A turn for the worst

Today's post involves the infamous No Turn on Red sign. You could say that this topic "grinds my gears," if you were a devout fan of Family Guy. Now, I don't know if this law applies where you, dear reader, reside; I can only hope that it does not. Where I live, it has been on the books for many years. Here's a bit of history, for those either unfamiliar with this law, or really, seriously bored:

When the law was introduced, drivers were informed that right-hand turns would be permitted during a red light, as long as one came to a complete stop at the intersection, and confirmed that it was safe to proceed. Sounds logical enough. How often do you reach an intersection and find that there is no traffic approaching perpendicular to your vehicle from the left? Quite often, I would wager. This new law was a refreshing bit of legislation! No longer would we have to helplessly and needlessly wait at an intersection for the light to allow us to continue; we could get on with our lives and use our common sense to decide whether or not it was safe to make a turn while the light was red. Fuel and time would be saved, and drivers could take pride in knowing that the powers that be trusted them with the act of simple thought followed by simple action.

Therein lies part of the problem. As Voltaire put it, "Le sens commun n'est pas si commun." Or, "Common sense is not so common." Apparently, some of us - maybe those same ones who drive with their knees while holding the Blackberry in one hand and the Egg McMuffin in the other (you know who you are) - were not making stellar decisions about the level of safety in their impending turns. I say this with just a hint of sarcasm, because I feel that there may be a darker, more diabolical reason for the sudden attachment of the No Turn on Red signs to poles on a staggering and illogical number of intersections. Do you wonder what the overall cost might be for manufacturing and installing what must be millions of those signs? Do you wonder who reaps the profit? Do you wonder whose palms got the grease?

I could delve more deeply into this issue, but I'll just let you gnaw on it. Something to consider: it would likely have been cheaper for the law to say that you CAN'T turn on red (just like before), unless there's a sign saying that you CAN. However, that would have reduced the profit somebody is making on all of those lovely signs and their installation. If you live in an area with these signs, start paying attention to how many intersections they occupy. Here's the kicker - the thing that really irritates me: take note of how many of those intersections have perfectly clear lines of sight in all directions, making it absolutely simple to see whether or not a turn is going to be safe. Then, ask yourself whether you're too stupid to decide on whether to turn or not. If you feel that you might not be intelligent enough to make that call, then please, please, please hand in your voter registration card and driver's license immediately, take public transportation, and consider wearing a helmet when you watch television.

Car questions that make me wonder

Okay, I'm guessing not many people ponder this one, but somebody has to do it. Next time you're driving someplace, take note of which vehicles around you have rear windshield wipers. You may become as puzzled as me afterward. For example, many cars on the road today have very steeply-sloped front and rear windshields - it's more aerodynamic, I reckon. My car's rear windshield is sloped at about 45 degrees. Now, the majority of those vehicles do not have rear wipers. Most SUV's seem to have them. Today, I spotted a brand new Ford Flex in front of me. Boxy little bugger. The rear windshield was maybe a foot or so in height, and - no exaggeration here - almost completely vertical. Darned if there wasn't a cute little mini-wiper back there. Rain and snow would have to be rather determined - and fall horizontally - to stick to that window. Meanwhile, how many times did you have to remove snow, slush, or other unwanted material from your rear windshield by hand because your car doesn't have a rear wiper? The bigger question may be, "Why don't ALL vehicles come with them?"

Which kind of ties into another area of vehicular ponderment of mine: Why do you suppose that many car makers feel the need to place reflectors and lights on car bumpers? Hmmm, because it's an efficient place to put them? Um, because people like them there? Er, government mandate? Nope (loud buzzing sound) - the answer we were looking for is "Because it makes repairing your car's bumper way more expensive when it gets bumped by something from which it's supposed to protect your car and it's lights and reflectors." We should all start boycotting vehicles that blatantly do things to jack up maintenance and repair costs, and let the auto makers know why, too. Now that they're scrambling to get us to start buying their products again, maybe they'll actually listen.

What about the front and back effects?

Well, this is a brief post that I just had to write. No doubt, we all enjoy being bombarded by the multitude of television commercials for drugs - that's a given. I have followed their polite suggestions repeatedly, "asking my doctor" if such-and-such is right for me. Even though they occasionally don't tell us what the darned drug is designed to do, it doesn't hurt to check with the old M.D. and see if that little pill might be the answer to my latest woes. My doctor no longer takes my calls. Maybe there's a pill for that.

Anyway, the latest drug commercial to tickle my fancy is for... well, I honestly have no recollection of that. What got my attention was the guy hawking the drug, as he spouted off the list of potential side effects. Yes, you know those disclaimers -- where they warn you that taking their drug to help with your seasonal allergies may cause nosebleeds, headaches, congestion, severe allergic reactions, or spontaneous combustion. Well, in this one particular commercial, the announcer calmly and matter-of-factly states, "If you're allergic to {whatever the hell the drug is called}, don't take it." Are you kidding me? Have we reached the point where we have to be warned not to keep ingesting something to which we're allergic? Or, is that just the coming trend in disclaimers? "Well, we told you not to take it if it makes you spontaneously combust...." I think I'm becoming allergic to these commercials. Hey, Doc, can you prescribe a pill for that?