Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

A Stop Sign Is Not A Suggestion
Not even if you're in the middle of a very, very important call, as this woman must have been Friday afternoon when I jammed on the brakes to avoid hitting her.

girlonphone.jpg

Her cell phone held to her ear, she didn't even feign a stop at the stop sign at a crossing near my house on Friday afternoon. No, she just blazed on through, full speed ahead. Yes, I had the right of way, and no stop sign at all, but I always drive as if everybody else on the road is blind and a moron -- a driving style that's saved me from wrecks, serious injury, and maybe even death on numerous occasions.

Unfortunately, as you can see, it's still not a form of asshole-proofing.

girlonphone2.jpg

The day was just brimming with rudesters. As I was leaving the ATM a minute or two after photographing the girl in the rolling phone booth, I spotted a woman tossing her cigarette on the sidewalk -- and two blocks from the ocean, too.

blondewomanslitter.jpg

"The world is not your ashtray!" I snarled at her. Then I told her I was going to take her picture for my blog. Dumb, because she scurried into the bank before I could turn my camera on. That's her -- the blonde on the left. I was too late in getting home to wait for a shot of her litterbug face, so her half-ass will have to do:

blondelitterbug.jpg

Most hilariously, she did have the audacity (the stupidity?) to tell some poor employee in the bank that a woman was photographing people at the ATM. He came out just as I was photographing her cigarette butt on the pavement. I explained the real purpose for my photography. I suggested he tell her that if she won't litter, I'll have no interest in taking her picture and putting it on my blog!

Posted by aalkon at April 1, 2006 12:51 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1194

Comments

Once I accidentally went through a stop sign. Instea of having my picture taken I got honked at severely. Actually, most of the annoying things people do that bother me I once did either accidently or because I was having a bad time about something. So now I automatically assume the other person is doing it for the same reason I did. I find it keeps my blood pressure down.

As you judge so shall ye be judged, As you condemn so shall ye be condemned.

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

Posted by: Joshua at April 1, 2006 7:50 AM

Fantastic. Sorry you had to go through that. I took a picture, way back in the day before digital, of a man cussing me out on an NYC street. It's like some sort of therapy ... or something.

Posted by: Randy at April 1, 2006 8:26 AM

Joshua, you're all free to judge me. Please do. I live in terror that I'd ever hit another person and injure them, and I drive accordingly.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 1, 2006 8:30 AM

Your outfit in the reflection looks cute as hell! What exactly are you wearing?

Posted by: MissPinkKate at April 1, 2006 8:37 AM

Why, thank you! Les Copains hot pink pants (bought at Daffy's in NYC - hot pink is my black) -- an Enrico Coveri jacket bought a thousand years ago at Loehmann's for $35 -- two weeks after a friend and I saw it selling for hundreds in Florence. A bright yellow Max Mara cardigan underneath (Daffy's- $23!) and high-heeled cowboy boots. And a snarl!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 1, 2006 8:41 AM

Oh yeah, and a $5 ebay vintage plastic necklace from the 50s (multistrand, white) and AllynScura.com vintage French sunglasses. You have to check out their glasses. Really high quality and so are the lenses they put in. I think they'll be at Santa Monica Civic at the end of April. Get on their mailing list and you get a free pass to the show.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 1, 2006 8:44 AM

Joshua writes:

Once I accidentally went through a stop sign. Instea of having my picture taken I got honked at severely. Actually, most of the annoying things people do that bother me I once did either accidently or because I was having a bad time about something. So now I automatically assume the other person is doing it for the same reason I did. I find it keeps my blood pressure down.

As you judge so shall ye be judged, As you condemn so shall ye be condemned.

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

It's got nothing to do with condemning people, or judging. It has to do with self-preservation. People running stop signs tend to cause accidents. You cannot afford the luxury of carelessness when you're commandeering two tons of metal at high speed.

And it would hope on those occassions when you actually did make such a mistake, that you adopted an apologetic attitude, rather than an stance that says, "Oh, yeah? Well, fuck you! Yeah, I did almost get myself and you killed! Deal with it!"

Posted by: Patrick at April 1, 2006 9:49 AM

Joshua writes:

Once I accidentally went through a stop sign. Instea of having my picture taken I got honked at severely. Actually, most of the annoying things people do that bother me I once did either accidently or because I was having a bad time about something. So now I automatically assume the other person is doing it for the same reason I did. I find it keeps my blood pressure down.

As you judge so shall ye be judged, As you condemn so shall ye be condemned.

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

It's got nothing to do with condemning people, or judging. It has to do with self-preservation. People running stop signs tend to cause accidents. You cannot afford the luxury of carelessness when you're commandeering two tons of metal at high speed.

And I would hope on those occassions when you actually did make such a mistake, that you adopted an apologetic attitude, rather than an stance that says, "Oh, yeah? Well, fuck you! Yeah, I did almost get myself and you killed! Deal with it!"

Posted by: Patrick at April 1, 2006 9:50 AM

Note to Joshua:

Just because you're having a bad day, distracted, or otherwise self-absorbed, does NOT mean the laws of physics no longer apply to you. (Doubly so if you're driving a f---ing BMW in California.)

When you are behind the wheel, you are in charge of a deadly weapon. Learn it, live it, respect it, and you might not hear those horns so often.

Posted by: gus3 at April 1, 2006 9:52 AM

Just because you're having a bad day, distracted, or otherwise self-absorbed, does NOT mean the laws of physics no longer apply to you. (Doubly so if you're driving a f---ing BMW in California.)

Or a bloody behemoth SUV. Then it's everyone else's life you're putting in danger. I honked at a woman yesterday morning who almost glided through a stop sign and right in to me and based on her response, I guess I was supposed to know by ESP that yes, she was going to stop (albeit halfway into the intersection). Gah. Rude and cell-phone-talking drivers bug me no end. Yes, we all do bonehead maneuvers occasionally (that's why they call it a blind spot) but at least be apologetic if you've almost sent someone to the hospital.

Posted by: deja pseu at April 1, 2006 10:22 AM

Oh, and Amy, cute outfit! You always seem to look like a million bucks, even snarling into a bank window. :-)

Posted by: deja pseu at April 1, 2006 10:26 AM

It's not just the Westside. At the intersection at the end of my South Central LA street, motorists often run the stop sign at the cross-street. Ususally they are coming from the megachurch a few blocks away. Before the church built its huge parking lot, the parisioners used to park haphazardly, sometimes blocking the driveways of the surrounding residents.

I one wrote to the Pastor of the the church the following: "Since I am a Christian also, I know that your congregants are also sinners saved by Grace. That fact, however, doesn't give them the license to block driveways, run stop signs and generally endanger those who live in this area. You neighbor..."

Posted by: Juliette at April 1, 2006 11:04 AM

Your

Posted by: Juliette at April 1, 2006 11:04 AM

Oh Amy, you seem to have a lot of pent-up aggression. Tell us about your orgasms. And let's get some more photos of you on this blog.

W_OC

Posted by: Will_OC at April 1, 2006 12:18 PM

NY has banned the use of hand held cell phones while driving, which cut down on some of this stuff (driving like an idiot correlates highly with driving while distracted.) However, the same jerks who seem to believe that traffic signals are for others believe this law doesn't apply to them either. I still think the most dangerous behavior is driving slow in the passing lane. If that were subject to a $500 fine, I think road rage would disappear.

One last peeve. Some idiot around here (Syracuse, NY) tried to popularize the idea of just "being nice" and letting people out of various businesses by just stopping to let them out. Imagine what that does to the normally 30-40 mph flow of traffic during rush hour. Not to mention the nerves of people who have to slam on their brakes to avoid rear-ending the bag. Death penalty is clearly justified here, I believe.

Posted by: MarkD at April 1, 2006 5:25 PM

I don't fuck and tell, Will, but thank you for your interest!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 1, 2006 6:01 PM

Judging from the camera angle in A Stop Sign Is Not A Suggestion, you seem to be driving a punky little car, ergo the rude treatment this incorrect choice of conveyance has earned you.

My solution is simple. It works for me.

Posted by: JayDee at April 1, 2006 8:18 PM

I drive a 66mpg Honda Insight. I can't help but drive that when I see photos of dead soldiers in the paper, and when I think about how I have no right to pollute the air of others any more than absolutely necessary. Your mileage apparently varies.

And sorry to dispel you of your genius, but the women wasn't looking in the cross direction as she ran the stop sign -- so I could have been driving a gas hog like your truck and it wouldn't have mattered.

Like many hybrid drivers, I'm a slow and safe driver -- in my case, both because I want to get great mileage on my car, and because I think it's wrong to not pay attention because you might hurt somebody.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 2, 2006 8:16 AM

I don't know if you can see it online -- but on the front page of the LA Times today (Sunday), there's a photo of the wounded, eye-patched face of 25-year-old Army Staff Sgt. Vincent Worrell, injured by an explosive device near a place called Tall Afar. Look at that face and tell me you're proud to guzzle gas.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 2, 2006 8:57 AM

JayDee, my father didn't spend a year in Iraq to protect your fucking right to drive a mammoth car. Fuck you. I hope your car flips and crushes you.

Posted by: amh18057 at April 2, 2006 11:37 AM

amh:

Like hell he didn't. If anything, he spent a year in Iraq trying to bring the same rights to Iraqis.

You don't get to pick and choose what rights he defends. He swore an oath to defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes people who want to confiscate... uh, expropriate... no, STEAL legitimately purchased property, just because they think someone "has it coming."

You demonstrate why Free Speech is such a great idea: It makes it many times easier to spot the idiots.

Posted by: gus3 at April 2, 2006 12:49 PM

It's diesel, actually. The milage is better than you probably think (about 500 miles for every 30 gallons, when I'm not pulling my camper).

Anyway, I would not be so quick to assume that a larger vehicle "wouldn't have mattered". Even when they're not turning their heads, most drivers are not without peripheral vision. Like it or not, size does matter when it comes to objects in that area. Think about it. Just as a larger computer image uses more video memory and more CPU cycles to process than a small image, the image of a large vehicle, especially with its lights on, stimulates more brain matter than a small one.

This is actually the single biggest factor that makes motorcycles (not to mention bicycles) more dangerous to ride on public roads than cars. What's the #1 excuse every driver makes for creaming a motorcycle? "I just didn't see him!"...right?


Staff Sgt. Vincent Worrell seems to care more about our freedom and his family than he does about what you or I drive. Perhaps if the LA Timeses and the CNNs of this world were more objective in the way they cover Iraq, the mideval thugs that sneak into that country and plant those bombs might not feel as bold as they do...but that's just my opinion. I make no claim to speak for Staff Sgt. Worrell. If you really want Staff Sgt. Worrell's take on who drives what, President Bush, or anything else you care to ask, then I suggest arranging an interview with him as soon as he is able and willing, and letting him speak for himself.

Posted by: JayDee at April 2, 2006 1:57 PM

Even a 1900 lb. car like mine is very visible -- if you don't have your head up your ass while driving. Because so many people do, I am, let's say, LIBERAL, with the use of my horn. My boyfriend joked about getting me the horn of a huge truck for my car because of it.

You know nothing about what this guy cares about. You know no more about him than I do -- which is that he was injured in Iraq.

What I know is that bicycles don't pollute, and motorcycles get very good gas mileage. When I see a bike or a motorcycle on the road, I'm very careful to give them adequate space (in other words, I share the road). Part of the reason I drive many places that I would rather bike to is the dangerousness of biking these days, thanks to assclowns motoring around in giant SUVs while yap-yap-yapping into their cell phones.

