I am very interested in any information you could give me about Priority
Green specs. Living in Houston is unbelievable. I swear the oil companies
are in control of the traffic light timing. I have never been anywhere else
in the US where you had to stop for approx 90% (this is not an exaggeration)
of every traffic light you encounter. It simply has to be seen to be
believed. It's so bad that people who are approaching a light that is green
will begin to slow down (preparing to stop), because they have been so well
conditioned. They seem to think that something is wrong with the light, and
it might be green in both directions. I admit that after eleven years of
this stuff, I am skeptical of greens too.
But you should see the way that people will race thru a red even though it's
been red for more than three seconds. It's absolutely astounding.
Not that I would ever do anything illegal, I am still interested in the
specs. ;-D
part 1 3855 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset=us-ascii
You will get a ticket, I know. My old boss loved the idea, so we built him
a unit based on a strobe tube and used an IR filter to "hide" the flash.
Of course, when we did this, he told us it was a development project for a
product he was going to sell to the fire departments. Anyway.. the thing
got mounted on the top of his truck... he got away with it for about 2
months. Then the police caught on. They staked out the local big
intersection, and discovered that the same Ford pickup (with the big shiny
reflector up on top) was always going through the intersection when the
priority green system activated. He got fined.
It is a very simple system. All you need to do is pulse modulate an IR
source at a 14hz rate (flash at 14hz rate). It is tough to use point
sources (such as LED's) since they must be pointed at the receiver on the
light pole. We used the strobe to get a broad emission.
Now for the ethics: This info is in the public domain (so I am sharing
nothing confidential). There are companies out there who will sell you
this equipment. You can also sell this equipment to municipalities. If
you abuse this system you will get in trouble with the authorities. I do
not condone use of this system. I have seen very close calls caused by
fire trucks and ambulances (let alone nuts in pickup trucks). People get
used to the pattern at a traffic light, and when the light suddenly changes
people are caught by surprise.
Scott
michael brown
<n5qmg@AMSAT.O To: spam_OUTPICLISTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU
RG> cc:
Sent by: pic Subject: [OT]: Priority Green was Modulating a headlight
microcontrolle
r discussion
list
<PICLIST@MITVM
A.MIT.EDU>
06/29/01 10:44
AM
Please respond
to pic
microcontrolle
r discussion
list
Scott,
I am very interested in any information you could give me about Priority
Green specs. Living in Houston is unbelievable. I swear the oil companies
are in control of the traffic light timing. I have never been anywhere
else
in the US where you had to stop for approx 90% (this is not an
exaggeration)
of every traffic light you encounter. It simply has to be seen to be
believed. It's so bad that people who are approaching a light that is
green
will begin to slow down (preparing to stop), because they have been so well
conditioned. They seem to think that something is wrong with the light,
and
it might be green in both directions. I admit that after eleven years of
this stuff, I am skeptical of greens too.
But you should see the way that people will race thru a red even though
it's
been red for more than three seconds. It's absolutely astounding.
Not that I would ever do anything illegal, I am still interested in the
specs. ;-D
MB wrote:
.....
Living in Houston is unbelievable. I swear the oil companies
>are in control of the traffic light timing. I have never been anywhere else
>in the US where you had to stop for approx 90% (this is not an exaggeration)
>of every traffic light you encounter.
It used to be, in Boulder, if you were the 1st guy at the light,
and peeled off when it turned green, and drove 15 MPH over the
limit, you could just make it through the next light. Unfortunately,
the city caught on to us getting away with this.
============
>
>But you should see the way that people will race thru a red even though it's
>been red for more than three seconds. It's absolutely astounding.
>
They did a study and found out that, in Boulder, an average of 4 cars
continue through after the light turns red.
>
> Scott,
>
> I am very interested in any information you could give me about Priority
> Green specs. Living in Houston is unbelievable. I swear the oil companies
> are in control of the traffic light timing. I have never been anywhere else
> in the US where you had to stop for approx 90% (this is not an exaggeration)
> of every traffic light you encounter. It simply has to be seen to be
> believed. It's so bad that people who are approaching a light that is green
> will begin to slow down (preparing to stop), because they have been so well
> conditioned. They seem to think that something is wrong with the light, and
> it might be green in both directions. I admit that after eleven years of
> this stuff, I am skeptical of greens too.
>
> But you should see the way that people will race thru a red even though it's
> been red for more than three seconds. It's absolutely astounding.
>
> Not that I would ever do anything illegal, I am still interested in the
> specs. ;-D
>
> Michael Brown
> Instant Net Solutions
> http://www.KillerPCs.net
>
> "In the land of the blind, he who has one eye is king"
>
> MB wrote:
> .....
> Living in Houston is unbelievable. I swear the oil companies
> >are in control of the traffic light timing. I have never been anywhere
else
> >in the US where you had to stop for approx 90% (this is not an
exaggeration)
> >of every traffic light you encounter.
>
> It used to be, in Boulder, if you were the 1st guy at the light,
> and peeled off when it turned green, and drove 15 MPH over the
> limit, you could just make it through the next light. Unfortunately,
> the city caught on to us getting away with this.
This sounds like some of the long straight main roads running outside of
downtown. If you drive 47 in the 35 you will keep just making the lights.
Fortunately 47 in a 35 is nothing unusual around houston. The defacto
standard here seems to be take the speed limit + 10 and drive that speed
without fear of repercussion. Nearly everyone does it. This town is truly
amazing. Turn signals are not required here, even in front of police when
shoving your way in. In fact, if you see someone using a turn signal, be
careful. They seem to be used as "Lookout! I'm fixin' to do something
stupid" indicators.
> ============
>
> >
> >But you should see the way that people will race thru a red even though
it's
> >been red for more than three seconds. It's absolutely astounding.
> >
>
> They did a study and found out that, in Boulder, an average of 4 cars
> continue through after the light turns red.
Is that all? ;-D
I am somewhat convinced that traffic engineering is the art of making every
path from point A to point B equally inconvenient. Of course, it's probably
because the engineers are saddled with insane road commission and other
legal requirements done ostensibly for our own good but just ends up
frustrating everyone.
There's one shop I go to somewhat regularly that is a commercial zone,
surrounded by residential zones, the only way to get there is to drive 5 to
10 miles through 25 MPH areas with a bad mishmash of one way roads, the
roads that have traffic signals have poor light timings and many goofy road
routings, into a six way intersection.
>>
>> It used to be, in Boulder, if you were the 1st guy at the light,
>> and peeled off when it turned green, and drove 15 MPH over the
>> limit, you could just make it through the next light. Unfortunately,
>> the city caught on to us getting away with this.
>
>This sounds like some of the long straight main roads running outside of
>downtown.
..... this was from one block to the next downtown!
>Scott,
>
>I am very interested in any information you could give me about Priority
>Green specs. Living in Houston is unbelievable. I swear the oil companies
>are in control of the traffic light timing. I have never been anywhere else
>in the US where you had to stop for approx 90% (this is not an exaggeration)
>of every traffic light you encounter. It simply has to be seen to be
>believed. It's so bad that people who are approaching a light that is green
>will begin to slow down (preparing to stop), because they have been so well
>conditioned. They seem to think that something is wrong with the light, and
>it might be green in both directions. I admit that after eleven years of
>this stuff, I am skeptical of greens too.
>
>But you should see the way that people will race thru a red even though it's
>been red for more than three seconds. It's absolutely astounding.
>
>Not that I would ever do anything illegal, I am still interested in the
>specs. ;-D
>
>Michael Brown
>Instant Net Solutions
>http://www.KillerPCs.net
>
>"In the land of the blind, he who has one eye is king"
>
> That's interesting. So the lights are red on all sides for 80% of the
> time, and each way is given 10% of the remaining time for green and
yellow?
>
> ;-)
>
> -Adam
Of course not silly. ;-D The lights are synchronized to something, just not
sure what. The light will be green as you are approaching and invariably
changes as you get closer. No kidding, it really is annoying. Come on down
and see for yourself, you won't like it. I promise. ;-D
>Of course not silly. ;-D The lights are synchronized to something, just not
>sure what. The light will be green as you are approaching and invariably
>changes as you get closer. No kidding, it really is annoying. Come on down
>and see for yourself, you won't like it. I promise. ;-D
>
Nowadays, in Boulder, many lights have either CCD cams or speed
sensors. The CCDs photo ID people running the red, and the speed
sensors actually trip the green to red if the cars approaching
are going too fast. In betweenst, we have photo radar units
in unmarked vans sitting around here and there. [geez, I read
about places like this in books when I was growing up].
In the San Diego area we've had a red-light photo enforcement
for several years now - $271 fine, 40/60 split between the
city & Lockheed-Martin, which provides the equipment, fingers
the presumptively guilty.
In practice the cameras are installed at high volume intersections
(not high-accident intersections), and the yellow-light times are
reduced to enhance the take.
I'm a bicyclist - If there's an up side to motorists running lights
I've missed it, but the scheme ignores the common, deadly practice
of motorists turning right on red without slowing down, much less
stopping - Turning right, looking left...
> It used to be, in Boulder, if you were the 1st guy at the light,
> and peeled off when it turned green, and drove 15 MPH over the
> limit, you could just make it through the next light. Unfortunately,
> the city caught on to us getting away with this.
Please tell me that you are not serious about the city setting the lights
*deliberately* to cause traffic slowdowns ?
> >Of course not silly. ;-D The lights are synchronized to something, just not
> >sure what. The light will be green as you are approaching and invariably
> >changes as you get closer. No kidding, it really is annoying. Come on down
> >and see for yourself, you won't like it. I promise. ;-D
> >
>
> Nowadays, in Boulder, many lights have either CCD cams or speed
> sensors. The CCDs photo ID people running the red, and the speed
> sensors actually trip the green to red if the cars approaching
> are going too fast. In betweenst, we have photo radar units
> in unmarked vans sitting around here and there. [geez, I read
> about places like this in books when I was growing up].
You know, I sure do wish they'd trade all the stealth spy crap for a few
more plainly marked police cars and some more open enforcement. The
electronics only addresses one issue -- speeding/red lights/whatever. A
cruiser can do so much more to keep the peace.
Dale
--
A train stops at a train station. A bus stops at a bus station.
On my desk I have a workstation...
> You know, I sure do wish they'd trade all the stealth spy crap for a few
> more plainly marked police cars and some more open enforcement. The
> electronics only addresses one issue -- speeding/red lights/whatever. A
> cruiser can do so much more to keep the peace.
>
> Dale
I hear you on that! This modern "enforcement" is nothing more than a new
taxation technique. I think police cars also shouldn't have air
conditioning or "good time" radios. It's hard to know what's going on
around you when you are zipping around with the windows up and a/c blasting
all while jamming to the radio.
If I were a police officer I would make a point of never writing a speeding
ticket unless it was for something actually dangerous. But I would make
people well aware of the rest of the traffic laws, like signals and sudden
lane swerving (I ride a motorcycle and I would like to live).
On the motorcycle thing, I would like to take this opportunity to make
everyone aware that motorcycles can NOT stop quicker than cars. This is a
common misnomer that has resulted in the death of many cyclists. PLEASE,
the next time you change lanes please turn your head and look first. Fully
95% of my "close calls" have been a result of this. Of course when they
finally see you, they nearly always wave and say sorry. This is a prime
example of where being "sorry" doesn't help.
BTW the other day I was nearly run over by a police car (with no lights or
siren) that was busy running a red light that had been red the entire time
he was approaching it. Fortunately, I have learned to not trust anyone in a
car that isn't looking me directly in the eye. Next time you see/hear a
Harley with loud exhaust, remember he is just trying to stay alive, not
annoy/scare you. Loud pipes allow you to become semi-transparent as opposed
to the normal complete invisibility that a motorcycle achieves when riding
in traffic.
> Please tell me that you are not serious about the city
> setting the lights *deliberately* to cause traffic slowdowns ?
Peter, my dear fellow! %)
The agencies involved have absolutely no incentive to
address the problem - Their very existence depends on
the gridlock - The municipalities cooperate by allowing
development which outruns road capacity in multiples,
the road-builders use the snarl to get public support
for construction bonds for projects which will be tied
up in court for 20+ years, and feast on the float in the
interim - Everybody's happy, except the chumps in the cars...
Since others have alluded to the "science" of traffic
management, it is a fact that the supply of vehicles
increases faster than carrying capacity of the roads,
most places - Certainly here in the PRC. This has been
studied to death, and the obvious ramifications being
unpalatable, resolutely ignored.
Peter Peres wrote:
>> It used to be, in Boulder, if you were the 1st guy at the light,
>> and peeled off when it turned green, and drove 15 MPH over the
>> limit, you could just make it through the next light. Unfortunately,
>> the city caught on to us getting away with this.
>
>Please tell me that you are not serious about the city setting the lights
>*deliberately* to cause traffic slowdowns ?
>
Not to worry, Peter. Only in Boulder are the control freaks
running the govt. Feel better now?
[BTW, they only wish to rein in the guys that drive like
Roman and me].
> On the motorcycle thing, I would like to take this opportunity to make
> everyone aware that motorcycles can NOT stop quicker than cars. This is a
> common misnomer that has resulted in the death of many cyclists. PLEASE,
> the next time you change lanes please turn your head and look first. Fully
> 95% of my "close calls" have been a result of this. Of course when they
> finally see you, they nearly always wave and say sorry. This is a prime
> example of where being "sorry" doesn't help.
>
> BTW the other day I was nearly run over by a police car (with no lights or
> siren) that was busy running a red light that had been red the entire time
> he was approaching it. Fortunately, I have learned to not trust anyone in a
> car that isn't looking me directly in the eye. Next time you see/hear a
> Harley with loud exhaust, remember he is just trying to stay alive, not
> annoy/scare you. Loud pipes allow you to become semi-transparent as opposed
> to the normal complete invisibility that a motorcycle achieves when riding
> in traffic.
As a Piclister and a motorcyclist (7 motorcycles in the garage, and I've
been a Motorcycle Safety Instructor for 6 years), I feel obliged to
respond. Loud pipes are not an effective safety device- unfortunately,
most of the "loud" goes *behind* the motorcycle, doing little to wake up
the semi-consious lane changer. The biggest effect that loud exhausts
are having is to inspire community rules and legislation to ban
motorcycles, which, in my view, is a net loss for motorcycling as a
whole. I've found that simple things like actively avoiding the blind
spots of other motorists to be a far more effective safety technique.
With the proper technique and practice, on good clean pavement, a
motorcycle *can* stop faster than most cars. Many motorcycles today
have twin discs on the front wheel, and very sticky tires. All the
elements above don't necessarily happen at the same time- so avoidance
is the best technique to minimize risk.
Back to the headlight modulating- on-off cycles do decrease the lifetime
of a bulb, but that is with a cold filament. Modulating a headlight at
4Hz is slow enough so that the modulation can be seen, but fast enough
so that the filament does not fully cool down. Try this experiment- at
night, turn your headlights on and point them at a close wall. Turn
them off- I've found that it takes at least 2 seconds for the bulbs to
stop putting out light. The very bright, white light stops almost
immediately, but it keeps on putting out light for some time, decreasing
in intensity and moving to red before it fades out completely.
>michael brown wrote:
>
>> On the motorcycle thing, I would like to take this opportunity to make
>> everyone aware that motorcycles can NOT stop quicker than cars. This is a
>> common misnomer that has resulted in the death of many cyclists. PLEASE,
>> the next time you change lanes please turn your head and look first. Fully
>> 95% of my "close calls" have been a result of this.
If you don't know how already, time to learn "countersteering" for
those quick and death situations. Simple physics, what.
Also, when stopping, you do need to learn to use that front brake.
==========
Matt Bennett wrote:
.....
I've found that simple things like actively avoiding the blind
>spots of other motorists to be a far more effective safety technique.
>
When I used to ride bikes, I found the best way to survive was to
think that every single car in the vicinity was about to do something
that would kill me. This way I wouldn't get into the situations
where it might happen.
Dan Michaels wrote:
>
> >michael brown wrote:
> >
> >> On the motorcycle thing, I would like to take this opportunity to make
> >> everyone aware that motorcycles can NOT stop quicker than cars. This is a
> >> common misnomer that has resulted in the death of many cyclists. PLEASE,
> >> the next time you change lanes please turn your head and look first. Fully
> >> 95% of my "close calls" have been a result of this.
>
> If you don't know how already, time to learn "countersteering" for
> those quick and death situations. Simple physics, what.
>
> Also, when stopping, you do need to learn to use that front brake.
If you ride motorcycles or just want to *TAKE THE MSF COURSE* (or an
appropriate safety course for your locality). If it's been a while
since you've taken it, TAKE IT AGAIN. I'm not trying to drum up
business- most MSF instruction sites are at capacity anyway, and lord
knows I don't do it for the pay. Motorcycles are dangerous.
Motorcyclists have to accept the danger, but there are effective
techniques that will help you minimize the danger. Every time I've
taught the course to experienced riders, the students have told me they
have learned something, even those that have been riding far longer than
I have.
> michael brown wrote:
>
> > On the motorcycle thing, I would like to take this opportunity to make
> > everyone aware that motorcycles can NOT stop quicker than cars. This is
a
> > common misnomer that has resulted in the death of many cyclists.
PLEASE,
> > the next time you change lanes please turn your head and look first.
Fully
> > 95% of my "close calls" have been a result of this. Of course when they
> > finally see you, they nearly always wave and say sorry. This is a prime
> > example of where being "sorry" doesn't help.
> >
> > BTW the other day I was nearly run over by a police car (with no lights
or
> > siren) that was busy running a red light that had been red the entire
time
> > he was approaching it. Fortunately, I have learned to not trust anyone
in a
> > car that isn't looking me directly in the eye. Next time you see/hear a
> > Harley with loud exhaust, remember he is just trying to stay alive, not
> > annoy/scare you. Loud pipes allow you to become semi-transparent as
opposed
> > to the normal complete invisibility that a motorcycle achieves when
riding
> > in traffic.
>
> As a Piclister and a motorcyclist (7 motorcycles in the garage, and I've
> been a Motorcycle Safety Instructor for 6 years), I feel obliged to
> respond. Loud pipes are not an effective safety device- unfortunately,
> most of the "loud" goes *behind* the motorcycle, doing little to wake up
> the semi-consious lane changer.
I didn't mean to imply that they were "the" solution to motorcycle safety.
But I must say that they are one more way to increase the awareness of other
motorists. And, I was only offering an explanation for the reasoning behind
why allot (not all) of cyclests increase the loudness of their pipes.
Fortunately, the sound can be redirected towards the side with turn-outs or
"slash cut" pipes. Every little thing that you can do to increase awareness
is to the cyclists benefit. Whether it be modulated headlights, loud pipes,
or strobing brakelights.
>The biggest effect that loud exhausts
> are having is to inspire community rules and legislation to ban
> motorcycles, which, in my view, is a net loss for motorcycling as a
> whole.
While I won't disagree with this, I must say that the media and hollywood
have done more to inspire this kind of behavior from the public and local
communities than loud pipes have. This is certainly not the intent of most
motorcyclists.
>I've found that simple things like actively avoiding the blind
> spots of other motorists to be a far more effective safety technique.
