In article scottenazt…@yahoo.com says…
> BTW, be sure to read the comments to this story. They’re a real hoot!
> But read ‘em quick before the censors delete all the good ones. 
I didn’t realize that even Tucson has their collection of Brent Ps.
They’re everywhere. Funny how the Brent-like comments got all thumbs
down.
.
In article <MPG.21776b80d42dfec8989…@chi.news.speakeasy.net>, Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article scottenazt…@yahoo.com says…
>> BTW, be sure to read the comments to this story. They’re a real hoot!
>> But read ‘em quick before the censors delete all the good ones.
> I didn’t realize that even Tucson has their collection of Brent Ps.
> They’re everywhere. Funny how the Brent-like comments got all thumbs
> down.
Funny, I didn’t see any comments like mine. Only people who felt it was a
scam but didn’t know how the scam worked. I also noted that there were a
bunch of "Mark Andersons" who were just as petty as the one we have here
who were going around trying to silence opposition to the state’s
program.
When I say red light cameras are a scam I back it up with all those
studies you can’t be bothered to read. Of course you, like the people
commenting aren’t interested in safety, but rather a piece of flesh.
Punishment for the assholes.
I want to see the assholes punished as much as anyone, I just don’t want
to cut off my hands in the process. If RLCs were run entirely on the up
and up, if yellow light timing was never messed with, if the guidelines
for yellow lights had remained the way they were in the 80s, I would have
little problem with RLCs. But that’s the ideal world, not the real world.
Scott in SoCal:
> I would love to videotape those traffic signals both before and after
> the RLCs are installed, just to watch the yellow light times get
> shorter.
> BTW, be sure to read the comments to this story. They’re a real hoot!
> But read ‘em quick before the censors delete all the good ones.
> http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/205607.php
They’re already censoring themselves. When I went in to read the
comments, someone had been goving "thumbs down," to any of the comments
that referred to the scameras as a revenue tool so that you had to click
the comment to read it. Either the cops in tuscon (and/or the installer
of the cameras) was in there trying to filter out the negative comments
(and/or posting alot of pro-camera comments) or tuscon is full of a
bunch of stupid morons who think like the gpstroll: that government ca
do no wrong.
> Construction has begun on a red-light camera at the intersection of
> East Grant and Tanque Verde roads and it should be ready to snap
> photos of red-light runners by the end of the month, an official said.
> The Police Department is zeroing in on the locations of three more
> red-light cameras to be placed at intersections around the city.
> Construction on those could begin within the next week, said Tucson
> Police Department Sgt. James Scott.
Any relation???? ;)
–
—
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety."
–Benjamin Franklin
In chi.general Scott in SoCal <scottenazt…@yahoo.com> wrote:
: I would love to videotape those traffic signals both before and after
: the RLCs are installed, just to watch the yellow light times get
: shorter.
: BTW, be sure to read the comments to this story. They’re a real hoot!
: But read ‘em quick before the censors delete all the good ones.
: http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/205607.php
: Construction has begun on a red-light camera at the intersection of
: East Grant and Tanque Verde roads and it should be ready to snap
: photos of red-light runners by the end of the month, an official said.
: The Police Department is zeroing in on the locations of three more
: red-light cameras to be placed at intersections around the city.
: Construction on those could begin within the next week, said Tucson
: Police Department Sgt. James Scott.
Too cold to ride my bike tonite, but I did a pretty good survey last night
of the red light camera intersection from my earlier post last night (course
it was cold last night too, but not as cold as tonight I think). There is no
ashphalt goop anywhere on the east or west lanes to indicate that they cut up
the street to put in sensors. The crosswalk lines have not been recently
painted either. I didn’t get a good look at the north south sections. The
intersection is very well lit because of the orange overhead lights…
I did 15 miles and then called it quits last night due to the wind and lack
of planning (I was wearing a short sleeve jersey, I dug out the long sleeve
one this morning but i think it’s colder than long sleeves out there tonite).
–
John Nelson
————————————————————————— —
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)
In article <4u5sg31a1erv2ru7dp4ci4benqrfmq1…@4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in
>>I want to see the assholes punished as much as anyone, I just don’t want
>>to cut off my hands in the process. If RLCs were run entirely on the up
>>and up, if yellow light timing was never messed with, if the guidelines
>>for yellow lights had remained the way they were in the 80s, I would have
>>little problem with RLCs. But that’s the ideal world, not the real world.
> I agree 100%.
> The sheeple believe that red light cameras always work perfectly, and
> that the motivations of the government and the private contractors who
> operate them are always benign. Greed, avarice, and simple human error
> do not exist in these simpletons’ fantasy world, so if you object to
> RLCs you must be an impatient scofflaw hell bent on running red
> lights.
The sheeple believe that if it comes out of a machine it is an unbiased
and correct result. They are unfamiliar with garbage in, garbage out and
other principles of programing and machine design that mean the humans
who set them up can make the machines produce the desired result. It’s
the same way we get CO2 global warming nonsense. They write a program
that has all their theories and ideas in it and of course it gives them
the desired end result. People see it’s a ‘computer model’ and believe it
without questioning the basic premises it was designed on let alone if it
matches observations.
Look at mr. Anderson…. he’s been given a pile of studies and wouldn’t
let his faith be shaken by them. He wanted a local RLC… so John Nelson got
that for him and it showed the expected increase in rear end collisions.
But still, his RLC faith is unbroken.
