I'm Not the Only One Who Hates Driving in Tucson

"Mike Z. Helm" > wrote in message
...

>>The first sentence is incorrect. Roundabouts and traffic circles are
>>everywhere.
>>
>
> Hardly. I can only think of 1 intersection that has them and I've lived
> in several large cities as well as a couple medium sized burghs.

I have seen many in Eugene OR, many in Portland
OR, many many many in Seattle, WA
Perhaps it is more common on the west coast?
Traffic circles, that is.



Bernard

"Bernard farquart" > wrote in message
news:C6WNd.7855$uc.4911@trnddc04...
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>
> >> You're getting desperate. Law says "Brake on yellow, stop on red". I
> >> hope
> >> you don't drive where I drive....
> >
> > I've kicked your ass debate wise. You can't even grasp the simple
> > concepts here. What do you do when the light turns yellow when you are
10
> > feet from the line and going 30mph in a 35mph zone?
>
> He is going to lock it up and slide into the intersection.
>
> Then sit there till the light turns green.
>
>
> Bernard

I have the obvious advantage of knowing how stoplight cameras actually work.
They're smarter than some posters here.


>
>

"Phxbrd" > wrote in message
...
>

> I have the obvious advantage of knowing how stoplight cameras actually
> work.
> They're smarter than some posters here.
>


Do you talk back to them, too?

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 03:14:24 GMT, "Bernard farquart"
>

>
>"Mike Z. Helm" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>>>The first sentence is incorrect. Roundabouts and traffic circles are
>>>everywhere.
>>>
>>
>> Hardly. I can only think of 1 intersection that has them and I've lived
>> in several large cities as well as a couple medium sized burghs.
>
>I have seen many in Eugene OR, many in Portland
>OR, many many many in Seattle, WA
>Perhaps it is more common on the west coast?
>Traffic circles, that is.

They must be. I suspect the only one I'm aware of is there simply
because some rich folks in Houston who donated a fountain.

>
>
>
>Bernard
>

Waiving the right to remain silent, "Cosmic Dawg, Legally Blond"
> said:

> Yeah but they don't give you any real "extra" privileges worth a
> crap and anyone can get them even if they can barely drive. I'm
> talking about a license that would require a test that's
> actually a measure of your driving skills so you would be able
> to drive some increment over the speed limit without being able
> to be given a ticket. Like a 1+ license would let you do 10
> over (as long as it's not reckless), and a 2+ would let you do
> 15 over, or something along those lines.

An administrative nightmare; plus to enforce, the officer would have
to stop you first, anyway.

--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
Twenty-five million illegal aliens can't be wrong.

In article >, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:39:03 -0600, (Brent P)

> One of the intersections I see red light runners at all the time is at
> an intersection of 2 roads (both 40 mph, with lights timed for 40 mph),
> the yellows are long enough and clearly visible from all directions,
> each direction has 2 dedicated left turn lanes and 1 dedicated right
> turn lanes - one street has 2 lanes eachy way dedicated to thru traffic,
> the other has 3.

That may not be the only reason. But your estimate of the light's timing
is just that, an estimate. It could be a more complex problem. Such as
two or three lights that are badly timed with each other causing people
to try and make it through without stopping at each one.

>>Only a very small number
>>of red light runners are of the type who do it because they can get away
>>with it.

> Say what? Are you saying they are victims and didn't make a choice to
> run a red light?

I am saying there are factors other than MFFY that are involved. There is
one light in chicago I've run because I couldn't even see the signal and
it's a very odd T-intersection in the middle of a BRIDGE. There were
simply no visual cues of an intersection in my normal field of vision.

>>Then,once the cash is seen by the governments and the companies that get
>>a commission on each ticket for running the cameras, the intersection may
>>get further out of wack to generate more revenue. A shorter yellow signal
>>for instance will cause more people to enter on red.
>>Fix the underlying problems with the intersections and the need for an
>>RLC will just vanish.

> You must be smoking some good ****

Not my fault you haven't read the background material.
There's a good primer at http://www.motorists.org/

In article >, Mike Z. Helm wrote:

>>> You're getting desperate. Law says "Brake on yellow, stop on red". I hope
>>> you don't drive where I drive....
>>
>>I've kicked your ass debate wise. You can't even grasp the simple
>>concepts here. What do you do when the light turns yellow when you are 10
>>feet from the line and going 30mph in a 35mph zone?
>
> Go thru the light.

> At 44 feet per second, the yellow will have to be about 1/5 of a second
> for you to be caught by the red. Most people couldn't even react that
> fast.
>
> But your point is taken. Yellow means to stop if you can do so safely.

That's the point.

