 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / May 2007Another city caught shortening yellows for RLCs.
Yet another documented case.... http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1759.asp Missouri: City Lowers Yellow Light Time Before Installing Cameras Springfield, Missouri cuts the yellow time at over 100 intersections prior to starting red light camera ticketing. <...> > Yet another documented case.... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Springfield, Missouri cuts the yellow time at over 100 intersections > prior to starting red light camera ticketing. Sounds like a good idea. You red light runners bring this on yourself by insisting on accelerating when the light turns yellow even if you're 5 car lengths away!! On May 21, 12:05 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Yet another documented case.... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > by insisting on accelerating when the light turns yellow even if you're > 5 car lengths away!! Wow- you really CAN see the exact opposite of what's printed!! Your therapist regress you back far enough so you can see the faces of those you killed, yet? Dave On May 21, 12:05 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Yet another documented case.... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > by insisting on accelerating when the light turns yellow even if you're > 5 car lengths away!! If we're talking about a 55 MPH road, that would be the prudent thing to do, no? lessee... "5 car lengths" if you assume that a "car length" is 20 feet - that's 100 feet - shorter than most vehicles will stop from 55 MPH! At the other end of the spectrum, let's say that this hypothetical signal is on a 35 MPH road... stopping in 100 feet from 35 MPH assuming constant decel still works out to 13.2 feet per second per second or over 0.4G - which is still a sharper decel than the average person feels comfortable with. Now you may say to yourself, "but Nate, 20 feet is a large car, wouldn't an average car be closer to 17-18 feet in length these days?" Um, yeah, probably. Do the math and get back to me on how that affects the calculations. So please tell me again, how this is the public "bringing things on themselves" except by voting for dipshit representatives that support this bullshit? Why don't you just shut the f.ck up until you know what the f.ck you're talking about? I swear, you must have aliens beaming stupid waves into your little brain, because I've never met anyone IRL that could be as stupid as you and still remember to breathe. nate Alas Nate, SADDAM (and it's many previous incarnations) has continously refused to accept the fact that it's simply too stupid to live, and even more foolishly has ignored my quite reasonable recommendation that it join the Body World exhibit, where it's bone- headedness could be put to good use, where it could garner fame and reknown, and where it could really show off it's muscles... Anyway, does anyone have any website where all of this RLC trickery and chicanery is compiled in one spot, so whenever the stupid (or... greedy) area politicians start making their periodic noises about RLCs, I could simply e-mail the local papers an Letter to the Editor, complete with a single one stop shop webpage URL listing why in the real world RLCs are 'all about the money, nothing about the safety'. >> Yet another documented case.... >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >by insisting on accelerating when the light turns yellow even if you're >5 car lengths away!! Only because dullard LLBers prevent them from making it through the signals safely and efficiently. Thank God Darwin takes care of 'em all....  SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. >>> Yet another documented case.... >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >>Sounds like a good idea. Yeah,so much for following standard practices. >>You red light runners bring this on yourself >>by insisting on accelerating when the light turns yellow even if you're >>5 car lengths away!! > > Only because dullard LLBers SLOTHs.Clueless dawdlers. No such thing as a LLBer on city streets. > prevent them from making it through the > signals safely and efficiently. > > Thank God Darwin takes care of 'em all.... Not enough of them. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> Only because dullard LLBers > >SLOTHs.Clueless dawdlers. No such thing as a LLBer on city streets. How 'bout parkers? You have those where you live? I'm not certain if I never really though enough about them to remember them previously, or if their frequency is increasing. But for some reason or another, it appears we're developing an epidemic of them here. Hmm, could explain of why we are ahead of last year's already stellar performance in satisfying the Darwin Device. >> prevent them from making it through the >> signals safely and efficiently. >> >> Thank God Darwin takes care of 'em all.... > >Not enough of them. Amen. SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. >>> Only because dullard LLBers >> >>SLOTHs.Clueless dawdlers. No such thing as a LLBer on city streets. > > How 'bout parkers? Do you mean those who are sightseeing when the light changes? they sit there while the light is green,looking everwhere except at the light. I always say to myself "well,it's not going to get any greener...". > You have those where you live? I'm not certain if I > never really though enough about them to remember them previously, or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Amen. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>> Only because dullard LLBers >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Do you mean those who are sightseeing when the light changes? they sit >there while the light is green,looking everwhere except at the light. Nah, those have been fairly constant throughout my life. I'm talking about the geniuses, who, for reasons unknown to me, merely stop in the middle of a road as if it were a parking lot. Sometimes they do this as part of a traffic maneuver, other times it looks like they do this to just take a break from the task of driving. Over the last two seeks, I've seen at least four occurrences of this, including one 'lady' in a minivan who felt like it was her right to pull out and park in front of two lanes of traffic approaching from her left, while she was waiting for the two lanes of traffic from the right to clear. MFFY bitch brought two lanes of traffic on one of my 'burg's main routes to a stop. Stupid bitch probably thinks she's a safe driver because she doesn't speed. I am SO glad that stupid people get killed on the roads. >I always say to myself "well,it's not going to get any greener...". That's been a favorite of mine for years, too. :-) SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. >>>>> Only because dullard LLBers >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > routes to a stop. Stupid bitch probably thinks she's a safe driver > because she doesn't speed. I see this every time I'm on SR436 north of Orlando. I call them "last-minute losers",or LMLs. DAILY,there's several cars that just stop in a lane,usually one or 2 lanes over from where they WANT to go,just trying to jump ahead of those who lined up in the turn lane.During peak traffic times,too. > I am SO glad that stupid people get killed on the roads. > >>I always say to myself "well,it's not going to get any greener...". > > That's been a favorite of mine for years, too. :-) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>>>> Only because dullard LLBers >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >go,just trying to jump ahead of those who lined up in the turn lane.During >peak traffic times,too. That's the thing; I've seen the types of drivers you're talking about. They are extremely common here, so much to the point that I don't think about them very much other than to be thankful that they'll most likely be dead soon. The "parkers" I am referring to, though, are stopping in places where they don't have the opportunity to turn, which is why I can't figure it out. They stop in the road, sit there 10-30 seconds or so, then resume driving along their previous course as if nothing had happened. The one exception to this based on observations over the past few weeks is the gal who pulled out in front of east bound traffic and stopped, while waiting for west bound traffic to let her in. Damndest thing I've ever seen, and I'm looking forward to seeing one of these SADDAM-like geniuses pull this stunt in front of a vehicle with large mass. SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. >>>>>>> Only because dullard LLBers >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > of these SADDAM-like geniuses pull this stunt in front of a vehicle > with large mass. Makes me wish for a hood mounted auto-paintball gun and lanyard. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>>>>>> Only because dullard LLBers >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >Makes me wish for a hood mounted auto-paintball gun and lanyard. Makes me wish I could read the minds of other drivers to figure out what's going on in those empty skulls, but I believe it would probably be very light reading. SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. On May 21, 12:05 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Yet another documented case.... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > by insisting on accelerating when the light turns yellow even if you're > 5 car lengths away!! So in your mind (and I use that term loosely), the solution to decreasing the number of red light runners is to make it more likely for them to run a red light by decreasing the length of the yellow? You should run for a government office. Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS: > > Yet another documented case.... > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > by insisting on accelerating when the light turns yellow even if you're > 5 car lengths away!! You, an admitted red light runner should see this as a bad idea. Personally, I hope you get RLC'ed into bankruptcy and beyond. SignatureLoco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend admits to being a red light runner: "The cameras don't catch everyone. I have never been nailed for this." Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 5/9/06 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/ee4wq Message ID: 9nb162p1idam39jhmv5s2g0b7booh67stc@4ax.com On May 21, 9:07 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > Yet another documented case.... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Springfield, Missouri cuts the yellow time at over 100 intersections > prior to starting red light camera ticketing. You (not you, but people, in general) must be f.cking morons not to recognize red light cameras as revenue gatherers rather than safety devices. To reduce the number of wrecks at intersections is very simple: Increase the time that both directions remain red at the same time. > On May 21, 9:07 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > To reduce the number of wrecks at intersections is very simple: > Increase the time that both directions remain red at the same time. That's one effective measure for some intersections. This is really a case by case basis as to what will fix an intersection where people run red signals frequently. The fact that there are intersections with proportionally more red light running than others tells us that it's not just a MFFY issue. If it were a MFFY issue we would see a rather consistant rate of red light running based on traffic volume across the board. RLCs would be accpetable at intersections that had no underlying problems, good signal timing reflecting actual traffic conditions, etc. Problem is, they don't make money under those conditions and no city wants to be bothered with them if they are revenue neutral or negative. The problem is that government is not held to following the law. From cops to judges we are told that they are the law. It's a journey back to the 12th century. I've personally encountered this with both, as unlike them I actually read it while they enforce and judge based on what they were told. Vehicular bicycling is where it has most often come up with cops that are completely ignorant of the real laws regarding bicycling. The public is ignorant and the government with it's ignorant low level employees just takes advantage. IMO just about every RLC ticket should be fought on the grounds that the local government has not complied with state law regarding the intersection. > On May 21, 9:07 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Increase the time that both directions remain red at the same time. > Or just get police to DO THEIR JOB,and write REAL tickets for RL violators,with REAL points on the DL,right on the spot where others SEE it happen,no getting a ticket in the mail weeks later. To do that,you must take away their radar guns. No more speed traps with police sitting on the roadside and not patrolling,missing all other traffic violations. I'd rather see REDLIGHT traps with live police,not robots. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > On May 21, 9:07 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > To reduce the number of wrecks at intersections is very simple: > Increase the time that both directions remain red at the same time. No. Decrease it. When yellow light timing is done properly, no one approaching an intersection should be entering it after it has gone red. I can still remember when I was a kid the yellow-red and red-green changes happened at the same time. But since everyone knew it was going to be that way, nobody tried to run the yellow. Now people expect there to be a brief time when both directions are red, so they will run a yellow. Why should this behaviour be rewarded? Signature"I always read what is posted, as I don't share your habits." -- "Upon rereading your original post, I see that I have been mistaken in what I wrote. I apologize for my mistaken accuastions and insults." -- Edwin > In article <1179840293.740938.23...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Now people expect there to be a brief time when both directions are red, > so they will run a yellow. Why should this behaviour be rewarded? First, there's nothing against the law about "running" a yellow. Second, people do not consciously think "hey, this intersection has reds in both directions for 1.2 seconds, therefore I'll beat the red". The people on the edge of running a red light make split second decisions, and their driving behavior and personality dictates whether or not they will try to beat the red, not the light timing. Therefore, *IF* the goal is less crashes, reds in both directions are the answer. It works all the time. >> In article <1179840293.740938.23...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Therefore, *IF* the goal is less crashes, reds in both directions are > the answer. It works all the time. IMO,many RL runners don't even know they are running the RL. Their attention is elsewhere. Sure,some people consciously think "I'm just gonna run it anyways",but I believe most RLrunners just are out to lunch. Road zombies. (or "multitasking") SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > >> In article <1179840293.740938.23...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > believe most RLrunners just are out to lunch. Road zombies. > (or "multitasking") I think that's a very astute observation. >> >> In article <1179840293.740938.23...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >I think that's a very astute observation. I agree. When I'm sitting at an intersection, I am usually doing my best to know what's going on around me in all directions, not just the direction I'm heading. As I'm looking around so much, I have the opportunity to observe other drivers. It never ceases to amaze me how many of those drivers are sitting there, steering wheel clutched tightly, staring blankly at the signal light as if it were the only thing in the world that mattered. This "observed" phenomena has an interesting aspect: many of those same drivers are the LLBers who blocked me in at the intersection to begin with. Hard to have pity on such oblivious drivers. SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. > > In article <1179840293.740938.23...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > First, there's nothing against the law about "running" a yellow. Incorrect. At least at one time and in many jurisdictions. > Second, people do not consciously think "hey, this intersection has > reds in both directions for 1.2 seconds, therefore I'll beat the > red". The people on the edge of running a red light make split second > decisions, and their driving behavior and personality dictates whether > or not they will try to beat the red, not the light timing. Of course they don't conciously think it, they simply have a feeling in their heads about what is "safe". > Therefore, *IF* the goal is less crashes, reds in both directions are > the answer. It works all the time. Nope. Because folks just take more and more liberties with the time. So the times get longer... ...and longer... Signature"I always read what is posted, as I don't share your habits." -- "Upon rereading your original post, I see that I have been mistaken in what I wrote. I apologize for my mistaken accuastions and insults." -- Edwin > Now people expect there to be a brief time when both directions are red, > so they will run a yellow. Why should this behaviour be rewarded? BTW, there's no reward. It's still agains the law to run a red light. >> Now people expect there to be a brief time when both directions are red, >> so they will run a yellow. Why should this behaviour be rewarded? > > BTW, there's no reward. It's still agains the law to run a red light. > I often see signs on the lights saying there's a 5 second delay before the other side gets the green. Most likely to stop those sort of collisions. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> Now people expect there to be a brief time when both directions are red, >> so they will run a yellow. Why should this behaviour be rewarded? > >BTW, there's no reward. It's still agains the law to run a red light. It's not a reward, but making lights in both directions red for a brief period of time, the government has taken some of the "natural sting" out of running red lights. I too remember when traffic signals in both directions changed at the same time. I'm certain the practice of having a "delayed red" was done in an effort to curb the deaths due to red light runners back in the day, but with "delayed" reds, today's driver doesn't have to be as concerned as to the possible fatalities resulting from running a fresh red light. SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. > >> Now people expect there to be a brief time when both directions are red, > >> so they will run a yellow. Why should this behaviour be rewarded? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > concerned as to the possible fatalities resulting from running a fresh > red light. Bingo! Just like ABS brakes let people get away with driving a little faster, so they do! Signature"I always read what is posted, as I don't share your habits." -- "Upon rereading your original post, I see that I have been mistaken in what I wrote. I apologize for my mistaken accuastions and insults." -- Edwin >> >> Now people expect there to be a brief time when both directions are red, >> >> so they will run a yellow. Why should this behaviour be rewarded? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Just like ABS brakes let people get away with driving a little faster, >so they do! You know, I've never really thought about it, but that makes sense as well. SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. >I too remember when traffic signals in both directions changed at the >same time. I'm certain the practice of having a "delayed red" was done >in an effort to curb the deaths due to red light runners back in the >day, but with "delayed" reds, today's driver doesn't have to be as >concerned as to the possible fatalities resulting from running a fresh >red light. A more legitimate purpose to a delayed red is to allow those who entered on yellow to have time to clear the intersection before some inattentive moron does a drag-race start right into him when his light turns green. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >I too remember when traffic signals in both directions changed at the > >same time. I'm certain the practice of having a "delayed red" was done [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > inattentive moron does a drag-race start right into him when his light > turns green. NO!!!! That's the purpose of the *yellow* in the first place: to warn drivers that the light is about to turn red and thus they mustn't be in the intersection when it does. The length of the yellow is supposed to be set so that those who are not far enough from the intersection to make a safe stop can continue through, but those further back are *supposed* to stop. They are *not* supposed to depend on another delay between the light turning red and the cross street turning green. Signature"I always read what is posted, as I don't share your habits." -- "Upon rereading your original post, I see that I have been mistaken in what I wrote. I apologize for my mistaken accuastions and insults." -- Edwin >> >I too remember when traffic signals in both directions changed at the >> >same time. I'm certain the practice of having a "delayed red" was done [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >that the light is about to turn red and thus they mustn't be in the >intersection when it does. NO!!!!! The purpose of the yellow is that the light is about to turn red and thus they mustn't ENTER the intersection when it does. The yellow makes it possible for drivers getting a fresh red to avoid running it (and hitting someone entering on their fresh green). The all-red period makes it possible for drivers getting a fresh green to go without hitting someone who entered on yellow. For someone sitting at a red light, that isn't a problem unless they are morons, but in a case where traffic may be approaching the intersection at speed when the light turns green, it IS a problem. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > That's the purpose of the *yellow* in the first place: to warn drivers > that the light is about to turn red and thus they mustn't be in the > intersection when it does. Close but not quite. The purpose of the yellow is to let approaching drivers know when their turn to go will end (at the END of the yellow) so they can tell whether or not they'll be able to make it past the near limit line before the red (in which case they should go). > > Now people expect there to be a brief time when both directions are red, > > so they will run a yellow. Why should this behaviour be rewarded? > > BTW, there's no reward. It's still agains the law to run a red light. It's rewarded when the people who do it have their wrongful behaviour accomodated at the expense of others. Signature"I always read what is posted, as I don't share your habits." -- "Upon rereading your original post, I see that I have been mistaken in what I wrote. I apologize for my mistaken accuastions and insults." -- Edwin >When yellow light timing is done properly, no one approaching an >intersection should be entering it after it has gone red. I can still >remember when I was a kid the yellow-red and red-green changes happened >at the same time. But since everyone knew it was going to be that way, >nobody tried to run the yellow. I remember that tool. >Now people expect there to be a brief time when both directions are red, >so they will run a yellow. Why should this behaviour be rewarded? It's called the "dumbing down of America." It's also a part of the reason that a lot of jobs are going overseas. SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. >On May 21, 9:07 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >To reduce the number of wrecks at intersections is very simple: >Increase the time that both directions remain red at the same time. Solve the problem, and eliminate the revenue stream? Not when the guberment's involved. Taxation with representation ain't so hot either. SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.