Jump to content

Randumb Thoughts

  • entries
    132
  • comments
    821
  • views
    14,624

Right Turns on Red


crazydaffodil

890 views

Did you know that it is a law, at least in the United States, that before you may turn your vehicle right onto another street while at a red light, you must actually stop first?  :pb_eek:  I don't mean a "California Roll," where you come to an almost complete stop as you edge your way forward before gunning it.  I mean an actual stop!  As in no movement at all!  :huh:

When did this happen and why doesn't anyone follow this law?  Oh wait, that's why the light is RED in the first place, isn't it?  Because that means stop.  Oooooh, I get it now!  I figured because so many people just keep right on going through that it meant something entirely different, as in, "This law doesn't actually apply to YOU!  Continue on...."  I'm sure there are only a few hundred accidents that occur every day because of this, so what's the big deal.  In fact, if a pedestrian gets struck while in a crosswalk while blowing through that intersection, it was their own damn fault for not recognizing that the red light did not apply to you!

 

Just sayin...

  • Upvote 6

4 Comments


Recommended Comments

Curious

Posted

We all have "rules" (or laws) that we think don't apply to US.  It's just human nature.  Traffic laws seem to be one area where people take a lot of liberties in the "this doesn't apply to me" kind of thinking.

Almost every time we go out for my dr. appts, there is at least 1 if not more accidents.   When you are driving a big, heavy piece of metal, it's not the time to decide the rules don't apply.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
clueliss

Posted

Wait?  You mean right on red doesn't mean you can just whip that bad boy around the corner?  Shocked!  Shocked! I say.  

Not that long ago I had a 'discussion' with a coworker about a very busy intersection we both go through near where we live.  It's an intersection (actually a series of them) I try to avoid at certain times or days.  A right turn lane that begins the lane on the road you are turning onto.  It has no light for it.  No stop sign.  And no yield.  This right turn lane connects with a lane that comes off the interstate.  She is of the opinion that you automatically have right away over everyone.  Because, hey! No light or signage.  I told her, I stop when there are cars coming from the west and turning from the opposite side.  Why?  Because the second folks turn that corner heading east they start changing lanes.  I prefer not to be hit.  But bottom line, while I know there are not lights or signs, I really don't want to have to explain to an officer after being involved in an accident right there that I failed to stop.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
OnceUponATime

Posted

Didn't you know that traffic rules exist purely for revenue collection? </sarcasm>

We aren't allowed to (I don't think) turn on a red light. There must be a green turning arrow or you're shit outta luck. Sometimes people still do it. Then the govt spends tax money on developing and placing/maintaining red light cameras. Those don't come that cheap. Couldn't the money be better spent on education or trying to eradicate poverty? Sure, except there are idiot lawbreakers who don't take time to think about the larger consequences of their actions.

I do have to say though it is sometimes hard to not break the traffic laws. When I get on my trusty bike and go around town there are some nice seeming people who like stopping and letting you through intersections when you're meant to give way. They sometimes even do it when you are already waiting for them to go through. What are you meant to do? Stay stopped and wait forever? Go and risk a fine if a cop comes around the corner for failing to give way? Some drivers make it harder for others to follow the rules.

Don't even get me started on people using their cellphones while driving because it is inconvenient for them to silence them first or something (there is a thread here somewhere if you are interested in adding your :twocents-02cents:)

I do have to say sometimes they could make it easier for people to obey the rules. I visited a town once where they had different coloring in the footpaths when they were across people's driveways. That way you knew where you couldn't park without having to be constantly double checking to see if someone had a not-so-obvious garage or something. One thing I personally would love to see happen is some sort of marking on the footpath to let me know when I've passed the magic x feet from the pedestrian crossing so I can legally cross the road without jaywalking. I suck at judging distances. I thought I jaywalked yesterday, It was somewhat unintentional; I was avoiding an illegally parked truck, which turned into two, and it ended up safer to cross the road than stay on it. Apparently I was over twice the distance needed from the crossing (according to googlemaps). I would never have guessed.

And sometimes people who break the rules are just a bit ignorant and not thinking things through enough. They're looking for the easiest, fastest or most convenient way to do things.  It would be wise for people to brush up on the rules of things every now and then just to make sure they aren't being ignorant idiots. :)

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
crazydaffodil

Posted

13 minutes ago, OnceUponATime said:

And sometimes people who break the rules are just a bit ignorant and not thinking things through enough. They're looking for the easiest, fastest or most convenient way to do things.  It would be wise for people to brush up on the rules of things every now and then just to make sure they aren't being ignorant idiots. :)

:clap: Truer words have never been spoken.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • hoipolloi

      Posted

      33 minutes ago, Columbia said:

      He was more than big. He was their "scholar in residence."

      He was also best man at Doug's & Beall's wedding:

      wedding_phillips.jpg.c3794d518d71910b06b122aa2214ec0e.jpg

    • Columbia

      Posted

      2 hours ago, Howl said:

      I think he was big with Doug Phillips back in the day. 

      He was more than big. He was their "scholar in residence."

      image.png.6dfcb7789d9b98d22cd6dab2cc4ca7ab.png

      He spoke at the big history conferences and Titanic events, went on the European and Greek tours. He had stuff for sale all over the catalog. He and Joe Morecraft were Doug's right hand men at a lot of those big events.

      • Upvote 1
    • 47of74

      Posted

      On 3/7/2024 at 1:30 PM, WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo? said:

      I was curious about the fellow inmate Creech was convicted of murdering in 1981, the murder for which he received this death sentence. (His previous death sentence for 2 murders in 1974 was reduced to life in prison, because of a 1979 supreme court ruling about the unconstitutional nature of the Idaho law of the time.)

      I found an article from 2019 on East Idaho News. Apparently the sheriff and county prosecutor at the time believed that Creech was a danger to fellow inmates.

      Reportedly the other inmate, David Jensen, attacked Creech first. 

        Reveal hidden contents

      Court documents say David Dale Jensen attacked Thomas Creech with a sock filled with batteries.

      Creech was able to take the weapon away from Jensen, and it was that same weapon Creech would later use to beat Jensen to death.

      (clipped)

      Creech went on to claim self-defense in the incident, but the prosecution argued he went above and beyond self-defense.

      There are a lot more colorful details in that article than the more recent ones have had. Including Creech admitting to at least 26 murders, including some for "satanic cult worship rituals". It gave me the impression that Creech was really unstable, at least back in the 1980s. That isn't how his wife and prison friends describe him now, but I can't imagine trusting him, personally. 

      I was watching some YouTube videos of the Darrell Brooks trial today.  Both the judge and prosecutor described that fornicate stick Brooks as pure evil and a danger to the community - part of the reason he should die in prison or be subjected to the death penalty.  (Unfortunately Wisconsin doesn't have the death penalty).  As I said before an adult having to spend the rest of his or her life in prison is far worse than the early release they'd get if the state ended their lives, but I do believe there are a handful of crimes when the death penalty is warranted.  Both in the Brooks case and in the Creech case.

    • CaptainFunderpants

      Posted

      10 hours ago, postscript said:

      I get the impression the Bontrager marriages are semi-arranged. Marlin and the other patriarch decide two of their kids would be a good match, tell the kids to pray about each other as potential mates, and start planning the wedding. I don’t think Marlin would force his kids to marry anyone they didn’t get along with, but he sees parental approval as more important than romantic love. 

      I think they vary widely. John and Chelsy no, Mitchell and Bryn no, Denver and Praise no. Allison and Jeremiah, 100%; Carson and Lina 100%; and then Josh and Cass were gray area.

      According to a guest post they wrote on the Bont blog, Cassidy developed a crush on Josh while being told to pray about her sister and Carson, but Cass thought Josh was out of her league. Josh talks about being terrified to talk to Curtis about pursuing her, and appreciating not only her devotion to God, but her intelligence, playful personality, and joy.

      Taylor and Susanna also seem like gray area. Semi-arranged because of two sets of sibs already being married, but at the same time Taylor has Bible Bee money and Susanna is really pretty, and their wedding pics on Chelsy's blog show far more chemistry than Allison and Jeremiah, but less chemistry than Denver and Praise.

      I'll be curious to see their final three. The odds seem high that there'll be at least one more Bowers and one more Helferich match -there are just too many similar ages.

      • Upvote 2
    • JermajestyDuggar

      Posted

      First Candice Cameron and now Mel Gibson. It’s like they are trying to pose with actors I don’t like. Maybe next will be Gwyneth Paltrow. 

      7AE50B83-897E-4B8D-8016-009953ED6D79.jpeg

      • Upvote 1
      • WTF 2


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.