A good case for getting out of the middle east. Iran and all these other "bad guys" wouldn't give two shits of interest about us if we weren't always getting involved in their regional affairs.
Whenever one of these so-called "enemies" tries to resist our influence and encroachment, it is called "terrorism" and is used as an excuse to continue being involved and sacrificing ourselves.
The reality of this situation is:
1) Israel and the neo-conservative movement involves a lot of, ahem, Jewish people who root for their ethnic homeland 2) Commercial interests want to open new markets in places that traditionally resist western influence 3) Cheap access to oil to continue our materialistically consumptive culture
I don't think Israel should be eliminated, but it is a very natural reaction that people would begin to hate us when we take sides in their regional conflicts. This is the price we pay.
No, most people speed up because they think they can make it, not because they feel its unsafe or impossible to stop. Again, the point of the yellow is for those who can't safely stop to clear the intersection and those who had enough time to see the light to come to a graceful halt.
If we go with your argument, then we'd still (and do) have trouble with people who STOP when it finally turns red, thinking they could make it through the yellow. Your logic does not address this.
The story did not establish that the lights were too short to reasonably come to a stop. The only people coming to that conclusion are the habitual "engine gunners" who are used to these really long yellow lights where 5-6 people can make it through the intersection.
The specifications are built in with a degree of margin. Every yellow light I have encountered is way more than adequate for you to decide if it is safe to come to a stop or not.
If it can be established that the lights are too short for adequate reaction time and breaking distance, then I'll side with everyone else here.
However, the only thing I see happening here are the municipalities simply capitalizing on people's expectations that the yellow lights will last long enough for them to squeeze through the intersection before it turns red by shortening the light and catching people running the light because they thought they could make it like before. If people did what they were supposed to do, this would be a non-issue.
Yes, it does. Yellow does not mean race through the intersection. It means stop, if you can, as I have stated. Those who are behind you should see the yellow light and have the immediate expectation to begin slowing down and coming to a graceful halt.
No, the problem is that people think that yellow means they should automatically try to race across the intersection. This is the fundamental error that needs to be addressed.
It's easy for an observer like yourself to come around and say "gee, that's not what you're supposed to do", but reactions like this cannot be addressed with arguments.
Yes they can. The problem is with people who do not understand what yellow ultimately means and always try to squeeze through. This behavior is what leads to people running lights and jamming up traffic for the crossing flow of traffic because they kept going through.
The yellow should give sufficient time to clear the intersection of those who couldn't stop, not allow a "final trickle" of traffic to go through as fast as they can. This leads to people rear-ending each other because they didn't expect the light to turn red and slam on their breaks when it finally does.
This is a really specious argument. The yellow light could be made 60 seconds long and yet there will still be people who try to make it 59.85 seconds into the yellow and end up running the light because it just changed to red.
If you see the light turn yellow, so can the people behind you and it is totally their fault if they rear-end you.
I understand and agree with you that the learned behavior of most people is to try to gun their engines when the light turns yellow. However, that behavior is still wrong, ultimately, and causes accidents for the reason I stated above.
Look, I believe that lights should be timed to certain best practices to maximize safety in respect to human abilities to react to the light changes. I'm not arguing that point.
What I am arguing against is the idea that yellow means "floor the gas". The people arguing on this thread are complaining about how taking off a couple of seconds means they no longer can make it through the intersection when their duty was to stop rather than try to push the envelope.
Yes, you have a choice. You're supposed to stop on yellow, if you can manage it reasonably. Being used to gunning your engine through a yellow light isn't a valid defense. If you believe otherwise, we might as well ditch the yellow light altogether.
If there is a law that says the lights should be timed to a certain specification that doesn't change the fact of "what" a yellow light means.
A yellow light means you should stop, not try to gun it through the intersection. The purpose of it is to give a 'grace period' for drivers who do not have enough stopping distance to stop before they reach the intersection. In most places, entering the intersection before it turns red is OK.
No. The law is clear - if you run a red light, you broke the law. You had the choice not to run the light.
I agree with the story though. The reasoning cities use for installing these cameras is safety but the real reason is just to make more money. The safety claims are dubious, especially in comparison to the option of doing what the story suggested.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't seem to be familiar with the concept of at-will employment.
You have some major issues if you can't take five minutes out of your day to read the KWh usage from your electricity bill.
Proles is plural. A few individuals out of the body doesn't mean shit.
A good case for getting out of the middle east. Iran and all these other "bad guys" wouldn't give two shits of interest about us if we weren't always getting involved in their regional affairs.
Whenever one of these so-called "enemies" tries to resist our influence and encroachment, it is called "terrorism" and is used as an excuse to continue being involved and sacrificing ourselves.
The reality of this situation is:
1) Israel and the neo-conservative movement involves a lot of, ahem, Jewish people who root for their ethnic homeland
2) Commercial interests want to open new markets in places that traditionally resist western influence
3) Cheap access to oil to continue our materialistically consumptive culture
I don't think Israel should be eliminated, but it is a very natural reaction that people would begin to hate us when we take sides in their regional conflicts. This is the price we pay.
Why would it be illegal to connect to a foreign tracker to gather evidence of a crime? Its perfectly legal.
No, most people speed up because they think they can make it, not because they feel its unsafe or impossible to stop. Again, the point of the yellow is for those who can't safely stop to clear the intersection and those who had enough time to see the light to come to a graceful halt.
If we go with your argument, then we'd still (and do) have trouble with people who STOP when it finally turns red, thinking they could make it through the yellow. Your logic does not address this.
The story did not establish that the lights were too short to reasonably come to a stop. The only people coming to that conclusion are the habitual "engine gunners" who are used to these really long yellow lights where 5-6 people can make it through the intersection.
The specifications are built in with a degree of margin. Every yellow light I have encountered is way more than adequate for you to decide if it is safe to come to a stop or not.
If it can be established that the lights are too short for adequate reaction time and breaking distance, then I'll side with everyone else here.
However, the only thing I see happening here are the municipalities simply capitalizing on people's expectations that the yellow lights will last long enough for them to squeeze through the intersection before it turns red by shortening the light and catching people running the light because they thought they could make it like before. If people did what they were supposed to do, this would be a non-issue.
Yes, it does. Yellow does not mean race through the intersection. It means stop, if you can, as I have stated. Those who are behind you should see the yellow light and have the immediate expectation to begin slowing down and coming to a graceful halt.
No, the problem is that people think that yellow means they should automatically try to race across the intersection. This is the fundamental error that needs to be addressed.
It's easy for an observer like yourself to come around and say "gee, that's not what you're supposed to do", but reactions like this cannot be addressed with arguments.
Yes they can. The problem is with people who do not understand what yellow ultimately means and always try to squeeze through. This behavior is what leads to people running lights and jamming up traffic for the crossing flow of traffic because they kept going through.
The yellow should give sufficient time to clear the intersection of those who couldn't stop, not allow a "final trickle" of traffic to go through as fast as they can. This leads to people rear-ending each other because they didn't expect the light to turn red and slam on their breaks when it finally does.
This is a really specious argument. The yellow light could be made 60 seconds long and yet there will still be people who try to make it 59.85 seconds into the yellow and end up running the light because it just changed to red.
If you see the light turn yellow, so can the people behind you and it is totally their fault if they rear-end you.
I understand and agree with you that the learned behavior of most people is to try to gun their engines when the light turns yellow. However, that behavior is still wrong, ultimately, and causes accidents for the reason I stated above.
Look, I believe that lights should be timed to certain best practices to maximize safety in respect to human abilities to react to the light changes. I'm not arguing that point.
What I am arguing against is the idea that yellow means "floor the gas". The people arguing on this thread are complaining about how taking off a couple of seconds means they no longer can make it through the intersection when their duty was to stop rather than try to push the envelope.
Yes, you have a choice. You're supposed to stop on yellow, if you can manage it reasonably. Being used to gunning your engine through a yellow light isn't a valid defense. If you believe otherwise, we might as well ditch the yellow light altogether.
If there is a law that says the lights should be timed to a certain specification that doesn't change the fact of "what" a yellow light means.
A yellow light means you should stop, not try to gun it through the intersection. The purpose of it is to give a 'grace period' for drivers who do not have enough stopping distance to stop before they reach the intersection. In most places, entering the intersection before it turns red is OK.
Yellow means be prepared to stop, not to floor it through the intersection.
No. The law is clear - if you run a red light, you broke the law. You had the choice not to run the light.
I agree with the story though. The reasoning cities use for installing these cameras is safety but the real reason is just to make more money. The safety claims are dubious, especially in comparison to the option of doing what the story suggested.