Nice Truck! or the Where's Waldo of WTFs
-
Snapped this pic with my phone on my way back from lunch today. Can you spot all the WTFs?
-
#1 WTF: Using cellphone while driving
#2 WTF: WTF is that hanging off your rear view mirror?
-
@Kermos said:
#1 WTF: Using cellphone while driving
I was actually at a full stop when I took the pic. That's my one defense of the many WTFs in the pic.@Kermos said:#2 WTF: WTF is that hanging off your rear view mirror?
My lanyard that has my badge and a keychain-thing to hold my parking pass.
-
1) missing a headlight
2) bumper attached with duct tape
3) there seems to be duct tape across the windshield?
4) you claim to be stopped at an intersection, but the markings on the road and the other car in front of you seem to indicate otherwise
5) your camera says 1.3 MP but the picture has less than 300k pixels in it
-
@savar said:
4) you claim to be stopped at an intersection, but the markings on the road and the other car in front of you seem to indicate otherwise
I was near the end of the line in the left/straight lane. Do you see any motion blur, which would be a dead giveaway? What are the markings on the road and the other car telling you that they aren't telling me?@savar said:
5) your camera says 1.3 MP but the picture has less than 300k pixels in it
photobucket shrunk it. the original is 1.3 MPx. It doesn't usually bother me.
-
It's hard to see, but I think there is a headlight in there! It seems to be secured with tape, much like the bumper!
There is something on the hood that I cannot make out. It looks like it is attached to the hood and extends down to the bumper.
There are two vertical lines on the license plate - I think the plate is, uhm, unconventially attached to the bumper.
Though I think I see a headlight, I cannot make out a right turn signal.
The bumper itself is asymmetrical.
The big one - I think as again the picture is unclear - the right tire looks fucking twice the size of the left! I think he put a damn monster truck tire on! This leads me to consider - is the damage intentional? Did he cut out the corner of his truck to put on a huge fucking tire?
I so wish the picture was more clear. I don't blame the OP though. I should be happy there is a picture at all.
-
@DogmaBites said:
There are two vertical lines on the license plate - I think the plate is, uhm, unconventially attached to the bumper.
You can't see it too well, but there are bungee cords running from the hood to the bottom of the bumper.
-
I have seen much worse. Japanese pickup trucks can survive almost anything but time. One of the most common problems is the frame rusting.
Got to love the fixes people can come up with to keep the trucks drivable.
-
You're all driving on the wrong side of the road.
-
@belgariontheking said:
I was near the end of the line in the left/straight lane. Do you see any motion blur, which would be a dead giveaway? What are the markings on the road and the other car telling you that they aren't telling me?
I see an intersection with lights in your mirror - roughly 3 cars behind you. Why would you be at a full stop immediately after an intersection?
- Al
Edit: Nevermind. I didn't really pay attention to your reply. I should have read it first.
-
@belgariontheking said:
@Kermos said:
#1 WTF: Using cellphone while driving
I was actually at a full stop when I took the pic. That's my one defense of the many WTFs in the pic.@Kermos said:#2 WTF: WTF is that hanging off your rear view mirror?
My lanyard that has my badge and a keychain-thing to hold my parking pass.
I was just messing with ya.
The reason I actually didn't mention the truck, which I know is what you meant, is because it's in pretty decent shape compared to some of the stuff I occasionally see on the road here in Florida! =)
-
The thing over the stairs (well, I think those are stairs) on top of the rightmost truck seems... weird. I know it's probably some road sign or something but it looks like it's being carried by the truck. And why does he have his lights on in broad daylight?
-
[quote user="Renan "C#" Sousa"]And why does he have his lights on in broad daylight?[/quote]
Why wouldn't he?
Many people leave their lights on for safety and many companies mandate this as well.
-
[quote user="Renan "C#" Sousa"]The thing over the stairs (well, I think those are stairs) on top of the rightmost truck seems[/quote]
Also, it is called a ladder.
-
@merreborn said:
You're all driving on the wrong side of the road.
The (almost) irony here is that in the mirror it appears he is driving on the
wrongleft side of the road.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@merreborn said:
You're all driving on the wrong side of the road.
The (almost) irony here is that in the mirror it appears he is driving on the
wrongleft side of the road.So we just have to copy it to yet another server to get the mirror effect reverted?
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
[quote user="Renan "C#" Sousa"]And why does he have his lights on in broad daylight?
Many people leave their lights on for safety and many companies mandate this as well.
[/quote]Many cars have 'day-running lights', which basically means they're hard-wired on (you can choose between 'parking lights' and regular lights, but you can't choose 'no lights'). Most of these cars are owned by rental companies, who prefer to get their cars back in the same number of pieces as they let them out in (normally 1, but...) Also, if you buy a car from a hyper-safety conscious company, like, say, Volvo, you're getting day-running lights unless you specifically request to not get them.
-
@tgape said:
Many cars have 'day-running lights'
Yes, we all know this. It has nothing to do with rental agencies, it is a pretty standard feature on most new cars.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@tgape said:
Many cars have 'day-running lights'
Yes, we all know this. It has nothing to do with rental agencies, it is a pretty standard feature on most new cars.
My '86 Fiero doesn't have daytime running lights. In fact, it doesn't even have electric lights, you have to light an oil lamp by hand. I suppose I could keep it lit during the day, but oil is expensive.
-
What's the big deal? The owner probably had improvise something to keep it driveable until the insurance claim got settled; my mother's shitheap of a Mk4 Escort spent several weeks looking much the same after some moron reversed a bus into it.
-
[quote user="Renan "C#" Sousa"]
And why does he have his lights on in broad daylight?
[/quote]They look like hazard-warning lights to me, the kind people seem to think allow them to park anywhere.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
My '86 Fiero doesn't have daytime running lights. In fact, it doesn't even have electric lights, you have to light an oil lamp by hand. I suppose I could keep it lit during the day, but oil is expensive.
You really should get that fixed you know. My lights work perfectly fine on my '86 Fiero, headlight motors included. You're right, oil's pretty damn expensive these days...
-
-
Talking about cellphone photos while driving:
http://neighbour.hood.id.au/wtf/adblue.jpg
WTF is "AD BLUE"?
-
-
@morbiuswilters said:
My '86 Fiero doesn't have daytime running lights. In fact, it doesn't even have electric lights, you have to light an oil lamp by hand. I suppose I could keep it lit during the day, but oil is expensive.
I assume by "'86" you mean 1886?
-
TRWTF is that I may know this road. Only if it is between Cincinnati and Waverly, OH, though.
(Another WTF is that the highways in OH all look the same. Wide, straight and boring.)
-
The truck has South Dakota license plates....
-
And even though the plates are blurry, the text on the cellphone is reversed.
The pic is mirrored.
-
Goddamn I hate that this site disabled me from editting posts...
TRWTF is that the van is driving with his parking lights on.
-
@savar said:
5) your camera says 1.3 MP but the picture has less than 300k pixels in it
I think this is normal. CCD pixels have only 1 color, so you need 3 CCD pixels for one image pixel. Usually one of the colors has 2 CCD pixels (yellow I recall) because it captures less light than the others (or something like that). That makes 4 CCD pixels for 1 image pixel and 1.3M ccd-pixels/4 is about 300k image-pixels. (Give or take a few for the 1024/1000 factor as well).
-
@derula said:
TRWTF is that I may know this road. Only if it is between Cincinnati and Waverly, OH, though.
I'm going to guess you mean US-32, which this is not. I daresay there are many intersections in many cities that look just like this.
-
@syntaxeater said:
Goddamn I hate that this site disabled me from editting posts...
TRWTF is that the van is driving with his parking lights on.
Seriously, crackhead, WTF is up? We've already been over the daytime running lights thing (read above). Where the hell are these people coming from that have never encountered the concept of having your lights on during the day? I used to keep my full lights on all the time and I'm starting to be glad I did. Apparently it causes people to take note of you in slack-jawed amazement over the concept of lights on during the day.
-
@syntaxeater said:
The truck has South Dakota license plates....
Or not. It's Ohio plates, since the OP lives in Ohio. Really, go look up what Ohio plates look like. Ahh, see?
-
@syntaxeater said:
TRWTF is that the van is driving with his parking lights on.
There are some countries that require you to drive with your lights always on. Many car models sold in such countries don't have lights on/off anymore - the lights turn on automatically when you turn the car on.
-
@ender said:
@syntaxeater said:
TRWTF is that the van is driving with his parking lights on.
There are some countries that require you to drive withyour lights always on. Many car models sold in such countries don't have lights on/off anymore - the lights turn on automatically when you turn the car on.In New York state you are required to use headlights whenever your windshield wipers are engaged.
-
@DeLos said:
In New York state you are required to use headlights whenever your windshield wipers are engaged.
Which is a law built entirely around mandating common sense. The fact that new yorkers needed this law is a testament to the average intelligence there.
-
@DeLos said:
In New York state you are required to use headlights whenever your windshield wipers are engaged.
In Poland you are required to used windshield wipers whenever your headlights are on.
-
@bstorer said:
In Poland you are required to used windshield wipers whenever your headlights are on.
I hear that in Poland it rains turnips.
-
-
About 10 years ago when I lived in Framingham, MA I saw this guy on the side of the road near a car dealership. He was about 60 and he was holding a sign. One side said "Boycott daytime running lights" and the other said "Daytime running lights are dangerous".
I have no idea what caused him to conclude that DRLs were dangerous. I haven't come up with a scenario where having your lights on would be more dangerous than off (outside of covert operations).
-
@DogmaBites said:
About 10 years ago when I lived in Framingham, MA I saw this guy on the side of the road near a car dealership. He was about 60 and he was holding a sign. One side said "Boycott daytime running lights" and the other said "Daytime running lights are dangerous".
I have no idea what caused him to conclude that DRLs were dangerous. I haven't come up with a scenario where having your lights on would be more dangerous than off (outside of covert operations).
I agree with him. They are fucking stupid and dangerous.
You end up with a ton of people who think it is ok to just use DRLs in fog, rain or other low visibility weather. Thing is, they don't do anything to illuminate the back of your car like having your head lights on would do.
I see it all the time around here. It would be much better if headlights were just wired to always be on, there is really no reason for them not to be.
-
@DogmaBites said:
Everybody knows that daytime running lights are just another machination of the Illuminati to control the unenlightened. I saw it in a documentary on YouTube.About 10 years ago when I lived in Framingham, MA I saw this guy on the side of the road near a car dealership. He was about 60 and he was holding a sign. One side said "Boycott daytime running lights" and the other said "Daytime running lights are dangerous".
I have no idea what caused him to conclude that DRLs were dangerous. I haven't come up with a scenario where having your lights on would be more dangerous than off (outside of covert operations).
-
@BertBert said:
@savar said:
5) your camera says 1.3 MP but the picture has less than 300k pixels in it
I think this is normal. CCD pixels have only 1 color, so you need 3 CCD pixels for one image pixel. Usually one of the colors has 2 CCD pixels (yellow I recall) because it captures less light than the others (or something like that). That makes 4 CCD pixels for 1 image pixel and 1.3M ccd-pixels/4 is about 300k image-pixels. (Give or take a few for the 1024/1000 factor as well).
Close, but not correct. Every sensor in current use uses what's called a Bayer filter: a pattern of two green pixels, one red pixel, and one blue pixel. The camera interpolates the data to turn each single-color pixel into a full-color pixel, so a sensor with 1.3 million single-color pixels will produce a 1.3 megapixel image. Since the human eye is more sensitive to green than to red or blue, and is more sensitive to changes in brightness than to changes in color, this is about as sharp as a 0.6 megapixel greyscale image.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@DeLos said:
In New York state you are required to use headlights whenever your windshield wipers are engaged.
Which is a law built entirely around mandating common sense. The fact that new yorkers needed this law is a testament to the average intelligence there.
No, it's a testament to the average intelligence of the politicians here. We normal New Yorkers think the politicians who support laws like this one (and the "no cell phone use while driving unless using a hands-free device" law, which is a $100 fine if caught but rarely enforced) are idiots.
-
@KenW said:
No, it's a testament to the average intelligence of the politicians here. We normal New Yorkers think the politicians who support laws like this one (and the "no cell phone use while driving unless using a hands-free device" law, which is a $100 fine if caught but rarely enforced) are idiots.
So you're the one in favor of drivers having their lights off when it is raining and talking on cellphones and the politicians are the idiots?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
So you're the one in favor of drivers having their lights off when it is raining and talking on cellphones and the politicians are the idiots?
I think it is sad we need any of these laws:
- No talking on cell phones while driving
- Must wear seatbelts
- Must use headlights in low visibility
- Don't drink and drive
But of all of them, the only I think is stupid is the seatbelt law.
Reason? Because the other laws protect people from stupid people. The seatbelt law only protects a stupid person from themself.
However, I do think anyone who doesn't follow those laws, or would do those things if they were legal are incredibly stupid anyway.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Reason? Because the other laws protect people from stupid people. The seatbelt law only protects a stupid person from themself.
Agreed. I'm in favor of allowing anything that lets stupid people kill themselves faster. I think the argument might be that adults who don't wear seatbelts will not get in the habit of buckling in their kids either, so by forcing the adults to always buckle up in makes them more aware of the safety of their children. In all honesty, though, parents who don't care enough to buckle in their kids on their own probably aren't going to do it just because it is the law.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
In all honesty, though, parents who don't care enough to buckle in their kids on their own probably aren't going to do it just because it is the law.
And parents who are too stupid to buckle themselves and/or their kids in aren't exactly spreading golden genes either. We could use some gene pool thinning IMO.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
The seatbelt law only protects a stupid person from themself.
The stupid thing is (at least in Texas) that it's legal for a passenger sitting in the backseat to not wear a seatbelt, which is one of the only instances in which they can be a danger to someone besides themselves: in the event of an accident they can potentially fly forward and strike the head of the person in front of them.
