So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[p51]

When I was still in the Army, if I saw anyone reporting in for the first time in my orderly room and I had time, I'd pop out of my office, introduce myself and ask the usual questions (where are you from, how long have you been here and what do you think of the area so far, etc).
One kid right out of AIT was from "Joisey" and right out of Central Casting for the type. He decried all the people he'd been in basic and AIT with who were, "From the Sout" meaning the South. I'll never forget his very words in the thickest 'Noo Yawk" type accent I've ever heard outside of a comedy routine:
"I can't stans all dose people from the Sout and how dey tawk. Dey soun' so stoopid when they tawk like dat!"
Every one of my orderly room people slowly started standing up and even my armorer started walking form the back, having heard that. Guess where they were all from?
I told him, "Look, Private, you should know by now that the Army has a lot of people from the South, including everyone in this room, including your Company Commander," while pointing to myself.
He really knew he'd put his foot in it then. In all fairness, I'd worked hard to talk in as a neutral accent as I can and today, it surprises people when I tell them I was raised in real Redneck country.
Nobody let him forget it, either. A week later, I was walking around a corner in the motor pool and I heard someone ask him, "Seriously, you complained about Southern people to the Company Commander?"

 

[2jakes]

We Brits have our slang, our expressions and our language distortions, so I'm not pointing fingers.
When I first heard Y'all, I thought it was a southern word, something like yorl, it took a wife, two American friends a good slug of Tennessee Mash before I believed it to be a corruption of You-all.

[video=youtube;jXhQhd_vq5U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXhQhd_vq5U[/video]

 

[MisterCairo]

A cute young woman (from Australia, I think) teaches you how to speak like a(n English) Canadian:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsTv3wNFBsQ

Hilarious! I took notes...

 

[Stearmen]

All the Brooklynese I know I learned from Bugs Bunny. He could lay it on thick.

Actually, Bugs spoke in a combination Brooklyn, Bronx accent. I have heard Linguist say that it is amazing how Mel Blanc was able to seamlessly combine the two accents!

 

[Stearmen]

I don't want to ban them, since many people really do need them, but Mobility Scooters in the super market! Seems like there are more and more of them every time I go and my store is remodeling right now, so it is tight in places. They don't even look, just start backing up, pushing you out of the way. And God forbid, if you are taking to much time in front of them!

 

[p51]

I don't want to ban them, since many people really do need them, but Mobility Scooters in the super market! Seems like there are more and more of them every time I go and my store is remodeling right now, so it is tight in places. They don't even look, just start backing up, pushing you out of the way. And God forbid, if you are taking to much time in front of them!

Yeah, but strollers are way worse. How about those SUV-sized ones, that'll completely block an aisle in a store?

 

[Hercule]

re those "mobility scooters"

Just yesterday I saw a cop chase down a car that didn't stop for a person trying to cross in a marked cross walk in a scooter. The cross had a sign in the middle of the road "yield to pedestrians in cross walk". I wonder if the driver could have argued that the "pedestrian" was actually operating a motor vehicle in a pedestrian cross walk?

 

[HudsonHawk]

re those "mobility scooters"

Just yesterday I saw a cop chase down a car that didn't stop for a person trying to cross in a marked cross walk in a scooter. The cross had a sign in the middle of the road "yield to pedestrians in cross walk". I wonder if the driver could have argued that the "pedestrian" was actually operating a motor vehicle in a pedestrian cross walk?

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that people on mobility scooters are considered pedestrians, and are allowed to ride them in any place that pedestrians are allowed to walk, such as inside shops, on sidewalks and through crosswalks. Therefore, they are to be treated as pedestrians for traffic control considerations. I think this is pretty much universal, at least in the US, but I'm not for certain.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Yeah, but strollers are way worse. How about those SUV-sized ones, that'll completely block an aisle in a store?

One of the many vast stroller parking areas at Disneyland

 

[tonyb]

I hope the driver gets a stiff fine.

Q: How many times have you jumped out of the way of a motor vehicle? I have, on a few occasions, and I suspect most others have as well. You know, the car was backing out, say, and the driver wasn't paying attention to what was behind him? Or the car was turning right and the driver was looking left for traffic and paying no mind whatsoever to who or what was in his line of travel?

People in wheelchairs and scooters and such CAN'T jump out of the way.

Those "yield to pedestrians in crosswalk" signs are good reminders, as are those "no turn on red when pedestrians are present" signs. But they are merely making clear what are the rules of the road. May as well have signs reading "stay to right of centerline on two-way roads" or "stop at red traffic lights."

