Car Accidents – Here’s a solution

It’s really quite simple. Think about this – when was the last time you let a car in, in front of you when driving? Or, are you like most drivers, as soon as you see a car inching in, you accelerate, and close the gap? Or, even worse, you close the gap as soon as you see a car signalling a lane change.

Ever wonder why drivers, like you even, don’t signal when changing lanes? Well, either you’re from Montreal, or like most, you know the car next to you will not let you in, so you bud in instead. Signalling has become a way for drivers to “signal” their intention, and reminds the other car, it’s time to speed up so the signalling car can’t get in. This jockeying for position drives car accidents. And it’s completely avoidable.

It all makes perfectly logical sense, and you know it does, because all you need to do is drive, and you know what I’m talking about. Next time someone tries to horn in on the space in front of you, let them in – if their signal is on. No signal, I’m with you, forget-about-it. Even worse, and here’s the source code of the problem – when you let someone in, they should waive as a courtesy — much like you would say thank you when someone opens the door for you (maybe you would – my experience shows strangers only say thank you about 50% of the time – I always say “you’re welcome” regardless).

The fact that today, especially in larger cities, most drivers do not waive when they’re let in, is really the “driver” behind all the bad behaviour on the road. If people would show some simple courtesy (yes, it involves putting your Blackberry down for 3 seconds), pick up their hand and waive when let in, more drivers would let cars in.

Before you know it, drivers will signal, other drivers will let the signalling car in, and a driver will waive thank you. Accidents will drop, road rage will drop.

Everyone’s happy. Well, except for the guy who got home 3 seconds later than planned because he let someone in!

America – One big contradiction

Read this breaking news….

Breaking News Alert

The New York Times

Wed, March 02, 2011 — 11:12 AM ET

—–

Protests at Military Funerals Are Protected Speech, Justices Rule

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that protests and picketing at military funerals are protected by the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee, taking precedence over the mourners’ right to privacy.

The court decided 8-1 to uphold a lower court decision in favor of members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., who frequently stage protests at private military funerals to promote the church’s claim that God is angry at America for its tolerance of homosexuality, with signs bearing messages like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates the USA.”

The ruling was a defeat for Albert Snyder, the father of a Marine killed in Iraq in 2006, whose funeral at a Catholic church in Westminster, Md., was picketed by the Westboro group.

I ask, is this the same America where service-people are continually centered out for their courageous service to their country, where the flag is perpetually lowered in honor of the fallen. Really? I find it hard to believe this is the land where the President gets up in front of the country during a State of the Union address, focuses on the military, and thanks them for their service.  In this same country, the supreme court sanctions the idea of protests (nasty protests) at funerals for these very men and women. Wow… Talk about a contradiction.  And to add insult to injury, have a look at this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church. How in god’s name, after looking at that, can one not wonder what the supreme court is thinking. Frankly, these “Church” members probably put on white costumes at night.

Air Canada – Does any company have more misleading advertising?

It used to be, telecom companies were the most notorious for the fine print – a 10 word ad followed by an essay, a sea of legal nonsense, usually ending with a statement that says, anything that was missed in the fine print could still be included as a disclaimer. None-the-less, today, the worst offender has, without a doubt, got to be the airlines, most notably Air Canada. It used to be, when you saw an advertised rate, the rate was all-in, and was a 2-way fare – makes sense, since there’s now way out of any of the additional costs, unless you might not be returning home. But seriously, who books 1-way trips. We might want to, but inevitably, we (the royal “we) generally book 2-way trips, knowing, at some point, we will come home.

So how is it, Air Canada still gets away with advertising like the one in today’s paper. “Europe is on sale now”. At a quick glance, Toronto to London is $199. Sounds great. But that’s one way and without airport fees. The rule of thumb in deciphering these misleading ads is to TRIPLE the stated price. So the flight is actually $600 (assuming you’re coming home). But wait, there’s even MORE fine print. “Fares displayed do not include fuel surcharge of up to $150 each way”. Seriously? That’s an additional $400, stuck in the fine print. Can I opt out of the surcharge? Skip it? Not pay it? Wash dishes for it? NO, likely not.

So, what caught my eye was $199 to London, when in fact, this trip will actually cost around $1,000. Maybe that’s still a deal, maybe not. Hardly the point.

Learn to spell, please

Well, this is nothing new. The English language is on the way out. What with web-speak and other short forms now in common use, many can barely string a proper sentence together. And, if they do, they’ve managed to concoct new meanings for your/you’re, it’s/its, then/than, there/their/they’re… You know the culprits, you know who you are; if you’re like me, your eyes bleed whenever you see one of these infractions. If you’re not like me, click on the link, and have a look at the handy chart, post it on your wall, and refer to it often… Remember, spell check will not help you with these…  http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling