I've only had to drive for a long period at night a few times, but I hate it when driver's flash their highbeams right as they are passing me. Talk about a headache. I don't even have my high beams on. Wanna come back and see what my highbeams really look like? :surprise:
Emporia was notorious for that. One time I went on official business down to Shaw AFB in South Carolina and we had two cars, one driven by my boss. My boss was flying through there, and I just decided screw him...I'm not getting a ticket for trying to keep up with my boss. I suppose, technically, though...if you are exceeding the speed limit you are fair game. Most cops won't ticket you if you go with the flow but I don't want to take that chance. I'd rather keep my driving record and let the other goons fight it out.
I suppose getting cut off at a slower speed would be safer than getting cut off at a higher speed. I almost always run my lights too. It's something I started in Seattle in 1990 and later read was safer. And now you see day-running lights too.
He was playing with you. That's just what I think. It was rude but he just wanted to show off his power. Sometimes I like to 'get on it' just to feel the rush of power at an opportune moment (not while tailgating though). I think once he/she saw he was getting to you he decided to play a game. That's when you need rear-facing flame throwers.
Ok it happened again, I am on I-88 with three lanes of traffic at the beginning where traffic merges coming off of I-290 and I-294. I merge in and I am in the middle lane passing a line of cars in the left lane that merged in from another expressway. Traffic in the left lane was going slower than I would expect and I see why when I get to the end of that line. There is some yahoo going slow with his right turn signal on. Traffic in front of me in the middle lane keep passing him but since there was a large gap between me and them I slowed down to let this guy in. I eventually match his speed and stay well behind him so he could merge. Now after a little while of this guy not merging out of the left lane I come to the realization that:
1.) That there is a line forming behind me.
2.) Traffic now has to pass us in the one right lane.
3.) This yahoo is just that a yahoo with his left turn signal stuck on and he will not merge.
4.) That this yahoo is actually slowing down more.
So thinking this guy will never merge I start to speed back up to a reasonable speed. Guess what? This clown decides to merge as soon as I get next to him. :mad:
I had a co-worker who used to tell me that as soon as you pay off your car people will start to try to hit it. I guess he was right since I just made my final car payment on the beast.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yesterday I was approaching a red light in the right lane, preparing to make a right turn on red (after a full stop, of course There were 2 cars in the left lane stopped, and as I approached the rear car decides to veer into my lane. It wasn't that close at all, but now I'm stuck at the light until it turns green, instead of being able to turn. Was it that important that he be first in line when the light changed? And why wasn't he there in the first place? Why did he wait until I was almost there to change lanes? Is it just me, or do others notice this fairly often? As a corollary, why is it that when a turn lane opens up, the last car before the lane opens up seems to stop 1 1-2 car lengths behind the next car, squeezing way over to the right, and when you creep up with your turn signal on, further to the right, clearly visible in their rear view mirror, they will not pull up a little to let you by? Then coming home tonight I'm in a line of cars waiting to make a right turn on red at a T intersection. The lead car just waits out the whole light, no traffic, NO no turn on red sign, just oblivious. Later as I pass her I notice she's 50ish, chatting to her passenger. You'd think the passenger would have said something like "hey, no traffic, you can go now."
If I am in the right lane at a stop light that doesn't have a right turn lane and it is safe to do so I will creep up enough to let anyone wanting to make the right turn make it. I cannot tell you how many times I did that and the person with their right turn signal on wont take that advantage.
Now one time a long, long time ago I was stopped at a red light waiting to make a right turn on red and the guy behind me started laying on his horn. While there were gaps between the cars going down the street we were turning onto, none of them, in my opinion, was great enough for me to enter the road without causing traffic to have to slow down because of me.
Now thats the one thing I really hate about the right turn on red law, I really do not know how many times I had to swerve or hit the brakes because some idiot decides that it is ok for them to make that turn. The law says you can make that turn if traffic is clear, traffic isn't clear if they have to brake or change lanes to avoid you.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I agree. I try to use my horn in 'nice' ways. Some people sit at lights and don't see it turn green...after a few seconds a gentle tap should catch their attention without them being so sensitive they want to be defensive. I'm wondering...is it not correct that you don't change lanes when driving through and intersection? And are you not supposed to enter the nearest lane when making a turn? I guess the second statement is something I've dealt with. If I can clearly see no one approaching I don't see any need in not taking the lane I want, but in a heavier traffic situation I try to take the nearest lane. I have a situation here where there is cross-traffic from the left that has right of way. It's a one-lane road which intersects my lane, a two lane road, and almost all cars turn left. So in the morning rush, it's very difficult to cross that intersection because the line of traffic is heavy. But in reality, if all the people who turned left took the nearest lane (the left lane) then I could l saunter on through that intersection on the right lane and my traffic would not have to wait so long. But, like your stop light story, they aren't content with being behind someone in the left lane...people enter my road and take both left and right lanes, leaving the rest of us sitting and waiting. It's an example of how a simple rule could have great benefit on traffic flow if people would just obey it.
"I'm wondering...is it not correct that you don't change lanes when driving through and intersection? And are you not supposed to enter the nearest lane when making a turn?"
In CA when safe, one CAN change lanes when driving through an intersection. (unless delineated by a solid white line) Also (unless delineated by a solid white line) one can enter into any lane when making a turn. While I learned to drive with your understanding, it has not been so for a very long time.
I've seen people change lanes in intersections...I think it's a very bad idea. You have a lot of people looking at that intersection from different directions and trying to figure out where they can go and suddenly when you enter the intersection...you change the rules. It leaves you open for an accident from many difference directions. If someone is waiting to make a left turn facing you, and you suddenly switch lanes while approaching them, you could switch into their lane. This could happen from a few different directions if you change lanes. Also with someone making a legal right turn at a red light. You look...ahhh...a guy is heading my way on the left lane...I can make it! Then as you are committing the person decides to switch to the right lane in the intersection. I believe it's illegal, and even if it isn't, it's just too dangerous. Besides, in most situations, you can wait an extra 100 feet to change lanes. It's usually not something that needs to be done in the intersection. I often make turns and enter the far lane but I try to assess the situation first...if the intersection is mostly empty then I think it's okay...you just have to be sure you aren't interferring with someone else. I haven't done any research on this but I would guess the highest rate of moving traffic accidents is probably in intersections.
I think the statistics can be looked at from two viewpoints, 1. since a lot of folks who learned the old way still do it the old way; this MIGHT be a mitigating factor. 2 given the new law there is no increase to intersection accidents due to change in law.
While reflexively,I do not change lanes in an intersection, I do it legally when situations dictate.
I won't change lanes going through an intersection if there is a car that might make a right turn into the outside lane. No cars waiting, I'll carefully move over. I'm also reluctant to pull out when there are cars in the middle lane but the right lane is clear for a turn on red.
If someone is waiting to make a left turn facing you, and you suddenly switch lanes while approaching them, you could switch into their lane.
Unless they are blocking a lane of oncoming traffic you wouldn't cross into their lane. That is unless you move into oncoming traffic.
Also with someone making a legal right turn at a red light. You look...ahhh...a guy is heading my way on the left lane...I can make it!
You CANNOT make a right turn on red in that situation. The law requires that traffic on the road you are turning onto must be clear from BOTH directions. If you make a right turn on red and there is a car entering the intersection in the left lane you have just broken the law.
From as far as I can tell there is no law prohibiting lane changes in an intersection.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Just like U turns when I was learning how to drive. It was common sense at the time to U turn in an intersection very sparingly for the logical reason that it is a turn that can cause congestion and the fact that a u turn can be more dangerous. Or dont do U turns in a business district. Again same logic.
It has now degenerated into U turns are not prohibited unless there is a sign prohibiting it.
Parrallel parking? That item ued to be on the drivers test. Lord help you if you had a stick shift and a mischievous examiner. He could make you parrallel part on a hill between two cars in a tight space. You could literally flunk if you didn't parrallel park well.
NOW?
You just need to pull into NON parrallel parking stall without killing someone.
The macro take on all of this is our nations highway systems are at the safest rate wise accident and fatality the safest ever since they started to record these things.
I was referring to two-lanes going the same direction...I guess that's a four lane road. Sometimes you will try to turn right onto a four-lane road (two going in each direction) and the right lane will be clear but the left lane won't. So if you turn into the right lane then you wouldn't be interfering with the person on the left...unless the person on the left changes lanes in the intersection. Of course they should signal too but you can't count on that either. In my examples I was referring to a divided highway, or four lane road. Someone told me once that there was a law that you couldn't change lanes within a certain distance of an intersection. I don't know if it's true but it makes good sense so I don't do it.
I was referring to two-lanes going the same direction...I guess that's a four lane road. Sometimes you will try to turn right onto a four-lane road (two going in each direction) and the right lane will be clear but the left lane won't.
Yes I know thats what you were referring to, in that case you still have to wait until traffic in BOTH lanes have cleared the intersection. If it is three lanes in each direction you have to wait until traffic in all three lanes are clear. It doesn't matter what lane the traffic is in and what lane you are turning into, you must wait until ALL traffic has cleared the intersection and it is safe to make the turn.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Okay, well I didn't know that. I still stand by my statement that I think it's unwise to change lanes in an intersection. But I haven't been to driver's ed in about 21 years so thanks for that piece of information.
Driving from Los Angeles to Los Banos (3/4 of the way to Sacramento) and back on the I-5 today was interesting. This highway is two lanes in each direction with a 70mph limit for passenger vehicles and a slower limit for anything pulling a trailer. Passenger vehicles seem to be about 1/3 in fairly close compliance with the 70mph limit and 2/3 wanting to go at least 5mph faster.
So nobody gets what they want. Speed limit compliers have to get in the left lane to pass trucks and RVs going anywhere from 65 down to 50. That puts them in the way of the speeders. There is a lot of conflict and both sides tend to get a little self-righteous. Of course compliers can minimize this friction by waiting for a big gap in the left lane, yet it seems inequitable to expect law-abiding drivers to sacrifice time for the benefit of scofflaws. Should driver A be forced to poke along behind a slow RV just so driver B can go 10 mph over the legal limit? Or should we demand that drive A exceed the legal limit to minimize his time in the fast lane?
If everyone complied with the speed limit, two lanes would be sufficient. Traffic in the left lane would move along at 70mph and the right lane mostly at 60-65 with occasional minor bottlenecks caused by laggards.
Adding a lane in each direction would give us a truck/merging lane, a passenger travel lane, and a lane for passing and SFs. This is also a huge expense for taxpayers. It's probably more cost-effective to enforce speed limits as long as two lanes in each direction is enough to carry the traffic volume.
I disagree. I will NOT turn on red if I am not comfortable, no matter what the guy behind me thinks. As far as I know, turning right on red is allowed, but not mandatory.
At one time, I had stopped on red and was looking at traffic to see if I can make the turn, when the driver behind me started honking. I looked in my rear view mirror and he was waving me on. Yeah, right!
But a related minor annoyance is when drivers approach an intersection extremeley slowly because the light is red. What they overlook is that there is a left turn lane that opens up about 100 feet from the intersection and there is a green arrow for a protected left turn. Motorists trying to make the left turn just get stuck behind these slow movers and the protected left turn is just wasted.
If the speed limit was really, truly enforced, I think it would help a lot. Try raising children and giving them limits that are never enforced. Then the children who do obey are made to feel bad by the ones who don't and get away with it, are generally not very popular and grow up later to resent it and their parents. But when the bad children, on a rare occasion, are disciplined for disobeying the limits, they are resentful too, because the lack of enforcement makes some believe the limits aren't real. If you don't enforce limits, then why are they there? I am usually a right-laner at about 2-3 mph over the limit. If I pass on the left I usually try to stay within 9mph of the limit, knowing if I exceed that I am at risk for a ticket. But it depends...if there is a line of fast-moving traffic and I need to slip in to get around, I'll do what it takes. It's hard to hit someone with radar who is wedged in a line of traffic moving the same speed. And then there are times when I just need to get into the left lane and I see someone, way back, doing a ridiculous speed, coming up fast, and like ladave I think,"Why should I be stuck in the right lane so an irresponsible, wreckless driver can flaunt the law? Even at 9mph over the limit in the left lane, I'm not exactly a lane-blocker. Indiana just increased the state speed limit by 5mph...in the midst of massive increases in fuel costs, and talk of a shortage, Indiana, in its stupid wisdom, thought it proper to raise the limit. Can someone here tell me the logic in that? As I recall, a few months ago, their explanation for it was,"The people drive over the speed limit anyway...we don't want those people to be worried about getting a ticket". Yes...good, hardworking, honest American speeders shouldn't have to pass worry onto their children and grandchildren. I need to write someone important about this lapse of judgement. Morons...
> Indiana just increased the state speed limit by 5mph...in the midst of massive increases in fuel costs, and talk of a shortage, Indiana, in it's stupid wisdom, thought it proper to raise the limit.
Didn't Indiana raise the limit for the gas-hogging semis to 65 recently so they could gulp more fuel faster in the process of killing more people when they do wreck at the higher speed?
>we don't want those people to be worried about getting a ticket".
They didn't seem worried 8 years ago when they use all kinds of covert, unmarked cars to do traffic enforcement. I recall seeing one on I64 between Columbus and Indy practically wreck himself trying to turn through the median to catch a speeder headed northbound!!!
I have nothing against a traffic cop making a legal stop for someone breaking the law. But, as I said earlier, they aren't consistent at all and their years of letting things slip have made the roads virtually lawless. Now how can they ever get a handle on it? As you see...with all the entries here...the law isn't enforced...or, sometimes it is...so what REALLY is the speed limit? Considering the driving habbits of some cops I've seen, I think they are just giving traffic control lip service. Cops are notorious for flaunting the laws of the road. They are part of the problem.
In VA, the max speed limit is 65. I go 65 in the right lane of 4-lane interstates (2 lanes in each direction). If I come up on a slower moving vehicle, I slow down and wait for a large gap in the left lane before I pass. Then I move over and accelerate to 65. If I misjudge (rare, because I'm always assessing the speeds in the left lane) and someone comes up on my rear when I'm passing, I'll go up to 70, but that's it. They'll just have to wait till I'm finished. If there's enough of a gap between a convoy of slower-moving vehicles, I'll pull back into the right lane temporarily to let Speedy go by.