Furthermore, if you can point to specifics in biased coverage, great. To blame CNN for how emboldened are "mideval" (like your spelling?) thugs planting bombs is simply ridiculous. I suggest you quit before you dig yourself in deeper. I can see you're trying to say something pointed and relevant, and like the monkeys typing in the room, maybe if you pound the keyboard long enough and hard enough...you will.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 2, 2006 2:32 PM

PS I think I spent about $200 on gas last year.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 2, 2006 2:33 PM

[Since war veterans have been brought up in the context of this discussion, my disclosure: I spent time in another war and claim no special rights for doing so. It was my duty to my country and I was privledged that I had the opportunity to serve, and help defend, my nation. I have no more special right or insight in this discussion than anyone else.]

Amy, small cars like yours are good for those whom small cars meet the needs of daily life. For a variety of perfectly valid reasons, your car does not work for everyone else (not that you are implying it does).

The object of a motor vehicle is to get people and things from one point to another. Take my neighbors for example. They have four children and an elderly parent. That they have a need for a vehicle that can carry all of them at one time is not so difficult to understand and they should not be looked down upon for it - in my opinion.

You may disagree with my perspective, but if my neighbors had an Insight (66 mpg highway) and needed to transport their family to a point 1000 miles away it would take them six round trips and 151.6 gallons of gas just to get there. In their SUV (24 mpg highway) it would take them one one-way trip and 41.6 gallons of gas. Somewhat silly comparison yes, but completely accurate and makes the point about efficiency compared to static vehicle miles per gallon.

If everyone drove Insights, we wouldn't save as much as simple window sticker mpg arithmetic would seem to indicate. Life is not that simplistic.

So depending on my neighbors driving habits and how many people on average they move per mile driven, trading their SUV for an Insight may not help conserve fuel.

I firmly believe that people should (not must, but should) drive the most efficient vehicle that meets their needs. I try to do that, and my neighbors are very responsible people who do the same. They do not drive frivolously and tend to have three or more people in the car when they drive (based on my anecdotal observations).

Admitedly too, they may be less efficient than you in terms of passenger mpg, but I'm sure you can understand why your car could be grossly inefficient for them and could actually result in consumption of more fuel.

Further I'll bet that on a per passenger mile basis my neighbors do not burn nearly as much more gas than you do as might be indicated by a simplistic Insight @ 66mpg vs. SUV @ 24mpg discussion would indicate. Again, life is not that simplistic.

Posted by: F15C at April 2, 2006 3:56 PM

If you're a contractor or have other reason to need space, for sure have a vehicle with the space you need. And if you're a big family, for sure drive a minivan. (It isn't fair to subject your kids to the rollover potential of SUVs.) Also, minivans get better mileage.

But how many single women are out there driving an SUV -- a Hummer, even -- just for style? That's obscene. The comparison you make about your neighbors is beyond the pale of common sense.

Um, and which SUV do they have that gets 24mpg? Do tell! And how many people in their family, and why can't they fit them in a safer, more fuel efficient station wagon? How can they justify subjecting their kids to the dangers of SUV rollovers? It's perception of safety in an SUV, not actual safety. In other words,it's "safety" for idiots who put style over substance.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 2, 2006 4:58 PM

Amy:

Should've been "medieval" -- correct. No, I never have liked my spelling, which is why I normally use a spell checker but sometimes forget.

You want to talk about ridiculous? Officially, the media outlets with a negative bias deny having a negative bias, meaning a failure to balance bad news with good. But CNN's Laura Logan recently admitted negative bias in CNN's Iraq coverage! Her excuse in a nutshell: reporters are being muzzled by US government brass from reporting good news.

Amy, if you or anyone actually believe CNN is not biased, all I can say is I've got a bridge for sale. Easy terms.

