Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
I was coming home last night on the parks hwy. There's several spots where there is 2 lanes in one direction (passing lanes), well, I come up behind this blazer and they are in the left lane doing about 45-50 mph (speed limit is 65). I had watched a Subaru pass them in the right lane and almost get hit when the blazer swerved at them.
So I flashed my lights (where's the Titan when I need it) a couple times and they did nothing, continued to camp in the left lane. I told my son to hang on cause I was going to do something a bit illegal. I dropped the car into 3rd gear (was driving my Focus) and punched it, I went around on the left, over the double solid, blaring the horn, cut back in, looked in my rear view mirror and the driver had a look of shock on her face.
Sucky thing is if I had passed her in the right lane and she had hit me it would have been my fault even though it started by HER breaking the law. So, I passed on the left and scared the snot out of her, maybe she will think next time.......yeah right.
And as you stated, they have a shocked expression in their face, surprised and unaware as to why/what was done.
They knew exactly what they were doing, there is a HUGE sign at the beginning of these passing lanes that states: *SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT*, you'd have to be blind to miss it.
If they knew how to drive and had passed the written exam they knew exactly what the left lane was for.......and it wasn't for them to camp in doing 45-50 mph. I can only hope I scared them, maybe then they will pull their heads out and drive.
I think states should start posting more "Slower traffic, keep right" signs, since I hardly see them up anymore, not even on the Turnpike which is a constant issue.
As for the parking bandits (those that like to take up multiple spots - when I was in high school a buddy of mine and I noticed a friend of ours had parked his Z28 across several spots. So my buddy parked his 57 Chevy Pickup in front perpendicularly and I parked my 68 Dart along his back bumper. (He was at work at the time and was to get off soon.) Then we left for an hour to teach him a lesson in good fun. At no time did we even think of "keying" his car. That is simply vandalism. He was mad at us later but he eventually got over it.
I think those third world people are having a profound impact on the natives. I see more and more citizens beginning to drive like that
There is one passing lane on Hwy 26 south of Rosendale (anyone from central Wisconsin knows where that is) where the county cops like to sit at the end of the passing area and write speeding tickets. Guess it's more lucrative than writing tickets for not moving over.
When it rains, they turn on their hazzard lights...This while driving... So when I returned to Miami, and it was raining and driving in the expressway... I point, "OH I know your from central america"...heh
At work, we have a shop area and an office area. Most of the time, the air compressor is running in the shop area, so we never hear the "beep beep beep" of the door opening (to indicate a customer is here). In response to this, we installed a loud wireless doorbell, and had a large sign saying "Please Ring For Service."
So far, not one customer has ever rang the bell. Sometimes they just venture off into the shop area looking for someone to help them.
In San Jose, a lot of people drive exactly at the speed limit. Drives me crazy, but it's a largely immigrant neighborhood I drive through, and they didn't have parents who would tell them "5 to 10 above is normal."
And they say you marry a woman like you mother...Welll....My wife got a ticket going 96 in a 55 barely 2 weeks after she got her DL and she was the creator of the Chronic Car Buyers forum here on Edmunds. Go figure.
It's usually very easy to look ahead and see a situation where your present course will cut someone off. Then you take action to avoid the situation.
For example, you are in the middle lane doing about 65. You are preparing to pass a car to your right that is doing about 60. Ahead of that car is another car doing about 55.
If I proceed on my current course, I will prevent the car that I am passing, from smoothly passing the third car. He will have to brake and wait until I am clear. In this situation, I either speed up to clear both cars before they meet, or I switch to the next lane over to avoid them both.
In fact, it might be me, but sometimes it seems that drivers instinctively move INTO situation to block and cut each other off.
He was a BIG guy, and did not worry about the driver catching him.
Harry
If I proceed on my current course, I will prevent the car that I am passing, from smoothly passing the third car. He will have to brake and wait until I am clear. In this situation, I either speed up to clear both cars before they meet, or I switch to the next lane over to avoid them both.
Wow - a thinking driver. That's good head's up driving, and rarely seen in my experience.
That scenario is one of my pet peeves. That and the variation when you are the 60mph car about to be pinned by the passer, and he comes up alongside and matches speed with you. Golly, dude, if you are going to pass me, do it! Don't drive-to-block!
"Pass or be passed. There is no speed matching!"
"Pass or passed be. Speed matching there is not!"
Quote:
"...the 2004 Liberty Mutual/SADD Teen Driving Study results show that teens inherit many of their parents' driving habits, especially bad driving habits including speeding and talking on the cell phone."
"From cell phones to seat belts to speeding, the survey says that parents are the biggest influence on teens' driving.
Nearly half of teens surveyed said their parents speed, but a greater number of teen drivers, 67 percent, admit putting the pedal to the metal."
