Can the News Media Lie and Get Away With It? - My Thoughts

So here’s what I’ve been thinking about over the past few days, “NEWS”. Here’s the situation that caused my wheels to turn:

The first report that came to my attention: A “news” service, Politico, reported that candidate for president, Ben Carson, lied about his past. An excerpt from his book was cited within the article. Just on a cursory reading, I realized that this “news” report was “twisting” the words to say something it didn’t actually say.

The second report that shortly followed: CNN reported that they interviewed people from Carson’s past who claim the angry man Carson claimed to have been, is not the same person they knew.

Here’s the problem, Carson fired back at Politico saying that in the cited passage, nowhere does he actually say what the reporter claims it to be saying. So Politico “changes” the headline to “soften” their accusation. CNN got called out by Carson, for interviewing people from his past who knew him AFTER he got his anger under control. His timeline is pretty well documented, so it should be apparent to anyone who actually read his book.

I have said many times that the “news” media no longer reports the news, but rather all “opinion” based on their political leaning. This is on both the “right” and the “left”. The Supreme Court has decreed that the “news media” has special privileges to protect sources, report things that may hurt someone’s career, etc., sort of giving the right to be the “whistle blower” without repercussions. So if they expose someone committing a crime, they cannot be sued for libel. This is an effort to allow fair reporting to prevent corrupt people from destroying the country, or taking advantage of people who cannot defend themselves, etc. I think it’s a very good thing.

But what happens when the reporters start expressing opinions, instead of the facts? As a child (this may be a naïve or even faulty viewpoint based on my age at the time, and the fact it is an old memory), I remember people like Walter Cronkite reporting facts, and NOT opinions. When the news got to the point of giving its opinion, the upper left corner said, “Commentary”. You knew it was an opinion and not a “news item”. They even had a special person appointed to do the commentary, so you always knew it was NOT facts being presented.

So here’s where my thoughts came in. If a media service is continually “reporting” news which is far more opinion than it is news, should they still be protected from libel lawsuits? I looked into the history of the reporter on Politico who claimed Carson lied, and his last 10 stories were on Republicans in the presidential race, and every article was negative opinions on their stances, or trying to say their facts are wrong, or they are lying, etc. Now I know that perhaps he is being assigned the articles he must write, so I looked at the website itself and their “news” items. There were many concerning Democrats as well. But the flavor was actually “high praise” for what Democrats are doing or saying. There was no slamming them for anything they may have done wrong. Now I will admit that I did not read every article, or scrutinize each one that I read to fact check what was there. I just read quickly to get a “feel” for the reporting. If this “news” outlet is leaning that hard to one side, and the news is very much “misreported” or “misrepresenting” the facts, as in the case of Ben Carson, does he have a right to sue them for libel? Would he have to prove that they do not, in fact, report news, but rather opinion? Or prove that they are trying to push an agenda, rather than report the facts?

When the “correction to the article was published, the article was not changed at all. An “editor’s note” was added to the end. So, unless you read the article AND the added note, it is still a smear of a man’s character.

How about the article you are reading right now? Do I have the right to claim myself as reporting the “news”, even though I do not work for an “official” news service? I am reporting things “as I see it”. I admit it is strictly “my opinion”, but many of the things I read on a lot of “news” websites, amount to nothing more than opinion also. So because they “sometimes” report the news, does that “protect” everything they print, even if it is a boldface lie? If the editor at Politico, read the article that was published and did not catch the “obvious” misinterpretation of the cited passage, can we say “it was nothing more than a mistake that fell through the cracks”? Why was the article itself not changed to properly state the facts, rather than an “editor’s note” being added to say “oops”? Perhaps the article should have been taken down completely since they admitted to the “mistake”, or as the Carson campaign called it, “the lie”.

CNN is considered a “legitimate” news source. But watching their handling of all things political, it sure comes across as “yeah Democrats, boo Republicans”. Many news sources slam Fox news for leaning to the right and telling lies, but how is what they are doing any different. I think ALL news outlets should strive for unbiased reporting. I don’t care if they lean left or right, they shouldn’t lean at all. In an interview with CNN, Ben Carson asked about their process to reporting. His main example (as I remember it) was, “you asked people who I went to high school with about my ‘anger issues’, but they didn’t know me WHEN I had those issues. They knew me after that.” So my question is, why did CNN report that he was lying when they did not have anything legitimate to report? AND they reported it in such a way that even though the people they talked to were not people who would have known about his anger issues, as if it somehow legitimized their claim because it was “close enough”.

One possible answer to this situation may be to require doing things how they were done in the past. When you are stating an opinion, mark it as such. State that “based on the facts (and list those facts), it is my/our opinion, that…”

Sometimes I fear it is too late for any type of correction. Many people who are listening to the “news” don’t know that news was at one time facts being reported and you were allowed to form your own opinion. Today, you have to pick a side and then listen to the media outlet that will tell you what you will agree with. I find myself reading the news about America on foreign news sources because they don’t have as much at stake to report the facts. They have nothing to gain or lose by being completely honest, instead of pushing an agenda for some sort of reward. Since our “news” reporters live here, they can push their ideas through the mass media which gives them a whole lot more power than the average citizen. So if they don’t like someone, or that person threatens their position or power or agenda, they have the means to destroy them and call it “news”, and then hide behind the “protection” the news media has from being held libel.

Don’t get me wrong, this happens on both left and right sides. It just happened that the Ben Carson/Politico issue brought it to my attention. I continuously see people putting down Fox News for their reporting from the left, and MSNBC being slammed from the right, but the Carson thing called out a real life example, instead of mere generalities.

As I research things for my blog posts, I often complain that I cannot find unbiased news sources to fact check the topics I am working on. I would like to just get the raw facts and draw my own conclusions. But today, finding “untainted” facts is a hard job. I spend a lot of time trying to find reliable information when I write.

Here’s my question to anyone reading this, what should/could be done to eliminate the constant media bias that seems to be running rampant in our society? Do you even think it’s a problem? How do you select a news source? Do you do it consciously, or do you turn on the TV and whatever is playing will be fine? Again, this is just me searching for answers.

Love and Marriage - My Thoughts

I never thought I would be writing an “advice” article on marriage. I think I am nowhere close to being an expert in this area, but I do have experience that I am willing to share.

I recently finished reading an article entitled something like “How to fulfill you husband’s 5 basic needs”. It was an article written to wives about how to make their husbands happy. The article was sort of “generic”, but the basic point was “give yourself freely to your husband.” It was not an article about sex, though that was one of the 5 basic needs. What disturbed me so much, was not the article itself, I totally agreed with the whole premise, but the comments left by so many women about having their own needs met. They took the idea of “fulfilling his needs” as meaning “being his slave.” Some of the comments were left by women whose photo pictured them kissing their husband (or boyfriend). So I got to wondering, “why are you with this person?” Do you actually love him, or are you using him to fulfill some need?

I should first explain what I believe love is all about. When you love someone, you will desire their happiness over your own. Love causes you to forget about yourself and focus on the object of your love. So, if you love your spouse, you will do whatever is best for him/her, no matter what the cost to you personally. The ultimate love will even move you to die for them, if necessary. I have met people who would die for their children, but not their spouse. So I again have to wonder, “do you actually love your spouse?” Love should be unconditional. If you will only love someone, provided you receive love in return, I believe you do not actually love them. There is no motive in love. You love simply to love. There is no expectation whatsoever of something in return.

For those in an unhappy marriage, whose fault is it? Most, in my experience, blame their spouse. I will hear things like, when we first got married he was so kind and loving and now he thinks only of himself. I do not doubt that may have happened. But I also wonder, “what changed to cause that?” Depending on your perspective, you may hate what I am about to say, but just consider this, is it possible that you stopped making your spouse your #1 priority? Did you stop trying to make them happy? If they lost focus on your happiness, did you in return change your focus on theirs? I’m not blaming anyone with these questions. I am only seeking clarity. How we respond to a situation is entirely up to us. So, if they are pulling back, or focusing on themselves, should your response be to also pull back? Or should it be to confront it and work it out? No one likes confrontation, but if you value your marriage, you will do what is necessary.

Again, I say, “love should be unconditional”. The moment you think, “what’s in it for me?” or “are my needs being fulfilled?” you are no longer loving your spouse. The only reason to fulfill your spouse’s needs is because you love them. What you get in return should not be considered. If you look for some sort of return, you are not loving them, you are simply being selfish. Now let me say, if your spouse has made it clear that they do not love you and they expect a slave and not a spouse, then maybe we’re in different territory… (or are we?)

When something changes in a marriage, it is up to YOU to figure out what it is and deal with it. If you take the attitude, “if my spouse won’t try to figure it out, or doesn’t want to work at it, why should I?” again, you are taking a selfish attitude. Sometimes, only one person sees that there is a problem. Don’t assume that you both see it.

I believe that marriage requires both people to work at making it great. If one starts slacking, the other may have to work harder to hold it together. We all go through stuff that makes us weak, or want to give up, or walk out, or whatever. The trick is to love unconditionally. Look at what that word “unconditionally” means. There are no conditions that will cause the love to stop flowing. So I ask, “under what conditions will you stop loving someone?” If you have a condition that could make you stop loving them, then you do not have unconditional love for them. Most of us have unconditional love for our children, but so many do not have it for their spouse. What’s wrong with that picture? Why do we put conditions on our spouse, but not our children? Are they not also human and prone to failing? Of course your spouse is going to screw up and disappoint you. If you thought otherwise, you need to seek some serious counseling. We know our children will fail us, but we’re ok with that. So why not allow your spouse the courtesy of knowing they’re not perfect? Every spouse is going to fail at some point. Get used to it! If THEY were perfect, why would they be with YOU?

Those who know me, know that I have spent a lifetime dealing with severe depression. Depression causes us to focus on ourselves. It does not make us selfish, but it somehow makes us focus on how miserable we feel. We can’t think about other people when we’re depressed. So how should my wife respond when I cannot even think about her during those times? I’ll tell you what she did. She loved me and supported me and sought to fulfill my needs as best she could. She never once told me that I was failing to meet her needs. She gave of herself fully to aid in my healing. Her own needs went completely unfulfilled. It would have been so easy for her to just walk away, but she remained completely selfless. Many times during the worst of it, I seriously considered suicide. But because of her love for me, I knew it was not the right answer to my problems. Her love was the only thread I was able to hang on to, it kept me alive (literally). It was the key to my healing. Today, I can freely give myself back to her. Yes, she was miserable during the worst stages. I was mean and cranky and would not communicate any sort of love for her. But she always returned love in response. She had to pick up all the slack left by me, because I stopped caring about everything. Her love for me was unconditional. If she required love in return, she would have left me, because it just wasn’t forthcoming.

I can see so many people saying that our case is the exception. Maybe it is. But if you don’t live it out, how will you ever know? Our entire society teaches us to care about ourselves FIRST. Love ourselves FIRST. While I believe we need to love and care about ourselves, I think the idea of that being “first” is wrong. It should be at the same time. When you marry someone, you become a part of a whole. What you do for your spouse, you are also doing for yourself. So if you love your spouse, you love yourself. When you put yourself ahead of your spouse, you are no longer working for the good of the whole and are actually creating a separation between the two of you.

So let me leave you with a couple of thoughts, part of my philosophy if you will:

You cannot receive love, unless you are willing to give it.

You cannot give love, if you expect something in return.

Living Out Your Faith - My Thoughts

As I prepared to teach my Sunday School class today, I had an opportunity to reflect on a few conversations that I have been involved in lately. One was a question posed by a pastor on Facebook. He was looking for a story of healing connected with the anointing service that the Church of the Brethren administers to those who ask for it. I asked for such a service during the worst time of my depression. Another conversation (similar in nature) was the question of using anti-depressants while holding to the belief that God can heal us from depression. And in the final conversation, I told my story of instantaneous healing of tonsillitis many years ago. All these conversations, though closely related were with separate individuals.

The scripture for the Sunday School lesson tomorrow is from Acts. The story is about Stephen, standing before the Sanhedrin, giving his speech that eventually leads to his being stoned to death. As I reflected on my day of these conversations, I had some realizations of what has been in the news lately.


The news item is about a woman who has a conviction of faith to not issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She is deemed a "hero" by some Christians, and a "disgrace" by others. She is also called a bigot by many. So I posed the question to myself, "what would I do if I were her?" This led me to an even bigger question, "what does God want us to do in situations where our duty violates our faith?" 

Whether or not I agree with her stand on gay marriage is immaterial. What matters is HOW I respond to situations based on my faith. If I oppose gay marriage, and find myself in a conflict between my civil duty (my job) and my faith, what am I going to do? In reality, the question is even bigger than that. Should we “fight” for our right to practice our faith without restriction? Should we just give in to public opinion? Should we keep quiet and “suffer”? Well, here’s what happened in this story: She chose to "fight" for her beliefs, which in turn created a situation that I believe damaged her message of Jesus' love. Let me explain that opinion. Rather than "fight", she could have chosen to "suffer" for her beliefs. What I mean by that is, she could have sacrificed her position, her job, her income, and resigned, stating that she could not uphold a law that violated her faith. It probably would have never made the news. But the impact on those few people, who witnessed her actions, may have had a tremendous change in their lives.

In the story I read in Acts about Stephen, he is asked to defend himself against the charges brought against him (in other words, “fight”). Instead, he makes a speech showing how the Christian movement was a continuation of God's plan (out of the Jewish tradition) for the world, and not a contradiction to it. In the process, he showed how his accusers were violating God's will, which was entrusted to them. His speech was only heard by the few who were present, but even after those few helped stone him, I believe his words had to ring in their hearts and minds well after the fact, eventually changing their lives to possibly accepting Jesus as the Christ.

Rather than constantly trying to preserve our "rights" as Christians against a government set on taking them away by "fighting", perhaps we need to live out our faith among those in our immediate influence. If they see God's love in us, and later see us suffer for expressing that love, our oppressors will be seen as the problem, not us. Those of us screaming about how we're being persecuted are seen as ignorant people who believe an outdated old book that contains racist, bigoted messages. What makes its way into the news might be the only encounter many people have with Christianity. And of course, it is all negative publicity. Is there any question as to why we are looked down on as Christians? So we scream even louder about how we are misunderstood and unfairly characterized, and all this screaming makes us look even more ignorant and paranoid. So how do we change it? I am going to suggest a different approach, try being quiet. As you read on, you will see what I mean.

Changing gears for a second, a government that does not have the support of its people cannot stand. "Fighting" against it only creates sides, either you are with us or against us. This is a "top down" approach. Fight the leaders to affect change that will trickle down. History shows us this approach never really works. When Christianity was mandated by a government, it didn’t change people’s hearts, though it may have changed some people’s actions. True change only comes when it affects people’s hearts. You cannot legislate this type of change. You can make non-Christian actions illegal, but you can only change behavior, not intent. To truly change someone’s heart, you need to make personal, one-on-one contact with them. That cannot be done at a high level, it can only be done at the grass roots. You have to get down on your knees and wash the other person’s feet. You have to enter their life and allow yourself to love them without reservation.

All this being said, let’s play out what I’m talking about. Let’s say you have affected many people’s lives by showing God’s love to them (As a Christian, I would hope we are all doing this.) You work a government job that requires you to issue marriage licenses. One day, gay marriage becomes legal and you are now required to issue those licenses. However, you believe this violates your faith, how do you respond? Well, if you fight and refuse to do so, you get hauled into court, speak your piece and get thrown into jail. A national controversy breaks out and some are with you and some are against you. Your co-workers can’t take your side because they can’t afford to lose their jobs. So they fear the power of the government that employs them. That government has the ability to throw them into jail beside you. (What follows is all speculation, but let’s see where it goes.) On the other hand, let’s say, you chose to quietly resign stating that you can’t do something that violates your faith. Since you have shown all your co-workers God’s love through your actions, your resignation will leave a HUGE imprint on their hearts and minds. They see that you are not only willing to talk the talk, but you are willing to walk the walk. They will see how deep your faith really runs. They know you NEED that job, but you are willing to give it up for something you believe that deeply about. They see that you trust God enough to take care of you to the point that you will walk away from a guaranteed paycheck, with only the trust that your God will provide for you. How many of their lives will be forever changed when they face difficult circumstances? Will they turn to God because of your example? We don’t know for sure, but I’m one who would hope that leadership by example is the strongest teacher.

I mentioned that a government cannot stand without the support of its people. In this scenario I painted, who will have the support of your co-workers, the government, or you? Your actions can plant the seeds that one day will turn people against the establishment when “true” persecution comes. If we are just “noisy”, the government will be glad to see us go. But if we changed lives, our persecutors will not be able to withstand a rebellion of their own making.

When we live by the law of love, we create change from the bottom up. Jesus never "fought" the government. He simply showed love to whomever he was around and the change that was created has not only lasted over 2000 years, it has perpetually grown and spread. Jesus’ love changed the people at the bottom. When that happens, change makes its way to the top. Sure, fighting can create change, but the change is only temporary. There is always someone bigger and stronger who will overpower the change. But when love is the weapon of choice, nothing is able to defeat it. So if you feel persecuted, live out your faith. Suffering may be the best way to effect change. “Fighting back” is the “expected” response. It’s so easy to say, “If I were them, I’d be fighting too”, and BOOM you are ignored! But to quietly suffer AND on top of that, show love to your oppressors, there is no way you can be ignored. Not only is it not expected, but it’s considered “insane”, but it is never going to be forgotten. And those who end up in difficult times, will remember your faith and perhaps accept Jesus as their savior, and begin a new life, because the seeds you planted began to grow and bear fruit. As a Christian, everyone is watching you. If you talk the talk AND walk the walk, people’s lives will be forever changed, whether you know it or not.

