I was parallel parking on Blowers Street in Halifax yesterday, into a metered spot. There were no cars coming or going. I put on my blinker to back up. I go slow when backing up. Then I heard a scream. Some woman decided to cross the road where I was backing up. She was not in a crosswalk. My vehicle beeped when she walked behind me, so I knew she was there, but she told me to “watch where you are going.” I wish she had stopped and had given me her name, as there is a nice fine for people who don’t think about road safety. Crosswalks are there for a purpose. Please don’t think it’s your right to walk in front of or behind a car. They are bigger and heavier than you and I don’t want my vehicle winning that kind of fight. People need to be careful, as the traffic in Halifax is busy and drivers now need eyes everywhere, as some people don’t think! That lady, whoever you are, is you—you didn’t think! -Safety First

Join the Conversation

25 Comments

  1. Actually, I heard on the news last night, someone was hit on Barrington, I think it was, and issued an over $400 fine for failing to allow a car to stop safely.

    Cars can’t stop on a dime, people! Sheesh!

  2. Should have backed the fuck over her dumb, entitled ass!!!!

  3. Ivanovich, Follow up to your RPG comment, Sunnis Killing Shiites and Shiites Killing Sunnis, I ask myself, is there a downside to this?

  4. Not so long as we follow the Israeli lead and build a bloody great wall around them.
    And in a similar vein.

    FREE CONSTANTINOPLE!

    END 563 YEARS OF ILLEGAL OCCUPATION!

    OTTOMANISM IS RACISM!

    Join the Doge of Venice’s 40 Galley “Peace Flotilla” delivering humanitarian aid to besieged Christians.

  5. Welcome to the twenty first century. People are too lazy to think these days. No common sense + no thinking = 50% or more of this city’s population! Dumb and dumber all day long.

    Yours truly.

  6. THINKING

    “I wish she had stopped and given me her name, as there is a significant fine for people who don’t think about road safety. People need to be careful, as traffic in Halifax is busy and drivers now need eyes everywhere as some people don’t think. That lady, whoever you are, is you – you didn’t think.” Safety First

    Can thinking about road safety be legitimately called “thinking”? If so, what is the content of one’s thought when one is thinking about road safety? When one thinks about road safety does one rehearse the rules of the road? How many rules of the road are there? Alternatively, does one conjure up hypothetical traffic situations in which one’s safety might be in jeopardy and then apply the relevant rule of the road? Or is such thinking about road safety excessively abstract? Indeed, does one ever engage in any such sort of thinking at all? In other words, can thinking about road safety be legitimately called “thinking”?

    I would argue not. For thinking to be legitimately called “thinking” a theoretical or abstract component is required. When one engages in philosophical thought, for example, one attempts, by means of rigorous analysis, to engage the substance of an assertion, its reflective component if you like and, in a second movement, to judge the adequacy of that component relative to the purpose of that assertion.

    To say that “people need to be careful as traffic in Halifax is busy and drivers now need eyes everywhere as some people don’t think” posits a three-fold causal relationship between the volume of traffic in Halifax and the need for drivers to have eyes everywhere, on the one hand, and, people who don’t think on the other. But does the causal chain bear up under scrutiny?

    While one can see a clear causal relationship between the volume of traffic in Halifax and the need for drivers to have eyes everywhere – they need to have eyes everywhere BECAUSE of the volume of traffic in Halifax – one can just as easily detect a logical disconnect between the traffic in Halifax and drivers’ eyes and people who don’t think. The first two are material facts – they exist in the natural everyday world – while thought is immaterial, existing, or not, only in the mind of the thinker. In other words, one cannot visually determine whether someone is thinking or not. Unlike traffic and the drivers’ eyes, mental processes are not matters of perception but purely matters of conception. Such mental states, since they lie at a higher order of being, can only be identified by the exercise of other mental states. Therefore, thinking about road safety, since it does not lie at this higher order of being, cannot be said to be legitimately thinking at all.

    Thank you for your patience and understanding.

    A pleasure as always.

    Cheerio!

  7. What, Gus’ doesn’t have wi-fi?
    To keep CSEC from eavesdropping on them, no doubt.

  8. When did it become CSEC and not CSIS? Or are they two different things? Whenever I hear CSEC, I think of the police force that guard the citadel in Mass Effect.

  9. Took the words outta my mouth ho!s+!!!!! Man, come on! Monday sux ass enough, atleast post some bitches! Get off yo vacay!

  10. CSEC is Communications Security Establishment Canada, our version of the NSA. It’s a civilian organization formed in 1941 as part of the National Research Council, but it comes under the overall control of D.N.D.

  11. OB, IF YOU CANT DRIVE WITH AN EXTREME INTENT NOT TO KILL SOMEONE WITH YOUR CAR, THEN I SUGGEST YOU THROW AWAY YOUR KEYS AND START TAKING TO BUS.

  12. It’s all part of natural selection. Now it’s very clear as to how many idiots there are out there!

  13. No, Meaty. SOMEone’s just dropping the ball. It’s not the weekend anymore…get some more posts going here!

  14. Mine was pretty good , Mr. M.
    Sniffing airplane glue and watching new episodes of “Longmire” That’s as good as it gets.
    lol

  15. bloody hell that lou diamond Phillips is still hot as he was 30 years ago. (watching Longmire too)

  16. An Aussie playing a sheriff. Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica. The guy who shot Garcia on that episode of Criminal Minds. Gerald McRaney as his Dad. And Every aborinjunal/hispanic character actor in the history of television.
    I tell ya, what’s not to love.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *