Big brother strikes again!

[FreeRideFrosty]

No Rocco... none at all. LoL You could probably give him olive green and baby poop brown and it would turn into a decent shell though...


And who would run a pink shell??? One word... TOMMY. LoL

[FreeRideFrosty]

Dude honestly if it wasn't straight pink and had a bunch of black or something else mixed in I would possibly even run one. LoL

[Czech-it-Out Graphics]

No Rocco... none at all. LoL You could probably give him olive green and baby poop brown and it would turn into a decent shell though...

hmm sounds like good colors for camo!

I did an Adam Drake look alike body that was black with pink flames looked bad ass

[FreeRideFrosty]

I am actually thinking about it. Plus it would give rocco some easy material to harass me for for a while...

[rocco79]

Cmon dan ... You make sound like a mean guy

[FreeRideFrosty]

Nope. I enjoy the entertainment. That whole Dent Tek corner was a frickin riot. I think a neon pink and black body could be pretty badass though if done right...

[DAVEC-NITRO-RS4]

ya but who would run a pink body lol!

Team PeptoBismol.

[FreeRideFrosty]

That is a gross pink. LoL

[DAVEC-NITRO-RS4]

Rocco, nice Stewie avatar!

Change me, dog!

[rocco79]

Thanks!!! I saw it and quicky stole it for whatever site it was on! LOL!!!

[DAVEC-NITRO-RS4]

when we post right after each other the evil monkey is pointing at Stewie!!!!

[FreeRideFrosty]

Lmao!!!

[rocco79]

.... and stewie is pointing back!

[DAVEC-NITRO-RS4]

get rid of that Revo avatar...you don't even own one any more.....Dan.

[DAVEC-NITRO-RS4]

.... and stewie is pointing back!

at YOU!

[Czech-it-Out Graphics]

AHH stewie is pointing at me!!!

[FreeRideFrosty]

I need one with the LSP but I need a less homo-ish body first. LoL

[DAVEC-NITRO-RS4]

Lower your chair.....Mike.....get back to painting...oops gotta go 24 is on.

[rocco79]

Dan go get a family guy one

[FreeRideFrosty]

Ok... I found some cool animated ones but I guess we can't use those now... so... which one:

[rocco79]

That one of brian is Ghey.


Go wit peter

[FreeRideFrosty]

People are going to be confused. LoL I have had that other avatar for ever...

[SixVi6-Camaro]

Back to the topic.. Here is an article originally printed in Car and driver Nov 2005..

As printed on Car & Driver website
QUOTE
Give 'em a brake? What they want are your bucks.
BY PATRICK BEDARD
November 2005


Don't leave home without it" is one of those ad slogans that forever rattle around in the cerebral echo chamber, having been slammed in by cubic dollars' worth of media airtime. The words mean just about nothing. Don't leave home without what? Your underpants? Your snub-nosed .38? But we know they mean your American Express card because relentless advertising bombardment has welded the two nouns together in our minds.

This sort of hammer welding is extremely durable. I don't remember much about my mother's TV favorite, The Jack Benny Show, except for L.S./M.F.T.—"Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco."

But the hammer isn't necessary when the words are right. "Give 'em a brake." Of course! Don't hit road workers. Slow down in construction zones.

"Give 'em a brake" stuck with me the first time. It's clever. It's tight on the message. And maybe it has something else going for it. Are we the sort of unfeeling savages who would cut down humans in orange vests in exchange for shorter commutes?

No way!

Now there's another slogan with the same target. "Slow down or pay up." It's delivered by a looming trooper with a ticket book. I think I'll be able to remember that one, too.

At least one state has created an exceptionally effective reminder for work-zone speeds. In Illinois, the ticket for first-offense speeding in a construction zone comes with a $375 fine, the second offense is $1000 and a license suspension. In July, the state also began using photo radar in work zones.

Dare we ask how many construction workers they are killing in the Prairie State?

After a century of peaceful co-existence between road builders and road users, something has apparently changed. Suddenly, we're confronted by a killer epidemic seemingly more deadly than West Nile virus. The plight of construction workers is constantly held up before us, by roadway signs, by public-service announcements, by print ads. It even grabbed its own awareness week, April 3-9, this year—"National Work Zone Awareness Week"—complete with a high-pressure spray of statistics: work-zone fatalities rose "nearly 50 percent" nationally between 1997 and 2003 with 1028 deaths in that most recent year; one work-zone fatality occurs every 8.5 hours, three a day.

These are macabre numbers. They make it sound like Americans are motorized maniacs with no regard for the workers who make our highways possible.

This, to me, is a shocking notion. And I'll tell you what's even more shocking—it's not true. These numbers are for all traffic-related fatalities in work zones, including drivers, passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and others who were in the traffic stream. Workers, too, of course.

How many workers? Numerous studies over the years confirm that construction zones are dangerous, but they point to other killers. One study by the Centers for Disease Control counted 492 fatalities over the years 1992 to 1998: 306 of them were struck by vehicles—154 by construction vehicles and 152 by traffic vehicles.

Another study by the Center to Protect Workers' Rights, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data for 1999, said that of 530 vehicle-related deaths of workers that year, 170 involved traffic vehicles and 360 were divided between workers in construction vehicles and workers on foot struck by heavy equipment or trucks.

For a list of gruesome ways to die, just read down the list of reports from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Laborer dies after being run over by asphalt roller; truck driver dies after his vehicle rolled over an embankment and came to rest on its top; asphalt-compactor operator dies from crushing injuries during machine rollover; 17-year-old laborer dies after being run over by a water truck; laborer dies after falling underneath the wheel of a front-end loader; crane operator falls 30 feet from a freeway overpass.

Now back to Illinois, the land of the $1000 speeding fines. It reports 39 work-zone fatalities last year; only two of them were workers. Moreover, two is the state's annual average over the past nine years, the only years covered in the latest report.

Obviously, "Give 'em a brake" in Illinois is cover for a program aimed at something else. What could it be? Consider this clue: The law states that workers needn't be present for a violation to occur.

Actual construction isn't necessary to trigger the violation, either. How many times have you driven past mile after mile of construction signs on a road otherwise undisturbed, lacking even the loose dust of past repairs? The public would surely object if the highway department simply put up signs that said, "Feeling lucky? Fines are double today." So it puts up construction signs instead and pretends to be saving defenseless workers from uncaring motorists.

Illinois is not alone in levying construction-zone penalties when no workers are present; 25 other states do so as well, and 18 of them double the fine or have some other way of upping the take.

There is, of course, the argument that 1028 people were killed in work zones in 2003, proving that these are dangerous places where motorists should slow down.

Maybe. But statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration don't support that argument. Work-zone fatalities were only 2.4 percent of all traffic deaths in 2003. More than three times as many people were killed in crashes with shrubbery and trees. More than twice as many died in crashes with poles and posts. More were killed by crashes into guardrails.

Then why are we suddenly hearing so much about speeds in construction zones? Consider this from the state of Georgia: "Funding for this [work-zone awareness] campaign is being provided through a federal safety-awareness grant. The campaign includes statewide radio, television, and billboard ads to remind drivers to slow down in work zones." Every one of these campaigns is funded either entirely or partly by the Federal Highway Administration. The American Road & Transportation Builders Association admits planting "a provision" in the highway bill for funding of speed enforcement on federally aided projects.

Let's return to Illinois—and its $1000 speeding fines—where two workers were killed by traffic vehicles last year. Nine workers, more than four times as many, were killed by construction mishaps in work zones, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

When you clear away the slogans, "Give 'em a brake" is not about worker safety. It's about government agencies spending money and raising more.
END QUOTE

Let me say this right up front, right now. I am NOT trying to debate whether fines are right or wrong. If they should be higher or lower. What I am interested in pointing out and what I am interesting in hearing from others is their thoughts in regards to this information in light of the government saying they need more construction worker safety from "us" the driving public. I found Mr. Bedards' article interesting to say the least. His information is from well known and established sources.

Not sure why the Center for Disease control would be worried about construction zone fatalities from accidents. However their info states from 92-96, 492 deaths. Of that 306 were struck by vehicles, 154 by construction vehicles while 152 by traffic vehicles. More workers were killed by the equipment they work with then citizens driving the road.

The Center to Protect Workers Rights did a study based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 1999. That study states 530 vehicle deaths, 170 from traffic vehicles while a much larger 360 was between workers in construction vehicles and on foot.

When they give their "death" stats that for everyone killed in work zones from the workers their selves to someone on a bicycle. Last year only TWO workers were killed and for the last NINE years IL has averaged ONLY two workers a year. Based Bureau of Labor data which is not just for the state of IL in my preceeding paragraph of 170 deaths from traffic vehicles in 99 IL is below average. Take that 170 divided by 50 states and that is a 3.4 per state. So IL is below the average death rate for workers and likely well below some states that may have several more then the average number. Nine workers, 4 times as many, were killed by construction mishaps by the Bureaus' own data.

IL along with 25 other states enforce these laws even with no workers present to be in danger. And 18 of these states either double fine or have some way of increasing the take for a situtation where there is no worker danger.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration reports that only 2.4% of traffic deaths are work zone fatalities. That more then 3 times that amount are killed in accidents with shrubbery and trees. It also states that more people die in accidents with guardrails then in work zones while more then twice as much die in wrecks with poles and posts.

In Georgia, The American Road & Transportation Builders Assocation admits to planting 'a provision" in a highway bill for speed enforcement on federally aided projects.

If the government is going to worry about safety on the road, it would appear they should be going after those killer trees and shrubbbery. Or those post, poles and guardrails. Seriously though, it would appear that the real danger, based on information from well known sources, to construction workers is their own vehicles, equipment and themselves, not the driving the public. Maybe the government should take some "serious" steps to go after the constructions workers themselves if they truly want them to stay alive and go home to their families.

[FreeRideFrosty]

+1 on that!!!

[BJoe]

Good post John!