Proper Driving on American Roads - My Thoughts

Ever feel like this woman while driving? I was telling a friend that I was considering writing this article. After much thought, and wondering if I was just being too negative about other drivers, I decided to go for it and perhaps, if only one driver learned better driving habits, my job is complete. Every day, I encounter some sort of stupidity on the road. But certain events occur over and over, showing me that so many people do not know what is expected of them while driving. So I decided to list and explain proper driving on American roadways.

Proper use of turn signals

The purpose of the turn signal is to tell other drivers your intention to turn, or change lanes. This gives them the opportunity to avoid an accident because they are surprised by whatever follows.

For example: do NOT turn on your turn signal AFTER getting into the turn lane. Once you are in the turn lane, we know what you intend to do. The turn signal becomes redundant at that point. Put your turn signal on well before reaching the turn lane. That way, when you hit the brakes for no apparent reason, we won't rear-end you. If the turn lane is short, you will need to slow down before moving into it. If I have a warning that the turn is coming, I will also slow down, leaving you plenty of room to do what you need to do. This also applies to streets without turn lanes. Hitting the brakes without warning causes too many accidents.

If you have a center lane that is used for turning from either direction, put your turn signal on early. If you reduce speed, and I intend to turn also, I may get into the turn lane and catch up to you, possibly beside you. If you then proceed into the turn lane, an accident is very likely if you haven't checked on my position relative to you. If I know you intend to turn, I will not get in your way. I will match your speed, but prevent an accident. Also, oncoming traffic will know to not get into the turn lane early, because you will probably be there in a few seconds.

If you intend to change lanes on a highway, let other traffic know before doing so. While some drivers are jerks and will speed up to prevent you from changing lanes, most will offer you safe passage into the lane of your choice. But if we don't know you intend to change lanes, we won't slow down if required for you to do so safely. Personally, I will always let someone get in front of me if I know your intention. If I see you trying to change lanes without a turn signal, I may hit the horn to let you know I was not prepared to be so nice. Typically, that case occurs when the change is going to put you very close to my vehicle. I will aid your lane change if you extend the courtesy of informing me ahead of time.

Remember, the turn signal is the only communication device we have to let other drivers know what we are doing. If you fail to communicate what you want to do, do not get upset when other drivers are flipping the bird at you, or yelling out their windows "jerk" in your direction.

The "yield" sign: What does that mean anyway?

When you come to a yield sign, what should you do? First, the misconception (based on my experience) is that people believe this sign means "merge". IT DOES NOT!!! To yield, means that you give the right of way to any and ALL oncoming traffic in the lane you are trying to enter. So if 2 lanes come together, and you have the yield sign, you are to stop, unless there is no oncoming traffic. You do not need to stop if the lane is clear. This is not a "merge" where you "fit in" to the oncoming traffic. If your sight were to be impeded, this would have been a stop sign, where you would come to a complete stop, look for oncoming traffic and then proceed when clear. The only difference between a stop sign and a yield sign, is that you will have a complete view of the lane you are getting on to, so you do not need to stop unless there is traffic in the lane. Even if the 2 lanes seem to lend themselves to perfect merging, the yield sign removes your right to enter the lane if there is any traffic in it.

The 4-way Stop: Who’s Turn is it Anyway?

OK, you arrive at an intersection and all four roads entering the intersection have a stop sign. So who goes first? First rule of thumb is whoever arrived first has the right to continue through first. Whoever arrived second is next up, and so-on. But, what happens if 2 cars arrive at the same time? Well, that is going to depend on positioning. If the cars are approaching each other (head on) and both are going straight, they can go together. If one is making a left turn in front of the other, the car going straight has the right to go first. If the cars are perpendicular to each other, always defer to the vehicle on your right.

In the case that cars are lined up in all directions, take notice to the rotation currently being followed and stick to it. Changing the order creates confusion and it takes several moves to get order re-established.