In article <5h6sg3tvq84cuvkq1lqumh4ndmgum8k…@4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> Tucsonans are a breed unto themselves. The vast majority are -5 Sloths
> who have ZERO consideration for anyone else on the road. "Have to get
> to the day care center to avoid that penalty charge? Have to get to
> the store before it closes? Have to get to the pizza place bewfore
> your pizza gets cold? TFB, you impatient asshole! I’m in your way, and
> I’m going niiiiice and slooooow." Every year, dozens of them drive
> into flooded washes and need a swift-water rescue. And that’s just the
> natives; this time of year, the road idiocy balloons with the arrival
> of the Snowbird flocks. NONE of them ever seem to be in any hurry to
> get anywhere.
> It’s no wonder most of the comments center on how "impatient" red
> light runners are.
Dollars to doughnuts they become extremely agressive towards any road
riding bicyclist they encounter. Not to mention anyone who dares drive
slower than them in front of them.
It’s funny how when I am bicycling, how these retired without a time
table sloths become enraged. You want to see one nail the accelerator?
Just get in the left lane and pass them with a bicycle. Or be stopped at
a light in front of them…. Suddenly, they have places to go, people to
see, things to do….
In article tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com says…
> The sheeple believe that if it comes out of a machine it is an unbiased
> and correct result. They are unfamiliar with garbage in, garbage out and
> other principles of programing and machine design that mean the humans
> who set them up can make the machines produce the desired result.
Other than the three pictures they provide you of the violation and the
video of you going through the stale red, what exactly did the computer
do to manufacture this evidence?
> It’s
> the same way we get CO2 global warming nonsense.
Here we go again with the obfuscation Brent is so fond of. When you
can’t win an argument based on facts, produce a looky loo to divert
attention from the argument that you can’t win. Typical tactic by Brent
which is why his threads end up in the 100s of posts. He’s an ideologue
who cares little about reality.
> Look at mr. Anderson…. he’s been given a pile of studies and wouldn’t
> let his faith be shaken by them. He wanted a local RLC… so John Nelson got
> that for him and it showed the expected increase in rear end collisions.
> But still, his RLC faith is unbroken.
John produced 3 years worth of data on one intersection. John did a
yeoman’s job getting that data. Although interesting, it is however
hardly enough to base any conclusions. I do find it interesting that
you can. I’d hate to have engineers like you who think they can draw a
straight line through a single data point. If you were a bridge
engineer we’d all end up in the river at some point.
BTW: I’m still waiting for that false positive rate data that you
consistently avoid.
Here’s a snippet of the Trib article I posted last May. I’m sure more
data will be forthcoming as more RLCs are deployed here. I just saw one
going up at Irving and Western. When it gets installed and working I’ll
do something you fear, actually measuring the yellow light timing with
my 6 year old digital camera.
—-
More cameras to target drivers
Red-light ticketing effort to expand
By Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune transportation reporter
Published May 5, 2007
Six more cameras will be put in place Monday to nab drivers who blow
through red lights in Chicago, officials announced Friday, adding that
crashes have fallen 23 percent since the first cameras were installed
several years ago.
That will bring the number of surveillance devices aimed at dangerous
intersections to 39 citywide. Thirty-one more cameras will be added in
2007, according to the city Office of Emergency Management and
Communications.
On Oct 11, 11:25 am, Mark Anderson <m…@nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com says…
> > The sheeple believe that if it comes out of a machine it is an unbiased
> > and correct result. They are unfamiliar with garbage in, garbage out and
> > other principles of programing and machine design that mean the humans
> > who set them up can make the machines produce the desired result.
> Other than the three pictures they provide you of the violation and the
> video of you going through the stale red, what exactly did the computer
> do to manufacture this evidence?
> > It’s
> > the same way we get CO2 global warming nonsense.
> Here we go again with the obfuscation Brent is so fond of. When you
> can’t win an argument based on facts, produce a looky loo to divert
> attention from the argument that you can’t win. Typical tactic by Brent
> which is why his threads end up in the 100s of posts. He’s an ideologue
> who cares little about reality.
> > Look at mr. Anderson…. he’s been given a pile of studies and wouldn’t
> > let his faith be shaken by them. He wanted a local RLC… so John Nelson got
> > that for him and it showed the expected increase in rear end collisions.
> > But still, his RLC faith is unbroken.
> John produced 3 years worth of data on one intersection. John did a
> yeoman’s job getting that data. Although interesting, it is however
> hardly enough to base any conclusions. I do find it interesting that
> you can. I’d hate to have engineers like you who think they can draw a
> straight line through a single data point. If you were a bridge
> engineer we’d all end up in the river at some point.
So I guess the Virginia study encompassing several intersections in
each of several very different areas don’t count as "data" in your
world? And the fact that the conclusions appear to be similar to the
study that you and Brent are mentioning (which I’m not familiar with,
but it seems from the quoted text that you did see an increase in rear-
enders) doesn’t mean anything to you?
How much data do you need before you feel comfortable drawing
conclusions?
nate
In article <MPG.2177fc6083947abb989…@chi.news.speakeasy.net>, Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com says…
>> The sheeple believe that if it comes out of a machine it is an unbiased
>> and correct result. They are unfamiliar with garbage in, garbage out and
>> other principles of programing and machine design that mean the humans
>> who set them up can make the machines produce the desired result.
> Other than the three pictures they provide you of the violation and the
> video of you going through the stale red, what exactly did the computer
> do to manufacture this evidence?
See, this is what I mean about Anderson’s unshakable belief system. We’ve
been over this many many many times on how the system is rigged. But he
still believes that if there was a photo it must all be on the up and up,
all perfectly and 100% fair and square…. that no matter how the system
is rigged, no matter what is done by those who control every facet of the
rules that it is 100% the fault of the person cited.
Some day Mr. anderson will get the ticket from the system in this rigged
game, and we will never hear about it. Even then, his faith will not be
shaken because he’ll believe somehow it was his fault. That he fell short
of pleasing the state.
>> It’s
>> the same way we get CO2 global warming nonsense.
> Here we go again with the obfuscation Brent is so fond of. When you
> can’t win an argument based on facts, produce a looky loo to divert
> attention from the argument that you can’t win. Typical tactic by Brent
> which is why his threads end up in the 100s of posts. He’s an ideologue
> who cares little about reality.
I already won the red light camera argument Anderson… several times
over. You have never produced anything to even defend the RLC other than
your opinion and cries that you are not satisified with the studies with
the data presented. You’re never going to be satisified, no amount of
information can ever shake your faith.
>> Look at mr. Anderson…. he’s been given a pile of studies and wouldn’t
>> let his faith be shaken by them. He wanted a local RLC… so John Nelson got
>> that for him and it showed the expected increase in rear end collisions.
>> But still, his RLC faith is unbroken.
> John produced 3 years worth of data on one intersection. John did a
> yeoman’s job getting that data. Although interesting, it is however
> hardly enough to base any conclusions.
Remember what I wrote the last time when you demanded I time lights,
demanded I get data for a chicago RLC intersection wrt to collisions? I
wrote that you would dismiss it as ‘not good enough’ or ‘fabricated’.
And here you are doing that.
> I do find it interesting that
> you can. I’d hate to have engineers like you who think they can draw a
> straight line through a single data point. If you were a bridge
> engineer we’d all end up in the river at some point.
Single data point? Not at all. I’ve given you a number of studies that show
an increase in rear-end collisions when RLCs are installed. The data mr.
Nelson provided is before and after camera. It is more than one point and
shows an increase in rear-end collisions. Completely consistant with
studies on the topic.
> BTW: I’m still waiting for that false positive rate data that you
> consistently avoid.
I haven’t avoided it. I never stood on a false positive rate, only that
they EXIST. I proved they exist.
> Here’s a snippet of the Trib article I posted last May. I’m sure more
> data will be forthcoming as more RLCs are deployed here. I just saw one
> going up at Irving and Western. When it gets installed and working I’ll
> do something you fear, actually measuring the yellow light timing with
> my 6 year old digital camera.
I do notice how you’re not doing a before… Of course the yellow signal
may already be short. Cities do tend to cherry pick intersections that
already have short yellows prior to the camera. Anyway, I don’t fear it at
all. I simply know it is a waste of my time because you will dismiss any
data I gathered as a lie, incomplete, shoddy, somehow manipulated, and/or
not good enough. Just as you did with John’s.
On Oct 11, 12:04 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> See, this is what I mean about Anderson’s unshakable belief system. We’ve
> been over this many many many times on how the system is rigged.
Yes, we have. With some idiots -somehow- coming to the spurious
conclusions that 1) there is "-the system", and 2) that if one light
timing has been fiddled with, they must all have been fiddled with.
> But he
> still believes that if there was a photo it must all be on the up and up,
> all perfectly and 100% fair and square…. that no matter how the system
> is rigged, no matter what is done by those who control every facet of the
> rules that it is 100% the fault of the person cited.
Spurious conclusion; extrapolation to the ridiculous.
> Some day Mr. anderson will get the ticket from the system in this rigged
> game, and we will never hear about it. Even then, his faith will not be
> shaken because he’ll believe somehow it was his fault. That he fell short
> of pleasing the state.
Spurious conclusion; assumes he will not be "at fault".
> I already won the red light camera argument Anderson… several times
> over.
Spurious conclusion; assumes there is no more than one RLC argument.
> You have never produced anything to even defend the RLC other than
> your opinion and cries that you are not satisified with the studies with
> the data presented. You’re never going to be satisified, no amount of
> information can ever shake your faith.
Spurious conclusion; extrapolation to the ridiculous; assumes an
insight into the mind of another with insufficient evidence.
> Remember what I wrote the last time when you demanded I time lights,
> demanded I get data for a chicago RLC intersection wrt to collisions? I
> wrote that you would dismiss it as ‘not good enough’ or ‘fabricated’.
> And here you are doing that.
Hmmm. I must have missed your post of that data.
> Single data point? Not at all. I’ve given you a number of studies that show
> an increase in rear-end collisions when RLCs are installed. The data mr.
> Nelson provided is before and after camera. It is more than one point and
> shows an increase in rear-end collisions. Completely consistant with
> studies on the topic.
Rear-end collisions is a single data point, you fucking moron.
> I haven’t avoided it. I never stood on a false positive rate, only that
> they EXIST. I proved they exist.
Irrelevant; no system is perfect, and I must have missed your "proof"
of false positives.
> I do notice how you’re not doing a before… Of course the yellow signal
> may already be short. Cities do tend to cherry pick intersections that
> already have short yellows prior to the camera.
Spurious conclusion; you have no such data.
> you will dismiss any
> data I gathered as a lie, incomplete, shoddy, somehow manipulated, and/or
> not good enough.
And with good reason, you are a demonstrable kook and liar, almost
completely devoid of the capability of rational and/or critical and/or
logical thought.
One may -not- logically conclude rear-end crash increases are solely
attributable to RLC”s, regardless of the data.
One -may- conclude that data -suggests- or -indicates- increased
numbers of crashes at intersections are due to RLCs, but -not- while
totally excluding the factor of plain old "operator error’, -the-
major factor in almost every other crash, at every other place.
And -that- is the data you completely dismiss while leaping your
personal Grand Canyon to your spurious conclusion.
Doing so suggests you are an imbecile of monumental proportion.
—–
- gpsman
On Oct 11, 1:44 pm, gpsman <gps…@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 12:04 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
> > See, this is what I mean about Anderson’s unshakable belief system. We’ve
> > been over this many many many times on how the system is rigged.
> Yes, we have. With some idiots -somehow- coming to the spurious
> conclusions that 1) there is "-the system", and 2) that if one light
> timing has been fiddled with, they must all have been fiddled with.
"the system" is just a catchall phrase for "the government and others
who profit from red light tickets."
"all (or most) must have been fiddled with" is a valid conclusion,
since it appears that a) RLC’s can’t show a profit without short
yellows and b) most jurisdictions won’t maintain equipment that
doesn’t at least break even and c) RLCs are still in use.
nate
In chi.general Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Dollars to doughnuts they become extremely agressive towards any road
: riding bicyclist they encounter. Not to mention anyone who dares drive
: slower than them in front of them.
: It’s funny how when I am bicycling, how these retired without a time
: table sloths become enraged. You want to see one nail the accelerator?
: Just get in the left lane and pass them with a bicycle. Or be stopped at
: a light in front of them…. Suddenly, they have places to go, people to
: see, things to do….
I’ve only been really annoyed with 2 vehicles… one I was really annoyed at
turned out to be a pace bus which I felt was trying to put me on it’s bike
rack without stopping, not sure if he just wasn’t paying attention to the
road ahead or what?
The other was 2 nights ago. It was a smaller import SUV, I’m guessing a KIA or
something in that venue as I didn’t reconize it and those aren’t models that
I look at (I’m in perpetual shopping mode, still haven’t replaced the VW).
Anyways, for my nightly ride I tend to use sidestreets to get to the burbs and
then ride nice wide, well paved and decently lit streets (no complaints about
Chicago lights, but the potholes leave something to be desired sometimes). So
i’m in the burbs at 12 or 1am in the right lane. I have a pair of blinkys in
the back and the camelbak is reflective so I’m easy to see when a set of
headlights gets closer and closer. I thought he was trying to pass someone on
the right (the road I was on at that time was 6 lanes wide). Anyway he got
right on my rear fender and stuck there to the point where I finally had to
turn around and yell "Pass me already" and then he bolted past me.
Not sure if he was like a deer in headlights mezmorized by the blinkys or ????
I got a very good look at the driver and my first thought was "Tushar!" (funny
how the mind works).
–
John Nelson
————————————————————————— —
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)
In chi.general Mark Anderson <m…@nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
: In article tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com says…
: > The sheeple believe that if it comes out of a machine it is an unbiased
: > and correct result. They are unfamiliar with garbage in, garbage out and
: > other principles of programing and machine design that mean the humans
: > who set them up can make the machines produce the desired result.
: Other than the three pictures they provide you of the violation and the
: video of you going through the stale red, what exactly did the computer
: do to manufacture this evidence?
First, it appears the county is getting into the act as well;
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/west/chi-redlightsoct11,0,23…
I would find 3 digital photos very disturbing evidence… I would imagine that
anyone here, being given a face photo of anyone else here could blend it into
3 to 4 animal behinds within hours or receiving it… and having thousands of
still images of a intersection with a red light would allow transplanting that
red light image without issue regardless of weather from photo to photo…
I prefer negatives for evidence… on the other hand, thru personal experience,
I never beleived government employess had the capacity or ability to actually
coverup something they are doing that is illegal or tampering for any length
of time, the city did seem to do a pretty good job in the hiring scandel, and
hired truck scandel, and towing scandel… they all came to light over time,
but, at least for my buddy who was told his car was "crushed" (which the
sun-times said was a code word meaning it was sold), even though now they say
it was illegal to take private property, sell it and not credit what the sold
it for to the fine, they have never offered any $’s back (he was still making
payments on the car when they took it, and to avoid killing his credit, he
had to continue for 2 years which really put him in a bad spot costwise).
Now, in his case, he said after the first few tickets when his block went
permit only he started parking in his backyard (he was refusing to buy a permit
based on the principal that it was his street). He said it got to the point
where the officer was going into his backyard and ticketing his car as if
it was parked on the street, I don’t know if that’s true or not, but he got
into quite a dispute with the police (he claimed to have confronted the officer
in his yard once and the officer was very unhappy about being called fascist
and arrested him but that he was released without being charged). Course we
know the police don’t lie and they have elite groups that set the standards
for honestly (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/illinois/chi-ap-il-policecor…).
I don’t understand why so many are willing to risk their jobs via corruption,
perhaps city workers are underpaid…
: > It’s
: > the same way we get CO2 global warming nonsense.
: Here we go again with the obfuscation Brent is so fond of. When you
: can’t win an argument based on facts, produce a looky loo to divert
: attention from the argument that you can’t win. Typical tactic by Brent
: which is why his threads end up in the 100s of posts. He’s an ideologue
: who cares little about reality.
: > Look at mr. Anderson…. he’s been given a pile of studies and wouldn’t
: > let his faith be shaken by them. He wanted a local RLC… so John Nelson got
: > that for him and it showed the expected increase in rear end collisions.
: > But still, his RLC faith is unbroken.
: John produced 3 years worth of data on one intersection. John did a
: yeoman’s job getting that data. Although interesting, it is however
: hardly enough to base any conclusions. I do find it interesting that
: you can. I’d hate to have engineers like you who think they can draw a
: straight line through a single data point. If you were a bridge
: engineer we’d all end up in the river at some point.
I actually have another year, but there seems to be a delay in processing the
later data so I don’t have newer data to match. I don’t know if the trend
continued up or ???
They claim 55th and western isn’t geocoded. Since from the states PDF’s we
know that they found Western and Peterson by saying "US 014 from mile 6732 to
mile 6732", do we have other RLC intersections and years they were installed
on U.S. or state highway routes? (it appears those are what they can find in
quick searches).
I’m not sure how the city can say accidents went down if the state says they
can’t compile data on certain intersections. I did think it was interesting
when the city spokesman said he didn’t have actual number but they were down.
The state backlog seems pretty bad and from talking with folks who are
contracting in the citys computer section, the state may well be light years
ahead of the city (another reason for concern). I was discussing this with
someone and they said they can’t pull up accident reports by intersection
but only by accident report number.
: BTW: I’m still waiting for that false positive rate data that you
: consistently avoid.
: Here’s a snippet of the Trib article I posted last May. I’m sure more
: data will be forthcoming as more RLCs are deployed here. I just saw one
: going up at Irving and Western. When it gets installed and working I’ll
: do something you fear, actually measuring the yellow light timing with
: my 6 year old digital camera.
Actually, you should go out there now, before they install it and measure
it… then go again… It would be bad if it changes…
–
John Nelson
————————————————————————— —
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)
In article <fem4uo$kl…@e250.ripco.com>, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
> Now, in his case, he said after the first few tickets when his block went
> permit only he started parking in his backyard (he was refusing to buy a permit
> based on the principal that it was his street). He said it got to the point
> where the officer was going into his backyard and ticketing his car as if
> it was parked on the street,
That’s what the cops do. They will write the tickets as if the car were
parked on the street even if it is on private property and need not
comply with rules for street parking. Police departments will claim they
can come on to private property and do that so long as they can ‘see’
(not in an enclosed building) the car. The fact the law is quite
different doesn’t matter to them. Looking up laws ahead of time and
complying with them to keep a car on private property without violating
them is a useless excerise since cops don’t read the law nor care about
it. Just writing tickets to meet their performance objectives or harrass
people they don’t like.
If a person tries to fight in the ‘courts’ you find it’s not a real court of
law, but an adminstrative hearing. The judge can simply do as he
pleases. It is guilty until proven innocent if the adminstrative judge
allows it and then even if proven innocent he doesn’t have to accept it.
What really is interesting however is that people feel the government is
corrupt, greedy, even criminal in one aspect but have their minds
compartmentalized to where they don’t see the same behavior or even the
capacity for it in other areas. And if they do see the capacity we are
supposed to trust those in government. On what basis, I am unsure, it’s not
like they have earned trust.
On Oct 11, 2:41 pm, N8N <njna…@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 1:44 pm, gpsman <gps…@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 12:04 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > wrote:
> > > See, this is what I mean about Anderson’s unshakable belief system. We’ve
> > > been over this many many many times on how the system is rigged.
> > Yes, we have. With some idiots -somehow- coming to the spurious
> > conclusions that 1) there is "-the system", and 2) that if one light
> > timing has been fiddled with, they must all have been fiddled with.
> "the system" is just a catchall phrase for "the government and others
> who profit from red light tickets."
You seem to think "the government" takes its profit and shops at
Neiman Marcus, and that "the government and others who profit from red
light tickets", and their friends and families, would somehow be
immune from contributing to the pot and suffering rear-end collisions
and/or unwarranted citations.
> "all (or most) must have been fiddled with" is a valid conclusion,
> since it appears that a) RLC’s can’t show a profit without short
> yellows
Got any data from which that conclusion "appears"?
> and b) most jurisdictions won’t maintain equipment that
> doesn’t at least break even
Why wouldn’t they just shorten the yellows…?
> and c) RLCs are still in use.
The use of RLCs is proof positive the light timing has been
manipulated?!
Nice one.
—–
- gpsman
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
gpsman wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2:41 pm, N8N <njna…@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Oct 11, 1:44 pm, gpsman <gps…@driversmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Oct 11, 12:04 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>>wrote:
>>>>See, this is what I mean about Anderson’s unshakable belief system. We’ve
>>>>been over this many many many times on how the system is rigged.
>>>Yes, we have. With some idiots -somehow- coming to the spurious
>>>conclusions that 1) there is "-the system", and 2) that if one light
>>>timing has been fiddled with, they must all have been fiddled with.
>>"the system" is just a catchall phrase for "the government and others
>>who profit from red light tickets."
> You seem to think "the government" takes its profit and shops at
> Neiman Marcus, and that "the government and others who profit from red
> light tickets", and their friends and families, would somehow be
> immune from contributing to the pot and suffering rear-end collisions
> and/or unwarranted citations.
