Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

fintail · January 2013

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.

jjackson12 · January 2013

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.

backy · January 2013

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.

fintail · 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.

imidazol97 · January 2013

>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.

imidazol97 · January 2013

>400 year old

I think she was only 375 years and Fintail exaggerated.

imidazol97 · January 2013

>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"?

fintail · 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:

snakeweasel · January 2013

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.

snakeweasel · January 2013

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.

snakeweasel · January 2013

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?

snakeweasel · January 2013

No harm, no foul.

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

snakeweasel · January 2013

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.

snakeweasel · January 2013

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.

fintail · 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.

snakeweasel · January 2013

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?

fintail · January 2013

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.

backy · January 2013

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.

snakeweasel · January 2013

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.

fintail · 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.

fintail · January 2013

And whether or not a SL was too slow/fast/right is irrelevant to this particular discussion. No "if's, and's, or but's".

Nothing vague about a half an hour, sorry. 30 is a pretty concrete quantifiable number.

Keep throwing in red herrings and distractions, speaks volumes.

Just keep right.

backy · January 2013

I doubt that "I didn't see any other traffic and I didn't want to wait so dang long for the light to change" will be seen as a valid excuse to avoid a running-red-light ticket based on photo evidence.

Well, a little pain for a little gain!

snakeweasel · January 2013

And whether or not a SL was too slow/fast/right is irrelevant to this particular discussion. No "if's, and's, or but's".

Since we are discussing speeds and what is a "reasonable" speed it is relevant.

Nothing vague about a half an hour, sorry. 30 is a pretty concrete quantifiable number.

True but you didn't say "half an hour" you said when it gets dark which is not a concrete quantifiable number.

Keep throwing in red herrings and distractions, speaks volumes.

Not throwing any red herrings or distractions. I am just pointing out that what you consider reasonable my not hold true along the spectrum.

Just keep right.

Slow down, you'll live longer.

fintail · January 2013

I'd just avoid that intersection, or document the broken light with my own camera, put it online and go to the press with it, get others to join in, and have the problem solved one way or another. Raise enough stink, and the overpaid underworked retire at 55 with 85% "workers" will face pressure and embarrassment.

On that subject, it appears my fair city finally fixed one of the sticking light intersections, I have noticed quicker changes the past few days, light changes before I give up on it.

Oh, another should-be caveat of light cameras - city buys the cameras and then owns 100% of the proceeds, no palm-greasing crony capitalist red light camera operators get to be involved.

fintail · January 2013

The original context was a notoriously slow highway in my area. I don't think any sound mind can defend the slowpokes on that road as being "reasonable".

I have repeatedly made posts about lights off during darkness. It is assumed this darkness is at least a half hour after sunset, as in most weather conditions, the light in the sky does not vanish until this point. And of no matter, if someone is stupid enough to not turn on the lights during dim conditions just because they legally do not have to, they deserve what they get.

Haven't seen anything showing going slow leads to longer lives. The limit, aimed for the lowest common denominator, is plenty slow enough on dry pavement on 95% of roads, in my experience anyway. What you consider "reasonable" might hold true for even less of the spectrum than what I hold likewise.

And that's enough time devoted to tangents and red herrings, have a nice day, I will return to posting about local yokels

stever · January 2013

Michigan says lights on a half hour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise and any other time you can't clearly see 500'. I didn't see a definition of "sunset" but Wiki says that's when the sun first completely sets below the horizon.

Kind of surprised - thought it'd be a half hour before sunset.

snakeweasel · January 2013

The original context was a notoriously slow highway in my area. I don't think any sound mind can defend the slowpokes on that road as being "reasonable".

Again slow and reasonable are subjective terms. Case in point, I have talked a few times about one road I travel down. Taking into account that there are several spots of limited sight distance, no shoulder, high vegetation right up to the side of the road and the dangers of large wild life crossing the road I strongly believe that 35-40 MPH is a reasonable speed for the road. However the occasional driver that races up behind me and rides my rear end would call me a slowpoke. Who is right?

I have repeatedly made posts about lights off during darkness. It is assumed this darkness is at least a half hour after sunset,

Well darkness can happen anytime. There have been times during the daylight that I would have said it was dark (heavy dark cloud covering). I would consider any time during civil twilight bright enough to drive without lights on if the skies are clear. Civil twilight depending on location can extend past the 30 minute mark.

So what you consider "Dark" others may not.

Haven't seen anything showing going slow leads to longer lives.

I have seen studies that show an increased risk of a fatal accident increases with speed at speed higher that between 35-40MPH. When you look at the physics involved it does make perfect sense. However thats not what I mean. So slow down you'll live longer. Think about it.

snakeweasel · January 2013

Michigan says lights on a half hour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise and any other time you can't clearly see 500'.

Typically in Michigan Civil twilight extends just past that 30 minute mark. Civil twilight is considered to be to the time that the center of the sun is 6 degrees below the horizon. During Civil sunset on clear or mostly clear days one can still make out details and colors. So it makes sense that they have it at 30 minutes after sunset.

I didn't see a definition of "sunset" but Wiki says that's when the sun first completely sets below the horizon.

Sunset is when the geometric center of the sun dips blow the horizon. So when you can still see part of the sun (but less than half) it is after sunset.

Kind of surprised - thought it'd be a half hour before sunset.

Actually the hour prior to sunset (and the hour after sunrise) is considered to be the optimal lighting conditions. Photographers call this the golden hour.

fintail · January 2013

Your case in point is nice, but unrelated to the original context.

" I would consider any time during civil twilight bright enough to drive without lights on if the skies are clear. "

And you would be in violation of the law, at least in my state, as that would be more than a half hour past official sunset. Twilight is not relevant. Why would someone want to be less visible, anyway? Especially if there are shady streets or kids around, the former of which is a constant in my area.

Still seeing nothing concrete about slowing down and living longer. Seems some places with faster traffic than this soon to be second world mess also have better life expectancies, and lower casualty rates. Hmm. Drive as slow as you want, just stay in the right lane where you belong. Then we can all go about our way.

stever · January 2013

It's funny that Alaska has the same requirement as Michigan, except the distance is out to 1,000 feet. In the summer, twilight literally lasts for hours. For most of June, there just isn't any twilight, even down in Anchorage. That time of year it helps to run your lights so the 10 year old kids playing in the street at midnight can see you coming.

I'm further west than Chicago yet on Eastern Time - that makes for nice long evenings with sunsets as late as 9:55pm and seemingly long twilights - really around 40 minutes at the peak.

fintail · January 2013

Drove down the south sound today - very little issues. Only one LLCer comes to mind, a Murano being passed by numerous cars on the right, showing no signs of having a clue. Otherwise, traffic was light and the slowpokes were kindly keeping to the right lane.

gogogodzilla · January 2013

Headlights in urban/suburban areas are less about helping the driver see the road and more about letting *OTHER* drivers see that *YOU (the driver)* are on the road.

So as soon as it becomes difficult for other drivers to see your car, the lights come on. If you drive a fluorescent-yellow car, then you get to flick your lights on later, as it's highly noticeable to other drivers. But if you drive a silver-grey car, then those lights will probably need to come on anytime it gets cloudy.

Now, I know that people will argue about the premise, that lights are more to get you noticed by other drivers. But honestly, think about it. If you have an idiot driving with no lights on a rural road... does anyone really care if he wraps his car around a tree?

One less idiot on the road in my book.

backy · January 2013

Now, I know that people will argue about the premise, that lights are more to get you noticed by other drivers.

I agree with that... to a point. Obviously if it's total darkness, there's two purposes for lights.

gogogodzilla · January 2013

Really?

Traffic cameras remove judgement from enforcement.

For example, a cop might witness a situation where a car runs through an intersection that had just turned red. And also noticed that a semi was behind him, one foot from his bumper, and also ran the light.

Now, that cop will ticket the semi and let the car go, as he ran the light to avoid causing a collision. IE: the cop analyzed the situation and made a judgement call.

Traffic cameras do not do that. That car, in front of the semi, is a lawbreaker and will get a ticket. Which teaches to the driving public compliance with traffic law, NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCE. Which means that the driver of the car will stop the next time, resulting in an accident and possible loss of life.

This is just ONE example of various situations that require judgement calls by police... something traffic cameras cannot ever do.

euphonium · January 2013

There should be "compliance with traffic law, NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCE."

Per your example - the semi is the proximate cause of the crash because the driver followed the car too close resulting in property damage & maybe physical injury.

IMO all semi vehicles should have a speed limit of 15 less than for cars because when they crash at higher speeds, they do more damage and the 53' box blocks all three lanes of the freeway. :mad:

stever · January 2013

Well, in the example given, if the car had stopped short, the insurance company would have tried to deny the claim because the driver had the opportunity but failed to try to avoid an accident.

imidazol97 · January 2013

After being criticized for having an LLD flash lights from far behind in a construction zone and pass me in the 2nd lane from right because I was in the 3rd lane and all in a total of 10-12 seconds...

