| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue, Aug 31 2010, 5:58 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
 |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | It was fine at 50, nothing bad has ever happened on it in recent memory, you never see any pedestrians, and now they are widening it to almost turnpike size. I would like to know how to pursue putting it back to the original 50 speed limit, and get rid of the speeding ticket heyday the police are getting. |
Your recent memory must be very recent. A school bus was struck by a car attempting to pass on the shoulder last year. A car crashed into a tree narrowly missing a pedestrian a few months ago when another car slowed down to turn left onto Farmstead way. Before the speed limit was lowered, at least once a day, there was screeching tires, and there are quite a few accidents (probably about 2-3 a month).
In the warmer months, there are lots of pedestrians and bicyclists
using the road, especially on weekends.
Please, give it up. You have no idea what you're talking about. |
Do not forget the overturned car a year or so ago into someones backyard near Lynch and the telephone pole that was hit earlier this summer down by the park during the early afternoon. |
That does not mean the speed limit is the problem; if anything, reducing the speed limit will cause MORE accidents like this because it will just increase congestion and tailgating accidents. The problem is stupid people. There are plenty of pedestrians and bicyclists on other roads that are smaller and posted at 45 or 50. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 31 2010, 6:02 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Quote: | | It's simple: The county's traffic engineers deemed the road unsafe at 50MPH. They have read up on traffic engineering I believe. A project is also underway on the road to add additional safety elements to the road design in order to further enhance the safety of the roadway for drivers, residents, pedestrians, and bicyclists. |
You're completely wrong. The traffic engineer decided that 50 mph was a SAFE speed and that the 85th percentile speed limit should have been even HIGHER. The county changed the limit based on statute because Cranbury was whining for years and the mayor wrote some letter trying to reclassify the road in a desperate attempt to lower the limit DESPITE the traffic engineer's advice, since this was the only way. The traffic engineer was ignored. This was simply a case of politics and whining trumping safety and engineering concerns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 31 2010, 6:32 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
See its so frustrating to talk to some of you folks because you are so incredibly stuck on the idea that reducing the speed limit increases safety. Its blatantly untrue and its also blatantly untrue that the traffic engineer who studied the road approved of any reduction. You also refuse to understand that consistency in limits is important, and that 50 mph is a standard for this type of road. Its 50 mph on ancil davidson. 50 mph on cranbury neck. 50 mph on 571. 50 mph on john white rd. 50 mph on old trenton after 571. 50 mph on southfield rd. 45 on George Davidson Road. I could go on and on. Most are thinner roads, some are more congested, and most have more houses directly on them. If the corresponding stretch of road has plenty in common with these roads, shouldn't it have the same speed limit?
I know people love to go "but there are pedestrians and housing, and the character of the area has changed!". Well it has not changed much in the last 5-7 years, and there isn't much housing directly on it except for after the curve (and even then, not even that much), and it has no more pedestrians than any other 45 or 50 mph road. Furthermore, most people slow down for pedestrians and bikers anyway, so there's no point to have a low speed limit when there are none around.
Lets see which roads are 35: Edgemere Ave, about 1/2 as wide with houses directly on it. 35 on Plainsboro Rd. near the school. 35 on Millstone rd. 35 on Clarksville rd before N. Post. 206 through lawrenceville, 40. Again, I could go on and on. All of these roads are vastly more residential and are much thinner. So why would it make sense to make a road that has NOTHING IN COMMON with the above 35? Do you see why this is incredibly nonsensical?
All of these roads also have their share of a few accidents, because its NEW JERSEY and there are going to be stupid aggressive drivers. A temporary construction zone limit is one thing, but a permanent change is another. If you want a speed limit reduction to actually be safe, you need to change the road and utilize traffic calming. The reason this change is so absurd to me is not because I'm some 'angry out of towner', its because I study traffic engineering as one thing I am interested in. Again, the real problem is that some of you refuse to drop the belief that decreasing limits below traffic speed increases safety. Its completely untrue. Or that, several accidents are a rationale for a lower limit. Also true.
Even state DOT guides agree that posting limits way way way below the 85th percentile speed is stupid, because drivers judge appropriate speed generally pretty well for the most part, and do so much better than an obscure statute that applies to roads that vary immensely. I remember the statute I was told by the county representative....must have 660 feet or greater of business development or houses directly adjacent to the road. As I said before, because developments count technically as 'businesses', this 'rule' applies pretty much anywhere and is incredibly vague.
http://www.gjcity.org/citydeptwebpages/publicworksandutilities/transportationengineering/TEFilesThatLINKintoDWStoreHere/Word%20Files%20Needing%20to%20be%20Saved%20as%20HTML/EstablishingRealisticSpeedLimitsBrochure.pdf
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3151.asp
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/03/wyoming_looks_at_raising_speed.html
http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/
http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/szn/determining_the_85th_percentile_speed.htm
http://www.bhspi.org/documents/BHSPI_ITE6_Denver090715f.pdf
85th percentile is supposed to be the main consideration, aside from some huge anomaly that dictates a lower limit, which must be determined by a valid study. This doesn't mean 'oh there are pedestrians on that road', it means that the road must be dramatically different than other roads with the same speed limit to warrant the lower limit. In this case, it certainly is not. 35 is irrational, and 40 is irrational. Period. I rest my case, and if you're fed up with this and other artificially low limits, call up the county. At the least it'll get the message out. I refuse to discuss this with anyone who continually ignores these facts and keeps repeating the same tired falsities, but I will continue to discuss this with those who are genuinely interested in learning about the subject.
Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 31 2010, 7:54 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
The only pleasure in this topic is seeing how worked up this one poster is. They are obsessed with this issue and write massive essays over-and-over. It obviously frustrates them to no end that the world has not arranged itself to their personal liking and it is causing them considerable stress.
Good. because he/she seems like a loser. They have only themselves to blame because this issue is absolutely out of their control and complaining here does nothing but raise their blood pressure, especially when their complaints fall on what they perceive as "unworthy" ears who for some crazy reason just don't "get it." Ha, ha. I normally don't wish someone stress, but man you've earned it with all your hatred.
You need to learn to take a deep breath, relax and let it go. Seriously. Or if you can't, at least try and channel it into something with at least the remote chance of a payoff, like starting a petition (I wouldn't sign it but someone inevitably will) or attending county meetings to speak. Because obsessing on it here will count for absolutely nothing.
LMAO at the image of you getting stopped for a speeding ticket BTW. I wish I could be a fly on the wall for that encounter... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 31 2010, 9:38 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | See its so frustrating to talk to some of you folks because you are so incredibly stuck on the idea that reducing the speed limit increases safety. Its blatantly untrue and its also blatantly untrue that the traffic engineer who studied the road approved of any reduction. You also refuse to understand that consistency in limits is important, and that 50 mph is a standard for this type of road. Its 50 mph on ancil davidson. 50 mph on cranbury neck. 50 mph on 571. 50 mph on john white rd. 50 mph on old trenton after 571. 50 mph on southfield rd. 45 on George Davidson Road. I could go on and on. Most are thinner roads, some are more congested, and most have more houses directly on them. If the corresponding stretch of road has plenty in common with these roads, shouldn't it have the same speed limit?
I know people love to go "but there are pedestrians and housing, and the character of the area has changed!". Well it has not changed much in the last 5-7 years, and there isn't much housing directly on it except for after the curve (and even then, not even that much), and it has no more pedestrians than any other 45 or 50 mph road. Furthermore, most people slow down for pedestrians and bikers anyway, so there's no point to have a low speed limit when there are none around.
Lets see which roads are 35: Edgemere Ave, about 1/2 as wide with houses directly on it. 35 on Plainsboro Rd. near the school. 35 on Millstone rd. 35 on Clarksville rd before N. Post. 206 through lawrenceville, 40. Again, I could go on and on. All of these roads are vastly more residential and are much thinner. So why would it make sense to make a road that has NOTHING IN COMMON with the above 35? Do you see why this is incredibly nonsensical?
All of these roads also have their share of a few accidents, because its NEW JERSEY and there are going to be stupid aggressive drivers. A temporary construction zone limit is one thing, but a permanent change is another. If you want a speed limit reduction to actually be safe, you need to change the road and utilize traffic calming. The reason this change is so absurd to me is not because I'm some 'angry out of towner', its because I study traffic engineering as one thing I am interested in. Again, the real problem is that some of you refuse to drop the belief that decreasing limits below traffic speed increases safety. Its completely untrue. Or that, several accidents are a rationale for a lower limit. Also true.
