snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Rantidote

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 31 July 2017, 11:56 AM
Crius of CoH's Avatar
Crius of CoH Crius of CoH is offline
 
Join Date: 13 February 2006
Location: Paragon City (Cranston), RI
Posts: 1,637
Default

My neighborhood (and many others in the city I live in) used to have a lot of two-way stops, but over the years, politicians eager to scrounge up an extra vote or two would "listen to the pee-pul" (mostly the "but THINK of the CHILDREN!!!!" types) and have additional stop signs installed, until a few years ago it came out that there were nearly 700 illegal stop signs installed by the city. Naturally, instead of removing them, the city council made them legal.

Illegal stop signs, when they were installed by the city, you ask? Well, yes. All traffic control measures, from lines painted in the road to signage to lighted signals, are supposed to be installed by warrant - that is, there is a documented need based on vehicular/pedestrian accident incidents or another legal requirement for such control measures. No entity should be installing such a measure on a whim.

Now, the neighborhoods involved are mostly grid-type neighborhoods, and decades ago, you could drive through only having to stop at every other intersection. Now you have to stop at every one, and some are ridiculous - 3-way stop T-intersections? Those should never be 3-way, only one-way. And the best part is, a series of studies by entities whose vested fiscal interest would be in selling traffic control devices such as stop signs, have shown that making every intersection fully signed makes them LESS safe, as driver frustration at the continual stops tends to make them drive faster between stops and begin driving through them. So, thank you "concerned citizens" and local politicians, for making our city less safe by installing stop signs.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 31 July 2017, 02:50 PM
Keket's Avatar
Keket Keket is offline
 
Join Date: 11 January 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 2,112
Default

I know I rant about this periodically, but it happened again; there's nothing like spending time with couples to make you hate being single.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 31 July 2017, 03:01 PM
ChasFink's Avatar
ChasFink ChasFink is offline
 
Join Date: 09 December 2015
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 402
Driver

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plurabelle View Post
The worst is when someone stops and waves you through as if they can control all the traffic, then gets mad and starts honking because you're waiting for the intersection to actually be clear. Sorry, but just because you stopped at the zebra crossing doesn't mean the opposite traffic isn't plowing through.
God, I hate it when people do this! Especially on multi-lane roads. Ditto with people who slow down just enough to close up the gap in traffic that was right behind them (and would have made it safe for me to cross after they passed) but not enough to make it clear that they intend to stop (which would have made it safe for me to cross before they passed). Of course this is even more frustrating when you consider that in many places (including New York where I live) pedestrians are supposed to have the right of way even when they are jaywalking, and in an ideal world we should expect all vehicular traffic to stop. Unfortunately, nearly all motorists seem blissfully unaware of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by musicgeek View Post
Traffic laws in Connecticut don't explicitly give right of way; they only state who must yield right of way. Furthermore, every maneuver pretty much has the caveat appended "provided that it is safe to do so."
I think that's technically the rules in most places - certainly New York; otherwise you wouldn't be able to issue "failure to yield right of way" tickets. I've always thought it strange that a right had to be yielded by one to another. It should be that people who disobey the law are failing to recognize the right of way. In any event, I doubt the motorist who yields to a pedestrian is responsible for others who don't do so. The pedestrian also has the obligation to see that "it is safe to do so."
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 31 July 2017, 03:27 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,610
Glasses

There's a location in Seattle I avoid--it's a trail crossing, where the bikes on the trail have STOP signs, but no one stops, so the cars (which have the right of way), have to stop.

I really, really hate that.

For drivers' behavior, I hate that they drive in the bike lane. Mostly because (kids these days!) no one knows where their cars are on the road, so they never even try to stay in their own lanes.

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 31 July 2017, 03:37 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keket View Post
I know I rant about this periodically, but it happened again; there's nothing like spending time with couples to make you hate being single.
That does kind of depend on the couple.

(Admittedly, the couples who make me very glad I'm single are the ones I as much as possible avoid being around.)
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 31 July 2017, 03:48 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 73,626
Default

TL, I almost posted that myself.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 31 July 2017, 04:00 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 8,783
Baseball

New Annoying thing (I think summer brings out my annoyances, or my tolerance drops):

- people who use automatically updating fields in their electronic documents


We use SharePoint extensively at work. I find it very good for what we need it to do. But people who use automatically updating fields in their Word documents are driving me nuts.

