
![]() |

Said joggers and other pedestrians crossing against red lights with traffic coming
Related: I sure seem to see an awful lot of pedestrians (particularly downtown) who come up to a crosswalk while they have the "DON'T WALK" signal, start to cross, then finally look up and see the traffic that they're already two steps toward running into, and jump back in surprise. Facial expressions are usually either "dumbfounded" or "offended", sometimes both.
I occasionally see the same thing from motorists approaching a corner where they intend to do a right turn on a red light and then slam on their brakes when they realize that the cross-traffic is preventing them from doing a no-stop turn. At a red light.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Right turns on red lights.
They make no sense to me.
There are times and places where it's fine, it's just that some motorists seem to extrapolate that they're as entitled to proceed as at a green light no matter what the traffic situation. I've had times where I was in a right turn lane waiting for a break in traffic and had the person behind me (in some cases, unable to see anything but what's directly in front of them) repeatedly honk at me for being stopped.

captain yesterday |

In the Midwest all the bicyclists dress like Lance Armstrong ready to hump a French mountaintop and then they ride down the middle of the road in the country and otherwise act like a%*%$~~s.
I'm sure it varies by region, the stupid Ironman competitions they hold practically every 3 weeks during the summer only encourages the behaviour :-)

Freehold DM |

In the Midwest all the bicyclists dress like Lance Armstrong ready to hump a French mountaintop and then they ride down the middle of the road in the country and otherwise act like a@&+#~#s.
I'm sure it varies by region, the stupid Ironman competitions they hold practically every 3 weeks during the summer only encourages the behaviour :-)
always ride to the side of the road. Right is wisest, left if you have been doored recently.

Aniuś the Talewise |

Freehold DM wrote:Alternately: City planning that end up making unprotected lefts at major intersections a thing.Right turns on red lights.
They make no sense to me.
I was trapped at one of these, and I ended up crying, because there was no green arrow for left and too much oncoming traffic for me to turn left.
So i eventually just went straight.
EDIT: also, I was on a medication that made me really anxious when driving that I haven't taken in years.

Aniuś the Talewise |

Right turns on red lights.
They make no sense to me.
In our state, right turns on red are fine at a intersection without signs forbidding it.
You are supposed to look for oncoming traffic coming from the left, exactly how you would turn right at a two way stop sign. It works because the nature of the traffic on a red light is the same as at a two way stop sign anyway.
I am so used to the concept that states where turn right on red doesn't exist make no sense to me.

![]() |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Minimum speed limit: It's not dangerous to drive slow, just annoying.
No, it can be dangerous. Driving slow doesn't trip brake lights. When you're doing 70mph down the interstate and the guy ahead of you changes lanes, revealing someone you don't already know is only going 35mph, it's a very real possibility that you couldn't stop in time.

Kirth Gersen |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

On the highways here in Houston, it's especially bad because the slow drivers always seem to clog up the middle lanes. People in the left lanes are going at the speed limit or slightly above, so that anyone who wants to pass the slow traffic ends up passing them on the right, which is dangerous as hell because that's where all the people are trying to merge on and off of the highway. It's not a coincidence that we have one of the highest rates of vehicular accidents anywhere.

Pillbug Toenibbler |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Freehold DM wrote:Right turns on red lights.
They make no sense to me.
There are times and places where it's fine, it's just that some motorists seem to extrapolate that they're as entitled to proceed as at a green light no matter what the traffic situation. I've had times where I was in a right turn lane waiting for a break in traffic and had the person behind me (in some cases, unable to see anything but what's directly in front of them) repeatedly honk at me for being stopped.
Yeah, right turns on red seems to usually work fine down here too.
Minimum speed limit: It's not dangerous to drive slow, just annoying.
If someone is driving far enough below the speed limit and there is no way for anyone behind to (safely) pass, it is dangerous.
---
I don't have a problem with sharing the road with bicyclists, except for two things:
1) Bicyclists are still a tiny minority on the roads down here, so they don't seem to learn the pack behaviors that they would in bicyclist-heavy urban areas. So down here, they all do their own thing... which makes them wildly unpredictable.
2) Most motorists are not out to deliberately run over bicyclists, but I wish bicyclists would remember the laws of physics that apply to 3000+ lb. vehicles. A car just can't stop on a dime or nimbly swerve around a bicyclist (at least without veering across the line into oncoming traffic). Motorcyclists seem to understand this, but not most of the bicyclists on the roads down here. But, many motorists don't seem to understand the physics behind why they shouldn't cut off dumptrucks and 18-wheelers either.

