4 ms·

Humans are apes. It happens right here in Silicon Valley too. Atherton has nice little yellow signs that say 'No Through Traffic'. Why? They don't want the poo

Humans are apes. It happens right here in Silicon Valley too. Atherton has nice little yellow signs that say 'No Through Traffic'. Why? They don't want the poor people from Redwood City coming through. In fact, one Atherton gentleman went to a RWC City Council meeting complaining about it and asking RWC to put up signs on their side too. The folks at RWC apparently told him to go stuff himself, that those little yellow signs were potentially illegal and if Atherton kept pressing, they would disallow traffic from Atherton through RWC. This was about two years ago. The rich are different from you and me - they take because they can and because they can then get away with it. [This is not to say that all rich are evil, nor all poor virtuous. Just that as money accumulates, so does power, and this when left unchecked by self-imposed moral constraints leads down this path.]

trhtrsh 14y ago
Or maybe they just don't want people using residential streets as highways? Do you know what "through traffic" means? If those poor people try to stop their cars in Atherton, they aren't "through traffic".
- not_that_noob 14y ago
  Those are public streets in Atherton, that they want to treat as if it was their private property. If it was all private they can do what they like. The roads belong to the public - including the folks from RWC.
  - ahomescu1 14y ago
    Define "public". Public to Atherton residents? Public to Californians? Public to Americans? If it's built and maintained from local Atherton taxes, they should get a say in who uses it.
    - consz 14y ago
      I agree with you, RWC should disallow Atherton residents from driving on their streets -- possibly enforced through randomly pulling over cars (richer cars will probably yield better results) and ticketing anyone with an Atherton address.
    - dalke 14y ago
      Sure, they have a say. That's why the Atherton home page has this text: > The Town of Atherton desires, insofar as possible, to preserve its character as a scenic, rural, thickly-wooded, residential area, with abundant open space with streets designed primarily as scenic routes rather than for speed of travel. Notice the "as possible?". Cities only exist because the states gave them a charter. Cities must work within state law. The relevant state law is the California Vehicle Code. You requested: Define "public". Public here means anyone. "Public to Atherton residents" is not public. Palo Alto has its own openspace area which is only open to Palo Alto residents but not to the public. "Public" even includes a visitor from another country who has never paid a penny in US taxes. Any other interpretation is incompatible with current legal use. The CA VC says that local officials can close or divert traffic on a road, but only for certain circumstances. (Regulation of Highways, §21101 if you want to read it yourself.): Local authorities, for those highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution on the following matters: Reading the CA code, there are public roads and private roads. A private road may be open for public, in which case the CA Vehicle Code still applies. If a private road is truly a private road and outside of the CA Vehicle Code, then the city of Atherton will need to make a lot of work to prove that, and a lot more work to develop its own regulations for how to manage those roads. So it's safe to assume that all of the streets under discussion are "public streets" covered under the CA Vehicle Code. The VC takes a dim view of restricting access to streets. There's only a few ways for local officials to designate something as "not a through street." The most likely is if "The street has an unsafe volume of traffic and a significant incidence of crime." and "The local authority makes a finding that closure of the street likely would result in a reduced rate of crime." That doesn't seem to be the case here. By "dim view" I give as an example §21101.6.: Notwithstanding Section 21101, local authorities may not place gates or other selective devices on any street which deny or restrict the access of certain members of the public to the street, while permitting others unrestricted access to the street. I think that helps show that "public" means "public to everyone", and not limited to certain members. This "dim view" is even more so for arterial streets, which is now almost the only want to get through Atherton from Redwood City. Earlier you wrote: "maybe they just don't want people using residential streets as highways?" There can be a lot of things that they may not want. They may not want any streets at all. However, they have to work within the law. The law doesn't seem to allow a posting of "no through traffic." If the traffic is dangerous because of excessive speed, then they can set up police to enforce the speed limits, or they can get the roads evaluated to see if the speed limit is too high. However, that does not appear to be the case here. I think it's more useful to read what the law actually says than to try and guess what things might mean. For situations like this, the definitions have been worked out in far better details than I would ever have considered had I just stuck to debating about what "public" might mean.
javert 14y ago
Humans are not apes. Neither literally, nor figuratively. That's not only incorrect, but it's a vicious thing to say, and it has dangerous implications.
- not_that_noob 14y ago
  That was more figurative, and perhaps too much of a literary flourish. My point is that this behavior is endemic to our species, and not unlike that observed among chimps or other members of Hominoidea, as detailed in: http://evolvingthoughts.net/2012/03/are-humans-apes-monkeys-primates-or-hominims/ http://evolvingthoughts.net/2012/03/are-humans-apes-monkeys-... That is to say, the rich in all societies take and do what they like, modulated either by internal moral codes or external legal enforcement.
- lobotryas 14y ago
  Please expand on your line of thought. What are the "dangerous implications" of calling all humans "apes"?
- drdaeman 14y ago
  If "ape" is a synonym to "hominoid", humans are apes. Literally.
- Daniel_Newby 14y ago
  Since when are humans not apes?
- gnaritas 14y ago
  What on Earth are you talking about? There's nothing vicious or dangerous about that statement.
- vacri 14y ago
  I loathe pop sci interpretations of animal behaviour applied against human behaviour (which includes the context of the parent of your comment) but humans are apes. The 'Great Apes' are chimps, gorillas, orangs, and humans.

