Miscellaneous desk
< August 26	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

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.

August 27

Route 66 in Missouri

I have a question for you. When I was a young boy, we used to travel down Route 66 in Missouri. If I remember correctly, there was a section of 66 that was three lanes. We used to call the center lane the "Suicide Lane" because it was used by traffic from both directions to pass another vehicle. Am I wrong with my recollections or was this a fact. If it is true, exactly where was this stretch of three lane Route 66? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.39.141 (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled U.S. Route 66 in Missouri. It doesn't mention that stretch specifically, however the use of Reversible lanes (center turn lanes, suicide lanes, etc.) is fairly ubiquitous along many highways; I would not be surprised if many sections of Route 66 in Missouri used such lanes; so on that alone it may be difficult to determine exactly where your memory comes from. Route 66 went 300 miles across the state; unless you have some other landmarks, it's going to be hard to nail it down. --Jayron32 02:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"fairly ubiquitous", is that the opposite of "nearly unique"? ;-). Richard Avery (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such sections of road were fairly common in Australia in the 1960s and 70s. HiLo48 (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be one on London's North Circular Road, somewhere near Southgate. I believe it's gone now. My friends and I called it the chicken lane. I used to love it. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knew it well. Just before the "M KHAN IS BENT" railway bridge. Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not answering the OP's question but there is at least one lane on the Aston Expressway in Birmingham that changes directions between morning and evening rush-hours! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty common these days, there's one on North Road in Cardiff as well. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This fellow says, "The three lane highway in Pacific was notorious for its automotive carnage and most cringed each time a car would make a pass," and posters to various forums (as here) have also mentioned the former existence of such a stretch on Route 66 near Pacific, Missouri. That, of course, may not have been the only such stretch along Route 66 in Missouri, but since it was near St. Louis and therefore rather heavily traveled, it may have stuck in more people's memory. (The Missouri highway with a suicide lane that I recall best was Missouri Route 79, which as I recall had one from roughly its beginning in St. Peters much of the way to, at least, Old Monroe. It was terrifying to pass on.) Deor (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the question isn't about the disciplined reversible lanes that are common today, as mentioned by several posters, but about the old-fashioned uncontrolled two-way passing lanes mentioned briefly in the section reversible lane#Passing lane. (I've fixed the redirect suicide lane so it goes directly to that section.) I've only ever been on one road like that myself and that was decades ago, but from what I've read, they used to be common enough that it would not be surprising to find one on a route such as the original poster asked about. --70.49.168.18 (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

</small> —Tamfang (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How people get a job and move house simultaneously

I'm somewhat confused about an aspect of life and I have been trying to find articles about this event, but haven't found anything. The event is getting a job in a distant location.

My confusion stems from my experience of the house-buying process. Buying a house takes a seemingly random amount of time, dependant on many factors completely out of the buyer's control. Jobs, however, start at a fixed time, agreed during the contract signing, or thereabouts.

What happens when someone's house is not ready at the ideal time for the job to start? The individual is effectively homeless. I don't have a lot of life experience, so I don't have any idea what the individual does at this point. Do any sources anywhere discuss this? 109.153.155.1 (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renting would seem the most likely solution. HiLo48 (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with HiLo. Other alternatives may include budget hotels and taking advantage of the hospitality of a friend or relative. --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, usually larger businesses or multinational corporations may actually buy houses for its moving executives to live in while they get their own situation sorted out - buy a house, move the family etc. I know this used to happen in the UK in the 70s, 80s and 90s but not so sure about whether it still happens. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, the relocating worker has to find some temporary accommodation until he or she can organise a permanent solution. As mentioned above, this could include renting somewhere, or moving into a budget hotel. In the UK there's a whole industry of "commercial Bed and Breakfast" establishments, where a householder lets out spare bedrooms and provides a breakfast, with none of the frills associated with holiday-related businesses. Sometimes the hiring company provides a relocation package which will help finance this sort of thing. Rojomoke (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a "commercial furnished let" sector, aimed at short(ish) term contract workers, people relocating, and companies who rotate staff through different postings. This occupies the space between hotel/B&B (a week or two) and a full unfurnished flat rental (six months or a year). Some come with just the basic furniture, but others with TV, bedlinens, pots, pans, plates, glasses, pictures, sometimes with a starter meal in the freezer and a container of laundry detergent on the washer. Bills (internet, phone, water, heat, light) are all paid by the owner, who includes them (sometimes at a high flat rate) in the let fee. Some are fully serviced (so they're like a hotel room), but most are either partly serviced (a cleaner comes once a week) or not at all. The minimum rental is probably a month (on monthly increments). As it's aimed at a corporate market, the standard of is pretty high (akin to a hotel room) and it occupies the price range between hotels and unfurnished rentals. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing is probably to ask the human resources people at the company you'll be working for. They should be able to suggest some options - and in some cases, you may find that they are willing to pay some of the costs. SteveBaker (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help. Renting didn't make sense (rent contract for six months...you get the house a month later...you're now paying five months' rent for nothing?) but a B&B seems logical. While I'm sure some businesses would be willing to help with this, that's not a world I've ever been part of. 109.153.155.1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some people sell their sole property and then rent for six months just to find the right next property to buy. Certainly I've considered it. If moving to a distant city or even another country to work, it would make even more sense - you may need a couple of months just to decide exactly which part of the new city and its suburbs you want to be buying property in (since you will likely live there for more than 5 years).

