bliddel (Bruce Liddel)

Follow

Comment history

Lawrence airport undergoing safety study for skydiving

Mr Bundy: Do you know that many of us individual skydivers have submitted requests to skydive into the Lawrence airport?
Mr Liddel (Please note the spelling): No, I do not. How would I? For the third time, I’ve not been involved for many years. For some reason or reasons, the city keeps dropping my name from the aviation related e-mail distributions, so I’ve simply given up. I’m totally out of the loop. Totally.
Mr Bundy: Do you know that the FAA determined that sky diving can be safely conducted at the Lawrence Airport and there are many safe landing areas?
Mr Liddel: I’ve heard that rumor, yes.
Mr Bundy: Do you know that Lawrence ignored the requests of skydivers for years and to this day has never granted one?
Mr Liddel: Since I wasn’t aware of requests, I can hardly be expected to know of the city’s responses. If what you say is true, then I am definitely somewhat disappointed. But it is their airport, not mine, and not yours. I’m not clear on what you hope to achieve by belaboring the past.
Mr Bundy: Do you know that at other airports across the country it is simply a matter of asking permission and an hour or a day later you're permitted to jump?
Mr Liddel: I’ve never tried to jump anywhere, let alone elsewhere, so my answer to your specific question is no. However this inspires a simple question: if it’s so easy everywhere else, and Lawrence is as stubborn as you say, why not simply go anywhere else? KOWI? KTOP? KFOE? K64? K34?
Mr Bundy: Do you know that that the inaction and refusals of the Lawrence Airport legally constitutes discrimination against aeronautical activity which in and of itself jeopardizes funding of the Lawrence Airport, without regard to any requests to establish a business?
Mr Liddel: I’m not an attorney, nor am I a judge. I don’t work for government, and I don’t represent any group. I do know that “through the fence” operators are a thorny issue everywhere, and that Lawrence is grappling with that issue, just the same as any other airport. I don’t think this is nearly as simple as you would have us believe. Not everything is discrimination, even if you don’t get your way.

January 18, 2016 at 1:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence airport undergoing safety study for skydiving

Mr. Bundy: You incorrectly assume I have something against skydiving. I don't. In fact, I kind of like the idea, though there are some valid concerns. My airport involvement was way longer ago than a couple of years, so your unfounded accusations are as preposterous as they are obnoxious. Your ignorance of the purpose of airport minimum standards is also evident in your line of questioning. I've said or done nothing that needs defense. If the airport were to take a position that discriminated against skydiving, then airport funding would be in jeopardy. That is true. As far as I know, from what I read in the paper, even now, that's really not necessarily the case. I honestly do not remember the name of the individual who tried to bully the city into giving him control of the airport many years ago, but I do note a startling similarity between his tone with the city and your demonstrated propensity to attack me personally. I reiterate: I feel the city has a duty to protect the citizens from hostile bullies. I strongly suspect that if you have an interest in skydiving at LWC, and you were to take an attitude of respect and working constructively with the city, that you might get a lot farther than you have apparently gotten so far.

January 18, 2016 at 8:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence airport undergoing safety study for skydiving

I haven't been involved for several years, but I was "a factor" in seeing to it that skydiving was not ignored in establishing the original airport minimum standards. I believe those standards never became an issue because the one skydiving operator who was quite so vocal about coming to the Lawrence airport years ago was rather unnecessarily hostile and obnoxious. He seemed to think that what he said should govern, and that the government should salute him when he barked orders. Safety was also similarly never seriously discussed, because that particular operator's attitude clearly indicated he had no business bringing that kind (or indeed any kind) of business to our community. I tried to gently persuade him that he might catch more flies with honey than with nuclear weapons, but he didn't seem to be interested. I don't agree that the city has discriminated against any class of aeronautical activity, at least not while I was involved. In my humble opinion, the city has a legitimate right (if not a duty) to discriminate against hostile bullies. Those (bullies) are not a protected class.

January 17, 2016 at 9 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Safety concern

I'd like to know why Tina thinks that speed has something to do with this alleged malfeasance. She says "I have watched high school kids"..."drive their cars around the parking lot as if it were a grand prix race track".

Really? Has she ever been to a grand prix race? Formula one? I would submit that you will not ever see ANY jeeps competing in such a race.

