Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

1425426428430431477

Comments

  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    seems wrong to characterize cellfone-using-drivers with such a blanket stateme

    So how should these drivers be characterized? Are there any valid reasons for a driver to be using a cell phone beyond calling 911 or a similar number to report an emergency, such as an accident that just occurred?
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 9,374
    I can't remember the last time an inconsiderate driver I've (almost) run into was NOT using a cell phone, so it's pretty easy to use this blanket statement...

    Hang up the phone and DRIVE YOUR CAR.

    On the way to work this morning, a cell phone user (I'm sure it was a REALLY important call at 7:10 AM) had to lock up his brakes as he came up behind me too fast. I was going about 40 MPH in a 35 zone, so I was obviously almost a stationary object I guess.

    Edmunds Moderator

    Silver 2012 Nissan Versa Hatchback & White 2019 Nissan Rogue S

    Need some roadside assistance? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Just purchased or leased a vehicle? Write your own vehicle review

  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Hang up the phone and DRIVE YOUR CAR.

    But your honor, my autonomous car was driving me around.

    By the time we figure out how to limit texting and cells, Google will screw it all up. :P
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,557
    Problem solved - wear a mask :shades:

    Funny thing, there are plenty of "people" out there who want that Orwellian vision, and not just in the subjugated UK.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,557
    Come to my neighborhood, you'll see plenty of inconsiderates/idiots with both hands on the wheel :lemon:

    Last night saw a guy slam on his brakes in front of a bus, try to make an illegal u-turn where his car wouldn't fit, then get stuck in a small parking area, then back out into traffic - and ends up going the same direction he was headed to begin with - all while apparently not recognizing other vehicles on the road.

    Headed to work this morning, around 0530, rainy and dark, half the vehicles (literally) weren't using headlights. I know it's the longest day of the year, but this is just stupid. Most of the time it's a truck or SUV, too.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 9,374
    Oh there are certainly idiots who need nothing but themselves and a car to cause havoc, but they seem to be FAR outnumbered by the GBC addicts *

    * Gotta be Connected

    Edmunds Moderator

    Silver 2012 Nissan Versa Hatchback & White 2019 Nissan Rogue S

    Need some roadside assistance? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Just purchased or leased a vehicle? Write your own vehicle review

  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,118
    Wouldn't it be 100X easier and 100X more effective to simply make the penalties for being an accident causer 100X more severe?

    Get the accident prone (dangerous) people off the road!
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla VirginiaPosts: 707
    It'd be 10000x more effective to install high-explosive radar-guided missiles on the roofs of every car, with drivers only able to fire them at cars that violate driving rules, endanger others on the road, and reduce/stop the flow of traffic.

    We'd quickly see a 20% reduction in the driving population of America... and the rest would suddenly rediscover proper driving etiquette.
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,118
    10000x more effective to install high-explosive radar-guided missiles on the roofs of every car, with drivers only able to fire them at cars that violate driving rules

    The slow pokes in the slow right lane would shoot missiles at the speeders in the left fast lane even though they don't' harm or hassle anyone, and it isn't even remotely dangerous.

    My brother in law got a ticket for making a right turn on red when there's a single sign that says "no right turn on red during these hours: rush hours"

    It lists a few different time periods and I find it hilariously unenforceable in a court of law.

    A judge might now agree, but I'd argue it doesn't state PST or EST or what kind of time. Also, isn't a driver better able to gauge whether the turn is safe or not rather than an arbitrary sign with arbitrary hours?
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    A judge might now agree, but I'd argue it doesn't state PST or EST or what kind of time.

    LOL! Thanks for a good laugh to end the work week!

    I agree about driver judgement being better than signs. Let's apply that same rule to speed limit signs (oh wait... you already do that), stop signs, railroad crossing signals, do not enter signs... all of 'em!

    Also, I'll remember the time zone defense if I ever get a parking ticket and the "no parking" times didn't mention the time zone. ;)
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,118
    Also, I'll remember the time zone defense if I ever get a parking ticket and the "no parking" times didn't mention the time zone.

    Hey, it's a legitimate argument, in San Diego especially, since Military time is common around here.

    Also, a sign with arbitrary hours is even worse than the usual sign. A no right turn on red is bad enough (I never agree with them). But one that says M-F during rush hours is even worse, afterall, are holidays excluded? Certainly there is no rush hour on a holiday that has the same traffic levels as a regular day, yet I'm sure they'd issue the ticket!

    The whole point is it has nothing to do with safety, and that officer should be executed for writing that ticket. There are better things to do with his time!
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,557
    On a little road trip - not many LLCs out there, but seemingly a lot of MLCs. Especially people in small to medium SUVs who are eating or yapping. Seeing a middle aged woman with a Subway sandwich going 50 in her CRV in the middle lane of I-5 reminds me of how dumbed down we've become.

