is this the best we can do? May 7, 2006 10:11 AM Subscribe
I took a wee break from AskMefi because whilst I enjoyed asking and answering questions, I thought it such a bore that some users took advantage of the forum just to voice their half-baked, belligerent opinions that really did nothing to answer the question in hand.
So then I come back, ask a perfectly reasonable question, and five fresh fish implies I'm an "asshat red light running asswipe." Wah, wah, wah - for sure. But is this the best we can do?
So then I come back, ask a perfectly reasonable question, and five fresh fish implies I'm an "asshat red light running asswipe." Wah, wah, wah - for sure. But is this the best we can do?
Nope, we could also open additional MetaTalk threads for people to remind you that you're an asshat red light running asswipe.
The legal considerations of a question are generally considered fair game, and while FFF wasn't exactly polite about making the point, it's a valid point. The ethical considerations (why would you want one if you weren't planning to break the law?) also seem reasonable for discussion.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:29 AM on May 7, 2006
The legal considerations of a question are generally considered fair game, and while FFF wasn't exactly polite about making the point, it's a valid point. The ethical considerations (why would you want one if you weren't planning to break the law?) also seem reasonable for discussion.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:29 AM on May 7, 2006
He didn't direct it at you, and he was providing some relevant advice ("Hey, these might be illegal").
I've seen quite a few crap 'answers' in AskMe, but I don't think this was one of them.
On Preview: I agree with jacquilynne.
posted by onalark at 10:30 AM on May 7, 2006
I've seen quite a few crap 'answers' in AskMe, but I don't think this was one of them.
On Preview: I agree with jacquilynne.
posted by onalark at 10:30 AM on May 7, 2006
Yes, his comment is irrelevant noise, and so are the replies to it. If it does start some ridiculous debate about whether or not it's ever okay to go through a red light, everyone who participates will share the blame. It probably won't affect the chances of the question getting answered anyway, so no great loss.
posted by sfenders at 10:31 AM on May 7, 2006
posted by sfenders at 10:31 AM on May 7, 2006
Wah, wah, wah - for sure.
Seconded. Running red lights is dangerous as hell, According to the Federal Highway Administration "As reported between 1992 and 1996, FARS data indicated that 3,753 crashes could be attributed to redlight running, resulting in 4,238 fatalities."
You asked a question that certainly seemed to imply that you want to run red lights, putting the safety of others at risk for your own convenience. If that is not the case, if you were just asking out of intellectual curiosity, you could have said so in your question.
posted by LarryC at 10:32 AM on May 7, 2006
Seconded. Running red lights is dangerous as hell, According to the Federal Highway Administration "As reported between 1992 and 1996, FARS data indicated that 3,753 crashes could be attributed to redlight running, resulting in 4,238 fatalities."
You asked a question that certainly seemed to imply that you want to run red lights, putting the safety of others at risk for your own convenience. If that is not the case, if you were just asking out of intellectual curiosity, you could have said so in your question.
posted by LarryC at 10:32 AM on May 7, 2006
Asking questions about things that are illegal or that help people do thing that are illegal don't go as well as other sorts of questions on AskMe. I think you asked your question in as neutral a way as possible and fff's answer was not answering the specific question and only tangentially even addressing the larger question, basically breaking the "don't harass the questioner" rule. There are many ways to say "hey just so you know, those might be illegal" without calling someone an asswipe.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:40 AM on May 7, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:40 AM on May 7, 2006
He didn't direct it at you, and he was providing some relevant advice
Bullshit. You're all crazy. I agree with forallmankind.
posted by scarabic at 10:42 AM on May 7, 2006
Bullshit. You're all crazy. I agree with forallmankind.
posted by scarabic at 10:42 AM on May 7, 2006
I think...fff's answer was not answering the specific question and only tangentially even addressing the larger question, basically breaking the "don't harass the questioner" rule.
Then perhaps you should delete it.
posted by cribcage at 11:12 AM on May 7, 2006
Then perhaps you should delete it.
posted by cribcage at 11:12 AM on May 7, 2006
The links on this page suggest that running red lights is not as intentional as some suggest. To sum up, many yellow lights are not as long as standards require them to be, and do not give drivers enough time to stop before turning red. There seem to be a lot of studies showing that when red light cameras are put into use, the frequency of rear-end collisions at traffic signals goes up as people begin slamming on their brakes at intersections to avoid getting tickets. There is a big difference between someone who intentionally goes through an intersection without heeding the signal, and someone who is caught by a yellow light that is improperly timed.
posted by TedW at 11:22 AM on May 7, 2006
posted by TedW at 11:22 AM on May 7, 2006
There's a link in the question to an article that states in bold type at the top "Attorney Says Photoblocker Is Illegal". So no, I don't think replying with "just so you know, those might be illegal" would make any sense at all. I think it's safe to assume that we all know that failing to stop for red lights is also prohibited by law and is usually dangerous.
posted by sfenders at 11:26 AM on May 7, 2006
posted by sfenders at 11:26 AM on May 7, 2006
These things tend to end up working themselves out.
If you run enough red lights, you'll be broadsided by a dump truck, and BAM! --No more having to wonder if it's a good idea to try and get around this simple safety rule.
posted by Balisong at 11:29 AM on May 7, 2006
If you run enough red lights, you'll be broadsided by a dump truck, and BAM! --No more having to wonder if it's a good idea to try and get around this simple safety rule.
posted by Balisong at 11:29 AM on May 7, 2006
Or, if you run enough red lights, you'll kill someone else. It could be worse than just hitting a dog and leaving the scene, this time.
posted by LarryC at 11:44 AM on May 7, 2006
posted by LarryC at 11:44 AM on May 7, 2006
There's a rumor going around that the cities installing red light cameras are deliberately shortening the duration of the yellow lights to get more money. I don't know if it's true but it does SEEM like it.
posted by small_ruminant at 11:52 AM on May 7, 2006
posted by small_ruminant at 11:52 AM on May 7, 2006
small_ruminant - it sure as hell feels like that in parts of LA.
Frankly, I find it bizarre that several users should assume that my motivation in posting the question was part of a premeditative plan to go out and break red lights, as opposed to trying to protect myself from those moments when you're in the flow of rush-hour traffic and you just get caught out by a fraction of a second - moments where, as TedW points out, you know you could cause an accident by slamming on the brakes.
I appreciate that I could have provided more information in my question, but really - if there isn't enough info in the question, that also means there isn't enough info to jump to conclusions and post hostile responses.
posted by forallmankind at 12:24 PM on May 7, 2006
Frankly, I find it bizarre that several users should assume that my motivation in posting the question was part of a premeditative plan to go out and break red lights, as opposed to trying to protect myself from those moments when you're in the flow of rush-hour traffic and you just get caught out by a fraction of a second - moments where, as TedW points out, you know you could cause an accident by slamming on the brakes.
I appreciate that I could have provided more information in my question, but really - if there isn't enough info in the question, that also means there isn't enough info to jump to conclusions and post hostile responses.
posted by forallmankind at 12:24 PM on May 7, 2006
It's admin failures like this one that make me want to stop wasting my time contributing to AskMe.
posted by scarabic at 12:34 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by scarabic at 12:34 PM on May 7, 2006
Agree with forallmankind, scarabic, and cribcage. TedW and small_ruminant make excellent points about The Man tweaking stoplights to his advantage, but that's not what the question was, nor was it "How can I run red lights and get away with it?"
posted by Rash at 12:45 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by Rash at 12:45 PM on May 7, 2006
So basically, forallmankind, you're ok with breaking the law all the time so long as you can claim that there might, possibly, maybe, be a small chance that breaking the law will avert an accident.
As for the anecdotes that running a red is sometimes called for in order to prevent slamming on breaks. I call bullshit. If you are going the speed limit (40 mph or below most of the time) you should have plenty of time to either come to a controlled stop before a yellow turns red or if you can't you run the yellow. You should almost never need to run a red.
And you know what? If you are forced to run a red and you get a ticket. Too freaking bad, driving is a privilege with the occasional negative consequence. Don't like the consequence then don't drive.
Wishing to avoid a very rare, very predictable negative circumstance does not give you license to start disregarding society's rules.
posted by oddman at 12:51 PM on May 7, 2006
As for the anecdotes that running a red is sometimes called for in order to prevent slamming on breaks. I call bullshit. If you are going the speed limit (40 mph or below most of the time) you should have plenty of time to either come to a controlled stop before a yellow turns red or if you can't you run the yellow. You should almost never need to run a red.
And you know what? If you are forced to run a red and you get a ticket. Too freaking bad, driving is a privilege with the occasional negative consequence. Don't like the consequence then don't drive.
Wishing to avoid a very rare, very predictable negative circumstance does not give you license to start disregarding society's rules.
posted by oddman at 12:51 PM on May 7, 2006
He did not imply, you inferred. I say good day to you.
posted by boo_radley at 12:52 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 12:52 PM on May 7, 2006
It's admin failures like this one that make me want to stop wasting my time contributing to AskMe.
fff snarked in the thread, forallmankind addressed what he had to say in a way that seemed to fend off further derailment and the whole thing was in MeTa a few hours later. If we remove comments that have just been brought to MetaTalk, then we have to repost them here so people can see them and discuss them which sort of negates the purpose of removing them.
In short, it seems to me that this is how it's supposed to work: meta thread opened to siphon off comments that are not on-topic, as little comment removal or thread derail as possible.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:16 PM on May 7, 2006
fff snarked in the thread, forallmankind addressed what he had to say in a way that seemed to fend off further derailment and the whole thing was in MeTa a few hours later. If we remove comments that have just been brought to MetaTalk, then we have to repost them here so people can see them and discuss them which sort of negates the purpose of removing them.
In short, it seems to me that this is how it's supposed to work: meta thread opened to siphon off comments that are not on-topic, as little comment removal or thread derail as possible.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:16 PM on May 7, 2006
I call bullshit.
Man, the Washington Post is just full of bullshit, then.
And the Virginia Department of Transportation?
Full of bullshit.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:19 PM on May 7, 2006
Man, the Washington Post is just full of bullshit, then.
And the Virginia Department of Transportation?
Full of bullshit.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:19 PM on May 7, 2006
In case you don't like links:
- The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to 17%.
- The cameras are correlated with an increase in rear-end crashes related to the presence of a red light; the increase ranges between 50% and 71%.
- The cameras are correlated with a decrease in crashes attributable to red light running, and the decrease is between 24% and 33%.
- The cameras are correlated with a decrease in injury crashes attributable to red light running, with the decrease being between 20% and 33%.
- The cameras are correlated with an increase in total injury crashes, with the increase being between 7% and 24%.
*adds traffic lights to list of flame-war-inducing topics*
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:24 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:24 PM on May 7, 2006
If my cat gets curcumcised while running a red... ah, screw it.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:27 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:27 PM on May 7, 2006
Circumcised... ah, screw it.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:28 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:28 PM on May 7, 2006
If we remove comments that have just been brought to MetaTalk, then we have to repost them here so people can see them and discuss them which sort of negates the purpose of removing them.
It doesn't negate anything. The purpose of removing them is to keep the AskMe experience a useful and decent one.
I realize that people reading the MeTa callout will be confused if you don't copy-paste here, etc, but keeping MeTa coherent is unimportant compared to keeping AskMe safe and sane.
FFF probably feels vindicated by the fact that a couple people agreed with him and his comment wasn't deleted. You seem to think you've made your admonition clear for all but I highly doubt people absorb it the way you think they will.
posted by scarabic at 1:31 PM on May 7, 2006
It doesn't negate anything. The purpose of removing them is to keep the AskMe experience a useful and decent one.
I realize that people reading the MeTa callout will be confused if you don't copy-paste here, etc, but keeping MeTa coherent is unimportant compared to keeping AskMe safe and sane.
FFF probably feels vindicated by the fact that a couple people agreed with him and his comment wasn't deleted. You seem to think you've made your admonition clear for all but I highly doubt people absorb it the way you think they will.
posted by scarabic at 1:31 PM on May 7, 2006
I don't care one way or the other whether or not people agree with me, nor do I care whether an admin deletes my post in that thread.
I take driving very seriously. There is no other activity we do in this society that causes so many unnecessary and stupid deaths. If you habitually run red lights, the best I can say is "Fuck you, you no-good piece of shit."
There is absolutely no excuse that justifies putting others lives at risk when driving. Doing so is about the most selfish, short-sighted, and fucking sick thing you can do.
Very little can piss me off quite so much as drivers who do not approach their task with every bit of professionalism and safety that driving deserves.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:42 PM on May 7, 2006
I take driving very seriously. There is no other activity we do in this society that causes so many unnecessary and stupid deaths. If you habitually run red lights, the best I can say is "Fuck you, you no-good piece of shit."
There is absolutely no excuse that justifies putting others lives at risk when driving. Doing so is about the most selfish, short-sighted, and fucking sick thing you can do.
Very little can piss me off quite so much as drivers who do not approach their task with every bit of professionalism and safety that driving deserves.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:42 PM on May 7, 2006
Obviously, a few people here do not understand the reality of rush-hour traffic through Beverly Hills and the Wilshire Corridor. If you didn't enter an intersection on a yellow you would (a) never, ever get to turn and (b) you would otherwise cause serious problems in the flow of through traffic and probably an eventual accident. No one intentionally runs a red light there unless they want an automated $300 ticket (last time I checked), however, traffic conditions being what they are it happens. Having spent 3 years making that commute I totally see where forallmankind is coming from and would say that his question is a fairly common one for the 10,000s of people who make that commute a day. It is a hard place to be stuck when you are in 60 MPH city-street traffic and the light turns to yellow, and you have to decide to hit the brakes or hit the gas at every stop light.
posted by mrmojoflying at 1:45 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by mrmojoflying at 1:45 PM on May 7, 2006
"if there isn't enough info in the question, that also means there isn't enough info to jump to conclusions and post hostile responses."
Noob!
posted by mischief at 1:59 PM on May 7, 2006
Noob!
posted by mischief at 1:59 PM on May 7, 2006
There is no other activity we do in this society that causes so many unnecessary and stupid deaths. If you habitually run red lights, the best I can say is "Fuck you, you no-good piece of shit."
Clearly then, it's bad drivers who are the anti-social ones in that discourse.
posted by yerfatma at 2:04 PM on May 7, 2006
Clearly then, it's bad drivers who are the anti-social ones in that discourse.
posted by yerfatma at 2:04 PM on May 7, 2006
Missed the askme thread initially, but I was surprised to find fff's comment still there, too. Making assumptions about the state of mind of the poster and using a relatively straightforward question as an excuse to vent your (righteous or not) anger seems a pretty blechy example to leave standing to me.
posted by mediareport at 2:06 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by mediareport at 2:06 PM on May 7, 2006
Intentionally obscuring license plates is a crime in many if not all jurisdictions. The original poster wanted to know if any other mefites have successfully committed a crime: Has anyone purchased any of these products, used them, run a red light, been flashed by a camera, and not received a ticket?
forallmankind deserves any snark that comes his way.
posted by angrybeaver at 2:09 PM on May 7, 2006
forallmankind deserves any snark that comes his way.
posted by angrybeaver at 2:09 PM on May 7, 2006
jessamyn: If we remove comments that have just been brought to MetaTalk, then we have to repost them here...
No, you don't. And even if you do: Is it really a tremendous burden?
But mostly: I thought the point of your interjecting was to move the dispute to MetaTalk — in which case, yes, the appropriate action would be to move the dispute to MetaTalk.
fff: There is absolutely no excuse that justifies putting others lives at risk when driving.
Running red lights ≠ putting others' lives at risk.
Two small towns in Massachusetts, Medfield and Westwood, each have stoplights at town-center intersections which are highly trafficked during daylight hours. (Both are on Route 109.) At 9:00 PM, each town assigns a police officer to manually switch the stoplights over to blinking yellow (main road) and blinking red (cross streets). On occasion, this won't happen — because the officer forgot, or because he's busy elsewhere, or because he switched shifts and didn't mention it to his replacement, etc.
There is absolutely no danger in approaching either of these intersections along Route 109, coming to a full and complete stop, looking both ways, and then proceeding through the intersection despite a red light. These are two examples, and I could rattle off about 20 more off the top of my head, in addition to the reasonable explanation that forallmankind has already given. You leapt to an unwarranted conclusion, and you were out of line.
posted by cribcage at 2:09 PM on May 7, 2006
No, you don't. And even if you do: Is it really a tremendous burden?
But mostly: I thought the point of your interjecting was to move the dispute to MetaTalk — in which case, yes, the appropriate action would be to move the dispute to MetaTalk.
fff: There is absolutely no excuse that justifies putting others lives at risk when driving.
Running red lights ≠ putting others' lives at risk.
Two small towns in Massachusetts, Medfield and Westwood, each have stoplights at town-center intersections which are highly trafficked during daylight hours. (Both are on Route 109.) At 9:00 PM, each town assigns a police officer to manually switch the stoplights over to blinking yellow (main road) and blinking red (cross streets). On occasion, this won't happen — because the officer forgot, or because he's busy elsewhere, or because he switched shifts and didn't mention it to his replacement, etc.
There is absolutely no danger in approaching either of these intersections along Route 109, coming to a full and complete stop, looking both ways, and then proceeding through the intersection despite a red light. These are two examples, and I could rattle off about 20 more off the top of my head, in addition to the reasonable explanation that forallmankind has already given. You leapt to an unwarranted conclusion, and you were out of line.
posted by cribcage at 2:09 PM on May 7, 2006
A "blinking red light" is not a "red light".