She went on to write "I witnessed a Cherokee Jeep drive at full speed ". Really? And just how much is "full speed"? I would presume these vehicles are easily capable of 100+mph. I'm also thinking that it would take a Jeep about 16-25 seconds to reach that speed, in a straight line, by which time it would have traversed the order of a quarter of a mile or more. I could be wrong but I don't think Quail Run Elementary School's parking lot or schoolyard or playground is anywhere near that size. Is she willing to testify under oath to all of this? Does she now have a bit of a credibility problem?

I am not condoning adolescent drinking nor drug abuse nor property destruction nor risky behavior. Neither do I condone exaggerating and making false or irrelevant accusations. Tina should focus on her real concerns, and leave speed (which she is no doubt patently unqualified to estimate) out of her complaint.

July 2, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pair of traffic calming projects — including a blue light at traffic signals — set for city

The whole concept of traffic calming is hopelessly flawed. It's basis is the assumption that drivers are enraged because their governments are not tyrannical enough, and only ever-increasing governmental control will calm the enraged motorists. This absurdity is an outgrowth of the 70+ year-old mantra of "speed kills", even though that notion is also patently false. Traffic calming increases road rage, decreases respect for absurd governmental controls, and increases the costs of road and vehicle maintenance.

A comprehensive study commissioned by the ITE and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on traffic calming projects in the United States concludes:

"Traffic calming in the U.S. is largely restricted to low volume residential streets. Collisions occur infrequently on such streets to begin with, and any systematic change in collision rates tends to get lost in the random variation from year to year. This limits our confidence in drawing inferences about safety impacts of traffic calming."

For more information: http://www.motorists.org/traffic-calm...

July 2, 2013 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pair of traffic calming projects — including a blue light at traffic signals — set for city

Actually, KSA Article 15, 8-1508,Traffic-control signal legend, is unconstitutionally vague on that subject. It actually says "(b) Steady yellow indication. (1) Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic shall not enter the intersection." According to the National Motorists Association, most states allow you to legally enter the intersection on a yellow, since not allowing such would be tantamount to not having a yellow, and would cause many many collisions. Imagine if every driver who ever saw a yellow light while still in motion would slam on their anti-lock brakes? Utter chaos. The Lawrence city government would love it, right up until everyone either moved out of town or lost their licenses.

July 2, 2013 at 3:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Behind the Lens: ‘Chimping’ a photography faux pas

Tell me, Nick, does "chimping" make a distinction between those who refer to the LCD for gratification, versus those of us being paid to perform a service verifying whether or not our most recent shot meets the business objectives, before dismissing said subject back to his or her seat?

I shoot graduation exercises. I get each and every graduate with the person handing out diplomas or certificates or whatever.

It's a waste of everyone's time and resources to take multiple backup shots, just as it is a waste of time to not take another shot when any of a myriad of things may have gone wrong.

Fashion faux pas or not, I'm going to check my LCD display, not for gratification, but for being competent. If it's not OK, I take another shot while the subject is still there.

April 29, 2013 at 3:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

City set to finalize curbside recycling program to begin October 2014; monthly rate $2.81

Fascism run amuck. Mala Prohibita. Oh, exhalted City Commissioners, please protect the masses from private entrepreneurs who would dare to pickup our recyclable items at our curb. Never mind that the city said twelve years ago that our landfill would last 150 years, and that curbisde recycling would cost $50 a month. When private industry came in, first at $20 a month, then at $5 a month, the commissioner squawked "How dare they make liars out of us?", and so this is their response: Put those evil businesses out of business! Eliminate choice! Control the subjects! One size must be made to fit all, no matter the consequences!

Seig Heil!, I mean, hail victory! Big government at its worst, right here in River City.

March 22, 2013 at 2:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Disarming

Like firearms, automobiles are inanimate objects. Some people exercise a total lack of good judgment with their motor vehicles and, unfortunately, some people are killed – indeed, some are even murdered.

Should we now adopt waiting periods, background checks, insanely higher fuel taxes, automobile-free zones, bans on automobiles with more than four cylinders, bans ion high-capacity fuel tanks, bans on wider doors that permit faster loading of passengers, bans on red motor vehicles, bans on busses with high-capacity seating, bans on semi-automatic transmissions, bans on batwings, bans on fuel injection, etc. because some people do not always exercise good judgment with their inanimate objects (motor vehicles)?

Should we ban ownership of motor vehicles altogether because such is not constitutionally protected? If not, why not?

If you say that we should not ban motor vehicles because it is the irresponsible use of motor vehicles that is the problem, and not the mere possession of motor vehicles, then you simply need to apply the same rational thinking to firearms.

December 31, 2012 at 4:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

loading...