Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 September 16

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 16

Cars being allowed to drive through a pedestrian green light

In the European city where I live, there is this system in place at traffic intersections. Pedestrians waiting to cross the side street have a green man, meaning it's OK to cross, but drivers on the main street also have a green light, meaning it's OK to turn left or right into the side street. Drivers are supposed to stop at the intersection to allow pedestrians to cross. (I hope I'm explaining this clearly enough.) This system is not in place in the UK, and it seems a bit dangerous to me. Is it a commonly used system in Europe and North America? --Viennese Waltz 08:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

In the States, at least in those states where you can turn right on red, it may happen that pedestrians need to watch out for cars turning right (of course in theory it's the car drivers who should watch out for the pedestrians, but a sensible pedestrian doesn't bet heavily on that). I have never heard of anywhere where a pedestrian has a light saying it's OK to cross, across a road with a green light for cars going straight through. --Trovatore (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's not Viennese Waltz means, but that the cars will turn right or left at the intersection and then come to the pedestrian crossing. The pedestrian crossing runs in the same direction as the car was driving before the turn. If that's what he or she meant, then that's the system in Sweden. Sjö (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's what I mean, but Trovatore has also described it correctly. AFAIK tell there is no difference between your description and Trovatore's. --Viennese Waltz 11:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see now. No, that's not what I meant. I was referring to the situation where (for example) a pedestrian wants to cross from south to north, on the west side of the intersection. That means the light for eastbound cars is red. However, in most places in the States, an eastbound driver can turn right (south), even though the light is red, after stopping. Of course the driver is supposed to yield to pedestrians, but a pedestrian traveling north still needs to make sure the driver has actually seen him before crossing. --Trovatore (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

In most places in Europe where I have driven, exactly that happens; turning traffic gives way to pedestrians even if the cars have a green light but you never get a straight-through green light for cars and a pedestrian green light at the same time. The notable exceptions seems to be: the UK where there is usually a separate green phase for the pedestrians and no expectation that cars will give way to pedestrians, and Italy where many drivers seem to ignore pedestrians crossing the road anyway. At least it is not as bad as is often depicted in Hollywood movies where an American driver will almost run over a pedestrian, screeching to a halt inches from their legs with the horn blaring. Astronaut (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It's the same thing, isn't it? It is a straight-through green light for cars and a pedestrian green light at the same time. Yes, turning traffic gives way to pedestrians but it's still a straight-through green light for cars. --Viennese Waltz 11:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I suspect Astronaut is referring to the situation where traffic going straight with a green light has to stop either for pedestrians crossing on their side of the road or at the other side of the road who also have a green light. This also seems to be how Sjö has interpreted Trovatore's comment and I actually interpret it the same way but maybe your interpretation is correct. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not the same thing. How can you get this wrong when I clearly explained you need to give way to pedestrians when turning? If going straight, you don't need to give way to pedestrians because they are stopped by a red light - of course, that doesn't give you the right to run them over. Astronaut (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you replying to VW or to me? Your response is indented at me but it seems to be replying to VW since as far as I can tell, my intepretation of your initially comment 'but you never get a straight-through green light for cars and a pedestrian green light at the same time' was correct. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

See above where I explain more carefully what I meant. --Trovatore (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You get the same thing in NZ although not just for traffic turning in to a side street but also a main road. You can see the road code [1]. Nominally it applies to turning right and left (you drive on the left in NZ) but AFAIK, it's not particularly common for turning right given the way the signalling usually works, it's generally only for turning left. Note that a key point also is it's only for a green light not a green left arrow. You sometimes get signs which mention turning traffic gives way to pedestrians but increasingly (I think) they are using arrows to make it clearer. There will be two sets of lights, one with left arrows and one with normal circular lights (three sets if there is right arrows as well). If someone has pushed the pedestrian crossing, the red left arrow will stay on while the green light will come on, traffic turning right of going straight are can go but traffic turning left can't (well there's nothing wrong with going slightly to try and give room for other traffic to get past. The red left arrow will go off after a few seconds but the green left arrow will not come on. traffic turning left may now go but need to give way to pedestrians. Sometimes there may only be a green arrow or a red arrow but I don't think this is that common anymore. When there is only one set of lights, the pedestrian lights will go green before the traffic lights do. You get something similar if turning right where there are times you may turn right from a turning bay/lane giving way to traffic coming from the opposite direction and going straight through or turning left (green light but no green or red right arrow). Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

