Visit the Cellar!

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: bright folks talking about everything. The Cellar is the original coffeeshop with no coffee and no shop. Founded in 1990, The Cellar is one of the oldest communities on the net. Join us at the table if you like!

 
What's IotD?

The interesting, amazing, or mind-boggling images of our days.

IotD Stuff

ARCHIVES - over 13 years of IotD!
About IotD
RSS2
XML

Permalink Latest Image

Dec 14th, 2014: Ann Arbor Chalk

Recent Images

December 12, 2014: Grand Canyon fills with cloud
Dec 9th, 2014: Witley Park
Dec 6th, 2014: Balloons
Nov 23, 2014: Tooth
Nov 16, 2014: Batmobile
Nov 12th, 2014: Tirpitz
Nov 6th 2014 Soldiers at Stonehenge.

The CELLAR Tip Mug
Some folks who have noticed IotD

Neatorama
Worth1000
Mental Floss
Boing Boing
Switched
W3streams
GruntDoc's Blog
No Quarters
Making Light
darrenbarefoot.com
GromBlog
b3ta
Church of the Whale Penis
UniqueDaily.com
Sailor Coruscant
Projectionist

Link to us and we will try to find you after many months!

Common image haunts

Spluch
Debri.ru
Astro Pic of the Day
Earth Sci Pic of the Day
We Make Money Not Art
ochevidec.net
Strange New Products
Geisha Asobi Blog
Cute animals blog (in Russian)
20minutos.es
Yahoo Most Emailed

Please avoid copyrighted images (or get permission) when posting!

Advertising

Philadelphia Pawn Shop
The best real estate agent in Montgomery County
Epps Beverages and Beer, Limerick, PA
Pa and Pa, Thai and Vietnamese restaurant, Bala PA
Choppers Hair Shop, Royersford
Sal's Pizza, Elkins Park
Burholme Auto Body, Philadelphia
Coles Tobacco, Pottstown
ERM Auto Service, Glenside
Glenside Collision
Kimmy's Nail Salon, Jeffersonville
Moorehead Catering, Trappe
Salon 153, Bala
Dominicks Auto Body, Phoenixville

   Undertoad  Monday Jan 6 11:45 AM

1/6/2003: Speeding duck



What the hell...?

With the subject line you could figure it out. In the town of Glueckstadt, Germany, the cops have set up radar and traffic cameras to automatically catch speeders.

And this was one of their catches, a duck - clocked at a speed of 39 km/h in a 30 km/h zone.

I'm so against automated ticketing, and not because a few birds might gum up the system. I'll just note that cameras have not, to my knowledge, done all that much to really prevent crime. They certainly aren't the magic bullet solution.

In the US, municipalities have tried putting cameras on traffic lights, catching people who are running the red light. They notice two things. One, revenue from traffic tickets goes way up. Two, safety goes way down.

Why: because locals learn to slam on their brakes to avoid getting ticketed, and voila: a dramatic rise in rear-end accidents at intersections.

Compare this to what happens in major cities during power outages, when there are no traffic lights. No accidents! People are suddenly forced to become considerate of others in order to make the system work; and guess what, they DO.



Cochese  Monday Jan 6 01:20 PM

I agree w/ you that technology can hinder more than it helps sometimes, and I also am fervently against automated traps such as this. But I think that your blackout example is an extreme circumstance.

I think the blackout is more an example of human behavior: "hey, we're all in this crisis together".

Also, the modern city as it currently stands (dominated by car/truck traffic) absolutely needs traffic lights. Even the most basic of intersections gets completely backed up if the light isn't working, due mostly to the indecision of less-than-competent drivers when it's their turn to go.

Basically, we're going to have to continue to put up w/ bad drivers as long as teenagers, senior citizens and my wife continue to hold licenses.

</rant>



arz  Monday Jan 6 02:10 PM

Here in San Diego, a judge tossed out a whole series of moving violations that were "written" by the red light cameras. Turned out the contract the city had with the supplier was deemed questionable.

Lockheed Martin, the system supplier, was being given a percentage of the fine from each ticket their system issued. This gave LM an incentive to move the sensors embedded in the street such that motorists were given less and less time to enter and then exit the intersection before the camera was triggered.

I was quite surprised that the city would do such a foolish thing as give a corporation a piece of the pie so directly and b) that a judge was actualy willing to call them on it.

My knowledge of the law is weak, but I was under the impression that there had to be an arresting officer who witnessed the infraction in order to issue a ticket to the infractor. Thus, I am not sure how these radar cameras or other automated means hold up legally, unless the arresting officer is the guy who comes out and changes the video tape every few days (or watches the video remotely, or whatever).



russotto  Monday Jan 6 02:18 PM

In localities with red light cameras (and I believe PA passed such a bill last session :-( ), they just change the law so no arresting officer is necessary. If they have a picture of you, you are guilty by definition. Justice doesn't figure into it.

I don't like it. If they want to catch me doubling the normal speed limit drunk through a red light in an active school zone, let 'em send out a cop to do it. It just ain't sporting otherwise.



99 44/100% pure  Monday Jan 6 02:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by arz
. . . I was under the impression that there had to be an arresting officer who witnessed the infraction in order to issue a ticket to the infractor.
In Maryland they circumvent the need for an arresting officer to issue the ticket by classifying it as a non-moving violation. IANAL, but apparently this allows them to issue the ticket without requiring an officer to be present if the recipient decides to challenge it in court. Instead of an officer, the company that provides the equipment has an "expert" present to attest to the accuracy of the machinery.

Because it is a non-moving violation, no points are assessed -- just a fine. Also, as a result, the citation goes to the owner of the car, regardless of who was driving.

I gleaned this info while challenging a parking ticket, which required me to sit through a slew of these camera tickets. At the start of the session, the judge carefully explained how the equipment worked, what evidence was present for each citation (photos of the car going through the intersection with the car's license plate and red light showing, how long the light had been red before the car entered the intersection, the speed of the car when photo was shot, etc.). The judge then explained the law, and what the penalty was, and how to NOT tick him off by giving him a whole bullshit story about the equipment being faulty, some lame medical emergency, or an excuse about trying to stop, or that someone else was driving.

Sure enough, the first four people who stood before him did EXACTLY what he had just advised them not to do. And the blatant crap these people spewed! The whole courtroom was giggling under its collective breath. Result: guilty, with fines, court costs, and additional contempt fees for pissing everyone's time away. That's the first time I ever heard of average Joes cheering when the Man put the hammer down on other average Joes.

I just hope they don't institute this type of thing for speeding, or I'm bankrupt.


slang  Monday Jan 6 02:40 PM

Re: 1/6/2003: Speeding duck

Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
One, revenue from traffic tickets goes way up. Two, safety goes way down.

Why: because locals learn to slam on their brakes to avoid getting ticketed, and voila: a dramatic rise in rear-end accidents at intersections.
Another great example of what the gov't would call a success. If they get their revenue, all else is irrelevant.


Elspode  Monday Jan 6 04:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by arz

Lockheed Martin, the system supplier, was being given a percentage of the fine from each ticket their system issued. This gave LM an incentive to move the sensors embedded in the street such that motorists were given less and less time to enter and then exit the intersection before the camera was triggered.
Geez...handing the keys to profit to a soulless corporation (especially one that is heavily invested in building things to enable people and property to be more efficiently killed and destroyed) and then expecting them not to stack the deck in their favor in every possible way is kind of Pollyanna, isn't it? What the hell were the city fathers thinking?

Kind of like waving a steak in front of a starving dog and expecting him not to eat it. I would guess that the system was priced lower if the city would grant LM that percentage deal...

Sounds to me like a good judicial decision was reached, here.


wolf  Monday Jan 6 05:37 PM

Every now and again one of our local police departments puts out their "passive traffic safety device" ... one of those billboard thingies that tells you your speed as you pass it, and reminds you to slow down, etc.

This, however, usually backfires. Many people have this funny streak in 'em (I do anyway) that sees such a device as a challenge. How high can I make it go??? (Which is why it is NEVER a good idea to take a Breathalyzer to a party, incidentally).

Thus far I haven't encounted one of the officers hiding in a sidestreet just on the other side of one of these things, but I have seen some pretty impressive numbers on the billboard.



slang  Monday Jan 6 05:49 PM

Quote:
Many people have this funny streak in 'em (I do anyway) that sees such a device as a challenge. How high can I make it go???

Kinda like this?


wolf  Monday Jan 6 06:11 PM

Well ... kinda like that ...

My most recent numbers were speed limit 25, my speed 67. (I didn't have a whole lot of running room. It was one of those curvy development streets ...)



jtm  Monday Jan 6 07:57 PM

" In the US, municipalities have tried putting cameras on traffic lights, catching people who are running the red light. They notice two things. One, revenue from traffic tickets goes way up. Two, safety goes way down.

Why: because locals learn to slam on their brakes to avoid getting ticketed, and voila: a dramatic rise in rear-end accidents at intersections. "

If people are getting rear-ended, don't blame it on the police. Someone isn't paying attention and/or driving too closely behind someone else.

Traffic fines are annoying, but running red lights is dangerous and there's no excuse for it. It's probably the most dangerous moving violation, right alongside running stop signs. Besides being rear-ended is not as fatal as t-boning someone.

Not that I don't find anything wrong with the Lockheed Martin arrangement.



Griff  Monday Jan 6 08:01 PM

I'm hoping they park one of those passive devices on my regular bicycling route, nothing burns calories like lawbreaking.

I remember (sorta) a bar in Allentown that had a breathelizer (sp?) in it, very bad idea.



xoxoxoBruce  Monday Jan 6 08:13 PM

Bullshit. The facts don't support red light running as an major problem or a major cause of accidents or injuries.
They found out they could cut red light violations 85% by increasing the yellow by 2 seconds but Lockheed Martin sued
and renegotiated their contract to increase their percentage of the fines.



jtm  Monday Jan 6 08:38 PM

[quote]Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Bullshit.Real mature, tiger.

The facts don't support red light running as an major problem or a major cause of accidents or injuries.

What exactly are these "facts"? Regardless, by your logic, since only a small percentage of airplane crashes are caused by bombs, we shouldn't use so much energy trying to find them.

They found out they could cut red light violations 85% by increasing the yellow by 2 seconds but Lockheed Martin sued
and renegotiated their contract to increase their percentage of the fines.


Read my post again. I never apologize and excused LM for their role. That's a separate issue and, frankly, a red herring in this debate.



slang  Monday Jan 6 09:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jtm
If people are getting rear-ended, don't blame it on the police. Someone isn't paying attention and/or driving too closely behind someone else.
Thatís a good point. The police should not be blamed. The municipality, the state, or the locals should.

If you think back to driverís ed, the std ďcushionĒ distance between cars should ideally be one car length per 10 miles an hour of the speed you are traveling. If you are able to follow that standard, you should never even come close to rear ending the car ahead of you. From my experience in driving in various metro areas in the north east, this standard is impossible to maintain in heavy traffic. If you bring your rural courteous driving habits to the city and leave a nice comfortable cushion, then people will be darting into it from a side streets, or just plain passing you (even on a double line) as I noticed some of the more aggressive Massholes did.

There is a certain level of expectation that the guy ahead of you wont just lock up the binders. If you are approaching an intersection, you should be more alert to avoid a potential collision. For the most part, the car ahead of you is speeding up to make the light. If he speeds up, then locks the binders, Iíll very likely be making creative design statement with his trunk. There is theory and practice of metro driving. Drivers can normally judge the point of no return when approaching a light, if you change your mind at the last moment and screech out into the intersection youíre just showing your lack of ability to drive safely. Even if you donít get a citation, youíre a hazard.

In my opinion as some nameless, faceless Cellar asshat ô , this newly developed technique of avoiding a citation by braking furiously while getting into an accident is counter productive and a direct result of this new 1984 system.

The creators and implementors of this system should be summarily executed in the middle of the intersection for the camera to observe (but only after the light turns red).

Quote:
Originally posted by jtm
Traffic fines are annoying, but running red lights is dangerous and there's no excuse for it. It's probably the most dangerous moving violation, right alongside running stop signs. Besides being rear-ended is not as fatal as t-boning someone.
I agree running a light after the light has been red for say, ten seconds and the cross traffic has started moving, is one of the top two most dangerous violations. Iím guessing thatís not the circumstance of the majority of the fines though. If I were a betting slang, I would bet that the majority of fines are written for those who pass just after the light turned red. In most cases before the opposing traffic actually started moving. It's also more than likely the opposing trafficís light also turns green as the other turned red. Not smart.

In any case, common sense and defensive driving techniques keep you from being some bureaucratís profitable statistic. When the light turns green donít dump the clutch and do a ďhole shotĒ from the indicator line on the road. Instead , realize you have no control of other drivers, and check for traffic in all directions that may have someone coming at you before you proceed into the intersection.

Itís a very simple technique, and doesnít cost a fortune or create an automotive big brother. Donít dadís teach their kids to drive anymore??


wolf  Monday Jan 6 10:10 PM

No, they don't.

Not only do dad and mom drive like idiots too, but they often hire someone else to teach the kidling to drive. I think you still get a wee bit of a break on the new driver's insurance.

Actually, my mother stayed WELL away from the issue of teaching me how to drive and turned me over to my high school's driving instructor. My mom worked for the school and explained to him that it would not be a good idea for her to be in the car with me while I was learning. (it's STILL not a good idea, BTW; "Mom, just close your eyes and hang on").

I know all the right things to do, all the regs, and am actually a safe driver ... occasional passenger sphincter locks to the contrary. No accidents (*knock wood*).

Also, in addition to the two car length following distance I was taught, there's another rule of thumb that a lot of people either forget, didn't learn or outright ignore --- when at a stop, don't pull so close to another vehicle that you can't see their tires in entirety.



slang  Monday Jan 6 10:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wolf
Also, in addition to the two car length following distance I was taught.....
Thats not what I learned. Two car lengths for 20 MPH, three car lengths for 30 MPH, four for 40.........


wolf  Monday Jan 6 10:56 PM

Actually, what I was taught was "pick some point ahead of you. watch the car before you cross that point. count one-one thousand two-one-thousand" to estimate a proper following distance at any speed.

I think that's how it went.

I've never rear ended anyone, so I guess I learned it okay.



Bitman  Tuesday Jan 7 12:26 AM

You just described the two-second rule. Much easier than the car-length mathobatics. I use the rear-tire rule too, though my dad doesn't.

Quote:
I'll just note that cameras have not, to my knowledge, done all that much to really prevent crime.
That's not their point. They're there to catch criminals, not prevent them.
Quote:
Compare this to what happens in major cities during power outages, when there are no traffic lights. No accidents! People are suddenly forced to become considerate of others in order to make the system work; and guess what, they DO.
Only as long as the outage is temporary. If all lights were replaced with signs, people would resume "trying to get ahead of the crowd," and things would get ugly again.


slang  Tuesday Jan 7 12:30 AM

If we were all using the Segways, this wouldnt be a problem.

(I havent used the Segway in a post for a while so there it is)



wolf  Tuesday Jan 7 01:24 AM

I dunno about that ...

If we were all using Segways, then we'd likely have to learn a whole new batch of road rules. Might be a lot of confusion at first.

Imagine a 10 Segway pileup. And if someone forgot their helmet ... ooh, not pretty!

