In the WTF category

bobman1235

snow wrote:

Raife logic and reason has no place or effect in this disscussion between yourself and Bobman, he is looking for something to rant and rave about simple as that.

I do not enjoy this nor am I just looking for something to rant about. Yes I stupidly "made it personal" but every time I've tried to address teh topic at hand, rationally and logically with my opinions, DK makes it about ME rather than my position, and I defend myself. I don't see anything illogical or irrational about my position, even if you don't personally agree with it or the way I have expressed it.

Really? Do you know the legal definition and standard of assault in your jurisdiction? What about battery? You might want to brush up before you throw that ticket back in the officer's face.

Taken literally you are correct, and unless I wanted my **** kicked and to be charged with a felony I would obviously not literally throw anything in an officer's face, I was just trying to make a point that I would not accept such a ticket tacitly.

Your insistence on taking everything I say literally I think coincides nicely with your insistence on taking all laws literally and to the letter. I'm not saying this as an attack, but this is about your opinion and I am talking about your opinion.



Getting back to the topic :

From the original article :

Officials in Tulare, Calif., said Daniela Earnest was operating her stand on one of the most dangerous intersections in the city and she was running it without a permit. City code enforcement officer Richard Garcia shut it down on Monday

Council members promised they would find a way to help Daniela keep selling lemonade, according to local ABC-affiliate KFSN-TV. This will likely mean a compromise, such as a nominal fee from lemonade stand operators or a fee waiver for young children,

THe parts in bold are the parts I disagree with. Not surprisingly, your quote from the newspaper had no mention of these lines.

tonyb

Dear God people,it's a friggin' lemonaid stand,not a Walmart.

cfrizz

DK, thank you for the extra effort in providing pics of the area. The girls parents need to have their heads examined for setting up shop there.

DarqueKnight

bobman1235 wrote: »

Yes I stupidly "made it personal" but every time I've tried to address teh topic at hand, rationally and logically with my opinions, DK makes it about ME rather than my position, and I defend myself.

Really? Let's see...the first time I responded to you personally was in post #24, which was a response to your comment in post #19:

bobman1235 wrote: »

Moving the kids for safety - a reasonable city ordinance.

Requiring children to obtain a permit to sell lemonade? Indicitive of the decline of common sense.

My response:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I think the stepmother's decision to allow a child to vend from the side of a busy and dangerous intersection was more indicative of a lack of judgment and common sense.

Every city I've ever lived allowed people to set up garage sales, at their own homes, with no permit whatsoever, provided the location was one that was not likely to impede traffic or cause other safety concerns.

If the same homeowner wanted to move their garage sale to a downtown sidewalk or a busy four-lane or six-lane intersection, then they would have needed a permit or, depending on where they wanted to set up shop, they might have been outright denied.

Where in the above did I make it about you? This was your ranting response to my comments above:

bobman1235 wrote: »

Dude, it's a little kid selling Country Time. Get a grip. It's paranoid loonies like you that are the reason for this nonsense. You're not going to get poisoned by some 10-year olds selling lemonade.

COmmon sense? The fact that yo u're comparing a junky selling crack to a kid selling dollar lemonade is more proof your'e completely out of touch with what is going on.

Again, kiddies selling lemonade != anarchy and blood raining down in the streets. Yes there should be "laws" against unlicensed vendors. And then there should be human beings enforcing those laws who have the presence of mind, unlike someone like you, to tell the difference between crack and lemonade. These officers should have said "kids, go do this at home on your "quiet residential street", not here." End of story. Instead they brought the issue to committee, and the committee said "no dice, not without a license."

FOr the record, I disagree vehemently with those idiotic laws as well, but they're completely besides the point. If a cop ever tried to cite me for something as stupid as jaywalking (provided I didn't cause a car to skid to a stop or crash into a telephone pole to avoid me), I promise you I would get arrested for tearing the ticket up and throwing it in his face.

---

bobman1235 wrote: »

I don't see anything illogical or irrational about my position, even if you don't personally agree with it or the way I have expressed it.

