A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old February 8th 05, 09:59 AM
the guvner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 17:39:05 -0700, "Phxbrd"
> wrote:


>> >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?

>
>Roundabouts are entirely alien to the American way of life.


How hard can they be?

All you have to do is give way to the right, why the need for all
those stop signs and lights?

>4x4's have been known to drive straight through them....


So the problem there is just poor driving, rather than the
roads/lights themselves?
Ads
  #72  
Old February 8th 05, 10:01 AM
the guvner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:37:37 -0700, Mike Z. Helm >
wrote:


>>The first sentence is incorrect. Roundabouts and traffic circles are
>>everywhere.
>>

>
>Hardly. I can only think of 1 intersection that has them and I've lived
>in several large cities as well as a couple medium sized burghs.
>
>It took a couple times thru it before I was comfortable with them, but
>the problem is we license drivers who still haven't figured out how red
>lights work.


The penalties for jumping redlights need to be upped then, more bans
for bad drivers.
  #73  
Old February 8th 05, 03:46 PM
Mike Z. Helm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:59:55 -0600,
(Brent P)

>In article >, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:08:23 -0600,
(Brent P)
>
>>>Um taking care of the speed limit and everything else is covered under
>>>'fix underlying intersection problems'.

>
>> If the lights are timed for 40mph, as they are around here, and the
>> speed limit is 40, which is fairly reasonable and you drive 60 and have
>> to run a red light to avoid breaking your stride, you are the problem.

>
>I don't have a problem in that case IF the road's traffic is also at
>40mph. If the 85th percentile is 60mph, then the lights need to be timed
>for reality.
>


In reality, traffic typically moves at anywhere from 30 to 50 depending
on congestion and time of day. At night when the streets are relatively
clear, it seems to run about 45.

>>> I don't feel the need to write a book for every post.

>
>> You don't have to - fixing the "underlying problems" isn't the panacea
>> that you proclaim it to be.

>
>Again, the data suggests it's a much better solution. It certainly
>doesn't hurt. But for some reason, the pro-RLC crowd doesn't even want to
>consider intersection and road design defects.
>


I'm pro-RLC and I want those defects fixed.

>> I'm certainly not saying those things shouldn't be addressed, just that
>> you're still going to have red light runners.

>
>Did you read what I wrote. I said there would still be some. There are
>some that are just MFFYers. But they aren't the majority IME.
>
>>>> Implement safeguards to prevent this in the first place. Cities can buy
>>>> the cameras and process tickets themselves - That should be more cost
>>>> effective for any city with more than a few dozen traffic lights anyway.

>
>>>Um the city is part of the revune stream. Here in IL they don't even hide
>>>it anymore. Chicago is short on cash. Daley keeps tearing up airports and
>>>building parks at huge expense. Anyway, to raise more money the solution
>>>is more RLCs. They don't even mention safety anymore, they don't address
>>>intersection problems. It's only about making money to cover budget
>>>shortfalls.

>
>> All the more reason to institute cameras now before cities get really
>> desperate for money. They can provide revenue and address safety at the
>> same time. I have no problem with them collecting revenue from people
>> who endanger me and drive up my insurance rates.

>
>They aren't addressing safety. They are making money that's all. the risk
>is unchanged.
>
>>>The only way to hold government in check on this issue is either a long
>>>list of things that must be up-to-code before an RLC can be installed or
>>>an outright ban on their use.

>
>> I have no problem with implementing standards for RLCs - in fact I've
>> mentioned a few in this thread.

>
>But they aren't done.


Neither are RLCs.

>Intersection has a problem and what's the answer?
>Profit from it!
>


  #75  
Old February 8th 05, 04:01 PM
Phxbrd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cosmic Dawg, Legally Blond" > wrote
in message ...
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 08:49:52 -0700, "Phxbrd"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Cosmic Dawg, Legally Blond" >

wrote
> >in message ...
> >> On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 21:14:46 -0700, "Phxbrd"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Larry J." > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> Waiving the right to remain silent, "Phxbrd"
> >> >> > said:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Larry J." > wrote in message
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> Waiving the right to remain silent, "Phxbrd"
> >> >> >> > said:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > "Scott en Aztl n" > wrote in
> >> >> >> > message ...
> >> >> >> >> Take the quiz and tell us how well you do.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/metro/60194.php
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Multiply all problems by 9.7 and you'll have an approximation
> >> >> >> > of driving in Phoenix. I'm amazed every day by how ****in
> >> >> >> > stoopid so many drivers here are. You take your life in your
> >> >> >> > hands....
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What do you expect in a state where they hand out driver's
> >> >> >> licenses that are good for 20 years..?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Some simple law enforcement would be nice. Cops are seen only
> >> >> > at accident scenes. Our current system is clearly wrong....
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm driving the north 101 Loop these days. The cops are out there

in
> >> >> force lately. I've seen them pull over several crazy speeders. I'm
> >> >> all for that...
> >> >
> >> >While in the meantime all other dangerous violations all over the

valley
> >are
> >> >ignored. Speed has yet to kill the first motorist. It's the

unplanned
> >> >stops what does ya in - frequently caused by buttheads driving too
> >> >slow/wrong lane for traffic conditions. Italy licenses drivers

according
> >to
> >> >real ability. On 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace rode with a Lamborghini

> >factory
> >> >driver licensed to drive 200 mph on 2 lane highways. Here, the

> >dumb****er
> >> >law "enforcers" still swear that "SPEED KILLS".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I've always thought that kind of graduated license system would be a
> >> great idea. I'm afraid it would be a hard sell here because we all
> >> have to be EQUAL.

