Do you make productive use of idle time?

[tjs282]

As far as I'm concerned, 'productive time' means any time spent with a tangible product/ result at the end of it, that I didn't have at the beginning of it: so the existence of a created object, a tidy(er) garden, a clean(er) house, a well-written post (*hollow laugh*) on CFC, something new learnt, or even just a better-developed virtual empire, would count as time well spent... Conversely, re-reading a book, doing puzzles, watching TV, or lounging/ sunbathing, probably wouldn't.

My commute is mostly along rural minor roads, and pretty short: only about 15-20 minutes each way by car. I often spend the time musing over talking-points from a forum thread I've read recently (thanks, guys, for colonising my head! ), or my current Civ3-game, or my mod-in-progress. Sometimes I get round to implementing those thoughts later, and if I do, then that time was productive — "from a certain point of view..."

It's about 50-60 minutes by bike, and given that I'm travelling a lot slower on bike-days, my mind/attention will wander a lot more: in addition to the above, I also spend the time looking out for wildlife.

(I've seen buzzards, kestrels, kites, deer, hares, woodpeckers, foxes, and (once) wild boar so far. No wolves yet, but that may just be a matter of time...).

But if it's true that drivers go from point A to point B and have no memory of anything road/driving-related in between, why would people keep asking me how many traffic lights were between their starting point and my place when I was giving them directions? Why ask, if they don't notice them?

Speaking personally, on routes I know (like my commute, that I've followed near-daily for the past 10 years), I can pretty much drive on autopilot as @cardgame described. Which can actually be pretty scary sometimes: a couple of weeks back, I found myself suddenly wondering (several kilometres on down the road) if I'd actually run a red light at a particular junction, because I couldn't remember seeing the traffic light (red or green) at all.

But on routes I don't know well, or not at all, I will be paying a lot more attention to the road in front of me, especially in a town. So counting major cross-streets/ traffic lights might well be one means I'd use to figure out how far I should drive/ where I should turn (although reading the road signage is also quite useful!).

Um... it's the opposite of south. Depending on the time of day, the Sun is either to the left or to the right. It's not like there are any tall buildings there that block out the view of the Sun, so how can people not be able to figure these things out? Don't they teach basic map-reading anymore?

Did 'they' ever?

Certainly didn't in my case. Long before I ever did geography at school, I'd learned how to read/make maps from books: a children's world-atlas I used to have, also 'journey' fiction like Treasure Island, Swallows & Amazons, Watership Down, and The Hobbit. But even at school, I don't remember ever getting much if any formal instruction in map-reading per se, beyond basic things like the use of co-ordinates in maths.

(And why bother these days, when a SatNav can do it "just as well"...?)

My concern with traffic lights is whether or not I can make it across in time, because whoever programmed those things didn't bother accounting for people with reduced mobility (a point brought up by a former city councilor, who informed his clueless colleagues that it really wouldn't be good for seniors and disabled people to get run over because of not having enough time to cross a street).

?!?

Admittedly I don't know anything about traffic law in Canada, but AFAIK in the UK and Germany, the law says that a green pedestrian-crossing light only governs when someone is permitted to begin crossing. If the crossing-light starts flashing (UK), or changes to red (Germany) while they are still on the roadway, they are permitted to finish crossing, and road-users are legally required to wait until they have done so, even if that takes so long that the traffic-light has also turned green in the meantime.

Yes, some ****holes may well honk at the 'offending' pedestrian (which is illegal) or rev their engines (legal AFAIK, but certainly threatening/stupid), to 'encourage' them to hurry up. But if an impatient motorist actually drives onto/over the crossing before they are legally allowed to do so, and injures the pedestrian(s) as a result, then — assuming they can be brought to account — they can expect to have the book thrown at them.

(I do realise that this would not be much comfort to the injured party(s) — or their heirs — but the law is clear on who would be at fault in this situation).

