Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

ruking1

Oh you mean like identity theft is difficult to impossible to prosecute?

fintail

When the state can defend that limit as being optimal, then that scheme could come into play. Some accountability needs to be forced on those making "laws" that are really revenue generators in disguise. Until then, there should be bigger fish to fry - primarily distracted driving.

I also don't know why the state should be trusted to benevolent use of GPS monitoring when they do virtually nothing else right.

fintail

If the law can't be justified, why should it be followed, accepted, and enforced?

If those making and enforcing said laws can't put up or shut up when it comes to their claims, why should they be trusted or followed?

Follow the money, that's what it's all about. Gotta pay those 6-figure via OT LEO salaries and healthy pensions.

ruking1

Indeed I would agree. They also say that most accidents are due in one way or another to distracted driving. 50% is still being caused by DUI. What is being advocated is not only wrong headed it will be totally ineffectual for the stuff that really is @ cause for accidents.

fintail

Distracted driving - either by gadgetry or substances, is easily the biggest problem on the road. It's difficult to fight, though, so it doesn't get priority.

Simply sitting back and waiting for speeders to pass by really solves nothing but revenue issues.

ruking1

They say (LEO's and traffic gurus) that stopping on the side of the freeway/highway is dangerous beyond belief. Yet when a "speeder" is pulled over, they are almost ALWAYS pulled to the side of the freeway/highway !!??

Indeed on one road I travel, I see the CHP OFF the side of the road (on foot using the portable radios) UP on the side of the hill and out of their patrol cars, while the "speeder" (poor victim) is told to remain in the car !!!!!

fintail

The allure of money and maybe an ego trip seems to cloud judgment.

bobw3

Among the list of things that cause accidents, I'd put distracted drivers right there on top of the list. The problem is that the "distraction" can be anything...looking for a song on the MP3 player, thinking about an argument with a spouse, screaming kids in the back seat, etc...

Because you can't really enforce distraction, you should try to enforce laws that actually can be enforced...speeding, running red lights, etc are such laws.

Bottom line is that there are going to be distracted drivers out there all the time, but I'd rather have them driving distracted at a slower rate.

As far as the money goes, if speeders are fully paying for the police budget I think that would be great...sort of like a use tax

ruking1

The overwhelming majority of accidents happen @ the SLOWER RATE !!!!!!! One reason is folks perceive slower as SAFER (which it is NOT) until of course they have the accident.

Do you ever notice that people who hit stationary objects (llike telephone poles) tend to DIE? How fast were the telephone poles going?

fintail

The next time I see WSP speeding to meet with work buddies for breakfast at Lil Jon's, I'll keep in mind that use tax.

Militant speeding enforcement is a cop-out to mask an inability to address other problems.

bobw3

The faster the speed, the less time to react to a given situation.

BTW...It's not the speed at the impact of hitting the telephone pole, but the speed of the car when it went out of control and started heading towards the pole.

ruking1

I think you are totally ignoring the context in which the question was asked because real world statistics do no support the wrong headed notions you advocate.

Indeed the statistics indicate this is SAFEST period in HISTORY, since they started recording these things( NHTSA.gov) . To wit, real speeds are up. There are higher speeds limits. Their are more drivers. They make more trips. There are more cars.Knock yourself out !

stickguy

if they institute that law, then they damn well better now exclude the gov't officials, especially the SP that drive around the governor, etc. They always fly and have no regard for the limits. And no, this is not an emergency situation!

frankly, any law that the people with the power to enact and enforce totally disregard should by default be striking from the books.

stickguy

In theory, all laws should be enforced to the letter. And if they aren't, they should be changed or abolished.

really, there are plenty of laws that make no sense, never should have been implemented, or have run their course and wiped out.

and the simplest way to identify them is see which ones the vast majority of the "law abiding" public pay no attention to. Artificially low SLs being a prime example. Hey, there is a reason that traffic science uses the speed that people will travel when given a choice to pick what it should be as the nominal limit!

otherwise upstanding, pillar of the community types drive at reasonable and customary speeds all the time, even if it is higher than posted, and don't consider themselves evil criminals. But the same people still recognize moral, ethical and safety regulations/laws they would follow even if the law did not prevent them from doing something.

revenue generation (as Fin likes to call it) obscures the real enforcement need. If you took all LE off of the "commission" basis, and went straight salary (as in, no fines generating revenue for the town/department), it would be interesting to see where they would allocate their attention in terms of maximizing public safety.

shrifty

"Bottom line is that there are going to be distracted drivers out there all the time, but I'd rather have them driving distracted at a slower rate."

I'd rather they pay attention at a higher rate of speed then drive distracted at a lower speed. If they were paying attention, the chance of collision is almost nothing. By not paying attention, the crash won't be as severe, but much more likely to have one in the first place.

shrifty

I just did a quick search on distracted driving, and found the following (not sure how valid this is).

http://www.distraction.gov/stats-and-facts/

Research on distracted driving reveals some surprising facts:
20 percent of injury crashes in 2009 involved reports of distracted driving. (NHTSA).
Of those killed in distracted-driving-related crashed, 995 involved reports of a cell phone as a distraction (18% of fatalities in distraction-related crashes). (NHTSA)
In 2009, 5,474 people were killed in U.S. roadways and an estimated additional 448,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes that were reported to have involved distracted driving. (FARS and GES)
The age group with the greatest proportion of distracted drivers was the under-20 age group – 16 percent of all drivers younger than 20 involved in fatal crashes were reported to have been distracted while driving. (NHTSA)
Drivers who use hand-held devices are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves. (Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)
Using a cell phone use while driving, whether it’s hand-held or hands-free, delays a driver's reactions as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08 percent. (Source: University of Utah)

While these numbers are significant, they may not state the true size of the problem, since the identification of distraction and its role in a crash can be very difficult to determine using only police-reported data. New data sources are available to provide more details on the type and presence of driver distraction.

jayrider

Shopping at a strip mall store listened to a car alarm blaring for at least 10 minutes. Upon exiting saw the truck with a woman calmly sitting in the passenger seat.

snakeweasel

The overwhelming majority of accidents happen the SLOWER RATE !!!!!!!

But isn't the majority of driving done at a slower rate?

Do you ever notice that people who hit stationary objects (llike telephone poles) tend to DIE? How fast were the telephone poles going?

Tell me who is more likely to die, someone driving into a telephone pole at 25 MPH or someone driving into a telephone pole at 80 MPH?

snakeweasel

The faster the speed, the less time to react to a given situation.

Also the more force it exerts and the harder it is to control.

ruking1

Hell of a lot more incidents@ 25 mph than 80 mph. So the answer; 25 mph.

Hypothetically? yes, 80 mph. If you have control problems @ 80 mph, you probably should not go 80 mph. But then for some reason, drunks routinely survive higher speed collisions with telephone poles.

Normally on freeways where there are 65 mph speed limits there is a decided lack of available telephoe poles. So if you are going 80 mph on a two lane road with telephone poles on each side, you are probably going way too fast and with inappropriate speed. So if you hit a telephone pole @ 80 mph or 25 mph, the chances are you will die. It is best to stay away from telephone poles @ any speed.

snakeweasel

Hell of a lot more incidents 25 mph than 80 mph. So the answer; 25 mph.

Sorry you misread my question. Someone is far more likely to die driving a car into a telephone pole at 80 MPH than at 25 MPH.

If you have control problems 80 mph, you probably should not go 80 mph.

However you are more likely to have controll problems at 80 than at 25.

But then for some reason, drunks routinely survive higher speed collisions with telephone poles.

Actually a drunk would have a better chance at 25 than at 80. But since a drunk would likely not have the the involuntary relex of stiffining up to brace for the impact (assuming they would realize an impact was about to happen) they would be less likely to suffer more serious injuries or even deaths.

So if you hit a telephone pole 80 mph or 25 mph, the chances are you will die.

Chances are if you will survive with at worse minor injuries hitting a telephone pole at 25 MPH. Remember that 80 MPH is 3.2 times faster than 25 so at 80 MPH you will hit the telephone pole with 10.24 times the force than you would at 25 MPH.

backy

And speaking of inconsiderate driving, hitting a telephone pole at 80 is much more inconsiderate than hitting it at 25, since at 80 it's more likely the pole will be damaged, maybe cutting off phone/internet service for many people.

Very inconsiderate!

:P

ruking1

Your rephrase changes nothing. You know even most drunks don't purposely aim at telephone poles. They are just drunk, not insane. So if you are drunk or insane, do everyone a favor and do not get behind the wheel of a passenger vehicle. But then, there are the STARS in Santa Monica, CA (Orange Country) :sick: A lot of the more "spectacular" high speed chases @ or greater than your 80 mph example and crashes are caught there on video and most survive. Also per capita, the area is safer than a whole lot of so called "safe to safer" area's.

snakeweasel

And speaking of inconsiderate driving, hitting a telephone pole at 80 is much more inconsiderate than hitting it at 25, since at 80 it's more likely the pole will be damaged, maybe cutting off phone/internet service for many people.

Well most people do have mobile phones and cable internet service so telephone poles are starting to become obsolete.

snakeweasel

I didn't rephrase anything. Just mearly stating that there are certain laws of physics at play. The faster a car goes the more force it exerts and the more damage it would do to any object it strikes as well as to itself and the occupants inside.

ruking1

So what is it about that, that you nor I not understand?

snakeweasel

I understand it, what can I clear up for you?

ruking1

Nothing. But it does seem like you are stuck there! What about not necessarily converting @ high speed (given the statistics) don't you understand?

Now I have seen a HUGE DUI tree try to cross an 8 lane freeway. I broke out of its roots, but it fell over three of 4 lanes in one direction. Luckily it did not fall on an passing cars and all were able to stop in time. Now that was inconsiderate.

snakeweasel

What do you think that I don't understand?

backy

OK... so only the old fuddy-duddies like me with old-fashioned phone service (which still works when power and cell phone batteries fail) and old-fashioned DSL will be inconvenienced.

So much for an attempt to return to the topic of inconsiderate driving...

jwilliams2

No, who's on first, what's on second.....

hammerhead

Lots of truth to the 'stiffening up' theory. Maybe no real data, but lots of anecdotal evidence. Having been in EMS for over 30 years, I have seen a lot of completely obliterated vehicles where the occupants should have been DRT (dead right there), but they were so drunk they 'rolled with the punches' and were relatively unscathed. Survived to be prosecuted. Amazing.

ruking1

Indeed I have also seen the remnants (both photgraphic and in the flesh) of a Pontiac TransAm "drifting" put into a side ways 4 wheel drift into the blunt end of a massive wood (pressure treated staked in the ground, but massive steel blunt end highway divider. The divider literally knifed through the driver's door and clear through to the passenger door to protrude 3 feet further through the car. . The guy was drunk, running from a LEO, no seat belts on and walked away with minor bruises and NO injuries. (well actually cuffed and thrown into the drunk tank) The car was literally impaled thru the drivers door. The arresting officer told me he lost the curve @ a tad over 85 mph. (side way drift)

jensad

You posters are flashing me back to a terrible t/c I handled on the Mac Arthur Freeway in Oakland when a male driver in a 1956 Odlsmobile, was according to witnesses about 75 mpg hit a Park Street off ramp cement abutment.

These old vehciles were Sherman tanks in disguise if you get the gist of the exterior. Anyway he was shot/burst up and through the top of the car and was slumped over d.o.a. No seat belts either.

Very strange and I never witnessed this kind of t/c again. Finally that 75 mph plus a cement stopper =s one dead driver.

Sorry if I offended anyone but I still have guess strange rememberances in my old dotage that I probably will never forget.

Hope have a good day and drive safe in the snow and in the rain (Ca.).

jensad

murphydog

never fear Backy - that telephone pole could have a cell site on it as well, in which case the locals would indeed be without service...thus bring the discussion back to inconsiderate driving....

ruking1

We have a lot out west that they make to look like a real tree. OH Pleeze !!! It is about as good as a man in white patent loafers with a bad fitting toupe on a used car lot.

snakeweasel

that telephone pole could have a cell site on it as well

Doubt that as a telephone pole wouldn't have the height that cell phone providers would want. Being to low limits its range.

snakeweasel

First one, going to work at a 'T' intersection. I am on the through street turning left ofto the ending street. There was a van waiting on the ending street to make a left turn onto the through street, and two cars approaching me on the through street. The first car approaching me turns on their right turn signal and slows down a bit to make the right turn onto the road that ends at the intersection. I am stopped waiting for those two vehicles to clear the intersection. All of a sudden the van guns it through the intersection making their left turn almost getting hit by the second approaching car.

Second on I was going home from my tax job a bit after 9 pm not inconsiderate but interesting. Driving down a road one lane in each direction and a center left turn lane SL 25. I am traveling at 25-30 MPH and a van pulls out in front of me from an apartment complex. He had plenty of room and got up to my speed pretty quick so there was no issue with that.

Well an half mile later we are both stopped at a red light and an SUV pulls up next to me in the left turn lane. The light turns green the guy in front of me starts off I follow and the SUV goes straight through the intersection. As it does it lights up like a christmas tree, all sorts of pretty red and blue lights flashing. I pull over and stop as well as the van in front of me and the police pull up between us all four doors open and four police officers jump out guns drawn and head for the van. :surprise:

murphydog

I don't know how to attach in forums - but if you google "cell site on a telephone pole" - You will then see this link . http://www.nextgnetworks.net/library/whitepaper_safety.pdf

So you may have doubts, but none there less there are cell sites on telephone poles....

snakeweasel

To be honest it was talking about wireless networks which while could be cell phone services it could be anything.

fintail

Latest winner sticking in my head - another "new resident" in a late model CRV who would floor it off the line, then settle down to 5 or so under the limit, with actual motorists passing on the right. She even cut a corner close as she was accelerating sharply, then leveled off and dawdled. Licensing standards need to be tightened.

Also had 3 cars run through crosswalks while I was jogging yesterday - I am not a tiny person, so they didn't just not see me. At least one was holding a phone. As I carry my keys, I am really thinking of just running a key down the side of the car, might be more fun than the insulting profanity I give them now. I doubt the one fake 'n baked huge sunglasses wearing parasite in an Escalade would have even noticed.

Sandman6472

We have one phone that's plugged right into the outlet which needs no electricity...an absolute must in every house once the power & cell towers become inoperable during natural disasters in the future. An absolute must!!!

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

snakeweasel

Hate to tell you but landlines can be disrupted by natural disasters. There is nothing magical about it.

xwesx

I pull over and stop as well as the van in front of me and the police pull up between us all four doors open and four police officers jump out guns drawn and head for the van.

That's surreal! What happened afterward? I mean to say, what did you do at that point?

snakeweasel

what did you do at that point?

I just drove around them and got out of there.

One of the officers after he got out motioned me to go around so I did.

Sandman6472

But with Wlima in 2005, we had no power for like 9 days but we had our phone service back within a day and ditto at work...so I'll stick with a regular phone not needing any electric any day...we've already lived it!

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

jensad

Hi xwesx

I think that was a rather scary situation because if 4 cops pile out of one car with guns on the other vehcile there might be strong arm robbery, killer, dope boys, ect.

i was in one with severn other CHP cars that lined up on the Oakland (IS580) Mac Arthur freeway with guns drawn and we took a killer out of a car but only after he threw his two guns out of the car. Amazing event and it done well so that no one got hurt.

I am glad you were ok and I know it was a learning moment for you as it was a long time ago for me.

Sidebar here. My wife and I are driving back to Illinois going through Utah, Iowa, So. Dakota and then a straight shot to Rockford Illinois to visit our family. Question: In mid to the end of May how much snow is there still left on the roadway? Thks in advance.

Good luck to all and stay safe.

jensad

m6vx

There will be NO snow on the roadway in May.

There.... I've gone and done it, we're going to get a freak May snowstorm now. ;-)

xwesx

Hahaha; that was exactly the response I was thinking when I scrolled down and read yours!

To be even more bold, Jensad, you could probably drive all the way to my doorstep in Fairbanks, Alaska, in late May and not hit a single flake of snow.

snakeweasel

Many years ago we had a bad storm. Lost the land line for about a day, cell phones stayed active.