    Also last night, 9pm, raining, dark, still idiots with no lights. Almost always a pickup. Lots of residual commute stop and go shenanigans at the start of my drive, so only managed 39.9mpg per the car.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    The whole point is... what the g** d*** hurry? I remember a time when right turns on red weren't permitted under ANY circumstances. Somehow we managed.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,557
    But at the same time, for some, why so slow? The limits are already dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, and even asking that is too much for so many.

    Right turn on red makes sense in my high traffic area anyway, just to clear out the intersection. If people had to sit for no justifiable reason at an intersection where they wanted to turn, it would do nothing but create traffic backups.

    At one time we somehow managed without endless medical advances, workplace benefits, standards for child labor etc too. Right turn on red is actually evolutionary, like many other advancements. Standards need to be raised, not lowered.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    I love right turn on red. But unfortunately some folks don't understand that it's "right turn on red AFTER STOPPING". So that causes problems in areas with traffic congestion, pedestrians etc. Thus the need for "no right turn on red" signs on some intersections, part time or all the time. If drivers would STOP and LOOK before turning right on red, and YIELD to traffic and pedestrians, there wouldn't be a need for those signs.

    When right turn on red first debuted in Minnesota, there weren't any exception signs. They started popping up because of accidents and injuries caused by drivers who were in such a g** d*** hurry, they couldn't STOP and LOOK and YIELD to other cars and to pedestrians. Blame them, not the public servants you like blame all the world's problems on.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,557
    edited June 2013
    Yes, stopping is part of the bargain. If drivers aren't doing it, they are in the wrong. I see the same issue just as much at normal stop signs though, especially leading onto major streets - the vacuous driver will roll through and pull out in front of oncoming traffic. Then every now and then they get t-boned, and should receive far more punishment than they do.

    Reminds me of my city, that in the past year has installed many blinking left turn lights for major intersections during non-peak hours. They've recently had to add signage reminding the dumbed down local yokel that they still need to yield to oncoming traffic. Pretty sad. Maybe penalties need to be increased for such right of way violators. Some of the new-to-motoring set will also come to a stop at these blinking lights with no oncoming traffic, which bring out the horns. Education fail, perhaps.

    Strangely enough, right on red is almost unknown in Europe, likely because of higher pedestrian traffic. One of the very few road rule related issues where NA is ahead.

    I wasn't blaming these "servants" for people not stopping when they should - looks like yet another strawman. But I do blame them for goofy traffic controls.
  • ronsteveronsteve LooavulPosts: 684
    Right turn on red makes sense in my high traffic area anyway, just to clear out the intersection. If people had to sit for no justifiable reason at an intersection where they wanted to turn, it would do nothing but create traffic backups.

    What gets me in Louisville is that there are some intersections with multiple right-turn lanes and thus dedicated signals (I guess in some places this implies that you can't turn right on a red arrow?), and they take the time to post "Right Turn on Red Permitted After Stop." But do the right arrows turn green with the non-conflicting protected left? NO! That's some stupid design right there.
    2015 Acura RDX AWD / 2013 VW Jetta 2.5SE
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    edited June 2013
    ... are probably also are inconsiderate on the road, since they don't give a d*** about other people and other vehicles.

    Ran into one of those today, literally. I parked way over to the left against a median. Tons of room to my right. I had returned to my car and was checking emails before I left when an old black Durango parked next to me. He parked nearly on the left white line... the idea of centering a car in a spot must be foreign to him. The guy opened both doors on the left and took his time getting his gym bag out (somehow that required BOTH doors to be open). I was ready to back out, but wasn't quite sure if my side mirror would hit his driver's door, or him. So I waited. And waited. Then he did something inexplicable. Rather than just shutting both doors, he opened the driver's door up to full extent, hitting the side of my car. Then closed both doors. He didn't make any indication he knew or cared what he just did. My side window was open so I called after him, "Hey, would you watch the doors, please!" He continued on as though he didn't hear me, or care. He had earbuds in so maybe his music was so loud he didn't hear me. So I shouted louder, "Hey, JERK, watch the doors!!". He continued on, oblivious. Good thing for him this isn't Texas and I wasn't packing.

    He's so oblivious he probably won't notice the new scratch on his Durango's side door... which just so happens to be about the same size as the new scratch on my door. But his scratch shows up more, with white primer under black paint. :)
  • roadburnerroadburner Posts: 12,374
    Before keyless entry a better response would have been a healthy shot of crazy glue in each door lock- followed by a paper clip... ;) A friend retaliated against a similar affront by taking his cordless drill and drilling out the valve stems of all four tires...

    Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport; 2014 M235i; 2009 Cooper Clubman; 1999 Wrangler; 1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica Wife's: 2015 X1 xDrive28i Son's: 2009 328i

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    Oh darn, I left my crazy glue, paper clips, and cordless drill at home today!
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Not to mention that "keys" are going away.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    One benefit to having a car made in 2005! Still has good ol' keys... have many uses.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    I've been fobbed just doesn't have the same ring to it. :shades:
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    He's so oblivious he probably won't notice the new scratch on his Durango's side door... which just so happens to be about the same size as the new scratcceh on my door. But his scratch shows up more, with white primer under black paint

    Well, here in the land of N, NE Illinois, many of us have heard about "justice" on the streets of Chicago, Crook County, in winter months. People clean out the snow along the curbs of streets in front of their houses to park their cars. Then they place old chairs other stuff to stake out their claim to their parking spots. When they are away with their cars, and someone then removes the old chairs or other items and parks their vehicles, then all heck can break loose. Common story is that the aggrieved then connect a hose and run water around the offenders tires and freeze him/her in place. No damage, no scratched paint. No. Just justice.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    Yeah, I left my garden hose at home too. And it was about 80 degrees. At least the idiot didn't have to wait a few days to move his Durango.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Posts: 3,425
    How in the world do you reason that the public right of way on a public street can be lawn chair reserved for you and only you? Who do you think you are to feel aggrieved when the public parking space on a public street is filled by someone else? :confuse:
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    Who do you think you are to feel aggrieved when the public parking space on a public street is filled by someone else?

    Obviously you never lived in Chicago. Even the last, 2nd, Mayor Daley had spoke of the "rights" of those who had cleared out the snow at the curb to "claim" their parking spot.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    seems only fair :P
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,557
    Came back from podunk this morning. A few LLCs out today, and several MLCs out too. Raining, many not abiding by the lights/wipers ideal. Worst were the speed demons though - all but one was a SUV or pickup. I love seeing small man syndrome sufferer going 80 in a 60 and then being stuck in an exit ramp backup as the people he cut off whizz by. And signals, what are those?

    I also went from small town west coast USA full of good old boys and tweakers, back to the multicultural wonderland that makes driving in Seattle so special. Had a relatively close call with a yapper in an Audi who crossed into the oncoming lane in a parking lot.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Posts: 3,425
    And where do you file your claim to this property? The mayors office, city hall? When does your claim expire? Or, how long does it last?

    Never lived in Chicago and never will. Why Boeing moved their corporate office there is still a mistery. :P
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,557
    Looking at the current mayor of Chicago, the office does not exactly represent logic and accountability.
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,118
    I remember a time when right turns on red weren't permitted under ANY circumstances. Somehow we managed.

    There was also a time before the internal combustion engine where horses were used, and the horses couldn't run faster than 55 MPH so the 55 MPH speed limit may have made sense back then.

    The point is people evolve, civilizations advance, and technology improves.

    With it, the laws need to "get with the program."
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,118
    they couldn't STOP and LOOK and YIELD to other cars and to pedestrians. Blame them, not the public servants you like blame all the world's problems on.

    Seems your beef is not with drivers that fail to stop completely, but with drivers that impede traffic or violate simple right-of-way rules. Certainly, rolling through a right turn at a few MPH where no cars are coming for miles doesn't hurt anyone. Stopping completely at the right turn only to cut someone off with the right of way doesn't do any better. The point is you can't cut someone off and impede their progress whether you stop, roll, or wait minutes for the green. Remember, even when your light turns green you should make sure the intersection is clear and it is SAFE to move forward and complete your turn before moving forward and completing your turn.

    I would challenge that right turn on red accidents are a minuscule percentage of accidents at intersections.

    We should blame the people causing the accidents. Write them expensive tickets for causing accidents. Take away their licenses for a period of time. Force them into remedial driver's training programs to learn right of way rules.

    Writing pointless laws and adding pointless signage doesn't accomplish that. Useless laws lessen the enforcement of important laws. So you bleeding heart liberals out there, when you ask "what harm does a law banning a large soda do?" The answer is that worthless laws weaken the vital laws. Limited allocation of resources, including for the overpaid law enforcement group.

    By the way, if a right turner causes a rear-end accident, it is actually their fault (the difficulty will be proving it if they lie though). It is actually legal to change lanes into the right lane from the left lane at an intersection too. There was an insurance scam group that would deliberately ram right turners from the left lane (by changing lanes) if they didn't heed this assigned accident blame rule.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    There is so much b.s. in your post, I wouldn't know where to begin.

    This isn't about banning sodas... which is a ridiculous idea. It's about following basic traffic laws, like stopping at stop signs and stop lights. Not too hard to understand.

