833) No real guess on this one. Is it as flat as it looks?
What are the lumps at the ends of the arms made of? They look
like nearly dead ancient rubber -- to go with the rust pitted
metal between them.


Yes it's flat, maybe a quarter inch thick, and the handles on the ends are
made of wood.

Good guess on the welding electrodes last week, I believe this is the
correct answer.


Rob

Gunner wrote:

It should be noted that many juristictions who were/are using red light
cameras as revenue machines, shortened up the yellows. Folks who were
used to the length of the yellows in regularly traveled intersections
got ****ed in the ass.


Wait til you get Gatso's over there! Here's a UK site about our speed
cameras. An Anti site of course I have to pass through many of
these daily, have to have your wits about you.

Our red light cameras are less common but similar. Have a few in the
town i live in.

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/

Wayne...

Wayne Weedon said:

snip

Here's a UK site about our speed
cameras. An Anti site of course I have to pass through many of
these daily, have to have your wits about you.

If you drive at or below the speed limit *all the time*, which is a legal
requirement anyway in the UK, then you don't have to worry about speed
cameras even a little bit.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

Richard Heathfield (in ) said:

| I'm afraid I can't source this, but I remember reading of a
| Scottish town where traffic lights were installed. The good
| burghers of that town, however, were in no particular hurry, and
| they drove so slowly that the traffic light sensors couldn't detect
| them at all! This caused some serious traffic problems, as you
| might imagine.

[ posting from rec.woodworking ]

Isn't technology grand? g

Welcome - it's good to hear your voice again!

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Richard Heathfield wrote:


Here's a UK site about our speed
cameras. An Anti site of course I have to pass through many of
these daily, have to have your wits about you.

If you drive at or below the speed limit *all the time*, which is a legal
requirement anyway in the UK, then you don't have to worry about speed
cameras even a little bit.


Exactly why NEVER has one of these things has ever given me a fine !

I can still disagree with them on principal though, I do believe they
have been used as a source of revenue, and seem to be excempt from
normal planning requirements.

Wayne...

Morris Dovey said:

Richard Heathfield (in ) said:

| I'm afraid I can't source this, but I remember reading of a
| Scottish town where traffic lights were installed. The good
| burghers of that town, however, were in no particular hurry, and
| they drove so slowly that the traffic light sensors couldn't detect
| them at all! This caused some serious traffic problems, as you
| might imagine.

[ posting from rec.woodworking ]

Isn't technology grand? g

[ posting from rec.puzzles ]

The problem with technology is that we're so wrapped up with proving we can
do it that we rarely stop to wonder whether doing it is a bright idea.

Welcome - it's good to hear your voice again!

Get thee back to comp.lang.c where thou belongst, sirrah!

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

Wayne Weedon said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:


Here's a UK site about our speed
cameras. An Anti site of course I have to pass through many of
these daily, have to have your wits about you.

If you drive at or below the speed limit *all the time*, which is a legal
requirement anyway in the UK, then you don't have to worry about speed
cameras even a little bit.


Exactly why NEVER has one of these things has ever given me a fine !

I can still disagree with them on principal though, I do believe they
have been used as a source of revenue, and seem to be excempt from
normal planning requirements.

Actually, I just thought of why you *do* have to worry about them. Not the
usual ones, the "whoa! you just redlined me! you're nicked, chummy" kind,
but the kind that hang around in little gangs strung out along the road,
and photograph *every* car, twice or more, so that they can average your
speed over a given distance. These have serious implications for civil
liberties, as they can be used to identify and record people's travel
patterns, even though no offence has been committed. For the same reason,
we should be very concerned by the plans to fingerprint all schoolchildren.
(This is already underway in the UK.)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:06:04 +0000, Richard Heathfield
wrote:


Exactly why NEVER has one of these things has ever given me a fine !

I can still disagree with them on principal though, I do believe they
have been used as a source of revenue, and seem to be excempt from
normal planning requirements.

Actually, I just thought of why you *do* have to worry about them. Not the
usual ones, the "whoa! you just redlined me! you're nicked, chummy" kind,
but the kind that hang around in little gangs strung out along the road,
and photograph *every* car, twice or more, so that they can average your
speed over a given distance. These have serious implications for civil
liberties, as they can be used to identify and record people's travel
patterns, even though no offence has been committed. For the same reason,
we should be very concerned by the plans to fingerprint all schoolchildren.
(This is already underway in the UK.)

I also understand that spray paint and paintball splatter are only a few
ways that those cameras are vandalized on a regular basis in the
UK..not to mention those chained and torn out by the roots.

Seems some Brits still have their nads G
'
Gunner

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:05:52 +0000, Richard Heathfield
wrote:
Wayne Weedon said:

snip
Here's a UK site about our speed
cameras. An Anti site of course I have to pass through many of
these daily, have to have your wits about you.

If you drive at or below the speed limit *all the time*, which is a legal
requirement anyway in the UK, then you don't have to worry about speed
cameras even a little bit.

Ummmmm... What color is the sun on your native planet?

Speed Limits are set by morons - always have been, always will.

The Traffic engineers try to use a rationale like they're setting
them at "the 85th Percentile of the average traffic flow on that
stretch of road" or other nonsense, but plain and simple they're
guessing. Drivers will drive at a speed they feel is safe for the
conditions at the moment, and each driver has a different idea of what
constitutes 'safe' (some of which are nonsensical or ignore certain
hazards in their estimate), which creates an instant conflict.

Too low in many places, too high in others - you have to know to
look out for blind intersections, people pulling out (or worse,
backing out) of blind driveways without looking, people pulling out
from curb parking without looking - on both sides, which covers the
U-Turn from a standing start at the curb.

We have a stretch of secondary road that was posted for 30 MPH for
several decades, to get around the defacto residential limit of 25 MPH
when unposted. Then they put in killer speed-bumps you have to slow
to 10 MPH to clear without damage - and left the 30 MPH signs
posted...

Then you get to the open highways and the restricted-access freeways
and turnpikes, where there is no cross-traffic, they're fenced off so
no stray animals, broad shoulders, proper grading and drainage... And
some moron in the Legislature decides that we have to save fuel, so
we'll set the limits artificially low to force you to.

-- Bruce --

Bruce L. Bergman said:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:05:52 +0000, Richard Heathfield
wrote:
Wayne Weedon said:

snip
Here's a UK site about our speed
cameras. An Anti site of course I have to pass through many of
these daily, have to have your wits about you.

If you drive at or below the speed limit *all the time*, which is a legal
requirement anyway in the UK, then you don't have to worry about speed
cameras even a little bit.

Ummmmm... What color is the sun on your native planet?

Yellow, last time I checked.

Speed Limits are set by morons - always have been, always will.

Nevertheless, laws are broken by criminals - always have been, always will.

The Traffic engineers try to use a rationale like they're setting
them at "the 85th Percentile of the average traffic flow on that
stretch of road" or other nonsense, but plain and simple they're
guessing.

In the UK, the rules are pretty simple - national speed limit applies unless
overturned by local signage. National speed limits a 30 in a built-up
area, otherwise 60 for single-carriageway and 70 for dual-carriageway.
Slight variations apply for various kinds of vehicle (e.g. lorries are 50
and 60 rather than 60 and 70), and drivers of those vehicles are required
to know the variations.

Drivers will drive at a speed they feel is safe for the
conditions at the moment, and each driver has a different idea of what
constitutes 'safe' (some of which are nonsensical or ignore certain
hazards in their estimate), which creates an instant conflict.

That's why absolute limits are imposed, but these are limits, not targets.
If local conditions (e.g. rain, blind corner, some idiot walking in the
middle of the road, whatever) mean that it is not safe to drive at 30 in a
30 zone, then it's the driver's responsibility to be aware of this and to
drive at a safe speed.

Too low in many places, too high in others - you have to know to
look out for blind intersections, people pulling out (or worse,
backing out) of blind driveways without looking, people pulling out
from curb parking without looking - on both sides, which covers the
U-Turn from a standing start at the curb.

Yes. This is called "driving with due care and attention", and driving
/without/ due care and attention is an offence, in the UK at least.

We have a stretch of secondary road that was posted for 30 MPH for
several decades, to get around the defacto residential limit of 25 MPH
when unposted. Then they put in killer speed-bumps you have to slow
to 10 MPH to clear without damage - and left the 30 MPH signs
posted...

The speed limit is not there to protect your suspension. That's your
problem. The speed limit is there to discourage you from wrapping your
vehicle around trees, lamp-posts, Saabs, six-year-old children, and so on.

Then you get to the open highways and the restricted-access freeways
and turnpikes, where there is no cross-traffic, they're fenced off so
no stray animals, broad shoulders, proper grading and drainage... And
some moron in the Legislature decides that we have to save fuel, so
we'll set the limits artificially low to force you to.

We get the government we deserve, alas.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:44:07 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

It should be noted that many juristictions who were/are using red light
cameras as revenue machines, shortened up the yellows. Folks who were
used to the length of the yellows in regularly traveled intersections
got ****ed in the ass.

The private company who was installing the Red Light Cameras in San
Diego CA tried that trick - They had full access to the controller
cabinets and without permission or authority shortened a lot of yellow
light intervals by 30% to 50% (from six seconds to three at some),
with the desired results of people running out of yellow before they
entered the intersection. They were getting paid a percentage of the
fines, naturally.

Eventually someone contested their ticket vigorously enough and they
figured it out, and the court invalidated a lot of tickets. The
municipalities changed the yellow interval timing back to what the
MUTCD(*) required for the dimensions of the intersection and the speed
limits. And the camera company in question had to pay back their fees
on a lot of invalid tickets.

Now the camera people only have access to the camera cabinets, NOT
to the traffic light controller cabinet where they could diddle with
the programming - Only state, city or county workers have that key.

*Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices - If you want a mind
numbing experience, leaf through he http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

-- Bruce --

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:53:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Bruce L. Bergman said:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:05:52 +0000, Richard Heathfield
wrote:
Wayne Weedon said:

snip
Here's a UK site about our speed
cameras. An Anti site of course I have to pass through many of
these daily, have to have your wits about you.

If you drive at or below the speed limit *all the time*, which is a legal
requirement anyway in the UK, then you don't have to worry about speed
cameras even a little bit.

Ummmmm... What color is the sun on your native planet?

Yellow, last time I checked.

Speed Limits are set by morons - always have been, always will.

Nevertheless, laws are broken by criminals - always have been, always
will.

And by lumping people who disregard an arbitrary number painted on a
piece of metal with the thieves and murderers you discredit the whole
legal process.

The Traffic engineers try to use a rationale like they're setting
them at "the 85th Percentile of the average traffic flow on that
stretch of road" or other nonsense, but plain and simple they're
guessing.

In the UK, the rules are pretty simple - national speed limit applies
unless overturned by local signage. National speed limits a 30 in a
built-up area, otherwise 60 for single-carriageway and 70 for
dual-carriageway. Slight variations apply for various kinds of vehicle
(e.g. lorries are 50 and 60 rather than 60 and 70), and drivers of those
vehicles are required to know the variations.

In other words they have nothing whatsoever to do with the appropriate
speed for the road in question and everything to do with the convenience
of politicians.

Drivers will drive at a speed they feel is safe for the conditions at
the moment, and each driver has a different idea of what constitutes
'safe' (some of which are nonsensical or ignore certain hazards in
their estimate), which creates an instant conflict.

That's why absolute limits are imposed, but these are limits, not
targets. If local conditions (e.g. rain, blind corner, some idiot
walking in the middle of the road, whatever) mean that it is not safe to
drive at 30 in a 30 zone, then it's the driver's responsibility to be
aware of this and to drive at a safe speed.

By setting limits the government is substituting its own judgment for that
of the man on the spot. 8 lane highway, well lighted, 2 AM, not a car in
sight, why should one limit oneself to 60 MPH just to satisfy some
bureaucrat?

Too low in many places, too high in others - you have to know to
look out for blind intersections, people pulling out (or worse, backing
out) of blind driveways without looking, people pulling out from curb
parking without looking - on both sides, which covers the U-Turn from a
standing start at the curb.

Yes. This is called "driving with due care and attention", and driving
/without/ due care and attention is an offence, in the UK at least.

That should be the offense, not "offending some bureaucrat by second
guessing his judgment as to the maximum safe speed on a particular stretch
of road".

We have a stretch of secondary road that was posted for 30 MPH for
several decades, to get around the defacto residential limit of 25 MPH
when unposted. Then they put in killer speed-bumps you have to slow to
10 MPH to clear without damage - and left the 30 MPH signs posted...

The speed limit is not there to protect your suspension. That's your
problem. The speed limit is there to discourage you from wrapping your
vehicle around trees, lamp-posts, Saabs, six-year-old children, and so
on.

If the bureaucrats want a 10 MPH speed limit they should establish one,
not circumvent the democratic process by putting in obstructions.

Then you get to the open highways and the restricted-access freeways
and turnpikes, where there is no cross-traffic, they're fenced off so
no stray animals, broad shoulders, proper grading and drainage... And
some moron in the Legislature decides that we have to save fuel, so
we'll set the limits artificially low to force you to.

We get the government we deserve, alas.

Actually we get interlocking constituencies and the squeaky wheel. It's
far easier to get up a lobby _for_ some piece of legislation than it is to
get one up _against_ some piece of legislation.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:
The Traffic engineers try to use a rationale like they're setting
them at "the 85th Percentile of the average traffic flow on that
stretch of road" or other nonsense, but plain and simple they're
guessing.

Well some might, one city locally has a traffic planning
engineer/manager that doesn't even have a driving licence, she however
does have a degree.....

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Actually, I just thought of why you *do* have to worry about them. Not the
usual ones, the "whoa! you just redlined me! you're nicked, chummy" kind,
but the kind that hang around in little gangs strung out along the road,
and photograph *every* car, twice or more, so that they can average your
speed over a given distance. These have serious implications for civil
liberties, as they can be used to identify and record people's travel
patterns, even though no offence has been committed. For the same reason,
we should be very concerned by the plans to fingerprint all schoolchildren.
(This is already underway in the UK.)


Another reason Richard is the number of drivers who panic brake when
ever they see one, one not far away was involved in a multiple death RTI...

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:53:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
wrote:

Bruce L. Bergman said:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:05:52 +0000, Richard Heathfield
wrote:
Wayne Weedon said:

snip
Here's a UK site about our speed
cameras. An Anti site of course I have to pass through many of
these daily, have to have your wits about you.

If you drive at or below the speed limit *all the time*, which is a legal
requirement anyway in the UK, then you don't have to worry about speed
cameras even a little bit.

Ummmmm... What color is the sun on your native planet?

Yellow, last time I checked.

Speed Limits are set by morons - always have been, always will.

Nevertheless, laws are broken by criminals - always have been, always will.


... and when you put the wrong people in charge, you can turn anyone and
everyone, by definition into a criminal.

[Moonbat bright idea: "I know, to save gas and lives, let's set the
national speed limit to 35 MPH!" Moonbat legislature, "Great idea!".
Reality, entire nation is turned into criminals (or idiots)]




.... snip


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

J. Clarke said:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:53:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Bruce L. Bergman said:

snip

Speed Limits are set by morons - always have been, always will.

Nevertheless, laws are broken by criminals - always have been, always
will.

And by lumping people who disregard an arbitrary number painted on a
piece of metal with the thieves and murderers you discredit the whole
legal process.

The legal process doesn't have any credibility whatsoever, which is why it
requires police officers to enforce it. Everybody knows the law is stupid,
but breaking it is rarely a good strategy.

[Speed limits]

In other words they have nothing whatsoever to do with the appropriate
speed for the road in question and everything to do with the convenience
of politicians.

That's right, but it still makes sense to observe them by driving at or
below them.

snip

By setting limits the government is substituting its own judgment for that
of the man on the spot.

No, the law requires the man on the spot to show good judgement, *and* the
law requires the man on the spot to observe the speed limit.

8 lane highway, well lighted, 2 AM, not a car in
sight, why should one limit oneself to 60 MPH just to satisfy some
bureaucrat?

It's to do with the thickness of your wallet. Trust me on this. :-(


Too low in many places, too high in others - you have to know to
look out for blind intersections, people pulling out (or worse, backing
out) of blind driveways without looking, people pulling out from curb
parking without looking - on both sides, which covers the U-Turn from a
standing start at the curb.

