I did send it out to the MoLiCo list, and I'm sending it out to anyone else who this info can be educated
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 6:06 PM, James Hornaday Jr. <rail...@sbcglobal.net>wrote: > Tom: > > OK, there is the MoLiCo list. Who else would you recommend for > distribution? I'll forward to anybody with an email address. You can > forward it, as far as I'm concerned, to any list you might have. > > Jim Hornaday > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Tom Martz <t.ma...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Sun, March 27, 2011 6:00:12 PM > *Subject:* [MoLiCo] Fwd: Fw: City of Springfield News Release - January > 2010 Crash Report Card > > This info should be circulated to everyone we know.. > > > Gentlemen: > > Gentlemen: > > Don Quixote's lance pierces the phantom windmill's sails - - again. > Prediction of who will be standing at time of next council vote on red light > cameras: windmill 2, Don Quixote 0. > > Jim Hornaday > > ----- Forwarded Message ---- > *From:* James Hornaday Jr. <rail...@sbcglobal.net> > *To:* Nick Ibarra <ibarraz...@yahoo.com> > *Sent:* Sun, March 27, 2011 3:04:49 PM > *Subject:* Fw: City of Springfield News Release - January 2010 Crash > Report Card > > Nick: > > Springfield city administration has continuously promoted the idea that the > red light cameras have fantastically improved the safety of citizens as they > went through the sixteen installed intersections. > > If the city's police reports are to believed, the claim that the lights > improved the safety by any significant percentage, the administration's > improvement claims are statistically wrong. > > I sent this email message to council over a year ago. The message's > appended file contains sufficient proof that there was NO improvement in the > number of accidents or any improvement in the number of accidents causing > injury. I have had absolutely no response from anyone in the city or from > council following submission of my email. (not surprised) > > As far as I'm concerned, the whole camera installation fiasco is nothing > but a desire to control people and to provide a new revenue stream from > fines. It has nothing to do with improving life for Springfield citizens. > The last contract was supposed to make money for the city. It didn't. Is > the installation cost and operating cost of the next camera system going to > be lower than last time? If it isn't, Springfield won't even have any > justification for installation with the idea that cameras will be a revenue > stream. > > Re-installation of the cameras is coming up for council consideration and > vote. It's possible you somehow didn't get this email message a year ago. > You got it now. I will be most interested in your council pronouncements > when this topic comes up for discussion. Springfield has better things to do > with it's money. I hope you vote NO! > > Jim Hornaday > > ----- Forwarded Message ---- > *From:* James Hornaday Jr. <rail...@sbcglobal.net> > *To:* c...@springfieldmo.gov; citycoun...@springfieldmo.gov > *Sent:* Fri, March 26, 2010 3:11:05 PM > *Subject:* Fw: City of Springfield News Release - January 2010 Crash > Report Card > > People of City of Springfield administration, members of Springfield City > Council > > I find it interesting that you (the City) would report the comparative > number of total car crashes for a month's time in Springfield, and have > never reported any numbers of crashes and/or injuries that occurred > specifically on the intersections monitored by the red light cameras. Let's > face it. Prior council members and prior administration people sold the > citizens of Springfield on the value of these monitoring cameras with the > presumption that installation of these cameras would reduce accidents and > reduce injuries to citizens. > > Being a somewhat curious person, I downloaded all the Springfield on-line > police call records from June 30, 2005 to March 13, 2010, and then sifted > out all the accidents that occurred on these monitored intersections. I > then compared all the 'before installation' reports to 'after installation' > reports for each of the intersections. The results of this analysis are > appended to this report. > > I believe the results can properly be stated: > > There was a slight decrease in the frequency of all reported accidents > occurring at these intersections when the cameras were activated. i.e, > cameras may have reduced the number of minor fender-benders at the subject > intersections. > > There was a slight increase in the frequency of reported accidents > resulting in injuries at these intersections when the cameras were > activated. i.e, the cameras did not reduce the frequency of serious > collisions at the subject intersections - - or may have actually increased > then frequency of injuries. > > This second observation doesn't seem to validate your claim that monitoring > cameras would improve citizens' safety. The current council recently > approved a resolution aimed at asking the Missouri State Supreme Court to > review their recent decision forcing the city to cease using the cameras as > monitoring devices. I understand the City was intending to hire outside > legal assistance in this effort, and there was some likelihood that money > for this effort would have to be taken out of the City's emergency or > 'rainy-day' fund. At this point, I would like to make a one-citizen comment > that: > > The City has instituted a traffic monitoring system that was supposed to > improve citizens' safety, and the system has not accomplished that > objective, > > The City has instituted a traffic monitoring system that will cost the City > in the past and in any future operations, rather than generating any net > revenue, and > > Finally, you, the current Council and Administration, seem to have the > intention of spending emergency contingency funds for retaining a system > that met neither of its primary objectives. > > At this point, I am somewhat confused as to what I might do with this > information. This information, if it were widely distributed, probably would > not help your efforts in gathering support for the June 1/4 cent cip tax > renewal election. Does the City have any thoughts on the validity of these > summary statistics, or what might be done in response to their implications? > > If you wish, I can prepare and give you a CD with the the complete > collected and analyzed data. > > James R. Hornaday, Jr. > 4470 S. Park Ave. > Springfield, MO 65810 > > > --- On *Fri, 2/6/10, c...@springfieldmo.gov <c...@springfieldmo.gov>*wrote: > > > From: c...@springfieldmo.gov <c...@springfieldmo.gov> > Subject: City of Springfield News Release - January 2010 Crash Report Card > To: fbelli...@yahoo.com > Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 10:39 AM > > Public Works has released the January 2010 Crash Report > Card<http://www.springfieldmo.gov/webapps/news/attached/jan10_crashRep.pdf>for > crashes from Jan. 1 through Jan. 31. Total > reported crashes (627) are 15 percent higher than for the same time period > in 2009. Injury crashes for January 2010 are also up by 22 percent compared > the amount of injury crashes in January 2009. There were no fatality > crashes in January 2010. Public Works attributes the increased number of > crashes to the snow and ice on local streets during January. > February Safety Message – Defensive Driving > In 2009, there were more than 2,000 injury crashes on Springfield’s roads. > Almost all traffic crashes are avoidable. Many result in tragic losses to > families and all create an economic burden to the community. > “Defensive driving” is more than just another slogan, it’s a developed > skill. Applying certain techniques and learning how to be aware of the > conditions around you will help save lives, time and money. The idea is to > not only to be responsible for you and your vehicle’s safety, but to be > prepared to respond to other people’s driving errors. > Be proactive > > - Always scan ahead, around, and behind when you are driving, to > identify potential hazards. > - If there are curves ahead of you, slow down and stay close to the > edge of the road. > - Avoid all distractions, such as cell phone use, and do not drive > intoxicated. Keep a safe distance and keep your eyes on drivers who are > distracted. > - Yield to pedestrians and give bicyclists as much room as possible. > Train yourself to always check for nearby pedestrians and bikes when you > make left and right turns. > > Create a safety buffer > > - If you are travelling on multi-lane roads, avoid staying in another > vehicle’s blind spot. > - When a signal turns green and you’re the first one at the stop bar, > wait two seconds with your foot on the brake and scan for red-light runners > before you enter the intersection. > - Apply the 3-second rule to determine your following distance. For > congested traffic, add one more second; for rain and snow add 2 seconds. > - On single-lane streets, stay slightly to the right of your lane, > putting more distance between you and head-on traffic. > > Be responsive > > - If you are in a situation where you have to choose between a head-on > crash or riding off the shoulder, ride off the shoulder because your odds > of > survival are better. > - If you leave the road, drive off the pavement and don’t swerve. > Reduce your speed gradually. Aim for softer objects rather than hard > structures if possible (aim for bushes rather than trees). > - Adjust your speed to the weather conditions. If you can’t see, don’t > drive. > - Inform E-911 operators about road rage or motorists that clearly seem > to be intoxicated. Give plenty of room to stopped or moving emergency > vehicles. > > Please drive alertly and responsibly. With your help, we can make > Springfield a safer community. > > > > > > -- > "no cause is lost if there is but one fool to fight for it" > ~Will Turner~ > ~Pirate's of the Caribbean @ World's End~ > > "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are > free." ~Goethe > > www.moliberty.org > > http://417-political-pundit.blogspot.com > > The power to tax involves the power to destroy. > ~Justice John Marshall~ > > Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics > won't take an interest in you! > -Pericles (430 B.C.) > > A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law. > ~Justice John Marshall~ > > > -- > This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no > responsibility for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its members. If > you do not like what is being said here, filter it to trash, ignore it or > leave. If you leave, learn how to do this for yourself. If you do not, you > will be here forever. > > -- > This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no > responsibility for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its members. If > you do not like what is being said here, filter it to trash, ignore it or > leave. If you leave, learn how to do this for yourself. If you do not, you > will be here forever. > -- "no cause is lost if there is but one fool to fight for it" ~Will Turner~ ~Pirate's of the Caribbean @ World's End~ "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." ~Goethe www.moliberty.org http://417-political-pundit.blogspot.com The power to tax involves the power to destroy. ~Justice John Marshall~ Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you! -Pericles (430 B.C.) A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law. ~Justice John Marshall~ -- This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no responsibility for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its members. If you do not like what is being said here, filter it to trash, ignore it or leave. If you leave, learn how to do this for yourself. If you do not, you will be here forever.