> Set standards for lengths of yellows, assure they're reasonable, publish
> them, record logs of camera times and make them public.

But that doesn't happen. Such things aren't even checked. A camera is
just put up to rake in the cash.

> BTW, why would anyone go 30 in a 35?

I framed it for easy math and to keep the speed kills freaks from
diverting the issue.

In article >, Phxbrd wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, Phxbrd wrote:
>> >
>> > "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> In article >, Phxbrd wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > You shouldn't even be in this discussion. Everyone rational knows
> the
>> >> > longer the yellow light, the more red-light running. Would-be
> killers
>> >> > always want longer yellows....
>> >>
>> >> Another judyesque moron. Here's some logic for you. If what you wrote
>> >> above were true, then NO yellow light would be best. This is known to
> be
>> >> false and thusly your premise fails.
>> >
>> > You're getting desperate. Law says "Brake on yellow, stop on red". I
> hope
>> > you don't drive where I drive....
>>
>> I've kicked your ass debate wise. You can't even grasp the simple
>> concepts here. What do you do when the light turns yellow when you are 10
>> feet from the line and going 30mph in a 35mph zone?
>
> Here we go yet again.... You have NO idea how stoplight cameras work.
> Before showing your ass any further, I suggest you do a little
> investigation. You're in the same bind Little John got into several years
> ago. Bluster doesn't replace knowledge....

You don't want to respond to the point being made. Figures.

In article >, Mike Z. Helm wrote:

>>When government is caught in the act they are forced to deal with the
>>actual root cause.

> Force them to now. Push for RLCs that meet standards.

Easier said than done in c(r)ook county. Also the moron majority,
represented here by phxbrd doesn't even understand the scam or the
underlying issues. I have no problem with RLCs set up at properly
engineered intersections. However government would find those a waste of
money because they would cost more than they generated.


>>When problem intersections have their underlying signal
>>length problems and other issues taken care of, the cameras become money
>>losers.

> Saving lives isn't always something where the benefits are easily
> measurable. After the initial cost of the equipment, I can't imagine
> maintaining them should be that expensive.
> Even a single ticket a month would probably cover the ongoing costs.

$90 doesn't go far in government work. In chicago, remember it's one guy
to do the 1 hour job in 8 and 3 guys to watch him do it.

>>They are then relocated to other intersections. The whole dance
>>could be avoided by simply doing things right in the first place.

> And the whole dance could be avoided if people stopped running red
> lights.

And if we properly engineered the intersections, set speed limits at
reality instead of fantasy then red light running would be down to just
the idiots and the MFFYers.

In article >, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:08:23 -0600, (Brent P)

>>Um taking care of the speed limit and everything else is covered under
>>'fix underlying intersection problems'.

> If the lights are timed for 40mph, as they are around here, and the
> speed limit is 40, which is fairly reasonable and you drive 60 and have
> to run a red light to avoid breaking your stride, you are the problem.

I don't have a problem in that case IF the road's traffic is also at
40mph. If the 85th percentile is 60mph, then the lights need to be timed
for reality.

>> I don't feel the need to write a book for every post.

> You don't have to - fixing the "underlying problems" isn't the panacea
> that you proclaim it to be.

Again, the data suggests it's a much better solution. It certainly
doesn't hurt. But for some reason, the pro-RLC crowd doesn't even want to
consider intersection and road design defects.

> I'm certainly not saying those things shouldn't be addressed, just that
> you're still going to have red light runners.

Did you read what I wrote. I said there would still be some. There are
some that are just MFFYers. But they aren't the majority IME.

>>> Implement safeguards to prevent this in the first place. Cities can buy
>>> the cameras and process tickets themselves - That should be more cost
>>> effective for any city with more than a few dozen traffic lights anyway.

>>Um the city is part of the revune stream. Here in IL they don't even hide
>>it anymore. Chicago is short on cash. Daley keeps tearing up airports and
>>building parks at huge expense. Anyway, to raise more money the solution
>>is more RLCs. They don't even mention safety anymore, they don't address
>>intersection problems. It's only about making money to cover budget
>>shortfalls.

> All the more reason to institute cameras now before cities get really
> desperate for money. They can provide revenue and address safety at the
> same time. I have no problem with them collecting revenue from people
> who endanger me and drive up my insurance rates.

They aren't addressing safety. They are making money that's all. the risk
is unchanged.

>>The only way to hold government in check on this issue is either a long
>>list of things that must be up-to-code before an RLC can be installed or
>>an outright ban on their use.

> I have no problem with implementing standards for RLCs - in fact I've
> mentioned a few in this thread.

But they aren't done. Intersection has a problem and what's the answer?
Profit from it!