>>"all (or most) must have been fiddled with" is a valid conclusion,
>>since it appears that a) RLC’s can’t show a profit without short
>>yellows
> Got any data from which that conclusion "appears"?
yes, the Virginia study that has been repeatedly linked here, for one.
>>and b) most jurisdictions won’t maintain equipment that
>>doesn’t at least break even
> Why wouldn’t they just shorten the yellows…?
Why indeed. A good question. If you think on that, you may begin to
understand why people concerned with safety oppose RLC’s when on the
face of it it would appear that they would be a tool to *increase* safety.
>>and c) RLCs are still in use.
> The use of RLCs is proof positive the light timing has been
> manipulated?!
Either manipulated or locations have been cherrypicked to those
intersections where the light timing is already short.
This is not news.
nate
–
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Nate Nagel wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 2:41 pm, N8N <njna…@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 11, 1:44 pm, gpsman <gps…@driversmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 11, 12:04 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> See, this is what I mean about Anderson’s unshakable belief system.
>>>>> We’ve
>>>>> been over this many many many times on how the system is rigged.
>>>> Yes, we have. With some idiots -somehow- coming to the spurious
>>>> conclusions that 1) there is "-the system", and 2) that if one light
>>>> timing has been fiddled with, they must all have been fiddled with.
>>> "the system" is just a catchall phrase for "the government and others
>>> who profit from red light tickets."
>> You seem to think "the government" takes its profit and shops at
>> Neiman Marcus, and that "the government and others who profit from red
>> light tickets", and their friends and families, would somehow be
>> immune from contributing to the pot and suffering rear-end collisions
>> and/or unwarranted citations.
>>> "all (or most) must have been fiddled with" is a valid conclusion,
>>> since it appears that a) RLC’s can’t show a profit without short
>>> yellows
>> Got any data from which that conclusion "appears"?
> yes, the Virginia study that has been repeatedly linked here, for one.
>>> and b) most jurisdictions won’t maintain equipment that
>>> doesn’t at least break even
>> Why wouldn’t they just shorten the yellows…?
> Why indeed. A good question. If you think on that, you may begin to
> understand why people concerned with safety oppose RLC’s when on the
> face of it it would appear that they would be a tool to *increase* safety.
>>> and c) RLCs are still in use.
>> The use of RLCs is proof positive the light timing has been
>> manipulated?!
> Either manipulated or locations have been cherrypicked to those
> intersections where the light timing is already short.
> This is not news.
> nate
Oh, forgot to mention, you really believe that people with connections
have to pay their RLC tickets? You’re either deliberately obtuse,
dangerously naive, or else I just don’t get your sense of humor.
nate
–
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
On Oct 11, 11:09 pm, Nate Nagel <njna…@roosters.net> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> gpsman wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 2:41 pm, N8N <njna…@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Oct 11, 1:44 pm, gpsman <gps…@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >>>On Oct 11, 12:04 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>>See, this is what I mean about Anderson’s unshakable belief system. We’ve
> >>>>been over this many many many times on how the system is rigged.
> >>>Yes, we have. With some idiots -somehow- coming to the spurious
> >>>conclusions that 1) there is "-the system", and 2) that if one light
> >>>timing has been fiddled with, they must all have been fiddled with.
> >>"the system" is just a catchall phrase for "the government and others
> >>who profit from red light tickets."
> > You seem to think "the government" takes its profit and shops at
> > Neiman Marcus, and that "the government and others who profit from red
> > light tickets", and their friends and families, would somehow be
> > immune from contributing to the pot and suffering rear-end collisions
> > and/or unwarranted citations.
> >>"all (or most) must have been fiddled with" is a valid conclusion,
> >>since it appears that a) RLC’s can’t show a profit without short
> >>yellows
> > Got any data from which that conclusion "appears"?
> yes, the Virginia study that has been repeatedly linked here, for one.
So… you don’t have any data.
IIRC, that study never mentioned profit, or lessening the length of
the yellow light. IIRC, at one intersection, the yellow was actually
lengthened, and the change in the number of crashes were deemed
"insignificant".
> >>and b) most jurisdictions won’t maintain equipment that
> >>doesn’t at least break even
> > Why wouldn’t they just shorten the yellows…?
> Why indeed. A good question. If you think on that, you may begin to
> understand why people concerned with safety oppose RLC’s when on the
> face of it it would appear that they would be a tool to *increase* safety.
Define "safety". IIRC, the study showed a significant reduction of a
significant number (800?) pedestrians being run over… and killed.
> >>and c) RLCs are still in use.
> > The use of RLCs is proof positive the light timing has been
> > manipulated?!
> Either manipulated or locations have been cherrypicked to those
> intersections where the light timing is already short.
> This is not news.
Spurious conclusions concerning RLCs do not qualify as "news", and
IIRC, the study you have not cited made no such mention of the
selection of intersections.
Bottom line: RLCs can not "cause" crashes. If any driver to your
front slams on their brakes at any time for any reason you should be
able to stop without hitting them, or otherwise crashing. That
premise is supported by law:
Following Too Closely
21703. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle
more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the
speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the
roadway.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21703.htm
Hence, there is no method to logically transfer responsibility for
rear-end collisions from drivers who fail to operate in a reasonable
and prudent manner to RLCs.
—–
- gpsman
On Oct 11, 11:11 pm, Nate Nagel <njna…@roosters.net> wrote:
> Oh, forgot to mention, you really believe that people with connections
> have to pay their RLC tickets?
