Posted on 10/24/2015 7:42:01 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
once you get your state’s driver’s license you never have to have another road test , eye test or written test. No matter how old you get. Seems like driving is a right /s
nolo.com
“Is my driver’s license good in every state?
If you have a valid license from one state, you may use it in other states that you visit. But, if you make a permanent move to another state, you’ll have to take a trip to the local department of motor vehicles to apply for a new license. Usually, you must do this within 30 days after moving to the new state. Most states will issue your new license without requiring tests, though some may ask you to take a vision test and a written exam covering basic driving rules.
In some situations, you may be unsure as to whether you need to apply for a new license. If you make frequent business trips to another state, or even if you attend school in a state away from home, there’s no need to get another driver’s license. But, when you set up housekeeping in the new state and pay taxes there as well, it’s time to apply.” http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/drivers-license-faq-29063.html
post 41 was meant addressed to you, sorry Diana in Wisconsin
I haven’t read any news reports that say she was dismissed from work early. One did report what Dad said about her going to homecoming the night before, but her father’s report could easily be wrong.
Lots of rumors surround something like this, it’s probably inevitable.
Did you read the article? One of the fatalities was from the university Betz is president of. Three were not. I don't see a problem with him identifying one of his own students and offering condolences to all the families in general and that family and his own student body in particular.
I’ve been to Olvera Street numerous times. The elderly driver I referred to was involved at a street fair in Santa Monica if memory serves correctly. I also mentioned the barricades needn’t have been K-Rail.
Your reply to me contains statements which serve as roadblocks to increased safety in-so-far as giving arguments as to what prohibits doing what needs to be done. If you want to get down in the weeds about this we can but let me first inform you that for eleven years I was involved in the planning and placement of barricades meant to avoid incidents of this type specifically. No. I wasn’t in the barricade business. I was involved because I had the ability to think and implement a successful multi-layered traffic plan. And yes, we had incidents with intoxicated drivers operating vehicles at high speed approaching the barrier. We were lucky in the respect they were stopped and no deaths or injuries were incurred. Bear in mind that many of the aforementioned deployments extended a mile or more not all being in a straight line.
There was a motorcycle destroyed which was placed to block traffic.Where was the officer? Was he watching the parade? Did he have a radio? Did he warn of the impending disaster? Was his position stationary or was he moving from block-to-block as the parade progressed? Could he have been placed a block away from the parade and been more effective without the distraction? Were barricades of any other type deployed? So many questions unanswered. How many were asked in preparation for the event? You admitted you didn’t think this might occur. Why not? Do you go through your day without forethought to safe practices in the activities in which you engage?
At the outset I mentioned trepidation related to the appropriateness of placing my original reply on this thread so as not to detract from the expressions of condolence. But I also felt safety procedures should be mentioned and addressed toward awakening others to consider the needs in their own lives for increased efforts in that regard. Since posting that comment I have had the opportunity to view a taped presentation of the incident and what I saw indicates a massive failure on the part of the planners and organizers toward addressing safety of the public at the event. Safety is paramount, yes? If not why not?
Rather than posing questions to me or raising issues as to why a thing is impossible to achieve, sit down with a map of any route of your choosing and solve the questions you pose using the gray matter you were given. It isn’t as if you have never seen a street closure before. And while you are at it I’ll stipulate K-Rail is not part of the equation. Get back to me when you have accomplished that task. Oh, the time frame for development of that plan won’t be the twenty minute period I had to face on multiple occasions on a shoestring budget.
There are experts on this board from every discipline and in many cases multiple disciplines. One of the reasons I frequently visit this place is to learn from them. You yourself are expert in what you do. Yes?
I bring this to a close again asking “What price safety?”
I have already addressed most of this.
I want you to consider the dynamics of events like this.
You have a large parade upcoming. People are flocking to the event.
They are walking along the sidewalks before even getting to the event.
There is no way of preventing a determined individual to find a group and drive into them.
Before you even got to the big barriers, this guy could have taken out just as many people.
I appreciate your thoughts on emergency preparedness and protecting the public, but you simply cannot achieve the zero risk you seem to think is attainable.
It isn’t.
Same goes for Olvera Street, the Prominade Mall, or any other public place. There will always be people vulnerable to wanton attack.
You are correct regarding a deliberate act. I did not address that issue as we were discussing an impaired driver or an incidence of driver error.
It appears from your statements you are desirous of attaining the dominant position in this discourse and in my experience you will continue in that vane until you have established that position. Acquiring dominance and exerting control effectively closes the debate. But by exerting that control and closing the debate room for arriving at a solution of the issue at hand is impossible for you have determined it will be “your way or the highway” by continually raising issues of “Oh yeah, well what about this?”. Well, you now have the dominant position as well as not having addressed the underlying issue of providing a mites worth of constructive analysis toward solving the issue of providing safety measures.
I’ve satisfactorily expressed my concerns, attracted attention of the readers to the issue of safety previously, I’ve discussed awareness and offered minimal solutions toward the issue to be considered. As it appears this thread has died my responses are no longer needed except to debate that which is no longer debatable with you.
You have the floor. Good day sir.
LOL
I appreciate the debate, but if you wish to take your ball and go home, I understand.
I tried to reason with you that you cannot expect every small berg in the nation to install cement barricades along a parade route.
1. too much effort is needed to procure, maintain, install, and remove these barricades.
2. The disruption to the downtown loop would be too much. Businesses and the community would complain.
3. This would result in fewer events
4. The barricades could be too easily defeated
5. The accidental person can also avoid the barricades, driving around them. That’s what drunk people do.
6. It’s one thing to ask for reasoned preventative measures, but it’s another to ask for top level high maintenance systems that are too much buck (and effort) for the bang.
7. These WOULD NOT wind up preventing the public from being exposed to danger. If not, then why bother?
I would suggest people line up on the parade route in places other than intersections. I would also suggest it might be a good idea to position in front of a business with a recessed front facade. That way you could huddle back in there and avoid being struck by a car going by.
I’m not sure why you felt you had to part by insulting my attempt to explain my position as clearly as you did yours, but that was your choice to make.
So be it.
So what happened when the Federal Building got blown up in 1995? That killed about 40 times as many people. What great sin did Oklahoma commit before that event?
Stuff happens. Do you want a bubble wrapped society where EVERY possible precaution is taken at EVERY event just in case something might happen? I don’t.
O.K. I’ll continue to engage in this discussion by returning the ball to the field if for no other reason than to demonstrate my “reasonable” demeanor. However, in your statements cost and effort are the primary arguments you use over providing for increased levels of safety for the participants. If cost, safety and effort are not to be adequately addressed stringing Caution Tape would have sufficed in place of a motorcycle related to the subsequent cost of replacement as it was destroyed and posed a hazard to the public when hit. Tape would have been just as effective wouldn’t you agree? So much for cost, effort, ease of deployment and visibility. Sidewalks could be as easily marked for an equally effective barrier as well as a guide to accessibility of the event by the public. Yes?
I’ll address each of the issues you raised in your last post individually and as presented. I’m not asking you to accept my answers, only consider them and discard what you deem insufficient.
1. too much effort is needed to procure, maintain, install, and remove these barricades.
I eliminated K-Rail for the sake of argument in my last post, so again let us not reference the costs and deployment of an unwieldy and expensive solution. Standard barricades made of metal, wood, plastic and other materials and equipped with high visibility lighting as well as reflective surfaces for use at night, of sufficient height and width to attract the attention of errant drivers are readily available at low cost. They may be deployed in minutes and staged wherever desired for quick and effective placement prior to the event. Placement would be recommended away from the location of the event, staffed by an officer who would provide a reasonable warning regarding penetration of the barriers.
2. The disruption to the downtown loop would be too much. Businesses and the community would complain.
The event itself is a disruption. In effect they closed the street, inadequately, to traffic in order to allow it to take place.
3. This would result in fewer events
Providing for the relative safety of the participants warrants the expense. That is an issue for those who issue the permit for the event. We could have more events and make them impromptu occasions to frolic in the traffic-way if that is the desire. But consider the true costs resulting from the ramifications of an incident occurring without deploying even a modicum of barriers in excess of a placed motorcycle. The frequency of opportunities to have fun isn’t the issue is it?
4. The barricades could be too easily defeated
Agreed unless a permanent or semi-permanent barrier is used. Even so, these serve as inadequate defense against the issues you cite being intentional. The unmanned or manned motorcycle is evidence of a poor effort. A stand-off deployment would have placed the barrier further away from the center of the event affording a warning of danger when penetrated. This may or may not alert the driver when struck provided the alert methodology of the barriers mentioned above did not serve to do so. An intermediary placement of lighter, more quickly deploy-able barricades meant to serve as a second alert are usually added closure to the event. Admittedly, there is no ultimate unfailing defensive act that will serve as a guarantee. Additionally control of pedestrian traffic is effected to keep roadways clear as that is the obvious route an errant driver will follow. There is no ultimate solution to preclude people from doing as they wish, including placing their lives in danger.
5. The accidental person can also avoid the barricades, driving around them. That’s what drunk people do.
The “accidental” person will not intentionally drive around barricades. Driving around barricades is an intentional act and if a manned barrier is present that affords an opportunity for intervention against intentional acts. You are basing that opinion upon a poorly deployed barrier. I have experience in this area as indicated previously. Barrier placement, properly done, leaves no area open allowing a driver to intentionally avoid them. Intentionally drive through them, yes. But now you would be addressing deliberate wrong doing. Not a point being addressed here. Roadways and sidewalks are covered by that deployment and usually a MINIMUM of half a block away, usually located a block away. The addition of uniformed personnel at the site, paying attention to performance of the job assignment while avoiding distraction, serves as an additional deterrent. Not a guarantee.
6. It’s one thing to ask for reasoned preventative measures, but it’s another to ask for top level high maintenance systems that are too much buck (and effort) for the bang.
My suggestions are a result of reasoning based upon prior experience and were offered for consideration. The systems available are not cost exclusionary to the degree that responsibility for providing an effort toward public safety are to be ignored. Once again I state K-Rail has been excluded in the event you again raise that issue. Maintenance of the barriers in house is minimal and they are rented for use. In the case of publicly supported road departments they are owned and used as needed. In this specific instance the lack of expenditures for providing for more effective methods directed toward safety may result, depending upon the abilities of Solicitors and the victims willingness to bring litigation before the courts, and prove to expose the agencies authorizing the event to a cost higher than the costs of making the efforts. The tax payers would undoubtedly pay as a result not to mention suits initiated for deaths and dismemberment against the insurance companies involved as well as including the costs attributed to the economy through the loss of production. Bear in mind many suits are settled out of court and the public is never aware of those losses of tax dollars. The plaintiffs have better standing in the argument if better efforts are made, but losses will occur although again the results may not come into public view.
7. These WOULD NOT wind up preventing the public from being exposed to danger. If not, then why bother?
The first sentence is true. Danger cannot be eliminated and I offered no statement to the effect it would be. All prophylactic measures must be expected to fail to eliminate the reasons they are deployed. Safety protocols are instituted to lesson the likelihood of the dangers inherent in the activity engaged in from becoming a failure event. Not to guarantee against failure. As to the second sentence of your response as to “Why bother?” To mitigate against failure resulting in death or great bodily harm and property damage. Additionally those who are within the zone delineated are alerted to the possibility a threat may come from the area of the barriers and stand clear of those avenues from which the threat may come. Some will assume, falsely, that a barricade provides protection. That is the duty of the officers and event staff to mitigate against by informing persons in vulnerable areas to address.
“I would suggest people line up on the parade route in places other than intersections. I would also suggest it might be a good idea to position in front of a business with a recessed front facade. That way you could huddle back in there and avoid being struck by a car going by.”
Go ahead. Those are personal decisions based upon results of your evaluations of the circumstances applicable to addressing your personal safety. That does not address crowd or traffic control or preparations needed to address those broader issues.
“I’m not sure why you felt you had to part by insulting my attempt to explain my position as clearly as you did yours, but that was your choice to make”
My response was not intended as insult. I merely stated what observations I had made by reading your responses toward the issue at hand. At every turn it appeared you were going to raise the bar far beyond that which was truly being discussed. That issue being reasonable efforts toward reasonable threats presented to afford an expectation of control over traffic and pedestrians when closure of a roadway is to be achieved, regardless of the event type. Again K-Rail was excluded. Again I state that regardless of what measures are taken defeat of those measures whether by accident or intent cannot be expected to be guaranteed. But efforts and expense mitigate against them occurring. Ultimately agency protocols will necessarily need to be addressed through a cost/benefit analysis even before the dust of litigation settles and my responses are directed toward those issues as well as the inadequacy of the measures taken at this event such as they are known at this time.
I have addressed each issue you have raised. By doing so I have attempted to address them as if we were discussing this while having the benefit of consuming the drink of our choice in a relaxed as well as comfortable location. Further, no response I have offered should be interpreted as being offered to insult your intelligence or otherwise belittle you or the validity of the issues you bring to the discussion.
What I have offered in response is based upon acquired knowledge and experience, as previously mentioned. If you have other questions to pose, present them. But be advised, if you desire to cover ground already covered or wish to find fault in my explanations, remember my remarks are opinion based on that acquisition of knowledge and experience in the field. A dislike of my responses is not a justification for the continued consumption of bandwidth. We could always take this private if you wish.
Be well.
I don’t know where you got the impression I wanted a “bubble-wrapped” society. Nothing of the sort was inferred in my remarks. The only remarks made referencing the protective level you mention was what levels of cost and effort should be directed toward a more effective street closure relating to an event. I would refer you to my latest response posted. Doing so might clarify my position in your mind. If not I don’t know how I otherwise could.
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.