Page 1 of 2
Posted on February 3 at 6:45 p.m.
Isn't it possible to stop safely for a pedestrian in less than 200 feet when going 30 mph? My understanding is that the stopping distance formulas include assumptions about driver reaction times which are actually an upper bound for something like 85% of the population, and that this upper bound includes data from all kinds of drivers who span multiple age groups, and possibly also multiple levels of alertness (?). Does the CVC actually specify a certain distance at which you must start braking? It would be frustrating if you stopped in time, in a perfectly safe and reasonable manner, but still got a ticket. Of course, it should go without saying that those who are driving past the pedestrians without any care to their safety should absolutely be given tickets.
On Police Cite 60 Drivers During Crosswalk Stings
Posted on May 24 at 6:15 p.m.
Man, I wish I could have seen the Central Valley before the mid 19th century! I can't even imagine how amazing it must have been just after the rainy season. Like the Okavango delta maybe? Wish some large chunk of it had been saved for posterity as part of the park system. I'm glad there's the Carrizo plain at least. It is amazing there.
On Ode to Carrizo Plain
Posted on June 2 at 1:54 p.m.
PS - something makes me think that the legal definition of a party has got to be a little more complicated than "a gathering of five people." At least, I really hope that's the case.
On Hosts on the Hook
Posted on June 2 at 1:50 p.m.
Wow. I had no idea that every time I come home to my four housemates, I'm effectively throwing a party. I guess that makes me decidedly less boring than I thought.
Will this law be equitably enforced across all of Santa Barbara county, and not just in IV? What about parents who give their teenage son/daughter a beer or glass of wine at dinner (something that is not uncommon)? If there are five people at the dinner table, are they then supplying alcohol to a minor at a 'party?'
Posted on January 1 at 4:02 p.m.
I think it's pretty obvious from reading the comments (and re-reading the article) that this information WAS included in the article, although it was much more difficult for readers to pick up on the author's conclusions regarding this evidence than the author expected. I really doubt this was intentional. This kind of thing happens all the time in data-based writing, especially when it is geared towards a general audience. Sometimes what is obvious to someone who has studied a topic for months is not obvious to others who have not been as heavily involved. Perhaps the author should write an addendum to clarify his points regarding this evidence?
Also, I did not find any of the material discussed in this article to be "obscure" or "at times, gratuitous." There are, of course, some items that carry more weight than others, but on the whole I thought the article did not deviate from its purpose. By using the words "slogging," "obscure," and "gratuitous" you seem to imply that most of the information in these articles was not useful or relevant. If this is really what you meant, I would encourage you to read a few books about wrongful conviction cases. While the majority of people who end up in court probably deserve to be there, our legal system is not perfect, and so details, which you unfairly describe as "obscure" here, can be crucially important -- even if at first they may seem minor or incidental. And please keep in mind that the human body is composed of trillions of cells, that they are constantly coming off of us in our daily lives, and that modern DNA assays are incredibly sensitive. So three non-vaginal cells or some DNA on one's genitalia is not necessarily a smoking gun.
Anyway, I hope Eric gets a new trial. His case reads like an almost textbook case of wrongful conviction to me. It's sad that our DA's office relied so heavily on such a subjective technique as "bite mark analysis" and got away with it. One would think they'd like to operate by present day standards, and not by the forensic standards of the 1980's.
On Frimpong Case: Eric on Trial
Posted on November 23 at 5:25 p.m.
I think you have it exactly backwards! Iris Devoilee was an amazing piece, while my impression of the Rachmaninoff concerto was that is was a bit rushed and much less emotive than I would have liked. Ms. Wang and the symphony still gave a great performance that they should be proud of, but I've been moved to a much greater degree by other performances of that concerto before. Anyway, it was a great concert, and I can't wait to go to the next one of the season.
On Shanghai Symphony Orchestra at the Granada
Posted on September 4 at 3:24 a.m.
What can happen at 60 feet that can't already happen at 40? Anyone taken the time to run through a few GIS models to compare the two?
On Vote No on Measure B
Posted on September 1 at 9:11 p.m.
Don't knock the spandex 'til you've tried it!
On Be the Bike
Posted on August 22 at 10:11 p.m.
Are you kidding me? That's a great state park. There are a lot of really interesting ecological things going on there. Geez.
Posted on May 25 at 11:33 a.m.
Not enough kid-friendly activities? I've never lived in or been to any town this size that had more kid-friendly, wholesome activities than Santa Barbara.
On Group Pushes for Goleta Ice Skating Rink