"John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3FA35B07.8E617177@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us...
> Cap'n TrVth wrote:
> > These options are selected by the Traffic Engineer for safety reasons
that
> > DO NOT include; "To prevent drivers from anticipating signal changes."
>
> Prove it. That's exactly the obvious reason.


I just did you ****ing idiot.
It's your job to substantiate -your- ridiculous bull****.


-Cap

"John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3FA35CC2.17416AC7@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us...
> > John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> >> True, but that poor design/layout is nearly always mandated by local
zoning
> >> authorities who insist that parking lots be "landscaped" (contain
needless
> >> obstacles such as islands and trees). What's wrong with plain old flat
> >> pavement and plenty of it?
>
> Scott in Aztlan wrote:
> > I shudder to think of what your back yard looks like... I'm guessing
it's paved
> > over with concrete and painted green.
>
> Naw, I just mow the crabgrass and weeds every year or two. It's shaded
> enough by trees that nothing else will grow there anyway.

Ya you sound like the Boo Radley type. ;>

-Cap

Cap'n TrVth wrote:
>
> "John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
> news:3FA35B07.8E617177@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us...
> > Cap'n TrVth wrote:
> > > These options are selected by the Traffic Engineer for safety reasons
> that
> > > DO NOT include; "To prevent drivers from anticipating signal changes."
> >
> > Prove it. That's exactly the obvious reason.
>
> I just did you ****ing idiot.

ROFLMAO.

> It's your job to substantiate -your- ridiculous bull****.

Plonk, moron.

"John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3FA4188F.973313A4@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us...
> Cap'n TrVth wrote:
> >
> > "John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
> > news:3FA35B07.8E617177@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us...
> > > Cap'n TrVth wrote:
> > > > These options are selected by the Traffic Engineer for safety
reasons
> > that
> > > > DO NOT include; "To prevent drivers from anticipating signal
changes."
> > >
> > > Prove it. That's exactly the obvious reason.
> >
> > I just did you ****ing idiot.
>
> ROFLMAO.
>
> > It's your job to substantiate -your- ridiculous bull****.
>
> Plonk, moron.

Gee, it's too bad that nobody can substantiate this ridiculous notion of
traffic-lights designed or *polarized* to thwart light-anticipators.

There are only a half-dozen major suppliers, you can read all of the
engineering material online, -if this were true, it could easily be
substantiated in about 5 minutes.

Well, you -can't- substantiate it because it's simply -not- true.

Even thinking that this is the case illustrates the poster's poor
understanding of the design and engineering process.

This is a typical run-away "Plonk".

What a chicken****.

One of these days you people are going to figure out that the
Cap'n is -always- right. ;>

-Cap

"Cap'n TrVth" <none@nomorespam.com> wrote in message
news:r5GdnQmKvNAVoDmiRVn-jw@gwi.net...
>
> "John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
> news:3FA4188F.973313A4@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us...
> > Cap'n TrVth wrote:
> > >
> > > "John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
> > > news:3FA35B07.8E617177@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us...
> > > > Cap'n TrVth wrote:
> > > > > These options are selected by the Traffic Engineer for safety
> reasons
> > > that
> > > > > DO NOT include; "To prevent drivers from anticipating signal
> changes."
> > > >
> > > > Prove it. That's exactly the obvious reason.
> > >
> > > I just did you ****ing idiot.
> >
> > ROFLMAO.
> >
> > > It's your job to substantiate -your- ridiculous bull****.
> >
> > Plonk, moron.
>
> Gee, it's too bad that nobody can substantiate this ridiculous notion of
> traffic-lights designed or *polarized* to thwart light-anticipators.
>
> There are only a half-dozen major suppliers, you can read all of the
> engineering material online, -if this were true, it could easily be
> substantiated in about 5 minutes.
>
> Well, you -can't- substantiate it because it's simply -not- true.
>
> Even thinking that this is the case illustrates the poster's poor
> understanding of the design and engineering process.
>
> This is a typical run-away "Plonk".
>
> What a chicken****.
>
> One of these days you people are going to figure out that the
> Cap'n is -always- right. ;>
>
> -Cap
>
Right Wing. But stupid.