Do Red-Light cams show the light red as well as license plate photo?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Congratulations, Paul Milligan
Next: Yamaha batteries
From: N8N on 13 Mar 2007 13:58 On Mar 13, 11:56 am, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > <snip> > > 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! > > So you go ahead and hit that intersection at whatever speed you want. > When you T-bone some family and someone like me calls out a > reconstructionist to determine cause factors let's hope that your > insurance coverage is good. I've scraped up enough gore over the years > to know that there's nothing like being called defendant in a criminal > or civil lawsuit to change you right-of-way thinking. Why not just FIX THE INTERSECTION? > > > 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. > > I haven't argued against proper timing. You just did! >I have pointed out that > violations will still occur to some degree regardless. True... but they will be much fewer with longer yellows. MUCH fewer. 90% or more fewer. Are you willing to accept AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE more RLRing and resultant crashes, or would you rather fix the engineering problems? >I have pointed > out that too long a yellow can be just as dangerous as too short a > yellow. But that isn't even a true statement! Have you actually read any of the studies to which links have been posted? lifted straight from the NMA RLC page to which links have already been posted: "A real world example that illustrates that motorists do not adjust to the yellow light time and begin violating red lights again can be found in Fairfax County, Virginia. The engineers increased the yellow light time on March 26, 2001 from 4 seconds to 5.5 seconds with a result of a 96 percent decrease in violations. To date, there has been no increase in the amount of red light violation For the full story on this, visit this page." Link goes to: http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/vastudy.html > I haven't suggested randomly slowing for green lights at RLC > intersections. I have suggested slowing and preparing for stale greens > at ANY intersection as a good means of driving defensively. It's a good way to waste time and artificially slow traffic for no good reason. There's no excuse for setting lights in such a manner to make such behavior advisable. The only reason to do so is to make money from a RLC at the expense of safety which is morally and legally indefensible. The fact that proper engineering solutions have been proven to work far better than RLCs suggests that those who push hard for RLC installations have an agenda other than safety. nate
From: Brent P on 13 Mar 2007 14:07 In article <15CdnTAxzIr2fmvYnZ2dnUVZ_sapnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: >> Do you have a right to privacy in prison? > Actually you do have areas of privacy. For reasons of security it's > obviously not absolute. However, the right to privacy is one of those > read between the lines things too. It's one of those things not > specifically enumerated yet commonly held as existent. The toilets are out in the open, the mail is read/searched. What would those be? > > Free speach? against search and siezure? > You don't have a right against search & seizure. You have a right > against UNREASONABLE search & seizure. Irrelevant difference in PRISON. Which is why I shortened it. >> Right to vote? What rights are those that can't be taken away >> again? > Alas! You cannot seem to fathom the difference between restraints > imposed by imprisonment on proper and legal conviction of a crime > following due process for security reasons and the revocation of a > privilege granted by license. Perhaps I gave your massive intellect a > bit too much credit after all? What you don't understand is that the term 'priviledge' is used to convince people that they must do whatever the government says to do X. Look at everything that has been attached to driving under this color of law. Things that have nothing to do with driving. How did that happen? They convinced you that government is a granter or priviledge. Making government the parent and the citizen the child. They've turned adults into children of the government. Father won't let you drive the car if you got a bad grade in math. > Since a drivers license is a grant of privilege Produce the law that states as such. >> When you have no rational argument go for the kook angle. > The kook angle is always there. I just prefer not to overuse it. If you > had a right to a drivers license then no revocation would be possible > and of the millions of people with suspended or revoked licenses one > would surely have prevailed on appeal by now. And what I have been trying to show you, is that if a person violates the rights of others, he can be punished with the loss of his rights. Something doesn't have to be a priviledge to be able to take it away as punishment through due process of law. Just like the cops were told the law was X when it was Y with the car in my driveway and didn't know the difference, you don't grasp it here.
From: k_flynn on 12 Mar 2007 23:25 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 stance since the word wasn't in the statute you cited when you were asked for a cite to whee driving was defined as a privilege. On top of that, the definition of "privilege" didn't include licening. 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. This is not "privilege" in the comonlly 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: Brent P on 13 Mar 2007 17:43 In article <G9idnVNqzuHjemvYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <HPCdnSkRa5crPmjYnZ2dnUVZ_uKknZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Steve Furbish wrote: >> >>>> speed limit or slightly below and that will make me appear as a drunk to >>>> the officers. >> >>> Really? Your knowledge of police work - does it come from watching cops >>> or do you actually have any training in the profession? >> >> Ok cop, why do I get followed then? > > My guess is because you are a shitty driver, but that IS just a guess... I'm done with you... You have no logical ability and just want to spew insults. Here's a hint, since you're too stupid to grasp it: If my driving wasn't PERFECT they wouldn't need to follow and wait for something. <rest snipped, unread>
From: k_flynn on 14 Mar 2007 00:52
On Mar 13, 12:00 pm, Steve Furbish <sfurb...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > 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. > > One count one - it doesn't have to. Of course it does. When you're asked for a cite that *specifies* that driving is a privilege, and you instead provide a cite that does nothing of the sort, it's generally regarded as evasive. Not only does the word "privilege" not appear at all in the cite you provided in response to the request for a statute cite that defined driving as a privilege; your cite never even provided *any* definition for driving. It simply states that a license is required to drive a motor vehicle. > You don't define a word by using the > word. Nor was that the nature of the request in the first place. > Most people understand that license suggest privilege just as they > understand that a right needs no license. I doubt most people believe this misinterpretation. A privilege is a special grant bestowed by an authority there is an element of whim at play in it. A license, as I said, is an earned benefit. The applicant gets it with or without the whim of the state if he or she qualifies through the objective standards. There is a difference. > One count two - it exactly addresses the issue. Unless you understand > what a privilege or right is in a legal sense you cannot discuss it > intelligently. Indeed. > > 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. > > If you want to refuse to use your own good sense to comprehend then I > guess you are two for two... Good sense recognizes the subtleties of words and meaning. > > 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. > > Where did you come up with that hogwash? Well, actually, from the.... truth of the matter. Your calling it "hogwash" indicates you need to brush up. |