It's time for holiday road trips again! Well, almost.
Thanksgiving will be spent with Amber's family in Toledo; Christmas will be spent with my family in Jacksonville; and New Year's will be spent once again in Toledo. This is the exact opposite of last year's plan (Jacksonville, Toledo, Jacksonville) and is the same as what we did two years ago. Hmm, you would almost think that was on purpose...
Indeed, the idea is to be as fair as possible to both families. Christmas is the "best" holiday, which is why the family that misses out on Christmas gets both Thanksgiving and New Year's. And as long as both sides of the family stay on the same rotation (ahem), everything works out perfectly and we get to see everyone we want to see every time we go.
If you're interested in specific dates we'll be in each place, here's the current plan:
Toledo Thanksgiving: arrive Wed 11/25 12:00p, leave Sun 11/29
Jacksonville Christmas: arrive Wed 12/23 11:00p, leave Sun 12/27
Toledo New Year's: arrive Wed 12/30 11:00p, leave Sun 1/3
As for the driving...I'll talk about that next week before we go, including how - and why - we plan on getting to Toledo at noon.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Drought Monitor
Here's yet another thing I obsess over. I check the United States Drought Monitor website every Thursday, sometimes within the first two hours of the weekly update. (It's updated every Thursday at 8:30 AM.)
This week, I was especially looking forward to the update to see what kind of drought relief Ida's remnants brought to the Carolinas. Our area hasn't gotten a good soaking in quite some time, and as a result has been in "Moderate Drought" for a few weeks now. But the storm formerly known as Ida gave us over four inches of rain, and that completely extinguished the "drought". Hooray!
Why do I care about drought, anyway? I don't farm. I don't care if the "grass" in our "lawn" doesn't grow - in fact, a drought means I don't have to mow the lawn! (I haven't mowed in weeks.) We never water our lawn. We don't have a well or anything. The only impact the major drought from a couple of years ago had on our lives was that it prompted the building I work in to install waterless urinals. So why should I care if half of North Carolina is classified as being in "extreme drought"? Easy: because I'm a nerd. I like maps, I like weather, I like statistics, and the drought monitor combines all three!
I don't really follow what drought conditions are like elsewhere in the country, but I obsessively follow drought conditions in the Carolinas, because I like seeing how they quantify our conditions. For example, I was very interested in the post-Ida analysis. Was that enough to get rid of all the "moderate drought" in North Carolina? What about the "severe drought" in South Carolina? Would the storm completely eliminate the drought, or would it simply reduce the drought by one category, from "severe drought" to "moderate drought"? (It eliminated all of the drought, including the "severe drought". Now all that remains in the Carolinas are "abnormally dry" conditions. "Abnormally dry" means "you're not in drought, but you're close". I call it the "danger zone".)
I think the Drought Monitor's classifications are a little extreme. Once you get past the "danger zone", the first category of drought is called "moderate". Umm, shouldn't moderate be in the middle somewhere? After "moderate", the next two classifications of drought are "severe" and "extreme", followed by the worst classification, "exceptional". So in case you were wondering where the words "severe", "extreme", and "exceptional" ranked on the hyperbole scale, now you know. Seems a little over the top, don't you think? "Extreme drought" seems bad enough. But you're telling me that's not even the worst possible category? And how severe is "severe drought", really? If it's necessary to have not one, but two classifications of drought that are worse than "severe drought", then it can't be all that severe in my book. The National Weather Service does not issue "Extreme Thunderstorm Warnings" or "Exceptional Thunderstorm Warnings" on top of Severe Thunderstorm Warnings. Severe warnings are good enough, right? I think the Drought Monitor is guilty of a little fear mongering.
This week, I was especially looking forward to the update to see what kind of drought relief Ida's remnants brought to the Carolinas. Our area hasn't gotten a good soaking in quite some time, and as a result has been in "Moderate Drought" for a few weeks now. But the storm formerly known as Ida gave us over four inches of rain, and that completely extinguished the "drought". Hooray!
Why do I care about drought, anyway? I don't farm. I don't care if the "grass" in our "lawn" doesn't grow - in fact, a drought means I don't have to mow the lawn! (I haven't mowed in weeks.) We never water our lawn. We don't have a well or anything. The only impact the major drought from a couple of years ago had on our lives was that it prompted the building I work in to install waterless urinals. So why should I care if half of North Carolina is classified as being in "extreme drought"? Easy: because I'm a nerd. I like maps, I like weather, I like statistics, and the drought monitor combines all three!
I don't really follow what drought conditions are like elsewhere in the country, but I obsessively follow drought conditions in the Carolinas, because I like seeing how they quantify our conditions. For example, I was very interested in the post-Ida analysis. Was that enough to get rid of all the "moderate drought" in North Carolina? What about the "severe drought" in South Carolina? Would the storm completely eliminate the drought, or would it simply reduce the drought by one category, from "severe drought" to "moderate drought"? (It eliminated all of the drought, including the "severe drought". Now all that remains in the Carolinas are "abnormally dry" conditions. "Abnormally dry" means "you're not in drought, but you're close". I call it the "danger zone".)
I think the Drought Monitor's classifications are a little extreme. Once you get past the "danger zone", the first category of drought is called "moderate". Umm, shouldn't moderate be in the middle somewhere? After "moderate", the next two classifications of drought are "severe" and "extreme", followed by the worst classification, "exceptional". So in case you were wondering where the words "severe", "extreme", and "exceptional" ranked on the hyperbole scale, now you know. Seems a little over the top, don't you think? "Extreme drought" seems bad enough. But you're telling me that's not even the worst possible category? And how severe is "severe drought", really? If it's necessary to have not one, but two classifications of drought that are worse than "severe drought", then it can't be all that severe in my book. The National Weather Service does not issue "Extreme Thunderstorm Warnings" or "Exceptional Thunderstorm Warnings" on top of Severe Thunderstorm Warnings. Severe warnings are good enough, right? I think the Drought Monitor is guilty of a little fear mongering.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Curling Recap: 11/12-11/13/09
There were actually two nights of curling last week...sort of. Friday was a normal game, but Thursday was a class.
The Thursday class wasn't really a "help you become a better curler" class; instead it was a "help you become better at teaching first-time curlers how to curl so that we can grow the Triangle Curling Club's membership as much as possible when the 'Olympic rush' comes in a few months" class. The basic idea was how to make it fun enough for the newbies during the "Learn to Curl" sessions in order to make them want to come back again. Or something like that.
The class did motivate me a little to improve my own curling delivery. If I had pictures of "the correct delivery" and "my incorrect, but somewhat effective delivery" to show side-by-side, I would, but instead let's just say my technique isn't exactly textbook. There are two main reasons (read: excuses) why I've been using an unconventional delivery:
1) The "correct" curling delivery requires flexibility, which I don't have a whole lot of. Remember doing something called the "V-sit" in elementary and middle school gym class? (It's where you sit on the floor, spread your legs in a 'V' flat on the floor, and reach forward as far as you can.) Every year, I was consistently among the worst in my class in the V-sit. In other words, flexibility isn't exactly one of my God-given strengths, so it's much easier for me to do the quirky delivery.
2) We rarely get to practice. If I could practice a couple of hours every week (for a reasonable price), I probably would. And I do realize that I can work on my flexibility any time of day, and that it would improve over time, but...well, I don't have a good excuse for not doing that already.
When we came back the next night for a league game, I decided to try the "correct" curling delivery.
End............ 12345678 |TTL
----------------------------
Our team....... 04110201 | 09
Other team..... 10001020 | 04
I'd say an accurate description of the match was that we won despite my play. The correct delivery never felt right, and I ended up switching back by the end of the night.
The season isn't over, but that was actually our last game of the season (the last week is our bye week). My pre-season objective of finishing 4-4 came to fruition, so...yay? At least one of us (Amber or me) will be curling this Friday for other teams, though.
The Thursday class wasn't really a "help you become a better curler" class; instead it was a "help you become better at teaching first-time curlers how to curl so that we can grow the Triangle Curling Club's membership as much as possible when the 'Olympic rush' comes in a few months" class. The basic idea was how to make it fun enough for the newbies during the "Learn to Curl" sessions in order to make them want to come back again. Or something like that.
The class did motivate me a little to improve my own curling delivery. If I had pictures of "the correct delivery" and "my incorrect, but somewhat effective delivery" to show side-by-side, I would, but instead let's just say my technique isn't exactly textbook. There are two main reasons (read: excuses) why I've been using an unconventional delivery:
1) The "correct" curling delivery requires flexibility, which I don't have a whole lot of. Remember doing something called the "V-sit" in elementary and middle school gym class? (It's where you sit on the floor, spread your legs in a 'V' flat on the floor, and reach forward as far as you can.) Every year, I was consistently among the worst in my class in the V-sit. In other words, flexibility isn't exactly one of my God-given strengths, so it's much easier for me to do the quirky delivery.
2) We rarely get to practice. If I could practice a couple of hours every week (for a reasonable price), I probably would. And I do realize that I can work on my flexibility any time of day, and that it would improve over time, but...well, I don't have a good excuse for not doing that already.
When we came back the next night for a league game, I decided to try the "correct" curling delivery.
End............ 12345678 |TTL
----------------------------
Our team....... 04110201 | 09
Other team..... 10001020 | 04
I'd say an accurate description of the match was that we won despite my play. The correct delivery never felt right, and I ended up switching back by the end of the night.
The season isn't over, but that was actually our last game of the season (the last week is our bye week). My pre-season objective of finishing 4-4 came to fruition, so...yay? At least one of us (Amber or me) will be curling this Friday for other teams, though.
Monday, November 16, 2009
DirecTV Customer Service
Over the last month and a half, it seems like I've spent a lot of time on the phone with DirecTV for various reasons, to the point where I now have DirecTV's customer service number saved in my cell phone. But how much, exactly? Sounds like an opportunity new statistic! And thus, I've made another addition to my ever-growing By the Numbers: amount of time spent on the phone with DirecTV.
To get the stat started, I looked back through my cell phone records. It turns out that since the beginning of October, I've called DirecTV three times, and spent a total of 36 minutes on the phone with them.
What has been the reason for each of the calls?
October 7th (7 minutes): I had heard online that DirecTV was giving discounts on NHL Center Ice to people who called and complained about DirecTV dropping Versus from its lineup. To take advantage of that, I waited until I was in a bad mood (I figured the more pissed off I sounded, the more likely I was to score a discount), called DirecTV, and scored a $50 discount on NHL Center Ice, which I had already purchased anyway. Sweet. Some people have reported getting an $80 discount, or even getting NHL Center Ice for free, but I guess I wasn't angry, persistent, or threatening enough for that. I probably needed to threaten cancellation and a switch to DISH in order to get the full discount. Given how bad I am at this sort of thing, I was just happy to get the $50.
October 26th (3 minutes): This was another NHL Center Ice-related call. Those of us who didn't buy Center Ice got a three-week free preview. A day or two after the free preview expired, I was no longer getting Center Ice's high definition channels. I was getting the standard definition channels, but not the HD ones. I called DirecTV, and was directed through their automated voice system. DirecTV resent the channel authorizations to my receiver, and it was resolved quickly and without ever having to speak to a representative. How often does that happen? 90% of the time, all the automated voice system does is waste our time, right? I guess the reason they have the automated voice system is to filter out the "stupid people" - you know, the ones who can't figure out why their receiver won't turn on and immediately call DirecTV. "Is the receiver plugged in?" "Oh..."
November 14th (26 minutes): Just after noon on this Fall Saturday, I turned on one of the Big Ten Network alternate channels expecting to watch the Indiana v. Penn State game in high definition...but nope. I was only getting the standard definition feed of the game. This time, the automated voice system did not fix the problem. Rebooting the system - which takes several minutes - also did not fix it. Eventually I reached a representative, and it took me another 10 minutes to convince the agent that this game actually was supposed to be in high definition. Then, he pressed a couple of buttons, and it was done...26 minutes after I called. Not so good.
Nonetheless, in the 16 months since I got DirecTV, I've had far fewer technical issues with them than I had in my two years with Time Warner Cable. Not even close.
To get the stat started, I looked back through my cell phone records. It turns out that since the beginning of October, I've called DirecTV three times, and spent a total of 36 minutes on the phone with them.
What has been the reason for each of the calls?
October 7th (7 minutes): I had heard online that DirecTV was giving discounts on NHL Center Ice to people who called and complained about DirecTV dropping Versus from its lineup. To take advantage of that, I waited until I was in a bad mood (I figured the more pissed off I sounded, the more likely I was to score a discount), called DirecTV, and scored a $50 discount on NHL Center Ice, which I had already purchased anyway. Sweet. Some people have reported getting an $80 discount, or even getting NHL Center Ice for free, but I guess I wasn't angry, persistent, or threatening enough for that. I probably needed to threaten cancellation and a switch to DISH in order to get the full discount. Given how bad I am at this sort of thing, I was just happy to get the $50.
October 26th (3 minutes): This was another NHL Center Ice-related call. Those of us who didn't buy Center Ice got a three-week free preview. A day or two after the free preview expired, I was no longer getting Center Ice's high definition channels. I was getting the standard definition channels, but not the HD ones. I called DirecTV, and was directed through their automated voice system. DirecTV resent the channel authorizations to my receiver, and it was resolved quickly and without ever having to speak to a representative. How often does that happen? 90% of the time, all the automated voice system does is waste our time, right? I guess the reason they have the automated voice system is to filter out the "stupid people" - you know, the ones who can't figure out why their receiver won't turn on and immediately call DirecTV. "Is the receiver plugged in?" "Oh..."
November 14th (26 minutes): Just after noon on this Fall Saturday, I turned on one of the Big Ten Network alternate channels expecting to watch the Indiana v. Penn State game in high definition...but nope. I was only getting the standard definition feed of the game. This time, the automated voice system did not fix the problem. Rebooting the system - which takes several minutes - also did not fix it. Eventually I reached a representative, and it took me another 10 minutes to convince the agent that this game actually was supposed to be in high definition. Then, he pressed a couple of buttons, and it was done...26 minutes after I called. Not so good.
Nonetheless, in the 16 months since I got DirecTV, I've had far fewer technical issues with them than I had in my two years with Time Warner Cable. Not even close.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
College Football Saturday: 11/14/09
We're coming down the stretch in this season of college football, which means we've made it to the point in the season where a lot of teams don't really have much to play for anymore. Case in point, the two teams I follow the most, Florida State and Penn State.
Now, I know what you're thinking. "What do you mean, the season is already over for those teams?!?! Florida State still needs two more wins to become bowl eligible and keep their streak alive (27 consecutive bowl game appearances)! Penn State needs two more wins to get to a New Year's Day bowl game! These teams still have plenty to play for, you moron! What kind of fan are you, anyway?"
Put simply, I'm an FSU fan that doesn't really care about the bowl streak. There are so many bowl games these days, just "going to a bowl game" does not a successful season make. (Unless you're Duke, of course; more on that later.) Florida State's quarterback Christian Ponder is injured for the rest of the season, so I'm not high on their chances the rest of the way. Assuming they lose to Florida - I'm really going out on a limb here, aren't I? - they need to beat Wake Forest and Maryland to finish with a "bowl eligible" record of 6-6. Woohoo, 6-6! Pop the champagne! Let's party! (I'm being sarcastic here, in case you can't tell. Given the success FSU has had over the years, I just can't get all that excited about a 6-6 season.)
As for Penn State: yes, the Outback Bowl is better than the Alamo Bowl. But the goal was a Big Ten championship, and the games against Iowa and Ohio State - both home games, mind you - were complete duds and letdowns. A win today against Indiana won't exactly salvage the season. But hey - at least they're not as bad as FSU! I admit, I should be more positive about Penn State. They're better than a lot of teams, and they're still having a "pretty good" season. So...yeah! Go team! Beat the Hoosiers! We are...Penn State! (There. Is that better?)
As for the other 29 games on TV today that don't involve the Seminoles or Nittany Lions? Let's see...
Time slot 1
Game 1 - Indiana at Penn State, 12:00p, Big Ten Network: See above.
Game 2 - Florida State at Wake Forest, 12:00p, ESPNU: See above. (In other words, it's not a bad week to have a PSU/FSU conflict.)
Game 3 - Georgia Tech at Duke, 12:00p, ESPN2: Now that we have the obligation teams out of the way, let's talk about the rest! I've been rooting for "lovable loser" Duke all season long. (Needless to say, the "lovable loser" moniker only applies to football.) But today, I'm really torn. Duke needs to finish 2-1 to become bowl eligible, which for Duke would be a tremendous accomplishent. (Speaking of which, merely having a home game televised on ESPN2 is a tremendous accomplishment unto itself.) However, a Georgia Tech loss could clear the way for Miami (FL) to win the ACC, and we can't have that. But I shouldn't let disdain for Miami (FL) dictate all of my rooting interests, right? So...I'm torn. I have no idea who to root for.
Game 4 - Clemson at NC State, 12:00p, Local TV (Raycom): I'm rooting for Clemson here, because I'd much rather Clemson win the ACC Atlantic division than boring Boston College. I'm sure the folks who sell tickets to the ACC Championship game agree.
Game 5 - Houston at Central Florida, 12:00p, CBS College: I haven't watched a lot of Houston this season - and probably won't today, either, given how full the early time slot is today - but apparently they score a lot of points, and the games are usually close, so they're probably fun to watch.
Game 6 - Michigan State at Purdue, 12:00p, ESPN: Now, back to the Big Ten. The early time slot is loaded. Keep the remote handy!
Game 7 - Michigan at Wisconsin, 12:00p, Big Ten Network: Michigan could go 2-6 in the Big Ten and still make a bowl game. And you wonder why I think "bowl eligiblity" is overrated?
Game 8 - Texas at Baylor, 12:00p, FSN: Probably not going to happen, but "Game 8" is a good spot for "I'll keep an eye on the score" games.
Game 9 - Northwestern at Illinois, 12:00p, ESPN Classic: The rivalry!
Game 10 - Kentucky at Vanderbilt, 12:00p, CSN California: Of all the regional sports networks televising this game on DirecTV, I decided to pick the most obscure.
Game 11 - Syracuse at Louisville, 12:00p, MASN
Game 12 - South Dakota State at Minnesota, 12:00p, Big Ten Network: Two years ago, Minnesota lost at home to North Dakota State. The solution? Schedule South Dakota State instead! I think this is hilarious.
Not Televised - Tennessee at Ole Miss, 12:00p, CBS: This game is on CBS nationally, but the local CBS affiliate (WRAL) is pre-empting this game to air the Clemson at NC State game. Usually when there's a conflict between Raycom and the CBS national feed, one or the other gets bumped to an alternate over-the-air channel (5.2). Why they're not doing that today is beyond me. Maybe the Tennessee/Ole Miss game is on some other local channel and I can't find it? Personally, I don't really care, but unless they rework the schedule, expect WRAL to get an angry phone call or two about this one.
Speaking of Ole Miss, I'm still not quite sure whether I should call them "Ole Miss" or "Mississippi". The moniker "Ole Miss" has always bugged me - it is not called the University of Ole Miss, it is called the University of Mississippi - but "Ole Miss" is what everyone calls them, including their own fans. Maybe I should come up with a quirky name, such as "Mississippi (a.k.a. 'Ole Miss')". Actually, I like that. That's the name from now on, complete with parantheses. And no, calling them "Ole Miss" is NOT the same as referring to The Pennsylvania State University as "Penn State" for short. "Penn State" is an abbreviation or shortname. "Ole Miss" is a nickname. The word "Ole" does not abbreviate any part of "The University of Mississippi". Big difference.
Time slot 2
Game 1 - Iowa at Ohio State, 3:30p, ESPN2: Last week, I said I might actually root for the Buckeyes this week. But after the events of last week (Iowa loss, Ohio State win), now I am pulling really, really, really hard for Iowa. For the love of God, Hawkeyes...whatever you do, please do NOT let Ohio State win the freaking Big Ten again.
Game 2 - Miami (FL) at North Carolina, 3:30p, ABC: I almost never say this, but...go Tar Heels! Yuck...I really didn't like the way that sounded. I need to go wash out my mouth now. (Actually, the Tar Heels aren't all that bad. On the whole, their fans - combined with the local media's obsession with them - are only about 5% as annoying as with the Gators.)
Game 3 - Stanford at USC, 3:30p, FSN: Not a particular strong middle time slot today, but this matchup has provided some exciting moments in the past.
Game 4 - Washington at Oregon State, 3:30p, Fox Sports Northwest: Every week, it seems like I put Oregon State near the top of the priority list "for variety", but I have yet to actually watch more than 30 seconds of one of their games. Maybe this week? That'll all depend on late game excitement.
Game 5 - BYU at New Mexico, 2:00p, the mtn.: Games on "the mtn." are almost never in high definition, but they are today! Yeah! (Side note: whether I classify a 2:00p game in "time slot 1" or "time slot 2" depends on how likely I am to watch a game in either time slot. Time slot 1 is loaded today, so I moved this game to time slot 2.)
Game 6 - Idaho at Boise State, 3:30p, ESPNU: The rivalry!
Game 7 - Florida at South Carolina, 3:30p, CBS: I'm not actually counting down the days until the Gator Quarterback Whom Shall Not Be Named is forever out of college football, but...I can't wait! (To be clear, I am not rooting for an injury. That's not what I do. I wish him the best of luck when he's playing in the pros next year. And by "the pros", I mean the Canadian Football League, of course.) Really, the reason this game is so low on the priority list is because Florida can probably lose this game and still make the BCS Championship game as long as they win the SEC Championship. This is basically the only game the Gators have left until then. (Their last two regular season games are against local cupcakes Florida International and Florida State. Yes, I am allowed to make fun of my own team. In case you can't tell already, I am really, really NOT looking forward to that game.)
Game 8 - UCLA at Washington State, 5:00p, Fox College Sports: Washington State is really, really bad this year.
Game 9 - Delaware at Navy, 3:30p, CBS College: Delaware, eh? Delaware is one of the better lower division teams, and I think they've actually beaten Navy in recent memory.
Game 10 - Fresno State at Nevada, 4:00p, CSN California: Wait, another game on this wacky Comcast Sportsnet California channel (DirecTV 698)? Wow!
Time slot 3
Game 1 - Notre Dame at Pittsburgh, 8:00p, ABC: Good news, Amber - you can watch Notre Dame this week! (To be clear, I always offer her the chance to watch Notre Dame, but she's only a casual fan and usually declines.) By the way, here's a fun game to play when watching Notre Dame. Count how many times coach Charlie Weis is shown on screen, versus how many times an announcer says "Golden Tate", and see which one comes out on top!
Game 2 - Utah at TCU, 7:30p, CBS College: Hooray, an important game in the Mountain West that isn't televised on Versus! Better take advantage of it.
Game 3 - Alabama at Mississippi State, 7:00p, ESPN: The late time slot is the least interesting of the three today. In the interest of time, I'm just going to breeze through the rest of these...
Game 4 - Auburn at Georgia, 7:00p, ESPN2
Game 5 - UNLV at Air Force, 6:00p, the mtn.
Game 6 - Texas A&M at Oklahoma, 7:00p, FSN
Game 7 - Louisiana Tech at LSU, 7:00p, ESPNU
Time slot 4
Game 1 - Arizona State at Oregon, 10:15p, ESPN
Game 2 - Wyoming at San Diego State, 10:00p, the mtn.
Enjoy!
Now, I know what you're thinking. "What do you mean, the season is already over for those teams?!?! Florida State still needs two more wins to become bowl eligible and keep their streak alive (27 consecutive bowl game appearances)! Penn State needs two more wins to get to a New Year's Day bowl game! These teams still have plenty to play for, you moron! What kind of fan are you, anyway?"
Put simply, I'm an FSU fan that doesn't really care about the bowl streak. There are so many bowl games these days, just "going to a bowl game" does not a successful season make. (Unless you're Duke, of course; more on that later.) Florida State's quarterback Christian Ponder is injured for the rest of the season, so I'm not high on their chances the rest of the way. Assuming they lose to Florida - I'm really going out on a limb here, aren't I? - they need to beat Wake Forest and Maryland to finish with a "bowl eligible" record of 6-6. Woohoo, 6-6! Pop the champagne! Let's party! (I'm being sarcastic here, in case you can't tell. Given the success FSU has had over the years, I just can't get all that excited about a 6-6 season.)
As for Penn State: yes, the Outback Bowl is better than the Alamo Bowl. But the goal was a Big Ten championship, and the games against Iowa and Ohio State - both home games, mind you - were complete duds and letdowns. A win today against Indiana won't exactly salvage the season. But hey - at least they're not as bad as FSU! I admit, I should be more positive about Penn State. They're better than a lot of teams, and they're still having a "pretty good" season. So...yeah! Go team! Beat the Hoosiers! We are...Penn State! (There. Is that better?)
As for the other 29 games on TV today that don't involve the Seminoles or Nittany Lions? Let's see...
Time slot 1
Game 1 - Indiana at Penn State, 12:00p, Big Ten Network: See above.
Game 2 - Florida State at Wake Forest, 12:00p, ESPNU: See above. (In other words, it's not a bad week to have a PSU/FSU conflict.)
Game 3 - Georgia Tech at Duke, 12:00p, ESPN2: Now that we have the obligation teams out of the way, let's talk about the rest! I've been rooting for "lovable loser" Duke all season long. (Needless to say, the "lovable loser" moniker only applies to football.) But today, I'm really torn. Duke needs to finish 2-1 to become bowl eligible, which for Duke would be a tremendous accomplishent. (Speaking of which, merely having a home game televised on ESPN2 is a tremendous accomplishment unto itself.) However, a Georgia Tech loss could clear the way for Miami (FL) to win the ACC, and we can't have that. But I shouldn't let disdain for Miami (FL) dictate all of my rooting interests, right? So...I'm torn. I have no idea who to root for.
Game 4 - Clemson at NC State, 12:00p, Local TV (Raycom): I'm rooting for Clemson here, because I'd much rather Clemson win the ACC Atlantic division than boring Boston College. I'm sure the folks who sell tickets to the ACC Championship game agree.
Game 5 - Houston at Central Florida, 12:00p, CBS College: I haven't watched a lot of Houston this season - and probably won't today, either, given how full the early time slot is today - but apparently they score a lot of points, and the games are usually close, so they're probably fun to watch.
Game 6 - Michigan State at Purdue, 12:00p, ESPN: Now, back to the Big Ten. The early time slot is loaded. Keep the remote handy!
Game 7 - Michigan at Wisconsin, 12:00p, Big Ten Network: Michigan could go 2-6 in the Big Ten and still make a bowl game. And you wonder why I think "bowl eligiblity" is overrated?
Game 8 - Texas at Baylor, 12:00p, FSN: Probably not going to happen, but "Game 8" is a good spot for "I'll keep an eye on the score" games.
Game 9 - Northwestern at Illinois, 12:00p, ESPN Classic: The rivalry!
Game 10 - Kentucky at Vanderbilt, 12:00p, CSN California: Of all the regional sports networks televising this game on DirecTV, I decided to pick the most obscure.
Game 11 - Syracuse at Louisville, 12:00p, MASN
Game 12 - South Dakota State at Minnesota, 12:00p, Big Ten Network: Two years ago, Minnesota lost at home to North Dakota State. The solution? Schedule South Dakota State instead! I think this is hilarious.
Not Televised - Tennessee at Ole Miss, 12:00p, CBS: This game is on CBS nationally, but the local CBS affiliate (WRAL) is pre-empting this game to air the Clemson at NC State game. Usually when there's a conflict between Raycom and the CBS national feed, one or the other gets bumped to an alternate over-the-air channel (5.2). Why they're not doing that today is beyond me. Maybe the Tennessee/Ole Miss game is on some other local channel and I can't find it? Personally, I don't really care, but unless they rework the schedule, expect WRAL to get an angry phone call or two about this one.
Speaking of Ole Miss, I'm still not quite sure whether I should call them "Ole Miss" or "Mississippi". The moniker "Ole Miss" has always bugged me - it is not called the University of Ole Miss, it is called the University of Mississippi - but "Ole Miss" is what everyone calls them, including their own fans. Maybe I should come up with a quirky name, such as "Mississippi (a.k.a. 'Ole Miss')". Actually, I like that. That's the name from now on, complete with parantheses. And no, calling them "Ole Miss" is NOT the same as referring to The Pennsylvania State University as "Penn State" for short. "Penn State" is an abbreviation or shortname. "Ole Miss" is a nickname. The word "Ole" does not abbreviate any part of "The University of Mississippi". Big difference.
Time slot 2
Game 1 - Iowa at Ohio State, 3:30p, ESPN2: Last week, I said I might actually root for the Buckeyes this week. But after the events of last week (Iowa loss, Ohio State win), now I am pulling really, really, really hard for Iowa. For the love of God, Hawkeyes...whatever you do, please do NOT let Ohio State win the freaking Big Ten again.
Game 2 - Miami (FL) at North Carolina, 3:30p, ABC: I almost never say this, but...go Tar Heels! Yuck...I really didn't like the way that sounded. I need to go wash out my mouth now. (Actually, the Tar Heels aren't all that bad. On the whole, their fans - combined with the local media's obsession with them - are only about 5% as annoying as with the Gators.)
Game 3 - Stanford at USC, 3:30p, FSN: Not a particular strong middle time slot today, but this matchup has provided some exciting moments in the past.
Game 4 - Washington at Oregon State, 3:30p, Fox Sports Northwest: Every week, it seems like I put Oregon State near the top of the priority list "for variety", but I have yet to actually watch more than 30 seconds of one of their games. Maybe this week? That'll all depend on late game excitement.
Game 5 - BYU at New Mexico, 2:00p, the mtn.: Games on "the mtn." are almost never in high definition, but they are today! Yeah! (Side note: whether I classify a 2:00p game in "time slot 1" or "time slot 2" depends on how likely I am to watch a game in either time slot. Time slot 1 is loaded today, so I moved this game to time slot 2.)
Game 6 - Idaho at Boise State, 3:30p, ESPNU: The rivalry!
Game 7 - Florida at South Carolina, 3:30p, CBS: I'm not actually counting down the days until the Gator Quarterback Whom Shall Not Be Named is forever out of college football, but...I can't wait! (To be clear, I am not rooting for an injury. That's not what I do. I wish him the best of luck when he's playing in the pros next year. And by "the pros", I mean the Canadian Football League, of course.) Really, the reason this game is so low on the priority list is because Florida can probably lose this game and still make the BCS Championship game as long as they win the SEC Championship. This is basically the only game the Gators have left until then. (Their last two regular season games are against local cupcakes Florida International and Florida State. Yes, I am allowed to make fun of my own team. In case you can't tell already, I am really, really NOT looking forward to that game.)
Game 8 - UCLA at Washington State, 5:00p, Fox College Sports: Washington State is really, really bad this year.
Game 9 - Delaware at Navy, 3:30p, CBS College: Delaware, eh? Delaware is one of the better lower division teams, and I think they've actually beaten Navy in recent memory.
Game 10 - Fresno State at Nevada, 4:00p, CSN California: Wait, another game on this wacky Comcast Sportsnet California channel (DirecTV 698)? Wow!
Time slot 3
Game 1 - Notre Dame at Pittsburgh, 8:00p, ABC: Good news, Amber - you can watch Notre Dame this week! (To be clear, I always offer her the chance to watch Notre Dame, but she's only a casual fan and usually declines.) By the way, here's a fun game to play when watching Notre Dame. Count how many times coach Charlie Weis is shown on screen, versus how many times an announcer says "Golden Tate", and see which one comes out on top!
Game 2 - Utah at TCU, 7:30p, CBS College: Hooray, an important game in the Mountain West that isn't televised on Versus! Better take advantage of it.
Game 3 - Alabama at Mississippi State, 7:00p, ESPN: The late time slot is the least interesting of the three today. In the interest of time, I'm just going to breeze through the rest of these...
Game 4 - Auburn at Georgia, 7:00p, ESPN2
Game 5 - UNLV at Air Force, 6:00p, the mtn.
Game 6 - Texas A&M at Oklahoma, 7:00p, FSN
Game 7 - Louisiana Tech at LSU, 7:00p, ESPNU
Time slot 4
Game 1 - Arizona State at Oregon, 10:15p, ESPN
Game 2 - Wyoming at San Diego State, 10:00p, the mtn.
Enjoy!
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Other, Shorter U.S. Routes
Our US-50 cross-country road trip was a lot of fun. But, we don't have the time or the money to do trips like that very often. For the most part, when it comes to road trips, we have to stay close to home. So while we don't plan on taking any other cross-country U.S. Routes from end to end any time soon, I have been looking into other U.S. Routes that we can drive from end-to-end just for fun. These routes are all short enough and close enough to home such that we can take them from beginning to end in a simple day trip.
So...given the length and proximity restrictions, where does that leave us? It turns out there are 13 U.S. Routes we can take from end-to-end in a one-day trip.
View U.S. Routes close to home in a larger map
In numerical order:
U.S. Route 117 - Wilmington to Wilson in Eastern North Carolina
This is probably the easiest one that's worth doing - the entire round trip would take around six hours. On the other hand, it's probably pretty boring, so...meh.
(Note: When I say "round trip", that includes the time it takes us to drive from home to the beginning of the route, and the time it takes to drive home after finishing the route, not just time spent on the route itself.)
U.S. Route 158 - Mocksville (west of Winston-Salem) to the Outer Banks along the NC/VA border
This one might be interesting. It's almost entirely rural (Winston-Salem is the only major city it goes through), it's long enough to make it seem like it's worth it (350 miles or so), and it's kind of obscure. This one is a candidate.
U.S. Route 176 - Goose Creek, SC (north of Charleston) to Hendersonville, NC
This route follows I-26 pretty closely almost the whole way. Too bad. The idea is to get away from the interstates.
U.S. Route 178 - Dorchester, SC (near the I-95 and I-26 junction) to Rosman, NC (south of Asheville)
The most interesting choice thus far. To me, "interesting" means "changing scenery", and this route starts in the lowlands of South Carolina and ends in the North Carolina mountains just across the state line. And, it goes through two counties I haven't visited yet! Cha-ching!
U.S. Route 258 - Jacksonville, NC to Hampton, VA
Now this is an obscure U.S. Route. It passes through some very rural sections of North Carolina as it makes its way up to the Hampton Roads area. Put this one in the "maybe" pile.
U.S. Route 264 - Raleigh to the Outer Banks
Already done.
U.S. Route 276 - Greenville (ish), SC to Cove Creek, NC (I-40 west of Asheville)
This one goes straight through the mountains. Looks like fun! Problem is, it's only 108 miles long, and the beginning and end are both several hours away from home, so we would spend most of the day on I-85 and I-40 just getting there and back.
U.S. Route 311 - Randleman to Eden in Central North Carolina
This route is less than 100 miles long, and the northernmost parts of it aren't even signed. I think this route is pretty dumb. Why does it still exist? Next...
U.S. Route 378 - Conway, SC (near Myrtle Beach) to Washington, GA (northwest of Augusta)
This is pushing the limits of what can be considered a "day trip" (13-14 hour round trip), but this route does go straight through the heart of South Carolina, which is kind of neat.
U.S. Route 401 - Sumter, SC to NC/VA line near I-85
The northern half of this route passes through downtown Raleigh, and I've already done it. So...there are probably better options out there.
U.S. Route 521 - Charlotte, NC to Georgetown, SC
U.S. Route 701 - Georgetown, SC to Four Oaks, NC (near Smithfield)
I'm listing these two together because it would be very easy to do both in the same day trip, since they both start in North Carolina and end at practically the same intersection along the South Carolina coast. Sounds great, right? Problem is, I think I've already driven on a lot of both roads, so none of it would seem very "new" and "exciting". Then again, I've already been almost everywhere in the Carolinas, so "new" and "exciting" can't be done in one day. (We'll still do our best to make it "exciting", though. I mean the good kind of "exciting", not the oops-I-hit-a-deer kind of "exciting".)
U.S. Route 601 - Tarboro, SC (in the southern tip of South Carolina) to Mount Airy, NC
Hmm...for some reason, I just can't get all that excited about this one. How many branch routes does US-1 need, anyway?
So, we have a few options. I think 158, 178, and the 521/701 combo are the best options. If you know me, then you already know it's not a matter of "if", but "how many".
So...given the length and proximity restrictions, where does that leave us? It turns out there are 13 U.S. Routes we can take from end-to-end in a one-day trip.
View U.S. Routes close to home in a larger map
In numerical order:
U.S. Route 117 - Wilmington to Wilson in Eastern North Carolina
This is probably the easiest one that's worth doing - the entire round trip would take around six hours. On the other hand, it's probably pretty boring, so...meh.
(Note: When I say "round trip", that includes the time it takes us to drive from home to the beginning of the route, and the time it takes to drive home after finishing the route, not just time spent on the route itself.)
U.S. Route 158 - Mocksville (west of Winston-Salem) to the Outer Banks along the NC/VA border
This one might be interesting. It's almost entirely rural (Winston-Salem is the only major city it goes through), it's long enough to make it seem like it's worth it (350 miles or so), and it's kind of obscure. This one is a candidate.
U.S. Route 176 - Goose Creek, SC (north of Charleston) to Hendersonville, NC
This route follows I-26 pretty closely almost the whole way. Too bad. The idea is to get away from the interstates.
U.S. Route 178 - Dorchester, SC (near the I-95 and I-26 junction) to Rosman, NC (south of Asheville)
The most interesting choice thus far. To me, "interesting" means "changing scenery", and this route starts in the lowlands of South Carolina and ends in the North Carolina mountains just across the state line. And, it goes through two counties I haven't visited yet! Cha-ching!
U.S. Route 258 - Jacksonville, NC to Hampton, VA
Now this is an obscure U.S. Route. It passes through some very rural sections of North Carolina as it makes its way up to the Hampton Roads area. Put this one in the "maybe" pile.
U.S. Route 264 - Raleigh to the Outer Banks
Already done.
U.S. Route 276 - Greenville (ish), SC to Cove Creek, NC (I-40 west of Asheville)
This one goes straight through the mountains. Looks like fun! Problem is, it's only 108 miles long, and the beginning and end are both several hours away from home, so we would spend most of the day on I-85 and I-40 just getting there and back.
U.S. Route 311 - Randleman to Eden in Central North Carolina
This route is less than 100 miles long, and the northernmost parts of it aren't even signed. I think this route is pretty dumb. Why does it still exist? Next...
