Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: Brent P on 9 Mar 2007 19:34 In article <aM-dnbbSl6AgZWzYnZ2dnUVZ_vTinZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <TOmdnUnIktYUnXLYnZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: >>> Brent P wrote: >>> >>>> Driving is, given it is now the common form of travel on the roads, a >>>> right. Not an inalienable right as it requires some simple regulation so >>>> people don't trip over each other as did horses and carriages, but part >>>> of the right to travel none the less. >>> Your saying so does not make it so. Of course you DO have the right to >>> make the assertion otherwise. >> >> The Bill of Rights does. > > WADR apparently not or else someone should have made some caselaw by now > with their successful challenge to EVERY state's contention that it is a > privilege. I have actually never seen it codified in law as a priviledge. Please point me to the relevant code. 'Driving is a priviledge' seems to be what government says it is, but the actual code doesn't appear to back that up. Hard to have case law on that, now isn't it? A true 'priviledge' can be taken away at _WHIM_. It's just another lie we are told. Driving falls under admendment 9.
From: Brent P on 9 Mar 2007 20:22 In article <jdSdnXHwHZpmYmzYnZ2dnUVZ_qKqnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <gpidnQLbysMJn3LYnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: >>> Sorry Nate, but driving is a bit more complicated than simply going the >>> legal speed and noticing a yellow light once you are too close to do >>> much about it. We all know that if we approach a light that has been >>> green since it first came into view it's going to change sooner or later >>> and we should know that when we approach a radio loop controlled >>> intersection and there are cars lined up on the cross street that a >>> light change is imminent. Driving is more than being legal and oblivious. >> >> Yet someone who slowed to avoid RLCs on badly timed lights would be causing >> congestion in many areas and be driving so oddly as thought to be drunk. > Oh please! Is that REALLY what you worry about when you're driving > around town? Later tonight as I drive the speed limit when the DUI patrols are out, I will have the concern of being a drunk. When roads are crowded, I try not to screw up traffic because I am not a selfish arsehole. >> What would do if you saw someone stop or slow to a crawl for a 'default' >> green at 2am? And if said 'it was green when it first came into view so >> it would have to change some time' as his excuse.... > I'm thinking that you should have a general idea of your stopping > distances for a given speed and figure two or three seconds of yellow > before red tops then adjust your approach speed accordingly. 35 MPH is > 51 fps and it's gonna take you over 130 feet to stop safely. 45 MPH puts > you at 66 fps and you'll need almost 200 feet to stop. 25 MPH drops you > to around 37 fps and you should be able to stop in less than 90 feet. > Experience behind the wheel teaches you what speed to best approach > lights in various cycle change stages, but slowing for a stale green is > not bad advice and it sure doesn't make you more likely to get pulled > over than running that light does. The fact you can put that forward and not grasp the obvious flaws in it is astounding. Where did you get those braking numbers? The carl taylor web site? A road test of '56 buick roadmaster? The distance you gave for 35mph is more than enough for 60mph.... and that's for a honda civic. Of course in all this distraction you neglect that a 'default green' and a 'stale green' appear the same to the driver. Also a light could have a stale green, but the driver doesn't know it because it's a short green signal. But hey... you don't let logic interfere.
From: k_flynn on 9 Mar 2007 21:02 Steve Furbish wrote: > I'm thinking that you should have a general idea of your stopping > distances for a given speed and figure two or three seconds of yellow > before red tops then adjust your approach speed accordingly. 35 MPH is > 51 fps and it's gonna take you over 130 feet to stop safely. 45 MPH puts > you at 66 fps and you'll need almost 200 feet to stop. 25 MPH drops you > to around 37 fps and you should be able to stop in less than 90 feet. > Experience behind the wheel teaches you what speed to best approach > lights in various cycle change stages, but slowing for a stale green is > not bad advice and it sure doesn't make you more likely to get pulled > over than running that light does. That is not only very bad advice, its very bad traffic engineering. You don't time a travel corridor so that all drivers start to slow down for green lights. You time it so they maintain flow and you give enough time to the yellow phase of the cycle (1 second for each 10 mph of normal flow, with a 3 second minimum) so that inside the "dilemma zone," all those cars traveling at flow make it into or through the intersection before red, and those farther away can safely and progressiovely come to a normal stop. That's the way you do it. you don't rely on drivers slowing for a green signal. That's completely ludicrous.
From: Brent P on 9 Mar 2007 22:31 In article <9Padnb8MXr41m2_YnZ2dnUVZ_v-tnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: > Sounds like something that needs to be addressed at the local level. You > know, like I suggested earlier? Would your political masters listen to someone who cannot vote for them? >>> Well faced with the choice to avoid a known problem area or simply be >>> more diligent when passing through it you seem to choose a third option? >>> I guess we must define stupid a bit differently... >> More dilligent... sure... but you can still get stuck in a catch 22 by a >> faulty intersection and nothing short of routing around one purposely >> made faulty is going to save a citizen from this scam. But you just see >> it as some sort of sick game of the cops vs. the people apparently, where >> people have to play this gambling game where there is no gain for winning >> only breaking even and the cops have all the cards and they are marked. >> Of course you'll come back with 'don't enter the casino' which in this >> case means don't drive. > Actually I see it as a case of a whiner who probably knows full well > that he can avoid the problem (or at least do something politically to > right it), but who gets more pleasure complaining about it to strangers > on the internet. But that's just me. The old... 'you shouldn't even talk about it on usenet' routine. Oh, trust me, I've brought this sort of thing up to local office holders, police departments, newspapers.... It's practically cut and paste from the usenet posts! >>> If you can't handle a tricky intersection then perhaps you don't belong >>> on the road in the first place. They should have taught you about stale >>> greens in driver's education. >> Why should intersections be made to trick people? You just re-inforce >> that you see traffic as some sort cop-vs-motorist game here. Of course to >> drive to guard against 'tricky intersections' means driving in a very >> abnormal manner compared to everyone else. Legal behavior is odd, normal >> behavior illegal. > Again, for the really really slow to catch on here - normal is not > necessarily what Brent P or Nate does. Legal is not running red lights. > Some people seem to manage not to get those tickets? Perhaps you just > need some refresher training? Well you certainly need to be wacked upside the head with a clue stick. Then again, being a cop is one of those jobs where they weed out the people too smart for it. >>> Makes one wonder how so many manage to avoid getting tagged. >> Same wonder that makes most people not get the jackpot on a slot machine. >> >> Careful economic calculations are all part of it, otherwise the whole >> house of cards that the RLC scam is come down. It's not my fault you >> can't figure it out. > I don't buy into your thesis. One or to examples does not mean national > conspiracy. Nice strawman. Who said anything about a national conspriacy? Just you. The only thing that is national or in some cases international, are the contract companies that run the cameras and in the typical contract get a cut of each ticket. But that's not a conspiracy since it's just one company making a profit in many places. Guess you're just too slow for this.
From: Ed Pirrero on 10 Mar 2007 00:47
On Mar 9, 4:29 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > I for one am sick of being called a 'kook' > and a 'conspircy theorist' because I can read a newsapaper article. Funny, I read newspaper articles all the time, and am never called a kook. You're called a kook because your ideas are idiotically nonsensical and bizarre. It's just that simple. E.P. |