Have any of you heard of the electronics engineer who is being fined $500 for criticizing the timing of yellow lights? Yes. It’s true. The Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying has punished Mats Järlström for presenting his analysis of the timing of yellow lights while calling himself an engineer.
I’m not going to get into the legal details; those are being discussed elsewhere, including at The Volokh Conspiracy. The legal issues have also been discussed at motherboard, doubltess other places by now.
Instead of focusing on the legal issues, I’m going to discuss timing of yellow lights and Järlström analysis. Because I was interested in this, I asked Eugene Volokh if he has any documents desribing Järlström. He provided me with a one page submission which describes Järlström, but being a court submission rather than a full engineering document it is lacking in details a person might need to be absolutely certain of each item. Specifically: when reading it, I was not sure about the precise definition of a variable indicating a deceleration rate in Järlström analysis. Owing to the court case, Järlström currently finds himself in legal jeopardy if he discusses his analysis.
So I read the document, and then did my own analysis trying to account for the features he was considering in his. The main features of his analysis are to extend that of 1959 analysis but to consider the possibility a car must slow down when approaching the intersection.
The main conclusion: Järlström is right if we consider the possibility the car must slow down to some safespeed when entering the intersection, yellow lights are mistimed.
For most people: that’s enough. But for those of us who like to show students that the topic they are learning is useful: this is a 1-D kinematics problem. In fact, it is an application of the first topic covered in high school physics. While the full analysis overly for a homework problem, the skill required to do the analysis are covered around September or October in traditional physics classes. A similar problem appears in Chapter 2 of the Sixth Edition of Giancoli Physics (see problem 32, page 40.) That problem is easier for students because the question contains numerical values, and the car is not decelerating when approaching the intersection. But it applies all the same concepts.
As I know do tutor high school students, let’s first consider a driver approaching an intersection with a stop light. The general situation is illustrated below. The intersection has some width w, the car, shown by the bold black outline, has some length d. Suppose when the car is in the position shown, it is moving with speed $latex v_a $ and, owing to the driver’s desire to turn into the driveway of the grocery store immediately after the light, the car is decelerating at a rate $latex a_{s} $. Then the light suddenly turns yellow.
Local traffic law can vary, but let us suppose for this case, the law dictates that
- If the car can stop, it must
- If the car enters the intersection, it must clear the intersection before the light turns red and
- If the car enters to clear the intersection and fails to clear, the driver will be given a ticket.
It would be unfair to put drivers in the situation where those that cannot stop also cannot clear the intersection. So the engineering question is then: How long should the yellow light last before it can turn red? In particular: we might want to know the minimum time the yellow light should be on.
In these problems the logic is that one first determine the cases when a car cannot stop without entering the intersection. Once those are determined, one determines the maximum time it takes those cars to clear the intersection.
It turns out that the key situation to analyze is that of the car whose minimum stopping distance equals the distance to the stopping light, and then find the time it would take that car to clear the intersection. All cars further from the stopping distance can stop and should; all cars closer than the stopping distance will clear the light in a shorter amount of time.
This stopping distance is called the “critical distance” and will be denoted $latex x_c $.
Stop analysis: Critical Stopping Distance
Naturally, the first step is to find the critical distance traveled. For this case, I will only consider cars moving toward the light and decelerating when the light changes. I will also assume that drivers, being human, require a finite reaction time $latex t_1 $ to respond to the change in the light. If so, the car’s speed could be described as following the black trace during the time from 0 when the light turns yellow to $latex t_1 $. The initial speed is $latex v_a $, this slows to $latex v_p $ at $latex t_1 $. I am also only going to consider cars traveling on level roads (the extension to inclines is straightforward.)
To stop in the minimum distance (and time) the driver must hit the brakes and decelerate at the maximum possible value, which is indicated as $latex a_{max} $. The distance traveled is the area under the (v,t) curve and the time axis. The car will travel Δx during the first $latex t_1 $ (dark grey) and an additional distance indicated by the hatched grey region between $latex t_1 $ and $latex t_2 $. The critical distance is the sum of these two:
with
Go analysis: Critical Stopping Distance
To avoid a system where tickets are given out unjustly, cars that cannot stop must be given sufficient time to clear the intersection. When determining this, one must consider the range of options the drivers should be permitted. We will defer discussing the “traditional” solution (which evidently was published in 1959) and instead consider the case of the driver I described above. The driver above wishes to turn into the grocery store. To do so safely, they have a target speed for the intersection which they consider the “safe” speed to pass through the intersection. We will call this $latex v_{safe} $.
Possibly the driver has also been taught that they should pass through intersections at constant speed. This prudent strategy is often advocated as one that reduced confusion for all the cars and pedestrians who might need to gauge their own strategies for traversing the intersection. Drivers are also often discouraged from accelerating to make a light, and in this case, a prudent driver may decide to minimize the total number of operations involved in getting through the intersection.
They might chose to follow the strategy shown with the blue trace below:
To clear the intersection they must travel a distance equal to the sum of the critical distance and the adjusted length of the intersection:
Where W is the sum of the intersection width and the length of the vehicle, and $latex a_{go} $ is the deceleration rate of the car required for the driver to achieve the safe distance just as the front of the car enters the intersection; this occurs at time $latex t_2$ indicated.
For now, we will assume the driver has sufficient skill to just do this, if so, car will travel the critical distance $latex x_c $ during time $latex t_2$. To avoid a ticket, driver will need to yellow light to remain open at least as long as the time for his travel. So for this driver the light must still be yellow at
For both (2) and (4) to be true, his rate of deceleration must be:
Applying the relation between change in velocity and acceleration
We can use (5) along with (1b) to determine the time the yellow light must remain on for a particular driver entering at speed $latex v_a $ and slowing to $latex v_p $ that is just sufficient to stop to clear the light if that combination of corresponds to being unable to stop. That time is $latex t_y $.
Longer times are not required for other drivers because either the combination corresponds to a condition where they can stop or a condition where they clear the light more quickly.
Design of the light.
By itself equation (6) is not sufficient to determine the time the minimum time a yellow light last on any particular roadway. The designer of the yellow light must consider all legitimate combinations of $latex v_a $ and $latex v_p $ and set the length of yellow light long enough to permit them all to clear. A few more applications of kinematics are required.
To continue the analysis I’ll binge and indulge in calculus. This exercise will be seen to be utterly unnecessary; but I’m putting it here because someone might wonder about the issue. Or perhaps my motive is merely to make this an AP Physics C question, ;). After the excursion, I will continue find the time required for the driver in the scenario above to clear the intersection.
Superfluous Calculus Interlude:
The driving scenarios I discussed above consider a wider range of entering conditions than one discussed in Jälrström 1 page exhibit. My analysis considers the possibility the driver is already decelerating at a rate $latex a_s $ prior to entering the intersection; Jälrström’s analysis assumes they do not decelerate until they are able to react to the light. If the designer in charge of setting the light timings for an intersection uses my more complicated entry condition, they must also consider how the value of $latex a_s $ the time, so that they can ensure they provide enough time for all reasonable combinations of entry speed and initial deceleration.
To do this we, must find the minimum value of $latex t_y $, which can be done by taking the differentiating (3) with respect to $latex a_s $. We conclude $latex \frac{dt_y}{da_s} = \frac{dt_2}{da_s} $. Doing this as slowly and ploddingly as possible, taking the derivative of (5)
and then the derivative of (4)
Substituting and doing a small amount of algebra:
Observing $latex \frac{dv_p}{da_s} = -t_1 $ and substituting results in
In the driving scenario envisioned, this derivative is always negative which is likely what many people expected without resorting to calculus.
The reason the time required to clear the light decreases with the deceleration is the critical stopping distance, $latex x_c $ is smaller for a driver who enters at a speed $latex v_a $ but already decelerating before he can respond to the light. So, although those drivers would require more time to clear the intersection were they to chose to do so, they don’t need to. They should stop. The minimum time required is for those drivers whose deceleration was insufficient to permit them to stop.
So the largest required time for the yellow occurs when $latex a_s =0 $ which means they began to slow down only in response to the light changing to yellow.
The main result of the superfluous interlude is to show that Jälrström was entirely wise and reasonable to restrict his analysis to the one that mattered at the outset.
Superfluous interlude finished: Simplify.
The problem now becomes more like the one Jälrström discussed. For this case $latex v_p= v_a $ and
Equation (4) becomes
And
So, my result for the minimum time for a yellow light should remain on is:
where $latex v_a $ is the maximum permissible speed on the road, $latex v_{safe} $ is the maximum safe speed for clearing the intersection, $latex a_{max} $ is the maximum reasonable deceleration rate for car’s stopping when the yellow light turns on and $latex w $ is the sum of the effective width of the intersection and the length of the vehicle.
Sharp eyed readers will notice my final result differs from Jälrström’s which is
That my result and Jälrström’s differ may, possibly, delight the “Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying” or anyone who thinks it is wiser to fine someone $500 to shut Jalstrom up rather than allow people to listen to Jälrström’s analysis and conclusions about traffic lights.
But if someone is delighted, their delight is unwarranted. In fact, Jälrström’s answer is just as good as mine. Arguably, his is better.
The difference in our solutions lies in our assumption about which traffic maneuvers the driver should be ‘expected’ to do when faced with a yellow light. As you recall, I said I was unable to entirely tease out the precise scenario Jälrström intended to analyze; specifically, I couldn’t determine the nature of the deceleration “a” in the one page summary I could get my hands on.
In my analysis, I assumed the driver was sufficiently skilled to pick out $latex a_2 $ such that they would slow to the safe speed, $latex v_s $, when they just reached the intersection. Jälrström’s analysis appears to assume the driver doesn’t try to finesse their deceleration this finely; based on is answer, it appears assumes the driver decelerates at $latex a_max $ until they reached $latex v_s $ and then crossed the light.
While finessing acceleration and deceleration is a fine skill to have, one might very well argue that those designing timing of yellow lights ought not to assume drivers have the skills of Indy race car drivers. Some drivers on the road may be 87 year old retirees visiting their daughters. Using Jälrström’s equation would permit these more mature drivers to clear the intersection and arrive at their daughters home without getting a ticket.
Which scenario is the correct one to use determining the minimum time for a light is precisely the sort of discussion that people ought to have regarding setting light times. That is: Do people think overly cautious drivers who were a bit to heavy on their brakes and should get tickets if they don’t clear the intersection? If not, the yellow light should be timed using Jälrström’s equation. If you think they should be more skilled than that, the light can be timed with my equation.
How do these compare the current equations for timing of traffic lights?
Evidently, currently traffic lights are timed using an equation that results from “THE PROBLEM OF THE AMBER SIGNAL LIGHT IN TRAFFIC FLOW” by published Gazis, Herman, and Maradudin in 1959 which is available here. In that paper, the authors analyzed the situation where a car moving at constant speed either brakes and stops or they maintain their constant speed and move through the intersection at their initial speed $latex v_a $. Of course this is precisely what cars do when the light turns yellow on an intersection they can safely travel through at their current speed.
In that case, the car follows the green trace superimposed on the graph shown to the right time required for them to clear is:
This time is indicated by the final vertical green dashed line. The Gaziz, Herman and Maradudin equation always results in shorter times for the yellow light than use of either Jälrström’s or my equation. The difference arises for the same reason my equation differs from Jälrström’s. They analyzed a different driving maneuver: They assumed that if the driver could not stop, they driver would also not slow down while approaching the light. The driver would then pass through the intersection moving at the speed limit.
However, as any experienced driver knows, there are many reasons it is often not possible. One might need to slow down to turn into a grocery store, because geese decided to cross a short way down the road, because the car in ahead slowed to enter the grocery store, or, as, evidently, Jälrström noted, because one is planning to turn at the intersection. In these cases it is rather unfair to receive a ticket when there is no way to either stop in time or clear the intersection before it turns yellow.
Scenario Dependence
One might ask whether this analysis closes the door on the issue of proper timing? Not at all.
One thing that should be evident to all here is that the computation of the minimum time light depends on the range of scenarios one envisions could occur when a driver approaching a light sees the light turn yellow. I would suggest that those setting the timing think through a range of driving scenareos and make sure those whose driving was both within the law and reasonable legal when the light turned yellow and whose responses were prudent and legal should be able to clear the light.
It seems to me the scenario involving cars that must slow down is common enough that I think this means the light designers should no longer use the equation by Gazis, Herman, and Maradudin and replace it with another. Jälrström’s equation seems like a good choice.
Are there other scenarios we might expect the driver to do? Sure. I’m sure blog visitors can think of some. Many will not require any increase in time beyond that proposed by Jälrström, but perhaps one might. Discussing hypothetical scenarios and how each might require some minimum time for a yellow light seems like a sensible approach to the issue of traffic signals. It is certainly a more reasonable response to Jälrström’s criticism of light timing than having the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying fine him $500 for discussing the timing of traffic lights.
Especially as Jälrström is correct: If one is going to hand out tickets based on blowing these lights, then lights timed using the 1959 equation are mistimed.
You left out alternate scenario, yellow light is timed so as to maximize the number of red light camera tickets that can be handed out.
MikeN,
That’s not a scenario for finding the minimum time required for cars that are not otherwise violating traffic laws to clear.
You are discussing something different: the intention of the governing authorities. I know many people think that’s how the time the lights. It may even be true. But if no one analyzes the actual requirements, the governing authorities can hide behind the excuse that they are using the “standard formula” from the 1959 paper.
And of course not wanting people to discuss the correct formula might be a reason the “authorities” find Jarlstrom and are prohibiting him from speaking about this. That’s why the legal case is important. But that legal case would be equally valid if Jarlsrom was wrong. In fact: he’s right.
Maximum deceleration varies with weather too. Braking on a wet surface is less effective than a clean, dry surface. If it’s raining hard, cars may be traveling slower than the speed limit too. Snow or ice likely make the problem too difficult to analyze.
You also have to pay attention to the traffic behind you. If someone is right behind you, you will pretty much guarantee a rear end collision if you stand your car on its nose. Yes, they will be at fault for following too closely, but you will still need to get your car repaired.
There’s also the issue of when should the light turn green for crossing traffic. IMO, it should be some short time after the other light turns red.
DeWitt,
Yes. When someone working in traffic regulation applies any of the equations they need to use appropriate values for $latex a_max $, $latex v_a $ and $latex t_1 $. That’s true regardless of the formula. Clearly, the need a deceleration rate that would not result in skidding for the vehicle. Jälrström’s critique was related to the choice of equation and not the choice of other variables.
I think his focus developed when his wife was given a ticket. I suspect she decelerated to a safe speed to make a turn and then got caught by a short yellow. Once that happened, I suspect Jälrström did what any engineer would do: Draw a (v,t) graph, consider the scenarios, sketch some other linds on top of it and see the problem with the equation.
After that, he probably did more formal math. I’m guessing though. I think he can’t really engage anyone on this topic currently.
Whatever the results of the calculation, the minimum time, is just that a minimum. There should also be a significant fudge factor multiplier, unless the object is, indeed, to write tickets.
Oregon should be careful. This might lead to opening the real can of worms, how speed limits are set.
DeWitt Payne,
Well…. I suspect Oregon is going to lose the legal case. The Institute for Justice took the case, Volokh and his students filed supporting briefs. I suspect they won’t be the only attorney’s filing in support of freedom of speech and against this silly interpretation of licensing laws.
If the case gets a lot of publicity, it’s not going to take too long for someone to decide to ask U Oregon and Oregon Statue U to determine what fraction of their tenured faculty hold PE licenses. The number will be low– and then the question will be: Do they all get fined if they say they are engineers? (I suspect not.)
But beyond that: if Oregon is using that 1959 equation, I won’t be the only person who knows kinematics who is motivated to look at this issue. The lawsuit brought it to my attention and it will bring it to that of other people.
Had their equation been just fine, it would have been easy enough to rebut Jarlstrom by showing he’s wrong. Heck, they could have gotten an unlicensed professor of engineering — from OSU to write it up. But alas… if they are using that equation, tickets may very well be being issued in cases where it would be impossible for a driver to comply. 🙂
Lucia,
Yup, few practicing engineers (degreed, working in their field of training) have passed a PE test. You are right, Oregon probably loses this case. Can’t think of a better outcome for abusive bureaucrats.
That comment is brief. 🙂
Ok… more was added. I do hope the Oregon Board loses. I think it’s pretty funny that Volokh’s article states
This board must be one hell of a bureacracy. It took them two years of ‘investigating’ to decide whatever Mats Jalstrom was doing violated some law or another. I should think if Mats actually had been violating anything by presenting his argument in a public forum, it would take less than a few weeks to figure that out.
Bureaucracy being what it is, they probably discussed this in several meetings , made action items and so on..
In many jurisdictions, the rule is that you may not enter the intersection once the light is red. That would seem to simplify things enormously since there would be no need to worry about the width of the intersection or the speed when in the intersection. In that case, the standard formula would seem to be entirely adequate.
In the real world, there would have been little difference between not entering on red and clearing before red since the complications could be taken into account by the traffic cop making the observations. But put a machine into the loop, without thinking, and problems occur.
Lucia,
“That comment is brief”
.
Iphones are not the best input devices. My knuckle brushed against the ‘done’ icon before I actually wrote anything…😳
Mike M
The standard formula would still be inadequate. Eliminate the $latex W/v_a $ or $latex W/v_{safe} $ or term in any of the relevant equations and the formulas still differ. The problem isn’t as severe, but it still exists.
That said: Oregon where Jalstrom resides evidently requires traffic to clear. So it matters in his jurisdiction where the court case is taking place.
In Florida, the rule is your rear wheels have to be in the intersection before the light turns red…. at least according to one police officer I talked to. We are in the States very well behaved WRT traffic lights…. lots of places I have driven consider obeying traffic lights more a suggestion than a requirement, especially when traffic is very light (say, late at night).
It has been shown that various jurisdictions, including DC, combined red light cameras with reducing the yellow light time. More accidents occurred as people started slamming brakes on a yellow.
SteveF
Yes. I think that’s the case in lots of places.
MikeN,
Yes.
There are safety issues associated with people over reacting to yellow lights and there are also safety issues associated with people running red lights. Both are bad.
For what it’s worth: overly long yellow lights are a bad thing too. People don’t know how long they last and don’t stop. That causes accidents. That said: people should not be given tickets based on catch-22 situations.
The PE licensing is pretty worthless for contracting engineers in software / electronics, at least for me. I believe this is mostly used in construction and so forth. There is some interest to ensure that companies who claim they do engineering have actual competent engineers working for them. It’s not immediately obvious that it is the government’s function to regulate this and/or provide this service. Customers can do their own due diligence or companies could be penalizing for false advertising without the need to sign up and send money to the government every year.
Tom Scharf,
I think with sufficiently large public works projects, some sort of licensing is probably useful. But yeah… there is tons of engineering work that doesn’t require any sort of licensing. Employers know it, engineers know it and so on. Problems with some products are just ordinary problems.
Wasn’t there some sort of problem with rounding on a calculator way back when? That was an ordinary licensing problems. There was no impact on public health, safety yada, yada….. (Besides which, licensing is never going to ensure no one makes mistakes.)
Yeah, the ‘unlicensed practice of engineering’ thing made me shake my head. I accept that there are probably some contexts in which that makes sense. Still, my first gut reaction was to shake my head and wonder what was next. Licensing to do math? Heh. Counting inventory buddy? Let’s see your permit…
Film Sully showed that human beings react differently to maths programs. The reaction time to the shock of seeing a yellow light come on with a known red light camera would tend to vary.
We have one in town with that and a speed limit of 50 K/H.
So you cannot speed up to get through the intersection without a second problem.
I tend to approach it very slowly if it is has been green for any length of time as it is on a main highway through town and has a variable timing mechanism based on the number of cars approaching in an east west direction. North South always has traffic. So it is the one that reacts to the E/W traffic.. Basically late at night I get as close as possible as slow as possible so I can stop on a change or accelerate if near enough to get through on time.
Must be getting old
Mark bofill,
I think the context in which it makes sense really is government. If you consider something like a town or rural county. They need to oversee, approve or implement a certain number of public works. But they are too small to have extensive staff. AND they variety of things the government needs to be involved in is broad: Debate smoking regulations, worry about crime, blah… blah.
So say the mayor or the town hall who really have very little competence in diagnosing who is “qualified”, occasionally needs to make a decision about something that has something to do with real engineering judgement. (And by ‘real’ I mean engineering qua engineering. So: road building, bridge building, construction, piping systems, power generation, water quality…. Things that if they go wrong affect lots of people in ways that can’t be fixed by a lawsuit. (Let’s face it: the harm to kids exposed to lead in Detroit is NOT going to be fixed by a lawsuit. Explosions– same thing.)
Suppose a mayor our council wants to hire an engineering firm to deal with some aspect like the above. In these cases, the mayor and council were voted in in the first place. Having voters pass a law restricting their choice of engineering firms to those that have someone with an external credential makes sense.
Of course, it does not make sense to then say that those engineers in the community who don’t happen to be licensed can’t mention they are engineers when commenting in open meetings. Nor does it makes sense to say that people who come to town hall meetings can’t comment on issues like light timing. And it certainly doesn’t make sense to say that people aren’t allowed to discuss kinematics without an engineering license. It’s ridiculous. Other than this case in Oregon, no one tries to fine engineers for droning on at town hall meetings.
Beyond that, at least in Illinois, even when an engineering firm needs a P.E. with a stamp to create drawings and authorize certain things, that doesn’t mean all the engineers in the firm must be P.E.s. Quite often the firm employs lots of engineers who do analyses, actually make the drawings and so on. Then they have an internal process, the P.E. has final approval– otherwise he won’t stamp. All of these internal people are called “engineer”. What else are you going to call them? Lawyers? Scientists? Seriously, engineer is the right word. They just aren’t “P.E.” and you can’t call them a “P.E”.
In some businesses it is well worth the effort to get one’s P.E. license. In most… nope. Moreover, the fraction of engineers who bothers getting a P.E. license almost certainly declines with degree level. BS engineers are more likely to work in fields where it’s useful. Ph.D.s are more likely to work in research– at a national lab, etc. There is no “scientist” license — and one doesn’t magically need a “P.E” license to engineering research. Few at the Ph.D. level find it useful to get the license and they don’t.
Nearly all at the Ph.D. level can do a kinematics problem if they put their mind to it.
In most states this licensing system for engineers works just fine. The license is required only in situations where there conceivably is a benefit to licensing. (Unlike licensing of hair braiders — which is purely anti-competitive!)
Lucia,
Yes. It gets me wondering how many of the guys designing war planes and missile systems and so on here in Huntsville are actually licensed P.E.’s. Maybe there are indeed P.E.’s in the chain, signing off on stuff someplace on the ladder. I’d think things that go boom for the military are also things that could hurt a lot of people if something goes wrong. I can’t think of how to find out if this is so (P.E.’s required for military systems) off the top of my head, but maybe something will occur to me.
Either way, I tend to think that:
1. Sure, credentials are important. All other things equal, I prefer the guy who passed his FE exam, because it probably indicates he’ll know what he’s doing.
2. This said, it’s confidence that he knows what he’s doing (and that he’s doing it properly) that’s important, which isn’t exactly the same thing. If one really wants to be confident, it seems to me what’s needed is independent review, testing and QA.
Anyways.
I think I get most of your interesting write-up, although I don’t follow at a quick glance what your calculus interlude is about. Are you doing a local minima thing?
mark bofill,
That would be an interesting question. It would also be interesting to learn precisely which jobs those that have PE’s hold.
When I was graduating, the both the EIT (now called FE) and PE exam in Illinois was one exam. Now things least been broken into 7 sub disciplines and the second half of the EIT test tests the sub-discipline. But the first part of FE exam which everyone has to take is still broad and it’s still courses that are either freshman intro courses (math, physics, chemistry) or taught in ME!
For more: https://www.upwardlyglobal.org/skilled-immigrant-job-seekers/american-licensed-professions/illinois/engineer/illinois-engineer-professional-licensing-guide
Interestingly those taking the FE don’t need to know any circuits or EE content beyond what was taught in their introductory physics class! Meanwhile eng. mech, strengths of materials, fluid mechanics and thermo are generally taught in ME. (In large schools, these might also be taught in other departments. ChemE thermo at UIUC was taught in CHemE, ME thermo in ME and material science taught their own thermo or had their students take the one in the physics department. The introductory courses in the engineering versions of these courses overlap about 75%– with the differences coming at the end of the class. Same happened with fluids but in this case CE had their own fluids class, Material Science usually did not.)
So: EE’s often don’t take this test unless the PE is required for the career they want to pursue. I’m guessing designing weapons… probably not!! Heh!
With respect to this post, it’s worth looking which engineering test specifically covers kinematics. Let’s see… nope, nope, nope. ME YES!!! Bingo! 🙂
That’s right because, as everyone knows, CE’s build targets. ME’s build bombs and weapons. You can’t get the bomb to the target without kinematics. 🙂
lucia,
ChemE’s make what makes the bomb go boom. Otherwise, you’re just dropping a rock, no matter how precisely.
mark bofill
Yep. Pretty much. Try to find if there is a min/max between the end points. There would be one if $latex dt_y/da_s = 0$. But it never is. It’s always negative, which means the “worst case” for finding the minimum time is always when $latex a_s =0 $ .
After that, you can just take all equations and interpret for the case $latex a_s =0 $. Had the answer been something else, the follow on would have involved more algebra.
As it happens, the question I think someone might ask would be sort of a natural question because if the driver was going to slow down for the intersection regardless of the light, it’s not clear why they shouldn’t have already been slowing down. Of course they might have– but it turns out that for figuring out the light timing, you analyze the case where they weren’t planning to slow down until a bit further along.
FWIW: case of $latex a_s =0 $ is the one where Jarlstrom starts. Doing that makes the math easier– because you’ve eliminated variables so there is less stuff to shift around.
But — in my experience, “how do you know $latex a_s =0 $ is the case to look at? ” is precisely the sort of question a board that is composed of people who do not have keen physical insight. And when they don’t answering with the verbal argument only doesn’t work. So, you have to give both the verbal argument… have them say.. huh, and then bore them with the calculus.
But, because I know someone might wonder, I shoved that bit in there. In a formal paper it might be in the appendix. Or the author would write the annoying “it’s an exercise left to the reader”. (That doesn’t work with committees or engineering reports. Regulators, safety committees and so on want it shown. If a question is actually asked safety in particular sometimes wants you to prove you wrote it up and someone else then checked they agreed with it. This cannot be done by telling people the proof is left up to the reader. This is why engineering reports are sometimes ponderous.)
Anyway, strictly speaking the calculus is superfluous. One could explain why. Or one could create a graph showing that $latex a_s =0 $ is the worst case for computing the required light timing. (I’m guessing a high school student would code the equation into their graphing calculator and just show the graph. That confuses fewer non-technicals.)
DeWitt Payne
Often. Though for atomic, Nuclear and ME are often involved in ‘making’ too. You first “make” material in a reactor, then Chem E’s and material scientists do all the separation. War is a big engineering task. So us peace. No individual field does everything. Now adays few useful things can be done by a team of engineers who consist only of people from one field.
Also, in terms of war, some of the “targets” civil engineers build have important military functions: runways, manufacturing sites and so on.
I’ve heard — but have been unable to verify– that Napolean was the first to specifically establish ‘civil engineering’ as a recognized field. Of course, he was big in the whole “war” business.
DeWitt,
Oh…
Did you ever read “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”. The sentient computer allied with the Moon colony does drop rocks. A. Long. Way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress
The Loonies win!!
lucia,
You need chemical explosives in nuclear weapons too. In theory you could build a 235U bomb using springs to make the critical mass from the two sub-critical parts. But that presumes the springs would be fast enough to get good yield. Most nuclear weapons, AFAIK, use explosive compression to achieve criticality.
But I take your point on the need for many different skill sets in designing and building weapons.
lucia,
In The Expanse series, books and now a TV series, dropping rocks is the ultimate weapon. It only takes a few.
But you can’t drop rocks that size and at that speed from an airplane or ballistic missile.
No. I wouldn’t want rocks dropped on my. Or bullets fired at me. But all other things being equal explosive material definitely makes bombs more effective than rocks.
DeWitt,
“Most nuclear weapons, AFAIK, use explosive compression to achieve criticality.”
.
Yes, virtually all modern weapons use compression, because that is the only way to use plutonium 239. The problem is that plutonium 240, always present as an impurity, self-fissions at a fairly high rate, yielding lots of “natural” neutron flux. Only a very fast implosion (a few microseconds for complete compression) can go from non-critical to critical fast enough to avoid early fission that blows the critical mass apart too quickly to generate much energy… the mass stays critical for too short a time, so not much energy is produced. U235 does not have this problem of self-fission, so much slower “assembly” of the critical mass (on the order of milliseconds) is plenty fast enough with military grade U235.
.
Which is why countries like Iran focus on U235 separation…. the technical sophistication required is much lower…. just brute force enrichment. Of course, the quantity (mass) of enriched uranium needed increases as the purity goes down, so unless the U235 is very pure, you need a lot of it…. and the weapon becomes quite large… thousands of Kg versus as little as ~100 of Kg (or less!) for an implosion/plutonium weapon.
SteveF,
Even with 240Pu and worse, 241Pu contamination, early plutonium bombs contained a core called the urchin that contained a strong alpha emitter, 210Po, and a light element, beryllium. When mixed, neutrons are generated by alpha capture. The specifics of the design of the urchin are still highly classified.
According to Wikipedia, modern weapons use a particle accelerator to generate neutrons as the timing is more precise.
For a bare metal uncompressed sphere, the critical mass of 235U is 50kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
Another reason besides complexity of design is the very large amounts of high level waste that are generated by plutonium manufacture. That’s a lot harder to hide than banks of centrifuges.
I just received this example of tinfoil hat anti-science attitudes in an email.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/how-transgenic-petunia-carnage-2017-began
Removing genetically engineered petunias from the market needs this sort of effort? I don’t think so. It’s exactly this sort of catering to the antiscience lunatic fringe that includes anti-vaxxers by writing overly restrictive rules that lets this sort of thing happen. As I noted at the time, the March for Science made no mention of anti-vaxxers or anti-GMO. That’s, IMO, because those issues cross political lines and can’t be associated mainly with Republicans.
DeWitt,
I believe all weapons use a neutron source initiator of some type to maximize energy yield, including 235U weapons.
.
My comment about the self-fission of 240Pu (and 241) was only to point out the relative technical difficulty of a Pu design compared to a 235U design.
SteveF,
I think that comes with the territory of using explosive compression. But with 235U, you don’t have to use either. You’re not going to put one on a ballistic missile, it would be too heavy, but it will explode. It wasn’t necessary to test the Little Boy bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. It was a gun-type 235U bomb and everyone was certain it would explode. That’s not to mention that there wasn’t enough 235U at the time to make a second bomb.
Dewitt,
Dang! Now I want some orange petunias!
Me and my wife might possibly have bought some of these! Bought them at Lowes. Had no idea. FWIW, the salmon-y looking orange ones didn’t withstand the sun the way the other white & purple ones do.
My wife informs me that we had these orangey looking petunias last year too. I’m not sure they are really the same thing. Mine are all withered now, so it’s hard to say by inspection.
Mark Bofill,
My wife and I have never purchased orange petunias… only the white and purple types. I was unaware orange petunias existed.
SteveF,
Yeah, they probably last all of six hours in the Florida sun…
Mark Bofil,
I just moved my daughter to Huntsville last week. She got a job at Pinnacle Systems which does a lot of work with Blackhawks, simulations, manuals etc. The guy who runs the company is the sole surviving pilot from the Blackhawk Down incident. No doubt those two items are not a coincidence.
Mark Bofill,
Not in Florida… Cape Cod, May to October.
Dems failed after spending millions in another special election, this time in Montana.
Moral victory, as Trump won by 20 and they are within single digits.
FWIW, I’ve noticed that the yellow light duration is noticeably shorter in Arizona than here in Illinois. Perhaps climate plays a role.
DB,
Maybe climate does matter. There’s probably more rain, snow and ice here in Illinois. That affects friction at the tires. If the lights keep the same timing all year, which may well be advisable, that would mean engineers in Illinois have to use a different maximum deceleration rate.
Drivers are expected to take weather conditions into account. That said: road and traffic control designers do need to consider road conditions too.
MikeN,
The guy who beat up the reporter won?!
I think I read he’ll probably step down and they’ll have another special election. But it does suggest those voters didn’t like the other guy.
lucia: “The guy who beat up the reporter won?! ”
The news broke on election day. Most of the votes were already cast in early voting.
Does anyone here know just what evidence there is for what happened? I am not saying that nothing happened, Gianforte admits he did wrong. I am wondering if it is exaggerated.
MikeM,
Really? I think most people vote on election day around here. I do.
I did read you can’t change an early vote in Montana. You can here. You just go to the polls and your final vote overrides the early one. I haven’t seen video.
One report said the reporters glasses were broken. Glasses can break pretty easily if hit just right. I’ve worn them since I was in 3rd grade. Sometimes your surprised they don’t break; sometimes it seems like they broke for practically no reason at all.
Anyway, dunno if it was exaggerated. But really, hitting someone at all is not good. Breaking their glasses is never going to look good.
He is charged with misdemeanor assault. Putting aside the fact that most stories in the Guardian about conservatives are best described as ‘assaults’, I think it prudent to wait and see what a court finds when the new congressman shows up for his hearing.
The fact that a Fox News reporter backs up the reporter’s version probably says all you need to know. The Montana guy was yelling at the reporter “I am sick and tired of you guys” before he did it. I very much doubt a reporter should get body slammed under any circumstance (…here come the rationalization…) but it has become a bit over the top confrontational with the media and the right lately. If it happened a couple weeks before the election it might have mattered, but I doubt it.
lucia (Comment #162287): “I think most people vote on election day around here. I do.”
Last fall, 37% of ballots were cast early. Some states are much higher; I think more than half voted early where I live. My impression is that is true of other western states as well. I am amazed that you can change an early vote.
lucia: “But really, hitting someone at all is not good. Breaking their glasses is never going to look good.”
For sure.
mark bofill (Comment #162266) :
“Me and my wife might possibly have bought some of these! Bought them at Lowes.”
I scanned this before the (brief) preceding comment by lucia, and associated the pronoun “these” with “atomic bombs”. Gave me quite a start!
Montana: REP: 50% DEM: 44% LIBERTARIAN: 6%
.
Humorously before the vote totals came in The Atlantic was already contemplating that if Gianforte won then Congress could refuse to seat him or use expulsion to remove him. They are a one trick pony lately.
I worked the polls a few times. Before opening absentee ballots, we checked whether the person had come in and voted. I’m sure they do something similar for early voting.
Lucia: “I worked the polls a few times. Before opening absentee ballots, we checked whether the person had come in and voted. I’m sure they do something similar for early voting.”
….
I’ve worked the polls several times also. We don’t have that procedure in Ohio. I have the same amazed reaction as did Mike M. The vast majority of poll workers are volunteer one-timers (paid a small amount), and I can’t imagine that they, or the system in Ohio, could handle canceling out absentee ballots and voting for a second time.
JD
Remember the episode from ‘Taxi’ where Jim Ignatowski is taking the New York driver’s test, with one of his taxi driver friends covertly assisting, and can’t remember exactly, precisely what the yellow signal officially means? So he quietly asks his friend, “What does the yellow light mean?”
“Jim. Slow down.”
“What .. does .. the .. yellow .. light .. mean?”
“Slow down!”
“Whaat … doesss … thhhe … yell-lowww … liggght … meeaan?”
Harold,
🙂 no, no, no.. gunpowder and propane are the scariest things I’ve got. Plenty scary enough for me anyway.
lucia: “Before opening absentee ballots, we checked whether the person had come in and voted. I’m sure they do something similar for early voting.”
That would require that early voting be done exactly like an absentee ballot: your ballot put in an envelope with your name on it and not opened until after the polls close. Otherwise, there would be no link between the voter and his vote, so it could not be overridden.
JD Ohio
They weren’t cancelled out. What happened was the absentee ballot were delivered in double envelops. We checked the name against the list of who had voted at the polling place. If they had voted, we destroyed the ballot (or something like that.)
If they had not voted, we opened the envelop and fed the ballot into the ballot reader– just as if they’d come in. There were some procedures to maintain secrecy of the ballot and we needed more than 1 person checking if they voted. But basically, absentee ballots are identical to the ones used at the polling place. They get fed into the reader by the poll workers– but only if the voted didn’t show up and cast a vote.
I don’t know what happens with “early votes” cast at a satellite location. If they were paper ballots, they probably just got held up and fed in after the polls closed. That lets someone check for duplicate voting.
In Florida you can bring your unused absentee/early voting ballot to the polling station and they will let you vote, I have no idea if there is any check if you just showed up without it.
.
I can go to a website that shows me I voted by mail this last election.
I happened to see this post and felt I needed to point something out. I get the analysis in this post is hypothetical, but I feel it is important to note Oregon doesn’t require a car clear an intersection to avoid being given a ticket for running a red light. I don’t know of any state which does. There may be some, but in the case of Oregon, you only run a red light if you enter the intersection after the light has already turned red.
I couldn’t find Jarlston’s analysis with a quick search so I’m not sure what assumptions he used, but based on the formula this post provides for his analysis, it would appear he has made a non-trivial error. The W/v term should not be included in any analysis of yellow light timing in Oregon.
For what it’s worth, I tried searching for states where this scenario accurately describes the traffic laws. I couldn’t find any. Someone else might be able to. If not, it would appear all red light cameras (in the United States, at least) are triggered only if a car has entered the intersection after a light turns red.
Incidentally, red light cameras generally have a small “grace period” between the light turning red and them starting to trigger. I’ve found reports of them ranging from .1-.3 seconds. I don’t know if that’s worth including in one’s analysis.
Brandon,
It’s true the w/v term should not be in any of the equations if the lights are not-restrictive. In that case, one still needs to use a different equation if you want to permit someone who is slowing to clear. They still need more time. You just compare all equations but eliminating the w/v type term.
According to http://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/traffic-tickets/moving-violations/running-red-lights-and-stop-34
Their rules of the road say this
Both seem to indicate a driver must stop if they can.
Do you have a document that contradicts this or explains that people won’t get tickets?
If information from driving rules and rules of the road are correct and there isn’t anything else out there saying there is some dispensation from getting tickets for some reason, then the w/v term is required in the equation for light timing.
I would think that implementation would be advisable. But I wouldn’t be confident that all of them everywhere are set that way.
As a quick follow-up, I found this document providing detail on the analysis in question. I see I was mistaken to say that term shouldn’t be included in timing of yellow lights. The reason Mat Jarlston includes that term is because it is relevant for safety purposes. You want vehicles in an intersection while on red to clear the intersection before the next green light comes on.
That just has nothing to do with running red lights. You only get a ticket for it if the light is red when you enter the intersection. If you can’t safely stop at a yellow light, you shouldn’t get a ticket for running a red light.
lucia:
You cited the law on yellow lights. People can get tickets for failing to obey yellow lights without getting tickets for running red lights. Red light cameras won’t be connect to those tickets though. Only a human police officer is going to be able to give them out.
As I noted in my follow-up comment, including the term serves a legitimate purpsoe in considering the timing of lights. It just has nothing to do with running red lights.
In states like Oregon, if you can safely stop on a yellow and don’t, you can get a ticket. If you enter an intersection while the light is red, you can get a ticket. What you can’t get a ticket for is entering the intersection then having the light turn red. The timing would have to be really off for a driver following traffic laws to not be able to stop on yellow yet wind up running a red light.