Running red lights = putting others' lives at risk.
posted by mischief at 2:15 PM on May 7, 2006
Running red lights = putting others' lives at risk.
posted by mischief at 2:15 PM on May 7, 2006
A little thought: if we're going to get upset about comments that don't answer the question, maybe we should also get upset about questions that break the law? Letting one stand while removing the other is pretty silly.
posted by reklaw at 2:27 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by reklaw at 2:27 PM on May 7, 2006
*plugs a fuzzbox into the wah wah in quonsar's pants and kicks out the riffs*
posted by loquacious at 2:33 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by loquacious at 2:33 PM on May 7, 2006
And what reklaw said. If you're going to ask questions about quasi-legal or overtly illegal stuff, you should probably grow a hide and expect people to get snooty about it. Especially when it's hot button public safety issues and all that crap.
posted by loquacious at 2:36 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by loquacious at 2:36 PM on May 7, 2006
you should have plenty of time to either come to a controlled stop before a yellow turns red or if you can't you run the yellow
you missed the part upthread where people said that some yellows are timed far too short for adequate stopping time, and that these lights do not conform to traffic light standards.
yes, you SHOULD be able to, but it appears that the lights work against you in this capacity at times and that this causes accidents, as well. I don't think anyone should be buying the blockers, but let's at least deal in reality, here.
posted by shmegegge at 2:38 PM on May 7, 2006
you missed the part upthread where people said that some yellows are timed far too short for adequate stopping time, and that these lights do not conform to traffic light standards.
yes, you SHOULD be able to, but it appears that the lights work against you in this capacity at times and that this causes accidents, as well. I don't think anyone should be buying the blockers, but let's at least deal in reality, here.
posted by shmegegge at 2:38 PM on May 7, 2006
You're actually onto something for once, reklaw. Too bad you blink-tagged your less-intelligent comment in this thread.
To your point, this entire thread is people talking past each other based on which of 2 principles they choose to generalize from the incident reported.
Choice1: Running red lights is bad.
Choice2: Berating the questioner is bad.
I'm in camp 2, have always been in camp 2, will remain in camp 2. I simply think that AskMe's utility is limited, and you can't use it to A) peer into someone's soul and make a lot of assumptions about their intent or B) answer all possible related questions, including: "are you an asshat?" You're not actually on the road watching someone run over a child, here, people. You're on an internet message board discussing the issue. Be helpful or be gone.
Answer the question asked. There are degrees, of course, but if you find yourself typing "you are an asshat," then you're over the line. Please be sure to harbor contempt for the community and disregard for the admins if you intend to go there. And get ready to be alternately applauded and coddled for your efforts.
posted by scarabic at 2:39 PM on May 7, 2006
To your point, this entire thread is people talking past each other based on which of 2 principles they choose to generalize from the incident reported.
Choice1: Running red lights is bad.
Choice2: Berating the questioner is bad.
I'm in camp 2, have always been in camp 2, will remain in camp 2. I simply think that AskMe's utility is limited, and you can't use it to A) peer into someone's soul and make a lot of assumptions about their intent or B) answer all possible related questions, including: "are you an asshat?" You're not actually on the road watching someone run over a child, here, people. You're on an internet message board discussing the issue. Be helpful or be gone.
Answer the question asked. There are degrees, of course, but if you find yourself typing "you are an asshat," then you're over the line. Please be sure to harbor contempt for the community and disregard for the admins if you intend to go there. And get ready to be alternately applauded and coddled for your efforts.
posted by scarabic at 2:39 PM on May 7, 2006
if we're going to get upset about comments that don't answer the question, maybe we should also get upset about questions that break the law?
Er, no. Questions do not break laws, as a general rule. The one under discussion here most certainly did not. The problem is not folks who post questions others find unseemly; the problem is folks who find some questions unseemly and leap to post furious judgments about them.
posted by mediareport at 2:40 PM on May 7, 2006
Er, no. Questions do not break laws, as a general rule. The one under discussion here most certainly did not. The problem is not folks who post questions others find unseemly; the problem is folks who find some questions unseemly and leap to post furious judgments about them.
posted by mediareport at 2:40 PM on May 7, 2006
If we remove comments that have just been brought to MetaTalk, then we have to repost them here so people can see them and discuss them which sort of negates the purpose of removing them.
huh? the purpose of removing them is to keep askme utilitarian. what you've done here isn't channeling the hate to meta, it's leaving the hate in askme so that you don't have to hit ctrl+c.
posted by shmegegge at 2:47 PM on May 7, 2006
huh? the purpose of removing them is to keep askme utilitarian. what you've done here isn't channeling the hate to meta, it's leaving the hate in askme so that you don't have to hit ctrl+c.
posted by shmegegge at 2:47 PM on May 7, 2006
Obviously, a few people here do not understand the reality of rush-hour traffic through Beverly Hills and the Wilshire Corridor. If you didn't enter an intersection on a yellow you would (a) never, ever get to turn and (b) you would otherwise cause serious problems in the flow of through traffic and probably an eventual accident.
Also, when there are fatal traffic accidents in these areas, it's a net positive for mankind.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:57 PM on May 7, 2006
Also, when there are fatal traffic accidents in these areas, it's a net positive for mankind.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:57 PM on May 7, 2006
why is anyone imputing the motive of running red lights to forallmankind, anyway?
he/she does not state what the purpose of the question is, or how the answer will be used. there are several scenarios i can think of where someone might ask such a question without having any intent to use the product in question for the purpose of running a red light.
but don't let that inconvenient fact stop you from climbing atop your high horses -- we sometimes forget how conscientious, moral and orthodox some of you are and we need reminders in the form of loud declarations as to your piety.
posted by Hat Maui at 3:00 PM on May 7, 2006
he/she does not state what the purpose of the question is, or how the answer will be used. there are several scenarios i can think of where someone might ask such a question without having any intent to use the product in question for the purpose of running a red light.
but don't let that inconvenient fact stop you from climbing atop your high horses -- we sometimes forget how conscientious, moral and orthodox some of you are and we need reminders in the form of loud declarations as to your piety.
posted by Hat Maui at 3:00 PM on May 7, 2006
Did you know that automated traffic cameras (of both the speed and red light variety) are illegal in New Jersey? They're only used to to send you dire warnings and eventually suspend your account if you speed through the EZ pass lane.
posted by exhilaration at 3:02 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by exhilaration at 3:02 PM on May 7, 2006
"You asked a question that certainly seemed to imply that you want to run red lights, putting the safety of others at risk for your own convenience."
No, it didn't. You inferred that based on your own biases. He asked if they worked. I've long wondered if they worked, in part because I worry that those who run red lights without getting tickets may place me in danger. I just didn't wonder enough to AskMe.
"So basically, forallmankind, you're ok with breaking the law all the time so long as you can claim that there might, possibly, maybe, be a small chance that breaking the law will avert an accident."
I'm ok with that, given that they're different laws. I'm OK with jaywalking all the time if there might, possibly maybe, be a small chance that jaywalking will avert a vehicular homocide. But your argument's bad and you should feel bad.
"As for the anecdotes that running a red is sometimes called for in order to prevent slamming on breaks. I call bullshit. If you are going the speed limit (40 mph or below most of the time) you should have plenty of time to either come to a controlled stop before a yellow turns red or if you can't you run the yellow. You should almost never need to run a red."
I've been in situations where I was driving legally and yet slamming on my breaks would have either still led me to hit the car in front of me or would have been too quick of a stop for the tailgater behind me to avoid crushing my Toyota with his SUV.
"And you know what? If you are forced to run a red and you get a ticket. Too freaking bad, driving is a privilege with the occasional negative consequence. Don't like the consequence then don't drive."
What a load of bullshit. The proper answer is that if you're unjustly hit with a traffic ticket to be able to appeal that ticket, not to just accept the vageries as the cost of living. God, are you from a bumper crop on the stupid farm?
"And what reklaw said. If you're going to ask questions about quasi-legal or overtly illegal stuff, you should probably grow a hide and expect people to get snooty about it. Especially when it's hot button public safety issues and all that crap."
Well, except that getting snooty isn't following the AskMe guidelines. And if they're gonna be all retarded law 'n' ordah, they might as well follow the rules of the forum instead of taking it upon themselves to be the internet's morality police.
(Aside from that, Cribcage again proves himself rational and reasonable).
posted by klangklangston at 3:17 PM on May 7, 2006
No, it didn't. You inferred that based on your own biases. He asked if they worked. I've long wondered if they worked, in part because I worry that those who run red lights without getting tickets may place me in danger. I just didn't wonder enough to AskMe.
"So basically, forallmankind, you're ok with breaking the law all the time so long as you can claim that there might, possibly, maybe, be a small chance that breaking the law will avert an accident."
I'm ok with that, given that they're different laws. I'm OK with jaywalking all the time if there might, possibly maybe, be a small chance that jaywalking will avert a vehicular homocide. But your argument's bad and you should feel bad.
"As for the anecdotes that running a red is sometimes called for in order to prevent slamming on breaks. I call bullshit. If you are going the speed limit (40 mph or below most of the time) you should have plenty of time to either come to a controlled stop before a yellow turns red or if you can't you run the yellow. You should almost never need to run a red."
I've been in situations where I was driving legally and yet slamming on my breaks would have either still led me to hit the car in front of me or would have been too quick of a stop for the tailgater behind me to avoid crushing my Toyota with his SUV.
"And you know what? If you are forced to run a red and you get a ticket. Too freaking bad, driving is a privilege with the occasional negative consequence. Don't like the consequence then don't drive."
What a load of bullshit. The proper answer is that if you're unjustly hit with a traffic ticket to be able to appeal that ticket, not to just accept the vageries as the cost of living. God, are you from a bumper crop on the stupid farm?
"And what reklaw said. If you're going to ask questions about quasi-legal or overtly illegal stuff, you should probably grow a hide and expect people to get snooty about it. Especially when it's hot button public safety issues and all that crap."
Well, except that getting snooty isn't following the AskMe guidelines. And if they're gonna be all retarded law 'n' ordah, they might as well follow the rules of the forum instead of taking it upon themselves to be the internet's morality police.
