Crosswalks

I quit facebook. Entirely. I didn't like that any stalker and his dog could look me up, size me up, chew me up, and spit me out before fighting me in person. I also envisioned myself in the future with the dog I want to get prowling around on facebook, sizing people up before I really met them.--I don't like that phony crap. If you want ammo to shoot at me, read my blog--at least there I get to track you, what city you live in, if you're bringing backup, and I can also make money if you click on my ads--I don't get those privileges on facebook, a place for gossip, a place for creeps. I don't care how many people potentially *could* find my blog from my facebook page, the costs are far greater than the benefits.


Before I get into today's article I want to announce a challenge. I started playing Yahoo's Fantasy Finance, a fantasy stock market game that runs the same way that all the other "fantasy --" games work: it takes real life measurements and applies them in game form.--this one is tied directly to Yahoo Finance, a stock market measuring app on the yahoo website. I started playing at the opening of the stock market this morning and at closing I had made $20 (after subtracting the fees involved for purchasing my next stock for tomorrow morning). I have a goal to double my money in 52 weeks (you start with $100,000).--It looks like a stretch right now, but I'm sure going to give it my all! --If you play (or you're going to start playing) feel free to add me as a friend and we can turn it into a friendly competition: (kyle_oakeson)


Now the real article:
--------------------------------------------------------


I was walking home along a crosswalk today--there's only one on the way to my house from campus, and jerk-off had the nerve to yell out the window of his truck "look both ways before crossing the street." If you ever see me cross the street right there, you know I don't look both ways. Most of the time I don't look either direction, the rest of the time I only look one way. Sounds crazy, doesn't it?


I'm 23, just finishing up with post-secondary school, and if you saw me walk into the street you'd think I had a death wish.--no, I don't value my education so poorly that I feel as though after I graduate I have no where to go, but I have two very "smart" reasons for boldly crossing the street. I've thought about them a lot and I figure I have such a solid knowledge on the subject that I'm 90% non-persuadable.


Although there are two main reasons, I'll keep this organized by numbering my points:


1) I have the right of way. I have the right of way no matter where I am, because I am on foot. I am a pedestrian. In a court of law, however, if I get hit while jay-walking in a speed-zone of higher than 30 then I don't really have a case for not looking both ways because the danger of the situation (higher speeds) would cause the average person to consider their own safety before venturing into dangerous territory.
2) There IS a crosswalk there. Crosswalks are legally marked off zones where pedestrians are designed to travel. The crosswalk was invented to protect the pedestrian by making drivers aware that they need to be cautious when driving over the crosswalk. During typical travel times of the day (which varies per crosswalk but in a realistic manner), drivers need to be extra careful so that they don't hit pedestrians. In this particular crosswalk, since it is right off of campus, it is understood that during times of the day when classes are held, pedestrians will use the crosswalk regularly. Meaning any time of day from 8AM to 6PM, a pedestrian could cross that walk.
A distinction needs to be made here about school zones however, lest my readers get confused. A school zone is designed to give children, who may or may not understand the danger and risk in crossing a street, extra protection against careless drivers. In a school zone, drivers are commanded to drive at 20 mph or less, which is still dangerous to a small individual (using simple physics, even getting hit at 10 mph by a 3000lb or heavier car can cause a lot of damage to someone who weighs under 50lbs and whose fulcrum is lower than 3 ft.).
Let me just paste in the Utah code concerning crosswalks because that will make a more valid case, starting with the least pertinent and building:
     "Utah Code 41-6a-1707.   Entering intersection, crosswalk, or railroad grade -- Sufficient space required.
     The operator of a vehicle may not enter an intersection or a marked crosswalk or drive onto any railroad grade crossing unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection, crosswalk, or railroad grade crossing to accommodate the vehicle without obstructing the passage of other vehicles, pedestrians, or railroad trains notwithstanding any traffic-control signal indication to proceed."
So interpreting that: a vehicle (let's take a pickup truck for example) may not enter a crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on either side for the pedestrian (myself) to cross without being obstructed, or blocked. --This law is mostly talking about stopping on a crosswalk (such as what I have seen people do when they are turning right at an intersection and nearly hit a pedestrian [either in the act of turning right or as they approach the intersection]). It's still relevant though, because it says that they MAY NOT obstruct me from walking on the crosswalk.
     "Utah Code 41-6a-1002.   Pedestrians' right-of-way -- Duty of pedestrian.
     (1) (a) Except as provided under Subsection (2), when traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way by slowing down or stopping if necessary:
     (i) to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling; or
     (ii) when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.
     (b) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply under conditions of Subsection 41-6a-1003(2).
     (c) A pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard."


Here's the real deal. A man in a deep blue truck in Logan, UT shall yield the right of way by slowing down or stopping to a pedestrian (myself and others) crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on half of the roadway or when the pedestrian (myself) is approaching so closely from the opposite half as to be in danger.
Interpreting: so if I'm crossing from left to right and a car is driving on the right side of the road, if I make it out into the road and he or she is not an immediate hazard, then they must slow down.
However, a pedestrian (myself) may not suddenly leave the curb into the path of a vehicle which is close enough to constitute an immediate hazard.
3) Any vehicle driving on the right side of the road and is less than one car length away from the crosswalk is not an immediate hazard. I can say this quite confidently. I have seen several Cache Valley Public Transit Department Buses (these things weight tons!) stop in one car length on the right side of the road. Why? Because this is a hill. A very steep hill. My first car probably would struggle going up this hill in 3rd gear.
4)One car length is enough for me to see quite clearly without using my peripherals. When I said I only look one direction, I meant that I look up the hill. A car going down the hill will take more distance to stop than one going up. If my extended peripherals (I can see the top and the bottom of the hill which is probably 300-400 yards) indicate that I need to look up the hill, then I look up the hill and then look straight ahead. I have good peripherals. I can see OVER 180 degrees (beyond 180 degrees I lose track of detail but I can still clearly see motion, and a moving truck or bus is motion). It bothers me sometimes and I get jumpy and bugged out when someone moves, rather quickly, in my extended peripherals (beyond 180 degrees).
5) If you don't like me, don't like my attitude, just hit me. Seriously. The Utah code only goes so far. It makes for good guidelines, but these situations are far more complex and can involve a lot of emotions. In fact, the outcome of a court case on this matter may reveal something different than the interpretation of the present law. In other words, I DARE you to hit me, just like I DARE you to challenge the Utah court system. If we go to court, and I'm in crutches or a broken arm or your truck has a dent in it, or I'm in a wheelchair, and you stand before the judge and say: "He didn't look both ways."--that's your only defense. You can't say that you were driving ethically and responsibly and politely. A polite person (and bus drivers typically are) would notice the Asian man who has been standing on the right side of the road for 5 minutes and the tall, obvious and apparent 23 year old, boldly walking down steps towards the crosswalk, and that polite person would stop and allow the pedestrians to cross (Because of the way I walk, most people can see me and recognize me from beyond 500 yards). A responsible driver will get in the habit of checking for people along crosswalks or approaching crosswalks in the city. --have you ever been on a 4 lane (2 in each direction) road and someone's crossing the crosswalk and has the right lane stopped up and people in the left lane keep driving?--it's irresponsible!) And ethically, if you're gonna drive, you better at least follow the guidelines that say that a pedestrian has the right of way.
6) It's possibly more dangerous to challenge the law than it is to challenge life. If you kill someone while driving, you lose your license, you pay a huge fine to the victims family, you go to prison for 3-5 years for manslaughter, and you live with guilt for the rest of your life. Me, I lose my life, but then I'm in a happier place, I don't have guilt, I don't have to do anything other than be dead. No matter who you worship, God, Allah, Odin, Zeus, Christ, or Baal, if you kill someone because you didn't step on the break---you're going to regret it.
7) I'm a poor college student. If you hit me, your insurance will pay for my physical, medical expenses. The rest of the court system will pay for my tuition, and I'll go back to school in a wheelchair to become a lawyer  and you'll see me on TV saying "one call, that's all."
8) Lest anyone try to use this article against me (if ever I get hit), I'm committing right now to make a more concentrated effort to look both ways before crossing the street.


The point is, if you're going to drive, drive ethically, responsibly, and politely. And don't scream out your window at someone who made you stop because in that case, I know for a fact that you were not a hazard: you did in fact have the time to stop for me, I.E. you were a danger, but not an immediate danger; and if you hit me it would hurt you more than it would hurt me.

The New Bards pt 3 Poetry Series

The money-making marketer
sat, stood, and sang
bringing buyers back
increasing income
and producing profit.

In the olden days there used to be a profession called the "bard." Bards were patronized, which means someone rich was paying their bills. In exchange, the bard would write songs for them and entertain them, but more importantly they would travel around and spread their stories. Rich people, typically kings or oligarchs, were willing to pay for bards to be lazy and sit around writing songs and saying poems all day long because it was beneficial for the king to have someone talk about him to their peasants and other kings around the world.

Today, a super-star's power is measured in how much "Buzz" they generate. Buzz is the term for how much people are talking about someone (or something). Marketers are in charge of generating this buzz, measuring it, controlling it, and using it for the benefit of the person they represent. Typically, marketers work for a corporation, organization, or company. However, there are plenty of sole proprietorships out there (individuals conducting business) who hire someone to do their marketing--there is also the more obvious politician, who hires several teams of "marketers" to create buzz for them.

As you can see, the "bard" isn't an obsolete occupation--it's an evolved occupation.

It is a common rhetorical practice to change the names of things to make them sound more edgy and applicable. One can easily see why they would change the name of "bard" to "marketer"--a marketer sounds much more like a financial occupation than a boring one. After making the name change, bards cut word-associations of their profession such as "boring bards" "bad bards" and "bland bards" and instead associated them with "Marketers at the market" "money-making marketers" or even, "Mass media marketer." Teachers just never learn do they? They've been called teacher for countless years!

If you want to sit around and write poetry all day, you might want to take a reality check and reconsider real professions. You can make a lot of money applying the skills of a poet to practical things, how many times have you turned on tv to the jingle "give me a break, give me a break..." or "doo doo doo doo doo doo dowaa, It doesn't matter what comes, fresh goes better in life..."

Now is a good time for me to argue something else:

A lot of people look to English majors with confusion: What is English, what is its practical purpose? "So you're gonna write books?--Oh, then you're going to be a teacher?" Others say that majoring in English is just an excuse to take a break from real life and write...poetry...all day. *sigh*
The GOP Presidential Nominee, Mitt Romney was an English Major. Now days, the worst dirt people can find on him is that he makes so much money and hasn't done anything wrong. How is that possible? Being rich and a good person, is that real?
Socrates argued this issue a long time ago and concluded that the best leaders are just and honest, and they are just and honest because they are reasonable.--Reasonable in the sense that they are capable of reasoning: picking a side of an argument, evaluating it, and changing sides of the argument when they realize their side isn't the most logical. --This is what English majors do. They learn how to argue, how to evaluate ideas, how to generate their own ideas and think for themselves, and they learn how to effectively communicate those ideas to other people.
Choosing to get a degree in English is like choosing to major in good leadership. Business degrees these days only teach you how to make money and how to overcome obstacles, but they won't teach you how to act ethically for any other reason than that the punishment for unethical behavior is worse than the benefits. They can only teach you a sub-par communication skills when compared to the skills an English major learns. They lack the foundation to teach you how to think creatively. And, granted, they're starting to teach leadership skills, but you'll notice that they're only a side-thought: Interpersonal skills? That's just a fancy way of saying don't step on anyone's toes, give everyone a chance, and don't be afraid to speak up. That's the first class they teach an english student and then they give them 10,000 hours of practice at it, and as all of the seasoned professionals in the business world say: Being able to act and communicate will get you further than being able to crunch numbers.

Anyone can crunch numbers. Technology is advancing to the point where you don't even really need to crunch numbers, a computer will do that for you. But creativity and communication are indispensable skills that cannot be replaced by a machine--true, they follow patterns just like mathematics follow patterns and rules and they all have variables, but communcation is the presentation of ideas, and ideas are always changing whereas math never changes.

You want to be a bard? Focus on the most important job functions first and then you'll be permitted to use your poetic skills on the side--and be paid for them.