Posted by: JayDee at April 2, 2006 5:05 PM

Amy, the comparison of payload fuel efficiency is simple arithmetic describing the reality of how traffic planners and others look a the efficiency of any transportation mechanism that moves people and/or material. Not hardly beyond the pale, just a different, but valuable, way to look at the issue.

My neighbors drive a 2005 Toyota Highlander (not exactly what you'd call stylish). The Highlander is an SUV that consists a Camry chassis and engine with either two or all wheel drive and a shortened stationwagon type body. The Highlander does not have any rollover problems that I could find.

Mileage wise, comparing to a Honday Odyssey minivan (in honor of your brand choice) the EPA combined on the minivan is a best of 23 mpg and the Highlander SUV is 24. Amy, I'm not making this up. Check fueleconomy.gov if you don't believe me. Theirs is a 2005 model, 2wd, four.

I commend you on your choice of vehicles and your judicious driving habits. I would hope that you understand that not everyone can fit in the same vehicle, and that if you and my neighbors are traveling down a freeway side-by-side that they are using fuel more efficiently than you in terms of moving people from one point to another. (As a matter of fact, if you were to ride with them that would be the most fuel efficient way to get all of you where you are going.)

Does that make them more responsible than you? No. It is just fact. Both of you are trying to be responsible and meet your day-to-day needs as well. I don't see either as being 'better' than the other. And I don't think it right that one unfairly criticize the other.

What about pickups? Most of the largest SUVs are nothing but pickups with a sheet metal cover over the bed (Ford Expedition, Chevrolet Tahoe, etc., etc.). They have essentially exactly the same mpg ratings. And some SUVs may be better due to better gear ratios in the drive train.

There are far more pickups sold in America than SUVs. But I don't hear or read about pickup drivers being demonized and blamed for the ills of the world as are SUV drivers. (How many pickups have been burned by Earth First?)

And don't get me started on FedEx trucks and the like. They get lousy mileage and they don't even transport anyone anywhere net-net. Just boxes and envelopes...

Posted by: F15C at April 2, 2006 6:11 PM

The various SUV rationalizations are fascinating, but what did all of these folks who "need" an 8 MPG Hummer do before SUV's were commonly available? Minivans, station wagons? I'm old enough to remember sitting in gas lines at 6am back in 1973. Don't think it can't happen again. Amazing how many people traded in their Buick's and Cadillacs for smaller cars back in those days.

Posted by: deja pseu at April 2, 2006 6:32 PM

You want to talk about ridiculous? Officially, the media outlets with a negative bias deny having a negative bias, meaning a failure to balance bad news with good. But CNN's Laura Logan recently admitted negative bias in CNN's Iraq coverage! Her excuse in a nutshell: reporters are being muzzled by US government brass from reporting good news.

That's not even remotely close to what she said. In a nutshell, she said, it's hard to report on the new, shiny, reopened school in Iraq when snipers are picking off the kids on their way home.

The idea of "balance" in reporting doesn't mean you put out the same number of "good news" stories as "bad news" stories. It means you strive to tell every story as honestly and fairly as possible.

Face facts: the majority of news coming from Iraq is bad because the majority of events happening there are bad. And Logan, like the other reporters in Iraq, risks her life every day to report those events.

Posted by: Chris at April 2, 2006 7:08 PM

A Volvo station wagon has a 10 percent chance of rollover. The Highlander, one of the best rated SUVs in that department, has a 17.9 percent chance. And that's the best -- the others are much worse.

While there are some people who drive pickup trucks just for style, it appears people typically drive them because they have to haul stuff, and most of them aren't enormous guzzlers. I take issue with people who unnecessarily take more than their share of gas, and pollute unnecessarily, not with some contractor who needs to haul a bunch of beams around.

And I'm with Deja, and with parents like my neighbors, who got Volvo station wagons because they were the highest rated for safety on the road. Parents who buy SUVs...are they doing it for their kids' safety, or for their own pathetic need to look "cool"?