This is absolutely correct, and would probably be sufficient if people
actually looked in their mirrors before changing lanes. Also not ever
riding next to or behind semi-truck tires is a good idea. If they peel on
you, or blow out, you could be in world of hurt.
> With the proper technique and practice, on good clean pavement, a
> motorcycle *can* stop faster than most cars. Many motorcycles today
> have twin discs on the front wheel, and very sticky tires.
While this may be "strictly" true, not everyone has dual front discs,
optimal tires and road conditions or the required training and experience to
accomplish that. As you know, the slightest amount of water or oil deposits
on pavement can have a marked effect on stopping ability spefically, and
traction in general. Also, probably 1/2 of the people you see riding a
motorcycle have less than 5000 miles worth of street riding experience.
> All the
> elements above don't necessarily happen at the same time- so avoidance
> is the best technique to minimize risk.
I can't disagree with this entirely, although in Houston it's pretty darned
hard to avoid being near other traffic.
> Back to the headlight modulating- on-off cycles do decrease the lifetime
> of a bulb, but that is with a cold filament. Modulating a headlight at
> 4Hz is slow enough so that the modulation can be seen, but fast enough
> so that the filament does not fully cool down. Try this experiment- at
> night, turn your headlights on and point them at a close wall. Turn
> them off- I've found that it takes at least 2 seconds for the bulbs to
> stop putting out light. The very bright, white light stops almost
> immediately, but it keeps on putting out light for some time, decreasing
> in intensity and moving to red before it fades out completely.
>
> Matt Bennett
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
> RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspammitvma.mit.edu
>
>
> If you ride motorcycles or just want to *TAKE THE MSF COURSE*
> (or an appropriate safety course for your locality). If it's been a
> while since you've taken it, TAKE IT AGAIN. I'm not trying to drum
> up
A piece on the TV news a couple of weeks ago pointed out that the
group of motorcyclists most at risk are the > 45yo men who are
having their second wind. Flush with money, they pick up a machine
that's far bigger and zippier than the one they had 30 years before
and get squished in modern traffic densities or just can't handle the
performance and fall off
> >The biggest effect that loud exhausts
> > are having is to inspire community rules and legislation to ban
> > motorcycles, which, in my view, is a net loss for motorcycling as a
> > whole.
>
> While I won't disagree with this, I must say that the media and hollywood
> have done more to inspire this kind of behavior from the public and local
> communities than loud pipes have. This is certainly not the intent of most
> motorcyclists.
>
No matter the intent, the effect is clear. There are communities
throughout the US that ban *all* motorcyles because of the actions of a
few who have modified their motorcycles to get (in my opinion) a false
sense of security. If you take a look at the "loud pipes," they all say
"for off-highway use only" or something to that effect. There are many
people that would like to ban motorcycling altogether, I don't want to
give them any extra ammunition.
> > With the proper technique and practice, on good clean pavement, a
> > motorcycle *can* stop faster than most cars. Many motorcycles today
> > have twin discs on the front wheel, and very sticky tires.
>
> While this may be "strictly" true, not everyone has dual front discs,
> optimal tires and road conditions or the required training and experience to
> accomplish that.
Even with a single front disk and non-optimal tires, you may be suprised
what your motorcycle can actually do, if you use the right technique.
Rarely have I seen the skill of a motorcyclist exceed the capabilities
of his motorcycle.
Matt
P.S. At the proper time and place, I like loud motorcycles. I just
think that the volume should be proportional to the power that the bike
is putting out.
>michael brown wrote:
> >
> >> On the motorcycle thing, I would like to take this opportunity to make
> >> everyone aware that motorcycles can NOT stop quicker than cars. This
is a
> >> common misnomer that has resulted in the death of many cyclists.
PLEASE,
> >> the next time you change lanes please turn your head and look first.
Fully
> >> 95% of my "close calls" have been a result of this.
>
>
> If you don't know how already, time to learn "countersteering" for
> those quick and death situations. Simple physics, what.
I know how to do this and do it all the time. It works very nicely for
avoiding holes and what not.
> Also, when stopping, you do need to learn to use that front brake.
DUH!!!! Come on Dan, you should know me better than that. ;-D You can't
stop without it. But I only have one rotor in the front.
> ==========
>
>
> Matt Bennett wrote:
> .....
> I've found that simple things like actively avoiding the blind
> >spots of other motorists to be a far more effective safety technique.
> >
>
> When I used to ride bikes, I found the best way to survive was to
> think that every single car in the vicinity was about to do something
> that would kill me. This way I wouldn't get into the situations
> where it might happen.
That's exactly how it's done. This will do more than probably anything to
protect you. Eye contact is also imperative.
> If you ride motorcycles or just want to *TAKE THE MSF COURSE* (or an
> appropriate safety course for your locality). If it's been a while
> since you've taken it, TAKE IT AGAIN. I'm not trying to drum up
> business- most MSF instruction sites are at capacity anyway, and lord
> knows I don't do it for the pay.
These classes are very good, and I highly recommend them.
> Motorcycles are dangerous.
Now come on. ;-) The biggest dangers concerning motorcycles involve, speed,
alcohol, and mostly cars.
> Motorcyclists have to accept the danger, but there are effective
> techniques that will help you minimize the danger. Every time I've
> taught the course to experienced riders, the students have told me they
> have learned something, even those that have been riding far longer than
> I have.
>
> Matt
I have been riding for quite a while, but I didn't know about
counter-steering until a few years ago. It's not the kind of thing that you
would just happen upon thru normal riding. However, after using it and
gaining experience with it, its become quite natural.
> michael brown wrote:
>
> > >The biggest effect that loud exhausts
> > > are having is to inspire community rules and legislation to ban
> > > motorcycles, which, in my view, is a net loss for motorcycling as a
> > > whole.
> >
> > While I won't disagree with this, I must say that the media and
hollywood
> > have done more to inspire this kind of behavior from the public and
local
> > communities than loud pipes have. This is certainly not the intent of
most {Quote hidden}
> > motorcyclists.
> >
>
> No matter the intent, the effect is clear. There are communities
> throughout the US that ban *all* motorcyles because of the actions of a
> few who have modified their motorcycles to get (in my opinion) a false
> sense of security. If you take a look at the "loud pipes," they all say
> "for off-highway use only" or something to that effect. There are many
> people that would like to ban motorcycling altogether, I don't want to
> give them any extra ammunition.
I have heard of this and cannot for the life of me understand why a state
government would stand for the banning of a federally approved and state
licensed vehicle on a stated funded road. I have yet to see that here.
>
> > > With the proper technique and practice, on good clean pavement, a
> > > motorcycle *can* stop faster than most cars. Many motorcycles today
> > > have twin discs on the front wheel, and very sticky tires.
> >
> > While this may be "strictly" true, not everyone has dual front discs,
> > optimal tires and road conditions or the required training and
experience to
> > accomplish that.
>
> Even with a single front disk and non-optimal tires, you may be suprised
> what your motorcycle can actually do, if you use the right technique.
> Rarely have I seen the skill of a motorcyclist exceed the capabilities
> of his motorcycle.
>
> Matt
I understand your point here, on "dry" pavement I can stop my bike very
quickly. But on wet pavement it makes a larger difference than cars
experience given the same wet conditions.
> P.S. At the proper time and place, I like loud motorcycles. I just
> think that the volume should be proportional to the power that the bike
> is putting out.
I think so too, that's why I'm gonna get my sporty putting out 95 hp at 85
ft/lbs. That way it will run like it sounds. ;-D Seriously, my pipes are
on the low side of the loudness range. However, I have been noticed in
dense traffic and when passing people where they otherwise would never have
known I was there. I can't say that they didn't hit me because of it, that
would be impossible to prove. However, I can say that they noticed me
sooner than they otherwise would have. Plus, on the lighter side, loud
pipes compliment cellular phones nicely. ;-D
>> If you don't know how already, time to learn "countersteering" for
>> those quick and death situations. Simple physics, what.
>
>I know how to do this and do it all the time. It works very nicely for
>avoiding holes and what not.
>
and prairie dogs.
================
>> Also, when stopping, you do need to learn to use that front brake.
>
>DUH!!!! Come on Dan, you should know me better than that. ;-D You can't
>stop without it. But I only have one rotor in the front.
>
Say what? Here's today's quiz, should you use the front brake
to slow down while in a turn? Or will physics toss you on your
ear?
==============
>>
>> When I used to ride bikes, I found the best way to survive was to
>> think that every single car in the vicinity was about to do something
>> that would kill me. This way I wouldn't get into the situations
>> where it might happen.
>
>That's exactly how it's done. This will do more than probably anything to
>protect you. Eye contact is also imperative.
>
I assume you mean eye contact with the guy who is coming
in your direction and turning across your path.
Seriously, as I recall the "single" most important safety
factor ever, regarding motorcycles, has been to burn the headlight
in the daytime hours. I recall reading an old safety study that
showed, prior to this, something like 40-50% [forget exactly]
of accidents involved a car turning across the motorcyclist's
path, and the driver later claiming he/she never saw the bike.
So actually I am wondering whether flickering the light is
really all that more effective.
>> P.S. At the proper time and place, I like loud motorcycles. I just
>> think that the volume should be proportional to the power that the bike
>> is putting out.
>
>I think so too, that's why I'm gonna get my sporty putting out 95 hp at 85
>ft/lbs. That way it will run like it sounds. ;-D Seriously, my pipes are
>on the low side of the loudness range. However, I have been noticed in
>dense traffic and when passing people where they otherwise would never have
>known I was there. I can't say that they didn't hit me because of it, that
>would be impossible to prove. However, I can say that they noticed me
>sooner than they otherwise would have. Plus, on the lighter side, loud
>pipes compliment cellular phones nicely. ;-D
>
> >> If you don't know how already, time to learn "countersteering" for
> >> those quick and death situations. Simple physics, what.
> >
> >I know how to do this and do it all the time. It works very nicely for
> >avoiding holes and what not.
> >
>
> and prairie dogs.
> ================
>
> >> Also, when stopping, you do need to learn to use that front brake.
> >
> >DUH!!!! Come on Dan, you should know me better than that. ;-D You can't
> >stop without it. But I only have one rotor in the front.
> >
>
> Say what? Here's today's quiz, should you use the front brake
> to slow down while in a turn? Or will physics toss you on your
> ear?
Well.....Under known, quality road conditions, I have used my front brake
when braking before, into and even during a "turn" (usually in curves). It
works fine, BUT: If you laterally slip that front wheel even a small amount
(and this could happen even without the brake applied), you could end up
with ear trouble. ;-( Every situation is unique and braking is a reflex
anymore.
> ==============
>
> >>
> >> When I used to ride bikes, I found the best way to survive was to
> >> think that every single car in the vicinity was about to do something
> >> that would kill me. This way I wouldn't get into the situations
> >> where it might happen.
> >
> >That's exactly how it's done. This will do more than probably anything
to
> >protect you. Eye contact is also imperative.
> >
>
> I assume you mean eye contact with the guy who is coming
> in your direction and turning across your path.
I wont cross in front of a vehicle that is perpendicular to me until they
look at me, if it can be avoided. I basically do as you said before, and
treat all other cars as being out to get me (none of them can see me
either). Another survival tip is to stay out of rush hour traffic as much
as possible, when people are aggressively trying to get home, that is there
#1 goal, and they don't have time to look for bikes.
> Seriously, as I recall the "single" most important safety
> factor ever, regarding motorcycles, has been to burn the headlight
> in the daytime hours. I recall reading an old safety study that
> showed, prior to this, something like 40-50% [forget exactly]
> of accidents involved a car turning across the motorcyclist's
> path, and the driver later claiming he/she never saw the bike.
With the light only 30-40% don't see you. ;-) Plus, I am a bit skeptical of
what the "survivors" version of events is. ;-D Seriously though, my "close
encounters" mostly were this type of thing. Most of the time it has been
someone pulling out onto the street in front of you. Then the venerable
"houston swerve" lane changes. Nobody sees you on a motorcycle, that's for
sure.
> So actually I am wondering whether flickering the light is
> really all that more effective.
I think it might be, because I would think that the brain is use to seeing
glares and these are somewhat similar to a constant burning light at a
distance. But glares usually don't self modulate. ;-D I would think that
the brain would be much more apt to "notice". That's just my 2¢. I'm going
to get one of those "rainbow" effect halogen bulbs. They are mostly white
light, but with a tinge of color. I'm hoping that this will improve
visibility.
[EE] content:
They now have these neat super bright LED "bulb" replacements that fit
in a standard turn signal socket and fit in the same clearances. They have
some kind of little PIC chip inside that gives a rotating effect to the
cluster of pcboard mounted LED's. They also have a tail light board that
fits inside the regular lens and uses bi-color LED's to do the running, stop
and turn lamps. They are expensive, you guys should come out with your own
versions.
> >> Motorcycles are dangerous.
> >
> >Now come on. ;-) The biggest dangers concerning motorcycles involve,
speed,
> >alcohol, and mostly cars.
> >
>
> More so, young guys with cahones bigger than their brains.
You got that right. Those cafe style sport bikes are definitely a big
problem. I'm surprised at what parents will buy for their kids. It makes
you wonder if they are really thinking or not. Allot of the guys around
riding those are about 18-20 yrs old. They have these "special tricks" they
like to perform around the "cruiser" type bikes. :-(
> Seriously, as I recall the "single" most important safety
> factor ever, regarding motorcycles, has been to burn the headlight
> in the daytime hours. I recall reading an old safety study that
> showed, prior to this, something like 40-50% [forget exactly]
> of accidents involved a car turning across the motorcyclist's
> path, and the driver later claiming he/she never saw the bike.
Hogwash. Operative word here is "claiming". If you want to get away
with murder in the PRC, simply nail the victim with your vehicle,
being careful not to have beer on your breath.
John Gardner wrote:
>Dan Michaels wrote:
>
>> Seriously, as I recall the "single" most important safety
>> factor ever, regarding motorcycles, has been to burn the headlight
>> in the daytime hours. I recall reading an old safety study that
>> showed, prior to this, something like 40-50% [forget exactly]
>> of accidents involved a car turning across the motorcyclist's
>> path, and the driver later claiming he/she never saw the bike.
>
>Hogwash. Operative word here is "claiming". If you want to get away
>with murder in the PRC, simply nail the victim with your vehicle,
>being careful not to have beer on your breath.
>
Well, it may be whitewash, but it sure ain't hogwash. I can
bear witness to how hard it is to see something small and dark
[bikers love black colors] and moving fast, when it is coming
straight at you. Just look a 1/4 mile down the road, at 2 dark
motorcycles, one with headlight burning and one without, and
tell me what you see.
>
> > You know, I sure do wish they'd trade all the stealth spy crap for a few
> > more plainly marked police cars and some more open enforcement. The
> > electronics only addresses one issue -- speeding/red lights/whatever. A
> > cruiser can do so much more to keep the peace.
> >
> > Dale
>
> I hear you on that! This modern "enforcement" is nothing more than a new
> taxation technique. I think police cars also shouldn't have air
> conditioning or "good time" radios. It's hard to know what's going on
> around you when you are zipping around with the windows up and a/c blasting
> all while jamming to the radio.
>
>Well.....Under known, quality road conditions, I have used my front brake
>when braking before, into and even during a "turn" (usually in curves). It
>works fine, BUT: If you laterally slip that front wheel even a small amount
>(and this could happen even without the brake applied), you could end up
>with ear trouble. ;-( Every situation is unique and braking is a reflex
>anymore.
BTDT :)
I used to race on bicycles. When you're in a turn so hard that the high
pedal is scraping, you know you're pushing it. I was in one of these, when
the front tire skipped, presumably on a pebble, then folded in half. That
was about 25 years ago, and the scars are almost gone now. It was, of
course, the only time I didn't use Michelins. I've done 70+ on a bicycle,
it's definitely interesting.
I would have a link to http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?KC6ETE-9 here
in my signature line, but due to the inability of sysadmins at TELOCITY to
differentiate a signature line from the text of an email, I am forbidden to
have it.
Dan Michaels wrote:
> I can
> bear witness to how hard it is to see something small and dark
> [bikers love black colors] and moving fast, when it is coming
> straight at you. Just look a 1/4 mile down the road, at 2 dark
> motorcycles, one with headlight burning and one without, and
> tell me what you see.
No offense intended, Dan, but killing someone who is legally
operating a vehicle on the public right-of-way requires a bit
more expiation than "I did'nt see him". Even if you did'nt.
I ride daily, and daily have the experience of taking evasive
action in favor of motorists who are preoccupied with cell phones,
kids, pizzas, reading the papers, putting on make-up, and of course
those who see me just fine, and figure I'll get out of their way -
If I don't, Oh well...
regards, Jack
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
Dan Michaels wrote:
>
> Say what? Here's today's quiz, should you use the front brake
> to slow down while in a turn? Or will physics toss you on your
> ear?
I took a roadracing course with Jason Pridmore, and he braked heavily
with the front on every turn, all the way to the apex of the turn, where
he started to accelerate. How do I know this? I rode along with him on
the back of his motorcycle. It was simply amazing. Jason was able to
modulate the throttle very smoothly, along with the brakes, so as not to
abruptly change the geometry of the motorcycle, and upset the
suspension. Watching a true master at work is awe-inspiring, weather it
is amazingly fast riding, or the beauty of a fine crafted piece of code.
When you do brake in a turn, you've gotta be careful, because a lot of
the available traction is being used to turn the motorcycle. When you
use up all available traction, the results are... catastrophic. Because
of the way motorcycle suspensions are set up, braking in a turn will
change the geometry of the motorcycle, and the way it reacts.
Smoothness is key.
Matt
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
At 09:49 PM 6/30/01 -0700, John Gardner wrote:
>David VanHorn wrote:
>
> > I've done 70+ on a bicycle, it's definitely interesting.
>
>Woo Hoo - I've gotten circa 60 mph - Scared sh*tless.
On one run, I melted a set of brake pads, right down to the metal, when I
realized that I was a bit close to the intersection, and the light was red.
I was young and invulnerable then. :)
I would have a link to http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?KC6ETE-9 here
in my signature line, but due to the inability of sysadmins at TELOCITY to
differentiate a signature line from the text of an email, I am forbidden to
have it.
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
Matt Bennett wrote:
>Dan Michaels wrote:
>>
>> Say what? Here's today's quiz, should you use the front brake
>> to slow down while in a turn? Or will physics toss you on your
>> ear?
>
>I took a roadracing course with Jason Pridmore, and he braked heavily
>with the front on every turn, all the way to the apex of the turn, where
>he started to accelerate.
...........
Well, shoot, you're no fun. I was asking MB ;-).
My understanding is std practice is to brake in the turn, so long
as all of the usual "fun scary" things are absent [gravel, wetness,
dead cats, 2x4's, etc]. BTW, I had my fun hitting gravel in a
hairpin turn once [spent a week every nite in the tub with a set
of tweezers after that], and a 2x4 on a freeway offramp. Course,
my buddy was hit from behind by a pickup truck on a freeway
offramp, so I'm not complaining.
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
I gotta tell you guys... it's been years since I was on a bike (assorted
400 vertical twins), and I was thinking seriously about looking at a
newer, larger bike for cruising with the wife...
> Matt Bennett wrote:
> >Dan Michaels wrote:
> >>
> >> Say what? Here's today's quiz, should you use the front brake
> >> to slow down while in a turn? Or will physics toss you on your
> >> ear?
> >
> >I took a roadracing course with Jason Pridmore, and he braked heavily
> >with the front on every turn, all the way to the apex of the turn, where
> >he started to accelerate.
> ...........
>
>
> Well, shoot, you're no fun. I was asking MB ;-).
>
> My understanding is std practice is to brake in the turn, so long
> as all of the usual "fun scary" things are absent [gravel, wetness,
> dead cats, 2x4's, etc]. BTW, I had my fun hitting gravel in a
> hairpin turn once [spent a week every nite in the tub with a set
> of tweezers after that], and a 2x4 on a freeway offramp. Course,
> my buddy was hit from behind by a pickup truck on a freeway
> offramp, so I'm not complaining.
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
> [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
>
>
--
A train stops at a train station. A bus stops at a bus station.
On my desk I have a workstation...
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
Matt Bennett wrote:
>
> Dan Michaels wrote:
> >
> > Say what? Here's today's quiz, should you use the front brake
> > to slow down while in a turn? Or will physics toss you on your
> > ear?
Ha ha! Is this still the Piclist?? Has one of my
motorcycle mailing lists corrupted my mail server?
;o)
Front brake stands the bike up mid turn, rear brake
pulls it around. Having done racing schools and much
track time myself I believe that anyone with a bike
should at least do the safety course, and an advanced
riding course. And stay away from braking in the
corners unless you are racing.
As for braking abilities of bikes vs cars, it depends
on the bike and rider. My bike from the factory does
60mph to stopped in 2.99 seconds, and it is further
modified now with braided stainless lines and sintered
racing pads. Yes is stops better than a Harley.
As one of those people with a "cafe racer" bike that
is also loud, please don't generalise us! I ride real
safe around people, and the loud pipes bring appreciation
when a concerned parent hears you slowing right down
as you near their child on his wobbly bicycle. As do
cops who hear you gently weaving through traffic. Loud
pipes carry a level of honesty in city riding. If you
start riding fast, everyone knows. I also agree with
the stupid teenager thing, many are not fit to ride
a motorcycle and give all other riders a bad name.
:o)
-Roman
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
"Alexandre Domingos F. Souza" wrote:
>
> >As a Piclister and a motorcyclist (7 motorcycles in the garage, and I've
>
> Do you ride THAT many? One for each day of the week? :o)
>
Do you use every tool in your toolbox every day?
;)
Matt
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
>> >As a Piclister and a motorcyclist (7 motorcycles in the garage, and I've
>> Do you ride THAT many? One for each day of the week? :o)
>Do you use every tool in your toolbox every day?
No, but surely I don't have 7 multitesters or scopes :o)
>
> >> >As a Piclister and a motorcyclist (7 motorcycles in the garage, and
>I've
> >> Do you ride THAT many? One for each day of the week? :o)
> >Do you use every tool in your toolbox every day?
>
> No, but surely I don't have 7 multitesters or scopes :o)
>
But you've probably got more than 7 screwdrivers and more than 7 wrenches.
:=)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
Roman Black wrote:
>Matt Bennett wrote:
>>
>> Dan Michaels wrote:
>> >
>> > Say what? Here's today's quiz, should you use the front brake
>> > to slow down while in a turn? Or will physics toss you on your
>> > ear?
>
>
>Ha ha! Is this still the Piclist?? Has one of my
>motorcycle mailing lists corrupted my mail server?
>;o)
>
Ha, Roman, I knew you couldn't resist this discussion.
And it's that new guy, Michael.B, what started this.
;-)
====================
>Front brake stands the bike up mid turn, rear brake
>pulls it around.
Woof. I'll remember that next time I need to juke the bike
sideways 6" fast in the middle of a turn. Inhale. Hand brake
hard, right pedal real hard. Exhale. Woof.
==============
Having done racing schools and much
>track time myself I believe that anyone with a bike
>should at least do the safety course, and an advanced
>riding course. And stay away from braking in the
>corners unless you are racing.
>
I think hereabouts they say you should basically use the
front brake in a turn, just as you would on the straights,
but this is obviously open to discussion ..... and like
everything else on a bike, must be exercised by a calm mind
and moderated by experience.
[BTW, Dale, a "mature" friend of mine who has never ridden,
and is apparently trying to recapture his misspent youth, asked
me a few days ago about the idea of his getting a bike. I just
said "no"].
- danM
===============
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
> Roman Black wrote:
> >Matt Bennett wrote:
> >>
> >> Dan Michaels wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Say what? Here's today's quiz, should you use the front brake
> >> > to slow down while in a turn? Or will physics toss you on your
> >> > ear?
> >
> >
> >Ha ha! Is this still the Piclist?? Has one of my
> >motorcycle mailing lists corrupted my mail server?
> >;o)
> >
>
> Ha, Roman, I knew you couldn't resist this discussion.
> And it's that new guy, Michael.B, what started this.
> ;-)
Hey.....I'm not that new, I've been here three whole months. ;-D I'm trying
to get over my shyness. ;-)
> ====================
>
> >Front brake stands the bike up mid turn, rear brake
> >pulls it around.
>
> Woof. I'll remember that next time I need to juke the bike
> sideways 6" fast in the middle of a turn. Inhale. Hand brake
> hard, right pedal real hard. Exhale. Woof.
> ==============
>
> Having done racing schools and much
> >track time myself I believe that anyone with a bike
> >should at least do the safety course, and an advanced
> >riding course. And stay away from braking in the
> >corners unless you are racing.
> >
>
> I think hereabouts they say you should basically use the
> front brake in a turn, just as you would on the straights,
> but this is obviously open to discussion ..... and like
> everything else on a bike, must be exercised by a calm mind
> and moderated by experience.
I don't think just bearing down on the front brake would be a real good
idea, but a "balanced" application of both seems to work well. A technical
analysis of this "balance" is difficult because the PID control is almost a
reflex action made up of so many variables and controls. ;-)
> [BTW, Dale, a "mature" friend of mine who has never ridden,
> and is apparently trying to recapture his misspent youth, asked
> me a few days ago about the idea of his getting a bike. I just
> said "no"].
>
> - danM
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
> [BTW, Dale, a "mature" friend of mine who has never ridden,
> and is apparently trying to recapture his misspent youth, asked
> me a few days ago about the idea of his getting a bike. I just
> said "no"].
I'm not worried about my abilities... but it sounds like traffic has
gotten a lot worse since the last time I rode (c. 1981 or so). Not sure
I want to be a target ALL the time. Maybe I'll stick to flying, it sounds
a lot safer.