According to one web page:
Other sources say the number of “permissive states” is actually 42. Oregon is the only “restrictive yellow” state in the Western part of the country. Since it is impossible for a driver to know the duration of a yellow light if he/she is unfamiliar with an intersection, the “restrictive yellow” rule seems to place a heavy burden on the driver… it surely sometimes leads to a near-panic stop even where none is warranted.
SteveF, the restrictive rule does not require the driver know anything about the timing of the yellow light. Restrictive yellow laws simply mean if you see a yellow light, you must stop if you can do so safely. If you cannot safely stop, there’s no problem for the driver (unless the timing is so far off the driver cannot safely stop yet the light turns red prior to them reaching the intersection).
Permissive yellow laws are the ones which can call into question a driver’s knowledge of the light’s timing. Permissive yellow laws say you don’t have to stop on yellow. That means a driver who could safely stop could instead decide to keep going and hope the light doesn’t turn red before they reach the intersection.
Brandon
I’m not sure what point you think you are making here. Getting a ticket for failing to obey a yellow light is still getting a ticket. If drivers in oregon get tickets for failing to obey a yellow light because they failed to clear the intersection, that is still a ticket and the lights should be timed to avoid that.
Additional links are here: http://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-tickets/oregon-traffic-laws.html (See Running a Red Light / Stop Sign).
I’m not seeing anything that suggests people are not ticketed in the way Jarlstrom says they are ticketed.
I’m also not finding any distiction bewteen ticket for ‘red’ vs. ‘yellow’ light. The Oregon statue has penalties for
There’s quite a few behaviors that fall under there– running lights is one of them. But it’s running lights generically– yellow or red.
Do you have links to any document that supports this claim? I’ve provided links to Oregon statutes. The two I’ve found support Jalrstrom’s description, not yours. But I’m certainly open to the notion that I have not read the documents sufficiently to correctly understand their laws. If you can point to a document or location in these documents that supports your claim that would clarify things.
I’m not sure what you mean by “way off”. If you mean: if the lights such that this happens, they must be “way off”– yes. But that’s precisely Jarlstrom’s contention: they are off because the wrong equation is used.
The difference in required timing using my scenarios vs. the 1959 one is
$latex \frac{v_{max}}{2a_{max} \{2 \frac{v_{max}}{v_{max} + v_{s}} – 1 \} $
The part that is not the “reaction time” can almost double if the “safe speed” for traversing the intersection is much lower than the maximum speed approaching the intersection.
The safe speed being much lower is not the rule, but it can happen at some intersections in certain situations. For example: The driveway to the grocery store and bank are immediately past the light when I drive down Chicago Ave. If either I am planning to go to either or the care just ahead of me slows for to go there, the “safespeed” for traveling through the intersection is low.
With respect to light timing, if the wrong equation is used, then it is possible for the timing to be off sufficiently that careful drivers who were complying with the speed limit could get tickets. Some drivers claim this happens in some locations. Perhaps it does. Or not.
(BTW: I’ve never had any trouble with the light on Chicago Avenue. Generally speaking, I know I’m going to turn left right after the light and drive accordingly. It’s also multiple lane. If I’m not turning left, I drive in the right hand lane. )
I should add– when asking you to support your claim that there is no problem with failing to clear before the light turns red, do you have anything to support the claim that people are not, in fact, given tickets when this occurs? The converse could easily be that police and speeding cameras presume that if you exited after the light turned red, then you must have been able to stop. And the reason that one might presume this is one would assume the correct formula was used to time the yellow light.
Obviously, if the light is too short, this is not the case.
lucia:
My point is drivers in Oregon do not get a ticket “for failing to obey a yellow light because they failed to clear the intersection.” That isn’t a thing. Whether the driver clears the intersection is not considered when dealing with yellow or red light laws.
Nothing in the statutes you cite say anything about a driver needing to clear an intersection. The only reference to clearing the intersection is a driver who cannot safely stop on yellow must proceed through the intersection cautiously.
I can’t speak to what his contentions are or are not as I haven’t spent any time examining his public statements. What I can say is the document detailing his analysis I linked to above does not say anything about a person getting tickets because a light turned red while they were still in the intersection. On the contrary, the document says things like:
That was from a section on permissive yellow lights (whereas Oregon is restrictive), but again, I can’t find anything in that document referring to anyone getting a ticket because a light turned red while they were in an intersection. Can you indicate where you saw him contend that does in fact happen?
Oh.. another thing notice for the hypothetical set of conditions I happened to pick to analysize, the driver who slowing down to a “safe speed” and so could not stop also would enter the intersection after the light turned red
They enter the intersection at time “t2”. But if the 1959 equation is used to time lights, the lights would be turn red at the final dashed green line which happens just before the slowing car enters the intersection. So: even under Brandon’s theory of how Oregon gives out tickets, this car both (a) cannot stop safely, (b) enters the intersection after the light turns red and (c) could get a ticket if caught by a red light camera.
FWIW: I didn’t pick these conditions to make any point, but merely to have areas big enough to see. But there are plenty of choices of reasonable speeds where the person who cannot stop would enter the intersection after the light turned red.
lucia:
It is generally not my preference to try to prove things don’t happen. I have seen no law nor example indicating anyone in the United States gets tickets because a light turns red while they are in the intersection. I haven’t seen anything which indicates Mats Järlström contends that happens.
But the Oregon statutes you cited are quite clear. They say a person presented with a yellow light must stop if they can do so safely. They say a person presented with a red light must stop. They do not say anything about a person violating a law by being in an intersection when the light turns red.
Brandon
Yes. You keep claiming this. But you show nothing to indicate it’s true. We also know you do not live in Oregon. So it seems unlikely to be due to your living and breathing the Oregon traffic law.
No. It defines a violation.
The law also doesn’t tell you what cops actually do, nor what red light cameras do. You haven’t provided anything to indicate that red camera lights don’t just ticket people on the basis of failing to exit when the red light appears.
This is consistent with the reading of Oregon’s statue under 811.260 (7) which says that a driver shall stop if they are presented with a red light. So: failure to stop in this situation subjects someone with a penalty,
So: In Oregon they are supposed to stop at a yellow light if they can. and they shall stop if they are presented with a red. There is no exemptions for “not being able to” if you face a red light.
And the fact is if the 1959 statue is without grace periods and so on, it is possible for someone to both be unable to stop at the yellow and face a red light.
But really: it would be nice if you dug up something that supported you contention that people who can’t stop in Oregon would really not be ticketed. In fact, if the cameras, police and courts do not know how to determine if someone can’t stop it’s entirely likely they assume that if you fail to clear before the red turns off, they give you a ticket. And if you try to dispute that, you can “talk to the hand” as it were.
This analysis– and Jarlstrom’s– would be precisely about the problem that arises that if eveyrone “thinks” cars must be able to stop– because that equation “says” they can, then, notwithstanding anything the law ways, some people will be ticketed when they can’t stop and enter the intersection owing to that reason.
Brandon
Sheesh. As far as I can tell you are making a claim based on utter lack of knowledge.
Your not seeing this means very little. I’ve known people who get tickets when a light turns red while they are in an intersection. I was a passenger in a car when my college boyfriend got on in 1980. In Chicago. The ticket may have been unjust, but it was issued. (BTW: He tried to beat it. He failed.)
I’ve heard of other instances. So: your lack of seeing this is hardly proof.
Oh. Sheesh.
(1) The analysis shows that people can be unable to stop for the yellow and also unable to stop for the red. So the analysis shows lights timed unsing the 1959 formula are mistimed even under your fanciful interpretation of how the law is implemented.
(2) Tickets do get issued to people who fail to clear while the light is yellow. This happens. Even if you have never seen it. I have seen it happen.
(3) A ticket is issued if the cop “judges” a traffic violations occurs or if the camera is programed to do so. It is infact likely that a cop– and especially a camera– could be programmed to assume a violation occurred if you did not clear before the red turned. Or if you did not clear at some particular time the camera is programmed for. Regardless of the statute that means people get tickets based on a calculated time– and the likely thing is based on when the red changes. Your claim that this doesn’t happen appears to be based on … your belief it doesn’t happen and no more.
You can keep proclaiming all sort of things based on pretty much nothing. But it’s pretty clear at this point that’s all it is: proclamations.
lucia:
I can’t speak to what cops actually do. What I can speak to is what the law says. The law says people in Oregon can get tickets for failing to stop when able to do so safely on a yellow or if they fail to stop on a red. The law does not say anything about people getting tickets because a light turned red while they were in an intersection.
It is possible cops give out tickets to people who are in intersections when the light turns red despite that not being against any law. I can’t say. It is possible cameras are set up to take pictures of such behavior despite it not being against the law. I can’t say. It is possible the people reviewing the footage to determine if a violation happened choose to send out tickets despite no law being violated. I can’t say. What I can say is the law is clear, as is the city in question. For instance:
It is possible the law and stated policies are not used as the actual guideline. It is possible Mats Jarlston says so. I doubt that. I think you have simply misunderstood part of the situation.
Which is a point that would be worth discussing. Discussing it simply doesn’t require incorrectly claiming people will get tickets because the light turned red while they were in an intersection.
I have never made such a claim. I said it won’t happen unless the timing is really off (which you misquoted as “way off”). It is possible the timing of some lights is really off. I don’t know. I didn’t post to discuss the mathematical details of these analyses. All I wanted to do was clarify your analysis operates under an assumption that does not apply in Oregon (or anywhere else that I know of).
Changing that assumption to match what actually happens in the real world might still result in an analysis showing there’s a problem. That doesn’t mean the assumption should be kept though. If people want to look at this problem as it applies to the real world, they should not assume people in intersections when lights turn red will get tickets. If they want to look at it just as a hypothetical problem for learning math or something like that, making that assumption is fine.
lucia:
I can’t speak to what sort of unjust tickets might be handed out by police officers. I’ve been given a ticket by police officers for behavior which was not in violation of any law. It happens. I don’t think tickets handed out for behavior which wasn’t in violation of any ordinance or law was the topic of this post though. A hypothetical scenario which says “the law dictates” something be done does not suggest your concern is with tickets handed out for legal behavior.
As a matter of clarity, red light cameras don’t determine if a person should get a ticket. Red light cameras take pictures, but those pictures are reviewed by people who determine if (they believe) a violation occurred. I don’t think that changes anything about your point, but it’s worth understanding how the systems work.
Brandon
And under this view, Jarlstrom’s criticism is correct. Use of the 1959 equation is flawed. Because it’s flawed. (And FWIW: Jartstrom in one place discusses both types of yellow.)
And yet, you worded thigns to indicate it doesn’t happen in Oregon. You specifically said
In fact, for all you know drivers in Oregon do get tickets for this. As I pointed out well above, the question is one of how the law is implemented.
I’m not saying that. I’m saying, given what the law says Cops and judges then look at information to judge whether they believe the person failed to stop when they could have. This is not the same as not using the law or stated policies as a guideline. In fact, it is attempting to use it as a guideline but operating under the mistaken notion that those who calculated the lights did so correctly. If they did, then failing to clear the red would be evidence the person could have stopped.
The practice of giving tickets to people who failed to clear would be entirely consistent with an attempt to follow the law.
Well… at least now you have finally decided to go find some evidence of something. Thank you. That’s useful.
I didn’t claim they would. I asked you to be helpful and provide evidence of your claim.
The conclusion of the analysis holds whether or not the w/v term is there. So it holds in the case you say exists also.
It does show there is a problem. This fact that the problem exists whether or not that assumption was made was was before you appeared in comments here. And as is easily discernable if you look at the figures. Or if you read comments above yours. Or even some of my replies to you (which included a figure.)
lucia:
I thought it’d be understood I was referring to tickets that are given out in accordance with the law since that was how the scenario in question was framed. I didn’t think it was necessary to add the caveat, “Unless a police officer gives out a ticket for behavior which doesn’t violate any law.”
Even if one feels I should have added such a caveat, it does nothing to change the simple point I was attempting to make – the scenario you described does not reflect reality.
I understood your analysis indicated it would still exist from the time of my first comment. What I did not know is if your analysis was correct. I didn’t think it mattered. All I wanted to do was clarify the legal situation is tickets are not (supposed to be) given to people for being in an intersection when the light turns red.
That seems a simple enough point that shouldn’t have been the cause for conflict. I don’t know why you’ve chosen to respond in this hostile and petty manner. I don’t really care. I think it is abundantly clear at this point your scenario which states:
Does not reflect what “the law dictates.” The laws in Oregon do not dictate that, As long as people understand that difference between your hypothetical scenario and any real world scenario, I did what I came to do. The rest of this is just a dumb waste of time.
I’ve become a bit intrigued by the meaning of yellow traffic lights now, and as a result, I’ve been doing some reading. I feel it is necessary that reading showed at least a couple states do fit the scenario described in this post. One state is Louisiana. It says:
West Virginia is another example:
The only other one I saw was Rhode Island, but I didn’t check all of the states. I did find a couple states, like Minnesota, had such prohibitions on the books in the past but have since amended the laws to not prohibit being in the intersection while on red (often ~50 years ago).
Anyway, I thought that was something I needed to share given my previous comments. This adds further complexity to any recommendations on how to time yellow lights as timings that would work out well in one state might not work in others. People responsible for setting the timing of lights should definitely be aware of the issue when making their decisions.
Edit: It also occurs to me cities can create their own traffic ordinances. There could be cities which prohibit being in an intersection on red even though the states they are in do not. That’d create an interesting situation.
Brandon
You thought wrong. I interpreted your statements literally.
You might want to think about how hostile and petty your contributions sound from the get go. You arrive, make a declaration about something, ignoring the fact the you issue you brought up has already been discussed. The statements you make are flat declarative statements– not nuanced ones that sound like context.
Then you ignore the portions of the response that tell you that the issue you brought up does not affect the general result and want to focus on some point about your interpretation about the law. In the processes making firm declarations which are wrong but which for some reason you should think we should interpret in some non-literal way.
Well… perhaps. But if you don’t want to waste other people’s time, you could avoid sounding hostile on your first comment and avoid appearing like you think you are raising a novel issue when that precise issue has already been discussed in comments.
In fact: The time delay problem is the same if we do the less general analysis than if we do the more general one. The case timing is to detect cars that enter after the light turns red has the same qualitative problem — as was discussed before you got here. To get the solution for the less general result, just delete the w/v type terms from all equations– the problem with the timing equation remains.
So there is nothing particularly informative about observing that the “special case” — in terms of kinematics– of timing lights for tickets only given when one enters during a red. In terms of kinematics, it is a subset of the more general case, the the problem arises in both. This had already been discussed before you got here.
There is no reason to suggest that Jalstrom’s “analysis” is flawed just because it covers both the case you think more realistic and another case that also applies in the US. There is also no reason to suggest he “overlooked” it when– in fact– he’s discussed both cases.
.
Whinge, whinge, whinge. Bored now.
DeWitt,
My rule is simple: don’t engage PITA’s.
The issue is the claim to be an engineer. The apropriate analogy would have been if he had claimed to be a lawyer or doctor. The issue is whether he is licensed. If not, he legally cannot claim to be an engineer or lawyer or doctor. He mistake is innocent, and the penalty is abusive; a reprimand is the usual penealty.
I was a licensed engineer for a number of years, but when I retired I surrendered my license, and I have never claimed to be an engineer since. I have BS, MS and PhD degrees in engineering, but I would never consider publically claiming to be an engineer.
Bob Skykes,
I find your view of this quite odd. I once managed a group of degreed chemical engineers at a large chemical plant. The group was called “process engineering”. All the people in the department were classified as engineers in the company structure. If you asked them their profession, I am sure they would reply “chemical engineer”. Hard for me to see that reply as lawbreaking.
DeWitt,
Don’t blame yah!
Bob Sykes
The legal issue of claiming to be a lawyer came up at Volokh: Totally legal to claim one is a lawyer based on degree alone. No question at all: Legal.
I’m guessing it’s the same for doctor.
The only thing that can be illegal is to claim a credential you don’t have– along with trying to use it to sell a service.
No. That might be issue if he claimed to be licensed or did something that requires licensing. But he didn’t claim to be licensed and he didn’t try to sell a engineering services. So he didn’t violate any laws.
That’s fine. But what you would or would not consider doing doesn’t define the law. If you did call yourself an engineer, you wouldn’t be violating the law. Or if you were, all sorts of people are violating the law all over the place. National labs– own by the feds– have business cards that include the word “engineer” on cards for lots of people who don’t have licenses. No engineering board goes after the labs– and if they don’t that suggests that, in fact, it is not illegal to call oneself an engineer.
BUT you can’t indicate you are licensed— which is different.
Yeah. FWIW, I’ve worked in cube farms literally full of guys who’s titles were some variation of ‘software engineer’. I’m pretty sure the vast majority of these guys aren’t licensed engineers. I think it’s just what you call a computer programmer in some industries.
Heck, my title has been some variant of software engineer for more than a decade.
lucia, I don’t think your latest response is justified, and it is certainly not accurate, but as long people understand if the law is enforced properly, people in most states will not get tickets simply for being in an intersection when the light turns red, I’m content.
For the record though, I haven’t seen anything in Mats Järlström’s technical analysis I disagree with. There are a couple small errors with his listing of state laws, but based on examining the detailed analysis of his I found, I suspect he and I would find ourselves in ready agreement on this subject. I think he would also understand why I might point out statements like this:
Are not accurate even if doing so might annoy a person hosting a discussion (there is no legal issue with him discussing his analysis).
Brandon,
You are incorrect.
Bob Sykes,
I have no idea what this degree on my wall from an accredited university is all about. After I pay the government its yearly fee I can tell you what it says and we can discuss it then.
.
Licensing is pretty discipline and area specific. I worked as a (redacted) for a major defense contractor for a decade and was never required to get any form of a license.
Tom/Bob,
It’s worth nothing that Jalstrom fine was levied for critiquing. That is: for presenting and discussing his analysis. See
http://ij.org/client/mats-jarlstrom/
So: he stands in legal peril for critiquing traffic lights. That separate from the issue of calling himself and engineer. Evidently, they don’t want him to do that either. But calling himself an engineer isn’t the only or main issue. It is discussing his critique — which involves application of kinematics to a traffic timing light– that the board considers a thing he may not do.
The legal document requesting the Oregon Board’s ruling be enjoined is here:
http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ECF-No.-25_Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction-w-Memo-In-Support_FINAL-IJ087970xA6322.pdf.
You can see that he is not merely fined for using the word “engineer” to describe himself– that’s under the second thing he is fined for.
The first thing he is charged with is “practicing engineering” and merely talking about the traffic lights amounted to the violation.
After reading the post I checked my surrounding states and was going to make a similar point to Brandon’s about clearing the intersection. This has been an ongoing debate between in myself and my son since I had a small hand in his driver’s education. He is more cautious than most. I learned from my father and other’s behavior that being in the act of clearing the intersection on red was not illegal, only entering. That is what I found locally and I thank Brandon for pointing out there are a couple of states who specify otherwise.
.
The bigger question is how the police enforce the law. I can’t imagine anyone getting a ticket if they entered on yellow unless they were also speeding.
.
Lucia: “So: he stands in legal peril for critiquing traffic lights.”
.
I agree, bureaucracies have no right to enforce “safe places” for themselves when it comes to critical speach regardless of claimed credentials of the critic. Public relations staff has equal right to counter criticize (while heeding anti-defamation laws).
.
I would like to see traffic lights to be made responsive more than just to weight sensing trips at the intersections. With combinations of sensors, cameras and satellites, it seems that the potential exits to save gigatones of fuel and mega-man-hours of commuters with a little ingenuity. Thoughts?
Ron Graf
How the police enforce it, how they interpret it and how judges interpret it if you go to court do matter. That’s been my point. The question of “how do the police and judges deem whether you were or were not able to stop” is an important one. My experience is the fact the light turned red can be — and sometimes is– taken as evidence you could stop. And tickets are given. I’ve seen this happen.
That the ticket might be thought “unjust” is true. But is a problem associated with mistimed lights.
That fact that people often don’t get tickets isn’t very meaningful. There are tons of traffic light violations that do not get tickets. Among other things, the police are ordinarily no where in sight to witness and give the ticket. I know I have sometimes accidently violated and said “Oh. Shit!!!!” But luckily there was no cop around.
I’m generally cautious with yellows. If I can stop and always do. I don’t try to remember the timing on lights so I can get through the long ones.
I’d like to see it too. But cost and reliability are issues.
Around here we have some trip sensors for a left arrow on one of the local lights but not all cars know to pull up far enough to trip them. It’s at an intersection we don’t usually turn left on, but we pass going straight regularly. We always feel sorry for the second car stuck behind the first one that did not pull up far enough. Argh!!!
lucia, I wasn’t going to comment again, but I have since realized I was wrong about what Mat Jarlstom is facing. He could face punishment for discussing his analysis. Perhaps part of what threw me off is you began this post by saying:
Which is different from him having been given a fine which he paid a year ago. When I looked for a current fine for merely critiquing, none existed, so I took that as indicating you were mistaken. It turns out things were a bit more muddled than I realized. Mats Jarlstrom is currently seeking an injunction to prevent further fines in the future (so he is free to publish and discuss his analysis), not fighting against a fine he has already been given.
Anyway, I think it is clear to any disinterested onlooker me making further comments here would be fruitless. I’ve written a post discussing some matters arising from this. If people want to get a response from me, they are welcome to comment there. I think creating that opportunity and refraining from further comments here (unless I discover some error I’ve made here which I feel needs to be corrected) would be best.
As a final remark, I’ll note again I never said “way off.” I also didn’t say “overlooked” though it is perhaps possible your use of quotation marks in that case wasn’t intended to indicate a direct quote. Say what you want about me, but I think it is reasonable to believe misquotations should be corrected when they are pointed out rather than ignored.
Brandon
Yes. On this thread you have been deciding to diagnose mistakes based on lack of knowledge or mistinterpretation of what has been claimed.
Correct. You said “really off”. This is, of course, “way” different.
This is particularly foul. It would have been fine if he wrote a prose poem, or a song criticizing the lights. But no; since he applied his understanding of kinematics to the problem and publicly talked about it – he was doing something wrong.
Some climate warriors might love this. I wonder if they will take note. Imagine it – none of us (I think?) are licensed climate scientists. (I don’t think there is such a thing, but I could be wrong) Wouldn’t that be neat to be able to shut down Steve McIntyre and others on a similar basis.
Neat. Heh.
Lucia,
Really off is way different from way off which is really different in a really profound way, while Way off is really different from really off differs in a way that really trivial. Really. Way…
I think I’ve triggered an acid flashback, I’m going to go lie down for awhile…
Mark Bofill,
I don’t think there is any licensing for climate scientist or any sort of scientist.
Actually, here is the definition of practicing engineering, which is prohibitted if you don’t have a license.
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.005
I’m a bit amused by this
One might think being a professor of engineering is a “professional service… requiring engineering education, training and experience.” One might think doing engineering research and publishing papers on engineering topcis is performing “creating work” requiring same.
If so, then the engineering profs at universities in Oregon must all require PE licenses. If not, then evidently teaching engineering or doing engineering research does not require engineering education, training and experience. (Perhaps each only requires two out of the three?)
Lucia,
Yes. I’d started thinking along those lines too. I think that definition sounds awfully broad. Heck, students studying engineering and physics might be in violation while doing assignments and projects.
So anyone in Oregon that criticizes the climate models can be fined if they don’t have a license, or is the problem that Jats told some people he is an engineer?
What is ‘the intersection’? I have a hard time believing that someone is not liable to receive a ticket if they pass the crosswalk just before the light turns red, and goes thru for two seconds.
I have gotten a red light ticket that turned red while I was in the intersection. I thought the yellow was very short, and I would have avoided it easily if I had known it would be short, but it never occurred to me that getting the ticket was legally invalid.
If it is a right turn at a red light, which is what the engineer’s wife was cited for(she says it was yellow), then even if there are no cars on your left, you still have to come to a complete stop before turning. I received a camera ticket for this, and heard the camera when it happened. I went back later to see if there was a no turn on red sign, and during the left turn heard the camera a second time.
MikeN
I don’t know whether the board could fine someone for criticizing a climate model. But if the think they can I would think they would also need to fine people who run them. Because either running or evaluating climate models involve application of “engineering science” or it does not. If it does, then both the modeler and the critic are violating. If it does not, then neither is. At least that’s how it seems to me.
Jalstrom is being slammed both for “practicing enginnering” and calling himself an engineering. In Oregon’s view, you can be fined for either. So:
(a) You can be fined for practicing even if you don’t call yourself an engineer.
(b) You can be fined for saying you are an engineer even if you don’t practice.
And of course, if you do both (a) and (b) you can still get fined.
In the case of Jarlstrom, the board purports he did both.
We may need a separate thread to discuss early voting procedures.
In Texas each registered voter may (
Discuss early voting …
In Texas each voter may (of 4)
1 Request an absentee (mail) ballot and return that by mail. The requests must be made before early voting (process 2) begins. That completed mailed ballot must be returned and received by the county within a week after the traditional election day.
2 Vote in person on a touch screen at any polling place in his county during a ten day “early voting” period prior to tradtional election day.
3 Vote in person on a paper ballot at a specified local precinct on traditional day.
4 Vote in person via a “provisional” ballot at a disupted local precinct, which ballot must be “cleared” of the dispute prior to processing as valid, and which clearance must occur in the week following election day.
A voter choosing option 1 may bring the mail ballot to the precinct location on election day (and exchange the unused mail ballot — which is destroyed — for a tradtional paper ballot which is counted normally as in process option 3.
The poll workers’ log book showing a voter had requested a mail ballot will not allow the voter to cast (another) vote in either 2 early or 3 traditional voting unless or until the mail ballot is exchanged.
The poll workers’ (electronic) log shows a voter in any of the ten days of early voting (2) has “used up” his vote and will not allow him access to vote systems for another (electronic vote during the later days of the early voting period. The PHYSICAL log book used on traditional election day (3) is intended for the same purpose. Because the physical log book relies on a manual transcription of electronic early voting records to the printed page, it is an opportunity for error allowing a few people to potentially vote in both early and traditional processes. A dispute about whether a registered voter has or has not early voted may be punted into the “provisional” process (4) so that the voter has the opportunity to vote – but in practice it’s nearly impossible to prove the early vote was cast by anyone other than that same voter and the provisional ballot will never clear.
A voter who has moved within Texas or is otherwise questionable may succeed in casting a partial ballot via the provisional ballot process (4) if, say, he votes in the wrong county. He is ineligible to vote for county, city, or school officials but his (provisional) ballot for state-wide or federal officials. An Obama or McCain voter, say, might have been ineligible to vote in Dallas, should have voted in Houston, but voted in neither county — but DID vote in the presidential contest.
For what it’s worth, this is a thread of people in chicago discussing tickets
https://www.yelp.com/topic/chicago-yellow-light-red-light-ticket-any-luck-fighting-this-in-cook-county-court
The start is
As you can see, people have the experience of getting tickets when they enter on the yellow and the light turns red before the exit.
While some tell her that the ticket is unjustified, others tell her that her only hope of getting out of it is for the cop to not show up.
This is Wisconsin
http://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/police-write-red-light-tickets-at-intersection-with-short-yellow-light
It’s not remotely difficult to find stories of cops giving out tickets to people who enter on yellow but exit on red. I’m honestly surprised anyone thinks it doesn’t happen.
Back to the original topic, the problem of “clearing the intersection” is worse in heavy – crowded — traffic. The lane on the far side of the intersection may be occupied and a vehicle entering — whether on green, yellow, or any other condition of light — may not have the space available to leave the intersection. This blocks traffic perpendicular to the direction of the offending vehicle’s, and happens often enough we have a word for it: gridlock. A camera recording the situation may show a vehicle in (entering) the intersection/space while the light is yellow AND a second image showing the same vehicle in the same spot while the same signal has changed to red. Failure to clear the intersection due to mis-assessment of available “destination” space is perhaps as big a problem as failure to assess safe stopping distances.
IMO, state laws (or local “interpretations” of the law) that require one to clear the far side of an intersection before the light turns red are absurd. What follows is offered as an engineering, but not a legal analysis. The idea that a traffic engineer can pre-determined the minimum average speed needed to drive SAFELY through an intersection in all circumstances doesn’t make sense. Without knowing that speed, an engineer can’t mathematically determine how long it will take a car to pass through an intersection that that was legally entered (under yellow OR green). I presume laws always recognize this fact for drivers who are turning left or right, where it is common to come to a complete stop in the intersection because of other cars or pedestrians. However, there are many reasons why a driver passing straight through an intersection might need to slow down –
even with the right of way. The car in front of you may have stopped.
In the past, changing the duration of yellow lights might have provided law enforcement with a guideline for assigning tickets, but there is a severe practical disadvantage to doing so: Long yellow lights lure aggressive drivers into accelerate through a yellow rather than stop, because they believe they can legally get through the intersection. Then such drivers are surprised at shorter yellow lights. I think some lights are briefly red in all directions to provide extra time for large intersections to clear without unusually lengthy yellows.
It is always possible to mathematically define the distance within which a driver should be able to stop when a light turns yellow. That distance calculation is based on the maximum posted speed, an expected response time, and an expected deceleration rate. If road conditions, distractions or brakes aren’t consistent with these expectations, then the driver going too fast despite the posted speed limit.
With today’s modern camera systems, it is trivial to detect whether a car is able to stop safely when a light turns yellow. It is difficult for a police officer to watch both a signal light and he location of all approaching vehicles. When their attention is attracted to a car that appears to be late in an intersection, it is easier for them to see whether the car cleared before the light turned red (and sometimes misjudge). However, this is no longer necessary.
In at least some cases, movies of violations are posted on the internet under the ticket number.
frank: “state laws (or local “interpretations†of the law) that require one to clear the far side of an intersection before the light turns red are absurd.”
I agree that such laws are absurd in the context of red light cameras and/or cops that give tickets to make quotas or raise revenue. My guess is that they originated, as you suggest, to make it easier for a cop to give a ticket when someone just blows though the light. But I suspect the reason for the rule about clearing the intersection was not to catch drivers that don’t quite make it, but to remove all doubt of a violation when a driver enters the intersection just as the light turns red.
Yellow light should be long enough to allow a car to stop before it turns red, plus a bit to allow for a margin of error. Then when you see a yellow, you stop if you can do so safely. If you can’t stop safely, you will enter the intersection well before the light turns red. No guesswork required. I would think that maximizes safety.
I think that all modern traffic signals have an “all red” interval.
I give a legal CE talk to the local municipal bar about the insurance implications of moving violations. The current system nationally generates about $6 billion per year in fines revenue from the research I have done. Insurance penalties are about the same amount. Except most insurers “look back” 3 to 5 years to decide to apply a penalty or surcharge. Fighting tickets with a lawyer, dealing with by taking and properly reporting completion of defensive driving, or asking for deferred adjudication is worth the effort and expense. The money involved also strongly implies that there are few incentives to time lights or rationalize speed limits. With the huge spike in auto insurance claims, and resulting insurer losses one can bet that the insurance industry is going to roll out monitoring and use age based insurance programs even more quickly. And I am also confident more ideas on stemming losses are being worked on even now.
Intersection cameras started popping up locally about ten years ago. The ticket was mailed to the violator with the indisputable photos of their car entering the intersection on red. They were amazingly effective. So much so that they could only be tolerated for a few months at a location.
.
I wonder how people would accept smart traffic signals with sensors and artificial intelligence. Would people accept a certain penalty for violation in exchange for optimized efficiency in safety and service?
.
When our cars have the capability of driving themselves more safely and effectively than we can will we be happy with that?
I want a self driving car. Absolutely.
Let’s suppose a self-driving car and a standard car being driven by a human crash head on at 60 mph on a narrow two-lane rural highway. Some passengers in both cars are killed outright; some in both cars survive but suffer serious permanently disabling injuries. How will the litigation which ensues eventually play out?
BetaBlocker,
How will litigation work out is a question for legislators creating law to deal with this, for personal injury lawyers and for car designers.
In some ways, the issue of how litigation ensues already exists when the neither car is self driving and there is a head on crash on a narrow two-lane rural highway. Forensic analysis tries to identify who is at fault. Even with not self driving, fault could lie with a manufacturer — heck it can lie with a person who served too much liquor. Whoever is at fault could end up with shallow pockets, leaving no remedy for the person who they injured.
I do want self driving cars to exist. Their existence will not make liability suits go away. If your point is the liability of manufacturers of self driving cars might be potentially high: yes. That’s going to affect whether they come into existence.
lucia: “Their existence will not make liability suits go away. If your point is the liability of manufacturers of self driving cars might be potentially high: yes.”
But the manufacturers have a lot of political clout, so they will likely get the laws written so that they are hard to sue. I don’t see how you can blame the owner of the self-driving car. So the human driver will be left holding the bag. One of the many potential downsides of self-driving cars. Note that self-driving cars will tend to belong to the well off and human driven cars will belong to poorer people.
MikeM,
Perhaps. Or not. Car manufacturers haven’t succeeded in preventing fuel mileage standards. Manufacturers in general haven’t succeeded in making it difficult to sue for product liability. So I’m not too worried that tort laws or product liability laws will swing overly much in the favor of manufacturers.
If they are at fault that would be appropriate. If not, it’s a problem.
Even if the car manufacturers manage to avoid responsibility for a self driving car that malfunctioned, that will probably mean the responsibility will falls on the owner of the self-driving car. If a prospective car buyer thought the risk of liability for things they do not control would be too high, that make people reluctant to purchase self driving cars. This fact would make manufacturers much less likely to push for laws indemnifying themselves from liability. After all: liability or not, the manufacturer can’t exist if they make no sales.
I’m not so sure about that. Mobile phones used to only belong the the well off. Even fairly poor people have them now.
With respect to cars– at least in cities, very poor people often don’t own a car at all now. They walk, take public transportation, or when necessary get a taxi or taxi equivalent.
For all we know, initially self driving cars will mostly belong to car services similar to Uber/Lift. Poor and middle class people may elect not to own a car at all and use those. These people’s exposure to liability for car accidents would be virtually nil; it would fall either on the manufacturer or the car service.
It’s also quite likely car services would push back on manufacturer’s attempt to push liability for accidents onto the car owner. So we could very well have the situation we have now: the law would dictate that fault needs to be assessed and the liability falls on those at fault.
When I drive with my dog in the car, I use “low G” driving skills. Originally I did this because my dog had car sickness issues, lately I do it just to not slam him into the back side of the seat. I’m much less likely to slam on the brakes for a yellow light with the dog. Is there some assumptions on maximum G’s allowed for a stop here? (I didn’t track the math here).
There isn’t any assumption about the magnitude of maximum deceleration when developing the equation. That decision would be made when applying it. Factors like what’s safe given the fact that people, dogs or babies in car seats ride in the cars would be considered at that point. I think that factor is probably more important than the absolute highest deceleration based on the car design. I know I can brake harder in an emergency than I do when approaching a red.
At some point maximum G stops increase the chances of an accident from a rear-ender. I read a couple places that red light cameras increase accidents due to this problem, but I don’t know how valid the studies are.
Tom Scharf: “Is there some assumptions on maximum G’s allowed for a stop here?”
Traffic engineers apparently use 15 f/s^2 (I got that from Wikipedia, I think). I have seen tables of recommended yellow light intervals that amount to 0.5 second plus 0.5 second for each 5 MPH (so 3 seconds for 25 MPH). That works out to very close to 15 f/s^2. That is nearly a half G, which I found surprising. In my experience breaking for a yellow does not require maximum breaking.
lucia,
I may be overly pessimistic about liability with respect to self driving cars, but I suspect that short of a demonstrable defect in the car, people will tend to assume that the human driver is at fault.
If self-driving cars become common, poor people will indeed eventually have them. I would guess that would take at least 40 years; 20 years for self-driving cars to displace all new cars and 20 years for all the old cars to get scrapped. Cars are a lot more expensive than cell phones.
MikeM
Perhaps. Or not.
Vinyl records didn’t go away when all the vinyl records wore out.
I think it all depends on whether self driving works out, and what they cost. If they are reliable and accident free I think services like uber/lift using self driving will be what poor people use at least in areas where these services would find the cars are giving lifts to people regularly enough.
One thing the poor have trouble doing is raising capital. Even used cars require capital (unless they become so cheap that they are practically being given away.)
If self driving cars are not reliable… well… then even the rich won’t want them.
Self-driving cars SDCs once passing safety tests will be insured like every other car. If they incur lower casualties then human controlled cars, as is likely, the insurance rate will drop. Liability will be decided by insurance company lawyers. But as long as there is no manufacturer defect and no human neglect, (the accident was deemed unforeseeable,) liability costs will be shared by insurance and car owners as done today.
.
If states publish their formulas for yellow light times SDCs will be able to instantly calculate with exacting precision of how to navigate every intersection.
.
SDCs will have a ready market for urban lift services regardless of the income of the customers. They also will have a ready market for trucking, car and truck rental of all kinds. Imagine your car dropping you off at work or an airport and then going to park back home or a nearby lot. It’s exciting, especially if they are electric and can self-dock to charge. Tesla Motors is promising this to be available sooner than you think.
Off topic, I am wondering if anyone has followed the Seth Rich investigation. If not, Seth Rich was a DNC staffer that was murdered a block from his DC home in the early A.M. while walking home from a bar last summer. This is not that unusual except that he is said to have been the leaker of the DNC emails to Wiki-leaks. Who is claiming this? Well Julian Assange pretty much said it as plainly as one could while still holding a fig leaf to his non-disclosure of sources policy.
.
Also, a private investigator hired by Rich’s family was claiming this last week until the family disowned him and hired a professional liberal spokesman instead. Thereafter the PI recanted his whole story, the dozens of pieces of circumstantial evidence and all, and said he was just repeating something Fox News told him, which is bazaar — unless you believe that Fox News would stoop to forging a conspiracy theory, which itself would involve a conspiracy if you think about it.
.
Fox News, getting burned by the PI, has seemed to have dropped the story. But One America News OAN has picked it up and is offering a $250,000 reward for information toward a solution to the murder. They just broadcast their first comprehensive investigative report yesterday here (26 min). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdjFUJMopeQ
.
For those who do not believe that political murder is possible in the USA I welcome your alternative Occam’s explanation of the facts.
Ron Graf: “For those who do not believe that political murder is possible in the USA I welcome your alternative Occam’s explanation of the facts.”
Sure political murder is possible. But that does not mean it has happened. I assume you mean murder directed by politicians, rather than murder of politicians.
I would be more inclined to consider something like this if it were not for the long list of murders that some have tried to lay at the door of the Clintons and their associates. All such charges seem to be bogus, most are transparently bogus. I see no reason to believe this one is any different.
Occam’s Razor points to a mugging.
Mike M.,
The plaintiff’s bar has much, much more clout than car manufacturers. Most congresspeople are lawyers. There is, IMO, no chance that a law would be passed making SDC’s liability free.
>I welcome your alternative Occam’s explanation
Murders in national capitals are known to be done by the KGB.
Is ‘the intersection’ crosswalk to crosswalk or something else?
MikeN,
One document I read said they are from curb to curb. So the crosswalk is outside the intersection. This evidently can cause confusion for drivers who– not surpisingly– think that the crosswalk is in the intersection.
That said: other documents said you have to stop before the line for the cross-walk. So… dunno.
Mike M.
Agreed.
That said, even if it was a murder, Occam’s Razor would point to a mugging since a skilled hit would want it to seem that way. That’s why this theory that it’s a murder isn’t going to go away.
But, yeah… I’ve heard all the Rich stuff. I’m not paying it much heed. It was probably a murder associated with a mugging.
A Rule of thumb that always works.
Whatever your initial impulse, continue or stop, don’t change your mind.
What gives the Seth murder story legs for me us that the DNC refused to allow the FBI to actually do a forensic exam. If you tell the police you were robbed but then refuse the police access to the scene if the alleged crime it’s pretty certain that there is a criminal reason behind the refusal.
hunter: “the DNC refused to allow the FBI to actually do a forensic exam.”
DNC = Democratic National Committee?
If so, this story is complete nonsense since the DNC would have no say .
Political murders are a little too far fetched unless the evidence is compelling, unless of course if it has something to do with Trump in which case he definitely did it, ha ha. It’s extremely rare for things to even get to the point of a shoving match. DC has a lot of very bad neighborhoods so a random killing isn’t beyond the pale.
.
301 homicides in 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/local/homicides/
hunter: “the DNC refused to allow the FBI to actually do a forensic exam.â€
Mike M.: “If so, this story is complete nonsense since the DNC would have no say .”
.
Mike, if you follow the link I supplied you will find the DNC is alleged to have their hands all over this investigation, including shutting down the DC police investigation and controlling the Rich family. Which story is more plausible, the one the PI was telling earlier in the week to Fox or the one later in the week where he recants, implicating himself as a publicity seeking liar and Fox a dis-information mill?
.
Actually, I think the PI was told to walk back his remarks by the family in exchange for severance pay. The PI’s going over the top in an unbelievable total disavowal was itself a passive alarm cry.
.
Starting with the forensics at the scene, Rich calls his girlfriend at 4AM a block away from his home after walking from who knows where. She hears a scuffle and Rich tells her not to worry before hanging up. Being just a block away she could even have heard the two gunshots, which is allegedly how the police were alerted. If Rich was going to be confrontational he could have told her to call the police as wells as dialing 911 himself. If he was going to be non-confrontational he could have satisfied the muggers with his cash, cards, watch and phone. Instead, he apparently presented his back side to flee and punished with bullets for not cooperating. There was purportedly a video from across the street capturing the indecent that disappeared in police custody along with Rich’s laptop.
.
All the above could be greatly cleared up by Rich’s own story of what happened because he was alive, conscious and talking to police for many hours after the crime. He died in the hospital under police watch with what were purportedly non-lethal wounds, which expands the mystery to some, while making the whole thing more unbelievable to others.
.
One should ask what type of further evidence could come out pointing away from a mugging but to an assassination before they would be willing to consider such a possibility.
.
Mike M.: “I would be more inclined to consider something like this if it were not for the long list of murders that some have tried to lay at the door of the Clintons and their associates. ”
.
So your theory is that mysterious deaths occur all the time but since the “nuts” are primed to look at Clinton because of the 50-odd previous mysterious deaths related to them that it’s just a confirmation bias? This is true and I encourage all to consider that, but also that bias works in both directions.
The hack was of the DNC. The DNC refused to allow the FBI to examine the computers. And poor Seth could have been the leaker and still get murdered randomly. Truth is stranger than fiction. The family’s response is a bit odd, but grief will do that.
Ron Graf: Seth Rich PI, Rod Wheeler
I looked at Wheeler’s background and he has a checkered history. He was paid by a 3d party and not the Rich family, and apparently violated an agreement not to speak publicly without their approval. See http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/rod-wheeler-seth-rich-fox-private-investigator-detective-wikileaks-washington-dc-bio/
….
If he didn’t I might give more credibility to the claims of a politically motivated murder.
JD
Ron,
Everyone agrees he was accosted and shot. I’m not seeing the fact that he turned and fled as evidence it was not a mugging. Sure muggers might be satisfied with that. That doesn’t mean people refusing to hand stuff over doesn’t happen. Also I don’t know the basis for your claim the wounds were non-lethal. It certainly that he died under police watch doesn’t make the story of political murder more probable than otherwise.
Honestly, I’d be more likely to believe this was a political murder if he’d died in the street.
lucia: “Honestly, I’d be more likely to believe this was a political murder if he’d died in the street.”
Excellent point. The conspiracy theory version would seem to require a professional hit, in which case he would have been dead long before the police arrived.
JD: “I looked at Wheeler’s background and he has a checkered history. ”
.
I followed your link. Apparently he worked as a DC police homicide detective for 8 years then was dismissed when a random drug test revealed he smoked pot. Wheeler claimed the sample was mixed up or something but, of course, he is lying and one can’t have a lying, pot smoking detective. I’m curious what his political affiliations are. I am thinking he didn’t fit in.
.
“He was paid by a 3d party and not the Rich family, and apparently violated an agreement not to speak publicly without their approval.”
.
The Washington Post reported that he was employed by a “conservative donor.” This seems to be one detail that reporter should be able to nail down. Also, I would very much like to hear directly from the Rich family rather a professionaly progressive/activist, who we don’t know how is paid.
.
Isn’t it strange that the only people that do not want his murder investigated are his employer and now his family? They do not even want to get to the bottom of the “fake story” origin. I would be calling for an investigation of that, just as the conservatives welcome the investigation of where the Russian allegations originated to see if it leads back to dirty tricks.
.
Nixon’s crime was allowing dirty tricks to happen under his organization and not confessing immediately when caught. The Watergate Plumbers may have never been caught if they plugged the leaks with pistols (or didn’t need to break in to wiretap). Point: this stuff is not unthinkable.
Ron Graf,
We don’t know those are the only people who don’t want this investigated.
“The conspiracy theory version would seem to require a professional hit, in which case he would have been dead long before the police arrived.”
.
The professional hit, depending on how professional and what degree of resources were available, could easily include fail safe scenarios besides a close range head shot, which would blow the robbery cover.
Ron,
Explain how a close range head shot would blow the robbery story.
Lucia, did you follow my link to the OAN investigation? If you did, don’t you want answers to the 50-odd mysterious circumstances?
.
Julian Assange relies on maintaining organizational credibility arguably more than governments. He is all but claiming Rich was his source for the DNC emails. If the murder gets solved as a mugging that would be a large blow to his credibility as well as now many conservative news organizations. Do you really think that Rod Wheeler was lying about the push back he was getting from the FBI and DC police, that both organizations pointed to the other as holding the evidence?
.
If there was a video of the scene I think the public should demand to see it at this point. There is no criminal investigative reason to withhold it 10 months after zero progress on the crime.
.
A close range head shot after multiple shots wounding the victim shows very calculated intention of murder. For what gain?
.
Let’s see the video.
Ron,
You mean the link to a 26 minute video? I’m not going to listen to a 26 minute video. If you have a transcript, I’d read it.
Ron Graf
The head shot gains the shooter the exact same thing shooting in the back does. Rhetorical questions generally don’t make the point the person asking them thinks they do.
Maybe yes. Maybe no. Maybe what he thinks is push back isn’t.
Lucia, apologies on the RQ, but shooting in the back could have a small plausibility, for example as a demonstration for a peer, (for street credit). But to walk up to the downed and bleeding victim and assassinate with a head shot would no longer provide street credit, it would cross over to psychopathy, which would signal unreliability (loss of credit). I don’t think one needs to be a sociologist to understand the logic of street behavior.
.
If you have a transcript, I’d read it.
.
Apparently OAN has now pulled the story from their site. The url exists but it points to an empty page.
Ron
I thought you mean his being shot in the head in the first place would make it not credible.
Still, I don’t know why if it was a real hit, someone wouldn’t shoot him in the back again. Or unloaded a full clip. I’m just not seeing how the fact that he was shot in the back twice, but did not die in the street is evidence this was a hit. It’s odd to interpret evidence that what happened is consistent with a mugging gone wrong as evidence it was a hit job.
Perhaps they’ve figured out it’s cr*p. Or they said something someone finds defamatory. I tend to discount stories that are only reported in video rather than writing. The main reason for this is that it is difficult to respond to video. You have to scroll… find a quote… blah.. blah… Of course video stories can be good. But it’s one of the easier mechanisms to promulgate cr*p ones too.
Hunter, if the FBI shows up at a political organization’s headquarters wanting to examine the server and e-mails, I can understand why they would say no.
They have something to hide, their political plans that they don’t want to be released to the other side.
Lucia, you have to stop before the crosswalk because it’s a crosswalk. I was thinking curb to curb, but was wondering if people were using a different definition based on location of traffic lights, after Brandon said you could be in the intersection as the red happened, which doesn’t make sense for curb to curb.
Keep the e-mail hacks clear. DNC e-mails were hacked with an attack that targeted RNC as well. Podesta’s e-mails were a separate hack, where Podesta identified the attack but his campaign team told him it wasn’t. Then there is Hillary’s server, which people probably thought was the same thing when they heard the first two stories.
Podesta’s e-mails got the most coverage, while DNC was mainly how much they rigged things against Bernie.
My understanding of the refusal to let the FBI investigate the hack was to prevent embarrassment that they had such horrible security and further fear of more exposures since they apparently couldn’t figure out who the “real FBI” was, ha ha. They had already hired a security firm to contain the problem I believe so they saw no upside here.
.
Given today’s story of it is THE RUSSIANS that prevented HRC from getting elected I imagine they would be happy to let the FBI look if they had it to do over, although since the IC is incapable of keeping any secrets now they were probably wise to defer.
MikeN,
Sure. That said, it does cause confusion about the definition of intersection. After all: if the light turns yellow, and you can’t stop before the crosswalk you are likely to think that means you should be allowed to go. If that’s not the definition of the beginning of the intersection, the… well.. confusion.
Lucia, my original point about being shot agrees with you that being shot in the back is weak evidence of crime motives except that Rich was turning defensively or attempting to flee. We need more. I agree that most of the facts are uncorroborated. But the police are sharing very little and seem to be defiant of the national attention.
.
Media matters still has posted the “shameful” OAN original story here https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/05/19/one-america-news-pushes-shameful-seth-rich-conspiracy-theory/216575
Ron
I don’t know why you necessarily think he was turning defensively or attempting to flee. But even if he was, I’m don’t see how that’s not consistent with a mugger shooting him. Maybe the mugger was a novice mugger who was pissed off and shot, but then realized “Oh SHIT! The wallet would connect me with the crime, and anyway, I better get out of here!” Or maybe the mugger was just a violent kook. Or whatever.
I would think a seasoned hitman would have been likely to kill him in the street not risk letting him live. A hitman would have a lot of time to think this out, pick his moment and get the intended victim.
Huh? Police usually don’t share a lot. In any case there may not be much to share.
An awful lot of that story is pretty much Wheeler claims stuff with no one else making any similar claim. Even less convincing: Wheeler claims a federal investigator who wants to be anonymous told Wheeler something. And Wheeler claims a DC cop was told to stand down. This is all Wheeler claims.
All of this would be a bit more convincing if even one of these people Wheeler claims told him stuff stepped forward.
What’s the fine for criticizing the timing of cartoonists ?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/05/why-science-journals-arent-published-in.html
Montana Congressman should go for a jury trial.
http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/05/26/awkward-ben-jacobs-tweet-about-wanting-to-punch-a-conservative-journo-hasnt-aged-well/
“I don’t know why you necessarily think he was turning defensively or attempting to flee.”
.
Perhaps you can supply another scenario of how one could get shot twice in the lower back on the street at 4AM. I can’t.
.
“All of this would be a bit more convincing if even one of these people Wheeler claims told him stuff stepped forward.”
.
I agree. Corroborated stories are much more credible. But Wheeler did not make up the fact that Julian Assange posted a $20,000 reward for information on Seth Rich’s murder just three weeks after it occurred August 1, 2016, and told a reporter that Rich’s murder was an example of the dangers his sources face. Assange has also strenuously denied the Russians were the source.
Ron Graf
Other scenarios: Mugger snuck up behind Rich in the first place. Mugger threatends to shot him. When Rich refuses, mugger shoots him.
I really don’t see how being shot in the back suggests “hit man” more than “mugger”.
I’m not seeing how what Assange wanting info suggests a hit. Even if he was an Assange source, I don’t see how that is evidence of a hit. Nor do I see Russians not being Assange’s source of info as evidence of a hit.
Lucia: “I really don’t see how being shot in the back suggests “hit man†more than “muggerâ€.”
.
Mike M.: “The conspiracy theory version would seem to require a professional hit, in which case he would have been dead long before the police arrived.”
.
My counterpoint is that a professional assassin want to accomplish their task while not making it look like professional hit. For example, in the present case making it appear to be a failed robbery could result in making it a failed murder. Or, with more resources, one could make it a two-step process. Although it’s not known if Rich had a round-the-clock guard he could have been finished off in the hospital.This does sound like a made for TV movie but sometimes reality is the basis for some of those movies. The theory in the OAN video (that you don’t care to watch) is that both the police and the attending physician could have been in on it. They were both connected with the Clinton campaign and I think the doctor had visited the White House and met with someone in the east wing just days before the shooting.
.
“I’m not seeing how what Assange wanting info suggests a hit. Even if he was an Assange source, I don’t see how that is evidence of a hit. Nor do I see Russians not being Assange’s source of info as evidence of a hit.”
.
Okay, I think it would work like this: Assange by hinting heavily to reporters that Rich was his DNC email source he would encourage the investigation of that angle of the crime. The reason for the $20,000 reward was simply putting his money where his mouth was since it is of low likelihood he would want to diminish his personal estate for the sake of bringing a DC mugger/murderer to justice. The point about the Russians not being his source is part of that same hint that Rich was his source, being that there was no competing theory for the DNC leak and still is none today.
Ron Graf
Sure. But that still mean the fact that this didn’t look like professional hit supports the theory that it was a professional hit. A botched mugging would, presumably, looked like a botched mugging. That’s what this looks like. Botched muggings are much more common that political hits. There no real evidence this is a hit. So: Occam’s razor says botched mugging.
That’s rather fanciful. I’d have to hear a lot of evidence for a conspiracy theory that’s that complicated. Too bad they don’t have a transcript.
I should think if Rich was Assange’s source, if Assange wanted people to think or know that, he could just say so instead of thinking. Rich is dead. Assange wouldn’t need to protect that source anymore.
If we are going to come up with theories of Assange’s motivation: Maybe he wants people to think Rich was his source to protect his real source. That could be worth risking $20,000 to him. It seems just as plausible as wanting to find Rich’s killer if he is the source.
Or perhaps Assange has other reasons. The dude is odd.
I don’t think we are going to agree on this.
Ron Graf,
Did you buff up the tinfoil before making the hat? 😉
.
If the guy was the DNC email source, then Assange could just make a public announcement of that fact, and show some evidence in support. He has a very loud bullhorn, and wouldn’t be ignored…. even by the MSM. It’s not like a source needs protection once he is dead.
SteveF, I have lots of hair so I don’t usually do hats, but if I cared about keeping my thoughts private (or anonymous) I guess I am doing a jumbled up job of it. (Even extraterrestrials can probably read Lucia’s Blackboard by now.)
.
You guys have stumbled onto a good point about Assange being able to solve the crime himself. Presumably, if he is sure that Rich is the DNC source then he also has evidence of this, which would make the biggest news story in Wiki Leaks history, if not 21st century’s. But what if Assange uses intermediaries and does not have direct evidence? Or, what if his evidence would compromise his methods and his entire network? Then to claim straight out that Rich was his source would have to be met with an unsatisfying refusal to back up the claim with forensic evidence. (Anything less would get sliced by Lucia’s razor and SteveF’s, not to mention every Russian conspiracy-loving liberal in the world.)
Ron Graf,
If Assange doesn’t either (a) know Rich was a source or (b) knows he’s not but wants other to think so to protect his real source, there would seem to be zero reason for him to offer $20,000 to catch the person who killed Rich.
If his evidence that Rich is his source would compromise his methods then Assange would have to be an idiot to hint that Rich was the source. Dropping the hint would amount to risking people would acquire information to compromise his methods and his network.
The intermediary was Gavin Macfadyen, a director of Wiki Leaks who dies in November 2016 of lung cancer, according to Rod Wheeler, according to his federal investigator “anonymous insider,” according to the alleged FBI forensic report on Rich’s laptop. Perhaps Assange only knows that the emails came from Macfadyen, or what Macfadyen told him about contacts with Rich before he died of cancer. I agree that Assange could blow the case wide open simply by proving that Macfadyen was his source since that is now independently and uniquely provided by Wheeler. I hope he is reading this.
.
Here is my condensation of the OAN info.
There is precedent for mysterious deaths and interference with an investigation during a Clinton election campaign, with Ron Brown and TWA 800. Ron Brown died in an airplane crash when his plane approached with a bad radar beacon, kind of like in Die Hard 2. The person responsible for the radar committed suicide before he could be interviewed. Ron Brown had what appeared to be a bullet hole in his head, not investigated since cause of death was known.
Ron Graf
But he hasn’t. Most likely because the things you speculate might be true aren’t true. My guess is Assange is not reading our comments.
Ron… That’s about as bad a case as I expected.
In other words: He looked like the perfect prospect for a mugger.
~2mph would be a crawl.
AKA ” the only named source” in the conspiracy theory.
Continued.
After pestering the FBI and DC police–two agencies that aren’t remotely required to help Wheeler — Wheeler describes them as unhelpful. The. horror.
After writing all sorts of innuendo about their son, the Rich family writes a cease and desist letter.
Wheeler, previously the only source of things that sound entirely speculative, whiny or, in some cases, just hyperventilaation about things that where standard operating procedure now recants.
‘cont.
MikeN: “There is precedent for mysterious deaths and interference with an investigation during a Clinton election campaign, with Ron Brown and TWA 800.”
More tinfoil hat stuff. There is nothing mysterious about either the crash that killed Ron Brown or TWA 800. The former was a combination of bad weather, an obsolete instrument approach system, and military pilots with a mindset of complete the mission at all costs. TWA 800 was a static discharge igniting vapors in a partly filled fuel tank.
MikeN, I remember you mentioning the Ron Brown plane crash before but I never got around to looking it up. Thanks for the details. I think there is a larger population that is interested in the Seth Rich case and others than are willing to admit it. And many who are not interested are so because they do not believe it would ever be revealed if it were true.
.
“Assange could”
.
I agree that if anyone could have what it takes to blow the lid off a secret it would be Assange.
Owing to the ridiculous swirling conspiracy theories, which likely have all sorts of people pestering the Rich, who are, lets face it in mourning, they hire someone to get between the pests an them. That person now speaks for them.
The person they hire seems to be a Democrat. Their son was a democrat. They probably are democrats. Seems rather natural they would hire someone they are comfortable with.
It’s worth nothing this hyperventilating tidbit leaves something out. He was the first of five officers. Two are wearing body cameras. Doubtless these officers rush to the scene.
But beyond that: it’s hard to not burst out laughing at this. The “connection” between one of the five officers to the Clitnons is that he studied at Georgetown, a freaking big University. And it was “at the same time” as Podesta taught there!!
Well, gosh. My Dad studied at Georgetown the same time the guy who wrote the Exorcist was there. That is the full and total extent of the connection between my Dad and the author of the Exorcist.
As for the officers sister: My connection to Hilary Clinton is as strong as Robinsons. My sister brother-in-law gave money to HRC and he and elector for her.
The full extent of the evidence that the DC police were somehow in on the murder seems to be that one of the five officers who arrived at the scene of a shooting went to Georgetown and has a sister who worked for HRC. Wow!
‘cont
An entity claiming to be a fourth year resident at a hospital posted their diagnosis of Rich. According to the posting, the fourth year resident was not attending Rich.
https://www.teaparty.org/tv-news-network-boosts-seth-rich-reward-240485/ gives more details which includes:
So: the person who gave his diagnosis on the web is a resident who was not assigned Rich who and so likely busy working with other patients. (One hopes.) But even he lets us know there were plenty of people around Rich.
I’d diagnose this as a guy who explaining why he doesn’t know very much even though he was at the hospital. This is hardly evidence the doctor or the cops were somehow in on a hit.
