https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20170328.aspx
I can't seem to access any of the NTSB websites. Keeps asking for a username and password.
Wasn't working on Chrome on my phone. Working on Chrome at home.
Has San Jose gone lenient in marking their pavement on their roads?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2017, 03:45:02 PM
Has San Jose gone lenient in marking their pavement on their roads?
The agency at issue here is Caltrans District 4 -- and yes, at times, the time lapse between completion of a repaving job (which is what has been occurring at and south of the southern 101/85 interchange) and the full application of lane markings can be longer than optimal. The temporary reflective "flaps" normally applied to the pavement to delineate lane edges can and do lose their adhesion; the weather we've been having around here since the beginning of the year certainly hasn't helped the situation much! I won't go so far as to characterize the situation at that interchange as an accident waiting to happen (I was even a bit confused as to lane alignment coming back from Hollister in heavy rain a few weeks ago), but it's clear Caltrans needs to tighten up their construction criteria and not leave the temporary measures in place as long as currently done.
QuoteThe California Department of Transportation did not mark the gore with stripes or chevrons, which are often used to differentiate the gore from the roadway.
It should be noted that the use of chevrons in gore points is *extremely* rare in California.
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 29, 2017, 04:17:57 PM
QuoteThe California Department of Transportation did not mark the gore with stripes or chevrons, which are often used to differentiate the gore from the roadway.
It should be noted that the use of chevrons in gore points is *extremely* rare in California.
They are also uncommon in Oregon and parts of Washington, but I can't quite work out why. Other jurisdictions have been using them since markings were a thing.
California and Oregon also don't use stop lines, which I find interesting, if not lazy.
Lines don't look very faded in these photos:
(https://tribkcpq.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/kgo.jpeg)
(https://lintvwivb.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/buscrash.jpg)
Although, if streetview circa 2011 is more or less relevant to time , there is no gore point - there is more like a gore lane in that location:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2375325,-121.7611965,3a,75y,322.17h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXZeOGmcwD_IR0mVZg1aHmQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
And painting it over would likely deplete CAs stock of paint for the season...
However if lanes were more or less marked, but HOV diamonds were worn out... I am not sure I would be able to tell gore lane from true lane...
Quote from: jakeroot on March 29, 2017, 04:30:10 PM
California and Oregon also don't use stop lines, which I find interesting, if not lazy.
Huh? Are you referring to the line traffic is supposed to remain behind at a signal and at stop signs?
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 29, 2017, 08:05:56 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 29, 2017, 04:30:10 PM
California and Oregon also don't use stop lines, which I find interesting, if not lazy.
Huh? Are you referring to the line traffic is supposed to remain behind at a signal and at stop signs?
Right. Crosswalks in California and Oregon are two transverse lines, and the first of the two is the "limit line". Most states have a line before those two called a "stop line":
I prefer this because it prevents bumpers from sitting inside the crosswalk.
(https://driversed.com/images/v2008coursecontent/StopLine.jpg)
I've seen the lines a billion times before across CA. I don't think I've been anywhere without one.
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 29, 2017, 11:09:10 PM
I've seen the lines a billion times before across CA. I don't think I've been anywhere without one.
Stop lines are used when the crosswalk is the zebra pattern (which is not the Caltrans standard). But most California crosswalks are transverse style (two parallel white lines). Very few intersections that I've seen ever have a traditional stop line before the two transverse crosswalk lines. The first of the two crosswalk lines is the "limit line" and is where you are supposed to stop (thus serving two purposes -- marking the outer edge of the crosswalk, and serving as a stop line for traffic).
