Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / February 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Better than an RLC

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Brent P - 09 Feb 2008 09:18 GMT
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15256150/detail.html

<...>

Officer Patrick Rice with the Grand Junction Police Department spent two
hours Thursday on the corner of 12th Street and North Avenue in Grand
Junction holding the sign.

He was dressed more like a homeless person or a war protestor, but
drivers who paid attention to his sign saved them themselves a ticket.

The sign had one more sentence, it said "My partners are waiting."

That was true, too.

Several officers were stationed in each direction from the intersection
to write tickets.

<...>
necromancer - 09 Feb 2008 13:24 GMT
>http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15256150/detail.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>Several officers were stationed in each direction from the intersection
>to write tickets.

You'd have to be a moron to miss that one. But then, as evidenced by
S&DDAM, GPS and this new troll, V something or other, the roads are
full of morons.

V ery
I rritating
A ddition
T o
O nline
L andtravel
O pinion
G roups
I ncluding
S ome
T trolling
Sir Ray - 09 Feb 2008 16:25 GMT
"According to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, the police
department's traffic unit once a month targets high-crash
intersections to crack down on red-light runners."
High Crash intersections, hmmm?
Well, that certainly is better than your standard RLC placement, which
tends toward low crash intersections with short yellow timing...
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 14 Feb 2008 18:27 GMT
> "According to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, the police
> department's traffic unit once a month targets high-crash
> intersections to crack down on red-light runners."
> High Crash intersections, hmmm?
> Well, that certainly is better than your standard RLC placement, which
> tends toward low crash intersections with short yellow timing...

The other 29 days of the month they all hang out at Dunkin Donuts.

Signature

Paul Hovnanian    paul@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.

KK - 14 Feb 2008 22:00 GMT
> "Paul Hovnanian P.E."

what's a "P.E."?

and why would you choose to use that in a usenet post?
N8N - 14 Feb 2008 22:57 GMT
> In article <47B48803.F9D4A...@seanet.com>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> and why would you choose to use that in a usenet post?

Professional Engineer, and I don't know.

I have a general rule that people who put their degrees or
qualifications in their .sig are generally worthless blowhards,
although judging by Paul's posts he's the exception to that rule.
He's got two strikes against him, too, because every time I see his
name I think of K. Hovnanian (a large "luxury" home builder in this
area) and I absolutely loathe those new rabbit-warren developments
with million-dollar McMansions smack up against each other, with
barely enough room to run a lawn mower between them...  (sorry, Paul,
it's the truth)

nate
KK - 14 Feb 2008 23:09 GMT
In article
<eecc4e08-1686-46ec-a0ca-c2f5b528108b@d68g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

> > In article <47B48803.F9D4A...@seanet.com>,
> >
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> nate

It's weird.

Seems like adding Esq. if you are a lawyer.

Looks like in the US it's a state by state thang too.

from wiki:

"Professional Engineer is the term for registered or licensed engineers
in some countries who are permitted to offer their professional services
directly to the public.
The term Professional Engineer and the actual practice of professional
engineering is legally defined and protected by a government body. In
some jurisdictions only registered or licensed Professional Engineers
are permitted to use the title, or to practice Professional Engineering.
The earmark that distinguishes a licensed/registered Professional
Engineer is the authority to sign and seal or "stamp" engineering
documents (reports, drawings, and calculations) for a study, estimate,
design or analysis, thus taking legal responsibility for it."

"Registration and regulation
Each country or state/province has specific procedures and requirements
for the license or registration.

[edit]
United States
In the United States, registration or licensure of Professional
Engineers is performed by the individual states. Each registration or
license is valid only in the state in which it is granted. Many
Professional Engineers maintain licenses in several states for this
reason, and comity between states can make it easy to obtain a license
in one state based on licensure in another state without going through
the full application process.[3] The licensing procedure varies but the
general process is:[4]
  1. Graduate with a degree from an accredited four-year university
program in engineering.
  2. Complete a standard Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) written
examination, which tests applicants on breadth of understanding of basic
engineering principles, and optionally some elements of an engineering
specialty. Completion of the first two steps typically qualifies for
certification in the U.S. as an Engineer-In-Training (EIT), sometimes
also called an Engineer Intern (EI).[5]
  3. Accumulate a certain amount of engineering experience under the
supervision of a P.E. In most states the requirement is four years, but
in others the requirement is lower.
  4. Complete a written Principles and Practice in Engineering ('PE')
examination, testing the applicant's knowledge and skills in a chosen
engineering discipline (mechanical, electrical, civil, for example), as
well as engineering ethics.
Degree requirements in the United States are evolving. The NCEES model
licensure law requires a minimum of a master of science degree in
engineering or a bachelor of science degree with additional equivalent
graduate level work.[6]. This has received strong support from civil
engineers.[7][8]
There is a fairly large range in exam pass rates for these exams (FE and
PE), but the pass rate for repeat test takers is significantly lower.[9]
In a few states it is still possible for an individual to bypass Step 1,
and apply to take the registration examinations as long as a P.E. will
sponsor the applicant, and work experience can be substituted for
academic experience. The years of experience may also vary; for
instance, in California it is possible to take a Principles and Practice
in Engineering examination with only two years of experience after a
bachelor's degree, or one year of experience after graduate school. In
Nevada, college graduates are eligible to take the Principles and
Practice exam immediately after graduation and passing the EIT, before
acquiring the required experience. [2] Some states also have
state-specific examinations, most notably California where there is a
state-specific structural engineering exam and two additional exams in
land surveying and earthquake engineering for civil engineering
candidates.
Some states issue generic Professional Engineering licenses. Others,
known as "discipline states", issue licenses for specific disciplines of
engineering, such as Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and
Electrical Engineering. In all cases, however, engineers are ethically
required to limit their practice to their area of competency, which is
usually a small portion of a discipline. While licensing boards do not
often enforce this limitation, it can be a factor in negligence lawsuits.

[edit]
Discipline distribution
Civil engineers account for a large portion of licensed Professional
Engineers. In Texas, for example, about one-third of licenses are for
civil engineers, and civil exams make up over half of the exams
taken.[10][11] Many of the remainder are mechanical, electrical, and
structural engineers whose practice involves areas that states regulate,
such as HVAC, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection systems for
buildings or public infrastructure. However, some engineers in other
fields obtain licenses for the ability to serve as professional
witnesses, or just for prestige, even though they may never sign and
seal design documents.

[edit]
The "Engineer" title
Main article: Controversies over the term Engineer
The title "Engineer" is legally protected in many states, meaning that
it is unlawful to use it to offer engineering services to the public
unless permission is specifically granted by that state, through a
Professional Engineering license, an "Industrial Exemption", or certain
other non-engineering titles such as "operating engineer". Employees of
state or federal agencies may also call themselves engineers if that
term appears in their official job title.
A business generally cannot offer engineering services to the public or
have a name that implies that it does so unless it employs at least one
Professional Engineer.

[edit]
Unlicensed practice
Since regulation of the practice of engineering is performed by the
individual states in the U.S., areas of engineering involved in
interstate commerce are essentially unregulated. These areas include
much of Mechanical Engineering, such as Automotive Engineering and
Aerospace Engineering, and Chemical Engineering, and may be specifically
exempted from regulation under an "Industrial Exemption". An industrial
exemption covers engineers who design products such as automobiles that
are sold (or have the potential to be sold) outside the state in which
they are produced, as well as the equipment used to produce the product.
Structures subject to building codes are not covered by an industrial
exemption, except small residential buildings often do not require an
engineer's seal. In many jurisdictions, the role of architects and
structural engineers overlap.
Many private companies employ non-degreed workers in technical positions
with engineering titles such as "test engineer" or "field engineer".
Such position may not require an engineering degree at the discretion of
the company. It is important however, to make a distinction between a
"graduate engineer" and a "professional (or licensed) engineer". A
"graduate engineer" is anyone holding a degree in engineering from an
accredited four-year university.

[edit]
Land surveying
In many states, Professional Land Surveyors are regulated in a similar
manner, often by the same state board as engineers or architects: Land
Surveyors are required to pass a Fundamentals of Surveying (FS) exam,
perform a period of internship and then pass a Practices of Surveying
(PS) Exam. A four-year degree in engineering or land surveying may also
be required. In a few states, licensed Civil Engineers may also perform
land surveys.

"
Brent P - 14 Feb 2008 23:15 GMT
>> > In article <47B48803.F9D4A...@seanet.com>,
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> Each country or state/province has specific procedures and requirements
> for the license or registration.
<...>

Basically it's just taking a test after you finish your BS degree....

I worked with one guy who had his PE license framed and hanging in his
cube. This guy couldn't design his way out of a wet paper bag and the
rest of the group spent the whole project fixing his f.ck ups. (he was
the one who got to lay everything out in the begining before there was a
team) He spent his days playing politics and making things worse. But he
had a PE license that wasn't even needed for the work we did hanging
proudly in his cube.
Huey - 14 Feb 2008 23:19 GMT
In article <eecc4e08-1686-46ec-a0ca-
c2f5b528108b@d68g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, njnagel@hotmail.com says...
>> In article <47B48803.F9D4A...@seanet.com>,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>nate

can you offer some wine recommendations?  thank you.
Signature

HUey

Bruce Esquibel - 15 Feb 2008 13:24 GMT
In chi.general N8N <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Professional Engineer, and I don't know.

Do you get a table faster in crowded resturants?

-bruce
bje@ripco.com
N8N - 15 Feb 2008 13:48 GMT
> In chi.general N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Professional Engineer, and I don't know.
>
> Do you get a table faster in crowded resturants?

I wouldn't know, I've never bothered to take the test.  If someone can
confirm this, that might be the push I need :)

nate
Matthew T. Russotto - 15 Feb 2008 19:44 GMT
>> In chi.general N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>I wouldn't know, I've never bothered to take the test.  If someone can
>confirm this, that might be the push I need :)

I'm guessing Ben Franklin and a P.E. don't do any better than Ben
Franklin alone.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Huey - 14 Feb 2008 23:17 GMT
>> "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>
>what's a "P.E."?
>
>and why would you choose to use that in a usenet post?

Professional Engineer
Signature

HUey

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS - 09 Feb 2008 17:29 GMT
> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15256150/detail.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> <...>

This is ok but if the cops really wanted to stop red light runners
they'd put up signs saying something like "Red light runners are child
runners."
necromancer - 09 Feb 2008 17:56 GMT
The vile and infidel swine and swine sodomizer, "Speeders & Drunk
Drivers are MURDERERS," left this insult to Allah (Praises be unto His
Name) and all that is Righetous and Holy in rec.autos.driving:

>This is ok but if the cops really wanted to stop red light runners
>they'd put up signs saying something like "Red light runners are child
>runners."

Never mind that, you toe tapping goat lover. Address this issue that
you have evaded for the last 6 months:

Have you ever driven a car faster then the posted speed limit?

Imam Widdershins

Speeding is a Virtue
Mark Anderson - 09 Feb 2008 23:56 GMT
In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com says...
> Officer Patrick Rice with the Grand Junction Police Department spent two
> hours Thursday on the corner of 12th Street and North Avenue in Grand
> Junction holding the sign.

It must be nice to live in the middle of nowhere that has cadres of
frightened soccer moms who vote to staff a far bigger police force than
is needed or necessary.  Of course their police can diddle away their
day on projects such as this.  Contrast that with Chicago where police
have to deal with real crime victims chasing real dangerous criminals.  
Chicago police don't have time to diddle like this not to mention the
traffic jams such an operation like this would create.  We like our
automated RLCs and thank you very much for your concern.  If you don't
then please stay out of our fine city.  I hear there are some real
hoppin' Applebees in your suburban neighborhood.
Nate Nagel - 10 Feb 2008 00:01 GMT
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com says...
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> then please stay out of our fine city.  I hear there are some real
> hoppin' Applebees in your suburban neighborhood.

Don't worry, I won't invade your pwecious little RLC-infested hellhole.

Anyone that doesn't vote against, speak out against, and fight by
whatever means are at their disposal these insidious devices is a
sucker, plain and simple.

nate

Signature

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Brent P - 10 Feb 2008 00:13 GMT
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com says...

>> Officer Patrick Rice with the Grand Junction Police Department spent two
>> hours Thursday on the corner of 12th Street and North Avenue in Grand
>> Junction holding the sign.

> It must be nice to live in the middle of nowhere that has cadres of
> frightened soccer moms who vote to staff a far bigger police force than
> is needed or necessary. Of course their police can diddle away their
> day on projects such as this.

Nice nonsensical babble....

>  Contrast that with Chicago where police
> have to deal with real crime victims chasing real dangerous criminals.  

You mean like that DUI driving cop that killed two that was just let off?
Yeah, the chicago cops have more important things to do, like protecting
their own rackets.

> Chicago police don't have time to diddle like this not to mention the
> traffic jams such an operation like this would create.

As opposed to the other ways they create them, like parking their
cruisers where ever they damn well please when they stop for snack or
running red signals themselves.....

>  We like our
> automated RLCs and thank you very much for your concern.

No, you like the automated RLCs. Don't worry, you'll get rear-ended
stopping for one or get a ticket yourself eventually.

>  If you don't
> then please stay out of our fine city.  I hear there are some real
> hoppin' Applebees in your suburban neighborhood.

You don't have a clue where I live or have lived.
Mark Anderson - 10 Feb 2008 21:31 GMT
In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com says...
> >  We like our
> > automated RLCs and thank you very much for your concern.
>
> No, you like the automated RLCs. Don't worry, you'll get rear-ended
> stopping for one or get a ticket yourself eventually.

Some of us know how to drive and don't let others dictate our actions.  
If you find yourself getting in a lot of rear end collisions, then there
is something wrong with you.  Since you have no idea of the concept of
introspection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection) and deny your
own road rage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_rage) I predict you'll
continue getting into rear end collisions for as long as the state still
allows you to have a drivers license.
Nate Nagel - 10 Feb 2008 21:42 GMT
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com says...
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> continue getting into rear end collisions for as long as the state still
> allows you to have a drivers license.

I predict that you're an idiot.  He's talking about you being
rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone.  Hopefully your driving skills
are better than your logical ones.

nate

Signature

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Mark Anderson - 10 Feb 2008 22:27 GMT
In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
> I predict that you're an idiot.  He's talking about you being
> rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone.  Hopefully your driving skills
> are better than your logical ones.

When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.  
Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
hair trigger temper.  That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage.  Road ragers, when not
a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
B, often end up slamming into each other.

People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
Nate Nagel - 10 Feb 2008 22:35 GMT
> In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.

Unless you have to adopt the habit of braking hard for every yellow
light, which is the only strategy that works (save for not driving) to
guarantee you won't get a RLC ticket.

You have read the Virginia RLC study, haven't you?  The one where they
documented an increase in rear-end incidents in almost every
installation, and also documented *better* reductions in red light
running incidents simply by properly setting the yellow interval?
What's that?  You haven't?  I would have never guessed.

Now take your condesceding tone and shove it up your a.s, and try to
keep to subjects you actually have done your research on.

nate

Signature

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Brent P - 11 Feb 2008 02:33 GMT
>> In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Now take your condesceding tone and shove it up your a.s, and try to
> keep to subjects you actually have done your research on.

Anderson refuses to acknowledge the research even exists. He calls it
'blogs'
kenji - 11 Feb 2008 01:31 GMT
> In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
> > I predict that you're an idiot.  He's talking about you being
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.

I was kinda thinking about brent being run into alot.

I've been kinda watching driving styles of those people in front of me.

In the past week here's what I've had to take evasive action against to
keep from rear ending a few folks:

Guy with six forward gears and a manual transmission. He'd let the
people in front of him get three car lengths ahead then he'd go and get
close to the people in front of him, the lag time as he let up on the
clutch caused me to almost hit him.

Woman talking to passenger making panic stop because she didn't give
enough car length in front of her (call it preoccupation with something
other than watching what's going on in front of her while driving)

Guy reading the sun times while driving

People pulling into my lane to evade potholes

People speeding up but then slowing way down to look at addresses

guy driving aggressivley and cuts me off to try and make the light

old people or otherwise handicapped drivers with very slow reaction
times slowing or braking too soon.

Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.
Nate Nagel - 11 Feb 2008 01:38 GMT
>>In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> close to the people in front of him, the lag time as he let up on the
> clutch caused me to almost hit him.

then you're following too close.  Some MT's are a bit finicky when cold,
especially older ones.  Synthetic oil can only do so much, and a lot of
people don't know about it.  It's perfectly reasonable to expect the guy
in front of you *not* to speed shift just so you might not have to take
your foot off the gas for a second or so, and he might not even be able
to if he just left his driveway and the oil is still cold.

> Woman talking to passenger making panic stop because she didn't give
> enough car length in front of her (call it preoccupation with something
> other than watching what's going on in front of her while driving)

and you weren't watching farther ahead than the car in front of you?

> Guy reading the sun times while driving

why would that make you rear end him?

> People pulling into my lane to evade potholes

I'll give you that one, some people don't understand mirrors.

> People speeding up but then slowing way down to look at addresses

again, are you following too closely?

> guy driving aggressivley and cuts me off to try and make the light

I'll give you that one too, had it done to me

> old people or otherwise handicapped drivers with very slow reaction
> times slowing or braking too soon.
>
> Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.

either you're exaggerating how close you came to rear-ending all of
these drivers or it's time to re-evaluate your own driving.  All but two
of the instances you mention should never result in you "almost
rear-ending someone."  Yeah, drivers are idiots and they do stupid
stuff, but you should be expecting that.

nate

Signature

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

kenji - 11 Feb 2008 01:42 GMT
> >>In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>
> nate

nate?

I've never rear ended anyone without being pushed from the rear by
another vehicle.

I've been driving since 1975.

I haven't made claim on my Allstate auto Insurance since 1982.
Nate Nagel - 11 Feb 2008 01:44 GMT
>>>>In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 74 lines]
>
> I haven't made claim on my Allstate auto Insurance since 1982.

Then why are you complaining about "In the past week here's what I've
had to take evasive action against to keep from rear ending a few
folks?"  Sounds like you're taking a lot of evasive action and only two
of those instances should have required it.

nate

Signature

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

kenji - 11 Feb 2008 02:59 GMT
> >>>>In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
> >>>>
[quoted text clipped - 81 lines]
>
> nate

who complained?

I remarked about some experiences

who are you and what do you really believe in, Nate?
Gregory Morrow - 11 Feb 2008 02:40 GMT
> >>In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
> rear-ending someone."  Yeah, drivers are idiots and they do stupid
> stuff, but you should be expecting that.

kenjoe left out the fact that they were all Mexicans or Asian women...

Signature

Best
Greg

" I find Greg Morrow  lowbrow, witless, and obnoxious. For him to claim that
we are some
kind of comedy team turns my stomach."
- "cybercat" to me on rec.food.cooking

Brent P - 11 Feb 2008 02:36 GMT
>> In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
>> > I predict that you're an idiot.  He's talking about you being
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.

I do none of that. Other than the time I let up on the throttle at 25mph,
every time I've been rear ended has been when I was stopped at a red or
yellow signal. Sometimes long after I had stopped. Once the car behind me
was hit and pushed into mine.
barbie gee - 11 Feb 2008 04:02 GMT
>>> In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
>>>> I predict that you're an idiot.  He's talking about you being
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> yellow signal. Sometimes long after I had stopped. Once the car behind me
> was hit and pushed into mine.

then those times had absolutely nothing to do with RLCs, or problems with
intersections, so why do you bring them up as if they did?
Brent P - 11 Feb 2008 04:14 GMT
>>>> In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
>>>>> I predict that you're an idiot.  He's talking about you being
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>> yellow signal. Sometimes long after I had stopped. Once the car behind me
>> was hit and pushed into mine.

> then those times had absolutely nothing to do with RLCs, or problems with
> intersections, so why do you bring them up as if they did?

I guess I'll have to clue you in..... Given that such drivers like those
that have hit me exist, what is going to happen when the driver in front
of them is in the dilemma zone* and the RLC encourages them to brake hard
instead of going through the intersection?

Remember, the time I got hit for stopping on yellow is at an intersection
not far north of and much like one Mark endorses the RLC for. The driver
behind me figured I was just going to go through without stopping....
What happens when he's behind someone and the driver in front of him
knows there is an RLC and stops hard instead of gunning it though?

Also, if some nitwit can't stop for signal that's long red, how surprised
is he going to be when someone nails the brakes to avoid an RLC ticket
because the light went yellow and he was in the dilemma zone?

*See the congressional report, it is the area where one must stop harder
than usual if he can stop at all before the signal turns red and cannot
make it through the interection before the light goes red either.
Scott in SoCal - 11 Feb 2008 04:47 GMT
>Remember, the time I got hit for stopping on yellow is at an intersection
>not far north of and much like one Mark endorses the RLC for. The driver
>behind me figured I was just going to go through without stopping....
>What happens when he's behind someone and the driver in front of him
>knows there is an RLC and stops hard instead of gunning it though?

Which reminds me: the other day, I was driving down the street when I
passed a motorcycle cop who was sitting on a side street. After I
passed, he turned onto the street behind me. Aware of his presence, I
made sure I was travelling a MPH or 2 below the posted limit; he
quickly caught up to me; I can only imagine how fast he must have been
going.

Up ahead the light turned yellow. Sure, I probably could have made it,
but I decided to err on the side of caution and I came to a quick
threshold stop (the ABS did not engage). I kept an eye on the
motorcycle cop in the lane behind me. At first, he seemed not to
realize that I was stopping, but at the last moment he swerved into
the adjacent lane, and gunned it through the light.
Signature

Please don't give financial rewards to trolls -
DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com"

barbie gee - 11 Feb 2008 04:02 GMT
>> In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
>>> I predict that you're an idiot.  He's talking about you being
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.

but most all of those sound like situations where, if *you're* paying
attention and driving defensively, none would require anything even
remotely resembling a panic stop, except for maybe the stalled out car.
kenji - 11 Feb 2008 04:06 GMT
> >> In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
> >>> I predict that you're an idiot.  He's talking about you being
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> attention and driving defensively, none would require anything even
> remotely resembling a panic stop, except for maybe the stalled out car.

a panic stop is not the only evasive action to take

notice I mentioned evasive action above?
Jim Yanik - 11 Feb 2008 14:13 GMT
>> >> In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
>> >>> I predict that you're an idiot.  He's talking about you being
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> notice I mentioned evasive action above?

why is ANY "evasive action" necessary?

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Scott in SoCal - 11 Feb 2008 04:30 GMT
>I've been kinda watching driving styles of those people in front of me.
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
>Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.

All in a day's drive, eh?
Signature

Please don't give financial rewards to trolls -
DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com"

Brent P - 11 Feb 2008 02:33 GMT
> In article njnagel@roosters.net says...
>> I predict that you're an idiot.  He's talking about you being
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
> statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.  

So you're saying I should start running red signals? Or maybe I should
have punched the throttle on a slick road instead of letting up? or maybe
I shouldn't stop on a yellow before making a right turn at a blind
intersection where I can't see if someone is barreling through having the
green timed on the cross street? Is that what you're saying anderson?

> Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
> hair trigger temper.  That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
> indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage.  Road ragers, when not
> a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
> B, often end up slamming into each other.

The fact that you went through that excerise above proves to me that you
are one inconsiderate MFFY prick of a driver. It's only the people who
drive intentionally to annoy and frustrate other people that are
concerned about 'road rage'. If you didn't intentionally drive like an
a.shole, it wouldn't be an issue, you wouldn't even think about it.

> People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.

The last time you did this routine anderson I gave you a list of
situations where I asked your advice on what to do. You never answered.
Why was that anderson?
Mark Anderson - 11 Feb 2008 04:42 GMT
In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com says...
> The fact that you went through that excerise above proves to me that you
> are one inconsiderate MFFY prick of a driver. It's only the people who
> drive intentionally to annoy and frustrate other people that are
> concerned about 'road rage'. If you didn't intentionally drive like an
> a.shole, it wouldn't be an issue, you wouldn't even think about it.

You honor, I hereby rest my case.  This statement you made along with
your regular contributions to the geeks on rec.autos.driving (and to get
put in the rec category for talking about driving must have been
someone's practical joke) proves my point.  Who gives a crap how people
drive?  I never give it a second thought.  Someone causes me to avoid
them, big deal?  I really don't give a sh.t.  That you constantly
ruminate over this with funny little names like MFFY and sloth (whatever
the f.ck that means) says more about your insanity than anyone else's.  
That you think other people may be out to intentionally annoy you only
further proves my point that you have some serious road rage issues.  No
doubt your daily driving discussions on rec.autos.driving may some kind
of therapeutical release that keeps you from performing a rampage or
running amok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok).

> > People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
>
> The last time you did this routine anderson I gave you a list of
> situations where I asked your advice on what to do. You never answered.
> Why was that anderson?

There are three sides to every story; your side, their side, and the
truth.  All you can provide is your side of the story.  Self
introspection is the only way you can resolve your driving problems and
that is something only you can do.  I'm not your psychologist.
Brent P - 11 Feb 2008 05:07 GMT
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com says...
>> The fact that you went through that excerise above proves to me that you
>> are one inconsiderate MFFY prick of a driver. It's only the people who
>> drive intentionally to annoy and frustrate other people that are
>> concerned about 'road rage'. If you didn't intentionally drive like an
>> a.shole, it wouldn't be an issue, you wouldn't even think about it.

