Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Another thing is those low life jerks that you see in the handicap spot with the placard on the rearview mirror who hop out of the car and move very swiftly to the store.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Three tickets for speeding at more than 90 mph, one citation for second-degree negligent driving, and eight citations for reckless driving.
Drivers pay $9,800 to participate in the "playersrun.com" rally picking up playing cards in Ashland, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, putting together a poker hand to play upon reaching Las Vegas on Wednesday.
What a bunch of egotistic Jokers!
Out of curiosity, is this something you witnessed or heard about?
I won't say it is a responsible use of police resources to shut down a major interstate for such a cause. Then again, the revenue collectors aren't ever going to be accused of responsibility.
Your statement really surprises me. Those people are lucky:
1. they didn't kill anybody including themselves,
2. they didn't land in jail for ignoring the direction of police officials,
3. they didn't have their cars impounded.
I say it's a damn good use of police resources to shut down a highway and catch scofflaws that wantonly ignored all common sense. I hope the town in which they were caught benefits financially. These people risked life and limb of their own and fellow drivers to carry out a juvenile stunt. One that should be been done on a race track.
If people had been killed by this stunt, would you have still thought this was only revenue collection? :mad:
This was extremely dangerous because most people would miss the speeder when checking mirrors to make a lane change. I could have. You don't expect someone to come up at 120 mph and appear that quickly.
Lucky no one was hurt or killed by an accident with those outlaws. They should have confiscated the cars. The police could have sold them for lots of money.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I thought that was hillarious.
Harry
Here in Pennsylvania, the rule, as found in § 3543 of Title 75 (Vehicles), for pedestrians not crossing at crosswalks is: "Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than a crosswalk at any intersection or any marked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway."
If the pedestrian is on a roadway without a sidewalk, under § 3544: "Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any pedestrian upon a roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway."
And if there is a sidewalk available, under § 3544: "Where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it is unlawful for any pedestrian to walk upon an adjacent roadway."
Considering that Pennsylvania is hardly a libertarian paradise when it comes to rules covering vehicles and traffic, I have a hard time believing that the Keystone State's vehicle code is especially biased towards automobiles at the expense of pedestrians, or out of sync with the rest of the country in its demarcation of pedestrian and vehicular rights on a shared roadway.
chicagodrive1: I personally make it a habit to avoid driving through that area because you spend several minutes waiting for people to cross, etc. However, it never fails when walking into Wal-mart, a Dodge Ram will be revving anxiously to get through, and then floor it afterwards... only to stop abruptly because some old woman is jay-walking in it's path.
I avoid that problem by parking in the far reaches of the lot. That way I not only avoid clueless drivers and oblivious pedestrians, I also stay clear of stray shopping carts and the "door ding" crowd. The extra exercise doesn't hurt, either.
They should have impounded those cars AFTER crushing them into cubes.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
They should have impounded those cars AFTER crushing them into cubes.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So until someone is killed there's nothing wrong with speeds of 120 and over for the sake of a race cross country?
Those who think that need a reality check. Same logic: it's okay to drink yourself into a stupor and drive until you hit and kill someone?
Watched a talk given by an Ohio inmate in orange prison garb about drinking and driving (and speeding). He was 18 or 19, driving his Corvette at highway speeds 50-70 in a residential neighborhood late at night after drinking. Hit a mother's car because he "came out of nowhere at high speed" as she crossed at a stop sign (he had one too). His mental anguish was real (some probably could fake it).
Accidents happen. Intentional recklessness the way these folks were driving is inexcusable.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If they are rich, they should buy an island, build roads and drive at whatever speed they like. Then I would not have a problem.
Do you have a link to the duration? Not just to issue the tickets...but for the backup to clear out too.
"Time well spent, not wasted."
But what was the result? Some of the least responsible people in society (the rich) get held up for a bit....a ton of legitimate road users get stuck in a backup...after the meaningless tickets are issued....the speeders get back to speeding, the cops feel self important, and some county collects what is likely no more than a few grand total. Does anyone honestly think getting a meaningless citation from a podunk county is going to change the way these drivers act?
Now that's an arrogant statement that disrespects other contributors to this discussion.
That's begging the question. We're not talking about wealth or the car one can or chooses to purchase, but rather we're talking about the common sense factor in driving on roads at reasonable speeds for safety to the common good of society. Although Darwin does tend to purge the DNA pool of those with less common sense for their own sfety, we need to be concerned, as are the laws, with the safety of all people who are using the roads. We want to avoid innocent women and children being injured by those with no common sense.
Road racing at speeds over 100 and much higher is not in the common interest of society.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That's called jaywalking. I specifically referred to crossing in crosswalks, where peds almost always have the ROW.
...I have a hard time believing that the Keystone State's vehicle code is especially biased towards automobiles at the expense of pedestrians...
I don't think anyone here has an easier time.
My point was that most drivers are pretty inconsiderate of peds in general and largely ignorant of Ped crosswalk ROW status.
Although there are those who believe they own the roads and will try to put forth arguments as such. My counter is then, buy some land and build a racetrack. Don't endanger my life or the life of my family with dangerous and irresponsible acts.
Speed limits are less important to me than speed for the conditions. A driver who doggedly sticks right to the speed limit irrespective of traffic and conditions is as much a fool as one who drives excessively fast, and sometimes just as dangerous. A tight pack of cars moving at the speed limit is a lot more dangerous place to be than in a car running alone at 25 over.
To me, closing speed is the factor that should limit speeds. If you are alone on the highway, have a ball - do what you like, I couldn't care less. But when you encounter another vehicle slow to a reasonable passing speed. I don't know the number for excessive passing speed, but I know it when I drive it. Some fairly simple research would show what the maximum safe passing speed is - 20, 25, whatever. Blowing past another car at 50 or 60 over is not only irresponsible, it's downright dangerous. The average driver has no expectation of traffic approaching from behind at that differential speed, and cannot judge the differential.
If 100 is too fast, is 75 ok? Or 65? 55?
same reason you shouldn't do 65 on the highway if it is icy. Spped unsafe for conditions.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I once was traveling on our local expressway at 0145 on a June morning (similar to 0600 at the 45th parallel in terms of light). I was the only vehicle on the road within a mile front or back. I am coming up on an intersection with a left turn lane, driving in the rightmost lane of two lanes. Out of nowhere, a motorcycle passes me at least twice my speed - I was going 60. I look in my rearview and see a small pack 1/2 mile or so back on the roadway. I signalled, changed lanes, and watched smoke fly from these bikes as they veered wildly to avoid me. Unfortunately, none of them bit the hay and they went speeding off after cleaning their shorts. I took my left turn and continued on my way. I haven't seen any 4-wheeled vehicles running at such excessive speeds up here, but then there are not many places that these vehicles can 'stretch their legs.' No sooner would you break 100 than you'd hit a frost heave and find yourself swinging in the breeze at the top of a tree. :surprise:
When I was young(er) and stupid(er) I decided to find out the top end of my Datsun 260Z on a deserted country highway. I was showing an indicated 128 or so - and still pulling - when I saw a car up ahead. I had plenty of room to pass and the oncoming lane was clear, but I had second thoughts about passing someone at twice their speed. More to the point, I had second thoughts about the roadblock I imagined being set up after the pass-ee called the cops to report me. I slowed down to a more reasonable 85-90 or so for the pass, then continued on my merry way.
As I got home and was pulling into my apartment complex I got pulled over and written up for 37 in a 25. Instant karma, I guess.
-Jason
It's better than waiting 2 hours to cross south, as a car with a single male gets waved through, and a minivan full of senior citizens gets searched by some wannabe cops.
This is what you wrote: "peds almost always (certainly in x-walks) have the ROW." (emphasis added)
That does not read as though you were specifically referring to pedestrians in crosswalks.
I do agree that drivers need to be much more careful of respecting the rights of pedestrians in crosswalks.
I muttered (censored) as he went by, and my wife asked "What was that?"
Al's comment on how fast to pass brought this to mind. May he live to turn off the ignition.
Harry
They have the usual disclaimers on their site:
Playersrun is not a race, speed competition or contest, drag race or acceleration contest, test of physical endurance, exhibition of speed or acceleration or for the purpose of making a speed record. Participants must not compete with other drivers in any manner, apart from on designated racetracks. In particular, Participants must not race with other drivers. Participants must not place any bets of any kind in relation to the event. Participants must drive safely and with proper courtesy to all other participants and members of the public. Participants must comply with all applicable laws and regulations whilst in the country visited. Including without limit, appropriate laws of the road, the laws relating to the road worthiness of your vehicle and the laws relating to the possession, or importation of prohibited substances, illegal immigrants, goods or offensive weapons of any kind. Please note that ANYONE caught racing on the public highway will be excluded from further participation in the event immediately and will be banned from any future events. No refunds will be made, and all privileges will be withdrawn.
On a semi-related note, did anyone hear about how in Finland, speeding ticket fees are proportional to your income? A Nokia exec had to pay something like $100,000 for doing 75 kph in a 50 zone (old news).
Another time I was at a light and there were a bunch of vehicles ahead of me. This one guy was right before a yield sign. We had to wait til the traffic ended up moving where we were because usually when you have a line of vehicles it takes a few seconds to move. Well there was a truck at the yield sign came at the last second that we could have started to move, the person in front me decides to stop to let them across, I honk and he flips me off. I feel what an [non-permissible content removed]. He had NO right to continue to delay me or the people behind me even another second more. Why are people so concerned with people at the yield signs, stop signs, and places of business? He had NO right to flip me off when he did wrong. I would have never delayed someone like that. I actually think of the people behind me and myself. The people at the signs and places of business can just wait a little longer to go. That is the law anyway.
I have heard of the Finland traffic fine thing...not the worst idea...but it would never fly in an area where the rich pay less and less as time goes on.
Of course, similar penalties should be given to those who don't go 100, but nonetheless endanger lives. One example would be 60 in a 25 residential area.
Common sense and research are required to figure out what driving penalties would enhance public safety. But first public safety needs to be identified as the goal.
In other words, by your own stupidity, if you jump the divider and plow head first into oncoming traffic the road is by definition not empty. Even if your side of the road is empty.
So as long as the road is empty and you kill only yourself and your estate pays back the government for time spent picking up the pieces and towing your car, yes you can do what you want on public roads. :sick:
Actually it is pretty true in CA. If you are a responsible person who follows the rules, it is pretty easy to get screwed in an accident. A good example is it is almost financially irresponsible to NOT have the "uninsured" motorist coverage. Now this is a bit oxymoronic for a state with MANDATORY insurance laws?? Also multiple conviction, DUI drivers merely get back into their (or others') licensed and or insured or not!!! So if they wack someone, what are they going to do ? SUE??? Sure slam dunk they will win the judgement. Collection is unfortunately the central issue.
I have ready that fully 25% of drivers either DO NOT carry insurance and/or severely under insured. I am sure the other 49 states are probably similar.
I actually agree with you on this. Also similar concept for those DUI drivers who kill only themselves.
The point, however, was not lost. Unfortunately, consideration was being correlated with law and there is very little overlap in the two. Laws are designed for status quo. They are designed to mitigate conflicts between the MEs (or, all to often, to satisfy one special interest or another). Need an example? How often does one, as a driver, say or think "Whoa! That was my fault!" versus "WHAT THE HECK IS THAT MORON DOING???" If every driver was as flawless as in each driver's own mind, how could the roads possibly be so congested with conflicts? [Insert laws here to fill the gap.]