U.S. Route 378 - Conway, SC (near Myrtle Beach) to Washington, GA (northwest of Augusta)
This is pushing the limits of what can be considered a "day trip" (13-14 hour round trip), but this route does go straight through the heart of South Carolina, which is kind of neat.
U.S. Route 401 - Sumter, SC to NC/VA line near I-85
The northern half of this route passes through downtown Raleigh, and I've already done it. So...there are probably better options out there.
U.S. Route 521 - Charlotte, NC to Georgetown, SC
U.S. Route 701 - Georgetown, SC to Four Oaks, NC (near Smithfield)
I'm listing these two together because it would be very easy to do both in the same day trip, since they both start in North Carolina and end at practically the same intersection along the South Carolina coast. Sounds great, right? Problem is, I think I've already driven on a lot of both roads, so none of it would seem very "new" and "exciting". Then again, I've already been almost everywhere in the Carolinas, so "new" and "exciting" can't be done in one day. (We'll still do our best to make it "exciting", though. I mean the good kind of "exciting", not the oops-I-hit-a-deer kind of "exciting".)
U.S. Route 601 - Tarboro, SC (in the southern tip of South Carolina) to Mount Airy, NC
Hmm...for some reason, I just can't get all that excited about this one. How many branch routes does US-1 need, anyway?
So, we have a few options. I think 158, 178, and the 521/701 combo are the best options. If you know me, then you already know it's not a matter of "if", but "how many".
Chance of Death
Now that I'm married and have a house, I decided that it might be a good idea to get a little extra life insurance. No big deal, right? Except that being a math and probability geek, I couldn't help but use the cost of my life insurance to calculate the probability that I will die next year, at least according to my insurance company.
For various reasons, I'm not going to post the actual monetary numbers here. But in a nutshell, I took the amount that the life insurance would cost me next year, assumed that 20% of that was going to profit for the insurance company and that 80% was to offset the chance that I would die next year and that the insurance company would pay up. The theory is that if the insurance company's calculated "chance of death" - which they use to determine the cost of my life insurance - is correct, then over the long run the insurance company would break even between any life insurance payouts they'd have to make and the 80% portion of our premiums, keeping the other 20% for profit. I really have no idea whether 20%/80% is a realistic ratio, but nonetheless, it was good enough for this calculation.
I crunched the numbers based on my insurance premium and the payout Amber would receive to determine what the insurance company thinks is the chance I will die next year. The result: there is a 1-in-525 chance I will die next year.
So...what does that mean? I think it means I should be more careful driving my car and riding my bicycle around town. At age 27, those two things are probably the most likely things that could kill me. But even besides that, there are a lot of fluke ways you can die. Given that, I don't think 1-in-525 is all that bad.
I think it's amazing that most people live as long as they do, quite honestly. If this were the 14th century, my odds of dying next year would probably be closer to, say, 1-in-50. (Total guess.) Despite what various cable news networks may try to tell you, we are fortunate to live in the time that we do.
For various reasons, I'm not going to post the actual monetary numbers here. But in a nutshell, I took the amount that the life insurance would cost me next year, assumed that 20% of that was going to profit for the insurance company and that 80% was to offset the chance that I would die next year and that the insurance company would pay up. The theory is that if the insurance company's calculated "chance of death" - which they use to determine the cost of my life insurance - is correct, then over the long run the insurance company would break even between any life insurance payouts they'd have to make and the 80% portion of our premiums, keeping the other 20% for profit. I really have no idea whether 20%/80% is a realistic ratio, but nonetheless, it was good enough for this calculation.
I crunched the numbers based on my insurance premium and the payout Amber would receive to determine what the insurance company thinks is the chance I will die next year. The result: there is a 1-in-525 chance I will die next year.
So...what does that mean? I think it means I should be more careful driving my car and riding my bicycle around town. At age 27, those two things are probably the most likely things that could kill me. But even besides that, there are a lot of fluke ways you can die. Given that, I don't think 1-in-525 is all that bad.
I think it's amazing that most people live as long as they do, quite honestly. If this were the 14th century, my odds of dying next year would probably be closer to, say, 1-in-50. (Total guess.) Despite what various cable news networks may try to tell you, we are fortunate to live in the time that we do.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Pedestrians v. Bicyclists v. Drivers
As I've ridden my bicycle more and more, on both roads and on multi-use trails, I've put myself right smack dab in the middle of the eternal struggle between pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. Unless I go mountain biking (which I don't have any real interest in), I'm always going to be sharing the road or trail with something, whether it be cars or pedestrians. So, I'm going to analyze these three separate "battles"...
Bicyclists v. Drivers: Over the summer, a bicyclist named Bruce Rosar was killed after a collision with a car in nearby Apex. Rosar was known for being a "bicycling safety advocate", but a police investigation concluded that Rosar turned into the path of an oncoming car and that the accident was actually his fault.
So...cue the hateful reader comments! Bicyclists: "There has to be more to the story. No responsible bicyclist would just turn in front of a car. Drivers are inconsiderate of bicyclists, and always get off easy in these situations. Share the road!" Drivers: "Most bicyclists are irresponsible and rude, they don't follow the rules of the road even though they're supposed to, and these accidents are almost always their fault. And why do they get to use the roads for free while car drivers pay taxes and registration fees? Tax the bicyclists too!"
Alright, so...here's my take. First off, very few roads in the Triangle have a dedicated bike lane. At the same time, most Triangle roads can be very busy at times. That is a problem. That said, both sides have some consessions to make. Drivers: give bicyclists a little more room, and be a little more patient with them. Bicyclists: there isn't a whole lot you can do on the roads themselves, but at intersections, make "staying out of the cars' way" your #1 priority and be really, really, patient. I have found that as I've ridden more, my tendency has been to get a little lazy and quick with traffic negotiation, which is something I have been trying really hard to fight. The safest way to ride a bicycle on public roads is to be "scared as hell" of car traffic. Once you start getting comfortable riding your bike out there, you're in trouble. Even safety advocates like Bruce Rosar can get a little too comfortable on their bike, and all it takes is one mistake.
As for the "bicyclists should pay additional taxes" comment...I will not dignify that with a response.
Pedestrians v. Bicyclists:
So, you're a bicyclist, and you're tired of dealing with car traffic. What's the solution? Take a trail!
Problem is, almost every paved bike trail that exists anywhere is also heavily used by runners and walkers, and this can cause some issues as well. Bicyclist: "Get out of the way!" Runner/walker: "Slow down! Be more considerate! This is our trail too!" Hmm...sound familiar? Bicyclists have the unique position on being on both sides of the "share the road/trail" concept.
I don't think this debate is as heated as the bicyclist v. driver debate, but nonetheless, both sides have similar responsibilities. Pedestrians: keep to the right and don't block the trail. Bicyclists: call out when passing and give plenty of room. I've had a lot of experience with this on the American Tobacco Trail, a mixed-use trail that runs from downtown Durham to south of Apex (in two discontinuous segments). Some runners and walkers like to fan out and block the path, prompting a "On Your Left" call from bicyclists like me. I try not to sound rude when I do it, but that's hard to do. I've also learned that trying to ride your bike on the ATT when the Apex High School cross-country team is practicing on it is a bad idea.
Pedestrians v. Drivers:
I don't have a whole lot of experience with this anymore, since the only areas around here with any measure of pedestrian traffic are downtowns. But I recently read that both Raleigh and Jacksonville were named among the most dangerous cities in the country for pedestrians. Yay team!
That's just the mindset in the South. Almost everyone drives a car everywhere, public transportation is used by very few, and pedestrian traffic is viewed as an obstable and a novelty rather than a commonplace occurrence. Drivers aren't used to handling pedestrian traffic down here, so when they do encounter it, they don't really know how to handle it, or don't know the "pedestrians already in the crosswalk have the right-of-way" law, or are just impatient. It's no coincidence that New York and Boston were determined to be among the safest cities for pedestrians. Those cities are built not around car transport, but around public transportation and walking.
Well, anyway...my most experience with the pedestrian v. driver clash probably comes from driving and walking around the Penn State campus in State College. I think the keys to pedestrian safety are as follows:
- Drivers: Always assume that the pedestrian that's standing on the corner is going to walk out in front of you. Or, at least be prepared for it.
- Pedestrians: Don't be stupid. That's basically it.
- City engineers: Either time the traffic lights so that pedestrians get a head start, or give pedestrians their own set of lights. In downtown State College, the crosswalk signal turns to "Walk" three seconds before the light turns green. I'm not sure if downtown Raleigh does that. State College also has a few pedestrian-only traffic signals, such as the one between Walker Building and the bus station on Atherton Street. That's just a function of the mindset. State College, along with most college campuses, are pedestrian-heavy areas where the pedestrian comes first. Most southern cities center around the automobile and are not like that at all.
So, yeah...I'm done preaching. Can't we all just get along?
Bicyclists v. Drivers: Over the summer, a bicyclist named Bruce Rosar was killed after a collision with a car in nearby Apex. Rosar was known for being a "bicycling safety advocate", but a police investigation concluded that Rosar turned into the path of an oncoming car and that the accident was actually his fault.
So...cue the hateful reader comments! Bicyclists: "There has to be more to the story. No responsible bicyclist would just turn in front of a car. Drivers are inconsiderate of bicyclists, and always get off easy in these situations. Share the road!" Drivers: "Most bicyclists are irresponsible and rude, they don't follow the rules of the road even though they're supposed to, and these accidents are almost always their fault. And why do they get to use the roads for free while car drivers pay taxes and registration fees? Tax the bicyclists too!"
Alright, so...here's my take. First off, very few roads in the Triangle have a dedicated bike lane. At the same time, most Triangle roads can be very busy at times. That is a problem. That said, both sides have some consessions to make. Drivers: give bicyclists a little more room, and be a little more patient with them. Bicyclists: there isn't a whole lot you can do on the roads themselves, but at intersections, make "staying out of the cars' way" your #1 priority and be really, really, patient. I have found that as I've ridden more, my tendency has been to get a little lazy and quick with traffic negotiation, which is something I have been trying really hard to fight. The safest way to ride a bicycle on public roads is to be "scared as hell" of car traffic. Once you start getting comfortable riding your bike out there, you're in trouble. Even safety advocates like Bruce Rosar can get a little too comfortable on their bike, and all it takes is one mistake.
As for the "bicyclists should pay additional taxes" comment...I will not dignify that with a response.
Pedestrians v. Bicyclists:
So, you're a bicyclist, and you're tired of dealing with car traffic. What's the solution? Take a trail!
Problem is, almost every paved bike trail that exists anywhere is also heavily used by runners and walkers, and this can cause some issues as well. Bicyclist: "Get out of the way!" Runner/walker: "Slow down! Be more considerate! This is our trail too!" Hmm...sound familiar? Bicyclists have the unique position on being on both sides of the "share the road/trail" concept.
I don't think this debate is as heated as the bicyclist v. driver debate, but nonetheless, both sides have similar responsibilities. Pedestrians: keep to the right and don't block the trail. Bicyclists: call out when passing and give plenty of room. I've had a lot of experience with this on the American Tobacco Trail, a mixed-use trail that runs from downtown Durham to south of Apex (in two discontinuous segments). Some runners and walkers like to fan out and block the path, prompting a "On Your Left" call from bicyclists like me. I try not to sound rude when I do it, but that's hard to do. I've also learned that trying to ride your bike on the ATT when the Apex High School cross-country team is practicing on it is a bad idea.
Pedestrians v. Drivers:
I don't have a whole lot of experience with this anymore, since the only areas around here with any measure of pedestrian traffic are downtowns. But I recently read that both Raleigh and Jacksonville were named among the most dangerous cities in the country for pedestrians. Yay team!
That's just the mindset in the South. Almost everyone drives a car everywhere, public transportation is used by very few, and pedestrian traffic is viewed as an obstable and a novelty rather than a commonplace occurrence. Drivers aren't used to handling pedestrian traffic down here, so when they do encounter it, they don't really know how to handle it, or don't know the "pedestrians already in the crosswalk have the right-of-way" law, or are just impatient. It's no coincidence that New York and Boston were determined to be among the safest cities for pedestrians. Those cities are built not around car transport, but around public transportation and walking.
Well, anyway...my most experience with the pedestrian v. driver clash probably comes from driving and walking around the Penn State campus in State College. I think the keys to pedestrian safety are as follows:
- Drivers: Always assume that the pedestrian that's standing on the corner is going to walk out in front of you. Or, at least be prepared for it.
- Pedestrians: Don't be stupid. That's basically it.
- City engineers: Either time the traffic lights so that pedestrians get a head start, or give pedestrians their own set of lights. In downtown State College, the crosswalk signal turns to "Walk" three seconds before the light turns green. I'm not sure if downtown Raleigh does that. State College also has a few pedestrian-only traffic signals, such as the one between Walker Building and the bus station on Atherton Street. That's just a function of the mindset. State College, along with most college campuses, are pedestrian-heavy areas where the pedestrian comes first. Most southern cities center around the automobile and are not like that at all.
So, yeah...I'm done preaching. Can't we all just get along?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
