Re: More criminal coddling - State of VA drops red light cameras

A user's language is obscene. What should I do?

Hello Guest

• Login
• Register…
• Start blog

• Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels

• Polls
• Avatars
• Interests

• Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search

• Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru

• Сообщества
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online

CarGuru > Driving > Re: More criminal coddling - State of VA drops red light cameras 8 April 2005 00:07:33

Recent blog posts:

95 mirage
I have a 95 mirage and this is the second time the injector in number 3 cylinder has gone bad. Anything…

1988 Ford F-150 Truck
I would like to remove the pollution control system from my 1988 F-150, 4.9L I6 300 4x4. Can anyone…

my 99 M chrysler has started to…
my 99 M chrysler has started to cool and then starts to give off heat in the ac vents and then cool…

dodge 2000 intrepid
bought this car right off the show room floor in Bartow fl to this date I have not had any work done on…

starting issue, 2002 dodge…
My 2002 Dodge Caravan wouldn't crank. I tested some things, replaced the battery. After installing the…

;-)
;-)

stereo pin
I put a new battery in my girl friends 94 900 and it wants a code for the radio. There is nothing in the…

Coolant temp on Saturn Sky
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. As I was driving yesterday I happen to have the info set on…

Saturn Sky Red Line
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. I noticed will driving yesterday that when I turned on the…

Que pour la place trange
Que pour la place trange

They have birthday today:

Esther

all >>

Forums:

topic feeds

• CarGuru all topics, blogs and comments

• Driving

• Formula-1

• Indycar

• Nascar

• Other sport

• Technology

• 4 x 4

• Volkswagen

• Mercedes

• Acura

• Alfa-romeo

• Audi

• BMW

• Chrysler

• Dodge

• Ford

• General Motors

• Jeep Willys

• Honda

• Hyundai

• Mazda

• Nissan

• Peugeot

• Pontiac

• Porsche

• Saab

• Saturn

• Toyota

• Volvo

• Buy / Sell

• Open discussion

• Anonymous

Discuss:

Re: Road test - DMV is cracked
On 28 Oct 2005 02:52:39 -0700, littleboyblu87@yahoo.com wrote: What state is that? In TX, I…

Happy New Year!
Hi Viatologists, The Worldwide Highway Library would like to wish all viatologists a warm, happy New…

ETHANOL: HOW BRAZIL BEATS THE…
I guess America is so involved in fighting terrorism that forgets to prepare herself for a fuel crisis…

Recent forum topics:

Brake Lights won't work
brake lights on 1996 Grand Am won't work. Fuse and lights are fine. Suggestions?

honda civic 87 model problem
i would like some information on why my honda civic wont start at times after its hot when running it…

mazda premacy glowplug lights…
i have a mazda premacy 2litre diesel . have a problem at the moment ,glowplug light flashing with loss…

I have a 96 chrysler new york…
I have a 96 chrysler new york lhs but no owners manuel and on the message center there is a light that i…

Recent forum comments:

RE: Ask How To Replace Headlight…
how do I release the locking ring on the headlamp bulb in a 99 dodge ram 2500?

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
who are you speaking to

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
I can feel something like a kick when I first hit the gas pedal when I take off.

RE: stuck hatchback
on the rear gate that is

RE: stuck hatchback
just my latch is stuck and the door wont close on my 2000 sub outback limited

RE: 1999 Chrysler T&C - Speed…
I am reading all of this and am amazed at how bad I am getting ripped off by my Chrysler dealership....4…

RE: How to duplicate Navtech CD’s
where can i buy nav cd's for a 2003 s class mercedes also the latest version for a 2005 sl?

RE: Heating problem in 1988 Honda…
well thats no always true!!! my husband replaced the thermostat/thermometer..... and the water…

RE: Mitsubishi Diamante ECU faults…
how did you read the codes

RE: 98 Dodge Grand Caravan Problems
I had the same problem with the instrument panel, after about a months worth of greif, and dollars…

Модератор:

Administrator


Re: More criminal coddling - State of VA drops red light cameras
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE 6 April 2005 22:14:10
	On 6 Apr 2005 11:08:49 -0700, "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:>> Red light runners are killers and maimers but Virginia wants them to>go>> free.>> http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=52932> Did you READ the article and UNDERSTAND it, you idiot? The state of VA>had very good reasons for doing what they did, and I applaud their>decision. Now if we could get them to set more rational speed limits>VA would be a very nice place to drive. (well, not counting the DC>suburbs, but there's no hope for them.)> nate Fork off, criminal coddler. And as for rational speed limits - yeah, lets lower the max to 55.
		Add comment


N8n 6 April 2005 22:08:49 [ permanent link ]
	Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:> Red light runners are killers and maimers but Virginia wants them to free.> http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=52932 Did you READ the article and UNDERSTAND it, you idiot? The state of VA had very good reasons for doing what they did, and I applaud their decision. Now if we could get them to set more rational speed limits VA would be a very nice place to drive. (well, not counting the DC suburbs, but there's no hope for them.) nate
		Add comment


Alan Baker 6 April 2005 22:42:33 [ permanent link ]
	In article <7n985155vm6q734ean4vt3oe00ag2btbjd@4ax.com>, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote: On 6 Apr 2005 11:08:49 -0700, "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote:> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:> >> Red light runners are killers and maimers but Virginia wants them to> >go> >> free.> >> http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=52932> > Did you READ the article and UNDERSTAND it, you idiot? The state of VA> >had very good reasons for doing what they did, and I applaud their> >decision. Now if we could get them to set more rational speed limits> >VA would be a very nice place to drive. (well, not counting the DC> >suburbs, but there's no hope for them.)> > nate> Fork off, criminal coddler. And as for rational speed limits - yeah,> lets lower the max to 55. Once again, why is 55 the magical number? Why not 60? Or 50? Or... Why not actually train people how to driver properly and then see the accidents really fall off even though some people are driving 100mph+. Like, for instance, in Germany. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
		Add comment


Garth Almgren 6 April 2005 23:01:54 [ permanent link ]
	Around 4/6/2005 11:14 AM, Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea) <http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote: And as for rational speed limits - yeah,> lets lower the max to 55. No, you're thinking of an irrational speed limit. Try again. (Hint: It's got something to do with the number 85, and I'm not talking MPH) -- ~/Garth "I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it." - Edith Sitwell (Mail pgp@v6stang.com for secure contact information)
		Add comment


Xeton2001IsAMoron 20 dwpj65 6 April 2005 23:26:55 [ permanent link ]
	Retard, the article stated accident rates went up after the cameras were installed. Or did you miss that, too?
		Add comment


Xeton2001IsAMoron 20 dwpj65 6 April 2005 23:27:34 [ permanent link ]
	Because LBMHBF is too retarded to properly receive such training?
		Add comment


Magnulus 7 April 2005 00:28:05 [ permanent link ]
	Sounds more like growing pains to me. I'm not convinced red light cameras are bad. If it deters somebody from speeding through an intersection, all the better. Rear end collisions kill far fewer people than side impact collisions. That should factor into the equation. Side-impact crashes are now the leading causes of traumatic brain injury in automobile accidents, and running red lights are a major cause of side-impact collisions (that, and failing to yield, or speeding, at T-intersections). My guess is that a few well-heeled, politically influential types conspired to have red light cameras killed. Automated speed cameras need to be used more often. People need to know they will be caught and fined for breaking the rules. Some people in Clearwater had similar complaints about the roundabout when it first went up there (admittedly, it had a few bad points, such as a large fountain obscuring the view). There was a temporary increase in minor collisions, but people failed to notice a reduction in severe collisions. Fortunately, eventually people caught onto it.
		Add comment


Guest 7 April 2005 00:31:57 [ permanent link ]
	It also states that the cameras caused or reduced certain types of crashes. I don't see how they did this unless they were swinging into the intersections and distracting drivers on cell phones. IMO handing out tickets when the driver's ID can't be established is wrong, but the cameras would be good for accident investigations.
		Add comment


Big Bill 7 April 2005 01:01:01 [ permanent link ]
	On 6 Apr 2005 10:15:06 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote: Did you not read what you quoted? "Crash statistics from intersections in four Northern Virginia>jurisdictions, with numbers from before and after the cameras were>installed, showed that crashes at those intersections actually rose>after the cameras were turned on," The Washington Post reported last>weekend. "In Fairfax County, the research council study found,>rear-end crashes increased 50 to 71 percent at intersections with>cameras." -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a"
		Add comment


Xeton2001IsAMoron 20 dwpj65 7 April 2005 01:44:45 [ permanent link ]
	Caused more rear-end collisions, but reduced the number of t-bones.
		Add comment


Nate Nagel 7 April 2005 03:17:19 [ permanent link ]
	Scott M. Kozel wrote: "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote:> Red light runners are killers and maimers but Virginia wants them to go>>>free.>>> http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=52932>> Did you READ the article and UNDERSTAND it, you idiot? The state of VA>>had very good reasons for doing what they did, and I applaud their>>decision. > The Virginia Transportation Research Council (VRTC) was commissioned to> do the study, by the state secretary of transportation, in order to> provide input to the General Assembly's 2005 session which ran from> mid-January to mid-February, because the 10-year legislation for a pilot> for red light cameras started in 1995 and would terminate on July 1,> 2005, unless the General Assembly passed new legislation to extend the> authorization for RLC usage. Scott, I appreciate the additional info, but you realize that this kinda falls under the category of "pearls before swine" do you not? Or have you not read any of "LBMHBF" aka Judy's posts before? She ain't gonne read it nor give a crap, just keep driving her old clunker with $100-for-four Pep Boys "tars" and non-functional parking brake in the passing lane at exactly 55 MPH until someone finally gets pissed off enough to PIT her into the Big Jersey Barrier In The Sky. And, of course, rant about "criminal coddling" despite the fact that she could neither pass a decent driver's test nor get her POS through any rudimentary safety inspection. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
		Add comment


Scott M. Kozel 7 April 2005 03:40:11 [ permanent link ]
	Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote:> Scott M. Kozel wrote:> > "N8N" wrote:> > Red light runners are killers and maimers but Virginia wants them to go> >>>free.> >>> http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=52932> >> Did you READ the article and UNDERSTAND it, you idiot? The state of VA> >>had very good reasons for doing what they did, and I applaud their> >>decision.> > The Virginia Transportation Research Council (VRTC) was commissioned to> > do the study, by the state secretary of transportation, in order to> > provide input to the General Assembly's 2005 session which ran from> > mid-January to mid-February, because the 10-year legislation for a pilot> > for red light cameras started in 1995 and would terminate on July 1,> > 2005, unless the General Assembly passed new legislation to extend the> > authorization for RLC usage.> Scott,> I appreciate the additional info, but you realize that this kinda falls> under the category of "pearls before swine" do you not? Or have you not> read any of "LBMHBF" aka Judy's posts before? She ain't gonne read it> nor give a crap, just keep driving her old clunker with $100-for-four> Pep Boys "tars" and non-functional parking brake in the passing lane at> exactly 55 MPH until someone finally gets pissed off enough to PIT her> into the Big Jersey Barrier In The Sky. And, of course, rant about> "criminal coddling" despite the fact that she could neither pass a> decent driver's test nor get her POS through any rudimentary safety> inspection. I wasn't thinking of trying to change Judy's static worldview when I posted it... it was for the benefit of the whole readership. -- Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
		Add comment


Jim Yanik 7 April 2005 05:02:38 [ permanent link ]
	Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote in news:rfj851lf150k2pksvgjle9ifutk1iag2l6@4ax.com: On 6 Apr 2005 10:15:06 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"><xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:> Did you not read what you quoted?> "Crash statistics from intersections in four Northern Virginia>>jurisdictions, with numbers from before and after the cameras were>>installed, showed that crashes at those intersections actually rose>>after the cameras were turned on," The Washington Post reported last>>weekend. "In Fairfax County, the research council study found,>>rear-end crashes increased 50 to 71 percent at intersections with>>cameras."> IOW,RLCs trade an occasional T-bone crash for a lot of rear-end crashes. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
		Add comment


Xeton2001IsAMoron 20 dwpj65 7 April 2005 06:36:05 [ permanent link ]
	Wouldn't that imply that LBMHBF knew how to read?
		Add comment


John Harlow 7 April 2005 08:53:59 [ permanent link ]
	LAST YEAR legislators in Virginia did something every member of the> New Hampshire House should carefully consider today. They ended> Virginia's 10-year experiment with red-light cameras. They did it for> two reasons: safety and civil rights. Jesus h christ in a chicken basket - Virgina did something RIGHT for a change? Something is fishy about this...
		Add comment


Laura Bush murdered her boy friend 7 April 2005 09:05:19 [ permanent link ]
	John Harlow wrote:> > LAST YEAR legislators in Virginia did something every member of the> > New Hampshire House should carefully consider today. They ended> > Virginia's 10-year experiment with red-light cameras. They did it two reasons: safety and civil rights.> Jesus h christ in a chicken basket - Virgina did something RIGHT for change?> Something is fishy about this... Red light runners are killers and maimers. Why do you want them to avoid apprehension? Are you a criminal coddler.
		Add comment


Magnulus 7 April 2005 10:03:02 [ permanent link ]
	"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1112850236.901124.76760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> > That's what they're claiming and it's crazy. If the guy in the lead> thinks it's too late to continue thru the intersection, then it is> certainly too late for the dood BEHIND him.> The real culprit here is tailgating, not redlight cameras. Tailgating is illegal in many states, but its hard to enforce, I suppose.
		Add comment


Nate Nagel 7 April 2005 15:04:04 [ permanent link ]
	Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote: John Harlow wrote:> LAST YEAR legislators in Virginia did something every member of the>>>New Hampshire House should carefully consider today. They ended>>>Virginia's 10-year experiment with red-light cameras. They did it> two reasons: safety and civil rights.>> Jesus h christ in a chicken basket - Virgina did something RIGHT for> change?>> Something is fishy about this...> Red light runners are killers and maimers. Why do you want them to> avoid apprehension? Are you a criminal coddler.> So are people who drive with defective equipment on their vehicles. So stop driving or get your damned car fixed, you criminal. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
		Add comment


Gogarty 7 April 2005 15:13:48 [ permanent link ]
	In article <1112850319.786733.301140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, xeton2001@yahoo.com says... Red light runners are killers and maimers. Why do you want them to>avoid apprehension? Are you a criminal coddler.> Why is it that to you anyone who protests overreaching state actions is a criminal coddle? Is there no gray in your world?
		Add comment


The Etobian 7 April 2005 17:33:21 [ permanent link ]
	On 6 Apr 2005 22:05:19 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote: John Harlow wrote:>> > LAST YEAR legislators in Virginia did something every member of the>> > New Hampshire House should carefully consider today. They ended>> > Virginia's 10-year experiment with red-light cameras. They did it>for>> > two reasons: safety and civil rights.>> Jesus h christ in a chicken basket - Virgina did something RIGHT for>a>> change?>> Something is fishy about this...> Red light runners are killers and maimers. Why do you want them to>avoid apprehension? Are you a criminal coddler. Do it the old-fashioned way. First make sure the yellow lights are on long enough to meet traffic safety standards, and then use cops to patrol and where necessary, hand out tickets.
		Add comment


Larry Bud 7 April 2005 17:35:50 [ permanent link ]
	Once again, why is 55 the magical number? Why not 60? Or 50? Or... Because, the OP has been brainwashed.
		Add comment


Larry Bud 7 April 2005 17:42:50 [ permanent link ]
	Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:> John Harlow wrote:> > > LAST YEAR legislators in Virginia did something every member of New Hampshire House should carefully consider today. They ended> > > Virginia's 10-year experiment with red-light cameras. They did it> for> > > two reasons: safety and civil rights.> > Jesus h christ in a chicken basket - Virgina did something RIGHT change?> > Something is fishy about this...> Red light runners are killers and maimers. Why do you want them to> avoid apprehension? To REDUCE the number of fucking crashes you moron.
		Add comment


Magnulus 7 April 2005 21:08:19 [ permanent link ]
	"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:QsydnYq93daez8jfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...> In most states, a yellow light DOES mean it is legal to enter the> intersection. Stopping on yellow when you can know you can make it> through is just wasting your time and that of everyone behind you. It is legal to enter an intersection on yellow, but not prudent. I don't like running red lights, so I stop on yellow if I can. If I can't, I drive through.
		Add comment


Garth Almgren 7 April 2005 21:22:59 [ permanent link ]
	Around 4/6/2005 10:03 PM, Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea) <http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote: Jim Yanik wrote:> IOW,RLCs trade an occasional T-bone crash for a lot of rear-end crashes.> That's what they're claiming and it's crazy. But true. -- ~/Garth "I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it." - Edith Sitwell (Mail pgp@v6stang.com for secure contact information)
		Add comment


Laura Bush murdered her boy friend 7 April 2005 21:39:39 [ permanent link ]
	Nate Nagel wrote:> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:> > Red light runners are killers and maimers. Why do you want them to> > avoid apprehension? Are you a criminal coddler.> > So are people who drive with defective equipment on their vehicles. stop driving or get your damned car fixed, you criminal. Nothing wrong with my car and besides, when you drive slow and careful it doesn't matter.
		Add comment


Garth Almgren 7 April 2005 22:16:35 [ permanent link ]
	Around 4/7/2005 10:39 AM, Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea) <http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote: Nate Nagel wrote:> Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea) <http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote:>> Red light runners are killers and maimers. Why do you want them to>>>avoid apprehension? Are you a criminal coddler.>>> So are people who drive with defective equipment on their vehicles. So>>stop driving or get your damned car fixed, you criminal.> Nothing wrong with my car So, your parking brake magically fixed itself, did it? and besides, when you drive slow and careful it doesn't matter. Sayz the troll who admitted to getting a ticket for 41 in a school zone, defective brakes, crappy goo-filled "tars," and all. I can just imagine the headlines when you finally mow down a crosswalk full of children. -- ~/Garth "I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it." - Edith Sitwell (Mail pgp@v6stang.com for secure contact information)
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 7 April 2005 23:30:13 [ permanent link ]
	In article <PId5e.28782$UW6.6231@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message>news:QsydnYq93daez8jfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...>> In most states, a yellow light DOES mean it is legal to enter the>> intersection. Stopping on yellow when you can know you can make it>> through is just wasting your time and that of everyone behind you.> It is legal to enter an intersection on yellow, but not prudent. It's both legal and often prudent. I don't like running red lights, so I stop on yellow if I can. If I>can't, I drive through. In some states and in Canada, that's required. In other states, you're wasting everyone's time. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


Magnulus 8 April 2005 04:56:11 [ permanent link ]
	"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:9uudnc20k-XYF8jfRVn-hQ@speakeasy.net...> > It is legal to enter an intersection on yellow, but not prudent.> It's both legal and often prudent.> It's not prudent, it's fucking unsafe. The whole point of a yellow light is to warn you that its about to turn red. To create a buffer in time between traffic. Or don't you get it? So what if it takes a minute or two off your life- maybe it won't take 50 years off somebody else's.
		Add comment


Magnulus 8 April 2005 05:00:09 [ permanent link ]
	"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1112895445.487052.4540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> It's nearly impossible to convict anyone of TGing unless an actual> crash occurs.> Tailgating is not a criminal violation. You need to be careful when you use the word "convict". The US has criminal and civil codes that have different penalties. Running a red light, jaywalking, or tailgating is a civil offense, driving while drunk or excessive speeding (ie, going 40 mph over the speed limit) is a criminal offense.
		Add comment


Alan Baker 8 April 2005 05:01:08 [ permanent link ]
	In article <XCk5e.31839$vL3.22728@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote: "Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message> news:9uudnc20k-XYF8jfRVn-hQ@speakeasy.net...> > > It is legal to enter an intersection on yellow, but not prudent.> > It's both legal and often prudent.> > It's not prudent, it's fucking unsafe. The whole point of a yellow light> is to warn you that its about to turn red. To create a buffer in time> between traffic. Or don't you get it? So what if it takes a minute or two> off your life- maybe it won't take 50 years off somebody else's. What if I am in a sports car and driving behind me is a fully loaded cement truck; following too closely. Would it be prudent for me to stop when a light turns yellow even though the truck would rear-end me? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
		Add comment


