In article >,
AtM says...
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> >
> > On Tue 06 Jan 2009 04:17:51p, James Silverton told us...
> >
> > > Hello All!
> > >
> > > I got caught by one of those damned mobile speed cameras. I could have
> > > sworn the limit was 45, which is what I was doing, but I checked and
> > > there is a new sign near the fire station saying 35! I think I missed
> > > it because I was busy reading the
> > > dumb messages the firemen display; this time a warning not to leave
> > > cooking unattended. How about crock pots? It cost me $40 but no points
> > > or reporting to my insurance company.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > All photo radar tickets in the greater Phoenix area are a minimum of $180
> > and it does go on your driving record. If you haven't had a ticket in over
> > two years, you are eligible to take a driving safety class at the cost of
> > $135, in lieu of the fine, and it doesn't go on your driving record. At
> > least a couple of hundred photo radar cameras have been added on our
> > intercity freeways and many intersections within the past few months.
>
> It's something to make one wonder if enforcement agencies are in cahoots
> with insurance companies! Who pays for those photo radar cameras? Not
> to mention, is there any forewarning about entering a 'photo
> enforcement' area? It's almost - but not quite, I know - akin to having
> Big Brother wire-tap phone lines without proper & due process of a
> warrant signed by a court judge. Oh well - it's amazing what technology
> can do!
>
> Sky, who usually uses cruise control
>
>

I do like the European approach to speed cameras. They've thus far
burned them, pulled them down, spray painted the lenses, etc.

In article 0>,
says...
> On Tue 06 Jan 2009 06:45:03p, Sky told us...
>
> > Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue 06 Jan 2009 04:17:51p, James Silverton told us...
> >>
> >> > Hello All!
> >> >
> >> > I got caught by one of those damned mobile speed cameras. I could
> >> > have sworn the limit was 45, which is what I was doing, but I checked
> >> > and there is a new sign near the fire station saying 35! I think I
> >> > missed it because I was busy reading the
> >> > dumb messages the firemen display; this time a warning not to leave
> >> > cooking unattended. How about crock pots? It cost me $40 but no
> >> > points or reporting to my insurance company.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> All photo radar tickets in the greater Phoenix area are a minimum of
> >> $180 and it does go on your driving record. If you haven't had a
> >> ticket in over two years, you are eligible to take a driving safety
> >> class at the cost of $135, in lieu of the fine, and it doesn't go on
> >> your driving record. At least a couple of hundred photo radar cameras
> >> have been added on our intercity freeways and many intersections within
> >> the past few months.
> >
> > It's something to make one wonder if enforcement agencies are in cahoots
> > with insurance companies! Who pays for those photo radar cameras? Not
> > to mention, is there any forewarning about entering a 'photo
> > enforcement' area? It's almost - but not quite, I know - akin to having
> > Big Brother wire-tap phone lines without proper & due process of a
> > warrant signed by a court judge. Oh well - it's amazing what technology
> > can do!
>
> At least in our area there are signs forewarning about the upcoming photo
> enforcement area. What puzzles me is how the camera works on a 4 or 6 lane
> freeway. I don't understand how it can cover all lanes and get the photo
> for the correct car.

Check out http://www.nestor.com

They're based right here in RI. That's how they do it, the test bed has
been counting traffic on I-95 in Providence for some years now.

I recall an interview given by one of Nestor's founders. They tipped
their hand that the system could not only read plates on cars but get an
accurate reading on speed.

James Silverton wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> I got caught by one of those damned mobile speed cameras. I could have
> sworn the limit was 45, which is what I was doing, but I checked and
> there is a new sign near the fire station saying 35! I think I missed
> it because I was busy reading the
> dumb messages the firemen display; this time a warning not to leave
> cooking unattended. How about crock pots? It cost me $40 but no points
> or reporting to my insurance company.

Was it this one?

http://www.speedtrap.org/speed-traps/view/67190

Some of those speed traps are strictly about the money.
Safety has nothing to do with it.

nancy

In article >,
says...
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:28:17 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
> >On Tue 06 Jan 2009 04:17:51p, James Silverton told us...
> >
> >> Hello All!
> >>
> >> I got caught by one of those damned mobile speed cameras. I could have
> >> sworn the limit was 45, which is what I was doing, but I checked and
> >> there is a new sign near the fire station saying 35! I think I missed
> >> it because I was busy reading the
> >> dumb messages the firemen display; this time a warning not to leave
> >> cooking unattended. How about crock pots? It cost me $40 but no points
> >> or reporting to my insurance company.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >All photo radar tickets in the greater Phoenix area are a minimum of $180
> >and it does go on your driving record. If you haven't had a ticket in over
> >two years, you are eligible to take a driving safety class at the cost of
> >$135, in lieu of the fine, and it doesn't go on your driving record. At
> >least a couple of hundred photo radar cameras have been added on our
> >intercity freeways and many intersections within the past few months.
>
> We have them at stop lights too. It's huge revenue for the city so
> they're adding more. Pretty soon we won't need cops.
>
> Lou
>

Well, they'll need some cops. Because at the point at which revenue
overrules safety you'll see people destroying cameras.

