Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: Ed Pirrero on 10 Mar 2007 01:01 On Mar 9, 5:15 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > > > 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. Well, Steve, I don't think anyone has claimed "national conspiracy" anywhere. In fact, I'm pretty sure we all have mentioned specific places where this is happening. There ar indeed places that do this primarily for revenue. I personally think this is a Charlie Sierra way of going about raising money. If there is a problem with a particular intersection, the very first thing that should be done is to send traffic engineers out. If there is a problem with intersection design, fix that first. Then, if that doesn't work, use real people for enforcement, to make sure that there is some judgement attached to the assignment of infraction. If there still is a problem, then I can see RLCs as a solution, maybe. I think that some politicians look at it as a quick fix, an easy use of technology that solves a problem - I'm guessing that's how it's sold. And underinformed folks buy it. It's not a scheme or a plan or a conspiracy, but an honest attempt at safety, even if naive. But once folks find out there's money in it, then all the things that people do for money come into play. Do you really think that Duke Cunningham went to Congress to feather his nest? I'd bet not. A patriot and a hero, but not a craven money- hungry politician. But look how he turned out. Now apply that to the thinking on RLCs. Please deny the possibility, so that this argument can be ended with a clear loser, OK? One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the drawbacks to RLCs used before other solutions have been tried, or that the potential for abuse is there. Most folks MUST drive a car to get where they are going, and the time we spend in cars is time away from the other things we must do in life. Making things harder on drivers just to make a few bucks for a government coffer is immoral, IMO. E.P.
From: Bruce Richmond on 10 Mar 2007 01:24 On Mar 9, 4:54 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > Bruce Richmond wrote: > > We should not need to be clairvoient. There are lights around here > > that stay green until someone pulls up on the side road. That makes > > sense doesn't it? Why have somone slow down or stop for no reason? > > All it takes is setting the light so the yellow stays on long enough > > so that drivers can slow at a reasonable pace if the yellow comes on. > > If the yellow comes on when they are so close that they would have to > > slam brakes to not enter the intersection, then the yellow should stay > > on long enough for them to clear the intersection while doing speed > > limit. Anything less is stacking the deck aginst drivers and is > > counter to safety. > > > Bruce Richmond > > Knowing "the lights around here" adds variables to the mix that you're > going to have to consider when you decide how fast to approach a stale > green. There's no doubt that a light should be timed so that vehicles > approaching at the legal posted speed limit can react and stop for a > light that changes as they approach. The problem is that especially long > yellows are every bit as dangerous as those that are too short since > they tend to condition the locals to try and beat the red and avoid the > long waits. > > Steve That is not an excuse to shorten the yellow. There should be enought time to get through the light without slamming brakes. Anything less is stacking the deck and not in the interest of safety. Bruce
From: Brent P on 10 Mar 2007 01:26 In article <1173505623.925929.296010(a)v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > 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. Yeah... I'm so kooky.... Government office holders say red light cameras are for money and it makes me think they are doing it for money. Yeah all so kooky.
From: Ed Pirrero on 10 Mar 2007 02:00 On Mar 9, 10:26 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1173505623.925929.296...(a)v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > 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. > > Yeah... I'm so kooky.... Government office holders say red light cameras are for > money and it makes me think they are doing it for money. Yeah all so kooky. If it were just about your views on RLCs, the word kook would never come out of folks' keyboards. But that's a nice try. E.P.
From: Ed Pirrero on 10 Mar 2007 02:12
On Mar 9, 5:16 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > > In article <pan.2007.03.02.02.01.02.256...(a)hotpop.com>, > > Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 10:58:30 -0600, Brent P wrote: > > >>> Many a local/state government has made many traffic tickets civil matters to > >>> avoid the requirements of criminal court. > >> Of course they have. Jury trials for something as common as speeding cases > >> or red light cases would be prohibitively expensive. > > > Then perhaps the states should write laws the populace is willing to follow. > > Then again, some won't follow the rules no matter what they are. So...laws should be written without regard to regular folks just because some small portion of the bell curve can't obey? This is the same style of argument used by the anti-gun crowd as justification for banning personal ownership of weapons. Most folks want to get home every day without wrinkling sheet metal or hurting themselves and others. I would say a very large proportion of the total number of drivers. Most folks, once they get enough experience with driving, know the limits of themselves and their cars in the style they drive them. And they drive accordingly. Most folks can do these things just fine without police cruisers following them around. Now, if you accept all that, why on earth would you want to dumb it down such that everyone needs their hands held? Just because some miniscule fraction is completely asshattted enough to act stupid in and around the rest of us? In all my life, I've been in one collision (teen driver ran a stop sign and hit me) and gotten two moving violations (one earned, the other not so much.) And yet, I should be treated as though I have no clue how to drive my car, with which I have had profession driving instruction, and need to be watched at every second? My exceeding the speed limit in the middle of a bright, sunny, dry day on a lightly-travelled rural interstate in a well-maintained car capable of 150+mph is harming no one. Please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting otherwise. E.P. |