(09-27-2021 02:44 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(09-27-2021 02:24 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-27-2021 01:32 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(09-27-2021 08:57 AM)indianasniff Wrote:  

(09-26-2021 01:57 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  That's simply no defense. They are the experts. Just because a customer is willing to pay for it, doesn't mean an unsafe or poor design get's done. It's the designer's and contractor's job to say, "it can't be done safely"

. The word “safe” is a word that people measure in different ways.

No, again NO. Using "people" as a measure here a diversion from responsibility. It's a strawman. "Safe" is measured by a standard, at least it's supposed to be.

Are you able to justify the original design met the industry and contract's definition of "safe?" Do I need to requote your response on the problems with it as implemented? Because it certainly was not safe, publicall reported and confirmed by you.


I'll be even more bluntly honest. One Engineer to another, what I'm hearing from you three is a bit unnerving, particularly the other two participants. It's something I expect more from a tunnel-sighted management side of the house than the engineering side. Got any o-rings you want to sell?

As for the lots. Public opinion should be expected. No amount of boundaries or borders will comfort those that see their decades' long patterns of commute disrupted. Were the community's thoughts on the proposal ellicited? Was the idea of right in-right out sold to the community BEFORE the decision to put it on paper? If so, there should be no problem up-coming.

A GOOD designer is prepared to get in front of opinion, publically explain the reasons for the changes and how navigating to and from work will not be negatively affected. People used to one way of doing things generally only see "change." They do not easily see "positive change" without a little help. Allowing their input is important when making decisions such as this, not just for optics sake but to maximize all ergonomic considerations have been made. Disrespecting their input is a sign someone needs a new job. Not referring to you here.

I believe sniff did mention that the interchange and intersection were both designed to minimums, which I took as meaning they met all minimum design code for safety for the scope of work...now, there would most definitely be a discussion as to if those codes should be changed now given the results. My assumption could be wrong there, but that's what I got out of it.

I appreciate and respect your comments and opinions on here and other places across the ether, always have and always will...still not sure the opposite is true though. As someone who regularly sits through the public comments sections in many meetings both for personal and professional obligations, I also respect the public. For what it's worth, I actually appreciate the o-ring comment way more than most...the Challenger disaster is one of my primary cases in ethics conversations. More generally speaking, the gist of my comments is that you can design safety to the extent that individuals use the product or design as intended, and if the product or design is unsafe, you take that information and make a better one the next time (iterative design process, which I mentioned in my response to you above). There's a reason why litigation goes out the window for anyone who cuts their arm off with a miter saw if they remove the guard after all.

I think we likely generally agree far more than you care to assume based on your interactions with me on this specific message board, but were we to share a drink in person you'd see your descriptions of me at least are well off base. Regardless, I think we've both said our peace, directly or indirectly, and we should simply move on to more more germane topics (my own fault for continuing the side track.

Don't presume civility will get you off the hot-seat......

I want my Lot 2 hot-wheels track to Douglass interchange. Safely done according to current state-of-the-art specs of course.

Do I get to design the loopty loop around Douglas/Westwood? Would love to run those torsion/tension numbers

Seriously, still discussing two / now dirt spreads on campus...
Go Rockets, steamroll UMASS - like a dirt spread should be discussed...

(09-27-2021 03:25 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  Seriously, still discussing two / now dirt spreads on campus...
Go Rockets, steamroll UMASS - like a dirt spread should be discussed...

lol why did we schedule em 4 times...i dont mind 1 FCS game a year, but that PLUS UMass... overkill.

(09-27-2021 04:03 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(09-27-2021 03:25 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  Seriously, still discussing two / now dirt spreads on campus...
Go Rockets, steamroll UMASS - like a dirt spread should be discussed...

lol why did we schedule em 4 times...i dont mind 1 FCS game a year, but that PLUS UMass... overkill.

The 4-year deal with UMass has to be the worst scheduling addition in all my years of following Toledo football.

(09-27-2021 01:11 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(09-27-2021 08:24 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  and watching eastisbest debate transportation engineering experts.....LOL

grow up.

There has been no debate from me with "transportation experts" or otherwise. Care to quote them? And there would be nothing wrong with it if it did occur. Not all "transportation" experts are created equal and we've all had Engineering design and programming. You?

You seem to be of the mind the tax-payer owes blind obedience. Again, exactly the opposite of what a public servant should be, let alone calling those served "stupid," "willfully negligent,..."

As always, you show us why the university remains stillted. A little humility goes a long way. The people served deserve respect and it's even dumber when that disrespect comes from someone that has doxed himself. When you represent the University, you are responsible for your words.

Classic " you can dish it but you can't take it"..... and you have no idea of how I interact with the public or act as a public servant, and certainly is within my rights to be critical of anyone I see fit - just like you do -regardless of my job. And I have every right as individual to state any view or opinion including of others on any public forum where I am not officially representing the University. This has nothing to do with blind obedience of a tax player (of which I am also one) but pointing out the flaws and lack of experience and expertise reflected by one's comments on an issue for which they have no sound expertise or knowledge, except to simply inject themselves into a debate or intentionally create one fully intending to seek attention.

Personally I have devoted over two decades of dedicated public service to UT and the local community in ways and means you have no understanding of, and yes when I see a flawed opinion I have every right and means to counter it. Stand up and take it, just like you enjoy delivering it to others with insults and questioning their professional expertise on matters you have no background in.