No More Right on Red?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A Leftist Car Hater (I repeat myself) who “writes” for CNN wrote the following, recently:

In America, traveling through red lights on right turns has become a rule of the road. Frequently, you get honked at if you don’t speed through fast enough.” 

Traveling through red lights? That would be running the light – and through the intersection. And “speed through”? What the CNN “writer” meant, of course, was making a legal right on red, after having come to a stop to check whether it’s clear and so safe to do so.

He believes this ought to be made illegal.

Because, of course, he hates cars and wants to make driving them as tortuous as possible. He won’t say that, of course.

Instead he writes:

Right-on-red spread across the country in the 1970s in response to the Arab oil embargo against the United States and oil rationing. States introduced it as a gas-savings measure: The theory was that it would reduce idling at red lights.”

Italics added.

It’s not a theory. It’s a fact. And it’s interesting to point out that the same people who obsess over “saving gas” are indifferent to saving it when it doesn’t serve their purpose.

And how about those “emissions” of gas? How much more “carbon” (as these etymological shysters are training people to speak of carbon dioxide) would be “emitted” by conga lines of cars idling at red lights rather than not idling at red lights?

Well, there’s ASS for that!

You know – automatic stop/start “technology.” It shuts off the engine while you’re waiting for no good reason at a red light to make a safe right turn. Of course, the cost of time is never considered by these Leftist car haters. They want you waiting at red lights (and at not-so-fast chargers) because that’s the point. They want to make you hate driving, so that you’ll want to avoid it.

They don’t say this, of course. Instead, they say:

Right turns on red ‘introduce extra movements into the intersection,’ according to Eric Dumbaugh, a professor in the department of urban and regional planning at Florida Atlantic University who studies traffic safety. This leads to drivers crashing into pedestrians who see a green light and think it’s safe to cross, trucks hitting bikers because they can’t see bicyclists making a right turn, and rear-end collisions.”

Italics added.

“Urban planners” refers to people who plan to make driving in urban areas as onerous as possible. They use “traffic safety” in the same way their ideological bedfellows used “stop the spread,” which is to say as an excuse as well as a misdirection.

What is not-safe about a driver coming to a stop at a red light, looking to see whether the way is clear and making a right turn? Nothing, of course. The unsaid presumption is that drivers don’t stop (or look) and “speed through” the intersection. But if they do that, they’ve done something rather different than make a legal right-on-red, haven’t they? And there are laws for dealing with it, aren’t there? Just as there are laws for dealing with people who recklessly handle or criminally misuse firearms. But Leftist love guilt-by-association.

Because it’s worked so well for them.

An idiot shoots himself in the foot and everyone must be treated as a presumptive idiot. Not because they are. But in order to justify taking away their guns. Just the same, all drivers are to be presumed reckless incompetents because a few are. Not so as to prevent reckless incompetents from causing problems – which such people will continue to cause, irrespective of laws. Rather, to serve as the excuse to impose anti-driving impositions on competent drivers.

In order to make driving as miserable as possible.

The Leftist doesn’t say this, of course. Instead, he quotes another Leftist – Atlanta City Counciclman Jason Dozier, without (as per protocol) identifying him as the Leftist he is (just as Leftists never disclose the precise identity of the “youths” who gang-pillage stores).

Our proposed ban on turning at red lights aims to prioritize the well-being of pedestrians at intersections,” says the Leftist quoted by the Leftist, who “introduced a ban in parts of the city.” 

It’s a species of the same technique that sought to ban healthy people who dared show their faces from entering stores and other places of business during the event marketed as a “pandemic.” It has as much to do with protecting pedestrians as “masks” had to do with keeping granny from dying.

The CNN Leftist doesn’t even begin to address the real reason some drivers are running over pedestrians – which is that they’re not paying attention to their driving. Probably at least in part because they have been encouraged not to, by “advanced driver assistance technology” and the cell phone touchscreens built into the dashboards of new cars, which they have to turn their attention to (and so, turn it away from the road ahead) in order to operate the vehicle’s systems.

Nor that many pedestrians are also not paying attention and assume drivers will stop for them.

But calling all that out would not serve the car-and-driver hating purpose of “writers” like the CNN Leftist who thinks “traveling through red lights on right turns has become a rule of the road.”

And they ask me why I drink.

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

If you like items like the Keeeeeeev T shirt pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!







  1. These fuckwits sit around every day dreaming shit up. To warrant their useless work dodging job. We have some beauties here in Nova Scotia. There is a stop sign in Windsor that has no intersection, it is on a turn when leaving Avonview high school. Go on google earth street view for a chuckle. I don’t even slow for the bitch. Another commie invention street calming bumps. Calming is not the feeling I get when I drive over the fuckers.

  2. If you can’t make a safe right turn on red, anywhere, you should be banned from driving, period.

    In a just world if you screw up making a right turn and there is a victim, you are 100% liable and will get a trial by jury by your peers….

    The jury might decide to ban you from driving…the end….real justice for everyone….

    • RE:”If you can’t make a safe right turn on red”


      “Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, [or, on the roads & streets] nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure.” ― Helen Keller

      And, “banned from driving”, by whom? An all-powerful overlord? One which puts a Bill Gates tracker vaxx in the offender in order to catch them driving?

      ‘Who Leads When There Are No Rules?’

      … “So…who will decide? Who will make the rules? Who will provide the definitions?

      I have offered my answer: culture; custom; the old and good law. Something no one individual can overcome; something no one individual can overrule or erase.”…

      • If you crash or kill someone while driving………

        Who decides?….you will get a trial by jury by your peers….it is called common law…there is no better system….

  3. No victim…no crime…

    If there is a victim you get a trial by jury by your peers…the end…5 million laws, statutes, regulations, etc., etc. not needed….get rid of all of them….

    The current legal system is all corporate law, so the real criminals can hide behind the corporate skirt….in common law people are 100% liable….the way it should be in a just world…….

    The government is just another corporation, so the criminal gang running it can get away with anything, with no liability….

  4. Hmmm…..

    This is a TOUGH ONE!! I have no trouble with RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE …turning on red..
    HOWEVER, having asshole entitled punks right turning while in Dad’s Mercedes to “snap my femurs”
    with a “Carefree, I’m off to Europe tomorrow attitude “..falls flat!

    To wit: the corner of Washington rd and Southern Blvd WPB is snapped tibia central!!
    (Aka Cafe Sapori corner.)

    The 5%ers flew around that corner carefree…with Motorcycle dudes laid out on the road AS A FAIRLY REGULAR OCCURRENCE..the bastards almost got me thrice!!!

    Libertarian stuff is fine But, certain corners simply MUST STATE..NO TURN ON RED

    Case Closed

    • Hi expat,

      There’s a saying a like about hard cases making bad law. That’s the problem with laws that “have” to be passed because “asshole entitled punks right turning while in Dad’s Mercedes..” Now everyone is presumed to be the former – and punished even though they didn’t “snap any femurs.” Let that standard pass and it will be expanded. That is the much greater danger; the Nanny State – with guns. And that’s where we live now, where practically every action is actionable.

      There is no such thing as a risk-free society. Risk can be reduced by prudent judgment/avoidance measures. It cannot be avoided when it is institutionalized. A good parallel example is the disarming of the public to “save lives.” Well, now the public is defenseless. I’d rather be armed myself and take my chances than depend on a cop who is at best minutes away when seconds count.

    • I agree. Some intersections don’t have sufficient visibility off to your left allowing you to see if traffic is coming; hence, it’s not safe to do a right on red.

      Also, the stipulation for right on red is that you stop, see if it’s safe, and only then do you go; if it’s not safe to go, you wait until it is.

      • Hi Mark,

        I much prefer self-policing; the exercise of common sense. That some people lack it and fail to exercise it is not a legitimate justification for restraining/punishing people who do have it.

        Here is an example: Some idiots mishandle loaded guns and shoot themselves – or someone else (viz, Alec Baldwin). I don’t mishandle my firearms and resent being presumed an idiot because people like Baldwin are.

        Hold the idiots responsible for what they do. And leave the rest of us be.

        • I was agreeing with Expat’s basic thesis that it’s unsafe to turn right on red at certain intersections, even though it’s permitted to do so; for example, visibility to the left may be restricted. I think that Expat was saying that right on red at those intersections should be restricted, and I agree. I have two such intersections near my house that I’m thinking of as I write this. I see no problem with prohibiting a right on red at such intersections, as accidents are more likely.

          Besides, let’s face it: most people are too STUPID to do the right or responsible thing! If right on red is permitted, sheeple will just roll through the light mindlessly. As someone who drives for a living, you see such incompetence and idiocy all the time, and you rant about it in your videos.

          Anyway, if I can’t see what’s coming, I don’t go; it’s not safe to proceed if you can’t see what’s coming. How can you avoid something if you can’t see it in the first place? Even so, you’ll get honked at for doing the responsible thing-waiting until it’s safe to proceed. That’s what self policing is all about, isn’t it?

          • Hi Mark,

            You write: “Besides, let’s face it: most people are too STUPID to do the right or responsible thing!”

            And that’s exactly why we now live in authoritarian “safety” and “health” state. Your argument above is exactly the one used by Leftists to justify everything from seatbelt laws to ‘Rona lockdowns to forcing people to buy car/health insurance. Soon, insurance for everything.

            Please reconsider your thinking.

            • Eric,

              I consider my thinking all the time. I also consider what I see and observe. My point was that right on red needs to be restricted at certain intersections, because most drivers are observably too stupid and clueless to do the right thing. I stand by that.

              You talk about how only causing harm to others should be punished. In principle, I agree. However, the right on red question is a bit of a grey area here. I’ll explain.

              Do accidents cause harm to others? Yes, they do; even if no one is injured, they cause harm to others. How? By making them late to get to where they need to go. If someone is late to work, won’t that cause them harm by getting their boss angry at them? What if someone is trying to rush their pregnant wife to the hospital because she’s in labor? How can they get there in a timely manner if the road is blocked because someone rolled through a red light mindlessly? Isn’t that causing harm?

              Believe it or not, I don’t like leftists or the authoritarianism that they practice. However, OTOH, there are enough idiots out there who prove their point: to wit that they’re not capable of handling freedom or making their own choices. The mass masking and taking of the jab proved that beyond any doubt.

              After what we’ve seen over the last three years, it’s hard to argue against anarchism. OTOH, I can’t go all-in on it or libertarianism either, because, when everyone does their own thing; whenever everyone does whatever they want; the result is also chaos. Chaos, at times, can be harmful. There has to be some structure and order in life. Imagine a symphony orchestra where all the musicians played whatever they wanted vs. being on the same sheet of music. See what I mean?

              • Hi Mark,

                You write:

                “My point was that right on red needs to be restricted at certain intersections, because most drivers are observably too stupid and clueless to do the right thing. I stand by that.”

                This is an opinion; your opinion. A generalization, too. Who are “most drivers”? According to whom? And why must I be counted among them? Do you not see that the same kinds of arguments are used to impose and enforce “speeding” laws as well as myriad other laws that some people insist are not just right for all but must be enforced upon all . . . because that is their opinion?

                How do we combat such when objective standards are not the standard but rather someone’s . . . opinion? I drive much faster than the speed limit every day. I am – apparently – capable of doing that safely. Yet I am subject to being punished, not for any harms I have caused but because it is someone else’s opinion that I drive “too fast.”

                “There has to be some structure and order in life.”

                I never disputed this. But you not talking about “structure” or “order.” You are talking about laws – and force.

              • Mark writes:

                “Imagine a symphony orchestra where all the musicians played whatever they wanted vs. being on the same sheet of music. See what I mean?”

                I do. This is authoritarian collectivism distilled. The “symphony” you speak of is the collective – and the individual is forced to submit to the will of the collective. Which is in fact “conducted” by a single (or a few) leaders.

                Again, I encourage you to think about your position some more.

                • Eric,

                  I think about it a lot, and I still have a conundrum. On the one hand, I can understand the appeal of anarchism; given the what’s happened the last 3-4 years, it’s hard to argue against it.

                  OTOH, if everyone does what they want, when they want, conflicts will inevitably occur. What happens when one neighbor encroaches on another’s property or plays their music too loud? What if two drivers go for the same piece of roadway at the same time? How can chaos and/or hard not ensue when physics tells us only one object can occupy a space at a time? What about yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater? All the above would argue in favor of some sort of gov’t and limitations.

                  Then, there are questions about how a group practicing minimal or no gov’t, a la old Iceland or Ireland, would protect itself from a better organized group with a stronger gov’t? How did the American Indians do with their minimal gov’t vs. the Federal gov’t? How would a modern day equivalent of Iceland defend itself against a strong, mighty China intent on getting resources from that modern day Iceland with little gov’t and little defense against strong enemies?

                  For me, one conundrum is whether anarchy is workable, or whether gov’t is a necessary evil? If it’s decided that gov’t is a necessary evil for national defense and some degree of harmony amongst the population, then who or what constrains the gov’t? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so gov’t needs some reins, some control. How do we do that?

                  Also, haven’t we all said on your site that most people are morons? Haven’t we mocked their objective stupidity, foolishness, and incapability of exercising freedom? Haven’t we all mocked the sheeple who mindlessly go along with gov’t diktats? Doesn’t the fact that most people are mindless sheeple prove the “Elites” point that most people are incapable of exercising freedom?

                  I can’t totally get on board with anarchism, as I see it having problems. How can it really be workable in a populous and technologically advanced society like ours? However, I also see the problems with excessive gov’t; the last 3-4 years have shown us that. What’s the answer? I don’t have one, nor am I smart enough to come up with one. I see problems with both sides here. That’s my conundrum; that’s what I think about all the time.

                  • Sounds like argument of the gun control lobby:
                    “most people are mindless sheeple prove the “Elites” point that most people are incapable of exercising freedom”

                    This, lukewarmness about liberty, it’s everywhere it seems.

                    “I am not a Republican.
                    I am not a Democrat.
                    I am not even a Libertarian.
                    I am simply an American that is fed up with the corruption, manipulation of politicians, and the people that blindly follow said politicians on “their side””


                    • I AGREE 100%! I’m tired of all the above. My essential point still stands though: how can anarchy, i.e. minimal or no gov’t, work though?

                      The only answer I have, and it’s a partial one, is that we fight where we have the most impact: at the local level.

                  • “I can’t totally get on board with anarchism, as I see it having problems”
                    Very, very small problems compared to government problems, like war. No one in their right mind expects anarchy to be utopia, but practically anything would be an improvement over what we suffer.

                  • Hi Mark,

                    You ask: “What happens when one neighbor encroaches on another’s property or plays their music too loud? What if two drivers go for the same piece of roadway at the same time? ”

                    Well, such things happen right now – “the law” regardless. Would you rather be free to deal with such things yourself? Or be not free to do so? To rely on the state – on government workers – to handle such things? That is to say, on people who have power over you, like it or not? Whom you must obey – or else?

                    Here’s what I can get on board with: The harms caused standard.

                    If I cause harm, then I have no issue with being held responsible. I think it’s reasonable – and right – to hold everyone to the same standard. To that extent – and only that extent – I support a mechanism for holding people responsible when they cause harm.

                    But if they’ve not caused any harm? Then – as I see it – they have an absolute right to be let alone.

                    Do you agree or disagree?

                    • Eric,

                      Another thing coloring my opinion here is that I’ve SEEN anarchy on the roads, and it’s not pretty! Just go to Lima, Peru, and you’ll see it. People make their own lanes in traffic if the painted ones aren’t moving, and so on. If you think NYC or DC have bad traffic, you ain’t seen Lima, Peru; Lima makes NYC and DC look good! There was a series of videos called, “You Don’t Want to Drive in ____”; one of the cities featured was Lima, Peru. When everyone does whatever they want, you get chaos; you get Lima, Peru traffic.

                    • Perhaps, Lima Peru traffic is more about the culture rather than anarchy?

                      I’ve SEEN anarchy, too! At the grocery store. There’s no grocery cart speed limit signs, no stop signs at the end of the isles, yet things usually go along smoothly. It’s anarchy.

  5. What ever happened to Yield signs?

    When I was a kid (back in the 60s), in my suburb, where two side streets crossed (if they were controlled at all), one street at the intersection had a Yield sign — the other street had right-of-way.
    Stop signs appeared only where side streets ran into higher-traffic streets.
    The world made more sense back then.

    Now it’s a forest of Stop signs and traffic lights.
    Just because.
    More waiting … more wear and tear … more fuel consumption.

    • Yah, with the exception of a few spots (I suspect experimental) Round-Abouts, the yield signs have been disappearing here, too.
      Lots more stop signs in their place (with obnoxious blinking neon LED’s around the edge of the sign). Thankfully, like Sparkey described below, flashing yellow lights are on the upswing. …There’s that.

      Yield signs, they’re like ‘warnings’ from cops, rather than getting a ticket,… from another time?

      • “ with obnoxious blinking neon LED’s around the edge of the sign “

        Ok what’s up with this? Within the last two months they started that here too, I’m out in farm country 8 miles from town, our roads are not thoroughfares no one that isn’t a resident drives out here. Several stop signs and the “Y” direction sign for our road split have these. What a waste. Somebody’s grifting off the counties, thanks unknown scammer! (for nothing helpful!).

    • They just cut down one of the main north-south roads from 4 lanes to 2 for no reason

      But the worst part is the two 4-way stops

      They could have had no stop sign on the busy north-south road, and a stop sign with “cross traffic does not stop” warning on the cross streets. But noooooo. My commute has to be just that little bit more annoying.

      And the new construction looks nice but the buildings still look like a dump.

    • Speaking of yield signs….in SW Pennsylvania there are yield signs on many on ramps to highways because the merge area is very short. In theory when a vehicle is taking an on ramp onto the highway it is supposed to yield to oncoming traffic (traffic already on the highway).

      In my experience, the majority of vehicles DO NOT yield when merging on the highway when there is a yield sign. When I drive any highway that has yield signs on on ramps, I always “ass”-ume the vehicle coming on the highway will never yield and I slow down or speed up to avoid a collision. Trucks are notorious in SW PA for not yielding at any yield signs. They barrel onto the highways not giving a crap who or what is in its way.

      My dad (a truck driver) always said people do not know how to merge. So true. Learning to merge on highways should be a requirement to getting one’s driver’s license. I usually merge everyday when I am driving, parallel parking, well I haven’t done that in decades, but for some reason parallel parking is a requirement for getting a driver’s license.

      Upside down backwards world.

  6. Have you ever tired to just glance the outside of the handlebar? It’s harder than it looks. Can be done maybe only 1/4 of the times. Otherwise, you miss or risk scratching your car. Most people can’t do it. Only the very best drivers can do it.

  7. Action Jackson made the whole thing up. You can tell by the way it’s written. It’s a made up cause to make a deadline. You know this guy has never noticed automobiles when crossing the street.

  8. f’you Nathaniel Meyersohn. I go through RED lights regularly, left, straight, don’t care. It’s just a suggestion to me. Try and catch me. In the meantime f-off.
    How about YOU don’t drive, knock yourself out.

    • Amen, Chris –

      I routinely “run” red lights – when there’s no good reason to sit there like a dolt waiting for it to change. I can see whether it’s safe to proceed. If it is, I will. And do.

      • Hi Eric,
        Up until just a few years ago around here most of the traffic lights would go to flashing red between midnight and 5:00 AM or thereabouts; not sure exactly when or why that stopped but someone must have figured out the city could get some extra revenue by having the piggies hide out near the intersections and write out tickets to anyone that got tired of waiting for the light to change.

      • Town near me did the unthinkable, several months ago they switched the left turn arrows to flashing yellow so you don’t have to wait for another light cycle to turn! Shocking! Green arrow go, then it goes to flashing yellow which means the oncoming lane has switched to green (right of way) then all goes to solid yellow then red. Works like a champ.

        • Good stuff!
          our rural town is a one light town. The locals tell the story of that light like it’s one of the pivotal stories of the town’s 100yr+ history, I guess it is.
          So it gets put in 20-25 yrs ago and the locals go nuts.
          Within a week, a trucker towing a big load of logs took the whole mess out, don’t remember how.
          The place went nuts again, ‘leave it be, etc….’ Locals say the sheriff was involved, they had meetings (at the bar of course), etc….. They say it was one of the biggest issue’s of that town, ever.
          It’s still there, but blinks at night.

        • The flashing yellow arrow shouldn’t even be necessary. Why can’t the arrow just go out when both directions have the green light? Common sense would tell the driver to wait until the oncoming traffic is cleared before proceeding.

      • As do I. Waiting for the local city to start issuing tickets by mail since all the lights have cameras mounted up top as well. Just burns me to sit there, no cross traffic for blocks, waiting for the 4 minute cycle, screw that. What century are we living in? Computer in the control box can’t flip you to green when it already “knows” there isn’t anything close crossing your path?
        I did mention the yellow left turn blinkers so at least one nod to common sense.

    • I’ve been wondering about that.

      There’s an intersection in The City I used to live in off 53rd St. A busy one near the I-74 bridge over the Mississippi River.
      Two lanes go straight, a third on the right curves off to the right towards the offramp to I-74 and has its own painted solid white merge line into the intersecting perpendicular two lanes. …It does Not have its very own stop light,… which means,… GO!

      People routinely Stop at this intersection eventhough there’s No Red Light telling them to do so. No green arrow light. No solid green light. No blinking yellow light. … Zero light. For that particular lane.
      …Are you following my description?
      …Are there other turns/intersections like this in the U.S.?

      …I wonder, if that’s what that idiot writer encountered & called it, “turning right on red”?

      I dunno. If so, sure as heck I’d be honking my horn. Idiots stopped all the time there. No light telling them to.

      …Just like the Round-Abouts the city constructed in that city, they’re made to move traffic more efficiently. (Surprised a ‘city/urban planner can even conceptualize such a thing. I imagine ‘late for work’ homeowers encouraged ’em).

      …Oops. /Rant OFF.

  9. Leftists would legalize left turns on red, just to be bluer than blue.

    Besides, right turn on red is too conservative, has to be illegal.

    If you are at a stop sign, which is red, can you make a right turn on a red colored stop sign? It is a weaponized law against conservatives. It’s not right!

    All stop signs must be blue, red is evil.

    After all, stop signs are primitive stop lights.

    Right on red insures smoother traffic flows.

    No more exiting interstate highways to the right, it is going to be a wrong sooner than you think. Every exit must exit left, you’ll get the message.

    Set up plate readers and send out fines, the only solution.

    You are crime thinking if you are thinking red and right and turning right on red. All will be illegal, ban red, ban right, ban cars, ban electricity, everything must be banned.

    Thinking criminal thoughts is a pre-crime, you must be held accountable and fined accordingly.

    If it is everything you have, too bad. You’ll be gulag bound, won’t matter after that. Call it a new home.

    Klaus will be happy.

    Apparently, the WEF wants to furtively endorse war, homelessness, societal decay, poverty, and endless misery. The ultimate existential threat right there and here and now.

    Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

    Gettin’ to be purdy tricky bidness to exist.

    • left turns on red…..from a two way to a one way…only….are allowed some places….even where allowed some drivers aren’t aware of it…

      so…. the pedestrian sees no traffic coming so walks across against a red light and a don’t walk sign..too stupid to realize that a driver can make a left on red….if he gets killed the driver is not liable…darwinian….

  10. It’s always the car drivers that have to give up things for the greater “good”. Never mind they are the ones PAYING (gas taxes and the like) for most of the road, so by all rights should have first dibs IMHO.

    • Take away the signs and traffic lights and make people think for themselves……

      this was done somewhere….it worked fine….

      traffic lights are for revenue….lots of cash…..

  11. People focus too narrowly. Safety changes need a cost/benefit analysis, not just an edict in the direction of “safety”. Covid showed us that people are willing to give up all freedom for the illusion of safety, sadly.

    • [Covid showed us that people are willing to give up all freedom for the illusion of safety, sadly.]- Opposite

      “Screw your Freedoms!!” says Schwarzenegger with leftist oozing out of every pore in his body.

