This is The real deal's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following The real deal's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
The real deal
Recent Activity
First off, I wish Joe Sack would look up the definition of "political". By the definition of "political", term limits is definitely a political issue. Secondly, how one would claim that term limits is a conservative idea is beyond me. Term limits is so left wing it's almost communist. It certainly restricts democracy. Why shouldn't I have the choice to vote for someone 100 times if he does a good job? It's not like the politicians in Rye are building war chests of money which usually is the biggest reason for term limits. If Joe Sack feels he is only good for 8 years then he should just not run after 2 terms. But if I'm forced to nake a decision, when it comes to Joe Sack, I'm all for restricting the number of terms a councilperson can serve to zero.
"I think the commissioner is a stark managerial failure who should be replaced." tedc, Ever think about moving to Conn? Saw another poster claim you sued the city. Is that true?
Jim, Is it possible the reason the park is running in the red is the lack of days when RTP park is forced to park cars on the grass? Here's a crazy idea .... how about deflating the tires if the car needs to park on the grass then reinflating them when they leave?
"We are not looking to take issue with the way things have been done over the past 5 to 10 years." IOW, If it ain't broke, keep fixing it until it is.
Let's try this again. "So, now that the data is “final” for last year, a fact-based discussion can be had about why enforcement appears to be down, what the implications are – if any – for public safety, and what changes are – again, if any – appropriate." To have a fact based discussion the first thing that needs to be determined is whether the decrease in citations is due to less enforcement or better driving. I notice you just jump to conclusions. Already an obvious flaw in your thinking. I find it hard to believe you advocate level headed discussion when your bias already caused a major mistake in analyzing the data. IMO, you already have drawn conclusions and the outcome of this "fact-based discussion" is predetermined. Can you actually look yourself in the mirror and say "I don't have an agenda."? Ignore my last post.
"So, now that the data is “final” for last year, a fact-based discussion can be had about why enforcement appears to be down, what the implications are – if any – for public safety, and what changes are – again, if any – appropriate." To have a fact based discussion the first thing that needs to be determined is whether the decrease in citations is due to less enforcement or better driving. I notice you just jump to conclusions. Already an obvious flaw in your thinking. I find it hard to believe your for level headed discussion when you already made a major mistake in analyzing the data. INO, you already have drawn conclusions and the outcome of this "fact-based discussion". Can you actually look in the mirror and say "I don't have an agenda."?
"All we ask is for a safer Rye and we have every right to expect that. You seem to forget how officers get paid for what they do. We have every right to know what they are doing if we fell they are not upholding the oath that they are sworn in on!" Jim, It's hard to believe you were only talking about Rye Police management when you handed a copy of the police oath to each council member when you write stuff like this. Stop bashing the cops.
Joe Sack and MyRye want to know the status on the Rye Golf Course sledding ban? LOL. Isn't Joe the one who seemed to be a big Bob Schubert fan? That ended in a lawsuit. MyRye.com had it's hand in the negative press the City also got on that issue. You can't make this stuff up. I hear Matt Fahey thinks that as long as you volunteeer your time to the City, the City is required to spend a quarter million dollars on your own pet PORK project. The City will be bankrupt if every volunteer demanded that. I guess Obama is right. PORK projects in your own interest are considered good gov't. PORK projects not in your interests is corrupt gov't.
Matt, In a democracy a gov't is just a reflection of it's people. I'm not for better government, I'm for better people. In my opinion, the better people will be the generation that is being born now. Right now, the 3 or 4 generations that make up the voting public are totally insane. They are soft and are anything but self-sufficient. They have a feeling of entitlement, as exemplified by Mr. Zahm trying to pave a golden walkway for his kids to walk to school, and they refuse to take responsibility for there own life and complain that the gov't is the cause of all their problems as exemplified by you and tedc. We have a great country. Considering that 300 mill people have to live together , I think it works extremely well. There are imperfections but, by and large ,your free to do what you want. I'm sick of people continually looking to or complaining about how the gov't is responsible for their unhappiness. If the gov't is the cure for your unhappiness then i think your unhappiness is incurable.
