Four Way Stops


basimpson22

Recommended Posts

Well, this is something that really irritates me, a real pet peeve of mine. I was taught in driver's ed that the driver to the right has the right-of-way when two or more drivers reach a four way stop at the same time. I try to go by this rule. However, here in Tennessee, it seems that people like playing the game of who can wait the longest. People seem to take it as a moral victory. "I let you go first, so I'm one with the universe" Anyways, If you out wait them they get really irritated. Today on my way to work I encountered this scenario. We approach at the same time and she is to my right so I'm like, ok I'll wait for them. The driver doesn't budge. I wasn't about to budge either cause I was in no hurry and I was tired of letting these people win they're stupid little game. Luckily for me I had just bought three slices of supreme pizza. I commenced to slowly pick up my pizza with both hands and give the other driver a pizza-toast and as I put the pizza in my mouth I slowly began to chew. I must've looked like ray charles on the piano, with my eyes closed, head weaving side-to-side, wearing the biggest f*ing smile. I got the best of her. She buckled and begrudgingly passed through the intersection. Victory was mine.

Anyways, that's my bit. Does anyone else ever encounter four-way-stop frustration?

Edited by Aristocrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hah. Sweet victory.

I've heard a million times that Utah drivers are the worst, and this adds to it. Your four-way-stops involve people being "too polite." We have to practically pray that the guy turning left won't ram into the guy going straight (who, of course, was there much earlier), and then get out of the car and proceed to viciously blame the guy going straight (seen it happen, and barely avoided it once :) ).

Well done.

And nice avatar.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL.

Having taught the defensive driving point and insurance reduction class for almost a decade, this "four way stop sign" situation could be a great lesson for testing rational selfishness.

So let's get some suggestive solutions to the four (4) objectivist drivers who get to the four (4) way stop sign at roughly the same time.

I will provide one hint, there does not exist one driver having THE "right of way." Essentially, one driver is supposed to yield the right of way to another depending on the presenting situation.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL.

Having taught the defensive driving point and insurance reduction class for almost a decade, this "four way stop sign" situation could be a great lesson for testing rational selfishness.

So let's get some suggestive solutions to the four (4) objectivist drivers who get to the four (4) way stop sign at roughly the same time.

I will provide one hint, there does not exist one driver having THE "right of way." Essentially, one driver is supposed to yield the right of way to another depending on the presenting situation.

Adam

The neo-Objectivist does not have the right of way--or any rights at all.

--Brant

ARI bumper stickers front and back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL.

Having taught the defensive driving point and insurance reduction class for almost a decade, this "four way stop sign" situation could be a great lesson for testing rational selfishness.

So let's get some suggestive solutions to the four (4) objectivist drivers who get to the four (4) way stop sign at roughly the same time.

I will provide one hint, there does not exist one driver having THE "right of way." Essentially, one driver is supposed to yield the right of way to another depending on the presenting situation.

Adam

A million Objectivist drivers driving a million Hammonds for a million years will never achieve four of them getting to a four-way stop at precisely the same time--they will talk too much--but they will write four great novels blindfolded pounding a million typewriters maintained by Remington-Rand.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOBODY in the entire STATE of California uses turn signals.

(I know that's a generalization, but 95-percent-plus is reasonable evidence of a correlation. I'm in the 5 percent.)

I might have known.

South Africans steal every bad idea from the US, and usually that means California, and not one good one.

Non-indicators (turn signals) is becoming trendy here, and it's making me murderous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's seems like Tennessee truly must be in some kind of time warp, Aristocrates. In New York City it used to be that the crazed Pakistani taxi drivers used to be in some kind of competition for how many pedestrians they could mow down in a given month.

Extra points if you have to go up on the sidewalk after them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a four-way stop was introduced in my hometown, one of our neighbours, confronted by three equally puzzled drivers, got out of his car, pounded the hood and roared, "Sweet Jesus, will somebody tell me WHO HAS TO GO WHEN!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil Coates asks if 'Canuckleheadlectivism' is a word. Yes, it is a word, as coined by Phil. It appears to be a contraction of Canuck, knuckle, head, and collectivism.

Since we do not yet have a definition from the coiner, I will have to guess the intended meaning from contracted terms and the context.

Canuck is easy. It's just an informal way of saying Canadian. Knuckle and head together mean (in the usual definition) 'an idiot; a stupid or inept person.'

Collectivism's meaning is a bit more diffuse, because although a strict connotation can mean this -- 'an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are owned and controlled by the people collectively' -- sometimes in Randian purlieus the meaning can stretch out far and wide. I am guessing here, but I think Phil means collectivism to stand in for all things opposite to 'individualism' tout court. In other words, simplified, individualism is the best economic system/politico-philosophical stance/ethical position . . . and collectivism is not.

So, gathered together, canuckleheadlectivism is a short way of saying 'the complex of stupid behaviours and ethics that our communist northern neighbours are prone to.' Or even simpler, 'stupid Canadian collectivism.'

Now, the context is difficult to read; we can either examine only this thread, or we can examine the entire context of Phil's statements about Canada, collectivism and stupidity. For the purposes of this analysis, I will choose the context of this thread, four way stops. Since Carol provided a (perhaps ironic) vignette of Canucki behaviour at four-way stops -- the only Canuckistani reference -- I suspect that Phil is trying to be at least as tongue-in-cheek as Carol may be.

In that spirit of fun, then, I will suggest another word that may take the place of Phil's neologism.

Multiculturalism.

He asks if there is a "French Canadian" cognate. I would have to say, yes, but, and get a bit persnickety. A better way of putting "French Canadian" is "Canadian French" -- while keeping open the possibility that Phil means 'French Quebec' or 'Quebec French.'

The most common translation into French (Canadian) is 'multiculturalisme.' However, officially and by law, 'multiculturalism' in Quebec is a federal policy. Several provincial governments in Quebec have rejected the word 'multiculturalisme' to describe their own efforts to integrate newcomers. You will not find 'multiculturalisme' policy described as such in Quebec policies. The word and policy in Quebec is 'interculturalisme.'

I might as well answer Phil's query about Toronto 'trolleys.'

-- firstly, Toronto doesn't have 'trolleys'; it has GoTrains, subway cars, automated light rapid transit cars, streetcars, buses and 'wheel-trans.'

-- Phil wondered why Toronto trolleys subway cars have end-doors that are locked or impassible or verboten between cars. I don't know -- I expect it is simply for safety reasons -- as there is a real possibility that you can fall between the train cars while it is underway.** However, the next generation subway cars now being introduced have no interior/between-car doors. They are designed so that folks can walk from one end of the train to the other without opening doors at all.

Here are some pictures. The first is of the new subway train interior, the second is of the end car, with its emergency exit. Third picture is of the newest Toronto streetcar design. The fourth picture shows the three-axle, two-compartment streetcar. The first compartment is for English Canadians and the second is for all others. There is a passage between them, but because we have multiculturalism, no one uses it. The final picture is of the special streetcars available for hire. This one has been hired by one of Canada's foreign banks as part of its 'Celebrate Profit' multicultural festival. It runs all night with a wetbar, henna-painting booth, spa, and investment counsellors.

bb86a5bf4e6293a9d3edb27e303c.jpeg

Bombardier_Toronto_Rocket_train_front.jpg

streetcar.jpg

streetcar_toronto_1.jpg

hires_toronto_streetcar.jpg

_____________

** Phil may or may not know this, but you are liable to a fine if you cross between cars on the NYC subway. See here for the ins and outs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an endnote to WSS's tour de force on the "After you, my dear Alphonse" aspect of our sorry private and public transport, I'll add this vignette of Canucki life once we finally get home.

After watching Montreal whomp Boston on HNIC, I followed up with a movie on the public provincial channel. It was entitled The Cuckoo and concerned a Finn, a Laplander and a Russian thrown together during WWII, who never understand a word of each others' language but speak volubly subtitled throughout. It was great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Phil Coates asks if 'Canuckleheadlectivism' is a word. Yes, it is a word, as coined by Phil. It appears to be a contraction of Canuck, knuckle, head, and collectivism. Since we do not yet have a definition from the coiner, I will have to guess the intended meaning from contracted terms and the context. [WSS, #12]

William, you did a great job. I'm impressed with the conscientious, diligent thoroughness of your dutiful response, but is guessing allowed in Canada? Isn't there a punishment?

> why Toronto trolleys subway cars have end-doors that are locked or impassible or verboten between cars. I don't know -- I expect it is simply for safety reasons -- as there is a real possibility that you can fall between the train cars while it is underway.

Ah, yes, the paternalistic state. What about helmets? Shin guards? "Please put on your seat belts when boarding the Canucklehead Subway. There is a Real Possibility the train could be hit by a passing jumbo jet which pierces through twenty feet of concrete and / or come to a sudden stop For Any Other Reason. And then You Could be Thrown."

"Please do ***NOT*** use your Ipod while in the Subway or Within Thirty Feet of a Subway Station: There is a real possibility we may have a Pubic Service Announcement about body lice or good nutritional habits. And You Would then be Unable to Hear It."

"If you Violate any of These Rules, you may be Seized and Taken into the Main Station and forced to Become an Involuntary Blood Donor."

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Phil Coates asks if 'Canuckleheadlectivism' is a word. Yes, it is a word, as coined by Phil. It appears to be a contraction of Canuck, knuckle, head, and collectivism. Since we do not yet have a definition from the coiner, I will have to guess the intended meaning from contracted terms and the context. [WSS, #12]

William, you did a great job. I'm impressed with the conscientious, diligent thoroughness of your dutiful response, but is guessing allowed in Canada? Isn't there a punishment?

Phil, thanks for noting my diligence. It wasn't duty, of course, but interest that led me to try to answer your earlier question. Is guessing allowed in Canada? Yes. Is there a punishment for guessing? No.

> why Toronto trolleys subway cars have end-doors that are locked or impassible or verboten between cars. I don't know -- I expect it is simply for safety reasons -- as there is a real possibility that you can fall between the train cars while it is underway.
Ah, yes, the paternalistic state.

Well, one can choose to see safety regulations as paternalistic, and mandated by an intrusive state, but I would say that passenger safety should be a primary consideration. Safety should, I think, override convenience. As I noted, Phil, passing between cars in New York City is illegal.

Here's the thing. All Toronto subway cars are long at 75 feet, and must execute a tight turning radius in several places. In such cases, passing between cars is fraught with danger -- one could easily fall.

What about helmets?

Helmets are not required on the Toronto subway.

Shin guards?

No.

"Please put on your seat belts when boarding the Canucklehead Subway. There is a Real Possibility the train could be hit by a passing jumbo jet which pierces through twenty feet of concrete and / or come to a sudden stop For Any Other Reason. And then You Could be Thrown."

I suspect that you are joking here. There is, I think we would agree, a very low probability that a jet of any kind would crash into a subway. What an imaginative use of the slippery-slope fallacy, though!

"Please do ***NOT*** use your Ipod while in the Subway or Within Thirty Feet of a Subway Station: There is a real possibility we may have a Pubic Service Announcement about body lice or good nutritional habits. And You Would then be Unable to Hear It."

Very funny!

"If you Violate any of These Rules, you may be Seized and Taken into the Main Station and forced to Become an Involuntary Blood Donor."

Very humourous!

Phil, a question -- did you like the design of the newest Toronto subway trains? They will replace all the other cars within three or four years, I believe.

An additional query, if you have the time or inclination. All joking aside, and given that the difference between NYC and TO subway safety rules are negligible, can you give a couple or three examples of odd Canadian rules or conventions that disturbed you or that you wondered about?

Still on the safety subject, here is a quick video of a parkour enthusiast performing at Skytrain stations in Vancouver (Skytrain is our automated rapid transit system).

One of the best places to observe parkour is at the downtown station -- I last watched Vancouver city police watching bemused as around 60 folks did some decidedly dangerous things . . .

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After watching Montreal whomp Boston on HNIC, I followed up with a movie on the public provincial channel. It was entitled The Cuckoo and concerned a Finn, a Laplander and a Russian thrown together during WWII, who never understand a word of each others' language but speak volubly subtitled throughout. It was great.

I loved that movie. Saw it in a movie theater. But I'd forgotten the name of it, also the names of the actors. Thanks. I was fascinated by the interplay amongst the characters as they learn to communicate with each other -- a learning process with some comical mishaps, for instance the name by which the Russian becomes called, the Russian meaning of which the others don't understand. A Russian couple who were in the audience when I saw the movie kept cracking up over that.

Another which involves communication between people who speak different languages, in this case an adult and a child, is "Kolya." That becomes so poignant with the development of the bond between the boy, "Kolya," and the guy who finds himself left with Kolya in his charge (Kolya's mother has defected).

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After watching Montreal whomp Boston on HNIC, I followed up with a movie on the public provincial channel. It was entitled The Cuckoo and concerned a Finn, a Laplander and a Russian thrown together during WWII, who never understand a word of each others' language but speak volubly subtitled throughout. It was great.

I loved that movie. Saw it in a movie theater. But I'd forgotten the name of it, also the names of the actors. Thanks. I was fascinated by the interplay amongst the characters as they learn to communicate with each other -- a learning process with some comical mishaps, for instance the name by which the Russian becomes called, the Russian meaning of which the others don't understand. A Russian couple who were in the audience when I saw the movie kept cracking up over that.

Another which involves communication between people who speak different languages, in this case an adult and a child, is "Kolya." That becomes so poignant with the development of the bond between the boy, "Kolya," and the guy who finds himself left with Kolya in his charge (Kolya's mother has defected).

Ellen

Once I got the hang of what was going on (which the characters never did) I realized that the English subtitle writers did a wonderful job. For example, since the first thing the Russian says to the Finn is "Get lost", the Finn assumes that he is introducing himself and henceforth calls him "Gerlost". I thought the actress playing Anny was wonderful - I looked it up and she is not an actress! She was hired because she spoke Lapp. Her plot summary for her two boys at the end was priceless - and though wrong literally, true basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> All joking aside, and given that the difference between NYC and TO subway safety rules are negligible, can you give a couple or three examples of odd Canadian rules or conventions that disturbed you or that you wondered about? [WSS, #16]

William, why are you forcing me to be serious :( ? I actually was just being funny in all of this. Canada has the reputation of being a more respectful of authority kind of place than the U.S., so I thought I'd have some fun with it...I have the impression Canadians are more respectful of authority, right or wrong, no?

,,,,,,,

But if we're going to be serious: The fact that there is an ordinance against something (walking between subway cars) is often shrugged off in the U.S., though. Even when it's for good reasons such as safety. I don't remember riding in a subway in NYC for more than ten minutes at a stretch without someone walking between the cars.

It's certainly the case that safety rules about helmets on bicyclists, not walking between cars when they are making a turn, and many others would in fact decrease injuries. But that doesn't mean that someone who is acting with less than optimum safety is violating someone else's rights. This might be the subject for a long essay but there are two relevant issues, I think, i) rules imposed by private owners [or which would be likely if the thing were privately owned - like speed limits and leave your guns outside and no knife-carrying children -- all legitimate safety rules], ii) at what level does less than optimally safe behavior become an objective threat (carrying around an open canister of gasoline and a lighted cigarette would be legitimately prohibited under objective law) or objectively negligent.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Brant--moi--Phil, Jeff and George--Jonathan can substitute for either Jeff or George, arrive at a four way stop at precisely the same time . . . : Pray; it's the very last day! Judgment Day!

--Brant

master of the U-Turn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give you a four-way non-stop:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give you a four-way non-stop:

William :D

Let's see: you give way to the right, no, to the left - no, only to motorbikes - no, you don't give way at all.

And you can be fined for NOT doing U-turns.

Who said anarchism won't work? B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said anarchism won't work?

Well, I don't know.

Here's some more road anarchy, however:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn775Sl-iRg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[....] I thought the actress playing Anny [in "The Cuckoo"] was wonderful - I looked it up and she is not an actress! She was hired because she spoke Lapp. Her plot summary for her two boys at the end was priceless - and though wrong literally, true basically.

She seemed to me so natural in the role I had no feeling of watching someone playing a part.

I'm really glad you mentioned "The Cuckoo." I've meant to try to find the name so I could find out if there's a DVD. There is -- through Amazon -- and I just ordered it.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[....] I thought the actress playing Anny [in "The Cuckoo"] was wonderful - I looked it up and she is not an actress! She was hired because she spoke Lapp. Her plot summary for her two boys at the end was priceless - and though wrong literally, true basically.

She seemed to me so natural in the role I had no feeling of watching someone playing a part.

I'm really glad you mentioned "The Cuckoo." I've meant to try to find the name so I could find out if there's a DVD. There is -- through Amazon -- and I just ordered it.

Ellen

Thanks, Ellen.So glad to hear from someone else who has seen it and liked it. I too intend to get it and watch it again, I only started watching it about 15 minutes in so it took me a while to figure out the action. I looked up some of the reviews from when it came out and I thought they were very shallow and uninsightful (somewhat like Ebert's recently of AS and Barry Lyndon).

And the scenery- almost ironically idyllic, and the hobbit-like cosiness of her home in the middle of angst and blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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