L Sternn 8 April 2005 05:20:16 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:01:08 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: In article <XCk5e.31839$vL3.22728@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,> "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message>> news:9uudnc20k-XYF8jfRVn-hQ@speakeasy.net...>> > > It is legal to enter an intersection on yellow, but not prudent.>> > It's both legal and often prudent.>> > It's not prudent, it's fucking unsafe. The whole point of a yellow light>> is to warn you that its about to turn red. To create a buffer in time>> between traffic. Or don't you get it? So what if it takes a minute or two>> off your life- maybe it won't take 50 years off somebody else's.> What if I am in a sports car and driving behind me is a fully loaded >cement truck; following too closely. Would it be prudent for me to stop >when a light turns yellow even though the truck would rear-end me? The way it was explained to me was that it means stop IF it is safe to do so. It would not be safe in the situation you describe, nor would it be safe to try to stop if you're only 10 feet away from the light and going 40 when it turned yellow.
		Add comment


Magnulus 8 April 2005 20:26:54 [ permanent link ]
	"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-B315FC.18403007042005@news.telus.net...> Which is why I took issue with the previous poster's claim that it> wasn't prudent to enter an intersection on a yellow. Glad you agree. In general you shouldn't enter an intersection on a yellow if you can avoid it. If you are a couple seconds away from a yellow light, you should stop if possible. If the light turns yellow just as you are crossing into the intersection, you should keep driving. Red means "do not enter". And the cement truck tailgating you is violating the law. A cement truck should have a couple seconds behind you- it takes a truck longer to stop, so 3-4 seconds seperation.
		Add comment


Jim Yanik 8 April 2005 21:14:09 [ permanent link ]
	L Sternn <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote in news:90nb51temf86i45qt1bcen9dpq8sbvul9k@4ax.com: On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:01:08 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>> wrote:> In article <XCk5e.31839$vL3.22728@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,>> "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:>> "Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message>>> news:9uudnc20k-XYF8jfRVn-hQ@speakeasy.net...>>> > > It is legal to enter an intersection on yellow, but not>>> > > prudent. >>> > It's both legal and often prudent.>>> > It's not prudent, it's fucking unsafe. The whole point of a>>> yellow light >>> is to warn you that its about to turn red. To create a buffer in>>> time between traffic. Or don't you get it? So what if it takes a>>> minute or two off your life- maybe it won't take 50 years off>>> somebody else's. >> What if I am in a sports car and driving behind me is a fully loaded >>cement truck; following too closely. Would it be prudent for me to>>stop when a light turns yellow even though the truck would rear-end>>me? > The way it was explained to me was that it means stop IF it is safe to> do so. It would not be safe in the situation you describe, nor would> it be safe to try to stop if you're only 10 feet away from the light> and going 40 when it turned yellow.> I believe that to be "running a red light",your front wheels have to be behind the thick white stop line when the light is RED.But if your front wheel is -past- the stop line while still yellow,then you have not run the red light even if it changes to red while you are in the intersection. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 8 April 2005 21:35:28 [ permanent link ]
	In article <XCk5e.31839$vL3.22728@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message>news:9uudnc20k-XYF8jfRVn-hQ@speakeasy.net...>> > It is legal to enter an intersection on yellow, but not prudent.>> It's both legal and often prudent.>> It's not prudent, it's fucking unsafe. The whole point of a yellow light>is to warn you that its about to turn red. That's right. But in many cases it is perfectly prudent to react to that warning with something like "OK, thanks for the warning, but I've got plenty of time to get through". To create a buffer in time between traffic. Not really, no. Or don't you get it? So what if it takes a minute or two>off your life- maybe it won't take 50 years off somebody else's. Unless you quantify the probabilities involved, there's no way of saying which makes more sense; you're just engaging in hysterics. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


N E One 8 April 2005 22:38:25 [ permanent link ]
	On 8 Apr 2005 17:14:09 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote: The way it was explained to me was that it means stop IF it is safe to>> do so. It would not be safe in the situation you describe, nor would>> it be safe to try to stop if you're only 10 feet away from the light>> and going 40 when it turned yellow.>> I believe that to be "running a red light",your front wheels have to be >behind the thick white stop line when the light is RED.But if your front >wheel is -past- the stop line while still yellow,then you have not run the >red light even if it changes to red while you are in the intersection. I've heard that, and I've also heard that if your car is still in the intersection at the same time the light is red, then you've run it. It could be a variation in state laws. I know I've been ticketed when I was definitely IN the intersection before the light turned red. In fact, I even remember looking up as I passed under the light and it was still not red, so if I was in the intersectin while the light was red, it was only after everything forward of my windshield had already exitted the intersection. I felt it was a bogus ticket and there is NO way the cop could have even seen the light he gave me a ticket for running. He failed to appear in court and the case was dismissed. Now, he could have legitimately written me a ticket for speeding as I'm sure I was over the speed limit, but he
		Add comment


Alan Baker 8 April 2005 22:58:38 [ permanent link ]
	In article <Gdy5e.48396$vK6.48134@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote: "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message> news:alangbaker-B315FC.18403007042005@news.telus.net...> > Which is why I took issue with the previous poster's claim that it> > wasn't prudent to enter an intersection on a yellow. Glad you agree.> In general you shouldn't enter an intersection on a yellow if you can> avoid it. If you are a couple seconds away from a yellow light, you> should stop if possible. If the light turns yellow just as you are crossing> into the intersection, you should keep driving. Red means "do not enter". No one is arguing with any of that. But it means that there are times when it is not only prudent, but also legal to enter an intersection after the light has turned yellow. That is the purpose of the yellow light, after all. And the cement truck tailgating you is violating the law. A cement truck> should have a couple seconds behind you- it takes a truck longer to stop, so> 3-4 seconds seperation. Duh. Whatever. It was just an extreme example to get your attention. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
		Add comment


Robert Briggs 9 April 2005 00:55:51 [ permanent link ]
	N E One wrote: It could be a variation in state laws. I know I've been ticketed> when I was definitely IN the intersection before the light turned red. Here in the UK, an amber light is a qualified STOP: you may enter an intersection on amber if attempting to stop would be likely to cause an accident. A guy who runs a late amber when he is not being tailgated almost certainly is committing an offence, but is very unlikely to be stopped for it unless, for instance, he is behind a cop when the amber light comes on and the cop stops for the light but the other guy doesn't. In fact, I even remember looking up as I passed under the light and it> was still not red, so if I was in the intersectin while the light was> red, it was only after everything forward of my windshield had already> exitted the intersection. That (as described) is not the outright offence of crossing a red light. If the amber phase is properly set then, depending on the particular junction and how close anyone on your tail was, it seems to be marginal in terms of crossing a late amber: I very rarely see the red at all except when I know full well that my own car would have stopped behind the line but someone behind me has caused me to invoke the "likely to cause an accident" exception to the basic amber STOP rule (and in such cases, all too often I am followed through by two or three vehicles, which justifies my decision to proceed). A former colleague got himself rear-ended two or three times in about as many months by stopping for amber lights when he had someone on his tail. Strictly speaking, if he could stop behind the line then the next chap should certainly be able to do so, so AFAICMO it was the other guy's fault each time, although my colleague could almost certainly have avoided each crash quite legally by invoking the exception and crossing the amber.
		Add comment

CarGuru > Driving > Re: More criminal coddling - State of VA drops red light cameras 8 April 2005 00:07:33

	see also: DIY Aerodynamics 03 camry serpentine belt replacement… Think I spotted vamp?		pass tests:		see also: need help with my dodge 1500 Modifiactions to an engine Stalling and bad rings?

Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miсhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:

If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .




Get comments by e-mail Add to favourites

respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

Re: More criminal coddling - State of VA drops red light cameras

Add new comment