Aniuś the Talewise |

Slow drivers are in fact dangerous on highways. If someone is going 30 mph on a 60mph highway, they as well just park in the middle of the lane.
The safest speed on a highway is the flow of traffic, which in our state may actually be 65-70 mph since the speed limit seems to be taken as more of a speed suggestion anyway.

Aniuś the Talewise |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Also, bicyclists are generally considered vehicles and they are supposed to follow the rules of the road. This also means that they can go into the center of the lane, and into the left lane if they need to turn. In fact, it is actually often safer for bicyclist to take the center of the lane sometimes, because there they are easy to see. Motorists are trained to look for other objects in the center of the lane where cars are, and not at the side, so if bicyclists are on the side, they become effectively invisible and that leads to a lot of accidents. Also doors swinging out from parked cars are a hazard. Debris on the side of the road are a hazard.
It would be nice if the average motorist would understand that sometimes, you need to go into the left lane to take a left turn.

![]() |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |

A few years ago, my car was stolen in November. In December its registration expired. In January it was recovered AND ticketed for expired registration.
I went to the city magistrate to explain that the registration expired because I did not have physical possession of the car and therefore could not submit it to a safety inspection nor an emissions inspection, both of which were required for registration renewal.
His response: "Everyone has an excuse."
When I asked to speak to a judge instead, I was told that I could schedule a court date only after I paid both the ticket and court fees (which were greater than the amount on the ticket), and if the judge sided with me, I would be refunded the amount of the ticket, but not the court fees.

Aniuś the Talewise |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |

A few years ago, my car was stolen in November. In December its registration expired. In January it was recovered AND ticketed for expired registration.
When I went to the city magistrate to explain that the registration expired because I did not have physical possession of the car and therefore could not submit it to a safety inspection nor an emissions inspection, both of which were required for registration renewal.
His response: "Everyone has an excuse."
When I asked to speak to a judge instead, I was told that I could schedule a court date only after I paid both the ticket and court fees (which were greater than the amount on the ticket), and if the judge sided with me, I would be refunded the amount of the ticket, but not the court fees.
This is why I hate lawful neutrals.

Tiny Coffee Golem |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

The fact that you need experience to get a job, but you need a job to get experience.
I had a friend who upon moving to NY lied on her resume saying she had executive assistant experience. She kept that job for a year, then quit under good circumstances. She immediately applied for another exec assistant job using the previous as experience.
Sometimes you just do what you gotta do and live with any consequences.

NobodysHome |

I love the intersection near Shiro's player's house with a dedicated right turn lane, even around the corner.
So people get in the lane, go around the corner, and SLAM ON THE BRAKES because they don't see a merge!
Shiro's player reports at least an accident a week at that intersection... because drivers can't understand the concept of having an entire lane to themselves when turning...

Kirth Gersen |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Today i discovered why my boss keep saying my e-mails are "subpar". They want me to write on it to whom the e-mail is for.
Workplace emails differ from texts to your friends. In general, you are expected to start the email with a salutation to the recipient, and to sign your name beyond just relying on the signature block.
Example:
Mark,
The results of the recent sampling have been tabulated; please see attached. If you need anything else, don't hesitate to let me know.
Regards,
--Morius
Yes, it's quite true that the sender, recipient, and paperclip icon indicating an attachment are all right there to see. But that's not the point. The point is that, within the body of the email, you're taking the time and effort to interact with the recipient almost as you would as a person, rather than as if you are simply an auto-send function on a machine.

