[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

In general, it is probably a pretty good tradeoff for a car to have to sit for a few minutes at 10 PM than have a situation when a car turning left can be HIT and people injured or DEAD. DEAD is more PERMANENT that a few minutes delay - last time I checked. When a Senior is involved in a crash, there would likely, on average, be worse physical and medical outcomes. Then we have a whole slew of costly situations. The children and grandchildren of the injured Senior are negatively affected. A spouse may have been at home. We could have HIGH hospital costs and long physical therapy costs.
.......ALL this pain and suffering because someone has NOT upgraded the roads or added more Police to make up for the increasing Village traffic and drivers pushing the limits of speed and hazardous driving. For me, I would choose life over inconvenience !!!!!

I disagree (what a surprise). Like I already posted, if you can't see down the road, don't go. That means that those who are stupid enough to go anyway are the few that get into an accident. The suggestion above is yet another attempt to protect these idiots from themselves, ie: just another facet of the Orwellian nanny state, at the expense of the thousands that have no problem whatsoever at that intersection. In this case, I'm in favor of social Darwinism.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

In general, it is probably a pretty good tradeoff for a car to have to sit for a few minutes at 10 PM than have a situation when a car turning left can be HIT and people injured or DEAD. DEAD is more PERMANENT that a few minutes delay - last time I checked. When a Senior is involved in a crash, there would likely, on average, be worse physical and medical outcomes. Then we have a whole slew of costly situations. The children and grandchildren of the injured Senior are negatively affected. A spouse may have been at home. We could have HIGH hospital costs and long physical therapy costs.
.......ALL this pain and suffering because someone has NOT upgraded the roads or added more Police to make up for the increasing Village traffic and drivers pushing the limits of speed and hazardous driving. For me, I would choose life over inconvenience !!!!!

There is no amount of upgrading that will prevent someone from doing something stupid. The thousands who go through that intersection safely each and every day are proof that there is nothing inherently unsafe about the intersection itself. "I couldn't see what was coming but decided to turn anyway" is not the fault of the intersection.

More police? Are you seriously proposing having an officer placed at every intersection in the Villages? On foot or in a car? Maybe you would like them out their with a baton directing traffic through the intersection?

If you insist on choosing life over inconvenience then you insist on eliminating motor vehicles entirely. People die in car crashes every day. People here die in golf cart crashes, often involving an automobile but not always. Want to choose life over inconvenience? Then we'll have to get rid of automobiles and golf carts. Pretty simple.

Or maybe we balance safety with necessity while demanding personal responsibility and educated operators. Stop making excuses for bad choices. Stop blaming the intersection for someone who decides to cross two lanes of traffic without first ensuring there is no oncoming traffic. Stop blaming the driver turning left when an oncoming vehicle chooses to run the red light. Stop insisting we cater to the least common denominator and instead, demand the least common denominator learn to drive.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

That's right, when there is a truck, sometimes a pick-up or a large SUV, you might not be able to see oncoming traffic. That's simple---you don't go if you can't see, even if the driver behind is "pressuring you" or honking. That's a given. But that's not what we are discussing. What some are proposing is that the yellow flashing arrow be changed to red when the straight away light turns green. This means you sit there. You sit there if it is clear no one is coming. You sit there at 10 PM when there is no traffic. You sit there for absolutely no reason other than a few morons turned right in front of oncoming traffic. As Judge Judy says, "You can't fix stupid". And guess what---a red arrow won't fix stupid either---they will just find another way to manifest their stupidity.

The lights can be timed to change so that the red arrow goes off during low traffic hours. That technology has been around forever.
However, since the lights all along 466A aren't timed at all, maybe the county hasn't put that software update.

[Chi-Town]

Much talk about drivers that shouldn't get behind the wheel of a car if they can't navigate a left turn at that intersection. Well, that's never going to happen. But what about poor Joe Schmo who is driving down 466A with the green light and a car pulls out right in front of him?
That is usually the case.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

Much talk about drivers that shouldn't get behind the wheel of a car if they can't navigate a left turn at that intersection. Well, that's never going to happen. But what about poor Joe Schmo who is driving down 466A with the green light and a car pulls out right in front of him?
That is usually the case.

That would suck.

What about the poor Joe Schmo who is sitting with his rear end out in the left lane because 25 cars are backed up in the turn lane because the nanny state changed the arrow to red and gets plowed into at full speed?

That would also suck.

Basically, being the innocent victim of another's negligence sucks. The question on the table is: would a dedicated red arrow at that intersection fix the problem or just shift the risk to a different problem? Again, you can't fix stupid.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I disagree (what a surprise). Like I already posted, if you can't see down the road, don't go. That means that those who are stupid enough to go anyway are the few that get into an accident. The suggestion above is yet another attempt to protect these idiots from themselves, ie: just another facet of the Orwellian nanny state, at the expense of the thousands that have no problem whatsoever at that intersection. In this case, I'm in favor of social Darwinism.

I agree with the concept of "if you don't see, don't go. But, the rest is a little "harsh" for me. Yes, individual responsibility for good driving IS an IMPORTANT factor. But, there are a whole set of OTHER factors. The individual EXISTS in an environment of regulations where basically people have come to an AGREEMENT about files of the road and speed limits. Obviously, the state and local governments get involved in posting the speed limit signs. Suppose there were NO speed limit signs or enforcement? That world would be a mess........so obviously society needs SOME rules and therefore SOME GOVERNMENT enforcement. We ALL agree to NOT pass a school bus that is unloading children. That rule is NOT some "nanny state" rule - it is just societies agreed on wisdom to protect the valuable lives of children. So, basically, we all live in an environment of RULES and government is the referee with the whistle on those rules.

What people may differ on is how protective a RULE (or speed limit) might be.....is it good safety or is it onerous to an individual? I agree about individual responsibility. The individual is responsible to society (government) but the reverse is ALSO true government is responsible to the individual. And it is up to the government to maintain SAFE roads to travel on. I am just saying that HERE in The Villages it is a SPECIAL environment. WE ALL like the fact that we are safer in our homes because we are SURROUNDED by older people with LESS inclination to rob or be violent. For that safety we must trade off some inconveniences and ACCEPT some things .......like that the eyesight and reflexes of our fellow Villagers are somewhat suspect and declining. That IS just OUR environment and I ACCEPT it. Nothing is perfect.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

There is no amount of upgrading that will prevent someone from doing something stupid. The thousands who go through that intersection safely each and every day are proof that there is nothing inherently unsafe about the intersection itself. "I couldn't see what was coming but decided to turn anyway" is not the fault of the intersection.

More police? Are you seriously proposing having an officer placed at every intersection in the Villages? On foot or in a car? Maybe you would like them out their with a baton directing traffic through the intersection?

If you insist on choosing life over inconvenience then you insist on eliminating motor vehicles entirely. People die in car crashes every day. People here die in golf cart crashes, often involving an automobile but not always. Want to choose life over inconvenience? Then we'll have to get rid of automobiles and golf carts. Pretty simple.

Or maybe we balance safety with necessity while demanding personal responsibility and educated operators. Stop making excuses for bad choices. Stop blaming the intersection for someone who decides to cross two lanes of traffic without first ensuring there is no oncoming traffic. Stop blaming the driver turning left when an oncoming vehicle chooses to run the red light. Stop insisting we cater to the least common denominator and instead, demand the least common denominator learn to drive.

At some point in the FUTURE, we will STILL have vehicles and golf carts, but we (MAY)? eliminate BAD DRIVERS by having DRIVERLESS vehicles. In the meantime, I would rely on PHYSICAL improvements to the road system, which is, obviously inadequate in the winter season. Like at THAT particular intersection, maybe a longer left turn lane is NEEDED, or a whole additional lane added. Whatever, there IS a problem that NEEDS a solution. There are traffic experts that COULD be subcontracted, if necessary.

Yes, TRUE that people die in cars and golf carts every day somewhere in the US. But, that doesn't mean that people should GIVE UP and accept those NUMBERS. The idea is to TRY to bring those numbers down. Many on this Forum have been making good suggestions for IMPROVEMENT. 20 % more Police would be a positive suggestion. No one is suggesting Police on every corner directing traffic.....that is just an exaggerated distraction from the alternative of making and reading about POSITIVE suggestions.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I agree with the concept of "if you don't see, don't go. But, the rest is a little "harsh" for me. Yes, individual responsibility for good driving IS an IMPORTANT factor. But, there are a whole set of OTHER factors. The individual EXISTS in an environment of regulations where basically people have come to an AGREEMENT about files of the road and speed limits. Obviously, the state and local governments get involved in posting the speed limit signs. Suppose there were NO speed limit signs or enforcement? That world would be a mess........so obviously society needs SOME rules and therefore SOME GOVERNMENT enforcement. We ALL agree to NOT pass a school bus that is unloading children. That rule is NOT some "nanny state" rule - it is just societies agreed on wisdom to protect the valuable lives of children. So, basically, we all live in an environment of RULES and government is the referee with the whistle on those rules.

What people may differ on is how protective a RULE (or speed limit) might be.....is it good safety or is it onerous to an individual? I agree about individual responsibility. The individual is responsible to society (government) but the reverse is ALSO true government is responsible to the individual. And it is up to the government to maintain SAFE roads to travel on. I am just saying that HERE in The Villages it is a SPECIAL environment. WE ALL like the fact that we are safer in our homes because we are SURROUNDED by older people with LESS inclination to rob or be violent. For that safety we must trade off some inconveniences and ACCEPT some things .......like that the eyesight and reflexes of our fellow Villagers are somewhat suspect and declining. That IS just OUR environment and I ACCEPT it. Nothing is perfect.

I would tend to define a nanny state traffic rule as one that affects thousands upon thousands of people because a very few have done something stupid. Least Common Denominator again.

Judging by the length of time it takes that light to cycle and the number of cars on the road, I'd estimate that 100 vehicles go by that intersection every 2 1/2 minutes=2,400/hour for say 12 hour a day=28,800 in that time, so let's be conservative and call it 30,000/day=11 million/year. ELEVEN MILLION!

Now, how many accidents have there been at that intersection???? I don't know---there have only been 2 recently publicized, but let's go high and say 2/month=24/year

24 out of 11 million!!!!! That approaches lottery odds. And that's my definition of a nanny rule---affecting 11 million transits of that intersection for a handful of accidents. And remember there is still the law of unintended consequences----the distracted driver plowing into the last car in a back up of the turn lane cause by the red arrow.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I would tend to define a nanny state traffic rule as one that affects thousands upon thousands of people because a very few have done something stupid. Least Common Denominator again.

Judging by the length of time it takes that light to cycle and the number of cars on the road, I'd estimate that 100 vehicles go by that intersection every 2 1/2 minutes=2,400/hour for say 12 hour a day=28,800 in that time, so let's be conservative and call it 30,000/day=11 million/year. ELEVEN MILLION!

Now, how many accidents have there been at that intersection???? I don't know---there have only been 2 recently publicized, but let's go high and say 2/month=24/year

24 out of 11 million!!!!! That approaches lottery odds. And that's my definition of a nanny rule---affecting 11 million transits of that intersection for a handful of accidents. And remember there is still the law of unintended consequences----the distracted driver plowing into the last car in a back up of the turn lane cause by the red arrow.

Confusing people with facts again.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I would tend to define a nanny state traffic rule as one that affects thousands upon thousands of people because a very few have done something stupid. Least Common Denominator again.

Judging by the length of time it takes that light to cycle and the number of cars on the road, I'd estimate that 100 vehicles go by that intersection every 2 1/2 minutes=2,400/hour for say 12 hour a day=28,800 in that time, so let's be conservative and call it 30,000/day=11 million/year. ELEVEN MILLION!

Now, how many accidents have there been at that intersection???? I don't know---there have only been 2 recently publicized, but let's go high and say 2/month=24/year

24 out of 11 million!!!!! That approaches lottery odds. And that's my definition of a nanny rule---affecting 11 million transits of that intersection for a handful of accidents. And remember there is still the law of unintended consequences----the distracted driver plowing into the last car in a back up of the turn lane cause by the red arrow.

Well, I would say that some thought has gone into that post. I would say that a traffic safety engineer would like to know if the accidents happened for transits straight through the intersection or mostly during transits from a left turn lane or right turn lane and are they mostly on one or the other roads. Then, are most of the accidents during the winter season? Then, what about the time of the day, rush hour - morning or afternoon or after happy hour? Is there more on weekends, Sundays, or weekdays?
.......How does this intersection COMPARE in accidents with a similar intersection THAT has about the same number of transits that is close by to this particular intersection - and to others further away in The Villages? Is the number of Golf Cart transits significantly different at other intersections?
........Seems like some people are SINGLING out this intersection as being DANGEROUS. And others are saying that there IS no there....there ......and putting the blame on bad drivers. If that IS TRUE then all similarly busy (with transits) intersections in The Villages should have the same amount of accidents.
.......A traffic study should be able to prove which one of those possibilities is true. And that knowledge should determine the ACTION going forward. Different solutions with different costs could be brought forward.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Well, I would say that some thought has gone into that post. I would say that a traffic safety engineer would like to know if the accidents happened for transits straight through the intersection or mostly during transits from a left turn lane or right turn lane and are they mostly on one or the other roads. Then, are most of the accidents during the winter season? Then, what about the time of the day, rush hour - morning or afternoon or after happy hour? Is there more on weekends, Sundays, or weekdays?
.......How does this intersection COMPARE in accidents with a similar intersection THAT has about the same number of transits that is close by to this particular intersection - and to others further away in The Villages? Is the number of Golf Cart transits significantly different at other intersections?
........Seems like some people are SINGLING out this intersection as being DANGEROUS. And others are saying that there IS no there....there ......and putting the blame on bad drivers. If that IS TRUE then all similarly busy (with transits) intersections in The Villages should have the same amount of accidents.
.......A traffic study should be able to prove which one of those possibilities is true. And that knowledge should determine the ACTION going forward. Different solutions with different costs could be brought forward.

Possibly your best post ever. Unfortunately, we don't have easy access to all that data.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Possibly your best post ever. Unfortunately, we don't have easy access to all that data.

Thanks!

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Thanks!

You're welcome. Just trying to turn you back from the dark side