If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Z. Helm wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:56:31 GMT, Arif Khokar > >>>>If very few drivers ran red lights, >>>I didn't say "very few" - I just said most drivers. >>Note that the sentence I wrote above does not include the word not. > I didn't say "very few drivers ran red lights", I said "most drivers do > not". They are effectively the same thing if most + very few = all. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>But it can only detect ONE offense at ONE intersection. If the >>intersection has no underlying defects, it's a money loser. > > One could say the same for stop signs and traffic lights. Which is why stop signs are mis used as speed control devices after great complaint of neighborhood busybodies and stoplights installed after great complaint and fatalities. Ever notice the kind of effort required to get traffic control devices that COST money installed? > Where did I say that my observations were limited to CA? I simply do not see great numbers of MFFY red-light runners. >>> Fewer collisions means the government can save money on fire, >>> paramedic, and other emergency personnel. Plus, RLC-equipped >>> intersections will ALWAYS generate revenue, because there will always >>> be the clueless soccermom on her cell phone who doesn't realize she >>> just drove her SUV right through the red light until the ticket comes >>> in the mail. >>RLCs don't reduce collisions. They simply record them. > Actually, people are much better behaved when they know that Big > Brother is watching. Think about the way you drive when there is a cop > car behind you. And when people are better behaved, they don't pull as > many stupid, dangerous moves. Kinda like the way my son drove my car > when the tracking device was installed. Sounds like an arguement for a viewscreen in every home. That aside, I haven't seen anything that indicates a massive change in people's behavior because of RLCs. Just as parking tickets haven't put an end to illegal parking. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Brent P wrote: > > I simply do not see great numbers of MFFY red-light runners. Boy, howdee, I see'em every day here in Las Vegas. When I'm first off at a light, I ALWAYS look both ways, some of these *******s will barrel through VERY late and VERY fast, not just a half-second behind the yellow light at 5 or 10 over, something everyone's done. What I've heard called, the Orange light. Sorry, I'm new here. What exactly is MFFY? > >>RLCs don't reduce collisions. They simply record them. Some argue they cause them. > > Actually, people are much better behaved when they know that Big > > Brother is watching. Is this reason enough to let him watch? >>Think about the way you drive when there is a cop > > car behind you. I don't like that feeling. Should I feel that way all the time, that cop-in-the-mirror feeling, just to make sure I behave? Why stop there? Besides, I don't feel safer with a cop on my tail, and definitely wouldn't want one there all the time... I know that cops are not themselves always to be trusted. I live in Las Vegas, for pete's sake! Not that I'm paranoid. But are they out to get me??? >>And when people are better behaved, they don't pull as > > many stupid, dangerous moves. Kinda like the way my son drove my car > > when the tracking device was installed. True enough. But your son's a kid, he has no rights. And truckers, hey, it ain't their truck, and if it is, it ain't their cargo. They don't want the job or the contract that badly, they can move on. When the gov't requires such devices on my car, like with that per-mile tax idea, well, let's just call me non-compliant, ok? > Sounds like an arguement for a viewscreen in every home. That aside, I > haven't seen anything that indicates a massive change in people's > behavior because of RLCs. Just as parking tickets haven't put an end to > illegal parking. Hear, Hear. As for changes in driver ability, I'd like to rant a bit, if I may. I've been driving (legally) for 22 years, for a living for some of those years, over most of the country and in many of its great cities. I can't say it's gotten worse. It has not gotten better. Overall safety has definitely improved, due to technology. As for driving skill, there is regional variation, to be sure. (WARNING! The following contains regional generalities that may offend! If you are easily offended DO NOT READ!) I thought the worst drivers in the US were in South Florida, till I moved to Vegas. It's like the worst drivers in the US all decided to live here, kinda like all the smokers in LA have moved here, or will soon. The midwest and NE, they drive fast, but are generally courteous, particularly Michigan and Ohio. The South is fast, not so courteous (on the road, that is.) Detroit is murder on cars, people drive fast and the roads are terrible. The city seems to have its own rules as always, an aggressive style is called for, expected