When you come to a "four-way" stop, what is the rule?

We use traffic lights where I live.

In california, US, First come first serve, otherwise give the right of way to the person on your right. Unmarked four-ways are treated as four way stops. I had a driving tester who actually knew where to find such an intersection in town. My first time I failed miserably for intersection approach and steering wheel handling. next time I passed with a 97%. From what I heard later, he did that with most everyone.
I haven't really driven in a decade now.

I don't drive very often, but I'm pretty sure that the beat up old Pinto goes first, and the brand new Lexus has to wait.

You come to a complete stop. The first person that was there, turns first; then the second and so on... (driving in the US)

In Hong Kong, there are no 4 way stops (thank god). It would be total chaos here. Instead, there are tons of round-abouts (which can also be challenging)...

I've noticed different towns all have their own habits. In oakland, ca, folks walked through streets as if cars didn't even exist. I wondered if they had death wishes or something. I believe in giving pedestrians right of way, but I also believe in respecting the cars time, like looking at least, and perhaps pausing a second to walk around them. In SF, intersections give time for pedestrians to cross; LA is more dangerous on foot. Little old law abiding ladies don't have a chance.

Montreal (Quebec - Canada)

I think the unwritten rule is;
You race like a bat out of hell to be the first at the stop sign. You tap the brake pedal lightly, then you floor the gas pedal to intimidate anyone who may have got to the sign at the same time as you!

If you're a polite driver;
The first one to arrive at the stop will have priority to go.

clueless

The 'right-of-the-way' rule.

Proceed when safe in the order of arrival. If two arrive at the same time, the vehicle to the right has right of way. If two vehicles arrive at the same time from opposite directions, the one turning left yields right of way. If both are turning left, just turn short and both go at the same time.

I'm assuming you mean if there are other cars there. Whoever got there first gets to go first, but if you got there at the same time, the person to your right (if there is one) has the right of way. If you are to someone's right, then you have the right of way. If there is more than one person to someone's right, well, then, there must be a rule, but hell if I know it. Then you all alternate creeping forward and waving the other across until someone finally just goes. These things tend to just work themselves out.

As I recall, the rule I was taught was to stop and wait to go until the car to your right has gone. But the way I actually do it, and the way most people seem to do it here in Massachusetts, is to stop and allow cars driving perpendicular to you to cross the intersection, and then proceed (at the same time as cars moving opposite you). This is a lot faster than doing things one car at a time, and it usually works fine even if one or both cars are turning left.

Isn't an "unmarked four-way" just a regular intersection? Do you have to stop every time a road crosses yours in California? It must take a long time to drive anywhere. Here in Massachusetts we at least pay lip service to the concept of right of way.

In the USA, you always heed the right-of-way to the person on the right, or so I've been taught. Always to the right. People never follow this, though.

In the context of a four-way stop, that's true. However, for a rotary or merging onto a highway, the vehicle on the left (that is, already in the rotary or on the highway) has right of way though I've had people argue with me about the merging onto the highway rule.

i dont know the rule, but take turns. first there, first go - but i know there is a rule about the order of who goes, but i cannot find it. maybe i will find it...

i just read what anoddoblivion said and that sounds like the rule to me. and also right that people dont do it.

Well in Australia, you have to give way (yeild) to the traffic on your right. If you are turning left or going straight you give way to traffic from the street on the right. Traffic turning right from the street in front of you must give way to you if you are turning left or going straight. If you are turning right you must give way to the traffic from the street ahead no matter which way they are turning, and to traffic from the street to your right unless they are turning left then you may turn right. Traffic from the street to your left must give way to everything you do because you are on their right unless you are turning left then they may proceed at the same time as you. If all cars are going straight ahead, the on that arrives first goes first generally. If all cars arrive at the same time and are all going straight ahead then you're fudgeed. *sigh*

I would have thought that in the US driving on the right would mean you give way to the traffic on the left since in Australia we give way to traffic from the right. It is natural for us because at round-abouts you look right for a gap then you preoceed clockwise. It doesn't matter what's happening on your left because they must give way to you. That rule just translates for us to a 4way intersection. We worry what the person to the right is doing because the person to our left has to wait for us anyway.

i depends on if there are stop sings for everyone or not. by defaulf, all people who don't have a stop sing can just go straight ahead. for everyone else, the first person to arrive at his stop sign goes first, and then the next person and then the next. if they both arrive at the same time, the person on the right goes first. if are at accross for one another, the one going straight has the right of way. and if they all arive at the same time, they'd just have to communicate somehow and figure it out for themselves.

and there's allways the whoever-has-the-biggest-vehicle-has-the-right-of-way rule

In Minnesota I believe that the first car to approach the stop sign is the first one to go, no matter which direction they are going. If two cars arrive at the same time then one person usually waves the other person across. That is what we call 'Minnesota Nice'. I may be wrong on the this but that's what I do.

In colorado at a four way stop if you're in a car you pull up to the stop sign, stop completely for 3 seconds while looking for others approaching or waiting at a stop. The person who got there first goes first.... and so on... if you get there at the same time it's the person to the right who has right of way.
If you're on a motorcycle all is the same, you have to place your feet on the ground before you proceed though I think.

Whoever got there first gets to go first. If more than one vehicle stops at the same time, the right-of-way belongs to whoever is on the right. For oncoming cars that stop at the same time, anyone turning right goes first, straight ahead is next, and left turns are last.

I like your rule! I'd get to go first almost every time!

Let me guess...You drive a 1972 Datsun that is made almost entirely out of rust?

No, it's not that bad. It's an '86 Subaru, and considering its age it's in pretty good shape. No big dents, and the white paint is faded, but not too horrible. I did say ALMOST every time. I'd probably have to wait for a '72 Datsun, or a beat up old Pinto.

yield to the vehicle to the right. i live in the US.

it's unspoken...and probably the law...whoever was fully stopped first, may proceed first...wash, rinse, repeat...until all cars are gone

Unmarked intersections are quite a rarity in california, but you do have to stop for them. Typically streets have stop signs and avenues cruise through. Avenues against avenues are four-way stops. Boulevards are clear except lights for other blvds, and some avenues, the other avenues just having stops onto the clear blvd. The only timely thoroughfares here are freeways, which people take if they plan to go more than a couple dozen blocks, or blvd's if the lights are friendly. There are a few unrestricted avenues, but streets stop every block. and then there are things like lanes, ways, places, loops, courts which usually can't get you anywhere. There are also expressways, which are like freeways but with occasional lights at boulevards. Between towns we have highways which may have stop signs or lights when passing through towns. There are times of day here when one could run faster than the freeways move, then it's good to know the avenues (which of course then tie up the lights on the boulevards).
My favorite timely system is like that in parts of SF: One-ways with no left turns allowed. Some people don't get it though. To make a left, you always have to do a loop to the right.

I've only ever seen three round-abouts in my life, in very quiet neighborhoods at that, and they were two way roudabouts even. The streets leading on to them had stop signs, so the roudabout has right of way, even if it were one way in either direction. But to suggest we have a parrallel, hmm.. we don't.. Typically lanes emerge onto expressways from the right, but in that case 'right' of way does not apply; There is a superceding rule that merging traffic yields to through traffic.

What a mess! I guess Chicago was a little like that. We had a lot of four-way stop signs on one car per hour suburban streets. Massachusetts is different. In the cities we have big streets, little streets and tiny streets. I guess they usually put a stop sign on the smaller street when it intersects a larger one, In the burbs it's not real hard to find two small streets intersecting without any signs. As soon as you're out of the city, you start getting these double yellow line roads. The cool thing about them is they usually go somewhere. Typically these are the original road system constructed when all these towns were actually separated by open space. They're not usually particularly large (one lane in each direction) but they get the right of way. I guess we have something similar to your expressways, which is the old state highway system. Before they built the turnpike (90), for example, we had route 9 which went from Boston west to Springfield. It's still a pretty big road and for the most part it goes over or under other roads. Sometimes there's a light, though. Really the best thing we have here are the two-lane rotaries, where you have two columns of traffic entering a circle from maybe five or six directions, jostling with the traffic already in the rotary, switching lanes and honking and swearing, and then sometimes stopping at a light, which they will drop in the middle of a rotary just to piss people off.

We have expressways 20 lanes wide. Sounds like you've managed to move everything with smaller unrestricted streets. Those double yellows sound like what we'd call highways, originally joining towns before they merged. Nothing except freeways or expressways has unrestricted right of way for more than a few blocks. Seems that to do otherwise you'd have to give towns free pasage in one direction (like North-South) and put frequent stop signs on the perpendicular direction (like East-West), unless you wove the East-West under and over. Only freeways here go over things. All else is level grid. Most of our freeways arrived around 1970. It could sure be done better. A 2-4 hour daily commute is common in california. People rarely live and work in the same town unless they are retail clerks or something.

Here's the Queensland road rules summarized - http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/ROADRULE.nsf?OpenDatabase
Look down about half way and there is a section on roundabouts.

I wa looking for the NSW road rules and they only come in pdf (3meg). Interestingly, and a little worrying, was the fact that the New South Wales Driving test can be taken in Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Greek, Japanese, Korean, Serbian, Spanish, Turkish, and Vietnamese. Considering 5 of those languages don't use Latin characters and couldn't recognize the word STOP, it may explain why driving through Sydney is like playing Russian Roulette.

If I understand that correctly, then a person must signal 'right' if they plan to exit more than halfway round (which would eventually be an immediate left turn and call for signalling 'left')? I would think that would take care of itself, simply by signalling right if one wishes to to take an inner curve lane to bypass merging traffic, then obviously signal 'left' to get off.
Bicycles officially have the right of way here even if a signalling car wants to turn across your path, but of course the cyclist is taking chances that the car is alert and abiding. We also stay on our bikes crossing intersections as if we were cars. Daring cyclists will switch lanes to turn in the middle of an intersection like a car instead of taking the outside for two lights. Whethar I turn as a car instead of waiting around depends on traffic and how energetic I am feeling. Sounds like your cyclists are treated more as pedestrians. I can get around town faster than the busses, but I couldn't if I was forced to walk across intersections and other such nonsense.There are things not in our vehicle codes which seem like courteous common sense to me. For instance, when at a light, instead of hugging the curb and having to play 'who goes first' with a turning car, I go a lane in from the turn only lane so we can't ever be in each others way. This doesn't work out too great though when people (too frequently) break the law and use the turn lane as a place to jet ahead of other straight-through traffic. I put myself at passive agressive risk with the cars: even though I have the right of way anyhow, I will usually let signalling cars cut me off, but if they don't signal (as they are supposed to), even if I sense they want to turn, I cut them off instead.

I'm sure foreign drivers naturally identify and are tested on recognizing stop signs. They are red octagons or something equally obvious, aren't they? Stop seeking excuses to gripe about them.

USA, NY - The first person there goes first. If two are there at the same time, the person on the right has the right of way.

Of course if four people are there at the same time, each has a person on their right, they say, "Thats the reason for insurance."

We don't have huge expressways like you have out there. The biggest are 8 lanes wide. But we do have a highly developed network of secondary roads. I think it's as you say because they were built a long time ago. Also the terrain here is hilly, so the roads have to go around things and they can't always go in a straight line. It was only in the early decades of the 20th century (or maybe even the middle) that they could build straight roads. I think a lot of these small-but-through roads I'm talking about can have an unrestricted right of way for miles because they go through out of the way places. Inside the urban areas they have the occaisional light or stop sign when they meet another through road, but not when they meet a regular residential street.

Whoever came to a stop first goes first, and if two people came to a stop at the same time, then you go one at a time in a clockwise direction. It isn't the best system because many people either don't know the rule or don't give a ^#%* who stopped first. It is pretty safe if it is you and one or two other cars, but when there are alot of cars you have to be on the lookout, and go fast when you do decide to go...... there are people who wait when they don't know who's turn it is, but probably more people who just stop quickly and then go regardless. So it is kind of like in a parking garage. Try not to get hit.

Basically, all of LA is residential and one has to take freeways to travel through it, unless you want lights every three blocks. What is your fastest option in town?

Two streets in Boston go along the Charles river. Storrow Drive doesn't have any lights. Memorial Drive has a few but it's still pretty fast. I think other than those two you're going to be on a street with a fair number of lights. In Cambridge and Somerville, which are mostly dense residential housing, there are a few highways, some of them elevated, and other large roads that don't have a lot of lights. These include some of the old state routes like 1 and 9, that used to be the big traffic carriers but have since been superceded by the interstates. You can't get across Boston on 93, by the way. It's permanently backed up.

driver on right has right of way

mandy always has the right of way

Roundabouts come in many sizes. There is a small one not far from my home where the traffic idland in the centre is basically a giant plant pot with a tree. There are double laned roundabouts and I've seen up to 6 roads coming onto one. The problem is that at a 4way roundabout, people literally do treat them like a normal intersection and only signal right for a right turn with no left signal for the exit. The left signal is basically a courtesy to allow traffic coning from the street you are exiting to to see that they can proceed because you aren't going to pss them. Cyclists here must follow all the rules cars do. They aren't permitted on freeways though. You sound like you're playing with fire on a bike in LA.

I didn't think I was griping about foreigners. One assumes if you are to drive and follow directions other than STOP you should read English. You know signs like "SLOW, CHILDREN CROSSING AHEAD" is the same shape as many warning signs that use words. I wasn't griping about them, I was making a statement. I don't believe in discriminating against people because of their race or culture, but I equally don't believe obvious problems should be ignored in order to stay politically correct. An English speaking person has to be able to read English to get a drivers license here. Aparently if you don't speak English (already a disadvantage) you can go right ahead and get a drivers license. Do you think I should tip-toe abound issues like that because they involve foreigners? Fudge that. Next you'll be saying I should support blind people driving and shouldn't gripe about that to make them feel better. I'm sorry, but when my life is at risk on the roads by people who can't tell a pizza add from a warning sign, I'm going to gripe.

I'm missing something. On a single-lane clockwise round-about, I can see the courtesy left-signal to exit, but I don't even get where a right one comes in. {is that the weird law on indicating you eventually plan to make it more than half way round, and if so, why do others even need to know that?}. Maybe right signals only apply on entering bi-directional round-abouts ?(which sound scary, unnecessary, and ineffective.) I was surprised 4 lane R-bouts existed; I presumed they were all 5 or more streets converging. Are 4 way r-bouts faster than 4 way intersections?
Bikes: no freeways here either. Those laws you linked suggested bikes cross intersections on foot. Is that not so? 'playing with fire'? me or any cyclist in LA. There are surprisingly few here. Nor motorcyclists for that matter. I asked around.. one answer I got was 'we killed them all'.

Any person has to be able to read the questions, english in english, thai in thai. That is a separate issue from reading the road signs. I expect the Thai questions still read something like: phong quar cull ontrl krev julp "SLOW, CHILDREN CROSSING AHEAD" ymwint - a) oun ohtr ocrw yppm b) pchcr bmcr aoeuc c) bcnr doup almwoe. Perhaps they can't read "Pizza", but so what. I see no reason I shouldn't be able to move to france or germany and get a license before I am fluent in the language. Even english signs register too slow in comparison to pictograms. Except for those digital billboards one sees every couple years giving detour directions around major freeway tragedies, I can't think of anytime one needs to know english around here. They've even introduced a new color lately. Yellow is now routine car merging cautions, orange is construction, and 'hot-lime' is pedestrian alerts. There are 102 languages spoken in LA public schools. Non-international traffic signs would be insane. If you can't read a boulevard name, you are at a disadvantage, but that's not really a traffic risk. Don't tell me you couldn't go to hong kong and tell the difference between a right turn only sign and a pizza ad. {well, I haven't been to hong kong, perhaps they do appear similar there. But they sure don't here.}

Envisions tomorrow, line of people on a cloud, you at the end, St. Peter glaring at you, pointing to the 'yield' sign.

Maybe the direction thing is confusing. We drive on the left so roundabouts go clockwise. In double laned roundabouts both lanes go the same way. 4 way roundabouts are a lot faster than simple intersections since all streets have give way (yeild) signs but you only have to look to the right when you enter making it very fast to get through. Roundabouts only work well in specific traffic volumes. Low volumes don't require them. Large volumes mean traffic from the heaviest street dominate meaning other streets end up waiting forever for a gap so they can enter the r-about. Generally the bigger the traffic volume the bigger the radius of the r-about so you can see traffic coming better, until eventually traffic lights are needed. Up until a certain traffic volume, r-abouts let the traffic flow a lot faster.

Perhaps you don't need to be fluent in a language to drive, but ho many freeway info signs have no pictures, or transit lane information with times listed. Maybe my point is about the lack of driving skills shown in some drivers. At work there have been 6 car park collisions since I've been there, all by Vietnamese employees, and each of them a different person so it's not like I'm judging all the Vietnamese at work from one really bad Vietnamese driver. I've talked to a lot of people at work who drive the way I do past the Mosque up the street. All of them agree that they must pay special attention around there because those leaving the Mosque rarely signal, dawdle, and drive like they have no idea where they are going. I don't think I'm being discriminatory in either of these cases. Both are fact. Perhaps the driving test is too easy to pass, I don't know. I've found that most of what liberals call stereotypes are founded on personal experience. People don't think the Chinese are lazy or stupid because experience tells us they are hard working and study hard. I'm sure you agree there are many positive stereotypes that are acceptable by liberals. Why is it when people experience enough to formulate negative stereotypes they are attacked as being bigots when they make those observations? Aren't positive stereotypes the same? If your life depended on the outcome of a basketball game, would you choose a team of black men or a team of East Indian women?

Ah, so all lanes only go clockwise. again, when does one use a right signal?.. just to use the inner lane?
I do believe in stereotypes. Someone fresh from brazil is more likely to cut across blind curves. I was just saying any problems didn't lie in foreign language tests which I'm sure are a touch more demanding than to someone who doesn't have to learn to read the signs. You could alse discriminate english driers getting out of rowdy sports games or voodooo trance ceremonies. Around here, I think the most dangerous drivers here are the arrogant slalom playboys who just bought a new bmw, less likely to have a minority income, and the 2 am bar crowd, again a bit less likely to be minorities.
The thing, unless you want to keep promoting the stereotypes, though, is to treat all the individuals as innocent until proven guilty, regardless of group tendencies. The idea is to favor long term evolution over the short term cost.

The right indicator is used to show you intend to pass an exit. The left is used to show you intend to take that exit.

It's true wach should be evalued individually, but I was talking about this last night to a fellow worker who told me he was looking for a car park and spotted a Vietnamese lady on our shift who is really nice, but who belongs to a group who have shown they can't drive. If he treated he like any person he would have been his by her because he said he saw it was her, and decided to not take for granted that she would look before she moved. She didn't. If he had of proceeded trusting that she was as good a driver as anyone else she would have hit him. Some stereotypes are silly. Some make sense.

ok, i finally get the signalling. so people probably are more likely to use right signals just so some jerk doesn't try to swing around them, expecting them to turn off.
I can't imagine how a society that doesn't look first doesn't kill themself off, but I think I'll just drop it. some things are beyond my understanding, I guess.

person on the left has the right of way.
Oh my G--! After reading all of your comments it's no wonder we have so many accidents.

Person on the left? Where are you from?

definitely not left...

In Arkansas, the rule is, the guy with the loudest motor or the biggest tires goes first.

It's supposed to allow people to not even stop before they enter the roundabout if they see a left turn signal because they know that car will be exiting. It's all about letting traffic flow with minimal stopping. If people don't indicate you do have to stop and wait and see what they are doing which pisses people off. It's pretty hair-raising for tourists. The same with our diagonal pedestrian crossings in CBDs. Pedestrians have one chance per cycle and can cross any way they want. It's just as quick to let people cross diagonally if all four streets have cars stopped to let pedestrians cross in front of them.

I've seen such a pedestrian crossing once. I thought it was a way cool idea, much like my idea of putting crosswalks on top of wide speed bumps to emphasise pedestrian right of way (cars on sidewalk, not people in street), but it was a touch unsettling to walk through a part of an intersection that had always been for cars before.

We often have pedestrian crossings on top of wide speed humps at shopping center car parks. Some people actually use regular speed humps that have been painted with cross-hatching to be visible to drivers as pedestrian crossings too. The diagonal crossing 'feels' Ok because there are usually hundreds on people crossing in all directions so pedestrians feel like they 'own' the intersection.

Aus. seems to have a whole bunch of my inventions present. I must live in a backwards country.

I wouldn't call the US backward! It's just a lack of information flow. People who travel and notice a good idea in another country should tell their authorities when they return. When I went through Asia I noticed that anywhere a speed limit reduced, there were several white, raised lines painted right across the road so as you drive over them you hear a noise and realize you are supposed to slow down now. We have the same "paint" along the edge of some freeways to wake up drivers who drift off the road with an audible line but no one ever thought to use the stuff to indicate that people should slow down. Maybe you could suggest raised pedestrian crossings to your city council. I'll email you some pics if you want. Often ours have paving stones to indicate even more that it is a pedestrian zone, and the road narrows at the point of the crossing. It's called traffic calming. I'm sure if I ever went to the US I would see many ideas that Australia could use. I know you have turn right on red. In Queensland we don't have it (it would be turn left on red) yet in the Northern Territory they do. I really don't know how that would be incorporated from scratch. It would probably cause a fair few accidents for a while, but it's a good idea that helps with traffic flow.

Not all states allow turns on reds. I doubt we have the budget for nice crossings. This isn't the country it was decades ago, unfortunately propoganda or pride won't let us imagine we were once better able to invest in such things. We even had unrestricted pedestrian tunnels beneath streets long ago. These days, some company would have to launch toll crossings or something (insert credit card for green light). I shouldn't be so sarcastic, we are getting a lot of street and public improvements lately, including a a new library and post office.

You do have very low taxes though. You can't have nice public space if there's no one prepared to foot the bill.

Which taxes do you refer to? Sales 8.25% and property ?? vary by state, as does state income tax. I think people making 100k are hit hardest, paying between 30 & 50% of their gross. Below that percentages fall to zero, above that, money finds it's way into exemptions. Gas taxes pay for highways, as it should be I feel. I bet far more of our taxes go to welfare and military. Public improvements alleviate the need for either make work scenario, just not as cheaply.

I think its whomever gets there first then counter clockwise

USA- The first to arrive goes first. If arrive at the same time the person going straight is first, followed by the person making a right hand turn then followed by a person making a left hand turn.

CA- You must come to a complete stop (No "California stops") with your front tires behind the line if there is one. Let all others go ahead of you that were there first, right or left of you doesn't matter. If you get there at the same time as another car you yield to the car on your right...meaning let them go first. Also yield to pedestrians that were there before you. Then you look left, right, then left again... then go when safe.

Hope that was detailed enough!

The car on the right hand corner has the right of way.

Your income tax is low by world standards. Also, if your fuel taxes pay for highways and nothing else your country would be in the minority. Most of our fuel tac goes into consolidated revenue, although it is meant for roads. We have a national sales tax of 10% on every good and servece exept fresh food (fruit and vegetables, fish, eggs and meat that are not processed in any way). Fuel is taxed higher, but I've researched and done conversions between our privce per litre in Aus$ and your price per gallon in US$ and we pay about the same as you. Tobacco has about 300% tax, and alcohol is taxed high but not that high. I don't see a problem with taxing tobacco very highly as smokers use our free health care system in disproportionately numbers. That's another thing - although we have private hospitals and private health insurance, every citizen is issued with a medicare card that entitles them to free hospital care. Most doctors "bulk bill" also, which means the whole fee is paid by the government. Some doctors choose to bill the patient per visit which comes to about $30. You are then able to go to a medicare office and get a refund of about $25 from the government. Welfare and health care are our biggest costs. State governments get funding from the GST sales tax from the federal government which they use to pay for state schools and hospitals. Defence is federal, and is getting a lot more money since Bali freaked everyone out.

I think they do keep subverting fuel and liquor taxes and such. We don't tax anything generally considered food unless it comes from a restaurant situation. Somehow i managed to miss news reports of Bali. What happened?
I vote tomorrow and I haven't studied anything yet.

Bali is the most popular foreign destination for Australians, and Kuta Beach is like little Australia. Most bars ar called things like Kangaroo Bar etc. Anyway, Muslim fanatics set a small bomb across the street from a bar where hundreds of Australians drink. After it went off, people evecuated the bar then a huge bomb went off once the people were out on the street which leveled the entire area and kiled about 200 people, most of them Australians. Since then Most Australians have cancelled trips to Bali and the local people are basically starving because there is no income. The Balinese are angry because they are Bhuddist, unlike the rest of Indonesia. One woman actually pleaded on the news for Australians to come back to her country of Bali and that bombs were part of Indonesia, not her country. Just saying that could have got her killed by the Javanese who consider any splitting or talk of splitting from a Muslim country like Indonesia to be an attack on Islam. We have also learnt from the Arab TV station, that Al Qeada have targeted Australians because we liberated East Timor, a Christian province of Indonesia, formerly a Portugese colony, and now an independant country. There is talk of focussing Australia's vacationing just north of our country on East Timor, and turning our back on Bali altogether because it can never be guaranteed safe under Indonesian rule.

Usually, whoever gets there first makes the first move. If you are facing another vehicle heading in the opposite direction and you are turning left (since we drive on the right side of the road here), you must yield to the other vehicle traveling straight.

whoa, ok. good summary.