trhtrsh 14y ago

Or maybe they just don't want people using residential streets as highways? Do you know what "through traffic" means? If those poor people try to stop their cars in Atherton, they aren't "through traffic".

not_that_noob 14y ago
Those are public streets in Atherton, that they want to treat as if it was their private property. If it was all private they can do what they like. The roads belong to the public - including the folks from RWC.
- ahomescu1 14y ago
  Define "public". Public to Atherton residents? Public to Californians? Public to Americans? If it's built and maintained from local Atherton taxes, they should get a say in who uses it.
  - consz 14y ago
    I agree with you, RWC should disallow Atherton residents from driving on their streets -- possibly enforced through randomly pulling over cars (richer cars will probably yield better results) and ticketing anyone with an Atherton address.
  - dalke 14y ago
    Sure, they have a say. That's why the Atherton home page has this text: > The Town of Atherton desires, insofar as possible, to preserve its character as a scenic, rural, thickly-wooded, residential area, with abundant open space with streets designed primarily as scenic routes rather than for speed of travel. Notice the "as possible?". Cities only exist because the states gave them a charter. Cities must work within state law. The relevant state law is the California Vehicle Code. You requested: Define "public". Public here means anyone. "Public to Atherton residents" is not public. Palo Alto has its own openspace area which is only open to Palo Alto residents but not to the public. "Public" even includes a visitor from another country who has never paid a penny in US taxes. Any other interpretation is incompatible with current legal use. The CA VC says that local officials can close or divert traffic on a road, but only for certain circumstances. (Regulation of Highways, §21101 if you want to read it yourself.): Local authorities, for those highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution on the following matters: Reading the CA code, there are public roads and private roads. A private road may be open for public, in which case the CA Vehicle Code still applies. If a private road is truly a private road and outside of the CA Vehicle Code, then the city of Atherton will need to make a lot of work to prove that, and a lot more work to develop its own regulations for how to manage those roads. So it's safe to assume that all of the streets under discussion are "public streets" covered under the CA Vehicle Code. The VC takes a dim view of restricting access to streets. There's only a few ways for local officials to designate something as "not a through street." The most likely is if "The street has an unsafe volume of traffic and a significant incidence of crime." and "The local authority makes a finding that closure of the street likely would result in a reduced rate of crime." That doesn't seem to be the case here. By "dim view" I give as an example §21101.6.: Notwithstanding Section 21101, local authorities may not place gates or other selective devices on any street which deny or restrict the access of certain members of the public to the street, while permitting others unrestricted access to the street. I think that helps show that "public" means "public to everyone", and not limited to certain members. This "dim view" is even more so for arterial streets, which is now almost the only want to get through Atherton from Redwood City. Earlier you wrote: "maybe they just don't want people using residential streets as highways?" There can be a lot of things that they may not want. They may not want any streets at all. However, they have to work within the law. The law doesn't seem to allow a posting of "no through traffic." If the traffic is dangerous because of excessive speed, then they can set up police to enforce the speed limits, or they can get the roads evaluated to see if the speed limit is too high. However, that does not appear to be the case here. I think it's more useful to read what the law actually says than to try and guess what things might mean. For situations like this, the definitions have been worked out in far better details than I would ever have considered had I just stuck to debating about what "public" might mean.

javert 14y ago

Humans are not apes. Neither literally, nor figuratively. That's not only incorrect, but it's a vicious thing to say, and it has dangerous implications.

not_that_noob 14y ago
That was more figurative, and perhaps too much of a literary flourish. My point is that this behavior is endemic to our species, and not unlike that observed among chimps or other members of Hominoidea, as detailed in: http://evolvingthoughts.net/2012/03/are-humans-apes-monkeys-primates-or-hominims/ http://evolvingthoughts.net/2012/03/are-humans-apes-monkeys-... That is to say, the rich in all societies take and do what they like, modulated either by internal moral codes or external legal enforcement.
lobotryas 14y ago
Please expand on your line of thought. What are the "dangerous implications" of calling all humans "apes"?
drdaeman 14y ago
If "ape" is a synonym to "hominoid", humans are apes. Literally.
Daniel_Newby 14y ago
Since when are humans not apes?
gnaritas 14y ago
What on Earth are you talking about? There's nothing vicious or dangerous about that statement.
vacri 14y ago
I loathe pop sci interpretations of animal behaviour applied against human behaviour (which includes the context of the parent of your comment) but humans are apes. The 'Great Apes' are chimps, gorillas, orangs, and humans.