Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Re: Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Postby onestop67 » Jan 2nd, 2016, 6:47 pm

twobits wrote:So, for the airport section of Hwy 97, that would be the PIB. And also why I said that the op perhaps contact them given they are creating more traffic there through the development of Skaha Hills, and all the tourists using native lands for all of the campgrounds including the new Barefoot Beach. I do not think there is anything wrong with me suggesting that if the PIB is going to create a commercial and residential hub in that area, that maybe they should be the ones to provide the illumination for their taxpayers and tourist patrons.


This is what is wrong.

Twobits said "So, for the airport section of Hwy 97, that would be the PIB."

And you just added about 50 things to the above response post that were not in the original post. I guess try anything to attempt to not have to admit you are wrong. Nice try.

The section for HWY 97 from Channel to Airport turnoff is NOT PIB regulated. It is Provincial. You are wrong.

Your other post...

"As to the stretch of Hwy from the Skaha intersection to the airport, you would have to lobby the PIB to see if they are interested in taking on that cost of installation as well as the ongoing power bill. It is after all their jurisdiction since it is reserve land the Hwy ROW passes through, not the City of Penticton lands. Perhaps the new residents of Skaha Hills can join you in that lobby to provide lighting from the taxes they pay the PIB?"

Again, 100% wrong. Provincial jurisdiction.

Don't care about the reference to Skaha Hills, Barefoot Beach or any other campgrounds on PIB land. The topic was about lighting on a provincial highway. You were wrong about THAT and you are trying to deflect the fact that you are wrong about the main issue, by going off topic. Kind of sad that you have to do that.

Topic = Traffic Safety - More Lights
User avatar
onestop67
Guru
 
Posts: 9523
Likes: 17 posts
Liked in: 344 posts
Joined: Sep 10th, 2006, 11:12 pm

Re: Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Postby JagXKR » Jan 2nd, 2016, 7:44 pm

The PIB or Provincial government won't have any say, it will be Transport Canada. They will say no. Lamp standards that close to the threshold of a runway. No way. There are defined rules for how tall man made structures can be on approaches or departure paths.
Why use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice.
User avatar
JagXKR
Übergod
 
Posts: 1829
Likes: 3 posts
Liked in: 1754 posts
Joined: Jun 19th, 2011, 6:25 am
Location: Penticton

Re: Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Postby onestop67 » Jan 2nd, 2016, 7:58 pm

JagXKR wrote:The PIB or Provincial government won't have any say, it will be Transport Canada. They will say no. Lamp standards that close to the threshold of a runway. No way. There are defined rules for how tall man made structures can be on approaches or departure paths.


Okay. The proximity to the airport may or may not bring in that Federal jurisdiction. I doubt the height would be relevant. And then it would only be if the airport/pilots complained about the brightness of some street lights added to the Parkway. It is still up to the Province. Now if the Feds got involved and said it undermined aviation safety at the airport, I would assume the Province would go with the Feds recommendations.

If if's or buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. - Sheldon Cooper
User avatar
onestop67
Guru
 
Posts: 9523
Likes: 17 posts
Liked in: 344 posts
Joined: Sep 10th, 2006, 11:12 pm

Re: Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Postby twobits » Jan 2nd, 2016, 8:40 pm

onestop67 wrote:
This is what is wrong.

Twobits said "So, for the airport section of Hwy 97, that would be the PIB."

And you just added about 50 things to the above response post that were not in the original post. I guess try anything to attempt to not have to admit you are wrong. Nice try.

The section for HWY 97 from Channel to Airport turnoff is NOT PIB regulated. It is Provincial. You are wrong.



Go back and read what I posted. I KNOW that that sec of HWY 97 is not PIB regulated. Never said it was. It is Hwy ROW that is outside of Treaty agreements. It is your lack of reading comprehension that is the problem. The Hwy ROW goes through PIB lands. The Hwy Ministry is responsible for it. They light it according to their criteria. IF SOMEONE WANTS MORE LIGHTS THAN WHAT THE MINISTRY PROVIDES IN THE AREA, the jurisdiction through which the ROW passes through should have to pay for them. In other words, if the PIB wants more lighting than what is provided by the Hwy Ministry, they should pay for it, put the lights on their lands next to the Hwy ROW or get permission to locate them at their expense on the Hwy ROW.
I do not know how I can make that point any clearer to you other than to say if the City of Penticton had a street light in front of your neighbors house but not in front of yours, the only way you would get one in front of your house if you wanted one would be to pay for it yourself and put it on your property or get permission from the city to place it on the road ROW at your cost, maintenance and ongoing expense of operation.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
twobits
Guru
 
Posts: 7223
Likes: 1092 posts
Liked in: 3855 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am
Location: GPS says Dead Elbow Utah. Think I'm lost

Re: Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Postby onestop67 » Jan 2nd, 2016, 11:29 pm

You...

As to the stretch of Hwy from the Skaha intersection to the airport, you would have to lobby the PIB to see if they are interested in taking on that cost of installation as well as the ongoing power bill. It is after all their jurisdiction

No need to type slower. I understand that is meant as sarcasm, to yet deflect the fact that you were wrong.

Almost everything you just posted in defense of your ignorance, is what I posted. You are now plagiarising. You did not post ANY of that, until you were called out on it.

If you have some need to "win" an argument on here, I find you even more pathetic than before.

twobits, if you care to keep acting like you are the "messiah" of the south okanagan threads, get ready to be rebuked, refuted and simply called out as the asshat that you are.

I haven't been around for a few months. I've been sick. (don't care about any sympathy) But my surgery is next weekend , and after that, I will have full time to be back on here to bury you.
User avatar
onestop67
Guru
 
Posts: 9523
Likes: 17 posts
Liked in: 344 posts
Joined: Sep 10th, 2006, 11:12 pm

Re: Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Postby twobits » Jan 3rd, 2016, 7:03 pm

onestop67 wrote:You...

As to the stretch of Hwy from the Skaha intersection to the airport, you would have to lobby the PIB to see if they are interested in taking on that cost of installation as well as the ongoing power bill. It is after all their jurisdiction

No need to type slower. I understand that is meant as sarcasm, to yet deflect the fact that you were wrong.

Almost everything you just posted in defense of your ignorance, is what I posted. You are now plagiarising. You did not post ANY of that, until you were called out on it.

If you have some need to "win" an argument on here, I find you even more pathetic than before.

twobits, if you care to keep acting like you are the "messiah" of the south okanagan threads, get ready to be rebuked, refuted and simply called out as the asshat that you are.

I haven't been around for a few months. I've been sick. (don't care about any sympathy) But my surgery is next weekend , and after that, I will have full time to be back on here to bury you.


Good luck with your surgery. When you have recovered and are feeling better I hope you will come back and re read the previous posts and realize that I was only pointing out that the jurisdiction through which the Hwy Right of Way trespasses is the jurisdiction that would and should be responsible to pay for additional lighting beyond that which is provided by the Ministry of Transport. I fail to understand what you do not understand about that?
I welcome your your rebukes and refutes despite your threats to bury me and call me an asshat. Apparently the mods here think that threats akin to my death and portraying me as something of an anal sphincter are appropriate.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
twobits
Guru
 
Posts: 7223
Likes: 1092 posts
Liked in: 3855 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am
Location: GPS says Dead Elbow Utah. Think I'm lost

Re: Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Postby twobits » Jan 3rd, 2016, 8:10 pm

http://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/ ... Skaha-Lake

This would be a justifiable request for the MOT to provide signage that the Channel Parkway ends and a left or right hand turn will be required in 500 meters.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.

Bunnyhop likes this post.
twobits
Guru
 
Posts: 7223
Likes: 1092 posts
Liked in: 3855 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am
Location: GPS says Dead Elbow Utah. Think I'm lost

Re: Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Postby Bunnyhop » Jan 3rd, 2016, 8:18 pm

twobits wrote:http://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/155386/Close-call-at-Skaha-Lake

This would be a justifiable request for the MOT to provide signage that the Channel Parkway ends and a left or right hand turn will be required in 500 meters.


I agree that T intersection could be made safer.
Bunnyhop
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 767
Likes: 1297 posts
Liked in: 562 posts
Joined: Dec 13th, 2009, 7:47 pm

Re: Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Postby fluffy » Jan 3rd, 2016, 10:04 pm

They seem to be somewhat enamored with nice, bright, flashing yellow LEDs lately, like the ones at the sharp curve along Vaseux Lake. That would be a good spot for some, you could spot them halfway up the parkway.
Okey dokey doggie daddy.
User avatar
fluffy
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 19424
Likes: 351 posts
Liked in: 4420 posts
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm
Location: Ogo

Re: Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Postby onestop67 » Jan 5th, 2016, 12:44 am

twobits wrote:As to the stretch of Hwy from the Skaha intersection to the airport, you would have to lobby the PIB to see if they are interested in taking on that cost of installation as well as the ongoing power bill. It is after all their jurisdiction since it is reserve land the Hwy ROW passes through, not the City of Penticton lands. Perhaps the new residents of Skaha Hills can join you in that lobby to provide lighting from the taxes they pay the PIB?


Wrong.

It is Provincial responsibility.

Treaties will provide for unrestricted access for public and commercial traffic on highways. Highways will remain provincial Crown land and are specifically excluded from treaty settlement lands.

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/11001 ... 0100022279[/quote]

K, twobits, lets start here.

You see your post, above?

You see that you say it is PIB responsibility because it is their land and ROW?

That's all I said, you're wrong.

PIB has no say for any ROW if it is a Provincial Highway.

You have gone off about NOT being wrong, but yes, you were wrong.

Get over it. Even geniuses like you are wrong, once in a while.
User avatar
onestop67
Guru
 
Posts: 9523
Likes: 17 posts
Liked in: 344 posts
Joined: Sep 10th, 2006, 11:12 pm

Re: Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Postby onestop67 » Jan 5th, 2016, 1:14 am

twobits wrote:I welcome your your rebukes and refutes despite your threats to bury me and call me an asshat. Apparently the mods here think that threats akin to my death and portraying me as something of an anal sphincter are appropriate.


I'm sure the "mods" realize that when I call you an "asshat", that does not mean any specific threat to your death...or even to your sphincter. As far as burying you, that is only meant in an intellectual way.

My post saying I am sick, and will be away for a while, is exactly for that. Once I feel better, I will come back to this forum and spend all my time and efforts, to make you look like the fool you are.

If you can't admit that you are wrong, once, then I know how I need to treat you in the future!!!
User avatar
onestop67
Guru
 
Posts: 9523
Likes: 17 posts
Liked in: 344 posts
Joined: Sep 10th, 2006, 11:12 pm

Re: Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Postby twobits » Jan 6th, 2016, 8:17 pm

onestop67 wrote:

You see that you say it is PIB responsibility because it is their land and ROW?


I did not say it was their ROW. I just said the ROW goes thru their lands.


onestop67 wrote:
PIB has no say for any ROW if it is a Provincial Highway.


That is correct. I also said the same. It is your reading comprehension that is lacking.
Let me break this done as simply as possible for you. If someone wanted more lighting on this stretch of Hwy Row that crosses PIB lands, they would have to ask the PIB to lobby the Ministry of Hwy's since the lands adjacent to this stretch of ROW are PIB lands. If the PIB agrees additional lighting would be beneficial, there are three possibilities for that to happen.....two of which would require Ministry of Hwy's involvement. One. PIB lobby's the MOH to install, at the MOH's expense, the desired lighting. Two. If rejected by the first request and the PIB was still keen on additional lighting they could lobby the MOH and offer to pay for the install and operation of said additional lighting themselves but still have it placed within the Hwy ROW lands. Three. If the MOH rejected this and the PIB was really really interested in additional lighting, they could go ahead and install and operate all the lights they want to one inch outside of the designated HWY ROW and no one including the MOH could stop them.
onestop67 wrote:You have gone off about NOT being wrong, but yes, you were wrong.


Sorry, but I am not wrong. I think that where you are losing it is over "responsibility". It is the MOH's responsibility to provide lighting as per their standards that are consistent throughout the Province on Hwy ROW's. If they have provided lighting that is consistent with that standard on that stretch of Hwy, they have fulfilled their responsibility. If another party wishes to supersede the provided standard, it would be their responsibility to do so. If it was ROW going thru the City of Penticton....it would be Penticton's responsibility. If it is ROW going thru PIB lands.....it is the PIB's responsibility if they want lights in addition to what is already provided..
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
twobits
Guru
 
Posts: 7223
Likes: 1092 posts
Liked in: 3855 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am
Location: GPS says Dead Elbow Utah. Think I'm lost

Re: Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Postby onestop67 » Jan 11th, 2016, 11:56 pm

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Jan 12th, 2016, 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: off topic
User avatar
onestop67
Guru
 
Posts: 9523
Likes: 17 posts
Liked in: 344 posts
Joined: Sep 10th, 2006, 11:12 pm

Re: Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Postby wanderingchef » Jan 13th, 2016, 1:48 am

I just don't get this thread...... We now have useless lights stopping traffic at the south end of the channel (I actually had to stop at a red there for NO TRAFFIC) AND now people want MORE lights to inform them that the road is ending????? How about this.... PAY ATTENTION!!!! You have to be asleep at the wheel or completely not paying attention to the road to not realize the road ends there...... We could use some pedestrian/cyclist ROW along the strip from the channel to Barefoot though for sure.
wanderingchef
Fledgling
 
Posts: 118
Likes: 8 posts
Liked in: 31 posts
Joined: Mar 5th, 2011, 10:08 pm

Re: Traffic Safety - More Lights?

Postby twobits » Jan 13th, 2016, 7:10 pm

wanderingchef wrote: We could use some pedestrian/cyclist ROW along the strip from the channel to Barefoot though for sure.


Perhaps when the PIB installs more lighting for that section of road they will pony up for a sidewalk too. Maybe they could pay for it with their new Casino funding since we won't be building any sidewalks with it over here.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
twobits
Guru
 
Posts: 7223
Likes: 1092 posts
Liked in: 3855 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am
Location: GPS says Dead Elbow Utah. Think I'm lost

Previous

Return to South Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests