Skip to comments.
Colorado Man Accused of Changing Traffic Lights
Law Enforcement News ^
| April 18th, 2006
| The Associated Press
Posted on 04/18/2006 9:33:55 AM PDT by avg_freeper
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
Anyone who drives west out of Marietta Georgia would understand the temptation to use something like this.
There are many lights that are timed to stop the 40 thousand drivers going east-west to allow the four or five cars in cross traffic five minutes to crawl through the intersection. A sadist set the timing.
To: avg_freeper
Heard this on the radio this morning. A ha ha ha ha.
2
posted on
04/18/2006 9:37:14 AM PDT
by
MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
(Freedom is the freedom to discipline yourself so others don't have to do it for you.)
To: avg_freeper
I often wonder these days with so much technology, why stop lights cannot be better set-up to deal with the flow.
To: avg_freeper
So what happens who two cars going perpendicular to each other hit their devices at the same time, do both lights go green?
4
posted on
04/18/2006 9:38:23 AM PDT
by
dfwgator
(Florida Gators - 2006 NCAA Men's Basketball Champions)
To: avg_freeper
The question here is this...how many guys across the US are using a device like this? I'd be betting 30,000. When it takes you 30 minutes to travel 8 miles...you start to think of short-cuts...and this gadget is the device to have.
To: dfwgator
No, the devices just initiate a normal light change sequence
6
posted on
04/18/2006 9:40:12 AM PDT
by
UB355
To: avg_freeper
I have a couple of those types of lights in my commute too. Still faster than taking I-35 through downtown Austin during afternoon rush hour.
7
posted on
04/18/2006 9:41:49 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.)
To: pepsionice
"When it takes you 30 minutes to travel 8 miles" My record so far is an hour and a half to travel 3 miles.
One day a puddle of water that was leaking out of someone's broken sprinkler system beat me down a six block stretch. It would of gone farther but it evaporated.
I kid you not.
8
posted on
04/18/2006 9:43:36 AM PDT
by
avg_freeper
(Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
To: avg_freeper
"Your honor, I never touched that signal.."
9
posted on
04/18/2006 9:43:37 AM PDT
by
kingu
To: SF Republican
They can. BUT:
Idling cars use more gas, drivers have to buy more gas, and therefore pay more taxes.
Frustrated drivers make more mistakes and get more tickets and therefor pay more in fines.
Longer, more irritating commutes encourage more commuters into public transit, where they movements can be better controlled, and provide better leverage for transit strikes.
Need I go on?
10
posted on
04/18/2006 9:44:15 AM PDT
by
null and void
(Pay no attention to the imam behind the curtain...)
To: SF Republican
why stop lights cannot be better set-up to deal with the flowWell, that depends on what the lights are attempting to do. It is well known in the utopia of Boulder, that lights are intentionally timed to obstruct traffic flow, because you shouldn't be driving, you should be taking the bus or bike or walking, you eevil gas guzzler. In that case, the lights are timed almost perfectly because they are, indeed, irritating drivers. As an added bonus, they have set up red-light cameras at the most-irritating intersections.
11
posted on
04/18/2006 9:44:29 AM PDT
by
coloradan
(Failing to protect the liberties of your enemies establishes precedents that will reach to yourself.)
To: avg_freeper
I don't understand why every traffic light in the US is not controlled by an inexpensive computer(heck, you could use old 386's or 486's, they're powerful enough to run an intersection) that if there are no cars coming from an opposing direction, the light would be green.
Same thing for excess stop signs. Change them to slow and yield or stop if other cars are present. Less stopping = less pollution, less fuel consumption and better for the precious "environment".
Also more free parking everywhere. Less cars moving = less pollution and fuel consumption.
12
posted on
04/18/2006 9:44:51 AM PDT
by
garyhope
To: avg_freeper
Niccum was cited after city traffic engineers who noticed repeated traffic-light disruptions on certain intersections spotted a white Ford pickup passing by whenever the light patterns were disrupted. seriously, these astute city employees happened to be at the intersection and happened to know the truck and happened to put it all together.
Of course nothing is more conspicous than a white Ford pickup truck in Colorado. /sarcasm
13
posted on
04/18/2006 9:48:56 AM PDT
by
strange1
("Show the enemy harm so he shall not advance" Sun Tzu The Art of War)
To: avg_freeper
It would be great if all cars had these devices, and the lights had the smarts to prioritize them. As it is, many people wait unnecessarily while there is no opposing traffic.
The embedded dectors, more often than not, trigger a regular, full cycle, which may be unnecessary.
14
posted on
04/18/2006 9:49:19 AM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: avg_freeper
And another thing,......
He should have a cell phone disruptor/jammer for use in restaurants, book stores, coffee shops and movie theaters.
And further more,....Lets do something about all those damn barking dogs.
15
posted on
04/18/2006 9:50:01 AM PDT
by
garyhope
To: coloradan
LOL my lefty moonbat brother lives in Boulder.
16
posted on
04/18/2006 10:01:59 AM PDT
by
visualops
(www.visualops.com ...Crime shouldn't pay: support LEGAL immigration...)
To: avg_freeper
There are many lights that are timed to stop the 40 thousand drivers going east-west to allow the four or five cars in cross traffic five minutes to crawl through the intersection. A sadist set the timing. Obviously he was trained by Washington (state) D.O.T.
17
posted on
04/18/2006 10:04:38 AM PDT
by
sionnsar
(†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† | Iran Azadi 2006 | SONY: 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0urs)
To: MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
If he had just driven another car occasionally, he'd be OK...
To: garyhope
Same thing for excess stop signs. Change them to slow and yield or stop if other cars are present. Less stopping = less pollution, less fuel consumption and better for the precious "environment". Roundabouts. Once people learn how to use them, they work very well.
19
posted on
04/18/2006 10:06:28 AM PDT
by
sionnsar
(†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† | Iran Azadi 2006 | SONY: 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0urs)
To: SF Republican
"I often wonder these days with so much technology, why stop lights cannot be better set-up to deal with the flow."
Because you can't violate the laws of physics. Traffic light timing is always a compromise. You have a fixed set of geometrics to deal with, mainly distance between lights and the speed of the vehicles. If you could just focus on one car, you could run him anywhere without hitting a red light - to the detriment of all the other traffic. Smarter computers can only tweak things a little.
20
posted on
04/18/2006 10:09:54 AM PDT
by
Oldhunk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson