UK considers law blaming driver in all car/bike crashes!!
in [Drive]
|
From: gpsman on 23 Sep 2009 14:08 On Sep 23, 11:24 am, N8N <njna...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 23, 2:31 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 22, 5:51 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote: > > > > gpsman wrote: > > > > On Sep 21, 8:34 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote: <maniacal > > > > crossposting adjusted> > > > >> I mean, it may sound old-fashioned, but to me it only seems > > > >> fair to assess things on a case by case basis and assign blame to the > > > >> party that was actually negligent, reckless, careless, whatever. > > > > >> I know, quaint and amusing, but still. > > > > > Lol. > > > > > What about crashes "caused" by RLCs, underposted speed limits, etc., > > > > ad nauseum...? > > > > ----- > > > > > - gpsman > > > > If a known short yellow light causes a driver to panic stop to avoid a > > > ticket, and he is subsequently rear-ended, the blame should be on the > > > last person to work on that signal. Simple, no? > > > Simpleminded. > > > TTBOMK, the greatest reduction of a yellow interval was on the order > > of 0.1 seconds. > > False. Plenty of cites out there of lights that were short of ITE > standards by a half second, a second, etc. "Intersections became more of a challenge for drivers in 1985, when the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) changed its Proposed Recommended Practice for signal calculations, just three years after New York City began to research how it would utilize red light cameras. As the cameras became more prevalent, the ITE continued to change its Proposed Recommended Practice to shorten yellow light durations." http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/traffic-light-cameras-bad-choice/ What seems most likely to be limiting your ability to develop any level of expertise in any subject is a lack of reading comprehension/ retention. ----- - gpsman
From: jim on 23 Sep 2009 14:56 Brent wrote: > read TFA. They want people to walk or bike, not drive something else. They would prefer people drive a bicycle. > > >> By saying it's always the > >> driver's fault the number of collisions will go way up. > > > That is even intelligent enough to be called stupid. > > Ever drive in front of a public housing project in a big US city? Try it > some time. People will walk out right in front of your car. Ok so it true. Your statements can become even more stupid. Have you ever driven a car on a roadway where livestock have the right of way? Communities should have the right to specify how their streets are used. > > Making it automatically the fault of the motorist will increase the > number of collisions for three reasons: > > 1) fraud. (great way to get insurance settlements) ` Here is a simple explanation for the thinking impaired -> If you don't run into a pedestrian, they don't get a settlement. If you don't have the skill to accomplish that you should stay away from driving an auto any place where pedestrians have the right of way. > 2) moral hazard. (encourages reckless behavior because the > responsibility is on someone else) OOH. We need more government control so that those stupid pedestrians don't become careless and reckless. What a socialist commie you are. > 3) general MFFY behavior. > > >>This will > >> greatly increase insurance rates for drivers. > > > The idea is they switch to driving bicycles. When that happens their insurance > > rates go down. > > Where do people get bicycling discounts on automobile insurance? Your so stupid its scary. When they drive their car less they will get a discount on auto insurance. > I do a > lot of bicycling, this could be very profitable for me. Oh, and this > screws up your claim they aren't aiming to discourage driving. That was your claim (if you were able to remember anything). I said the intent of the law was to make it more convenient to drive a bicycle instead of a car. > > >> Less people will be able > >> to afford to drive. > > > Not really, but when they drive they likely will defer to bicyclist which > > presumably for many will make it more convenient to use bicycles instead of > > cars. The proposal is an alternative to simply closing a large percentage of the > > roadways to auto traffic and allowing only bicycles or small scooters on the > > majority of urban roadways. Many places already do not allow large trucks on > > residential streets. > > Which will do nothing except make driving suck more. What you perceive is happening to your 3 little brain cells is not the governments problem. You think the government purpose is to entertain you and keep you amused. What a commie socialist you are. > > >> It's social engineering. > > > Yes, you finally got one correct. You must taxed all 3 brain cells figuring that > > one out. > > Do you really want to go down the insult road? I can play that way too. When you don't want to be called stupid try saying something intelligent. > > > Do you think that spending the governments entire transportation budget > > on building infrastructure for automobiles is not social engineering? > > If people didn't drive where would the money for the transportation > budget come from? The roads in front of peoples houses come from property and sales taxes usually or did your muddled brain think this discussion was about bicycles and pedestrians out on the interstate highway system? Many people don't have the right of way to walk in the street in front of their own house that their taxes paid for. How fair is that? >Considering it's the driving related taxes that are > raided to fund other forms of transportation. FYI the gas tax in the US fell 9 billion dollars short of funding the Interstate System expenditures last year and it is projected it will be 10 billion dollars short this year. Your "driving related taxes that are raided" are figments of your imagination. > > Anyways, it's not social engineering because it's bottom up, that is > people decided they wish to drive to and that drove the system. So it's only social engineering when people decide they would like to have pedestrians and bicyclist be given the preferred right of way on municipal streets and to accomplish that they elect officials that support that position?. When it is cars given the right of way it is not social engineering because "God made roads for cars". right? >I like > bicycling (and do more of it than probably 98% of the population) but I > don't like being forced into anything because someone who thinks they > should rule over the rest of us decides it's a good idea. The only one forcing you into anything is yourself. -jim
From: AZ Nomad on 23 Sep 2009 15:19 On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:56:23 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m> wrote: .... >Your so stupid its scary. When they drive their car less they will get a >discount on auto insurance. .... When you call somebody stupid, you should try to demonstrate the writing skills of an elementary school graduate. Hints: you're, it's. Other than calling you a goofy hypocrite, I'm in agreement with your post.
From: N8N on 23 Sep 2009 15:54 On Sep 23, 2:08 pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 23, 11:24 am, N8N <njna...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 23, 2:31 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 22, 5:51 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote: > > > > > gpsman wrote: > > > > > On Sep 21, 8:34 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote: <maniacal > > > > > crossposting adjusted> > > > > >> I mean, it may sound old-fashioned, but to me it only seems > > > > >> fair to assess things on a case by case basis and assign blame to the > > > > >> party that was actually negligent, reckless, careless, whatever. > > > > > >> I know, quaint and amusing, but still. > > > > > > Lol. > > > > > > What about crashes "caused" by RLCs, underposted speed limits, etc., > > > > > ad nauseum...? > > > > > ----- > > > > > > - gpsman > > > > > If a known short yellow light causes a driver to panic stop to avoid a > > > > ticket, and he is subsequently rear-ended, the blame should be on the > > > > last person to work on that signal. Simple, no? > > > > Simpleminded. > > > > TTBOMK, the greatest reduction of a yellow interval was on the order > > > of 0.1 seconds. > > > False. Plenty of cites out there of lights that were short of ITE > > standards by a half second, a second, etc. > > "Intersections became more of a challenge for drivers in 1985, when > the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) changed its Proposed > Recommended Practice for signal calculations, just three years after > New York City began to research how it would utilize red light > cameras. As the cameras became more prevalent, the ITE continued to > change its Proposed Recommended Practice to shorten yellow light > durations."http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/traffic-light-cameras-bad-... > > What seems most likely to be limiting your ability to develop any > level of expertise in any subject is a lack of reading comprehension/ > retention. > ----- > > - gpsman- The quote above is true and factual (and incorrect practice, but that's neither here nor there.) That in no way invalidates *MY* statement that multiple jurisdictions have been "caught" implementing RLCs with substandard light timings *even per the new, insufficient ITE guidelines.* Also, the guidelines are just that, guidelines - good engineering practice is to slightly lengthen the yellow at problem intersections. (obviously, there is no justification for going shorter than guidelines.) nate
From: necromancer on 23 Sep 2009 15:56
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:14:29 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >Why I'm going over this again for the benefit of bone heads like >gpstroll I have no idea.... Me either, seeing how gps was spouting the government can do no wrong mantra through the bush years... -- "Well, I really think he shatters the myth of white supremacy once and for all." --Rep Charles Rangel on Pres. W. Bush |