In article >, says...
> Sky > wrote:
>
> > Who pays for those photo radar cameras?
>
> It's fairly seedy. The manufacturer's rep comes in and
> offers to pay for the equipment, the installation, and
> the operation of the cameras, and then split the take with
> the city or county or whomever. So there's no up-front cost,
> but someone is raking it in. It's a slam-dunk, there is no way
> to lose money from it, however not as much ticket revenue flows
> back to the taxpayers as should be the case.
>
> Steve
>

In the case of red light cameras you'd think it'd suffer the law of
diminishing returns as people learn where the cameras are located and
either avoid them or stop too early.

I forget where I'd read it but it was the same article that mentioned
the toying with yellow light intervals. They said that with the red
light cameras they actually saw an increase of people getting rear ended
because they had to stop so short in order not to incur the violation.

In article >,
says...
> T wrote:
> > In article >, says...
> >> James Silverton wrote:
> >>> Hello All!
> >>>
> >>> I got caught by one of those damned mobile speed cameras. I could have
> >>> sworn the limit was 45, which is what I was doing, but I checked and
> >>> there is a new sign near the fire station saying 35! I think I missed
> >>> it because I was busy reading the
> >>> dumb messages the firemen display; this time a warning not to leave
> >>> cooking unattended. How about crock pots? It cost me $40 but no points
> >>> or reporting to my insurance company.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Those cameras do seem to be proliferating. That changed speed
> >> limit is pretty sneaky though. :-(
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Sort of how communites that installed red light cameras were caught
> > tampering with the yellow light time interval.
> >
> > Revenue enhancement vs. safety.
>
> DH almost killed me (well not really) twice stopping short at one of the
> red lights that has a camera. Recently the city retimed that light and
> now it's a little safer at that intersection. There are statistics that
> say that those red light cameras cause accidents. Can't find a site, but
> I read it in the local papers.
>

I've seen them. It's not good. The companies that install the cameras
are usually the ones who suggest setting yellow interval to < 3 seconds.

That usually flies in the face of state law.

T wrote:


> The latest trick is to snap a photo of someone elses license plate, then
> print it on glossy paper and paste over your plates.
>
> I object to speed cameras. They're nothing but revenue enhancement
> devices.

I think they are a good idea. Too many people obey speed limits only if
they know there are cops around. We had photo radar for a while here.
It was used only along the major corridors, mostly around Toronto. It
made everyone slow down and drive along at roughly the same speed.
Traffic moved better and accidents were reduced.

FWIW, one of our prosecutors was one of the lawyers who designed the
legal part of the system. His thinking was that if photo radar never
issued a single ticket it would have been a major success.

In article >,
says...
>
> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> > Now you know the limit, I'm sure you won't exceed it anymore. Speed Kills.
> >
> >
>
> I never heard of anyone getting killed from speed. Just the sudden stop if
> they could not control the vehicle at that speed.
>
>
>

Yeah, rapid deceleration is a bummer when it comes to the human body.

Here's a Smart Car being smacked into a 20 ton barrier at 70MPH. The
passenger compartment is barely breached but they do mention that the
70MPH to 0MPH is the real killer.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHpUO-S0i8

In article > ,
says...
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >> Now you know the limit, I'm sure you won't exceed it anymore. Speed
> >> Kills.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I never heard of anyone getting killed from speed. Just the sudden
> > stop if they could not control the vehicle at that speed.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Much the same in skydiving.
>
> But.... the Speed Kills campaign over here relates to the killing of
> pedestrians by speeding vehicles. Apparently, 5-10kph makes a big
> difference to survivability of the pedestrian.
>
>
> And speaking of sudden stops.........
>
> http://www.bikeroute.com/Recumbents/...s/2004_05.html
>
> scroll down a bit for the nice red car.
>
>
>

Whereas in most of the U.S. it's pedestrian be damned. I've had police
cars with no lights or siren bear down on me while I'm in a crosswalk.

Janet Wilder wrote:

>>
>> Sort of how communites that installed red light cameras were caught
>> tampering with the yellow light time interval.
>> Revenue enhancement vs. safety.
>
> DH almost killed me (well not really) twice stopping short at one of the
> red lights that has a camera. Recently the city retimed that light and
> now it's a little safer at that intersection. There are statistics that
> say that those red light cameras cause accidents. Can't find a site, but
> I read it in the local papers.

It seems that in some places there has been an increase in
accidents..... rear enders from people slamming into cars that have
stopped for the lights. However, the main reason for the red light
cameras was to reduce deaths and injuries, and while the number of
crashes have increased, deaths and injuries have been reduced.

Who knows, maybe after a while a new study will find that people finally
learned that other drivers will be stopping for the red lights and back
off and stop running into those who obey the traffic lights.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:04:51 -0600, Janet Wilder
> wrote:

>So sorry to hear that, Carol. Send him my best wishes. Dilaudid is good
>stuff. Fentanyl never did anything for me.

The Dilaudid had him reaching for things that weren't there, and
telling me the most extraordinary stories. No wonder Christy saw
hundreds of cats standing on lemon drops!

BTW, thank you to everyone who has sent your good wishes. The Patient
finally woke up, just as I was typing this message, and he seems to
have his wits about him again.

I'm gonna keep this little adventure off the NG after this post, and
will e-mail those who have expressed concern, or who are already in my
address book. If you want Crash updates, please drop me a note, and
I'll add you to the list.