"Of the 3,574 teens surveyed, 31 percent said their parents don't wear seat belts, and the same percentage of teens said they do not buckle up, either.
"On cell phone usage alone between 1998 and 2002, there were 300,000 accidents alone caused by cell phone distractions," said Condrin."
So, if the parents don't have a big enough brain to wear a seat belt the kids likely won't either. No real surprise there. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, I guess. Think of it as herd-thinning.
CNN News
There was also a late 80's Diplomat police interceptor that had a dvd/videogame system in it, but at least it was only in the back seat. That's all we need, is for someone to be trying to play "Grand Theft Auto", "Burnout", or "Need for Speed" while driving!
How many of you have navagation devices? Cell phones? Its all the same really.
I'm not defending him, just saying don't be so quick to judge. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black.
He admitted it was his driving error that caused the death of two totally blameless, rule-abiding citizens. Why isn't he facing a manslaughter bid?
It's a shame when provable driver error in cases where people are killed or maimed just gets written off as a moving violation. Far more of these cases should be tried as manslaughter or vehicular assault.
Yes, that's draconian, but when you see the cell-phone yappers and sandwich eaters and CD-fiddlers and READERS out there on the roads, it's clear that something serious needs to be done to make people take driving seriously.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1858280
I especially liked this:
"City officials said the $1,700 stems from four $300 tickets plus fines that the 76ers point guard received when he left his Rolls Royce in a handicapped spot at an airport parking garage for a week in late May."
What a jerk! Sounds like he needs a good keying (kidding!).
I'm afraid that's easier than it sounds. All crashes are due to driver error. Period. I suppose there are few where complete and catastrophic failure of the brakes or the steering cause an accident, but we all know those are far and few between.
The point I'm making is you're going to start throwing a lot of people in jail for basically what amounts to "accidents".
What about the 80 year old who pulls out onto a highway and either misjudges the distance of a semi or simply doesn't see it and the passengers in her car are killed? Driver error. Does this person go to jail? If not, then are we to the point of making subjective decisions without complete evidence?
To be sure, throwing a person in jail for DUI w/ death or for PROVABLE gross negligence is easy (and proper, IMO). Where problem arise is when the cop gets there and he asks "What happened?" is that driver going to be afraid to say "my daughter was choking in the backseat, I looked back at her and hit the other car" because that statement can be used against him criminally? He's already liable for the civil judgment and the legal process will take care of that.
What about "I was only going 45 in the 65 because of the snow, but I hit a bad patch, spun out and hit the other guy". Driver error. Does he go to jail? What if a guy refuses to say what happened to avoid incriminating himself? Rules of evidence still apply, so how do you PROVE the guy was "distracted"? He's still liable on the civil matter, but is that criminal?
I'm just playing a little devil's advocate here because I think trying to toss everyone who causes a fatal accident is opening up a uncloseable can of worms.
Not to sound too Clintonian, but I guess it depends on what the definition of "accident" is.
I think you'll agree there's a huge difference between the examples you've created and what happened in the Alaska example. Hitting a patch of ice or having bad depth perception is one thing; taking your eyes off the road for ten seconds to watch a DVD or to reach for a can of soda is another.
And you'd get proof of what happened the same way you gather proof in any other criminal complaint. Some evidence will be physical (the proliferation of "black boxes" in cars will be a huge help), some will be anecdotal. Sure, you'll end up with some "he said, she said" impasses; for better or for worse, that's why we have juries.
From where I've sit, we're nearing a critical mass of sorts--the technology/improvements of the cars plus all of the extras like cell phones and DVDs and everybody's sense of entitlement (i.e., "my time is far more important than yours") all add up to a ridiculously dangerous situation on a lot of American roads.
I live in a place where an extremely unpopular and ACLU-challenged piece of legislation has achieved dramatic positive results. If you are so much as CHARGED with drunk driving (or solicitation) in the five boroughs of New York City, your car is impounded, no questions asked. If you're found guilty, you lose the car forever. If not, you have to go through a separate civil procedure to get it back (note: there are loopholes for hardship cases, whether or not it's a business vehicle, etc.).
Draconian? Yes. Effective? Definitely. Drunk-driving fatalities are WAY down in the city, even as arrests are up, which would indicate to me that the law has gotten rid of or deterred the hard-core .20+ BAC drivers who cause most deaths in DWI wrecks.
Bottom line: driving is not a right. I would rather have people inconvenienced, red-taped, and over-governed than have even one person lose his life because some selfish jackhole is fiddling with his dashboard NAV or putting "Dunston Checks In" into the DVD for his kids.
I'm not a lawyer, though, so maybe I'm wrong.
Not paying attention to the road when you're driving is a criminally negligent act, imo, and should be prosecuted as such. (Unless you're driving around on your own private property, of course.)