On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:05:07 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


>
> That sounds like outright corruption.


Doesn't it? There are also legal issues that have yet to be resolved,
primarily, being automatically found guilty and fined without being allowed
to face your accuser and defend yourself. Amazing how $$$ seems to be able
to sidestep our constitutional rights.

nb

In article >,
says...
>
> "notbob" > wrote in message
> >
> > 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.
>
> That sounds like outright corruption. No way should a private enterprise be
> allowed to profit from law enforcement. Those fines are a bit steep too. CT
> is $60, RI is $30, but NYC can really hit you hard for multiple violations
> $1000 for the third in 18 months
> http://www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/olr/htm/2000-r-0792.htm
>
>
>

RI will probably double to $60 or bump up to $100 soon enough.

In article 7>,
says...
> On Wed 07 Jan 2009 07:59:29p, T told us...
>
> > In article 7>,
> > says...
> >> On Wed 07 Jan 2009 06:01:11p, T told us...
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > lid says...
> >> >> 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.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Street sweeping in my area is done at night. As it currently exists
> >> > there's an ordinance that says any car parked on the street in a
> >> > residential neighborhood after 1AM is considered overtime parking and
> >> > will be ticketed.
> >> >
> >> > There's a big move to implement resident permit parking. This makes
> >> > sense since much of Providence was built between sometime in the late
> >> > 1700's to the early 1900's. They didn't have cars so no driveways.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Where did they put the carriages and how did they geet to them?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > They had carriage houses of course, and many of those are now
> > apartments.
> >
> > The east side of the city is quite spectacular. All homes built in the
> > 17th century.
> >
> > I neglected to mention those.
> >
> > Here's a nice little cottage:
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/1261963...29282/sizes/o/
> >
> > First Baptist church, because it was the first.
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/1261963...izes/o/in/set-
> > 72157601839897613/
> >
> > If I had the money I'd buy this in a heartbeat.
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/italian...40528/sizes/o/
> >
> > I love Providence, if only the ****ing politicians could pull their
> > heads out of their asses.
> >
> >
>
> All really beautiful, Tony! I'd love living in a place like that. Thanks
> for the pix!
>
>

It is a really stunning city. Part of it is because of the old guard who
resisted urban renewal. I shudder to think what would have become of the
city had the renewalists gotten their way.

That's right, it'd look like Hartford, CT.

Right now though the downtown area is starting to look more like Boston.
I'm a little distressed by that.

In article 7>,
says...
> On Wed 07 Jan 2009 09:14:53p, Gloria P told us...
>
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I realize that it is difficult for we lay people to know who does and
> >> who doesn't need a handicapped parking permit, but I am sure that we all
> >> know of lots of cases where they are abused.
> >
> >
> >
> > I worked with someone who applied for and received a handicap permit
> > because she "often drove her elderly mother on errands." She would
> > visit her mother about once a month. She continued to use the permit
> > for many years after her mother died.
> >
> > OTOH, I know someone with a prosthetic leg who has a permit because it
> > is painful for her to walk even though her prosthesis is not obvious.
> > When she was challenged by an onlooker a few years ago, she replied "Do
> > I have to hit you with my wooden leg to prove something?"
> >
> > Ya never know....
> >
> > gloria p
> >
>
> People can be very strange. When I injured my back last year I was barely
> able to walk *with a walker*, and had a temporary handicap tag. I stopped
> at a strip of 4-5 stores and parked in a handicapped space. Just as I was
> getting out of the car, a woman pulled into the handcapped space next to
> me. Her car had a handicapped license plate. She watched me getting out
> of the car and retrieving the walker from the back seat. She yelled to me,
> "You don't look like you should be parking here!" She looked able enough,
> and I replied that she didn't look as though she had a handicap. She was
> stupid enough to admit that the license plate was for her husband not her
> (her husband was not present). Some people are just nuts.
>
>

My favorite is commercial plates. With those you can pretty much park
ANYWHERE and they won't tag you.

So when I get the vehicle for the business it will have commercial
plates on it.

In article >,
says...
> T wrote:
>
> >
> > I love Providence, if only the ****ing politicians could pull their
> > heads out of their asses.
> >
>
>
>
> I heard ex-Mayor Buddy Cianci is out of jail. Is he gonna run for the
> US Senate? R.I. voters seem to have a soft spot for convicted felons,
> don't they?
>
> ;-)
> gloria p
>

He just might run for mayor again. Our current mayor, David Cicilline is
a lump. You hardly hear anything from him.

As far as senate, I doubt it. Buddy loves the local stage far too much.

The reason I say he might be able to run is once the probation is up,
he's a free citizen again. If he can vote he should be able to run.

In article >,
says...
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > Isn't the US the land where people have had their property seized
> > because someone was growing pot on it? They get their cars back.
>
> The original idea was to take away the riches that drug lords
> (for lack of a better term) made by importing and distributing
> drugs.
>
> It trickled down so that the police can confiscate your car if
> you are caught driving with enough drugs to distribute. I don't
> know how often this is used, relative to how many times it
> could be. It would be crazy to lose a house for having a pot
> plant in the yard, but I wouldn't say it hasn't happened.
>
> nancy
>

And of course we have a Surgeon General nomination who is adamantly
opposed to legalizing the stuff.

In article > ,
says...
> ChattyCathy wrote:
> >
> > BTW, all the traffic lights I've seen here have those 'Walk/Don't walk'
> > signs on them for pedestrians. Pity a lot of pedestrians think they're
> > just there 'for show' because they take absolutely no notice of them.
> > I've lost count the number of times I've had to slam on my brakes
> > because a pedestrian was jaywalking (or 'jayrunning') - they suddenly
> > run across the road right in front of me... Even seen them do it on the
> > major highways where no pedestrians are supposed to be allowed in the
> > first place - and they wonder why they get maimed and/or killed. Sigh.
>
> We have a bigger problem with bicyclists. They seem not to realize that
> stop signs and stop lights apply to them too, and the cycling clubs
> often come out in groups of 10-12 and ride and 3 abreast. They refuse to
> move over for cars, and when they come to an intersection the whole herd
> goes through.
>

Good for them. The roadway belongs to them too.

T wrote:
>
>> We have a bigger problem with bicyclists. They seem not to realize that
>> stop signs and stop lights apply to them too, and the cycling clubs
>> often come out in groups of 10-12 and ride and 3 abreast. They refuse to
>> move over for cars, and when they come to an intersection the whole herd
>> goes through.
>>
>
> Good for them. The roadway belongs to them too.


Of course they are entitled to use the road, but the rules of the road
apply to them as much as they do to the car drivers. Slower moving
traffic is supposed to keep to the right of the road and to allow faster
vehicles to pass. When they ride side by side at substantially less than
the speed limit they are obstructing traffic. They should at least be
smart enough to realize that, should they tangle with a car, the car
will win.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
m...
>T wrote:
>>
>>> We have a bigger problem with bicyclists. They seem not to realize that
>>> stop signs and stop lights apply to them too, and the cycling clubs
>>> often come out in groups of 10-12 and ride and 3 abreast. They refuse to
>>> move over for cars, and when they come to an intersection the whole herd
>>> goes through.
>>>
>>
>> Good for them. The roadway belongs to them too.
>
>
> Of course they are entitled to use the road, but the rules of the road
> apply to them as much as they do to the car drivers. Slower moving
> traffic is supposed to keep to the right of the road and to allow faster
> vehicles to pass. When they ride side by side at substantially less than
> the speed limit they are obstructing traffic. They should at least be
> smart enough to realize that, should they tangle with a car, the car will
> win.

I think all the Welfare people who ride bikes in packs should come to your
house and lick you to death. While wearing earplugs so they can't hear
anything you have to say.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:59:02 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>> 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.
>
> Sorry, but I don't agree. My wife has a handicapped sticker and yes, we
> often use it. Should I drop her off at the door and let her collapse and
> fall while I go park? Do I make her lean against the wall in the rain or
> freezing weather while I go fetch the car? Or do I park and them assist her
> as needed as she is capable of walking that distance with some help but
> could be seriously injured if just pushed out the door and made to wait.
>
> Dave, I always thought you were intelligent, but you sure fumbled this with
> your incorrect perceptions.
>
> As for the confiscation, yes, if someone borrows granny's car to use the
> sticker. Different situation entirely.

not to mention ****ing around with a wheelchair or walker when you 'drop
somebody off.'

i will agree, though, that people who have a sticker for a frequent
passenger and then abuse it are scumbags.

your pal,
blake

T wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> > > Isn't the US the land where people have had their property seized
> > > because someone was growing pot on it? They get their cars back.
> >
> > The original idea was to take away the riches that drug lords
> > (for lack of a better term) made by importing and distributing
> > drugs.
> >
> > It trickled down so that the police can confiscate your car if
> > you are caught driving with enough drugs to distribute. I don't
> > know how often this is used, relative to how many times it
> > could be. It would be crazy to lose a house for having a pot
> > plant in the yard, but I wouldn't say it hasn't happened.
> >
> > nancy
> >
>
> And of course we have a Surgeon General nomination who is adamantly
> opposed to legalizing the stuff.


Yabbut but he's nice looking and has a pleasant manner and is a teevee
celebrity of a sort...

;-)


--
Best
Greg

In article >, cathy1234
@mailinator.com says...
> 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>
>

Sometimes logic does prevail.