Even state DOT guides agree that posting limits way way way below the 85th percentile speed is stupid, because drivers judge appropriate speed generally pretty well for the most part, and do so much better than an obscure statute that applies to roads that vary immensely. I remember the statute I was told by the county representative....must have 660 feet or greater of business development or houses directly adjacent to the road. As I said before, because developments count technically as 'businesses', this 'rule' applies pretty much anywhere and is incredibly vague.
http://www.gjcity.org/citydeptwebpages/publicworksandutilities/transportationengineering/TEFilesThatLINKintoDWStoreHere/Word%20Files%20Needing%20to%20be%20Saved%20as%20HTML/EstablishingRealisticSpeedLimitsBrochure.pdf
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3151.asp
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/03/wyoming_looks_at_raising_speed.html
http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/
http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/szn/determining_the_85th_percentile_speed.htm
http://www.bhspi.org/documents/BHSPI_ITE6_Denver090715f.pdf
85th percentile is supposed to be the main consideration, aside from some huge anomaly that dictates a lower limit, which must be determined by a valid study. This doesn't mean 'oh there are pedestrians on that road', it means that the road must be dramatically different than other roads with the same speed limit to warrant the lower limit. In this case, it certainly is not. 35 is irrational, and 40 is irrational. Period. I rest my case, and if you're fed up with this and other artificially low limits, call up the county. At the least it'll get the message out. I refuse to discuss this with anyone who continually ignores these facts and keeps repeating the same tired falsities, but I will continue to discuss this with those who are genuinely interested in learning about the subject.
Thank you. |
Are you for real? What's with all the intellectual masturbation? If this is so important to you, lead an effort to make a change. Either way, stop whining! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 31 2010, 10:29 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
STOP WHINING !!!!! Ugghh you people just do not get it. The Facts have been presented and the 35mph is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS !
I only express the truth and cold hard facts. YOU get over it ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 31 2010, 10:54 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Quote: | | Are you for real? What's with all the intellectual masturbation? If this is so important to you, lead an effort to make a change. Either way, stop whining! |
So thats your only comeback? First, repeating the same tired stuff, then when I actually make a case, its WHINING? Being upset about traffic laws being set improperly, which reduces safety and kills people is whining? FYI, I don't care about this example itself, I care about the problem in general. You're ridiculous. I'm making a point here and instead of just insulting me, why don't you read up on it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 31 2010, 11:03 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | The only pleasure in this topic is seeing how worked up this one poster is. They are obsessed with this issue and write massive essays over-and-over. It obviously frustrates them to no end that the world has not arranged itself to their personal liking and it is causing them considerable stress. |
I am not 'obsessed with the issue', I am concerned about it because its something that reduces safety on roadways. What about the people who whine endlessly for speed limits to be lowered? Are they obsessed with it? I bet you wouldn't be saying that to THEM. This has nothing to do with personal liking. This has to do with traffic laws being set against rational scientific standards. What about that is my personal liking?
| Quote: | | Good. because he/she seems like a loser. They have only themselves to blame because this issue is absolutely out of their control and complaining here does nothing but raise their blood pressure, especially when their complaints fall on what they perceive as "unworthy" ears who for some crazy reason just don't "get it." Ha, ha. I normally don't wish someone stress, but man you've earned it with all your hatred. |
What hatred? I made a rational argument as to what I believe to be true, and its supported by evidence. I'm simply tired of people repeating the same tired false 'conventional wisdoms' over and over and over again and its a waste of time to talk to people who won't change their views no matter what. I'm trying to make a case that this isn't true so that more people understand the issue. What on earth is wrong with you?
| Quote: | | You need to learn to take a deep breath, relax and let it go. Seriously. Or if you can't, at least try and channel it into something with at least the remote chance of a payoff, like starting a petition (I wouldn't sign it but someone inevitably will) or attending county meetings to speak. Because obsessing on it here will count for absolutely nothing. |
You're completely ridiculous. Assuming you are were the person before telling me that "you got banned because youre lying blah blah blah" YOU were the one stirring stuff up , and then call me obsessive for making a rational argument? Your level of 'response' to my post is "youre just whining because you get speeding tickets and things aren't what you like"???? Is this seriously your level of comprehension? Because I already stated that I am interested in this issue in GENERAL, and oppose the current system because it does not conform to scientific engineering standards. You are being biased and spinning things around because it doesn't fit your worldview. If someone is not willing to change their mind if presented with the facts and only relies on their own emotions as basis for their worldview, then its pointless to talk to them, not that they're 'unworthy'. The other problem is that the more you use logic and reason with these people, the more stupid you look in THEIR eyes, which is another reason not to bother with them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 31 2010, 11:04 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| You're not "making a point". You're missing the point. You made your point a long time ago. 35 MPH is ridiculous. I agreed with that point from the get-go. The point you are missing is this... You should either get off your duffus and do something about or, at a minimum, stop droning on and on about it on this board. What do you hope to accomplish? Do you expect someone else to be sooooo inspired by your dribble that they take action, something you seem unwilling to do. As has already been suggested, call the county, start a petition, hire a lawyer, do something other than blabbing on and on. It is annoying! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 31 2010, 11:05 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Typing up that 'large' post + finding a few bookmarks = 10 minutes maximum. Hardly intellectual masturbation or 'obsession'. Sorry to disappoint. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 31 2010, 11:09 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | You're not "making a point". You're missing the point. You made your point a long time ago. 35 MPH is ridiculous. I agreed with that point from the get-go. The point you are missing is this... You should either get off your duffus and do something about or, at a minimum, stop droning on and on about it on this board. What do you hope to accomplish? Do you expect someone else to be sooooo inspired by your dribble that they take action, something you seem unwilling to do. As has already been suggested, call the county, start a petition, hire a lawyer, do something other than blabbing on and on. It is annoying! |
No, YOU are missing the point. Its not just that 35 mph is ridiculous, which it is. Its that the whole system is ridiculous! I am using that instance to illustrate said point. The point is to make a rational argument so that people are presented with the facts. Period. If even a few people understand it and change their opinion, then my 10 minutes spent typing the post was worth it. As I said, I have already called the county, have talked to people involved with this issue, and am in the planning stages of working something out. The first step to stopping this unfair system is to get as many people to oppose it and fight their speeding tickets. I may not be able to do that but in the long run, it could help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 31 2010, 11:27 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Buenas suerte, Don Quixote! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Sep 1 2010, 5:09 am EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Whatever. Its just funny how when people discuss something in a long thread that goes with the majority view (there was indeed a long thread about this), its no problem. When someone backs their alternate view up with evidence, then they're obsessive or a 'loser'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Sep 1 2010, 7:35 am EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
LOL. This person is hilarious. Maximum humor is always to be had when a person doesn't even realize their own behavior. They crank out about 5 responses in a row for any one from someone else and clearly emotional and filled with ALL CAPS (the universal texting sign for screaming) but then they don't think they are "obsessive." And they really seem to believe that just because they make a bunch of points and throw in a few links that they have presented incontrovertible "facts" and mistake the lack of pointed replies for capitulation rather than the reality that we all bored of arguing the same points long ago and realized this poster wasn't open to any rational discussion anyway.
Normally I agree with not feeding the Trolls but in this case it doesn't take much and its funny to watch how worked up we can make him. So please feed away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Sep 1 2010, 8:30 am EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | The first step to stopping this unfair system is to get as many people to oppose it and fight their speeding tickets. I may not be able to do that but in the long run, it could help. |
You talk of safety and right here you are talking of people fighting their speeding tickets. If they did the speed limit (the law) they would not have a speeding ticket. Regardless of what your view and that is what it is since you have not sat there doing a traffic study nor are a licensed engineer, the county made it 35mph. So that is the limit.
I don't think most people agree that 35mph is right. However, I also think that the majority say okay if that is the legal speed limit I'll do it to avoid a ticket. When it becomes unsafe is when people such as yourself say I'm going to ignore the speed limit and do 50 or 44. In such an instance that leads to tailgating or those drivers passing dangerously because they are not doing the speed limit.
No matter what you say this board has no power to make a change. Nor does the town.
What is really odd is your numerous postings and statement that you'll never drive OTR again as you've moved.
I will say I fully support your energy if you are going to go before the county freeholders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Sep 1 2010, 9:22 am EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | You're not "making a point". You're missing the point. You made your point a long time ago. 35 MPH is ridiculous. I agreed with that point from the get-go. The point you are missing is this... You should either get off your duffus and do something about or, at a minimum, stop droning on and on about it! |
No, YOU are missing the point. Its not just that 35 mph is ridiculous, which it is. Its that the whole system is ridiculous! As I said, I have already called the county, have talked to people involved with this issue, and am in the planning stages of working something out. |
I stand corrected. Clearly, you are a "man of action" (if you consider one phone call to the county and blabbing about it to anyone who will listen "action"). Good luck with your mission to change "the whole system", Don Quixote. Perhaps changing the speed limit on OTR will lead to peace in the middle east. Then, I will truly owe you an apology. Until then... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
