If you're at fault in a crash around here, you will get a ticket. They mail it to you, but it's still yours.
And all this talk of speed - sometimes it's not how fast the flow is, its those few that go a lot faster (or slower) than the 'average' speed (if there really is such a thing). It's the convergence of those at or near the limit with those faster or slower where the crashes & conflicts occur. LLC enforcement would alleviate that somewhat, as would keeping the real slowpokes off the interstates.
Was out in the old car a bit yesterday. First stupidity was at a 5 way intersection, all streets having a stop sign. I am there first, stop and look as one way is a completely blind corner, after I stop some teenage looking girls in a Pilot pull up to my left. I start to move, the so-called driver makes a poor California style stop, and breezes through. Laid on the horn, passenger just stares at me like I am from Mars. Princess is going to be awesome when she marries well and spends a useless life flaunting around in an RX or ML.
Got to experience 405, my most beloved local highway. Even in the old car, I spent a lot of time in the left lane, and don't think I exceeded 65. Some were crawling along at what must have been 45-50 in a 60 with unremarkable volumes. Some posters here would love it! Also got behind a horse trailer on a highway interchange that was going so slow that there were literally 25 or so cars stacked up behind it when the road finally widened. I know driving one of those has to be hard, but it should be done during hours when the roads are empty.
Any points are generated through citations only. The crash, in and of itself, does not cause points unless it is cited by law enforcement. For example, there is a catch-all collision citation called "failure to use due care to avoid a collision." It is two points against the license, but can only be used in a situation where two (or more) vehicles collide. The citation is only valid in the event of a collision.
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
Went into the city today. First off saw a semi tailgating a car so closely, if I was sitting on the trunklid I easily could have reached out and put my palm on the truck grille. Scary. I backed off, had a bad feeling. Otherwise on the way there, no issues but slowpokes. On the way back, got behind a CX-7 (suspected rental - base model, recent plates, no frames) heading into a tunnel. Leftmost lane. He was moving along OK, but freaked out in the tunnel and got down to about 48 in a 60. Nobody in front of him or beside him. I flashed a couple times, then passed on the right. As I got back into the left lane, he speeds up and gets right on my butt (I am doing about 65-70), so I just let off the gas and coast down to 60. Then he backs way off and I never really see him again. I don't get it. Then went to Costco - small queue in the turn lane leading to the store. Hummer H2 cuts over and jerks into line. I see it in the parking lot, trolling for a spot...I was well into the store by the time he parked. That vehicle and driver group are a prime example of everything wrong with America.
First off saw a semi tailgating a car so closely, if I was sitting on the trunklid I easily could have reached out and put my palm on the truck grille. Scary.
Yes, very. But I know some here would say the truck driver would be justified in ramming the car as it was obviously going too slow. :sick:
Not too many offenders for me this morning, except for one of my (not)favorites: entering freeway from a cloverleaf, extremely heavy traffic, but plenty of room for me to slide into right lane... until the Civic with a younger male driver behind me in the right lane floors it ("how DARE you enter the freeway ahead of me, nyah-nyah-ahh!") and comes up alongside, matching my speed even as I accelerate. Merge lane is VERY short, much shorter than the usual short cloverleaf merge lane because of construction--cones and concrete barriers dead ahead. So I bail out and cut in behind him just before the cones. Would have been a no-drama merge with some basic consideration for other drivers, as in maintain speed and let the poor sucker get onto the freeway, whatsittoya?
Ugh, yeah - those merging inept folks are amongst the worst.
This morning my merge onto the highway was the opposite. I was "stuck" behind a small line of cars (I think I was #4 of 4) that topped out at 50 mph on the ramp. On the road were many cars in both lanes, probably six or seven deep. I figured I was destined for a slow down given that I was likely 10 mph or more slower than traffic on the highway, but alas the driver in the right lane slowed down (gradually, from the look of it) to match our speed and let us all in ahead.
I'm not saying it was the considerate thing to do in the grander scheme, but it made my merge easier! Magically, the driver in the front of the merging line managed to bump up to 60+ once on the highway, as I was going close to 60 and didn't pass anyone on the way into town.
To contrast, last weekend (a week ago last weekend) I was on a small arterial to the downtown area, approaching a bridge from a four lane (two in each direction) feeder that necks down to one lane each way just before the bridge. Traffic was fairly light, but there was about six or seven cars that had stacked up at the preceding light. I was in the right lane, front of the pack at the light. After the light turned green, two vehicles in the left lane worked their way ahead of me, so I slipped in behind the second one. I guess the gal in the black sedan that was third in line didn't understand the idea of a merge (or proper following distance), so sadly I had to help her out there. She honked; I ignored her.
