[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by asianthree

The only time I have had an issue seeing a gate was Bright Sun, but even with difficulty seeing the gate I know it’s there.

However, anytime you come off a round about to enter into a Village, “There is a Gate” When you exit ‘There is a Gate”

If the Sun blinds you one still knows there is a gate. If you don’t see the gate, most likely you have no idea you have left the round about.

OK, here's my assessment (then I'll duck):

181 posts on this thread, and it looks like those few posters with poor vision or who have had an unnecessarily close call with a gate are all in favor of spending millions to "improve the visibility of gates"---that would be the gates that 99% of us know are there. According to the stats, just short of 1/2 of those gate "crashes" are mechanical failures, so discount them. I find the argument that people don't know that they are there to be lame. So, we now have those with poor vision---who shouldn't be driving. Those with poor driving skills---who shouldn't be driving. And those who are impatient and try to piggyback through--who should fined repetitively.

Basically, the gate-crashing problem is just a microcosm of the general problem of driving in TV---especially in RB's. I also suggest that spending that $$$ to improve visibility will only minimally impact the number of gate crashes since if you can't see or control your vehicle, you'll hit them anyway.

OOPs, I forgot the drunks----who should have the book thrown at them before they hit something that's living.

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

OK, here's my assessment (then I'll duck):

181 posts on this thread, and it looks like those few posters with poor vision or who have had an unnecessarily close call with a gate are all in favor of spending millions to "improve the visibility of gates"---that would be the gates that 99% of us know are there. According to the stats, just short of 1/2 of those gate "crashes" are mechanical failures, so discount them. I find the argument that people don't know that they are there to be lame. So, we now have those with poor vision---who shouldn't be driving. Those with poor driving skills---who shouldn't be driving. And those who are impatient and try to piggyback through--who should fined repetitively.

Basically, the gate-crashing problem is just a microcosm of the general problem of driving in TV---especially in RB's. I also suggest that spending that $$$ to improve visibility will only minimally impact the number of gate crashes since if you can't see or control your vehicle, you'll hit them anyway.

OOPs, I forgot the drunks----who should have the book thrown at them before they hit something that's living.

Good summary.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

OK, here's my assessment (then I'll duck):

181 posts on this thread, and it looks like those few posters with poor vision or who have had an unnecessarily close call with a gate are all in favor of spending millions to "improve the visibility of gates"---that would be the gates that 99% of us know are there. According to the stats, just short of 1/2 of those gate "crashes" are mechanical failures, so discount them. I find the argument that people don't know that they are there to be lame. So, we now have those with poor vision---who shouldn't be driving. Those with poor driving skills---who shouldn't be driving. And those who are impatient and try to piggyback through--who should fined repetitively.

Basically, the gate-crashing problem is just a microcosm of the general problem of driving in TV---especially in RB's. I also suggest that spending that $$$ to improve visibility will only minimally impact the number of gate crashes since if you can't see or control your vehicle, you'll hit them anyway.

OOPs, I forgot the drunks----who should have the book thrown at them before they hit something that's living.

They certainly could be more visible. There is a reason that the road crews and first responders wear optic green instead of red and white.
However, changing all of the gates would cost money, and there are, no doubt, more dangerous issues to be addressed than this one. Really, what are we talking here? A relatively affluent population bumping into a gate at 2 mph? A pittance of property damage at worst? Not a situation likely to engender a lot of political concern.

Since the gates are located on public roads, even something as simple as putting some optic green reflective tape on the arms would take them out of compliance with Federal standards, which would entail a lengthy process of getting permission from an agency buried in a labyrinth of bureaucratic layers.

Another thing I find intriguing about the whole gate arrangement is the question of who is ultimately responsible, financially, for the maintenance and repair and continued operation of the gates. Their existence serves the residents of TV, yet they are on public roads.
Does the public, which would include county residents who are not residents of TV, get any value from their existence? Why should they be on the hook for something that slows down automobile traffic, for the benefit of those of us in TV who drive golf carts? Which makes me wonder if that is the reason that the enforcement and repair of damage to these devices seems to fall on TV.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Laker14

Another thing I find intriguing about the whole gate arrangement is the question of who is ultimately responsible, financially, for the maintenance and repair and continued operation of the gates. Their existence serves the residents of TV, yet they are on public roads.
Does the public, which would include county residents who are not residents of TV, get any value from their existence? Why should they be on the hook for something that slows down automobile traffic, for the benefit of those of us in TV who drive golf carts? Which makes me wonder if that is the reason that the enforcement and repair of damage to these devices seems to fall on TV.