> You honor, I hereby rest my case.  This statement you made along with
> your regular contributions to the geeks on rec.autos.driving (and to get
> put in the rec category for talking about driving must have been
> someone's practical joke) proves my point.  Who gives a crap how people
> drive?  I never give it a second thought.  Someone causes me to avoid
> them, big deal?  I really don't give a sh.t.

Yep, that seals it. You're a MFFY type that drives around not giving a
sh.t about anyone else on the road but himself. You intentionally
drive without giving a sh.t about anyone else on the road. Let me guess? You
enter the interstate and go straight to the left lane, sit there while
driving slower than 60+% of the drivers on the road and then move right
when your exit comes up?

>  That you constantly
> ruminate over this with funny little names like MFFY and sloth (whatever
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> of therapeutical release that keeps you from performing a rampage or
> running amok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok).

This is amusing, you think there is underlying problem in the use of
shorthand jargon.... lol. (oops, I just used shorthand jargon!) Who said
anything about people to annoy me? Not me... Those drivers are going to
annoy others wether I drive or not, it has nothing to do with me. Some
people go out with the intent to annoy other drivers, you seemed like
one of them. Now that you say you don't give a sh.t, well that's only
slightly different. You go out there knowing full well that you are
driving in a manner that is annoying to other people, you just don't
care.

Although you're not caring doesn't explain your pound of flesh pro-RLC
view.... it seems you care a lot.... I can only guess now that it's a
projection of your own driving that causes you to think that all red
light running is intentional.

>> > People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
>> The last time you did this routine anderson I gave you a list of
>> situations where I asked your advice on what to do. You never answered.
>> Why was that anderson?

> There are three sides to every story; your side, their side, and the
> truth.  All you can provide is your side of the story.  Self
> introspection is the only way you can resolve your driving problems and
> that is something only you can do.  I'm not your psychologist.

translation: You're full of bullshit. You fabricate attacks against me
personally because you don't have a clue about about anything driving
related. You're all pissed off because I showed you up by presenting
research on RLCs. You're good at projection there Anderson, you need
help.
Mark Anderson - 12 Feb 2008 03:39 GMT
In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com says...
> Yep, that seals it. You're a MFFY type that drives around not giving a
> sh.t about anyone else on the road but himself. You intentionally
> drive without giving a sh.t about anyone else on the road. Let me guess? You
> enter the interstate and go straight to the left lane, sit there while
> driving slower than 60+% of the drivers on the road and then move right
> when your exit comes up?

Does that bother you Brent?  Does your blood pressure rise when that
happens?  Does that make you want to turn your camera on, upload the
video to youtube, and vent about it with all the other dorks in
rec.autos.driving?  It always amazes me how certain Usenet groups end up
attracting the same kind of personality.  It looks like
rec.autos.driving attracts blennies and blennies in training (a.k.a
scupies).

> Although you're not caring doesn't explain your pound of flesh pro-RLC
> view.... it seems you care a lot.... I can only guess now that it's a
> projection of your own driving that causes you to think that all red
> light running is intentional.

It is.  Only people who fight the federal reserve bank, think 9/11 was
caused by a controlled demolition and that a guided missile hit the
Pentagon, and believe the moon landings were faked think that red light
runners are innocent victims of THE MAN.  Normal people with common
sense about the real world know different.  It's a good thing you don't
live in Chicago, you'll get taken for everything you have as soon as you
fall off the turnip truck.

> translation: You're full of bullshit. You fabricate attacks against me
> personally because you don't have a clue about about anything driving
> related.

translation: You're a moron -- period.  And there's little help in
changing that fact.

> You're all pissed off because I showed you up by presenting
> research on RLCs. You're good at projection there Anderson, you need
> help.

The people who espouse that the moon landings were faked have all kinds
of research too.  Your research falls in the same category (I.e.
bullshit).
KK - 12 Feb 2008 03:37 GMT
> translation: You're a moron -- period.  And there's little help in
> changing that fact.

feel the LOVE

this is the kind of thing that makes all the time in chi.*, worth it!
Brent P - 12 Feb 2008 05:55 GMT
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com says...
>> Yep, that seals it. You're a MFFY type that drives around not giving a
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> rec.autos.driving attracts blennies and blennies in training (a.k.a
> scupies).

No, Anderson, the question is why do you think that people should have
infinite tolerance for the poor, assholish, selfish, don't give a sh.t 
about other people driving that you seem to endorse?

>> Although you're not caring doesn't explain your pound of flesh pro-RLC
>> view.... it seems you care a lot.... I can only guess now that it's a
>> projection of your own driving that causes you to think that all red
>> light running is intentional.

> It is.

Like you, the a.sholes who run red lights intentionally, don't give a
sh.t about other people on the road.

>  Only people who fight the federal reserve bank, think 9/11 was
> caused by a controlled demolition and that a guided missile hit the
> Pentagon, and believe the moon landings were faked think that red light
> runners are innocent victims of THE MAN.  Normal people with common
> sense about the real world know different.  

Nice irrelevant strawman you got there. Should I say you believe Daley is
a space alien? It's about as grounded in fact as what you just tried to
hang on me you dishonest turd.

> It's a good thing you don't
> live in Chicago, you'll get taken for everything you have as soon as you
> fall off the turnip truck.

Anderson, you'd be too f.cking scared to even drive through the chicago
neighborhood I lived in. Let me put it this way Anderson, I heard gunfire
practically EVERY DAY. It was so common it was like the L going by. Like
everything else with you it's just projection of your own fears of your
own behaviors.  

>> translation: You're full of bullshit. You fabricate attacks against me
>> personally because you don't have a clue about about anything driving
>> related.

> translation: You're a moron -- period.  And there's little help in
> changing that fact.

More name calling from anderson, no support, no cites, no nothing.

>> You're all pissed off because I showed you up by presenting
>> research on RLCs. You're good at projection there Anderson, you need
>> help.

> The people who espouse that the moon landings were faked have all kinds
> of research too.  Your research falls in the same category (I.e.
> bullshit).

Funny, I don't see any fake moon landing studies from state governments,
the federal government, major news sources, respected transportation
institutes, etc.... which is where all the studies I pointed you come
from.
Mark Anderson - 13 Feb 2008 05:15 GMT
In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com says...
> No, Anderson, the question is why do you think that people should have
> infinite tolerance for the poor, assholish, selfish, don't give a sh.t 
> about other people driving that you seem to endorse?

I don't which is why I endorse automatic enforcement of traffic laws
such as RLCs.  You endorse vigilantism.
Brent P - 13 Feb 2008 05:20 GMT
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com says...
>> No, Anderson, the question is why do you think that people should have
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I don't which is why I endorse automatic enforcement of traffic laws
> such as RLCs.  

RLCs don't do squat about it. They merely use the condition as a reason
to make the roads less safe for profit.

> You endorse vigilantism.

No, I endorse a civil society.

Let me know how well waiting for the CPD to arrive to save you goes, I'll
continue to look out for myself.
Mark Anderson - 13 Feb 2008 05:49 GMT
In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com says...
> Let me know how well waiting for the CPD to arrive to save you goes, I'll
> continue to look out for myself.

The bravery you exhibit behind the general anonymity of a keyboard and
monitor is nothing short of inspirational.
Brent P - 13 Feb 2008 05:57 GMT
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com says...
>> Let me know how well waiting for the CPD to arrive to save you goes, I'll
>> continue to look out for myself.
>
> The bravery you exhibit behind the general anonymity of a keyboard and
> monitor is nothing short of inspirational.

What does bravery from behind a keyboard have to do with it?
Matthew T. Russotto - 12 Feb 2008 22:04 GMT
>rec.autos.driving?  It always amazes me how certain Usenet groups end up
>attracting the same kind of personality.  It looks like
>rec.autos.driving attracts blennies and blennies in training (a.k.a
>scupies).

Apparently it attracts people who make up nonsense words for derisive
purposes.  Unless you're calling Brent a fish or a fruit tree.

>It is.  Only people who fight the federal reserve bank, think 9/11 was
>caused by a controlled demolition and that a guided missile hit the
>Pentagon,

Anybody sensible believes a guided missile hit the Pentagon.  Even the
official report says so.

>and believe the moon landings were faked think that red light
>runners are innocent victims of THE MAN.

Right.  You have to be a kook to believe that red light cameras are
rigged, despite some places having been caught rigging them.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Michele - 13 Feb 2008 01:42 GMT
>> rec.autos.driving?  It always amazes me how certain Usenet groups end up
>> attracting the same kind of personality.  It looks like
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Apparently it attracts people who make up nonsense words for derisive
> purposes.  Unless you're calling Brent a fish or a fruit tree.

You'd have to read chi.gen to get the joke.
Chicago Paddling-Fishing - 13 Feb 2008 15:14 GMT
In chi.general Michele <michele@buggeroff.net> wrote:

>>> rec.autos.driving?  It always amazes me how certain Usenet groups end up
>>> attracting the same kind of personality.  It looks like
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> Apparently it attracts people who make up nonsense words for derisive
>> purposes.  Unless you're calling Brent a fish or a fruit tree.

>You'd have to read chi.gen to get the joke.

Don't bother, if there is actually something amusing to it, you won't find
it in chi.general

Signature

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)

Mark Anderson - 13 Feb 2008 05:15 GMT
In article russotto@grace.speakeasy.net says...
> >and believe the moon landings were faked think that red light
> >runners are innocent victims of THE MAN.
>
> Right.  You have to be a kook to believe that red light cameras are
> rigged, despite some places having been caught rigging them.

As far as Chicago is concerned, all RLC intersections observed had the
same yellow light timing as the non-RLC intersections.  So far there is
no evidence suggesting rigging here despite the kooks claiming that
since Daley is corrupt then all RLC cameras are corrupt as well as the
people who install and service them.  Since Daley is corrupt then the
people running the dog licensing program are corrupt.  Simple thoughts
and conclusions lead to simple minds.
Brent P - 13 Feb 2008 05:16 GMT
> In article russotto@grace.speakeasy.net says...
>> >and believe the moon landings were faked think that red light
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> people running the dog licensing program are corrupt.  Simple thoughts
> and conclusions lead to simple minds.

Short yellows being used across the board doesn't change the fact that
RLCs need short yellows to make a profit.
Scott in SoCal - 13 Feb 2008 14:49 GMT
>>rec.autos.driving?  It always amazes me how certain Usenet groups end up
>>attracting the same kind of personality.  It looks like
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>Right.  You have to be a kook to believe that red light cameras are
>rigged, despite some places having been caught rigging them.

You'll have to excuse Mr. Anderson. His main thesis is that, no matter
how many documented cases exist from elsewhere in the country, not to
mention the many documented cases of official corruption in C(r)ook
County, there has been no documented case of rigged RLCs *in Chicago*
and therefore rigged RLCs cannot exist there.
Signature

Please don't give financial rewards to trolls -
DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com"

Geoff Gass - 13 Feb 2008 21:51 GMT
>>>rec.autos.driving?  It always amazes me how certain Usenet groups end up
>>>attracting the same kind of personality.  It looks like
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> County, there has been no documented case of rigged RLCs *in Chicago*
> and therefore rigged RLCs cannot exist there.

How do you reconcile the fact that based on Bruce's data, there aren't
any rigged ones here.
Brent P - 13 Feb 2008 22:01 GMT
>>>>rec.autos.driving?  It always amazes me how certain Usenet groups end up
>>>>attracting the same kind of personality.  It looks like
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> How do you reconcile the fact that based on Bruce's data, there aren't
> any rigged ones here.

Because the short yellow was pre-existing. Usually the RLC intersections
have the yellow signal shortened or intersections with short yellows are
indentified as profitable and get the RLCs. Since they are all 3
seconds, too short for the default 30mph speed limit based on pre-RLC
standards and the bare minimum under state law via the MUTCD, then they
can just pick the intersections with other issues that pile on top of a
substandard yellow signal.

But what scott forgot to mention is that Chicago's vendor, redflex has
also been caught doing things that are not on the up and up.
Scott in SoCal - 14 Feb 2008 05:34 GMT
>How do you reconcile the fact that based on Bruce's data, there aren't
>any rigged ones here.

Did Bruce collect data on EVERY intersection in the entire city? If
not, then how do you know there aren't *any* rigged ones?
Signature

Please don't give financial rewards to trolls -
DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com"

max - 14 Feb 2008 08:59 GMT
> >How do you reconcile the fact that based on Bruce's data, there aren't
> >any rigged ones here.
>
> Did Bruce collect data on EVERY intersection in the entire city? If
> not, then how do you know there aren't *any* rigged ones?

because we KNOW.  sheesh.  

i hearby  mint a new metric of time, the Chicago Yellow:

 1 Chicago Yellow == 3 New York Minutes.

.max
Geoff Gass - 14 Feb 2008 18:32 GMT
>>How do you reconcile the fact that based on Bruce's data, there aren't
>>any rigged ones here.
>
> Did Bruce collect data on EVERY intersection in the entire city? If
> not, then how do you know there aren't *any* rigged ones?

sorry skip, burden of proof is on the one claiming that there are rigged
intersections.
KK - 14 Feb 2008 21:59 GMT
> >>How do you reconcile the fact that based on Bruce's data, there aren't
> >>any rigged ones here.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> sorry skip, burden of proof is on the one claiming that there are rigged
> intersections.

since bje posted his findings I find myself checking lengths of yellow
lights.

one mississppi
two mississipi
three mississipi

So far in the city proper, including the loop, it's three mississippi.

Once into Harwood Heights and Norridge, Lincolnwood, Skokie, Elk Grove,
Joliet,Romeoville, Lockport, Burr Ridge, Itasca, Lynwood, Maywood, and
Oak Park, all bets are off. I've been to all of them in the last week
and their sh.t is all over the place.
Scott in SoCal - 11 Feb 2008 14:28 GMT
> Who gives a crap how people drive?  I never give it a second thought.  

So you're an oblivious driver who just toodles along blithely, minding
your own business, paying absolutely no attention to what's going on
around you?

Remind me never to ride in a car with you...
Signature

Please don't give financial rewards to trolls -
DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com"

Brent P - 11 Feb 2008 02:25 GMT
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com says...
>> >  We like our
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Some of us know how to drive and don't let others dictate our actions.  

So you just hammer on the brakes when someone is tailgating you because
you won't let others dictate your actions? GOtcha.

> If you find yourself getting in a lot of rear end collisions, then there
> is something wrong with you.

That would mean I wasn't letting others dictate my actions.... You're
good at these catch 22 complaints. It's interesting how you always go
after me personally instead of actually proving anything about RLCs.

> Since you have no idea of the concept of
> introspection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection) and deny your
> own road rage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_rage) I predict you'll
> continue getting into rear end collisions for as long as the state still
> allows you to have a drivers license.

More of your own fabrications.

So Anderson, be sure to let the group know when you get rear ended or get
an RLC ticket. It's only a matter of time. (that is if you drive over
15mph)
 
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.