| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed, Sep 1 2010, 5:42 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
 |
|
| Guest wrote: | 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. |
Excuse me...
5 posts in a row? Lets see, one was a correction. Two were just adding another thought to an existing post. So we're left with 2-3 posts in a row, to 2-3 people in a row. Yeah, real crazy. And capitalizing one or two words is not 'screaming'. Its emphasis.
Once again, the more you reason with the people above, the crazier you look in their eyes, so its pointless arguing with them since they just twist things their way no matter what. I'm not open to rational discussion of course, because I don't mindlessly accept their view that speed limits increase safety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Sep 1 2010, 5:51 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Quote: | | 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 have read about the traffic study, and the engineer did not approve of changing the limit. Therefore, the limit was unreasonably changed. I do not know why you cannot see that. I talk of people fighting their speeding tickets because the system is unfair and unsafe, and if people keep paying unreasonable tickets, then it will keep being unsafe. It depends on the ticket. 50 mph down a small residential side road in the rain? No. 60 mph on a section of 'construction' zone that has no obstructions, but is posted at 40 mph anyway because there is going to be some construction happening there in several months? Sure. The idea that 'the law is the law, if they didn't break the law they wouldn't have a ticket' is not only untrue because the police make mistakes when there are multiple drivers (happens more than you think), its incredibly one dimensional because it ignores the general mechanics of what happens. It doesn't matter what the limit is posted at. People drive for the prevailing conditions of the road. Period. This has been proven again and again by many studies, and it has been proven that the 85th percentile speed limit is the safest speed limit. This is not disputable, yet people seem to be digging in their heels and outright denying it because it does not agree with their worldview.
I | Quote: | | 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, it is not unsafe. What is unsafe is that the limit is set too low. 50 would be with the flow of traffic, in fact probably slower than it. 44 when no one around is pretty slow anyway. Nobody does the legal speed limit to avoid a ticket unless there is a cop around, though some (including me) will go 9 over just to be safe if we are alone. Obviously though, if someone IS going 35 (never seen anyone go 35 there ever) tailgating them or passing them unsafely is dangerous, and I would not do that though its NJ and its a fact of life that many will do that.
| Quote: | | I will say I fully support your energy if you are going to go before the county freeholders. |
Good. I am going to do that eventually, and probably more. I plan to challenge the 50 mph limit on the route 133 bypass as well as some local limits around here. Obviously just going up to these guys and saying 'the speed limits are too low, science doesn't support them' isnt going to make them listen, because they're set for political reasons. But there may be ways to do this according to state and federal law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Sep 1 2010, 5:59 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | 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... |
You can keep calling me a blowhard idealist in thinly veiled terms all you want, but really what I want to do is just get the information out there in a practical sense and perhaps improve safety a bit here and there. I know very well that I don't have much power over this, but like people are interested in various issues, I am interested in traffic engineering and want to increase awareness of it in general, not because changing the speed limit on OTR would do anything on the large scale....it would not. If you're calling me 'Don Quixote', then I guess pretty much everyone else is also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Sep 1 2010, 6:50 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
My daily comic relief...
I wish I could be a fly on the wall and watch the physical reactions of this poster as he gets so worked up over this.
I guess everyone needs their cause. You could come up with a dozen worse traffic issues within a few mile radius but this one seems to have tapped a nerve. Probably screwed up their commute. Nevermind what a mess all the changing speed limits they keep revising on Cranbury Neck -- doesn't affect his commute... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Sep 1 2010, 9:04 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | My daily comic relief...
I wish I could be a fly on the wall and watch the physical reactions of this poster as he gets so worked up over this.
I guess everyone needs their cause. You could come up with a dozen worse traffic issues within a few mile radius but this one seems to have tapped a nerve. Probably screwed up their commute. Nevermind what a mess all the changing speed limits they keep revising on Cranbury Neck -- doesn't affect his commute... |
WORKED UP !!!!!!!!!!!!! NO ONE IS GETTING WORKED UP PAL ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Sep 1 2010, 9:20 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | My daily comic relief...
