I know there is a stop sign and flashing red light.. but something about that intersection.. I think because it's in a open area it creeps up on you... same with Rt237 and Rt262... even with all the flags and stop signs it's in such an open area that if a person is not paying attention or is "zoning out" which happens, it's easy to run those stop signs especially if your not a local person who knows the area.
Who in God's name doesn't know what that octagonol red sign means? It's used all over the US, not just here in the podunks. I'd guess these morons were never very good at "red light-green light" either as kids.
How much money did the state just spend on that round about because a few dozen people over the last five years couldn't turn left off of South Main? The state spends hundreds of millions each year on changing intersections and signs but still only requires virtually nothing for a drivers test. Drive around the block without hitting anything and parallel park behind a car without any car behind that one. Anyone that can do that in about ten or twelve minutes is now handed a piece of paper which allows them access to the public with a several ton weapon. When I was a trainer for driving Semi's I taught three rules. 1) First rule is to get home alive and well. 2) Not one other person on the road knows what they are doing. 3) Pay attention and drive your vehicle as if rule 2 is true, because it is. Those rules helped me to a million miles without a ticket or accident. So in NYS it's better to change roads than actually require any sort of driving ability. I think licenses should be issued by insurance companies instead of the state. After all, they care about if you can drive or not since they have to pay out huge amounts of money for those who can't. The state only cares if you can pay for the test and your renewals.
Peter, hard to say. Each person is different. Someone maybe a careless driver or just distracted enough to miss the stop sign in a area that seems to be wide open country driving. Look at people who run red lights in a city... everyone else stopped but one person for some reason did not. For you and I, the stop light and stop sign are enough.. but for some reason there are still too many accidents at that intersection... maybe nothing will help. Just my thoughts.
The problem is that people do not take driving seriously. It isn't even transportation; it's a fashion statement.
Schools don't provide driver education- unneccesary. A couple turns behind the wheel, and sixteen-year-olds are roadworthy. Gameboy and Playstation got them up to speed. Grandpa, who turns 90 next week, learned to drive when train crossings had a sign: "Stop, Look and Listen."
Driving does not provide enough stimulus to maintain interest. One must have satellite radio, GPS, cell phone, portable DVD, ipod, the kid next door and a Whopper with cheese to max out the experience.
Law enforcement pays little attention to minor moving violations. Judges collect fines and surcharges; ignoring the opportunity to cull scofflaws. Sure- police can't be everywhere. ...And traffic stops are bad for law enforcement's image. But I have a theory. The same people that disregard traffic law disregard other laws too. Taking bad drivers off the road is an underused method of crime prevention.
There is no compensating for unsafe drivers. Example: the intersection of 77 and 20A at Varysburg. Wide open space. Rumble strips. Flashing lights. Warning signs. They've been tinkering with that intersection for twenty years. Attrition seems to be the only intervention certain drivers pay attention to.
As for insurance companies (the folks who advocated No-Fault indemnification and the uninsured driver surcharge) replacing the DMV, that's amusing. Maybe Blue Cross - Blue Shield should license doctors.
C.M., my theory is that those who have to really "pay" for bad drivers will take it more serious then those who just say they care. The state does hardly anything to those who are problem drivers. How do we even read the words 5th, 6th or my favorite 19th DWI (yes, about 2 years ago, their 19th). If your insurance actually does go up due to poor driving, the state says if you take a course in a classroom we'll give you a break on points. I asked my insurance company (who actually gives me a great rate) and they even laugh at the fact that I or anyone will benefit from this course. Not saying it's a bad course and I do take it every few years. But nothing in print will change how you drive. You may learn new laws or about certain signs, but I find it hard that it will have an effect on how you are behind the wheel. We all know that money makes the rules more so than lawmakers and their "do-good laws". Who is ever willing to pay them makes the laws. If lawmakers lost money for every accident caused by bad drivers how different do you think the laws would read? I'd bet the "no-fault indemnification and uninsured driver surcharge" might not exist if you got your license and plates from insurance companies. You couldn't get either without actually having insurance. I'd bet they would keep better track of those convicted of DWI getting a car to drive from a friend. I'd bet they would have zero tolerance if they found someone without a license was driving your car. You'd lose your license, plates and insurance too. I'd bet free market would let someone with a 20 year clean record pay less then they are paying now and those who cost the companies the most would pay more than they are paying now. I think tougher rules will promote better driving. Current rules don't deter bad driving. 3 DWI's No problem let a friend register and insure a car for you. Now put out a threat that you will lose everything too? It would be much tougher to get your hands on a car if you lost your license from multiple bad driving convictions. That puts less cars on the road and makes them safer.
Timothy, I agree with your premise. There should be penalties for bad driving. I'm not sure what you mean by rules (as opposed to New York's laws), and I am not convinced that insurance companies mind insuring drivers with convictions.
New York has laws regulating drivers' licenses, car registration, car inspection, liability insurance and behavior behind the wheel. Municipalities (for the most part) decide what the penalties are for violating those laws within their jurisdictions. Emphasis on "juris."
It is the courts that most often decide the penalty. You and I agree that the current penalty system is less than effective at ridding roads of bad drivers- we should blame the court system. It is our district attorneys, judges and juries that are shirking responsibility. Ticketed for speeding, 21 MPH over limit; convicted of failure to obey traffic control device. Two points credited instead of Four. Eleven is the magic number: 11 points in 18 months, lose license for 31 days. Driver responsibility fee, $100 for three years, and the possibility of having your insurance company raise your rates. Drink and drive: whole other ball game.
I doubt that insurance companies mind bad drivers anymore than banks dislike cardholders with huge balances. Those are the geese that lay golden eggs. And insurance companies lobbied for NY's No-Fault law and the uninsured driver fee. In a minor accident - no injuries, instead of court costs to decide who's the responsible party so the appropriate insurance company pays the claims; both parties' insurance splits the claims. With the claim halved, most will be swallowed up by the deductible. As for those uninsured drivers, all of us insured drivers kick in to cover his/her (obligation). That helps out the insurance company.
In 2007 there were 323,106 motor vehicle accidents in New York. Let's say that 200,000 of those resulted in injury and/or reportable damage. There are 11,284,546 drivers in New York. The average car insurance premium in 2006 was $1213. That's $18.7 Billion in premiums less 5% for uninsured drivers: $17.8 Billion. If all 200,000 injury/damage accidents resulted in claims equalling the mandated liability of $85,000, the insurance companies would still have $700,000,000 to call profit. Geico spent $403 million on advertising in 2005. They better find some bad drivers to raise the rates on- quick.
I know there is a stop sign
I know there is a stop sign and flashing red light.. but something about that intersection.. I think because it's in a open area it creeps up on you... same with Rt237 and Rt262... even with all the flags and stop signs it's in such an open area that if a person is not paying attention or is "zoning out" which happens, it's easy to run those stop signs especially if your not a local person who knows the area.
So based on your analysis any
So based on your analysis any change made is not going to be good enough.
Who in God's name doesn't
Who in God's name doesn't know what that octagonol red sign means? It's used all over the US, not just here in the podunks. I'd guess these morons were never very good at "red light-green light" either as kids.
How much money did the state
How much money did the state just spend on that round about because a few dozen people over the last five years couldn't turn left off of South Main? The state spends hundreds of millions each year on changing intersections and signs but still only requires virtually nothing for a drivers test. Drive around the block without hitting anything and parallel park behind a car without any car behind that one. Anyone that can do that in about ten or twelve minutes is now handed a piece of paper which allows them access to the public with a several ton weapon. When I was a trainer for driving Semi's I taught three rules. 1) First rule is to get home alive and well. 2) Not one other person on the road knows what they are doing. 3) Pay attention and drive your vehicle as if rule 2 is true, because it is. Those rules helped me to a million miles without a ticket or accident. So in NYS it's better to change roads than actually require any sort of driving ability. I think licenses should be issued by insurance companies instead of the state. After all, they care about if you can drive or not since they have to pay out huge amounts of money for those who can't. The state only cares if you can pay for the test and your renewals.
What about the cost of the
What about the cost of the "parks" like on liberty and behind St Jeromes?Nobody uses them do they?
Peter, hard to say. Each
Peter, hard to say. Each person is different. Someone maybe a careless driver or just distracted enough to miss the stop sign in a area that seems to be wide open country driving. Look at people who run red lights in a city... everyone else stopped but one person for some reason did not. For you and I, the stop light and stop sign are enough.. but for some reason there are still too many accidents at that intersection... maybe nothing will help. Just my thoughts.
The problem is that people do
The problem is that people do not take driving seriously. It isn't even transportation; it's a fashion statement.
Schools don't provide driver education- unneccesary. A couple turns behind the wheel, and sixteen-year-olds are roadworthy. Gameboy and Playstation got them up to speed. Grandpa, who turns 90 next week, learned to drive when train crossings had a sign: "Stop, Look and Listen."
Driving does not provide enough stimulus to maintain interest. One must have satellite radio, GPS, cell phone, portable DVD, ipod, the kid next door and a Whopper with cheese to max out the experience.
Law enforcement pays little attention to minor moving violations. Judges collect fines and surcharges; ignoring the opportunity to cull scofflaws. Sure- police can't be everywhere. ...And traffic stops are bad for law enforcement's image. But I have a theory. The same people that disregard traffic law disregard other laws too. Taking bad drivers off the road is an underused method of crime prevention.
There is no compensating for unsafe drivers. Example: the intersection of 77 and 20A at Varysburg. Wide open space. Rumble strips. Flashing lights. Warning signs. They've been tinkering with that intersection for twenty years. Attrition seems to be the only intervention certain drivers pay attention to.
As for insurance companies
As for insurance companies (the folks who advocated No-Fault indemnification and the uninsured driver surcharge) replacing the DMV, that's amusing. Maybe Blue Cross - Blue Shield should license doctors.
C.M., my theory is that those
C.M., my theory is that those who have to really "pay" for bad drivers will take it more serious then those who just say they care. The state does hardly anything to those who are problem drivers. How do we even read the words 5th, 6th or my favorite 19th DWI (yes, about 2 years ago, their 19th). If your insurance actually does go up due to poor driving, the state says if you take a course in a classroom we'll give you a break on points. I asked my insurance company (who actually gives me a great rate) and they even laugh at the fact that I or anyone will benefit from this course. Not saying it's a bad course and I do take it every few years. But nothing in print will change how you drive. You may learn new laws or about certain signs, but I find it hard that it will have an effect on how you are behind the wheel. We all know that money makes the rules more so than lawmakers and their "do-good laws". Who is ever willing to pay them makes the laws. If lawmakers lost money for every accident caused by bad drivers how different do you think the laws would read? I'd bet the "no-fault indemnification and uninsured driver surcharge" might not exist if you got your license and plates from insurance companies. You couldn't get either without actually having insurance. I'd bet they would keep better track of those convicted of DWI getting a car to drive from a friend. I'd bet they would have zero tolerance if they found someone without a license was driving your car. You'd lose your license, plates and insurance too. I'd bet free market would let someone with a 20 year clean record pay less then they are paying now and those who cost the companies the most would pay more than they are paying now. I think tougher rules will promote better driving. Current rules don't deter bad driving. 3 DWI's No problem let a friend register and insure a car for you. Now put out a threat that you will lose everything too? It would be much tougher to get your hands on a car if you lost your license from multiple bad driving convictions. That puts less cars on the road and makes them safer.
Timothy, I agree with your
Timothy, I agree with your premise. There should be penalties for bad driving. I'm not sure what you mean by rules (as opposed to New York's laws), and I am not convinced that insurance companies mind insuring drivers with convictions.
New York has laws regulating drivers' licenses, car registration, car inspection, liability insurance and behavior behind the wheel. Municipalities (for the most part) decide what the penalties are for violating those laws within their jurisdictions. Emphasis on "juris."
It is the courts that most often decide the penalty. You and I agree that the current penalty system is less than effective at ridding roads of bad drivers- we should blame the court system. It is our district attorneys, judges and juries that are shirking responsibility. Ticketed for speeding, 21 MPH over limit; convicted of failure to obey traffic control device. Two points credited instead of Four. Eleven is the magic number: 11 points in 18 months, lose license for 31 days. Driver responsibility fee, $100 for three years, and the possibility of having your insurance company raise your rates. Drink and drive: whole other ball game.
I doubt that insurance companies mind bad drivers anymore than banks dislike cardholders with huge balances. Those are the geese that lay golden eggs. And insurance companies lobbied for NY's No-Fault law and the uninsured driver fee. In a minor accident - no injuries, instead of court costs to decide who's the responsible party so the appropriate insurance company pays the claims; both parties' insurance splits the claims. With the claim halved, most will be swallowed up by the deductible. As for those uninsured drivers, all of us insured drivers kick in to cover his/her (obligation). That helps out the insurance company.
In 2007 there were 323,106 motor vehicle accidents in New York. Let's say that 200,000 of those resulted in injury and/or reportable damage. There are 11,284,546 drivers in New York. The average car insurance premium in 2006 was $1213. That's $18.7 Billion in premiums less 5% for uninsured drivers: $17.8 Billion. If all 200,000 injury/damage accidents resulted in claims equalling the mandated liability of $85,000, the insurance companies would still have $700,000,000 to call profit. Geico spent $403 million on advertising in 2005. They better find some bad drivers to raise the rates on- quick.