The hyprocrisy of Speed kills believers shows itself AGAIN.

On Mar 12, 1:01 pm, "N8N" > wrote: <brevity snip>
> On Mar 12, 10:50 am, "gpsman" > wrote:
> > How 'bout the one that suggested that if you crash it might be the
> > fault of a device on a pole?
>
> That wasn't covered; however, the concept of the "delimma zone" and
> proper go/no go decision making definitely was. And of course you are
> twisting my words yet again - I never said that a RLC would cause *me*
> to crash, I stated that it might *cause someone to crash into me.*
> Which is documented many times and links to various studies and
> reports have been posted quite recently.

No it hasn't, and it never will be. When crashes occur in the
presence of a camera they are no more attributable to the camera than
they are to the pole upon which it is mounted.

If a camera is to be found responsible for crashes it must cause every
vehicle in the vicinity to crash for it has no method of determining
which vehicle to cause to crash and which to allow to pass unmolested.

> > Can you at least recall the educational institution that qualified you
> > to test for and acquire something other than a Class D license that's
> > issued to practically any and every idiot?
>
> I've never had anything but a regular license. I have no need to
> drive a truck large enough to require a CDL, so why should I apply for
> one?

Is English your second language? "Qualified you to test for and
acquire" doesn't suggest that you have necessarily tested -or-
acquired.

But to answer your question, you shouldn't. If you think people drive
dangerously around you now you won't believe the **** they pull around
a vehicle that requires a CDL to operate, and with your attitude you
wouldn't make it 50 miles.
-----

- gpsman

On Mar 12, 12:31 pm, "gpsman" > wrote:
> On Mar 12, 1:01 pm, "N8N" > wrote: <brevity snip>
>
> > On Mar 12, 10:50 am, "gpsman" > wrote:
> > > How 'bout the one that suggested that if you crash it might be the
> > > fault of a device on a pole?
>
> > That wasn't covered; however, the concept of the "delimma zone" and
> > proper go/no go decision making definitely was. And of course you are
> > twisting my words yet again - I never said that a RLC would cause *me*
> > to crash, I stated that it might *cause someone to crash into me.*
> > Which is documented many times and links to various studies and
> > reports have been posted quite recently.
>
> No it hasn't, and it never will be. When crashes occur in the
> presence of a camera they are no more attributable to the camera than
> they are to the pole upon which it is mounted.

I agree that correlation does not imply causation, but the correlation
is pretty damned strong.

Do you have an alternate explanation for why rear-enders might
increase at an intersection with RLCs?

>
> If a camera is to be found responsible for crashes it must cause every
> vehicle in the vicinity to crash for it has no method of determining
> which vehicle to cause to crash and which to allow to pass unmolested.

Now you're just being stupid. Of course it will not cause everyone to
crash. When it will cause a crash is when you have a driver
approaching the intersection and the light turns yellow while the
driver is past the beginning of the delimma zone, and there is another
vehicle close behind. If the lead driver panic-stops, there is a real
possibility that the following driver may be expecting the lead driver
to continue on through and his reaction time will thus be slower.
Ergo, boom.

>
> > > Can you at least recall the educational institution that qualified you
> > > to test for and acquire something other than a Class D license that's
> > > issued to practically any and every idiot?
>
> > I've never had anything but a regular license. I have no need to
> > drive a truck large enough to require a CDL, so why should I apply for
> > one?
>
> Is English your second language? "Qualified you to test for and
> acquire" doesn't suggest that you have necessarily tested -or-
> acquired.

So your question didn't make any sense, then. If I have a regular
driver's license, then I'm qualified to test for a CDL.

>
> But to answer your question, you shouldn't. If you think people drive
> dangerously around you now you won't believe the **** they pull around
> a vehicle that requires a CDL to operate, and with your attitude you
> wouldn't make it 50 miles.

My attitude being what? That I am interested in safety and playing
nice with others? I don't understand your point.

nate

On Mar 12, 1:40 pm, "N8N" > wrote:
> On Mar 12, 12:31 pm, "gpsman" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 1:01 pm, "N8N" > wrote: <brevity snip>
>
> > > On Mar 12, 10:50 am, "gpsman" > wrote:
> > > > How 'bout the one that suggested that if you crash it might be the
> > > > fault of a device on a pole?
>
> > > That wasn't covered; however, the concept of the "delimma zone" and
> > > proper go/no go decision making definitely was. And of course you are
> > > twisting my words yet again - I never said that a RLC would cause *me*
> > > to crash, I stated that it might *cause someone to crash into me.*
> > > Which is documented many times and links to various studies and
> > > reports have been posted quite recently.
>
> > No it hasn't, and it never will be. When crashes occur in the
> > presence of a camera they are no more attributable to the camera than
> > they are to the pole upon which it is mounted.
>
> I agree that correlation does not imply causation, but the correlation
> is pretty damned strong.
>
> Do you have an alternate explanation for why rear-enders might
> increase at an intersection with RLCs?

Duh. Because most drivers devote the bare minimum of their attention
to driving?

That's one of the first concepts you'll learn in an advanced driving
course... ... ...

> > If a camera is to be found responsible for crashes it must cause every
> > vehicle in the vicinity to crash for it has no method of determining
> > which vehicle to cause to crash and which to allow to pass unmolested.
>
> Now you're just being stupid. Of course it will not cause everyone to
> crash.

Then it doesn't cause -anyone- to crash.

> When it will cause a crash is when you have a driver
> approaching the intersection and the light turns yellow while the
> driver is past the beginning of the delimma zone, and there is another
> vehicle close behind. If the lead driver panic-stops, there is a real
> possibility that the following driver may be expecting the lead driver
> to continue on through and his reaction time will thus be slower.
> Ergo, boom.

Ergo, my ass. You don't need a camera for that to happen, and that
crash would not be attributable to anything other than inadequate
following distance for velocity and a false expectation, and those
crashes occur often where no camera exists, and have since long before
the concept of RLCs came into being.

> > > > Can you at least recall the educational institution that qualified you
> > > > to test for and acquire something other than a Class D license that's
> > > > issued to practically any and every idiot?
>
> > > I've never had anything but a regular license. I have no need to
> > > drive a truck large enough to require a CDL, so why should I apply for
> > > one?
>
> > Is English your second language? "Qualified you to test for and
> > acquire" doesn't suggest that you have necessarily tested -or-
> > acquired.
>
> So your question didn't make any sense, then. If I have a regular
> driver's license, then I'm qualified to test for a CDL.

Uh, no, you're not, but I can understand your confusion. You can
start here if you wish:
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registratio...ng/cdl/cdl.htm
and proceed to search for the "Other Requirements".

> > But to answer your question, you shouldn't. If you think people drive
> > dangerously around you now you won't believe the **** they pull around
> > a vehicle that requires a CDL to operate, and with your attitude you
> > wouldn't make it 50 miles.
>
> My attitude being what? That I am interested in safety and playing
> nice with others? I don't understand your point.

I believe you.

My point is, you don't know how to drive, period, and aren't all that
interested in driving safely. Your idiotic refusal to "inconvenience"
the drivers to your rear to allow a vehicle to merge to your front is
a single case in point. You don't give a **** about inconveniencing
them, you find it an inconvenience to yourself.

That's one of the stupidest driving concepts and excuses I've ever
heard, except perhaps Brent's concept and practice of tailgating to
prevent tailgating, or Scott's idea that not crashing is an
extraordinary accomplishment of which to be very, very proud.
-----

- gpsman

On Mar 13, 6:31 am, "gpsman" > wrote:
> No it hasn't, and it never will be. When crashes occur in the
> presence of a camera they are no more attributable to the camera than
> they are to the pole upon which it is mounted.

How many poles have you mounted today?

> If a camera is to be found responsible for crashes it must cause every
> vehicle in the vicinity to crash for it has no method of determining
> which vehicle to cause to crash and which to allow to pass unmolested.

Another pearl from the gpsman clam of wisdom. No doubt you would
also say that a bank robber is not responsible for the robbery because
he did not rob every bank in the vicinity.

> But to answer your question, you shouldn't. If you think people drive
> dangerously around you now you won't believe the **** they pull around
> a vehicle that requires a CDL to operate, and with your attitude you
> wouldn't make it 50 miles.

Ooh, big bad truckie has to exert his macho on all the poor car
drivers around him. Ph34r!!!!111TWELVE