AND by all means, NEVER, EVER wave someone through if it is YOUR turn to proceed. It may seem like a nice thing to do, but it creates chaos because no one will know what you intend to do next. For example, if 4 cars are there, and you are next to go, once you wave another car through, the driver that was to follow them now has to figure out if you intend to go next, or should they go next because that would be the proper rotation. If they proceed through, the next vehicle has to make that decision, etc. And when you finally go through, who is supposed to follow you? Does it revert back to the car behind you to get into a new rotation, or does it pick up where the last car BEFORE you was supposed to go, left off? Courtesy should be a standard in driving, but in this case, it is harmful to be too nice. Even writing this paragraph was confusing for me because YOU waved someone though!

One last thought, what happens when 4 cars all arrive at the same time? Well, I never saw that happen, so I’m guessing it would be a “free for all”!

Turning Right on Red

I had to do a little research on this one because I thought my opinion might not be the actual law. It was good that I did, because my opinion was strict as compared to the law. In order to make a legal right turn on a red signal, you MUST come to a complete stop BEFORE entering the intersection. Once you come to a complete stop, you may make the turn ONLY if it is safe to do so. To me, the law is a little nebulous on that point. WHAT is considered “safe”? My opinion is that if your turn causes any driver to have to use their brake, then you should not have made the turn in the first place. If the driver with the green light is speeding, YOU are probably still in the wrong. Of course, that may depend on how fast the driver is going because if they were so far away, no danger seemed to be present, extreme speeds could throw off your judgment. My personal rule of thumb is that if I want to turn right on red, if there are two lanes and ANY vehicles are coming, I will not turn. If it is 3 lanes, I will go if the only vehicle is in the far left lane. The reason (based on experience) is that sometimes drivers will change lanes, for whatever reason, and I don’t want to put myself in danger by being in the lane they intend to get in. If the intersection I am at is close to another intersection, the driver with the green may want to turn at the next, and I may end up blocking their turn by being in the lane.

Another scenario I’ve seen is turning on red and moving to the far left lane as part of the turn. For example, I’m traveling in the right lane approaching a green light. The driver turns right on red, but crosses my lane to get in a left lane. While my distance may have been far enough away to make that sort of turn safely (not impeding my driving), this one is illegal. The law states that you need to make the right turn on red and get into the right most lane to complete it. You are not permitted to turn any other way. After completing your turn, THEN you may move to the left with the proper use of turn signals.

You must also yield to ALL pedestrians, bikes and possible U-turns. Essentially, if you have the red light, you have no right to turn if there are ANY reasons why you shouldn't. If your action interferes in any way with anyone else, you are not permitted to proceed.

I like to follow the idea that if I do anything that inconveniences another driver, I am doing it wrong. Now if you are driving at excessive speeds, or weaving through traffic, I may inconvenience you unintentionally (and I will not feel bad about it), but in general, my driving philosophy is to never interfere with another person’s driving. If I pull out and it requires you to slow down to allow me to do it, then I should not have pulled out in the first place.

Emergency Vehicles

I was going to write about something else, but sometimes when you see it happen, you just have to change gears.

Emergency vehicles: If you hear a siren, or see the flashing lights, or God forbid you are at an intersection and the ambulance is trying to go through it, you are to get out of the way and yield to it! I watched a driver cut the ambulance off as it began making its way into the intersection because the driver had a green arrow! Not only was the siren loud, but in this case the ambulance was much higher than all the surrounding cars (so all flashing lights were visible) and it was at the head of them all to cross the intersection. You would have to blind AND deaf to miss it. And I'm guessing if you are, then you can't get a license. I was in the left turn lane and we just got a green arrow. The ambulance had a red light, but as we should all know, we let any emergency vehicle through if they have flashing lights and sirens on. But not the driver I watched actually caused the ambulance to hit its brakes. We all know that life and death can rely on seconds. Is it possible that this stupid driver was the cause of someone losing their life? I have to wonder what goes through people's minds.

When driving straight with an emergency vehicle coming up behind you, you must pull over to allow it to pass. Once it has passed you, you may get back on the road. But please be courteous to other drivers. They also pulled over, so don't use the situation to gain distance on them. I've had a situation where we all pulled over and some driver (in a rush), pulled out nearly causing 3 accidents because he thought he would get past us all by not allowing us back on the road before he went on by. Hey, it sucks to be late to something, but if you are late, perhaps you need to plan ahead and leave earlier. If it takes 30 minutes to drive there, don't leave 30 minutes before you need to be there. Leave 40 minutes before and if something happens (like maybe an ambulance caused you to pull over), you will still arrive on time.

