I'd say that left-lane camping and the failure for slower traffic to keep right are the cause of almost all reckless driving, road rage, and accidents.
I'd wager that is a lot of it, as well as irresponsible (cutting off) lane changes.
Here's something inconsiderate on both the part of the driver and on the part of the questionably legitimate "authorities". Go 70 in a 60 and face more wrath than this. It'll be interesting if this gets hushed up and the media has to use a freedom of information style request to get details from the overpaid clowns as they so often do.
What about traffic cops keeping things safe (heh) on their daily beat? Any quotas?
Not that I saw; some wrote more than others but with the exception of FOT I didn't see a push to write X number of citations. Most of the officers I dealt with had a generous dose of common sense. The ones who came on board all gung-ho and wrote dozens of tickets either learned to back their intensity down or they moved on to more sympathetic jurisdictions.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
That and using a jury to deal with a ticket that is usually at most a couple hundred bucks seems like a big waste of resources.
I've heard some red light camera districts in CA attempt to collect nearly $500.00 for a single violation.
Depends on how you look at it regarding resources! Should our tax money pay for a justice system that provides a fair trial for all who are accused of a crime, or should our tax money attempt to make a profit and act like a business that generates revenue? I tend to favor the first method. I like separating government and business even though lately they seem to be one and the same.
Of course, court costs would go through the roof if officers didn't exercise better and more substantial judgement, discretion, and filter out the non-safety hazard tickets they write.
I mean really, is it a coincidence that the traffic and engineering surveys don't justify the speed limits on roads I tend to get tickets on, or is it targeted revenue generation? I tend to believe the latter.
In CA, there is no deferral program; I'd of taken the deal every time. I think only once or twice in my life have I received 2 tickets in the same year. One of those times was right after being found not guilty (retaliatory license plate flagging??? who knows??).
I imagine the not guilty verdict STUNG the CHP just a bit.... whereas the "dismissals" they ignore unless one officer shows a habit of never showing up in court.
It would make it so they only write tickets to those that REALLY, really, REALLY deserve them.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'd put money on that. If it had been a 25 year old with no money who behaved that way, I bet he'd be behind bars right now. And some wonder why law enforcement has little credibility among so many.
Fun one last night - got behind a V50 merging onto I-90 at 40mph. Typical local idiot. But...as we hit the road, it never picked up more speed. I got around it and within 5 seconds it was out of my line of sight. It was dawdling along at that speed. Why do people do that? Stick to the side roads.
I wish those common sense cops would come here. In my area, 70 in a 60 is high crime, while weaving around while holding phone, eating a bowl of soup, and grooming a dog is a-ok.
Well, if we want to go on to how our tax money should be spent, should it give six figure salaries for LEOs and similarly large (and unearned) pensions for retired public sector lawyers and judges? I wonder how much of this scheme is funded by tickets.
In my area anyway, most tickets seem to be under $200 - at least in talking to those who receive them. It's not viable to take these to any kind of trial. Maybe that's why they are so low. Maybe it is worse in CA where many areas are broke. No doubt speed limits have a revenue influence. Make them just low enough so x amount of people speed, and x amount of those will be cited (a masked tax) = cha ching.
And I agree about crashing on the freeway - takes special ineptitude. Usually distraction, which still isn't targeted nearly enough. Usually more pleasant than local urban/suburban roads.
I think in a lot of ways, the reality of normal freeway traffic really smashes the idea of speed limit speeds and under as being "SAFE". I think if I read some of the speed limit advocates, nirvana is wall to wall traffic in an LA commute. So in theory for all that "speed limit" compliance accidents should NOT happen. To state the obvious, they ... do !! To use an example our drivers are familar with, 54 miles R/T with 27 miles (one way) taking 45 mins to 1.5 hours. (36 mph to 18 mph in a speed limited 65 mph) (Again this is on a 4/5 lane freeway)
In SC, you do have that right. When you appear in front of the judge, the first thing he will tell you is that you can choose to waive that right and let him judicate the case, or not waive it and stand for a jury trial.
Once you choose, it's done. You can't decide on the jury trial after the judge renders a decision, although I've seen some attempt it. One fellow got very perturbed about it, and had to be "escorted" out...
Of course, few do so, because it's pretty well known that, even if you win the case, you'll still end up paying more than the fine would have been under the judge ruling alone.
I know this from sitting in the courtroom as a witness (3 times in 10 years) to accidents, and I've observed it by waiting for my case to come up in sequence.
In every instance, as the session begins, the judge ask for everyone that hasn't had a speeding violation in, I think, the last year, and the existing violation is <= 10 mph over the stated limit if they want to goto a 8-10 hour driving school in lieu of judication. By far, 90+% that can, take that option. No points, no fine, only a small fee for the class, usually much less than the fine. This usually clears out the majority of the courtroom.
I guess you never drive on freeways in poor weather? Lots of ways rain, sleet, snow, fog, smoke, high wind can cause havoc on freeways if drivers don't adjust to conditions. And many don't. Hence accidents. Sure, they are numnuts. But most traffic accidents are caused by numnuts, why should freeway accidents be any different?
I think a lot of freeway accidents are caused by tailgating. Saw a spectacular example of that a few years ago, a truck tailgated a car until it actually hit the car and pushed it into the left guardrail, it bounced off and hit another car etc. Also accidents are caused by doing other stupid things like changing lanes without signalling nor allowing enough space around other vehicles. (BTW, changing lanes is an example of not everyone going the same direction, vector-wise.)
Yes, lots of ways accidents can happen on freeways, and when they do they are usually quite messy in terms of injury/death, damage, and impact on traffic (e.g. one accident on I-94 in Wisconsin this summer shut down the westbound freeway for several hours).
I'd wager that is a lot of it, as well as irresponsible (cutting off) lane changes.
Drivers don't change lanes on highways for sh!ts-n-giggles. What would possibly motivate a highway driver to shift over to a new lane so abruptly?
The only things that come to mind are inattention to which exit ramp the driver needs... and someone blocking the free flow of traffic.
Now, for the most part, if the driver is in the passing lane... actually passing... and then cuts over to get to an exit ramp, he'll be driving faster than anyone in the non-passing lanes, thus there wouldn't be any much need for reaction from the slower drivers, as the faster driver would zoom forward, out of their way.
So, the only way that could interfere with other drivers is if the one in the passing lane wasn't driving faster than those to his right. Hence, my assertion that left lane campers are one of the major causes for road rage and accidents.
Holding a phone, eating a bowl of soup, grooming a dog, reading a newspaper, texting your lover, painting your toenails, and brushing your hair all a the same time has NO effect on accident rates.
I think a lot of freeway accidents are caused by tailgating. Saw a spectacular example of that a few years ago, a truck tailgated a car until it actually hit the car and pushed it into the left guardrail, it bounced off and hit another car etc.
Golly, how could that possibly happen?!? The driver in the car was obviously in the left "passing" lane, otherwise he/she couldn't have been pushed into the left guardrail. So the driver had to be going faster than anyone else on the highway!
I wonder how the driver could've been touched, then.
Hmmm, couldn't possibly have been going slow than other traffic in the passing lane. No, slower traffic has to keep right, so he wasn't slower.
Or was the driver failing to observe the fundamentals of highway driving? Use the passing lane to pass... and slower traffic keep right.
---
Not saying it's right to push someone off the road. I AM saying that my assertion that most accidents and road rage stems from left lane campers and failure for slower traffic to keep right is being proven with your example.
So the driver had to be going faster than anyone else on the highway!
Obviously the car was not going faster than that truck, for a few moments at least.
It was quite startling when it happened in front of me. Not just the fact that the truck ran into the car. But the car was going at a good rate of speed, the limit at least, on a sharp curve (signed at 50 mph). And the truck simply plowed into the back of the car.
Actually, I think the car was driving in the middle of 3 lanes, not the left lane. The force of impact pushed the car across the left lane and into the barrier.
Isn't trying to avoid running into another car a "fundamental of highway driving"?
I find your attitude very troubling. And dangerous.
I think sometimes it is just pointless inattention, and obliviousness. If you're too dumb to look before changing lanes, maybe natural selection needs to take care of you :shades:
If the attention was given to LLCs and phone addicts that is given to dangerous felons going 10 over, the roads would be amazing. But, it would require work and might not generate the same revenue stream.
My average speed in the afternoon on suburban arterials is seldom over 15mph per my trip computer, due mostly to negligently managed traffic controls. I think some here might like that rate, too.
Of course, few do so, because it's pretty well known that, even if you win the case, you'll still end up paying more than the fine would have been under the judge ruling alone.
Having to pay for a jury trial doesn't sound right. You have to pay for justice in SC even if your innocent and don't hire a lawyer?
What about the "loser pays" rule, so the prosecution should pay any fees to the court if they fail to get a conviction. A jury trial isn't fair if you have to pay "extra" for it.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I guess you never drive on freeways in poor weather?
Not usually. San Diego is largely "America's finest City" in part due to the excellent year round weather.
When it does rain though (9 times a year more or less), watch out! Lots of people driving on bald tires during the first rain or 2 of the year, you'll see the Discount Tire shops overflowing the next day after a rain from all those drivers that lack the common sense to have proper maintenance, including decent tires.
The lucky ones make it to the tire shop the next day after slipping and sliding. Some are not so lucky and make it to the junk yard.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
(BTW, changing lanes is an example of not everyone going the same direction, vector-wise.)
Yes, but the vast majority of your speed is in the same direction (65 MPH forward) while your only moving side to side temporarily and at very low speeds in relation to each other while changing lanes.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
No, one doesn't have to pay for the trial, but if one expects to win, they need legal representation.
And, that costs $$$, usually much larger than simply paying the fine. Without legal assistance, going against legal professionals is extremely difficult, and when the defendant ends up losing, he gets to pay court costs.
Of course, when the stakes rise, due to accidents, vehicular homicide, DUI, etc., it pays to go to trial and pay for that representation.
I don't know of a single instance in SC which a defendant got a jury trial for speeding and won.
... and at very low speeds in relation to each other while changing lanes.
If only that were true (very low speeds), there would be fewer accidents on the freeways. Lane darters are a real nuisance on freeways. I can't count how many times I've had to take evasive maneuvers to avoid being hit by an idiot who doesn't look or look well enough before lane-changing, and doesn't signal.
Did an informal survey today driving down a straight stretch of a major road... do drivers use proper hand position on the wheel? Results were:
1 hand, 12:00 1 hand, 12:00 1 hand, 12:00 No hands visible--assume they were low on the wheel. 2 hands, 9 and 12 1 hand, 3-ish
Yawn. Enough of that survey. At least there were no cell phones, food, drinks or other distractions visible. And all the drivers seemed to be paying attention to driving. So I turned off the machine guns in my car's front fenders and drove on.
Wow, that really irked someone :P I am sure a white knuckes grip at 11 and 1 is a sign of skill and good habits.
9 and 12? Were they turning on a rally course?
Reminds me of something though, what is with the weird usually one handed underhand thing some supposed motorists use when turning? Seems to be most common with "drivers" holding a phone or beverage.
A Sentra with machine guns only shoots peas, anyway.
I had a great drive this morning. Starting with a numbnut plowing into the center divider right in front of me... the numbnut was trying to make a left turn, you see. He wasn't even going fast, either... just sedately plowed into the divider. I guess the art of actually turning the steering wheel is a lost art around here.
This level of idiocy is what I expect out of all drivers nowadays.
And I'm not often pleasantly surprised with a good driver on the road anymore.
Eh, it could... if tickets for LLCing and failing to keep right except to pass were $500/ticket.
Plus, traffic would be smoother... and people on the road would be happy to see the police pull drivers over, as each pullover would be someone obstructing traffic.
Of course, the bulk of the offenders would be the oblivious fools who think that the only rule of the road is the speed limit... and going it is acceptable no matter where or what is happening on the road. And that it's their divine right to stop anyone from existing in front of them.
Sarcasm or not... it was implication of the truck driver being justified in ramming a car because it was in the left lane (which it wasn't) going too slow (which it wasn't) that scares me.
Wouldn't the recoil from a rocket launcher knock a Sentra off the road? A handgun recoil might do the same :shades:
If attitudes really made actions, there'd be several cars shot off the road every time I have to drive among phone yapping idiots. Sounds like psychobabble.
My point was that the whole situation existed solely because the driver of the car was not paying attention to the road and not follow proper lane discipline.
And I've had plenty of truckers zip up behind me. I don't stay in the lane when that happens.
Drivers have to know what's happening not just in front of them, but behind and to the sides of their car at all times. You never know what'll happen. (like a retired driver drifting into your lane - good reason to quickly pass any car... or a truck barrelling downhill behind you... or a police car coming to a full stop in the middle lane of a 3/3 lane highway... you get the picture)
Legally speaking, the truck driver's at fault. And in no way does stupid driving allow another to push the stupid driver off the road (no matter how much people fantasize about using military weaponry to blow offenders off the road :P ) .
Define 'proper'? Driver's Ed of the 70's said 10 & 2, or 'a quarter to 3'. Since airbags came along, 10 and 2 has fallen out of favor (ballistic forearms to the face are painful). Personally, based on my car, the shape of the steering wheel, and how I sit, I go 8 & 4. Comfort, control, low fatigue, easy reach to the gearshift (and my coffee).
The danger I see with simply having an unsigned intersection vs. a roundabout is the ability for traffic to have conflicting directions in a standard perpendicular intersection. When conflicting traffic crashes occur, the potential for injury goes way up. In a traffic circle, all traffic is routed in the same direction (to the right, then circle left to your exit). In this scenario, when crashes occur, the potential for injury is far less.
Having no signs might be okay in a low-speed area with good sight distance (this assumes that the presence of cross-roads is known and visible), but I don't think it wouldn't reduce the likelihood of crashes and would most likely result in an increase in the severity of the ones that did occur. Just think of the chicken games that would ensue... Lightning McQueen vs. Train style! :P
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
The idea is that traffic slows because an unsigned intersection creates unpredictability. And you won't get t-boned assuming that you have the right of way since there's a stop sign on the cross street. You'll be looking for the idiot not paying attention.
Roundabouts should be safer yet, but look around most neighborhoods and there's not enough room to put them in after the fact.
Love this - town in Germany where they not only are they tearing out "the traffic lights but also tearing down the curbs and erasing marked crosswalks. The busiest part of the main street turned into a "naked" square shared equally by bikes, pedestrians, cars, and trucks." (Christian Science Monitor)
That German plan, adopted in a relatively small town several years ago, hasn't spread anywhere that I know of. Wouldn't work in more densely populated areas, or in car-dependent suburban NA.
And you won't get t-boned assuming that you have the right of way since there's a stop sign on the cross street. You'll be looking for the idiot not paying attention.
In the scenario you painted, the intersections would be de-signed altogether, meaning that neither road has distinct right of way and all drivers would need to default to the "only enter the intersection when it is safe to do so" rule. If one road didn't have stop signs and the other did, the ROW would be pretty clear cut.
There's a bit of a catch-22 with the intersections without signs. In my rural experience, which goes for Wyoming as much as Oregon, the locals don't heed the signs or intersections. They make the (generally safe) assumption that there's simply no traffic. The end. Caution is thrown to the wind (which is always blowing, mind you), and if someone else is coming.... OOPS! Traffic is light enough that there is rarely ever a conflict. But, when there is, the consequences are often tragic.
The other group that might use those roads are not locals (unfamiliar with the area). For them, the signs are heeded. If the signs aren't there, though, which is used... extra caution or the assumption of ROW?
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Not seeing it in car dependent suburban NA. Works better in places where high fuel taxes can subsidize working transit options (hey, that's socialism! :shades: )
I don't know if I want to be closer to local drivers, too many close calls while I am in crosswalks - how would it be without?
They offer MetroCheck here at work, but they only give something like $20 a month for subway riders. That's enough to about 1.5 days' travel. :sick:
I pay to park in a garage and I'd happily pay a higher fee to subsidize a program like that. Putting more people in mass transit benefits everyone, even people who drive.
My point was that the whole situation existed solely because the driver of the car was not paying attention to the road and not follow proper lane discipline.
Huh? How do you know this? Were you there? Did you observe the driver of the car, whether he was paying attention and following proper lane discipline? No, you were not there. I was there.
You could say the car didn't follow proper lane discipline because it abruptly cut across a lane without signaling... when it was hit from behind by the truck!!!
You accuse this driver of "stupid driving", based on what? That they allowed themselves to get rear-ended by a truck??
This is unbelievable.
I can just hear you discussing an accident where a car ran over a pedestrian in a crosswalk: "Stupid pedestrian! They should have known the car would barrel down on them at high speed, run a red light, and hit them! Yes, it's also the driver's fault, but the whole situation existed solely because the pedestrian was not paying proper attention to the road and following proper crosswalk discipline!"
Comments
Specially for the bad drivers.
What about traffic cops keeping things safe (heh) on their daily beat? Any quotas?
Here's something inconsiderate on both the part of the driver and on the part of the questionably legitimate "authorities". Go 70 in a 60 and face more wrath than this. It'll be interesting if this gets hushed up and the media has to use a freedom of information style request to get details from the overpaid clowns as they so often do.
Not that I saw; some wrote more than others but with the exception of FOT I didn't see a push to write X number of citations. Most of the officers I dealt with had a generous dose of common sense. The ones who came on board all gung-ho and wrote dozens of tickets either learned to back their intensity down or they moved on to more sympathetic jurisdictions.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
I've heard some red light camera districts in CA attempt to collect nearly $500.00 for a single violation.
Depends on how you look at it regarding resources! Should our tax money pay for a justice system that provides a fair trial for all who are accused of a crime, or should our tax money attempt to make a profit and act like a business that generates revenue? I tend to favor the first method. I like separating government and business even though lately they seem to be one and the same.
Of course, court costs would go through the roof if officers didn't exercise better and more substantial judgement, discretion, and filter out the non-safety hazard tickets they write.
I mean really, is it a coincidence that the traffic and engineering surveys don't justify the speed limits on roads I tend to get tickets on, or is it targeted revenue generation? I tend to believe the latter.
In CA, there is no deferral program; I'd of taken the deal every time. I think only once or twice in my life have I received 2 tickets in the same year. One of those times was right after being found not guilty (retaliatory license plate flagging??? who knows??).
I imagine the not guilty verdict STUNG the CHP just a bit.... whereas the "dismissals" they ignore unless one officer shows a habit of never showing up in court.
It would make it so they only write tickets to those that REALLY, really, REALLY deserve them.
Everyone is going the same direction, no cross traffic, limited access merge points, I mean what's the major malfunction numnuts! :mad:
They neglected to include he most likely has political "connections" in the community...
Fun one last night - got behind a V50 merging onto I-90 at 40mph. Typical local idiot. But...as we hit the road, it never picked up more speed. I got around it and within 5 seconds it was out of my line of sight. It was dawdling along at that speed. Why do people do that? Stick to the side roads.
In my area anyway, most tickets seem to be under $200 - at least in talking to those who receive them. It's not viable to take these to any kind of trial. Maybe that's why they are so low. Maybe it is worse in CA where many areas are broke. No doubt speed limits have a revenue influence. Make them just low enough so x amount of people speed, and x amount of those will be cited (a masked tax) = cha ching.
And I agree about crashing on the freeway - takes special ineptitude. Usually distraction, which still isn't targeted nearly enough. Usually more pleasant than local urban/suburban roads.
In SC, you do have that right. When you appear in front of the judge, the first thing he will tell you is that you can choose to waive that right and let him judicate the case, or not waive it and stand for a jury trial.
Once you choose, it's done. You can't decide on the jury trial after the judge renders a decision, although I've seen some attempt it. One fellow got very perturbed about it, and had to be "escorted" out...
Of course, few do so, because it's pretty well known that, even if you win the case, you'll still end up paying more than the fine would have been under the judge ruling alone.
I know this from sitting in the courtroom as a witness (3 times in 10 years) to accidents, and I've observed it by waiting for my case to come up in sequence.
In every instance, as the session begins, the judge ask for everyone that hasn't had a speeding violation in, I think, the last year, and the existing violation is <= 10 mph over the stated limit if they want to goto a 8-10 hour driving school in lieu of judication. By far, 90+% that can, take that option. No points, no fine, only a small fee for the class, usually much less than the fine. This usually clears out the majority of the courtroom.
LOL!
That's good...
I think a lot of freeway accidents are caused by tailgating. Saw a spectacular example of that a few years ago, a truck tailgated a car until it actually hit the car and pushed it into the left guardrail, it bounced off and hit another car etc. Also accidents are caused by doing other stupid things like changing lanes without signalling nor allowing enough space around other vehicles. (BTW, changing lanes is an example of not everyone going the same direction, vector-wise.)
Yes, lots of ways accidents can happen on freeways, and when they do they are usually quite messy in terms of injury/death, damage, and impact on traffic (e.g. one accident on I-94 in Wisconsin this summer shut down the westbound freeway for several hours).
Drivers don't change lanes on highways for sh!ts-n-giggles. What would possibly motivate a highway driver to shift over to a new lane so abruptly?
The only things that come to mind are inattention to which exit ramp the driver needs... and someone blocking the free flow of traffic.
Now, for the most part, if the driver is in the passing lane... actually passing... and then cuts over to get to an exit ramp, he'll be driving faster than anyone in the non-passing lanes, thus there wouldn't be any much need for reaction from the slower drivers, as the faster driver would zoom forward, out of their way.
So, the only way that could interfere with other drivers is if the one in the passing lane wasn't driving faster than those to his right. Hence, my assertion that left lane campers are one of the major causes for road rage and accidents.
Holding a phone, eating a bowl of soup, grooming a dog, reading a newspaper, texting your lover, painting your toenails, and brushing your hair all a the same time has NO effect on accident rates.
Just speed... of course, of course!
Golly, how could that possibly happen?!? The driver in the car was obviously in the left "passing" lane, otherwise he/she couldn't have been pushed into the left guardrail. So the driver had to be going faster than anyone else on the highway!
I wonder how the driver could've been touched, then.
Hmmm, couldn't possibly have been going slow than other traffic in the passing lane. No, slower traffic has to keep right, so he wasn't slower.
Or was the driver failing to observe the fundamentals of highway driving? Use the passing lane to pass... and slower traffic keep right.
---
Not saying it's right to push someone off the road. I AM saying that my assertion that most accidents and road rage stems from left lane campers and failure for slower traffic to keep right is being proven with your example.
Obviously the car was not going faster than that truck, for a few moments at least.
It was quite startling when it happened in front of me. Not just the fact that the truck ran into the car. But the car was going at a good rate of speed, the limit at least, on a sharp curve (signed at 50 mph). And the truck simply plowed into the back of the car.
Actually, I think the car was driving in the middle of 3 lanes, not the left lane. The force of impact pushed the car across the left lane and into the barrier.
Isn't trying to avoid running into another car a "fundamental of highway driving"?
I find your attitude very troubling. And dangerous.
If the attention was given to LLCs and phone addicts that is given to dangerous felons going 10 over, the roads would be amazing. But, it would require work and might not generate the same revenue stream.
Having to pay for a jury trial doesn't sound right. You have to pay for justice in SC even if your innocent and don't hire a lawyer?
What about the "loser pays" rule, so the prosecution should pay any fees to the court if they fail to get a conviction. A jury trial isn't fair if you have to pay "extra" for it.
Not usually. San Diego is largely "America's finest City" in part due to the excellent year round weather.
When it does rain though (9 times a year more or less), watch out! Lots of people driving on bald tires during the first rain or 2 of the year, you'll see the Discount Tire shops overflowing the next day after a rain from all those drivers that lack the common sense to have proper maintenance, including decent tires.
The lucky ones make it to the tire shop the next day after slipping and sliding. Some are not so lucky and make it to the junk yard.
Yes, but the vast majority of your speed is in the same direction (65 MPH forward) while your only moving side to side temporarily and at very low speeds in relation to each other while changing lanes.
They simply create chaos.
And, that costs $$$, usually much larger than simply paying the fine. Without legal assistance, going against legal professionals is extremely difficult, and when the defendant ends up losing, he gets to pay court costs.
Of course, when the stakes rise, due to accidents, vehicular homicide, DUI, etc., it pays to go to trial and pay for that representation.
I don't know of a single instance in SC which a defendant got a jury trial for speeding and won.
If only that were true (very low speeds), there would be fewer accidents on the freeways. Lane darters are a real nuisance on freeways. I can't count how many times I've had to take evasive maneuvers to avoid being hit by an idiot who doesn't look or look well enough before lane-changing, and doesn't signal.
1 hand, 12:00
1 hand, 12:00
1 hand, 12:00
No hands visible--assume they were low on the wheel.
2 hands, 9 and 12
1 hand, 3-ish
Yawn. Enough of that survey. At least there were no cell phones, food, drinks or other distractions visible. And all the drivers seemed to be paying attention to driving. So I turned off the machine guns in my car's front fenders and drove on.
What a coincidence. Last night in my area, encountered a guy with an X275 doing an equally dumb merging stunt on I90.
9 and 12? Were they turning on a rally course?
Reminds me of something though, what is with the weird usually one handed underhand thing some supposed motorists use when turning? Seems to be most common with "drivers" holding a phone or beverage.
A Sentra with machine guns only shoots peas, anyway.
I had a great drive this morning. Starting with a numbnut plowing into the center divider right in front of me... the numbnut was trying to make a left turn, you see. He wasn't even going fast, either... just sedately plowed into the divider. I guess the art of actually turning the steering wheel is a lost art around here.
This level of idiocy is what I expect out of all drivers nowadays.
And I'm not often pleasantly surprised with a good driver on the road anymore.
It was a pretty tame day on the road so I didn't even enable the rocket launcher. I save that for the trucks trying to ram people on highways.
Plus, traffic would be smoother... and people on the road would be happy to see the police pull drivers over, as each pullover would be someone obstructing traffic.
Of course, the bulk of the offenders would be the oblivious fools who think that the only rule of the road is the speed limit... and going it is acceptable no matter where or what is happening on the road. And that it's their divine right to stop anyone from existing in front of them.
Attitudes transfer to actions, on the road.
If attitudes really made actions, there'd be several cars shot off the road every time I have to drive among phone yapping idiots. Sounds like psychobabble.
My point was that the whole situation existed solely because the driver of the car was not paying attention to the road and not follow proper lane discipline.
And I've had plenty of truckers zip up behind me. I don't stay in the lane when that happens.
Drivers have to know what's happening not just in front of them, but behind and to the sides of their car at all times. You never know what'll happen. (like a retired driver drifting into your lane - good reason to quickly pass any car... or a truck barrelling downhill behind you... or a police car coming to a full stop in the middle lane of a 3/3 lane highway... you get the picture)
Legally speaking, the truck driver's at fault. And in no way does stupid driving allow another to push the stupid driver off the road (no matter how much people fantasize about using military weaponry to blow offenders off the road :P ) .
Remember the rocket launching motorcycle in the James Bond movie "Dr. No", I think, when the gal riding it blew up the ?1958? Ford?
Or, maybe it was in Goldfinger... I forget...
Driver's Ed of the 70's said 10 & 2, or 'a quarter to 3'. Since airbags came along, 10 and 2 has fallen out of favor (ballistic forearms to the face are painful). Personally, based on my car, the shape of the steering wheel, and how I sit, I go 8 & 4. Comfort, control, low fatigue, easy reach to the gearshift (and my coffee).
Frankly with the dumbing down of driving in slow traffic, I can sometimes drive with my knees/legs and no hands on the wheel. :P
But if I'm moving with any kind of speed, I'll assume the correct position.
Having no signs might be okay in a low-speed area with good sight distance (this assumes that the presence of cross-roads is known and visible), but I don't think it wouldn't reduce the likelihood of crashes and would most likely result in an increase in the severity of the ones that did occur. Just think of the chicken games that would ensue... Lightning McQueen vs. Train style! :P
Roundabouts should be safer yet, but look around most neighborhoods and there's not enough room to put them in after the fact.
No stop sign, no stop? Not necessarily (wyomingnews.com)
Love this - town in Germany where they not only are they tearing out "the traffic lights but also tearing down the curbs and erasing marked crosswalks. The busiest part of the main street turned into a "naked" square shared equally by bikes, pedestrians, cars, and trucks." (Christian Science Monitor)
That German plan, adopted in a relatively small town several years ago, hasn't spread anywhere that I know of. Wouldn't work in more densely populated areas, or in car-dependent suburban NA.
Good climate for it, but West Palm Beach looks to be the US example.
Why Street Signs Make Traffic More Dangerous (Jalopnik)
Sorry for all the links, but the upshot is, if you want fewer inconsiderate drivers, remove some signs and improve social behavior.
In the scenario you painted, the intersections would be de-signed altogether, meaning that neither road has distinct right of way and all drivers would need to default to the "only enter the intersection when it is safe to do so" rule. If one road didn't have stop signs and the other did, the ROW would be pretty clear cut.
There's a bit of a catch-22 with the intersections without signs. In my rural experience, which goes for Wyoming as much as Oregon, the locals don't heed the signs or intersections. They make the (generally safe) assumption that there's simply no traffic. The end. Caution is thrown to the wind (which is always blowing, mind you), and if someone else is coming.... OOPS! Traffic is light enough that there is rarely ever a conflict. But, when there is, the consequences are often tragic.
The other group that might use those roads are not locals (unfamiliar with the area). For them, the signs are heeded. If the signs aren't there, though, which is used... extra caution or the assumption of ROW?
I don't know if I want to be closer to local drivers, too many close calls while I am in crosswalks - how would it be without?
I pay to park in a garage and I'd happily pay a higher fee to subsidize a program like that. Putting more people in mass transit benefits everyone, even people who drive.
Huh? How do you know this? Were you there? Did you observe the driver of the car, whether he was paying attention and following proper lane discipline? No, you were not there. I was there.
You could say the car didn't follow proper lane discipline because it abruptly cut across a lane without signaling... when it was hit from behind by the truck!!!
You accuse this driver of "stupid driving", based on what? That they allowed themselves to get rear-ended by a truck??
This is unbelievable.
I can just hear you discussing an accident where a car ran over a pedestrian in a crosswalk: "Stupid pedestrian! They should have known the car would barrel down on them at high speed, run a red light, and hit them! Yes, it's also the driver's fault, but the whole situation existed solely because the pedestrian was not paying proper attention to the road and following proper crosswalk discipline!"