 

[LizzieMaine]

On a whole new complaint, I think it's high time smokers were required to dispose of their butts properly. We require dog owners to clean their animals' crap off the sidewalks, and smokers should likewise be prohibited from littering the public ways with their filth. I was just sitting in traffic downtown and some gigantic oaf of a tourist flipped a lit butt into the street -- but it came in thru the open passenger window of my car and ricocheted off my bare leg. I flipped it back out at him, with a detailed commentary on his ancestry. Nicotine-huffing jackass.

 

[p51]

Q: How many times have you jumped out of the way of a motor vehicle? I have, on a few occasions, and I suspect most others have as well. You know, the car was backing out, say, and the driver wasn't paying attention to what was behind him? Or the car was turning right and the driver was looking left for traffic and paying no mind whatsoever to who or what was in his line of travel?

My day job is handling liability investigations for an insurance company. You wouldn't believe the things people do with cars, and then argue they can't possibly be at fault for that.
Monday morning, I dealt with a annoying policyholder who hit a parked car in an adjoining parking space while she was backing out of her space. Both parties had the same version of the accident, but our person argued as she never saw the other parked car, it, "Must have" (which to us means, "I want it to have") gone around her as she started backing, got fully parked and the engine turned off before she struck the other car while backing and turning, not realizing it was there.
45 minutes I was on that call, explaining that her not seeing the other car was not a defense, and in fact helped make the liability decision against her to a small degree. Nothing in her argument put anything on the other driver.
An hour ago, my boss said she formally complained that I was mean and rude to her. I only told her something she didn't want to hear. We get this a lot, where "rude" is often translated to us telling someone something they didn't like, not nearly so much actual rudeness.
People who exist parking lots of side roads into the paths of oncoming cars with the right of way often will argue that the other car, "must have been speeding" or that the parked car they hit was, "Illegally parked" when they never saw either.
It's tough not to laugh sometimes, but doing this job, you really get a sense of how people simply cannot accept they're at fault for stuff when they drive, regardless of the facts of the accident. I think people do backwards logic, starting off with the premise that:
1. I'm a good driver (in your opinion)
2. Good drivers don't cause accident (no, they easily can)
3. I was in an accident
4. See 1 and 2. I can't be at fault, then!
5. So, what circumstances support I didn't cause it?

 

[HudsonHawk]

My day job is handling liability investigations for an insurance company. You wouldn't believe the things people do with cars, and then argue they can't possibly be at fault for that.
Monday morning, I dealt with a annoying policyholder who hit a parked car in an adjoining parking space while she was backing out of her space. Both parties had the same version of the accident, but our person argued as she never saw the other parked car, it, "Must have" (which to us means, "I want it to have") gone around her as she started backing, got fully parked and the engine turned off before she struck the other car while backing and turning, not realizing it was there.
45 minutes I was on that call, explaining that her not seeing the other car was not a defense, and in fact helped make the liability decision against her to a small degree. Nothing in her argument put anything on the other driver.
An hour ago, my boss said she formally complained that I was mean and rude to her. I only told her something she didn't want to hear. We get this a lot, where "rude" is often translated to us telling someone something they didn't like, not nearly so much actual rudeness.
People who exist parking lots of side roads into the paths of oncoming cars with the right of way often will argue that the other car, "must have been speeding" or that the parked car they hit was, "Illegally parked" when they never saw either.
It's tough not to laugh sometimes, but doing this job, you really get a sense of how people simply cannot accept they're at fault for stuff when they drive, regardless of the facts of the accident. I think people do backwards logic, starting off with the premise that:
1. I'm a good driver (in your opinion)
2. Good drivers don't cause accident (no, they easily can)
3. I was in an accident
4. See 1 and 2. I can't be at fault, then!
5. So, what circumstances support I didn't cause it?

I was recently hit by a commercial 18-wheeler, when he was going around a curve, crossed over the center line of the road and hit my vehicle on the opposite shoulder. His defense was "I was going too fast to stop". His company (a large, publically traded agriculture business) was self-insured, and they argued that was a perfectly reasonable excuse, and he was not at fault, it was "just one of those things". Only after multiple letters and threats of a lawsuit to the home office, did they finally pay up.

 

[tonyb]

As we all know, even good, careful, sober, experienced, responsible drivers make mistakes. That doesn't make them bad, careless, drunk, inexperienced or irresponsible. It just means they made a mistake. And their insurance company has to pay for the damages, which will, of course, be passed along to the insured party, one way or another.