In the US, at least, in general (state laws may vary from each other), drivers must always yield to pedestrians, even when pedestrians are in the wrong, due to safety issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what you mean, I think. As far as I know there's no place that you can willfully run over a pedestrian. But there are circumstances, I think, where a pedestrian might be cited for failure to yield.

The biggest common misunderstanding in this area is what constitutes a "crosswalk". According to the California Vehicle Code, there's a crosswalk at every intersection where two roads come together at approximately right angles, except for the continuation of an "alley" (see here), whether or not there is paint marking it, unless it explicitly says you can't cross there. A lot of drivers don't get that and will get mad at you for crossing there; they're completely wrong. But still, you can't just jump out in front of them without giving them time to stop (see here, not to mention common sense). --Trovatore (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Same deal in much of Canada. Vehicles may proceed only when it is safe to do so, even on green. In theory that means that if a pedestrian is crossing in the path, the vehicle is not permitted to go. For both left- and right-hand turns, the path must be clear for the turn to be legal, regardless of the color of the light. For a left turn, they may not do so unless the light is green and there are no pedestrians. Some intersections have left-turn specific lights. Right can happen at any color any time unless specifically prohibited, or in Quebec where it is not allowed on red at all. So even if there is a pedestrian walk signal, if there are no people walking, vehicles may proceed. Mingmingla (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Right turns on red lights have been allowed in Quebec for about 10 years now, with the exception of the Montreal island. Effovex (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm but it seems to me the question is not so much proceeding when safe which as others have suggested is probably very common throughout the world in varying degrees, but an expectation that pedestrians are allowed to cross. This could be indicated by green pedestrian lights, or simply pedestrians being allowed to cross as intersections under some circumstances. In other words, the fact that if pedestrians shouldn't cross (whether legally or where there's no clear cut allowance or disallowance in law but it's generally expected that they should not do so) but do cross you may get in trouble if you run over them because you're spposed to only do so when it's safe seems seperate. Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The relevant WP page is Right turn on red.(already noted by Trovatore) This is also allowed in Australia where a "Left turn on red after stopping" sign [2] is displayed. (not sure if every state allows it, New South Wales & South Australia do). See Australian Road Rules - REG 56 Specifically (1A). ₯ 220 of ^Borg 14:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I suspect turn on red is not actually relevant to the Europe part of the OP's question - from what I've seen, it is usually controlled by a separate arrow. While the vehicle turn arrow is green, drivers in most of Europe are expected to give way to pedestrians crossing the side street, but in the UK the pedestrian crossing on the side street will show red. Astronaut (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm well if that's the case in Europe, it seems to be somewhat different from NZ even if the basic concept is the same. As I indicated a green arrow is never shown simply a green light when pedestrians are supposed to be crossing. Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Profits Bill W., founder of AA

How much money did Bill W. make from AA related literature or from AA directly?09:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)09:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.45.86 (talk)

A good place to begin looking for copyright issues: here. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Shark size

My son constantly asks me this question and I am not smart enough to give him a decent answer. I am hoping that somebody here can give me some answers so it doesn't seem that daddy doesn't know. Any help would be much appreciated.

Why are sharks so big? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.236.14 (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Not all sharks are big. Consider the Dwarf lanternshark, for example. The size of any species is due to its evolutionary path. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's all about filling a particular ecological niche. In the case of the sharks people usually bring to mind (Hammerhead shark, Great white shark, etc.) that niche includes being an apex predator. Being large confers a variety of benefits, such as wider range of available prey, lack of predators, and increased ability to regulate temperature. However, the very largest shark (and largest fish of any kind) is the whale shark, and it requires a massive size for much the same reason baleen whales require their massive size: to house a mouth large enough to intake large quantities of krill. Matt Deres (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The biggest White Shark ever was caught in Cuban coasts in the 40's (O_o) More than 20 ft and more than 3000 kg :O Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 14:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for the replies. My son is very young, I will take this in and feed him a version of it that will make more sense to his young mind. It's much appreciated.217.158.236.14 (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Depending on his age, it opens all kinds of potential doors of discussion about the balance of nature, why there are lots more prey than predators, why predators have binocular vision, and all manner of other stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If he's too young to understand anything else, you could radically simplify it to "sharks are big because they have lots of healthy food to eat, which makes them grow big and strong". And this is basically correct, in that a lack of food often produces dwarf species. As a side benefit, this might help you get him to eat healthy food. StuRat (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

So when the kid asks, "Do they like broccoli?" The father would have to lie a bit and say, "They love broccoli." Hey, that's how parents got their kids to eat spinach: "Look what it does for Popeye!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I really love broccoli and spinach :D Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 17:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a better way to get little boys to eat broccoli, you tell them the broccoli stalks are trees and that if they can eat them, then they must be a real live dinosaur. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean you're the size of a small shark? :D Lemon martini (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No Lemon martini, I am not... :D Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 12:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"They eat other fish and have to be big enough to catch them." (Personally, I think it's good if "Daddy doesn't know" is the answer to some questions - you're never going to be some omniscient god to him - and it should lead into a "So how can we find out?" kind of discussion, "Let's go to the library and find some books about sharks"...which will hopefully lead into shared activities. In this day and age, knowing where to find answers is more important than knowing answers. Answers are generally found in books and web-sites and that makes reading important and fun. My son loved that he and I were learning something together when that happened...we'd wind up bouncing follow-up questions around for days afterwards. SteveBaker (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely love that my three-year-old's response to "I don't know" is "let's look it up!" :-) He learned it when he started asking about the sounds different animals make, and we would go to online to find clips of things like koalas or prarie dogs vocalizing. Katie R (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What's the closest outlet seaport to Kazakhstan for the vehicles/goods coming from North America?

Kazakhstan is a landlocked country, and only has the port of Aktau.

I made a search on Joc Sailings, and I not found the outlet seaport on that side. The website says "To Be Announced" (TBA) instead of the outlet port name.

According to PlatesMania.com, there are lots of Infiniti FX35s and FX45s in the site. Many people uploaded their taken photos to that site.

Here is a video of a Infiniti FX35 exhaust sound:

[3]

In that video, a Infiniti FX35 from Kazakhstan, license plate Z 273 WHM, is seen. I thought that it's imported from the USA, but it's a Japanese-manufactured car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiel457 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

In the case of goods shipped from North America to Kazakhstan, they go by sea to one of the Russian harbors (St. Petersburg, Murmansk, Vladivostok), and then are shipped overland through Russia (normally via the Trans-Siberian Railroad). 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Is "Brainyquote.com" a reliable source?

I have seen this website cited for quotations here on Wikipedia. Here is an example of the information offered on it Henry Rollins Quotes. However, since the quotes themselves are not attributed to any sources how can "Brainyquotes" be a reliable source itself for use on Wikipedia? Or has this question already been decided? Thanks. Herzlicheboy (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikiquote's "reliable sources" guideline specifically calls out brainyquote as an unreliable source, for just the reason you describe. Our own reliable sources noticeboard discussed the site here and didn't think highly of its reliability either. That noticeboard, not this one, is the appropriate venue for further discussions of the site. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to find quotes there, then simply verify them to a source and quote that source. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Web Cite

Now that WebCite has stopped functioning, are there any alternatives I can use to archive references?--Ykraps (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

winter 2012-2013 in the US

Hello!

How can I get info on the last winter (2011-2012) in the US?

I would like to have a general understanding of how the last winter in the US was, including information like:

- which state was the coldest;

- were there snow storms?

- were there any alerts given out by the government in any State?

- were there days during the week with no school due to weather condition?

- were roads closed?

- how many cancelled/delayed flights across the US?

- In general, were there any severe situation due to weather condition during the winter?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.228.16.219 (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

There are articles in Wikipedia about exceptional winters in specific places, but that's kind of scatter-gun. Where have you looked on Google? Have you tried the National Weather Service, or maybe even The Weather Channel? We pay a lot of bucks to the weather bureau, so they had best have something useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I will also mention that the US is very large, and the states that are affected by inclement winter weather are many, so some of these questions will yield a lot of data. Be prepared. Mingmingla (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You can find the weather for a certain location and time here [4], and also search the records in various ways. I was living in the US in that time period, and I can easily answer these questions based on experience:

- were there snow storms? -- YES; - were there any alerts given out by the government in any State? -- YES;- were there days during the week with no school due to weather condition? -- YES; - were roads closed? --YES

School and road closings will not be recorded in the NOAA link above, only the actual weather. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Facial expression

I know some people who pretend to hate me. However, when they see me, they often smile and their eyes become very small, indicating something like "I don't trust you". Is there a specific term for this or how would you call this? --89.14.121.0 (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you mean "their eyes become small"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Does "squinting" not work? --Jayron32 21:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my odd expression, I'm not a native speaker.--89.14.121.0 (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• You may want to see a doctor. We are not allowed to give medical advice. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking for any medical advice at all. I just want to know why this is a common facial expression and if there are better words to describe this phenomenon.--89.14.121.0 (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is good-natured teasing. Am I right about that? If so, it is probably a common facial expression, but I don't know that it has a name. I am trying to think of better words to describe it, but so far I cannot think of any. Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No, not teasing. I am not sure I understand the OP's intent, but if he seriously thinks people are against him he should consult with a medical professional. If this is about some prank or joke it has no business here. We don't have references relevant to this person or his acquaintances. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This was in no way a request for medical advice until you come out of left field to challenge the poster's mental health because he thinks some people don't like him... By my reading, he's asking if there is a name for the fake smile with narrowed eyes that geneally means "I don't like you, but I'm going to pretend for social propriety" MChesterMC (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"He looked at me with narrowed eyes", or "Sam narrowed his eyes at Alice." I couldn't find any relevant Wikipedia pages, but Google and Google images support the notion that "narrowed eyes" is a term for a facial expression that conveys distrust or suspicion. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page Smile#Real and fake smiles may help here as it makes a distinction between smiles that only use the mouth and those that also involve the muscles around the eyes. --220 of ^Borg 13:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that in my opinion that is not really applicable here. The person asking the question (89.14.121.0) is "not a native speaker" of English. The inquiry is for a name for a facial expression. (Another expression of the inquiry is when the person says "I just want to know why this is a common facial expression and if there are better words to describe this phenomenon.") When the person says "I know some people who pretend to hate me", I am finding importance in the word "pretend". Therefore I find this to be a mock facial expression. I am coining the phrase "mock facial expression", but I would hazard a guess that any good answer to the inquiry would have to involve pretending to provide one facial expression while at the same time providing cues that that expression is not meant to be taken seriously.

It is a good question in my opinion because it involves the extreme complexity (WP:OR) of nonverbal communication, as well as possible cultural divides between commonly used nonverbal cues. I could be getting this all wrong. If I am misunderstanding, I hope 89.14.121.0 will provide further input. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I meant. Currently I'm very interested in psychology and communication. And yes, pretend is a important word in this context.--2.246.24.125 (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If you do a Google-images search on "fake versus real smile" you'll find lots of pairs of photographs of the same person smiling for real and fake-smiling. (My Asperger's syndrome makes it almost impossible for me to tell the difference - but I'm told that normal folk can tell fairly easily.) SteveBaker (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Modern scripts

Besides the D'Nealian manuscript, what types of modern manuscripts are there? And how many people actively practice these types of scripts in everyday writing? What type of script do Catholic monks and nuns write in nowadays? 164.107.103.68 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Does Western calligraphy help? --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Monks do not typically copy manuscripts in a scriptorium these days...but you can learn to write in Gothic script or any other medieval handwriting, if you really wanted to. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The ancient art of the Sofer is still alive and well. --Dweller (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I presume you're not interested in Chinese calligraphy or Japanese calligraphy? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)