(Aside from that, Cribcage again proves himself rational and reasonable).
posted by klangklangston at 3:17 PM on May 7, 2006
I've seen attempts at humour get deleted that were actually slightly funny. The comment pointed to here doesn't even have that going for it.
I was briefly tempted to reply with my own irrational but deeply-held belief that automated law enforcement is a Bad Idea, but even here where it would presumably be acceptable, it would also be entirely pointless and stupid. Sometimes, five fresh fish, you've just got to realize that no matter how much an asshole someone is for disagreeing with you, you really aren't obligated to tell them all about it.
Choice1: "Running red lights is bad."
Well, it is illegal and I'd greatly prefer it if people would stop doing it. Exactly how "bad" it is under each of the infinite variety of situations in which it might be done will never be agreed upon. It's an abstract value judgement that varies with individual risk tolerance and respect for the law. There's really no point saying more about it unless you want to write a serious discourse on the nature of morality and the risk psychology of driving.
Choice2: "Berating the questioner is bad."
I think berating the questioner is sometimes just fine, though it should usually be done in private. But if you're berating the questioner while answering the question, or logically explaining why the question is stupid, or generally teaching him something new, that would be good. Berating the questioner because of some kind of emotional reaction, without imparting any kind of wisdom, that is bad.
I would still like to know the answer to the question, just because it's something I don't know. I have absolutely no desire to make any practical use of the answer.
posted by sfenders at 3:25 PM on May 7, 2006
I was briefly tempted to reply with my own irrational but deeply-held belief that automated law enforcement is a Bad Idea, but even here where it would presumably be acceptable, it would also be entirely pointless and stupid. Sometimes, five fresh fish, you've just got to realize that no matter how much an asshole someone is for disagreeing with you, you really aren't obligated to tell them all about it.
Choice1: "Running red lights is bad."
Well, it is illegal and I'd greatly prefer it if people would stop doing it. Exactly how "bad" it is under each of the infinite variety of situations in which it might be done will never be agreed upon. It's an abstract value judgement that varies with individual risk tolerance and respect for the law. There's really no point saying more about it unless you want to write a serious discourse on the nature of morality and the risk psychology of driving.
Choice2: "Berating the questioner is bad."
I think berating the questioner is sometimes just fine, though it should usually be done in private. But if you're berating the questioner while answering the question, or logically explaining why the question is stupid, or generally teaching him something new, that would be good. Berating the questioner because of some kind of emotional reaction, without imparting any kind of wisdom, that is bad.
I would still like to know the answer to the question, just because it's something I don't know. I have absolutely no desire to make any practical use of the answer.
posted by sfenders at 3:25 PM on May 7, 2006
If you didn't enter an intersection on a yellow you would (a) never, ever get to turn and (b) you would otherwise cause serious problems in the flow of through traffic and probably an eventual accident.
In BC, and I have no reason to doubt it's not the same elsewhere, you are expected to (A) get your front tires past the stop line while the light is green (you are now "in the intersection"); and (b) ride the ass of the car in front of you, so that as many cars as possible can fit into the intersection while waiting to turn.
It may very well be the case that you'll be waiting in the intersection until the light goes red. This is okay. The opposing traffic should be stopping when the light goes yellow, which means you have a reasonable expectation to clear the intersection before the light goes yellow (you entered it while it was green). You are there legally.
And even if the opposing traffic are all jerks who don't stop for the yellow, you have right of way during the red. The cross-traffic must allow you to clear the intersection. You are still legal.
You must be a safe travelling distance behind the car in front of you. As the left turn traffic is barely creeping forward while it awaits breaks in the traffic, you are allowed to be very close to the car ahead of you. And, yes, you are still legal.
It is illegal to enter the intersection when the light goes yellow and you have adequate stopping distance (which, in a left hand turn lane, is going to be a pretty short distance given the lack of speed.)
Case law in BC has established that what I say is correct. It is likely the same is true in your jurisdiction. The information may be largely unpublicised, because cops like to make the bucks. Ignorance of the law is not their problem.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:42 PM on May 7, 2006
In BC, and I have no reason to doubt it's not the same elsewhere, you are expected to (A) get your front tires past the stop line while the light is green (you are now "in the intersection"); and (b) ride the ass of the car in front of you, so that as many cars as possible can fit into the intersection while waiting to turn.
It may very well be the case that you'll be waiting in the intersection until the light goes red. This is okay. The opposing traffic should be stopping when the light goes yellow, which means you have a reasonable expectation to clear the intersection before the light goes yellow (you entered it while it was green). You are there legally.
And even if the opposing traffic are all jerks who don't stop for the yellow, you have right of way during the red. The cross-traffic must allow you to clear the intersection. You are still legal.
You must be a safe travelling distance behind the car in front of you. As the left turn traffic is barely creeping forward while it awaits breaks in the traffic, you are allowed to be very close to the car ahead of you. And, yes, you are still legal.
It is illegal to enter the intersection when the light goes yellow and you have adequate stopping distance (which, in a left hand turn lane, is going to be a pretty short distance given the lack of speed.)
Case law in BC has established that what I say is correct. It is likely the same is true in your jurisdiction. The information may be largely unpublicised, because cops like to make the bucks. Ignorance of the law is not their problem.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:42 PM on May 7, 2006
Next time, forallmankind, make sure to preface your question with a morally acceptable justification. It needn't be remotely true. For example:
"My brother-in-law plans to buy something like the PhotoBlocker Spray, the PhotoShield Cover, or the Reflector Cover because he's an ignorant red-light-running asswipe. I told him no way do they work, even showed him an article to prove it. Furthermore, they're going to get his asswipe ass thrown in jail. However, I must admit that my curiosity was piqued on a hypothetical level. Could these things actually work? P.S. Don't worry, I won't tell the red-light-running asswipe if the answer is yes."
Then we can all check into MeTa to argue about whether you should call your brother-in-law an asswipe when it isn't specifically related to the perfectly acceptable AskMe.
posted by desuetude at 3:50 PM on May 7, 2006
"My brother-in-law plans to buy something like the PhotoBlocker Spray, the PhotoShield Cover, or the Reflector Cover because he's an ignorant red-light-running asswipe. I told him no way do they work, even showed him an article to prove it. Furthermore, they're going to get his asswipe ass thrown in jail. However, I must admit that my curiosity was piqued on a hypothetical level. Could these things actually work? P.S. Don't worry, I won't tell the red-light-running asswipe if the answer is yes."
Then we can all check into MeTa to argue about whether you should call your brother-in-law an asswipe when it isn't specifically related to the perfectly acceptable AskMe.
posted by desuetude at 3:50 PM on May 7, 2006
Also, when there are fatal traffic accidents in these areas, it's a net positive for mankind.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:57 PM PST on May 7 [!][↑] No other comments.
As someone who lives on this corridor, may I kindly recommend that you go jingle rock bell yourself.
posted by drpynchon at 3:53 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:57 PM PST on May 7 [!][↑] No other comments.
As someone who lives on this corridor, may I kindly recommend that you go jingle rock bell yourself.
posted by drpynchon at 3:53 PM on May 7, 2006
Very little can piss me off quite so much as drivers who do not approach their task with every bit of professionalism and safety that driving deserves.
Jesus, don't come to Korea. Or most of the world that's not Canada, come to think of it. Or most of Canada for that matter, as I recall.
You'll blow gaskets all over the place, and fresh fish or no, that's gonna start to smell pretty bad in the summer sun.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:06 PM on May 7, 2006
Jesus, don't come to Korea. Or most of the world that's not Canada, come to think of it. Or most of Canada for that matter, as I recall.
You'll blow gaskets all over the place, and fresh fish or no, that's gonna start to smell pretty bad in the summer sun.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:06 PM on May 7, 2006
fff, is there a reason you had to post a non-responsive answer in the thread? (Other than the self-obsession and egomania we all share, that is.) forallmankind has an email address in his profile; you could have communicated directly with him. No derail, no MeTa, yet you still get to say your piece -- everyone's happy. For about a millisecond, which is still better than nothing, right?
posted by vetiver at 4:20 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by vetiver at 4:20 PM on May 7, 2006
I take driving very seriously. There is no other activity we do in this society that causes so many unnecessary and stupid deaths. If you habitually run red lights, the best I can say is "Fuck you, you no-good piece of shit."
Then don't say anything at all. AskMe is not about gratifying your desire to say "Fuck you" to anybody and anything that pisses you off. AskMe is about answering the fucking question. If you can't or won't do that, go play elsewhere.
And I agree that that irrelevant and offensive comment should be stuck under the cornfield.
posted by languagehat at 4:45 PM on May 7, 2006
Then don't say anything at all. AskMe is not about gratifying your desire to say "Fuck you" to anybody and anything that pisses you off. AskMe is about answering the fucking question. If you can't or won't do that, go play elsewhere.
And I agree that that irrelevant and offensive comment should be stuck under the cornfield.
posted by languagehat at 4:45 PM on May 7, 2006
Some of these have been tangentially approached but need to be asked directly (but I will resist the temptation to post it to AskMe): Given that the vast majority, perhaps all, of the people in this thread agree that running red lights is bad, what does the indignant law-and-order crowd think of red light cameras in the first place? Do you think giving a private company $75 each time they write a ticket is a good way to enforce laws? May I assume that each of the people offended by the question never speeds, comes to a complete stop at all stop signs, and always uses their turn signal when changing lanes?
posted by TedW at 5:26 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by TedW at 5:26 PM on May 7, 2006
"May I assume that each of the people offended by the question never speeds, comes to a complete stop at all stop signs, and always uses their turn signal when changing lanes?"
Yup! Although I will admit that the reason I drive the speed limit is to piss off the people behind me. ;-P
posted by mischief at 5:42 PM on May 7, 2006
Yup! Although I will admit that the reason I drive the speed limit is to piss off the people behind me. ;-P
posted by mischief at 5:42 PM on May 7, 2006
well, that's the important thing, after all.
like for me, it feels really really good to run red lights and mow down babies in strollers. my car has a special sensor that detects the sanctimonious ones.
posted by Hat Maui at 6:18 PM on May 7, 2006
like for me, it feels really really good to run red lights and mow down babies in strollers. my car has a special sensor that detects the sanctimonious ones.
posted by Hat Maui at 6:18 PM on May 7, 2006
There are lots of legitimate arguments to make against redlight cameras, and since they are not going away, trying to mitigate the negative effects resonable.
Anyway, the question was not answered and the comment should be removed.
posted by delmoi at 6:32 PM on May 7, 2006
Anyway, the question was not answered and the comment should be removed.
posted by delmoi at 6:32 PM on May 7, 2006
if you're berating the questioner while answering the question, or logically explaining why the question is stupid, or generally teaching him something new, that would be good
I can see where you're coming from with this, but no, it really wouldn't. Explain the problem if there is one, but don't "berate" anyone. True berating indicates that you've completely left the ground and begun reponding to the questioner from an emotional place. FFF, for example, has had multiple near-death experiences with red light runners. Fine. His problem is he's taking it out on this questioner, tossing insults and cuss words his way. That's not logically pointing out jack shit. That's a big fat harassing derail.
Think practically for a moment about whether you can really convince someone that they're an idiot and need to rethink their life on AskMe. And how simple is for people to slip from "I think I know something you don't" to "I'm going to teach you a lesson right here."
What you call "logically explaining why the question is stupid" is a myth around here, and the balls-out hassling of people who just want an answer to a narrowly defined question is rampant. The source of this tension is easy enough to understand. I have my moments also where I want to lecture someone on a tangent. I honestly blame the admins for not taking a clearer stand on this. They sure took a clear stand on wisecracks. But I'd much sooner tolerate the occasional haha than some sanctimonious lecture complete with foul-tongued insults. Weeeak.
I would still like to know the answer to the question, just because it's something I don't know. I have absolutely no desire to make any practical use of the answer.
I agree. What's the purported mechanism by which they work, anyway? Could be interesting to find out. And neither do I have any desire to use that knowledge for ill. I'm actually one seriously safety-paranoid motherfucker, which makes swallowing the sanctimonious drivel of others on this subject all the more galling. People are lashing out with their pent-up road-rage, just like they lash out with a zillion other pent-up petty annoyances every time someone's question even tiptoes near them.
We have a choice: We can use AskMe as a forum for judging one another and expunging our everyday annoyances, or we can use it to genuinely try to help each other. AskMe can be a Dr.-Laura-style forum where people call in with problems and get "set straight" the hard way, or it can be a truly on-topic, useful place to get a narrowly defined question answered right quick.
I'm personally sick and tired of seeing the goddamn talk-radio element infect it. Someone's on hand to infer idiocy on just about every other goddamn topic.
posted by scarabic at 7:04 PM on May 7, 2006
I can see where you're coming from with this, but no, it really wouldn't. Explain the problem if there is one, but don't "berate" anyone. True berating indicates that you've completely left the ground and begun reponding to the questioner from an emotional place. FFF, for example, has had multiple near-death experiences with red light runners. Fine. His problem is he's taking it out on this questioner, tossing insults and cuss words his way. That's not logically pointing out jack shit. That's a big fat harassing derail.
Think practically for a moment about whether you can really convince someone that they're an idiot and need to rethink their life on AskMe. And how simple is for people to slip from "I think I know something you don't" to "I'm going to teach you a lesson right here."
What you call "logically explaining why the question is stupid" is a myth around here, and the balls-out hassling of people who just want an answer to a narrowly defined question is rampant. The source of this tension is easy enough to understand. I have my moments also where I want to lecture someone on a tangent. I honestly blame the admins for not taking a clearer stand on this. They sure took a clear stand on wisecracks. But I'd much sooner tolerate the occasional haha than some sanctimonious lecture complete with foul-tongued insults. Weeeak.
I would still like to know the answer to the question, just because it's something I don't know. I have absolutely no desire to make any practical use of the answer.
I agree. What's the purported mechanism by which they work, anyway? Could be interesting to find out. And neither do I have any desire to use that knowledge for ill. I'm actually one seriously safety-paranoid motherfucker, which makes swallowing the sanctimonious drivel of others on this subject all the more galling. People are lashing out with their pent-up road-rage, just like they lash out with a zillion other pent-up petty annoyances every time someone's question even tiptoes near them.
We have a choice: We can use AskMe as a forum for judging one another and expunging our everyday annoyances, or we can use it to genuinely try to help each other. AskMe can be a Dr.-Laura-style forum where people call in with problems and get "set straight" the hard way, or it can be a truly on-topic, useful place to get a narrowly defined question answered right quick.
I'm personally sick and tired of seeing the goddamn talk-radio element infect it. Someone's on hand to infer idiocy on just about every other goddamn topic.
posted by scarabic at 7:04 PM on May 7, 2006
scarabic: When is it okay in AskMe to start questioning the motives of the asker?
"I'm thinking about committing a mass murder-suicide, what's the best way?"
"I want to do 240 on the California Interstate, where can I do it with the most cars around?"
"There's this crazy video on YouTube where somebody fires his car through a red light and barely avoids hitting a bunch of traffic. Where can I do THAT?
"I'd like to run red lights when I'm late for work and not get any tickets, does this stuff actually work?"
I'm not trying to put up a straw man, but it seems to me like there's no good line to draw on these questions, and so we have to allow people to come in and be nosy, judgemental, bastards.
posted by onalark at 7:34 PM on May 7, 2006
"I'm thinking about committing a mass murder-suicide, what's the best way?"
"I want to do 240 on the California Interstate, where can I do it with the most cars around?"
"There's this crazy video on YouTube where somebody fires his car through a red light and barely avoids hitting a bunch of traffic. Where can I do THAT?
"I'd like to run red lights when I'm late for work and not get any tickets, does this stuff actually work?"
I'm not trying to put up a straw man, but it seems to me like there's no good line to draw on these questions, and so we have to allow people to come in and be nosy, judgemental, bastards.
posted by onalark at 7:34 PM on May 7, 2006
I'm not trying to put up a straw man
And yet there one is. Nicely done.
posted by mediareport at 8:00 PM on May 7, 2006
And yet there one is. Nicely done.
posted by mediareport at 8:00 PM on May 7, 2006
I understand that it's an artificial example, but this is largely because I'm too lazy to go through AskMe and actually pull up questions that fall in that spectrum. Do you disagree that some sort of line would need to be drawn on when we should question the poster's motives or if alternative solutions that don't answer their question exist?
If you do, then sorry it was a strawman and I retract it until I have real examples.
posted by onalark at 8:07 PM on May 7, 2006
If you do, then sorry it was a strawman and I retract it until I have real examples.
posted by onalark at 8:07 PM on May 7, 2006
I just assume everyone in AskMe is working on a novel.
posted by fleacircus at 8:08 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by fleacircus at 8:08 PM on May 7, 2006
"AskMe is about answering the fucking question. If you can't or won't do that, go play elsewhere."
Oughta be repeated a few times, methinks.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:21 PM on May 7, 2006
Oughta be repeated a few times, methinks.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:21 PM on May 7, 2006
May I assume that each of the people offended by the question never speeds, comes to a complete stop at all stop signs, and always uses their turn signal when changing lanes?
You may, in fact, assume that I do my absolute best to always drive in the most professional manner I can muster. It is, after all, the leading cause of unnatural death in our society. It would be abysmally stupid to treat in anything but a professional manner.
Apparently a whole lot of you treat it a lot more casually, and could somehow live with yourselves if your jackass driving habits were to end up harming someone.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:37 PM on May 7, 2006
You may, in fact, assume that I do my absolute best to always drive in the most professional manner I can muster. It is, after all, the leading cause of unnatural death in our society. It would be abysmally stupid to treat in anything but a professional manner.
Apparently a whole lot of you treat it a lot more casually, and could somehow live with yourselves if your jackass driving habits were to end up harming someone.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:37 PM on May 7, 2006
onalark, I think you might have had some trouble with live preview, because your links didn't come through. :D
You are indeed putting up straw men. Sure, concoct the worst possible examples under the sun and expect everyone to just nod their heads and make judgments about reality based on your fantasy examples. Back to the 3rd grade of rhetoric for you.
When is it okay in AskMe to start questioning the motives of the asker?
Why would you want to? At what point in the mission of AskMe is questioning of the asker's motives called for? It's their question. Help them or fuck off.
The only reason I can think of to tackle a questioner in mid-stride is to prevent misleading or otherwise objectionable materials from being published on the internet. But if you have an information war to wage, shouldn't you be out watchdogging people who purport to publish facts, not people who ask questions?
posted by scarabic at 8:41 PM on May 7, 2006
You are indeed putting up straw men. Sure, concoct the worst possible examples under the sun and expect everyone to just nod their heads and make judgments about reality based on your fantasy examples. Back to the 3rd grade of rhetoric for you.
When is it okay in AskMe to start questioning the motives of the asker?
Why would you want to? At what point in the mission of AskMe is questioning of the asker's motives called for? It's their question. Help them or fuck off.
The only reason I can think of to tackle a questioner in mid-stride is to prevent misleading or otherwise objectionable materials from being published on the internet. But if you have an information war to wage, shouldn't you be out watchdogging people who purport to publish facts, not people who ask questions?
posted by scarabic at 8:41 PM on May 7, 2006
FFF is a better driver than everyone here, and cares more about y'all not killing anyone with your bad driving habits than any fucking jackass under the sun. Facts well established. Can we move on?
posted by scarabic at 8:42 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by scarabic at 8:42 PM on May 7, 2006
Oh, and to answer the other part of your question, TedW: I would prefer to see the yellow times extended in conjunction with red light camera use.
In BC our cameras are operated by ICBC, the mandatory public insurer. Any funds generated by the cameras are used exclusively for the upkeep of cameras and adding new cameras. The cameras are used only in high-accident intersections, the yellow light times are not shortened, and ticketing occurs only if you enter the intersection after the light has gone red. It is simply an intelligent and fair use of the devices.
Further, I also wholly support the use of portable speed cameras. When we were ticketing speeders using these cameras we had an excellent level of consistency in highway speeds, which really enhances traffic safety. Now that we stupidly got rid of them we have people doing every speed from 40kmh+ over the limit on highways, to doddering along at sub-posted speeds. It's a fucking insane zoo of varying speeds, and it is becoming very dangerous to travel some of our highways.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:43 PM on May 7, 2006
In BC our cameras are operated by ICBC, the mandatory public insurer. Any funds generated by the cameras are used exclusively for the upkeep of cameras and adding new cameras. The cameras are used only in high-accident intersections, the yellow light times are not shortened, and ticketing occurs only if you enter the intersection after the light has gone red. It is simply an intelligent and fair use of the devices.
Further, I also wholly support the use of portable speed cameras. When we were ticketing speeders using these cameras we had an excellent level of consistency in highway speeds, which really enhances traffic safety. Now that we stupidly got rid of them we have people doing every speed from 40kmh+ over the limit on highways, to doddering along at sub-posted speeds. It's a fucking insane zoo of varying speeds, and it is becoming very dangerous to travel some of our highways.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:43 PM on May 7, 2006
Hey, scarbic, re: your last post: Fuck You.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:44 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 8:44 PM on May 7, 2006
FFF is a better driver than everyone here, and cares more about y'all not killing anyone with your bad driving habits than any fucking jackass under the sun. Facts well established. Can we move on?
Agreed: FFF is definitely the best AskMe driver.
posted by forallmankind at 8:49 PM on May 7, 2006
Agreed: FFF is definitely the best AskMe driver.
posted by forallmankind at 8:49 PM on May 7, 2006
I was sick the day in 3rd grade they taught rhetoric on Internet forums :(
posted by onalark at 8:57 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by onalark at 8:57 PM on May 7, 2006
I thought you didn't care what anyone here thought, FFF? :)
In any case you have harped all day on the belief that your behavior in AskMe is excusable because your belief system leads to fewer roadside deaths, despite links bringing the efficacy of red light cameras into question. You've fucked yourself pretty well on that count and I've been fucked pretty well today already so let's call it a night.
Isn't it inspiring how chastened he is by his being made an example of in puiblic, Jessamyn?
posted by scarabic at 9:06 PM on May 7, 2006
In any case you have harped all day on the belief that your behavior in AskMe is excusable because your belief system leads to fewer roadside deaths, despite links bringing the efficacy of red light cameras into question. You've fucked yourself pretty well on that count and I've been fucked pretty well today already so let's call it a night.
Isn't it inspiring how chastened he is by his being made an example of in puiblic, Jessamyn?
posted by scarabic at 9:06 PM on May 7, 2006
fff:
Did you think your rant would change the poster's mind about whether or not to run red lights?
If you did, then I think you're naive, but so be it.
If you didn't, then you're just spouting off to vent and make yourself feel better. That's not what AskMe is for.
There are occasionally questions on AskMe where the best I can say is "Fuck you, you no-good piece of shit." So I choose not to say anything. It is possible.
posted by Bugbread at 9:14 PM on May 7, 2006
Did you think your rant would change the poster's mind about whether or not to run red lights?
If you did, then I think you're naive, but so be it.
If you didn't, then you're just spouting off to vent and make yourself feel better. That's not what AskMe is for.
There are occasionally questions on AskMe where the best I can say is "Fuck you, you no-good piece of shit." So I choose not to say anything. It is possible.
posted by Bugbread at 9:14 PM on May 7, 2006
The only reason to obscure your license plate to a camera or the human eye is because you feel that the rules of the road do not apply to you, and that you plan on hurting someone and getting away with it. Manufacturing, selling, purchasing, or using these devices makes you a bad person.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:29 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:29 PM on May 7, 2006
Manufacturing, selling, purchasing, or using these devices makes you a bad person.
You forgot "asking about them." That makes you a bad person, too, right? Or are you just pontificating without any reference to the thread in question?
posted by mediareport at 9:35 PM on May 7, 2006
You forgot "asking about them." That makes you a bad person, too, right? Or are you just pontificating without any reference to the thread in question?
posted by mediareport at 9:35 PM on May 7, 2006
'Asking about them because YOU have a legitimate reason to use one because of horrible traffic where you live' makes you a disingenous wanker.
fff made the point that they are probably illegal, followed it with a bit of unnecessary ranting, and forallmankind responded by saying 'but I NEEEEEED them! It's ok because of where I live!'
If he wasn't actually intending to ever use one, he wouldn't have felt the need to respond to fff at all.
posted by jacalata at 9:50 PM on May 7, 2006
fff made the point that they are probably illegal, followed it with a bit of unnecessary ranting, and forallmankind responded by saying 'but I NEEEEEED them! It's ok because of where I live!'
If he wasn't actually intending to ever use one, he wouldn't have felt the need to respond to fff at all.
posted by jacalata at 9:50 PM on May 7, 2006
That makes you a bad person, too, right?
Sure, I guess; whatever answer gets you breathlessly angrier.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:52 PM on May 7, 2006
Sure, I guess; whatever answer gets you breathlessly angrier.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:52 PM on May 7, 2006
You forgot "asking about them." That makes you a bad person, too, right?
Pete Townshend, child porn, nuf said.
posted by mischief at 10:03 PM on May 7, 2006
Pete Townshend, child porn, nuf said.
posted by mischief at 10:03 PM on May 7, 2006
Although it is kind of funny, in a disproportionate and needlessly-vicious kind of way, so there's that.
Good, that was what I was going for. See the "I base this on my my own kneejerk prejudices." bit, for example.
I'd do it again.
posted by The Monkey at 10:16 PM on May 7, 2006
Good, that was what I was going for. See the "I base this on my my own kneejerk prejudices." bit, for example.
I'd do it again.
posted by The Monkey at 10:16 PM on May 7, 2006
whatever answer gets you breathlessly angrier.
Sorry, the breathlessly angry are on the other side of the room. They're the folks you're defending. Happy to help.
posted by mediareport at 10:49 PM on May 7, 2006
Sorry, the breathlessly angry are on the other side of the room. They're the folks you're defending. Happy to help.
posted by mediareport at 10:49 PM on May 7, 2006
I'm not angry, but I am kinda weary and dyspeptic.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:50 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:50 PM on May 7, 2006
If we were all robotic monkey drones, pecking tirelessly away at our keyboards, it might be possible to disengage the passion and opinion from the cold, hard facts in Ask Metafilter. But since we're not, until we can breed the humanity out of the people who participate on the green, we'll probably just have to deal with them injecting their faults, foibles, and petty, predjudical presumptions along with their fabulous and helpful knowledge.
posted by crunchland at 11:34 PM on May 7, 2006
posted by crunchland at 11:34 PM on May 7, 2006
Has anyone thought of rolling a pram filled with mince meat onto a pedestrian crossing in Paris? Would that work??
posted by strawberryviagra at 12:34 AM on May 8, 2006
posted by strawberryviagra at 12:34 AM on May 8, 2006
In BC, and I have no reason to doubt it's not the same elsewhere
I would suggest that you do have reason to doubt this, especially when you're talking about a place like LA, which has some of its own driving conventions. Here's an old AskMe on the topic.
posted by furiousthought at 1:10 AM on May 8, 2006
I would suggest that you do have reason to doubt this, especially when you're talking about a place like LA, which has some of its own driving conventions. Here's an old AskMe on the topic.
posted by furiousthought at 1:10 AM on May 8, 2006
Hey, scarbic, re: your last post: Fuck You.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:44 AM CET on May 8
comedy gold.
look, 5 fresh fish usually spends a good part of his askmefi time sharing with us his most uninteresting opinions about stuff, very seldom answering the actual question (not that he cares). dragged to metatalk, he starts hurling fuck-yous. and it's all Ok for matt and jessamyn, so more power to him.
hence, the only person who can relieve us of the displeasure of his company seems to be, ironically, an actual red light running asswipe
posted by matteo at 4:01 AM on May 8, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 5:44 AM CET on May 8
comedy gold.
look, 5 fresh fish usually spends a good part of his askmefi time sharing with us his most uninteresting opinions about stuff, very seldom answering the actual question (not that he cares). dragged to metatalk, he starts hurling fuck-yous. and it's all Ok for matt and jessamyn, so more power to him.
hence, the only person who can relieve us of the displeasure of his company seems to be, ironically, an actual red light running asswipe
posted by matteo at 4:01 AM on May 8, 2006
Case law in BC has established that what I say is correct. It is likely the same is true in your jurisdiction.
What furiousthought said. It is not likely that the same is true in a non-Canadian jurisdiction, especially since the U.S. (and possibly Canada) would not have inherited common law on traffic lights from Britain, because they were not invented when the two systems split.
posted by oaf at 5:05 AM on May 8, 2006
What furiousthought said. It is not likely that the same is true in a non-Canadian jurisdiction, especially since the U.S. (and possibly Canada) would not have inherited common law on traffic lights from Britain, because they were not invented when the two systems split.
posted by oaf at 5:05 AM on May 8, 2006
Comparing something in BC as a proof of argument for something anywhere else, whether FFF has been there or not is (in 3rd grade rhetorical terms) a false analogy. Nevermind for a second that it is FFF's own interpretation of case law coupled with some unexplained affective venom probably based of his own experiences (i.e. displaced road rage). In 6th grade rhetorical terms this comparison denies the specific context of the question and the questioner -- it is an inability to reason outside of one's own experience. In 9th grade rhetorical terms, it speaks of an epistemological assumption that experience (and knowledge) is homogenous and continuous from as it exists in FFF's mind onto the rest of the world; that systemic order is the product of a foundational set of laws rather than a mediated product of nature and law; and that FFF is the proper interpreter of this order because, of course, his knowledge is the only valid knowledge and therefore correct by default.
posted by mrmojoflying at 5:19 AM on May 8, 2006
posted by mrmojoflying at 5:19 AM on May 8, 2006
It is, after all, the leading cause of unnatural death in our society.
I really don't have much more to add to this thread, but I would like to point out that cigarette smoking has the distinction of being the leading cause of premature death in both the US and Canada, by an order of magnitude over trauma.
posted by TedW at 5:23 AM on May 8, 2006
I really don't have much more to add to this thread, but I would like to point out that cigarette smoking has the distinction of being the leading cause of premature death in both the US and Canada, by an order of magnitude over trauma.
posted by TedW at 5:23 AM on May 8, 2006
A "blinking red light" is not a "red light".
Sure it is. Red lights require you to stop, no matter what. When you get to go depends on whether it's blinking or not.
Do you disagree that some sort of line would need to be drawn on when we should question the poster's motives or if alternative solutions that don't answer their question exist?
No. Allow debatable gray areas to be debated on a case by case basis.
posted by Witty at 5:52 AM on May 8, 2006
Sure it is. Red lights require you to stop, no matter what. When you get to go depends on whether it's blinking or not.
Do you disagree that some sort of line would need to be drawn on when we should question the poster's motives or if alternative solutions that don't answer their question exist?
No. Allow debatable gray areas to be debated on a case by case basis.
posted by Witty at 5:52 AM on May 8, 2006
We have a choice: We can use AskMe as a forum for judging one another and expunging our everyday annoyances, or we can use it to genuinely try to help each other.
The trouble is that some people (who shall be known in this document as "assholes") are quite sure that "judging one another and expunging our everyday annoyances" is being helpful. Yes, they're deluded and annoying, but there's no way to re-educate them here. So we just have to let them poop in threads and then whack them about the head and shoulders here in MeTa. But I do wish M&J would make more liberal use of the Broom of Doom in sweeping out those comments. Also, what matteo said.
And I'd like to repeat bugbread's wise words for those who missed them the first time:
There are occasionally questions on AskMe where the best I can say is "Fuck you, you no-good piece of shit." So I choose not to say anything. It is possible.
posted by languagehat at 6:00 AM on May 8, 2006
The trouble is that some people (who shall be known in this document as "assholes") are quite sure that "judging one another and expunging our everyday annoyances" is being helpful. Yes, they're deluded and annoying, but there's no way to re-educate them here. So we just have to let them poop in threads and then whack them about the head and shoulders here in MeTa. But I do wish M&J would make more liberal use of the Broom of Doom in sweeping out those comments. Also, what matteo said.
And I'd like to repeat bugbread's wise words for those who missed them the first time:
There are occasionally questions on AskMe where the best I can say is "Fuck you, you no-good piece of shit." So I choose not to say anything. It is possible.
posted by languagehat at 6:00 AM on May 8, 2006
"Case law in BC has established that what I say is correct. It is likely the same is true in your jurisdiction. The information may be largely unpublicised, because cops like to make the bucks. Ignorance of the law is not their problem."
That's exactly wrong here, chief, so I hope you never drive in America. Here you can enter intersections on yellow if you'd be unable to stop safely before entering the intersection, and it's illegal to enter the intersection (even on green) if there's not enough space for you to make it all the way through the intersection. So maybe it's time for you to shut the fuck up about driving in the US?
posted by klangklangston at 6:13 AM on May 8, 2006
That's exactly wrong here, chief, so I hope you never drive in America. Here you can enter intersections on yellow if you'd be unable to stop safely before entering the intersection, and it's illegal to enter the intersection (even on green) if there's not enough space for you to make it all the way through the intersection. So maybe it's time for you to shut the fuck up about driving in the US?
posted by klangklangston at 6:13 AM on May 8, 2006
"Sure it is. Red lights require you to stop, no matter what. When you get to go depends on whether it's blinking or not."
Or whether you're turning. Or what the local regulations are...
posted by klangklangston at 6:15 AM on May 8, 2006
Or whether you're turning. Or what the local regulations are...
posted by klangklangston at 6:15 AM on May 8, 2006
But I do wish M&J would make more liberal use of the Broom of Doom in sweeping out those comments.
hear hear.
also, fff's comment is STILL there. awesome. nothing makes a good askme answer like intentional and unabashed vitriol spewed all over a thread for no other reason than the commenter's personal satisfaction at the expense of the thread.
hell, the fact that the thread's still there is kinda bizarre.
posted by shmegegge at 6:18 AM on May 8, 2006
hear hear.
also, fff's comment is STILL there. awesome. nothing makes a good askme answer like intentional and unabashed vitriol spewed all over a thread for no other reason than the commenter's personal satisfaction at the expense of the thread.
hell, the fact that the thread's still there is kinda bizarre.
posted by shmegegge at 6:18 AM on May 8, 2006
"Sure it is. Red lights require you to stop, no matter what. When you get to go depends on whether it's blinking or not."
Or whether you're turning. Or what the local regulations are...
Or whether you have gas in your car, or whether you are in a car at all.
posted by Balisong at 7:16 AM on May 8, 2006
Or whether you're turning. Or what the local regulations are...
Or whether you have gas in your car, or whether you are in a car at all.
posted by Balisong at 7:16 AM on May 8, 2006
fff's comment is STILL there. awesome
If they deleted it now they'd send the message that whinging in MeTa accomplishes something. Can't have that.
posted by scarabic at 8:08 AM on May 8, 2006
If they deleted it now they'd send the message that whinging in MeTa accomplishes something. Can't have that.
posted by scarabic at 8:08 AM on May 8, 2006
I'm somewhat amused to note that less than an hour after I commented in this thread, I was on my way to farmer's market and was forced to run a red light in order to avoid getting nailed by the guy behind me who assumed that he and I were both planning on speeding through the yellow. So, what do you know, that's once in 12 years of driving. I guess I better rush out and buy some spray so I don't get a ticket when it happens again in 12 years.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:06 AM on May 8, 2006
posted by jacquilynne at 10:06 AM on May 8, 2006
"It is, after all, the leading cause of unnatural death in our society."Smoking a cigarette while talking on a cell phone and applying makeup is the leading cause of running red lights.
"... but I would like to point out that cigarette smoking ..."
Aha!!! We have outed you, forallmankind!
posted by mischief at 10:17 AM on May 8, 2006
In any case you have harped all day on the belief that your behavior in AskMe is excusable because your belief system leads to fewer roadside deaths, despite links bringing the efficacy of red light cameras into question.
What a crass liar you are. I have not asked that my behaviour be excused. You carelessly — or is it maliciously? —misrepresent me.
My belief system is that approaching driving with the goal of behaving professionally would certainly lead to fewer roadside deaths. The use of red light cameras has no bearing on that belief.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:57 AM on May 8, 2006
What a crass liar you are. I have not asked that my behaviour be excused. You carelessly — or is it maliciously? —misrepresent me.
My belief system is that approaching driving with the goal of behaving professionally would certainly lead to fewer roadside deaths. The use of red light cameras has no bearing on that belief.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:57 AM on May 8, 2006
Klangston: Please visit the Michigan Vehicle Code.
Check Division 300-1949-VI, §612.1.a-c. You will note that it explicitly states that at a yellow light you must stop before entering the intersection. Compare this to the red light language, where it explicitly states you shall stop before the intersection and will remain there until a green light.
This is basically the same as in BC.
The remainder of the case logic is based on §257.24 (intersections are laned roadways), §257.627.1 (careful and prudent speed), and §257.643 (careful and prudent following distance).
Which is, again, all basically the same as in BC.
I've wasted way the heck too much time on this. Go do what you will: I'll avoid Michigan. :-)
posted by five fresh fish at 11:33 AM on May 8, 2006
Check Division 300-1949-VI, §612.1.a-c. You will note that it explicitly states that at a yellow light you must stop before entering the intersection. Compare this to the red light language, where it explicitly states you shall stop before the intersection and will remain there until a green light.
This is basically the same as in BC.
The remainder of the case logic is based on §257.24 (intersections are laned roadways), §257.627.1 (careful and prudent speed), and §257.643 (careful and prudent following distance).
Which is, again, all basically the same as in BC.
I've wasted way the heck too much time on this. Go do what you will: I'll avoid Michigan. :-)
posted by five fresh fish at 11:33 AM on May 8, 2006
"Check Division 300-1949-VI, §612.1.a-c. You will note that it explicitly states that at a yellow light you must stop before entering the intersection."
"(b) If the signal exhibits a steady yellow indication, vehicular traffic facing the signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at the intersection or at a limit line when marked, but if the stop cannot be made in safety, a vehicle may be driven cautiously through the intersection."
Further, the creep-through IS illegal here. I've seen people ticketted for it; it's a failure to clear right of way. So, we've got a tally of you being wrong and a prick about it, and in AskMe where it was unnecessary.
posted by klangklangston at 12:26 PM on May 8, 2006
"(b) If the signal exhibits a steady yellow indication, vehicular traffic facing the signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at the intersection or at a limit line when marked, but if the stop cannot be made in safety, a vehicle may be driven cautiously through the intersection."
Further, the creep-through IS illegal here. I've seen people ticketted for it; it's a failure to clear right of way. So, we've got a tally of you being wrong and a prick about it, and in AskMe where it was unnecessary.
posted by klangklangston at 12:26 PM on May 8, 2006
Sigh. I apologise for being unclear: I am not saying that it is okay to cross the stop line once the light has gone yellow. It is okay to be in the intersection (ie. past the stop line) when the light changes from green to yellow. Your traffic code does not explicitly disallow it and there is no language which would indicate that the intention is to disallow it.
Summary for legal left-hand turns:
(1) Enter the intersection on green. "Enter the intersection" means to get your front tires past the stop line.
(2) Once occupying the intersection, ride the ass of the person in front of you at a "safe and prudent" distance for your speed.
(3) Give right-of-way to the oncoming traffic.
(4) Having entered on a green, it is not illegal to be in the turning area at the time the light goes yellow. You will now have legal (though perhaps not practical) right-of-way. You must clear the intersection ASAP.
(5) You are not allowed to enter the intersection when the light goes yellow. If you didn't sneak your front tires over the stop line while the light was green, you do not get to go.
If you have followed these rules and get ticketed, it is because the cop does not know the law. You should take it to court.
Feel free to call your local cop shop and query them. If they disagree, ask them to locate case law that indicates they are right. I believe they'll find that an impossible task.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:33 PM on May 8, 2006
Summary for legal left-hand turns:
(1) Enter the intersection on green. "Enter the intersection" means to get your front tires past the stop line.
(2) Once occupying the intersection, ride the ass of the person in front of you at a "safe and prudent" distance for your speed.
(3) Give right-of-way to the oncoming traffic.
(4) Having entered on a green, it is not illegal to be in the turning area at the time the light goes yellow. You will now have legal (though perhaps not practical) right-of-way. You must clear the intersection ASAP.
(5) You are not allowed to enter the intersection when the light goes yellow. If you didn't sneak your front tires over the stop line while the light was green, you do not get to go.
If you have followed these rules and get ticketed, it is because the cop does not know the law. You should take it to court.
Feel free to call your local cop shop and query them. If they disagree, ask them to locate case law that indicates they are right. I believe they'll find that an impossible task.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:33 PM on May 8, 2006
What a crass liar you are. I have not asked that my behaviour be excused.
I didn't say you asked to be excused. You clearly don't care what anyone thinks or says about your comment, but you are unrepentant about it. I said you present your view as excusable, ie: defensible, correct. Which you have done.
Funny how nuances matter when nitpicking someone's words in the course of an accusation of misrepresentation, innit?
posted by scarabic at 4:42 PM on May 8, 2006
I didn't say you asked to be excused. You clearly don't care what anyone thinks or says about your comment, but you are unrepentant about it. I said you present your view as excusable, ie: defensible, correct. Which you have done.
Funny how nuances matter when nitpicking someone's words in the course of an accusation of misrepresentation, innit?
posted by scarabic at 4:42 PM on May 8, 2006
Still not seeing, it, buddy. I have said that I am perfectly okay with my post in the AskMe thread being deleted. I have not said nor implied that my behaviour in that thread is excusable.
As for being unrepentant, I note the comment has been allowed to remain in the thread. What, then, am I to feel repentant about?
It's too bad a whole bunch of you got your knickers in a knot over a single comment that did not derail the AskMe thread and, pray to god, may have clued some schmuck into his poor driving habits.
Much ado about nothing. But that's typical of MeTa.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:11 PM on May 8, 2006
As for being unrepentant, I note the comment has been allowed to remain in the thread. What, then, am I to feel repentant about?
It's too bad a whole bunch of you got your knickers in a knot over a single comment that did not derail the AskMe thread and, pray to god, may have clued some schmuck into his poor driving habits.
Much ado about nothing. But that's typical of MeTa.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:11 PM on May 8, 2006
fff: oh, so that was your goal - education through bigotry.
so stupid, your fucking mind.
posted by forallmankind at 8:59 PM on May 8, 2006
so stupid, your fucking mind.
posted by forallmankind at 8:59 PM on May 8, 2006
Bigotry?! FFS.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:54 PM on May 8, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 9:54 PM on May 8, 2006
Hey, y'all want to know where I'm coming from, watch this video: traffic cops.
The salient points here: ICBC is our mandatory, publicly-owned, basic-coverage auto insurer. Everyone in BC is insured through them at some level. You do have the option of going with competitive private insurance for extended coverage.
Anyhoo, ICBC operates wholly differently than any of the insurance companies you're familiar with in the rest of North America. For starters, they put money toward accident reduction.
In this case, they're paying a good amount (or perhaps all) the cost of hiring four new police officers who are going to focus solely on traffic violations in this city. Heck, this past year or two it's very likely we've a high per-capita accident rate than LA. It has been awful.
ICBC is also responsible for our red light cameras. AFAIK we've two camera'd intersections in town; both had been extremely high-accident intersections and thus deemed worthy of camera-ing. Smart company that they are, ICBC doesn't hand the ticket money over to the municipality, nor is the municipality authorized to diddle with the yellow light timing.
Finally, ICBC is also partly responsible for our city's traffic circle experiment. They paid most of the cost of converting a weird little 3-way intersection into a circle in an attempt to improve traffic flow and reduce pedestrian accidents.
And so maybe this is part of where my fundamental difference in attitude stems from: we have an insurance company that puts hundreds of millions of dollars into reducing accident rates. The way things operate in this province, I can reasonably trust that our safety measures really are safety measures, and not a cash grab by the police.
If y'all really want to improve things in your state or province, push for the creation of a public insurance company that is mandated to (a) ensure all drivers have reasonable basic coverage; and (b) improve driving safety.
Now if only we had mandatory driver training and competence-testing when renewing one's drivers' license.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:53 AM on May 11, 2006
The salient points here: ICBC is our mandatory, publicly-owned, basic-coverage auto insurer. Everyone in BC is insured through them at some level. You do have the option of going with competitive private insurance for extended coverage.
Anyhoo, ICBC operates wholly differently than any of the insurance companies you're familiar with in the rest of North America. For starters, they put money toward accident reduction.
In this case, they're paying a good amount (or perhaps all) the cost of hiring four new police officers who are going to focus solely on traffic violations in this city. Heck, this past year or two it's very likely we've a high per-capita accident rate than LA. It has been awful.
ICBC is also responsible for our red light cameras. AFAIK we've two camera'd intersections in town; both had been extremely high-accident intersections and thus deemed worthy of camera-ing. Smart company that they are, ICBC doesn't hand the ticket money over to the municipality, nor is the municipality authorized to diddle with the yellow light timing.
Finally, ICBC is also partly responsible for our city's traffic circle experiment. They paid most of the cost of converting a weird little 3-way intersection into a circle in an attempt to improve traffic flow and reduce pedestrian accidents.
And so maybe this is part of where my fundamental difference in attitude stems from: we have an insurance company that puts hundreds of millions of dollars into reducing accident rates. The way things operate in this province, I can reasonably trust that our safety measures really are safety measures, and not a cash grab by the police.
If y'all really want to improve things in your state or province, push for the creation of a public insurance company that is mandated to (a) ensure all drivers have reasonable basic coverage; and (b) improve driving safety.
Now if only we had mandatory driver training and competence-testing when renewing one's drivers' license.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:53 AM on May 11, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by quonsar at 10:22 AM on May 7, 2006