Wrong Way MFFY!

JohnH wrote:
> >> The "nonsense" is "85th percentile". From who's ass shat the number
> >> 85?
> >
> > YOURS. Read up on it. It includes YOU. -Dave
>
> Not me; I use the number 77.3. Yep, it's 77.3th percentile for me. It's
> just as arbitrary, but sounds more precise.

The goal should be 99% and we could achieve that if we had stiff
penalties for speeding. But the criminal coddlers here at RSG don't
want that.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> JohnH wrote:
> > >> The "nonsense" is "85th percentile". From who's ass shat the number
> > >> 85?
> > >
> > > YOURS. Read up on it. It includes YOU. -Dave
> >
> > Not me; I use the number 77.3. Yep, it's 77.3th percentile for me. It's
> > just as arbitrary, but sounds more precise.
>
> The goal should be 99% and we could achieve that if we had stiff
> penalties for speeding. But the criminal coddlers here at RSG don't
> want that.

You retard; 99% would be *faster*, not *slower*.

When did you drop out of elementary school?

You are one stupid puppy.

Dave wrote:
> Responding so nobody uses the false points in arguing back.
>
> gpsman wrote:
> > The picture shows the 100th percentile on that block at that moment was
> > driving in the same direction. By the common standard of r.a.d. the
> > violation of law is excused by the majority of drivers willing to do
> > so. He looks like a majority to me.
>
> The picture shows about 1/8 of the length of the block. From the
> sidewalk where I was, with the limited time available before he drove
> away, I wanted to get a clear picture of the dumbass causing the
> situation.

Causing what situation?

While it appears he's clearly in violation of the law my point is that
he represents the 100th percentile of traffic *that I can see*. Using
the warped standard of r.a.d.: If the 85th percentile is in favor of
violating speed limits and that being in the majority makes it ok...
they must also condone driving the wrong way on one-way streets using
the same stupid and restrictive criteria.

> Taking pictures of the innocent bystanders was uncalled for,
> espescially since my intent with the camera is to make a MFFY realize
> some of their dumbassery has been captured for all to see.

The courts have ruled that if you're "in public view" you have no
expectation of privacy.

> In addition, the picture was slightly cropped to allow for a larger
> frame when shrunken. Hosting sites won't take the 4 megapixel
> original, way too big.

Well, that's kinda lame. Ya take a big pic and reduce the overall size
to fit the hosting site's criteria. I don't fire up PS for a job like
that, I use MS Paint. Cropping implies editing, for whatever purpose.
But it doesn't appear you intended to alter the view of the overall
situation.

>
> As can be seen the parked cars on the block made it clear the direction
> of traffic flow. In addition, if the dumbass MFFY had bothered to look
> at a map prior to driving, he'd have noticed it's a one-way street.

While that sounds reasonable at face value, I rarely check for one-way
streets because all GIS programs are notoriously inaccuate in their
inclusion of that data. And let's be realistic, the picture shows
nothing more than an error in judgment or, for all we know, poor
signage further down the block. It doesn't appear to me the driver has
endangered anyone.

So it may or may not be a picture of MFFY behavior. Maybe the guy
doesn't read English, maybe he just made a mistake. Who hasn't done
that?
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > Responding so nobody uses the false points in arguing back.
> >
> > gpsman wrote:

<snipped cause gpsman refuses to understand what 85th Percentile means,
and continually posts about something he doesn't understand>

> > Taking pictures of the innocent bystanders was uncalled for,
> > espescially since my intent with the camera is to make a MFFY realize
> > some of their dumbassery has been captured for all to see.
>
> The courts have ruled that if you're "in public view" you have no
> expectation of privacy.

Good for the courts, I had no reason to photograph them after the fact.

> > In addition, the picture was slightly cropped to allow for a larger
> > frame when shrunken. Hosting sites won't take the 4 megapixel
> > original, way too big.
>
> Well, that's kinda lame. Ya take a big pic and reduce the overall size
> to fit the hosting site's criteria. I don't fire up PS for a job like
> that, I use MS Paint. Cropping implies editing, for whatever purpose.
> But it doesn't appear you intended to alter the view of the overall
> situation.

Lame? That I wanted to make sure people could see the one-way sign in
the background? Whatever.

> > As can be seen the parked cars on the block made it clear the direction
> > of traffic flow. In addition, if the dumbass MFFY had bothered to look
> > at a map prior to driving, he'd have noticed it's a one-way street.
>
> While that sounds reasonable at face value, I rarely check for one-way
> streets because all GIS programs are notoriously inaccuate in their
> inclusion of that data. And let's be realistic, the picture shows
> nothing more than an error in judgment or, for all we know, poor
> signage further down the block. It doesn't appear to me the driver has
> endangered anyone.

You're ignoring witness testimony. Since you brought up the courts,
they take a heavy influence in their judgement from witness statements
often.

> So it may or may not be a picture of MFFY behavior. Maybe the guy
> doesn't read English, maybe he just made a mistake. Who hasn't done
> that?

If you don't understand signs like WRONG WAY and ONE WAY, you probably
shouldn't be driving here. If he made a mistake he shouldn't have
flipped off four people.

Now nobody else needs to waste time on these points with a troll.

Dave

In article .com>, Dave wrote:

> If you don't understand signs like WRONG WAY and ONE WAY, you probably
> shouldn't be driving here. If he made a mistake he shouldn't have
> flipped off four people.

Which is the definition of the term. I've made a wrong turn and been on a
one way street going the wrong way a couple times in my life thanks to
badly placed or hidden signage. I think most people who drive in urban
environments have. I corrected it ASAP and didn't get in anyone's way in
the process. And that's the whole point, it's not about driving
perfectly, but rather how one deals with a mistake they've made.

For instance, everyone has gotten into the wrong lane for where they
wanted to go at a traffic light before and been stuck there because of
traffic. Now, people like Scott, Nate, Arif, and myself go the direction
of the lane we are in and find a place to turn around. We suck it up and
lose the time because it's our error. The MFFY driver turns their
steering wheel and jams the nose of their vehicle into the next lane and
forces his way to the lane he wants to be in. The fact that he forces
other drivers to wait for him and lose their green signal doesn't even
enter his mind. He might even flip them off.

Of course those 'just let them do it', "consideration", and infinite
tolerance types think that those 'wrong lane' type drivers aren't doing
anything wrong. That everyone should wait for them and other drivers
should open up a gap for them. Anyone who objects to the selfish
behavior is wrong and inconsiderate.

DYM wrote:
> "JohnH" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>>>> The "nonsense" is "85th percentile". From who's ass shat the
>>>> number 85?
>>>
>>> YOURS. Read up on it. It includes YOU. -Dave
>>
>> Not me; I use the number 77.3. Yep, it's 77.3th percentile for me.
>> It's just as arbitrary, but sounds more precise.
>>
>>
>>
>
> John,
>
> They are referring to MUTCD, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
> Devices. You can read it here.
>
> http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
>
> Specifically, they are talking about their Holy Grail, setting speed
> limits to the 85th Percentile. For this we go to Section 2B.13 Speed
> Limit Sign.
>
> http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/p...tm#section2B13
>
> I'll qute the relevant passage here for you:
>
> Standard:
> After an engineering study has been made inaccordance with established
> traffic engineering practices, the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see Figure
> 2B-1) shall display the limit established by law, ordinance,
> regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency. The speed limits
> shown shall be in multiples of 10 km/h or 5 mph.
>
> Guidance:
> At least once every 5 years, States and local agencies should
> reevaluate non-statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways
> that have undergone a significant change in roadway characteristics
> or surrounding land use since the last review.
>
> No more than three speed limits should be displayed on any one Speed
> Limit sign or assembly.
>
> When a speed limit is to be posted, it should be within 10 km/h or 5
> mph of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic.
>
> Option:
> Other factors that may be considered when establishing speed limits
> are the following:
>
> 1. Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and
> sight distance;
> 2. The pace speed;
> 3. Roadside development and environment;
> 4. Parking practices and pedestrian activity; and
> 5. Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period.
>
> End quoted material.
>
> See, it right there in black and white. The speed limit must be set to
> the 85th Percentile.
>
> Doug

Thank you and the others for the reference, that helped.

However, all this statistic shows is one is more likely to be in an accident
the farther they deviate from an average speed, NOT what the speed limit for
a road should be. As you and I both know people drive at a speed they feel
they can "get away with". " 85th percentile" used to set a speed limit would
only be possibly accurate if the roads initally had no speed limit
whasoever, and let the drivers themselves go at a speed they believe safe.

JohnH wrote:
> DYM wrote:
> > "JohnH" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >>
> >>>> The "nonsense" is "85th percentile". From who's ass shat the
> >>>> number 85?
> >>>
> >>> YOURS. Read up on it. It includes YOU. -Dave
> >>
> >> Not me; I use the number 77.3. Yep, it's 77.3th percentile for me.
> >> It's just as arbitrary, but sounds more precise.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > John,
> >
> > They are referring to MUTCD, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
> > Devices. You can read it here.
> >
> > http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
> >
> > Specifically, they are talking about their Holy Grail, setting speed
> > limits to the 85th Percentile. For this we go to Section 2B.13 Speed
> > Limit Sign.
> >
> > http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/p...tm#section2B13
> >
> > I'll qute the relevant passage here for you:
> >
> > Standard:
> > After an engineering study has been made inaccordance with established
> > traffic engineering practices, the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see Figure
> > 2B-1) shall display the limit established by law, ordinance,
> > regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency. The speed limits
> > shown shall be in multiples of 10 km/h or 5 mph.
> >
> > Guidance:
> > At least once every 5 years, States and local agencies should
> > reevaluate non-statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways
> > that have undergone a significant change in roadway characteristics
> > or surrounding land use since the last review.
> >
> > No more than three speed limits should be displayed on any one Speed
> > Limit sign or assembly.
> >
> > When a speed limit is to be posted, it should be within 10 km/h or 5
> > mph of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic.
> >
> > Option:
> > Other factors that may be considered when establishing speed limits
> > are the following:
> >
> > 1. Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and
> > sight distance;
> > 2. The pace speed;
> > 3. Roadside development and environment;
> > 4. Parking practices and pedestrian activity; and
> > 5. Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period.
> >
> > End quoted material.
> >
> > See, it right there in black and white. The speed limit must be set to
> > the 85th Percentile.
> >
> > Doug
>
> Thank you and the others for the reference, that helped.
>
> However, all this statistic shows is one is more likely to be in an accident
> the farther they deviate from an average speed, NOT what the speed limit for
> a road should be. As you and I both know people drive at a speed they feel
> they can "get away with".

Well... sort of. They tend to drive at the highest speed that they
feel is a) acceptably safe and b) provides a reasonable assurance that
they won't get a ticket. So yes, people do tend to drive as fast as
they can "get away with" on underposted roads, which is perfectly
understandable behavior. However, that doesn't say that people will
tend to drive so fast that they feel that they are putting themselves
at undue risk; that's just silly.

Now we could go off on a tangent and discuss how underposted speed
limits "train" less skilled drivers to automatically tack on xx MPH to
determine what a safe travel speed is rather than relying on their own
judgement or heeding advisory signs, but that's another discussion
entirely...


> " 85th percentile" used to set a speed limit would
> only be possibly accurate if the roads initally had no speed limit
> whasoever, and let the drivers themselves go at a speed they believe safe.

Very true!

nate

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:10:42 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article .com>, Dave wrote:
>
>> If you don't understand signs like WRONG WAY and ONE WAY, you probably
>> shouldn't be driving here. If he made a mistake he shouldn't have
>> flipped off four people.
>
>Which is the definition of the term. I've made a wrong turn and been on a
>one way street going the wrong way a couple times in my life thanks to
>badly placed or hidden signage. I think most people who drive in urban
>environments have. I corrected it ASAP and didn't get in anyone's way in
>the process.

And if you had, your gestures would have been apologetic, not
antagonistic. One time a guy pulled out right in front of me from a
freeway off-ramp. As I swerved around him, I saw him wave his open
hand with a sheepish look on his face. Had he been a MFFY, that open
hand would have been a closed fist with the middle finger extended,
and the facial expression would have been tight-lipped anger.

>And that's the whole point, it's not about driving
>perfectly, but rather how one deals with a mistake they've made.

I suspect some people simply get embarrassed and angry at themselves
for screwing up, and (mis-)direct that anger towards anyone with the
audacity to point out their mistake.

>For instance, everyone has gotten into the wrong lane for where they
>wanted to go at a traffic light before and been stuck there because of
>traffic. Now, people like Scott, Nate, Arif, and myself go the direction
>of the lane we are in and find a place to turn around. We suck it up and
>lose the time because it's our error. The MFFY driver turns their
>steering wheel and jams the nose of their vehicle into the next lane and
>forces his way to the lane he wants to be in. The fact that he forces
>other drivers to wait for him and lose their green signal doesn't even
>enter his mind. He might even flip them off.

Of course! He's ****ed because they didn't just let him in! How dare
they not show proper consideration?!?!?!!?

Dave wrote:
> Responding so nobody uses the false points in arguing back.
>
<snip>
>
> As can be seen the parked cars on the block made it clear the direction
> of traffic flow. In addition, if the dumbass MFFY had bothered to look
> at a map prior to driving, he'd have noticed it's a one-way street.
> Link provided:
>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=92109&...0274&t=h&hl=en

Dumbasses figuring out where they're going before they depart? That's
not going to happen; not in America, anyways.