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
It was a Seattle tailgate though, not a normal one. It seems to be a common thing here when traffic in front of the car being tailgated is heavy, and the tailgated car can't move over. Seems to be the only time I have someone close to my bumper - when I am 10 cars back in a slowdown.
I can't relate to people merging onto a freeway at more than 50mph, no matter the speed of traffic on the freeway.
Hahaha; that's darn funny, fin. When I drove my grandparents' diesel truck with the 13,000# trailer down to Salem, Seattle was the only place where I caught up to cars ahead of me on an on-ramp. :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
I did driver's ed. in 1972. Our drive car was a little '72 Nova with a 305. On freeway day, I think i surprised the instructor when I punched it at the top of the on-ramp & merged at about 75. He told the other 2 students in the back seat "THAT'S how you get on a freeway."
Seattle. I usually experience what I call the "Bellevue merge" - hitting the end of an on-ramp at 42mph stuck behind a Lexus or Acura CUV driven by someone who is on the phone or has a terrified deathgrip on the wheel.
It's true. I remember an incident in the fintail, last year, where a Kia "driver" got agitated because I was pressuring him in a freeway merge. If I'm hurrying you along while driving that car, you're going too slow.
I swear I remember a line from driver's ed: "be sure to merge at a speed comparable to moving traffic". I must have been the only one awake.
Merging is another violation that would be easy to enforce with minimal effort from law enforcement. Sure, it's not as black and white as a "speeding" case, but as I've pointed out, cops need no assistance or help winning traffic court cases they actually show up to.
Heck, they could use their radars to clock people merging onto the freeway, and if they aren't at the speed limit + or - 15 MPH by the end of the on-ramp, then they should be ticketed (traffic conditions not impeding their movement). I think a long line of cars being impeded on an on ramp would be thankful if the leader of the pack was pulled over for merging onto a 65 at 45.
That would go a long way towards building some goodwill towards law enforcement. Pulling over LLCers would too. The police in my area don't seem interested in generating any goodwill. Protect and Serve written on the car should mean something!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Actually the law as written (CA anyway, I think it is true federally, ie most states have the same) does not support your premise. People already on the freeway do have the right of way, mergers are required to fit in, yield, etc.
Now I would agree with you that as a merger going faster or equal to the speed of traffic flow is better, however,...
People already on the freeway do have the right of way, mergers are required to fit in, yield, etc.
98.5% of the time the traffic on the freeway does not interfere with a proper merge at (more or less) the speed of traffic. It's when they try to merge at 15 under the "flow" that issues are created.
So an "illegal" merge in no way interferes with the right of way rule. The only time I'd excuse a "yield" while merging is if there was no other choice or option.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
That truly has never been my experience merging anywhere from( your example) 15 mph under to 35 mph over. I have also done this in 49 states (except Alaska) and foreign countries. But then again 99.8% of the time I signal. 9/10 of the times folks do let me in. Those that don't, I just pull in behind them.
I can only think of one time (46.5 years) where the one merging almost caused the accident. He was behind the wheel of a CA Highway Patrol car, there was no signal, no codes, no look and woke up when he almost customize my right side. :sick:
Hummer H2 cuts over and jerks into line. I see it in the parking lot, trolling for a spot...I was well into the store by the time he parked. That vehicle and driver group are a prime example of everything wrong with America.
Everything? Are we not a free society, free to buy whatever we want, drive wherever we want, park wherever we want?
It's when they try to merge at 15 under the "flow" that issues are created.
It's also when jerks in the right lane step on the gas to cut off someone trying to merge at a reasonable speed that issues are created. Just maintain speed, let the car entering the freeway merge in (ahead or behind, whatever makes most sense) and everything is copacetic.
That truly has never been my experience merging anywhere from( your example) 15 mph under to 35 mph over.
I think your misunderstanding. My go at least 15 within the speed limit rule applies when there is little to no traffic in the way. It still applies as a rule that you should be within 15 MPH, but with traffic, that would be relative to the flow of traffic, not to the speed limit.
So if the flow of heavy traffic is moving along at 35 MPH, your merge should never ever be at less than 20 MPH, and ideally, at 35 MPH or more.
I'd rather someone temporarily exceed the speed limit by 5 to 15 MPH and take an open spot in front of traffic, then to slow down to yield and then merge in behind them at way below the speed limit.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Perhaps you might have misunderstood that I really was talking of RANGE mpg for merging.
In addition, the law has and STILL indicates the one merging is responsible for yielding, for the right of way belongs to the traffic flow already there.