Of course, unless they contest the charge in the same manner anyone
else could.
> You’re either deliberately obtuse,
> dangerously naive, or else I just don’t get your sense of humor.
Or, I don’t believe in kook conspiracy theories. Such a premise
suggests you have a poor capacity of risk/benefit assessment.
Cite one "connected" person who has avoided paying their RLC ticket…
and didn’t leap into a barrel of shit far worse than the ticket
itself.
When you’re finished with that, cite one "connected" person who has
been able to avoid a crash at a RLC intersection, due to their
"connections".
—–
- gpsman
On Oct 12, 9:03 am, gpsman <gps…@driversmail.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Oct 11, 11:09 pm, Nate Nagel <njna…@roosters.net> wrote:
> > gpsman wrote:
> > > On Oct 11, 2:41 pm, N8N <njna…@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>On Oct 11, 1:44 pm, gpsman <gps…@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>On Oct 11, 12:04 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > >>>wrote:
> > >>>>See, this is what I mean about Anderson’s unshakable belief system. We’ve
> > >>>>been over this many many many times on how the system is rigged.
> > >>>Yes, we have. With some idiots -somehow- coming to the spurious
> > >>>conclusions that 1) there is "-the system", and 2) that if one light
> > >>>timing has been fiddled with, they must all have been fiddled with.
> > >>"the system" is just a catchall phrase for "the government and others
> > >>who profit from red light tickets."
> > > You seem to think "the government" takes its profit and shops at
> > > Neiman Marcus, and that "the government and others who profit from red
> > > light tickets", and their friends and families, would somehow be
> > > immune from contributing to the pot and suffering rear-end collisions
> > > and/or unwarranted citations.
> > >>"all (or most) must have been fiddled with" is a valid conclusion,
> > >>since it appears that a) RLC’s can’t show a profit without short
> > >>yellows
> > > Got any data from which that conclusion "appears"?
> > yes, the Virginia study that has been repeatedly linked here, for one.
> So… you don’t have any data.
The state of VA surely does.
> IIRC, that study never mentioned profit, or lessening the length of
> the yellow light. IIRC, at one intersection, the yellow was actually
> lengthened, and the change in the number of crashes were deemed
> "insignificant".
So you didn’t read the study.
> > >>and b) most jurisdictions won’t maintain equipment that
> > >>doesn’t at least break even
> > > Why wouldn’t they just shorten the yellows…?
> > Why indeed. A good question. If you think on that, you may begin to
> > understand why people concerned with safety oppose RLC’s when on the
> > face of it it would appear that they would be a tool to *increase* safety.
> Define "safety". IIRC, the study showed a significant reduction of a
> significant number (800?) pedestrians being run over… and killed.
Did you read the same study that I did? doesn’t sound like it.
> > >>and c) RLCs are still in use.
> > > The use of RLCs is proof positive the light timing has been
> > > manipulated?!
> > Either manipulated or locations have been cherrypicked to those
> > intersections where the light timing is already short.
> > This is not news.
> Spurious conclusions concerning RLCs do not qualify as "news", and
> IIRC, the study you have not cited made no such mention of the
> selection of intersections.
NOT spurious conclusions, although I realize that that is simply your
catch-phrase to dismiss a inconvenient facts that you don’t feel like
addressing.
> Bottom line: RLCs can not "cause" crashes. If any driver to your
> front slams on their brakes at any time for any reason you should be
> able to stop without hitting them, or otherwise crashing. That
> premise is supported by law:
> Following Too Closely
> 21703. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle
> more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the
> speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the
> roadway.http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21703.htm
> Hence, there is no method to logically transfer responsibility for
> rear-end collisions from drivers who fail to operate in a reasonable
> and prudent manner to RLCs.
That helps me not at all when I am the driver in front.
nate
On Oct 12, 9:51 am, N8N <njna…@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 9:03 am, gpsman <gps…@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > So… you don’t have any data.
> The state of VA surely does.
<spit take>
> > IIRC, that study never mentioned profit, or lessening the length of
> > the yellow light. IIRC, at one intersection, the yellow was actually
> > lengthened, and the change in the number of crashes were deemed
> > "insignificant".
> So you didn’t read the study.
I read one, from VA.
> > Define "safety". IIRC, the study showed a significant reduction of a
> > significant number (800?) pedestrians being run over… and killed.
> Did you read the same study that I did? doesn’t sound like it.
You’ve never read anything beyond what you can misconstrue to fit your
opinions that you already formed before you read any study.
> > Spurious conclusions concerning RLCs do not qualify as "news", and
> > IIRC, the study you have not cited made no such mention of the
> > selection of intersections.
> NOT spurious conclusions, although I realize that that is simply your
> catch-phrase to dismiss a inconvenient facts that you don’t feel like
> addressing.
The inconvenient facts to which you refer do not exist.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > Bottom line: RLCs can not "cause" crashes. If any driver to your
> > front slams on their brakes at any time for any reason you should be
> > able to stop without hitting them, or otherwise crashing. That
> > premise is supported by law:
> > Following Too Closely
> > 21703. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle
> > more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the
> > speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the
> > roadway.http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21703.htm
> > Hence, there is no method to logically transfer responsibility for
> > rear-end collisions from drivers who fail to operate in a reasonable
> > and prudent manner to RLCs.
> That helps me not at all when I am the driver in front.
If you don’t know how to drive, perhaps you shouldn’t.
Leaving ample space to your front and operating in a manner that
eliminates needing to slam on your brakes will practically eliminate
the chances the driver to your rear will collide with you.
I would think an expert driver, as you seem to think you are, would
already know how to control the space around his vehicle.
—–
- gpsman
On Oct 12, 9:33 am, gpsman <gps…@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 11:11 pm, Nate Nagel <njna…@roosters.net> wrote:
> > Oh, forgot to mention, you really believe that people with connections
> > have to pay their RLC tickets?
> Of course, unless they contest the charge in the same manner anyone
> else could.
OK, so you’re "dangerously naive" then.
How many news articles have been posted about police and famliy
members having their RLC tickets quietly ignored? I’ve lost count.
> > You’re either deliberately obtuse,
> > dangerously naive, or else I just don’t get your sense of humor.
> Or, I don’t believe in kook conspiracy theories. Such a premise
> suggests you have a poor capacity of risk/benefit assessment.
> Cite one "connected" person who has avoided paying their RLC ticket…
> and didn’t leap into a barrel of shit far worse than the ticket
> itself.
Search this group.
> When you’re finished with that, cite one "connected" person who has
> been able to avoid a crash at a RLC intersection, due to their
> "connections".
If you’re going to crash, you’re going to crash – but the politicians
pushing for RLCs would rather put you at risk and avoid putting their
career at risk by raising taxes.
nate
On Oct 12, 11:04 am, gpsman <gps…@driversmail.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Oct 12, 9:51 am, N8N <njna…@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 9:03 am, gpsman <gps…@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > So… you don’t have any data.
> > The state of VA surely does.
> <spit take>
> > > IIRC, that study never mentioned profit, or lessening the length of
> > > the yellow light. IIRC, at one intersection, the yellow was actually
> > > lengthened, and the change in the number of crashes were deemed
> > > "insignificant".
> > So you didn’t read the study.
> I read one, from VA.
I don’t believe you. Still got the link? The study *I* read clearly
showed that increasing yellow intervals provided almost complete
elimination of RLRing which RLCs did not do, without any of the
downsides of RLCs.
> > > Define "safety". IIRC, the study showed a significant reduction of a
> > > significant number (800?) pedestrians being run over… and killed.
> > Did you read the same study that I did? doesn’t sound like it.
> You’ve never read anything beyond what you can misconstrue to fit your
> opinions that you already formed before you read any study.
You mean, like the executive summary or conclusions of a study?
(laughs)
> > > Spurious conclusions concerning RLCs do not qualify as "news", and
> > > IIRC, the study you have not cited made no such mention of the
> > > selection of intersections.
> > NOT spurious conclusions, although I realize that that is simply your
> > catch-phrase to dismiss a inconvenient facts that you don’t feel like
> > addressing.
> The inconvenient facts to which you refer do not exist.
Please give cites. The study to which I am referring, which is the
main reason the state of VA outlawed RLCs, most certainly does support
many of the assertions that I’ve made regarding RLCs.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > > Bottom line: RLCs can not "cause" crashes. If any driver to your
> > > front slams on their brakes at any time for any reason you should be
> > > able to stop without hitting them, or otherwise crashing. That
> > > premise is supported by law:
> > > Following Too Closely
> > > 21703. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle
> > > more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the
> > > speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the
> > > roadway.http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21703.htm
> > > Hence, there is no method to logically transfer responsibility for
> > > rear-end collisions from drivers who fail to operate in a reasonable
> > > and prudent manner to RLCs.
> > That helps me not at all when I am the driver in front.
> If you don’t know how to drive, perhaps you shouldn’t.
> Leaving ample space to your front and operating in a manner that
> eliminates needing to slam on your brakes will practically eliminate
> the chances the driver to your rear will collide with you.
> I would think an expert driver, as you seem to think you are, would
> already know how to control the space around his vehicle.
How does "leaving ample space to your front" help you in this
instance? How can you "eliminate needing to slam on your brakes" when
yellow lights are mistimed? Short of driving 20 MPH under the speed
limit thus encouraging people to tailgate you even harder than they
already are, of course.
Your idiocy really knows no bounds whatsoever, does it?
nate
In chi.general Nate Nagel <njna…@roosters.net> wrote:
: Oh, forgot to mention, you really believe that people with connections
: have to pay their RLC tickets? You’re either deliberately obtuse,
: dangerously naive, or else I just don’t get your sense of humor.
Well, I think that might go without saying for any ticket… There is probably
a reason that some folks drive with the checkered headband hanging from their
mirror…
We were coming home from a scout outing once and I was driving. There were
a few other scouts in the car and another dad. We were talking about driving
and the son of the adult who was with us said something to the effect of
Mr Nelson drives defensively, but my dad drives offensively… now, his dad
worked for the city as a paramedic and I would imagine that you develop a
certain style of driving when lives depend on it and it might be hard to
turn off when your not working… While it may depend on how flagrant the
offense is, police might defer citing those who need to be able to drive
for a living…
–
John Nelson
————————————————————————— —
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)
Scott in SoCal <scottenazt…@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mv8rg3lam96i101ca4501iuou7bqmj8vjf@4ax.com:
> I would love to videotape those traffic signals both before and after
> the RLCs are installed, just to watch the yellow light times get
> shorter.
And yet i have never been caught by an RLC. The reason nuts like you get
caught is you think that you have a right to keep going when the light
turns yellow and you are still 5 cars away from the intersection.