Anyhow..... moving to consideration. Consideration is thinking outside the ME. That extends to not only the other driver upon whom the consideration is ultimately bestowed but also to those other drivers who are affected. As with everything, overall impact must be considered. To use lords' example of a driver waiting to enter a roadway from an uncontrolled access:
If at a stoplight with the light red and a very long line of traffic waiting with more vehicles approaching in a steady stream, it is very considerate to let a driver into the traffic from the uncontrolled access IF that driver is trying to merge into the nearest lane of traffic. Assuming that you, as the driver with right of way, is in a position just behind the access point of the driver wishing to enter, the most considerate thing to do is to communicate with the other driver before traffic flow begins to let that driver know that it can access the roadway directly in front of you. As traffic flow begins, you simply begin your movement slightly slower than you otherwise would, thus creating a larger distance between yourself and the driver in front of you, and the accessing driver fills that space. Is it inconsiderate to the drivers behind you? Absolutely not. Those drivers may feel it is, but the overall time lost or position lost on the roadway is negligible - perhaps 1 second for the driver directly behind and trailing off to 0 shortly thereafter. For the driver accessing the roadway, it could have been many minutes of waiting. The consensus here must be that the driver acted with consideration.
Now, if the traffic had already been moving and the driver STOPPED the flow to let the person in, that is INCONSIDERATE because regardless of the wait time for the other driver wishing to access the road, the time lost for the drivers behind you increases for each vehicle rather than decreases (due to the artificial stop created by the inconsiderate driver). Additionally, if in the situation first described, the other driver failed to act immediately on the opening created in the roadway, it would also be inconsiderate for the driver who intended to let the person in to then stop and wait for the other driver to act. In this case, the driver who stopped to let the other person in was thinking of ME and the personal gratification received from letting the other driver onto the roadway. Another inconsiderate situation would be if the person was trying to turn LEFT onto the roadway or if there was only one or two vehicles behind.
Consideration is entirely situation-dependent. The good habits that drivers develop increase the likelihood that proper consideration will be practiced on the roadway, but there is no one-size-fits-all. What is considerate on road X at time Y and situation Z could be completely inconsiderate when any of those variables change.
"One-size-fits-all" or "that's the law" thinking is "ME" thinking and is fundamentally inconsiderate.
-Wes-
Cheers,
chillnyc
So as long as the road is empty and you kill only yourself and your estate pays back the government for time spent picking up the pieces and towing your car, yes you can do what you want on public roads.
Too many "if" type conditions. Actually, those who recklessly speed and crash more often than not somehow survive the accident and innocent people are killed and/or are injured by the reckless driver. I see it in the newspaper all the time.
States and law enforcement need to reiterate the message that "driving is a priviledge" and that this priviledge is granted through drivers license with responsibility to obey all traffic laws. If someone does not like the laws, rules, speed limits, etc, they should surrender their priviledge or alternatively work through the system to get laws, speed limits, etc. changed.
Those that need to speed (100+) can satisfy their needs on private tracks. Or, if they are rich, can buy farm land or ranches and drive on own land however they please. Never heard of police checking for speeding on private farm or ranch roads.
Fortunately our society provides another avenue. If we don't like the laws we can go about changing them. That's what happened with the 55mph speed limit - public pressure forced the change.
I actually pretty much agree with the conclusion though, which is if you want to drive at extreme speeds go to a track, and get off the public roads. I don't think a lone car doing 100+ on an empty Interstate poses much risk to anyone, but it does pose a risk to property and the environment if it should crash. I agree there needs to be speed limits, but I want them to be set based on safety science, not revenue or knee-jerk "speed-kills" mentality or some special interest group's pressure. Find out what speed is safe for a given stretch of road, and post reasonable limits. Once done, then enforce excessive speed for conditions.
But a lot more enforcement resources needs to be focused on lousy driving than on speed.
The risk to others (there is no empty interstate in this country) is great. That's why we have laws for the good of society, whether the individual thinks they are good or not.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Well, on that stretch of I-95, there isn't much of a center barrier. Just these metal girders sunk into the ground that stick up about 3-4 feet, with high-tension cable running through them, making a sort of a metal fence. Before too long, we came upon a current-gen Taurus, on the median, smashed up against the fence on the other side. Looked like he lost control and slid off into it. Good thing he didn't make it about 20 feet further, because there was a creek!
Then, a few miles further up, there was a very impressive pile up of about 4-5 cars. One of them had even made it over the barrier, and was on our side of it! And some of them were facing the wrong way. This accident didn't hold us up for long, but on the northbound lanes, I'd say it was backed up a good 5 miles or more.
Then, we got down into Georgia. Traffic ground to a halt for us. We must've sat in it for about an hour. Then we finally got up to the cause. A tractor trailer on the northbound side flipped on its side and ended up on the median. A wrecker had just uprighted the cab, and they were unloading fruit out of the trailer and putting it in pickup trucks. There was absolutely NOTHING blocking our side, but of course all the looky-loos compensated for that and held us up, anyway! :mad:
A few days later, we were going to head out to Disney/MGM studios. We were staying in Daytona Beach, and had to go to Orlando, so that meant taking I-4. Unfortunately, that morning it was all over the news about how I-4 west was blocked, because a car slammed into the back of a flatbed semi. Hard to tell from the pics on the tv, but it looked like something sporty, like a 240SX or maybe a Supra. I dunno...once they get that smashed up, they all look the same!
Then, the next day, coming home from Epcot on I-4, fairly late at night, traffic ground to a halt. We had to wait probably 45 minutes or so. When we finally got up to the scene, there was a small, sporty car, like an Eclipse, that appeared to have been rolled multiple times and was sitting, right-side-up, off on the embankment overlooking the shoulder. And just up ahead of that, was a current-gen (but pre Avalanche-nose) Silverado, sitting upside-down on the shoulder, facing the wrong way. Oh yeah, I should mention that it was raining that nite, too. And, the morning that the car slammed into the back of the semi, it had quit raining just long enough to get steamy, but things were still slick.
BTW, Imidazol, I'm NOT trying to give you ammunition here for "exceeding the speed limit kills" :P These are more examples of stupid driving/going too fast for prevailing conditions, which are often totally unrelated to the speed limit, but also in these cases could have been WELL above it.
It is NOT negligible when you are the one that didn't make the next light and have to wait 2 minutes or so. Then it is YOU who ends up having to wait when it is suppose to be the person that has to stop or yield that is suppose to wait. The guy in my example that flipped me off because he let someone from a yield sign was very rude because for one thing the person at the yield sign just arrived about 2 seconds before he let him in, meaning the light was green way before the traffic started moving where I was and the person at the yield wasn't even waiting there when the light turned green. That is how long the person at the yield had to wait, they should have waited longer, they do have to YIELD. I or no one else shoudl have to yield to them and that is what that guy did, he yielded to the person at the yield sign, that is just WRONG and INCONSIDERATE. I never will or never have let someone in from a stop sign, yield sign, or place of business, but I can maybe see if the light is red and you stop before the light to let someone in. The light is red so there is not as much time wasted. The car in front of that car that let them in most probably is not going to delay someone too much. I was talking about though when the light is GREEN. Like I said in the example, I was waiting to not block the intersection even when the light turned green. I NEVER blocked it whether the light was red or green. That is the law "Do not block an intersection." So, I listen to the law and didn't block it. I hate the attitude of the person in the truck that was going to pull in front of me because that person acted like he or she had right-of-way. That person was only thinking of one person "HIS or HER self." They were not considerating that I and everybody behind me would like to finally go at the green. I had already waited at least 4 or so seconds before the traffic started moving where I was. That is ENOUGH, I and NO ONE behind me should have to wait longer for a person that has a stop sign especially. Stop means STOP until it is CLEAR. Green means GO NO MATTER if there is someone at an intersection. Why should I delay the people behind me and myself for that ONE vehicle that can wait an extra few minutes?
Also I have had experiences where there was a lot of traffic and I didn't block the intersection even though the light was green; if I would have gone up I would have blocked the intersection. I have had occassions where the light is green and finally the traffic moves and the person at the intersection tries to turn right on red when I have the green light. I have had to honk on people because they were going to pull out. Since they know they have the red light, they should not even bother trying to pull out in that type of situation.