In addition, the law has and STILL indicates the one merging is responsible for yielding, for the right of way belongs to the traffic flow already there.
If I see an open spot up ahead in front of traffic that I can accelerate from 0 to 80 MPH in 10 seconds, and hit the open spot with my merge, thereby making a "yield" unnecessary, I'll probably do it, speed laws be damned :P
Yes, you must yield to traffic already on the road when merging, I'm just pointing out that a yield is unnecessary if you can speed up or plan ahead accordingly to find an open spot.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Not in Alaska! Except in a rare situation, if two (or more) vehicles collide, one of the drivers will receive a citation worth two or more points against the ol' license.
Also in NC... Basically they would write a ticket to whichever driver they thought was at fault, and the way the officer explained it to my now-ex-wife, all you had to do to get the ticket dismissed was show that your insurance company was paying the claims for the accident. The state doesn't need your $135 if they know the insurance companies are going to get a couple grand over the next 3 years.
NC has one of the more over-regulated insurance systems in the country and the lawyers LOVE it! Any moving violation will get you anywhere from a 25-65% increase in premium... on ALL your cars, no matter who is primary operator. So suddenly the $350 to have a lawyer show up and plead it down to non-moving doesn't look nearly as bad as the insurance hit.
H2 drivers seem to think so, anyway. Makes me wonder where the money comes from. The visual blight those things bring is bad enough, but driving one like a jerk is reprehensible.
In addition, the law has and STILL indicates the one merging is responsible for yielding, for the right of way belongs to the traffic flow already there.
Yes, that's true. However, on on-ramp for a freeway is an intersection of sorts. And as you pointed out re intersections a few posts ago, one should never assume that just because they have the right of way, others will yield to it.
Also, it's the considerate thing to do if you are on the freeway and can easily make life safer for vehicles entering the freeway, and for yourself, then why not do it? Again, don't assume these drivers will act intelligently/safely as they enter the freeway. Better to give them a wide berth, if it's safe to do so and you won't impede other traffic doing it. Could be as simple as just maintaining speed. Could mean changing lanes. Or speeding up a little or even letting up on the throttle for a second.
What it does NOT mean is having the "I own the road!" mentality that too many drivers seem to have. No one owns the road--we all share it.
I was considerate today. Had to go to the DMV for a challenge to my sanity and patience, and when I went for a walk outside for some fresh air, an older woman frantically approached me, asking for help with her car (prev gen Elantra). She had parked it VERY close to a Caddy STS (maybe an inch from it) and was now afraid to back it out. She wanted me to do it for her. I examined the STS first to make sure she didn't hit it - she hadn't. But I didn't back it up (CYA)...I cranked the wheel over where I knew she'd be able to maneuver out, told her to get in, creep back with my guidance, and she got out. She was relieved.
And as no good deed goes unpunished, on the way home got behind a middle aged guy in a S80 who was creeping along. He eventually hit the turn signal, so no big deal as I also had to turn. But, he turned at a crawling pace, maybe 3mph, and then veered over into the left lane with no signal. I got into the proper/right lane, and started moving past. What does he do? Floors it and keeps up. I made sure to give him a look and shake my head. Really makes me wonder.
..."and for yourself, then why not do it? Again, don't assume these drivers will act intelligently/safely as they enter the freeway. Better to give them a wide berth, if it's safe to do so and you won't impede other traffic doing it. Could be as simple as just maintaining speed. Could mean changing lanes. Or speeding up a little or even letting up on the throttle for a second.
What it does NOT mean is having the "I own the road!" mentality that too many drivers seem to have. No one owns the road--we all share it."...
If you are assuming/asserting that I do not already do some to all of what you are saying and with different combinations and situations, then, ... you would be WRONG. If you are assuming that I already DO some to all of what you are saying with different combinations and situations, then, .... you would be correct. Which is it?
Another is an unfortunate reality, but if one causes an accident, while under the "cloak/influences" of the attitudes you are expressing, it is still ONE's FAULT, and the vehicle/s you were nice FOR will probably not wait around to testify on your behalf, no matter how well meaning. The upshot is no matter how one drives, one has to/should do so in a legally defensible manner. I have not caused an accident going on 2 M miles. One might call it arrogance, but I would like to keep it that way.
Why do you assume my post was directed at you specifically? It wasn't.
IMO "legally defensible" and "considerate" are not mutually exclusive. A considerate driver will also tend to be a defensive driver. And defensive driving is in general legally defensible. Offensive driving, inconsiderate driving, "arrogant" driving... not so much.
Well, it was not an assumption. YOU said YOU several times.
I know you know this, but there are a lot of folks who think themselves defensive drivers, when they really are not. Since I drive the "slow" lanes, it is a regular occurrence that someone camping in left lanes, think nothing of getting into the right lane/s (for an upcoming turn off, etc.) forcing one to take evasive action to slamming on the brakes. It is almost dare I say, UP your's (me in this case), I am in front. But they think it is my fault and problem, taking the evasive action or slamming on the brakes.
Ah, I see the problem now... I thought I was replying to a post from andres3, not you. So my comment about "your" previous post on intersections was wrong, as I was referring to a previous post from andres3, not you.
Sorry 'bout that.
You gave a good example of inconsiderate/offensive driving. LLCs and people who force others to take evasive action by for example improper lanes changes certainly qualify. Of course, they think it's MY problem, not theirs. That's consistent with inconsiderate drivers: self-centric, focused only on what they want.
The theory I have about inconsiderate drivers is that they aren't just inconsiderate drivers. They're inconsiderate, period. They're the same people who never learned how to share their toys and put them away in kindergarten. They're the same people who never look behind them to see if someone is coming right after them through a door. The same people who don't re-rack the weights in the gym. Same people who crash the lines on Black Friday, forcing ahead of people who have been waiting in line since 2 a.m.
But the truth is that it is pretty easy to see, and from a long way off, "so to speak". There are truly SO many (as they say in the WPT, World Poker Tour) "TELLS". Indeed if one finds oneself "surprised too many times" one should examine why one is truly asleep while driving, most of the time.
Then once one knows, it just reverses who is doing the sweating. :P
I'm all for people driving defensively as there are a lot of bad drivers on the roadways. However, sometimes the correct manuever could be construed as offensive rather than defensive, but in reality, the net result and effect is "defensive." The ends justify the means sometimes.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
CA pretty much has the same money making scheme for insurance companies and premium surcharges due to moving violations and/or accidents.
It seems the premium surcharges are not warranted for moving violations, but should be much higher for accidents.
Also, CA has further rigged the system. If you get a "fix it" ticket here in CA, expect to have to pay some $35 or so "administrative fee" even if you prove you weren't in violation.
I'm still bitter about a $10 fee I had to pay in college because the DMV gave me a faulty defected sticker that must of fell off before the year was out. If anyone should pay that fee, it's the DMV itself for making cheap stickers that don't stick.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Indeed that is almost totally bogus. The number on the sticker is actually duplicated on the paper registration, that is required to be presented to a LEO. Anymore I slice the sticker with a razor blade, so it can not be easily peeled off.
1. causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying: offensive television commercials. 2. unpleasant or disagreeable to the sense: an offensive odor. 3. repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like; insulting: an offensive remark; an offensive joke. 4. pertaining to offense or attack: the offensive movements of their troops. 5. characterized by attack; aggressive: offensive warfare.
IMO none of these is correct when it comes to driving, especially in this context of a discussion of inconsiderate driving.
The mildest definition here relates to aggression and attacking behavior. Again, not a good way to approach driving. But, too typical a behavior for a lot of drivers out there, unfortunately. They seem to think it's ok to take out their anger/frustration on fellow drivers.
No wonder the roadways are so much "fun". No wonder there's 20,000 posts here regarding inconsiderate driving. OK, most of the posts are on that subject!
In the context that andres was presenting it, I think #4 fits the definition. In other words, to take action to position one's vehicle, but not necessarily in a "submissive" manner. For example, one could accelerate to avoid an obstacle versus decelerate - in this context, decel is defensive and accel is "offensive." Both situations the end (goal) is the same, but the approach is different.
I had a situation sort of like this on the drive this morning. I was on a small four-lane (as in narrow - no center turn or shoulders) arterial. SL is 35. I was going about 39 in the left lane, with a left turn coming up in a mile or so. There was no other traffic on the road. Then a light ahead turns red, I stop, other traffic piles up as I wait. When green comes, I returned to my speed while a truck in the right lane zips out of the light to about 40. It slows to about 38 when a few lengths ahead, so now I'm *slowly* approaching it. There are three vehicles piled up behind him/me, which made me feel uncomfortable, so I accelerated to ~45, passed the truck in the right lane, then returned to ~40.
The other three vehicles scurried by us both, giving more room for all of us. Problem solved! So, the end goal was the same as had I slowed down (I wanted more space around my vehicle!), but instead I sped up for a few moments.
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
I don't see choosing to accelerate vs. decelerate being "offensive". It's defensive either way, but different ways of dealing with the situation. In each case you are trying to avoid a problem situation, hence both are defensive actions. One or the other could be a better choice in a given situation. You chose to go forward vs. other options, and it worked out.
Fortunately there was no LEO with a radar gun there to catch you at 45 in a 35 zone!
but this was a bit peculiar, at least. The other day I was in the parking lot at work, and saw that a Mustang had run into a telephone pole outside the fence out back.
Not the best picture quality, taken through the chain link fence. I thought it was really odd that the Mustang doesn't really look all that badly damaged, yet it snapped the pole. And, oddly, the pole snapped pretty high up, rather than where the car actually impacted it. :confuse:
Oh, there was an offensive bicyclist though. The road was closed off so work crews could safely repair the pole. A police car was blocking the road sideways. While other traffic was stopping and turning around, a bicyclist started to just ride right on through, without a care in the world to construction crews, the precariously hanging wires overhead, etc. Cop gave a quick hit of the siren though, and that stopped him.
Exactly. The end goal is defensive. It is "offensive" in the sense of intentionally putting one in a beneficial position to avoid imminent danger (as compared to reacting to imminent danger to avoid harm), not from the "tweaking someone's sense of calm" perspective.
As for the LEO, I don't live my life worrying about them. They would have had a whole tussle of cars from which to choose had there been one present doing speed enforcement. My five-second burst would likely go unnoticed in comparison to the other drivers' sustained speeds. Unless, of course, that particular officer was annoyed that I unclogged the roadway, thereby allowing the other drivers to even go that speed. :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
Fortunately there was no LEO with a radar gun there to catch you at 45 in a 35 zone!
That is why it is so important we all get rid of lazy incompetent LEO's that enforce traffic. Any cop worth his weight would have been able to observe that he was helping traffic move along more smoothly and safely by going 45 in a 35. It's important officer's take driving actions in context, not out of context (like when there's ideal conditions to go fast safely).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
My "offense" often consists of going faster to avoid a situation which could potentially cause a hazard, and in a sense, Backy is right, it is defensive in its end result. The best defense, is a good offense :P
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Of course, the LEO would have read the driver's mind and ascertained that his motive for zipping around the truck at 10 over was altruistic, not just someone in a hurry to get around a truck, then suddenly slowing when he noticed the LEO.
Or maybe the LEO would have simply given the altruistic driver a big thumbs-up as he sped by, a thanks for helping with traffic flow.
Drove the old car today, got to use the horn a few times. Old man in a LR3 blindly pulled out in front of me from a side street and then crawled well under the limit. Time for mandatory age based testing, with vehicle forfeiture and severe financial penalties for repeated violations. Also got behind a Dominos driver in a Civic weaving all over while holding a phone to his ear. Saw a Michigan plated Sonata make a really stupid U-turn in front of a police station. And overall slowness and stupidity as is typical in an area where speeds are slow and lots of drivers are new to the first world.
I've never known a visitor to the area to make any positive remarks about local driving skill. It's a combination of slow and clueless. One or the other can be workable, but both is tough. This place really challenges my sanity sometimes.
Luckily, I am going to Germany in 4 weeks and will have a car for 10 days, it will be like therapy.
Yeah, if I was in a red state, things would be much better. The red states really lead in so many ways. I will say driving in GA isn't all bad - generally smooth roads, low population density, and locals who ignore speed limits.
Really, I don't think it is a political thing. More like poor infrastructure planning along with too much population growth due to more economic opportunity for educated people than in most red states, mass immigration of people who are new to motoring, and lax licensing standards that are a nationwide disaster.
Just as excellent alpine skiers can handle any slope, excellent drivers handle their traffic problems with ease and they don't [non-permissible content removed] about others. :P
Yes, I am sure actual excellent drivers like Schumacher never complain about the idiot drivers surrounding them on public roads.
Excellent drivers are aware of their surroundings and notice the shortcomings of those who have been granted licenses in order to keep the economy slowly moving.
Comments
And all this talk of speed - sometimes it's not how fast the flow is, its those few that go a lot faster (or slower) than the 'average' speed (if there really is such a thing). It's the convergence of those at or near the limit with those faster or slower where the crashes & conflicts occur. LLC enforcement would alleviate that somewhat, as would keeping the real slowpokes off the interstates.
Got to experience 405, my most beloved local highway. Even in the old car, I spent a lot of time in the left lane, and don't think I exceeded 65. Some were crawling along at what must have been 45-50 in a 60 with unremarkable volumes. Some posters here would love it! Also got behind a horse trailer on a highway interchange that was going so slow that there were literally 25 or so cars stacked up behind it when the road finally widened. I know driving one of those has to be hard, but it should be done during hours when the roads are empty.