> >
> >You've never heard of motorcycle or chauffeur licenses?
> >
> >

>
> Yeah but they don't give you any real "extra" privileges worth a crap
> and anyone can get them even if they can barely drive. I'm talking
> about a license that would require a test that's actually a measure of
> your driving skills so you would be able to drive some increment over
> the speed limit without being able to be given a ticket. Like a 1+
> license would let you do 10 over (as long as it's not reckless), and a
> 2+ would let you do 15 over, or something along those lines.
> --


I agree with your premise in general - all except the "...barely drive.". I
now know you're not a motorcyclist. Arizona testing is comprehensive and
certainly not easy. Ask the Harley posers why they borrow decent sickles
for the test....



  #76  
Old February 8th 05, 04:09 PM
Phxbrd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Mike Z. Helm

wrote:
>
> >>> You're getting desperate. Law says "Brake on yellow, stop on red". I

hope
> >>> you don't drive where I drive....
> >>
> >>I've kicked your ass debate wise. You can't even grasp the simple
> >>concepts here. What do you do when the light turns yellow when you are

10
> >>feet from the line and going 30mph in a 35mph zone?

> >
> > Go thru the light.

>
> > At 44 feet per second, the yellow will have to be about 1/5 of a second
> > for you to be caught by the red. Most people couldn't even react that
> > fast.
> >
> > But your point is taken. Yellow means to stop if you can do so safely.

>
> That's the point.
>
> > Set standards for lengths of yellows, assure they're reasonable, publish
> > them, record logs of camera times and make them public.

>
> But that doesn't happen. Such things aren't even checked. A camera is
> just put up to rake in the cash.
>
> > BTW, why would anyone go 30 in a 35?

>
> I framed it for easy math and to keep the speed kills freaks from
> diverting the issue.


You're an idiot. Again I say google up some knowledge of red-light cameras
in order to understand what you're trying to teach others.

Why are the most ignorant often the most verbose?

"...10 feet from the line..." is no problem whatsoever. Duh....





  #77  
Old February 8th 05, 04:11 PM
Phxbrd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Phxbrd wrote:
> >
> > "Brent P" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article >, Phxbrd wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Brent P" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> In article >, Phxbrd wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > You shouldn't even be in this discussion. Everyone rational knows

> > the
> >> >> > longer the yellow light, the more red-light running. Would-be

> > killers
> >> >> > always want longer yellows....
> >> >>
> >> >> Another judyesque moron. Here's some logic for you. If what you

wrote
> >> >> above were true, then NO yellow light would be best. This is known

to
> > be
> >> >> false and thusly your premise fails.
> >> >
> >> > You're getting desperate. Law says "Brake on yellow, stop on red".

I
> > hope
> >> > you don't drive where I drive....
> >>
> >> I've kicked your ass debate wise. You can't even grasp the simple
> >> concepts here. What do you do when the light turns yellow when you are

10
> >> feet from the line and going 30mph in a 35mph zone?

> >
> > Here we go yet again.... You have NO idea how stoplight cameras work.
> > Before showing your ass any further, I suggest you do a little
> > investigation. You're in the same bind Little John got into several

years
> > ago. Bluster doesn't replace knowledge....

>
> You don't want to respond to the point being made. Figures.


There's no point except that you're ignorant on the subject. Bluster fails
again. Go learn!



  #78  
Old February 8th 05, 04:57 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Phxbrd > wrote:
>
>
>It's been rehashed here many times over the years. Lunatics STILL insist
>their right to run "pink lights"


Orange. Red and yellow make orange, not pink.

>pretending it's all about gummint revenue when they'd collect squat if no
>one ran red lights. Duh....


If no one ran the red lights at the red light cameras, conditions
would be changed until they did.



  #79  
Old February 8th 05, 04:58 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Phxbrd > wrote:
>
>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Phxbrd wrote:
>>
>> > You shouldn't even be in this discussion. Everyone rational knows the
>> > longer the yellow light, the more red-light running. Would-be killers
>> > always want longer yellows....

>>
>> Another judyesque moron. Here's some logic for you. If what you wrote
>> above were true, then NO yellow light would be best. This is known to be
>> false and thusly your premise fails.

>
>You're getting desperate. Law says "Brake on yellow, stop on red". I hope
>you don't drive where I drive....


Despite the quotes, there's no such law in any jurisdiction I'm
familiar with. Some jurisdictions requite no special action for a
yellow light (compared to a green), others say to stop if you can do
so safely, and at least one (Washington, D.C.) says to stop.
  #80  
Old February 8th 05, 05:04 PM
Phxbrd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Phxbrd > wrote:
> >
> >
> >It's been rehashed here many times over the years. Lunatics STILL insist
> >their right to run "pink lights"

>
> Orange. Red and yellow make orange, not pink.
>
> >pretending it's all about gummint revenue when they'd collect squat if no
> >one ran red lights. Duh....

>
> If no one ran the red lights at the red light cameras, conditions
> would be changed until they did.


There's a RLC at a dangerous intersection near my house. I've had my
picture taken at least several times, but have yet to receive any citations.
Anyone care to explain? This is a test....



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
opinon of BFG 31 AT KO used tire and rim purchase ufatbastehd Jeep 9 January 28th 05 04:49 AM
HEMI's HOT Luke Smith Driving 208 December 19th 04 06:27 PM
Subject: Traffic School - online traffic school experience response [email protected] Corvette 0 October 9th 04 05:56 PM
Tucson Antique Car Driving Luke Antique cars 2 February 9th 04 11:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.