Jim, Let me just rephrase it in the affirmative so there is no question what I'm saying. If you take the data available at face value a case could be made for the following statement: "Increasing enforcement, no mater how much it is increased, will not stop or lower pedestrian accidents." That is what I'm saying and that is why I question the amount of time spent on enforcement. I understand the sample size is small. I'm just taking it on face value without trying to go into statistical significance. If anyone disagrees with that statement and says enforcement will lower pedestrian accidents then I say "Show me the data that supports that conclusion because there is NO data that supports that". It's counter intuitive but, what I will also say is anyone questioning the statement made by Brian Dempsey that a stop sign might cause more problems than it prevents should think about what he's saying. That's also counter intuitive but he's basing that statement on a much bigger sample size. Good Luck.
Tedc, I have less complicated solution. Why don't you and Matt just move to Conn?
Jim, Remember back in high school during science lab? You were taught to write down your hypothesis before you started the experiment. Your hypothesis was based on some "bias" or previous knowledge. For example, say you were trying to prove that liquids contracted when cooled. Using water, you wrote down that all the cold water would sink to the bottom of the pool because when you went swimming the cold water was always at the bottom of the pool. You also know from the book that liquids contract and get more dense when cooled. So you started to cool the pool. ( I went to a very affluent high school) If you left the pool side before the water on the bottom hit 34 degrees you would say that you proved your hypothesis, that the coldest water sank to the bottom. But as we know, that's not true. The coldest water floats and is less dense. Totally counter intuitive. Lets jump to pedestrian safety. An intuitive hypothesis would be that more pedestrians would be hit by cars disobeying the laws than cars obeying the laws. As we stand right now, the data doesn't support that hypothesis. In fact, there has not been ANY pedestrians struck by a car disobeying the traffic laws. Again, totally counter intuitive. WHY? Do you think this phenomenon merits some research? Are we going to find out WHY or are we just going to ignore it? No time has been spent discussing this "nightmare" and all time has been spent on enforcement which everyone ASSUMES would make pedestrians safer. Let's look at enforcement. Tedc posted last night that years ago AT LEAST 10 tickets a day were written. Does that mean enforcement was higher or drivers were more reckless? People are ASSUMING the reason ticket volumes are down today is because enforcement is down BUT could it be that drivers are more careful today? We would need to make sure the same practices were performed by the police today as yesteryear AND have them write more than 10 tickets a day before we can say that people today drive worse than people of yesteryear. Jovanovich sarcastically commented at a Council meeting that Rye must have sobered up a lot recently because fewer DWI's were issued. Do you think people are more careful about drinking and driving today than yesteryear? Is it possible that drivers are more careful today than years ago? If so, maybe enforcement isn't the problem. All I'm saying is look at the data objectively. Am I saying enforcement should be higher? No, Am I saying enforcement should be lower? No. Am I saying that enforcement shouldn't be looked at? No. What I'm saying is that the "nightmare", as displayed by the data as I learned in school, isn't being addressed. Until it is, the nightmare will continue. What I see going on right now is people going off on tangent lines instead of addressing THE problem. Don't worry, I'll spare you the geometry lesson for today.
Tedc, Have you not supported causes on this site which were based in lawsuits, ended up in lawsuits, or insinuated lawsuits? Am I wrong?
Jim, Like I said, I wish you the best and I hope you get your stop sign. I totally understand your concerns. My problem is that no one is addressing the fact that enforcement wasn't the problem with the accidents. How can you write that off? It's a legitimate question that refuses to be answered. The longer it isn't answered by Mr. Zahm the more I believe he has an agenda. As far as tedc is concerned, the guy should look in the mirror. Remember the old days when you could sleigh ride on the Rye Golf course? Well the reason that was is because there were no adults around like tedc. His actions, and the actions of many in this town recently, have put a stop to that priviledge. Trumpeting "exposure" and "liability" constantly on this site has it's ramifications.
