Hoover vs. The Freddy On Freeway Paint
The Mad River Union reports on the freeway paint bombs being dropped on the Eureka Slough bridge and other places around the county. Caltrans seems to think this is both an environmental and safety hazard. Mad River Union's, Kevin Hoover, agrees. I don't.
I wasn't really trying to start an argument, but Kevin didn't take kindly to my downplaying their concerns. I don't see the paint as much more than a harmless prank and concerns about the paint covering up the center line of the road are highly overblown. Kevin stands with CalTrans. So have at it we did, although it seems to me the "discussion" is starting to go around in circles at this point.
You can read the comments yourself, but to reiterate mine: The paint doesn't seem to be building up, and certainly not obscuring the center line. Their own pictures show that. Even if it did cover the center line, people aren't going to run off the road because the center line is obscured. Some roads don't even have center lines.
The paint causing environmental problems by leaching into the river isn't any more likely than when CalTrans paints the bridge. You can be sure CalTrans spills paint every now and then. And all paint erodes over time, at least some eventually finding it's way to our waterways.
To hear Kevin and CalTrans tell it, that paint "vandalism" is a threat to our very lives. I don't think so.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:47 AM
25 comments
25 Comments:
If Kevin Hoover says it then i pick other stance. Hooevr is a joke. Fortunatly we wont have to hear much from him much longer unless that is someone gives him the vessel to do so. Ive heard mad river union is on it last leg. Just like the EYE Hoover has run it into the ground is my guess. But hey maybe he can get a job with cal trans painting over the paint.Maybe he can do like when he staked out house in arcata and filmed the meters and told everyone which house to home invade by showing there electric usuage and endangering there faily's. Maybe he can live on the bridge and film cars going buy till he catches the mad painter
At some point, Fred, you should attempt logical argumentation rather than arguments from personal incredulity/ignorance.
Really, try making a case sometime that isn't about your failure to comprehend the issue. Just try it.
Our website is littered with your comments that start with "I don't understand," and "I don't see."
As it happens, things can be factual even if they're among the many issues you say you don't understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
You're full of crap, Kevin. You've never made a decent case to get me convinced of something I "don't understand". Either this time or any of the others.
I don't understand why you're trying to make things up to worry about. You haven't convinced me- or anyone else I'm aware of- your concerns are valid.
I'm guessing you have that CNN mentality that we're supposed to just buy whatever you write hook line and sinker? I don't, but I was just suggesting your concerns are overblown. No big deal. Enough.
You're now running away from all the preposterous claims you made and never substantiated after starting out by saying you don't understand the basic issue.
You did finally manage to acknowledge that Caltrans is trying to address a problem before something bad happens.
It just takes some folks longer to get their minds around things, I understand. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but why make a bunch of foolish claims you later have to run from?
Kevin, Do you ever quit assuming what people may or should think (re: wrapping minds around a concept) and consider there's a fair number of folks that just don't care either way? The context of your posts have quite an air of arrogance in them. Here and elsewhere.
Just because people disagree with your opinions does not make them incorrect nor unable to grasp concepts. Perhaps they just don't give a shit about what they see as just another pissing match.
To that, should we expect to see you with a wire brush and some paint remover on the bridges anytime soon? From what gets posted by numerous others in various website threads about it, it doesn't appear that anyone is in a hurry to do anything about the paint splatters beyond CalTrans and yourself.
"... but why make a bunch of foolish claims you later have to run from?"
I'll have to admit I never realized how full of crap you are until now. I didn't acknowledge CalTrans was trying to address any problem, save one: covering their ass.
How does that work? They're worried that someone might be driving in wet conditions, slide out, blame it on the paint and sue CalTrans. Understandable, but still far fetched.
My claims are pretty much spot on and you've done nothing to contradict them, except say I don't know what I'm talking about.
At least one claim is evident from the very photos you posted: The center lines aren't obscured to any degree that might matter and never have been. Yet you're claiming 3 feet of paint over the center line is a threat to everyone. That is crap, whether you make that claim, or CalTrans does.
Let's see if you can substantiate just two of your claims:
I. Where has Caltrans splattered paint?
2. How does that eliminate harm from others also doing it?
Bonus question:
3. You claim that lane markers serve no function. What traffic study supports that?
Go, Fred, go!
Uh Fred, no paint goes into the river when CalTrans paints a bridge. There are strict regulations about that, even if lead paint isn't involved. The whole area is masked. You'd be hard-pressed to find a single drop of paint entering a waterway.
Er, by 'masked,' I don't mean taping down. The painters basically work inside a bubble to completely contain any paint that isn't going directly onto the bridge.
But it's not like CalTrans paints too many bridges to begin with.
If you're referring to the striping on roadways, that's even more wrong. There isn't excess paint going into waterways. If any paint enters the roadway from striping, it's from extreme wear on the roadway and is unavoidable, unlike the work of vandals. Also, it's entirely a different paint mixture.
Anonymous, give Fred a break.
No one serious would have stated as fact that Caltrans slopped paint into a creek without hard information to support it.
He's about to tell us where and when.
" If any paint enters the roadway from striping, it's from extreme wear on the roadway and is unavoidable, unlike the work of vandals."
Yep, unavoidable. It wears off and washes away just as the stuff people are bombing the road with. We don't have an environmental catastrophe because of it. There's no doubt in my mind, despite CalTrans' best efforts, that some paint ends up getting away while painting. Shit happens.
To suggest some dried paint on one small section of bridge is some environmental nightmare is beyond common sense.
". You claim that lane markers serve no function. What traffic study supports that?"
I personally prefer lane markers, but why do some roads not have them? Many don't, depending on where they are and what state you live in. I was out in Myrtletown today and didn't notice any lane markers on the streets I was on. Oh, MY GOD! An accident waiting to happen, huh?
I wrote here some time ago about a place in Belgium(?) that removed pretty much all traffic controls: lane markers as well as stop signs. Last report I read said accidents have gone down considerably. Probably because people pay more attention because they don't feel as safe.
Are you trying to tell me you can't stay on your proper lane when you're driving if there's no lane markers? If so, I really don't think you should be driving.
Never mind those lane markers on the bridges are still clearly visible. The pictures being shown prove it. I'm surprised you didn't do photoshop job to make it look bad. They're nearly all visible to me.
You repeatedly claim that Caltrans is spilling liquid paint:
"You can be sure CalTrans spills paint every now and then."
How can we be sure when you refuse to share your data? When and where did this spillage occur?
How do you know it's the same kind of paint?
How would that mean that more spillage wouldn't have impacts?
What traffic study proves that lane markings serve no function?
C'mon, quit dancing around all this and bring the facts, Fred. You don't want to be seen on your own blog as "full of crap" like me.
"bring the facts,..".
You haven't brought one fact to this whole discussion. My "facts" are simply based on common sense. Something you seem to have little of. Especially in view of your hysterical reaction to something few of us care all that much about.
You're beating a dead horse and have nothing more to offer as far as I can tell. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.
What we've established is that you can't substantiate any of your far-fetched claims. Not a single one.
It's all guesses and opinions you invented to support a set of nonsensical arguments.
Asked for basic data, you call people names, then scamper away.
The litany of evasions speaks for itself, and you've documented all this in detail on two websites for all to enjoy.
What we've established is that you can't substantiate any of your far-fetched claims. Not a single one.
It's all guesses and opinions you invented to support a set of nonsensical arguments.
Asked for basic data, you call people names, then scamper away.
The litany of evasions speaks for itself, and you've documented all this in detail on two websites for all to enjoy.
"What we've established is that you can't substantiate any of your far-fetched claims. Not a single one."
You can't either, and haven't. End of discussion.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Any more comments on this subject from you will be deleted, Kevin.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Derf Slegnam deletes all comments that don't support his goofball philosophies.
That's how much confidence he has in them.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Holy shit Fred, you are such a coward!
Post a Comment
<< Home