In article <[email protected]>, Rich Grise
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Want safe cars? Here's a really simple redesign:
> http://www.abiengr.com/~sysop/images/Safe-Car.gif
How about safe sex?
<http://www.texarkanarocks.com/forum/images/avatars/178303019544da393e2a
0d8.gif>
On Nov 24, 3:46 pm, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Lew
>
> Hodgett <[email protected]> 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.
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.
R
On Nov 25, 12:40 pm, Bruce L. Bergman
<[email protected]> 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
R.H. wrote:
>
> "Motorists have been noticing an increasing number of intersections where
> camera-like devices have been mounted pointing down at traffic. The units
> which are not really cameras and do not video anything are highly sensitive
> optic detectors used to control the traffic signals."
>
> They probably could just switch the software and use them to see the traffic
> but it sounds like they aren't set up for that presently.
George Orwell's singing, "1984 here I come, doo dah, doo dah!"
R
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> 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.
If the car is really doing something illegal and is caught on camera, I
don't have much problem with automated ticketing.
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. In this
particular case, the dealer could just have people sign a waiver saying
they're responsible for any tickets, same as for rental cars.
Of course, if the vehicle was stolen at the time, then that's a whole
different story.
Chris
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.....
In article <[email protected]>, R.H.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> This week's set has just been posted:
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
830: Saw for cutting ice blocks out of a lake
832: Security cameras or radar guns?
In article <[email protected]>, Lew
Hodgett <[email protected]> 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.
On 26 Nov 2006 02:30:14 GMT, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
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 >>--
In article <[email protected]>, Chris Friesen
<[email protected]> 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.
So, can I borrow your chainsaw to --ummm-- "deal with an unwanted
houseguest"? Would the responsibility for such an act be yours, or
mine?
In article <[email protected]>, R.H.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 829. Railroad hammer
> http://pzphotosan145t-5.blogspot.com/
"829. This hammer was made for use on the railroad, the left end could
be used for prying spikes, but I don't know exactly what the back end
of the head was for."
Okay, I'll challenge.
Having driven countless spikes while working on a railroad section gang
(with a good old-fashioned spike maul, not by machine), I will state
without hesitation that this tool had absolutely nothing to do with
track spikes.
A spike puller (a "claw bar") is over five feet long, made of solid
steel, and weighs about 30 pounds. Its usage is counterintuitive, and
many a rookie has been laughed at while dangling off the end of the
bar, trying to budge a spike through leverage alone.
http://noframes.harmersteel.com/catalog/s4_tat/tracktools.htm
The hammer pictured may have been used on a railroad, but it would have
been in the roundhouse, not maintenance-of-way.
Kevin
In article <[email protected]>, Lew
Hodgett <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>, Chris Friesen
<[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>, Rich Grise
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:46:02 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Lew
> > Hodgett <[email protected]> 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.
Paul K. Dickman wrote:
> I think 834 is a set of jaws from a bitbrace.
>
> Paul K. Dickman
>
> "R.H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> This week's set has just been posted:
>>
>> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>
>
You are probably right but it is just "brace"
e.g. brace and bit.
Rich Grise (in [email protected]) said:
| Of course, you could always choose to NOT RUN THE RED LIGHT!
Some of the politicos in our state capital decided that red light
cameras would provide a convenient source of revenue - so they bought,
installed, and monitored the cameras for a whole bunch of
intersections...
They should have taken the time to watch traffic for a while first. In
the first year of operation they were able to cite only a handful of
drivers - seems like people around here just aren't in so much of a
hurry that they feel the need to run red lights.
It'd be hilarious if it wasn't such an expensive screw-up.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
Richard Heathfield (in [email protected]) 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
"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>
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Lew
>Hodgett <[email protected]> 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.
Other countries have had red light cameras operating effectively for decades.
Here in Australia they have been in use for something like 30 years.
They cost tens of thousands of dollars not a million, and they don't photograph
every vehicle.
They are film cameras, and they have a room full of little old ladies peering at
the developed pictures looking for clear violations.
When they get a pic of a car breaking the law a ticket is sent to the registered
owner. That owner must either pay the fine or produce an affidavit telling who
was driving the vehicle at the time.
Typically car dealerships either just pay them or just shrug and say "dunno who
was driving" and try to get away with it.
Portable speed cameras are now in widespread use as well, as of the last decade,
which have made it very cheap and easy for them to generate revenue by issuing
speeding fines. These cost some $50,000 last I heard (many years ago now).
Occasionally someone goes mockador and destroys or steals one of them, the
contractors are not allowed to sit more than about 30m away from them now.
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:05:52 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<[email protected]> 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 >>--
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:10:42 GMT, "R.H." <[email protected]> wrote:
>This week's set has just been posted:
>
>http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
>
>Rob
>
#830 looks like an ice saw, used to cut blocks of ice from a frozen
pond or river.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
830 is a saw for sawing blocks of ice from bodies of water
832 is a camera for observing traffic at intersections.
834 is a chuck to hold drill bits in a brace.
"R.H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This week's set has just been posted:
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
>
>
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:44:07 GMT, Gunner <[email protected]>
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 fucked 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 here: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
--<< Bruce >>--
> > Just updated the answer page with the solution to number 833, it's a
wrench
> > for twisting wires, patent number 338,659.
>
> O.K.
>
> > Also updated the answer for the optic traffic detectors, I sent an email
> > asking how they worked and the reply stated that these detectors use
simple
> > video technology to capture an image of the approach. When a vehicle
enters
> > the detection zone this image changes and the camera sends a signal to
the
> > controller that a vehicle is in a particular lane waiting for a green
light.
>
> Which means that it *is* still a video camera -- just that the
> image is processed by a machine, looking for changes in specific zones.
> And I'll bet that there is also provision for actually viewing what they
> are showing, in case of things not changing for too long a period, which
> might indicate a serious traffic jam, or an accident.
I based my original post on info from an article on the detectors in which
they state:
"Motorists have been noticing an increasing number of intersections where
camera-like devices have been mounted pointing down at traffic. The units
which are not really cameras and do not video anything are highly sensitive
optic detectors used to control the traffic signals."
They probably could just switch the software and use them to see the traffic
but it sounds like they aren't set up for that presently.
Rob
Morris Dovey said:
> Rich Grise (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | Of course, you could always choose to NOT RUN THE RED LIGHT!
>
> Some of the politicos in our state capital decided that red light
> cameras would provide a convenient source of revenue - so they bought,
> installed, and monitored the cameras for a whole bunch of
> intersections...
>
> They should have taken the time to watch traffic for a while first. In
> the first year of operation they were able to cite only a handful of
> drivers - seems like people around here just aren't in so much of a
> hurry that they feel the need to run red lights.
>
> It'd be hilarious if it wasn't such an expensive screw-up.
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.
--
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 <[email protected]>,
Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto said:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> 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.
R.H. wrote:
> This answer is correct, though a couple times a week I go through
several
> different intersections that have these for detecting cars in the
left turn
> lane, and they have worked every time.
Based on what is happening right now in Los Angeles, that one belongs
in a museum.
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.
Lew
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:26:54 -0600, "Henry St.Pierre" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"badger.badger" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1p0ah.20880
>[email protected]:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
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" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"badger.badger" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1p0ah.20880
>[email protected]:
>
>>
>>
>> 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 ..... ?
In article <[email protected]>,
Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
"Kevin Craig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:241120062219269951%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, R.H.
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 829. Railroad hammer
>
> > http://pzphotosan145t-5.blogspot.com/
>
> "829. This hammer was made for use on the railroad, the left end could
> be used for prying spikes, but I don't know exactly what the back end
> of the head was for."
>
> Okay, I'll challenge.
>
> Having driven countless spikes while working on a railroad section gang
> (with a good old-fashioned spike maul, not by machine), I will state
> without hesitation that this tool had absolutely nothing to do with
> track spikes.
This hammer was on display at one of the tool shows and was marked as being
made for use on the railroad. I thought I was making a safe guess that it
could be used to pry out spikes, but it looks like I guessed wrong. Thanks,
I fix the answer page.
Rob
"badger.badger" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1p0ah.20880
[email protected]:
>
>
> 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 09:06:39 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:19:41 GMT, Dale Scroggins <[email protected]>
>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 >>--
Matthew Russotto said:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> 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.
> 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
I think 834 is a set of jaws from a bitbrace.
Paul K. Dickman
"R.H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This week's set has just been posted:
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
>
>
R.H. wrote:
> Answers for this week:
>
>
>
>
>
> 829. Railroad hammer
Looking at it closer it looks like an engineers hammer. The back of the
head fits the common square head bolts they used on the switch heads and
on the locos.
>
> 830. Pond ice saw
>
> 831. Don't know yet
I have a carb stand that looks like that but it has two of them with a
support piece between them.
>
> 832. Optic detectors for traffic signal
NY uses buried loops on the lights. Those look like the traffic cameras
they have around Albany and Rochester though.
Oh NY does have emergency trip on most lights that are signaled by a
strobe mounted on the emergency vehicle. Those use an optical trip.
>
> 833. Going to wait a little while before revealing this, unless someone
> guesses it.
It's one of them things...
>
> 834. Brace bit holder
>
>
> Links and more info can be found on the answer page, including updates to
> four of my answers from last week's set:
>
> http://pzphotosan145t-5.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
R.H. wrote:
>>> 829. Railroad hammer
>> Looking at it closer it looks like an engineers hammer. The back of the
>> head fits the common square head bolts they used on the switch heads and
>> on the locos.
>
>
> Sounds like a reasonable use for the back of the head.
>
>
>
>>> 831. Don't know yet
>> I have a carb stand that looks like that but it has two of them with a
>> support piece between them.
>
>
> I'd really like to see that carb stand, any chance you can post a photo or
> send me one? The owner of this object has a pair of them.
>
>
> Rob
>
>
I'll have to dig it out. Haven't used it in a couple years since carbs
went away.
Not much to the support though it is an elongated H shaped piece made
from spring steel. One end has two notches and the other has 3 sets of
two notches. It clips in the end of the oval area.
--
Steve W.
According to R.H. <[email protected]>:
> This week's set has just been posted:
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
A little late getting to this one, but still posting from
rec.crafts.metalworking as usual.
829) Weird! Perhaps the square notches are wrenches for some kind
of valve, and the spike on the other end to chip away ice to
allow connection of a hose to the valve in cold weather.
Or perhaps some kind of lever to start something moving.
830) Looks like an ice saw -- for ice fishing, or for cutting
blocks of ice for storage (prior to refrigeration allowing the
production of ice in the summer, instead of having to store it
in the winter and dole it out in the summer.
831) Maybe purely decorative.
Maybe to join a pair of straps as part of a working horse
harness.
If the two were mounted at right angles, I would consider it to
be a form of caltrops instead.
832) You mean other than the lights themselves?
Those look like surveillance cameras -- often used by the DOT
(or whatever it is called in your area) to judge traffic flow to
allow traffic advisories. Usually the TV stations can connect
in and monitor those as well, to show you how bad it would be if
you were on the road instead of at home watching TV. :-)
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.
834) Jaws for a chuck for the old square-shanked drill bits used for
wood. Where did the rest of the chuck go?
Now to see what others have said.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:09:29 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> If the car is really doing something illegal and is caught on camera, I
> don't have much problem with automated ticketing.
>
> 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. In this
> particular case, the dealer could just have people sign a waiver saying
> they're responsible for any tickets, same as for rental cars.
>
> Of course, if the vehicle was stolen at the time, then that's a whole
> different story.
So let's see, Osama rents a van from Avis, packs it full of fertilizer,
and blows up a building and that's Avis's fault?
It is _not_ reasonable to hold the owner of an object legally responsible
for its misuse by another person unless there is compelling evidence that
he was aware that such misuse would be the result.
The person who is driving is the one who is in control and he is the one
who bears responsibility for his actions.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>Not in my area. It is just a regular traffic camera. Emergency
>>sensors are much smaller where I live (about the size of the knob
atop >>the light).
>>Apparently RH has indicated that it is a traffic sensor to change the
>>light when a vehicle is present. I thought they buried those sensors.
>No, he's talking about a special sensor on top of the light support,
>that responds to a certain frequency of strobe light, and literally
>changes the light on demand. It's used by emergency vehicles (police,
>fire, ambulance)so they can get through the gridlock. The system has
>some snazzy 21st century name, but I can't remember what it is.
>If you determined the freq, you could make one, but I'd be awfully
>skittish about using it; I'm sure it'd be quite illegal.
>But these aren't those - I don't even think they're ticket-cams - just
>surveillance, like that other poster said, probably in a parking lot.
>Cheers!
>Rich
3M Opticom, and Tomar Strobecom are the big two in light controls. They
operate on the same principle though. They use a set frequency strobe
to trigger the light.
10Hz for low priority: Increases your green light time.
14Hz for high priority: Turns your light green and all others red plus a
few other items.
http://www.themirt.com/how.html
--
Steve W.
--
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, BBQ in one hand, martini in the other, body
thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming: "WOO HOO what a ride!"
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
>> <[email protected]> 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 are: 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)
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)
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)
According to R.H. <[email protected]>:
> Just updated the answer page with the solution to number 833, it's a wrench
> for twisting wires, patent number 338,659.
O.K.
> Also updated the answer for the optic traffic detectors, I sent an email
> asking how they worked and the reply stated that these detectors use simple
> video technology to capture an image of the approach. When a vehicle enters
> the detection zone this image changes and the camera sends a signal to the
> controller that a vehicle is in a particular lane waiting for a green light.
Which means that it *is* still a video camera -- just that the
image is processed by a machine, looking for changes in specific zones.
And I'll bet that there is also provision for actually viewing what they
are showing, in case of things not changing for too long a period, which
might indicate a serious traffic jam, or an accident.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:24:48 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:44:07 +0000, Gunner wrote:
>
>> Personally, Ive noted 2 rear end accidents because of cameras and afor
>> the reason given above, in the last 3 yrs. And a shitload of "almosts",
>> including one I nearly plowed into the back of a woman in an SUV who
>> slammed on her brakes as the light turned yellow..at 45 mph..with me
>> behind her pulling 1800lbs on a trailer with no trailer brakes.
>
> In other words, you were following too close, and are culpable.
>
> It's wrong to protect the negligent from the consequences of their own
> negligence, albeit there's something to be said for protecting innocent
> bystanders from the inevitable destructive results of that negligence.
>
> Want safe cars? Here's a really simple redesign:
> http://www.abiengr.com/~sysop/images/Safe-Car.gif
If that design guaranteed safety then motorcycles would be the safest
vehicles on the road. It's actually pretty close to a VW Microbus or any
number of vans, none of which have a particularly shiny safety record.
Hell, horse drawn vehicles occasionally suffered fatal accidents, and there
you have not only the driver's instinct for self-preservation in play but
also that of the horse.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:19:41 GMT, Dale Scroggins <[email protected]>
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 >>--
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.
Lew
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:07:24 GMT, Rich Grise <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:46:02 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Lew
>> Hodgett <[email protected]> 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.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
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
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:07:24 GMT, Rich Grise <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:46:02 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Lew
>>>>Hodgett <[email protected]> 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.
#830 is used for cutting blocks of ice.
#832 are security cameras
#834 looks like a nutcracker
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected] http://juliewaters.com/
We've heard that a million monkeys at a million
keyboards could produce the Complete Works of
Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know
this is not true.
--Robert Wilensky, University of California
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 fucked 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...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:07:24 GMT, Rich Grise <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:46:02 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Lew
>>>Hodgett <[email protected]> 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 Rob,
829 = ??? maybe a tin-roofers tool
830 = Ice saw
831 = Ice "Rake", missing the wooden handle. Used to move blocks of
ice cut with 830.
832 = Well, the largest part atop the pole is the bracket to hold the
other items. The largest piece attached to that is a lamp housing
with light sensor above, and the cameras mounted as they are would
speak "Video Surveillance", and my guess would be of a parking lot.
833 = ?? not a clue
834 = Jaw set removed from a brace & bit.
Take care.
Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:10:42 GMT, "R.H." <[email protected]> wrote:
>This week's set has just been posted:
>
>http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
>
>Rob
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Rich Grise <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:46:02 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Lew
> > Hodgett <[email protected]> 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
Trouble is: They issue the ticket and enforce payment from the owner of
the car, not the driver. Maybe you think getting penalized for something
you didn't do and couldn't possibly have done is just fine. I don't. But
then, I didn't like having teacher say s/he was going to punish everyone
in the class unless and until the guilty party either confessed or was
identified, (Read: ratted out) especially when the same teacher then
ridiculed the "tattletale." (No, it wasn't me)
Feh, indeed.
--
Bring back, Oh bring back
Oh, bring back that old continuity.
Bring back, oh, bring back
Oh, bring back Clerk Maxwell to me.
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
The camera doesn't issue the citation.... OK I know what you mean. But it would
be interesting to get an email informing you of the fine on your 3G mobile
before you cleared the intersection...
It depends on your local traffic laws... ie what constitutes illegally entering
an intersection. Here in Australia it's illegal to enter after the light goes
red, and also illegal to enter if you can't clear the intersection, ie if it's
blocked by stationary cars waiting to exit. Red light cameras will get you for
either.
--
Patrick Hamlyn posting from Perth, Western Australia
Windsurfing capital of the Southern Hemisphere
Moderator: polyforms group ([email protected])
Morris Dovey said:
> Richard Heathfield (in [email protected]) 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.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:46:02 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Lew
> Hodgett <[email protected]> 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
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
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 26 Nov 2006 02:30:14 GMT, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
>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.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:23:50 -0600, "Henry St.Pierre"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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.
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 01:25:47 +0000, Leon wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> Not in my area. It is just a regular traffic camera. Emergency sensors
>> are much smaller where I live (about the size of the knob atop the light).
>
> Apparently RH has indicated that it is a traffic sensor to change the light
> when a vehicle is present. I thought they buried those sensors.
No, he's talking about a special sensor on top of the light support, that
responds to a certain frequency of strobe light, and literally changes the
light on demand. It's used by emergency vehicles (police, fire, ambulance)
so they can get through the gridlock. The system has some snazzy 21st
century name, but I can't remember what it is.
If you determined the freq, you could make one, but I'd be awfully
skittish about using it; I'm sure it'd be quite illegal.
But these aren't those - I don't even think they're ticket-cams - just
survellance, like that other poster said, probably in a parking lot.
Cheers!
Rich
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:44:07 +0000, Gunner wrote:
> Personally, Ive noted 2 rear end accidents because of cameras and afor
> the reason given above, in the last 3 yrs. And a shitload of "almosts",
> including one I nearly plowed into the back of a woman in an SUV who
> slammed on her brakes as the light turned yellow..at 45 mph..with me
> behind her pulling 1800lbs on a trailer with no trailer brakes.
In other words, you were following too close, and are culpable.
It's wrong to protect the negligent from the consequences of their own
negligence, albeit there's something to be said for protecting innocent
bystanders from the inevitable destructive results of that negligence.
Want safe cars? Here's a really simple redesign:
http://www.abiengr.com/~sysop/images/Safe-Car.gif
Thanks,
Rich
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:00:10 +0000, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:24:48 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
...
>> Want safe cars? Here's a really simple redesign:
>> http://www.abiengr.com/~sysop/images/Safe-Car.gif
>
> If that design guaranteed safety then motorcycles would be the safest
> vehicles on the road.
It guarantees safety for the passengers, because the idiot driver hits
first.
It also throws a little chlorine in the shallow end of the gene pool ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:34:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>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.
In some states that Im aware of, and California used to be the same..no
idea if its changed..was that if you entered the intersection, after the
light change..you were in violation. Any part of your vehicle being in
the intersection as the light changed, and you were ok.
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 fucked in the ass.
Personally, Ive noted 2 rear end accidents because of cameras and afor
the reason given above, in the last 3 yrs. And a shitload of "almosts",
including one I nearly plowed into the back of a woman in an SUV who
slammed on her brakes as the light turned yellow..at 45 mph..with me
behind her pulling 1800lbs on a trailer with no trailer brakes.
I was able to read the fine print on her "my child is an honor student
at Our Lady of Perpetual Motion" bumper sticker as the tire smoke
cleared.
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.
> > 829. Railroad hammer
>
> Looking at it closer it looks like an engineers hammer. The back of the
> head fits the common square head bolts they used on the switch heads and
> on the locos.
Sounds like a reasonable use for the back of the head.
> > 831. Don't know yet
>
> I have a carb stand that looks like that but it has two of them with a
> support piece between them.
I'd really like to see that carb stand, any chance you can post a photo or
send me one? The owner of this object has a pair of them.
Rob
"R.H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This week's set has just been posted:
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
>
>
832. Traffic control sensor. Used to change the traffic light to green
when an emergency vehicle approaches the intersection.
Answers for this week:
829. Railroad hammer
830. Pond ice saw
831. Don't know yet
832. Optic detectors for traffic signal
833. Going to wait a little while before revealing this, unless someone
guesses it.
834. Brace bit holder
Links and more info can be found on the answer page, including updates to
four of my answers from last week's set:
http://pzphotosan145t-5.blogspot.com/
Rob
"Frank S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 832- detect the presents of a vehicle at a traffic light ( not very
> effective they removed them from the area where I work)
This answer is correct, though a couple times a week I go through several
different intersections that have these for detecting cars in the left turn
lane, and they have worked every time. Maybe the system where you work was
earlier technology or used different equipment.
Rob
Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> 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.
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:53:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Bruce L. Bergman said:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:05:52 +0000, Richard Heathfield
>> <[email protected]> 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
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
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 Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:06:04 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<[email protected]> 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.
>> 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.
>
> If the car is really doing something illegal and is caught on camera, I
> don't have much problem with automated ticketing.
I read a story somewhere stating that insurance stats show that there are
actually MORE accidents at red lights with the cams. Seems that people tend
to slam on the brakes for a yellow light to prevent the chance of getting a
ticket. This causes a lot of rear end collisions.
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
> Not in my area. It is just a regular traffic camera. Emergency sensors
> are much smaller where I live (about the size of the knob atop the light).
Apparently RH has indicated that it is a traffic sensor to change the light
when a vehicle is present. I thought they buried those sensors.
In article <[email protected]>,
Dale Scroggins <[email protected]> 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.
Just updated the answer page with the solution to number 833, it's a wrench
for twisting wires, patent number 338,659.
Also updated the answer for the optic traffic detectors, I sent an email
asking how they worked and the reply stated that these detectors use simple
video technology to capture an image of the approach. When a vehicle enters
the detection zone this image changes and the camera sends a signal to the
controller that a vehicle is in a particular lane waiting for a green light.
http://pzphotosan145t-5.blogspot.com/
Rob
In article <[email protected]>,
Rich Grise <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:46:02 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Lew
>> Hodgett <[email protected]> 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.
Leon wrote:
> "R.H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> This week's set has just been posted:
>>
>> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>
> 832. Traffic control sensor. Used to change the traffic light to green
> when an emergency vehicle approaches the intersection.
>
>
>
Not in my area. It is just a regular traffic
camera. Emergency sensors are much smaller where
I live (about the size of the knob atop the light).
Bruce L. Bergman said:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:05:52 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> <[email protected]> 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 are: 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.