Most employers would expect that their graduate-level recruits would rent for a while before buying a property. Many don't provide a great deal of advice about doing so, and no assistance beyond whatever comes with the job deal (though sometimes they can be oddly helpful if one has accommodation problems - it varies). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In NYC I have found that the best thing to do when between locations is to get an illegal sublet. You can also get your first month's storage free at many storage facilities. Knowing that I would be working in Manhattan, I put my stuff in storage, ended my more expensive lease in the Bronx, Looked for an unlicensed Spanish broker (they advertise with business card they say "SE RENTA" at phone boothes and in bodegas. They may answer in Spanish but if you say "I want a room" they will get an English speaking agent. You can usually get a nice, cheap room, say $100/wk or $250/mo depending on the neighbourhood. This should be close to where you are going to work, and allow you to explore the are without paying rent at the old place. Once yo find an apartment you want to lease you have no legal lease to break and no difficulty getting out of storage, which hopefully you didn't pay for. There are a whole lot of books for large cities that give advice like this, how to live in NY at $10/a dy, etc. Not if you want to eat well, of course, but it's temporary. In the US I'd say don't take any room with more than a hospital bed and simple chair and spray down everything for bedbugs, but that's another question. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "renting a place on a six month lease and then only needing it for a month" problem, one answer would be subletting. Subletting is not always illegal as suggested by Medeis. Many college towns have this very issue when the students go away for the summer but still have a 12 month lease that started at the beginning of the school year in the autumn. That said, the original renter is often still responsible for the condition that the apartment is left in. So subletting is usually done to someone who the original renter already knows and trusts to take care of the place. Dismas|^(talk) 21:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I though maybe I should have explained that. In NYC, the holder of the lease of a rent-controlled building has to live on the premises, and you must have access to a kitchen and bathroom. In one case I shared an entire rent-controlled apartment with two others, each with our own room and access to the bath and kitchen. But the man renting it had a dozen such rent-controlled apartments (the purpose of rent control being to help poor renters it is legal to have only one such apartment) and he lived out of state. In another case A man had partitioned his apartment so that it was split by a hallway with a bathroom we could both access, but I had no access to the kitchen, which was in his section. μηδείς (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help! This information will come in useful in informing our final decision, even if we don't do these things. If anyone was interested, for reference, we live in England. 109.153.155.1 (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being temporarily homeless isn't so bad, either, depending on the neighbourhood and season. If you have a car and an income, you're half-set. Remember to stay clean. A bit more stressful sometimes, but much cheaper. Not so great for families, but can be a positive individual experience. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are motels, at least here in the US, that allow you to rent by the week, and have lower rates than daily rentals. They also often come with a kitchenette, so you can save money by preparing your own meals. Extended StayAmerica is one such motel. I imagine you have similar places there. StuRat (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was going to say that the OP does not need to sign a rental contract for six months minimum. There are plenty of places, not just hotels but serviced apartments as well, that you can rent by the week or by the month. --Viennese Waltz 08:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting married in the UK as a British national not resident in the UK

Hi there,

I was wondering if any of you clever guys could help me. I have just been reading up on the official UK government's guide on getting married in the UK. https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/what-you-need-to-do

It states step one is to give notice at your local register office. However, I am not sure how I would go about doing so when the time comes as I currently live in Germany with my partner. I am a British national, however my partner is German. I would like to get married to him in the UK, but I am not sure of the procedure.

My second question is, do I need witnesses? The reason I ask is that we wanted to secretly get married. So, in the best case just the two of us and a registrar? I know this is possible here in Europe but I am not sure if this is even a possiblity in the UK?

Thanks very much in advance for your replies! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.250.86.85 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is legal advice which we cannot give, per reference desk guidelines at the top of this page (which you should have read before posting). Thread closed. 183.222.252.219 (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not even if I clarify that this is a hypothetical question? I am not so much asking for advice but asking what the current uk situation is. Or asking for direction towards materials that I could read that would clarify the issue? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.250.86.85 (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do need two witnesses, but they can be just two people in the street who happen to be passing the registry office, or the registry office might be willing to provide witnesses. I think you need to have lived in the area of the registry office for seven days prior to the wedding, but you should seek detailed advice from the registry office where you intend to marry, and not rely on advice from people on this desk. Dbfirs 16:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In A Scandal in Bohemia, Sherlock Holmes (disguised with some splendid teeth in the Jeremy Brett portrayal) is called upon to act as witness to the marriage of the woman he is investigating. DuncanHill (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it doesn't really matter whether it's hypothetical or not, we can't give legal advice. We can give links to legal information. The link you gave is an official source, and it seems pretty comprehensive. You could also call a local register office and speak to them about the matter. You can also find a suitable forum to ask this question that does not have as strict rules about legal advice, e.g here are a few [1] [2] that I found with a quick google. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, is there even any such thing as a "secret" marriage? I should think marriages would be a matter of public record. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that secret as the register office will display a notice (normally on a noticeboard with public access) for 15 days before a marriage cermony. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think secret marriages have been possible in England since Lord Hardwicke's Act. DuncanHill (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering, if it's totally secret, then what's the point of it? No financial or social benefit. Might as well say, "Let's pretend we're married", and it's effectively the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly known as "Common Law Marriage", this was legally recognised and not uncommon in Scotland until 2006. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which would hardly qualify as a "secret" marriage, unless they managed to keep their cohabitation a secret also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) We sometimes hear about some celebrity getting married "in a secret ceremony". That is crap, of course, because there have to be witnesses. What they mean is "they got married in a ceremony to which we, the media, weren't invited and about which we, the media, were not even given any advance notice" = "they got married in an unpublicised private ceremony". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As with today's example, Brad and Angelina. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that man Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi with Senator John McCain?

I think this photo is fake, but the man in the photography with John McCain, looks very close to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Is this a fake photography? If so, who's that man? 2.181.108.76 (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I detect a not-so-skilled use of Photoshop in your source photo. Marco polo (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the picture is 'shopped. Here is BBC story from 2013 that describes the meeting between McCain and some Syrians. Note that the meeting is with Syrians at a time when Abu Bakr was doing his caliphate-jihad gig in Iraq. I am not particularly convinced that the guy photobombing McCain is Abu Bakr. A westerner unaccustomed to facial features of these ethnicies may have difficulty seeing differences. Occam's razor: it's just a guy who vaguely resembles a ten year old photograph of someone else, and the tin foil hat brigade is doing its usual thing with that. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing employers while employer is paying for school

The question about moving house above reminded me of a related question that I've had.

If a current employer is paying for your schooling and you have signed an agreement to stay there for some amount of time after you graduate or else you would have to pay for the schooling, how can you approach getting a new job with another employer? Do people outright state in their cover letter that there is a financial burden that they'd like the new employer to help with that cost? Is this usually only done for executives or at least someone in a managerial position? Dismas|^(talk) 21:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barring possible legal regulations, I should think that would depend on the policies of the company you're currently working for. One thing to keep in mind is that companies may well have made you sign a non-compete document, and if you screw them over they might sue you and the company you're intending to go to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-compete clauses are not always legal...and we're not allowed to offer legal advice - so let's not go there!

The practical problem is that companies offer to pay your educational fees in order to have a qualified employee for some number of years after you graduate. See Golden handcuffs. They probably get a tax break for doing that. Finding a new company who is prepared to cover what (to them) is just some random expense that you have (money you owe your previous employer) is unlikely to succeed. You might just as well be asking them to pay off your credit card for you. I don't think it's going to happen...but it's clearly not impossible. Some businesses will offer a Signing bonus that might cover some or all of that expense. SteveBaker (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a given non-compete clause is technically legal or not, signing one is a moral and ethical commitment to a company. I don't see why a competing company would want to hire someone who's so willing to cast ethics aside... unless the job-hopper is really, really good at what he does, and the second company desperately wants him. Now, I'm trying to imagine why someone who is really, really good at what they do, and hence very valuable to a competing company, would nevertheless be hitting up his current employer for college training. Something does not compute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OP looks for advice on how one might auction oneself while still at school and under contract. I at least have the sense not to go there! 84.209.89.214 (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, you just did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but he only went there in order not to go there. They cancel each other out. Any mathematician will confirm that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I don't see your first point is a useful area of discussion. When you say "moral and ethical commitment to a company", others would say the company has a moral and ethical responsibility not to ask their employees to sign contracts that they know, or should know are invalid (we can presume because the legislature of that jurisdiction considered them morally and ethically repugnant at one stage). Even in the case of e.g. a Maryland company and an employee moving to California, I'm sure plenty would suggest the Maryland company has a moral and ethical responsibility to try and get their employee to sign a contract if there was any implication it would have any bearing on the employee in jurisdictions where it's invalid (although there apparently remains some dispute how to settle the contradictory aspects of the different states laws).

In terms of the later point, I do agree that there is a risk that ignoring an invalid no compete clause, as well as paying for education rather than honouring the term of service promised could be viewed negatively by a prospective employer. (In the former case, I'm sure some would suggest this is even more reason a company has an ethical and moral responsibility not to ask someone to sign such a contract.)

Note that historically at least, there seems to be fair evidence that for some companies and jobs, some of the competition won't even try to poach due to probably illegal collusion, so looking around yourself may be useful [3] [4] High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation. Of course this may not be so much of an issue with someone who has just some further education.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the potential employee has reservations about making such a commitment, then he shouldn't sign it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. I had heard of it happening but wasn't sure how it worked. Now I see that it probably doesn't happen except under extreme circumstances. Dismas|^(talk) 02:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]