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> Blinky the Shark > wrote:
>
>
>> > "James Silverton" > wrote in
>> > news:zER8l.4060 :
>
>> >> I got caught by one of those damned mobile speed cameras. I
>> >> could have sworn the limit was 45, which is what I was
>> >> doing, but I checked and there is a new sign near the fire
>> >> station saying 35! I think I missed it because I was busy
>> >> reading the dumb messages the firemen display; this time a
>> >> warning not to leave cooking unattended. How about crock
>> >> pots? It cost me $40 but no points or reporting to my
>> >> insurance company.
>
> Don't know about the speeding cameras, but they're into the red
> light cameras north of here. Big signs warning you, and they
> say US$270 *minimum* fine. You can get it wiped, depending on
> your record, so it's no points and no insurance notification.
> That's *another* US$40, plus a one day class, plus the fee for
> the class (mine was US$28).
>
>> No kidding. Last month I got a *parking* ticket that was $45.
>> And that wasn't for illegal handicapped parking or antying like
>> that -- I just ran my meter out.
>
> My daughter has no parking space, so she has to park on the
> street. Once a month, they sweep the streets. No parking on
> the street in the neighborhood. She's gotten two tickets. I
> think they're US$50.

Sweeping is weekly here. In my case, every Thursday from 10 AM to
noon is the no-parking window. And it's by street side, so you
can generally move to the other side...if you get there first. I
haven't got a ticket for that in so long that I don't know how
much they cost.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
...
> Hello All!
>
> I got caught by one of those damned mobile speed cameras. I could have
> sworn the limit was 45, which is what I was doing, but I checked and there
> is a new sign near the fire station saying 35! I think I missed it
> because I was busy reading the
> dumb messages the firemen display; this time a warning not to leave
> cooking unattended. How about crock pots? It cost me $40 but no points
> or reporting to my insurance company.
>

Since when is speeding a non moving violation without points or reporting to
insurance? It's a setup. You got screwed. Happened to me too. Just pay
the fine and forget about it. That's how a great many municipalities are
bringing in extra cash. I got popped for doing 45 in a 25 - 150 feet from a
stop sign which I stopped for. They moved the speed limit sign a hundred
yards down the road.

Paul

>>> No kidding. Last month I got a *parking* ticket that was $45.
>>> And that wasn't for illegal handicapped parking or antying like
>>> that -- I just ran my meter out.
>>

Buy a watch and pay attention to the meter time.

If you were in a handicapped spot chances are it would have been $200+

Dave Smith wrote:
> Janet Wilder wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Sort of how communites that installed red light cameras were caught
>>> tampering with the yellow light time interval.
>>> Revenue enhancement vs. safety.
>>
>> DH almost killed me (well not really) twice stopping short at one of
>> the red lights that has a camera. Recently the city retimed that light
>> and now it's a little safer at that intersection. There are statistics
>> that say that those red light cameras cause accidents. Can't find a
>> site, but I read it in the local papers.
>
> It seems that in some places there has been an increase in
> accidents..... rear enders from people slamming into cars that have
> stopped for the lights. However, the main reason for the red light
> cameras was to reduce deaths and injuries, and while the number of
> crashes have increased, deaths and injuries have been reduced.
>
> Who knows, maybe after a while a new study will find that people finally
> learned that other drivers will be stopping for the red lights and back
> off and stop running into those who obey the traffic lights.

I don't recall in what on-line news I read this in over the last two
weeks, but some county sheriff is pushing to have the cameras removed
(for speeding)in his county, as they are there only as a revenue venue
for the county.

I also read somewhere in the news over the last two weeks that a study
done by the city concluded there was a 25% increase in the number of
accidents at stop lights where cameras were placed. Yet they have no
plans on removing them.

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:04:51 -0600, Janet Wilder
> > wrote:
>
>> So sorry to hear that, Carol. Send him my best wishes. Dilaudid is good
>> stuff. Fentanyl never did anything for me.
>
> The Dilaudid had him reaching for things that weren't there, and
> telling me the most extraordinary stories. No wonder Christy saw
> hundreds of cats standing on lemon drops!
>
> BTW, thank you to everyone who has sent your good wishes. The Patient
> finally woke up, just as I was typing this message, and he seems to
> have his wits about him again.
>
> I'm gonna keep this little adventure off the NG after this post, and
> will e-mail those who have expressed concern, or who are already in my
> address book. If you want Crash updates, please drop me a note, and
> I'll add you to the list.
>
> Carol
>


Carol -

You might want to invest in a pair of these for the icy days:

http://www.cabelas.com/hprod-1/0003364.shtml

I have a pair of these (the middle ones), and use them on a dedicated
pair of mocs like the ones shown in the middle.

I have a retarded Terrier mix that at seven years old, still has the
brain of a puppy, and can't be trusted to walk on our property (10
acres) when time to go outside without taking off in a straight line for
the road, and he runs like a gray hound. So, I'm forced to walk him on a
leash twice a day rain or shine. On the days where there is ice on the
ground surface, or we've had an "ice rain", I wear these.

I know they work as I've busted my butt a number of times prior to
buying them.

Bob

In article >,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:

> "James Silverton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hello All!
> >
> > I got caught by one of those damned mobile speed cameras. I could have
> > sworn the limit was 45, which is what I was doing, but I checked and there
> > is a new sign near the fire station saying 35! I think I missed it
> > because I was busy reading the
> > dumb messages the firemen display; this time a warning not to leave
> > cooking unattended. How about crock pots? It cost me $40 but no points
> > or reporting to my insurance company.
> >
>
> Since when is speeding a non moving violation without points or reporting to
> insurance? It's a setup. You got screwed. Happened to me too. Just pay
> the fine and forget about it. That's how a great many municipalities are
> bringing in extra cash. I got popped for doing 45 in a 25 - 150 feet from a
> stop sign which I stopped for. They moved the speed limit sign a hundred
> yards down the road.

Traffic enforcement cameras are all about ripping off people and nothing
about traffic safety. Philadelphia is notorious for its short yellow
lights. If you blink, the yellow signal changes to red. There are a few
intersections along the Roosevelt Boulevard where the yellow light is
way too short and in some conditions, the traffic lights are hard to
see. As a result, there are a lot of people who run the red light and
get into accidents. You would think the government would set up more
visible traffic signals and time the lights better so that the yellows
at least last a little bit longer then a nanosecond. Instead, they put
up traffic enforcement cameras.

About a year ago, an aunt of mine was fined $100 by one of those red
light cameras when she drove through an intersection when the traffic
signal was yellow. Due to the short duration of the yellow light, it
turned red when she was still in that intersection. She tried to fight
the ticket in court, but she lost, of course.

Paul M. Cook wrote:

> I got popped for doing 45 in a 25 - 150 feet from a stop sign which I
> stopped for. They moved the speed limit sign a hundred yards down
> the road.
>
> Paul

Similar tricks happen here too. Best one I've seen is at some of our
traffic lights... We sometimes also have those flashing 'yield' arrows
for left turns at the intersection - I know, we drive on the wrong side
of the road here, but bear with me. This means that even if the traffic
lights are red, you don't have to stop and wait for green when doing a
left turn, but may proceed if it's safe to do so. i.e. when the
intersection is clear of other traffic.

Anyway, I've noticed several of these 'arrows' have been removed from
some of the traffic lights over the years (with no warning
whatsoever) - which means one has to stop, no matter what. So... folks
who have been used to the 'yield arrows' being there for years and
years, often don't notice they're not there anymore - and turn when
it's safe to do so. Heh. A week or two later they get a $US50.00 fine
in the post (with a nice pic of their car on it) for running a red
light... BTW, it's not that they're phasing them out completely or
anything, I've seen them at 'brand new' intersections too.

However, sometimes justice is served. This actually happened to a friend
of mine. She refused to pay the fine, went to court instead. Told the
judge what had happened and that she didn't see that taking the 'yield
arrows' away after 10 years was anything other than a 'money making
racket' by the local municipality. The judge agreed. He waived her
fine. <g>
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 02:07:38 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

> Sky > wrote:
>
>> Who pays for those photo radar cameras?
>
> It's fairly seedy. The manufacturer's rep comes in and
> offers to pay for the equipment, the installation, and
> the operation of the cameras, and then split the take with
> the city or county or whomever. So there's no up-front cost,


Not just equipment. Where I used to live, Livermore CA, there were several
notoriously bad intersections that needed traffic lights. They languished,
unnoticed, for years. Suddenly, almost overnight, all were miraculously
transformed. Repaved, islands, landscaping, traffic signals, etc. But
wait! What's this? Every new intersection suddenly has half a dozen
cameras. Not the older snap-shot cameras with the huge strobe flash box,
but state-of-the-art live video cameras.

In CA, red-light runners are typically fined $250-400. The companies get
about 50% of revenues. Any wonder they'll finance complete intersection
make-overs. And yes, the yellow light times are fudged. Some states
and/or municipalities are rightfully outraged and ban the whole idea.
Others greedily embrace it.

The town closest to me is a one-light town. No cameras. I love it.


nb

Stan Horwitz wrote:

> Traffic enforcement cameras are all about ripping off people and
> nothing about traffic safety. Philadelphia is notorious for its short
> yellow lights. If you blink, the yellow signal changes to red.

I'm sure you've seen Parking Wars. Amusing to watch but
I feel sorry for some of those people.

I think they're talking about putting a camera in town. If you
lived near a college, you'd know why, those kids are always
late for class and you'd better not proceed on green without
looking both ways. I do anyway, but these are some phone
talking, texting, speeding, red light running students. We
could balance the budget on them alone, plus maybe save a
couple of them from a grim fate. Enough plastic flower
memorials on the poles/trees as it is.

nancy

On Jan 8, 12:03*am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> Stan Horwitz wrote:
> > Traffic enforcement cameras are all about ripping off people and
> > nothing about traffic safety. Philadelphia is notorious for its short
> > yellow lights. If you blink, the yellow signal changes to red.
>
> I'm sure you've seen Parking Wars. *Amusing to watch but
> I feel sorry for some of those people.
>
> I think they're talking about putting a camera in town. *If you
> lived near a college, you'd know why, those kids are always
> late for class and you'd better not proceed on green without
> looking both ways. *I do anyway, but these are some phone
> talking, texting, speeding, red light running students. *We
> could balance the budget on them alone, plus maybe save a
> couple of them from a grim fate. *Enough plastic flower
> memorials on the poles/trees as it is.
>
> nancy

Please enlighten us with what it feels like to grow up with your
mother calling you a lying ****. Did it upset you all the time because
*she* was a lying ****? Or was she speaking the truth about you? I
feel sorry for you 'growing up' in that sort of environment, Nancy.
No wonder you are so disturbed now.

--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"The joys of the table belong equally to all ages, conditions,
countries
and times; they mix with all other pleasures, and remain the last to
console us for their loss."
Jean Antheleme Brillet-Savarin,

On Wed 07 Jan 2009 05:47:40a, notbob told us...

> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 02:07:38 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
>
>> Sky > wrote:
>>
>>> Who pays for those photo radar cameras?
>>
>> It's fairly seedy. The manufacturer's rep comes in and
>> offers to pay for the equipment, the installation, and
>> the operation of the cameras, and then split the take with
>> the city or county or whomever. So there's no up-front cost,
>
>
> Not just equipment. Where I used to live, Livermore CA, there were
several
> notoriously bad intersections that needed traffic lights. They
languished,
> unnoticed, for years. Suddenly, almost overnight, all were miraculously
> transformed. Repaved, islands, landscaping, traffic signals, etc. But
> wait! What's this? Every new intersection suddenly has half a dozen
> cameras. Not the older snap-shot cameras with the huge strobe flash box,
> but state-of-the-art live video cameras.
>
> In CA, red-light runners are typically fined $250-400. The companies get
> about 50% of revenues. Any wonder they'll finance complete intersection
> make-overs. And yes, the yellow light times are fudged. Some states
> and/or municipalities are rightfully outraged and ban the whole idea.
> Others greedily embrace it.
>
> The town closest to me is a one-light town. No cameras. I love it.

Would that be the same as a one-horse town?

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Wednesday, 01(I)/07(VII)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 4dys 15hrs 55mins
************************************************** **********************
Build ramps, not bombs
************************************************** **********************

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:23:04 GMT, James Silverton wrote:

> MG wrote on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:51:43 GMT:
>
>
>>no...if you don't speed, you don't get caught...easy
>
> How bloody profound! Many speed limits are assigned on a basis of the
> squeaky wheel !

my sympathies are with the residents in many cases. if you live on an
'alternate' rush hour route, people can come zipping through pretty damn
fast. the proliferation of speed bumps is annoying, though.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:03:51 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:28:17 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>On Tue 06 Jan 2009 04:17:51p, James Silverton told us...
>>
>>> Hello All!
>>>
>>> I got caught by one of those damned mobile speed cameras. I could have
>>> sworn the limit was 45, which is what I was doing, but I checked and
>>> there is a new sign near the fire station saying 35! I think I missed
>>> it because I was busy reading the
>>> dumb messages the firemen display; this time a warning not to leave
>>> cooking unattended. How about crock pots? It cost me $40 but no points
>>> or reporting to my insurance company.
>>>
>>
>>All photo radar tickets in the greater Phoenix area are a minimum of $180
>>and it does go on your driving record. If you haven't had a ticket in over
>>two years, you are eligible to take a driving safety class at the cost of
>>$135, in lieu of the fine, and it doesn't go on your driving record. At
>>least a couple of hundred photo radar cameras have been added on our
>>intercity freeways and many intersections within the past few months.
>
> We have them at stop lights too. It's huge revenue for the city so
> they're adding more. Pretty soon we won't need cops.
>
> Lou

there will always be cops. they're necessary to the doughnut-shop economy.

your pal,
blake

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

> I'm gonna keep this little adventure off the NG after this post, and
> will e-mail those who have expressed concern, or who are already in my
> address book. If you want Crash updates, please drop me a note, and
> I'll add you to the list.
>
> Carol

Have you been getting my emails? Just wondering.

Becca

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 06:47:37 -0500, Bob Muncie >
wrote:

>Carol -
>
>You might want to invest in a pair of these for the icy days:
>
>http://www.cabelas.com/hprod-1/0003364.shtml
>
>I have a pair of these (the middle ones), and use them on a dedicated
>pair of mocs like the ones shown in the middle.
>
>I have a retarded Terrier mix that at seven years old, still has the
>brain of a puppy, and can't be trusted to walk on our property (10
>acres) when time to go outside without taking off in a straight line for
>the road, and he runs like a gray hound. So, I'm forced to walk him on a
> leash twice a day rain or shine. On the days where there is ice on the
>ground surface, or we've had an "ice rain", I wear these.
>
>I know they work as I've busted my butt a number of times prior to
>buying them.

Thank you VERY much, Bob! And they're cheap, too! Much appreciated!

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

Paul M. Cook wrote:

> Since when is speeding a non moving violation without points or reporting to
> insurance? It's a setup. You got screwed. Happened to me too. Just pay
> the fine and forget about it. That's how a great many municipalities are
> bringing in extra cash. I got popped for doing 45 in a 25 - 150 feet from a
> stop sign which I stopped for. They moved the speed limit sign a hundred
> yards down the road.
>
> Paul

There is a cop in Arkadelphia, AR and we were stopped for speeding. We
had two choices; pay an $80 traffic ticket or a citation for $150. If
we paid the ticket, it would be reported to the state (and to the
insurance company). If we paid the citation, nobody would know. We paid
the citation.

We go to a friend's BBQ in Hot Springs every year, and this cop is
always there in the same spot. The speed limit drops from 70 to 55 and
we were too busy gabbing to notice. It was our fault 100%. Safety
first, they say.

Becca

blake murphy wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:23:04 GMT, James Silverton wrote:
>
>> MG wrote on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:51:43 GMT:
>>
>>
>>> no...if you don't speed, you don't get caught...easy
>> How bloody profound! Many speed limits are assigned on a basis of the
>> squeaky wheel !
>
> my sympathies are with the residents in many cases. if you live on an
> 'alternate' rush hour route, people can come zipping through pretty damn
> fast. the proliferation of speed bumps is annoying, though.


I live on a country road that is rarely very busy, but there are a lot
of cars that are travelling way past what is a reasonably safe rate of
speed for the conditions. There lightly rolling hills, no shoulders,
blind intersections and driveways, farm tractors and equipment,
cyclists, walkers and wildlife. When we first moved here the speed
limit was 70 kph, and there was a horrible accident rate. There were
five crashes in front of our house or within a few hundred feet of our
property withing the first two years we lived here. I never saw any
speed enforcement. The town dropped the speed limit down to 60 kph. It
didn't slow people down, and there was still no enforcement. Then the
they dropped the limit to 50 kph. I still don't see any speed
enforcement, but most people have slowed down. There are not as many
accidents, and it is a lot quieter, since slower moving cars don;t make
as much noise.

The town has put in more stop signs at the intersections, which are a
mile apart. That seems to have helped. They tended to open up a little
more when it was a long, uninterrupted stretch. The town also installed
streetlights, and for some reason that seemed to help slow people down too.

Becca wrote:

> There is a cop in Arkadelphia, AR and we were stopped for speeding. We
> had two choices; pay an $80 traffic ticket or a citation for $150. If
> we paid the ticket, it would be reported to the state (and to the
> insurance company). If we paid the citation, nobody would know. We paid
> the citation.
>
> We go to a friend's BBQ in Hot Springs every year, and this cop is
> always there in the same spot. The speed limit drops from 70 to 55 and
> we were too busy gabbing to notice. It was our fault 100%. Safety
> first, they say.


FWIW, around here, when I was working in commercial vehicle enforcement,
we got none of the fine revenues we generated. We could not even use
them to justify our programs. One of the problems we had was that too
many trucking operations considered fines to be a cost of doing business.

The single biggest problem we had was brake adjustment, which is easy
enough to detect and easy to fix. When I first started, we used to just
put trucks out of service and the drivers had to adjust them before
preceding, or have road service come out and do it for them. That would
tie them up for a while. When the out of service rate stayed high our
management pushed us to lay charges, which involved a $90 fine. Fact was
that the regulations for adjustment really weren't adequate, so they
wrote a new regulation to spell out adjustment limits and the fine was
$180. The OOS rate did not drop. After a year they boosted the fine,
and with the victim funs surcharge it was almost $500. Within a few
months the OOS rate plummeted.

There are a lot of people who complain that fines are just revenue
generators, but from what I have seen, people are willing to pay fines
if they aren't too expensive. When the fines become really expensive,
people start to pay attention and comply.


BTW.... we also had a problem with insurance. For years, the maximum
fine for driving without insurance was only $500. For most people, it
was cheaper to pay the fine than to pay for insurance. I knew of one
case where a guy had three convictions within 6 months and got reduced
fines for each of them, totalling only $450. Then they boosted the
minimum to $5,000 for a first offence, and $10,000 for a second offence,
and those were minimums. They could go a lot higher. It is no longer
cheaper to pay the fine that to buy insurance.

Then there is our new speed laws. If you get caught driving more than 50
kph (30 mph) over the limit, the fine is $2,000. Your driver licence is
automatically suspended and your vehicle is impounded. Thousand of
people were caught within the first few months, but they eventually
clued in. I don't see too many people speeding like that any more.

On Jan 7, 6:10�am, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> >>> No kidding. �Last month I got a *parking* ticket that was $45..
> >>> And that wasn't for illegal handicapped parking or antying like
> >>> that -- I just ran my meter out.
>
> Buy a watch and pay attention to the meter time.

I guess that would work if I had a watch with an alarm (I don't) and I
felt like taking the time to set it. I usually put in enough coins to
buy more time than I think I'll need, I don't use metered parking
nearly often enough that I care if I drop in an extra quarter for time
I don't use, for me that's more convenient than constantly having to
remember to check my watch, and certainly cheaper than a fine. The
last ime I used metered parking was like two years ago when I had to
use the DMV parking lot for my driver's license renewal.

A few towns near here that have metered parking in municipal parking
lots now have meters where you can also swipe a credit/debit card.

> If you were in a handicapped spot chances are it would have been $200+

Handicapped parking is always a problem because in NY it's illegal to
drive with that blue tag hanging from the rear view mirror (I know
lot's of people drive with the tag hanging but it's still illegal and
there is a fine). As soon as someone pulls into a handicapped spot
there is invaribly some self-proclaimed parking kop right there who
will shake their fist at you before you can get your tag up. People
should really mind their own business regarding handicapped parking
and simply be thankful they're not handicapped... most handicaps are
not visible... those who make policing handicapped parking their
business are those with the worst handicap... a brain is a terrible
thing to waste.

Bob Muncie wrote:

> You might want to invest in a pair of these for the icy days:
>
> http://www.cabelas.com/hprod-1/0003364.shtml
>
> I have a pair of these (the middle ones), and use them on a dedicated
> pair of mocs like the ones shown in the middle.

My mom would LOVE a pair of those! She gauges several wells and it has
to be done every day. She also lives on the "back forty" and when it
gets icy, it's bad.

I meant to ask you about the sizing -- is it a "general" size or sized
for men? They are only selling the small ones on the website -- which
would be perfect for my mom with her dainty feet -- but if I were to buy
extra for my daughters, etc., I'm not sure if the sizes would work. They
got their momma's feet! ;-)

Poor man's version of the same thing is to use ankle or calf high
hosiery over your shoes. Cutting the feet out of ruined panty hose and
putting those over shoes works quite well if you don't have the
ankle-highs on hand. I used to keep a couple pair of the cheapie ankle
high in my glove box for the days it iced up and I had to get from Point
A to Point B without falling on my arse. They are just a little awkward
to slip on over sneakers though.

--Lin

Dave wrote on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:05:47 -0500:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:23:04 GMT, James Silverton wrote:
>>
>>> MG wrote on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:51:43 GMT:
>>>
>>>> no...if you don't speed, you don't get caught...easy
>>> How bloody profound! Many speed limits are assigned on a
>>> basis of the squeaky wheel !
>>
>> my sympathies are with the residents in many cases. if you
>> live on an 'alternate' rush hour route, people can come
>> zipping through pretty damn fast. the proliferation of speed
>> bumps is annoying, though.

> I live on a country road that is rarely very busy, but there
> are a lot of cars that are travelling way past what is a
> reasonably safe rate of speed for the conditions. There
> lightly rolling hills, no shoulders, blind intersections and
> driveways, farm tractors and equipment, cyclists, walkers and
> wildlife. When we first moved here the speed limit was 70
> kph, and there was a horrible accident rate. There were five
> crashes in front of our house or within a few hundred feet of our
> property withing the first two years we lived here. I
> never saw any speed enforcement. The town dropped the speed
> limit down to 60 kph. It didn't slow people down, and there
> was still no enforcement. Then the they dropped the limit to
> 50 kph. I still don't see any speed enforcement, but most
> people have slowed down. There are not as many accidents, and
> it is a lot quieter, since slower moving cars don;t make as
> much noise.

I wonder if more speed limit signs would help? People (like me) tend to
forget the actual limit and choose what seems a reasonable speed if not
reminded. Once every 100 yards or meters might be reasonable. Honestly,
I'm moderately law abiding and stop before right-on-red and stop signs.

I wonder if it is still the case in Britain but there once were not as
many different limits and a 30mph area was indicated by a red reflecting
circle on lamp posts.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

James Silverton wrote:
> Dave wrote on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:05:47 -0500:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:23:04 GMT, James Silverton wrote:
>>>
>>>> MG wrote on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:51:43 GMT:
>>>>
>>>>> no...if you don't speed, you don't get caught...easy
>>>> How bloody profound! Many speed limits are assigned on a
>>>> basis of the squeaky wheel !
>>>
>>> my sympathies are with the residents in many cases. if you
>>> live on an 'alternate' rush hour route, people can come
>>> zipping through pretty damn fast. the proliferation of speed
>>> bumps is annoying, though.
>
>> I live on a country road that is rarely very busy, but there
>> are a lot of cars that are travelling way past what is a
>> reasonably safe rate of speed for the conditions. There
>> lightly rolling hills, no shoulders, blind intersections and
>> driveways, farm tractors and equipment, cyclists, walkers and
>> wildlife. When we first moved here the speed limit was 70
>> kph, and there was a horrible accident rate. There were five
>> crashes in front of our house or within a few hundred feet of our
>> property withing the first two years we lived here. I
>> never saw any speed enforcement. The town dropped the speed
>> limit down to 60 kph. It didn't slow people down, and there
>> was still no enforcement. Then the they dropped the limit to
>> 50 kph. I still don't see any speed enforcement, but most
>> people have slowed down. There are not as many accidents, and
>> it is a lot quieter, since slower moving cars don;t make as
>> much noise.
>
> I wonder if more speed limit signs would help? People (like me) tend to
> forget the actual limit and choose what seems a reasonable speed if not
> reminded. Once every 100 yards or meters might be reasonable. Honestly,
> I'm moderately law abiding and stop before right-on-red and stop signs.
>
> I wonder if it is still the case in Britain but there once were not as
> many different limits and a 30mph area was indicated by a red reflecting
> circle on lamp posts.
>
That makes (or made?) too much sense. I, too, would benefit from
periodic reminders. And I think it's not playing fair to fiddle
with the speed limit or light timing and them immediately start
fining people. There should at the very least be a introductory
period, for people to become acclimated or be warned. But I see
this is a money-making proposition.

--
Jean B.

Lin wrote:
> Bob Muncie wrote:
>
>> You might want to invest in a pair of these for the icy days:
>>
>> http://www.cabelas.com/hprod-1/0003364.shtml
>>
>> I have a pair of these (the middle ones), and use them on a dedicated
>> pair of mocs like the ones shown in the middle.
>
> My mom would LOVE a pair of those! She gauges several wells and it has
> to be done every day. She also lives on the "back forty" and when it
> gets icy, it's bad.
>
> I meant to ask you about the sizing -- is it a "general" size or sized
> for men? They are only selling the small ones on the website -- which
> would be perfect for my mom with her dainty feet -- but if I were to buy
> extra for my daughters, etc., I'm not sure if the sizes would work. They
> got their momma's feet! ;-)
>
> Poor man's version of the same thing is to use ankle or calf high
> hosiery over your shoes. Cutting the feet out of ruined panty hose and
> putting those over shoes works quite well if you don't have the
> ankle-highs on hand. I used to keep a couple pair of the cheapie ankle
> high in my glove box for the days it iced up and I had to get from Point
> A to Point B without falling on my arse. They are just a little awkward
> to slip on over sneakers though.
>
> --Lin

Lin -

I'll provide a different link that has a paragraph on sizing. In my
case, I got the large/extra large. I wear size 11 shoes, but because I
wear heavy socks in the winter, I have size 12 mocs. The large/ extra
large fits my mocs okay.

BTW, the bottom of the mocs shown on this link is exactly what my pair
look like on the mocs. I also chose to put them on the mocs, as you
wouldn't need them on boots. If the snow is deep enough that you need
boots, then you don't need spikes.

http://www.eders.com/products/sure-f...on-spikes.html

Bob

Sheldon wrote:

> A few towns near here that have metered parking in municipal parking
> lots now have meters where you can also swipe a credit/debit card.

I hate the new machines where you put put money into a central meter and
get a ticket to stick on in the front window of your car. If you find
that you are going to be longer than expected you have to go back and
put in enough money to validate it until that new time, and you get no
credit for the time you have left on the old one. In one city near year,
there are a number of municipal lots scattered around town. They all
charge the same rates, but they are valid only for the lot where you got
it. There is no reason I can think of that, should you have business
elsewhere, and time remaining on your ticket, that you should not be
able to use it in another municipal lot.


I once caught a parking enforcement guy about to stick a parking ticket
on my car. There was still two minutes left on the meter. That prick
was going to give me a ticket before the meter ran out. I confronted
him about it and he whined that it was almost out. There is a difference
between being expired and almost expired.

It ****ed me off that various levels of government are expected to
provide funding to the city to try to attract people downtown when the
city is aggressively enforcing meter violations. That just ****es people
off and they end up going to the malls instead. If you want to attract
people to downtown areas to attract business you can't turn around and
penalize them over piddly amounts for parking. One of the smaller local
cities smartened up and revitalized downtown by tearing out the parking
meters.


As for handicapped parking, it should only be valid for those drivers
who have a mobility problem. If there is an able bodied person they
should drop the disabled person off at the door and then park out in the
lot with everyone else. Use of a disabled parking permit by someone
other than the named permit holder should result in confiscation of the
permit.

James Silverton wrote:

>
> Parking meters were oriiginally introduced so that people would not
> leave their cars when they did not need to. In other words, to
> facilitate commerce. Such is no longer the case since municipalities
> short sightedly often regard them as cash cows.
>
> I would advise some caution and charity in suspecting people of
> mis-using handicapped permits and spaces since some perfectly healthy
> looking people cannot walk long distances.

True enough, but you have to wonder sometimes. For instance, my local
YMCA gym has 10 handicapped parking spaces, and there are usually at
least a half dozen cars parked in them. It seems odd that someone can go
into the gym and do their workout and then walk back to the car. I don't
see often see anyone in wheelchair, with canes or walkers. If they can
go in and work out I really have to wonder why they need preferred
parking. Hell, I see these people in the gym getting their exercise.

Sheldon wrote:

> Handicapped parking is always a problem because in NY it's illegal to
> drive with that blue tag hanging from the rear view mirror (I know
> lot's of people drive with the tag hanging but it's still illegal and
> there is a fine). As soon as someone pulls into a handicapped spot
> there is invaribly some self-proclaimed parking kop right there who
> will shake their fist at you before you can get your tag up. People
> should really mind their own business regarding handicapped parking
> and simply be thankful they're not handicapped... most handicaps are
> not visible... those who make policing handicapped parking their
> business are those with the worst handicap... a brain is a terrible
> thing to waste.

An acquaintance in her 30's had a heart transplant, because a virus
attacked her heart. She was discharged from the hospital and they gave
her a temporary handicapped tag. She parked in the handicapped parking
to pick up her prescriptions and people wondered why she was parking
there. She felt the urge to show them her scar.

Becca

"James Silverton" > wrote in news:SN59l.4600
:


> I wonder if more speed limit signs would help? People (like me) tend to
> forget the actual limit and choose what seems a reasonable speed if not
> reminded. Once every 100 yards or meters might be reasonable. Honestly,
> I'm moderately law abiding and stop before right-on-red and stop signs.
>


I received this link in an email this morning....... I immediately thought
of this thread.


http://www.whatdavoloves.com/



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke.

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:50:43 -0600, Damsel in dis Dress
> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 06:47:37 -0500, Bob Muncie >
>wrote:
>
>>Carol -
>>
>>You might want to invest in a pair of these for the icy days:
>>
>>http://www.cabelas.com/hprod-1/0003364.shtml

>>I know they work as I've busted my butt a number of times prior to
>>buying them.
>
>Thank you VERY much, Bob! And they're cheap, too! Much appreciated!
>
>Carol

I have a pair of those, as well as a pair of these:
http://www.yaktrax.com/ProductsWalker.aspx

I too, am terrified of snow and ice. I have bilateral hip
replacements, and I am sure to use these when there is any snow and
ice on the ground.

Christine
--
http://nightstirrings.blogspot.com

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article > ,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> If they can go in and work out I really have to wonder why they need
>> preferred parking. Hell, I see these people in the gym getting their
>> exercise.
>
> It could be that they're not doing cardio at the gym, and doing only
> weight training, or maybe they're soaking in the pool or the hot tub.
>

I might believe that, but it's a small gym and I see what they are up
to. AFAIAC, if they can do those exercises and workouts, they don't need
reserved parking space at the front.