|
General » rec.autos.driving » Better than an RLC
| Better than an RLC [message #793656] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 10:18 |
|
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15256150/detail.html
<...>
Officer Patrick Rice with the Grand Junction Police Department spent two
hours Thursday on the corner of 12th Street and North Avenue in Grand
Junction holding the sign.
He was dressed more like a homeless person or a war protestor, but
drivers who paid attention to his sign saved them themselves a ticket.
The sign had one more sentence, it said "My partners are waiting."
That was true, too.
Several officers were stationed in each direction from the intersection
to write tickets.
<...>
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793660 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 14:24 |
|
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:18:57 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
(Brent P) wrote:
>
>http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15256150/detail.html
>
><...>
>
>Officer Patrick Rice with the Grand Junction Police Department spent two
>hours Thursday on the corner of 12th Street and North Avenue in Grand
>Junction holding the sign.
>
>He was dressed more like a homeless person or a war protestor, but
>drivers who paid attention to his sign saved them themselves a ticket.
>
>The sign had one more sentence, it said "My partners are waiting."
>
>That was true, too.
>
>Several officers were stationed in each direction from the intersection
>to write tickets.
You'd have to be a moron to miss that one. But then, as evidenced by
S&DDAM, GPS and this new troll, V something or other, the roads are
full of morons.
V ery
I rritating
A ddition
T o
O nline
L andtravel
O pinion
G roups
I ncluding
S ome
T trolling
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793668 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 17:25 |
|
"According to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, the police
department's traffic unit once a month targets high-crash
intersections to crack down on red-light runners."
High Crash intersections, hmmm?
Well, that certainly is better than your standard RLC placement, which
tends toward low crash intersections with short yellow timing...
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793672 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 18:29 |
|
On Feb 9, 2:18 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15256150/detail.html
>
> <...>
>
> Officer Patrick Rice with the Grand Junction Police Department spent two
> hours Thursday on the corner of 12th Street and North Avenue in Grand
> Junction holding the sign.
>
> He was dressed more like a homeless person or a war protestor, but
> drivers who paid attention to his sign saved them themselves a ticket.
>
> The sign had one more sentence, it said "My partners are waiting."
>
> That was true, too.
>
> Several officers were stationed in each direction from the intersection
> to write tickets.
>
> <...>
This is ok but if the cops really wanted to stop red light runners
they'd put up signs saying something like "Red light runners are child
runners."
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793675 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 18:56 |
|
The vile and infidel swine and swine sodomizer, "Speeders & Drunk
Drivers are MURDERERS," left this insult to Allah (Praises be unto His
Name) and all that is Righetous and Holy in rec.autos.driving:
>This is ok but if the cops really wanted to stop red light runners
>they'd put up signs saying something like "Red light runners are child
>runners."
Never mind that, you toe tapping goat lover. Address this issue that
you have evaded for the last 6 months:
Have you ever driven a car faster then the posted speed limit?
Imam Widdershins
Speeding is a Virtue
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793723 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 01:01 |
|
In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com says...
> Officer Patrick Rice with the Grand Junction Police Department spent two
> hours Thursday on the corner of 12th Street and North Avenue in Grand
> Junction holding the sign.
It must be nice to live in the middle of nowhere that has cadres of
frightened soccer moms who vote to staff a far bigger police force than
is needed or necessary. Of course their police can diddle away their
day on projects such as this. Contrast that with Chicago where police
have to deal with real crime victims chasing real dangerous criminals.
Chicago police don't have time to diddle like this not to mention the
traffic jams such an operation like this would create. We like our
automated RLCs and thank you very much for your concern. If you don't
then please stay out of our fine city. I hear there are some real
hoppin' Applebees in your suburban neighborhood.
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793725 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 01:01 |
|
Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com says...
>
>>Officer Patrick Rice with the Grand Junction Police Department spent two
>>hours Thursday on the corner of 12th Street and North Avenue in Grand
>>Junction holding the sign.
>
>
> It must be nice to live in the middle of nowhere that has cadres of
> frightened soccer moms who vote to staff a far bigger police force than
> is needed or necessary. Of course their police can diddle away their
> day on projects such as this. Contrast that with Chicago where police
> have to deal with real crime victims chasing real dangerous criminals.
> Chicago police don't have time to diddle like this not to mention the
> traffic jams such an operation like this would create. We like our
> automated RLCs and thank you very much for your concern. If you don't
> then please stay out of our fine city. I hear there are some real
> hoppin' Applebees in your suburban neighborhood.
>
Don't worry, I won't invade your pwecious little RLC-infested hellhole.
Anyone that doesn't vote against, speak out against, and fight by
whatever means are at their disposal these insidious devices is a
sucker, plain and simple.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793726 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 01:13 |
|
In article <MPG.2217fab6be892fee989a0f [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>, Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com says...
>> Officer Patrick Rice with the Grand Junction Police Department spent two
>> hours Thursday on the corner of 12th Street and North Avenue in Grand
>> Junction holding the sign.
> It must be nice to live in the middle of nowhere that has cadres of
> frightened soccer moms who vote to staff a far bigger police force than
> is needed or necessary. Of course their police can diddle away their
> day on projects such as this.
Nice nonsensical babble....
> Contrast that with Chicago where police
> have to deal with real crime victims chasing real dangerous criminals.
You mean like that DUI driving cop that killed two that was just let off?
Yeah, the chicago cops have more important things to do, like protecting
their own rackets.
> Chicago police don't have time to diddle like this not to mention the
> traffic jams such an operation like this would create.
As opposed to the other ways they create them, like parking their
cruisers where ever they damn well please when they stop for snack or
running red signals themselves.....
> We like our
> automated RLCs and thank you very much for your concern.
No, you like the automated RLCs. Don't worry, you'll get rear-ended
stopping for one or get a ticket yourself eventually.
> If you don't
> then please stay out of our fine city. I hear there are some real
> hoppin' Applebees in your suburban neighborhood.
You don't have a clue where I live or have lived.
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793803 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 22:35 |
|
In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com says...
> > We like our
> > automated RLCs and thank you very much for your concern.
>
> No, you like the automated RLCs. Don't worry, you'll get rear-ended
> stopping for one or get a ticket yourself eventually.
Some of us know how to drive and don't let others dictate our actions.