You didn't hear of the Bali bomings?

Just that they happened. It probably got 00.12% of the news coverage here as WTC. I wasn't watching news that week. I've heard far far more about the quake in Alaska.

ok, ok... it was late. Right on the right.

First come, first serve.. then the car to the right goes first if both stop at the same time, I think..

The bad thing is, I was VERY close to becoming a driving instructor.. but I'm not sure about the answer here.

I haven't heard a thing about the quake. It just shows you how the media pad the news with fluff like kittens getting rescued while more important stuff is happening.

It's karmic connection. I walk into any store, and it's alaska quake I hear on the radio. My family lives 70 miles from that 7.9 quake, so that is the news that comes to me, when kittens aren't more relevant.
Besides, the pipeline supports were damaged. That thing has lost hundreds of thousands gallons before, just with minor piercings, like the most recent bear-round fired into it by some jerk.

It could also be because Australia is dealing with the aftermath of Bali, a diplomatic spat with Indonesia after ASIO raided the homes of several Indonesian Australians connected with JI, a SE Asian equivalent of Al Qeada, in Perth and Sydney, and we are in the middle of our worst drought in written history. You probably didn't hear much about Bali because you are about to go to war with Iraq (then so are we BTW) and you have had a senate election. I think geography has more to do with it than karmic connection. Sorry to be contrary again.

I expected such from you, but that's almost off subject; a good answer to a question I wasn't asking. The topic was denial of actual experience as a halucination. If someone continually witnesses something that can be summed up as 'gravity', they are neither halucinating nor, trying to pass on this understanding to others in order to look cool and fit in. I'll grant you though, people who see eerie incomprehensible glimmers probably do do that, just to liven up their sense of what's possible. It probably even helps to open up their mind to new experiences, but eventually they do need get some consistent objective framework going and repeatedly test it to themself or they are going to just be flakes, ready to call anything anything with no basis. I won't argue that such people are plentiful.

Gravity is experienced by everyone. To deny it would be madness since anyone who denies gravity is already under it's influence. A lot of what you describe as real has never been experienced by people, even those with open minds who wish to experience such things often don't. Someone that hsa got me thinking is the psychic John Edward who has a TV show. Unless everyone he acts as a medium for is in on a scam, he is very convincing.
http://www.johnedward.net/ I am a skeptic, but this guy is amazing.

USA---(teenager aspect) if no hurry, then put the petal to the metal and pray to god there is nobody coming too

if in a hurry, put the petal to the metal

I don't know him. There are good mediums and I suspect bogus ones. Chances are, anyone attracted to the work had something going in the first place. Well, I guess I have no basis to say there aren't as many people motivated by deception and a buck as truth and service. The ones I've met have all been good, but that's my karma too. I have no way of knowing what's really out in the world, just what comes to me in my own experience. I could have such luck as to tell you that 60% of the public dyes their hair strange colors, as fits my actual experience, even though the world may be full of plenty of people that don't exotically color their hair. Even if I pulled up a page of statistics, I may end up pulling up a page from some organisation that also had the curious karma of only running into exotics during their sampling.

I thought that the other day. How many people have dyed hair? Maybe there aren't any blondes or redheads in Australia after all?

Oh good, some synchronicity. I stiil wonder if you got my point, that peoples experience depends on their karma. One person might say that all people are sweet and talkative, because that is what is destined to come their way, not because that is all the world contains, nor because they just don't notice quiet unfriendly people. OK, we've been through this a million times. I guess my point this time was the specific example, not the general principle, psychics in 'my' life know what they are doing.

I was talking to a woman at work about another worker who I consider lazy. She said to me that he works just as hard as everyone else, until I pointed out to her how he goes to the toilet every 20 minutes, and stands around talking crap to all the women. She ended up agreeing with me. Now she has talked to a superior about him because she hates carrying other people. He gets paid the same as she does and she can't see why she should have to do his work too. I think a lot of people who think everyone is sweetness and light are naive fools. This women had the rose coloured glasses lifted from her eyes, and now it looks like this slacker will be moved elsewhere and her workload will ease. Her perception was clouded. She wasn't destined to perceive this guy as a chatty, funny man. She was just blind to the truth. Now she sees exactly the type of co-worker he is, and she will be the better for it. I have found that wankers tend to avoid me. It's not karma. It's the fact I don't tolerate fudgewits and I am bad at hiding what I am thinking inside. My face shows everything I am thinking. It's all body language. We're just animals.

Even without spiritual reasons, it could be possible that one person experiences only the sweet side of persons who reserve their darker features for other interactions. From a living in the moment spiritual explanation though, it could still be said that she had a sweet person in her life, allowed herself to see it as otherwise, and now he won't be sweet person in her life, because her reality is now open to accepting negative people. It could also be that he was sweet to her, but had a larger workload. It was her karma to have that workload. That this same guy she thought was sweet was the agent of that karma is beside the point in that realm. If it wasn't him, it'd be someone else. Seeing the world solely as an interaction between you and God changes the entire dynamic. I'm not saying though that it's one world or another. Both realms co-exist simultaneously. some people operate and make changes in one realm, others in the other. The realms intermingle.
It occurred to me that one reason supernatural stuff can seem so hard to make sense of is because the terms are used so loosely. Just as 'energy' means so many things just within the physical realm, words like 'karma' actually refer to several different concepts. 'Tuned-in to someone' is something of a hybrid between telepathic sharing of thoughts (or a more physical sensitivity and common understanding), and synchronicity or reflection of ones being.
I'd say your karma is to see and expose fudgewits. Body language and honest expression are good. Honest integrity saves this world countless miseries.

I want my karma to be that I never see another fudgewit again! I do believe we are capable of sensing each others' thoughts, at least really intelligent people’s thoughts. Dumb people are usually surface anyway and have little to sense beneath. That has little to do with supernature. Thoughts are simply electrical impulses. It’s not unreasonable to believe a person sitting close to another one could pick up on their electrical impulses and read them. Karma seems silly to me, especially given the amount of total wankers that are really rich and happy.

Anything that get's to you, will continue to plague you. 'Surrender' is a pretty basic factor in spiritual change.
Curious here, how many of these rich happy wankers have you talked to well enough to have a deep understanding of their happiness, morality, and cosmology? The few I've met don't deviate from the basic laws of karma.
As far as electrical energy, you might study what one calls prana. It is a near physical energy travelling (usually) through ones body that can be manipulated to affect ones environment. It can be felt and trained in various ways. Love and prayer can increase it. It is often present when two people are sharing the same thoughts. I wouldn't exactly call it electrical, more magnetic, if anything. I'm not so sure you should know this stuff, anyhow. Spirit hasn't been saying good stuff about these abilities in recent weeks. I'm not quite sure what to teach lately. Much of what metaphysicians deal with is indeed just an extension of standard light/radio/etc. frequency stuff they broadcast and receive. Perhaps, like synthesthesia, they feel with one sense, say a pituitary, and it gets translated into a perception more tangible, like color or tone. Anyhow, those sorts of mechanics I've always considered a trivial amusement in the larger scope life's events, methods, and reasons.
One can study karma using just their own life, or that of people they meet. It's almost absurd to figure out your role within God by studying distant strangers. They may live in different laws of reality, heck, they may even be purely fictitious. Observe what happens in 'your' life. You may find the first step in evolution is to part ways with the rest of the world anyhow.

Florida - Person on your right has right-of-way

People always say money doesn't buy happiness, but you have to admit it goes a long way towards helping people get happy. Most marriage break-ups are a result of money troubles.

I think the flows are electrical. We run on electricity. Thoughts are electical fireings between synapses.

I have a lot of trouble with karma. It's one of those concepts that can't be proven.

I don't know about prana either. It sounds like another east Indian concept brought to the west by tripping bums who saw all sorts of things in India as they sucked on their opium pipes.

First to stop is first to go.

Any relationship that breaks up over money was lousy in the first place. I can see breaking up if the effort and commitment falters, and that leads to no money. I once saw happy street people having some commitment ceremony on a bus bench with rings made from hose clips or soda can pull tabs. If you can eat, sleep, and stay warm, (and have your mind and health) any additional money concerns are materialism.
People who see auras and concur on what they are seeing, must be seeing something. I was just striving to put it into your framework.
Karma probably could be proven, but it would take supercomputers scrutinizing a totality of events against a totality of in-depth detailed diary logs. I actuall did that once. For a week straight I spoke every thought into a tape recorder as well as mentioning every corresponding event that occurred to me. I suspect it's the world's karma that decent evidence probably tends to sits hidden in closets, while everyone else requires some leap of faith to start seeing that sort of evidence for themself.

Ah, there's that F word again.

I'm sorry, I don't have a way around that one. One doesn't know if there's a view from a mountaintop until one hikes to the top. One doesn't commit to the hike unless they have faith that there must be something to see making that hike. There are many people (not so many I'd even give it a pecentage point though) that have to be coached into seeing the world you take for granted, if ever at all even, I can also imagine. When one is born seeing it all manifest on the spot in accordance with the great mind, the rules of cause and effect you take for granted as being sight apparent are as ludicrous to them as their perception is to you. I've known three people like that. Two of them I had to show your world to, just as I have tried to show my world to you. One of them was my daughter. Another was a friend in her early thirties I had met at school. Certain phrases in English were non-sequitor for her, like 'it's not my fault'. She only knew that what she planned happened. She didn't even realise that other people had events happen to them and thought it was due to some force beyond their control. She didn't know of any future though, just the moment. Curiously, like poles of the spectrum of consciousness, I had another friend who was an oracle. She could see everything way into the future, and yet had no power over anything that was to be including her own life. God's diversity is truly mind-blowing.

You can see the top of the mountain before you start up it. I thought people were hard to understand now. I could never conect with somone so different. It's almost like another species.

It was weird for me too. Like another species is almost understatement. You could reasonably expect a dog or monkey be closer to you in consciousness than such folk, even if they see in black and white instead of color, at least we generallly take for granted the same laws of reality are being perceived. I keep discovering new unexpected things out there that almost blow away my reality, and I expect it to continually be like that beyond this physical life, just based on my history of constantly seeing new things. It get's to be an addiction, just as a scientist or action movie buff is hooked on finding fresh larger experiences. I am usually motivated by intrigue, duty, and compassion, in that order. I have greater reverance for those motivated primarily by the heart. That part of me didn't change through my awakening. Negative thinking did go away as i gradually learned it was just a useless habit and as much the cause as it was a response.

Negative thinking or realism? Most people accused of being negative are doing it out of former experience. They have reason to see the world in such a way, and are usually vindicated - more often than a blind optimist. Optimists seem mentally ill to me. I was talking to a woman who said here friend's child was to lose an eye from a tumor. She said at least it was only one eye smiling. I looked at her and reminded her how the child would never again see in 3 dimensions, would have eye strain most of the time and would lose a large part of her vision, especially peripherally. I said it was a terrible thing to happen to anyone. She just kept repeating "yes, but she's still got one good eye". Like I said, mentally ill.

I wisj I could discover some new things that would blow me away. I guess that's why I fudge with people's heads at work - because I'm bored with things.

Sounds like the woman is in optimistic denial. I always try to get to people to look at much of the picture as possible. I wasn't there with your woman, but I get the idea that either she knows what's up, and like Spock, refuses to give into the 'glass half empty' outlook, or really can't face what's happened for the time being, in which case she may have been to sensitive to confront like that. Once you give 'life sucks' a foot in the door, it can cascade on you.
I've been in a big philosophical rant with my bro. He believes if you've done something miserable you should feel bad about it forever. I tell him you have to forgive the situation, taking it as nothing now but an experience to know not to let happen again, so that you can fill your future with fresh love and good action instead. He annoys me, often apologizing again for things that happened more than a decade ago. I try to explain that the only reason he still apologizes is because he is still a type of person who would do such things again.
I take risks and set my mind on finding new things. They come back to me when I go out and do something creative in a similar subject. If I try making a sail-bike, I might encounter a person who hand builds biplanes. If I explore greek conceptions of spirit, that comes to me. I find the universe is always a 'stir things up', 'pull yourself up by your boot straps ordeal'. If you simply wait for new things to come your way, all you'll learn about is entropy. If you start to dig tunnels in your garden and contemplate tunnel construction, you might get some great tv shows on the history of building in caves. As I so often say.You have to steer your course. Routine may take discipline, but so does not succumbing to routine.
I was doing a bit more thinking on your friend trying to suck you into bill collecting. There are things I don't care to do entirely alone, like working on my car. Chums trade off enduring trivial crap together, so each experience can be about comaraderie, instead of both about monotony. If you aren't into doing your own tediums with others, then I suppose there's no cause to ligten someone else's tedium. I'd just make sure these sort of arrangements were equitable.
Fudging with peoples heads is more interesting than nothing, but come on, it's like teenagers who can't think of anything less boring than going out to cause some destruction. It's the easy answer. Take that same energy of intrigue and challenge, and see if you can't also work in a motive of making someones day. Habits like that feel good at the end of the day. There can still be an element of F-ing with heads until you outgrow it. Step out into and create your own unknown.

Optomistic denial. I like that phrase. I think over-optimists look down on ordinary people who see life with reality. I do choose to use my mind in making some people's lives easier and more pleasant. It's just that I don't find many people woerthy of that (I know it sounds terrible). Speaking karmically, I feel I reflect what people put out. If they are nice people who genually try they get all of my help and support. If they are wankers they get their heads fudgeed with.

There are several types of optimism. I still don't know where she was coming from: 'hurt-not-facing' or 'know but stay on the positive', and that latter from 'just to feel better or accept' or 'because it changes things'. I come from that final option. If she was the hurt not facing reality type, I'm suggesting she may have been too psychologically fragile to have to confront it so brashly. Don't make the mistake though of assuming that all optomists aren't familiar with physical reality and it's probabilities. If you insist that people suffer under tragedy (new thread here), then you make spock look like an optomist.

People don't have to suffer under tragedy, but it would be nice if they at least acknowledged it.

On karma, are there any ways of avoiding karma?

Not really. The closest one comes to it is working through and past it, getting to that point of instant karma where there is instant physical repurcussion for any thought, and shattering that realm to a place where you no longer reside in or are affected by your karma on the physical realm, but you are still subject to your dharma, which means you still have ways and subjects. We can be looked at as conscious and uncnscious deities, meaning a couple things. If you are mainly about romance or secrecy on the physical plane, you will have the same issues/jurisdiction on a higher plane. For those perceiving on a higher plane, you will be a force of that on a higher plane even if you don't see your affect yourself. From where you're at, no, there's no escaping your karma, it's there whethar you see it or not. I still live in karma, but it's a choice for me, when one elects to experience the mortal/physical realm, you create and receive karma, but any moment you stop to, think about it, you know why what's happening, and it affects your decision making. Karma is diversity of experience. What you write and photograph, you will one day read and view. In states where one is beyond karma, the ego is purified, you have no judgement or opinion, nothing is about you anymore, including your own behavior, it exists solely to facilitate the lives of others, while you instead experience joy in the totality of creation. There are different types of being in but above it all. For me, I have interpersonal karma, and global event karma because I am still wrapped up in creative thoughts and specific concerns and judgements.