Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: k_flynn on 12 Mar 2007 23:21 On Mar 12, 12:07 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > On Mar 11, 10:25 am, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > >> Brent P wrote: > >>> In article <1173511719.732686.223...(a)n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >>>> I believe it when there's hard evidence. I don't believe it when it's > >>>> supposition and innuendo. > >>> Government documents, news stories, TV interviews.... all the same > >>> 'supposition and innuendo' that says RLCs are about the money. > >> Money is the compelling issue for every politician I've ever known of. > >> That doesn't mean that all fines raised by RLCs are invalid by default. > >> Some drivers just run red lights anytime they approach one that's close. > > > And that is precisely why your position is wrong. You argue against > > proper safe timing of yellow phases before use of RLCs; proper timing > > should come first, then the number of RLRs would be negligible. IMO, > > have at them but time the signals properly first. Better to prevent an > > accident than to photograph it. > > I don't believe I've argued any such thing. I dispute that there is a > widespread problem (intentionally avoiding the word conspiracy) with > RLCs and I've repeatedly said that I'm not in favor of this particular > means of enforcing compliance, but I have no problem with seeing the > correct timing set on traffic lights that insures the fewest people > "accidentally" run the red light. Well, actually you did argue for it. In a reply to Brent last Wednesday, you justified the use of a RLC at a hypothetical improperly timed intersection by telling him he simply shouldn't be driving ("If you can't handle a tricky intersection then perhaps you don't belong on the road in the first place.") rather than agreeing that the intersection signals should instead be timed properly for a safe flow of traffic. You went on to advocate that people actually slow down as they approach green lights that have been green for some indeterminate time, completely ludicrous traffic advice when all that's required is to time the yellow phase properly so that the dilemma zone is shortened or eliminated and all traffic ahead of the zone completes passage through the intersection safely and all traffic behind the zone comes to a safe and progressive stop - no rear-ending needed! You have argued against proper timing of signals in favor of people randomly slowing for green lights at intersections controlled by RLCs. That, my friend, is advocating use of RLCs ahead of safe signal timing.
From: Brent P on 13 Mar 2007 01:39 In article <et5age01gn1(a)news2.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel wrote: >> http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/studies/dickarmeyfinalreport.pdf >> >> which I keep referring to simply because it's the most concise document >> of which I'm aware that still manages to get in all the salient points >> and is still written so that someone without a background in statistics >> or traffic safety engineering can understand it... anyway, look at >> pages 12-16 for a discussion of how the guidelines were originally >> written as I suggest, and have evolved over time into their current form. >> >> nate >> > > dang, I've replied to myself TWICE now. > > for those of you involved in this discussion that still are on the fence > re: this issue and would like more reading material (Officer Furbish?) > here's a better link to the bibliography of the Armey report with live > links to some of the source material. > > http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TickRedCamArmeyBiblio.asp > > yeah, I know, I need a life, especially when I have a job to go to in > the AM. what can I say, I feel very strongly about this issue and would > like to make sure that all the information out there is easily available > to those who are willing to read it. I'll add today's RLC's are about the money story: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1647.asp http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/mar/08/lawmakers-propose-options-red-light-program/ State tries to take the money out of it, or at least keep it for themselves and the locals complain.
From: k_flynn on 13 Mar 2007 09:35 On Mar 12, 9:25 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote: > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > On Mar 12, 12:07 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > > >>k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > >>>On Mar 11, 10:25 am, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > > >>>>Brent P wrote: > > >>>>>In article <1173511719.732686.223...(a)n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > >>>>>>I believe it when there's hard evidence. I don't believe it when it's > >>>>>>supposition and innuendo. > > >>>>>Government documents, news stories, TV interviews.... all the same > >>>>>'supposition and innuendo' that says RLCs are about the money. > > >>>>Money is the compelling issue for every politician I've ever known of. > >>>>That doesn't mean that all fines raised by RLCs are invalid by default. > >>>>Some drivers just run red lights anytime they approach one that's close. > > >>>And that is precisely why your position is wrong. You argue against > >>>proper safe timing of yellow phases before use of RLCs; proper timing > >>>should come first, then the number of RLRs would be negligible. IMO, > >>>have at them but time the signals properly first. Better to prevent an > >>>accident than to photograph it. > > >>I don't believe I've argued any such thing. I dispute that there is a > >>widespread problem (intentionally avoiding the word conspiracy) with > >>RLCs and I've repeatedly said that I'm not in favor of this particular > >>means of enforcing compliance, but I have no problem with seeing the > >>correct timing set on traffic lights that insures the fewest people > >>"accidentally" run the red light. > > > Well, actually you did argue for it. In a reply to Brent last > > Wednesday, you justified the use of a RLC at a hypothetical improperly > > timed intersection by telling him he simply shouldn't be driving ("If > > you can't handle a tricky intersection then perhaps you don't belong > > on the road in the first place.") rather than agreeing that the > > intersection signals should instead be timed properly for a safe flow > > of traffic. You went on to advocate that people actually slow down as > > they approach green lights that have been green for some indeterminate > > time, completely ludicrous traffic advice when all that's required is > > to time the yellow phase properly so that the dilemma zone is > > shortened or eliminated and all traffic ahead of the zone completes > > passage through the intersection safely and all traffic behind the > > zone comes to a safe and progressive stop - no rear-ending needed! > > > You have argued against proper timing of signals in favor of people > > randomly slowing for green lights at intersections controlled by RLCs. > > That, my friend, is advocating use of RLCs ahead of safe signal > > timing. > > The delimma zone should not be "shortened" it should definitely be > *eliminated!* That is the whole point of the MUTCD/ITE yellow light > timing guidelines - that no motorist traveling at a legal speed should > be caught in a situation where he can't proceed without hitting a red > but can't stop prior to entering the intersection assuming he reacts in > a reasonable amount of time to a yellow signal. There should be NO > "delimma zone" in a properly set up intersection! > > For maximum safety, the yellow interval should be slightly longer than > that which would be mandated by the conditions I describe above - so > there's a slight margin for error on the part of the driver when making > the go/no go decision. Anything else is simply not in the interest of > maximum safety. Given the wide range of vehicle types and conditions on the road, add in the mix of drivers and their reaction times, and I think there will always be a moveable "dilemma zone." But at least here in CO, some signal installations include upstream sensors that detect the presence of vehilces still passing through this "middle ground" -- usually the tail end of the platoon for that cycle -- and will automatically add a second or two of green time to eliminate the dilemma.
