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

Cashew wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:24:38 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>>In article >, Cashew wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Governments don't bother fixing the actual problems anymore. They go for
>>>>a quick fix of a red light camera to cash in on them.
>>>
>>>defeatist
>>
>>Reality.
>>
>>When I see government fixing intersection problems and mentioning said
>>design improvements in their press releases instead of expected reveune
>>levels or how much the cameras generated then I'll consider RLCs
>>something other than a cash generation device.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>What happened to this country where people see this as a good thing?
>>>>I can hope you all get caught by an RLC set up to generate revenue. Then
>>>>you'll change your tune.
>>
>>>If I get caught by an RLC, I'll accept responsibility for my running a
>>>red light.
>>
>>You'll bitch and moan about how the intersection or RLC had one or more
>>design defects.
>
>
> No, I'll accept responsibility.
>
>
>>>It's too bad you (and so many others) are unwilling to accept personal
>>>responsibility
>>
>>It's not a question of personal responsibility here.
>
>
> Sure it is. If you can't manage to stop for a red light, then you are
> a danger to yourself and others.
>
>
>
>>If the yellow is too
>>short for you to stop before the line or enter the intersection how are
>>you at fault?
>
>
> That won't happen because I don't run red lights.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

you will whine and cry like a little girl when you finally get caught in
a RLC trap, or worse yet get rear-ended because you locked 'em up to
avoid a RLC ticket. It's not a matter of "if" but "when" unless your
driving habits are such that you avoid them completely.

nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:33:11 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>> That won't happen because I don't run red lights.
>
>HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
>
>you will whine and cry like a little girl when you finally get caught in
>a RLC trap, or worse yet get rear-ended because you locked 'em up to
>avoid a RLC ticket. It's not a matter of "if" but "when" unless your
>driving habits are such that you avoid them completely.

Sorry, pal. I don't run red lights.

Cashew wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:33:11 -0500, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>That won't happen because I don't run red lights.
>>
>>HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
>>
>>you will whine and cry like a little girl when you finally get caught in
>>a RLC trap, or worse yet get rear-ended because you locked 'em up to
>>avoid a RLC ticket. It's not a matter of "if" but "when" unless your
>>driving habits are such that you avoid them completely.
>
>
> Sorry, pal. I don't run red lights.

Not intentionally, no. Most people don't. But hit one of the "trick"
lights and you just might.

Studies have shown that at intersections with a high incidence of RLRing
that lengthening the yellow time is usually the most effective method of
reducing RLR incidents - much more so than installing a RLC. The
conclusion should be obvious.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:59:26 -0500, Nate Nagel >

>> Sorry, pal. I don't run red lights.
>
>Not intentionally, no. Most people don't. But hit one of the "trick"
>lights and you just might.
>
>Studies have shown that at intersections with a high incidence of RLRing
>that lengthening the yellow time is usually the most effective method of
>reducing RLR incidents - much more so than installing a RLC. The
>conclusion should be obvious.

Yes, it is. Your studies are biased.

Mike Z. Helm wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:59:26 -0500, Nate Nagel >
>
>
>>>Sorry, pal. I don't run red lights.
>>
>>Not intentionally, no. Most people don't. But hit one of the "trick"
>>lights and you just might.
>>
>>Studies have shown that at intersections with a high incidence of RLRing
>>that lengthening the yellow time is usually the most effective method of
>>reducing RLR incidents - much more so than installing a RLC. The
>>conclusion should be obvious.
>
>
> Yes, it is. Your studies are biased.

The state of Virginia is biased?

http://virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/onl...rts/05-r21.htm

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Mike Z. Helm wrote:

>>> Studies have shown that at intersections with a high incidence of
>>> RLRing that lengthening the yellow time is usually the most effective
>>> method of reducing RLR incidents - much more so than installing a
>>> RLC. The conclusion should be obvious.

>> Yes, it is. Your studies are biased.

> The state of Virginia is biased?
>
> http://virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/onl...rts/05-r21.htm

I couldn't find where they actually stated the effect of increasing the
yellow phase time. There were several tables of which 2 indicated that
the yellow phase time changed during the data collection period. Both
those tables obviously show a decrease in total red light camera
citations after the change.

> >> http://www.pineridgerez.net/overview.php
> >
> >Pretty stupid to stay in a place comparable to engleland's finest,
wouldn't
> >you say? In the meanwhile, Arizona originals are fat, sleek and rich as
> >Croesus. You can take my word for it, I won't bore you with cites....
>
> Aren't yours Mexicans?

You think Mexicans aren't Indios? More to the point, do you think Indios
give a rat's ass about political boundaries?

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:42:40 -0500, Nate Nagel >

>Mike Z. Helm wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:59:26 -0500, Nate Nagel >
>>
>>
>>>>Sorry, pal. I don't run red lights.
>>>
>>>Not intentionally, no. Most people don't. But hit one of the "trick"
>>>lights and you just might.
>>>
>>>Studies have shown that at intersections with a high incidence of RLRing
>>>that lengthening the yellow time is usually the most effective method of
>>>reducing RLR incidents - much more so than installing a RLC. The
>>>conclusion should be obvious.
>>
>>
>> Yes, it is. Your studies are biased.
>
>The state of Virginia is biased?
>

Perhaps it's simply your interpretation of their study which is biased.

>http://virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/onl...rts/05-r21.htm
>

It looks like they agree with me:

"Although those problems do not appear to be evident in the Virginia
programs at present, their existence elsewhere suggests the need for
jurisdictions to follow key practices when implementing such programs to
ensure the continued avoidance of problems."

"Those problems" are specifically the ones the anti-RLC crowd keep
raising, and Virginia doesn't suffer from them.

>nate

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:19:07 GMT, Arif Khokar >

>Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Mike Z. Helm wrote:
>
>>>> Studies have shown that at intersections with a high incidence of
>>>> RLRing that lengthening the yellow time is usually the most effective
>>>> method of reducing RLR incidents - much more so than installing a
>>>> RLC. The conclusion should be obvious.
>
>>> Yes, it is. Your studies are biased.
>
>> The state of Virginia is biased?
>>
>> http://virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/onl...rts/05-r21.htm
>
>I couldn't find where they actually stated the effect of increasing the
>yellow phase time. There were several tables of which 2 indicated that
>the yellow phase time changed during the data collection period. Both
>those tables obviously show a decrease in total red light camera
>citations after the change.

Although they show a greater decrease after installation of the RLCs.

In article >, Cashew wrote:

>> When the system is designed to generate revenue
>>you will eventually run a red light. You won't have a choice in the
>>matter other than not to drive.
>
> Personal responsibility is a bitch, ain't it?

May you be caught in such a situation a 1000 times.