The basic rule of thumb with emergency vehicles: ALWAYS yield to them and give them clear passage to get to the victims who need their help. If it was you needing them, you could die because some driver did not follow the rules and delayed their arrival. Think about others for a change!

That White Line at a Traffic Light

What is that white line all about? Most of you probably think this topic is rather stupid as we ALL know what it’s for. Well, based on experience, I’m guessing that we all DON’T know what it’s for, or perhaps don’t CARE.

That white line is an invisible barrier that is supposed to let you know that you MUST stop at that line if the light is red. Your car is not to break the vertical wall that extends upward from the line itself. Just yesterday, I was about to make a right turn on red at an intersection. My white line was about 6 feet closer to the intersection than the lines in the straight/left turn bound lanes. With that additional 6 feet, I was able to clearly see any oncoming traffic, making my turn safe and easy. I drive a Jeep Wrangler, so I sit rather high, but a Ford F250 has a hood that is even higher than where I sit. Even though the truck cannot turn left or go straight until the light turns green, the driver still felt it was necessary to pull up WAY over the white line, the front of his truck even with the front of my Jeep, making it impossible for me to see the oncoming traffic. What does pulling over the white line even do? Do you gain time or distance? Why is it so hard for so many people to understand that the location of the line was chosen with some reason behind it. For example, the left most lane will often be further back than those in adjacent lanes. The reason is for those vehicles making left hand turns from the right of your location. When they make the turn, being back further makes the turn easier for them, and safer for you. If you cross that line, you put your vehicle in their path and yourself in danger. Obviously, we ALL know what the lines are for. But why do so many people ignore them?

Merging

Some basic thoughts might be the place to start. If you are going to merge into traffic, always consider how you will affect the traffic flow you are merging into. For example, if you are merging onto a major highway, it is YOUR job to match the speed of the flow prior to merging. If I am on the highway, it is NOT my job to slow down to let you merge in. It is YOUR job to get up to the speed of traffic in order to merge.

Use of turn signals is also a very good tool. If the lane of the off-ramp is also an on-ramp to get back on the road you just came off, then the turn signal let’s everyone know that you are planning to merge rather than being in that lane to get onto the other road. Depending on several factors, I may not know that you are getting off the other road, and I may think you are getting on to it. So the turn signal is your way to let me know what is happening.

What about merging when going from a certain number of lanes down to fewer lanes? There is no real magic to this one. TAKE TURNS! If the right lane is merging into the left lane, use your turn signal to let them know you have reached the point of moving over. It is best not to wait until the very last second to do it though. If I had to drive at 5 mph for the last mile because I got over early, I am going to be ticked off if you blew past me only to try to get ahead of me. Take the best opening to merge early rather than force yourself in because your options are gone. Yes, it may add a few minutes to your drive, but leaving early is always the best way to arrive on time. Plan ahead for possible delays! The rest of us are also driving slowly. You are not the only one this delay is affecting.

If the car in front of you was allowed to merge into the new lane, don’t be a butt and try to get in right behind them. Get in behind the vehicle that allowed them over. It’s all about courtesy. Most drivers will co-operate IF you provide some courtesy to them.

If the merge lane is very short, then you need to be looking ahead and thinking about how you will merge BEFORE you need to do it. Actually, whether or not it is short, thinking about what to do before executing it is always a good thing.

When you plan your merge, if the vehicle where you planned to merge in won’t allow you to move over, fall back and merge BEHIND it. Trying to stay ahead just ticks everyone off and your chances get lower of finding a sympathetic driver to help you. If I see the vehicle in front of me deny your merging effort, I am more likely to allow you in front of me. But if you drive faster to just move over in front of me, there is no sympathy for your predicament, and now it’s a game of chicken.

Finally, if you are in a lane that becomes a “turn only” lane, or “this lane ends” type situation and you don’t want to be there, immediately use your turn signal to let others know you need to move over. Then look for the earliest opening to merge. Don’t go faster to find an opening, falling behind a vehicle will show you are not trying to gain time, but are willing to submit to the other drivers. Your chances of merging without incident go up dramatically.

For future consideration

There are many other traffic situations that can be talked about. I’m going to call this piece “Part 1” and if you leave comments as to what other situations you would like to see discussed, I’d be happy to create a “Part 2”.