If you find yourself getting in a lot of rear end collisions, then there
is something wrong with you. Since you have no idea of the concept of
introspection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection) and deny your
own road rage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_rage) I predict you'll
continue getting into rear end collisions for as long as the state still
allows you to have a drivers license.
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793804 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 22:42 |
|
Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com says...
>
>>> We like our
>>>automated RLCs and thank you very much for your concern.
>>
>>No, you like the automated RLCs. Don't worry, you'll get rear-ended
>>stopping for one or get a ticket yourself eventually.
>
>
> Some of us know how to drive and don't let others dictate our actions.
> If you find yourself getting in a lot of rear end collisions, then there
> is something wrong with you. Since you have no idea of the concept of
> introspection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection) and deny your
> own road rage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_rage) I predict you'll
> continue getting into rear end collisions for as long as the state still
> allows you to have a drivers license.
>
I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
are better than your logical ones.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793807 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 23:32 |
|
In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
> I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
> rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
> are better than your logical ones.
When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.
Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
hair trigger temper. That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage. Road ragers, when not
a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
B, often end up slamming into each other.
People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793809 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 23:35 |
|
Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
>
>>I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
>>rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
>>are better than your logical ones.
>
>
> When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
> statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.
> Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
> hair trigger temper. That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
> indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage. Road ragers, when not
> a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
> B, often end up slamming into each other.
>
> People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
>
Unless you have to adopt the habit of braking hard for every yellow
light, which is the only strategy that works (save for not driving) to
guarantee you won't get a RLC ticket.
You have read the Virginia RLC study, haven't you? The one where they
documented an increase in rear-end incidents in almost every
installation, and also documented *better* reductions in red light
running incidents simply by properly setting the yellow interval?
What's that? You haven't? I would have never guessed.
Now take your condesceding tone and shove it up your ass, and try to
keep to subjects you actually have done your research on.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793829 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 02:31 |
|
In article <MPG.22193776f0ca509d989a12 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
Mark Anderson <mea [at] nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
> In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
> > I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
> > rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
> > are better than your logical ones.
>
> When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
> statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.
> Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
> hair trigger temper. That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
> indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage. Road ragers, when not
> a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
> B, often end up slamming into each other.
>
> People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
I was kinda thinking about brent being run into alot.
I've been kinda watching driving styles of those people in front of me.
In the past week here's what I've had to take evasive action against to
keep from rear ending a few folks:
Guy with six forward gears and a manual transmission. He'd let the
people in front of him get three car lengths ahead then he'd go and get
close to the people in front of him, the lag time as he let up on the
clutch caused me to almost hit him.
Woman talking to passenger making panic stop because she didn't give
enough car length in front of her (call it preoccupation with something
other than watching what's going on in front of her while driving)
Guy reading the sun times while driving
People pulling into my lane to evade potholes
People speeding up but then slowing way down to look at addresses
guy driving aggressivley and cuts me off to try and make the light
old people or otherwise handicapped drivers with very slow reaction
times slowing or braking too soon.
Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793830 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 02:38 |
|
kenji wrote:
> In article <MPG.22193776f0ca509d989a12 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
> Mark Anderson <mea [at] nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
>>
>>>I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
>>>rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
>>>are better than your logical ones.
>>
>>When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
>>statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.
>>Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
>>hair trigger temper. That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
>>indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage. Road ragers, when not
>>a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
>>B, often end up slamming into each other.
>>
>>People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
>
>
> I was kinda thinking about brent being run into alot.
>
> I've been kinda watching driving styles of those people in front of me.
>
> In the past week here's what I've had to take evasive action against to
> keep from rear ending a few folks:
>
> Guy with six forward gears and a manual transmission. He'd let the
> people in front of him get three car lengths ahead then he'd go and get
> close to the people in front of him, the lag time as he let up on the
> clutch caused me to almost hit him.
then you're following too close. Some MT's are a bit finicky when cold,
especially older ones. Synthetic oil can only do so much, and a lot of
people don't know about it. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the guy
in front of you *not* to speed shift just so you might not have to take
your foot off the gas for a second or so, and he might not even be able
to if he just left his driveway and the oil is still cold.
>
> Woman talking to passenger making panic stop because she didn't give
> enough car length in front of her (call it preoccupation with something
> other than watching what's going on in front of her while driving)
>
and you weren't watching farther ahead than the car in front of you?
> Guy reading the sun times while driving
why would that make you rear end him?
> People pulling into my lane to evade potholes
I'll give you that one, some people don't understand mirrors.
> People speeding up but then slowing way down to look at addresses
again, are you following too closely?
> guy driving aggressivley and cuts me off to try and make the light
I'll give you that one too, had it done to me
> old people or otherwise handicapped drivers with very slow reaction
> times slowing or braking too soon.
>
> Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.
either you're exaggerating how close you came to rear-ending all of
these drivers or it's time to re-evaluate your own driving. All but two
of the instances you mention should never result in you "almost
rear-ending someone." Yeah, drivers are idiots and they do stupid
stuff, but you should be expecting that.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793831 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 02:42 |
|
In article <foo8ts01l9f [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> kenji wrote:
> > In article <MPG.22193776f0ca509d989a12 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
> > Mark Anderson <mea [at] nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
> >>
> >>>I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
> >>>rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
> >>>are better than your logical ones.
> >>
> >>When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
> >>statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.
> >>Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
> >>hair trigger temper. That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
> >>indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage. Road ragers, when not
> >>a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
> >>B, often end up slamming into each other.
> >>
> >>People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
> >
> >
> > I was kinda thinking about brent being run into alot.
> >
> > I've been kinda watching driving styles of those people in front of me.
> >
> > In the past week here's what I've had to take evasive action against to
> > keep from rear ending a few folks:
> >
> > Guy with six forward gears and a manual transmission. He'd let the
> > people in front of him get three car lengths ahead then he'd go and get
> > close to the people in front of him, the lag time as he let up on the
> > clutch caused me to almost hit him.
>
> then you're following too close. Some MT's are a bit finicky when cold,
> especially older ones. Synthetic oil can only do so much, and a lot of
> people don't know about it. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the guy
> in front of you *not* to speed shift just so you might not have to take
> your foot off the gas for a second or so, and he might not even be able
> to if he just left his driveway and the oil is still cold.
>
> >
> > Woman talking to passenger making panic stop because she didn't give
> > enough car length in front of her (call it preoccupation with something
> > other than watching what's going on in front of her while driving)
> >
>
> and you weren't watching farther ahead than the car in front of you?
>
> > Guy reading the sun times while driving
>
> why would that make you rear end him?
>
> > People pulling into my lane to evade potholes
>
> I'll give you that one, some people don't understand mirrors.
>
> > People speeding up but then slowing way down to look at addresses
>
> again, are you following too closely?
>
> > guy driving aggressivley and cuts me off to try and make the light
>
> I'll give you that one too, had it done to me
>
> > old people or otherwise handicapped drivers with very slow reaction
> > times slowing or braking too soon.
> >
> > Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.
>
> either you're exaggerating how close you came to rear-ending all of
> these drivers or it's time to re-evaluate your own driving. All but two
> of the instances you mention should never result in you "almost
> rear-ending someone." Yeah, drivers are idiots and they do stupid
> stuff, but you should be expecting that.
>
> nate
nate?
I've never rear ended anyone without being pushed from the rear by
another vehicle.
I've been driving since 1975.
I haven't made claim on my Allstate auto Insurance since 1982.
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793832 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 02:44 |
|
kenji wrote:
> In article <foo8ts01l9f [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>>kenji wrote:
>>
>>>In article <MPG.22193776f0ca509d989a12 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
>>> Mark Anderson <mea [at] nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
>>>>>rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
>>>>>are better than your logical ones.
>>>>
>>>>When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
>>>>statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.
>>>>Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
>>>>hair trigger temper. That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
>>>>indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage. Road ragers, when not
>>>>a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
>>>>B, often end up slamming into each other.
>>>>
>>>>People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
>>>
>>>
>>>I was kinda thinking about brent being run into alot.
>>>
>>>I've been kinda watching driving styles of those people in front of me.
>>>
>>>In the past week here's what I've had to take evasive action against to
>>>keep from rear ending a few folks:
>>>
>>>Guy with six forward gears and a manual transmission. He'd let the
>>>people in front of him get three car lengths ahead then he'd go and get
>>>close to the people in front of him, the lag time as he let up on the
>>>clutch caused me to almost hit him.
>>
>>then you're following too close. Some MT's are a bit finicky when cold,
>>especially older ones. Synthetic oil can only do so much, and a lot of
>>people don't know about it. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the guy
>>in front of you *not* to speed shift just so you might not have to take
>>your foot off the gas for a second or so, and he might not even be able
>>to if he just left his driveway and the oil is still cold.
>>
>>
>>>Woman talking to passenger making panic stop because she didn't give
>>>enough car length in front of her (call it preoccupation with something
>>>other than watching what's going on in front of her while driving)
>>>
>>
>>and you weren't watching farther ahead than the car in front of you?
>>
>>
>>>Guy reading the sun times while driving
>>
>>why would that make you rear end him?
>>
>>
>>>People pulling into my lane to evade potholes
>>
>>I'll give you that one, some people don't understand mirrors.
>>
>>
>>>People speeding up but then slowing way down to look at addresses
>>
>>again, are you following too closely?
>>
>>
>>>guy driving aggressivley and cuts me off to try and make the light
>>
>>I'll give you that one too, had it done to me
>>
>>
>>>old people or otherwise handicapped drivers with very slow reaction
>>>times slowing or braking too soon.
>>>
>>>Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.
>>
>>either you're exaggerating how close you came to rear-ending all of
>>these drivers or it's time to re-evaluate your own driving. All but two
>>of the instances you mention should never result in you "almost
>>rear-ending someone." Yeah, drivers are idiots and they do stupid
>>stuff, but you should be expecting that.
>>
>>nate
>
>
> nate?
>
> I've never rear ended anyone without being pushed from the rear by
> another vehicle.
>
> I've been driving since 1975.
>
> I haven't made claim on my Allstate auto Insurance since 1982.
Then why are you complaining about "In the past week here's what I've
had to take evasive action against to keep from rear ending a few
folks?" Sounds like you're taking a lot of evasive action and only two
of those instances should have required it.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793857 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 03:25 |
|
In article <MPG.22192a0786f60bb6989a11 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>, Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com says...
>> > We like our
>> > automated RLCs and thank you very much for your concern.
>>
>> No, you like the automated RLCs. Don't worry, you'll get rear-ended
>> stopping for one or get a ticket yourself eventually.
>
> Some of us know how to drive and don't let others dictate our actions.
So you just hammer on the brakes when someone is tailgating you because
you won't let others dictate your actions? GOtcha.
> If you find yourself getting in a lot of rear end collisions, then there
> is something wrong with you.
That would mean I wasn't letting others dictate my actions.... You're
good at these catch 22 complaints. It's interesting how you always go
after me personally instead of actually proving anything about RLCs.
> Since you have no idea of the concept of
> introspection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection) and deny your
> own road rage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_rage) I predict you'll
> continue getting into rear end collisions for as long as the state still
> allows you to have a drivers license.
More of your own fabrications.
So Anderson, be sure to let the group know when you get rear ended or get
an RLC ticket. It's only a matter of time. (that is if you drive over
15mph)
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793861 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 03:33 |
|
In article <MPG.22193776f0ca509d989a12 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>, Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
>> I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
>> rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
>> are better than your logical ones.
>
> When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
> statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.
So you're saying I should start running red signals? Or maybe I should
have punched the throttle on a slick road instead of letting up? or maybe
I shouldn't stop on a yellow before making a right turn at a blind
intersection where I can't see if someone is barreling through having the
green timed on the cross street? Is that what you're saying anderson?
> Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
> hair trigger temper. That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
> indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage. Road ragers, when not
> a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
> B, often end up slamming into each other.
The fact that you went through that excerise above proves to me that you
are one inconsiderate MFFY prick of a driver. It's only the people who
drive intentionally to annoy and frustrate other people that are
concerned about 'road rage'. If you didn't intentionally drive like an
asshole, it wouldn't be an issue, you wouldn't even think about it.
> People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
The last time you did this routine anderson I gave you a list of
situations where I asked your advice on what to do. You never answered.
Why was that anderson?
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793862 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 03:33 |
|
In article <fonu7l016fi [at] news2.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> Mark Anderson wrote:
>> In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
>>
>>>I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
>>>rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
>>>are better than your logical ones.
>>
>>
>> When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
>> statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.
>> Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
>> hair trigger temper. That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
>> indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage. Road ragers, when not
>> a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
>> B, often end up slamming into each other.
>>
>> People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
>>
>
> Unless you have to adopt the habit of braking hard for every yellow
> light, which is the only strategy that works (save for not driving) to
> guarantee you won't get a RLC ticket.
>
> You have read the Virginia RLC study, haven't you? The one where they
> documented an increase in rear-end incidents in almost every
> installation, and also documented *better* reductions in red light
> running incidents simply by properly setting the yellow interval?
> What's that? You haven't? I would have never guessed.
>
> Now take your condesceding tone and shove it up your ass, and try to
> keep to subjects you actually have done your research on.
Anderson refuses to acknowledge the research even exists. He calls it
'blogs'
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793863 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 03:44 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> kenji wrote:
> > In article <MPG.22193776f0ca509d989a12 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
> > Mark Anderson <mea [at] nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
> >>
> >>>I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
> >>>rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
> >>>are better than your logical ones.
> >>
> >>When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
> >>statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.
> >>Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
> >>hair trigger temper. That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
> >>indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage. Road ragers, when not
> >>a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
> >>B, often end up slamming into each other.
> >>
> >>People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
> >
> >
> > I was kinda thinking about brent being run into alot.
> >
> > I've been kinda watching driving styles of those people in front of me.
> >
> > In the past week here's what I've had to take evasive action against to
> > keep from rear ending a few folks:
> >
> > Guy with six forward gears and a manual transmission. He'd let the
> > people in front of him get three car lengths ahead then he'd go and get
> > close to the people in front of him, the lag time as he let up on the
> > clutch caused me to almost hit him.
>
> then you're following too close. Some MT's are a bit finicky when cold,
> especially older ones. Synthetic oil can only do so much, and a lot of
> people don't know about it. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the guy
> in front of you *not* to speed shift just so you might not have to take
> your foot off the gas for a second or so, and he might not even be able
> to if he just left his driveway and the oil is still cold.
>
> >
> > Woman talking to passenger making panic stop because she didn't give
> > enough car length in front of her (call it preoccupation with something
> > other than watching what's going on in front of her while driving)
> >
>
> and you weren't watching farther ahead than the car in front of you?
>
> > Guy reading the sun times while driving
>
> why would that make you rear end him?
>
> > People pulling into my lane to evade potholes
>
> I'll give you that one, some people don't understand mirrors.
>
> > People speeding up but then slowing way down to look at addresses
>
> again, are you following too closely?
>
> > guy driving aggressivley and cuts me off to try and make the light
>
> I'll give you that one too, had it done to me
>
> > old people or otherwise handicapped drivers with very slow reaction
> > times slowing or braking too soon.
> >
> > Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.
>
> either you're exaggerating how close you came to rear-ending all of
> these drivers or it's time to re-evaluate your own driving. All but two
> of the instances you mention should never result in you "almost
> rear-ending someone." Yeah, drivers are idiots and they do stupid
> stuff, but you should be expecting that.
kenjoe left out the fact that they were all Mexicans or Asian women...
--
Best
Greg
" I find Greg Morrow lowbrow, witless, and obnoxious. For him to claim that
we are some
kind of comedy team turns my stomach."
- "cybercat" to me on rec.food.cooking
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793864 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 03:36 |
|
In article <kenji-47C2ED.19311810022008 [at] localhost>, kenji wrote:
> In article <MPG.22193776f0ca509d989a12 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
> Mark Anderson <mea [at] nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
>
>> In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
>> > I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
>> > rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
>> > are better than your logical ones.
>>
>> When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
>> statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.
>> Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
>> hair trigger temper. That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
>> indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage. Road ragers, when not
>> a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
>> B, often end up slamming into each other.
>>
>> People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
>
> I was kinda thinking about brent being run into alot.
>
> I've been kinda watching driving styles of those people in front of me.
>
> In the past week here's what I've had to take evasive action against to
> keep from rear ending a few folks:
>
> Guy with six forward gears and a manual transmission. He'd let the
> people in front of him get three car lengths ahead then he'd go and get
> close to the people in front of him, the lag time as he let up on the
> clutch caused me to almost hit him.
>
> Woman talking to passenger making panic stop because she didn't give
> enough car length in front of her (call it preoccupation with something
> other than watching what's going on in front of her while driving)
>
> Guy reading the sun times while driving
>
> People pulling into my lane to evade potholes
>
> People speeding up but then slowing way down to look at addresses
>
> guy driving aggressivley and cuts me off to try and make the light
>
> old people or otherwise handicapped drivers with very slow reaction
> times slowing or braking too soon.
>
> Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.
I do none of that. Other than the time I let up on the throttle at 25mph,
every time I've been rear ended has been when I was stopped at a red or
yellow signal. Sometimes long after I had stopped. Once the car behind me
was hit and pushed into mine.
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793868 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 03:59 |
|
In article <foo9ad21l9f [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> kenji wrote:
> > In article <foo8ts01l9f [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
> > Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>kenji wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <MPG.22193776f0ca509d989a12 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
> >>> Mark Anderson <mea [at] nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
> >>>>>rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
> >>>>>are better than your logical ones.
> >>>>
> >>>>When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
> >>>>statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.
> >>>>Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
> >>>>hair trigger temper. That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
> >>>>indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage. Road ragers, when not
> >>>>a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
> >>>>B, often end up slamming into each other.
> >>>>
> >>>>People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I was kinda thinking about brent being run into alot.
> >>>
> >>>I've been kinda watching driving styles of those people in front of me.
> >>>
> >>>In the past week here's what I've had to take evasive action against to
> >>>keep from rear ending a few folks:
> >>>
> >>>Guy with six forward gears and a manual transmission. He'd let the
> >>>people in front of him get three car lengths ahead then he'd go and get
> >>>close to the people in front of him, the lag time as he let up on the
> >>>clutch caused me to almost hit him.
> >>
> >>then you're following too close. Some MT's are a bit finicky when cold,
> >>especially older ones. Synthetic oil can only do so much, and a lot of
> >>people don't know about it. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the guy
> >>in front of you *not* to speed shift just so you might not have to take
> >>your foot off the gas for a second or so, and he might not even be able
> >>to if he just left his driveway and the oil is still cold.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Woman talking to passenger making panic stop because she didn't give
> >>>enough car length in front of her (call it preoccupation with something
> >>>other than watching what's going on in front of her while driving)
> >>>
> >>
> >>and you weren't watching farther ahead than the car in front of you?
> >>
> >>
> >>>Guy reading the sun times while driving
> >>
> >>why would that make you rear end him?
> >>
> >>
> >>>People pulling into my lane to evade potholes
> >>
> >>I'll give you that one, some people don't understand mirrors.
> >>
> >>
> >>>People speeding up but then slowing way down to look at addresses
> >>
> >>again, are you following too closely?
> >>
> >>
> >>>guy driving aggressivley and cuts me off to try and make the light
> >>
> >>I'll give you that one too, had it done to me
> >>
> >>
> >>>old people or otherwise handicapped drivers with very slow reaction
> >>>times slowing or braking too soon.
> >>>
> >>>Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.
> >>
> >>either you're exaggerating how close you came to rear-ending all of
> >>these drivers or it's time to re-evaluate your own driving. All but two
> >>of the instances you mention should never result in you "almost
> >>rear-ending someone." Yeah, drivers are idiots and they do stupid
> >>stuff, but you should be expecting that.
> >>
> >>nate
> >
> >
> > nate?
> >
> > I've never rear ended anyone without being pushed from the rear by
> > another vehicle.
> >
> > I've been driving since 1975.
> >
> > I haven't made claim on my Allstate auto Insurance since 1982.
>
> Then why are you complaining about "In the past week here's what I've
> had to take evasive action against to keep from rear ending a few
> folks?" Sounds like you're taking a lot of evasive action and only two
> of those instances should have required it.
>
> nate
who complained?
I remarked about some experiences
who are you and what do you really believe in, Nate?
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793880 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 05:07 |
|
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, kenji wrote:
> In article <MPG.22193776f0ca509d989a12 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
> Mark Anderson <mea [at] nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
>
>> In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
>>> I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
>>> rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
>>> are better than your logical ones.
>>
>> When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
>> statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.
>> Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
>> hair trigger temper. That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
>> indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage. Road ragers, when not
>> a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
>> B, often end up slamming into each other.
>>
>> People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
>
> I was kinda thinking about brent being run into alot.
>
> I've been kinda watching driving styles of those people in front of me.
>
> In the past week here's what I've had to take evasive action against to
> keep from rear ending a few folks:
>
> Guy with six forward gears and a manual transmission. He'd let the
> people in front of him get three car lengths ahead then he'd go and get
> close to the people in front of him, the lag time as he let up on the
> clutch caused me to almost hit him.
>
> Woman talking to passenger making panic stop because she didn't give
> enough car length in front of her (call it preoccupation with something
> other than watching what's going on in front of her while driving)
>
> Guy reading the sun times while driving
>
> People pulling into my lane to evade potholes
>
> People speeding up but then slowing way down to look at addresses
>
> guy driving aggressivley and cuts me off to try and make the light
>
> old people or otherwise handicapped drivers with very slow reaction
> times slowing or braking too soon.
>
> Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.
>
but most all of those sound like situations where, if *you're* paying
attention and driving defensively, none would require anything even
remotely resembling a panic stop, except for maybe the stalled out car.
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793881 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 05:09 |
|
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Brent P wrote:
> In article <kenji-47C2ED.19311810022008 [at] localhost>, kenji wrote:
>> In article <MPG.22193776f0ca509d989a12 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
>> Mark Anderson <mea [at] nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
>>>> I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
>>>> rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
>>>> are better than your logical ones.
>>>
>>> When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
>>> statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.
>>> Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
>>> hair trigger temper. That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
>>> indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage. Road ragers, when not
>>> a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
>>> B, often end up slamming into each other.
>>>
>>> People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
>>
>> I was kinda thinking about brent being run into alot.
>>
>> I've been kinda watching driving styles of those people in front of me.
>>
>> In the past week here's what I've had to take evasive action against to
>> keep from rear ending a few folks:
>>
>> Guy with six forward gears and a manual transmission. He'd let the
>> people in front of him get three car lengths ahead then he'd go and get
>> close to the people in front of him, the lag time as he let up on the
>> clutch caused me to almost hit him.
>>
>> Woman talking to passenger making panic stop because she didn't give
>> enough car length in front of her (call it preoccupation with something
>> other than watching what's going on in front of her while driving)
>>
>> Guy reading the sun times while driving
>>
>> People pulling into my lane to evade potholes
>>
>> People speeding up but then slowing way down to look at addresses
>>
>> guy driving aggressivley and cuts me off to try and make the light
>>
>> old people or otherwise handicapped drivers with very slow reaction
>> times slowing or braking too soon.
>>
>> Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.
>
> I do none of that. Other than the time I let up on the throttle at 25mph,
> every time I've been rear ended has been when I was stopped at a red or
> yellow signal. Sometimes long after I had stopped. Once the car behind me
> was hit and pushed into mine.
then those times had absolutely nothing to do with RLCs, or problems with
intersections, so why do you bring them up as if they did?
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793883 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 05:06 |
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802102205520.25413 [at] sghcrg.sghcrg.pbz>,
barbie gee <barbie.gee [at] NOSESPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, kenji wrote:
>
> > In article <MPG.22193776f0ca509d989a12 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
> > Mark Anderson <mea [at] nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
> >>> I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
> >>> rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
> >>> are better than your logical ones.
> >>
> >> When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
> >> statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.
> >> Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
> >> hair trigger temper. That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
> >> indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage. Road ragers, when not
> >> a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
> >> B, often end up slamming into each other.
> >>
> >> People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
> >
> > I was kinda thinking about brent being run into alot.
> >
> > I've been kinda watching driving styles of those people in front of me.
> >
> > In the past week here's what I've had to take evasive action against to
> > keep from rear ending a few folks:
> >
> > Guy with six forward gears and a manual transmission. He'd let the
> > people in front of him get three car lengths ahead then he'd go and get
> > close to the people in front of him, the lag time as he let up on the
> > clutch caused me to almost hit him.
> >
> > Woman talking to passenger making panic stop because she didn't give
> > enough car length in front of her (call it preoccupation with something
> > other than watching what's going on in front of her while driving)
> >
> > Guy reading the sun times while driving
> >
> > People pulling into my lane to evade potholes
> >
> > People speeding up but then slowing way down to look at addresses
> >
> > guy driving aggressivley and cuts me off to try and make the light
> >
> > old people or otherwise handicapped drivers with very slow reaction
> > times slowing or braking too soon.
> >
> > Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.
> >
>
> but most all of those sound like situations where, if *you're* paying
> attention and driving defensively, none would require anything even
> remotely resembling a panic stop, except for maybe the stalled out car.
a panic stop is not the only evasive action to take
notice I mentioned evasive action above?
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793884 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 05:14 |
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802102208420.25413 [at] sghcrg.sghcrg.pbz>, barbie gee wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <kenji-47C2ED.19311810022008 [at] localhost>, kenji wrote:
>>> In article <MPG.22193776f0ca509d989a12 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
>>> Mark Anderson <mea [at] nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
>>>>> I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
>>>>> rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving skills
>>>>> are better than your logical ones.
>>>>
>>>> When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
>>>> statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you drive.
>>>> Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he definitely has a
>>>> hair trigger temper. That he calls people who let others in "enablers"
>>>> indicates he probably harbors a lot of road rage. Road ragers, when not
>>>> a general nuisance to those who just want to get from point A to point
>>>> B, often end up slamming into each other.
>>>>
>>>> People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
>>>
>>> I was kinda thinking about brent being run into alot.
>>>
>>> I've been kinda watching driving styles of those people in front of me.
>>>
>>> In the past week here's what I've had to take evasive action against to
>>> keep from rear ending a few folks:
>>>
>>> Guy with six forward gears and a manual transmission. He'd let the
>>> people in front of him get three car lengths ahead then he'd go and get
>>> close to the people in front of him, the lag time as he let up on the
>>> clutch caused me to almost hit him.
>>>
>>> Woman talking to passenger making panic stop because she didn't give
>>> enough car length in front of her (call it preoccupation with something
>>> other than watching what's going on in front of her while driving)
>>>
>>> Guy reading the sun times while driving
>>>
>>> People pulling into my lane to evade potholes
>>>
>>> People speeding up but then slowing way down to look at addresses
>>>
>>> guy driving aggressivley and cuts me off to try and make the light
>>>
>>> old people or otherwise handicapped drivers with very slow reaction
>>> times slowing or braking too soon.
>>>
>>> Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.
>>
>> I do none of that. Other than the time I let up on the throttle at 25mph,
>> every time I've been rear ended has been when I was stopped at a red or
>> yellow signal. Sometimes long after I had stopped. Once the car behind me
>> was hit and pushed into mine.
> then those times had absolutely nothing to do with RLCs, or problems with
> intersections, so why do you bring them up as if they did?
I guess I'll have to clue you in..... Given that such drivers like those
that have hit me exist, what is going to happen when the driver in front
of them is in the dilemma zone* and the RLC encourages them to brake hard
instead of going through the intersection?
Remember, the time I got hit for stopping on yellow is at an intersection
not far north of and much like one Mark endorses the RLC for. The driver
behind me figured I was just going to go through without stopping....
What happens when he's behind someone and the driver in front of him
knows there is an RLC and stops hard instead of gunning it though?
Also, if some nitwit can't stop for signal that's long red, how surprised
is he going to be when someone nails the brakes to avoid an RLC ticket
because the light went yellow and he was in the dilemma zone?
*See the congressional report, it is the area where one must stop harder
than usual if he can stop at all before the signal turns red and cannot
make it through the interection before the light goes red either.
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793886 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 05:30 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793891 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 05:47 |
|
In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com says...
> The fact that you went through that excerise above proves to me that you
> are one inconsiderate MFFY prick of a driver. It's only the people who
> drive intentionally to annoy and frustrate other people that are
> concerned about 'road rage'. If you didn't intentionally drive like an
> asshole, it wouldn't be an issue, you wouldn't even think about it.
You honor, I hereby rest my case. This statement you made along with
your regular contributions to the geeks on rec.autos.driving (and to get
put in the rec category for talking about driving must have been
someone's practical joke) proves my point. Who gives a crap how people
drive? I never give it a second thought. Someone causes me to avoid
them, big deal? I really don't give a shit. That you constantly
ruminate over this with funny little names like MFFY and sloth (whatever
the fuck that means) says more about your insanity than anyone else's.
That you think other people may be out to intentionally annoy you only
further proves my point that you have some serious road rage issues. No
doubt your daily driving discussions on rec.autos.driving may some kind
of therapeutical release that keeps you from performing a rampage or
running amok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok).
> > People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
>
> The last time you did this routine anderson I gave you a list of
> situations where I asked your advice on what to do. You never answered.
> Why was that anderson?
There are three sides to every story; your side, their side, and the
truth. All you can provide is your side of the story. Self
introspection is the only way you can resolve your driving problems and
that is something only you can do. I'm not your psychologist.
|
|
|
| Almost Rear-Ended... BY A COP! [message #793893 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 05:47 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793895 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 06:07 |
|
In article <MPG.22198f47ca03c280989a13 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>, Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com says...
>> The fact that you went through that excerise above proves to me that you
>> are one inconsiderate MFFY prick of a driver. It's only the people who
>> drive intentionally to annoy and frustrate other people that are
>> concerned about 'road rage'. If you didn't intentionally drive like an
>> asshole, it wouldn't be an issue, you wouldn't even think about it.
> You honor, I hereby rest my case. This statement you made along with
> your regular contributions to the geeks on rec.autos.driving (and to get
> put in the rec category for talking about driving must have been
> someone's practical joke) proves my point. Who gives a crap how people
> drive? I never give it a second thought. Someone causes me to avoid
> them, big deal? I really don't give a shit.
Yep, that seals it. You're a MFFY type that drives around not giving a
shit about anyone else on the road but himself. You intentionally
drive without giving a shit about anyone else on the road. Let me guess? You
enter the interstate and go straight to the left lane, sit there while
driving slower than 60+% of the drivers on the road and then move right
when your exit comes up?
> That you constantly
> ruminate over this with funny little names like MFFY and sloth (whatever
> the fuck that means) says more about your insanity than anyone else's.
> That you think other people may be out to intentionally annoy you only
> further proves my point that you have some serious road rage issues. No
> doubt your daily driving discussions on rec.autos.driving may some kind
> of therapeutical release that keeps you from performing a rampage or
> running amok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok).
This is amusing, you think there is underlying problem in the use of
shorthand jargon.... lol. (oops, I just used shorthand jargon!) Who said
anything about people to annoy me? Not me... Those drivers are going to
annoy others wether I drive or not, it has nothing to do with me. Some
people go out with the intent to annoy other drivers, you seemed like
one of them. Now that you say you don't give a shit, well that's only
slightly different. You go out there knowing full well that you are
driving in a manner that is annoying to other people, you just don't
care.
Although you're not caring doesn't explain your pound of flesh pro-RLC
view.... it seems you care a lot.... I can only guess now that it's a
projection of your own driving that causes you to think that all red
light running is intentional.
>> > People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear ended.
>> The last time you did this routine anderson I gave you a list of
>> situations where I asked your advice on what to do. You never answered.
>> Why was that anderson?
> There are three sides to every story; your side, their side, and the
> truth. All you can provide is your side of the story. Self
> introspection is the only way you can resolve your driving problems and
> that is something only you can do. I'm not your psychologist.
translation: You're full of bullshit. You fabricate attacks against me
personally because you don't have a clue about about anything driving
related. You're all pissed off because I showed you up by presenting
research on RLCs. You're good at projection there Anderson, you need
help.
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793917 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 15:13 |
|
kenji <kenji [at] ripco.com> wrote in
news:kenji-3D8F76.22063110022008 [at] localhost:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802102205520.25413 [at] sghcrg.sghcrg.pbz>,
> barbie gee <barbie.gee [at] NOSESPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, kenji wrote:
>>
>> > In article <MPG.22193776f0ca509d989a12 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
>> > Mark Anderson <mea [at] nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article njnagel [at] roosters.net says...
>> >>> I predict that you're an idiot. He's talking about you being
>> >>> rear-ended, not you rear-ending someone. Hopefully your driving
>> >>> skills are better than your logical ones.
>> >>
>> >> When people keep rear ending you at a far higher rate than is
>> >> statistically normal, there is something wrong with the way you
>> >> drive. Based on the rhetoric from most of Brent's posts, he
>> >> definitely has a hair trigger temper. That he calls people who
>> >> let others in "enablers" indicates he probably harbors a lot of
>> >> road rage. Road ragers, when not a general nuisance to those who
>> >> just want to get from point A to point B, often end up slamming
>> >> into each other.
>> >>
>> >> People who live and let live when they drive rarely get rear
>> >> ended.
>> >
>> > I was kinda thinking about brent being run into alot.
>> >
>> > I've been kinda watching driving styles of those people in front of
>> > me.
>> >
>> > In the past week here's what I've had to take evasive action
>> > against to keep from rear ending a few folks:
>> >
>> > Guy with six forward gears and a manual transmission. He'd let the
>> > people in front of him get three car lengths ahead then he'd go and
>> > get close to the people in front of him, the lag time as he let up
>> > on the clutch caused me to almost hit him.
>> >
>> > Woman talking to passenger making panic stop because she didn't
>> > give enough car length in front of her (call it preoccupation with
>> > something other than watching what's going on in front of her while
>> > driving)
>> >
>> > Guy reading the sun times while driving
>> >
>> > People pulling into my lane to evade potholes
>> >
>> > People speeding up but then slowing way down to look at addresses
>> >
>> > guy driving aggressivley and cuts me off to try and make the light
>> >
>> > old people or otherwise handicapped drivers with very slow reaction
>> > times slowing or braking too soon.
>> >
>> > Woman with a shitty car that stalled on trying to move forward.
>> >
>>
>> but most all of those sound like situations where, if *you're* paying
>> attention and driving defensively, none would require anything even
>> remotely resembling a panic stop, except for maybe the stalled out
>> car.
>
> a panic stop is not the only evasive action to take
>
> notice I mentioned evasive action above?
>
why is ANY "evasive action" necessary?
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793924 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 15:28 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793980 ] |
Tue, 12 February 2008 04:40 |
|
In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com says...
> Yep, that seals it. You're a MFFY type that drives around not giving a
> shit about anyone else on the road but himself. You intentionally
> drive without giving a shit about anyone else on the road. Let me guess? You
> enter the interstate and go straight to the left lane, sit there while
> driving slower than 60+% of the drivers on the road and then move right
> when your exit comes up?
Does that bother you Brent? Does your blood pressure rise when that
happens? Does that make you want to turn your camera on, upload the
video to youtube, and vent about it with all the other dorks in
rec.autos.driving? It always amazes me how certain Usenet groups end up
attracting the same kind of personality. It looks like
rec.autos.driving attracts blennies and blennies in training (a.k.a
scupies).
> Although you're not caring doesn't explain your pound of flesh pro-RLC
> view.... it seems you care a lot.... I can only guess now that it's a
> projection of your own driving that causes you to think that all red
> light running is intentional.
It is. Only people who fight the federal reserve bank, think 9/11 was
caused by a controlled demolition and that a guided missile hit the
Pentagon, and believe the moon landings were faked think that red light
runners are innocent victims of THE MAN. Normal people with common
sense about the real world know different. It's a good thing you don't
live in Chicago, you'll get taken for everything you have as soon as you
fall off the turnip truck.
> translation: You're full of bullshit. You fabricate attacks against me
> personally because you don't have a clue about about anything driving
> related.
translation: You're a moron -- period. And there's little help in
changing that fact.
> You're all pissed off because I showed you up by presenting
> research on RLCs. You're good at projection there Anderson, you need
> help.
The people who espouse that the moon landings were faked have all kinds
of research too. Your research falls in the same category (I.e.
bullshit).
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793981 ] |
Tue, 12 February 2008 04:37 |
|
In article <MPG.221ad11f26f76c8989a14 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
Mark Anderson <mea [at] nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
> translation: You're a moron -- period. And there's little help in
> changing that fact.
feel the LOVE
this is the kind of thing that makes all the time in chi.*, worth it!