My position on this topic is contrary to that of the original poster's and several other commenters. Yet, they seem to be able to articulate their opinion in a respectful manner without resorting to name calling and personal attacks. Before you make these half-assed attempts at bending the truth and playing the victim, you should go back and review what was writtern by yourself and others.

No one else that I have personally responded to, and who had an opinion contrary to mine, took my statements as a personal attack. There is nothing in my initial response to you that should have preciptated an imaginative rant.

If you cannot tolerate someone expressing a contrary opinion without, in your words "expressing anger", then you might want to consider not interacting with people. Whether you are right or wrong, someone, somewhere will always disagree.

bobman1235 wrote: »

Taken literally you are correct, and unless I wanted my **** kicked and to be charged with a felony I would obviously not literally throw anything in an officer's face, I was just trying to make a point that I would not accept such a ticket tacitly.

Ohhhhh...I see. Thanks for the clarification. You posted a link to YOUR rant about jaywalking and then followed it up with a promise to throw a jaywalking citation back in the issuing officer's face, so I assumed you were serious. I'll try to be more adept at reading your mind in the future.

bobman1235 wrote: »

Your insistence on taking everything I say literally I think coincides nicely with your insistence on taking all laws literally and to the letter. I'm not saying this as an attack, but this is about your opinion and I am talking about your opinion.

I understand full well that law enforcement officers, judges, etc. have some latitude in how they apply and enforce laws. If an officer catches a citizen speeding he can write a citation or issue a warning. He can also "knock down" the amount a citizen was speeding so that a lower fine will be assessed.

bobman1235 wrote: »

THe parts in bold are the parts I disagree with. Not surprisingly, your quote from the newspaper had no mention of these lines.

Stop grasping at the wind. You imply that I was trying to hide something. My first post in this thread (post #10) started off with a link to the complete news article:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

From the Fresno Bee newspaper:

Why would I do this if I were attemping to omit things?

I also did not mention these statements from the newpaper article"

"Tulare officials said they cannot recall ever shutting down a lemonade stand before this week."

and

However, the city needs to enforce vendor laws, [Vice Mayor] Vandegrift said, "otherwise we'll have people on every corner."

"But Vandegrift doesn't want to take away lemonade stands from children. For many, it represents their first opportunity to flex their entrepreneurial muscles.

"I had many a lemonade stand as a kid right in front of my home," he said."


I'm sure many of Tulare's children, including Vice Mayor Vandegrift, sold lemonade at various places in the city without intervention from the authorities. However, it appears that if a citizen wants to set up in certain locations, a permit is required. How harsh. The nerve of those people!

DarqueKnight

cfrizz wrote: »

DK, thank you for the extra effort in providing pics of the area.

You're welcome.

This is just Sunday afternoon fun. If it wasn't this it would be some other mischief.:)

cfrizz wrote: »

The girls parents need to have their heads examined for setting up shop there.

C'mon now. That's a bit harsh.:) Sometimes financial pressure makes otherwise rational people do crazy things. Disneyland is not a cheap vacation by any means. A family of four could easily be looking at a minimum $2000 inclusive of day passes, food, lodging, and transportation.

NJPOLKER

That intersection does not look to be dangerous. All intersections can be dangerous when you have people driving automobiles. If the stand was set-up right on the edge of the road then I would see some concern. As for the politics, oh my how sad is that. I think the police and public would have been best served giving tickets to the dopes who go speeding through that intersection making it unsafe for anyone at anytime doing just about anything. I live on a cul-de-sac/dead end street and my daughter and her friend sell lemonade sometimes. I could only imagine what would happen if the police came around saying they could not do that or need a license. They would be laughed out of our community of 3,500 people/voters. I am sure if the politicians here in New Jersey thought they could make a dollar taxing the little kids selling lemonade they would in a heart beat.
The way things are going in this country may be the reason topics like this gets passionate.

cfrizz

I know it's expensive DK. But seeing that intersection just is terrifying. There isn't even a sidewalk to slow a car down if it went out of control. Even whoever is in that trailer in the background has a little leeway to try to get the hell out of Dodge is something goes wrong. Have someone coming down that road drunk could be a disaster. And I just bet late at night if no one is around everyone goes blowing through a red light.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

C'mon now. That's a bit harsh.:) Sometimes financial pressure makes otherwise rational people do crazy things. Disneyland is not a cheap vacation by any means. A family of four could easily be looking at a minimum $2000 inclusive of day passes, food, lodging, and transportation.

bobman1235

Having now seen the pictures, I find this whole thread even more ridiculous. I"ve seen more dangerous intersections on Sesame Street.

Quick, see if you can find a snippet of that sentence where I insulted you, DK, I'm sure it's in there if you look hard enough!

DarqueKnight

bobman1235 wrote: »

Having now seen the pictures, I find this whole thread even more ridiculous. I"ve seen more dangerous intersections on Sesame Street.

Never having watched Sesame Street and not having traffic load, speed limit, general driver behavior and accident data for Cartmill Avenue and Hillman Street and their intersection, I will am not able to make an informed comparison. I'll give the city of Tulare the benefit of the doubt for now.

bobman1235 wrote: »

Quick, see if you can find a snippet of that sentence where I insulted you, DK, I'm sure it's in there if you look hard enough!

I know you get a huge thrill out of any type of attention paid to you, but I will politely decline your invitation to rehash this as all your posts are readily available for anyone who is interested. You have been spanked enough for one day.

Ricardo

F1nut

bobman1235 wrote: »

Having now seen the pictures, I find this whole thread even more ridiculous.

Agreed!!!

hearingimpared

I don't see what all the hub-bub is about that intersection.

TNRabbit

Look, it said very clearly the guy told them it wasn't safe and HELPED THEM MOVE TO A SAFER LOCATION!

I think that was pretty d@mned nice of the enforcement officer. The fact the city picked up on it and banned them because she didn't have a license was NOT cool, however.

exalted512

F1nut wrote: »

Agreed!!!

+1. Reading this entire thread, I'm picturing this is a busy intersection, sidewalks, businesses all around, cars backed up a couple blocks.

This is a stop light in the middle of no where. ESPECIALLY if they were off by the trailer thats pictured...it even has a little drive where they can pull off the road.

I can kind of see if traffic was getting stopped ON THE STREET...but even then...this isn't a busy intersection.

"Seeing that intersection is terrifying?" Seriously?

"There isn't even a sidewalk to slow a car down if it went out of control." Since when does a sidewalk slow down a car?

I'm still curious as to where exactly they had the lemonade stand...but for a cop to say its not safe, go home...when at most he could have said go next to the trailer thats parked there...you've got to be kidding me.
-Cody

concealer404

This thread is awesome.

shack

The whole license thing is just plain stupid. Typical bureaucracy at work. :rolleyes:

Until I saw the photos of the intersection, I was inclined to give the police the benefit of the doubt about the dangerous location and protecting the child. If those inages are indeed the intersection in question, then they overreacted as well IMO. That is a perfect location for something like that. It is a rural intersection with plenty of space for cars to pull off the road to make a purchase. Easy ingress and egress with lines of sight to re-enter the road. We have many roadside vendors in our area selling fruit and vegetables that would love to have an intersection like that to work from.

I'm sure the area the police envisioned as safe would be one free from any traffic...and of course free from any lemonade sales.

Face

exalted512 wrote: »

"Seeing that intersection is terrifying?" Seriously?

That had the be the funniest line in the thread.

everpress

concealer404 wrote: »

This thread is awesome.

+1

I'm going to say that a busy, backed-up intersection would have to be safer, for those that aren't disturbed by the pics.
At a backed up intersection, cars are moving slowly. Also, this little girl had to be close enough to hand over lemonade. Where could she stand that would be close enough to do that and be on the corner where her 'stand' was? How visible do you think she really was? Not her stand, mind you, but a little girl.