From: k_flynn on 13 Mar 2007 09:45 On Mar 12, 12:57 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > You need to look up what "privilege" actually means. A driver's > > license is earned by testing objective standards and is not a special > > right or immunity enjoyed by only a few. > > And you need to put away your Websters and edify yourself on the legal > lexeme that applies when trying to figure out what is privilege and what > is right. You know, that's a pretty flimsy response. You were asked to cite a statute that specified driving as a privilege, and the cite you provided didn't contain the word at all or address the issue. On top of that, the definition of "privilege" didn't include the concept of licensing. So I'm two-for-two and you're batting .000 on this one, yet you're posing as though you'd made a point. A license is earned by passing a set of objective standards and can be lost through violating a set of proscribed behaviors. It is self- selected by the applicant. It is not "privilege" in the commonly understood sense of a special right or grant that is bestowed on a person or class. It is not bestowed by government, it is earned by the individual.
From: N8N on 13 Mar 2007 10:42
On Mar 13, 8:35 am, "k_fl...(a)lycos.com" <k_fl...(a)lycos.com> wrote: > On Mar 12, 9:25 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote: > > > > > > > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > > On Mar 12, 12:07 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > > > >>k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > > >>>On Mar 11, 10:25 am, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > > > >>>>Brent P wrote: > > > >>>>>In article <1173511719.732686.223...(a)n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > > >>>>>>I believe it when there's hard evidence. I don't believe it when it's > > >>>>>>supposition and innuendo. > > > >>>>>Government documents, news stories, TV interviews.... all the same > > >>>>>'supposition and innuendo' that says RLCs are about the money. > > > >>>>Money is the compelling issue for every politician I've ever known of. > > >>>>That doesn't mean that all fines raised by RLCs are invalid by default. > > >>>>Some drivers just run red lights anytime they approach one that's close. > > > >>>And that is precisely why your position is wrong. You argue against > > >>>proper safe timing of yellow phases before use of RLCs; proper timing > > >>>should come first, then the number of RLRs would be negligible. IMO, > > >>>have at them but time the signals properly first. Better to prevent an > > >>>accident than to photograph it. > > > >>I don't believe I've argued any such thing. I dispute that there is a > > >>widespread problem (intentionally avoiding the word conspiracy) with > > >>RLCs and I've repeatedly said that I'm not in favor of this particular > > >>means of enforcing compliance, but I have no problem with seeing the > > >>correct timing set on traffic lights that insures the fewest people > > >>"accidentally" run the red light. > > > > Well, actually you did argue for it. In a reply to Brent last > > > Wednesday, you justified the use of a RLC at a hypothetical improperly > > > timed intersection by telling him he simply shouldn't be driving ("If > > > you can't handle a tricky intersection then perhaps you don't belong > > > on the road in the first place.") rather than agreeing that the > > > intersection signals should instead be timed properly for a safe flow > > > of traffic. You went on to advocate that people actually slow down as > > > they approach green lights that have been green for some indeterminate > > > time, completely ludicrous traffic advice when all that's required is > > > to time the yellow phase properly so that the dilemma zone is > > > shortened or eliminated and all traffic ahead of the zone completes > > > passage through the intersection safely and all traffic behind the > > > zone comes to a safe and progressive stop - no rear-ending needed! > > > > You have argued against proper timing of signals in favor of people > > > randomly slowing for green lights at intersections controlled by RLCs. > > > That, my friend, is advocating use of RLCs ahead of safe signal > > > timing. > > > The delimma zone should not be "shortened" it should definitely be > > *eliminated!* That is the whole point of the MUTCD/ITE yellow light > > timing guidelines - that no motorist traveling at a legal speed should > > be caught in a situation where he can't proceed without hitting a red > > but can't stop prior to entering the intersection assuming he reacts in > > a reasonable amount of time to a yellow signal. There should be NO > > "delimma zone" in a properly set up intersection! > > > For maximum safety, the yellow interval should be slightly longer than > > that which would be mandated by the conditions I describe above - so > > there's a slight margin for error on the part of the driver when making > > the go/no go decision. Anything else is simply not in the interest of > > maximum safety. > > Given the wide range of vehicle types and conditions on the road, add > in the mix of drivers and their reaction times, and I think there will > always be a moveable "dilemma zone." But at least here in CO, some > signal installations include upstream sensors that detect the presence > of vehilces still passing through this "middle ground" -- usually the > tail end of the platoon for that cycle -- and will automatically add a > second or two of green time to eliminate the dilemma. There may well be a dilemma zone for, say, a fully loaded dump truck - but the calculations should be based on a reasonable, low assumption for decel that the majority of vehicles can achieve safely. nate |