Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

loncray

Heh, you beat me to it m6!

stever

Wisconsin plated FJ Cruiser who didn't understand the recent new policy of a blinking arrow meaning you can turn left after oncoming traffic has passed.

Surprised a bit, since blinking arrows seem to be more common here in the Midwest than other places I've lived. I couldn't figure one out when I encountered my first one in Port Huron a year ago. Don't like 'em - either give me a green light or red light.

hammerhead

Blinking yellow left turn signals have started to show up here within the last 6 months, mostly at relatively quiet intersections. I think there are some traffic volume criteria that dictate where they get installed. I like them myself - they're installed at a couple intersections that I use (and turn left through) daily. Saved a lot of time sitting/waiting for the invisible oncoming traffic to clear. Synchronization issues, dontcha know

stever

Well, mostly I'd rather just pull out and sit in the left turn lane during the green light and turn left when traffic clears at those less busy intersections.

There's some odd flashing green arrows too, but the ones that really bug me are the flashing red ones. Stop, then turn? Watch out! Especially dangerous intersection?

Have to say I'm still leery of left turns, even protected ones, even though it's been 30+ years since I hit that Caddy trying to get out of the parking lot at the BBQ joint.

fintail

That's the big issue here, sitting at a red light waiting to turn with no oncoming traffic. For once the "engineers" have done something positive (although just this morning I got to run a stuck red light).

stever

Just change it to a 4 way flashing red in the off hours and you can legally stop and go. Straight or left.

m6vx

So who really was the inconsiderate one?

New law.... an out-of-state driver.... and some impatient person wanting them to go by flashing their lights.

Does the new law say it's mandatory to turn, or that you MAY turn when traffic clears?

fintail

It's not like a free right turn. The turn light is just a caution to alert drivers to the possibility of incoming traffic. It's pretty much just a green. Is it "mandatory" to proceed on green, or is some other strawman going to be used to distract there?

Oh yeah, the light also has a sign by it telling drivers what to do, not reading signs is inconsiderate too :shades:

fintail

I've suggested that to our beloved local civil engineers. No reply. Probably part of the brainless American addiction to strict intersection controls. Although when I did notify them of a sticking light problem at the bottom of an off-ramp that was creating traffic issues early mornings, they had it fixed in a day or two.

andres3

Sort of like doing 52 in a 35?


Oh, no..... that was an illegal law.

Nothing wrong with the law, and I have no dispute with the law. See CA VC 22350 as posted and linked previously in this discussion/group/forum/thread.

Nothing wrong with 52 in an underposted 35 zone as reasonable, prudent, and safe driving ALWAYS trumps the two black numbers on the white aluminum sign UNLESS, and ONLY UNLESS those two black numbers are preceded with the word "Maximum." The word Maximum on that sign will refer you to a different speed Vehicle Code that fits more in line with your worldview on how the law should be written. Too bad it's not applicable for my situation or case.

The law is on my side, the officer only has revenue generation and false allegations on his!

andres3

not that I was pulled over for going a safe 52 in an underposted 35 (if you saw pictures of the roadway where I was travelling you would laugh at the 35 MPH speed limit (prima facie).

Not that he might be 2 or 3 MPH off on his radar and I was really going 49-50 MPH.

Not that I'm unwilling to perjur myself in court, and I won't resort to testifying I was going 34 or 35 since the speed limit was 35, which would of course be untrue.

I will state I was going 48-50 MPH. The officer will state 52.

But this is what really pisses me off:

1) that the officer wastes his time and mine pulling me over for an obviously safe speed given the conditions.
2) that the officer will perjur himself in court and state that he found/concluded/observed/deemed my driving to be at an UNSAFE speed and POSED a safety hazard.

As soon as #2 happens, it not only will prove I'm right about the basic speed law in CA (or why else would he mention I was driving unsafe in his testimony; merely stating I was going over 35 would suffice according to some here), but it'll prove he's a big fat (oh wait, he was young and skinny), liar!

It is an obvious lie as I stated earlier, if you saw the road, you'd know it would be ridiculous to argue that 50 is an unsafe speed warranting a violation and fine. Absolutely Ludicrous.
No way he believes it either.

I bet if he were put to the "TEST" of some torturous method of interrogation he'd quickly succumb to the truth without much of a fight. I'll wager 10,000 dollars to copy Mitt Romney.

hammerhead

not that I was pulled over for going a safe 52 in an underposted 35...
Opinion. Unsubstantiated.

I will state I was going 48-50 MPH.
Guilty plea accepted. Pay the clerk.

(Gavel sound goes here)

backy

In the right turn / left turn scenario, there is no crossing of paths and therefore no yielding or right of way issues.

Incorrect. There IS a crossing of paths... the left turner must cross at least one lane of traffic (unless it's from a one-way to a one-way, and that's not what we're talking about here). I have read that as a reasoning for why the law is written as it is, i.e. left turns yield to right turns--because the left turner must cross a lane of traffic, while the right turner does not.

xwesx

Here's the problem with that.... there's no traffic using the lane being crossed. Would you yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk if there were no pedestrians using the crosswalk? You might, but it would certainly preclude you from ever making the turn! Same thing here. Once the oncoming driver has committed to the right turn, there's no need to further yield, as the traffic is no longer in conflict.

Should the right turner decide to use the left (rather than right) lane as the turn is being made and contacts the driver turning from the left, fault lies with the right turner.

In a situation where there is no right turn lane, the left turner's knowledge of the oncoming vehicle's intent may be limited to the extent that it is a non-issue (the right turn is already being made before the left turner enters the left turn). In situations where a right turn lane is present, the act of a vehicle using the right turn lane is commitment to the turn - that lane does not continue through the intersection at all.

backy

If the car turning right is already in the right lane of the street he/she turned into, then this is all a moot point (as is someone yielding to a non-existent pedestrian), since the left turner has in fact yielded right of way to the right turner. The law has been followed. No issue.

The problem I pointed out a few days ago was where I was approaching an intersection with my right turn signal on, had not yet started to turn right but was just about to, and several cars blasted through the intersection turning left, including 2 that turned into the right lane. There was no "right turn lane" involved, just a one-lane street (in each direction) crossing a two-lane street (in each direction).

The law is clear. It's your decision whether to follow it or not.

roadburner

When I was working full-time in traffic court nobody cared about prosecuting defendants for less than 15 over- unless it was in a construction zone, a school zone, or similar. The citing officer already had a "contact" for his "performance evaluation"(read: ticket for his quota) so he didn't care what the disposition was. Likewise, the prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges had better things to do than to try every penny ante speeding case on the docket. Just about the only time a speeding citation ever went to trial was when the defendant had been disrespectful/obnoxious/rude to the officer- in which case the officer checked the "ATTN" box on the citation. That let the judge, prosecutor, and defense counsel(if any) know that the officer DID care about the outcome of this case...

hammerhead

This seems to be more about a defendant's right to a hearing vs. prosecutorial discretion. In my youth I had a couple at-fault crashes. I went to court on both - the first time to try to get the fine reduced (I did), and the second to try to at least spread the blame around a bit (I didn't).
Ol' andres obviously thinks he's been wronged, and wants to plead his case. I understand the quota perspective, though.

He's lucky I'm not the judge.

euphonium

The majority of us agree.

xwesx

Had this taken place in Alaska, I would also agree. Given the California laws presented, it is certainly arguable and I think he has done an effective job of presenting it. If the driver doesn't agree with the LEO's assessment, those laws leave valid room for argument.

In Alaska, I could argue that too, but it wouldn't mean a thing because our "basic speed law" only applies to speeds less than the posted limit. Therefore, the "you were going 50 and the posted limit is 35. Guilty as charged" statement would be a perfectly reasonable (and expected) outcome.

That said, I strongly suspect the judge will uphold Andre's initial citation unless there is a technicality (such as officer not showing up). I'm curious to know the outcome either way.

fintail

Saw the 12 LLCs of Christmas today, as well as a couple "slower traffic keep right" signs. A couple of poorly driven jacked up diesel compensator trucks were cheeries on the holiday cake,

elias

OK, andres, I am ready to retain you on my legal team, or at least get some courtroom video of some of your cases, with Bill Curtis narrating.
Even with all your swagger it does seem like you must have won some heroic cases and are possibly considerate as you drive around the MLCs & LLCs !

How fast did you have to go in south carolina to get a speeding ticket man? triple digits? Maybe you were driving solo and not in a pack, long line of cars ? (The packs/long-lines travel usually at 85 mph down there - right past state cop cars watching and sometimes radaring. I can't recall seeing anyone getting pulled over there for doing the normal/cool 85 mph!)

elias

backster, it varies state to state whether you are required to turn into the nearest lane when going oneway to oneway.
the driving statutes for driving inside intersections vary considerably from state to state generally, regarding what is allowed within an intersection or not.
for example, a related statute that differs is whether one is allowed to *change lanes within an intersection*. some states prohibit it. some states allow it with proviso that with any collision resulting, the car changing lanes within intersection is presumed to be at fault.

elias

Dear legal team,
Please meet Andres3. He is your new team leader.

Andres3, cool, the v6 couple version is surely the maximum-fun accord. I recall they used to be available with stickshift way back when, but were rare in USA?
Fwiw, it seems to me that the less flashy cars get detained more often. From what I've seen, flashy/muscle car drivers have to usually drive with more consideration than average/stealth car drivers

The Audi A3 is an awesome car with the additional bonus feature of looking like a capybara or AMC pacer, 2 of my favorites. If A3 in USA ever offered stickshift with TDI I'd probably own one too.

Merry Christmas !

backy

I don't doubt traffic laws differ from state to state. However, we were not discussing going from one-way to one-way. In my state, MN, you must turn into the nearest lane, e.g. left turn goes from left lane to left lane, right turn goes from right lane to right lane. I am glad to say that was ingrained in me by the driving instructor I had many years ago. I also try to emphasize that with my kids as I take them out driving.

Anyway, the thread was about left turns yielding to oncoming traffic. Have you checked the laws of your state on that score? What do they say? In my state, left turns must yield to vehicles approaching from the other direction.

fintail

Drove back into the first world today, no problems on the highways, hardly even a LLC out today - cruised at 65-70 and got passed maybe half a dozen times in 3 hours.

Then I got to the city streets, and I got a reminder of why I love this area so much. Freshly plated C-class, woman I wont stereotype driving it (but she looked to be about 4'3" tall) is in front of me, the road we are on meets a busier road at a weird kind of Y intersection, no stop or yield sign as the road I am on becomes a new lane on the wider road. She gets confused, slows down, speeds up, slows down again. Then she lurches to a stop, I hit the horn, she slowly gets moving and crawls over to the left, and I lose sight. I swear, newbies must have a special easy test when it comes to driving in this devolving society.

roadburner

Freshly plated C-class, woman I wont stereotype driving it (but she looked to be about 4'3" tall)

She obviously didn't attend the proper driving school...
:P

snakeweasel

The only case I know of where someone survived getting hit by a locomotive is in the move Super 8. And as we know, that's science fiction.

OK I know that I am late coming to this party but I would like to comment on this. A few years back there was a lady in the western burbs of Chicago who tried to beat a train and got hit and pretty hard (the trains at this crossing do about 50 MPH or so). She walked away from it but, IIRC, one of her kids was killed.

It was caught on a security camera, she went around the downed gates.

snakeweasel

Well, cell phone service providers won't like this. Will cut down on their revenue.

It won't affect their earnings much, most people are on plans and rarely go over allowed minutes.

Everyone on this board has seen drivers on the phone and driving erratically.

Yep and I would wager that everyone on this board has seen drivers who were not on a phone driving erratically. I would also wager that everyone on this board has seen drivers on the phone driving perfectly (or near perfect).

snakeweasel

Well yes, a pen is a handheld comminication device.

snakeweasel

This makes it easy to spot the inept, as they will have their wipers going full blast in the lightest precip.

I was discussing this with my sister one day in my car when it was lightly raining. She did make the observation that the wipers make a lot less noise when they are continually going than they sometimes do in light misting rain on a delay setting.

Since it was a real light mist the windshield wasn't wet enough when my wipers wiped they did make a noise as they skipped across the mostly dry windshield. I did try it at the higher speed and they were a lot quieter.

snakeweasel

Thats one I will not show my wife.

fintail

I suppose if there is some kind of contaminant on the windshield, constant wipers could remove it faster. I doubt that's the case though, as I notice those who keep them going fast in light rain are not the best drivers in many other ways (C-class woman would have had them going full blast had it been raining, for example).

If that cop was actually writing with a pen/pencil while driving...well, that sounds worse than yapping or texting. But the union will protect him from accountability.

backy

If wipers on high speed is the worst thing another driver does, I would be very happy. I prefer the mist or intermittant setting myself in light rain, but at least the folks with the fast wipers have the wipers ON. It's the idiots who drive around in the rain w/o wipers, or lights, that irk me.

fintail

Hmmm...I should open a school like that here...plenty of local potential for growth :shades:

snakeweasel

I do believe that the article stated that the officer dent down to pick up a dropped pen when he ran up the phone pole.

As for the wipers when we were driving there wasn't enough moister hitting the windshield to make the wipers run smoothly across the windshield. The wipers would skip across the windshield. However when I turned them on fully they stopped skipping rather quickly.

snakeweasel

I stopped at the grocery store on the way home. Coming out of the shopping center the exit I choose had two lanes going out. One lane was strictly a left turn lane while the other was a combination right turn/straight through lane. I approach this with the light red and a long line of cars waiting to make a left turn and no one in the right/through lane. I am going straight across the cross street, as I approach and start passing the last cars in the left turn lane the light turns green. traffic starts to go through and a large SUV in the left turn lane starts to go at the same pace as I am next to me and a little ahead of me. He gets to the cross street and makes a right turn. :surprise:

I had to slam on my brakes and make a very sharp right turn to keep from hitting this idiot.

gogogodzilla

If your blades are skipping with the misting, then your delay is set to a too fast speed. Just slow down the delay and wait until there is enough precipitation on the windshield to warrant a wipe.

gogogodzilla

I tend to drive with a lower speed on my wipers than most. Mainly because I believe that wipers should only be used when you need them. If you can clearly see out of the windshield, then they don't need to be on, regardless if it's misting or not. I probably picked that up learning to drive in south Florida, where a light mist is considered by Californians to be the biblical flood of Noah.

That said, if you've got your wipers on, then you'd better have your lights on.

(No kidding on the rain comparison, though. I was living in California in the late '90s when the 'El Nino' rains came. I thought the rain was a gentle mist, but stores were shutting down and releasing their employees because they thought that level of rain would wash their homes into the ocean.)

fintail

Sounds like negligent driving then...I wonder if a civilian would be treated differently.

That wiper ideal seems to go against logic, which would assume the moisture would kind of lubricate the wiping process. I can see it if the windshield was contaminated somehow or maybe there was a defect in the wiping system. Fast wipers in light rain is something not linked to good situational awareness to me, and the other driving traits exhibited by fast wipers seem to support that.

I too tend to run my wipers slowly, I use rain-x and always have a healthy blade.

snakeweasel

In this case it was at the maximum delay, just a very light mist. The only thing I could do otherwise was to have the wipers off and manually hit the mist function whenever there was enough rain on the windshield.

stever

When I see stories like that I always wonder if the "pencil" was lit.

elias

as far as i know, left-turners-crossing-traffic always must yield and are lowest on the right-of-way totem pole in all of USA!

but for either regarding oneways or twoways, that "always turn into nearest lane" rule definitely varies from state to state... fwiw...

i suppose to always be sure to be in compliance in all of USA, one could indeed always turn into nearest lane as is required in MN, even if that means stopping and blocking traffic unnecessarily... be prepared for some horn-toots from cars in back if you follow the MN rule in an east coast city/state...

fintail

Winners today, in the rain. First: greybeard in a Lexus ES going really slow while clutching his Starbucks cup like it is giving him life - no headlights being used on his dark colored car in the dim light of course, no turn signals either. Second: white with gold emblems (classy!) RX330 going even slower than the ES guy, driver I won't stereotype. Third: Camry at the blinking yellow turn signal intersection, another driver I won't stereotype, who didn't get it and stopped like the one a few days ago. Sign by the arrow instructs drivers what to do - but to be nice, the driver likely simply couldn't read English, so it's excusable. Got about 6 various horn honks. And the day finished off while jogging and a [non-permissible content removed] in a recently plated A4 didn't seem to want to slow for a crosswalk or the green walk signal. I think I am going to start dragging my keys along cars who cut it close. Good luck buffing that out.

xrunner2

A4 didn't seem to want to slow for a crosswalk or the green walk signal. I think I am going to start dragging my keys along cars who cut it close. Good luck buffing that out.

You might encounter some tough guy who will come back and just bunt you aside for doing that. Or worse yet.

andres3

Yet you haven't even seen my case/defense yet (which I haven't written or spoken yet, so it doesn't exist. You haven't seen pictures of the roadway which I will present.

You all seem to eager to render judgement without even considering the actual law or facts of the case. I'm glad you aren't judges, though there are some "traffic referees (which are illegitimate incompetent fake judges)" allowed to sit on the bench, who probably rule much as you do. I'd imagine that all the " :lemon: " from a batch of judges get assigned to traffic court as well.

andres3

Never driven in South Carolina. Santee is by San Diego, California.

What is a MLC?

stever

More hassle for you but I'm hoping that the cop shows up and you get to go through the dog and pony show. Otherwise it's going to be a letdown if you just beat the rap on a technicality. :shades:

andres3

Ahhhh, I'm counting on winning with the techicality that he doesn't show. I anticipate he won't, and hope for that, as it is my most certain and highly likely way of winning. It also saves me the 5 to 10 minutes the defense and cross examination would take. Also, if the officer's don't show, they tend to read off a list of a group of people that are lucky enough to leave at the beginning rather than wait to see a bunch of trials before your own.

Lastly, as I said, round 1 went to me as I got the officer to specify the county seat as my court of jurisdiction. This makes it Kearny Mesa, not El Cajon. La Mesa PD officers routinely have these cases in the El Cajon courthouse, almost never, I'm sure, at Kearny Mesa. From one to the other would take at least a 30 minute drive (following the speed limit laws). If he shows up at El Cajon by automatic instinct, and then realizes his mistake, it'll be too late most likely.

fintail

Nah, eastside Seattle suburbs...most that could happen is I would have an iphone or a latte thrown at me :shades:

stever

I anticipate he won't

Well that's no fun. However, I suspect you'll have other opportunities to regale us with your speeding ticket exploits if this ticket goes away. :P