The permit issue is, in fact, retarded. But allowing your child to be that close to a road where each and every one of you would try to beat that yellow light if it looked clear? Please.

DarqueKnight

exalted512 wrote: »

+1. Reading this entire thread, I'm picturing this is a busy intersection, sidewalks, businesses all around, cars backed up a couple blocks.

This is a stop light in the middle of no where. ESPECIALLY if they were off by the trailer thats pictured...it even has a little drive where they can pull off the road.

I can kind of see if traffic was getting stopped ON THE STREET...but even then...this isn't a busy intersection.

Let's see if we can reason through this.

These pictures came from Google Earth. Google Earth takes pictures at times when geographic features are as free from obscuration as possible. This means taking photos in the winter when the air is clearer and there is less tree foliage and it means taking photos of highways and streets when there is minimum pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

Danielle and her stepmother could have located the lemonade stand in front of their home or somewhere in their neighborhood. However, they chose this particular intersection. That tells me that they had some reasonable expectation of high traffic and high sales potential.

I don't know what the speed limit is for rural type roads is in Tulare, CA. Where I live, the speed limit for similar type roads is between 55 and 65 mph. The speed limit on the two lane road leading to my subdivision is 55 mph. Most of the time it is a quiet rural road. However, during morning and evening rush hours, there is some drama. That is why, whenever I am house shopping, I make it a point to visit an area during peak traffic times.

At the northeast corner of the intersection (Danielle was at the northwest corner) there appears to be a mobile vending business with a dirt road branching off to it. If this intersection was as isolated, remote and devoid of traffic as the pictures are (mis)leading some to believe, I do not think the owner of that business would have located there. I certainly don't think Danielle's stepmother would have chosen a fund raising location if it were actually "in the middle of nowhere".;)

exalted512 wrote: »

+"There isn't even a sidewalk to slow a car down if it went out of control." Since when does a sidewalk slow down a car?

Sidewalks don't slow down cars, but usually, where there are sidewalks there are raised curbs. Curbs can slow down and in some cases repel a vehicle. There appears to be low height curbing at the four corners of the intersection and none elsewhere.

exalted512 wrote: »

I'm still curious as to where exactly they had the lemonade stand...but for a cop to say its not safe, go home...when at most he could have said go next to the trailer thats parked there...you've got to be kidding me.

The date of the aerial photo is 2004. The street level photos do not have a date. Google Earth updates photos whenever there are significant changes to an area, so I am reasonably certain that, even if the street level photos are a few years old, the physical characteristics of the intersection are the same as shown in the pictures.

Looking at the photos, there are only three corners suitable for cars pulling over: The northwest corner where Danielle was located, the northeast corner where the mobile vending stand is located and the southeast corner where all the signs are located.

The northeast corner (containing the mobile vending stand) is probably private property and therefore the officer could not relocate someone there. The southeast corner (with all the signs) has one very large two-sided sign that says "For Sale", so I am reasonably certain that it is private property. The southwest corner is some type of orchard and I am reasonably certain that it is private property as well.

Let's assume that the vending trailer was there across from Danielle's location and that the trailer was on public property and that the trailer owner had a business permit to sell food and beverage at that location. The officer comes along and moves Danielle right next to the trailer. She is now undercutting the vendor's beverage business. I can envision the business owner filing some type of inquiry or complaint with the city or even asking Danielle to move.

I am inclined to think that a vending trailer or was there at the time Danielle was shut down, otherwise, that location, with it's dirt road branch-off, would have been a much better location traffic-wise. The southeast corner (with all the signs) has loads of parking and pull-over space, but that is private property and perhaps the owner is not interested in people setting up shop there...unless they buy it.

Safety Issues

If the speed through this intersection is in the 45-65 mph range, and if there is heavy traffic volume at certain times of the day, I can see where some safety issues would arise from a sizable amount of cars trying to re-enter traffic in an uncontrolled manner from the northwest corner.

The 2004 aerial photograph shows the orchard trees well away from the intersection corner. However, the street level photograph of the southwest corner shows the trees almost to the street. This constitutes a "BLIND" corner where eastbound motorists on Cartmill Avenue cannot see northbound motorists on Hillman Street and vice versa. It should not be too difficult to imagine the grief that could ensue from a motorist trying to "beat the light" through this intersection while another unseen motorist is coming through, but I will give you an example:

Refer to the aerial photograph. Let's say a motorist is eastbound on Cartmill and the light is turning yellow and said motorist decides to "gun it" and beat the light. There is a fool coming northbound on Hillman who is busy texting while driving and just doesn't see the red light or, he's not texting, but he does not see any other traffic around so he just decides to run through the red light. Neither motorist sees the other because of the trees blocking their view. The northbound car rams into the eastbound car and knocks it where? Right into the northwest corner where sweet little Danielle and her stepmother are selling lemonade.

Most cities that I have lived kept accident statistics for roads, streets and intersections. If the city of Tulare says the intersection of Cartmill Avenue and Hillman Street is a dangerous location, it is not difficult to believe that they might have some data and statistics to back that up. I can certainly see where that blind corner might cause problems.

bobman1235

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The date of the aerial photo is 2004. The street level photos do not have a date. Google Earth updates photos whenever there are significant changes to an area, so I am reasonably certain that, even if the street level photos are a few years old, the physical characteristics of the intersection are the same as shown in the pictures.

The street-level photos come from Google StreetView, which has only been around since mid-2007 and has only done more rural areas even more recently, so they're at most less than two years old.

shack

DK - You really are beating a dead horse here. You are continuing to try to prove your point of view. I think anyone who has read your posts knows where you are coming from. There are some intelligent, thoughtful people on this forum who happen to disagree. For every supposition/assumption you make, another can make an equally valid opposite one. I happen to have the opinion that this was blown out of proportion by the officials, as do others. You and several others don’t. Different strokes....whatever. Many of us will just have to disagree. What else is new?

everpress

shack wrote: »

Many of us will just have to disagree. What else is new?

I disagree with you disagreeing.

DarqueKnight

shack wrote: »

DK - You really are beating a dead horse here. You are continuing to try to prove your point of view.

Thanks for your concern.

I am not beating a dead horse. I am participating in a public discussion that interests me and I am explaining my point of view. I thought this was my right to do so. Am I mistaken?

Anyone who finds my discourse on the matter boring, repetitive or otherwise useless is free to ignore. Just as (hope) I am free to continue to engage in an activity that other, more "enlightend" individuals might find wasteful. I'm sure you engage in some leisure activities that others might find wasteful or questionable, but are otherwise enjoyable to you.

Ricardo

shack

DarqueKnight wrote:

Thanks for your concern.

I am not beating a dead horse. I am participating in a public discussion that interests me and I am explaining my point of view. I thought this was my right to do so. Am I mistaken?

Anyone who finds my discourse on the matter boring, repetitive or otherwise useless is free to ignore. Just as (hope) I am free to continue to engage in an activity that other, more "enlightend" individuals might find wasteful. I'm sure you engage in some leisure activities that others might find wasteful or questionable, but are otherwise enjoyable to you.

It is certainly your right...but to me it was coming across like you are "schooling" us as to the facts...or that others interpretation of the facts are somehow faulty. Maybe you don't mean to...maybe it is just your style. Either way it was JMO as to the direction of the discourse...as is my right to convey. Please continue...for me this one has run its course and I'm out.

DarqueKnight

I was just sharing what I had learned. In retrospect, I probably should not have expended the effort.

Face

Some of us appreciated it.

cfrizz

Totally agree. Thanks.

Face wrote: »

Some of us appreciated it.

george daniel

Wow,,just wow,, so,, is she going to Disneyworld/land whatever?

wizzy

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I was just sharing what I had learned. In retrospect, I probably should not have expended the effort.

I enjoyed your insights and investigation ...