Some Drivers Don't Need a Red Light Camera

The repeatedly-made claim is that installing Red Light Cameras at an
intersection causes an increase in rear-end collisions. Some people
don't need RLCs - they're clearly adept at doing it all by themselves.

Case in point: this afternoon I saw a bimbo in a clown-car SUV (who
was yapping on her cell phone) come flying up to a yellow light at 60
MPH, suddenly notice that the light is about to turn red, and STOMP
her brake pedal, locking up all four wheels (I guess her ABS was on
the fritz). The pickup truck behind her NARROWLY avoided rear-ending
this dimbot. Had he struck her, I was fully prepared to offer my
testimony in support of his innocense in court. The light was YELLOW,
not RED - she COULD have legally gone through the intersection. But no
- BIMBO had to panic-stop.

Lacking thought she may be in driving skill, however, her grip is
first class - she managed not to drop her cellular phone.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> The repeatedly-made claim is that installing Red Light Cameras at an
> intersection causes an increase in rear-end collisions. Some people
> don't need RLCs - they're clearly adept at doing it all by themselves.
>

Hey stupid. You shouldn't be tailgating. What if the person in front of
you has to make a panic stop because some idiot wanders in the path of
their car.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:03:14 -0700, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> The repeatedly-made claim is that installing Red Light Cameras at an
> intersection causes an increase in rear-end collisions. Some people don't
> need RLCs - they're clearly adept at doing it all by themselves.
>
> Case in point: this afternoon I saw a bimbo in a clown-car SUV (who was
> yapping on her cell phone) come flying up to a yellow light at 60 MPH,
> suddenly notice that the light is about to turn red, and STOMP her brake
> pedal, locking up all four wheels (I guess her ABS was on the fritz). The
> pickup truck behind her NARROWLY avoided rear-ending this dimbot. Had he
> struck her, I was fully prepared to offer my testimony in support of his
> innocense in court. The light was YELLOW, not RED - she COULD have
> legally gone through the intersection. But no - BIMBO had to panic-stop.

Had he struck her he would have followed too closely for conditions. In
that case there would have been two dimbots. As he was able to avoid her
he apparently was not a dimbot.

> Lacking thought she may be in driving skill, however, her grip is first
> class - she managed not to drop her cellular phone.

These dimbots usually have the phone glued to their ears with a mixture of
sweat, earwax and makeup.

Chris

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> > The repeatedly-made claim is that installing Red Light Cameras at an
> > intersection causes an increase in rear-end collisions. Some people
> > don't need RLCs - they're clearly adept at doing it all by themselves.
> >
>
> Hey stupid. You shouldn't be tailgating. What if the person in front of
> you has to make a panic stop because some idiot wanders in the path of
> their car.

If that idiot is use, I'm hitting the ****ing gas pedal.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> > The repeatedly-made claim is that installing Red Light Cameras at an
> > intersection causes an increase in rear-end collisions. Some people
> > don't need RLCs - they're clearly adept at doing it all by themselves.
> >
>
> Hey stupid. You shouldn't be tailgating. What if the person in front of
> you has to make a panic stop because some idiot wanders in the path of
> their car.

If that idiot is you, I'm hitting the ****ing gas pedal.

> You shouldn't be tailgating. What if the person in
> front of you has to make a panic stop because
> some idiot wanders in the path of their car.

Or for any other reason.

I also can't help noting that a yellow light that was "about to turn
red" probably would have been even more about to do so, or might even
HAVE turned red, by the time the person behind the SUV got there.
One possibility is that the tailgater was thinking the SUV would run
the light and he'd just stay behind it like a ball carrier letting a
fullback block for him.

It's my considered opinion, based on a haphazard program of deliberate
observation from the sidewalk, that some large fraction of drivers who
think they're scooting through under the yellow light are actually
catching a good piece of the red. They either fail to notice this (a
lot of drivers are startlingly unobservant) or rely upon our human
ability to either ignore or rationalize wrong, impolite, and dangerous
things in the name of personal convenience.

(Of course, there's so much flagrant red-light running these days that
one can only wish that bad judgement calls about the yellow light were
our biggest problem!)

I freely concede that the SUV driver was probably distracted something
awful by the cell phone and whatever else was going on in her mind and
vehicle, and ideally should not have blown up to a traffic signal at
high speed and slammed on the brakes at the last minute with no
warning. But let's walk a bit further in the (excessively accelerator
pressing) shoes of the person tailgating her.

Is it not every driver's individual responsibility to monitor the
traffic signal, and other aspects of whether it'll be still safe to go
when YOU get to the intersection, rather than blindly assuming that
it'll be safe, lawful, and polite to do whatever the car ahead just
did?

To me, that's really the main cause of this near miss: the guy in the
pickup found out what "assume" means (it makes an ass out of u and me).
And if you follow too closely for the speed and conditions, or too
inattentively, it makes your car shorter, and lets you know whether
your air bag really works, and other things you probably don't want
(especially given the likelihood that the driver behind takes the rap
when the cops write up a rear-end collision).

Cheers,
--Joe

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> > The repeatedly-made claim is that installing Red Light Cameras at an
> > intersection causes an increase in rear-end collisions. Some people
> > don't need RLCs - they're clearly adept at doing it all by themselves.
> >
>
> Hey stupid. You shouldn't be tailgating. What if the person in front of
> you has to make a panic stop because some idiot wanders in the path of
> their car.

Where did Scott say he was following them, retard?

"some idiot wanders in the path of their car?" That's a heck of a
statement for someone to be making who claims to be concerned about the
110 lives a day lost due to reckless driving. So those 110 people are
idiots, huh?

Also, your support of LLBing is contradictory to your statement
regarding tailgating, in terms of providing safe manuevering room to
avoid such "idiots." At least if you're smart enough to not be pacing
another vehicle, not only do you have breaking maneuverability, you
also have steering maneuverability.

But that's *way* over your head, isn't it retard? Why don't you go back
to your "coma" documentary and your David Ilke "Lies for morons" series
of books?

Ad absurdum per aspera wrote:
> > You shouldn't be tailgating. What if the person in
> > front of you has to make a panic stop because
> > some idiot wanders in the path of their car.
>
> Or for any other reason.
>
> I also can't help noting that a yellow light that was "about to turn
> red" probably would have been even more about to do so, or might even
> HAVE turned red, by the time the person behind the SUV got there.
> One possibility is that the tailgater was thinking the SUV would run
> the light and he'd just stay behind it like a ball carrier letting a
> fullback block for him.
>

Amen to that. If the first driver thinks it's prudent to stop, then you
know damn well the second driver should not even think about continuing.

Ad absurdum per aspera wrote:
> > You shouldn't be tailgating. What if the person in
> > front of you has to make a panic stop because
> > some idiot wanders in the path of their car.
>
> It's my considered opinion, based on a haphazard program of
> deliberate observation from the sidewalk, that some large
> fraction of drivers who think they're scooting through under
> the yellow light are actually catching a good piece of the red.
> They either fail to notice this (a lot of drivers are startlingly
> unobservant) or rely upon our human ability to either ignore or
> rationalize wrong, impolite, and dangerous things in the name of
> personal convenience.

The law is that you must ENTER the intersection before the
light goes red. There is no law that you must leave it before the
light goes red.

In some areas, there is also a law that you must stop if the
light is yellow, and it is possible to stop safely.

In article . com>,
"Old Wolf" > says:

>The law is that you must ENTER the intersection before the
>light goes red. There is no law that you must leave it before the
>light goes red.

There's "Anti-Gridlock" laws in some places, though.

-Kenny

--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles
H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898