upworthy
Most Shared

We didn't always turn left the way we do now. What changed?

We didn't always turn left the way we do now. What changed?

Unless you're a child, New York City resident, or UPS driver, chances are you've made a left turn in your car at least once this week.

Chances are, you didn't think too much about how you did it or why you did it that way.

You just clicked on your turn signal...

...and turned left.

GIF from United States Auto Club.


The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles instructs drivers to "try to use the left side of the intersection to help make sure that you do not interfere with traffic headed toward you that wants to turn left," as depicted in this thrilling official state government animation:

GIF from New York Department of Motor Vehicles.

Slick, smooth, and — in theory — as safe as can be.

Your Drivers Ed teacher would give you full marks for that beautifully executed maneuver.

[rebelmouse-image 19530938 dam="1" original_size="500x332" caption="GIF from "Baywatch"/NBC." expand=1]GIF from "Baywatch"/NBC.

Your great-grandfather, on the other hand, would be horrified.

[rebelmouse-image 19530939 dam="1" original_size="400x309" caption="GIF from "Are You Afraid of the Dark"/Nickelodeon." expand=1]GIF from "Are You Afraid of the Dark"/Nickelodeon.

Before 1930, if you wanted to hang a left in a medium-to-large American city, you most likely did it like so:

[rebelmouse-image 19530940 dam="1" original_size="700x284" caption="Photo via Fighting Traffic/Facebook." expand=1]Photo via Fighting Traffic/Facebook.

Instead of proceeding in an arc across the intersection, drivers carefully proceeded straight out across the center line of the road they were turning on and turned at a near-90-degree angle.

Often, there was a giant cast-iron tower in the middle of the road to make sure drivers didn't cheat.

Some were pretty big. Photo by Topical Press Agency/Getty Images.

These old-timey driving rules transformed busy intersections into informal roundabouts, forcing cars to slow down so that they didn't hit pedestrians from behind.

[rebelmouse-image 19530942 dam="1" original_size="480x205" caption="GIF from "Time After Time"/Warner Bros." expand=1]GIF from "Time After Time"/Warner Bros.

Or so that, if they did, it wasn't too painful.

"There was a real struggle first of all by the urban majority against cars taking over the street, and then a sort of counter-struggle by the people who wanted to sell cars," explains Peter Norton, Associate Professor of History at the University of Virginia and author of "Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City."

Norton posted the vintage left-turn instructional image, originally published in a 1919 St. Louis drivers' manual — to Facebook on July 9. While regulations were laxer in suburban and rural areas, he explains, the sharp right-angle turn was standard in nearly every major American city through the late '20s.

“That left turn rule was a real nuisance if you were a driver, but it was a real blessing if you were a walker," he says.

Early traffic laws focused mainly on protecting pedestrians from cars, which were considered a public menace.

Pedestrians on the Bowery in New York City, 1900. Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images.

For a few blissful decades after the automobile was invented, the question of how to prevent drivers from mowing down all of midtown every day was front-of-mind for many urban policymakers.

Pedestrians, Norton explains, accounted for a whopping 75 percent of road deaths back then. City-dwellers who, unlike their country counterparts, often walked on streets were predictably pretty pissed about that.

In 1903, New York City implemented one of the first traffic ordinances in the country, which codified the right-angle left. Initially, no one knew or cared, so the following year, the city stuck a bunch of big metal towers in the middle of the intersections, which pretty well spelled things out.

A Traffic Tower keeps watch at the intersection of 42nd Street and 5th Avenue in New York City in 1925. Photo by Topical Press Agency/Getty Images.

Some cities installed unmanned versions, dubbed "silent policemen," which instructed motorists to "keep to the right."

Drivers finally got the message, and soon, the right-angle left turn spread to virtually every city in America.

Things were pretty good for pedestrians — for a while.

In the 1920s, that changed when automobile groups banded together to impose a shiny new left turn on America's drivers.

According to Norton, a sales slump in 1922 to 1923 convinced many automakers that they'd maxed out their market potential in big cities. Few people, it seemed, wanted to drive in urban America. Parking spaces were nonexistent, traffic was slow-moving, and turning left was a time-consuming hassle. Most importantly, there were too many people on the road.

In order to attract more customers, they needed to make cities more hospitable to cars.

Thus began an effort to shift the presumed owner of the road, "from the pedestrian to the driver."

FDR Drive off-ramps in 1955. Photo by Three Lions/Getty Images.

"It was a multi-front campaign," Norton says.

The lobbying started with local groups — taxi cab companies, truck fleet operators, car dealers associations — and eventually grew to include groups like the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce, which represented most major U.S. automakers.

Car advocates initially worked to take control of the traffic engineering profession. The first national firm, the Albert Erskine Bureau for Street Traffic Research, was founded in 1925 at Harvard University, with funds from Studebaker to make recommendations to cities on how to design streets.

Driving fast, they argued, was not inherently dangerous, but something that could be safe with proper road design.

Drivers weren't responsible for road collisions. Pedestrians were.

Therefore, impeding traffic flow to give walkers an advantage at the expense of motor vehicle operators, they argued, is wasteful, inconvenient, and inefficient.

Out went the right-angle left turn.

Industry-led automotive interest groups began producing off-the-shelf traffic ordinances modeled on Los Angeles' driver-friendly 1925 traffic code, including our modern-day left turn, which was adopted by municipalities across the country.

The towering silent policemen were replaced by dome-shaped bumps called "traffic mushrooms," which could be driven over.

[rebelmouse-image 19530946 dam="1" original_size="700x465" caption="A modern "traffic mushroom" in Forbes, New South Wales. Photo by Mattinbgn/Wikimedia Commons." expand=1]A modern "traffic mushroom" in Forbes, New South Wales. Photo by Mattinbgn/Wikimedia Commons.

Eventually the bumps were removed altogether. Barriers and double yellow lines that ended at the beginning of an intersection encouraged drivers to begin their left turns immediately.

The old way of hanging a left was mostly extinct by 1930 as the new, auto-friendly ordinances proved durable.

So ... is the new left turn better?

Yes. Also, no.

It's complicated.

The shift to a "car-dominant status quo," Norton explains, wasn't completely manufactured — nor entirely negative.

An L.A. motorway in 1953. Photo by L.J. Willinger/Getty Images.

As more Americans bought cars, public opinion of who should run the road really did change. The current left turn model is better and more efficient for drivers — who have to cross fewer lanes of traffic — and streets are less chaotic than they were in the early part of the 20th century.

Meanwhile, pedestrian deaths have declined markedly over the years. While walkers made up 75% of all traffic fatalities in the 1920s in some cities, by 2015, just over 5,000 pedestrians were killed by cars on the street, roughly 15% of all vehicle-related deaths.

There's a catch, of course.

While no one factor fully accounts for the decrease in pedestrian deaths, Norton believes the industry's success in making roadways completely inhospitable to walkers helps explain the trend.

Simply put, fewer people are hit because fewer people are crossing the street (or walking at all). The explosion of auto-friendly city ordinances — which, among other things, allowed drivers to make faster, more aggressive left turns — pushed people off the sidewalks and into their own vehicles.

When that happened, the nature of traffic accidents changed.

A man fixes a bent fender, 1953. Photo by Sherman/Three Lions/Getty Images.

"Very often, a person killed in a car in 1960 would have been a pedestrian a couple of decades earlier," Norton says.

We still live with that car-dominant model and the challenges that arise from it. Urban design that prioritizes drivers over walkers contributes to sprawl and, ultimately, to carbon emissions. A system engineered to facilitate auto movement also allows motor vehicle operators to avoid responsibility for sharing the street in subtle ways. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists three tips to prevent injuries and deaths from car-human collisions — all for pedestrians, including "carrying a flashlight when walking," and "wearing retro-reflective clothing."

A Minneapolis Star-Tribune analysis found that, of over 3,000 total collisions with pedestrians (including 95 fatalities) in the Twin Cities area between 2010 and 2014, only 28 drivers were charged and convicted a crime — mostly misdemeanors.

Norton says he's encouraged, however, by recent efforts to reclaim city streets and make them safe for walkers.

Pedestrians walk through New York's Times Square, 2015. Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images.

That includes a push by groups like Transportation Alternatives to install pedestrian plazas and bike lanes and to promote bus rapid transit. It also includes Vision Zero, a safety initiative in cities across America, which aims to end traffic fatalities by upgrading road signage, lowering speed limits, and installing more traffic circles, among other things.

As a historian, Norton hopes Americans come to understand that the way we behave on the road isn't static or, necessarily, what we naturally prefer. Often, he explains, it results from hundreds of conscious decisions made over decades.

"We're surrounded by assumptions that are affecting our choices, and we don't know where those assumptions come from because we don't know our own history," he says.

Even something as mindless as hanging a left.

This article was originally published on July 14, 2017.

@callmebelly/TikTok

An excellent reminder to show kindness and patience.

Listening to a baby cry during a flight might be aggravating, but it’s nothing compared to the moans, groans, and eyerolls that the baby's parents must endure from other passengers when it happens. No matter what tips and tricks are used to try to soothe a little one’s temperament while 30,000 miles in the air, crying is almost inevitable. So, while having to ease their own child’s anxiety, moms and dads also must suffer being the pariah of the trip. What a nightmare.

Recently, one mom was apparently trying so hard to avoid upsetting her fellow flight members that she went above and beyond to essentially apologize ahead of time if her baby began to cry on its first flight. It was a gesture that, while thoughtful, had folks really feeling for how stressed that poor mom must be.

In a clip posted to his TikTok, one of the passengers—Elliot—explained that the mom handed out small care packages to those nearby.

“She’s already so busy and took the time to make these bags for everyone,” Elliot said, before panning the camera to reveal a Ziplock bag full of candy, along with a note that made him “want to cry.”

The note read: “It’s my first flight. I made a deal to be on my best behaviour—but I can’t make any guarantees. I might cry if I get scared or if my ears start to hurt. Here are some treats to make your flight enjoyable. Thank you for being patient with us. Have a great flight.”

Like Elliot, those who watched the video felt some ambivalence at the well intentioned act. Many felt remorse that she would feel the need to appease people in this way.

“This is so sweet but also … kind of breaks my heart that we live in a world in which parents feel the need to do that.”

“Because jerk people have shamed parents into believing that they need to apologize for their kids' absolutely normal behavior. What a gem of a mom.”

“You know that sweet mom worried about this trip so much.”

“That poor mom probably spent nights awake … nervous about that flight, thinking of ways to keep strangers happy.”

"That's a mom trying so hard."

Many rallied behind the mom, arguing that making others feel more comfortable with her child being on board was in no way her responsibility.

“No mom should be apologizing. Adults can control their emotions … babies not …. Hugging this mom from a distance.”

“Dear new parents: no you don’t have to do this. Your babies have the right to exist. We all know babies cry. We know you try your best.”

Luckily, there are just as many stories of fellow passengers being completely compassionate towards parents with small children—from simply choosing to throw on their headphones during a tantrum (instead of throwing one themselves) to going out of their way to comfort a baby (and taking the load of a parent in the process). These little acts of kindness make more of an impact than we probably realize. Perhaps if we incorporated more of this “it takes a village” mindset, flying could be a little bit more pleasant for everyone involved.

@amberandjoshofficial/TikTok, Photo credit: Canva

Other parents had no idea this was a "universal experience."

Parenting looks astronomically different than it did when we were kids, and we know one of the major culprits of that is technology. Back in the day, there was no such thing as a “tablet kid,” there wasn’t an app that tracked a kid’s every move, you couldn’t get answers to your burning parenting questions from endless online forms and parent groups. Twas a different time, indeed.

Of course, these modern day conveniences have all kinds of pros and cons attached to them, as one dad, Josh (@amberandjoshofficial) demonstrated in a now-viral video posted to his TikTok. In the video, we see him try—and fail—to use the age-old parenting saying that’s always bought them juuuuust a little more time from demanding kiddos, otherwise known as “just a minute.”

That is, until now. Turns out, in the age of Alexa, “just a minute” doesn’t cut it. Because kids can and will be using that robot against you, just like his own daughter did. Poor Josh was just trying to finish washing the dishes before getting the glass of milk she requested. But unfortunately for him, as soon as he replied with “just a minute,” she immediately asked Alexa to “set the timer.” Ruthless.

“Accountability has never been higher," Josh wrote in his caption. And other parents who watched the video couldn’t help but agree.

“I had no idea this was a universal experience 😂”

“No this is literally verbatim my life 😂😂😂”

"Oh so it’s not just our house. It’s relieving and also scary to know we’re not alone 😂”

“Haha this is so accurate. I’ve had the conversation with my kids that it’s a figure of speech – they still do it 😂”

“NOT MY ALEXA RESPONDING WHILE I WATCHED THIS VIDEO”

A few fellow parents chimed in with some lighthearted “tips,” such as explaining that “one minute is more of a vibe than a unit of time,” or swapping it for “one more moment” instead.

Another suggested that he “keep that same energy when they want more time on their game.”

And hey, maybe higher accountability isn’t totally a bad thing. It didn’t exactly instill trust when our parents stretched “just a minute” into eternity, especially when it turned into not actually doing what they said they would.

That's apparently not the only way Alexa has potentially helped parents, either. A study conducted by Kantar for Amazon found that 95% of parents agreed that having Alexa at home has helped reduce screen time, while another 90% felt Alexa helped their kids stay mentally active, learn new things, and become more independent. As with all technology, it can be easy to develop too much of a reliance on this gadget, but (when used responsibly) there are some definitive perks, it seems.

So there you have it, folks. Let’s just chalk it up to being more thing that’s a relic of a bygone era. But hey, change is the only constant, right?

By the way, Josh and his wife Amber have even more wholesome and fun family content where that came from on their TikTok. Check it out here.

@cosmo_andtheoddparents/TikTok

He wuvs his vet.

Not every dog might jump with joy after seeing their vet out in public. But for Cosmo the Golden Retriever, it was practically Christmas all over again when he spotted his own vet, Dr. Jones, at a brewery.

In an adorable clip posted to TikTok, we see Cosmo in pure, unadulterated bliss as he snuggles with an equally happy Dr. Jones, who, considering he’s still in his scrubs, might have just gotten out of work to grab a quick pint.

Watch:

Ugh, the cuteness is too much to handle! People in the comments could barely contain their secondhand joy.

“He looked over like, “Mom, do you see who this is?” one person wrote, while another said, “What in the Hallmark movie? Adorable!!”

One person even joked, “Did we all check the vet’s hand for a wedding ring? (Said as a married woman. Looking out for you all, or something.)”

According to Hannah Dweikat, Cosmo’s owner, the two actually share quite a history. She tells Upworthy that when Cosmo was but a wee pup, he “gave a scare” after eating a Sago Palm seed, which are highly toxic to dogs, from a plant in their backyard, which of course resulted in him being rushed to the animal hospital and staying there over the weekend.

While that’s every pet owner’s worst nightmare, and certainly a scary situation for the poor fur baby, Dweikat says that “the calm and patient demeanor” of Dr. Jones and his staff put Cosmo at ease. And because of this, “Cosmo has always loved going to see his friends—especially because they give him lots of treats and snuggles.”

Cosmo and Dr. Jones’ buddyship has also blossomed thanks to proximity, as Dweikat only lives down the street from the clinic. “Which means we get to see Dr. Jones and his staff out in public at times and Cosmo takes every chance he can get to say hi,” she explains. This time, however, she was able to capture it all on video. Yay for us!

What makes a good vet?

While not every vet, however gifted, will be able to elicit this type of reaction from their patients, having a calming presence like Dr. Jones is certainly a good sign for pet owners to be on the lookout for when shopping around for their own vet. But that’s not the only quality a good vet needs. According to Saint Matthews University, a vet also needs to have high stamina (both physically and mentally), as well as an ability to tolerate unpleasant situations (you can’t faint at the sight of blood or vomit), a high level of emotional intelligence (maybe all doctors should possess this skill, but especially those who work with animals), adaptability, a sense of enthusiasm, and finally, excellent communication skills.

Dr. Jones seems to have these attributes in spades, and his patients clearly love him for it. None so much as Cosmo, obviously.

By the way, if you’re in need of even more content featuring this precious pup, you can follow Cosmo on both TikTok and Instagram.

A curious sign in the Dallas-Forth Worth International Airport.

A brilliant LGBTQ rights advocate in Texas found a clever way to skewer the state’s anti-trans politicians by creating a fake sign stating that the state government was verifying people’s genitals through AI. The signs were posted in bathrooms at the Dallas Fort Worth International Airport. The prank was a great way to show travelers that when trans rights are under fire, everyone's rights are, too.

The signs look precisely like a government warning and infer that the toilet's flushing sensor holds some device to photograph bathroom user’s genitals. Taking pictures of someone’s genitals is a massive violation of people’s privacy, but if the state wants to monitor if trans people are using the bathroom, how else could it tell?


The prank warning sign has a phone number for people to call to have their photos removed from the database, and it goes to Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick's office. Back in 2016 and 2017, Patrick pushed for a law that would limit transgender people's ability to use the bathroom that matches their identity.

Here's what the prank sign reads:

Electronic Genital Verification (EGV)

Your genitalia may be photographed electronically during your use of this facility as part of the Electronic Genital Verification (EGV) pilot program at the direction of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. In the future, EGV will help keep Texans safe while protecting your privacy by screening for potentially improper restroom access using machine vision and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in lieu of traditional genital inspections.

At this time, images collected will be used solely for model training purposes and will not be used for law enforcement or shared with entities except as pursuant to a subpoena, court order or as otherwise compelled by a legal process.
Your participation in this program is voluntary.

You have the right to request removal of your data by calling the EGV program office at (512) 463-0001 during normal operating hours (Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM).

Michael Dear, a security camera expert, posted about encountering one of the signs at the airport.


The prank even caught the attention of the DFW airport. “This is not a DFW-produced or authorized sign, and we have no information about its origins,” DFW media relations manager Cynthia Vega told Snopes. “However, we are investigating to ensure that none is posted, and we will remove any unauthorized signs if found.”

The idea of the government inspecting its citizen's genitals seems outlandish and totalitarian. However, a bill that made it through the Ohio State House of Representatives in June 2022 calls for just that. The bill would have required high school athletes to prove their gender by submitting to intrusive inspections of their genitalia and other invasive tests. Although the bill was never signed into law, it begs the question: What poses a more significant threat to high schoolers, transgender female athletes (less than 100 people nationwide), or statewide government genital inspections?

Sometimes, the best way to expose hysteria is not to shout back even louder but to encourage everyone to laugh at it. Kudos to the creator of the genital verification prank for using humor to make an essential point about privacy.

Image credits: Public domain (left) Zoran Veselinovic (right)

There's nothing like a power key change to take a song to the next level.

Music affects us emotionally and psychologically in so many ways. A minor key can make us sad and wistful, a dissonant chord can trigger fear, and a joyful, jaunty tune can pull us out of a funk. But a musical device that used to be a staple in pop music has largely fallen by the wayside, much to the dismay of everyone who's ever raised a finger to the sky when Whitney Houston belted out, "Don't…make…me…CLOOOOSE one more doooor."

That's right. The power key change. Bon Jovi did it in "Livin' on a Prayer," Michael Jackson in "Man in the Mirror," and Celine Dion in "My Heart Will Go On." Taking a verse or a chorus up a notch by modulating the key was a way for pop stars to give their songs extra oomph for decades. We loved it because it made us feel things. And some of us are realizing just how much we miss the chills and thrills those modulations gave us.

Self-proclaimed "geriatric millennial" Chrissy Allen posted an impassioned plea to "bring back key changes" with examples from popular songs of the 80s and 90s, and it's resonating with those who remember.

Her movements are so familiar and people in the comments felt it in their bones.

"Ah yes! The classic last chorus modulation (or if you're Michael Jackson, like 8x). Expected and unexpected all at once."

"Key changes make you feel like life is worth it, the future is bright and nothing is going to stop your fearless heart! Such a dopamine boost 🔥 Other songs can't compete with that."

"This is pure dopamine. Like, just the good stuff, all lean no fat, pharmaceutical grade brain chemicals. 🤌🏽"

"If there is no key change, when do they stand up from their stool?"

"And the beat dropping WITH the key change is the *chef’s kiss*"

"Total goosebumps the whole time."

For real, though. Watch Whitney pull this key change out of her hat and see if it doesn't give you goosebumps.

Whitney Houston's key change in "I Have Nothing" is legendary.youtu.be

It's not that nobody does the key change anymore, but it's definitely fallen out of favor. As Chris Dalla Riva writes in Tedium, "The act of shifting a song’s key up either a half step or a whole step (i.e. one or two notes on the keyboard) near the end of the song, was the most popular key change for decades. In fact, 52 percent of key changes found in number one hits between 1958 and 1990 employ this change. You can hear it on “My Girl,” “I Wanna Dance With Somebody,” and “Livin’ on a Prayer,” among many others."

But something happened in the 90s that shifted musicians away from key changes. The rise of Hip-Hop music, which Riva explains "focuses more on rhythms and lyricism than on melody and harmony," was one change. Another was the way music is written, recorded, and produced. Computer programs have fundamentally changed the way music is made, and those changes don't lend themselves to changing a key mid-song.

Riva gives an example:

"Imagine that I’m Sting and I sit down to write a song in the early ’80s for my group The Police. While composing, it’s likely that I’ll work linearly. What this means is I’ll write section-by-section. First, I’ll write a verse, then a chorus, then another verse, and so on. One way to create intrigue as I get to a new section is to change something. Maybe the lyrics. Maybe the melody. Or maybe the key.

"Every Breath You Take" changes key at the bridge.youtu.be

On “Every Breath You Take,” Sting does the third. Most of the song is built around a laid back groove in Ab major, but then on the bridge, the energy kicks up as the song shifts to the key of B major. Because songwriters in the pre-digital age were writing linearly, shifting the key in a new section was a natural compositional technique.

"But in the computer age, this linear style doesn’t make as much sense." Riva explains that "digital recording software generally encourages a vertical rather than linear songwriting approach."

Some people say the key change is for singers who can actually sing as they lament the popularity of autotune technology. But there are some genuinely incredible singers in this day and age. We cannot live in the era of Kelly Clarkson and Pink and Ariana Grande and complain about a loss of singing ability. Maybe those pop divas will join the movement to bring key changes back in full force. We need those dopamine hits now more than ever.