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
Forcing people into ditches and into the path of locomotives... talk about overly dramatic.
I know a guy who was driving a dump truck with limited visibility out the passenger window. He pulled out in front of a slow moving locomotive from a stop sign. Smashed the truck good but he was okay. He decided to go back to school and get a new career after that little incident.
Haven't talked to him for years, but I'm guessing he's a pretty cautious driver these days).
NTSB recommends ban on driver cell phone use
By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal accident investigators recommended states ban the use of cell phones and other electronic devices by all drivers except in emergencies.
The National Transportation Safety Board's recommendation followed a finding by the board that the initial collision in a deadly highway pileup in Missouri last year was caused by the inattention of a 19 year-old-pickup driver who sent or received 11 texts in the 11 minutes immediately before the accident.
The pickup driver and a 15-year-old student on one of the school buses were killed. Thirty-eight other people were injured.
The NTSB's recommendation makes an exception for use of phones and other devices in emergency situations.
The board doesn't have the power to impose regulations, but its recommendations carry significant weight with lawmakers.
Well, cell phone service providers won't like this. Will cut down on their revenue.
Everyone on this board has seen drivers on the phone and driving erratically. Except for 911 to report an emergency, there is absolutely no reason why a driver "needs" to make a call in a moving vehicle.
I'd ask them what my company/organization did wrong, and what we/I could do to fix it and make it right! Good customer service is #1. Afterall, I pay his salary!
The father-in-law situation wasn't local. He's about 300 miles north and it was a CHP officer. He said he wouldn't have become so angry if the officer handn't got it completely wrong. He felt the officer was lying when he told him how fast he was going (because he wasn't going that fast). I told him it wasn't personal, that radars are an ancient technology full of inaccuracies and errors, and can potentially be useless and I'm not sure why courts accept their admittance in 2011. In 1950, maybe, now, way too much potential for erroneous readings, and there is better technology (laser for one).
I actually advised him that getting angry will never help, and telling him "see you in court," is a bad idea because he'll be sure to take better notes and show up since you promised that you would. If he doesn't think you'll fight it, he may be lazy and make no notations at all to remember you, and then therefore might not show up soley because he has no/limited notes and doesn't remember the situation (though some will show up despite not remembering any details).
I've never raised my voice or used profanity directed towards an officer (at least not to his face). I have had officer's lose their temper and do stupid things (like when I requested and demanded my right to the County Seat) as my court location. The officer refused, I affirmed my right and demand to the county seat, he again said no, so i signed the ticket and noted "Officer refused County seat" right by my John Hancock. When the officer saw that notation he completely blew up (that's how I ended up with a 2nd allegation on my copy of the citaton - AFTER I had signed it with only one on it at the time). Thankfully, he didn't go so far as to shoot me. He merely made empty threats like it'll be 3 days before the Magistrate sees you if I take you in because there "so busy" and it's a "Friday."
He also said that I was obstructing justice because I "defaced" his ticket (absurd, because I didn't write in a large font across the whole face of the ticket; which would be fun next time
He never bothered to re-write the ticket. He simply angrily walked around my vehicle looking for something else to write me up for and picked "bald tires." Then he said "here!" and reiterated that he felt (wrongly) a person had no right to write anything outside the signature box on his citation.
I've never lost my composure in dealings with officers on the street. This guy did.
Solutions: 1 ) Video camera mounted in the center of your vehicle anchored from the back seat. Turn on when pulled over and record.
2) Audio recorder in the armrest, pull out and turn on when pulled over and record. I WILL implement this one immediately. The next time I'm pulled over, it's getting the conversation recorded; that's guaranteed.
3) get a permit to pack a concealed or nonconcealed weapon so that if an officer does escalate the traffic stop into a shootout, you can shoot back in self-defense. I was warned about crazy cops out there that like to get their rocks off by shooting and killing people that give them a hard time. I was told by a former boss that his ex brother-in-law had killed 10 people and he was still on the force. This made me rethink how badly a cop might overreact and get angry (beyond lame add-on allegations. Number 3 would fix this potential worst case scenario, but I find the fight for justice on the streets to be worth this potential threat. I think CA cops are in general much better trained than your average cop across the nation, but they still are all about tax collection via fines.
Nope, taking care of your employees is number 1. If you give them the tools and training they need, taking care of the customers (or the citizenry) will fall into place, along with profits to the company or better safety for the drivers.
1) complete incompetence of driving by the police officer
2) complete disregard for the safety of others (what if it had been a little girl and not a tension wire on the sidewalk).
3) complete menace to society.
That officer should be fired, canned, and ticketed for reckless driving on his way out.
However the REST of the STORY has application here. The CAUSE of the story, the women while driving bent down to retrieve something from the floor of her vehicle (while it was in motion on a public street). They didn't say what it was that was so important, nor did she. I bet she probably dropped her cell phone while she was texting and she lost attention span which allowed her car to go into a ditch, crashing her vehicle AND throwing her from it (probably was not wearing a seat belt?). The next result: because of the accident, she is paralyzed from the chest on down and confined to a wheel chair due to a spinal cord injury. As one can project, the much greater tragedy was avoided: she neither injured or killed someone ELSE in her chosen moment of inattention.
Also, perhaps her health insurance would have a right to deny paying her hospital charges since she failed to mitigate damages with the use of a seatbelt.
Another story on the same news cast was some bicyclist (San Francisco city streets) collided with a pedestrian in an intersection with the pedestrian having the right of way, a tourist from DC. Several days later she died of (directly caused ) head injuries. Again I would swag he didn't have insurance (maybe he did if he was a licensed driver with a car) He is supposed to face non felony vehicular manslaughter, aka 1-5 days in the clink and probably for time served or probation. AH don't be a pedestrian in SF, CA.
I thought I'd seen it all, before now. I was wrong. But maybe now I have.
i'm trying to remember if i was so angry when i was young & spunky like you . maybe!
i've learned to enjoy traffic tickets and getting detained by cops, as long as there is a safe place to pull over. Many have commented on how they noticed how quickly i react when they light me up, how fast/safely I pull over, and how I go out of my way to selecting maximum safe spot/angle for the cop's safety.
due to absence of speed traps, I only got pulled over once in my 4 years of Bay Area living (the San Jose bay area.) Much lower rate than here on east coast.
also, it is absolutely the traffic cop who decides what the true speed limit is. this is inherent in the basic speed law. cop decides what is reasonable/prudent for the conditions. this is the fact on the ground regardless of what it says in civilian statute books.
andres trois, a police car's lights do not override a traffic signal. only if the cop is out of the car actively directing traffic is he overriding the signal. i suppose you know this by now!
also as for being "cut off". you are required to drive with enough space for a car to merge safely in front of you from adjacent lane. seems like you admit you were in fact following too close - and you did it for 15 seconds after he "cut you off". i must say i'm glad you got cited for that one, sporto! pal of mine in SJ got cited years back for doing the exact same thing on expressway in santa clara. he deserved it too.
and you drive a 2003 accord! how much fun can that be? i've driven brightly colored muscle cars absurdly faster than your accord for ~40 years and i get detained by cops less than you do. always on the highway. almost always for 83 mph.
LEFT TURN YIELDS TO RIGHT TURN.
I had four (count 'em) dolts turn left in front of me this morning at the same intersection, when I was turning right. Two turned into the left lane... doesn't make it legal, but less idiotic than turning into the right lane... which the other two cars did. Had I not stopped, there would likely have been a collision. All of them got a horn salute--didn't want anyone to feel left out so I gave each of them his/her own salute.
This is one of the most-violated traffic laws, IMO. At least in my area, where excessive speeding isn't that much of a problem.
I like not slowing down for them and seeing their eyes become as big as saucers :shades:
Those two vehicles that turned in to the right lane (your lane) would have been in error whether you were attempting a turn at the same time or not, as they never should have been there.
a car turning left on green (not on a green arrow) must yield to everyone who doesn't have a red light. That would include in this case oncoming traffic going straight, and oncoming traffic turning right. (and there's the exception for emergency vehicles of course)
It doesn't matter if there's one lane or ten lanes. Left turn yields to right turn. As a practical matter, if it's ten lanes then there's plenty of room for both turners... little chance of someone cutting across that many lanes while turning left. But legally they still need to yield to right turners. In my case today, the two traffic lanes are pretty narrow, so it's not very safe for the left turner to turn at the same time as the right turner. Also it's illegal.
I know there'll be some folks who think, "I don't agree with that law so it doesn't apply to me." Could have been four of those folks at that intersection with me this morning... assuming they understand the law. Big assumption.
I think one of my traffic violator instructors asserted this information.
Never thought about right turners having right of way over left turners. That is a different situation, and I must admit, I was not aware of the priorty going to right turners. The fraud situation described above is for traffic flowing straight through the intersection, which obviously takes the right of way over right turners.
It was the coupe version, so it stuck out as unique and cops loved pulling it over. Also, it was the V6 version with 240 willing horses, so it was decently fun, though not in the same ballpark as my Audi A3 which I've had since April 1, 2006.
Unfortunately for me, the '06 Audi's been pulled over just as much as the '03 Accord Coupe LX V6 was.
That's an absurd statement and impossible to follow in real life. The vehicle in the adjacent lane should have yielded my lane until I was passed him before changing lanes in front of me so dangerously slow. The car had plenty of space to merge safely in the adjacent lane, but that space was behind me, not in front of me.
Seems like you admit you were in fact following too close - and you did it for 15 seconds after he "cut you off".
Again, the problem with that logic is the manuever which was 1,000X more dangerous than my tailgating was his FAILURE TO YIELD the RIGHT OF WAY. For the cop to issue a citations for the offense that is 1/1000th as offensive, is ludicrous.
The La Mesa PD officer who rear-ended my bumper was definitely following too close and guilty of tailgating, but since I never hit any rear bumpers, I'm innocent of those charges!
A key principle of defensive driving is to never assume that someone else will follow a traffic law. But instead to assume that the other driver could do something totally senseless, and be ready for it.
I still can't believe it when I hear some brain-dead imbecile proclaim, "I can't buy a rear-wheel drive car, because I have to be able to drive in the rain."
In truth what they need is a bus token- to keep their incompetence off the road.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
No, it's not illegal - again, because the act of yielding necessarily involves spacial conflict - if there is no spatial conflict, there is no need to yield. If both cars turned at the same time and the left turner took the far left lane while the right turner took the far left lane and collided with the other car, the right turner would be at fault. End of story.
Now, if you felt uncomfortable taking the turn (due to the narrow lanes or any other factor) and preferred to wait, that's your prerogative, but if the left turners are taking the left lane, they're doing nothing inconsiderate or illegal. I will wait sometimes, too, when I am concerned that a left (or right) turner is not going to take the proper lane. I would rather be appropriately cautious than unduly inconvenienced (by dealing with a collision). However, I'm not going to clog traffic by being a timid driver, either.
I'm driving down a small two lane campus street, posted at 30 mph, with parking lots on both sides. A ways ahead and on my right is a yellow Nissan X-Terra waiting to turn left. From the time I first saw it ahead, it was stopped at the intersection. At this point, it can turn left with no other traffic present. A couple seconds later, a shuttle bus traveling through the parking lot on the opposite side of "my" street stops at the same intersection (opposing the X-Terra). The bus waits, flashes its lights at the X-Terra to signal it to go, then finally gives up and takes the turn (X-Terra had technical ROW up to that point) as I get close enough to these lot entrances to no longer allow a safe left by the X-Terra.
I pass, the bus goes on its way, and then a small white sedan pulls up to the same right turn the bus just took. The X-Terra then waits for this car as well, finally taking the left turn after the white car had proceeded through the turn and up the street.
I'm so glad I wasn't waiting behind that X-Terra. :sick:
Better check the laws of your state. In most states (maybe all?), it IS illegal for a left turner to not yield right of way to a right turner who also has the green light, unless there's a left turn arrow. This is based on the official standard for traffic laws in the USA, which is explained pretty well here:
http://www.johncletheroe.org/usa_can/driving/left.htm
When making a left turn at an intersection controlled by traffic lights, there is always some doubt as to whether traffic in the opposite direction is stopped by a red light or not. Unless you see traffic obviously waiting at a stop line, assume that it may not be stopped. The official standard for the USA is:
* If the left turn signal is a green circle, or if there is no separate left turn signal, then traffic in the opposite direction is not stopped. This is known as permissive mode in US highway traffic engineering terminology since vehicles turning left have to wait until a break in the flow of traffic in the opposite direction permits them to turn.
* If the left turn signal is a green arrow then traffic in the opposite direction is stopped by red lights. This is known as protected mode in US highway traffic engineering terminology, since turning vehicles are protected from traffic in the opposing direction by red lights. In this mode pedestrians are also presented with "Don't Walk" signs across the relevant crosswalks while traffic is turning left.
And here's a specific example of this standard, from New York:
If drivers approaching from opposite directions reach an intersection at about the same time, a driver turning left must yield to approaching traffic going straight or turning right.
http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter05-manual.htm
To me, rules like "If drivers approaching from opposite directions reach an intersection at about the same time, a driver turning left must yield to approaching traffic going straight or turning right" are pretty clear, and I am not misinterpreting them.
IMO, you really don't know the rules. But it seems that is a general problem, with regards to this particular rule of the road.
that has already been laid out clearly
You're welcome to go back and take a look. :sick:
Let us know when you find some supporting evidence re, the left turner has right of way over a right turner because the road they're both turning onto has more than one traffic lane. Maybe some states have a law like that. But I haven't found anything on that score yet.
HIs argument is (and I agree with him) that the left turner is still yielding to the right turner when turning into the leftmost lane and another separate lane is available for the right turner. Therefore the left turner can remain in compliance with the law and still not stall, delay, or wait to make their left hand turn. The only way you can fail to "yield" is by impacting the space in which the right turner must be headed. Since there is more than one lane available in all of our examples, there is no conflict or failure to yield.
It doesn't make it any less the law.
I'm not disagreeing that it's a nice thought that everyone will respect the lane rights of others and turn into their proper lanes every time, and life will be hunky-dory. But as I said earlier, I suspect the reason the law is written as it is is because there is no guarantee that the left turner will actually turn into the left lane, nor the right turner turn into the right lane. And I saw a great example of that the other day. So the law is simple: left turns yield to oncoming traffic, either going straight or turning right.
How about this: a pedestrian is walking across a street, in a crosswalk. With the walk signal. They have the right of way. But it's a two-lane (each way) street. They're in the right lane. So if I understand the argument here, a left turner can proceed to turn as long as it doesn't hit the pedestrian who's in the right lane. The fact that the pedestrian legally has right of way doesn't matter--it's all based on the fact there's two lanes and there's room in the left lane for the turning car, and in the right lane for the pedestrian.
But wait... the left turning car turns a little wide and knocks the pedestrian over. No big deal... she was only 92 and only got a broken hip, she wasn't killed. And no damage to the turning car, thank goodness, so they can continue on their way unimpeded.
Yeah... who needs those stinkin' right of way laws anyway!
...but here in the corridor between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore... a safe distance that allows for merging is about 1-2 car lengths.
Are you really saying that a 1-2 car length distance is 'impossible to follow in real life'?
Also had a 20-something [non-permissible content removed] in a newer A4 beside me, flooring it off the line at every ill-timed light (wouldn't want to assume it is a leaser, but...). Heading up a road where a revenue enforcer had someone pulled over, he slammed on his brakes and took the first side street he could. Yes, as if the cop is going to stop what they are doing and go after you.
