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

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:40:35 -0700, "Phxbrd"
> wrote:

>> The traile of tears was caused by engles???
>
>Most major ****-ups in the last 1,000 years or so have had the engle print
>summers, innit....

As if, you people have done far more harm to the world than we.

>> >Tell how you think Indios ought to run their reservations, remembering
>that
>> >many get feral money to spend as THEY see fit. Ambitious by gringo
>> >standards, many Indios integrate into the greater society while others
>elect
>> >to stay on the rez and let the traditions die. What is it you think you
>> >want?
>>
>> Some cheap swipe at the merkins...
>
>Any time you're ready....

You probebly won't realise it's happened anyway.

>> >> >This is America, where Indios can
>> >> >live where they wish. Some live on the rez, some live off. Problem?
>> >>
>> >> Note how the reservations are always on the bits of land whity didn't
>> >> want...
>> >
>> >Or or were they the most remote from gringos as possible at the time?
>Did
>> >you want them to stay on Manhattan Island and downtown Chicago? You
>haven't
>> >given the matter much thought, have you?
>>
>> How about bits of land where they could actully do something?
>
>You mean like casinos?

In North Dakota?

>> >> >> >More to the point, do you think Indios
>> >> >> >give a rat's ass about political boundaries?
>> >> >
>> >> >Mebbe you'll answer this time....
>> >>
>> >> It's a possibility.
>> >
>> >But not a likelihood....
>> >
>> >You're beginning to snivel....
>>
>> It is very late.
>
>No matter. It's now now.
>
>Say, I've been meaning to ask; I can understand how your royals can dress up
>like nazis since that's what they are, but how do you account for the older
>and ugly one dressing up like a movie usher? Couldn't he find a tampon
>costume?

On of our german royals has put on a silly costume again?

"the guvner" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:40:35 -0700, "Phxbrd"
> > wrote:
>
> >> The traile of tears was caused by engles???
> >
> >Most major ****-ups in the last 1,000 years or so have had the engle
print
> >summers, innit....
>
> As if, you people have done far more harm to the world than we.

But we fight EVIL. Dubya told us....

>
> >> >Tell how you think Indios ought to run their reservations, remembering
> >that
> >> >many get feral money to spend as THEY see fit. Ambitious by gringo
> >> >standards, many Indios integrate into the greater society while others
> >elect
> >> >to stay on the rez and let the traditions die. What is it you think
you
> >> >want?
> >>
> >> Some cheap swipe at the merkins...
> >
> >Any time you're ready....
>
> You probebly won't realise it's happened anyway.

Doesn't say much for your efforts, innit....

>
> >> >> >This is America, where Indios can
> >> >> >live where they wish. Some live on the rez, some live off.
Problem?
> >> >>
> >> >> Note how the reservations are always on the bits of land whity
didn't
> >> >> want...
> >> >
> >> >Or or were they the most remote from gringos as possible at the time?
> >Did
> >> >you want them to stay on Manhattan Island and downtown Chicago? You
> >haven't
> >> >given the matter much thought, have you?
> >>
> >> How about bits of land where they could actully do something?
> >
> >You mean like casinos?
>
> In North Dakota?

Any place they want 'em, I guess. It's a Freedom thing you wouldn't
understand....

>
> >> >> >> >More to the point, do you think Indios
> >> >> >> >give a rat's ass about political boundaries?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Mebbe you'll answer this time....
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a possibility.
> >> >
> >> >But not a likelihood....
> >> >
> >> >You're beginning to snivel....
> >>
> >> It is very late.
> >
> >No matter. It's now now.
> >
> >Say, I've been meaning to ask; I can understand how your royals can dress
up
> >like nazis since that's what they are, but how do you account for the
older
> >and ugly one dressing up like a movie usher? Couldn't he find a tampon
> >costume?
>
> On of our german royals has put on a silly costume again?

Daily matter, one assumes. Why do you stay on there?

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:54:12 -0700, "Phxbrd"
> wrote:

>> As if, you people have done far more harm to the world than we.
>
>But we fight EVIL. Dubya told us....

Perhaps if you fought Bush...

>> >> >Tell how you think Indios ought to run their reservations, remembering
>> >that
>> >> >many get feral money to spend as THEY see fit. Ambitious by gringo
>> >> >standards, many Indios integrate into the greater society while others
>> >elect
>> >> >to stay on the rez and let the traditions die. What is it you think
>you
>> >> >want?
>> >>
>> >> Some cheap swipe at the merkins...
>> >
>> >Any time you're ready....
>>
>> You probebly won't realise it's happened anyway.
>
>Doesn't say much for your efforts, innit....

I only bother play to the level of the other side.

>> >> >> >This is America, where Indios can
>> >> >> >live where they wish. Some live on the rez, some live off.
>Problem?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Note how the reservations are always on the bits of land whity
>didn't
>> >> >> want...
>> >> >
>> >> >Or or were they the most remote from gringos as possible at the time?
>> >Did
>> >> >you want them to stay on Manhattan Island and downtown Chicago? You
>> >haven't
>> >> >given the matter much thought, have you?
>> >>
>> >> How about bits of land where they could actully do something?
>> >
>> >You mean like casinos?
>>
>> In North Dakota?
>
>Any place they want 'em, I guess. It's a Freedom thing you wouldn't
>understand....

Like the Trail of Tears???

>> >> >> >> >More to the point, do you think Indios
>> >> >> >> >give a rat's ass about political boundaries?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Mebbe you'll answer this time....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's a possibility.
>> >> >
>> >> >But not a likelihood....
>> >> >
>> >> >You're beginning to snivel....
>> >>
>> >> It is very late.
>> >
>> >No matter. It's now now.
>> >
>> >Say, I've been meaning to ask; I can understand how your royals can dress
>up
>> >like nazis since that's what they are, but how do you account for the
>older
>> >and ugly one dressing up like a movie usher? Couldn't he find a tampon
>> >costume?
>>
>> On of our german royals has put on a silly costume again?
>
>Daily matter, one assumes.

Few here bother follow their antics.

>Why do you stay on there?

My wife likes it.

In article >, Mike Z. Helm wrote:

>>I've been rear ended 3 times while at a dead stop at a traffic light.
>
> And yet, you don't want RLCs?

How exactly is an RLC going to change that?

I don't want RLCs because they aren't used for traffic safety. In fact I
believe that RLCs are used to worsen existing hazards for sake of
revenue. An RLC that is on a properly engineered intersection is a money
loser. If RLCs were about safety, they would be on these intersections.
Instead they are always on intersections where they are profitable. Why
is that?


>>>>A cop in person can tell what happened. The camera can't. The RLC snaps
>>>>the photo and then the system squeezes you for cash.

>>> If a light is placed so badly that people are constantly running it, the
>>> RLCs will help expose the problem.

>>No they won't. The RLCs are there to make money FROM the problem, not
>>find it or solve it.

> Vote for someone who will do it right.

Who would that be? In my area only the city of chicago has RLCs. I don't
live in the city limits so I can't vote there. However even if I could,
nobody is going to be unseating the mayor for life, king richard the
second the concurer of bensenville any time soon.

>>> Without an RLC, people will constantly run the red light anyway, but few
>>> people will be caught and the problem of the light will go unnoticed and
>>> unfixed.

>>An RLC won't solve that.
> A few good highway engineers would though

So do that and skip the RLC.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:55:04 -0600,
(Brent P)

>In article >, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
>
>>>I've been rear ended 3 times while at a dead stop at a traffic light.
>>
>> And yet, you don't want RLCs?
>
>How exactly is an RLC going to change that?
>
>I don't want RLCs because they aren't used for traffic safety. In fact I
>believe that RLCs are used to worsen existing hazards for sake of
>revenue. An RLC that is on a properly engineered intersection is a money
>loser. If RLCs were about safety, they would be on these intersections.

I want them at properly engineered instersections. It's probably years
of ****-poor enforcement that has led to the situation here where it's
routine for people to run red lights.

>Instead they are always on intersections where they are profitable. Why
>is that?

You're just afraid of getting caught - if you weren't, you'd be arguing
that those problems should be fixed.

The 1 study any of you anti-RLCers have offered didn't prove the point
that was claimed, and it did not find any evidence of the problems you
keep talking about where the study was done.


