, so
3-4 seconds seperation.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Gogarty wrote:
> In article <1112850319.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> xeto...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >
> >Red light runners are killers and maimers. Why do you want them to
> >avoid apprehension? Are you a criminal coddler.
> >
is a
> criminal coddle?
So you think red light running should be legal??? URANUT
Robert Briggs
Dave Head wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > Dave Head wrote:
> > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > *Some* would undoubtedly never pass the driving test, but
> > > > relatively few.
I would say that *very few* reasonably able-bodied people are simply
*incapable* of passing a driving test such as the UK's.
Heck, even Maureen of "Driving School" fame *eventually* passed her
test; and holding a full licence was a *prerequisite* of getting on
Quentin Willson's "Britain's Worst Driver" series.
Some of the stuff in both programmes would have been well-nigh
incredible had the cameras not been rolling ...
> > > Relatively few could be 5%. 5% that couldn't drive would
> > > drag down the economy for the rest of us.
> > Might less people being injured and dying on our highways not
> > have a positive effect on the economy?
>
> Sure. We can do all kinds of extreme stuff to save lives,
> including ridiculously low speed limits and the like.
If you include something akin to the UK's driving test in "all kinds
of extreme stuff" then I have to question your notion of "extreme".
> > > The Europeans can get away with this sort of standard 'cuz of
> > > their great public transport.
Splorf!
There are plenty of places in Europe without great public transport.
British Snail and its successor companies have been a joke for many
a long year; ditto the multifarious bus companies.
Some time back, $EMPLOYER hired some coaches for a morning's do at a
conference centre. I decided to take the afternoon off and go by car
as the meeting was about half way to somewhere else I wanted to go.
By all reports of the state of those coaches, boy, did I do the right
thing!
Okay, *some* parts of our public transport system are okay most of the
time; but the system as a whole is *very* far gone from universally
"great".
> > I *can* substantiate that better driver training results in fewer
> > accidents *and* with a concomitant raising of speed limits, less
> > time spent in traveling the highways. Both of which would have a
> > *positive* effect on the economy.
It wouldn't have a positive effect on *all* parts of the economy, if
only because there would be less need for auto repairers and the like.
That said, the less you have to spend on fixing the car the more you
have left to spend on other things.
> They would as long as _everybody_ gets a license, and no large pool
> of economic cripples who can't legally drive is created.
It actually costs quite a lot to run a car, even with the low price of
petrol in the US.
> Training would be nice (but you can't get people to take it) as long
> as it doesn't screw up people's lives (by depriving them of their
> freedom.)
IMNSHO, training should be *mandatory* for all new drivers. It need
not be particularly formal (I learnt primarily by driving my father,
who was a rural general practitioner, on his rounds for a few months
and had one lesson with a driving instructor), but there *should* be
a decent test at the end of it.
It is perhaps not politically acceptable to make a proper driving test
mandatory for existing fully-licenced drivers (my father, for example,
started driving before tests were introduced), but it *should* be
required before anyone who is disqualified from driving by the courts
is fully relicenced (and training and a test could be permitted *once*
as an alternative to a short-term disqualification).
Jim Yanik
news:90nb51temf86i45qt...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:01:08 GMT, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <XCk5e.31839$vL3....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
>> "Magnulus" <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Matthew Russotto" <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:9uudnc20k-X...@speakeasy.net...
>>> > > It is legal to enter an intersection on yellow, but not
>>> > > prudent.
>>> >
>>> > It's both legal and often prudent.
>>> >
>>>
>>> It's not prudent, it's fucking unsafe. The whole point of a
>>> yellow light
>>> is to warn you that its about to turn red. To create a buffer in
>>> time between traffic. Or don't you get it? So what if it takes a
>>> minute or two off your life- maybe it won't take 50 years off
>>> somebody else's.
>>
>>What if I am in a sports car and driving behind me is a fully loaded
>>cement truck; following too closely. Would it be prudent for me to
>>stop when a light turns yellow even though the truck would rear-end
>>me?
>
>
> The way it was explained to me was that it means stop IF it is safe to
> do so. It would not be safe in the situation you describe, nor would
> it be safe to try to stop if you're only 10 feet away from the light
> and going 40 when it turned yellow.
>
I believe that to be "running a red light",your front wheels have to be
behind the thick white stop line when the light is RED.But if your front
wheel is -past- the stop line while still yellow,then you have not run the
red light even if it changes to red while you are in the intersection.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Matthew Russotto
>news:9uudnc20k-X...@speakeasy.net...
>> > It is legal to enter an intersection on yellow, but not prudent.
>>
>> It's both legal and often prudent.
>>
>
> It's not prudent, it's fucking unsafe. The whole point of a yellow light
>is to warn you that its about to turn red.
That's right. But in many cases it is perfectly prudent to react to
that warning with something like "OK, thanks for the warning, but I've
got plenty of time to get through".
>To create a buffer in time between traffic.
Not really, no.
>Or don't you get it? So what if it takes a minute or two
>off your life- maybe it won't take 50 years off somebody else's.
Unless you quantify the probabilities involved, there's no way of
saying which makes more sense; you're just engaging in hysterics.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Matthew Russotto
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:35:57 -0500, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>The fact is, if 5% of the current driving
>>>population were to suddenly lose their licenses, there would be enough
>>>demand to not only make public transportation truly profitable (as it
>>>was 100 years ago) but you'd see the system expand.
>>
>>Depends on which 5%. If it is the most likely 5% -- that is the most poor,
>>most clueless, and most incompetent -- no such effect would take place.
>
>I'm assuming a random cross-section of the driving population.
Wouldn't happen that way.
N E One
Yeah, right - maybe if you close down the refineries too.
ill
Less Cars means less refineries...
N E One
>> The way it was explained to me was that it means stop IF it is safe to
>> do so. It would not be safe in the situation you describe, nor would
>> it be safe to try to stop if you're only 10 feet away from the light
>> and going 40 when it turned yellow.
>>
>
>I believe that to be "running a red light",your front wheels have to be
>behind the thick white stop line when the light is RED.But if your front
>wheel is -past- the stop line while still yellow,then you have not run the
>red light even if it changes to red while you are in the intersection.
I've heard that, and I've also heard that if your car is still in the
intersection at the same time the light is red, then you've run it.
It could be a variation in state laws. I know I've been ticketed
when I was definitely IN the intersection before the light turned red.
In fact, I even remember looking up as I passed under the light and it
was still not red, so if I was in the intersectin while the light was
red, it was only after everything forward of my windshield had already
exitted the intersection.
I felt it was a bogus ticket and there is NO way the cop could have
even seen the light he gave me a ticket for running. He failed to
appear in court and the case was dismissed.
Now, he could have legitimately written me a ticket for speeding as
I'm sure I was over the speed limit, but he
Alan Baker
"Magnulus" <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-B315F...@news.telus.net...
> > Which is why I took issue with the previous poster's claim that it
> > wasn't prudent to enter an intersection on a yellow. Glad you agree.
>
> In general you shouldn't enter an intersection on a yellow if you can
> avoid it. If you are a couple seconds away from a yellow light, you
> should stop if possible. If the light turns yellow just as you are crossing
> into the intersection, you should keep driving. Red means "do not enter".
No one is arguing with any of that. But it means that there are times
when it is not only prudent, but also legal to enter an intersection
after the light has turned yellow. That is the *purpose* of the yellow
light, after all.
>
> And the cement truck tailgating you is violating the law. A cement truck
> should have a couple seconds behind you- it takes a truck longer to stop, so
> 3-4 seconds seperation.
Duh. Whatever. It was just an extreme example to get your attention.
Robert Briggs
> It could be a variation in state laws. I know I've been ticketed
> when I was definitely IN the intersection before the light turned red.
Here in the UK, an amber light is a *qualified* STOP: you may enter an
intersection on amber if attempting to stop would be likely to cause an
accident.
A guy who runs a late amber when he is not being tailgated almost
certainly *is* committing an offence, but is very unlikely to be stopped
for it unless, for instance, he is behind a cop when the amber light
comes on and the cop stops for the light but the other guy doesn't.
> In fact, I even remember looking up as I passed under the light and it
> was still not red, so if I was in the intersectin while the light was
> red, it was only after everything forward of my windshield had already
> exitted the intersection.
That (as described) is not the outright offence of crossing a red light.
If the amber phase is properly set then, depending on the particular
junction and how close anyone on your tail was, it seems to be marginal
in terms of crossing a late amber: I very rarely see the red at all
except when I know full well that my own car would have stopped behind
the line but someone behind me has caused me to invoke the "likely to
cause an accident" exception to the basic amber STOP rule (and in such
cases, all too often I am followed through by two or three vehicles,
which justifies my decision to proceed).
A former colleague got himself rear-ended two or three times in about as
many months by stopping for amber lights when he had someone on his
tail. Strictly speaking, if he could stop behind the line then the next
chap should certainly be able to do so, so AFAICMO it was the other
guy's fault each time, although my colleague could almost certainly have
avoided each crash quite legally by invoking the exception and crossing
the amber.
Magnulus
"Scott en Aztlán" <sloth...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:hhub51pllf4c0ubgs...@4ax.com...
>
> But the fact remains that railroads were once extremely profitable
> operations.
True... but they were only really profitable at the time when cars were
nonexistant or a luxury for the rich- there was simply no other way to get
from city to city quickly. In the Depression, railroads took a big hit,
especially passenger railroads. Once cars came around, and interstate
highways got a huge subsidy, passenger rail became a nonprofit game.
They used to have interurbans running betwene cities (often called
"Doodlebugs", similar to railcars in Europe) and suburbs but after WWII they
pretty much died off because they were barely profitable before the war
(often the doodlebug also carried mail to smaller towns as well, helping to
bring in more revenue).
Now, US citizens will have to consider the nonmonetary value of
subsidizing mass transit. The value isn't dollars or cents, but intangibles
like having transportation for low income people (how is he going to flip
your burger if he can't get to work?), clearing up the roads of traffic,
reducing pollution and dependence on oil, and so on.
Magnulus
>
> Its also about spending. If they can't move around like they can now,
then
> they essentially become economic slaves to work, and _don't_ spend like
they
> otherwise would on fun stuff, which is _still_ an economic impact.
I've cut down on driving alot. For nonwork/nonbusiness stuff, I usually
just drive to stuff close to home. IF there's something I really need, I
order it off the net. Local stores rarely have the stuff I need. There's
only one really good computer store in town- the CompUSA and the Best Buy's
simply don't have the stuff to build a PC with, and their prices are high-
so no point driving out there.
I imagine mail-order/e-business will benefit from increased gas prices.
It will be cheaper to order stuff that to drive around looking for just the
right thing you need, wasting fuel. It's comming full circle. People used
to order alot of stuff out of the Sears Catalog- now we'll just do it online
instead.
Big Bill
>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:42:31 -0400, zzbunker <jimhu...@comcast.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But what your grandmother didn't know is that no public
>>> transportion is profitable.
>>
>>
>> Irrelevant - roads are not profitable, either.
>>
>> And that's OK - transportation infrastructure need not be profitable
>> in order to have benefits for society.
>>
>
>It's nice to know that everyone overlooks the energy wasted by everyone
>having their own cars...by sheer physics, mass transit is more efficient.
*IF* it could handle the traffic, it would be.
Something that doesn't exist can't be efficient.
Here in the US, we simply don't have any cities with mass transit that
can replace cars.
>
>Oil's not going to last forever. GM already showed their inclination to
>electric by crushing all of the EV-1's (even though the owners begged
>then not too.)
A misrepresentation of the facts.
Yes,the EV-1s were scrapped, with good reason (if you read about the
scrapping, you also read the reasons for it).
You also know (at least I would hope you do) that GM is also working
on other, much more economical and efficient alternatives, as are most
large auto makers.
GM's scrapping of the EV-1s is not an indiocation of GM's inclination
towards alternative (including electric) fuel sources at all.
>
>Pollution aslo causes massive losses via the Healthcare industry. More
>Cars=More Pollution=Economic Loss due to illness.
>
>Imagine the air in Houston without the car and truck traffic. It would
>have a drastic impact on the city's quality of life.
Imagine Houston without car and truck traffic. How would people and
goods get around?
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Alan Baker
Dave Head <rall...@att.net> wrote:
None of this is a sufficient justification for letting people who don't
know how to drive safely drive. Period.
Alan Baker
Dave Head <rall...@att.net> wrote:
The idea that drivers should be qualified to drive is "extreme" to you,
is it?
I think that demanding the drivers be qualified would be good for the
economy: you could raise limits *and* have fewer accidents.
As for those who couldn't qualify: do you really want them on the road?
You've yet to prove it would *be* a large pool.
>
> Training would be nice (but you can't get people to take it) as long as it
> doesn't screw up people's lives (by depriving them of their freedom.)
When a bad driver causes an accident and kills someone else, that's a
pretty large deprivation of the deceased's freedom.
Nate Nagel
Doesn't need to be proven. A simple drive down any American road should
be sufficient. I'd say at least 50% of the drivers on the road
*wouldn't* pass a decent driving test, judging by their behavior. Now
how many of those *can* improve and how many are simply uneducable is up
for discussion.
>
>
>>Training would be nice (but you can't get people to take it) as long as it
>>doesn't screw up people's lives (by depriving them of their freedom.)
>
>
> When a bad driver causes an accident and kills someone else, that's a
> pretty large deprivation of the deceased's freedom.
>
This is true. However, there would be a significant effect on the
economy if drivers' standards were tightened, which is why it isn't
going to happen. either a lot of money would be spent on re-education
(likely a misnomer, as it would be the first time a lot of people
learned some pretty basic stuff, like lane discipline, 4-way stop rules,
what to do at a nonfunctional signal, etc.) or else a lot of people
would have less money to spend due to the loss of their licenses.
I honestly don't think there's enough truly *good* drivers that having
your buddy help you cram for the exam would be a workable solution.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
Alan Baker
Nate Nagel <njn...@flycast.net> wrote:
Sure it needs to be proven, since he's trying to claim that there would
be an inevitable economic downturn from those who *couldn't* pass...
...ever.
>
> >
> >
> >>Training would be nice (but you can't get people to take it) as long as it
> >>doesn't screw up people's lives (by depriving them of their freedom.)
> >
> >
> > When a bad driver causes an accident and kills someone else, that's a
> > pretty large deprivation of the deceased's freedom.
> >
>
> This is true. However, there would be a significant effect on the
> economy if drivers' standards were tightened, which is why it isn't
> going to happen. either a lot of money would be spent on re-education
> (likely a misnomer, as it would be the first time a lot of people
> learned some pretty basic stuff, like lane discipline, 4-way stop rules,
> what to do at a nonfunctional signal, etc.) or else a lot of people
> would have less money to spend due to the loss of their licenses.
>
> I honestly don't think there's enough truly *good* drivers that having
> your buddy help you cram for the exam would be a workable solution.
I'm sorry, but I am unwilling to accept that we shouldn't demand decent
driving standards because of economics.
Nate Nagel
I don't accept that either, but the truth is that since the bad drivers
are at least equal to the good drivers, if not actually a majority, it
isn't politically feasable, so really all in all it's not worth getting
worked up about because as a political movement it's going nowhere.
Brian Henderson
>It's nice to know that everyone overlooks the energy wasted by everyone
>having their own cars...by sheer physics, mass transit is more efficient.
Nope, sorry. In fact, I have a friend who wanted to use mass transit
to get to school this last year, until he went and looked at the train
schedule and found that they had *ONE* train going there and *ONE*
train coming back each day, and neither of them could be used due to
his school schedule. Therefore, he has to drive. Would he rather use
the train? Sure. Would the train service have to improve
dramatically in order to be usable? Absolutely. That's why the
trains run at less than 25% capacity most of the time, because nobody
can use them!
Dave Head
>
>"Dave Head" <rall...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:vd0c51pnkp6sn5hgh...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Its also about spending. If they can't move around like they can now,
>then
>> they essentially become economic slaves to work, and _don't_ spend like
>they
>> otherwise would on fun stuff, which is _still_ an economic impact.
>
> I've cut down on driving alot. For nonwork/nonbusiness stuff, I usually
>just drive to stuff close to home.
Great, but my stuff that's close to home is still 20 miles away. I'm waaay out
in the country - thought I'd avoid a 70 mile round trip between work and the
nearest city every day but it hasn't worked out that way. Almost everything
except food requires a trip to the city.
>IF there's something I really need,
A night at the movie? When there's decent releases going on (unlike now) I
usually see 3 a week. Fortunately I can often combine it with the trip to the
health club, which is across the street from the movie.
>order it off the net.
I like to do that too.
>Local stores rarely have the stuff I need.
Depends. They have the clothes I want. They don't have the electronic
connectors I want. Phoned that in last time, to Newark Electronics whose
catalog (4 years old - still good) I had.
> There's
>only one really good computer store in town- the CompUSA and the Best Buy's
>simply don't have the stuff to build a PC with, and their prices are high-
>so no point driving out there.
But if you want it _now_, you get in the car and go get it.
> I imagine mail-order/e-business will benefit from increased gas prices.
Yep.
>It will be cheaper to order stuff that to drive around looking for just the
>right thing you need, wasting fuel. It's comming full circle.
You have to look at the really skyrocketing package delivery prices. Anything
but overland truck is really, really pricey, and overland truck is really,
really slow unless you're ordering from someone within 200 miles, and even
then, if they're using the "handling" charge as another profit center, its
_still_ expensive. I sometimes just flat stop when I get to the shipping and
handling charges.
>People used
>to order alot of stuff out of the Sears Catalog- now we'll just do it online
>instead.
And its not _nearly_ as satisfying, or efficient. Online, you have to _search_
for what you want. IOW, you have to _know_ you're looking for a lefthanded
metric crescent wrench, or know that it exists, to order it online. OTOH, a
catalog lets you learn of the existence or something, or pick it out by its
picture, without necessarily knowing that it exists or what its called.
Online is nice, but not the equivalent of a catalog, nor showing up and
shopping the shelves.
Dave Head
Dave Head
Yeah, well, it depends on where you put the bar. You can make any test hard
enough to flunk most of the people most of the time, if you want. I'm just
saying that any raising of the requirements is going to have at least a
somewhat negative impact on some number of people. Get silly about it, and
create a pool of economic cripples, and everybody's going to suffer.
Dave Head
Alan Baker
Dave Head <rall...@att.net> wrote:
We don't have *any* bar, Dave! If you can breathe, you can pass the test!
Dave Head
<Trebor...@BITphysics.orgBUCKET> wrote:
>[NGs pruned]
>
>Dave Head wrote:
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>> > Dave Head wrote:
>> > > Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> > > > *Some* would undoubtedly never pass the driving test, but
>> > > > relatively few.
>
>I would say that *very few* reasonably able-bodied people are simply
>*incapable* of passing a driving test such as the UK's.
Glad to hear it. Does that include the timorous that don't even try because
they know its beyond them? I've known some people that were constantly scared,
and sought out traffic lights so they could get across a really
not-all-that-busy road, while I and most others I knew at the time would avoid
the lights by using the more minor roads, and not having to wait on the red
lights. Its those people I'm thinking of - I doubt that the test I've heard
about, that appears to require a coordination and memory exercise would flunk
people for forgetting to look in the rearview before braking - little things
like that - would have these people simply not trying, or failing if they did.
>Heck, even Maureen of "Driving School" fame *eventually* passed her
>test; and holding a full licence was a *prerequisite* of getting on
>Quentin Willson's "Britain's Worst Driver" series.
A show like that must be a hoot.
>Some of the stuff in both programmes would have been well-nigh
>incredible had the cameras not been rolling ...
>> > > Relatively few could be 5%. 5% that couldn't drive would
>> > > drag down the economy for the rest of us.
>
>> > Might less people being injured and dying on our highways not
>> > have a positive effect on the economy?
>>
>> Sure. We can do all kinds of extreme stuff to save lives,
>> including ridiculously low speed limits and the like.
>
>If you include something akin to the UK's driving test in "all kinds
>of extreme stuff" then I have to question your notion of "extreme".
Well, I'm not really familiar, first hand, with that test - there was a fellow
on here a few months ago that described some of it, and it sounded pretty
severe by US standards. Supposedly there's a difference between a roundabout
and a traffic circle, and supposedly they were extremely easy to screw up and
flunk the test over - at least that's the way I read it. Then there's the
looking in the mirror before braking. _I_ do it a lot, but I think I'm the
rare exception.
>> > > The Europeans can get away with this sort of standard 'cuz of
>> > > their great public transport.
>
>Splorf!
>
>There are plenty of places in Europe without great public transport.
OK, but it seems to be held up as a shining example when the public transport
advocates here mention it.
>British Snail and its successor companies have been a joke for many
>a long year; ditto the multifarious bus companies.
Now, that's more believable than what I've heard before! <G>
>Some time back, $EMPLOYER hired some coaches for a morning's do at a
>conference centre. I decided to take the afternoon off and go by car
>as the meeting was about half way to somewhere else I wanted to go.
>By all reports of the state of those coaches, boy, did I do the right
>thing!
Yeah, I avoid riding them whenever possible. I hate going to the airport
because of having to ride them between the far-out parking and the terminal.
It is one of the lowest forms of motorized transportation, I think.
>Okay, *some* parts of our public transport system are okay most of the
>time; but the system as a whole is *very* far gone from universally
>"great".
Well, as more of an automobile advocate than a public transport advocate, it
seems more in line with what I expected.
>> > I *can* substantiate that better driver training results in fewer
>> > accidents *and* with a concomitant raising of speed limits, less
>> > time spent in traveling the highways. Both of which would have a
>> > *positive* effect on the economy.
>
>It wouldn't have a positive effect on *all* parts of the economy, if
>only because there would be less need for auto repairers and the like.
>
>That said, the less you have to spend on fixing the car the more you
>have left to spend on other things.
If I could ride a public transport that had _all_ the advantages of my car (go
where I want, when I want, no waiting, no sharing space with anyone else,
complete control over the environment (audo, air conditioning, heating)) I'd
park my car and ride it almost exclusively. But there is not such transport
system (yet). If they ever get one going, it'll make millionaires out of even
the employees!
>> They would as long as _everybody_ gets a license, and no large pool
>> of economic cripples who can't legally drive is created.
>
>It actually costs quite a lot to run a car, even with the low price of
>petrol in the US.
Oh, yeah!
>> Training would be nice (but you can't get people to take it) as long
>> as it doesn't screw up people's lives (by depriving them of their
>> freedom.)
>
>IMNSHO, training should be *mandatory* for all new drivers.
I'd like it - but it'd never get thru the legislatures.
>It need
>not be particularly formal (I learnt primarily by driving my father,
>who was a rural general practitioner, on his rounds for a few months
>and had one lesson with a driving instructor), but there *should* be
>a decent test at the end of it.
I think it should be formal, and include about 15 - 20 hours of emergency
handling and braking training, mostly out in a car making emergency lane
changes, slolams, skid pad stuff, etc.
>It is perhaps not politically acceptable to make a proper driving test
>mandatory for existing fully-licenced drivers (my father, for example,
>started driving before tests were introduced), but it *should* be
>required before anyone who is disqualified from driving by the courts
>is fully relicenced (and training and a test could be permitted *once*
>as an alternative to a short-term disqualification).
Yep, that'd be great.
Dave Head
Dave Head
Depends on how much you require.
>I think that demanding the drivers be qualified would be good for the
>economy: you could raise limits *and* have fewer accidents.
Hell, you can raise limits _now_, but it doesn't achieve the revenue generation
objectives, eh?
>As for those who couldn't qualify: do you really want them on the road?
I don't want to be paying for 'em on welfare, food stamps, etc. I'll take the
really small chance that they'll screw up around me - I'm much more afraid of
the drunks, and then there's always the road-ragers and the show-offs, which
don't really have much to do with the sort of skills that are tested for - more
to do with temperment.
Can't _prove_ it until we know just how much of an improvement would be
required by the test.
>> Training would be nice (but you can't get people to take it) as long as it
>> doesn't screw up people's lives (by depriving them of their freedom.)
>
>When a bad driver causes an accident and kills someone else, that's a
>pretty large deprivation of the deceased's freedom.
Yep. All kinds of bad drivers, tho, and a lot of 'em won't be detected by the
test.
Dave Head