I wish I could be a fly on the wall and watch the physical reactions of this poster as he gets so worked up over this.
I guess everyone needs their cause. You could come up with a dozen worse traffic issues within a few mile radius but this one seems to have tapped a nerve. Probably screwed up their commute. Nevermind what a mess all the changing speed limits they keep revising on Cranbury Neck -- doesn't affect his commute... |
You're much more worked up than me because I have stated continually that I'm not specifically that upset about this limit. I used to drive on OTR but I don't any more. I don't drive on route 133. I don't like the system in general and this is one of the most glaring examples of its failings since its not 10 mph too low, but about 20-25 mph too low (along with 133 and south mill road, the latter probably being 15-20 mph too low). The Cranbury neck limits are somewhat off, but not as unreasonable. I actually have driven on Cranbury neck and I posted about that somewhere else. 30 mph on the turn is a bit silly. The speed limit on Darrah ln. in Lawrenceville is 25. Its unreasonable and it should be 40 since its similar to other roads with those limits, with a stoplight installed at the intersection before the hill. In general, as much as you don't realize it, unrealistic speed limits cause a lot of traffic problems. People going with the flow of traffic are generally the safest, as proven by studies. Setting limits way below the flow of traffic disrupts this and makes some people try to follow the law, where they are stuck in a position of either driving safely, or risking a ticket. Which is ridiculous, since the law should be on the side of safety. My aim with this is just to get people to think about it. In the long run, I'd like to have there be laws in place against speed limits that are not established by a valid engineering study of the 85th percentile as well as speed traps, but I am aware of how realistic one person doing this is... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Sep 1 2010, 9:20 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | My daily comic relief...
I wish I could be a fly on the wall and watch the physical reactions of this poster as he gets so worked up over this.
I guess everyone needs their cause. You could come up with a dozen worse traffic issues within a few mile radius but this one seems to have tapped a nerve. Probably screwed up their commute. Nevermind what a mess all the changing speed limits they keep revising on Cranbury Neck -- doesn't affect his commute... |
WORKED UP !!!!!!!!!!!!! NO ONE IS GETTING WORKED UP PAL ! |
Your attempts at sarcasm are lame and annoying. Stop trying to mock me and act like an adult. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Sep 2 2010, 7:04 am EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | ... what I want to do is just get the information out there in a practical sense and perhaps improve safety a bit here and there. I know very well that I don't have much power over this, but like people are interested in various issues, I am interested in traffic engineering and want to increase awareness of it in general, not because changing the speed limit on OTR would do anything on the large scale. |
That makes sense to me. Good luck! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Sep 6 2010, 3:09 am EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Thanks for your support. It also seems that speed limits like this (in fact, most speed limits, even though they're not as blatantly ridiculous as this one) are actually federally illegal because regulatory signs are federal devices licensed for use by the state. The federal standard for these devices is that necessity must be established by an engineering study, and that a probable cause threshold for when someone is a hazard to others must be established by rational science, not the whims of local or county politics. Obviously this is not very well adhered to, but it seems to be a possible defense against unjust tickets or a possible way to change some of these limits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Sep 6 2010, 9:06 am EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Thanks for your support. It also seems that speed limits like this (in fact, most speed limits, even though they're not as blatantly ridiculous as this one) are actually federally illegal because regulatory signs are federal devices licensed for use by the state. The federal standard for these devices is that necessity must be established by an engineering study, and that a probable cause threshold for when someone is a hazard to others must be established by rational science, not the whims of local or county politics. Obviously this is not very well adhered to, but it seems to be a possible defense against unjust tickets or a possible way to change some of these limits. |
Yeah, good luck with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Sep 6 2010, 10:19 am EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Thanks for your support. It also seems that speed limits like this (in fact, most speed limits, even though they're not as blatantly ridiculous as this one) are actually federally illegal because regulatory signs are federal devices licensed for use by the state. The federal standard for these devices is that necessity must be established by an engineering study, and that a probable cause threshold for when someone is a hazard to others must be established by rational science, not the whims of local or county politics. Obviously this is not very well adhered to, but it seems to be a possible defense against unjust tickets or a possible way to change some of these limits. |
You need to get out more. Meet your neighbors, try not to think about traffic signs. Please don't buy a firearm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Sep 6 2010, 12:32 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Thanks for your support. It also seems that speed limits like this (in fact, most speed limits, even though they're not as blatantly ridiculous as this one) are actually federally illegal because regulatory signs are federal devices licensed for use by the state. The federal standard for these devices is that necessity must be established by an engineering study, and that a probable cause threshold for when someone is a hazard to others must be established by rational science, not the whims of local or county politics. Obviously this is not very well adhered to, but it seems to be a possible defense against unjust tickets or a possible way to change some of these limits. |
You need to get out more. Meet your neighbors, try not to think about traffic signs. Please don't buy a firearm. |
Well sorry to disappoint you, but I already do get out plenty. And I already own several AK-47's. Just kidding, but why shouldn't I buy a firearm? How is that relevant?
Oh I get it, you're calling me a crazy loser in thinly veiled terms. Sorry for being concerned over peoples' safety. I guess me getting 1% as 'worked up' over the traffic law system being completely irrational as the soccer moms screaming to make limits 25 or 30 on a main road and acting like their kids are gonna die if they don't get their way is just me being a 'crazy loser'.
I'll tell you what...I'm probably very unlikely to do anything 'crazy' in the foreseeable future. Probably less likely than you. See this is why I wonder why I'm getting booted from here, and stuff like this is allowed to stay. I haven't said anything like this to anyone here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Sep 6 2010, 12:33 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Thanks for your support. It also seems that speed limits like this (in fact, most speed limits, even though they're not as blatantly ridiculous as this one) are actually federally illegal because regulatory signs are federal devices licensed for use by the state. The federal standard for these devices is that necessity must be established by an engineering study, and that a probable cause threshold for when someone is a hazard to others must be established by rational science, not the whims of local or county politics. Obviously this is not very well adhered to, but it seems to be a possible defense against unjust tickets or a possible way to change some of these limits. |
Yeah, good luck with that. |
Sadly I'm also aware that the local and county courts will probably laugh at this, but hey, if there's a legitimate foundation in law, maybe it can get somewhere eventually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Sep 25 2010, 11:18 am EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| I have obtained the speed studies for Darrah ln. and Princeton Pike past franklin corner rd. in Lawrence. Both are posted 25 but the speed studies seem to indicate that a limit of 40 or 45 would be more appropriate according to the 85th percentile. I will be attending the town meeting to give a presentation suggesting changing the limits. If I can eventually get these two roads changed, I'll be moving up to the whole town, then other towns and the state roads. Hopefully old trenton will be posted 55 and 133 will be 65 ; o |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Sep 25 2010, 1:00 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | I have obtained the speed studies for Darrah ln. and Princeton Pike past franklin corner rd. in Lawrence. Both are posted 25 but the speed studies seem to indicate that a limit of 40 or 45 would be more appropriate according to the 85th percentile. I will be attending the town meeting to give a presentation suggesting changing the limits. If I can eventually get these two roads changed, I'll be moving up to the whole town, then other towns and the state roads. Hopefully old trenton will be posted 55 and 133 will be 65 ; o |
Considering these roads are not in Cranbury what is the validity to this board? Good luck there and then at the county for OTR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Sep 25 2010, 2:16 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Topic locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | I have obtained the speed studies for Darrah ln. and Princeton Pike past franklin corner rd. in Lawrence. Both are posted 25 but the speed studies seem to indicate that a limit of 40 or 45 would be more appropriate according to the 85th percentile. I will be attending the town meeting to give a presentation suggesting changing the limits. If I can eventually get these two roads changed, I'll be moving up to the whole town, then other towns and the state roads. Hopefully old trenton will be posted 55 and 133 will be 65 ; o |
Do you live in town? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