And finished it off with a dope in a RAV4 who speed up when I moved left to pass him on a 4 way road. I swear, the next time this happens I am going to slam on my brakes once I get by...see what it takes for that dumb thing to go end over end.
a left turner can proceed to turn as long as it doesn't hit the pedestrian who's in the right lane.
Okay, sure, why not? I'll go along with that.
The fact that the pedestrian legally has right of way doesn't matter--it's all based on the fact there's two lanes and there's room in the left lane for the turning car, and in the right lane for the pedestrian.
Well, obviously that must be true as earilier in your post you made it clear that there were 2 lanes of space to turn left onto and the pedestrian was in the rightmost lane.
Here's where you get really fallacious.
the left turning car turns a little wide and knocks the pedestrian over.
Is the car turning in the left lane or the right lane? Unless they are driving a double trailered semi truck, I can't see this being a possibility. Either they turn in the left, or the right, or the middle of both, in which case they are incompetent and should be removed from our roadways all together, nevermind the old lady with the broken hip! It is a physical impossibility for cars to occupy both lanes at the same time with any validly licensed driver of competence.
It is a physical impossibility for cars to occupy both lanes at the same time with any validly licensed driver of competence.
I think the thousands of posts in this discussion are just one hint that we cannot assume that every validly licensed driver is competent. If we could depend on every driver to always follow every traffic law and not do stupid things, we wouldn't need any kind of traffic law enforcement. Also this discussion wouldn't exist.
If it makes you feel better, though, let's assume the car didn't actually hit the old lady. We'll just say that she was startled by the car and fell down--still broke her hip (easy to do when you're 92). Now the driver can blame the whole thing on the old lady, for having the nerve to cross the street on Walk while he wanted to turn left in front of her... gosh knows he couldn't wait a few more seconds for her to get safely to the other side.
Oh btw, she died of complications from the broken hip.
Oh btw, she died of complications from the broken hip.
As a judge, in your scenario where the car cuts in FRONT of her and her reaction causes damages, I'd assign equal blame to the driver and to the old lady (50/50%) since she reacted wrongly but the initial act was wrong too.
If the car cut behind her, and she fell down in reaction, I'd consider that a negligent reaction and the driver is not involved or to blame at all.
When I was thinking of your example, I was thinking most reasonable drivers would not wait for her to clear the entire street before going into the left lane. To wait till she reaches the sidewalk is overkill in my opinion, but you should not CUT in front of her, but behind her.
Just another great example of how traffic laws just don't seem to apply to some people... including many folks I drive close to every day. On Intersection in Question, again today I saw a guy turn left directly into the right lane.
As for blaming a 92-year-old lady because she gets startled when a car violates her right of way and turns right in front of her... sometimes words just aren't adequate. Actually there are some words that come to mind... but our Kind Host would likely remove this post if I used them.
Akin? No, it is not akin at all, backy. The difference, of course, being that the pedestrian's right of way is perpendicular to the flow of traffic and, therefore, traffic crossing that path must yield to the pedestrian. In the right turn / left turn scenario, there is no crossing of paths and therefore no yielding or right of way issues.
Cute strawman (er, woman), though.
Sort of like doing 52 in a 35?
Oh, no..... that was an illegal law. :surprise:
The real winner was a woman in a RAV4 pulling out of a Whole Foods parking lot. She wanted to get into a left turn lane immediately in front of her, across 2 lanes, busy street. The turn lane was full, so what does she do? Pulls out anyway and blocks the street, perpendicular to the flow of traffic. Within 20 seconds traffic was backing up, but nobody honked...eventually a box van got up close to her and "encouraged" her to not block the road. I have to wonder what she was thinking, but given the vehicle and that she probably just paid $80 for six ordinary grocery items, I can understand. I was out jogging, so I got to laugh and shake my head up close.