Dale
--
A train stops at a train station. A bus stops at a bus station.
On my desk I have a workstation...
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
Dale.B wrote:
>On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Dan Michaels wrote:
>
>> [BTW, Dale, a "mature" friend of mine who has never ridden,
>> and is apparently trying to recapture his misspent youth, asked
>> me a few days ago about the idea of his getting a bike. I just
>> said "no"].
>
>I'm not worried about my abilities... but it sounds like traffic has
>gotten a lot worse since the last time I rode (c. 1981 or so). Not sure
>I want to be a target ALL the time. Maybe I'll stick to flying, it sounds
>a lot safer.
>
Also, you may want to do some soul searching first, if planning
to get one to take the wife touring. If she's an old biker mama,
then non problemo, but if not, well ..... at least get yourself
a good big insurance policy first [she'll probably only get on the
bike once, and will want some kind of support after you're gone.
[BTW, the mountains west of Denver here are littered with small
plane wrecks too].
- dan
===========
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
In Tokyo I saw the ultimate speed trap. On a city street (aprox 25 MPH
limit) at the side of the curb was a camera tripod with a combo speed
gun/video camera. There was a shopping bag set in front of the camera
so it could not be seen by oncoming traffic. A small cable lead around
the corner of the building where there was a folding desk, two seated
cops with a video monitor and recording equipment. There was a third
cop in an orange suit with a huge orange flag, and TWO motorcycle cops.
It was invisible to the oncoming traffic, with a total of five cops and
nary a donut in sight!
If only we took speed limits as seriously in the USA...
Douglas Butler wrote:
>
> In Tokyo I saw the ultimate speed trap. On a city street (aprox 25 MPH
> limit) at the side of the curb was a camera tripod with a combo speed
> gun/video camera. There was a shopping bag set in front of the camera
> so it could not be seen by oncoming traffic. A small cable lead around
> the corner of the building where there was a folding desk, two seated
> cops with a video monitor and recording equipment. There was a third
> cop in an orange suit with a huge orange flag, and TWO motorcycle cops.
> It was invisible to the oncoming traffic, with a total of five cops and
> nary a donut in sight!
>
> If only we took speed limits as seriously in the USA...
Now just imagine the benefits to society if all
those cops and dollars were utilised to prevent
crime! Such a shame dollar raising comes first and
crime fighting comes a very poor second. :o(
-Roman
part 1 2370 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi,
It appears that the Japanese have a different (or did do last time I heard
about it) philosophy to Westerners. In Japan, it seems people are employed
to do things that would not be considered here.
For example, if someone puts up some scaffolding around a building, they
don't just put signs up to warn people....they have guys employed to
physically ward you away from the danger etc.
Yes, it does seem that the police are interested in catching offenders for
offences that have a monetary value attached to them. Still, speeding is an
offence that kills/maims/causes distress for a *significant* number of
innocent people each year...
Maybe they should start confiscating vehicle for each offence.....and you
get it confiscated longer the more times you get caught....that might hurt
more. (I have a vested interest in this with being a cyclist!)
>
> In Tokyo I saw the ultimate speed trap. On a city street (aprox 25 MPH
> limit) at the side of the curb was a camera tripod with a combo speed
> gun/video camera. There was a shopping bag set in front of the camera
> so it could not be seen by oncoming traffic. A small cable lead around
> the corner of the building where there was a folding desk, two seated
> cops with a video monitor and recording equipment. There was a third
> cop in an orange suit with a huge orange flag, and TWO motorcycle cops.
> It was invisible to the oncoming traffic, with a total of five cops and
> nary a donut in sight!
>
> If only we took speed limits as seriously in the USA...
Now just imagine the benefits to society if all
those cops and dollars were utilised to prevent
crime! Such a shame dollar raising comes first and
crime fighting comes a very poor second. :o(
-Roman
> Douglas Butler wrote:
> >
> > In Tokyo I saw the ultimate speed trap. On a city street (aprox 25 MPH
> > limit) at the side of the curb was a camera tripod with a combo speed
> > gun/video camera. There was a shopping bag set in front of the camera
> > so it could not be seen by oncoming traffic. A small cable lead around
> > the corner of the building where there was a folding desk, two seated
> > cops with a video monitor and recording equipment. There was a third
> > cop in an orange suit with a huge orange flag, and TWO motorcycle cops.
> > It was invisible to the oncoming traffic, with a total of five cops and
> > nary a donut in sight!
> >
> > If only we took speed limits as seriously in the USA...
>
>
> Now just imagine the benefits to society if all
> those cops and dollars were utilised to prevent
> crime! Such a shame dollar raising comes first and
> crime fighting comes a very poor second. :o(
> -Roman
Actually, I was just thinking about that this morning as we drove through
town. Since I was a passenger I got to do more close observation of those
around me. Drivers with headphones on (quite illegal, for obvious
reasons), unsafe vehicles, vehicles missing lights, you name it. I think
my state dropping its vehicle inspection requirements was a mistake.
But I also started thinking about the number of cops busy with traffic
enforcement. I think there may be a benefit to increasing it if you take
a long-term view. I think we've raised a generation or two of people who
don't take police seriously because, from the time they were little tiny
miscreants, they saw their Mom & Dad & sitsers/brothers/neighbors getting
away with routinely, casually breaking the law. Red light? No cop, no
stop. Yellow light? Speed up. Speed limit? Ignore it. It's only the
law, after all, and laws can obviously be ignored if they're inconvenient
or we don't like them for some other reason.
I think perhaps the reduction in and trivialization of traffic enforcement
has been the camel's nose under the tent, and now we're being pushed out
of the tent because so many people were exposed to this casual disregard
for the law. After all, if traffic laws mean nothing, why would drug laws
be taken any more seriously? Pretty soon you can rationalize disregarding
any law that's not convenient to you personally.
Anyway, just a random thought on this fine second official day of my
vacation.
Dale
--
A train stops at a train station. A bus stops at a bus station.
On my desk I have a workstation...
>Now just imagine the benefits to society if all
>those cops and dollars were utilised to prevent
>crime! Such a shame dollar raising comes first and
>crime fighting comes a very poor second. :o(
Alexandre Domingos F. Souza wrote:
>
> >Now just imagine the benefits to society if all
> >those cops and dollars were utilised to prevent
> >crime! Such a shame dollar raising comes first and
> >crime fighting comes a very poor second. :o(
>
> Are you living in Brazil, Roman? :o)
MITVMA.MIT.EDU