Spoiler More German traffic law as I understand it... :

Following any collision between a truck/car and a motorbike, cyclist or pedestrian, the driver of the larger/ faster/ heavier vehicle will always be legally considered at least partly to blame for any resulting injury, precisely because the potential damage they might do is much greater (and thus demands greater attention/ caution). This is still true even if the collision happened because the more vulnerable party did something unexpected, illegal, and/or stupid (such as riding onto a bike-crossing against a red light after dark, without bike-lights and/or while wearing dark clothing — all of which I've seen done on my local roads).

That 'deadlier weapon' principle applies all the way down the chain: motorbikers vs. cyclists, or cyclists vs. pedestrians. (Might even apply at the inter-pedestrian level as well, e.g. joggers accidentally running into/ knocking over pensioners).

 

[Synobun]

?!?

Admittedly I don't know anything about traffic law in Canada, but AFAIK in the UK and Germany, the law says that a green pedestrian-crossing light only governs when someone is permitted to begin crossing. If the crossing-light starts flashing (UK), or changes to red (Germany) while they are still on the roadway, they are permitted to finish crossing, and road-users are legally required to wait until they have done so, even if that takes so long that the traffic-light has also turned green in the meantime.

Yes, some ****holes may well honk at the 'offending' pedestrian (which is illegal) or rev their engines (legal AFAIK, but certainly threatening/stupid), to 'encourage' them to hurry up. But if an impatient motorist actually drives onto/over the crossing before they are legally allowed to do so, and injures the pedestrian(s) as a result, then — assuming they can be brought to account — they can expect to have the book thrown at them.

It's kind of complicated. You're right that pedestrians have the right of way, but it's also hammered into you that as a pedestrian you're not supposed to cross if you can't do it within the signal timer. Example, if you're at a major intersection and there's 10 seconds left on the timer, you probably shouldn't cross even though it's still technically allowed.

This is problematic for the disabled and elderly because many timers are short. As in, if you're able-bodied and you start walking the second the pedestrian signal turns green, it will be red by the time you reach the other curb. Drivers, meanwhile, frequently cross into the crosswalks, blow through lights, make left turns because there are no dedicated left turn signals, etc. Some drivers base their turning behaviour on the pedestrian signals rather than simply having a gander at who's crossing.

With a lot of routine behaviours, you rely on signals. Obviously the recommendation is to not rely on them and to be 'aware' at all times, but we know many don't abide by that. So with that in mind, there may be merit to the idea of extending pedestrian signal timers by a fair margin if only to dissuade those who lack situational awareness.

 

[tjs282]

With a lot of routine behaviours, you rely on signals. Obviously the recommendation is to not rely on them and to be 'aware' at all times, but we know many don't abide by that. So with that in mind, there may be merit to the idea of extending pedestrian signal timers by a fair margin if only to dissuade those who lack situational awareness.

Fair enough, thanks for taking the time to explain that. I saw countdown-timers (for road traffic) on our holiday in Thailand last year, but timers are not (yet, AFAIK) widely used on pedestrian-crossing lights in Germany (or the UK). On some UK pedestrian-crossing lights, the green starts flashing shortly before it turns red, and you're not supposed to step onto the road while it's flashing, but people often do (I couldn't tell you offhand how long it flashes for).

(A rather juvenile smutty joke circulated in my primary-school playground over 30 years ago, the punchline of which was "... And that's why you should never cross the road when the green man flashes!" I'm sure you can figure out the gist of what came before that, nudge-nudge, wink-wink, say no more...)

Are timers then common/standard in Canada these days (in major urban areas, anyway)? And do you know who decides on the time-to-cross, and how they do it (if it's frequently decidedly not optimal for seniors, mobility-impaired people, mothers with pushchairs, etc...)?

 

[Synobun]

It's decided by whichever department handles traffic lights, which can differ based on the city. Here in Vancouver, they're handled by the "City of Vancouver" and the traffic data pages don't offer any further clarification. Some sleuthing reveals it's the Engineering Services wing of local government that does it.

Most lights here are timed. Some are different based on the time of day, and sometimes certain signals don't go at all unless manually triggered (most often with collector roads turning onto arterial roads).

My nearest intersection is 4 lanes (2 each way) with a concrete separator in the middle. The pedestrian timer is 20 seconds, or 15 seconds if it switches after a left turn signal. You can cross it at a decent pace in 12-14 seconds.

 

[sophie]

Well, I just hypothesized a Latin declined form for Hitler's name, so clearly not.

 

[Hygro]

Can't leave us lingering on that one.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

As far as I'm concerned, 'productive time' means any time spent with a tangible product/ result at the end of it, that I didn't have at the beginning of it: so the existence of a created object, a tidy(er) garden, a clean(er) house, a well-written post (*hollow laugh*) on CFC, something new learnt, or even just a better-developed virtual empire, would count as time well spent... Conversely, re-reading a book, doing puzzles, watching TV, or lounging/ sunbathing, probably wouldn't.

Re-reading a book is productive if you gain more insight than you had before. Doing puzzles exercises the brain, and if you watch a documentary on TV, you'll (hopefully) learn something you didn't know before.

Did 'they' ever?

Back in the '70s (around 1974), every Grade 6 public school student in Red Deer had to attend a 3-day outdoor-education camp at Pine Lake. Before that, the Grade 6 teachers took us all outside, gave us compasses, and taught us how to use them.

Then they took us to the local swamp (wetlands area full of very tall weeds so it's easy to get lost in it), turned us loose, and told us to find our way back to the school. It was a disagreeably wet, mosquito bite-filled exercise, but I found my way back.

While we were at the camp, one of the major things we learned was orienteering. That meant learning how to read a map, how to use a compass, and by the time the 3 days were up, we knew how to find our directions.

Certainly didn't in my case. Long before I ever did geography at school, I'd learned how to read/make maps from books: a children's world-atlas I used to have, also 'journey' fiction like Treasure Island, Swallows & Amazons, Watership Down, and The Hobbit. But even at school, I don't remember ever getting much if any formal instruction in map-reading per se, beyond basic things like the use of co-ordinates in maths.

(And why bother these days, when a SatNav can do it "just as well"...?)

What if the electronics go haywire? There are instances of people driving off cliffs, into lakes, or into the desert because they believed their GPS instead of their own eyes. In the case of the desert, it was an older couple. They ran out of gas, and the husband tried to walk out. His body was found several weeks later. The wife survived, barely (by rationing what little food she had and thank goodness it had rained recently).

?!?

Admittedly I don't know anything about traffic law in Canada, but AFAIK in the UK and Germany, the law says that a green pedestrian-crossing light only governs when someone is permitted to begin crossing. If the crossing-light starts flashing (UK), or changes to red (Germany) while they are still on the roadway, they are permitted to finish crossing, and road-users are legally required to wait until they have done so, even if that takes so long that the traffic-light has also turned green in the meantime.

Yes, some ****holes may well honk at the 'offending' pedestrian (which is illegal) or rev their engines (legal AFAIK, but certainly threatening/stupid), to 'encourage' them to hurry up. But if an impatient motorist actually drives onto/over the crossing before they are legally allowed to do so, and injures the pedestrian(s) as a result, then — assuming they can be brought to account — they can expect to have the book thrown at them.

(I do realise that this would not be much comfort to the injured party(s) — or their heirs — but the law is clear on who would be at fault in this situation).

Spoiler More German traffic law as I understand it... :

Following any collision between a truck/car and a motorbike, cyclist or pedestrian, the driver of the larger/ faster/ heavier vehicle will always be legally considered at least partly to blame for any resulting injury, precisely because the potential damage they might do is much greater (and thus demands greater attention/ caution). This is still true even if the collision happened because the more vulnerable party did something unexpected, illegal, and/or stupid (such as riding onto a bike-crossing against a red light after dark, without bike-lights and/or while wearing dark clothing — all of which I've seen done on my local roads).

That 'deadlier weapon' principle applies all the way down the chain: motorbikers vs. cyclists, or cyclists vs. pedestrians. (Might even apply at the inter-pedestrian level as well, e.g. joggers accidentally running into/ knocking over pensioners).

Drivers here tend to have the attitude that pedestrians are just nuisances that should get out of their way. Some drivers are just clueless in general. I had an argument with a bus driver several years ago (this was before getting the wheeled walker, but I was using canes), when I refused to get off the outbound bus on one side of the highway, cross the road, and catch the inbound bus on the other side. She kept ranting at me that it would be "quicker." I told her flat-out that the reason I preferred to ride the outbound bus the extra half-hour was because it was safer.

She couldn't understand the idea that a disabled pedestrian would be afraid to cross one half of the highway, wait on the boulevard in the middle of traffic for the next green light, and then cross the rest of the way (across multiple lanes of busy traffic where pedestrians aren't expected), when that was an intersection notorious for accidents and that was unsafe for able-bodied people, never mind disabled people. Finally, I told her, "If I don't mind taking longer to get home, why should you? It's not like the bus is full and somebody needs my seat."

When I got to the depot downtown I had a word with one of the supervisors, asking them to remind the drivers not to badger passengers into unsafe situations, that there are valid reasons for riding the long way around.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

If simply "learning something new" is productive then just about everything is productive, because we learn and adapt all the time, consciously and unconsciously. And since "truth" or "information" is hardly objective, and often subject to change, just compare a "history channel" documentary with a properly sourced and peer-reviewed scientific paper, then even learning "wrong" (or inaccurate) information is productive. A word hardly means anything if it entails everything

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If simply "learning something new" is productive then just about everything is productive, because we learn and adapt all the time, consciously and unconsciously. And since "truth" or "information" is hardly objective, and often subject to change, just compare a "history channel" documentary with a properly sourced and peer-reviewed scientific paper, then even learning "wrong" (or inaccurate) information is productive. A word hardly means anything if it entails everything

Where did I specify a "history channel" documentary? I'm aware that what used to be a decently informative channel is nothing but garbage now, and that's a shame.

This whole "nothing is productive unless it puts money in my pocket" attitude is a slap in the face to people who volunteer, or who are students.

I've done a lot of volunteer work in my life. Did it put money in my pocket? Nope, at least not directly. Did I learn marketable skills? Yes. Did my participation in the volunteer program benefit the public? Yes. Was this a productive use of my time and effort? Definitely.

And I would say that even of the time I spent volunteering in the shelter for special-needs cats and older cats who were deemed unadoptable just because of their age. I never made a penny from that, and I had to pay for the cat toys I used out of my own pocket. But if anything I did helped even a little toward at least one of those cats finding a permanent home, it was all worth it.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Where did I specify a "history channel" documentary? I'm aware that what used to be a decently informative channel is nothing but garbage now, and that's a shame.

This whole "nothing is productive unless it puts money in my pocket" attitude is a slap in the face to people who volunteer, or who are students.

I've done a lot of volunteer work in my life. Did it put money in my pocket? Nope, at least not directly. Did I learn marketable skills? Yes. Did my participation in the volunteer program benefit the public? Yes. Was this a productive use of my time and effort? Definitely.

And I would say that even of the time I spent volunteering in the shelter for special-needs cats and older cats who were deemed unadoptable just because of their age. I never made a penny from that, and I had to pay for the cat toys I used out of my own pocket. But if anything I did helped even a little toward at least one of those cats finding a permanent home, it was all worth it.

(I wasn't directly replying to your post, rather questioning the nature of the dichotomy. I'm sure not just you, but infact many people think of watching documentaries is "being productive".)

No it isn't. I am literally a student who is currently leading a nonprofit organization. I do slap myself in the face sometimes, but not with statements like these. Usually with my hands, or with a large piece of fish or something of that nature.

Even examining your post: "Did I learn marketable skills? Yes." What are marketable skills even useful for if not acquiring currency or positively influencing your social status? It seems that the connection between productivity and financial gain/improving ones life/position is there in your line of thinking aswell. I hope you do finally see that this is merely a game of definitions, not a game of slapping people in the face.

What I am saying is that the entire idea of productivity only works in a capitalist framework where "doing something" is not the end in and of itself, but a means. I don't mean this in a purely negative sense of course. As you showed, you did some volunteer work with cats and you might've helped some of those cats find a new home. That positive change was what you were working towards.

Sorry that I speak for your, but it seems that for you doing "something productive" means just doing something enriching in general. I feel that makes the word sort of lose its meaning. As I said, if you can shoehorn almost anything into a definition, it is not a very good definition.

Just a quick look at the etymology of the word:

productive

1610s, from French productif (16c.) and directly from Medieval Latin productivus "fit for production," from Latin product-, past participle stem of producere (see produce (v.)). Related: Productively; productiveness.

productivity

1809, "quality of being productive," from productive + -ity. An earlier word for this was productiveness (1727). Economic sense of "rate of output per unit" is from 1899.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

(I wasn't directly replying to your post, rather questioning the nature of the dichotomy. I'm sure not just you, but infact many people think of watching documentaries is "being productive".)

No it isn't. I am literally a student who is currently leading a nonprofit organization. I do slap myself in the face sometimes, but not with statements like these. Usually with my hands, or with a large piece of fish or something of that nature.

Even examining your post: "Did I learn marketable skills? Yes." What are marketable skills even useful for if not acquiring currency or positively influencing your social status? It seems that the connection between productivity and financial gain/improving ones life/position is there in your line of thinking aswell. I hope you do finally see that this is merely a game of definitions, not a game of slapping people in the face.

What I am saying is that the entire idea of productivity only works in a capitalist framework where "doing something" is not the end in and of itself, but a means. I don't mean this in a purely negative sense of course. As you showed, you did some volunteer work with cats and you might've helped some of those cats find a new home. That positive change was what you were working towards.

Sorry that I speak for your, but it seems that for you doing "something productive" means just doing something enriching in general. I feel that makes the word sort of lose its meaning. As I said, if you can shoehorn almost anything into a definition, it is not a very good definition.

Obviously we are going by different ideas of what it means to be productive. I'm neither an etymologist nor an economist. To me a productive activity is one that results in some positive outcome, even if it's only feeding the cat. That's how some of my days go - some are more productive than others. Right now I'm involved in a writing competition, and it's been a tough slog this time. I'm not as productive this time as I'd hoped to be. The words aren't there and the story isn't going as I'd intended. But since discipline is important to writing, every day I sit down and end up with more overall words than I had the day before is a productive day. They may not be very good words, and when I edit this thing I'll likely toss a lot of it out or change it, but it's not wasted effort. I am learning things, about myself and about writing. That's beneficial, and therefore productive.

Marketable skills are beneficial, but for me they're not the sole defining reason why I do things. Would I ever actually get paid to cuddle and play with cats? Probably not. But it's something I know how to do, and it was very important that the shelter cats become as used to being handled and as social as possible, so they would be easier to find homes for. The two I worked the most with were a couple of male cats named Jasper and Creamsicle (a tuxedo and an orange tabby). They were really sweet-tempered cats who were best buddies, and if I'd been able to adopt them myself, I would have. I hope they found good homes; they'd be elderly by now, if they're still alive.

I'm sorry that you don't appear to consider being a student as a productive activity. Most students, unless they're completely hopeless or cheat their way to a diploma, do learn. They might not learn as fast as they would want, but any progress is better than none. Of course I'm referring to learning that doesn't result in harm, like learning to kill people. That's not something I consider productive.

 

[Ryika]

By your definition, literally everything a person does could be defined as "productive". Even lying around, doing nothing other than thinking about weird nonsense would be "productive" if the person feels they have gotten some deeper insight into how the universe worked.

 

[Hygro]

TBF that's a lot of my life the past decade

 

[Broken_Erika]

Technically; Someone in a persistent vegetative state is productive, they produce carbon dioxide. That counts as producing something.