Note two similar intersections, the first in Irving, CA, the second in suburban Vancouver, BC. Note the third white line on each of the approaches at the Vancouver intersection. California does not use this line.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyEcOhqu.png&hash=175ffb183a4a8f8a8378b821583e8a38e81313fd) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOL2380A.png&hash=dc1631b1298122cf89deae4e42c279a0df831e8b)
Quote from: kalvado on March 29, 2017, 05:56:52 PM
Lines don't look very faded in these photos:
(https://tribkcpq.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/kgo.jpeg)
(https://lintvwivb.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/buscrash.jpg)
Although, if streetview circa 2011 is more or less relevant to time , there is no gore point - there is more like a gore lane in that location:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2375325,-121.7611965,3a,75y,322.17h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXZeOGmcwD_IR0mVZg1aHmQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
And painting it over would likely deplete CAs stock of paint for the season...
However if lanes were more or less marked, but HOV diamonds were worn out... I am not sure I would be able to tell gore lane from true lane...
In that first picture, that's not where the bus crashed. You would need to see the point prior to the crash area, where the report stated the lines were faded. And remember, it was noted there was a heavy rain at the time. It doesn't appear to be heavily raining in the picture, which would allow for clearer viewing of the lines. If the line curving the exit lane away from the mainline was missing, it could easily have caused the bus driver to misconstrue where the lane went.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 30, 2017, 06:24:32 AM
Quote from: kalvado on March 29, 2017, 05:56:52 PM
Lines don't look very faded in these photos:
Although, if streetview circa 2011 is more or less relevant to time , there is no gore point - there is more like a gore lane in that location:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2375325,-121.7611965,3a,75y,322.17h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXZeOGmcwD_IR0mVZg1aHmQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
And painting it over would likely deplete CAs stock of paint for the season...
However if lanes were more or less marked, but HOV diamonds were worn out... I am not sure I would be able to tell gore lane from true lane...
In that first picture, that's not where the bus crashed. You would need to see the point prior to the crash area, where the report stated the lines were faded. And remember, it was noted there was a heavy rain at the time. It doesn't appear to be heavily raining in the picture, which would allow for clearer viewing of the lines. If the line curving the exit lane away from the mainline was missing, it could easily have caused the bus driver to misconstrue where the lane went.
Of course problem began a bit upstream. And my impression is that geometry is fairly confusing over there.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2378739,-121.7619497,102m/data=!3m1!1e3
Look under the BGS: there are (left to right), HOV lane where bus should be, non-lane where bus actually was, HOV through lane and so on.
What I see as a problem is a non-lane with two white lines on sides, and concrete barrier suddenly coming up in the way. Lane marks may be faded, but they are not too bad from what I see. What seem faded is HOV diamonds which could give a clue of what is going on. But cross-hatching non-lane, IMHO, would be a good idea.
Image of faded diamond in other direction:
http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/1165062_1280x720.jpg
I'm still surprised that there hasn't been some sort of Federal legislation requiring seat belts on buses. Even one of those crappy old lap belts would be better than nothing since you would get launched in a wreck, funny to see it noted as on the report.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2017, 09:23:16 AM
I'm still surprised that there hasn't been some sort of Federal legislation requiring seat belts on buses. Even one of those crappy old lap belts would be better than nothing since you would get launched in a wreck, funny to see it noted as on the report.
Probably not really worth it given buses are driven with professional drivers, and crashes are pretty rare, and non-crash injuries are infrequent. Besides, I am not sure ejection is the primary death mode for those heavy vehicles (remember the bus which run into pillar, for example?)
Planes have belts partially because of significant probability of injury in non-crash situation (turbulence, acceleration, etc)
I am a bit surprised they even started to put those belts in buses.
Quote from: kalvado on March 30, 2017, 09:59:01 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2017, 09:23:16 AM
I'm still surprised that there hasn't been some sort of Federal legislation requiring seat belts on buses. Even one of those crappy old lap belts would be better than nothing since you would get launched in a wreck, funny to see it noted as on the report.
Probably not really worth it given buses are driven with professional drivers, and crashes are pretty rare, and non-crash injuries are infrequent. Besides, I am not sure ejection is the primary death mode for those heavy vehicles (remember the bus which run into pillar, for example?)
Planes have belts partially because of significant probability of injury in non-crash situation (turbulence, acceleration, etc)
I am a bit surprised they even started to put those belts in buses.
But then you get something like this particular accident which essentially is being chalked up to faulty roadway design. What also stops another driver from instigating an accident that sweeps up someone with professional skill level? You're certainly right about the driver level likely being higher on average and given the severe nature of the crash was a much bigger contributor, I just thought it was interesting to see that the belts were called out at all. It only seems to come up in conversation at all whenever there a bus crash where someone is killed. The last couple times I've seen it was with school bus crashes either where there was a fatality or a injury of some kind. Its just interesting that somehow buses came through all these decades with relatively few safety regulations compared to passenger cars. But then again there was a time where it was thought that convertibles would be banned and that never happened either.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2017, 09:23:16 AM
I'm still surprised that there hasn't been some sort of Federal legislation requiring seat belts on buses. Even one of those crappy old lap belts would be better than nothing since you would get launched in a wreck, funny to see it noted as on the report.
And that's what federal regulation will get you - the seat belts can be on the bus, but trying to get people to use them is a totally different story. Unlike a plane, usually the only employee on the bus is the bus driver. The driver can't constantly keep an eye on everyone's crotch to see if they're buckled in. And the driver can't delay the bus for an eternity waiting for everyone to buckle themselves.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2017, 10:14:56 AM
Quote from: kalvado on March 30, 2017, 09:59:01 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2017, 09:23:16 AM
I'm still surprised that there hasn't been some sort of Federal legislation requiring seat belts on buses. Even one of those crappy old lap belts would be better than nothing since you would get launched in a wreck, funny to see it noted as on the report.
Probably not really worth it given buses are driven with professional drivers, and crashes are pretty rare, and non-crash injuries are infrequent. Besides, I am not sure ejection is the primary death mode for those heavy vehicles (remember the bus which run into pillar, for example?)
Planes have belts partially because of significant probability of injury in non-crash situation (turbulence, acceleration, etc)
I am a bit surprised they even started to put those belts in buses.
But then you get something like this particular accident which essentially is being chalked up to faulty roadway design. What also stops another driver from instigating an accident that sweeps up someone with professional skill level? You're certainly right about the driver level likely being higher on average and given the severe nature of the crash was a much bigger contributor, I just thought it was interesting to see that the belts were called out at all. It only seems to come up in conversation at all whenever there a bus crash where someone is killed. The last couple times I've seen it was with school bus crashes either where there was a fatality or a injury of some kind. Its just interesting that somehow buses came through all these decades with relatively few safety regulations compared to passenger cars. But then again there was a time where it was thought that convertibles would be banned and that never happened either.
My impression is that previously risk assessment was done more professionally in the past - probably because any accident gets more publicity today, and more non-engineering attention.
The other thing is risk vs cost analysis. Average Greyhound seat sees 200 asses a year. I am not sure what is the lifespan of a bus or cost of seatbelt, but it looks like seatbelts would be something like $0.50 per ticket - fairly sizeable amount on their price scale. Maybe easier for schools where budgets are way higher than Greyhound (yes, I know, there is not enough money - but still), and general more sensitive altitude towards kids.
As a sidenote - I don't know if that is still the case, but we used to have no seatbelt requirement for taxi passengers if driver has taxi-grade license (E class). Otherwise, taxies are same cars...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 30, 2017, 10:25:05 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2017, 09:23:16 AM
I'm still surprised that there hasn't been some sort of Federal legislation requiring seat belts on buses. Even one of those crappy old lap belts would be better than nothing since you would get launched in a wreck, funny to see it noted as on the report.
And that's what federal regulation will get you - the seat belts can be on the bus, but trying to get people to use them is a totally different story. Unlike a plane, usually the only employee on the bus is the bus driver. The driver can't constantly keep an eye on everyone's crotch to see if they're buckled in. And the driver can't delay the bus for an eternity waiting for everyone to buckle themselves.
A comment from someone who honestly tried to be buckled during 200 mile greyhoud trip:
Those belts are AWFUL. They lend in wrong area. They are not adjustable. They don't let you sleep with minimum comfort... I gave up.
It was car-style double belt, not plane-style belt, though.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2017, 10:14:56 AM
The last couple times I've seen it was with school bus crashes either where there was a fatality or a injury of some kind. Its just interesting that somehow buses came through all these decades with relatively few safety regulations compared to passenger cars.
New Jersey has required seat belts on school buses for several years now. But like other buses, all you can hope for is the kids wear their seat belts. It's been seen many times over that mommy and daddy have the Perfect Kid (and we're talking a kid old enough to know how to buckle themselves in and the reason why) that always wears their seat belt. Perfect Kid tells their mommy and daddy they always wear their seat belt. But when the bus is in an unfortunate accident, it becomes very apparent who was really wearing their seat belt. Perfect Kid actually wasn't a perfect kid, and everyone finds out that Perfect Kid wasn't wearing their seat belt. Mommy and Daddy, never believing that their Perfect Kid would ever lie, tries to blame the seat belt design as being faulty and that it magically came unbuckled in the crash. Eventually Perfect Kid admits they weren't wearing their seat belt...at which point Mommy and Daddy blame the bus operator...again, ignoring the fact that their Perfect Kid is ultimately responsible for buckling themselves in.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 29, 2017, 04:30:10 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 29, 2017, 04:17:57 PM
QuoteThe California Department of Transportation did not mark the gore with stripes or chevrons, which are often used to differentiate the gore from the roadway.
It should be noted that the use of chevrons in gore points is *extremely* rare in California.
They are also uncommon in Oregon and parts of Washington, but I can't quite work out why. Other jurisdictions have been using them since markings were a thing.
California and Oregon also don't use stop lines, which I find interesting, if not lazy.
Is there anything in the MUTCD relative to standardized gore markings -- or, for that matter (as it's been brought up here for comparison) advance "stop" lines at intersections? And if there
is some set of standards, are these standards framed as mandatory or merely advisory?
Quote from: sparker on March 29, 2017, 04:07:05 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2017, 03:45:02 PM
Has San Jose gone lenient in marking their pavement on their roads?
The agency at issue here is Caltrans District 4 -- and yes, at times, the time lapse between completion of a repaving job (which is what has been occurring at and south of the southern 101/85 interchange) and the full application of lane markings can be longer than optimal. The temporary reflective "flaps" normally applied to the pavement to delineate lane edges can and do lose their adhesion; the weather we've been having around here since the beginning of the year certainly hasn't helped the situation much! I won't go so far as to characterize the situation at that interchange as an accident waiting to happen (I was even a bit confused as to lane alignment coming back from Hollister in heavy rain a few weeks ago), but it's clear Caltrans needs to tighten up their construction criteria and not leave the temporary measures in place as long as currently done.
It apparently is asking too much for a Caltrans employee to report when a substandard condition exists, then move ASAP to rectify the situation. Government does not work that way!
Over here in my home area, there is a city street right in the middle of a major retail area which has enough potholes to make the pavement qualify as Swiss cheese. One teensy repair was done while the rest got ignored and worsened as a result. Your tax dollars at work, yeah, right!
Rick
Quote from: jakeroot on March 29, 2017, 10:07:40 PM
Right. Crosswalks in California and Oregon are two transverse lines, and the first of the two is the "limit line". Most states have a line before those two called a "stop line":
I prefer this because it prevents bumpers from sitting inside the crosswalk.
(https://driversed.com/images/v2008coursecontent/StopLine.jpg)
Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that no part of a vehicle can be over the limit line but doing a quick glance through the California Vehicle Code (CVC), it's not clear to me. I found a column dated January 15th, 2015 where someone asks...
Q. When stopping at a stop sign or red light where there's a marked "limit line," is a driver required to stop with the entire vehicle behind the limit line? Or just the front tires? Betty Woody asked that question.
... the answer from two officers is quite interesting. One says all parts of the vehicle must be behind the line but then backtracks and says it's really up to the officer (i.e. if you're only an inch or two over and not impeding pedestrians, they could let it slide). The other, a retired CHP officer says if any part of the vehicle is over the line, you could be cited. Here's a link to that column...
http://www.pe.com/articles/line-757994-limit-vehicle.html
Quote from: sparker on March 30, 2017, 08:20:39 PM
Is there anything in the MUTCD relative to standardized gore markings -- or, for that matter (as it's been brought up here for comparison) advance "stop" lines at intersections? And if there is some set of standards, are these standards framed as mandatory or merely advisory?
The use of chevrons in gore points is purely optional according to the current MUTCD. The relevant section on chevron pavement markings is Section 3B.24 which states that their use is optional. The relevant illustration is Figure 3B-8. It should be noted that the California MUTCD replaces this drawing with their own which omits the chevrons.
Quote from: sparker on March 30, 2017, 08:20:39 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 29, 2017, 04:30:10 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 29, 2017, 04:17:57 PM
QuoteThe California Department of Transportation did not mark the gore with stripes or chevrons, which are often used to differentiate the gore from the roadway.
It should be noted that the use of chevrons in gore points is *extremely* rare in California.
They are also uncommon in Oregon and parts of Washington, but I can't quite work out why. Other jurisdictions have been using them since markings were a thing.
California and Oregon also don't use stop lines, which I find interesting, if not lazy.
Is there anything in the MUTCD relative to standardized gore markings -- or, for that matter (as it's been brought up here for comparison) advance "stop" lines at intersections? And if there is some set of standards, are these standards framed as mandatory or merely advisory?
If gore markings and stop lines were required, you'd see them at every junction. They are indeed optional (stop lines are a "should" in the MUTCD), but that doesn't preclude their effectiveness.
The sections are 3B.24 and 3B.16 respectively.
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 31, 2017, 01:20:14 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 29, 2017, 10:07:40 PM
I prefer this because it prevents bumpers from sitting inside the crosswalk.
Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that no part of a vehicle can be over the limit line but doing a quick glance through the California Vehicle Code (CVC), it's not clear to me.
I say that it prevents it not from a legal perspective, but a literal perspective. If there was a stop line but your car's bumper was sitting in the crosswalk, it means you majorly over-shot the stop line. There's very little chance that a driver will somehow end up in the crosswalk when stop lines are used. FWIW, I tend to stop when my tires meet the stop line (thus my bumper is past the stop line). In California, then, I would often find myself with my bumper in the crosswalk.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 31, 2017, 01:29:16 AM
If gore markings and stop lines where required, you'd see them at every junction. They are indeed optional (stop lines are a "should" in the MUTCD), but that doesn't preclude their effectiveness.
The sections are 3B.24 and 3B.16 respectively.
Darn! You beat me to it. Oh well. :-D
Quote from: jakeroot on March 31, 2017, 01:29:16 AM
I say that it prevents it not from a legal perspective, but a literal perspective. If there was a stop line but your car's bumper was sitting in the crosswalk, it means you majorly over-shot the stop line. There's very little chance that a driver will somehow end up in the crosswalk when stop lines are used. FWIW, I tend to stop when my tires meet the stop line (thus my bumper is past the stop line).
What you're saying does make sense. I just wish the CVC could be amended to explicitly state that no part of the vehicle can be over the limit line to eliminate the ambiguity.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 31, 2017, 01:29:16 AM
In California, then, I would often find myself with my bumper in the crosswalk.
So in addition to not being able to turn on a red arrow in California you *also* have to remember to keep your car entirely behind the limit line too. :biggrin:
Quote from: roadman on March 29, 2017, 12:42:00 PM
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20170328.aspx
NTSB is pretty damning to CalTrans in the abstract.
QuotePROBABLE CAUSE
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the San Jose, California, crash was the failure of the California Department of Transportation to properly delineate the crash attenuator and the gore area, which would have provided improved traffic guidance. Contributing to the crash were the bus driver's error in entering the gore and the out-of-compliance signage, which affected traffic guidance. Contributing to the severity of the injuries was the lack of passenger seat belt use.
I saw it when I went out there, and I'll say it again, California's signage is severely lacking when compared to other states, including other pioneering states like Michigan.
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 31, 2017, 01:43:32 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 31, 2017, 01:29:16 AM
I say that it prevents it not from a legal perspective, but a literal perspective. If there was a stop line but your car's bumper was sitting in the crosswalk, it means you majorly over-shot the stop line. There's very little chance that a driver will somehow end up in the crosswalk when stop lines are used. FWIW, I tend to stop when my tires meet the stop line (thus my bumper is past the stop line).
What you're saying does make sense. I just wish the CVC could be amended to explicitly state that no part of the vehicle can be over the limit line to eliminate the ambiguity.
The problem is when they ask officers, they tend to enforce the law as they see it, which may or may not be the absolute definition of the law.
Here's the actual law:
Quote
CHAPTER 8. Special Stops Required [22450 - 22456] ( Chapter 8 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
22450.
(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection.
If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway.
(b) The driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign at a railroad grade crossing shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before crossing the first track or entrance to the railroad grade crossing.
I've never see anything state "the portion of the car from the front tires to the rear must be behind the stop/limit line". Thus, I think it's implied that it's the entire car.
Or to put it another way, feel free to have the tires on the stop line at a railroad crossing with the front of the car hanging over the rail, and see what happens. :)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 31, 2017, 02:04:09 PM
I've never see anything state "the portion of the car from the front tires to the rear must be behind the stop/limit line". Thus, I think it's implied that it's the entire car.
Or to put it another way, feel free to have the tires on the stop line at a railroad crossing with the front of the car hanging over the rail, and see what happens. :)
I've always considered the tires to be the front because red light cameras only activate when the tires pass the stop line. At least in my experience.
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 31, 2017, 01:20:14 AM
Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that no part of a vehicle can be over the limit line but doing a quick glance through the California Vehicle Code (CVC), it's not clear to me. I found a column dated January 15th, 2015 where someone asks...
Q. When stopping at a stop sign or red light where there's a marked "limit line," is a driver required to stop with the entire vehicle behind the limit line? Or just the front tires? Betty Woody asked that question.
... the answer from two officers is quite interesting. One says all parts of the vehicle must be behind the line but then backtracks and says it's really up to the officer (i.e. if you're only an inch or two over and not impeding pedestrians, they could let it slide). The other, a retired CHP officer says if any part of the vehicle is over the line, you could be cited. Here's a link to that column...
http://www.pe.com/articles/line-757994-limit-vehicle.html (http://www.pe.com/articles/line-757994-limit-vehicle.html)
Actually if you look at the two answers by the two officers they are both saying the exact same thing. They both hedged their statement with the word "could". That one word binds both statements together-they could cite you or they could let you go, but they agree that the whole car needs to be behind the line.
Of course a Highway Patrol officer, same as any State Trooper, would focus more on their state's vehicle code-it's what they do. So a trooper is going to say the whole car must be behind the line or you could be cited (and more probably would be cited by them).
A regular officer (non traffic division of course) or sheriff's deputy is going to be more laid back-if it's not blocking anything or creating a hazard then it didn't happen. They would be less likely to pull you over and give you a ticket for being just a little over, it's just not worth their time-unless of course said overage needs to be used as an excuse to make contact with the driver because there are bigger fish to fry, so to speak.