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #793999 ] |
Tue, 12 February 2008 06:55 |
|
In article <MPG.221ad11f26f76c8989a14 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>, Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com says...
>> Yep, that seals it. You're a MFFY type that drives around not giving a
>> shit about anyone else on the road but himself. You intentionally
>> drive without giving a shit about anyone else on the road. Let me guess? You
>> enter the interstate and go straight to the left lane, sit there while
>> driving slower than 60+% of the drivers on the road and then move right
>> when your exit comes up?
>
> Does that bother you Brent? Does your blood pressure rise when that
> happens? Does that make you want to turn your camera on, upload the
> video to youtube, and vent about it with all the other dorks in
> rec.autos.driving? It always amazes me how certain Usenet groups end up
> attracting the same kind of personality. It looks like
> rec.autos.driving attracts blennies and blennies in training (a.k.a
> scupies).
No, Anderson, the question is why do you think that people should have
infinite tolerance for the poor, assholish, selfish, don't give a shit
about other people driving that you seem to endorse?
>> Although you're not caring doesn't explain your pound of flesh pro-RLC
>> view.... it seems you care a lot.... I can only guess now that it's a
>> projection of your own driving that causes you to think that all red
>> light running is intentional.
> It is.
Like you, the assholes who run red lights intentionally, don't give a
shit about other people on the road.
> Only people who fight the federal reserve bank, think 9/11 was
> caused by a controlled demolition and that a guided missile hit the
> Pentagon, and believe the moon landings were faked think that red light
> runners are innocent victims of THE MAN. Normal people with common
> sense about the real world know different.
Nice irrelevant strawman you got there. Should I say you believe Daley is
a space alien? It's about as grounded in fact as what you just tried to
hang on me you dishonest turd.
> It's a good thing you don't
> live in Chicago, you'll get taken for everything you have as soon as you
> fall off the turnip truck.
Anderson, you'd be too fucking scared to even drive through the chicago
neighborhood I lived in. Let me put it this way Anderson, I heard gunfire
practically EVERY DAY. It was so common it was like the L going by. Like
everything else with you it's just projection of your own fears of your
own behaviors.
>> translation: You're full of bullshit. You fabricate attacks against me
>> personally because you don't have a clue about about anything driving
>> related.
> translation: You're a moron -- period. And there's little help in
> changing that fact.
More name calling from anderson, no support, no cites, no nothing.
>> You're all pissed off because I showed you up by presenting
>> research on RLCs. You're good at projection there Anderson, you need
>> help.
> The people who espouse that the moon landings were faked have all kinds
> of research too. Your research falls in the same category (I.e.
> bullshit).
Funny, I don't see any fake moon landing studies from state governments,
the federal government, major news sources, respected transportation
institutes, etc.... which is where all the studies I pointed you come
from.
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #794059 ] |
Tue, 12 February 2008 23:04 |
|
In article <MPG.221ad11f26f76c8989a14 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
Mark Anderson <mea [at] nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
>rec.autos.driving? It always amazes me how certain Usenet groups end up
>attracting the same kind of personality. It looks like
>rec.autos.driving attracts blennies and blennies in training (a.k.a
>scupies).
Apparently it attracts people who make up nonsense words for derisive
purposes. Unless you're calling Brent a fish or a fruit tree.
>It is. Only people who fight the federal reserve bank, think 9/11 was
>caused by a controlled demolition and that a guided missile hit the
>Pentagon,
Anybody sensible believes a guided missile hit the Pentagon. Even the
official report says so.
>and believe the moon landings were faked think that red light
>runners are innocent victims of THE MAN.
Right. You have to be a kook to believe that red light cameras are
rigged, despite some places having been caught rigging them.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #794087 ] |
Wed, 13 February 2008 02:42 |
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <MPG.221ad11f26f76c8989a14 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>,
> Mark Anderson <mea [at] nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
>
>> rec.autos.driving? It always amazes me how certain Usenet groups end up
>> attracting the same kind of personality. It looks like
>> rec.autos.driving attracts blennies and blennies in training (a.k.a
>> scupies).
>
> Apparently it attracts people who make up nonsense words for derisive
> purposes. Unless you're calling Brent a fish or a fruit tree.
>
You'd have to read chi.gen to get the joke.
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #794110 ] |
Wed, 13 February 2008 06:15 |
|
In article russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net says...
> >and believe the moon landings were faked think that red light
> >runners are innocent victims of THE MAN.
>
> Right. You have to be a kook to believe that red light cameras are
> rigged, despite some places having been caught rigging them.
As far as Chicago is concerned, all RLC intersections observed had the
same yellow light timing as the non-RLC intersections. So far there is
no evidence suggesting rigging here despite the kooks claiming that
since Daley is corrupt then all RLC cameras are corrupt as well as the
people who install and service them. Since Daley is corrupt then the
people running the dog licensing program are corrupt. Simple thoughts
and conclusions lead to simple minds.
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #794111 ] |
Wed, 13 February 2008 06:17 |
|
In article tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com says...
> No, Anderson, the question is why do you think that people should have
> infinite tolerance for the poor, assholish, selfish, don't give a shit
> about other people driving that you seem to endorse?
I don't which is why I endorse automatic enforcement of traffic laws
such as RLCs. You endorse vigilantism.
|
|
|
| Re: Better than an RLC [message #794112 ] |
Wed, 13 February 2008 06:16 |
|
In article <MPG.221c390aeadc35e8989a15 [at] chi.news.speakeasy.net>, Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net says...
>> >and believe the moon landings were faked think that red light
>> >runners are innocent victims of THE MAN.
>>
>> Right. You have to be a kook to believe that red light cameras are
>> rigged, despite some places having been caught rigging them.
>
> As far as Chicago is concerned, all RLC intersections observed had the
> same yellow light timing as the non-RLC intersections. So far there is
> no evidence suggesting rigging here despite the kooks claiming that
> since Daley is corrupt then all RLC cameras are corrupt as well as the
> people who install and service them. Since Daley is corrupt then the
> people running the dog licensing program are corrupt. Simple thoughts
> and conclusions lead to simple minds.
Short yellows being used across the board doesn't change the fact that
RLCs need short yellows to make a profit.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 14:44:05 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.32237 Sekunden |