    If you don't like following basic traffic laws, I recommend you either stop driving, or petition for removal or changing of controls you don't like.
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,118
    edited June 2013
    Basic traffic laws include yielding the right of way to other traffic. If one is able to do this without a complete stop at a right turn, why require it?

    Just because it is legal doesn't mean you have to roll through. If rolling right turns were legalized it doesn't mean stopping at the turn would become illegal!!!!

    I think you are having problems with the truth here.

    Even the most "basic" laws need fine tuning once in a while.

    Laws were made and written by humans and therefore subject to error.

    Also, regarding the case that started this discussion, my brother in law did in fact come to a complete stop. He said so, and I believe him whole heartedly because had he not the officer would have wrote him up for that far more expensive violation of "running a red light" (LOL), then the sign violation of disobeying forbidden hours of the day to turn right.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    You are having a problem confusing a STOP sign with a YIELD sign.

    If you think there's STOP signs that should be YIELD signs, you can talk with your local authorities to get them changed... do some of that "fine tuning" you would like to see.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Posts: 3,425
    The majority agrees with you re: the B S. :shades:
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,557
    edited June 2013
    Maybe with the proliferation of dash cams, we can start collecting examples of negligent traffic controls, upload them all to Youtube, and embarrass municipalities with their poor planning and dumb infrastructure. That might require a level of accountability to be had by those with their fingers on the buttons though, and that exists inconsistently at best. It'd be nice to see some of these things defended with big pensions on the line.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Oh, no, and I just invested in a snow plow attachment for my Mini Cooper! :)
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,118
    Wow, NJ is doing something CA should have done long ago.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    In CA we can't even flash our lights or honk or shake our fists at the tortoises. We are rendered powerless.... :cry:
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,557
    WA has similar LLC laws, which I hear are at least occasionally enforced.

    Out on foot today, I noticed tons of phone yappers/holders - probably 80% were women under 40. Also saw a guy in an old GTI honk at a Lexus RX making a U-turn. The Lexus had the green and was making a legal/signed turn, VW was making a free right turn. Nothing looks stupider than honking when you're in the wrong, and VW guy looked pretty stupid. I shouted his error at him from the sidewalk.
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,118
    I flash my lights in CA. Never feared doing it either. Never been even remotely punished for it.

    I have resorted to honking at left lane campers as I pass them on the right. Probably 1% figure out why.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,118
    Two cars waiting until the last minute to change lanes.

    One is two lanes over and moving right to get into an exit ramp/lane at the very last minute. The other car is on the oncoming ramp/merging lane and trying to move left onto the freeway at the very last minute before they run out of room in front of the following exit ramp the other car is trying to merge onto.

    Who is in the wrong? Normally the vehicle on the freeway would have the right of way, but that is the right to the lane on the freeway, not the exit/merging lane/ramp.

    One car moves right, one car moves left, they sideswipe; who's at fault?
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Posts: 3,425
    The driver merging onto the freeway is obligated to yield to the other driver who has more equity in his position. Using the Left turn signal when merging does not trump the driver who is already there.
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,118
    edited June 2013
    To complicate matters, what if the car on the left wasn't "there" yet, and quickly and dangerously changed from TWO lanes over in order to cause the collision? You are supposed to change one lane at a time, so the "who got there first" question might be a tie in this situation.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    If a driver could have prevented the accident by driving in a prudent manner, he/she might be found at fault.

    Another factor here, which may or may not carry any weight in court, but should, is that the driver exiting had plenty of time to move into the exit lane. As you noted, he waited until the last second, then made a dangerous two-lane cut. The car entering the freeway had much less room to maneuver, compared to the exiting car.

    Also, how did the cars actually collide? If the car entering the freeway ran into the car exiting, or vice versa, it's more clear who is at fault.
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,118
    Also, how did the cars actually collide? If the car entering the freeway ran into the car exiting, or vice versa, it's more clear who is at fault.

    They actually didn't collide; both drivers were alert and managed to just have a close call.

    If they had been slow at the wheel they would have collided right at the middle of the first lane (not the exit/merging lane), and hard to say but perhaps driver to passenger door contact.

    As it was, the driver merging onto the freeway used the excess shoulder to get onto the freeway safely and speed up (a situation where braking would have been the worst reaction, but speeding up saved the day), the car exiting managed to exit, but had to hit the brakes and get behind then move right, forcing the tailgating truck behind them to slam the brakes too.

    I agree with your assertion that the exiting car has more time to make his maneuver than the merging car, which should be considered, but I know insurance companies don't think that way. Also, proving a driver was being prudent or not will prove nearly impossible without video tape.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    Not really. It's prudent, for example, to prepare to exit a freeway before the last second, to avoid exactly the kind of situation you described. It's reckless to wait until the last second, then cut across two lanes suddenly. It doesn't take a video tape to figure that out.
Sign In or Register to comment.