WVA has 70 as the max limit. It gets very interesting in the western part of the state where there are only 4 lanes with a narrow, grassy V-shaped median, and you encounter Ol' Gramps in his clapped-out pickup going 50 and some hotshot in his Mustang/Camaro/Integra insisting on going 90 at the same time.
Last time I was there in June, it was 65 for cars and 60 for trucks ("exceeding 13 tons GVW").
The problem with raising the limit is that people will just use it as a new benchmark for exceeding it. Everyone knows that cops allow a cushion of generally 9 mph, at the very least.
actaully, there is a whole science to setting speed limits that revolves around what people will do in the absence of a posted limit. I haven't read details in a long time, but basically the logic is most people (90%?) will drive at a speed that they feel safe and comfortable at, regardless of the speed limit. That speed used to be what the speed limit was set to.
There are always going to be some outliers (top and bottom), but they will get weeded out by the enforcement process.
You have to decide what the purpose of the highways and speed limits is. Is it to move traffic in the most efficient manner, or to reduce gas consumption? If the latter, set the speed limt to 45.
It is a fallacy that if the SL is 65 on an interstate and the bulk of traffic travels at 75, and you raise the SL to 75, that most traffic will suddenly jump to 85. Most people are already doing the speed they want to go.
Sure, some will ramp it up, but they probably already travel at 80. And the newly legal people at 75 will be safer, since traffic speed is more even (assuming the few that traveled at 65 because it was the law now move up to 75), and speed diferential is more of a danger than speed itself. That, and people can concentrate on the road, not looking for speed traps!
I believe they use the 85%ile for most normal roads.
>It is a fallacy that if the SL is 65 on an interstate and the bulk of traffic travels at 75, and you raise the SL to 75, that most traffic will suddenly jump to 85.
I believe they will ramp it up. Some will stay low and you end up with a greater differential between top speeds and low speeds, a recipe for more disasterous crashes. Trucks especially will ramp up their speeds where the hills will allow. Truckers always justify need for speed as they make more money--to heck with safety.
I agree...I think as the law allows higher speeds, you won't see so many people exceeding them. And although speed differential is a recipe for disaster, so is just plain speed...a one-ingredient disaster. You don't see too many disastrous one-car accidents where the guy wasn't driving too fast. In the past, driving as much as 9 miles an hour over the speed limit was generally safe (although illegal) and people get used to seeing speed limits set a little low. Now if I see a 75 mile an hour speed limit, I'd be thinking that you could reasonably do 84 and not be too dangerous. But that's not the case anymore...the norm is changing. Another recipe for disaster. In today's gas crisis, I think gas conservation should be seriously taken into account. If the President (last week) told us to conserve fuel and then the government tells us to drive 5 miles an hour faster, then who should we believe? Although you don't necessarily have to drive at the speed limit, the norm has been raised by 5 miles an hour. The reasonable speed minimum has just been raised by 5 miles an hour, so even if speedy decides he's already going fast enough and doesn't have to add another 5 mph because the speed limit went up, slow-poke who obeys the law will be forced to increase 5 mph to avoid being a road block. The only safety benefit from this is possibly the fact that speedy and slow-poke are 5 miles an hour closer, but if speedy is already pushing the limits, he's dangerous already. Slow-poke is wasting more fuel. In a heavy traffic/traffic jam situation, however, where there is stop and start, this would be dramatically increased because people would go from a slow speed of, oh...0-30 miles an hour, in a traffic jam, acclerated up to a high speed of about 80, and then drop down again. The speed differential in heavy traffic/traffic jam situations would be increased, therefore increasing danger of crashes, and fuel consumption too. I think in heavy traffic, everyone would benefit if they just went extremely slow...their average speed is going to be slow anyway, but instead of slowing, accelerating, slowing, accelerating, wasting gas and risking a rear-end collision, why can't they just mosey along at 40? It might stop the yo-yo accelerations.
I think I may have covered too many topics there...I'm confused. Sorry...
I would agree with you. Minnesota raised its speed limits on the interstates from 55 to 65 and 70 mph in 1997. While the speed of the flowing traffic has definitely gone up, I believe far fewer people are breaking the SL now. 70 is definitely enough for me in a noisy compact.
why focus just on speed? Eliminate tolls, and you will save a bunch of gas not having cars stuck idling in a long backup. Add lanes too, to relieve congestion.
If the speed limit was suddenly ruduced (and somehow enforced) at say 45, it would actually have a negative impact on the economy, since otherwise productive people would spend more time in their cars, goods would take longer to get to market, etc.
"If the speed limit was suddenly ruduced (and somehow enforced) at say 45, it would actually have a negative impact on the economy, since otherwise productive people would spend more time in their cars, goods would take longer to get to market, etc"
Maybe...in a high congestion area, it might have a positive impact though. I read somewhere that the average rate of traffic has dropped over the past 100 years or so. Traffic jams make the rate of movement so slow that you might actually have better traffic flow with a slower speed. In rural areas, I agree it wouldn't help to have lower speed. Tolls are necessary...you can't just remove a toll unless you have another way to get the money. Back in Virginia we had the Coleman Bridge, two lanes, and a major artery up in Yorktown. Back in 1996 the made it a four-lane bridge and everyone was so excited that the traffic backup in Yorktown would be relieved. Then they slapped a toll booth on the end of it. As a result, traffic is worse, and we now have to pay to cross the York River. Makes no sense to me! Maybe the goverment could put up some of those cameras like they have at stop lights (a brilliant idea, I think!) and stick them in place of toll booths. Then whomever the car is registered to gets sent a bill, or has an extra cost added when they register their car again. I think tolls are necessary...but they could be done more efficiently. Extra lanes, although nice, cost money. Maybe we could think of something cheaper first, and then move towards extra lanes. If commuting by bicycle were less dangerous I think it would also be more popular. If you live within a few miles of work, a bicycle ride is easy, and a bicycle only takes 1/11 the space of the average car.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
made a trip to NYC yesterday (to Queens, for a Mets game) from the Phila. area. Surprisingly no notable inconsiderates, except for the dope that had an accidnet on the NB lanes of the turnpike that really jammed up traffic on my way home!
There would probably be fewer accidents in high-congestion areas if people overall drove slower...and in effect, traffic jams would be down and traffic might actually move faster. So the dope who crashed was inconsiderate? Possibly...I think we may have something here.
..."There would probably be fewer accidents in high-congestion areas if people overall drove slower...and in effect, traffic jams would be down and traffic might actually move faster. ..."
So some of the places that meet that criteria are RUSH HO"UR in Boston, Wash DC. NYC, Houston, pre Katrina New Orleans, Chicago, Los"t" Angeles.....etc etc?
yesroh: In the past, driving as much as 9 miles an hour over the speed limit was generally safe (although illegal) and people get used to seeing speed limits set a little low. Now if I see a 75 mile an hour speed limit, I'd be thinking that you could reasonably do 84 and not be too dangerous. But that's not the case anymore...the norm is changing. Another recipe for disaster.
There is no proof that higher speeds on limited access highways cause an increase in fatalities or even accidents. Speed limits should not be set to save gas. That's not their purpose.
Interestingly, I've noticed that since the big run-up in gas prices, there has been a decrease in weekend traffic on local interstate highways. And that has also brought about a decrease in the number of inconsiderate drivers...which is hardly a bad thing.
Coming to a traffic light that's green, and an unloaded flat trailered semi is looking to make a right at the light to come onto the road I'm on. He starts to make his right on red, but really shouldn't have as I had to slow significantly to avoid running into him. But the truck driver isn't the target of this story...
It's the guy coming the other way in the left turn lane who wants to make a left into the road that the truck is coming from. He just comes across as if there's no opposing traffic and starts "gesturing" in my direction as if I did something wrong by conitinuing to drive through a green light. :confuse:
The "idiot density" seems to be increasing. Be careful out there folks!
I wasn't the only car coming from that direction. If anything was about to happen, it was him broadsiding me. The guy in the left lane behind me is the one who would have gotten Mr I. M. Makingmyleftnow :surprise:
I found this website this morning on the effect of speed on traffic accidents. A higher speed will allow less time for the driver to react and compound the damage because the impact will be more severe. I don't know if saving gas is considered in the equation for figuring speed limits, but if someone wants to drive a little slower and save gas, they will not be able to with the higher speed limits.
I agree...but we all do stupid things because we are human. What people need to do is decrease the likelihood of them making a mistake. You don't hang on a cellphone in heavy traffic...some can do it, but it's still risky. Keep the speed down...it increases chances of avoiding and surviving a crash...keep your distance...increases chance of avoiding a crash...and use turn signals so anyone you can't see will be able to react to you. There are other ways, like taking breaks during a long drive. Some of the people we see as inconsiderate are poor planners. Someone is driving too fast for conditions...too tired...can't see where they're going...and they keep on trudging along as if the road is dry and clear and they're completely alert. It's not wise.
Let's see... This website is sponsored by the IIHS. The same people that want us to ride around in tanks. There's no way they could have an agenda. Naaaa.
Comments
I suppose, technically, though...if you are exceeding the speed limit you are fair game. Most cops won't ticket you if you go with the flow but I don't want to take that chance. I'd rather keep my driving record and let the other goons fight it out.
1.) That there is a line forming behind me.
2.) Traffic now has to pass us in the one right lane.
3.) This yahoo is just that a yahoo with his left turn signal stuck on and he will not merge.
4.) That this yahoo is actually slowing down more.
So thinking this guy will never merge I start to speed back up to a reasonable speed. Guess what? This clown decides to merge as soon as I get next to him. :mad:
I had a co-worker who used to tell me that as soon as you pay off your car people will start to try to hit it. I guess he was right since I just made my final car payment on the beast.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Then coming home tonight I'm in a line of cars waiting to make a right turn on red at a T intersection. The lead car just waits out the whole light, no traffic, NO no turn on red sign, just oblivious. Later as I pass her I notice she's 50ish, chatting to her passenger. You'd think the passenger would have said something like "hey, no traffic, you can go now."
Now one time a long, long time ago I was stopped at a red light waiting to make a right turn on red and the guy behind me started laying on his horn. While there were gaps between the cars going down the street we were turning onto, none of them, in my opinion, was great enough for me to enter the road without causing traffic to have to slow down because of me.
Now thats the one thing I really hate about the right turn on red law, I really do not know how many times I had to swerve or hit the brakes because some idiot decides that it is ok for them to make that turn. The law says you can make that turn if traffic is clear, traffic isn't clear if they have to brake or change lanes to avoid you.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That's why God invented horns!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'm wondering...is it not correct that you don't change lanes when driving through and intersection? And are you not supposed to enter the nearest lane when making a turn? I guess the second statement is something I've dealt with. If I can clearly see no one approaching I don't see any need in not taking the lane I want, but in a heavier traffic situation I try to take the nearest lane.
I have a situation here where there is cross-traffic from the left that has right of way. It's a one-lane road which intersects my lane, a two lane road, and almost all cars turn left. So in the morning rush, it's very difficult to cross that intersection because the line of traffic is heavy. But in reality, if all the people who turned left took the nearest lane (the left lane) then I could l saunter on through that intersection on the right lane and my traffic would not have to wait so long. But, like your stop light story, they aren't content with being behind someone in the left lane...people enter my road and take both left and right lanes, leaving the rest of us sitting and waiting. It's an example of how a simple rule could have great benefit on traffic flow if people would just obey it.
In CA when safe, one CAN change lanes when driving through an intersection. (unless delineated by a solid white line) Also (unless delineated by a solid white line) one can enter into any lane when making a turn. While I learned to drive with your understanding, it has not been so for a very long time.
I often make turns and enter the far lane but I try to assess the situation first...if the intersection is mostly empty then I think it's okay...you just have to be sure you aren't interferring with someone else. I haven't done any research on this but I would guess the highest rate of moving traffic accidents is probably in intersections.
While reflexively,I do not change lanes in an intersection, I do it legally when situations dictate.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Unless they are blocking a lane of oncoming traffic you wouldn't cross into their lane. That is unless you move into oncoming traffic.
Also with someone making a legal right turn at a red light. You look...ahhh...a guy is heading my way on the left lane...I can make it!
You CANNOT make a right turn on red in that situation. The law requires that traffic on the road you are turning onto must be clear from BOTH directions. If you make a right turn on red and there is a car entering the intersection in the left lane you have just broken the law.
From as far as I can tell there is no law prohibiting lane changes in an intersection.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It has now degenerated into U turns are not prohibited unless there is a sign prohibiting it.
Parrallel parking? That item ued to be on the drivers test. Lord help you if you had a stick shift and a mischievous examiner. He could make you parrallel part on a hill between two cars in a tight space. You could literally flunk if you didn't parrallel park well.
NOW?
You just need to pull into NON parrallel parking stall without killing someone.
The macro take on all of this is our nations highway systems are at the safest rate wise accident and fatality the safest ever since they started to record these things.
In my examples I was referring to a divided highway, or four lane road.
Someone told me once that there was a law that you couldn't change lanes within a certain distance of an intersection. I don't know if it's true but it makes good sense so I don't do it.
Yes I know thats what you were referring to, in that case you still have to wait until traffic in BOTH lanes have cleared the intersection. If it is three lanes in each direction you have to wait until traffic in all three lanes are clear. It doesn't matter what lane the traffic is in and what lane you are turning into, you must wait until ALL traffic has cleared the intersection and it is safe to make the turn.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Ha-ha !
I just use the horn, seems to work everytime.
So nobody gets what they want. Speed limit compliers have to get in the left lane to pass trucks and RVs going anywhere from 65 down to 50. That puts them in the way of the speeders. There is a lot of conflict and both sides tend to get a little self-righteous. Of course compliers can minimize this friction by waiting for a big gap in the left lane, yet it seems inequitable to expect law-abiding drivers to sacrifice time for the benefit of scofflaws. Should driver A be forced to poke along behind a slow RV just so driver B can go 10 mph over the legal limit? Or should we demand that drive A exceed the legal limit to minimize his time in the fast lane?
If everyone complied with the speed limit, two lanes would be sufficient. Traffic in the left lane would move along at 70mph and the right lane mostly at 60-65 with occasional minor bottlenecks caused by laggards.
Adding a lane in each direction would give us a truck/merging lane, a passenger travel lane, and a lane for passing and SFs. This is also a huge expense for taxpayers. It's probably more cost-effective to enforce speed limits as long as two lanes in each direction is enough to carry the traffic volume.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That's why God invented horns!
I disagree. I will NOT turn on red if I am not comfortable, no matter what the guy behind me thinks. As far as I know, turning right on red is allowed, but not mandatory.
At one time, I had stopped on red and was looking at traffic to see if I can make the turn, when the driver behind me started honking. I looked in my rear view mirror and he was waving me on. Yeah, right!
But a related minor annoyance is when drivers approach an intersection extremeley slowly because the light is red. What they overlook is that there is a left turn lane that opens up about 100 feet from the intersection and there is a green arrow for a protected left turn. Motorists trying to make the left turn just get stuck behind these slow movers and the protected left turn is just wasted.
I am usually a right-laner at about 2-3 mph over the limit. If I pass on the left I usually try to stay within 9mph of the limit, knowing if I exceed that I am at risk for a ticket. But it depends...if there is a line of fast-moving traffic and I need to slip in to get around, I'll do what it takes. It's hard to hit someone with radar who is wedged in a line of traffic moving the same speed. And then there are times when I just need to get into the left lane and I see someone, way back, doing a ridiculous speed, coming up fast, and like ladave I think,"Why should I be stuck in the right lane so an irresponsible, wreckless driver can flaunt the law? Even at 9mph over the limit in the left lane, I'm not exactly a lane-blocker.
Indiana just increased the state speed limit by 5mph...in the midst of massive increases in fuel costs, and talk of a shortage, Indiana, in its stupid wisdom, thought it proper to raise the limit. Can someone here tell me the logic in that? As I recall, a few months ago, their explanation for it was,"The people drive over the speed limit anyway...we don't want those people to be worried about getting a ticket". Yes...good, hardworking, honest American speeders shouldn't have to pass worry onto their children and grandchildren. I need to write someone important about this lapse of judgement. Morons...
Didn't Indiana raise the limit for the gas-hogging semis to 65 recently so they could gulp more fuel faster in the process of killing more people when they do wreck at the higher speed?
>we don't want those people to be worried about getting a ticket".
They didn't seem worried 8 years ago when they use all kinds of covert, unmarked cars to do traffic enforcement. I recall seeing one on I64 between Columbus and Indy practically wreck himself trying to turn through the median to catch a speeder headed northbound!!!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Considering the driving habbits of some cops I've seen, I think they are just giving traffic control lip service. Cops are notorious for flaunting the laws of the road. They are part of the problem.
WVA has 70 as the max limit. It gets very interesting in the western part of the state where there are only 4 lanes with a narrow, grassy V-shaped median, and you encounter Ol' Gramps in his clapped-out pickup going 50 and some hotshot in his Mustang/Camaro/Integra insisting on going 90 at the same time.
The problem with raising the limit is that people will just use it as a new benchmark for exceeding it. Everyone knows that cops allow a cushion of generally 9 mph, at the very least.
West VA allows 65 mph on most such roads in the boonies. At least there, many of the crossroads are minor roads that don't go anywhere!
There are always going to be some outliers (top and bottom), but they will get weeded out by the enforcement process.
You have to decide what the purpose of the highways and speed limits is. Is it to move traffic in the most efficient manner, or to reduce gas consumption? If the latter, set the speed limt to 45.
It is a fallacy that if the SL is 65 on an interstate and the bulk of traffic travels at 75, and you raise the SL to 75, that most traffic will suddenly jump to 85. Most people are already doing the speed they want to go.
Sure, some will ramp it up, but they probably already travel at 80. And the newly legal people at 75 will be safer, since traffic speed is more even (assuming the few that traveled at 65 because it was the law now move up to 75), and speed diferential is more of a danger than speed itself. That, and people can concentrate on the road, not looking for speed traps!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I believe they use the 85%ile for most normal roads.
>It is a fallacy that if the SL is 65 on an interstate and the bulk of traffic travels at 75, and you raise the SL to 75, that most traffic will suddenly jump to 85.
I believe they will ramp it up. Some will stay low and you end up with a greater differential between top speeds and low speeds, a recipe for more disasterous crashes. Trucks especially will ramp up their speeds where the hills will allow. Truckers always justify need for speed as they make more money--to heck with safety.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
In the past, driving as much as 9 miles an hour over the speed limit was generally safe (although illegal) and people get used to seeing speed limits set a little low. Now if I see a 75 mile an hour speed limit, I'd be thinking that you could reasonably do 84 and not be too dangerous. But that's not the case anymore...the norm is changing. Another recipe for disaster.
In today's gas crisis, I think gas conservation should be seriously taken into account. If the President (last week) told us to conserve fuel and then the government tells us to drive 5 miles an hour faster, then who should we believe? Although you don't necessarily have to drive at the speed limit, the norm has been raised by 5 miles an hour. The reasonable speed minimum has just been raised by 5 miles an hour, so even if speedy decides he's already going fast enough and doesn't have to add another 5 mph because the speed limit went up, slow-poke who obeys the law will be forced to increase 5 mph to avoid being a road block. The only safety benefit from this is possibly the fact that speedy and slow-poke are 5 miles an hour closer, but if speedy is already pushing the limits, he's dangerous already. Slow-poke is wasting more fuel.
In a heavy traffic/traffic jam situation, however, where there is stop and start, this would be dramatically increased because people would go from a slow speed of, oh...0-30 miles an hour, in a traffic jam, acclerated up to a high speed of about 80, and then drop down again. The speed differential in heavy traffic/traffic jam situations would be increased, therefore increasing danger of crashes, and fuel consumption too. I think in heavy traffic, everyone would benefit if they just went extremely slow...their average speed is going to be slow anyway, but instead of slowing, accelerating, slowing, accelerating, wasting gas and risking a rear-end collision, why can't they just mosey along at 40? It might stop the yo-yo accelerations.
I think I may have covered too many topics there...I'm confused. Sorry...
If the speed limit was suddenly ruduced (and somehow enforced) at say 45, it would actually have a negative impact on the economy, since otherwise productive people would spend more time in their cars, goods would take longer to get to market, etc.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Maybe...in a high congestion area, it might have a positive impact though. I read somewhere that the average rate of traffic has dropped over the past 100 years or so. Traffic jams make the rate of movement so slow that you might actually have better traffic flow with a slower speed. In rural areas, I agree it wouldn't help to have lower speed.
Tolls are necessary...you can't just remove a toll unless you have another way to get the money. Back in Virginia we had the Coleman Bridge, two lanes, and a major artery up in Yorktown. Back in 1996 the made it a four-lane bridge and everyone was so excited that the traffic backup in Yorktown would be relieved. Then they slapped a toll booth on the end of it. As a result, traffic is worse, and we now have to pay to cross the York River. Makes no sense to me!
Maybe the goverment could put up some of those cameras like they have at stop lights (a brilliant idea, I think!) and stick them in place of toll booths. Then whomever the car is registered to gets sent a bill, or has an extra cost added when they register their car again. I think tolls are necessary...but they could be done more efficiently.
Extra lanes, although nice, cost money. Maybe we could think of something cheaper first, and then move towards extra lanes. If commuting by bicycle were less dangerous I think it would also be more popular. If you live within a few miles of work, a bicycle ride is easy, and a bicycle only takes 1/11 the space of the average car.
Once again...I'm drifting...
kirstie_h
Roving Host
Host, Future Vehicles & Smart Shopper discussions
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Yes, a major cause of accidents.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
So the dope who crashed was inconsiderate? Possibly...I think we may have something here.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
..."
So some of the places that meet that criteria are RUSH HO"UR in Boston, Wash DC. NYC, Houston, pre Katrina New Orleans, Chicago, Los"t" Angeles.....etc etc?
There is no proof that higher speeds on limited access highways cause an increase in fatalities or even accidents. Speed limits should not be set to save gas. That's not their purpose.
Interestingly, I've noticed that since the big run-up in gas prices, there has been a decrease in weekend traffic on local interstate highways. And that has also brought about a decrease in the number of inconsiderate drivers...which is hardly a bad thing.
Coming to a traffic light that's green, and an unloaded flat trailered semi is looking to make a right at the light to come onto the road I'm on. He starts to make his right on red, but really shouldn't have as I had to slow significantly to avoid running into him. But the truck driver isn't the target of this story...
It's the guy coming the other way in the left turn lane who wants to make a left into the road that the truck is coming from. He just comes across as if there's no opposing traffic and starts "gesturing" in my direction as if I did something wrong by conitinuing to drive through a green light. :confuse:
The "idiot density" seems to be increasing. Be careful out there folks!
I found this website this morning on the effect of speed on traffic accidents. A higher speed will allow less time for the driver to react and compound the damage because the impact will be more severe.
I don't know if saving gas is considered in the equation for figuring speed limits, but if someone wants to drive a little slower and save gas, they will not be able to with the higher speed limits.