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.)

1691692694696697753

Comments

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,710
    I'm currently taking the online National Safety Council Defensive Driving course, to shave 10% off my insurance (can do that if 55+). Based on what they teach there re defensive driving... both you and the truck driver were in the wrong.

    The truck driver should not have driven in a "dominating" way in the left lane.

    However, you should have done everything reasonable to get out of the way of the dominating driver... just let him get by you so you could get to a safer position on the road, one with less stress and risk of an accident. You say you wait for dominators to leave the area. Instead, YOU should be the one to "leave the area" as soon as it's safe for you to do so. You have control over your actions. You can't control what other drivers will do.

    It has nothing to do with being a "left lane cruiser" or not. It has to do with driving defensively, and taking whatever actions are prudent to lessen the risk of an accident or violation.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,687
    edited January 2013
    Clear evening, a little light in the sky, so about 100 cars with no lights. I don't understand.

    Not a bad drive, saw 2 turners from the wrong lane - jerky middle aged exec type in a late model Range Rover, phone to ear, right turn from left lane on a 4 lane arterial. Prime candidate for fines based on finances. Then someone I won't describe in an Odyssey (if you are local, I bet you can guess), left turn from the right lane of a similar road. Saw a few other phone users, no crosswalk crowders.
  • On the way into work this morning - I was in the left lane of a four lane divided highway (two in each direction) moving at about 50mph (SL 55). Traffic was heavy, but moving nicely. Approaching a side street, I see a WRX getting ready to pull into traffic. I see him jump into a tiny hole in traffic, and hear him accelerate hard. The car he pulled in front of had to hit the brakes a little.

    A couple seconds later, he's in the left lane two cards behind me.
    Then in the right, then left, right, left.....

    I counted 18 lane changes in 3.5 miles which placed him in the right lane barely ahead of me, at which time he turned into the parking lot of an office building. All those lane changes to advance three positions and get to work five seconds earlier!
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,687
    I had a Hummer H2 makes about 6 lane changes in a mile on a 40mph 4 lane road behind me, yesterday. When I exited, he had gained maybe a car length. Just the kind of vehicle I expect that from (WRX too).
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,454
    No harm, no foul. At least the driver kept himself busy on the task of driving. I daresay that's better than texting, makeup application, or other distractions that many "drivers" busy themselves with over that same distance.
  • slorenzenslorenzen Posts: 289
    Like you, I see TONS of drivers with cell phones to their ears, yet I never hear of anyone being stopped for this primary offense.

    What's up with that?

    They always are crying for more money, yet this is a great source of revenue....

    :confuse:
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,687
    edited January 2013
    It's too much work, I think. Far less effort involved in sitting with a radar gun and a cuppa, or setting up cameras.

    I swear, at any given moment here, at least a quarter of the "drivers" on the road are not really driving.

    What's worst is that they waste effort with public information campaigns about "laws", then do a negligent job with enforcement.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,710
    Maybe because it's really tough for LEs to determine who's illegally using a phone, or not. One example of an attempt to crack down on cell phone users... specifically re texting:

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/01/15/west-bridgewater-crack- s-down-texting-while-driving-police-discuss-challenges-enforcement/FK5GRdkS4WIIY- d3lMu1i8M/story.html

    And a little more positive news on this front...

    http://www.distraction.gov/content/dot-action/enforcement.html
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,687
    edited January 2013
    I don't know if I can buy that. It's easy - phone to ear = violation = ticket. Patrol cars all have cameras now, install some more, and let the proof be in the pictures.

    Make any phone inputs/holding while in motion a violation. Syncing to bluetooth, using speakerphone, anything. And again enter the cameras. Make refusing to use integrated bluetooth an additional fine. And implement wealth based fine scales.

    And really, give the fines more teeth.

    It might be difficult, but that's life - some parts of all of our jobs are more difficult than others.

    Or if revenue enforcers refuse to do this because it isn't easy, let them enforce turn signal and crosswalk regulations, which also seem to go ignored.

    Driving home tonight: 400 year old woman in a Prius, getting dark out, no lights, going 30-35 in a 40 where everyone goes 45, so every car was zooming by, and she was a pylon. I didn't know whether to feel sorry or annoyed. Then got behind a typical older suit in a LS460AWD - slowly takes off at green, one lane left turn onto 2 lane road, he swings wide into the far right lane with no signal, crawls, gets into left lane, crawls. I think he was holding something. Local car too, so no lost excuse.

    Only saw 1 other no lights car, an Edge with some senior ladies in it, parking lights only. Maybe those were the automatic lights?

    While jogging, I am in a crosswalk on green, grey 08-10 or so Accord cuts in without looking, misses me by a small margin, I throw up my arms in an Italian palms-up style gesture, and the driver yells at me :confuse: . Ah passive-aggressive Seattle. He then drives slow, yaps some more, but quietly - couldn't understand him. I was going to say something funny like "I'm not interested in a date, sorry", but I was short on breath and not feeling it. So I said "go away", and slowly, he did. In Florida, that would probably get you shot.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,441
    edited January 2013
    Careful, you'll wind up with a Starbucks latte in your face. Probably a double shot. :shades:

    All the comments about people driving without their lights on makes me think that'll be the next NHTSA requirement. Auto headlights in all cars, including a rain sensor. The auto lights and auto wipers are pretty nice in the in-law's Buick.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,687
    With all the paranoid gun nuts out there today, you never know. Maybe it's time to start carrying my old phone on me while jogging.

    I think the proliferation of LEDs is not 100% for looks, but for future DRL rules. They might even exist in the EU now, and of course in Canada date back 20 years.
  • Driving home tonight: 400 year old woman in a Prius, getting dark out, no lights, going 30-35 in a 40 where everyone goes 45, so every car was zooming by, and she was a pylon.

    Based on your exaggeration of this woman's age, I have to conclude that the speeds you cite are also exaggerated.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,710
    It's easy - phone to ear = violation = ticket.

    You didn't read those articles, did you. First, holding a phone to the ear has to be against the law. In many states, it isn't. (It's not where I live, for example.) Texting is more likely to be outlawed--but how to prove someone was texting? (see first article)

    Maybe if you and others who feel so strongly about banning use of cell phones while driving would use your time and energy to support 1) enactment of those laws, and 2) funds to beef up enforcement, the roads would be more to your liking, with fewer cell phone users. Yes, it might be difficult, take some real effort on your part and by many others... but all for a good and noble cause, right?

    And implement wealth based fine scales.

    You have a thing against "wealth", and you drive... what kind of cars? :confuse: Be careful what you wish for.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,687
    edited January 2013
    Give the laws teeth. Took no time for yapping to go from secondary to primary here, so that change shouldn't be hard. And about texting, see what I said before - cameras.

    No extra funding is needed. The physical and labor resources exist now. It is all about priorities, which law enforcement and the public sector in general don't handle very well.

    I drive long since paid for cars that are worth less than new bland commuter boxes, and much less than the chariots of the top few driven by those who liars claim use intelligence and logic and discipline to make it, but don't seem to show those traits while driving. Ooh, long sentence.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,161
    >Auto headlights in all cars, including a rain sensor.

    Both our Buicks have the auto headlights. They are nice. Never forget to turn them on and never forget to turn them off.

    The auto wipers have to be put in active mode. If the switch is off, the wipers can't turn themselves on. The downside to leaving the wipers in the auto mode is that the headlights are commanded to ON instead of using the DRLs. So you're driving down the interstate with the low beams (or high beams) on full amperage.

    I've not figured out the popular brands of cars that don't have the auto on headlights. Our Cobalt has automatic headlamps.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,161
    >400 year old

    I think she was only 375 years and Fintail exaggerated. ;)
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,161
    >gun nuts out there today, you never know.

    Naaah, they're gonna take away all the guns from the honest citizens. And it'll be only the criminals who have guns. Oh wait, they're the ones we need to worry about, aren't they? Makes the other look ridiculous.

    How many times have we read about "crazy driver stole a gun from their mother to go shoot irritating joggers who get in their way"?
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,687
    edited January 2013
    She was probably only like 300 years old. But seriously, I'd bet a lot that she was at least 75. Probably got caught out too late and didn't like the rush hour traffic, and maybe forgot the lights. IT happens - but maybe reinforces the need for age based testing.

    I wouldn't lose sleep over guns being taken. Too many out there. But maybe be leery that a gutted mental health system (we need money to coddle the rich and give to foreign aid parasites, ya know) has given some nuts access.

    I'm more worried about being ran down than shot. Maybe time to mount a gopro on my head :shades:
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,722
    There's nothing subjective about reasonable speeds on the road in question,

    It is very subjective, what you consider is a reasonable speed may not be reasonable to someone else. If you get more information why a certain speed limit is set the way it is you might change your mind as to what is a reasonable speed. In short you could very well be wrong.

    There is no circular argument here.

    The one way share the road ideal is that everyone should make way for the slow/timid/scared/inept, not that those slow people ever have to make way for those actually driving.

    I am not advocating any one way share the road mentality. What I am saying is that is one person says one thing and another says another thing one (or both) have to be wrong. What I am saying is try to understand why someone may think that a different speed is reasonable, you may learn new truths.

    Which brings me back to my speed bump question. Is it reasonable to have 9 speed bumps in under a mile through a residential neighborhood? Such a situation exists and the kids live just off that street. One day they and some of their neighbors were complaining about those spped bumps and didn't see the need for them and were wondering what they could do to get the city to remove them.

    Then I pointed out the rational for all those speed bumps. Just to the east of this neighborhood was an Interstate highway and just to the south was another Interstate highway. During rush hour (espcially the mornings) the east bound Interstate slows to a craw and the exit to get onto the north bound Interstate is even slower.

    Now there is a way to avoid that traffic and that is to take the east bound Interstates frontage road and follow it as it turns north and go north until you cab get on the north bound Interstate. Now the problem is that while as a frontage road it goes through a commercial area but once it turns north it goes through that little less than a mile of residential street.

    All those speed bumps are in place to discourage people from using that route as a rat line to avoid traffic and to slow down the ones that are not discouraged. Without those speed bumps there would be a lot more and faster traffic going through that neighborhood. Now they understand why those speed bumps are there and they don't complain.

    So the point of this is that until they saw the rational for the speed bumps they thought it was unreasonable to have them.

    The sign said "No shoes, no shirt, no service", it didn't say anything about no pants.

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,722
    I was traveling at and above the posted speed limit in an area with no signs for "Slower traffic keep right

    Well if you are on a limited access highway and not passing or about to use an exit on the left (rare but they do exist) then it is keep right except to pass.

    The sign said "No shoes, no shirt, no service", it didn't say anything about no pants.

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,722
    Remember I had just come through a dangerous, narrowed lane, and uneven construction area where the speed limit is and should be 45 and the traffic is moved to the temporary opposing lanes.

    May I ask, were the lines dividing the lanes a solid white line? and/or was the lane to the right of you at a different level than your lane?

    The sign said "No shoes, no shirt, no service", it didn't say anything about no pants.

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,722
    No harm, no foul.

    This time, there will be a time when that type of driving will cause some issue.

    The sign said "No shoes, no shirt, no service", it didn't say anything about no pants.

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,722
    Make any phone inputs/holding while in motion a violation. Syncing to bluetooth,

    The wifes car won't allow syncing while in motion. Tried it once (wife was driving) and it gave me a warning and would go further.

    The sign said "No shoes, no shirt, no service", it didn't say anything about no pants.

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,722
    All the comments about people driving without their lights on makes me think that'll be the next NHTSA requirement.

    It makes me think that he has awfully strict requirements for when lights have to be on.

    The sign said "No shoes, no shirt, no service", it didn't say anything about no pants.

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,687
    edited January 2013
    What's subjective to you might not be subjective to others. I'll take that as your opinion and leave it there ;)

    For the speed bumps, kind of a random anecdote, but easy to see, a residential area with a street used as a cut through is not hard to realize. I often visit a neighborhood, planned in the 60s, with wide streets, and huge gaps between cross streets. Some of these streets are used as primary routes for residents deeper in the development to reach the arterial that connects to commerce. I could easily get my car to 100++ and back between stop signs. There are speed bumps every 5-6 houses or so, to keep the speed demons at bay. Makes sense.

    And about lights, yes I have strict demands - dark = lights. I know, for the lowest common denominator allowed on the road, it can be tough. We shouldn't be looking for ways to make driving *less* demanding than it already is. If one can't manage headlight operation, they likely fail in other regards, too.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,722
    I'll take that as your opinion and leave it there

    One of the reasons we have a court system is that different people have different ideals of what is "reasonable". So it is hardley an opinion.

    For the speed bumps, kind of a random anecdote

    It may be random but it proves the point. I could give other examples but the point is the same, peoples opinion of what is right or wrong or "reasonable" can change greatly when given more facts.

    And about lights, yes I have strict demands - dark = lights.

    Again the term dark is subjective. When does "dark" happen? right at sunset? After civile twilight? Or after Nautical twilight? Near sunset if it is cloudy? When does it get Dark?

    Tonight Nautucal twilight ends at 5:56 and I would say that yes that is dark, but Civil twilight is at 5:22 with sunset being at 4:51.Now presuming that the skies are clear is 4:50 light but 4:52 dark? Or would 5:22 be dark?

    I know people that say that as soon as the sun sets it's dark out, I am not one of those are you?

    The sign said "No shoes, no shirt, no service", it didn't say anything about no pants.

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,687
    And not everything is subjective, so I will again take your opinion and tangental stories and leave it at that.

    Tonight here (and not clear, as it seldom is in winter), sunset is at 4:50, with civil twilight at 5:25. I will be out after that twilight, and I am certain I will see "drivers" (sarcastic quotes) without headlights on. And not the stubborn and contrarian who wish to play semantics games, but people who simply are out of it enough to be unable to remember to turn on the lights. I am pretty sure the laws here state a "half hour after sunset", twilight times being (like so many distractions brought here) irrelevant.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,710
    And about texting, see what I said before - cameras.

    Cameras are the answer, eh? Ok then. But realize they will also be used to enforce other laws, not just phone use/texting... such as running red lights.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,722
    And not everything is subjective,

    True not everything is sugjective. However if it cannot be quantified and is vague it is subjective. "Reasonable" is subjective, no if's and's or but's.

    Stating that a speed limit on a street is 45 MPH is not subjective, it is a fact. The statement that the SL is to low/to fast/just right is subjective.

    Same thing with darkness. right now it is bright outside but in 5 hours it will be dark out. there will be a time between now and then when it won't be bright but it won't be dark out. It will gradually go from bright to dark. So where along that line does it get dark?

    Now if you would have given a measurement as how many lumens then that wouldn't be subjective, but dark is as you cannot measure it and it is vague.

    The sign said "No shoes, no shirt, no service", it didn't say anything about no pants.

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,687
    edited January 2013
    So long as light cameras are actually used in justifiable ways (ie: no shortening of yellows or weird sequencing etc), not such a big deal. Not to mention, cameras in squad cars and cameras on fixed posts aren't entirely identical.
Sign In or Register to comment.