Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

1106710681070107210731113

Comments

  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,887
    Looking at the current mayor of Chicago, the office does not exactly represent logic and accountability.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,278
    I remember a time when right turns on red weren't permitted under ANY circumstances. Somehow we managed.

    There was also a time before the internal combustion engine where horses were used, and the horses couldn't run faster than 55 MPH so the 55 MPH speed limit may have made sense back then.

    The point is people evolve, civilizations advance, and technology improves.

    With it, the laws need to "get with the program."
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,278
    they couldn't STOP and LOOK and YIELD to other cars and to pedestrians. Blame them, not the public servants you like blame all the world's problems on.

    Seems your beef is not with drivers that fail to stop completely, but with drivers that impede traffic or violate simple right-of-way rules. Certainly, rolling through a right turn at a few MPH where no cars are coming for miles doesn't hurt anyone. Stopping completely at the right turn only to cut someone off with the right of way doesn't do any better. The point is you can't cut someone off and impede their progress whether you stop, roll, or wait minutes for the green. Remember, even when your light turns green you should make sure the intersection is clear and it is SAFE to move forward and complete your turn before moving forward and completing your turn.

    I would challenge that right turn on red accidents are a minuscule percentage of accidents at intersections.

    We should blame the people causing the accidents. Write them expensive tickets for causing accidents. Take away their licenses for a period of time. Force them into remedial driver's training programs to learn right of way rules.

    Writing pointless laws and adding pointless signage doesn't accomplish that. Useless laws lessen the enforcement of important laws. So you bleeding heart liberals out there, when you ask "what harm does a law banning a large soda do?" The answer is that worthless laws weaken the vital laws. Limited allocation of resources, including for the overpaid law enforcement group.

    By the way, if a right turner causes a rear-end accident, it is actually their fault (the difficulty will be proving it if they lie though). It is actually legal to change lanes into the right lane from the left lane at an intersection too. There was an insurance scam group that would deliberately ram right turners from the left lane (by changing lanes) if they didn't heed this assigned accident blame rule.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,618
    There is so much b.s. in your post, I wouldn't know where to begin.

    This isn't about banning sodas... which is a ridiculous idea. It's about following basic traffic laws, like stopping at stop signs and stop lights. Not too hard to understand.

    If you don't like following basic traffic laws, I recommend you either stop driving, or petition for removal or changing of controls you don't like.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,278
    edited June 2013
    Basic traffic laws include yielding the right of way to other traffic. If one is able to do this without a complete stop at a right turn, why require it?

    Just because it is legal doesn't mean you have to roll through. If rolling right turns were legalized it doesn't mean stopping at the turn would become illegal!!!!

    I think you are having problems with the truth here.

    Even the most "basic" laws need fine tuning once in a while.

    Laws were made and written by humans and therefore subject to error.

    Also, regarding the case that started this discussion, my brother in law did in fact come to a complete stop. He said so, and I believe him whole heartedly because had he not the officer would have wrote him up for that far more expensive violation of "running a red light" (LOL), then the sign violation of disobeying forbidden hours of the day to turn right.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,618
    You are having a problem confusing a STOP sign with a YIELD sign.

    If you think there's STOP signs that should be YIELD signs, you can talk with your local authorities to get them changed... do some of that "fine tuning" you would like to see.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Posts: 3,305
    The majority agrees with you re: the B S. :shades:
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,887
    edited June 2013
    Maybe with the proliferation of dash cams, we can start collecting examples of negligent traffic controls, upload them all to Youtube, and embarrass municipalities with their poor planning and dumb infrastructure. That might require a level of accountability to be had by those with their fingers on the buttons though, and that exists inconsistently at best. It'd be nice to see some of these things defended with big pensions on the line.
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,633
    Oh, no, and I just invested in a snow plow attachment for my Mini Cooper! :)
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,278
    Wow, NJ is doing something CA should have done long ago.
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,633
    In CA we can't even flash our lights or honk or shake our fists at the tortoises. We are rendered powerless.... :cry:
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,887
    WA has similar LLC laws, which I hear are at least occasionally enforced.

    Out on foot today, I noticed tons of phone yappers/holders - probably 80% were women under 40. Also saw a guy in an old GTI honk at a Lexus RX making a U-turn. The Lexus had the green and was making a legal/signed turn, VW was making a free right turn. Nothing looks stupider than honking when you're in the wrong, and VW guy looked pretty stupid. I shouted his error at him from the sidewalk.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,278
    I flash my lights in CA. Never feared doing it either. Never been even remotely punished for it.

    I have resorted to honking at left lane campers as I pass them on the right. Probably 1% figure out why.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,278
    Two cars waiting until the last minute to change lanes.

    One is two lanes over and moving right to get into an exit ramp/lane at the very last minute. The other car is on the oncoming ramp/merging lane and trying to move left onto the freeway at the very last minute before they run out of room in front of the following exit ramp the other car is trying to merge onto.

    Who is in the wrong? Normally the vehicle on the freeway would have the right of way, but that is the right to the lane on the freeway, not the exit/merging lane/ramp.

    One car moves right, one car moves left, they sideswipe; who's at fault?
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Posts: 3,305
    The driver merging onto the freeway is obligated to yield to the other driver who has more equity in his position. Using the Left turn signal when merging does not trump the driver who is already there.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,278
    edited June 2013
    To complicate matters, what if the car on the left wasn't "there" yet, and quickly and dangerously changed from TWO lanes over in order to cause the collision? You are supposed to change one lane at a time, so the "who got there first" question might be a tie in this situation.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,618
    If a driver could have prevented the accident by driving in a prudent manner, he/she might be found at fault.

    Another factor here, which may or may not carry any weight in court, but should, is that the driver exiting had plenty of time to move into the exit lane. As you noted, he waited until the last second, then made a dangerous two-lane cut. The car entering the freeway had much less room to maneuver, compared to the exiting car.

    Also, how did the cars actually collide? If the car entering the freeway ran into the car exiting, or vice versa, it's more clear who is at fault.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,278
    Also, how did the cars actually collide? If the car entering the freeway ran into the car exiting, or vice versa, it's more clear who is at fault.

    They actually didn't collide; both drivers were alert and managed to just have a close call.

    If they had been slow at the wheel they would have collided right at the middle of the first lane (not the exit/merging lane), and hard to say but perhaps driver to passenger door contact.

    As it was, the driver merging onto the freeway used the excess shoulder to get onto the freeway safely and speed up (a situation where braking would have been the worst reaction, but speeding up saved the day), the car exiting managed to exit, but had to hit the brakes and get behind then move right, forcing the tailgating truck behind them to slam the brakes too.

    I agree with your assertion that the exiting car has more time to make his maneuver than the merging car, which should be considered, but I know insurance companies don't think that way. Also, proving a driver was being prudent or not will prove nearly impossible without video tape.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,618
    Not really. It's prudent, for example, to prepare to exit a freeway before the last second, to avoid exactly the kind of situation you described. It's reckless to wait until the last second, then cut across two lanes suddenly. It doesn't take a video tape to figure that out.
Sign In or Register to comment.