Tedc, Glad to see you're such a good driver. I assure you, you are not alone in Rye. I'll rephrase my question. Why is it that drivers like you, drivers who obey the laws and drive carefully, are the only drivers involved in accidents involving pedestrians? If enforcement would increase careful driving does that mean accidents involving pedestrians would increase? If not, Why?
"Enforcement activity is directly correlated to behavior patterns. " You still don't get it. The accidents were caused by cars obeying the laws. What don't you understand?
Robert, I never asked anyone to engage me, I just asked a question. But you can't answer it so you you do what you do best which is change the subject. The subject is my question "why have all the accidents involved cars OBEYING the traffic laws?" You choose not to answer it. You choose to make enforcement an issue when the data says it's not. If my identity is the reason you will not answer that question then I can't help you.
Tedc, So when Mr. Amico handed all the Council members a copy of the oath all Rye City Police are required to take he was only talking about the management? Ok, Got it.
It's amazing to me that I'm the only person asking the question- "Why have most of the vehicle accidents involving pedestrians in Rye been caused by cars OBEYING the traffic laws?" Not one other person has asked that question. It's as if we have blocked that FACT out of our collective consciousness. Is anyone else observing what I'm observing? Why do we waste Council meeting time talking about police enforcement when enforcement had nothing to do with the cause of the latest accidents? I don't get it. The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Are we waiting for a kid to finally get hit by a car disobeying the traffic laws to prove we're not insane? Even if a kid does get hit by a car disobeying the laws it still doesn't answer the question at the beginning of this post. Is anyone going to try and answer that question or is that question not slanderous enough to our fine men and women of Rye Police? You can't make this sheet up.
Jim, I'm not positive about exactly what the problem is but I would say the mixing of company between motor vehicles and kids is a bad idea especially an army of kids. That is why I favor busing. I was thinking about how cars obeying the traffic laws are the ones doing the damage. How could that be? I came up with this explanation…… Could it be that cars that are accelerating or running at higher RPM's are noisier than ones doing the speed limit? Could it be the tires of a speeding car make more noise? If you think about it, out of the 5 senses we have, you use 2 to cross a street, sight and sound. If for some reason you're not looking in the correct direction your hearing will alert you if there is something wrong. It's a survival instinct all animals have. We rely on our hearing. Well, cars have gotten quieter over the years and when electric cars are more commonplace this town may have a problem on it's hands. Throw in a few ipods and it gets even uglier. While I know much has been done on site lines and blind spots but, has anyone discussed the growing presence of silent cars? That is why putting in a foundation of busing is the real deal.
Jim, The problem? Well it certainly isn't enforcement else all the accidents would have involved cars cited with traffic violations. Whether the enforcement is increased or not how do you explain that traffic violations weren't involved in any of the accidents? Since we can't explain it we'll just interrogate the cops about their enforcement procedures. I guess trashing the cops is still the way to go in this town and it starts with the Council, especially Jovanovich.
I googled "pre-school safety patrol" and it is alive and well in NYS.
Honest, We don't have leaders now. Otis was a leader who did the right thing even in the face of disgruntled citizens. Now we have the tail wagging the dog. It's turned to total chaos with 15,000 Council members. Joe Sack writes about a Midland stop sign to placate Mr. Amico then a week later a kid is hit over by Ressurection. Crazy. Zahm wants enforcement when speed played no part in the last 3 accidents. These people are barking up the wrong tree. One of the key things to solving a problem is to correctly identify what the problem really is.
Just looking at the agenda for the meeting should tell the people of this town how complicated piece mailing a solution together will be compared to a comprehensive solution like busing. And if truth be known, that agenda is only scratching the surface of ALL the dangerous scenarios our kids face everyday.
Couple solutions. We can put a stop sign on Midland and call it a day. We can paint crosswalks on the pavement to stop 2 ton cars. We could bus our kids to school and not have to worry about white lines, stop signs, blind spots, parked cars, dangerous drop-off and pick-up SNAFU's, kids decisions,etc. My take is there are many people in this town in over their heads. Mayor French was too busy securing funding for a new field instead of working on securing funding to keep our children safe.