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

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:04:02 GMT, Arif Khokar >

>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?

Okay, I'll take a stop watch with me next time I drive somewhere. I
guarantee you, they're plenty long.

>
>> 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.

They have those - perhaps they need to have signs prohibiting turns when
the protected left signal is not on.

>
>>>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.

You must live in a small town.

In article >, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
> 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.

An RLC isn't going to prevent me from being rear ended. None of the
situations I've been rear-ended in had anything to do with red light
running.

>>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.

WTF? do you have a comprension problem. I've written dozens of posts
arguing to fix the ****ing intersections. Are you so out of arguements
you have to do this tired old usenet standard?

> 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.

FIX the ****ing intersections. Why are cities so opposed to doing this?
Why do RLCs only appear at PROFITABLE intersections? Why are they removed
once the intersection is fixed? If it was about _safety_ the
intersections would be fixed and the RLCs wouldn't have turn a profit. It
would be ok that they cost a little money to run.

>>>>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.

HA! Let me splain something to you. King Richard has a buddy Mel. Mel has
a daughter. Mel's daughter is married to the democrat governor. The
democrat governor was elected to throw out the corrupt republicans. So
instead of corrupt republicans, we have corrupt democrats. That's how it
works in IL.

>>>>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.

The RLCs aren't kept at fixed intersections. They are moved to unfixed
intersections to keep the cash rolling in. They aren't worth squat to the
cities at fixed intersections because they don't make money there.

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

Not IME.

"the guvner" > wrote in message
...
> 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...

But how to fight the deep-seated stupidity of those who put him there?

>
> >> >> >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.

I pull you up to dizzying heights....

>
> >> >> >> >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???

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?
> >
> >Daily matter, one assumes.
>
> Few here bother follow their antics.

You're embarrassed by your adulation?

>
> >Why do you stay on there?
>
> My wife likes it.

You're hardly the first male pussywhipped....

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:11:26 -0600,
(Brent P)

>In article >, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
>> 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.
>
>An RLC isn't going to prevent me from being rear ended. None of the
>situations I've been rear-ended in had anything to do with red light
>running.

If people were in the habit of stopping at red lights, you wouldn't have
been rear-ended.

>
>>>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.
>
>WTF? do you have a comprension problem. I've written dozens of posts
>arguing to fix the ****ing intersections. Are you so out of arguements
>you have to do this tired old usenet standard?

WTF? You're arguing against RLCs because of the *potential* for
problems if they are not done properly.

>
>> 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.
>
>FIX the ****ing intersections.


Yes, indeed fix them.

>Why are cities so opposed to doing this?

They're very well engineered around here.

>Why do RLCs only appear at PROFITABLE intersections?

Why don't we have them at all?

>Why are they removed
>once the intersection is fixed? If it was about _safety_ the
>intersections would be fixed and the RLCs wouldn't have turn a profit. It
>would be ok that they cost a little money to run.
>

Duh - THOSE are the problems you keep throwing up as red herrings. You
don't want those problems addressed - you would just throw the baby out
with the bathwater.

>>>>>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.
>
>HA! Let me splain something to you. King Richard has a buddy Mel. Mel has
>a daughter. Mel's daughter is married to the democrat governor. The
>democrat governor was elected to throw out the corrupt republicans. So
>instead of corrupt republicans, we have corrupt democrats. That's how it
>works in IL.

You should really fix that.

Should the federal gov't come in and declare martial law?

>
>>>>>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.
>
>The RLCs aren't kept at fixed intersections.

What was that you said earlier?

"Are you so out of arguements you have to do this tired old usenet
standard?"

> They are moved to unfixed
>intersections to keep the cash rolling in. They aren't worth squat to the
>cities at fixed intersections because they don't make money there.
>
>> Stopping for red lights is simple. A lot of people just don't do it.
>
>Not IME.

And yet 3 people failed to stop and ran into you - IME, that's never
happened.

I have OTOH seen horrible accidents resulting from people running red
lights at very well engineered intersections.

How is it that I manage to stop for red lights? Do I somehow have
supernatural driving abilities which allow me (and MOST other drivers)
to stop on red?

You may want to look into driver's ed. It sounds like you could benefit
from it.

>
>

Waiving the right to remain silent, Scott en Aztlán
> said:

> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:40:35 -0700, "Phxbrd"
> wrote:
>
>>innit....
>>innit....
>>innit....
>>innit....
>>innit....
>
> Is this a Phoenician punctuation word, like a Canadian ending
> every sentence with "eh?" or a Wisconsonian ending every
> sentence with "ya hey?"

It's Brit gutter slang.

--
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.

Waiving the right to remain silent, the guvner
> said:

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

It keeps your population entertained, loyal subjects.

--
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.

Waiving the right to remain silent, the guvner
> said:

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

>>Daily matter, one assumes.
>
> Few here bother follow their antics.

Bwahahaha..!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/?ok

http://www.mirror.co.uk/

I could go on...

>>Why do you stay on there?
>
> My wife likes it.

Nigel likes it..?

--
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.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 04:40:36 -0700, "Phxbrd"
> wrote:

>> >But we fight EVIL. Dubya told us....
>>
>> Perhaps if you fought Bush...
>
>But how to fight the deep-seated stupidity of those who put him there?

You've got a machine gun have you not?

>> >> >> >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.
>
>I pull you up to dizzying heights....

Dizzying by your standards.

>> >> >> >> >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???
>
>In North Dakota?

Ethnic cleansing just over 100 years ago:

"The United States Government demanded that the Lakota nation move to
the reservations. The people finally surrendered after being cold and
hungry and moved on the reservations. The government still insisted
buying the Black Hills from the Lakota people. The Sioux (Lakota)
Nation refused to sell their sacred lands. The United States
Government introduced the Sell or Starve Bill or the Agreement of
1877. The Lakota people starved but refused to sell their sacred land
so the U.S. Congress illegally took the Black Hills from the Great
Sioux Nation. The Allotment Act of 1888 allotted Indian lands into
160-acre lots to individuals to divide the nation. The Act of 1889
broke up the Great Sioux Nation into smaller reservations, the
remainder of which exist today at about one half their original size
in 1889."

http://www.mnisose.org/profiles/oglala.htm



>> >> >> >> >> >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.
>
>You're embarrassed by your adulation?

What adulation?

>> >Why do you stay on there?
>>
>> My wife likes it.
>
>You're hardly the first male pussywhipped....

Are you teling me you don't do what sweet wife tells you?

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:07:35 GMT, "Larry J."
> wrote:

>>>Daily matter, one assumes.
>>
>> Few here bother follow their antics.
>
>Bwahahaha..!
>
>http://www.thesun.co.uk/
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/?ok
>
>http://www.mirror.co.uk/

See how you merkins slavishly follow the antics of our krauty
royals...

>I could go on...

I'm sure you will...

>>>Why do you stay on there?
>>
>> My wife likes it.
>
>Nigel likes it..?

Why do you people always have these gay fantasies??

Waiving the right to remain silent, the guvner
> said:

> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:07:35 GMT, "Larry J."
> wrote:
>
>>>>Daily matter, one assumes.
>>>
>>> Few here bother follow their antics.
>>
>>Bwahahaha..!
>>
>>http://www.thesun.co.uk/
>>
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/?ok
>>
>>http://www.mirror.co.uk/
>
> See how you merkins slavishly follow the antics of our krauty
> royals...

Nah... We just watch you slavishly following their antics. You
can't make good TV programs any more.

--
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.