[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by SaucyJim

Mine are aimed downward. I’ve asked several others and they are not offensive. When you aim them, have them turned on so you can see the distance. Some repeatedly assert this does not help. They are mistaken. It helps.

Same here. My old cart had the cyclops light bar at the bottom of the front bumper.

I asked several neighbors if the light was distracting or if it interfered with their ability to see and they all agreed that they did not cause them any issues...

Oh, and mine came on with the regular driving lights but had a "kill switch" if I wanted to turn them off...

[Rocksnap]

We all live in The Villages. This is supposed to be a layer back lifestyle. As such, why are we all trying to tell each other how we should live here in TV. Many good thoughts here. But I give credit to the developers on what they do. We all here are just being an armchair quarterback. If you need to change something for yourself, by all means to that. But I’m happy with the status quo. Keep this simple.

[kcrazorbackfan]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

What’s up with all the to do about the need for better night vision for golf carts? If people would simply replace their tinted windshields with clear ones their night vision would immediately improve dramatically. If you don’t believe that just try driving around at night with your windshield folded down. Tinted windshields are great for fleet golf carts that are designed for golf course use, with no consideration for night driving, but don’t make sense for personal transportation vehicles intended to be driven after dark. Would you wear your sunglasses while driving at night? That is essentially what one is doing with a tinted windshield.

Tell the people that walk the MMP’s to start wearing light colored clothing with reflection and/or start carrying a light and I’ll leave the light bar off. And no, I don’t have a tinted windshield.

[Bwanajim]

It would be nice if they offered highbeams of the golf carts that you could use when there's no carts coming. The trail from Brownwood to DeLuna with all the curves, it's pretty dark at night.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

consulting report interpretation:

RPMs (Reflective Pavement Markers) bad idea due to low weight individual impacts, walking or biking, at the expense of high weight impacts and multiple people injuries where the damage is much more expensive.. .

and maybe, just maybe, only the center line markers are needed for the separation between ongoing carts/bikes. most edges are grass with few if any major mountains cliffs to avoid if one drifts to the right off the road.

but then again, looks like a bit of non safety expense saving behavior because the developer's growth rate is zero to negative during this large scale southern development. .

for-profit operations hate safety and maintenance expenses, because there is no immediate/ measurable/visible financial return measurements, and when there is an accident, insurance is expected to pickup the cost. . so win/win unless the insurance doesn't work due to sheer size and then very low probability bankruptcy may happen. . .

why i dislike business leaders in public affairs. .

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

consulting report interpretation:

RPMs (Reflective Pavement Markers) bad idea due to low weight individual impacts, walking or biking, at the expense of high weight impacts and multiple people injuries where the damage is much more expensive.. .

and maybe, just maybe, only the center line markers are needed for the separation between ongoing carts/bikes. most edges are grass with few if any major mountains cliffs to avoid if one drifts to the right off the road.

but then again, looks like a bit of non safety expense saving behavior because the developer's growth rate is zero to negative during this large scale southern development. .

for-profit operations hate safety and maintenance expenses, because there is no immediate/ measurable/visible financial return measurements, and when there is an accident, insurance is expected to pickup the cost. . so win/win unless the insurance doesn't work due to sheer size and then very low probability bankruptcy may happen. . .

why i dislike business leaders in public affairs. .

Poor interpretation in my opinion.

Note (and this is a big one) installation of these RPMs would have ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on the Developer. The Developer was not consulted, the Developer is not in the decision process, and the Developer would not be paying to install the RPMs and the Developer would not be liable for any accident blamed on the absence or presence of these RPMs.

The MMPs are now owned by the individual Districts. The individual Districts make the decision to install RPMs or not. The individual Districts would pay for the RPMs out of the annual maintenance fee.

Since the MMPs are a common feature throughout the Villages they fall under the purview of the Project Wide Advisory Committee (PWAC). Project-wide uniformity is a goal of the PWAC and the member Districts have agreed to this. However, the individual Districts can choose to deviate from the agreed upon uniformity as evidenced by CDD5's decision to install RPMs in spite of the PWAC's decision to the contrary.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Poor interpretation in my opinion.

Note (and this is a big one) installation of these RPMs would have ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on the Developer. The Developer was not consulted, the Developer is not in the decision process, and the Developer would not be paying to install the RPMs and the Developer would not be liable for any accident blamed on the absence or presence of these RPMs.

The MMPs are now owned by the individual Districts. The individual Districts make the decision to install RPMs or not. The individual Districts would pay for the RPMs out of the annual maintenance fee.

Since the MMPs are a common feature throughout the Villages they fall under the purview of the Project Wide Advisory Committee (PWAC). Project-wide uniformity is a goal of the PWAC and the member Districts have agreed to this. However, the individual Districts can choose to deviate from the agreed upon uniformity as evidenced by CDD5's decision to install RPMs in spite of the PWAC's decision to the contrary.

Who built the paths prior to turning them over to the individual districts?
And the RPMs can be installed at the time of construction, as the carts drive through unbuilt sections of TV, particularly in the newer sections. . so that when turned over to the CDD, they are in a completed, safe condition.

Here's the issue with PWAC and other CDD type of committees, and governing bodies in general, they all prefer stability and want to avoid change which is considered disruption. . . If you notice through history, economic or political, humans prefer predictability, and conformity. however, history and economics are not static, the world is always changing, as comes along with additional humans, the larger the gaggle of humans, the harder it is to make everyone happy. . . and the harder the gaggle is to control. .

So the easiest way to govern the gaggle is to avoid changes, but that's when maintenance and safety falls behind, until the pressure of accidents and examples gets too big to ignore. .. . . same pattern, different location. . lots of examples in history of avoiding safety best practices from the beginning and then having to make bigger investments in the infrastructure later. . if you think humans all do it right the first time, you haven't read enough history

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

Who built the paths prior to turning them over to the individual districts?
And the RPMs can be installed at the time of construction, as the carts drive through unbuilt sections of TV, particularly in the newer sections. . so that when turned over to the CDD, they are in a completed, safe condition.

Here's the issue with PWAC and other CDD type of committees, and governing bodies in general, they all prefer stability and want to avoid change which is considered disruption. . . If you notice through history, economic or political, humans prefer predictability, and conformity. however, history and economics are not static, the world is always changing, as comes along with additional humans, the larger the gaggle of humans, the harder it is to make everyone happy. . . and the harder the gaggle is to control. .

So the easiest way to govern the gaggle is to avoid changes, but that's when maintenance and safety falls behind, until the pressure of accidents and examples gets too big to ignore. .. . . same pattern, different location. . lots of examples in history of avoiding safety best practices from the beginning and then having to make bigger investments in the infrastructure later. . if you think humans all do it right the first time, you haven't read enough history

Nice essay but doesn't resemble the discussions concerning the RPMs. Many of the CDDs were leaning towards installing them but were concerned due to a 2015 recommendation against it. They asked for an updated opinion prior to proceeding and the result was the current study that echoed the 2015 recommendations. The decision against RPMs was not a desire to avoid changes, the decision was a reversal of their original opinion.

I don't know which subcontractor built the paths and I don't know why that matters. The paths were likely built to a specification and that specification appears to be consistent with Federal guidelines.

The paths are safe today with RPMs only in curves, hills, and constricted spaces. The path down Marsh Bend would benefit by some reflectors in the sharp corners, and hopefully those will be installed soon, but District 15 is not part of the PWAC.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Poor interpretation in my opinion.

Note (and this is a big one) installation of these RPMs would have ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on the Developer. The Developer was not consulted, the Developer is not in the decision process, and the Developer would not be paying to install the RPMs and the Developer would not be liable for any accident blamed on the absence or presence of these RPMs.

The MMPs are now owned by the individual Districts. The individual Districts make the decision to install RPMs or not. The individual Districts would pay for the RPMs out of the annual maintenance fee.

Since the MMPs are a common feature throughout the Villages they fall under the purview of the Project Wide Advisory Committee (PWAC). Project-wide uniformity is a goal of the PWAC and the member Districts have agreed to this. However, the individual Districts can choose to deviate from the agreed upon uniformity as evidenced by CDD5's decision to install RPMs in spite of the PWAC's decision to the contrary.

You do know Morgan and Morgan right off CR44 Down street from brownwood ready to pounce…..

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

You do know Morgan and Morgan right off CR44 Down street from brownwood ready to pounce…..

Haha, so funny, so clever.


Pounce on what? In the 20+ years of the Villages has there been a rash of accidents attributable to the lack of reflectors on straight stretches of the MMP?

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Poor interpretation in my opinion.

Note (and this is a big one) installation of these RPMs would have ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on the Developer. The Developer was not consulted, the Developer is not in the decision process, and the Developer would not be paying to install the RPMs and the Developer would not be liable for any accident blamed on the absence or presence of these RPMs.

The MMPs are now owned by the individual Districts. The individual Districts make the decision to install RPMs or not. The individual Districts would pay for the RPMs out of the annual maintenance fee.

Since the MMPs are a common feature throughout the Villages they fall under the purview of the Project Wide Advisory Committee (PWAC). Project-wide uniformity is a goal of the PWAC and the member Districts have agreed to this. However, the individual Districts can choose to deviate from the agreed upon uniformity as evidenced by CDD5's decision to install RPMs in spite of the PWAC's decision to the contrary.

One correction and one huge assumption. Correction, the MMP’s fall under the purview of BOTH the PWAC and the AAC. Huge assumption is that the CCD’s are truly independent of the developer.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

One correction and one huge assumption. Correction, the MMP’s fall under the purview of BOTH the PWAC and the AAC. Huge assumption is that the CCD’s are truly independent of the developer.

The AAC covers CDDs 1-4 while the PWAC covers 5-13 and the EMA is 14 and 15. However, the MMPs are NOT amenities so they do NOT fall under AAC. The MMPs under discussion are those in 5-13 so they DO fall under the PWAC. I mentioned the path along Marsh Bend Trail which would fall under EMA.

I have attended most of the CDD10 and PWAC meetings and can assure you that the wishes of the Developer rarely if ever are factored into the CDD10 meetings. The PWAC often tries to convince the Developer to assist with their plans and sometimes has success but I don't recall ever hearing the PWAC acquiesce to any demands of the Developer. It could happen, it probably has happened, but in the last three years I have not seen it happen.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The AAC covers CDDs 1-4 while the PWAC covers 5-13 and the EMA is 14 and 15. However, the MMPs are NOT amenities so they do NOT fall under AAC. The MMPs under discussion are those in 5-13 so they DO fall under the PWAC. I mentioned the path along Marsh Bend Trail which would fall under EMA.

I have attended most of the CDD10 and PWAC meetings and can assure you that the wishes of the Developer rarely if ever are factored into the CDD10 meetings. The PWAC often tries to convince the Developer to assist with their plans and sometimes has success but I don't recall ever hearing the PWAC acquiesce to any demands of the Developer. It could happen, it probably has happened, but in the last three years I have not seen it happen.

Well, the AAC and the PWAC have the same functions, they just represent different districts, so if the AAC is not responsible for the MMP’s neither is the PWAC. How do you figure the only MMP’s under discussion are in CDD’s 5-13? Are the MMP’s in the other districts not important? I started this thread and never mentioned it was only discussing certain districts? The thread is about how reflectors and light bars wouldn’t be necessary if people didn’t have tinted windshields on their golf carts. As far as the districts being fully independent, believe what you wish.

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Nice essay but doesn't resemble the discussions concerning the RPMs. Many of the CDDs were leaning towards installing them but were concerned due to a 2015 recommendation against it. They asked for an updated opinion prior to proceeding and the result was the current study that echoed the 2015 recommendations. The decision against RPMs was not a desire to avoid changes, the decision was a reversal of their original opinion.

I don't know which subcontractor built the paths and I don't know why that matters. The paths were likely built to a specification and that specification appears to be consistent with Federal guidelines.

The paths are safe today with RPMs only in curves, hills, and constricted spaces. The path down Marsh Bend would benefit by some reflectors in the sharp corners, and hopefully those will be installed soon, but District 15 is not part of the PWAC.

Well said.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Well, the AAC and the PWAC have the same functions, they just represent different districts, so if the AAC is not responsible for the MMP’s neither is the PWAC.

Not true. The AAC is strictly concerned with amenities while the PWAC is primarily concerned with project-wide maintenance and only advised on amenities. The MMPs are project-wide infrastructure and not amenities so they don't fall under the purview of the AAC but they do fall under the purview of the PWAC.

To be fair, I do not attend AAC meetings so I don't know if there are discussions about the MMPs. The stated responsibility of the AAC does not include the MMPs.

How do you figure the only MMP’s under discussion are in CDD’s 5-13? Are the MMP’s in the other districts not important? I started this thread and never mentioned it was only discussing certain districts? The thread is about how reflectors and light bars wouldn’t be necessary if people didn’t have tinted windshields on their golf carts. As far as the districts being fully independent, believe what you wish.

You started this thread with the question, "What's all the to do about the need for better night vision for golf carts." The "to do" was a discussion at the PWAC and in CDD5 regarding the installation of RPM's on the MMPs. Since the PWAC can only affect CDDs 5-13 I figured the only MMPs under discussion are in CDDs 5-13.

"Truly independent" and "fully independent" will come down to the precise definition of those terms, how much concern the Developer has over areas he has left, and how much influence he can exert over the care and feeding of the infrastructure in those CDDs. I attend some of these meetings and I don't recall ever hearing the words, "the Developer wants....."