![]() |
2) Most motorists are not out to deliberately run over bicyclists, but I wish bicyclists would remember the laws of physics that apply to 3000+ lb. vehicles. A car just can't stop on a dime or nimbly swerve around a bicyclist (at least without veering across the line into oncoming traffic). Motorcyclists seem to understand this, but not most of the bicyclists on the roads down here. But, many motorists don't seem to understand the physics behind why they shouldn't cut off dumptrucks and 18-wheelers either.
So much this. I have to drive through downtown Newark (ie University of Delaware ) regularly and it infuriates me that people (well, students but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt) don't look before crossing and cross in the middle of the road.
Years (ok, decades) ago I learned to sail and have applied some lessons from that more generally. Primarily that the less manuverable thing has right of way.
Sure, as a pedestrian the car is supposed to yield to me, but I always assume it won't and act as though it has right of way since I can stop or dodge a lot faster and more safely than it.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Darklord Morius wrote:Today i discovered why my boss keep saying my e-mails are "subpar". They want me to write on it to whom the e-mail is for.Workplace emails differ from texts to your friends. In general, you are expected to start the email with a salutation to the recipient, and to sign your name beyond just replying on the signature block.
Example:
Your Email wrote:Yes, it's quite true that the sender, recipient, and paperclip icon indicating an attachment are all right there to see. But that's not the point. The point is that, within the body of the email, you're taking the time and effort to interact with the recipient almost as you would as a person, rather than as if you are simply an auto-send function on a machine.Mark,
The results of the recent sampling have been tabulated; please see attached. If you need anything else, don't hesitate to let me know.
Regards,
--Morius
I think you misread his post. He said his boss wants his emails to say "Dear So-and-so" like you're talking about, but then also lead off with an additional "To So-and-so" before that salutation.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it seems your preachy lecture to kids these days about how to remember that people aren't computers is a bit misplaced this time. :/

Kirth Gersen |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I think you misread his post. He said his boss wants his emails to say "Dear So-and-so" like you're talking about, but then also lead off with an additional "To So-and-so" before that salutation.
I thought that at first, too, but his clarification "But, isn't this already answered in the 'To' space in the e-mail???" led me to believe that, no, he meant the "To: So-and-So" in the email header (which, as stated, appears just above the body of the email). Preachy or not, sometimes it's necessary to point this sort of thing out to people.
Our office manager once actually had to explain to one of the newer people why mass email invitations like "come2the dnstrs conf rm @2 4 mtng with ceo" are not really appropriate -- especially if the CEO in question is on the "cc" list.

![]() |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Krensky wrote:Sure, as a pedestrian the car is supposed to yield to me, but I always assume it won't and act as though it has right of way since I can stop or dodge a lot faster and more safely than it.Right of way is determined by momentum.
True, but remember that most (OK, all of the ones I'm familiar with, which is only like three, but whatever) motor vehicle codes don't grant anyone right of way, they specify who has to yield. It's a subtle and legalistic distinction, but it is a real one, especially for your insurance company if it lets them blame you.

thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff wrote:True, but remember that most (OK, all of the ones I'm familiar with, which is only like three, but whatever) motor vehicle codes don't grant anyone right of way, they specify who has to yield. It's a subtle and legalistic distinction, but it is a real one, especially for your insurance company if it lets them blame you.Krensky wrote:Sure, as a pedestrian the car is supposed to yield to me, but I always assume it won't and act as though it has right of way since I can stop or dodge a lot faster and more safely than it.Right of way is determined by momentum.
I'm appealing to a higher set of laws. Those of physics.
The lawyers and the insurance companies can hash out who pays what after the fact.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Krensky wrote:thejeff wrote:True, but remember that most (OK, all of the ones I'm familiar with, which is only like three, but whatever) motor vehicle codes don't grant anyone right of way, they specify who has to yield. It's a subtle and legalistic distinction, but it is a real one, especially for your insurance company if it lets them blame you.Krensky wrote:Sure, as a pedestrian the car is supposed to yield to me, but I always assume it won't and act as though it has right of way since I can stop or dodge a lot faster and more safely than it.Right of way is determined by momentum.I'm appealing to a higher set of laws. Those of physics.
The lawyers and the insurance companies can hash out who pays what after the fact.
Oh, I agree, that's why I give cars a wide berth while walking and assume everything else on the road is driven by an idiot.

NobodysHome |

NobodysHome wrote:Arthritis medication that comes in child-proof containers.My grand aunt was handing those to me to open since i was about three.
My favorite is that you can now opt out of childproof caps, but you don't learn that until the first time you go back to the pharmacy and complain about it.
You'd think highly-educated pharmacists would be able to figure out, "That person is getting medication that indicates that opening this bottle might be problematic. Perhaps I should offer him/her a non-childproof bottle as a matter of courtesy..."