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

Around 2/7/2005 2:03 PM, Phxbrd wrote:

> "Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Around 2/7/2005 1:54 PM, Phxbrd wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>>Phxbrd > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>People here whined about stoplight cameras a few years back, but as far as
>>>>>I'm concerned they can put them on every major intersection. How many lives
>>>>>could be saved?
>>>>
>>>>In round numbers? 0.
>>>
>>>Howsabout pop-up steel barricades instead?
>>
>>
>>In that case, the numbers of lives saved would probably go negative.
>
>
> And what's wrong with decimating would-be killers?

Who said anything about would-be killers? We're talking about victims of
a corrupt system that prefers revenue generation to actually saving any
lives.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
> Around 2/7/2005 2:00 PM, Phxbrd wrote:
>
> > "Brent P" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Timing lights properly reduces red light running far more than cameras.
> >>Cameras might make for a nice picture of the crash however. But the
> >>biggest problem with cameras is that government uses them to generate
> >>revenue, not increase safety. Thusly intersections often end up with
> >>greater engineering problems than they did before the cameras. The set
up
> >>being geared for revenue.
> >
> >
> > You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
>
> Did you even read what he wrote?

I ignored the ignorant bit about "engineering problems". You?

>
> > Citation number increases prove the validity of the system.
>
> It does nothing of the sort.

Not brain surgery here. Where have you lost the signal?

>
> > It's 100% efficient, as opposed to nearly 0% efficiency of what we now
have.
>
> How, exactly, does it attain 100% efficiency in your mind?

How could it be avoided when 100% of the redlight runners are identified at
least by license number if not by face?

>
> A camera does _nothing_ to *prevent* red light running; All it does is
> discourage behavior that could easily be discouraged using more
> effective yet less profitable methods.

Which are, specifically? (this ort be good...)

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Phxbrd wrote:
>
> > "Brent P" > wrote in message
>
> >> Timing lights properly reduces red light running far more than cameras.
> >> Cameras might make for a nice picture of the crash however. But the
> >> biggest problem with cameras is that government uses them to generate
> >> revenue, not increase safety. Thusly intersections often end up with
> >> greater engineering problems than they did before the cameras. The set
up
> >> being geared for revenue.
> >
> > You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Citation number
> > increases prove the validity of the system. It's 100% efficient, as
opposed
> > to nearly 0% efficiency of what we now have.
>
> Option 1:
>
> fix underlying intersection problems and reduce red light running to very
> small numbers.
>
> Option 2:
>
> Do nothing about the intersection problems, take pictures of red light
> running and eventually see a measurable decrease in red light running.
>
>
> I go for option 1.
>
> Where governments have been found taking advantage of intersection
> problems to make money with RLCs and were forced to fix the underlying
> problems the cameras lost their ability to turn a profit because the
> violations were so few. Previous to fixing the intersection they were
> racking in the cash.

I have NO idea what it is you're trying but failing to say. WTF is "fixing
the intersection" all about?


>

"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
> Around 2/7/2005 2:03 PM, Phxbrd wrote:
>
> > "Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Around 2/7/2005 1:54 PM, Phxbrd wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>In article >,
> >>>>Phxbrd > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>People here whined about stoplight cameras a few years back, but as
far as
> >>>>>I'm concerned they can put them on every major intersection. How
many lives
> >>>>>could be saved?
> >>>>
> >>>>In round numbers? 0.
> >>>
> >>>Howsabout pop-up steel barricades instead?
> >>
> >>
> >>In that case, the numbers of lives saved would probably go negative.
> >
> >
> > And what's wrong with decimating would-be killers?
>
> Who said anything about would-be killers? We're talking about victims of
> a corrupt system that prefers revenue generation to actually saving any
> lives.

Only those ignorant enough to defend redlight running would write dumb ****
like that. Habitual runners are every goddam one a would-be killer.
Blaming the gummint when you insist upon trying to kill innocent people?
WTF's wrong with you?

Around 2/7/2005 2:18 PM, Phxbrd wrote:

> "Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Around 2/7/2005 2:00 PM, Phxbrd wrote:
>>
>>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Timing lights properly reduces red light running far more than cameras.
>>>>Cameras might make for a nice picture of the crash however. But the
>>>>biggest problem with cameras is that government uses them to generate
>>>>revenue, not increase safety. Thusly intersections often end up with
>>>>greater engineering problems than they did before the cameras. The set up
>>>>being geared for revenue.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
>>
>>Did you even read what he wrote?
>
> I ignored the ignorant bit about "engineering problems".

Then I suggest you reread it. It was quite succinct. Specifically, the
first sentence: "Timing lights properly reduces red light running far
more than cameras."


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Phxbrd wrote:

> "Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Around 2/7/2005 2:03 PM, Phxbrd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Around 2/7/2005 1:54 PM, Phxbrd wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>Phxbrd > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>People here whined about stoplight cameras a few years back, but as
>
> far as
>
>>>>>>>I'm concerned they can put them on every major intersection. How
>
> many lives
>
>>>>>>>could be saved?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In round numbers? 0.
>>>>>
>>>>>Howsabout pop-up steel barricades instead?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In that case, the numbers of lives saved would probably go negative.
>>>
>>>
>>>And what's wrong with decimating would-be killers?
>>
>>Who said anything about would-be killers? We're talking about victims of
>>a corrupt system that prefers revenue generation to actually saving any
>>lives.
>
>
> Only those ignorant enough to defend redlight running would write dumb ****
> like that. Habitual runners are every goddam one a would-be killer.
> Blaming the gummint when you insist upon trying to kill innocent people?
> WTF's wrong with you?
>

Oh, no, not again.

nate


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

Phxbrd wrote:

> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >, Phxbrd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>Timing lights properly reduces red light running far more than cameras.
>>>>Cameras might make for a nice picture of the crash however. But the
>>>>biggest problem with cameras is that government uses them to generate
>>>>revenue, not increase safety. Thusly intersections often end up with
>>>>greater engineering problems than they did before the cameras. The set
>
> up
>
>>>>being geared for revenue.
>>>
>>>You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Citation number
>>>increases prove the validity of the system. It's 100% efficient, as
>
> opposed
>
>>>to nearly 0% efficiency of what we now have.
>>
>>Option 1:
>>
>>fix underlying intersection problems and reduce red light running to very
>>small numbers.
>>
>>Option 2:
>>
>>Do nothing about the intersection problems, take pictures of red light
>>running and eventually see a measurable decrease in red light running.
>>
>>
>>I go for option 1.
>>
>>Where governments have been found taking advantage of intersection
>>problems to make money with RLCs and were forced to fix the underlying
>>problems the cameras lost their ability to turn a profit because the
>>violations were so few. Previous to fixing the intersection they were
>>racking in the cash.
>
>
> I have NO idea what it is you're trying but failing to say. WTF is "fixing
> the intersection" all about?
>

Addressing the root cause of the problem, not slapping a band-aid on it.
Usually a yellow light time too short for conditions.

nate


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

Around 2/7/2005 2:24 PM, Phxbrd wrote:

> "Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Around 2/7/2005 2:03 PM, Phxbrd wrote:
>>
>>>And what's wrong with decimating would-be killers?
>>
>>Who said anything about would-be killers? We're talking about victims of
>>a corrupt system that prefers revenue generation to actually saving any
>>lives.
>
> Habitual runners are every goddam one a would-be killer.

Who said anything about defending habitual runners? Not I.

> WTF's wrong with you?

I was wondering the same about you.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

In article >, Phxbrd wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, Phxbrd wrote:
>>
>> > "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>
>> >> Timing lights properly reduces red light running far more than cameras.
>> >> Cameras might make for a nice picture of the crash however. But the
>> >> biggest problem with cameras is that government uses them to generate
>> >> revenue, not increase safety. Thusly intersections often end up with
>> >> greater engineering problems than they did before the cameras. The set
> up
>> >> being geared for revenue.
>> >
>> > You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Citation number
>> > increases prove the validity of the system. It's 100% efficient, as
> opposed
>> > to nearly 0% efficiency of what we now have.
>>
>> Option 1:
>>
>> fix underlying intersection problems and reduce red light running to very
>> small numbers.
>>
>> Option 2:
>>
>> Do nothing about the intersection problems, take pictures of red light
>> running and eventually see a measurable decrease in red light running.
>>
>>
>> I go for option 1.
>>
>> Where governments have been found taking advantage of intersection
>> problems to make money with RLCs and were forced to fix the underlying
>> problems the cameras lost their ability to turn a profit because the
>> violations were so few. Previous to fixing the intersection they were
>> racking in the cash.

> I have NO idea what it is you're trying but failing to say.

What you are failing to read. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is
your problem.

> WTF is "fixing the intersection" all about?

Intersections which have red light running problems to the degree where a
camera is worth the effort usually have some underlying defect. A yellow
light that is too short, a light that isn't visable at a proper distance, a
desperate need for turn lanes/arrows, a road with 50mph traffic and
lights timed for 30mph traffic, etc etc. Only a very small number
of red light runners are of the type who do it because they can get away
with it.

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.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:13:03 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>Option 1:
>
>fix underlying intersection problems and reduce red light running to very
>small numbers.
>
>Option 2:
>
>Do nothing about the intersection problems, take pictures of red light
>running and eventually see a measurable decrease in red light running.

Or install roundabouts to ease traffic flow and negate the need for
red lights?