Now THAT is a GREAT question. The gates are essentially a traffic control device to allow golf carts to cross on the MMP. If there was no MMP, the gates would be unnecessary, so one would think TV is responsible to maintain them. And since the road is public, I wonder what kind of deal was needed to erect a gate and gatehouse on a public road???? Does TV pay "rent" to the county for having gates on their property???? If not, maybe I'll erect a gate on Florida's Turnpike to allow that lady to cross in her golf cart . I suppose if I was a working resident of Sumter County that used Morse north of 466 to get to work, I could have a legitimate complaint of being held up by a gate on county property that I pay taxes to support.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Laker14

Another thing I find intriguing about the whole gate arrangement is the question of who is ultimately responsible, financially, for the maintenance and repair and continued operation of the gates. Their existence serves the residents of TV, yet they are on public roads.
Does the public, which would include county residents who are not residents of TV, get any value from their existence? Why should they be on the hook for something that slows down automobile traffic, for the benefit of those of us in TV who drive golf carts? Which makes me wonder if that is the reason that the enforcement and repair of damage to these devices seems to fall on TV.

The gates are either an amenity paid for and maintained by amenity funds or they are infrastructure paid for and maintained by annual maintenance funds. I'm too lazy to look it up right now. Either way, no Sumter County budget dollars are used to maintain the gates.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Now THAT is a GREAT question. The gates are essentially a traffic control device to allow golf carts to cross on the MMP. If there was no MMP, the gates would be unnecessary, so one would think TV is responsible to maintain them. And since the road is public, I wonder what kind of deal was needed to erect a gate and gatehouse on a public road???? Does TV pay "rent" to the county for having gates on their property???? If not, maybe I'll erect a gate on Florida's Turnpike to allow that lady to cross in her golf cart . I suppose if I was a working resident of Sumter County that used Morse north of 466 to get to work, I could have a legitimate complaint of being held up by a gate on county property that I pay taxes to support.

Not public roads in Marion county, district pays for road work except on BV. Why my maintenance fees are always higher along with other stuff.

[Topspinmo]

You could put Mac truck grill on gates and they would still get knocked down. You could put aircraft landing lights on gates and they would still get knocked down. Even roundabout light poles aren’t safe.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

You could put Mac truck grill on gates and they would still get knocked down. You could put aircraft landing lights on gates and they would still get knocked down. Even roundabout light poles aren’t safe.

So very true. Sad, but true. Which is why my position remains: let the idiots that knock the gates down pay for them, don't penalize those that know how to drive.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The gates are either an amenity paid for and maintained by amenity funds or they are infrastructure paid for and maintained by annual maintenance funds. I'm too lazy to look it up right now. Either way, no Sumter County budget dollars are used to maintain the gates.

That makes sense. It still seems like a bit of a strange arrangement, though, with privately owned and maintained gates on public roads.

Maybe that's not unusual. I dunno. Interesting.

Thanks for the information.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same thing, and you know it

My point is even the best drivers in the world can make a mistake. That goes for cars, golf, flying, diving, anything.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

In your opinion 😀

And the opinion of many.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

My point is even the best drivers in the world can make a mistake. That goes for cars, golf, flying, diving, anything.

But we're not talking ONE mistake, at least not cumulatively. I wonder if they keep statistics on how many gate crashes are a one-off as opposed to multiple time offenders. Maybe, like felons, 3 strikes and they revoke your gate pass

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by EdFNJ

I've talked to the folks who work on the Mallory gates a few time over the last couple of years since we walk by them every morning and they claim that MANY (not all) of the non-working gates in TV are MECHANICAL issues not due to crashes but due to AGE. Lot's of the gate equipment is well over 15 years old. The crashed gates are obvious, but the last few at Mallory have been mechanical and they are often waiting for parts. Often (at Mallory can't speak for them all) gates are down on both sides and both directions at the same time so obviously that isn't a "crashing" problem.

Thank you for this important and relevant information. Indicates that not all "downed" gates are a result of driver error.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by It's Hot There

I see tailgaters all the time.......trying to sneak two vehicles through one.
I love the gates.

No sympathy for gate crashers.

Nor do I. But I do acknowledge that, for any number of reasons, even the best drivers with perfect vision may have an accident.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by asianthree

The only time I have had an issue seeing a gate was Bright Sun, but even with difficulty seeing the gate I know it’s there.

However, anytime you come off a round about to enter into a Village, “There is a Gate” When you exit ‘There is a Gate”

If the Sun blinds you one still knows there is a gate. If you don’t see the gate, most likely you have no idea you have left the round about.

Or you missed the exit?