Also, a Segway would probably not be my first choice in a snowstorm. Unless they are coming out with an offroad edition anytime soon ...



dave  Tuesday Jan 7 06:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
The facts don't support red light running as an major problem or a major cause of accidents or injuries.
I have almost been T-bone'd <b>twice</b> by some asshole running a red light. So yeah, it's a problem.


quzah  Tuesday Jan 7 07:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by slang

Kinda like this? (insert sweet picture of someone hauling ass)
That picture just fucking rules. I don't know why, but it struck me as particularly brilliant. Could be the herbs. Anyway, it's a very cool pic. I had to save it.

Quzah.


Griff  Tuesday Jan 7 07:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by slang
If we were all using the Segways, this wouldnt be a problem.

(I havent used the Segway in a post for a while so there it is)
BTW Segways are now available at amazon.com


smalland  Tuesday Jan 7 07:43 AM

On being ticketed

As far as I know, when you get a police citation, you are being invited to settle with the police. If you pay the fine, you won't be sued for your offense. Technically, there is no requirement that a police officer be there in person.

You can always choose not to pay your fine, and you probably will be duly charged in a court of law. Then it will be your word against the police's word. In the case of speed cameras, the jury will have to decide whether they think you were breaking the law on the basis of evidence from the speed camera.

Your call.

s.



slang  Tuesday Jan 7 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dave
I have almost been T-bone'd <b>twice</b> by some asshole running a red light. So yeah, it's a problem.
I don't doubt that this is a problem. If I had encountered similar close calls I'd be a lot more sensitive about the red light thing. All of the accidents and close calls I've had have been involved me getting hit from behind. I've had 3 major crashes, all of which people hit my car. All hit from behind, 2 hit in the road as I was waiting to turn left, one klobbered parked.

So, I guess I'm overly sensitive to rear end collisions.


slang  Tuesday Jan 7 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
That picture just fucking rules.
I'm glad I found something you liked. I know the hunting pics dont seem to make you too happy.


slang  Tuesday Jan 7 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wolf
I Also, a Segway would probably not be my first choice in a snowstorm. Unless they are coming out with an offroad edition anytime soon ...
The wheels are 12 or 14 inches in diameter. Snow probably wouldnt practical for the Segway, BUT, when the demand is strong enough there will be tire chains available for them.


slang  Tuesday Jan 7 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Griff
BTW Segways are now available at amazon.com
I've seen that. The preproduction orders have been strong. As soon as the price comes down I will have one. I might go as high as 3k. Time will tell.

If you guys think I post dorky pictures now, just wait til I get a Segway. I already have some pics in mind.

Slang on Segway shooting a pistol
Slang on Segway eating a hoagie
Slang on Segway attempting to climb stairs
Slang on Segway riding on the double line on main st.
Slang on Segway shopping at Walmart
Slang on Segway riding on the high school football field

Slang on Segway being arrested by the local law enforcement.


russotto  Tuesday Jan 7 01:40 PM

They stuck one of those billboards on a local road (speed limit 25) near me. I think I managed to get it up to 32mph. On inline skates (didn't have my speed skates with me, alas)



slang  Tuesday Jan 7 01:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by russotto
They stuck one of those billboards on a local road (speed limit 25) near me. I think I managed to get it up to 32mph.
I wonder what a speeding fine for skating would look like?


wolf  Tuesday Jan 7 01:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by slang
Slang on Segway being arrested by the local law enforcement.
Offer to post bail made on Sheep Poetry thread is still in effect. I'm a woman of my word.

Unless, of course, your preference would involve a couple of cross-chest shotshell bandoliers and a 12-gauge in each hand to bust you out. Barney Fife would pee himself. (actually, I'd just wait for the nightly donut run and walk on into the station and unhook you from the radiator. I always carry a handcuff key. I just thought the other idea might be thrillin' for you)


wolf  Tuesday Jan 7 02:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by slang


I wonder what a speeding fine for skating would look like?

Just guessing, but:

"Ignoring a traffic signaling device."

Probably around $80 plus court costs

I'll ask around.

I honesty, unless you got yourself in a position of causing an accident or "risking a catastrophe" I don't think you'd get fined for skating too fast. Laughed at when you fell down, yes, but arrested, no.


slang  Tuesday Jan 7 02:50 PM

Hey wait a minute! Russotto can outrun my Segway? I need to start designing a turbo kit or something, that's just not right.



wolf  Tuesday Jan 7 06:35 PM

Actually, slang, you might wanna try the inline skates. Get around a lot faster, with, well, okay, not LESS effort, but different effort. Could be ideal for you. I don't know if you've done this before.

Also, they are much less costly than the Segway. And you don't need to recharge them every couple of miles.

I've actually considered it from time to time (and was once able to make a fairly effective trip up and down one of the hallways here at work), but am relatively fearful of injury, especially now that I saw the most recent x-rays of my nearly healed hand ...

Work up the design on the turbo kit, anyway. I'll bet there'll be a demand for it ...



Elspode  Tuesday Jan 7 06:55 PM

Segway looks a little like a chariot...

Crossing threads from Entertainment, here...since the Segway does resemble a small-platform chariot, perhaps we can add even more high tech to the gladiatorial contests we're designing by getting Segway to provide a couple dozen of these, and then we can have racing battles and save big money on the horses!



wolf  Tuesday Jan 7 07:03 PM

That will also save a lot of hassles from the PETA people.

At least until the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Segways gets up and running.

Carefully wording the hold harmless/liability control statements should suffice for the human, subhuman, and demihuman participants. (I've wondered about some of the contestants on stuff like Fear Factor. I don't think they're all quite human).



slang  Tuesday Jan 7 07:04 PM

Good idea. I like it. The Segway is not nearly as frightening as a team of thundering horses but having people spraying boiling oil from a wand while riding one, that's scary !

Running people over with horses seems to be a lot more fun though. For that matter running people over with a moose sounds appealing too.

Anyway, the budget will determine the props.



Elspode  Tuesday Jan 7 07:17 PM

Perhaps Segway would scale up the original model to chariot racing scale...more mass, more speed, more standing room for the hot oil gunner?

Jeeps turned into Humvees...any reason why Segways can't turn into Battle Wagons?



slang  Tuesday Jan 7 07:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Elspode
Jeeps turned into Humvees...any reason why Segways can't turn into Battle Wagons?
They'll require the yet undesigned slangturbo to handle the extra load.

Hey, maybe we can install a small turbine in them. Turbines have plenty of power.


wolf  Tuesday Jan 7 07:31 PM

Brilliant. I'm glad I thought of it. Can you have some preliminary drawings on my desk by tomorrow so I can take credit for it at the design team meeting?



Uryoces  Tuesday Jan 7 08:58 PM

If they are being sneaky and not counting them as moving violations, that would be ... sneaky ... yes. I see so many imapatient drivers in downtown Seattle going through red lights that are a second old, they'd make a mint!

But if you want payback my Dad always says, "Wait 'til it's night, and throw rocks through their windows!"

I don't think he's actually done it, but it sounds most satisfying...



wolf  Tuesday Jan 7 09:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Uryoces
But if you want payback my Dad always says, "Wait 'til it's night, and throw rocks through their windows!"

I don't think he's actually done it, but it sounds most satisfying...

If you think that's satisfying ... imagine gallon jugs of frozen urine.

(leaving the caps off is recommended.)


quzah  Wednesday Jan 8 02:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by wolf

"Ignoring a traffic signaling device."

Probably around $80 plus court costs

I'll ask around.

I honesty, unless you got yourself in a position of causing an accident or "risking a catastrophe" I don't think you'd get fined for skating too fast. Laughed at when you fell down, yes, but arrested, no.
"Wreckless endangerment."

Quzah.


quzah  Wednesday Jan 8 02:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by slang
I'm glad I found something you liked. I know the hunting pics dont seem to make you too happy.
I'm vegan. Hunting makes me sad. In general I'm not a big fan of things dying. I'm not fond of death in general...

...except when I'm shooting people in a game. Then it's fun. Time for some more Delta Force...

Quzah.


Stress Puppy  Wednesday Jan 8 05:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah

I'm vegan. Hunting makes me sad. In general I'm not a big fan of things dying. I'm not fond of death in general...

...except when I'm shooting people in a game. Then it's fun. Time for some more Delta Force...

Quzah.
Ditto that. Vegan also, and I really dislike thinking about hurting something else..... games don't count though, 'cause you're not actually hurting anything ) (Gotta get out aggression -somehow- eh?)


99 44/100% pure  Wednesday Jan 8 06:51 PM

Warning: No Useful Information Contained in This Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
. . . In the US, municipalities have tried putting cameras on traffic lights, catching people who are running the red light. They notice two things. One, revenue from traffic tickets goes way up. Two, safety goes way down.
Well, as it happens, I just ran across an article in last Sunday's Baltimore Sun that touts the benefits of red-light cameras. (Yes, I read the Sunday paper on Wednesday; sue me.)

I tried to put the url here but it didn't work because the stupid site requires registration, and -- I'm sorry -- but who's going to bother to do that, right?

So, I thought I'd at least quote some useful data, since the headline for the article is
"Traffic deaths down 20% in city, police say" and the subhead is
"No fatal crashes reported at red-light camera areas" -- but, alas, this is the Baltimore Sun, after all, so no useful information was detailed therein. Like, just for grins, how about telling us how many fatal crashes there were at red-light camera areas before the cameras were installed?

*sigh* Oh, nevermind.


Torrere  Wednesday Jan 8 09:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah


"Wreckless endangerment."
Awesome spelling error.


perth  Wednesday Jan 8 10:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Torrere


Awesome spelling error.
i thought he did it on purpose.

~james


henry fitch  Thursday Jan 9 06:58 PM

See, there's a tradeoff. As 90-odd% Pure states, they reduce traffic deaths. At the same time, they increase property-damaging rearenders. Worth it?



Torrere  Thursday Jan 9 09:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by perth

i thought he did it on purpose.

~james
So did I, which was why I didn't use "typo". I also thought "intentional spelling error" would sound stupidly verbose.


quzah  Friday Jan 10 01:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Torrere
So did I, which was why I didn't use "typo". I also thought "intentional spelling error" would sound stupidly verbose.
I actually don't know if I did it on purpose. I was um... mentally incapasicated at the time. I was either being incredibly witty, or it was a typo. I really don't know (or remember) which it was. Because it makes me look fiendishly clever, I'll opt for intentional.

Quzah.


99 44/100% pure  Friday Jan 10 07:56 AM

Missed the point

Quote:
Originally posted by henry fitch
. . . As 90-odd% Pure states, they reduce traffic deaths. . .
Hey, I didn't state anything of the sort -- I was merely trying to point out that I couldn't find any reliable data on whether these cameras had, indeed reduced traffic deaths, or even changed driver behavior, for that matter. The headline states that traffic deaths are down overall in the city, and that "no fatal crashes reported at red-light areas," but nowhere in the article do they report what number of fatalities occurred at these intersections before the cameras were used, nor do they even imply (much less provide data to support), that fatalities overall are down due to this technology.

I have not formulated an opinion one way or the other, as I don't have enough information. My own experience is that I tend to stop, rather than go through an early yellow at a known camera intersection, but not if I'm near the end of the yellow with a tailgater behind me (don't want to get rear-ended).

I was just enjoying the opportunity to impugn the quality and reputation of the Baltimore Sun, a known lefty-rag, as I believed some readers here would enjoy that immensely.


perth  Friday Jan 10 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Torrere


So did I, which was why I didn't use "typo". I also thought "intentional spelling error" would sound stupidly verbose.


~james


Your reply here?

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: a bunch of interesting folks talking about everything. Add your two cents to IotD by joining the Cellar.