Here are some more area interstate drivers who didn't wanna slow down for anything, including a heavy snow flurry area that caused a whiteout and glazed the roadway. Two sets of accidents about 15-20 miles apart (approx) on two different interstates. 80 cars and 50 cars.

http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/I-75-South-in-Middletown-Reopens-After-M- - - ulti/JNtflaHUDk-0PLm-93Wg9A.cspx

http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/Woman-Killed-After-Multi-Car-Pileup-on-I- - - -275-near/1t2q9pb8HkKwSTKLhxQXAg.cspx

The accidents reminded me of the LLDer driving through a dangerous construction area in midtown Dayton without slowing to a safer speed. There are always those drivers who will blast right through heavy rain and slow because nothing can slow them from their assigned speed and mission.

fintail · January 2013

I agree with your arguments. Maybe we can all just keep dash cameras in our cars to fight the bad light cameras then. I am about to run one in mine. I don't have a problem with some cameras per se, but the justification for them needs to be proven to the public, and the revenue streams can't go to crooked pseudo-private sector contractors who are really just parasites on the taxpayer.

I'd like to see the police do more work too, but I suspect the odds of that are low. Police unions make big labor unions look like schoolchildren.

fintail · January 2013

Out on city streets today, didn't see anything too bad, but some annoyances. First - had a Corolla behind me for a couple miles - I turned 7 times I think - it NEVER signaled once. Saw a suit in a 5er slowly cut across 3 lanes, no signal. Saw a WRX with a loud exhaust going too fast, tailgated a Forester, then had to slam on its brakes and have a close call as traffic slowed. And while out in the old car, had a well kept blonde in a MDX with a phone in her hand tailgating me at 5 over - until the limit went from 30 to 40, which then slowed her down :confuse:

xrunner2 · January 2013

And while out in the old car, had a well kept blonde in a MDX with a phone in her hand tailgating me at 5 over - until the limit went from 30 to 40, which then slowed her down

Ah yes. Beautiful and handsome people drive Acuras.

stickguy · January 2013

That is the primary reason I own 3 of them!

fintail · January 2013

Well kept isn't always beautiful... :shades:

Out this morning, I am thinking turn signals are a rarely ordered option on late model BMWs. Also saw a Rav4 with a hard spare tire cover and I think wind deflectors (which points to a certain demographic) stop for a green light, I don't know what that was about. And saw a younger woman in a red 2013 SL550 with a phone to her ear - should be a 5 figure fine for her.

euphonium · January 2013

That example has never happened in my 50+ years in the insurance business. Speculations can be wild.

stever · January 2013

How many "speculative" links re insurance companies trying to shift the blame onto the victim would you like? :shades:

euphonium · January 2013

Amazing! I didn't represent GEICO, SAFECO, & a few other "national" companies. I learned early on that regional small carriers are a lot more reasonable. Two of the most pleasure to deal with were Oregon Mutual and Unigard.

Other agent friends were proud of their appointments with Mutual of Enumclaw & Pemco. All decent to deal with in regards to claims and underwriting.

stever · January 2013

For the first time in forever I'm with a very small company mostly local to Michigan, but financially stable, as near as I can tell from a search at the insurance commission. Even have an agent for the first time in a decade.

Since it's been 34 years since I've had to make a claim, I can't speak to the claims process.

"Mutual of Enumclaw" sounded like a joke name so I looked it up. Never heard of that Washington city - bit ironic that the name the insurance company uses translates as "place of evil spirits".

hammerhead · January 2013

...from a pair of (exceptionally bright) teenagers:
They just got home from their D.C. trip, and both made the observation that folks on foot in the Washington/Baltimore area are very aggressive when crossing streets regardless of crosswalk, and don't bother looking much - they just go, often buried in newspaper and/or device.

Wonder how their auto/pedestrian statistics compare to other metropolitan areas. Anybody remember 'stop, look & listen'?

backy · January 2013

An example of a "considerate" approach to enforcement of traffic laws?

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/187600941.html?refer=y

jjackson12 · January 2013

That's nice, but I don't think it will make much of a difference. All drivers should know all the rules, not just informing the ones they happen to catch on their one mistake.

From the article:
In the first two weeks of the "In Focus" program, Edina police stopped about 20 drivers for obstructed vision. Long said most people lean out their windows and ask, "What did I do wrong?"

Seriously? :confuse:

jjackson12 · January 2013

Tonight on the way home from work, I must have been moving too slow (40 in a 45) on a 2 lane road with mostly double yellow. The Grand Cherokee behind me flashed his lights about 10 times to get me to move faster. I should be thankful that he didn't flash 200 times to teach me a lesson. :P

It's winter here, cold temperatures, snow, high winds. It's not like driving on dry pavement on a sunny summer day. The 4WD/AWD crowd wants to drive like it's summer, but they're the ones usually ending up in the ditch. :sick:

Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles