home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   alt.fan.noam-chomsky      Founded cognitive approach to politics      62,757 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 61,389 of 62,757   
   Sancho Panza to All   
   Re: Speed Cameras vs. Red Light Cameras   
   26 Apr 11 08:31:42   
   
   f94d5031   
   XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore   
   From: otterpower@xhotmail.com   
      
   On 4/26/2011 8:25 AM, N8N wrote:   
   > On Apr 26, 8:17 am, Steve  wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:10:15 -0700 (PDT), N8N   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> On Apr 26, 7:51 am, Steve  wrote:   
   >>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 04:40:32 -0700 (PDT), "His Highness the   
   >>>> TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"   
   >>   
   >>>>   wrote:   
   >>>>> On Apr 25, 10:49 pm, Jessica Powell  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 4/25/2011 9:26 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser   
   >>   
   >>>>>>> But I rather have you fight Red Light Cameras than Speed Cameras. They   
   >>>>>>> are more susceptible to tricks and doesn't tame traffic that much.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>> If you have one you must have the other... or nothing at all!   
   >>   
   >>>>>> False dichotomy fallacy.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>> Better   
   >>>>>>> yet, remove the signs that were meant to catch drivers not protect the   
   >>>>>>> people, as you claim to be the case.   
   >>   
   >>>>>> I made no such claim about signs.   
   >>   
   >>>>> Let me give you my thoughts:   
   >>   
   >>>>> Red Light Cameras are meaningless but profitable. Speed Cameras are   
   >>>>> meaningful and profitable...   
   >>   
   >>>> Red Light Cameras are meaningful.  Anything that inhibits red light   
   >>>> running is meaningful.   
   >>   
   >>> Red light cameras don't inhibit RLRing.   
   >>   
   >> Of course they do.   
   >   
   > What a thoughtful, well-reasoned response.   
   >   
   > nate   
      
   As a matter of fact, the logic was stupefyingly overpowering. Emphasis   
   on the penultimate word.   
      
      
   >   
   >>   Those who install RLCs have   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> no incentive to actually reduce the incidence of RLRing and every   
   >>> incentive to keep it artificially high.  They do so by cherrypicking   
   >>> intersections with engineering problems like short yellows and   
   >>> deliberately install RLCs there and only there without fixing the   
   >>> problems.   
   >>   
   >>> nate- Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> - Show quoted text -   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca