Good Sensible NJ Driving Law Repealed

A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision allowing
vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed through stop
intersection without stopping twice.

From * w w w .nj.gov/governor/news/news/2008/approved/20080407a.html

NJ had this law on the books since Christopher Columbus sailed down
Rt22, no problems with it, made sense, saved gas, time, cut pollution,
now this lame brain Governor we have, steered by idiot legislators,
REPEALS this law effective June 8th, 2008.

Basically the law says if you are in a line of vehicles and already
stopped once in a line, when the first vehicle starts, you can all go
through at once.

No one ever had a problem with it, so why now in this time of
astronomical gas and energy costs do we find this repealed?

This stinks, badly.

GK

Around 4/21/2008 9:38 PM, GK wrote:

> A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision allowing
> vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed through stop
> intersection without stopping twice.
> <snip>

> Basically the law says if you are in a line of vehicles and already
> stopped once in a line, when the first vehicle starts, you can all go
> through at once.

If that's true, it sounds like a really dumb law that deserved to be
repealed... What possible application could it have, except in cases
where you'd likely want to stop again anyway to make sure it's clear?

There are few things worse than a oblivious conga line, especially when
you have the right of way and they're not yielding.




--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
--H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Garth Almgren wrote:
> Around 4/21/2008 9:38 PM, GK wrote:
>
>> A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision allowing
>> vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed through stop
>> intersection without stopping twice.
>> <snip>
>
>> Basically the law says if you are in a line of vehicles and already
>> stopped once in a line, when the first vehicle starts, you can all go
>> through at once.
>
> If that's true, it sounds like a really dumb law that deserved to be
> repealed... What possible application could it have, except in cases
> where you'd likely want to stop again anyway to make sure it's clear?
>
> There are few things worse than a oblivious conga line, especially when
> you have the right of way and they're not yielding.
>

Well for starters, no one ever had a problem with it, it made sense,
saved time and gas, and it was one of the good things about NJ.

Before, if you where sitting at a stop sign, you could get through in a
reasonable time. Now it's gonna be a lot worse.

GK

Around 4/21/2008 10:16 PM, GK wrote:

> Garth Almgren wrote:
>> Around 4/21/2008 9:38 PM, GK wrote:
>>
>>> A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision allowing
>>> vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed through stop
>>> intersection without stopping twice.
>>> <snip>
>>
>>> Basically the law says if you are in a line of vehicles and already
>>> stopped once in a line, when the first vehicle starts, you can all go
>>> through at once.
>>
>> If that's true, it sounds like a really dumb law that deserved to be
>> repealed... What possible application could it have, except in cases
>> where you'd likely want to stop again anyway to make sure it's clear?
>>
>> There are few things worse than a oblivious conga line, especially
>> when you have the right of way and they're not yielding.
>>
>
> Well for starters, no one ever had a problem with it, it made sense,
> saved time and gas, and it was one of the good things about NJ.
>
> Before, if you where sitting at a stop sign, you could get through in a
> reasonable time. Now it's gonna be a lot worse.

Well, I'm not clear what this law does, and as described it doesn't make
sense to me. Could you explain in more detail what this law does/did,
and maybe include an example?


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
--H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Garth Almgren wrote:
> Around 4/21/2008 10:16 PM, GK wrote:
>
>> Garth Almgren wrote:
>>> Around 4/21/2008 9:38 PM, GK wrote:
>>>
>>>> A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision
>>>> allowing vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed
>>>> through stop intersection without stopping twice.
>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Basically the law says if you are in a line of vehicles and already
>>>> stopped once in a line, when the first vehicle starts, you can all
>>>> go through at once.
>>>
>>> If that's true, it sounds like a really dumb law that deserved to be
>>> repealed... What possible application could it have, except in cases
>>> where you'd likely want to stop again anyway to make sure it's clear?
>>>
>>> There are few things worse than a oblivious conga line, especially
>>> when you have the right of way and they're not yielding.
>>>
>>
>> Well for starters, no one ever had a problem with it, it made sense,
>> saved time and gas, and it was one of the good things about NJ.
>>
>> Before, if you where sitting at a stop sign, you could get through in
>> a reasonable time. Now it's gonna be a lot worse.
>
> Well, I'm not clear what this law does, and as described it doesn't make
> sense to me. Could you explain in more detail what this law does/did,
> and maybe include an example?
>
>
Basically what the old law provided was that if you where stopped in a
continuous line of vehicles, and the first vehicle began through the
intersection, then as long as the line of vehicles kept moving
continuously, you could legally keep going through the intersection.
Furthermore it required traffic of the opposing movement to yield to a
continuous line of vehicles driving through the stop sign controlled
intersection.

Now in practical reality, 9 out of 10 times, a few cars at a time would
go through and you could not really count on many people knowing that
they had to stop if you had the stop sign, so drivers wouldn't "push"
the law to its limits, but it sure helped a lot to have that on the
books to clear long lines of stop sign congestion.

GK

GK wrote:
> Garth Almgren wrote:
>> Around 4/21/2008 10:16 PM, GK wrote:
>>> Garth Almgren wrote:
>>>> Around 4/21/2008 9:38 PM, GK wrote:
>>>>> A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision
>>>>> allowing vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed
>>>>> through stop intersection without stopping twice.
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Basically the law says if you are in a line of vehicles and already
>>>>> stopped once in a line, when the first vehicle starts, you can all
>>>>> go through at once.
>>>>
>>>> If that's true, it sounds like a really dumb law that deserved to be
>>>> repealed... What possible application could it have, except in cases
>>>> where you'd likely want to stop again anyway to make sure it's clear?
>>>>
>>>> There are few things worse than a oblivious conga line, especially
>>>> when you have the right of way and they're not yielding.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well for starters, no one ever had a problem with it, it made sense,
>>> saved time and gas, and it was one of the good things about NJ.
>>>
>>> Before, if you where sitting at a stop sign, you could get through in
>>> a reasonable time. Now it's gonna be a lot worse.
>>
>> Well, I'm not clear what this law does, and as described it doesn't
>> make sense to me. Could you explain in more detail what this law
>> does/did, and maybe include an example?
>>
>>
> Basically what the old law provided was that if you where stopped in a
> continuous line of vehicles, and the first vehicle began through the
> intersection, then as long as the line of vehicles kept moving
> continuously, you could legally keep going through the intersection.
> Furthermore it required traffic of the opposing movement to yield to a
> continuous line of vehicles driving through the stop sign controlled
> intersection.
>
Weird. I didn't know about this law. I drive through NJ quite
often, coming and going to NY, but then the interstates have no stops
signs. ;)
In any event, what you describe as example application is an
intersection that needs a traffic light. (That would be the case, I
believe, when you have many cars in more than one direction). What I
thought it was when I read your first message, and what would make sense
to me, would be to have the line of cars moving, as long as there were
no cars coming from the cross street. As soon as a car appeared at the
cross street, the rule would revert to the "first come" common law.
Come to think of it, it is a good thing I didn't encounter such an
intersection with a line of locals who were driving according to that
law. I would have certainly tried to break the line and been rightly
furious if they didn't yield. Yeah, that law is bad for out-of state
drivers and they were right to repeal it.
However, I think that the more sensible part - a line moving as
long as there is no cross traffic - should be adopted by all states.

In article <QYgPj.1612$Y81.682@trndny09>, GK wrote:

>Basically what the old law provided was that if you where stopped in a
>continuous line of vehicles, and the first vehicle began through the
>intersection, then as long as the line of vehicles kept moving
>continuously, you could legally keep going through the intersection.
>Furthermore it required traffic of the opposing movement to yield to a
>continuous line of vehicles driving through the stop sign controlled
>intersection.


The conga-line was legal in NJ? Now that is messed up. What you are
saying is that if someone was on a minor road could wait until the end
of rush hours if people driving on the main road just ignored the red
signal. Basically the driver on the minor road would have to treat a
green signal as a stop sign and red signal as a prohibition of movement.
He'd have to find a gap in traffic only on a green. That's screwed up
and could cause monumental congestion.

>but it sure helped a lot to have that on the
>books to clear long lines of stop sign congestion.

It would cause long lines of congestion for those drivers who were
denied their green signal.

Brent P wrote:
> In article <QYgPj.1612$Y81.682@trndny09>, GK wrote:
>
>> Basically what the old law provided was that if you where stopped in a
>> continuous line of vehicles, and the first vehicle began through the
>> intersection, then as long as the line of vehicles kept moving
>> continuously, you could legally keep going through the intersection.
>> Furthermore it required traffic of the opposing movement to yield to a
>> continuous line of vehicles driving through the stop sign controlled
>> intersection.
>
>
> The conga-line was legal in NJ? Now that is messed up. What you are
> saying is that if someone was on a minor road could wait until the end
> of rush hours if people driving on the main road just ignored the red
> signal. Basically the driver on the minor road would have to treat a
> green signal as a stop sign and red signal as a prohibition of movement.
> He'd have to find a gap in traffic only on a green. That's screwed up
> and could cause monumental congestion.
>
>> but it sure helped a lot to have that on the
>> books to clear long lines of stop sign congestion.
>
> It would cause long lines of congestion for those drivers who were
> denied their green signal.
>
In practicality, the drivers going through the stop sign would not push
there luck much thinking that the other line of traffic would yield for
them, even though they legally could.

It did not get to the point of congesting the flow of traffic on the
main road much, and it applied only at stop signs, not red/green signals.

AND STILL DOES until June 6, 2008.

GK

In article <wqmPj.4854$XY1.3069@trndny03>, GK wrote:
>Brent P wrote:
>> In article <QYgPj.1612$Y81.682@trndny09>, GK wrote:
>>
>>> Basically what the old law provided was that if you where stopped in a
>>> continuous line of vehicles, and the first vehicle began through the
>>> intersection, then as long as the line of vehicles kept moving
>>> continuously, you could legally keep going through the intersection.
>>> Furthermore it required traffic of the opposing movement to yield to a
>>> continuous line of vehicles driving through the stop sign controlled
>>> intersection.
>>
>>
>> The conga-line was legal in NJ? Now that is messed up. What you are
>> saying is that if someone was on a minor road could wait until the end
>> of rush hours if people driving on the main road just ignored the red
>> signal. Basically the driver on the minor road would have to treat a
>> green signal as a stop sign and red signal as a prohibition of movement.
>> He'd have to find a gap in traffic only on a green. That's screwed up
>> and could cause monumental congestion.
>>
>>> but it sure helped a lot to have that on the
>>> books to clear long lines of stop sign congestion.
>>
>> It would cause long lines of congestion for those drivers who were
>> denied their green signal.
>>
>In practicality, the drivers going through the stop sign would not push
>there luck much thinking that the other line of traffic would yield for
>them, even though they legally could.

That's like saying laws that violate our rights are ok because cops will
only use them as tools to arrest bad people.

>It did not get to the point of congesting the flow of traffic on the
>main road much, and it applied only at stop signs, not red/green signals.

>AND STILL DOES until June 6, 2008.

Only on stop signs.... guess that eliminates some of the idiotcy.

Garth Almgren <nospam@v6stang . com > wrote in
news:6758unF2mjjsfU1@mid.individual . net :

> Around 4/21/2008 9:38 PM, GK wrote:
>
>> A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision
>> allowing vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and
>> proceed through stop intersection without stopping twice.
>> <snip>
>
>> Basically the law says if you are in a line of vehicles and
>> already stopped once in a line, when the first vehicle starts,
>> you can all go through at once.
>
> If that's true, it sounds like a really dumb law that deserved
> to be repealed... What possible application could it have,
> except in cases where you'd likely want to stop again anyway to
> make sure it's clear?

The application is to keep traffic flow moving, obviously.

> There are few things worse than a oblivious conga line,
> especially when you have the right of way and they're not
> yielding.

But you DON'T have the right of way. That's the point. The conga
line has the right of way until the conga line no longer is a
line. Then the other conga line takes over.

On Apr 21, 10:38 pm, GK <ontheair...@atverizondot . net > wrote:
> A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision allowing
> vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed through stop
> intersection without stopping twice.
>
> From * w w w .nj.gov/governor/news/news/2008/approved/20080407a.html
>
> NJ had this law on the books since Christopher Columbus sailed down
> Rt22, no problems with it, made sense, saved gas, time, cut pollution,
> now this lame brain Governor we have, steered by idiot legislators,
> REPEALS this law effective June 8th, 2008.
>
> Basically the law says if you are in a line of vehicles and already
> stopped once in a line, when the first vehicle starts, you can all go
> through at once.
>
> No one ever had a problem with it, so why now in this time of
> astronomical gas and energy costs do we find this repealed?
>
> This stinks, badly.
>
> GK

Are you serious? You want to legalize stop sign running?? Get help
please.

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> On Apr 21, 10:38 pm, GK <ontheair...@atverizondot . net > wrote:
>> A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision allowing
>> vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed through stop
>> intersection without stopping twice.
>>
>> From * w w w .nj.gov/governor/news/news/2008/approved/20080407a.html
>>
>> NJ had this law on the books since Christopher Columbus sailed down
>> Rt22, no problems with it, made sense, saved gas, time, cut pollution,
>> now this lame brain Governor we have, steered by idiot legislators,
>> REPEALS this law effective June 8th, 2008.
>>
>> Basically the law says if you are in a line of vehicles and already
>> stopped once in a line, when the first vehicle starts, you can all go
>> through at once.
>>
>> No one ever had a problem with it, so why now in this time of
>> astronomical gas and energy costs do we find this repealed?
>>
>> This stinks, badly.
>>
>> GK
>
> Are you serious? You want to legalize stop sign running?? Get help
> please.
Its not stop sign running, and the old law, which was on the books since
the beginning of cars and roads in NJ greatly improved the quality of
life here.

But then I should know better than to argue sense with you.

GK

GK <ontheair247@atverizondot . net > wrote in news:QSgPj.1443$wO1.90@trndny04:

> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:

>>>
>>> GK
>>
>> Are you serious? You want to legalize stop sign running?? Get help
>> please.

> Its not stop sign running, and the old law, which was on the books since
> the beginning of cars and roads in NJ greatly improved the quality of
> life here.
>

Of course it's stop sign running, you idiot. What do you call it?

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo . com >
wrote in news:Xns9A886B7CDBF84riemann1850yahoocom@216.168.3.70:

> GK <ontheair247@atverizondot . net > wrote in
> news:QSgPj.1443$wO1.90@trndny04:
>
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> GK
>>>
>>> Are you serious? You want to legalize stop sign running?? Get
>>> help please.
>
>> Its not stop sign running, and the old law, which was on the
>> books since the beginning of cars and roads in NJ greatly
>> improved the quality of life here.
>>
>
> Of course it's stop sign running, you idiot. What do you call
> it?

Following the law. Clearly, the stop sign laws have an exclusion
for continuous traffic flow. Look, I realize it's confusing to
you. I mean, anything more than just "red=stop" is beyond your
comprehension. I get it. Just don't fuck it up for the rest of
us.

On Apr 22, 12:41 pm, Larrybud <larrybud2...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> Clearly, the stop sign laws have an exclusion
> for continuous traffic flow.

"A-1291/S-1086 (Stender/Madden, Van Drew) - Repeals provision allowing
vehicles, under certain conditions, to enter and proceed through stop
intersection without stopping twice."
* w w w .nj.gov/governor/news/news/2008/approved/20080407a.html

Clearly not. "Under certain conditions" may mean... anything.

Remaining ignorant of what it "really" means and forming an opinion,
while common practice here, does not demonstrate even an average
intellect.

You're accepting the OP's interpretation, who may or may not also be
an idiot of your caliber, about an 8 gauge, unless I miss my guess.
-----

- gpsman