PS My friend Jay is a 6'5" documentary filmmaker of the "crew-in-a-car" school of shooting (meaning, he carries a lot of shit with him). He has a Volkswagon Golf, and says it fits more gear than his old Pathfinder ever did. And 6'5" him, too.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 2, 2006 7:13 PM

deja: How many Hummers do you think are out there? If they all disappeared overnight, do you think there would be any significant change in the consumption of oil? Would Saudi Arabia go out of business? Answer: Not hardly.

There are less than 100,000 civilian Hummers in America a nation of 300,000,000 people. Drop. In. The. Bucket.

I'm not defending Hummers or their drivers. It is just that blaming everyone who drives an SUV, regardless of how efficient those people are in the use of the vehicle, for the ills of the world is patently ridiculous and mind-numgingly stupid.

And I ask again: What about pickups? Gas mileage wise pickups = SUVs. If SUV bashers started in on pickups, then they would also have to start in on other vehicles that get pickup-like mileage or worse and pretty soon the targets of their ire are too numerous to point at with one convenient acronym.

SUV's are a target of convenience that have no significant impact on our national consumption of oil. My opinion is that much of the SUV bashing is borne of jealousy and classism. SUVs are strongly associated with RWAs (Rich White Americans) and it is PC 101 for them to be the target of any kind of denigration and/or witless hyperbole because we all know RWAs are responsible for all that is wrong with the world(tm).

I don't like Hummers myself and I predict they will be gone from the civilian market within three to five years. But even when coupled with making Hummer ownership a capital offense and removing every stinking one from the road, we will not experience any significant relief in our consumption of oil ongoing.


Posted by: F15C at April 2, 2006 7:28 PM

Amy, the rollover ratings for the Highlander and Volvo are close in terms of both being rated four stars - ten to twenty percent chance of rollover. Yes the Volvo tested better, but either vehicle driven anywhere near sanely will be very safe. I don't worry that my friends family is in danger in the Highlander.

You wrote:
"While there are some people who drive pickup trucks just for style, it appears people typically drive them because they have to haul stuff, and most of them aren't enormous guzzlers."

I have to strongly disagree with you. Frankly it reads as rationalization. The biggest SUVs like Suburbans, Expeditions, Tahoes, Escalades are pickups under the skin. Same chassis, same engine. Look at www.fueleconomy.gov. A Chevrolet 4WD 1500 Pickup with a 5.3 V8 gets exactly the same mileage (15/19) as a 4WD Tahoe SUV with a 5.3 V8 (15/19). I am a car buff and I promise you they are for all intents and purposes, the same vehicle.

The most popular selling vehicle in the US is the Ford F-150 Pickup. It has the same chassis/drivetrains as an Expedition. Mileage: F150 (14/18); Expedition (14/18).

The bigger pickups for which there is no corresponding SUV (with the notable exception of the Excursion which if memory serves is a Ford F250 chassis/drivetrain) get really, really lousy mileage.

Yet you are not bashing them.

Also, is it ok with you if they use that pickup to haul stuff - if that stuff is a big boat that a smaller pickup won't haul?

And it is clearly rationalization to simply assert that someone having something to haul justifies having such poor fuel economy. Next time you're out notice pickups on the road and in parking lots. You'll see that most of them have empty beds.

Maybe they should all drive a Golf.

Posted by: F15C at April 2, 2006 8:03 PM

"PS I think I spent about $200 on gas last year."

Does that include plane tickets? Just kidding!

Posted by: Jim Treacher at April 3, 2006 6:31 AM

Pickups, SUV's, whatever. I have an issue with anyone with an overblown sense of entitlement to suck up limited resources and add to the crap in the air I breathe. And nobody, NOBODY who lives in LA needs a Hummer. Period. (Unless you're talking about oral sex. :-p ) Our society has no compunction about referring to fat people as "gluttons", but what about all of the petrol gluttons out there? It's no different.

Posted by: deja pseu at April 3, 2006 6:53 AM

> an overblown sense of entitlement
> to suck up limited resources

These resources aren't that limited. There's a lot of oil in the ground, and we're always getting better at extracting it. See this article (page down a couple times for the start) -

http://tinyurl.com/ecca4

Oil has a price and it has a cost. But that doesn't mean we know how much of it each of us 'deserves'. Some people who use a lot of oil turn it into economic activity, and that's good. Right? Truckers use a lot more oil than I do personally... But if you were counting on me to deliver a load of string beans to Utah, you'd be disappointed.

I think Amy's 10 trips to Paris every year are unnecessary. But she takes the fuel that she burns on those planes and turns it into stories for her columns and so forth. Why should she listen to me tell her if she's "entitled"? I wouldn't listen to her if she told me to stop taking "gluttonous" scuba trips, or to stop eating sushi flown in from exotic waters via airmail.

Yes, the price of oil should reflect its enviromental costs, and it doesn't. But pretending we know exactly how other people should be moving though life is the antithesis of liberty.

Don't you wish everyone in the world could travel as freely as Amy does? I do.

Posted by: Crid at April 3, 2006 7:38 AM

"Our society has no compunction about referring to fat people as 'gluttons', but what about all of the petrol gluttons out there? It's no different."

Remind me never to let you buy me a drink!

Posted by: Jim Treacher at April 3, 2006 8:56 AM

Jim, not sure what that's about, but just FTR I'm not defending referring to fat people as gluttons. As someone who struggles to keep my weight down, I know not everyone carrying extra pounds is stuffing their face with donuts on a daily basis.

The gas gluttons remark I stand by, however. :-)

Posted by: deja pseu at April 3, 2006 9:28 AM

I think you guys have all lost sight of the most important point here: WHATEVER you drive, get OFF the fucking cell phone already and STOP at the SIGN!!

Surely we can all agree with that.

The idiot woman in the picutre should be in jail.

Posted by: Cathy Seipp at April 3, 2006 5:15 PM

Crid, try two trips, because I stay for an entire month in July rather than going back and forth a lot. Moreover, there are alternatives to driving an SUV -- I happen to drive the most fuel-efficient one commercially available. Moreover, I use reusablebags.com and conserve energy and resources when possible. At the moment, there's no alternative to taking a plane. I'm not saying that people shouldn't drive; I'm saying that it's vulgar and creepy to drive an unnecessarily large and polluting vehicle.

And Cathy is right.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 3, 2006 9:34 PM

That single word, "necessary", trips up almost everyone who uses it when discussing environmental issues.

Posted by: Crid at April 4, 2006 1:25 AM

"Jim, not sure what that's about"

See, if "petrol gluttons" are no different than food gluttons... yes?

Posted by: Jim Treacher at April 4, 2006 4:56 AM

Amy gives a whole new meaning to 'self righteous'.. reminds me of the bitches in my law school. Get a man Amy, get laid, for the good of society and yourself. I'm out -- if I wanted to be around "I'm angry cuz nobody will recognize how much better I am than everyone else" I'd hang around the bitches at my law school.

Posted by: OC_Will at April 5, 2006 6:24 PM

Well, it's been nice having you, while you lasted, Will. I'm actually quite pleasant if you aren't somebody who shows no concern for anybody but yourself. Think of me next time you see a bunch of cigarette butts floating the ocean, after sidewalk litter is washed out to sea in the storm drains.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 5, 2006 6:40 PM

PS And, Will, I expect, well, expected, more of you than the old tired "get laid" thing. I have a boyfriend, and thanks, the sex is working well for me...and still I have a problem with people who drive with their heads up their ass (and on the phone) and people who litter...go figure!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 5, 2006 6:45 PM

Leave a comment