>
>
>>>>>A cop in person can tell what happened. The camera can't. The RLC snaps
>>>>>the photo and then the system squeezes you for cash.
>
>>>> If a light is placed so badly that people are constantly running it, the
>>>> RLCs will help expose the problem.
>
>>>No they won't. The RLCs are there to make money FROM the problem, not
>>>find it or solve it.
>
>> Vote for someone who will do it right.
>
>Who would that be? In my area only the city of chicago has RLCs. I don't
>live in the city limits so I can't vote there. However even if I could,
>nobody is going to be unseating the mayor for life, king richard the
>second the concurer of bensenville any time soon.

Chicago politics are indeed a problem. You should vote for state
candidates who will clean that up for you.

>
>>>> Without an RLC, people will constantly run the red light anyway, but few
>>>> people will be caught and the problem of the light will go unnoticed and
>>>> unfixed.
>
>>>An RLC won't solve that.
>> A few good highway engineers would though
>
>So do that and skip the RLC.

No, I'm saying keep the RLC AND let the highway engineers do their jobs.

Stopping for red lights is simple. A lot of people just don't do it.

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:19:14 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
>

>On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:16:46 -0700, Cashew > wrote:
>
>>You must have a magnet in your trunk.
>>
>>Most drivers NEVER get rear-ended.
>
>I've been rear-ended three times. Twice while sitting still at a
>stoplight, and once while slowing down for a light that had just
>turned red. One time the driver was fishing for something in his
>glovebox; another time the driver (claimed he) was looking at his
>wris****ch.
>
>The world is full of incompetent ****s, and almost all of them are
>automobile drivers.

Why not take their licenses away then?

Mike Z. Helm wrote:
[Stopping for red lights]
> A lot of people just don't do it.

I call bull**** on that statement. In my state, we don't have RLCs and
we don't have a lot of people run red lights.

That's because we have adequate yellow phase time (4 seconds in town
with speeds ranging from 25 to 35 mph) and 6 seconds on a highway that
has an 85th percentile speed of 62 mph.

I'm sure that if we decreased the yellow phase time, we'd end up with
the same problem that you guys have.

Mike Z. Helm wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:19:14 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> >

>>I've been rear-ended three times. Twice while sitting still at a
>>stoplight, and once while slowing down for a light that had just
>>turned red. One time the driver was fishing for something in his
>>glovebox; another time the driver (claimed he) was looking at his
>>wris****ch.

>>The world is full of incompetent ****s, and almost all of them are
>>automobile drivers.

> Why not take their licenses away then?

Because RLC tickets do not result in points on one's license.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:56:23 GMT, Arif Khokar >

>Mike Z. Helm wrote:
>[Stopping for red lights]
>> A lot of people just don't do it.
>
>I call bull**** on that statement. In my state, we don't have RLCs and
>we don't have a lot of people run red lights.
>

Well, it is a huge problem here - other places it's not so bad.

>That's because we have adequate yellow phase time (4 seconds in town
>with speeds ranging from 25 to 35 mph) and 6 seconds on a highway that
>has an 85th percentile speed of 62 mph.

The yellow phase times here are plenty long. The problem is that people
still enter the intersections after the light turns red. I've actually
seen people wait until the light turned red to make a left turn - in on
case, they turned AFTER cars with a green light had already passed
through the intersection.

>
>I'm sure that if we decreased the yellow phase time, we'd end up with
>the same problem that you guys have.

Or if you simply don't enforce traffic laws, you'll probably end up
there also.

Mike Z. Helm wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:56:23 GMT, Arif Khokar >

>>That's because we have adequate yellow phase time (4 seconds in town
>>with speeds ranging from 25 to 35 mph) and 6 seconds on a highway that
>>has an 85th percentile speed of 62 mph.

> The yellow phase times here are plenty long.

Ok, now tell me how fast is traffic going, what's the posted limit, and
how long is the yellow phase time?

> I've actually
> seen people wait until the light turned red to make a left turn - in on
> case, they turned AFTER cars with a green light had already passed
> through the intersection.

Perhaps traffic volumes are high enough that a protected arrow triggered
by an embedded loop would be warranted.

>>I'm sure that if we decreased the yellow phase time, we'd end up with
>>the same problem that you guys have.

> Or if you simply don't enforce traffic laws, you'll probably end up
> there also.

We don't have police monitoring traffic lights either. We still do not
have problems with red light runners.