Today's case:

- open up an older document to gather context for a meeting coming up next month
- the "date" of the document says today's date, when it is at least a few years old
- the "signature block" says my name as they just took the login criteria as part of the autofield
- I go to document properties, and I see this document was created over a decade ago. And the creator retired about 7 years ago. It was not. My retired colleague created a document, which was repurposed by some unknown officer for this extant document


I understand why people do this. However, it only works when you hit print, or save as a pdf or some other function, freezing the date and signature block. As it is now, I can't determine when these decisions were made (thus understanding what factors led to the decisions) and who captured the information.

Frustrating.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 31 July 2017, 04:05 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 73,626
Default

Last year, we had a contractor revamp our Sharepoint, and move a bunch of files. Afterwards, the file properties for all the files listed the contractor as the creator (he hadn't created any of them), and the date he moved them as the date they were all originally uploaded.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 31 July 2017, 04:49 PM
Bill Bill is offline
 
Join Date: 02 January 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,691
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plurabelle View Post
The worst is when someone stops and waves you through as if they can control all the traffic, then gets mad and starts honking because you're waiting for the intersection to actually be clear. Sorry, but just because you stopped at the zebra crossing doesn't mean the opposite traffic isn't plowing through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicgeek View Post
I've encountered similar situations in a busy shopping district in our area in which it's a four-lane road, with two lanes in each direction. (The second lane is there mainly to facilitate turning into store parking lots, but it's not a dedicated turn lane - both lanes are used as normal travel lanes.) Someone, trying to be nice, will stop in their lane and try to wave me out into traffic from a a parking lot exit, forgetting that there's a second, parallel lane of traffic coming up behind them that may or may not wish to extend the same courtesy. Furthermore, anyone coming up behind them in their lane is likely as not to veer around them into the other lane so that they can proceed.

I've often wondered in these cases: if someone were to accept the guidance of the driver waving them in/on, and were subsequently struck by a vehicle, could the driver who did the waving be held legally liable in any way? Traffic laws in Connecticut don't explicitly give right of way; they only state who must yield right of way. Furthermore, every maneuver pretty much has the caveat appended "provided that it is safe to do so." In these instances, I would imagine that an argument could be made that the waving driver was clearly yielding right of way and implicitly stating that it was safe for the other driver, pedestrian, biker, etc., to proceed.
I'm with you. I absolutely *hate* that.

I was warned about that years ago, when my mother was teaching me to cross the street; just because one person's willing to stop for you doesn't mean someone else would.

When somebody did that to me about a week ago (stopped so I could cross the street, then honked at me when I didn't do it), I stood there yelling at him that I'm not going to get killed crossing a four-lane highway just because of you.

And in fact someone *did* get killed in traffic out here a while ago because some idiot waved him across the street and he got hit by someone else.

Thanks.

Bill
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 31 July 2017, 05:47 PM
dfresh dfresh is offline
 
Join Date: 11 November 2005
Location: Oxford, PA
Posts: 3,857
Default

My office got hit by a virus last spring, so all the files on our server had to be restored from backup. When they did that, the "date modified" on every file changed to the restoration date, so when I am trying to find the newest files, I just get a lot of files with the restoration date.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 31 July 2017, 06:27 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is online now
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 14,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildaBeast View Post
Since yesterday I've been getting calls on my work phone from something called Jobcase. The first time I happened to be away from my desk so it went to voicemail. The second time, I recognized the number as the same one from the previous call, so I let that go to voicemail as well. The first message sounded like a robocall; the second was a live person.
I think I was wrong about that call being a live person. I think it was a robocall cleverly disguised as a live person. I say this because I got exactly the same voicemail today as I got last week.

Last week's voicemail: "Hello, is anyone there? Oh, it's a voicemail. [goes into spiel about their service]"
Today's voicemail: "Hello, is anyone there? Oh, it's a voicemail. [goes into spiel about their service]"

Even her tone and inflection was the same in the two messages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crius of CoH View Post
some are ridiculous - 3-way stop T-intersections? Those should never be 3-way, only one-way.
Why should T-intersections never be 3-way stops? As a pedestrian, I like the 3-way stops in my neighborhood as they make it easier for me to cross the street there since the cars have to stop.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 31 July 2017, 07:07 PM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,096
Jolly Roger

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasFink View Post
...Of course this is even more frustrating when you consider that in many places (including New York where I live) pedestrians are supposed to have the right of way even when they are jaywalking,...
Not true:
Pedestrian Safety
Quote:
If there isn't a crosswalk, sign or signal at mid-block locations, a pedestrian must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway [Section 1152, NYS Vehicle & Traffic Law].
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01 August 2017, 01:51 AM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 8,429
Default

Our cable company has just informed us that the monthly price is going up. Again. Ok, it's my understanding that people are giving up cable in droves. So the way our cable company is rewarding those of us still clinging to cable is to charge us more. I'm sure I'm not the only subscriber who was already on the fence about keeping the cable who may be taking the leap off that fence right about now.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01 August 2017, 12:24 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 15,608
Icon02

Businesses that hang the state flag upside down. OK, I get that Maryland's flag is rather confusing, but there is this wonderful thing called Google Images that should put any doubts about how to hang the MD flag properly to rest! So get on it McDonald's--you seem to be the main culprit from what I've seen.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01 August 2017, 01:48 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,240
Military

LTTAM 1: (Provoked by yet another article like this one) The moral panic over Purple Heart Medals that have ended up in the hands of collectors or otherwise available for sale to the general public. I don't go in for collecting myself, but stories featuring the exploits of one particular do-gooder group tend to be fodder for military news publications and local newspapers, apparently in the absence of stories about real/living veterans (because it's all quiet on the western front with me and my friends).

Anyways, the premise of this whole panic is that, surely, all of these medals must have been stolen, lost, accidentally thrown out (but ended up for sale?), or sold under dire circumstances by a hard-luck veteran who just couldn't get a break. What I will wager the reality is (with no proof, just anecdote I'm afraid) is that these veterans passed away and their medals either ended up at an estate sale right away because no one particularly cared about the medals or, if they didn't end up for sale right away (because they passed to a spouse/son/daughter who cared) within a generation or two they end up with a great nephew or a second cousin twice removed and suddenly nobody cares anymore. So they get sold. So why jump through a bunch of hoops buying up these medals and then returning them to the relatives (or even more distant relatives) that sold them in the first place???

A militaria forum I belong to actually did confirm at least one case of a medal being donated back to the family by this do-gooder organization (complete with article in the local paper) which then ended up for sale on ebay within a few weeks. Go figure.

LTTAM 2: On the subject of military articles, it seems like a couple times a year there's an article about some WWII/Korean War veteran (and I'm sure we'll get the same with Vietnam soon) "finally" getting the medals they "earned." The story always reads like they're being recognized for some act of heroism that gets overlooked but then, on actually reading the article or looking at the pictures it turns out they're getting a WWII Victor Medal and or a National Defense Service Medal (or something like that). Maybe a campaign medal (maybe). So what we have is a story of a veteran who didn't bother to buy the medal themselves like they could have seventy-odd years ago and now it's somehow "news" that they're getting the medal.

Now, you could argue that the government should have issued them the medal for their service and you know what? You're correct, which leads me to LTTAM 2a: I had to buy my National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, GWOT Expeditionary Medal, andGWOT Service Medal. So maybe in 30 years or so I can write a letter pissing and moaning to the local Congressman that I never got the medals I earned (I would of course not mention the part about already buying them like every other veteran I know) because there seems to be more interest in feel-good stories about elderly vets than improving conditions for the current crop of still-serving vets.

Last edited by ASL; 01 August 2017 at 02:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01 August 2017, 02:07 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 73,626
Default

I was annoyed by that Purple Heart thing, too. I know of two Purple Hearts awarded to relatives of mine that were later thrown away, because for a variety of reasons, all of them deeply personal and some of them quite painful, they weren't wanted. If someone had come across them and returned them to the family, it would have just re-awakened old grief.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01 August 2017, 02:12 PM
ChasFink's Avatar
ChasFink ChasFink is offline
 
Join Date: 09 December 2015
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 402
Driver

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlife! View Post
I stand corrected. I was depending on several news stories and should-be-experts over the years that told me jaywalkers have the right of way. They must have been referring to this:
Quote:
Regardless of the right-of-way, the driver is required by law to take great care to avoid "hitting" pedestrians.
(I'm not sure why "hitting" is in quotes.)

Although I do see a difference between a pedestrian having (or being obliged to yield) the right of way and drivers being obliged to "take great care", I would argue that in practice this amounts to almost the same thing for the driver: if someone crosses in the middle of the street and walks in front of a car (or appears to be about to) the driver still has to slow down, stop, or go around - in other words, yield. There IS a difference for the pedestrian, in that he or she is breaking the law.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01 August 2017, 02:55 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,240
Driver

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasFink View Post
I stand corrected. I was depending on several news stories and should-be-experts over the years that told me jaywalkers have the right of way. They must have been referring to this:

(I'm not sure why "hitting" is in quotes.)

Although I do see a difference between a pedestrian having (or being obliged to yield) the right of way and drivers being obliged to "take great care", I would argue that in practice this amounts to almost the same thing for the driver: if someone crosses in the middle of the street and walks in front of a car (or appears to be about to) the driver still has to slow down, stop, or go around - in other words, yield. There IS a difference for the pedestrian, in that he or she is breaking the law.
I guess the point is, if someone starts jaywalking in front of your car, even though they don't have the right of way, you ought to try real hard not to hit them. If you do end up hitting them, your civil and criminal liability would be different than if they were using a cross-walk and really did have the right of way.

I think the difference can also be that, with a cross-walk, well, it's hard to explain, let me just give you a scenario:

Lane 1 = right lane
Lane 2 = left lane
Pedestrian A = crossing the street in a crosswalk (conferring on them the right of way)
Pedestrian B = jaywalker

If I am in lane 2 and I come upon Pedestrian A standing in lane 1, making like they want to continue walking into lane 2 but are stopped/waiting in lane 1 because they fear I won't stop, I am required to stop, even though their hesitation ensures I won't hit them if I just drive on.

If I am in lane 2 and I come upon Pedestrian B standing in lane 1, also apparently desiring to cross into lane 2 but are stopped/waiting in lane 1 because they fear I won't stop, then I just keep on driving because as it stands I don't need to take evasive action to avoid hitting them: they wisely chose not to walk in front of my vehicle and that much was clear well before evasive action was needed.

ETA: The alternative to saying that drivers must "take great care to avoid "hitting" pedestrians" crossing illegally would be basically be to say, in effect "if a pedestrian is walking in front of your car, screw it, just keep driving, and even if you could have stopped and not killed them it's perfectly okay that you killed them because that's Darwin for you."

Last edited by ASL; 01 August 2017 at 03:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01 August 2017, 03:03 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 8,429
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasFink View Post

Although I do see a difference between a pedestrian having (or being obliged to yield) the right of way and drivers being obliged to "take great care", I would argue that in practice this amounts to almost the same thing for the driver: if someone crosses in the middle of the street and walks in front of a car (or appears to be about to) the driver still has to slow down, stop, or go around - in other words, yield. There IS a difference for the pedestrian, in that he or she is breaking the law.
As I've been known to yell (in my head) at drivers I see narrowly avoiding cyclists and pedestrians "you don't think your day is gonna get ruined if you hit someone even if they weren't where they should have been? Slow the hell down!"
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01 August 2017, 03:14 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,240
Skull

And some of us cyclists are just plain crazy*, you can't assume we're going to take action to avoid getting hit. Sometimes I'll make eye contact with a driver as they make turn in front of me and I'll just keep on going. Usually the driver stops. It's worth noting, these are situations where I am where I'm supposed to be, I have the right of way, and a driver has assumed I will stop/yield for them as they turn. I know they've seen me because, as noted, I've made eye contact with them.

*It's also possible the cyclist is inattentive. In my case, I am actually fully aware and although I give a good show of being prepared to drive right into their side or even be driven over I am actually just waiting until the last possible moment to break/swerve. Usually I don't have to, though. Most drivers aren't mentally prepared for a game of chicken, at least not one that, if the other guy doesn't back down, they'll be liable for.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Little things that annoy you Gutter Monkey Rantidote 1216 23 July 2017 05:58 PM
Little things that annoy you Gutter Monkey Rantidote 1003 04 November 2015 06:20 PM
Little things that annoy you Sylvanz Rantidote 999 03 January 2015 08:50 PM
Little things that annoy you smittykins Rantidote 1056 18 August 2014 05:58 PM
Little things that annoy you Avril Rantidote 1006 08 August 2013 01:14 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.