even. Washington DC drivers are appallingly bad, not surprising given that the town's main industry is government. Boston's traffic sucks, but they have really good public trans, that I used a lot when I lived there. I LOVE my cars, so to get me out of it, the public trans has to be good. I never drove in NYC, never lived there. Yeah, Southern CA's pretty bad, the traffic Sucks on a Scale like no other, but you just don't seem to see the same level of sheer incompetence as you do in Vegas. You see a lot mistakes more overall in CA, I guess, due to sheer numbers. I think here the avg. skill and attention levels are lower, while the risk-taking is higher, a deadly combo. Could be we've just got more drunks (per capita). Just my Opinion, worth every penny you paid. ;-) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:07:14 -0600, > (Brent P) wrote: > >>Sounds like an arguement for a viewscreen in every home. That aside, I >>haven't seen anything that indicates a massive change in people's >>behavior because of RLCs. > > So you're saying you disagree with the other poster who claims that > RLC are the cause of huge increases in rear-end collisions? I haven't seen any evidence that indicates a massive change in people's behavior. Show me the evidence, for that in particular, then I can tell you if I agree or disagree. I do believe there would be some increase in rear-end collisions, I don't think it qualifies as 'massive'. RLCs exist for one reason, to make money. With properly engineered intersections they don't make money. Now, your arguement seems to be of one that a small minority of drivers is such a problem, that ALL of us should always be tracked, logged, watched, etc. Post after post after post you endorse big-brother schemes. This is fully incompatible with a free society. In fact, it's much like a prison camp or grade school mentality where the entire populace is watched/punished for the actions of the few. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
RobW wrote:
> Sorry, I'm new here. What exactly is MFFY? It stands for Me First, **** You. Oh, and try to keep your attributions straight. You were actually responding to two different people in your post (which gets kind of confusing) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Arif Khokar wrote: > RobW wrote: > > > Sorry, I'm new here. What exactly is MFFY? > > It stands for Me First, **** You. Thank you! > Oh, and try to keep your attributions straight. You were actually > responding to two different people in your post (which gets kind of > confusing) Thanks again. I was aware of it, I'll use names to be clear next time. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> Agreed. However, red lights still get run even at correctly engineered > intersections. The presence of a RLC might not make any money for the > city, but it would still reduce the number of red light runners at > that intersection. Would be trivial. The correct engineering will reduce it by 90 something percent if I recall correctly. At best you're looking at a couple percent reduction after that. > If, someday, a city actually installs RLCs "for safety" as they claim > has been their motivation all along, that would be A Good Thing. They aren't for safety. Government doesn't do things for our safety. It does things for it's power, it's money, and it's survival. >>Now, your arguement seems to be of >>one that a small minority of drivers is such a problem, that ALL of us >>should always be tracked, logged, watched, etc. > A properly functioning RLC will not track, log, or watch you unless > you violate the law. I do not support the perversion of those RLCs for > other purposes. The government could work around that so easily. In fact they already do. It simply takes making everyone into a violator. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> If you're OK with private security cameras, why do you draw the line > at red light cameras? I'll let you know after I'm forced to wear a license plate around my neck with a number that links to my name and address. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Brent P wrote: > In article >, Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote: > > > If you're OK with private security cameras, why do you draw the line > > at red light cameras? > > I'll let you know after I'm forced to wear a license plate around my neck > with a number that links to my name and address. No one forces you to have a license plate on your car. That is totally your choice. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HAVE YOU HEARD THE GOOD NEWS! | [email protected] | VW water cooled | 1 | January 27th 05 12:42 PM |
HAVE YOU HEARD THE GOOD NEWS! | [email protected] | VW water cooled | 0 | January 26th 05 03:37 AM |
Selespeed - a Good Thing? Opinions Please | Jake | Alfa Romeo | 6 | August 9th 04 09:12 PM |
Chrysler 300 C - How much of a Mercedes is it, and is that good or bad? | REInvestments | Dodge | 14 | May 11th 04 01:10 PM |