Yes. This is called "driving with due care and attention", and driving
/without/ due care and attention is an offence, in the UK at least.

That should be the offense, not "offending some bureaucrat by second
guessing his judgment as to the maximum safe speed on a particular stretch
of road".

The one is (at least in part) a polite way of saying the other.

If the bureaucrats want a 10 MPH speed limit they should establish one,
not circumvent the democratic process by putting in obstructions.

So tell your political representative that you require him to get
legislation passed removing the speed bumps. If enough people do the same,
the law will change through the democratic process. But they won't. You
know they won't. Even though you're likely to have a majority of people
agreeing with you. This is just Yet Another Sign that "the democratic
process" doesn't work.

It's
far easier to get up a lobby _for_ some piece of legislation than it is to
get one up _against_ some piece of legislation.

Fine, so get up a lobby *for* passing a law that requires the replacement of
all speed bumps with, say, pedestrian crossings or something.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

Mark & Juanita said:

snip

... and when you put the wrong people in charge, you can turn anyone and
everyone, by definition into a criminal.

Yes, and we *do* put the wrong people in charge.

The problem is that the right people never stand for office, or if they do,
we as an electorate ignore them completely.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

On Nov 25, 12:40 pm, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:

The Traffic engineers try to use a rationale like they're setting
them at "the 85th Percentile of the average traffic flow on that
stretch of road" or other nonsense, but plain and simple they're
guessing. Drivers will drive at a speed they feel is safe for the
conditions at the moment, and each driver has a different idea of what
constitutes 'safe' (some of which are nonsensical or ignore certain
hazards in their estimate), which creates an instant conflict.

Well, they have to start working up a number somewhere. I suppose they
could hold speed limit elections...

It's not the 85th percentile rule that I object to, it's how they go
about arriving at the number.

It used to be that they'd just have the rubber sensor strips running
across the road hooked up to a little box. You wouldn't even think
twice about it. Most people wouldn't even know what it was if they
noticed it. In other words an honest, blind sampling. Now they put up
one of those radar speed signs that flashes your speed and has the
speed limit posted on it (most of the time). I think the majority of
people don't worry about going a couple or a few miles over the speed
limit, but when those flashing radar signs are in place, instead of
getting an honest sampling, the drivers _all_ slow down to stay under
the speed limit. They're never attended, it's not like you're going to
get a ticket (yet). So what happens? Now everybody is doing under the
existing speed limit, and they use the 85th percentile rule to drop the
speed limit some more. Revenues, you know. On one of the major roads,
if you can call any of the roads on the peninsula major, the speed
limit is 25 miles an hour. 30 used to be the speed limit and 35 is
safe. This bothers me. I always speed up five or eight miles an hour
to offset the general tendency to slow down.

On another road some miles from here the speed limit is 55. There used
to be _one_ speed limit sign in an eight or ten mile stretch of road.
This area is pretty populated, and people don't expect a 55 mph limit
except on the highway. They didn't want people to know the speed
limit, and consequently, people drove more slowly. That road's still
55 and they've filled in with more speed limit signs, and sure enough,
the average speed on that road has picked up considerably. Why they
haven't used their tactics to drop the limit on that road, I don't
know.

We have a stretch of secondary road that was posted for 30 MPH for
several decades, to get around the defacto residential limit of 25 MPH
when unposted. Then they put in killer speed-bumps you have to slow
to 10 MPH to clear without damage - and left the 30 MPH signs
posted...

If there are no signs warning of those speed bumps that's a nice law
suit waiting to happen.

R

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:00:13 +0000, badger.badger wrote:

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:
The Traffic engineers try to use a rationale like they're setting
them at "the 85th Percentile of the average traffic flow on that
stretch of road" or other nonsense, but plain and simple they're
guessing.

Well some might, one city locally has a traffic planning
engineer/manager that doesn't even have a driving licence, she however
does have a degree.....

The traffic engineer if he's doing his job lets the drivers decide. He
does a study, finds out the 85th percentile speed (or whatever the
research showed--this was done in the '30s if I recall correctly and the
purpose of the research was to figure out what speed limit produced the
fewest accidents or fatalities--it's not a number somebody pulled out of
his butt) and sets the limit there. If he's good then he does another study
to see what the change in speed limit has done to the speed.



--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:53:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Bruce L. Bergman said:

.... snip ...

Drivers will drive at a speed they feel is safe for the
conditions at the moment, and each driver has a different idea
of what constitutes 'safe' (some of which are nonsensical or
ignore certain hazards in their estimate), which creates an
instant conflict.

That's why absolute limits are imposed, but these are limits, not
targets. If local conditions (e.g. rain, blind corner, some idiot
walking in the middle of the road, whatever) mean that it is not
safe to drive at 30 in a 30 zone, then it's the driver's
responsibility to be aware of this and to drive at a safe speed.

By setting limits the government is substituting its own judgment
for that of the man on the spot. 8 lane highway, well lighted, 2
AM, not a car in sight, why should one limit oneself to 60 MPH just
to satisfy some bureaucrat?

Too low in many places, too high in others - you have to know to
look out for blind intersections, people pulling out (or worse,
backing out) of blind driveways without looking, people pulling
out from curb parking without looking - on both sides, which
covers the U-Turn from a standing start at the curb.

Yes. This is called "driving with due care and attention", and
driving /without/ due care and attention is an offence, in the UK
at least.

That should be the offense, not "offending some bureaucrat by
second guessing his judgment as to the maximum safe speed on a
particular stretch of road".

