Minor things that bother you

[vdeane]

Oh for me this is one I live with, but seems odd.  Without being sexist here, I often wonder why females now exclusively paint their toes but not their fingers as the fingernails seems like it's only a percentage of the female population.

To me the ones who paint their toenails and  do not paint their fingernails is like spraying deodorant under one arm and leaving the other arm unprotected.

Not that I lose sleep over this, but it is odd to do one side only and not the other and plus do most guys look down at a girls toes if they are not in high heels and mini skirts?

I can't speak for other women, but I actually do this myself, and the reason I stopped painting my fingernails has to do with work.  Back in college, leaving polish on for a month was just fine, as if my nails grew a bit or it chipped it wouldn't matter much.  But once I started working in an office, the effort to cover up chips and constantly change it got to be too much (over time, my nails started to peel a bit too, which was another factor).  This isn't an issue for my toes, which not only grow slower and chip less often, but are also easily hidden when wearing closed-toe shoes, so whether the polish looks professional doesn't matter like it does for fingernails.

It's also worth noting that the things women do with their appearance aren't just for the benefit of men, but also other women.  Just as men will establish a social pecking order based on things like firm handshakes and dominating group conversations, women will do the same based on things like appearance.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Customer is Always Right is only when you are the employee.  When you are the customer, it don't work that way

The customer often is in reality very much wrong.  Unreasonable customers are largely how things like the Karen meme spawned.

[Scott5114]

Nail polish sort of weirds me out in general, no matter which set of nails it's on, since that's not a place on the body bright colors naturally develop. I can appreciate a set of nicely manicured nails, but anything other than clear nail polish is too much for me. The same is true of brightly-colored lipstick. On the other hand, seeing someone with lime green hair doesn't bother me at all, because there's already such a natural variation in hair colors that it feels more normal to me to change the color of your hair than your nails or lips.

I acknowledge that this is mostly done for social, rather than attractiveness reasons, but I think that's a kind of bullshit thing that nobody should have to participate in anyway. It's a distraction from the business of whatever the workplace is trying to accomplish that doesn't help get anything done. Fortunately, with work-from-home being normalized due to the pandemic, I hope holding sentiments like "oh well Kathy doesn't do her nails so she must not care about her job very much" will eventually become as acceptable as casual sexual harassment and drinking on the job.

If you want to spend money on something because it's beautiful, buy artwork for the office. When you're hiring an employee, you should be hiring their brain.

[webny99]

On a road related note, when a turn lane or entrance to a roadway gets its own lane on the road it's entering, and yet there's a yield sign. That creates the false expectation that you need to yield, when you don't under any circumstance (except maybe the rare case where you have to cross other lanes of traffic for a quick left turn, but that's extremely rare).

Even worse, when other drivers get mad when you don't wait for them, as if they are somehow entitled to hog multiple lanes in this scenario. It happened to me today (I got honked at as I was entering, in my own lane, at the same time as another truck). I sped up to get past, then rolled down my window and held up two fingers to represent two lanes. Unfortunately I didn't have a free hand to point at the fingers I was holding up, but hopefully they got the message!! 

[paulthemapguy]

On a road related note, when a turn lane or entrance to a roadway gets its own lane on the road it's entering, and yet there's a yield sign. That creates the false expectation that you need to yield, when you don't under any circumstance (except maybe the rare case where you have to cross other lanes of traffic for a quick left turn, but that's extremely rare).

Even worse, when other drivers get mad when you don't wait for them, as if they are somehow entitled to hog multiple lanes in this scenario. It happened to me today (I got honked at as I was entering, in my own lane, at the same time as another truck). I sped up to get past, then rolled down my window and held up two fingers to represent two lanes. Unfortunately I didn't have a free hand to point at the fingers I was holding up, but hopefully they got the message!! 

Was there a W4-3 sign at the intersection? Maybe there should be!

[webny99]

On a road related note, when a turn lane or entrance to a roadway gets its own lane on the road it's entering, and yet there's a yield sign. That creates the false expectation that you need to yield, when you don't under any circumstance (except maybe the rare case where you have to cross other lanes of traffic for a quick left turn, but that's extremely rare).
...

Was there a W4-3 sign at the intersection? Maybe there should be!

No, there isn't... only a yield sign. But I agree there definitely should be, and it should replace the yield sign IMO.

[jeffandnicole]

On a road related note, when a turn lane or entrance to a roadway gets its own lane on the road it's entering, and yet there's a yield sign. That creates the false expectation that you need to yield, when you don't under any circumstance (except maybe the rare case where you have to cross other lanes of traffic for a quick left turn, but that's extremely rare).

Even worse, when other drivers get mad when you don't wait for them, as if they are somehow entitled to hog multiple lanes in this scenario. It happened to me today (I got honked at as I was entering, in my own lane, at the same time as another truck). I sped up to get past, then rolled down my window and held up two fingers to represent two lanes. Unfortunately I didn't have a free hand to point at the fingers I was holding up, but hopefully they got the message!! 

The purpose of the yield sign is because there's a situation nearby, in which a vehicle in the thru lane - in this case, the truck - may need to merge over into the entering lane to access a nearby road or driveway. It was determined via studies and engineering that the yield sign would be needed, as it's preferred to give traffic in the thru lane priority to merge over to prevent blocking of the thru lane, and have entering traffic - you - wait. 

There are absolutely circumstances where entering traffic that had a continuous lane needs to yield. Signage is used to convey such times.

So, to put it bluntly, you flew thru a yield sign, and looked like an ass as you waved at the other vehicle, even though you ignored the traffic control device.

[webny99]

On a road related note, when a turn lane or entrance to a roadway gets its own lane on the road it's entering, and yet there's a yield sign. That creates the false expectation that you need to yield, when you don't under any circumstance (except maybe the rare case where you have to cross other lanes of traffic for a quick left turn, but that's extremely rare).

Even worse, when other drivers get mad when you don't wait for them, as if they are somehow entitled to hog multiple lanes in this scenario. It happened to me today (I got honked at as I was entering, in my own lane, at the same time as another truck). I sped up to get past, then rolled down my window and held up two fingers to represent two lanes. Unfortunately I didn't have a free hand to point at the fingers I was holding up, but hopefully they got the message!! 

The purpose of the yield sign is because there's a situation nearby, in which a vehicle in the thru lane - in this case, the truck - may need to merge over into the entering lane to access a nearby road or driveway. It was determined via studies and engineering that the yield sign would be needed, as it's preferred to give traffic in the thru lane priority to merge over to prevent blocking of the thru lane, and have entering traffic - you - wait. 

There are absolutely circumstances where entering traffic that had a continuous lane needs to yield. Signage is used to convey such times.

So, to put it bluntly, you flew thru a yield sign, and looked like an ass as you waved at the other vehicle, even though you ignored the traffic control device.

No. No, there is not. There absolutely is not. I'm not going to disclose the location, but it probably wouldn't be hard to figure out if you wanted to. But there are no driveways whatsoever on the road. It's a fully limited access service road with zero access points other than at merge points and signalized intersections.

I would be OK with the yield sign if there was any need for anyone to be switching into the entering lane, but there isn't. The nearest right turn is nearly 3/4 mile away. There's hundreds, probably thousands, of auxiliary lanes that are much shorter than that, many of them on roads with much higher speeds. So if you're going to argue a yield sign is needed here, then yield signs are also needed for every freeway weave in the country since traffic needs to enter the entering lane.

[jeffandnicole]

On a road related note, when a turn lane or entrance to a roadway gets its own lane on the road it's entering, and yet there's a yield sign. That creates the false expectation that you need to yield, when you don't under any circumstance (except maybe the rare case where you have to cross other lanes of traffic for a quick left turn, but that's extremely rare).

Even worse, when other drivers get mad when you don't wait for them, as if they are somehow entitled to hog multiple lanes in this scenario. It happened to me today (I got honked at as I was entering, in my own lane, at the same time as another truck). I sped up to get past, then rolled down my window and held up two fingers to represent two lanes. Unfortunately I didn't have a free hand to point at the fingers I was holding up, but hopefully they got the message!! 

The purpose of the yield sign is because there's a situation nearby, in which a vehicle in the thru lane - in this case, the truck - may need to merge over into the entering lane to access a nearby road or driveway. It was determined via studies and engineering that the yield sign would be needed, as it's preferred to give traffic in the thru lane priority to merge over to prevent blocking of the thru lane, and have entering traffic - you - wait. 

There are absolutely circumstances where entering traffic that had a continuous lane needs to yield. Signage is used to convey such times.

So, to put it bluntly, you flew thru a yield sign, and looked like an ass as you waved at the other vehicle, even though you ignored the traffic control device.

No. No, there is not. There absolutely is not. I'm not going to disclose the location, but it probably wouldn't be hard to figure out if you wanted to. But there are no driveways whatsoever on the road. It's a fully limited access service road with zero access points other than at merge points and signalized intersections.

I would be OK with the yield sign if there was any need for anyone to be switching into the entering lane, but there isn't. The nearest right turn is nearly 3/4 mile away. There's hundreds, probably thousands, of auxiliary lanes that are much shorter than that, many of them on roads with much higher speeds. So if you're going to argue a yield sign is needed here, then yield signs are also needed for every freeway weave in the country since traffic needs to enter the entering lane.

As each instance is unique, there's no sense arguing why one is used one place and not another. I see cases like this too where yield signs should be present but aren't, and vice versa. There's usually a reason for the sign, and when accidents do occur, it's likely the person ignoring the sign will receive the ticket. They'll then go on social media complaining why they got the ticket for failing to yield at the yield sign, where a bunch of people that also ignore the sign will give them their much needed compassion.

[webny99]

And to be clear, I'm not saying I was right for ignoring the sign. My minor grievance is that the sign doesn't need to exist.

[vdeane]

On a road related note, when a turn lane or entrance to a roadway gets its own lane on the road it's entering, and yet there's a yield sign. That creates the false expectation that you need to yield, when you don't under any circumstance (except maybe the rare case where you have to cross other lanes of traffic for a quick left turn, but that's extremely rare).

Even worse, when other drivers get mad when you don't wait for them, as if they are somehow entitled to hog multiple lanes in this scenario. It happened to me today (I got honked at as I was entering, in my own lane, at the same time as another truck). I sped up to get past, then rolled down my window and held up two fingers to represent two lanes. Unfortunately I didn't have a free hand to point at the fingers I was holding up, but hopefully they got the message!! 

The purpose of the yield sign is because there's a situation nearby, in which a vehicle in the thru lane - in this case, the truck - may need to merge over into the entering lane to access a nearby road or driveway. It was determined via studies and engineering that the yield sign would be needed, as it's preferred to give traffic in the thru lane priority to merge over to prevent blocking of the thru lane, and have entering traffic - you - wait. 

There are absolutely circumstances where entering traffic that had a continuous lane needs to yield. Signage is used to convey such times.

So, to put it bluntly, you flew thru a yield sign, and looked like an ass as you waved at the other vehicle, even though you ignored the traffic control device.

No. No, there is not. There absolutely is not. I'm not going to disclose the location, but it probably wouldn't be hard to figure out if you wanted to. But there are no driveways whatsoever on the road. It's a fully limited access service road with zero access points other than at merge points and signalized intersections.

I would be OK with the yield sign if there was any need for anyone to be switching into the entering lane, but there isn't. The nearest right turn is nearly 3/4 mile away. There's hundreds, probably thousands, of auxiliary lanes that are much shorter than that, many of them on roads with much higher speeds. So if you're going to argue a yield sign is needed here, then yield signs are also needed for every freeway weave in the country since traffic needs to enter the entering lane.

Here?  Looking at that location, it appears that it's not so much an added lane as a lane that's forming when the slip ramp comes in (note the offset line and contrast to here, reconfigured in 2018.  And I can see where traffic might want to move right rather than deal with traffic coming off NY 104.

[webny99]

Here?  Looking at that location, it appears that it's not so much an added lane as a lane that's forming when the slip ramp comes in (note the offset line and contrast to here, reconfigured in 2018.  And I can see where traffic might want to move right rather than deal with traffic coming off NY 104.

Yes, but to me the two are functionally identical. I don't see why either one would have a yield sign. There's arguably way less of a case for it at Five Mile Line considering there's much more room to merge before the freeway entrance (roughly 1200 ft vs 700 ft), and the only reason anyone entering from the left would want to merge right would be to get to Hard Road southbound, which is almost 3/4 mile down the road, and that's only a tiny fraction of the traffic, especially given the shortcut to BJ's plaza through Lowe's.

On the subject of NY 104 slip ramps, this one was also redone recently, though it has a proper merging lane and fortunately didn't have a yield sign even before the improvements.

[vdeane]

Here?  Looking at that location, it appears that it's not so much an added lane as a lane that's forming when the slip ramp comes in (note the offset line and contrast to here, reconfigured in 2018.  And I can see where traffic might want to move right rather than deal with traffic coming off NY 104.

Yes, but to me the two are functionally identical. I don't see why either one would have a yield sign. There's arguably way less of a case for it at Five Mile Line considering there's much more room to merge before the freeway entrance (roughly 1200 ft vs 700 ft), and the only reason anyone entering from the left would want to merge right would be to get to Hard Road southbound, which is almost 3/4 mile down the road, and that's only a tiny fraction of the traffic, especially given the shortcut to BJ's plaza through Lowe's.

That merge can feel surprisingly short, especially when traffic is moving at 55, which it almost always is; with the lack of deceleration lane and the short slip ramp, traffic would be hard pressed to slow down to 40 by that point if they were even attempting to do so, which nearly nobody does (anything below 50 feels like crawling, but it's also necessary due to the short weave).  I know that area far too well, given that my parents go to Proietti's nearly every week and have been since before I was born.

On the subject of cutting through Lowe's, going a shorter distance wouldn't seem to be worth the inconvenience of going through all these stop signs, but that's just me.  Incidentally, it does seem like there's a decent amount of right-turning traffic when we're there, at least relative to the amount of traffic on the road.  I certainly never felt like we were a distinct minority in turning right onto Hard Road.

[webny99]

That merge can feel surprisingly short, especially when traffic is moving at 55, which it almost always is; with the lack of deceleration lane and the short slip ramp, traffic would be hard pressed to slow down to 40 by that point if they were even attempting to do so, which nearly nobody does (anything below 50 feels like crawling, but it's also necessary due to the short weave).  I know that area far too well, given that my parents go to Proietti's nearly every week and have been since before I was born.

I know it well too, but I'm almost always entering 104 there, not exiting. Agreed that speed differentials can be a problem; speeds of 55-60 mph are common on the slip ramp, but coming from Five Mile you have to really accelerate fast to get up to that speed (which I have no problem doing, but many drivers seem to immediately drift into the left lane at 35 or 40 mph, interfering with much faster traffic exiting to Hard Rd). That's one reason I tend to use the right lane to accelerate and then merge left twice as soon as there's a gap. I actually think the westbound setup, with no auxiliary lane, is a little better in terms of the weaving situation, although the tradeoff is that many drivers seem to think there is an auxiliary lane and turn their blinker on to merge only for the lane to end.

Incidentally, it does seem like there's a decent amount of right-turning traffic when we're there, at least relative to the amount of traffic on the road.  I certainly never felt like we were a distinct minority in turning right onto Hard Road.

Of course. There's plenty of traffic turning right onto Hard. but most of it is coming from 104, not Five Mile.

[webny99]

On the subject of cutting through Lowe's, going a shorter distance wouldn't seem to be worth the inconvenience of going through all these stop signs, but that's just me.

This took me down a giant three-paragraph rabbit hole, but my laptop restarted and I lost the post 

I don't have the heart to re-type it the way it was before, but basically:
1) The Lowe's shortcut makes sense to/from the BJ's plaza and anything else west of Hard Rd, but it's more of an alternate to Ridge Rd than it is to 104.
2) This intersection has really poor signal timing and strange phasing. Not enough green time for Hard Rd combined with the lack of green arrows leads to major afternoon backups. It's so bad that on several occasions I've even beat the light by turning right (where the red truck in the link is turning), and re-entering at Van Ingen Dr.
3) I'd like to see Hard Rd completely overhauled to mirror Holt Rd, with four through lanes between 104 and Ridge and a new signal at Van Ingen. It's sorely needed given the ever-increasing traffic on that stretch and in Webster in general.

[XamotCGC]

Being honked at  for not turning right on a red light.

[kkt]

Being honked at  for not turning right on a red light.

Yes.  I'm at the stop line, so I am the best judge of how fast approaching traffic is coming and how much visibility I have and how fast my car can accelerate into traffic.

[kurumi]

Find someone who loves you as much as 18-wheelers love blocking traffic in the passing lane.

I took a road trip along I-5, CA 58, and I-15 among others, and despite the supply chain shortages, there is a buttload of America's Needs Moving By Truck, especially in the #1 lane, traveling at 60.00001 mph

(not an original rant by any means)

[jakeroot]

The purpose of the yield sign is because there's a situation nearby, in which a vehicle in the thru lane - in this case, the truck - may need to merge over into the entering lane to access a nearby road or driveway. It was determined via studies and engineering that the yield sign would be needed, as it's preferred to give traffic in the thru lane priority to merge over to prevent blocking of the thru lane, and have entering traffic - you - wait. 

I don't think this is right. How exactly does a yield sign in a slip lane automatically grant priority to traffic in other lanes to change lanes into the add-lane with priority? I'm not aware of any law, much less any sign, that would actually allow drivers to willfully cross a solid white or even dashed line into another lane and somehow have the right-of-way over drivers already in that lane.

To expand a bit: the drivers in the slip lane may have a yield sign, but the yield sign does not make it clear to whom they should yield to if that slip lane otherwise forms its own lane. For all drivers know, the yield sign is just there for pedestrians who may be crossing, and that beyond the yield sign, all other traffic rules would otherwise apply (chiefly: maintain your lane). Further, traffic in the through lanes would certainly not be aware of the slip lane and its yield sign. Even if that yield sign was to prevent the drivers in the slip lane from completing a continuous turn, thereby permitting a driver in the other lanes to more easily access the added lane, the drivers in the through lane would have no way of knowing that was the situation without a sign explicitly stating something to the effect of "lane changing permitted with priority" (or similar). Which I'm sure we could both agree is not a sign that is posted anywhere.

Here is a situation near me where the slip lane forms its own lane, but there is still a yield sign. To the best of my knowledge, this sign is a mistake: there is no additional signage to allow traffic to change into the new lane with any sort of priority; the markings clearly suggest that lane changing is cautioned against (solid line) for 150+ feet; there is also no driveway or side street which would otherwise require an immediate lane change for through traffic. If anything, my best bet is that the yield sign was installed (incorrectly) to prevent drivers in the slip lane from flying over three lanes into the far lane to access the left turn lanes of the upcoming intersection. To actually solve this, either an add-lane sign should have been used, or some other measure (flexi-posts) that would actually be enforceable in the event of a crash.

[webny99]

Here is a situation near me where the slip lane forms its own lane, but there is still a yield sign. To the best of my knowledge, this sign is a mistake: there is no additional signage to allow traffic to change into the new lane with any sort of priority; the markings clearly suggest that lane changing is cautioned against (solid line) for 150+ feet; there is also no driveway or side street which would otherwise require an immediate lane change for through traffic. If anything, my best bet is that the yield sign was installed (incorrectly) to prevent drivers in the slip lane from flying over three lanes into the far lane to access the left turn lanes of the upcoming intersection. To actually solve this, either an add-lane sign should have been used, or some other measure (flexi-posts) that would actually be enforceable in the event of a crash.

Interesting. That's basically how I read it as well: the yield sign means you have to yield if you're entering any lane other than the one designated to you. It doesn't mean through traffic is going to be cutting into your lane, rather just that you must yield if entering another lane, which makes sense. But the solid line would also seem to discourage you from doing that, so this is another case similar to my own example where I can't see how the yield sign is warranted.

[Mr_Northside]

Here is a situation near me where the slip lane forms its own lane, but there is still a yield sign. To the best of my knowledge, this sign is a mistake: there is no additional signage to allow traffic to change into the new lane with any sort of priority; the markings clearly suggest that lane changing is cautioned against (solid line) for 150+ feet; there is also no driveway or side street which would otherwise require an immediate lane change for through traffic. If anything, my best bet is that the yield sign was installed (incorrectly) to prevent drivers in the slip lane from flying over three lanes into the far lane to access the left turn lanes of the upcoming intersection. To actually solve this, either an add-lane sign should have been used, or some other measure (flexi-posts) that would actually be enforceable in the event of a crash.

Interesting. That's basically how I read it as well: the yield sign means you have to yield if you're entering any lane other than the one designated to you. It doesn't mean through traffic is going to be cutting into your lane, rather just that you must yield if entering another lane, which makes sense. But the solid line would also seem to discourage you from doing that, so this is another case similar to my own example where I can't see how the yield sign is warranted.

The ramp from Babcock Blvd to McKnight Rd northbound is also a lane add that has a Yield sign for some reason.   There is no crosswalk that I can discern, though there are some business driveways shortly after the lane add that may be the reason for that sign.

https://goo.gl/maps/UZMrbJiFGsHskW8U9

[tolbs17]

Because of what I watched on TikTok!

And generally, TikTok clips bother me.

[thspfc]

Because of what I watched on TikTok!

And generally, TikTok clips bother me.

TikTok is one of the worst things to happen to society in the last 10 years.

[formulanone]

Traffic control issues that could go in their own thread(s) that are in this thread.

[tchafe1978]

What bothers me is when you're snacking on popcorn on the couch, and you drop a kernal or two. The kernals fall on the edge of the cushion and the armrest. You reach to pick up the kernal, but as you try to grab it, it keeps falling further and further down between the cushion and armrest, eventually falling all the way through so you can't reach it anymore. So there the kernal sits, under the couch, until you finally decide to move the couch to clean under it 6 months later. The poor kernal is completly wasted, as the dog doesn't even get a chance to scarf up the dropped kernal. Such a tragedy!