Yep. A high ranking doctor at a hospital in DC is a democrat, his wife is very active. And water is wet. This is hardly evidence the doctor was in on a hit!
The owner of a DC bar where a DNC employee regularly drank visited the whitehouse. Heavens!
They left out “Gadfly”. It’s worth nothing that many of these gadflies– Kim, Assange &etc want to be in the news. That’s their thing.
‘cont.
And perhaps, we’ll eventually see that video. Or not.
But if there were two assailants, that’s consistent with mugging gone awry.
Summary: Wheeler, who always sounded unreliable, dropped a some bread crumbs to evidently no where. Then he recanted on most of the breadcrumbs. But some collective of netizens who want to connect bread crumbs went out to find other crumbs and are trying to shuffle them around to suggest they all came from one loaf.
Given the fact there were five officers and hospitals have tons of staff, I’m surprised they didn’t find more unrelated crumbs to try to glue into a loaf. This story is very unconvincing.
Not as unconvincing as Rozzi and his ECAT crud. But… well…. I’ll wait for some real evidence before I take this story seriously.
lucia, I agree with your assessment on this. But it has nothing to do with why the DNC refused to cooperate. And how they knew so early it had to be the Russians and only the Russians.
hunter,
I’m just discussing the evidence for the theory Rich was murdered I have no idea why the DNC would or would not cooperate with investigators in various ways. Some attorneys advise you should never talk to cops. Ever:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/law-professor-police-interrogation-law-constitution-survival
Cops probably don’t like this advice and it’s likely inconvenient to investigations. They might call that behavior “not cooperating”. But it doesn’t necessarily mean anything in particular. For individuals and especially organizations, “cooperating” can result in the opening of unexpected cans of worms.
lucia,
I agree with Duane. Talking to cops without a lawyer advising you can be extremely dangerous. Look at what happened to Martha Stewart. She wasn’t guilty of the crime being investigated but she spent time in jail because she lied to the cops rather than just keeping her mouth shut.
Prosecutors are supposed to care about correctly identifying the guilty party, but in fact, they’re more interested in getting a conviction and closing the case. Overturning a conviction is quite difficult.
Ok.. breaking a rule. Watching this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Some attorneys advise you should never talk to cops. Ever:
Not bad advice if you are the suspect. But what I hate is witnesses who won’t talk to the police (or even to noble, heroic defense attorneys) because they “don’t want to get involved.” Innocent men get convicted that way–not a consideration brought up in the article, though I didn’t watch the video to see if he addresses it there.
Joseph W,
Not talking to a defense attorney would be odd.
He doesn’t discuss the situation about being interviewed as a witness. He only discusses the risk of being interviewed as a possible suspect. Certainly, witnesses should tell the police what they saw. Otherwise, cases won’t get solved.
That said, if the police calls a person in or knocks on their door, I’m not sure how a person would know which category they fall in.
If my neighbor was murdered, and I knew nothing, the police knocked and asked, I guess I can be pretty sure I could just say I didn’t see or hear anything. Then, possibly add no more.
On the other hand, based on this guys tape, I guess if they started asking me about my movements on that night, where I was, that would seem to be interviewing me as a suspect. Even if I’m low on the list… still… that’s not asking me what I saw so much.
I realize that if they are investigating my not mentioning I was in the bar with the person who turns out to be a suspect could make their job harder. My evidence might either have ruled that suspect out, or pointed toward them.
I think in context of the conspiracy theorizing around the Rich death, or speculation about the Russian hacking of the DNC, the main thing is that there are plenty of reasons why the DNC might not want to “cooperate” with the police. The lack of cooperation doesn’t necessarily mean “the” thing that would be convenient for any particular theory.
(Not to you but others: The Rich thing is a conspiracy theory. I know people tend to think that calling it a conspiracy theory suggests it’s wrong. It doesn’t necessarily. Obviously, conspiracies happen. But the idea that the Democrats or Clintons hired a hit man, and then managed to get it covered up by having just the right cop arrive on the scene and then having the doctor prevent others from seeing the guy who then dies would definitely be thinking a conspiracy existed. So: conspiracy theory.)
If your spouse gets murdered and there isn’t an obvious suspect. You.are.it. I have over a decade of watching the The First 48 to confirm this among other anecdotal information. I’m not sure I would want to talk to the cops here, especially without a lawyer. They are not on your side.
.
People need to be aware of legal “dirty tricks” such as lying to you about evidence (we have you on camera), lying to you about what other witnesses have said, unfounded psychological pressure (this is your one and only chance to tell your side of the story, do you want to be a witness or suspect?), lack of knowledge of the law (participating in a felony where someone gets murdered gets everyone involved charged with murder) etc.
.
I’m all for cooperating to get crimes solved, but if you don’t understand what you are getting into which the vast majority do not, you are jeopardizing your life. The frustration detectives show when someone “lawyers up” is a tell that this is their main avenue to solving crimes, not forensics.
.
They catch you lying about anything (I wasn’t near the crime scene, but your cell phone records say otherwise), and it looks bad. If they know nothing, they cannot catch you lying.
.
I’m no expert, but there will never be a day where I make a statement in one of those interview room isolation chambers where they lock you in for hours and turn the temperature down. To pretend they haven’t applied science to interviewing suspects is foolish.
.
Watching The First 48 you see how some departments are way better than others in interview techniques and training (Dallas >> Detroit). Two on one interviews, getting into the personal space, holding their hands, immediately isolating suspects (prisoners dilemma), giving them outs (you didn’t mean for this to happen, it was self defense, right). As an aside, yelling and badgering almost never work.
The best technique ever, put their mom in the room while they get interviewed.
Lucia,
“That said, if the police call a person in or knocks on their door, I’m not sure how a person would know which category they fall in.”
.
They wouldn’t know. That is the problem. They could ask the police: “Am I a suspect?” or “Am I a person of interest?”. And the police will answer… “no”, every time. They can lie to you, mislead you, fabricate falsehoods, etc, and it costs them absolutely nothing. Best rule: talk to a lawyer first. Besides, didn’t you have an argument once years ago with one of your neighbors? 😉
SteveF,
I wouldn’t recommend asking those questions either, even if you could get an honest answer. Would you like to have a prosecuting attorney tell a jury that you asked an officer of the law either question when first approached? I wouldn’t. And he can because you haven’t specifically stated yet that you were taking the Fifth.
DeWitt,
My point was that asking “Am I a suspect?” doesn’t help; better to just assume you are. Always best to talk to a lawyer first.
Apparently Trump is taking our advice, he isn’t going to comply with requests from the House or Senate his lawyer says. I think the phrase “everything you say can and will be used against you” is quite relevant for Trump. I am sure it would all be totally confidential, ha ha. There is zero upside to him complying.
.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/congressional-russia-probe-now-includes-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-n766231
Lucia: “The person they hire seems to be a Democrat. Their son was a democrat. They probably are democrats. Seems rather natural they would hire someone they are comfortable with.”
.
I agree with the first two sentences. The rest of their behavior seems unnatural. If my son were murdered and there was even a small chance it was his employer, like say people were accusing the employer, I would not accept the employer’s offer to finance and control the investigation, especially if they had almost no interest for 10 months prior. (Notwithstanding the commemorative plaque on the bike rack as a show of support.)
.
I agree items of evidence that have zero weight by themselves add up to zero, no matter how many items. But the weight of items that actually do have even a little value should be multiplied. This is the tricky part that allows the mind to be fooled, assigning weight to circumstantial evidence. Astrology, numerology, climate science, all have to deal with this.
.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof — true. But extraordinary things do happen. Would you have believed that the CIA aided NAZIs in escaping after WWII and even employed them important positions? And, not just scientists. A good part of the Abwehr (German foreign intelligence service) was brought into the OSS/CIA, including Clause Barbie, “the Butcher of Lyon.”
.
Making an example of a snitch (traitor to the cause) with extreme prejudice is not that extraordinary to me. You are making the mistake of thinking that everyone who participates must know the entire scope. If the Rich assassination theory is correct, and you must admit it’s not unimaginable, the Seth’s parents are unwitting players in their own son’s murder coverup. Certainly they would not be “in the know.” The intelligence community long ago created a thing called a cover story. These are designed to give a plausible explanation for asking loyal soldiers to commit items of secrecy or deception. The cover story also serves to scramble things with dis-information, as each compartment gets a different cover story. The result is that the inevitable talkers create conflicting rumors that discredit not only each other but also the truth should it ever be uttered.
.
One should expect that many items in Wheeler’s and Pearson’s investigations are wrong. And, in addition, if the operation was a professional job, (done in the art-craft,) one should expect some intentional red herrings.
Ron,
I’m pretty sure the Rich’s don’t think there is even a small chance the DNC killed Seth. So there is nothing bizarre in their choice of spokesperson.
I’ve seen no evidence the DNC is or has ever controlled the investigation of Seth’s murder– which is what it is even if the murder happened as a result a a bungled robbery.
But there are non items. I mean… really… The first of four cops who arrived went to Georgetown when Podesta taught there is not an “an item”. Even if the anonymous intern who posted on the blog was a resident at the hospital (and I bet they were) their version of events sounds like precisely what oen would expect: There’s a patient surrounded by cops which would tend to make people curious. Some curious people might have been tempted to “casually” swoop around that hall to pick up stuff and as a result were both being distracted from their own important jobs caring for other patients and creating unnecessary traffic and commotion near Rich. So they were orders to stay out of the area. We have no nurses saying nurses weren’t allowed in. Only physicians assigned to Rich were to be swooping in. This is normal. So that’s not an “item”.
Yeah. But the stuff in support of the claim is nothing. Take all the nothing off, and what you have left is a list of zero length.
No I’m not. I don’t know why you think this. I’ve never suggested the reason the conspiracy theory involving all sorts of multiple actors was implausible because all these people would need to know the entire scope. It’s just as implausible if the 5 policemen, and the doctor somehow helped kill the injured Rich without knowing the “scope”.
And still, the more likely theory of their behavior is that there is no coverup.
There may be right things in their investigation– but they mean nothing. Consider: one of his “bits” is that the FBI and DC police weren’t “cooperative”. With. Wheeler.
I’m not saying this claim is “wrong”. I’m saying it normal. It’s precisely how you expect them to act if Rich died of a bungled mugging. There is no reason for those agencies to cooperate with Wheeler. And if he’s making himself a pest, there is every reason for people internally to let other people on the job know that he’s just a pest.
If someone is going to use evidence that it doesn’t look like a hit to support the theory that it was a hit, obviously, no one is going to convince them otherwise.
Until there actually is evidence this was a hit, I’m assuming it’s what it looks like: A bungled mugging.
Tom, if George Zimmerman had followed your advice and lawyered up, I think he would be in jail right now. The police elected not to charge him because he didn’t show any apprehension to their false claims of videotape evidence. Instead, he was relaxed.
There are lots of potential video sources in the area where Rich was killed.
Would a fourth year resident be a specialty and not doing routine ER rounds?
Tom Scharf,
On being the suspect in the event that a spouse is murdered: Of course. A spouse nearly always has opportunity, and means. And even with the happiest of couples who show no evidence of financial straight, people can suspect motive. Heck, people investigating can probably find ‘evidence’ of motive. Ever complained in anyway shape or form about your spouse? Motive! Ever say something awkward that could be taken the wrong way to a member of the opposite sex? Complimented them for looking good? Motive!! Chances are they don’t go to far astray too often but I suspect it’s routine to try to see if any significant motives exist.
With everyday life, there is a pretty good chance you can’t quite remember everything you did did two days ago nor entirely track all your movements. Did you go to Starbucks? Pick up aspirin at Walgreens? I don’t always 100% remember when I did that after a few days. Though with newer cars and cell phones people are probably getting more tracable. (I usually forget to track my cellphone but my new car has navigation. So I suspect the police could at least find where my car went this afternoon: Walmart. )
If you ask for a lawyer, they are required to let one in, right? Can you request to leave? Are they required to let you? (Real questions. Lawyers?)
MikeN,
I don’t think lawyering up can be used against you(?), but it might make detectives suspicious. It seems the rich and famous know to just not make a statement. You are probably right that Zimmerman might have been arrested on the spot though. One can certainly make a case for cooperate when you are innocent, lawyer up when you are guilty. This assumes a properly functioning justice system. It’s a judgment call, but if I “suspect I’m a suspect” I’m probably going to lawyer up. You can still answer questions later, but do so with guidance.
Not talking to a defense attorney would be odd.
I only wish that were true. Unfortunately, among people who are likeliest to be witnesses, my experience is that it does happen. Talking to the attorney but then refusing to give testimony to acquit an innocent person because they “don’t want to get involved” also happens (as does changing their story if you subpoena them in order to get out of testifying). Also refusing to answer phone calls and, if you can find them, explaining that they’re “screening their calls”…i.e., dodging bill collectors. I can’t say how common this is because I have only my own experience, but one time is too many.
I’m glad you read the author’s advice as not applying to talking as a witness. There’s a difference between “exercising your rights” and “antisocial behavior.” I read it as his being angry over a Supreme Court decision he didn’t like, and trying to get the population to join him in a National Snit to protest it. “Don’t ever tell them anything no matter what, ever ever ever!” But I haven’t read his book or watched the video, so maybe I was reading him uncharitably.
(One thing I absolutely agree with him on is requiring recordings of interrogations…some states, like Alaska, do require it, and hurrah for them! I think it’s mutually beneficial to both sides.)
If you ask for a lawyer, they are required to let one in, right? Can you request to leave? Are they required to let you? (Real questions. Lawyers?
Escobedo v. Illinois says, yep! (If you remember the D.A.’s office scene from Dirty Harry, that’s one of the cases the D.A. is mad at Harry for not knowing.)
If you’re under arrest they do not have to let you leave, but in that case their interrogation is a “custodial interrogation”…which means they have to give you a full Miranda rights warning. Which includes your right to counsel and your blessed right to silence.
Lucia,
Not sure of the exact legal requirements, but in real life (The First 48 version of real life, ha ha) when a suspect asks for a lawyer the detectives (1) release the suspect without waiting for the lawyer to show up or (2) arrest and charge the suspect on the spot. I suppose they can make you go through the motions but it doesn’t seem to happen.
.
Many times there is no attempt to interview the primary suspect until after they have enough evidence to arrest him, hence #2 isn’t uncommon and you are being lured into a no win trap. I’ve seen times where they attempt to interview the suspect as a last gasp because they don’t have enough evidence to charge him and the case is going cold. Seen a few major life in prison blunders here.
.
As a general comment it is a bit disturbing how many cases are solved using only eyewitness testimony that magically appears several days after the crime. The possibility exists that people may occasionally take out a rival by being a post crime “witness”.
.
The cops absolutely love phones. Evidence gold mine. People, leave your phone at home before committing your murder.
.
The reality is murder is committed by imbeciles in the height of passion or a crime 99% of the time. I cannot tell you how many times:
1. The suspect steals the murder victim’s car and is caught driving around in it the next day.
2. The suspect steals the victim’s phone and personally sells it to someone.
3. The suspect is caught with the murder weapon in his possession days later.
4. The suspect confesses under pressure.
Okay, here is my last thoughts on Seth Rich:
.
1) Muggers would just as likely attack near Rich’s home as his last indoor location. The closer to home he is confronted the less of an indication is left where he was coming from for the unaccounted hours since he left Lou’s. It’s strange that he spent time somewhere that he would not be remembered, or that he would have been walking the streets for hours.
.
2) When he called his girlfriend the only thing he asked is if she was home. She said “yes,†heard a noise, and he said he had to go. Perhaps he was more worried about her than himself.
.
3) The parents said the police told them the incident was captured on video from across the street and the police had body cameras yet this evidence has apparently vanished. They also said the police that were talking with Rich at the scene were surprised that he died.
.
4) Rich had a laptop that was given to police that is now missing.
.
5) The 4th year resident posts that the circumstances were highly unusual here.
.
6) WikiLeaks, which by policy stays silent on sources, goes out of their way to make it clear Rich was their source. This was before Russia was being fingered by Hillary and the media. I think she first mentions it the debates a month later.
.
7) The DNC offers no reward or help to Rich’s family, even to answer WikiLeak’s reward with matching funds. Often police release videos to the public immediately to gain public leads, especially with street crime.
.
8) An ex-homicide detective of 8 years makes up a story with many facts that could be easily refuted if untrue, including that the staff at Lou’s Bar said that Rich was troubled and unusually drunk, refused a ride home and did not follow what he said he intended to do. This shows a possible standing motive in that something is causing duress, which is never accounted for.
.
9) Wheeler himself displays behavior screaming duress, nationally discrediting himself.
.
10) To me a bar manager getting a White House tour 4 days prior to the murder is a coincidence. But getting a meeting in the East Room? This needs to be explained, not that I think he was an accomplice. More likely he would be an informant, helping to keep an eye for leaks at the DNC staffer’s hangout.
.
11) Rich’s girlfriend and family both suspected foul play as a plausible theory the day after in a news interviews. The family hired Rod Wheeler to investigate a theory that the Russians killed Rich (according to an interview at the time with Jack Burkman, a conservative postulating the same theory while also pitching in $105,000 of his own money for the reward). So the family was open to a foul play theory and apparently not happy with the police investigation, but they are Democrats wanting the murders to be Russian. Apparently Burkman took advantage of this to get the family to endorse Wheeler, who obviously took a different track, and went rogue to Fox 5 without the families consent. But that looks like it could have been calculated by Burkman from the start. I know, I’m a conspiratorial person.
.
12) Rich was not just a “staffer.†He had a title: Director of Voter Expansion. His position gave him plausible access to the DNC computers.
.
13) The DNC was favoring HRC over Sanders. Rich was a Sanders supporter. He was scheduled to testify in the HRC FBI investigation.
.
14) Even if the murder was a botched mugging if Rich was the leaker for the DNC emails that is still the news of the century because it means the Russian story for the last 10 months was all manipulation, a conspiracy theory created at the highest levels of the USA, including DNC, FBI, all other intelligence agencies and the MSM.
.
15) Kim Dotcom has announced he is preparing to testify under oath in the USA congress or Mueller’s investigation that Seth Rich was known by him to be a WikiLeaks source.
.
Here is a good site with a comprehensive archive on the topic: https://jimmysllama.com/2017/05/19/seth-rich/
https://jimmysllama.com/2017/05/21/9800/
Ron Graf: “The 4th year resident posts …”
Since we are doing conspiracies, how do you know that the resident posted that?
Mike M, I suspect a number of these “facts” and witnesses will turn out to be false. Many will not weigh them regardless of type of later support due their razor’s threshold. This is why it is a strategy in dis-information to make false flags that can be debunked, and in doing so discredit the subject. It’s hard to tell how things will pan out.
.
The 4th year resident post would be easy to refute if the wounds are eventually found not to be as described. But if they are it will take a long long time for the forensics to get released. The family should have fought to get their own private autopsy done.
.
On an earlier point you made about how a professional hit wouldn’t be botched, it’s possible the bullets were tainted. This eliminates the need for much hospital interference, at least anything that would seem sinister. An order keeping away snooping residents and curious nurses could be justified (maybe).
“They also said the police that were talking with Rich at the scene were surprised that he died.”
Not up with the details but if he had 2 bullets in the back it is quite plausible that this would be enough to kill someone?
I do not think that a professional hit would be so sloppy or that so many normal people, doctors and police, were just waiting around all their lives for one one off cover up job.
“Not up with the details but…”
.
The DC police have the same thoughts. They announced yesterday that they do not investigate conspiracies.
.
With zero leads or sign of investigation for 10 months the DC police are sticking to their strategy of waiting for the public to turn in the killer(s). Outsiders are trying to help that process by adding to the growing reward (up to $250,000 this week) and suing the police to release the video to the public. http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/30/exclusive-attorney-files-lawsuit-in-seth-rich-murder-mystery/
angech:
I think this is exactly right.
Looks like Trump is pulling out of the Paris agreement. I have mixed feelings.
.
The agreement was symbolic in nature, so pulling out of the agreement is also symbolic. Nothing has really changed. It would have cost Trump little to throw the environmentalists a bone and stay in the agreement, but I imagine the greens worked so feverishly to antagonize Trump that it would be difficult for him to play nice at this point. You reap what you sow.
.
The media wrote a series of articles recently about how it would be better for the US to pullout then stay in and sabotage it Trump style. Perhaps. There wasn’t much to sabotage in reality. The Paris agreement was in a sense the perfect answer, a fantasy solution to a fantasy problem, it let the greens pretend they were saving the world without making the world pay up.
.
The schadenfreude of watching the usual suspects howl will be fun. Trump, the destroyer of worlds! Meanwhile fracking will continue to lower emissions and energy costs to the dismay of all those falling on their swords.
.
It’s fulfilling a campaign promise. It would have been better strategically to force a public renegotiation and then have the world reject the terms before backing out. Looks like Trump is going to lose all the zero votes from environmentalists he received. Queue up another round of TDS.
.
The real lesson is a “treaty” that is not voted on by the Senate has little staying power.
The real lesson is a “treaty†that is not voted on by the Senate has little staying power.
.
WSJ wanted Trump to not decide this but submit PA to the Senate, restoring Constitutional process and power of Congress ( even though it was an ‘agreement’ not a ‘treaty’ ).
.
The real and nefarious aspect is not so much Paris Agreement, but the back door deep state changes in multiple regulatory agencies – not just EPA, but multitudes of programs. This represents government at its worst.
TE, so you actually subscribe to this “deep state” pseudo-intellectual tripe. Amazing.
The agreement tried to thread a needle where no financial commitments were made while simultaneously signing up to financial commitments. It was very specifically designed to avoid triggering a US Senate vote.
.
Assuming the best and brightest in the media owns calculators, they never did get around to informing their readers the financial non-commitments the US was committing to. $2.5T over 20 years according to Heritage, I can’t figure out what the other side says at all. It appears to be a shell game where the US signs up to these things, lets Congress not fund them, and everyone pretends everything is just fine.
.
Obama apparently sent $1B to a climate fund for the non-agreement that was never allocated by Congress but came out the State Dept. budget. The thing smells pretty bad all around.
Carrick: “deep state pseudo-intellectual tripe:”
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
Only a fool believes there is no military-industrial complex in the U.S. Or no Wall Street-Treasury complex. The deep state is a fact. The only question is how far gone things are. The deep state in the U.S. is nowhere near as organized or powerful as the deep state in Turkey. But that does not mean that it does not exist.
And one of the leading indicators is all the Global Warming scare stories that permeate popular media day after day, year after year. Its just organs of the state presenting the party line.
Andrew
I’m not advocating a position regarding the Rich murder, I just want to point out that some of you may want to check your assumptions about murder for hire. Like most of you, my views are no doubt influenced by how Hollywood portrays hit men. The reality though is much less elegant. Based on news accounts, most hits are done by street thugs whose main qualifications are sociopathy and availability.
The evidence at the scene cannot tell us whether the murder was done for hire. It is possible, sure, that the murder was a professional hit made to look like a robbery gone wrong. Or it could simply be a robbery gone wrong, Or a meth-addled robber hired to kill Seth Rich. The means of the killing are orthogonal to the motive of a murder for hire.
So please, if you’re thinking that the evidence is proof for or against the idea of a professional hit I ask that you rethink that. Seth Rich is dead and the killer is at large, with no apparent leads as to their identity. Those outcomes result both from a botched robbery and from a murder for hire.
Carrick: “TE, so you actually subscribe to this “deep state†pseudo-intellectual tripe. Amazing.”
.
The “deep state” does not necessarily need a sinister Dr. Evil controlling polices through secret meetings with conspirator secret society members from each agency. The ideology is known. Like ISIS the individuals can easily act on their own or coordinate with a cell of any size, whether longtime coworker or a friend in another department.
.
The danger, however, multiplies when the consensus becomes that the opposing side is organized for nefarious purpose. This makes it rational and moral to organize in opposition. This is what’s most disturbing about the media so willing to promote the Trump-Russia theory.
.
I believe that liberals a great people except for their assuming that they are kinder and wiser than a particular group.
Mike M—I find people who are blindly partisan are much more blind than people who are able to think for themselves.
I also find people who repeat stupid shit enough times often find themselves accepting as fact” things that are actually little more than brain up-chuck.
It’s a sad state of affairs on the right to go from when William F Buckley Jr. was an intellectual leader for the conservative movement to the current state of affairs where this pseudo-intellectual babble and fever dreams like the Frank Rich conspiracy now pass for “fact.”
To the extent that “deep states” exist (beyond as a talking point that is), as has been proposed with Turkey or the old Soviet Union, the structure and nature of enforcement is very, very different than the supposed “deep state” in the US. Structurally, a deep state is run by a relatively small cadre of people, who use a network of terror as a means of absolute control.
There simply is nothing remotely similar to that going on in the US.
So it’s not a fact. It’s just nonsense that people have agreed to believe in as a group. And apparently never question.
Earle: “Or a meth-addled robber hired to kill Seth Rich. The means of the killing are orthogonal to the motive of a murder for hire.”
But the means are not orthogonal to the identity of the party doing the hiring. A drug dealer might hire a meth-addled client to kill a rival. But if powerful people, sufficiently well connected to influence a police investigation and hospital treatment of a patient, hire a killer, they are going to hire a professional.
Tom,
“The real lesson is a “treaty†that is not voted on by the Senate has little staying power.”
.
” It was very specifically designed to avoid triggering a US Senate vote.”
.
Absolutely. Obama’s commitment of the USA to the Paris accord is just one more of his frequent lawless actions. International treaties have the power of Federal law, and they must be ratified by the Senate with a minimum 2/3 vote required. The US Senate would never ratify the Paris agreement (and rightly so, it accomplishes nothing significant, costs a fortune, and invites limitless intrusion of “international regulations”, unaccountable to voters, into the US economy). Obama’s solution: just ignore the Constitution. He was really bad for the rule of law.
By the way, I am not so sure Trump will not leave the door cracked open by not submitting the Paris agreement to the Senate, allowing a possible renegotiation over the next 3+ years. I think that would be very unwise, but I fear that is what he will do.
TE, so you actually subscribe to this “deep state†pseudo-intellectual tripe. Amazing.
.
Uhmmm……
.
It’s not a matter of subscribing, the evidence persists.
.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-15/cutting-climate-spending-made-harder-by-obama-s-budget-tactics
.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/anatomy-of-a-deep-state-1495753640
Carrick: “To the extent that “deep states†exist (beyond as a talking point that is), as has been proposed with Turkey or the old Soviet Union, the structure and nature of enforcement is very, very different than the supposed “deep state†in the US. Structurally, a deep state is run by a relatively small cadre of people, who use a network of terror as a means of absolute control.
There simply is nothing remotely similar to that going on in the US.”
I agree. I said as much. But the term “deep state” is used for a much wider range of behavior than just what goes on in Turkey. Turbulent Eddy never suggested more than the lesser sort of deep state that clearly exists in the U.S. You have no right to assume he meant more than that and then mock him for it.
.
Ron Graf: “The danger, however, multiplies when the consensus becomes that the opposing side is organized for nefarious purpose.”
True. But the danger is already severe when the permanent unelected officials believe that they have the moral authority to decide what is best for everyone.
Ron Graf: Many problems there:
• There isn’t a single ideology on the left anymore than there is a single one on the right.
• Secondly, people obviously do use “deep state” because of its creepy nefarious sound and not because it’s a meaningful description. It’s meant to promote a nefarious connection even if one doesn’t exist.
• Third, these things don’t self-organize.
In “deep states”, threat of state-terror is used to keep cell members in line. In the US it would never work. People like being in control of their lives, even liberals, and tend to resist attempts from others (e.g., cell leaders) to control them and their actions.
Just like with churches nominally of the same demonization, where over time the church splits into two smaller churches, you’d have a group of originally “same-thinking” individuals, splitting into smaller splinter groups.
• Fourth, ISIS doesn’t work that way either. Not even close.
• Fifth, we have at the moment six individuals associated with Trump who who have lied or mislead the government about their connections with the Russian government. But that’s not really a theory… it’s what’s actually happened. So what Trump-Russia theory is the media promoting and can you provide an example of where they are promoting it?
I’m working through a humorous conspiracy theory in my mind where Trump intentionally leaked this as disinformation and will stay in the agreement for the sole purpose of embarrassing the media, making them eat crow, and sowing doubt on all leaks. It would be a great setup.
Secondly, people obviously do use “deep state†because of its creepy nefarious sound and not because it’s a meaningful description. It’s meant to promote a nefarious connection even if one doesn’t exist.
.
The name obviously strikes a nerve with you.
.
But, to whom do the regulatory agencies answer? Sure the House approves budgets and the prez makes pronouncements, but the reg agencies persist with a lot of unelected autonomy.
.
This isn’t part of partisan politics, but a long term change in US government. The reg agencies are quasi-legilative ( within some framework, they make up rules ). They are also executive in nature.
.
When the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development all have ‘climate programs’, it’s either stupidly wasteful or it’s a sign of burying an agenda underground like nasty weed roots.
.
This is deep state.
Mike M:
“No more right than you do when you attack people you disagree with, I suppose,” said the kettle to the pot.
Out of curiosity , what sort of “lesser deep state” do you propose “clearly exists in the US” and could you define it without invoking buzzwords?
TE: The problem with providing links without commentary is it’s impossible for me to figure out which parts demonstrate what without mind reading. It also allows you to skate around any criticism because you haven’t actually said much of anything yourself that anybody could pin you down on.
I will note one obvious logical fallacy in Strassel’s article. She says “Here was a bureaucrat with the authority to define science and shut down those who disagreed, and she could not be easily fired, even under a new administration” referring to Francesca Grifo who is (or was) the acting Scientific Integrity Official.
Well it’s true she can’t be fired. But her position was created by Obama, so it can be removed at will by Trump. Francesca Grifo would still have a job, but it doesn’t have to be that job.
Turbulent Eddy:
Only because it’s a completely terrible description. Emotionally laden bad terminology is worse than useless, it actually makes it harder to discuss what the issues are that you’re actually interested in discussing.
“Deep state” basically gets used by the right-wing, as far as I can tell, as a catch phrase, and can mean virtually anything all while invoking the same nefarious spectre that it was intended to invoke.
As to this:
You might want to brush up on how independent agencies work.
To not make the same error you made with me, here is my summary (which reflects my personal, non-expert understanding of course):
Regulatory agencies were created by Congress, but the oversight of them is shared by both Congress and President. They have no power that Congress doesn’t give them, nor can Congress delegate any power to them that Congress did not already have. And as statutory agencies, any future Congress has the power to remove them at will.
Because they can write regulations (effectively creating new law), constitutionally the power of the Executive Office is necessarily limited here. The non-delegation doctrine prevents Congress from granting the President the authority to legislate himself, and giving him too much control over the regulatory agencies would amount to legislation by proxy, which is also unconstitutional.
But short version: Ultimately they answer to Congress, but the President shares administrative responsibilities.
I’m sorry, but this is utter nonsense.
If climate change is a threat to our society , then having the various agencies have their own plans to deal with that climate change is a completely reasonable thing to do. Even if it’s not a threat and it’s entirely natural, it’s still a change and change is inherently disruptive, hence it should be planned for when possible.
So, planning for future contingencies makes us a “deep state”? No, sorry, but that perfectly illustrates just why “deep state” such a poor language choice. It’s a virtually meaningless emotionally laden word. Useful for dog-whistling, but not much else.
Ron Graf, have you tried verifying any of these details yourself? For example determining if this guy is actually a resident.
I find it surprising that police would be surprised to find that someone with 2 gunshots, to the main body, ended up dead. Even to limbs, blood loss is a problem. The idea that hospital staff conspired to kill someone makes no sense. If he were so stable as he could talk to the police at the scene, then presumably he would have said what happened. If he wasn’t that stable, then that he died later is unremarkable.
71% of Democrats want to begin impeachment. This is not very surprising. The funny part is:
.
“Of those who want Congress to move toward impeachment, a 54-percent majority of those believe Trump “has proven he is unfit to serve and should be removed from office, regardless of whether he committed an impeachable offense or not.â€
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/31/trump-impeach-polling-238947
.
Even as cynical as I am, I found that number surprising. Yes, it’s obvious as Democrats say that Trump is the real danger to democracy, ha ha. It should be noted that Obama, Bush, and Clinton had 30% of people calling for impeachment.
>There wasn’t much to sabotage in reality.
I’ve suggested ways to sabotage. Announce your commitments as being a tripling of emissions, and that you will increase emissions even more if others reduce, at a 2-1 ratio.
I’m looking thru the US code trying to find the language that says must stop funding of UNFCCC because Palestine is a member.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text
Looking for:
No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states.
Title 22, and Subchapter XVI is the most logical place but finding nothing.
Carrick (Comment #162508): “people obviously do use “deep state†because of its creepy nefarious sound and not because it’s a meaningful description.”
I use it partly because I don’t have a better term. Can you provide a better term? I also use it because it seems to be a good description of the situation. I suppose that might be because I was not really familiar with its use re Turkey and the USSR, so I don’t find it particularly creepy or nefarious. And I do find some of what has gone on since Trump has been elected to be nefarious.
.
Carrick: “these things don’t self-organize”
Of course they self organize. They certainly aren’t organized by foreign governments or the people at large.
.
Carrick: “we have at the moment six individuals associated with Trump who who have lied or mislead the government about their connections with the Russian government. But that’s not really a theory… it’s what’s actually happened.”
Odd, I can’t name any. Not Flynn. Not Kushner. Not Sessions.
.
Carrick: “So what Trump-Russia theory is the media promoting and can you provide an example of where they are promoting it?”
Collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Everywhere.
Carrick: “Regulatory agencies were created by Congress, but the oversight of them is shared by both Congress and President. They have no power that Congress doesn’t give them”
Not true. They often claim powers beyond anything Congress intended. They sometimes do that by colluding with non-governmental organizations so that the NGO sues, the agency throws the fight, and now the agency has a court order expanding the agency’s power. The EPA is the worst offender. Congress never gave the EPA authority to regulate CO2 or non-navigable waters.
MikeN,
I find that text in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 which when signed became Public Law No: 101-246. My understanding is that the U.S. Code is the sum of permanent laws. Congress passes a lot of stuff in appropriations bills that does not make it into the USC.
If climate change is a threat to our society , then having the various agencies have their own plans to deal with that climate change is a completely reasonable thing to do.
.
Ridiculous.
.
Climate change has never been demonstrated a threat to our society within a century time frame, and if you listen to Tol is a net benefit for some time to come.
.
Even if it were so demonstrated, would some marginal problem in 2100 be in any way ameliorated by some bureaucrat in Indian Affairs wasting billions of dollars in 2017? I don’t think so.
Scharf: ““Of those who want Congress to move toward impeachment, a 54-percent majority of those believe Trump “has proven he is unfit to serve and should be removed from office, regardless of whether he committed an impeachable offense or not.â€
….
The hate for Trump for any reason notwithstanding what he has actually done or advocated, is the reason why I think he should go about his agenda without making strong efforts to placate Democrats. (He should always leave the door open, but they need him to fail, so even where there are reasons to work together the Democrats will be very reluctant to do so) If Trump goes about his business and has some successes (one not mentioned often is that illegal immigration has substantially declined), then the Republicans may hold Congress in the next election. If not successful, they will probably lose Congress. Because the hate for Trump is so strong, there is little reason for Trump to make substantial efforts to placate Democrats.
JD
WRT the Paris Agreement, the rationale that Trump should submit it to the Senate is compelling. It would replace power where it belongs ( which may be why he won’t do it ) and it would be a litmus test on policy. If the appropriate body ( the Senate ) does not submit to the PA, then we’d be done with it. But the Senate does not want to see it – Congress doesn’t like to be held accountable.
Mike M: I would suggest we are closer to a degeneration into anarchy than towards a deep state.
As to self-organizing, you used the fact it’s not externally organized as proof it self-organizes (referring here to “outside normal channel behavior” aka “deep state” and not normal functioning of bureaucracy). But that’s circular reasoning: there is no “of course.”
I think bureaucracy, when it stops listening to command signals, is more like a body without a head. Locally it looks coherent, but globally it lacks any coherency.
I’m not sure what you’re even on about here, unless you are just trying to interpret what I said very narrowly. I meant it to be interpreted fairly broadly.
Flynn got fired for exactly for misleading the government about his Russian connections…the nature of his discussions with Kislyak to be exact. You’re seriously arguing for the integrity of him???
Jared Kushner mislead and was forced to amend his forms and was apparently for months concealing additional meetings.
Sessions mislead about his contacts with Russia.
Then there’s Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Felix Sater, the list is getting long indeed.
Nothing I know, either directly or inferentially, implicates Trump or suggests there’s a Russia-Trump organization conspiracy. I’m not suggesting that, nor do I even suspect it to be true.
You can get a “constellation of individuals with common interests associating for a common set of goals” without a central conspiracy. I suppose that’s what you guys are on about with the “deep state” notion. (I’ve heard these called “conspiracies by consent”.)
But our bureaucracy is very decentralized, with little hubs of power spread throughout it.
Um no. Claiming powers is different than having them. Congress can yank the cord anytime they like. With respect to the EPA and CO2—Republicans are in control of Congress, if they disagreed with the EPA and thought they were overreaching, then THEY aren’t doing their job:
The real culprit here is the lack of governance by our inept Congress. Let them get their feet back under them and start running the country and stop with the incessant squabbling, and I expect a lot of the regulatory overreach will get fixed.
Turbulent Eddie:
As many will point out, climate isn’t fixed. It changes all of the time. With climate change, natural or forced, you always have economic disruption.
Because climate change affects our society continuously it makes absolutely no sense from the point of good governance to ignore the fact that it does.
Even without the known climate forcing from anthropogenic activity, it would be very foolish for the government to not be addressing climate change.
But, at a very high level of certainty, we’ll see a warmer climate over the coming few centuries. Whether it leads to catastrophic effects or not is questionable, but it is possible there will be, and so that needs to be addressed, to the degree it reasonably can be.
Even if it isn’t catastrophic, and even if the net economic effects are positive, the odds are very high that it will be disruptive. Not planning for that too would be very foolish.
We can disagree with the specific policies for climate change, but you’d pretty much be having to live inside of a cave (literally) to think we weren’t going to be influenced by the changes we as a group have already set in motion.
On a slightly different topic:
“Rowing” a boat without a paddle.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/4it6l0/who_needs_paddles_anyway/
https://www.facebook.com/179424235415038/videos/1158023097555142/
According to the reddit link, you can “row” a canoe with a single person too.
Earle
I don’t think anyone said it did. What I’ve said something that looks like a botched mugging could most certainly be a botched mugging. Yes, a hit might also look like a botched mugging, but that it looks like a botched mugging isn’t evidence that it’s not a botched mugging.
Thanks Earle.
>then the Republicans may hold Congress in the next election.
Republicans have won every House election since 1994 except in 2006 when opposition to Iraq War led to Republican abandonment, producing 190 seats, and two years later the financial crisis caused more abandonment along with Obama’s campaign turnout, reducing Republicans to 170 seats. In 2000, it was about an even split.
Democratic enthusiasm against Trump will not take the House. It would require Republicans to abandon their party, and not just Trump.
Tom Scharf
I don’t know… The problem with the “throw … a bone” and then sabotage from within idea is that if he stays in but wants to upset the apple cart from inside, that’s seen as kicking the dog with every decision. So, maybe a clean break ends up with less discussion and works better for those who want out. I really don’t know.
We know Trump does not support this treaty. So for him, the issue is out or sabotage. In either case, the issue is how to do whichever he decides on.
Yes.
Tom Scharf:
The same with the Executive Orders signed by Obama.
We might say this “lesson” is Obama’s legacy.
I stick to my position posted in November that Trump should throttle the governmental-academic institutional climate change engine by crimping the money hose, (which he is doing,) and should give the PA to the senate for ratification. Enough senate conservatives should allow themselves to be lobbied for support to gain a 2/3 majority in exchange for their liberal persuading colleagues to sponsor the GOP’s legislation of choice, perhaps Trump’s budget or a realignment of social security and medicare.
.
This would take a major talking point off the liberal table and get them cooperating in congress. It would also prevent future extra-constitutional treaties from being able to use the PA as precedent of such a thing as binding, non-Congressional-ratified law.
“Ron Graf, have you tried verifying any of these details yourself? For example determining if this guy is actually a resident.”
.
No, it’s enough work to verify the third-hand reports about what has been reported are accurate. I will leave the actual investigation to the police… er.. well I mean professional investigators. That shouldn’t stop one from thinking critically on what we have.
.
What the father said on video to a reporter the day after the crime is hearsay but we get to weigh it since we are not a jury.
1) The police told him that they were surprised their son died.
2) The son was conscious and conversant at the scene.
3) The father said the police told him there were two assailants as seen on a video from across the street.
4) He expressed skepticism at the police assigning robbery as the motive, pointing out that his son had cash, expensive watch and cell phone untouched.
5) The girlfriend, Chelsea, said Seth called her and asked her if she was home (at 4AM). She said she heard noises and Seth told her he had to hang up.
6) The family and Chelsea currently support the theory of foul play but that it was “Russians,” not liberals, that killed their son.
.
Clearly the family believes that their son had access to information that could compromise important people. A theory nobody has mentioned is that Rich was the source of the WikiLeaks, (as Assange infers and Dotcom claims,) but that Rich was being threatened from taking actions to shut down unfair DNC practices separate from the one he had already taken with the email leak. Rich could have refused or agreed to a confidential “reconciliation meeting” at Lou’s bar but the other party was a no-show. This would have led Rich to fear going home and also explains for mis-informing Lou’s staff about his next destination.
.
Rich then walks the streets worrying, thinking, trying to get sober to call his girlfriend to warn her not to go out or let anyone in. But when he calls her a block from home suddenly he is confronted by two men. Thinking they are spooks who want to scare him, he tells his girlfriend not to worry and hangs up. But they turn out to be muggers asking for his wallet. So relieved that they are not spooks, he tells them to “eat me” and turns to walk away. They jump him and a fight ensues where finally one of them shoots Rich before they both flee.
.
The only problem with this theory is that it does not explain why the police do not release the video — unless the chief carried a the same suspicion of the father, the nightmare scenario of –CONSPIRACY.
Ron Graf,
Your summary is strongly suggestive of an amateur killing, not a professional one. (1) and (2) make sense if Rich was shot by a panicky meth-head; a pro would have finished the job. (3) and (4) also applies amateur muggers, a pro surely would work alone and would have finished the job of making it look like a robbery. But a couple of meth heads might have panicked, pulled the trigger, then panicked further and run away. (5) and (6) seem to have no relevance either way.
Carrick,
“….stop with the incessant squabbling, and I expect a lot of the regulatory overreach will get fixed.”
.
I think the squabbling reflects honest disagreements. One of the principle honest disagreements is what constitutes regulatory over-reach. I very much doubt the disagreements are going away any time in the foreseeable future. Threre are multiple reasons, including gerrymandering to create very ‘safe’ seats in the House, but the biggest reason is that the nation is more politically divided than any time in my lifetime. There is little room for compromise when policy differences are so sharp that the opposing party is believed to not simply hold different views, but instead to be utterly wrong, and so unworthy of having input into governance. Compromise demands that each side accept the legitimacy of opposing views, and that acceptance is now very rare to see. I am, for the first time, honestly in doubt of the permanance of the republic.
Ron Graf,
If we’re just going to throw out wild speculation based on anything we can imagine, how about this:
Rich could have had a 2nd girlfriend (or boyfriend) who he was going to meet. (S)he didn’t show up, which made him despondent and agitated. He decided to go to the “other” friends place. He misinformed the bartender of his next destination because that’s what one does when meeting the “other” girl/boy friend. Then he walked over to other girl/boyfriends place. (S)he let him in, they canoodled for a while. Then he walked home, calling his official girlfriend. While he was dialing the muggers came up behind him. He doesn’t actually know they are muggers yet, or he thinks he can handle it. He refuses to hand over his stuff, one of then shot him. Then, in a panic the two fled.
Other girl/boyfriend doesn’t want people to know they exist. Perhaps they are married. Perhaps in the closet. Perhaps they just don’t want media to report on their entire freakin’ lives. They don’t step forward to explain where Rich was.
I’m sure lots of people can dream up other speculative theories especially if they are entirely speculative.
Lucia-
I won’t evaluate your speculation vs. the others, but you get an automatic +1 for “canoodled”.
Guess who? You only get one guess. I estimate a 100% success in guessing. Quote from today:
.
“I take responsibility for every decision I made,†(redacted) said, “but that is not why I lost.â€
.
OK, no guessing needed.
Bill is egging her on to run again. He is relishing the idea of her losing again.
2-0 vs 0-3.
The comedy gift that keeps on giving:
“I was the victim of a very broad assumption that I was going to winâ€
.
She also proceeded to throw both the DNC and NYT under the bus:
.
“I get the nomination. I’m now the nominee of the Democratic party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic party,†she said. “I mean, it was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, non-existent, wrong. I had to inject money into it.â€
.
“Watching the story about her private email server explode was a “maddening” experience, Clinton said, as she specifically called out The New York Times for its coverage of the issue.
“They covered it like it was Pearl Harbor,” she said.”
.
If only the DNC and NYT were on her side. And then there is the “1000 Russian agents” and also the Russians paid for campaign advertising. No mention of deplorables today, and nobody asked, ha ha.
.
The poor woman, the whole world is against her.
SteveF ” Compromise demands that each side accept the legitimacy of opposing views, and that acceptance is now very rare to see. I am, for the first time, honestly in doubt of the permanance of the republic.”
….
I used to wonder why the bitterness between the Catholic and Protestant Irish was so extreme. With what is going on today in the US, I understand now.
JD
130 days. Going on Holiday. Will he or won’t he block the Paris Accord, or refer it to the Senate?
Wiil he be impeached or taken care of by the Deep State before I get back in a month?
Ciao, everyone. Vado di vacanza in Italia. Or something like that. Stelvio pass. I think I will start near the top not near the bottom with the good riders.
Lucia, good try but not even a bum would pop in after 1AM unannounced to a new love interest. Of course, he might not have used his phone to coverup the relationship from snooping. I don’t know what the sneakiest way to canoodle is. Just two other problems:
1) He is a good-natured fun-loving guy regularly say the bar staff. But that night he was troubled and got drunk, which they felt unusual. That does not seem to fit with anticipation of canoodling.
.
2) You don’t call to wake your other at 4AM to announce your arrival from canoodling.
JD Ohio,
I suspect the religious differences in Northern Ireland were a proxy for the more fundamental political disagreement: be part of the UK or part of independent Ireland…. not much room for compromise there.
Ron
You need to get out more.
Tom Scharf,
Yeah. Hillary appears to have embarked on her “complain trail”.
You need to get out more.
.
Sadly, they had just invented touchtone phones the last time I was looking for a place to crash or an after hours club after last call.
3PM Eastern is the probably not so big announcement.
.
Paris is symbolic, although I’m not familiar with all the rights eroding big global gummit details within. Unnecessary expansion of centralized power alone make it reasonable to nip this in the bud. RPjr sez it doesn’t matter much either way, though. If it stands, most nations will probably demagogue, but really ignore it for a long time.
.
But the point that supporters and opponents alike should carry with them is that it’s probably unnecessary.
.
The US is already meeting the PA goals, and is likely to continue to do so!
.
And given global demographics, the world’s already declining CO2 emissions are likely to continue to decline!
.
Even if increased CO2 emissions were not net beneficial for some time to come, they are unlikely to continue at the same pace of the recent past decades.
I didn’t vote for Trump ( or anyone ). And he is a lil’ crazy, though most presidents are. And he may be suffering from age related mild cognitive impairment.
.
But on this issue(climate change), he’s probably correct and reminds us that the New York Times is insane:
.
“TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.
SULZBERGER: Not like this.”
.
Not like this, I tell ya’. Doom, I say, Doom.
.
In medical and health science, studies (the test of theories) are denoted as observational (not very useful because of confounding variables) or clinical (the gold standard because of the control of confounding variables).
.
For all of the elegant physical formulations and advanced math to describe the atmosphere, meteorology and climatology are stuck with, at best, observational studies. And predictions of climate change don’t even have observational studies.
.
Into this void creeps all ilk of crazed, unsubstantiated imaginary disasters that the nyt is all to happy to fertilize and sell.
Ron Graf,
Well… I assure you, my scenarios fits with his behavior. You may not have known people who might stop by at ridiculous hours hoping for a
bootycallcannodle. That doesn’t mean no one does that. Also: if you want a peep at the breadth of ridiculous behavior you probably imagine “no one” does, just go to craiglist for some major city and click “X looking for Y” with every possible combination of X and Y.Sure it fits. It fits with his potential co-cannoodler not showing up at the bar as I suggested. That he later might go by and persuade them to cannoodle doesn’t mean he wasn’t troubled and upset they didn’t show up in the first place.
It seems that Hillary is going all in on her favorite conspiracy theory: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-vast-right-wing-conspiracy-20-russia-edition/article/2624642
Hillary: “the domestic fake news operations, the domestic RNC Republican-allied data, you know, combined with the very effective capabilities that the Russians brought, you know, basically, the group running this was the GRU, which is the military intelligence arm of the Russian military,”
The woman is unhinged.
Heavy drinking and attempted late night canoodling are correlated.
lucia:
LOL. Lucia’s right. This is Washington DC Ron and the major-league professional party crowd.
2AM is the start time at some parties (“after hour” parties).
lucia:
lolol. Let me guess, it’s Putin’s fault that bus was turned around…
It’s just amazing to me how many people don’t like her.
One of my liberal friends says this book is full of great schadenfreude. (He despises Clinton too.)
Mike M.,
“The woman is unhinged.”
.
When reality is too painful (e.g. Valedictorian Hillary lost to an incompetent, ignorant buffoon!), some people choose to believe something other than reality. She was: 1) a terrible candidate who had zero personal connection with voters, 2) a life-long blatant liar, 3) widely believed to be grotesquely corrupt, 4) arrogant, 5) made terrible decisions during the campaign WRT both staffing and strategy, and 6) advocated unpopular policies. Those are painful realities she will never accept.
.
I just hope she keeps trying to take the limelight from other potential candidates for 2020 in her party… talk about typhoid Mary; she is toxic to the other Democrats’ chances.
I was waiting for all the fact checking armies to pounce on Clinton for all the “without evidence” claims she made, but alas, they seem to be busy elsewhere.
.
Realistically the “never admit fault, never, ever” has worked for the Clintons pretty well. Why change now? The good(?) news is that all this blabber landed with a huge thud. Not even liberals are defending most of these wild claims. They just want her to go away at this point. She obviously has a fantasy about defeating Trump in 2020 and fulfilling a life’s dream. There just aren’t enough people on that team anymore. Losing to Trump is a Scarlet Tattoo that can never be erased.
Presidential election losers almost never get nominated again. Nixon and Stevenson were rare exceptions. Nixon reinvented himself and Stevenson may have been a sacrificial lamb in 1956, knowing that Eisenhower was going to overwhelm any Democrat. And that’s not even considering the age and health factor.
DeWitt: “Presidential election losers almost never get nominated again.”
That is true now, but it used to be different. Previous losers were nominated in 1892, 1900, 1908, 1948, 1956, 1968. That is a pretty high fraction. But the last general election loser to seriously try for the nomination was, I think, Humphrey in 1972 (I don’t recall McGovern’s campaign in 1988 as being all that serious).
I’ve moved comments on the paris agreement to a new thread.
Mike M.
Six of 57 is not a high fraction. Considering that Bryan was the nominee in 1900 and 1908 after losing in 1896, it’s actually only five different people or less than 10%
The seas just rose 30 feet in FL, going to swim to the new mainland now. I blame Trump. The whole world is tut-tutting us now. I am ashamed, I so wanted to impress the virtuous Europeans.
Hillary’s conspiracy theory runs deep. Not only was it the Russians, but these Russians aren’t capable of figuring out how to use all the stuff they hacked, so the Americans had to tell them, with Macedonia in the mix. Aristotle taught him well.
You forgot Andrew Jackson, and Martin Van Buren ran again. Also the early vice presidents were themselves election losers.
MikeN,
It’s still a small fraction. I stand by ‘almost never.’
DeWitt, I think you missed 11 up to 1850, almost every election. But in the last century, sure.
Assuming an average of two major political parties with an actual chance of winning, it’s 114 nominations. Counting both Bryan nominations and adding Jackson and Van Buren, that’s 8 of 114. As I said, almost never.
Lucia, good try but not even a bum would pop in after 1AM unannounced to a new love interest.
Lindsey Graham during Clinton’s impeachment trial,
“Where I come from, if a man calls someone up at two thirty in the morning, he’s up to no good.”
DeWitt,
Your history and math are both bad. For the first half century or so it was common for election loses to run again (Jefferson, Pinckney, Jackson, Clay twice, Harrison) then for the next half century, it was not done, then back in style (of 14 different losers from 1888-1964, 5 were nominated again, one twice), and now for the last half century it has once again gone out of style. Maybe Hillary will restart an old trend. 🙂
DeWitt, you are starting with 114 by counting both parties nominations. Not many are expecting both parties to run losers, though it happened in 1828.
There have been 57 elections where a loser had a chance to run, and 57+ losers excluding Hillary. I think total 17 instances of losers running again.
More schadenfreude.
Ex-DNC aide hits back hard at Clinton, says her campaign ignored data on Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin
I sincerely hope she’s stepped in it big enough to eliminate the possibility of the world’s most pathetic loser trying for 0-3.
MikeN:
To be fair, Lindsey Graham doesn’t exactly exude “party animal” either. He’s closer to “most likely to go home by 8PM.”
Besides in his neck of the woods, the only reason to be calling somebody at 2:30AM would be because your cow was sick and the person you were calling was the vet. 😉
Carrick, except she says she won. It is easy for her to think that spending a little less time and money in Arizona and Georgia would have won it for her. Combine winning the popular vote with a change in the electorate to more minorities, and she might figure she could win easily. Bill Clinton even pushed her to primary Obama. I’m convinced he commissioned the TV miniseries to sell it, Political Animals.
MikeN—according to the “Shattered” book, HRC largely ignored her husband’s advise. Why listen to somebody who’s actually won twice, when you’re the most brilliant person on Earth after all?
She had tremendous resources, and used them poorly. Maybe without all of the other stuff she would have won anyway. But the bottom like is she was a sh*t candidate with a likability rating of zero.
Carrick,
“I sincerely hope she’s stepped in it big enough to eliminate the possibility of the world’s most pathetic loser trying for 0-3.”
.
She’s trying for 0-3. If she does get the nomination again (itself unlikely), she will lose in the general; people don’t like her, and they don’t like her policies.
.
More to the point, she doesn’t like people, and it shows… it’s why people don’t like her in the first place. But she has nothing else in life to do except run for president… and be endlessly disagreeable, arrogant, obnoxious, etc. while she is running.
.
BTW, Hillary and Robby Mook both think they are the smartest person on Earth, so the little twerp will probably re-up for another Clinton run. Could not happen to a nicer fellow.
US elections are turning into cult of personality contests. The most boring candidate is losing consistently. Gore, Kerry, Romney, HRC, etc.
.
HRC isn’t going to be winning in that race. People want to be inspired. Trump has numerous self evident flaws but was inspirational for his willingness to give the establishment the finger. He didn’t care if the entire world wanted him to stay in the PA. Group shaming isn’t very effective with him, it’s counterproductive.
Hillary is most angry with Mook, and blamed him for the loss on Election Night, throwing stuff at him and others.
She didn’t totally ignore Bill. The idea to paint Trump as racist and dangerous is attributed to him in a late Feb e-mail, alongside that he is a particular threat to win Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Virginia.
Lucia says “This board must be one hell of a bureacracy. It took them two years of ‘investigating’ to decide whatever Mats Jalstrom was doing violated some law or another.”
This is not really a surprise to me anymore. I just went through an exercise regarding the rules and regulations surrounding the towing of a car from a private parking lot in Colorado. Not having been involved with this topic for many years, I was surprised by how much and to whose benefit the rules and regulations had changed.
Beyond that, I quickly discovered that the rules had not improved, but had merely become far, far more cumbersome to navigate and determine applicability to circumstances. Within the governing bureaucracy the understanding and interpretation of the rules is not at all clear nor consistent.
Beyond that, it fundamentally boils down to whether the governing body cares enough to enforce the rules and regulations they promulgated. Motivation for “caring enough” is very hard to predict.
JD Ohio says :”I used to wonder why the bitterness between the Catholic and Protestant Irish was so extreme.”
The bitterness existed because the discrimination of Catholics was very real and enforced. I have cousins in northern Ireland who in the 60’s and 70’s were routinely rounded up and held in jail for several days for no explicable reason. This was in a very small town in the rural part of County Derry and they were farmers. They were not part of or affiliated with any IRA groups or activities.
Catholics could not get into the colleges, or get any higher level government jobs. There was a ceiling within most private company jobs to which a Catholic could advance to.
Carrick says: “The same with the Executive Orders signed by Obama.
We might say this “lesson†is Obama’s legacy.”
.
I think the bigger lessons of the Obama legacy are:
.
1) To effect change as President you merely need to not enforce the laws you do not like
.
2) Congress really has zero power to investigate activities of the executive branch. Just ignore them completely.
In both cases the judicial branch will take years to rule on anything and by that time it is to late.
One example is the recess appointment to the NLRB. I do not know if the mess created by that (now determined illegal) appointment has been cleaned up yet or not.
The second example is that most knowledge about the various scandals of the Obama administration came about from the documents acquired via FOIA and not via Congressional subpoenas. Even though the Congressional subpoenas were for the same documents.
George Will on Oregon engineer case:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448392/oregon-engineering-license-case-mats-jarlstrom-free-speech
Teacher: Class, what does a red traffic light mean?
Tommy: It means “Stop”
Teacher: Very good Tommy. And what does a green traffic light mean?
Tommy: It means “Go”
Teacher: Thank you Tommy. Now what does a yellow traffic light mean?
Tommy: It means “Go faster!”
Here in UK we also have a yellow phase between the red and the green. This gives everyone waiting, the chance to get fully revved-up and ready to drop the clutch!
Kan “JD Ohio says :â€I used to wonder why the bitterness between the Catholic and Protestant Irish was so extreme.â€
The bitterness existed because the discrimination of Catholics was very real and enforced.”
….Sorry I missed your very insightful and useful comment when it was posted. Never realized the every day indignities and the extent of the hate that existed. To a smaller extent the assassination of Mountbatten and the attempt to kill the queen still strike me as counterproductive. (I should mention I am half-Italian and was raised as a Catholic. No one in the Catholic community that I existed in ever expressed any support for the Catholic insurgency in Northern Ireland.)
Supporting your comment from a different viewpoint concerning the huge divide between the two communities is this comment from an English visitor to Belfast who went 2 years ago:
“Just 2 years ago I visited Belfast. With no thought about it not being friendly. Our guide told us my husband looked liked an English army officer, and not long ago he would have been in danger of being shot. On return from the titanic experience, our taxi driver wouldn’t drop us in a particular area of the city centre. He said we wouldn’t be safe.” See commenter India at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-post-ref-racism-anniversary-thought-i-was-white-a7804426.html
JD