AIUI the Germans have a more intelligent system on the Autobahn.
They concentrate on unsafe driving habits, such as tailgating, or
failure to keep right, combined with careful initial licensing
provisions. I also understand that the resultant statistics
confirm the efficacy of this.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
http://cbfalconer.home.att.net

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:06:36 -0500, CBFalconer wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:53:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Bruce L. Bergman said:

... snip ...

Drivers will drive at a speed they feel is safe for the
conditions at the moment, and each driver has a different idea
of what constitutes 'safe' (some of which are nonsensical or
ignore certain hazards in their estimate), which creates an
instant conflict.

That's why absolute limits are imposed, but these are limits, not
targets. If local conditions (e.g. rain, blind corner, some idiot
walking in the middle of the road, whatever) mean that it is not
safe to drive at 30 in a 30 zone, then it's the driver's
responsibility to be aware of this and to drive at a safe speed.

By setting limits the government is substituting its own judgment
for that of the man on the spot. 8 lane highway, well lighted, 2
AM, not a car in sight, why should one limit oneself to 60 MPH just
to satisfy some bureaucrat?

Too low in many places, too high in others - you have to know to
look out for blind intersections, people pulling out (or worse,
backing out) of blind driveways without looking, people pulling
out from curb parking without looking - on both sides, which
covers the U-Turn from a standing start at the curb.

Yes. This is called "driving with due care and attention", and
driving /without/ due care and attention is an offence, in the UK
at least.

That should be the offense, not "offending some bureaucrat by
second guessing his judgment as to the maximum safe speed on a
particular stretch of road".

AIUI the Germans have a more intelligent system on the Autobahn.
They concentrate on unsafe driving habits, such as tailgating, or
failure to keep right, combined with careful initial licensing
provisions. I also understand that the resultant statistics
confirm the efficacy of this.

In 1995 the Congress rescinded the National Maximum Speed Limit
and in Montana the speed limit reverted to "reasonable and prudent".
There was a decline in fatalities each year that that was in effect. In
1999 the Montana legislature for whatever reason chose to implement a 75
MPH speed limit. The result was a doubling in fatalities.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article et, Lew
Hodgett wrote:

RicodJour wrote:


Keep us posted on that one. I received one of those tickets. I was in
fact at fault, but the assumption that the owner is always the one
driving is not a particularly good one.

It's the usual tune - fine people and the majority will just pay up
rather than take the time and expense to fight it, even if they are
100% in the right.

The above and $10 will get you a cup of coffee in a cheap restaurant.

This one has already been thru the courts in L/A.

As California goes, the rest of the country soon follows.

The case I was talking about is here in Canada, not in the US.
Different courts and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is interpreted
by those courts.

In article , Chris Friesen
wrote:

I think it's reasonable for the owner of a car to be held responsible
for its safe use, even if it has been lent out to someone else

Really? You're willing to take legal responsibility for someone else's
behaviour simply because they borrow your car?

Where do you live? I'd like to stop by and test drive the next car you
sell.

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:46:02 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article . net, Lew
Hodgett wrote:

L/A is spending about $1 meg per intersection not only to install
sensors, but also cameras that take a pictures of the vehicle and the
license plate complete with date and time stamp when you try to run a
red light.

Traffic ticket arrives in the mail, stands up in court, and is
expensive, at least by my standards.

Here (Saskatoon, Canada), the city installed a red light cam at an
intersection near a new auto mall that they developed and encouraged
dealers to move to. The dealers are now going to court to challenge the
constitutionality of the law, as they're getting the tickets from
customers on test drives running the red.

It'll be an interesting case. Finally there's somebody with pockets
challenging this cash grab.


Yeah, those basty nastards want people to not go around running red lights
and killing innocent bystanders. How cruel!

Of course, you could always choose to NOT RUN THE RED LIGHT!

You should go back and re-read what I posted. I think you may have
misunderstood it.

Richard Heathfield wrote in
news
Mark & Juanita said:

snip

... and when you put the wrong people in charge, you can turn
anyone and
everyone, by definition into a criminal.

Yes, and we *do* put the wrong people in charge.

The problem is that the right people never stand for office, or if
they do, we as an electorate ignore them completely.


Can't argue with that.

"badger.badger" wrote in news:1p0ah.20880
:



Well some might, one city locally has a traffic planning
engineer/manager that doesn't even have a driving licence, she however
does have a degree.....

And her degree is in ..... ?

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:07:24 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:


On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:46:02 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article . net, Lew
Hodgett wrote:


L/A is spending about $1 meg per intersection not only to install
sensors, but also cameras that take a pictures of the vehicle and the
license plate complete with date and time stamp when you try to run a
red light.

Traffic ticket arrives in the mail, stands up in court, and is
expensive, at least by my standards.

Here (Saskatoon, Canada), the city installed a red light cam at an
intersection near a new auto mall that they developed and encouraged
dealers to move to. The dealers are now going to court to challenge the
constitutionality of the law, as they're getting the tickets from
customers on test drives running the red.

It'll be an interesting case. Finally there's somebody with pockets
challenging this cash grab.


Yeah, those basty nastards want people to not go around running red lights
and killing innocent bystanders. How cruel!

Of course, you could always choose to NOT RUN THE RED LIGHT!

Feh.
Rich


I would feel better about this if I knew exactly *when* the camera issues
the citation. Is it when a car is *in* the intersection as the light turns
red? When a car enters the intersection just *after* a yellow light turns
red (that may have been a very short yellow)? Or is it a second or so
*after* the light turns red? In the latter case, I have absolutely no
problem with the concept. The other cases are bothersome because they do
not in any way cause a traffic hazard and are often the result of
misjudging the length of a yellow or making a poor choice when the light
turns yellow. In those cases, the cars in the opposing direction will not
have had a chance to enter the intersection, whereas in the last example,
that is when accidents occur.



A fraction of a second can be a long time. I stopped trying to squeeze
through yellow lights a couple of years ago.

I was sitting first at a stoplight in the left lane of a two-lane access
road, both lanes going north. The on-ramp was about a hundred yards
beyond the intersection. The left lane of the access road led to the
on-ramp, and and right lane continued straight. There were four or five
cars behind me. The right lane was clear; everyone was planning to
enter the freeway.

Some local drivers had developed a technique of timing the light; they
would coast to the light in the right lane, accelerate as soon as the
light changed to green, pass all the stopped cars in the left lane, then
whip over into the on-ramp.

The local driver that day was a young woman in her early twenties. The
man in the pickup squeezing the yellow light (going east) was about my
age, around fifty. It is still hard to believe such impact is possible
on urban streets, at relatively low speeds. But the impact was real,
and fatal. The young woman was dead before she reached the hospital.

The driver of the pickup said he entered the intersection under yellow.
I know the young woman entered the intersection under green.

I saw my first fatal auto accident at age eight. I was nearly killed at
age twelve when a car hit my bike. Five percent of my high school class
died in auto accidents within two years of graduation. Over forty years
of driving, I have witnessed scores of fatal accidents. Aunts, uncles,
cousins, and in-laws have all died in traffic accidents.

I'm libertarian in most all areas EXCEPT traffic laws. I believe I
share roads with dozens of people each day who would kill me to save two
minutes' driving time, if they thought they would face no consequences.
Through the years working my way up as a prosecutor, nothing gave me
more satisfaction than traffic convictions.

On 26 Nov 2006 02:30:14 GMT, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:06:36 -0500, CBFalconer wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

That should be the offense, not "offending some bureaucrat by
second guessing his judgment as to the maximum safe speed on a
particular stretch of road".

AIUI the Germans have a more intelligent system on the Autobahn.
They concentrate on unsafe driving habits, such as tailgating, or
failure to keep right, combined with careful initial licensing
provisions. I also understand that the resultant statistics
confirm the efficacy of this.

In 1995 the Congress rescinded the National Maximum Speed Limit
and in Montana the speed limit reverted to "reasonable and prudent".
There was a decline in fatalities each year that that was in effect. In
1999 the Montana legislature for whatever reason chose to implement a 75
MPH speed limit. The result was a doubling in fatalities.

Bingo. They made it "Reasonable and Prudent" during daylight hours,
and 75 at night AIUI. That made everyone think about being reasonable
and prudent while they were driving... And an officer can still bust
people with that, but he has to make his case before the Judge.

Things that can easily knock down the limit are blind curves,
upcoming ramps or interchanges, "Lane Ends Merge Left/Right" and other
momentary changes in road conditions. You have to pay attention to
the signs and the other cars around you.

If the drivers coming up on these types of hazards aren't at least
off the gas and covering the brake, ready to react, and actively
leaving holes for merging traffic and other courtesies, those
omissions can easily be considered unsafe by a reasonable person.

But it's a lot easier to hand out drivers licenses to practically
anyone with a pulse, and set artificially low speed limits to
allegedly make it safe for them to be out there with those of us who
take our driving seriously.

-- Bruce --

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:19:41 GMT, Dale Scroggins
wrote:


Some local drivers had developed a technique of timing the light; they
would coast to the light in the right lane, accelerate as soon as the
light changed to green, pass all the stopped cars in the left lane, then
whip over into the on-ramp.

The local driver that day was a young woman in her early twenties. The
man in the pickup squeezing the yellow light (going east) was about my
age, around fifty. It is still hard to believe such impact is possible
on urban streets, at relatively low speeds. But the impact was real,
and fatal. The young woman was dead before she reached the hospital.

The driver of the pickup said he entered the intersection under yellow.
I know the young woman entered the intersection under green.

Sorry, but from the details you have given it sounds to me like the
(late) young woman was 100% at fault here.

She entered from a rolling start as the signal went green - But she
did not, in fact *could not*, check to see if the intersection was
clear before she proceeded into and through it - the rolling start
would preclude that. And you didn't make it clear which way the local
driver was going, but the pickup was probably coming from the left,
and she couldn't see him through the line of stopped cars in the left
lane she was planning on sliding around to gain fifteen seconds on her
trip.

This is a patently dangerous move that a lot of drivers make,
without thinking about the consequences. Some people only learn that
one after hearing about accidents like that, getting into an accident
like that, or after their first really close call.

The pickup driver probably was going through legally on the yellow -
or might have been squeezing it slightly and entered on the yellow,
but if the truck was heavily loaded you don't stop on a dime. But
that does not matter, the driver entering the intersection on a fresh
green light still has the responsibility to Make Sure The Intersection
Is Clear Before Proceeding.

She committed vehicular suicide by proxy. He was legally in the
clear but was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and probably still
has guilt issues and/or nightmares about it.

-- Bruce --

Hey you guys,

How about doing a subject change so that those of us NOT interested in
other than direct answers to Robs photo questions/answers don't have
to wander through all this.

It's not hard to do. Honest!

Please????

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:23:50 -0600, "Henry St.Pierre"
wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote in
news
Mark & Juanita said:

snip

... and when you put the wrong people in charge, you can turn
anyone and
everyone, by definition into a criminal.

Yes, and we *do* put the wrong people in charge.

The problem is that the right people never stand for office, or if
they do, we as an electorate ignore them completely.


Can't argue with that.

Hey you guys,

How about doing a subject change so that those of us NOT interested in
other than direct answers to Robs photo questions/answers don't have
to wander through all this.

It's not hard to do. Honest!

Please????

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:26:54 -0600, "Henry
St.Pierre" wrote:

"badger.badger" wrote in news:1p0ah.20880
:



Well some might, one city locally has a traffic planning
engineer/manager that doesn't even have a driving licence, she however
does have a degree.....

And her degree is in ..... ?

Hey you guys,

How about doing a subject change so that those of us NOT interested in
other than direct answers to Robs photo questions/answers don't have
to wander through all this.

It's not hard to do. Honest!

Please????

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:19:41 GMT, Dale Scroggins
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:07:24 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:


On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:46:02 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article . net, Lew
Hodgett wrote:


L/A is spending about $1 meg per intersection not only to install
sensors, but also cameras that take a pictures of the vehicle and the
license plate complete with date and time stamp when you try to run a
red light.

Traffic ticket arrives in the mail, stands up in court, and is
expensive, at least by my standards.

Here (Saskatoon, Canada), the city installed a red light cam at an
intersection near a new auto mall that they developed and encouraged
dealers to move to. The dealers are now going to court to challenge the
constitutionality of the law, as they're getting the tickets from
customers on test drives running the red.

It'll be an interesting case. Finally there's somebody with pockets
challenging this cash grab.


Yeah, those basty nastards want people to not go around running red lights
and killing innocent bystanders. How cruel!

Of course, you could always choose to NOT RUN THE RED LIGHT!

Feh.
Rich


I would feel better about this if I knew exactly *when* the camera issues
the citation. Is it when a car is *in* the intersection as the light turns
red? When a car enters the intersection just *after* a yellow light turns
red (that may have been a very short yellow)? Or is it a second or so
*after* the light turns red? In the latter case, I have absolutely no
problem with the concept. The other cases are bothersome because they do
not in any way cause a traffic hazard and are often the result of
misjudging the length of a yellow or making a poor choice when the light
turns yellow. In those cases, the cars in the opposing direction will not
have had a chance to enter the intersection, whereas in the last example,
that is when accidents occur.



A fraction of a second can be a long time. I stopped trying to squeeze
through yellow lights a couple of years ago.

I was sitting first at a stoplight in the left lane of a two-lane access
road, both lanes going north. The on-ramp was about a hundred yards
beyond the intersection. The left lane of the access road led to the
on-ramp, and and right lane continued straight. There were four or five
cars behind me. The right lane was clear; everyone was planning to
enter the freeway.

Some local drivers had developed a technique of timing the light; they
would coast to the light in the right lane, accelerate as soon as the
light changed to green, pass all the stopped cars in the left lane, then
whip over into the on-ramp.

The local driver that day was a young woman in her early twenties. The
man in the pickup squeezing the yellow light (going east) was about my
age, around fifty. It is still hard to believe such impact is possible
on urban streets, at relatively low speeds. But the impact was real,
and fatal. The young woman was dead before she reached the hospital.

The driver of the pickup said he entered the intersection under yellow.
I know the young woman entered the intersection under green.

I saw my first fatal auto accident at age eight. I was nearly killed at
age twelve when a car hit my bike. Five percent of my high school class
died in auto accidents within two years of graduation. Over forty years
of driving, I have witnessed scores of fatal accidents. Aunts, uncles,
cousins, and in-laws have all died in traffic accidents.

I'm libertarian in most all areas EXCEPT traffic laws. I believe I
share roads with dozens of people each day who would kill me to save two
minutes' driving time, if they thought they would face no consequences.
Through the years working my way up as a prosecutor, nothing gave me
more satisfaction than traffic convictions.

Hey you guys,

How about doing a subject change so that those of us NOT interested in
other than direct answers to Robs photo questions/answers don't have
to wander through all this.

It's not hard to do. Honest!

Please????

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:33:35 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:

On 26 Nov 2006 02:30:14 GMT, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:06:36 -0500, CBFalconer wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

That should be the offense, not "offending some bureaucrat by
second guessing his judgment as to the maximum safe speed on a
particular stretch of road".

AIUI the Germans have a more intelligent system on the Autobahn.
They concentrate on unsafe driving habits, such as tailgating, or
failure to keep right, combined with careful initial licensing
provisions. I also understand that the resultant statistics
confirm the efficacy of this.

In 1995 the Congress rescinded the National Maximum Speed Limit
and in Montana the speed limit reverted to "reasonable and prudent".
There was a decline in fatalities each year that that was in effect. In
1999 the Montana legislature for whatever reason chose to implement a 75
MPH speed limit. The result was a doubling in fatalities.

Bingo. They made it "Reasonable and Prudent" during daylight hours,
and 75 at night AIUI. That made everyone think about being reasonable
and prudent while they were driving... And an officer can still bust
people with that, but he has to make his case before the Judge.

Things that can easily knock down the limit are blind curves,
upcoming ramps or interchanges, "Lane Ends Merge Left/Right" and other
momentary changes in road conditions. You have to pay attention to
the signs and the other cars around you.

If the drivers coming up on these types of hazards aren't at least
off the gas and covering the brake, ready to react, and actively
leaving holes for merging traffic and other courtesies, those
omissions can easily be considered unsafe by a reasonable person.

But it's a lot easier to hand out drivers licenses to practically
anyone with a pulse, and set artificially low speed limits to
allegedly make it safe for them to be out there with those of us who
take our driving seriously.

-- Bruce --

Hey you guys,

How about doing a subject change so that those of us NOT interested in
other than direct answers to Robs photo questions/answers don't have
to wander through all this.

It's not hard to do. Honest!

Please????

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:06:39 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:19:41 GMT, Dale Scroggins
wrote:


Some local drivers had developed a technique of timing the light; they
would coast to the light in the right lane, accelerate as soon as the
light changed to green, pass all the stopped cars in the left lane, then
whip over into the on-ramp.

The local driver that day was a young woman in her early twenties. The
man in the pickup squeezing the yellow light (going east) was about my
age, around fifty. It is still hard to believe such impact is possible
on urban streets, at relatively low speeds. But the impact was real,
and fatal. The young woman was dead before she reached the hospital.

The driver of the pickup said he entered the intersection under yellow.
I know the young woman entered the intersection under green.

Sorry, but from the details you have given it sounds to me like the
(late) young woman was 100% at fault here.

She entered from a rolling start as the signal went green - But she
did not, in fact *could not*, check to see if the intersection was
clear before she proceeded into and through it - the rolling start
would preclude that. And you didn't make it clear which way the local
driver was going, but the pickup was probably coming from the left,
and she couldn't see him through the line of stopped cars in the left
lane she was planning on sliding around to gain fifteen seconds on her
trip.

This is a patently dangerous move that a lot of drivers make,
without thinking about the consequences. Some people only learn that
one after hearing about accidents like that, getting into an accident
like that, or after their first really close call.

The pickup driver probably was going through legally on the yellow -
or might have been squeezing it slightly and entered on the yellow,
but if the truck was heavily loaded you don't stop on a dime. But
that does not matter, the driver entering the intersection on a fresh
green light still has the responsibility to Make Sure The Intersection
Is Clear Before Proceeding.

She committed vehicular suicide by proxy. He was legally in the
clear but was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and probably still
has guilt issues and/or nightmares about it.

-- Bruce --

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:26:54 -0600, "Henry St.Pierre"
wrote:

"badger.badger" wrote in news:1p0ah.20880
:



Well some might, one city locally has a traffic planning
engineer/manager that doesn't even have a driving licence, she however
does have a degree.....

And her degree is in ..... ?

Likely Liberal Arts..with a major in Elizabethan Sonnets

Gunner

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.

In article ,
Rich Grise wrote:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:46:02 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article . net, Lew
Hodgett wrote:

L/A is spending about $1 meg per intersection not only to install
sensors, but also cameras that take a pictures of the vehicle and the
license plate complete with date and time stamp when you try to run a
red light.

Traffic ticket arrives in the mail, stands up in court, and is
expensive, at least by my standards.

Here (Saskatoon, Canada), the city installed a red light cam at an
intersection near a new auto mall that they developed and encouraged
dealers to move to. The dealers are now going to court to challenge the
constitutionality of the law, as they're getting the tickets from
customers on test drives running the red.

It'll be an interesting case. Finally there's somebody with pockets
challenging this cash grab.


Yeah, those basty nastards want people to not go around running red lights
and killing innocent bystanders. How cruel!

Of course, you could always choose to NOT RUN THE RED LIGHT!

In which case they'll shorten the yellow time to trick you into
running it.

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

In article ,
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Wayne Weedon said:

snip

Here's a UK site about our speed
cameras. An Anti site of course I have to pass through many of
these daily, have to have your wits about you.

If you drive at or below the speed limit *all the time*, which is a legal
requirement anyway in the UK, then you don't have to worry about speed
cameras even a little bit.

And if everyone did that, they'd reduce the limits until people
didn't.

Here in the US, the speed limit is the legal maximum but the moral
minimum.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article ,
Dale Scroggins wrote:

The driver of the pickup said he entered the intersection under yellow.
I know the young woman entered the intersection under green.

Then either the light was malfunctioning, mistimed or the pickup
driver lied. A red-light camera might have told you which it was; not
much else; the woman would be as dead.

I'm libertarian in most all areas EXCEPT traffic laws. I believe I
share roads with dozens of people each day who would kill me to save two
minutes' driving time, if they thought they would face no consequences.
Through the years working my way up as a prosecutor, nothing gave me
more satisfaction than traffic convictions.

ROTFL. A libertarian PROSECUTOR? A libertarian who supports traffic
laws? I think you know not the meaning of that word.



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

Matthew Russotto said:

In article ,
Richard Heathfield wrote:

snip

If you drive at or below the speed limit *all the time*, which is a legal
requirement anyway in the UK, then you don't have to worry about speed
cameras even a little bit.

And if everyone did that, they'd reduce the limits until people
didn't.

And if everyone kept on doing that, the Government would be forced to see
sense, or risk crippling the economy (and being voted out of office at the
next General Election).

Here in the US, the speed limit is the legal maximum but the moral
minimum.

You have a strange definition of morality. :-)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

In article ,
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Matthew Russotto said:

In article ,
Richard Heathfield wrote:

snip

If you drive at or below the speed limit *all the time*, which is a legal
requirement anyway in the UK, then you don't have to worry about speed
cameras even a little bit.

And if everyone did that, they'd reduce the limits until people
didn't.

And if everyone kept on doing that, the Government would be forced to see
sense, or risk crippling the economy (and being voted out of office at the
next General Election).

Perhaps the UK government. The various governments in the US would
just say "hey, look over there, a homosexual abortionist practicing
stem-cell research using cocaine and pornography" and any other issue
would be forgotten.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.