 

[tonyb]

On a whole new complaint, I think it's high time smokers were required to dispose of their butts properly. We require dog owners to clean their animals' crap off the sidewalks, and smokers should likewise be prohibited from littering the public ways with their filth. I was just sitting in traffic downtown and some gigantic oaf of a tourist flipped a lit butt into the street -- but it came in thru the open passenger window of my car and ricocheted off my bare leg. I flipped it back out at him, with a detailed commentary on his ancestry. Nicotine-huffing jackass.

I'll admit to having tossed lit cigarette butts out my car window on what must have been thousands of occasions over the three and a half decades I was a slave to tobacco. (But mostly over the first couple of those decades; I developed a strong distaste for litter and litterers as I approached middle age. During the last few years of my addiction I "field stripped" cigarettes and disposed of the filters in the trash.)

Most states (all?) impose stiff fines for tossing lit anything out of a vehicle. Used to be that those orange sparks bouncing off the pavement was a common sight. Not anymore. Good.

 

[Stearmen]

On a whole new complaint, I think it's high time smokers were required to dispose of their butts properly. We require dog owners to clean their animals' crap off the sidewalks, and smokers should likewise be prohibited from littering the public ways with their filth. I was just sitting in traffic downtown and some gigantic oaf of a tourist flipped a lit butt into the street -- but it came in thru the open passenger window of my car and ricocheted off my bare leg. I flipped it back out at him, with a detailed commentary on his ancestry. Nicotine-huffing jackass.

Yes, Yes, Yes! At my new house, the hospital workers are forbidden from smoking on their grounds, so they smoke in my ally. Most are courteous and take their buts with them, but there are always a few in my garage entrance!

 

[Zombie_61]

On a whole new complaint, I think it's high time smokers were required to dispose of their butts properly. We require dog owners to clean their animals' crap off the sidewalks, and smokers should likewise be prohibited from littering the public ways with their filth...

I couldn't agree more, and my wife and I are smokers. We make sure our cigarettes are extinguished when we've finished smoking them, then put the butts in the nearest available trash can. If there are no trash cans nearby at that moment, we put them in a pocket and dispose of them properly later. Putting trash in a dedicated receptacle really isn't that difficult, but a lot of people can't seem to grasp the concept.

 

[dh66]

Gum.......put that **** in the trash when you're done with it. I'd way rather step on a cigarette butt.

 

[p51]

I was recently hit by a commercial 18-wheeler, when he was going around a curve, crossed over the center line of the road and hit my vehicle on the opposite shoulder. His defense was "I was going too fast to stop". His company (a large, publically traded agriculture business) was self-insured, and they argued that was a perfectly reasonable excuse, and he was not at fault, it was "just one of those things". Only after multiple letters and threats of a lawsuit to the home office, did they finally pay up.

Trucking companies are often self-insured and you gotta play patty-cake with them to get to pay for anything.
My all-time favorite was the time I called a trucking company and I only got as far as ID'ing myself and my company when their loss prevention guy launched into a litany on how his driver wasn't liable for the loss and how we rip them off with our subrogation demands... And then, he asked what accident I was calling about! :eeek:
I couldn't resist saying, "Uh, you just went on for five minutes about how your driver isn't at fault and you don't even know what loss we're talking about?" He started screaming obscenities at that point and the call never got better. We fixed our person's car and sent collections after them. The facts were really clear (their driver merged into our person's lane, with two independent witnesses right behind them both).
I tell people that you can't of course control who you're in an accident with, but if you could, commercial vehicle is the last type of vehicle you want to be in one with!

As we all know, even good, careful, sober, experienced, responsible drivers make mistakes. That doesn't make them bad, careless, drunk, inexperienced or irresponsible. It just means they made a mistake. And their insurance company has to pay for the damages, which will, of course, be passed along to the insured party, one way or another.

The highlighted part is not true, and never was. Underwriters make the call on if your rates go up and they use a lot of info to make those calls. But it has never been an automatic thing that if you're in a loss where your company has to pay up that your rates will go up.
In 13 years of doing this, I'm led to this conclusion:
1. Nobody understands insurance
2. Everyone thinks they do
3. The few that will admit they don't get it will usually never call their agent and will rely instead on what a random person who is equally clueless (see #s 1 and 2) tells them

 

[swanson_eyes]

People who use the word literally when they literally don't understand what it means.