Warning: NSFW, at least mute or turn the volume way down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlcjqbaVqOI
While searching I also found this one. The infamous drop throttle oversteer (also with a nice save at 1:20):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtDVIuSYWEQ
Yes, very. But I know some here would say the truck driver would be justified in ramming the car as it was obviously going too slow. :sick:
Not too many offenders for me this morning, except for one of my (not)favorites: entering freeway from a cloverleaf, extremely heavy traffic, but plenty of room for me to slide into right lane... until the Civic with a younger male driver behind me in the right lane floors it ("how DARE you enter the freeway ahead of me, nyah-nyah-ahh!") and comes up alongside, matching my speed even as I accelerate. Merge lane is VERY short, much shorter than the usual short cloverleaf merge lane because of construction--cones and concrete barriers dead ahead. So I bail out and cut in behind him just before the cones. Would have been a no-drama merge with some basic consideration for other drivers, as in maintain speed and let the poor sucker get onto the freeway, whatsittoya?
This morning my merge onto the highway was the opposite. I was "stuck" behind a small line of cars (I think I was #4 of 4) that topped out at 50 mph on the ramp. On the road were many cars in both lanes, probably six or seven deep. I figured I was destined for a slow down given that I was likely 10 mph or more slower than traffic on the highway, but alas the driver in the right lane slowed down (gradually, from the look of it) to match our speed and let us all in ahead.
I'm not saying it was the considerate thing to do in the grander scheme, but it made my merge easier! Magically, the driver in the front of the merging line managed to bump up to 60+ once on the highway, as I was going close to 60 and didn't pass anyone on the way into town.
To contrast, last weekend (a week ago last weekend) I was on a small arterial to the downtown area, approaching a bridge from a four lane (two in each direction) feeder that necks down to one lane each way just before the bridge. Traffic was fairly light, but there was about six or seven cars that had stacked up at the preceding light. I was in the right lane, front of the pack at the light. After the light turned green, two vehicles in the left lane worked their way ahead of me, so I slipped in behind the second one. I guess the gal in the black sedan that was third in line didn't understand the idea of a merge (or proper following distance), so sadly I had to help her out there. She honked; I ignored her.
I can't relate to people merging onto a freeway at more than 50mph, no matter the speed of traffic on the freeway.
???
You can't relate to people speeding up to highway speeds before actually merging into highway traffic?
:surprise:
Full disclosure: I'd been coached. Thanks, Dad.
I swear I remember a line from driver's ed: "be sure to merge at a speed comparable to moving traffic". I must have been the only one awake.
Heck, they could use their radars to clock people merging onto the freeway, and if they aren't at the speed limit + or - 15 MPH by the end of the on-ramp, then they should be ticketed (traffic conditions not impeding their movement). I think a long line of cars being impeded on an on ramp would be thankful if the leader of the pack was pulled over for merging onto a 65 at 45.
That would go a long way towards building some goodwill towards law enforcement. Pulling over LLCers would too. The police in my area don't seem interested in generating any goodwill. Protect and Serve written on the car should mean something!
Now I would agree with you that as a merger going faster or equal to the speed of traffic flow is better, however,...
98.5% of the time the traffic on the freeway does not interfere with a proper merge at (more or less) the speed of traffic. It's when they try to merge at 15 under the "flow" that issues are created.
So an "illegal" merge in no way interferes with the right of way rule. The only time I'd excuse a "yield" while merging is if there was no other choice or option.
I can only think of one time (46.5 years) where the one merging almost caused the accident. He was behind the wheel of a CA Highway Patrol car, there was no signal, no codes, no look and woke up when he almost customize my right side. :sick:
Everything? Are we not a free society, free to buy whatever we want, drive wherever we want, park wherever we want?
It's also when jerks in the right lane step on the gas to cut off someone trying to merge at a reasonable speed that issues are created. Just maintain speed, let the car entering the freeway merge in (ahead or behind, whatever makes most sense) and everything is copacetic.
I think your misunderstanding. My go at least 15 within the speed limit rule applies when there is little to no traffic in the way. It still applies as a rule that you should be within 15 MPH, but with traffic, that would be relative to the flow of traffic, not to the speed limit.
So if the flow of heavy traffic is moving along at 35 MPH, your merge should never ever be at less than 20 MPH, and ideally, at 35 MPH or more.
I'd rather someone temporarily exceed the speed limit by 5 to 15 MPH and take an open spot in front of traffic, then to slow down to yield and then merge in behind them at way below the speed limit.
In addition, the law has and STILL indicates the one merging is responsible for yielding, for the right of way belongs to the traffic flow already there.
If I see an open spot up ahead in front of traffic that I can accelerate from 0 to 80 MPH in 10 seconds, and hit the open spot with my merge, thereby making a "yield" unnecessary, I'll probably do it, speed laws be damned
Yes, you must yield to traffic already on the road when merging, I'm just pointing out that a yield is unnecessary if you can speed up or plan ahead accordingly to find an open spot.
Sums up your philosphy quite nicely.
Also in NC... Basically they would write a ticket to whichever driver they thought was at fault, and the way the officer explained it to my now-ex-wife, all you had to do to get the ticket dismissed was show that your insurance company was paying the claims for the accident. The state doesn't need your $135 if they know the insurance companies are going to get a couple grand over the next 3 years.
NC has one of the more over-regulated insurance systems in the country and the lawyers LOVE it! Any moving violation will get you anywhere from a 25-65% increase in premium... on ALL your cars, no matter who is primary operator. So suddenly the $350 to have a lawyer show up and plead it down to non-moving doesn't look nearly as bad as the insurance hit.
Yes, that's true. However, on on-ramp for a freeway is an intersection of sorts. And as you pointed out re intersections a few posts ago, one should never assume that just because they have the right of way, others will yield to it.
Also, it's the considerate thing to do if you are on the freeway and can easily make life safer for vehicles entering the freeway, and for yourself, then why not do it? Again, don't assume these drivers will act intelligently/safely as they enter the freeway. Better to give them a wide berth, if it's safe to do so and you won't impede other traffic doing it. Could be as simple as just maintaining speed. Could mean changing lanes. Or speeding up a little or even letting up on the throttle for a second.
What it does NOT mean is having the "I own the road!" mentality that too many drivers seem to have. No one owns the road--we all share it.
And as no good deed goes unpunished, on the way home got behind a middle aged guy in a S80 who was creeping along. He eventually hit the turn signal, so no big deal as I also had to turn. But, he turned at a crawling pace, maybe 3mph, and then veered over into the left lane with no signal. I got into the proper/right lane, and started moving past. What does he do? Floors it and keeps up. I made sure to give him a look and shake my head. Really makes me wonder.
What it does NOT mean is having the "I own the road!" mentality that too many drivers seem to have. No one owns the road--we all share it."...
If you are assuming/asserting that I do not already do some to all of what you are saying and with different combinations and situations, then, ... you would be WRONG. If you are assuming that I already DO some to all of what you are saying with different combinations and situations, then, .... you would be correct. Which is it?
Another is an unfortunate reality, but if one causes an accident, while under the "cloak/influences" of the attitudes you are expressing, it is still ONE's FAULT, and the vehicle/s you were nice FOR will probably not wait around to testify on your behalf, no matter how well meaning. The upshot is no matter how one drives, one has to/should do so in a legally defensible manner. I have not caused an accident going on 2 M miles. One might call it arrogance, but I would like to keep it that way.
IMO "legally defensible" and "considerate" are not mutually exclusive. A considerate driver will also tend to be a defensive driver. And defensive driving is in general legally defensible. Offensive driving, inconsiderate driving, "arrogant" driving... not so much.
I know you know this, but there are a lot of folks who think themselves defensive drivers, when they really are not. Since I drive the "slow" lanes, it is a regular occurrence that someone camping in left lanes, think nothing of getting into the right lane/s (for an upcoming turn off, etc.) forcing one to take evasive action to slamming on the brakes. It is almost dare I say, UP your's (me in this case), I am in front. But they think it is my fault and problem, taking the evasive action or slamming on the brakes.
Sorry 'bout that.
You gave a good example of inconsiderate/offensive driving. LLCs and people who force others to take evasive action by for example improper lanes changes certainly qualify. Of course, they think it's MY problem, not theirs. That's consistent with inconsiderate drivers: self-centric, focused only on what they want.
The theory I have about inconsiderate drivers is that they aren't just inconsiderate drivers. They're inconsiderate, period. They're the same people who never learned how to share their toys and put them away in kindergarten. They're the same people who never look behind them to see if someone is coming right after them through a door. The same people who don't re-rack the weights in the gym. Same people who crash the lines on Black Friday, forcing ahead of people who have been waiting in line since 2 a.m.
It's all about them. All the time.
But the truth is that it is pretty easy to see, and from a long way off, "so to speak". There are truly SO many (as they say in the WPT, World Poker Tour) "TELLS". Indeed if one finds oneself "surprised too many times" one should examine why one is truly asleep while driving, most of the time.
Then once one knows, it just reverses who is doing the sweating. :P
I'm all for people driving defensively as there are a lot of bad drivers on the roadways. However, sometimes the correct manuever could be construed as offensive rather than defensive, but in reality, the net result and effect is "defensive." The ends justify the means sometimes.
It seems the premium surcharges are not warranted for moving violations, but should be much higher for accidents.
Also, CA has further rigged the system. If you get a "fix it" ticket here in CA, expect to have to pay some $35 or so "administrative fee" even if you prove you weren't in violation.
I'm still bitter about a $10 fee I had to pay in college because the DMV gave me a faulty defected sticker that must of fell off before the year was out. If anyone should pay that fee, it's the DMV itself for making cheap stickers that don't stick.
1. causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying: offensive television commercials.
2. unpleasant or disagreeable to the sense: an offensive odor.
3. repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like; insulting: an offensive remark; an offensive joke.
4. pertaining to offense or attack: the offensive movements of their troops.
5. characterized by attack; aggressive: offensive warfare.
IMO none of these is correct when it comes to driving, especially in this context of a discussion of inconsiderate driving.
The mildest definition here relates to aggression and attacking behavior. Again, not a good way to approach driving. But, too typical a behavior for a lot of drivers out there, unfortunately. They seem to think it's ok to take out their anger/frustration on fellow drivers.
No wonder the roadways are so much "fun". No wonder there's 20,000 posts here regarding inconsiderate driving. OK, most of the posts are on that subject!
I had a situation sort of like this on the drive this morning. I was on a small four-lane (as in narrow - no center turn or shoulders) arterial. SL is 35. I was going about 39 in the left lane, with a left turn coming up in a mile or so. There was no other traffic on the road. Then a light ahead turns red, I stop, other traffic piles up as I wait. When green comes, I returned to my speed while a truck in the right lane zips out of the light to about 40. It slows to about 38 when a few lengths ahead, so now I'm *slowly* approaching it. There are three vehicles piled up behind him/me, which made me feel uncomfortable, so I accelerated to ~45, passed the truck in the right lane, then returned to ~40.
The other three vehicles scurried by us both, giving more room for all of us. Problem solved! So, the end goal was the same as had I slowed down (I wanted more space around my vehicle!), but instead I sped up for a few moments.
Fortunately there was no LEO with a radar gun there to catch you at 45 in a 35 zone!
Not the best picture quality, taken through the chain link fence. I thought it was really odd that the Mustang doesn't really look all that badly damaged, yet it snapped the pole. And, oddly, the pole snapped pretty high up, rather than where the car actually impacted it. :confuse:
Oh, there was an offensive bicyclist though. The road was closed off so work crews could safely repair the pole. A police car was blocking the road sideways. While other traffic was stopping and turning around, a bicyclist started to just ride right on through, without a care in the world to construction crews, the precariously hanging wires overhead, etc. Cop gave a quick hit of the siren though, and that stopped him.
As for the LEO, I don't live my life worrying about them. They would have had a whole tussle of cars from which to choose had there been one present doing speed enforcement. My five-second burst would likely go unnoticed in comparison to the other drivers' sustained speeds. Unless, of course, that particular officer was annoyed that I unclogged the roadway, thereby allowing the other drivers to even go that speed. :P
That is why it is so important we all get rid of lazy incompetent LEO's that enforce traffic. Any cop worth his weight would have been able to observe that he was helping traffic move along more smoothly and safely by going 45 in a 35. It's important officer's take driving actions in context, not out of context (like when there's ideal conditions to go fast safely).
My "offense" often consists of going faster to avoid a situation which could potentially cause a hazard, and in a sense, Backy is right, it is defensive in its end result. The best defense, is a good offense :P
Of course, the LEO would have read the driver's mind and ascertained that his motive for zipping around the truck at 10 over was altruistic, not just someone in a hurry to get around a truck, then suddenly slowing when he noticed the LEO.
Or maybe the LEO would have simply given the altruistic driver a big thumbs-up as he sped by, a thanks for helping with traffic flow.
Yep, anything is possible.
Luckily, I am going to Germany in 4 weeks and will have a car for 10 days, it will be like therapy.
Does that have something to do with your State being Blue?
Really, I don't think it is a political thing. More like poor infrastructure planning along with too much population growth due to more economic opportunity for educated people than in most red states, mass immigration of people who are new to motoring, and lax licensing standards that are a nationwide disaster.
Excellent drivers are aware of their surroundings and notice the shortcomings of those who have been granted licenses in order to keep the economy slowly moving.