      Wait until we sign onto the WHO (World Hell Organization) Pandemic Treaty. Covid was a walk in the park.
      The new treaty is to fight the next plandemic… Disease X. They have no clue what it is but they do know it will be 20 times worse then the covaids. I’m sure the vaxx will be just as safe and effective as the covaids.
      I’m sure Pedo Joe will sign us up!

      • I used to have a lot of respect for Arnold. He’s a rotten piece of shit. The world was his oyster. He could do no wrong and exploited it to his maximum advantage. The U.S. was so good to him. He was even banging his ugly housekeeper and cheating on his wife, which resulted in he birth of his son. All of that is ok for him, but we have to give up our “freedoms.” Fuck him!

        • Ditto, Mister –

          I admired him for his drive and his achievements. He enjoyed so much freedom to make it here. But now that he has, it’s “screw our freedoms.”

          • You know who has my eternal respect? Meat Loaf. He was in his 70’s and had health issues, but resisted the forced diapering and lockdowns until his death… From covid. Being “fully vaccinated” unfortunately did not save him.

            Regarding the ‘Rona and the governmental reaction, he was quoted as saying “If I die, I die, but I’m not going to be controlled.”

            It’s venerable to be in a vulnerable position and still take a hard stance for freedom as he did. Most celebrities kowtowed in lock-step as part of the propaganda wing for The Powers.

            • A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma?: “…had health issues, but resisted the forced diapering and lockdowns until his death… From covid.”

              Another PSA from the Establishment,… of, fear?

              A double down? WTF?: “Being “fully vaccinated” unfortunately did not save him.”

              …AS IF, it ever would have.

              …“I think the actual truth is you were not injected with a vaccine. The immune response you got, and they called it a robust response, is really your body’s response to being poisoned to foreign material that is in your body. It’s genetic material as well as inorganic material. This is not a vaccine, and people were involved in criminal human experimentation as were their children. They were experimented on with a biotechnology pathogen.”…


            • BDO,

              Fortunately he was “injected with the stuff”.. then cashed out “normal dead”.

              Heck, if the dude hadn’t been been “vaxed”…he could have suffered….Double Dead…or even worse been Super Dead!

              I wonder what that’s like??

      • Schwarzenegger is another freemason….like a lot of the so called heroes the slaves are told to admire….hollywood propaganda…..

        The freemasons are the political arm of the slave owner nobility control group….

      • Right on. Actually, Montana and Nevada had No speed limit pre 1974. Montana briefly went with a R&P limit until Rudy Stanko challenged his R&P ticket and teh supreme court legislated from the bench and stated that a law was needed to make the ticket enforceable. I know. I was there to watch the hearings.

    • It was a necessity. When it was permitted by every state in 1979, traffic volumes were about a third of what they are today. Can you imagine no right on red today? Another fucking battle.

  12. How many Deranged Lefties also hate the fact that people who saw through COVID hysteria 4 years ago and refused to “Follow the Science” (Tony Fauci, who actually called himself “The Science” once upon a time) ended up being RIGHT, while those who dutifully followed draconian COVID rules and “The Science” ended up being WRONG!?

    We had the Biden Thing and COVID practitioners call states that “Reopened too early” NEANDERTHALS, and people who resisted draconian COVID rules were called names like “COVID DENIER!”, “SCIENCE DENIER!”, “ANTI-VAXXER!”, “TRUMPERS”, “KILLERS OF GRANDMA”, “SUPERSPREADERS of _______”, “ANTI-MASKERS”, etc.

  13. Without the wall-sized A pillar maybe we could see pedestrians waiting at the curb.

    I remember when Pittsburgh still had trolley cars. They got to blow through intersections with a lot of drama. They were so long that the middle would run into the sidewalk on turns. If you were too close to the corner you might get hit.

    People knew the laws of physics supersede the laws of man.

    • “ Without the wall-sized A pillar maybe we could see pedestrians waiting at the curb. “

      Yep! 2005 Grand Cherokee with the massive A pillar and sensing pods behind the windshield rear view mirror, at 6’ 1” I was ducking down to see under all that plus a pigeon weave to see around that *&$@# pillar. At a four way stop almost pulled out in front of a full size pickup the blind spot was that bad.

    • Ready – you’re on it. These giant pillars and lousy sight lines are the reason that peds and cyclists are being killed in staggering numbers today.

  14. Russian dashcam videos are now a horror show to watch, as opposed to just a “Keystone Cops” driving comedy. There is no shortage of pedestrians being mowed down or sent flying 75 yards through the air. Rear end collisions from vehicles 5 place behind the stopped que will wipe out 5-10 cars at a time, as well as pedestrians.
    You see, in Russia, pedestrians have right of way over MOVING traffic at crosswalks, which are everywhere in their cities & towns. They stroll, amble, run, blindly across without looking for anything, just staring straight in front of themselves. Some of the crosswalks have accompanying traffic lights, but many do not. Many are not even at intersections, but just randomly slapped across a busy thoroughfare, as if they were elevated bridges, which they are not.
    I guess this is how authoritarians level the playing field for the foot traffic, but it certainly seems to take out just as many as not. Of course, Russian drivers, urban & rural, are completely unhinged and oblivious to anyone else but themselves, lacking any situational awareness or vehicular control skills whatsoever.
    It’s becoming this way here in the U.S. as well, on account of driving devices that are barely operated by a “driver” at all. Now all we need is a govt. sponsored free-for-all of foot traffic across busy roadways to finish the job, I suppose.

  15. I guess this is what happens when people forget about that old saying; “Look twice save a life”.

    The problem is not so much the right turn but pedestrians who continue to cross the street when the pedestrian light says not to or deliberately stepping in front of a car while it’s turning.

    • Bingo! If you’ve got the red, the pedestrian crossing light is “don’t walk” unless the lights are set up to allow everyone to walk at once, and then there’s almost always a “no turn on red” sign.

      Maybe it’s time to have a war on jaywalking again.

      • I stepped out into a traffic lane, jaywalking, all of a sudden, I heard a horn blaring. The light turned green one block away and every vehicle was going a good 35 mph, don’t jaywalk, it is dangerous. You stop where you are, you might be dead if you don’t.

        A woman jaywalking across a four-lane road was struck by a driver who had no idea she was there. She was wearing a brown/black winter coat. The year was maybe 1972. Not everybody sees what is going on, pay attention. You become a witness, everybody stops to help.

        She immediately hit the pavement and was unconscious.

        Jaywalking is a fool’s maneuver. I know from experience, you’re lucky to be alive.

        Not how you do it.

    • Even a 210-lb hulk like myself won’t win a “confrontation” with even a Fortwo “Smartcar”. But, a car turning right, red or green, is supposed to YIELD to a pedestrian. Who even slows down, let alone LOOKS?

  16. As far as pedestrians being hit, notice how many are ALSO on their devices while strolling into traffic. Not only that but crossing at places that do not have a crosswalk. And bicyclists that act like their either cars or pedestrians, whichever favors them at the moment. My nephew, who lives in California, thinks just stepping off the curb into traffic should cause all cars and trucks to stop for him. He gets agitated if you disagree.

    We now live in a world where roads are for pedestrians and bikes. All others are intruders into their safe space.

    The good news is when it all goes down the dumper those folks will be the first to fall because they have no common sense or ability to survive without Nanny GovCo giving them “protection”. What they don’t understand is that “protection” results in their enslavement.

    • When someone is looking at their devices and slowly ambling through a crosswalk, I give them an auditory reminder of the law of gross tonnage. Hearing blowoff valves from a Supra or the iForce rumble of a V-8 tends to get people moving more quickly.

    • “ And bicyclists that act like their either cars or pedestrians, whichever favors them at the moment “

      Here in WA bicycles have achieved cult status, Seattle and their bike lanes right in the busy streets rein supreme. Any common sense criticism online of the all mighty bicycle riders results in a storm of angry replies, these people are literally insane. Oh and God help you if you “block the box”!

      • Unfortunately, I live in a mostly democrat county where more and more cities are closing traffic lanes for bike lanes severely restricting traffic flow. The bike lanes are mostly empty.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here