B.D. wrote: "Tom, data shows that, overall, charter schools are better than public schools."
Tom responded: "For those who struggle with statistics, that doesn't mean all charter schools are bad. Just most of them."
For those who struggle with definitions--which is apparently both parties involved here--charter schools ARE public schools.
One other thing. If you call TPD's photo radar department @ 791-4440 and ask them about the RLC intersections and why the left yellow arrows are so short for intersections of their size and how a reasonable person is supposed to know that the left yellow arrow at Oracle & River is 25% shorter than Oracle & Ina and how does one determine where to stop and what does the stop line prior to the crosswalk mean if there's some other line you're supposed to stop at and is a $322 fine really a fair punishment for crossing this line 1/100th of a second late, etc. etc. and you know what they say?
"Honestly, ma'am, I just avoid those intersections." If the RLC intersections are so safe, then you'd think the police would plan their routes THROUGH as many of them as possible instead of avoiding them, right?
Even TPD knows it's a scam.
Danehy, you're WAAYYYY off here.
Want to see red light violations drop by 50%? Add one second to the left yellow arrows at RLC locations. See, for instance, the left yellow arrows are 4.0 seconds at Oracle & Ina (no RLC there) but only 3.0 seconds at Oracle & River (RLC intersection nearby and of comparable size). And the vast majority of red light "runners" at Oracle & River are cited for infractions less than 1 second after the light turns red. Is that fair to drivers? Hardly. But is it profitable? You bet it is.
Want to see red light violations drop even more? Then define the beginning of the intersection like most other states do: by the STOP line prior to the crosswalk--not by the ridiculous, not-in-compliance-with-the-FHWA (thank you, rufinus2) prolongation-of-the-curb lines that most safe, prudent drivers wouldn't have the foggiest clue to look out for. (Did YOU?)
You want your RLCs? Then play fair, and OPTIMIZE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING beforehand. But here's the secret, Tom: the city doesn't want to reduce red light violations, because that would mean less revenue. Hence the minimally short yellows and made-up lines you have to cross.
I agree with you that there are way too many idiot drivers out there, but effing with sound, consistent traffic engineering in order to make money under the guise of "safety" is hardly a solution.
P.S. I'm as liberal a Democrat as you can get, and I've got an excellent and long-standing driving record. I also happen to know a rat when I smell one.
Re: HB 2213, TW wrote, "arguing that nabbing lawbreakers is a violation of...."
"Nabbing lawbreakers"? Hardly. The City of Tucson shortens its yellow lights at red light camera locations and makes up its own definition of where the intersection begins in order to CREATE red light runners. It's all about the revenue.
I'm a liberal Democrat, and those cameras need to come down.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation