Coming to US for the first time!


Recommended Posts

The left lane is the fast lane, and also the passing lane. If you're unsure where you're going or just want to go at a slower pace, stick to the right lane or, when possible, the center lane (as people can pass you on both sides).

I don't live in New York (Philadelphia man myself), so I can't help with hotels and restaurants. However, try to catch a baseball game when you're here - the season's winding down, and the Mets are in a playoff race.

Don't forget this is also the last season for the old Yankee's stadium. :)

We're going to be renting a car and driving from Buffalo to Canada, so I wanted some heads up on the traffic rules there.

If you drive to Canada from Buffalo that that means you will enter the Province of Ontario. Ontario's driving laws are basically the same as New York State (Buffalo). The biggest exception is the Province of Quebec (i.e. Montreal) where you cannot make a right turn on a red light. Montreal is not particularly pedestrian friendly as the drivers tend to resent you crossing the road at random locations (technically it's illegal to j-walk but I've never known anybody to get a ticket here in Toronto).

Toronto has a huge South Asian community. There's Gerrard Street East (close to downtown). There's the East York Town Centre (mid-town) and there's the entire city of Brampton (outside of Toronto). Plus, there's probably more pockets that I don't know about either.

For total gourmet Indian food check out Amaya (mid-town). We are totally addicted here but it is hard to get a reservation to the proper restaurant so we often go to their other Amaya Express (take-out) location.

In most places, you can also do a left turn on red BUT ONLY onto a one-way street...and of course if no signs are posted.

I wouldn't test that around here but then again one-way streets are fairly rare here and I wouldn't want to test my local police officer's knowledge of that law. One-way streets may be more common in other jurisdictions but I personally hate them.

Be careful with lane changing. Some officers consider it wreckless driving and it really ****es some people off. You don't want to be a victim of road rage. Never go 5 over the speed limit and try not to change lanes more than once every couple minutes unless your trip calls for it.

Canadians are more crazy when it comes to lane changes. We don't have any of those road pucky things between the lanes (because the snow plows would just eat them). We also have highways that are 16 or more lanes wide and that practically demands you weave through slower moving traffic. I may change lanes several times every few minutes but at least I signal and I don't tailgate behind slower traffic.

In Ontario, if the highway speed is posted at 100km/h then you can (and probably should) do about 110km/h. Speeds up to 120km/h should be considered safe and the risks really only start to mount when you try to go over 125km/h.

I wouldn't test that around here but then again one-way streets are fairly rare here and I wouldn't want to test my local police officer's knowledge of that law. One-way streets may be more common in other jurisdictions but I personally hate them.

Very, very true. Most people have never even heard of that...like a lot of cops. I've been pulled over a few times for it and argue the law. After cop came back from calling the supervisor, they'd say "you learn something everyday". But anyways driving is really much the same in both places. Don't run red lights, speed, stay in the right lane (the slow lane), give plenty of signal for turning, pedestrians have the right-a-way (watch for at lights if the light turns green for you...normally the cross walk does also across the lane your turning onto). And most importantly, don't aruge with the cops.

Another very important one is pedestrians have right of way always.

I swear, i could shoot the guy who put THIS into the manual.... Sorry bout getting off topic, but at the same time, its good to know for anyone traveling in the US, that people around here, especially in the big cities, take this phrase to mean, "I can run across a 4 lane highway without looking and people just have to stop for me." They're (often) DEAD wrong.

It's this kind of thing that has gotten a lot of pedestrians killed. Pedestrians DON'T have the right of way if they're jaywalking, that is, crossing the road improperly (not at a crosswalk, stop light, RUNNING (yes, thats right, ur not sposed to run, etc) or performing any other act of irresponsibly. Watch out for jaywalkers, cuz they can make your life a living hell as far as that is concerned. I live in Providence, RI, and even in that small city (250k), people are just crossing the road whenever they damn well please, and its very frustrating and dangerous for them and the drivers.

Sorry for the rant, but like i said, if you're going to be driving in the US, u need to know that this type of behavior runs rampant throughout.

Don't forget this is also the last season for the old Yankee's stadium. :)

Yankee.

And you won't be able to get tickets unless you're paying at least $100 markup.

I swear, i could shoot the guy who put THIS into the manual.... Sorry bout getting off topic, but at the same time, its good to know for anyone traveling in the US, that people around here, especially in the big cities, take this phrase to mean, "I can run across a 4 lane highway without looking and people just have to stop for me." They're (often) DEAD wrong.

It's this kind of thing that has gotten a lot of pedestrians killed. Pedestrians DON'T have the right of way if they're jaywalking, that is, crossing the road improperly (not at a crosswalk, stop light, RUNNING (yes, thats right, ur not sposed to run, etc) or performing any other act of irresponsibly. Watch out for jaywalkers, cuz they can make your life a living hell as far as that is concerned. I live in Providence, RI, and even in that small city (250k), people are just crossing the road whenever they damn well please, and its very frustrating and dangerous for them and the drivers.

Sorry for the rant, but like i said, if you're going to be driving in the US, u need to know that this type of behavior runs rampant throughout.

Yes, its jaywalking and against the law. But if you hit a pedestrian with your car, its your fault. You don't have to stop unless the person is at a crosswalk, but you can't hit them no matter where they are.

But definitely visit the Canadian side. No offense to the US, but I find the stuff on this side of the border WORLDS better. That, and the falls themselves are awesome.

i was just on the US side a few weeks ago and i loved it. it was a lot more fun for me. there's so much more nature to explore on that site. and the best part is that we didnt have to deal w/ the border crossing :p

The traffic rules have been covered. Another very important one is pedestrians have right of way always.

Have fun!

that is incorrect

pedestrians only have the right of way at cross walks and intersections. everywhere else vehicles have the right of way

Yes, its jaywalking and against the law. But if you hit a pedestrian with your car, its your fault. You don't have to stop unless the person is at a crosswalk, but you can't hit them no matter where they are.

in america f you try to stop or swerve you won't get charged for hitting them with your car if they are crossing illegally

@sibot: just don't expect too much. america isn't THAT spectacular. we have tons of beautiful spots to see and really fun attractions but they are spread out across the entire country. it's not all next to each other like in england or japan. find out what states you will be driving through and look up the state online. everystate has its own, official webpage were they will tell you about the attractions and specialties of the state

Yes, its jaywalking and against the law. But if you hit a pedestrian with your car, its your fault. You don't have to stop unless the person is at a crosswalk, but you can't hit them no matter where they are.

See, i dunno how anyone can just make a blanket statement like that. "if you hit someone its your fault".... i'm not picking on you specifically, but what if someone deliberately runs into your path so they can get hit (like someone trying to kill themself)? i mean, how can the law interpret such an incident as being the driver's fault, when the pedestrian is clearly at fault? thats the most messed up thing about the whole pedestrian thing... if they're breaking the law and get hit, it should be their fault.... in fact, the driver should be allowed to sue THEM for damages. I hope i dont sound bitter, because this has honestly never happened to me, but i've had close calls with a lot of PedestrIDIOTS in my time. :p It's not too fair that us law abiding drivers have to take the heat for irresponsible, inattentive, law-breaking fools walking around as if they own the world and everyone must bend to their will. I tell u what, if i ever hit a jaywalker (by accident, i certainly wouldn't do it on purpose), i will take his/her ass to the cleaners and milk em of every last cent. It just aint right. :p

See, i dunno how anyone can just make a blanket statement like that. "if you hit someone its your fault".... i'm not picking on you specifically, but what if someone deliberately runs into your path so they can get hit (like someone trying to kill themself)? i mean, how can the law interpret such an incident as being the driver's fault, when the pedestrian is clearly at fault? thats the most messed up thing about the whole pedestrian thing... if they're breaking the law and get hit, it should be their fault.... in fact, the driver should be allowed to sue THEM for damages. I hope i dont sound bitter, because this has honestly never happened to me, but i've had close calls with a lot of PedestrIDIOTS in my time. :p It's not too fair that us law abiding drivers have to take the heat for irresponsible, inattentive, law-breaking fools walking around as if they own the world and everyone must bend to their will. I tell u what, if i ever hit a jaywalker (by accident, i certainly wouldn't do it on purpose), i will take his/her ass to the cleaners and milk em of every last cent. It just aint right. :p

I think in that case the law would probably side with the driver.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!