roude

So… you’re saying the options were ONLY:

1. Vote Harris and ~~go on like this~~ have a chance at actual reform
2. Vote Trump and ~~burn it all down~~ watch access and affordability evaporate

What do you mean what other option is there? It was quite clear that Trump intends to abide by Project 2025, and what it spells out for the future of America’s education system is bleak. He had no intention of making it more affordable, and every intention of making it pay to play.

Maybe he’ll fix the affordability aspect as a side-effect of his mass deportations, but that won’t matter all that much when the general public fails to qualify for tertiary schooling. That public-private education quality divide is just going to snowball and make higher education even more of an elitist activity.

Not sure what you’re arguing here. Are you saying that Trump’s attempts to improve the education system are somehow better? And what exactly are those attempts?

He plans to support increased privatization of education, reduce funding for public options, and gut the DoE. So limited oversight of educational standards at a time when our standings on the international education stage are slipping?

It isn’t the best solution, sure, but I really hope you aren’t making the argument that because what Biden attempted was more of a bandaid fix we should roll the dice with the Trump University guy.

German for "planned".

Cringe? Okay, thanks. So this was a discussion until meowMix came in with a "there is no middle lane what the f* are you talking about". Charged language, incorrect statement, and a nitpick nonetheless.

Now you are here arguing for meowMix, but again, you are arguing something counter to most US states. You are generally allowed to turn into an intersection as long as you are not impeding traffic turning left in that same intersection. I am talking about intersections without lights, not controlled intersections. Those are different, and not applicable here.

In this case, there is clearly enough room for a reasonable sized car to be in the intersection assuming they yielded for traffic from the left AND were waved into the intersection by another left turning car on the straightaway (the time traveling assassin), so traffic from the right. Left and right, basically the general rule that applies to all left turning uncontrolled intersection traffic questions. But that waving though only is to the lane of the car waving you through, closest to your side of the street. No time traveling assassin can give you right of way to lanes to their right, a.k.a the lane with the 45 mph car.

That’s the premise of this joke, that people cannot give you right of way to SOMEONE ELSE’S LANE. In case everything above is still unclear, there is a wiki for this exact joke. Because this has been debated countless times before. Because everything from xkcd has. Because this is the internet, where everything is debated to death.

Now I have no idea where this supposed intersection is. Could be Pennsylvania where the artist is from, or Virginia where they went to college. Or even Massachusetts where they currently reside. Or it could be in any number of states that allow this exact behavior I am talking about. Tough to say without knowing directly from the author where this is from.

The example you provided is another intersection type, and different than the joke. The middle section of the joke is what appears to be a double wide (wide as two lanes) section, so there is definitely enough room for a standard sized car. Angle of the intersection plays no part in whether it is a valid turning place, awkward or not. There are countless examples of intersections that aren’t perfectly perpendicular, should ALL of these awkward left turn merges be forbidden because you aren’t in a spot exactly parallel to the lane you are merging into? No.

Who cares about the second person? You shouldn’t be taking them into consideration for this kind of turn. They are supposed to turn when they have enough space. Following you blindly into an intersection is a poor decision on their part, and of course not your responsibility.

Long story not short! You’re talking about a different intersection, not even the one from the joke. You are right there are different kinds of intersections, but any of them with: an intersection, two left turning drivers, a two way straightaway, a middle section with a left turning lane (a.k.a. a middle lane, or a center left lane, or a median with a raised section and left turning lane, …), and enough space for a non-straightaway left turning car to move into the intersection without impeding traffic from either direction of the straightaway would have worked for this joke.

Because the joke wasn’t there isn’t enough space in the intersection. It was that NO DRIVER CAN GIVE YOU RIGHT OF WAY TO SOMEONE ELSE’S LANE.

You’re potentially right that I enjoy a debate, most people on the internet do. That’s why I am here. But I’ll be damned if sit on the sidelines while some cat food user makes an incorrect nitpick, or you yourself argue for driving behavior that is counter to most states’ DMV rules.

Alright, bow out if you must. But keep in mind here you chose to pedantically argue there is no middle lane. You picked this fight, when my original argument to the first commenter I responded to was that allowing someone to go when you are in the middle lane of the straightaway (a.k.a the time-traveling assassin) is not "causing an accident". So agreed it is stupid, but it isn’t like I called you out first for something silly.

What are YOU talking about? The median can 100% be driven over (circled in red below), and the center part (again, circled in red) is entirely intended to stop in prior to merging.

The entire middle area is the median, which also contains protected left hand turns, a raised section, and what I assume is a painted median (maybe, maybe not, but again the circled portion). I am talking about stopping here, in the circled portion, prior to merging. You are supposed to stop there, assuming you aren’t towing or driving a longer-than-average vehicle, if you do not have visibility into the lane you are merging into.

The quoted text I have above specifically mentions a left hand turn onto a straightway WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE IN THE MEDIAN, so clearly they mean a median that allows driving through.

Edit: The predictable thing to do here, turning left with low visibility into the lane you are merging into due to obscuring traffic, is to yield to traffic coming from your left until you have: no traffic coming from the right, or someone from the right waves you through. You then stop in the middle, circled red portion until it is safe to complete your turn. You don’t just Hail Mary blindly drive from where you were initially stopped into the desired lane. That is how you cause an accident.

Edit: Woof, sorry my phone mangled my comment into a hot mess. Fixed it and re-commented here.

You are supposed to be in the middle near that rounded portion just above the time-traveling assassin.

These…

Turning Left on a Straightaway: Most main roads have median lanes into which you can move your vehicle if you need to turn left off of a straightaway. Move into the median, and yield the right of way to the oncoming traffic. Once there is an opening, you can complete your turn.

Turning Left onto a Straightaway with a vehicle in the median: Every once in a while, you’ll be trying to turn onto a straight away, and you’ll find someone already in the median—right where you need to be! The rule is that the vehicle in the media has the right of way. The idea is that they are in the most vulnerable position because they are literally stopped in the middle of the road. Let them complete their turn before you move to the median.

… from this.