SO, um...what exactly happened w/the white car? And actually, on a day like today, it's required, that is, illegal not to, have your lights on for visibility purposes. (I read that in the Oregonian last Sunday, or Saturday, or whatever day the Commuter dude does his commentary...) So there you go. In any case, sorry. And yes, I also love me some lefty car shop except their labor charges are PRETTY outrageous.
WHY does the interweb give me these talkID errors and then post my comments, which are clearly replies to other comments, like new comments? Ptoo. The one below is for you. I gotta get off the web. Grr, and also arg.
Oh! Nothing happened, I zipped across to the empty lane to turn on the other half of Lincoln (did you know the reason the streets don't meet up is because they started building them from the ends and expected them to meet in the middle? BWA HA HA).
I would love to see people get ticketed for signal non-use and not having their lights on. But I am occasionally a very bitter driver.
I'm not so sure it cost $22.50 to get my little sensor thingy fixed, I admit, but the only other place I ever go is the Toyota dealership (the best thing about inheriting this car was inheriting lifetime oil service!) so I don't have a lot of basis for comparison. When I go back I'm going to ask how much they charge for 75K brake checks, so then maybe I'll know better ...
You know, it's the law out here in these parts that if you have to turn on your windshield wipers, your lights must also be turned on. So, why is it that in the PNW- a place where rain is quite common and people rather sensible for the most part- such a thing hasn't been incorporated into the legal system? Or is it now, and they just don't enforce it regularly?
I ask because I had the same problem while driving in Portland during a rainstorm. Maybe all cars should be required to sport hideous shades of aqua, mango, and kiwi instead to promote visability?
Oh, it's a law, as far as I know and as connorgal notes above. But people speed, and don't use turn signals, and go the wrong way down one way streets, so why would they bother with a persnickety little law like that one?
BAH and also HUMBUG.
And snicker to the car colors. I do easily see the uglier cars, come to think of it... *grin*
Comments 5
And actually, on a day like today, it's required, that is, illegal not to, have your lights on for visibility purposes. (I read that in the Oregonian last Sunday, or Saturday, or whatever day the Commuter dude does his commentary...) So there you go. In any case, sorry. And yes, I also love me some lefty car shop except their labor charges are PRETTY outrageous.
Reply
Reply
I would love to see people get ticketed for signal non-use and not having their lights on. But I am occasionally a very bitter driver.
I'm not so sure it cost $22.50 to get my little sensor thingy fixed, I admit, but the only other place I ever go is the Toyota dealership (the best thing about inheriting this car was inheriting lifetime oil service!) so I don't have a lot of basis for comparison. When I go back I'm going to ask how much they charge for 75K brake checks, so then maybe I'll know better ...
Reply
I ask because I had the same problem while driving in Portland during a rainstorm. Maybe all cars should be required to sport hideous shades of aqua, mango, and kiwi instead to promote visability?
Reply
BAH and also HUMBUG.
And snicker to the car colors. I do easily see the uglier cars, come to think of it... *grin*
Reply
Leave a comment