Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

1472474476477478

Comments

  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    danfromm said:

    andres3 said:

    How can you be so sure your going the limit; when is the last time you had your speedometer calibrated?

    GPS

    Would you bet your life on GPS accuracy for speed measurements?

    For example, someone could calculate shooting a .50 cal bullet just in front of and just behind your car moving at a certain speed, but if your wrong they are shooting at head level; would you play?
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • danfrommdanfromm Member Posts: 21

    Sometimes the GPS isn't as accurate as we think!

    Why do you think that? I ask because my GPS/speedo relationships are very stable. If either were erratic -- possible -- the relationships wouldn't be stable. More than one GPS, one of which occasionally gave bizarre altitude estimates -- would you believe > 13,000 feet in West Virginia -- but gave speeds that were consistent with speedo.

    Consistent means that at a speed -- pick any, and get it from the GPS -- the difference between GPS and speedo is quite stable. Very slow long-term drift (speedo gets faster relative to GPS) as the tires wear. Slow.
  • danfrommdanfromm Member Posts: 21
    andres3 said:



    Would you bet your life on GPS accuracy for speed measurements?

    For example, someone could calculate shooting a .50 cal bullet just in front of and just behind your car moving at a certain speed, but if your wrong they are shooting at head level; would you play?

    Eh? Wot? I bet my driver's license on it. That's enough gambling, thank you.

  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    Redneck considerations:
    DRIVING ETIQUETTE

    1.
    Dim your headlights for approaching vehicles, even if the gun is loaded, and the deer is in sight.

    2.
    When approaching a four-way stop, the vehicle with the largest tires always has the right of way.

    3.
    Never tow another car using panty hose and duct tape.

    4.
    When sending your wife/girlfriend down the road with a gas can, it is impolite to ask her to bring back beer.

    5.
    Never relieve yourself from a moving vehicle, especially when driving.

    6.
    Do not lay rubber while traveling in a funeral procession.

  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    euphonium said:

    drive'rs that impede the passing/fast/left lane needlessly. Remember the vehicle in the far left lane traveling at the speed limit is not impeding anybody driving within the limits of the speed limit law. No one is obligated to "get out of my way" to any speeder for when you do, you aid and abet his transgression.

    The NJ law (and what is posted on the signs on the highways) is "Keep Right Except to Pass." So the speed limit has absolutely no bearing on our particular law.

    I found a list by state. Interesting reading.

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S

  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    Yes, passing lane violators complaining about the speed limit being the ultimate high speed on the road need a reality check, and an appointment with a psychologist to help with the neurosis.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • fordgirl15fordgirl15 Member Posts: 90
    danfromm, the reason I say that GPS isn't always accurate is: if you get stopped doing what your GPS shows as 60 mph and the officer asks you what the hurry is what are you gonna say? This cud be an example of a dialogue between someone who got pulled over: Officer: gud afternoon sir. How are you? You: oh hi! I'm great. How about you? Officer: I'm gud. So what is the big hurry that you have to be driving 65 in a 55? You: WHAT?? My GPS shows that I was going 55? Officer: I'm sorry sir but I clocked you going 65. I'm sorry but I will have to give you a ticket. You: is there anyway at all that you cud give me a warning? Officer: I cud pry do that. I want you to know tht GPS isn't always accurate. Just like now. Sometimes even our radar in our cars aren't correct. I would recommend that instead of following what your GPS shows as the correct speed that you wud just look at your speedometer and set your cruise according to that instead. Now I may be off my horse a little bit. But if I was you I pry wudnt put all my trust in the GPS for speed limit. I don't know. Maybe if some of you have a better explanation or example go for it.
  • danfrommdanfromm Member Posts: 21
    One of you was confused or dishonest.
  • fordgirl15fordgirl15 Member Posts: 90
    Well I think the officers radar Is pretty accurate. I don't know much about police to be able to say that they keep their radar updated. Anyone else out there, help me out here! Am I right or wrong?
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290

    Well I think the officers radar Is pretty accurate. I don't know much about police to be able to say that they keep their radar updated. Anyone else out there, help me out here! Am I right or wrong?

    Delurking here for a moment, for measuring speed GPS is very accurate, with an accuracy between 0.1 to 0.5 MPH. So if you are doing a consistent speed GPS would be the most consistent way to measure your speed. If your speed changes it might take a second to compute your current speed, but overall it would be more accurate than radar. People have beaten speeding tickets using GPS data.

    As for speedometers, they are usually set to read high and there are many things that can cause variances in their reading (like tire size) and therefor are not as accurate as GPS.

    Radar needs to be routinely calibrated and stray radio signals, among other things, could give false readings.

    Back to lurking mode.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707
    euphonium said:

    You are correct when assuming the posted black & white speed limit is to be disregarded. However, the posted limit is the limit. When the limit is 55 - that's the limit and that's your limit. Nothing more should need to be said.

    You only use the passing lane to pass. If you cannot pass at the speed limit, what are you even doing in the passing lane?
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    On I-5 between LA & Canada the dense occupation of vehicles causes one to use all lanes none of which is honored as a passing lane. Vehicles don't avoid the phantom "passing lane" - they use it to just get there. Unless you experience it, you don't understand it.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    euphonium said:

    On I-5 between LA & Canada the dense occupation of vehicles causes one to use all lanes none of which is honored as a passing lane. Vehicles don't avoid the phantom "passing lane" - they use it to just get there. Unless you experience it, you don't understand it.

    The dense population of vehicles should still abide by lane rules, laws, courtesy, and discipline. I experience it every day, and that is no excuse for the transgression. Just because someone else does it, doesn't make it right to do it yourself; that's mob mentality.

    If a vehicle enters the passing lane, that vehicle should be passing a vehicle to its right, and if they are not doing that, they are a jackass. Someone (or a few vehicles) are responsible for the left lane ceasing to be the fastest lane on the freeway.

    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Experienced a case of one of my pet peeves today... I'm behind a CR-V and we're approaching an intersection controlled by lights. Two lanes, with a two-lane left turn lane at the intersection. Light is red, as is the left turn arrow. It's a left turn that's turn only on green arrow, and the arrow's controlled by sensors in the road, so no car in the left turn lane means no green arrow. I'm going to turn left, so I flick my turn signal on well in advance of the intersection, hoping the guy ahead of me will notice I want to get into the left turn lane before the light changes. Nope. He slows waaaay down far ahead of the light, likely coasting up to it. Of course, by the time I get into the left turn lane it's too late to trigger the green arrow. So I wait through an entire cycle.

    It's fine to coast up to a stop to save gas, and I do that myself all the time... when no one is behind me who might want to turn left or right! :@
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    edited September 2015
    I often experience that in lanes that are optional go straight or turn right. In NJ, we can turn on red unless posted otherwise. When approaching such an intersection at which I want to turn right, I signal way in advance so that anyone who may want to go straight can use the center lane rather than blocking the right lane. Of course, many many times, they block the right lane for those of us who could turn right on red rather than waiting.

    On the very rare occasion, I've been known to then move to the center lane and turn in front of that right-lane camper.

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S

  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,756
    edited September 2015
    qbrozen said:

    On the very rare occasion, I've been known to then move to the center lane and turn in front of that right-lane camper.

    Oh, so tempting!

    I try to do the same with regard to the lane courtesy if I receive input from drivers behind me. Most of the time, though, I'll see them flick on the signal close enough to the intersection that there's little I can do. Our lanes tend to be wide enough at the intersection that if I move far enough left and encroach a little on the crosswalk, drivers behind can slip through. Some will do it, many will not.

    You can always tell the folks who have a decent handle on the dimensions of their cars by whether or not they'll accept your courtesy in this way. :p

    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    And then to be behind that driver who doesn't realize their 6-foot wide car can fit through a 8-foot wide slot! UGH!

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S

  • fordgirl15fordgirl15 Member Posts: 90
    qbrozen, is that a legal thing to turn in front of a lane camper? I've had people put themselves in front of me like that that are going straight.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,756
    edited September 2015

    qbrozen, is that a legal thing to turn in front of a lane camper? I've had people put themselves in front of me like that that are going straight.

    That would be a "no," although it wouldn't be the first time that justice and the law didn't exactly align. ;)

    Well, to be more specific, I can't find that it is strictly coded (e.g., "illegal"), but I'm sure that it is inconsiderate enough that a LEO could apply code to one or more aspects of the overall scenario in order to apply a fine!

    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • fordgirl15fordgirl15 Member Posts: 90
    Lol! Ya that is true!
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Speaking of right turn on red, that's another of my pet peeves... that a lot of people don't realize that it's right turn on red AFTER STOPPING... and only if they have the right of way. The other day, I was turning left on a green arrow, and an old Stratus approached in the opposing right lane, slowed just a bit but didn't come close to stopping, then turned right--right into my path. I had to hit the brakes to avoid hitting him. I gave him a salute with my horn, and he glared at me and gave me an impolite hand gesture.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    backy said:

    Speaking of right turn on red, that's another of my pet peeves... that a lot of people don't realize that it's right turn on red AFTER STOPPING... and only if they have the right of way. The other day, I was turning left on a green arrow, and an old Stratus approached in the opposing right lane, slowed just a bit but didn't come close to stopping, then turned right--right into my path. I had to hit the brakes to avoid hitting him. I gave him a salute with my horn, and he glared at me and gave me an impolite hand gesture.

    Your problem is wholly and solely with the problem of taking your right of way away, and has nothing to do with the act of not stopping on a red for a right turn. Not yielding the right of way is a problem in any scenario in any situation every time, whereas stopping at a red light doesn't guarantee compliance with the other.

    The right of way is the key here. Stopping on right turns is pointless if it isn't required to make a safe turn; which it usually isn't.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Yeah, I forgot that the only traffic laws that mean anything to you are the 2 or 3 you happen to agree with.

    Not sure where you got the idea that a Stop light doesn't actually mean Stop, but "Stop if y'all feel like it." Stopping at the red light would have completely taken care of this situation, because had the other driver actually slowed and stopped, I would have already made my turn. Maybe that's why the law says to STOP on a Stop light (or Stop sign), not Stop only if you agree with that law--otherwise it's optional.
  • fordgirl15fordgirl15 Member Posts: 90
    I agree with you, backy. Some people are very adamant about the stop sign! In a small town bout 20 minutes away from us there is a four way stop. There is a house on the corner there and one day mom and I had went to elma for something. When we were coming up to the intersection we saw there was a hand painted sign that said stop ahead. There's also another sign that says stop means stop.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    backy said:

    Yeah, I forgot that the only traffic laws that mean anything to you are the 2 or 3 you happen to agree with.

    Not sure where you got the idea that a Stop light doesn't actually mean Stop, but "Stop if y'all feel like it." Stopping at the red light would have completely taken care of this situation, because had the other driver actually slowed and stopped, I would have already made my turn. Maybe that's why the law says to STOP on a Stop light (or Stop sign), not Stop only if you agree with that law--otherwise it's optional.

    Two can play at that game. What if you were there a few seconds later, and the timing was different. If they don't see you or just don't care about you, it won't matter if they stop or not if they take your right away and try to cause a collision.

    Yielding to traffic solves the problem 100%. There is no need to stop if you yield to traffic that has the right of way. End of story. Period. Exclamation point!

    Stopping doesn't keep people from moving forward again at inopportune moments. If an intersection has good visibility in all directions, slowing down for conditions provides plenty of time to assess the situation.

    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Fine. You don't like the law that says a Stop light/sign means Stop. What if I don't like the law that says traffic in the left lane should give way to faster moving traffic? What if I don't like minimum speed limit laws on freeways? Yes, two can play that game indeed.

    Here's one reason why stopping is a good idea: stopping gives more time for the driver to observe the intersection, looking for traffic and pedestrians. It can avoid the tragic consequences of, for example, a moving pedestrian aligning exactly in the car's blind spot as the car approaches the intersection. The driver won't see the pedestrian because they're obscured by the blind spot. If the vehicle stops, the driver will be able to observe the pedestrian moving out of the blind spot and into view. It would also allow the pedestrian to look the driver in the eyes to ensure that the driver sees the pedestrian.

    No, just slowing down does NOT give plenty of time to assess all situations. Since someone's health or life may depend on it, why not take a few more seconds out of your extremely important day and STOP THE CAR?
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    backy said:

    Fine. You don't like the law that says a Stop light/sign means Stop. What if I don't like the law that says traffic in the left lane should give way to faster moving traffic? What if I don't like minimum speed limit laws on freeways? Yes, two can play that game indeed.

    Here's one reason why stopping is a good idea: stopping gives more time for the driver to observe the intersection, looking for traffic and pedestrians. It can avoid the tragic consequences of, for example, a moving pedestrian aligning exactly in the car's blind spot as the car approaches the intersection. The driver won't see the pedestrian because they're obscured by the blind spot. If the vehicle stops, the driver will be able to observe the pedestrian moving out of the blind spot and into view. It would also allow the pedestrian to look the driver in the eyes to ensure that the driver sees the pedestrian.

    No, just slowing down does NOT give plenty of time to assess all situations. Since someone's health or life may depend on it, why not take a few more seconds out of your extremely important day and STOP THE CAR?

    It's not about not liking one law or another. It is about what is safe and what is not. It is not safe for people to camp in the left lane blocking and impeding faster traffic. It is not safe for people to go too slow on the freeway because speed differentials would become dangerous.

    You are arguing a moot point. Accidents caused during right turns on red lights is such an infinitesimally small number that it is obvious to anyone studying what causes accidents that it doesn't deserve any extra attention as compared to the bigger picture. It is not a real-world problem, and as you've noted, I'm not the only one ignoring the "stop" rule on red lights for right turns.

    Often, a driver doesn't need more time to observe an intersection. I can see from a mile away sometimes that there are no pedestrians at the next intersection. I can see that there are no pedestrians for miles in any direction at some intersections. At intersections where sight lines are reduced, most likely you are travelling slower to being with, so it is all about looking up, looking out, looking ahead, being situationally aware before the last second so you don't need extra seconds to assess the situation.

    The pedestrian can look into the eyes of a driver rolling 5 MPH or less through a right turn just as easily as a stopped vehicle by the way, and should do so!

    No one is saying a stop light or stop sign doesn't mean stop here. It just should mean "yield" for right turns, that's all. Also, it is safe to make a left turn onto a one way going left; no need to stop in that situation either.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    What is not safe about a vehicle traveling at the speed limit in the left lane? How does that impair safety at all? It impairs convenience of the drivers who wish to drive faster than the speed limit, obviously. But there is no adverse effect on safety. It only becomes unsafe if the people driving behind the car in the left lane make an unsafe maneuver, e.g. tailgating or unsafe passing. I am not advocating camping in the left lane. But your argument that it's unsafe in itself is invalid.

    You said, "Often, a driver doesn't need more time to observe an intersection." That's true. Usually, the person turning right on red without stopping won't cause an accident. It's the times they cause an accident - the exceptions - that are the problem.

    I'd like to know how you can tell a mile away that there's no pedestrians when driving in the city, as I was in the incident I talked about. You'd be doing well to see pedestrians 100 feet from that intersection. You'd be doing even better to see a runner or biker that far away.

    A pedestrian can not look into the eyes of a driver when the pedestrian is in the driver's blind spot, i.e. A pillar. I've seen it happen when a moving car's blind spot exactly lines up with the moving pedestrian, and the only way the driver will see the pedestrian is when they clear the blind spot--right before you hit them, if you're still moving.

    It's hilarious that you say "No one is saying a stop light or stop sign doesn't mean stop here", because that is exactly what you're saying. How many people must be injured or killed before ignoring a stop sign/light becomes a problem for you?

    And could you please answer my question: what is so important about a few seconds of your time that you can't stop on red before turning right (or left)?
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,756
    You guys are both diluting your arguments by responding to insignificant points in the comments.

    Andres is saying that blind adherence to law (e.g., "the letter of the law") does not de facto enhance safety. Backy saying that adhering to the intent of law does enhance safety. How are these incompatible statements? Let's take a look:

    Does one always need to stop to safely navigate an intersection (Andres' argument)? No. If one *does* stop, does this guarantee safe navigation? No. If one *does* stop *and* observes intersection conditions, is there a higher likelihood of safe navigation than if that same driver did not stop (Backy's argument)? Yes.

    Trying to argue your points by saying that you can judge an intersection a mile away or that camping a left lane does not reduce roadway safety is just dilution of the points you're actually trying to make.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707

    I agree with you, backy. Some people are very adamant about the stop sign! In a small town bout 20 minutes away from us there is a four way stop. There is a house on the corner there and one day mom and I had went to elma for something. When we were coming up to the intersection we saw there was a hand painted sign that said stop ahead. There's also another sign that says stop means stop.

    I thought STOP meant POTS?
  • fordgirl15fordgirl15 Member Posts: 90
    Lol! Good one! Maybe it does!:-)
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,756
    Hello, winter! Welcome back!

    Thank you for reminding me how incompetent so many drivers are, and encouraging them to drive in a manner that clogs the roads. :p
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    The Solomon curves proves that IF the average pace of traffic is higher than the speed limit, then by default camping in the left lane of the highway at the speed limit will be less safe and more accident prone. Speed differentials are dangerous.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    I honestly don't believe our stop on right turn at red light laws enhance safety anymore than yield on right turn at red light laws would. Even more so, with the way law enforcement operates, I guarantee you they are not writing up right turn violations to the red light "when hazards are created." If they are writing that kind of ticket, it is for revenue generation 99.99999999999999999999999999% of the time; almost always when no other car was present, because they can.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • fordgirl15fordgirl15 Member Posts: 90
    I would say that this argument needs to cease. We all know that stop means stop. We also know that the right turn on red is only after you have come to a complete stop. We all learned that in drivers ed I believe. We all know that the number on the black and white sign is the law. It was put there for a reason. And like someone said it is so we can be kept safe. I would say stop arguing and if still in doubt look up the law for your state. Every state is different. Just my thoughts and suggestions.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    I agree the black and white sign is the law, and it was put there for a reason, but that reason is solely policing for profit, and has nothing to do with safety. If it did, it would follow the 85th percentile convention. What they taught you in driver's Ed simply is teaching what they decided the law should be 50 years ago. Is there no room for advancement, improvement, and change?
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Stopping at a red light has nothing to do with safety?

    Does that mean stops at all Stop signs and Stop signals should be "at driver's discretion"? Oh, what a wonderful world THAT would be. NOT. :@

    Do you drive in urban traffic very often? Not the suburban roads of outer San Diego, but real urban-style roads? I doubt it, based on your disregard for basic traffic laws.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    backy said:

    Stopping at a red light has nothing to do with safety?

    Does that mean stops at all Stop signs and Stop signals should be "at driver's discretion"? Oh, what a wonderful world THAT would be. NOT. :@

    Do you drive in urban traffic very often? Not the suburban roads of outer San Diego, but real urban-style roads? I doubt it, based on your disregard for basic traffic laws.

    I think a large percentage of Stop signs could be safely changed to more appropriately used "Yield" signs. I'll stop short of saying the majority, but it could be true for the majority. It is probably pretty close to 50/50; yet I see 100 stop signs for every yield sign.

    I'll agree that the more "offensive" Stop signs occur in suburban areas. I'm less bothered by them in urban areas.

    And going back to why driving slow in the left lane is dangerous, it is because people will drive a speed comfortable to them regardless of what the speed limit is. If they are impeded in the left/passing lanes then they will be forced to pass on the right, creating even larger speed discrepancies and differences in traffic far more than necessary if people would just observe proper lane driving techniques.

    I've done real-world experiments and this holds true for most left lane campers as well. If you out left lane camp a camper by slowing down below their particular already slow "comfortable speed," more often than not they will execute a pass on the right; just natural human nature. They particularly don't like swallowing their own medicine; I've observed.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    backy said:

    Stopping at a red light has nothing to do with safety?

    Does that mean stops at all Stop signs and Stop signals should be "at driver's discretion"? Oh, what a wonderful world THAT would be. NOT. :@

    Do you drive in urban traffic very often? Not the suburban roads of outer San Diego, but real urban-style roads? I doubt it, based on your disregard for basic traffic laws.

    I am going to weigh in on this, stopping at a red light prior to turning right is a matter of safety. I know of stop lights where you can see cross traffic for a considerable distance before you come to the intersection and where there is not much going on at the intersection, but those are in the minority. Most intersections with traffic lights are in congested areas where there is limited sight lines and a lot of things going on at an intersection. In those cases it is nearly impossible (if not outright impossible) to properly assess the situation in the short time that a rolling stop provides.

    It takes more than a split second to properly assess the speed of traffic, your brain is going to take longer to register a motorcycle than a car and even longer to register a bicycle. Not to mention what pedestrians are doing around that intersection. Or say you approach the intersection, look for cross traffic and just roll through not realizing that oncoming traffic now has a green light?

    it's just that at the majority of intersections with traffic lights there is just to much going on to make those judgements quickly.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    andres3 said:


    I think a large percentage of Stop signs could be safely changed to more appropriately used "Yield" signs. I'll stop short of saying the majority, but it could be true for the majority. It is probably pretty close to 50/50; yet I see 100 stop signs for every yield sign.

    Actually you would be wrong, changing most of those stops signs to yield would not make it safer, but not for the reasons you are thinking of. Most stop signs are on roads that are not major thoroughfares and while reducing the number of stop signs would make traveling through residential and industrial areas faster they are there for a reason. City planners and traffic engineers use them as a tool to discourage people from cutting trough residential and industrial areas to avoid traffic and traffic signals. Keeping traffic from cutting through a residential area reduces traffic in that area which makes it safer for traffic that originates or terminates in that area and for pedestrians and others who are there.

    This is also a reason why roads in residential areas twist and turn and sometimes en with no reason and why you have no right turn between certain hours signs on heavily traveled roads.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • fordgirl15fordgirl15 Member Posts: 90
    Going back to the discussion of right turn on red- I talked to my cousin who is a police officer and this is what he said. He said you can only do a right turn on red AFTER you have come to a complete stop. After you have come to a complete stop and no one is coming then you can go. Otherwise if you don't stop then he said that you can be stopped. So for those of you that still want to argue the point of just slowing down and not stopping before turning on red, I wud highly recommend that you COME TO A COMPLETE STOP unless you want a ticket.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,756
    Thanks, fordgirl. I think we are all familiar with and on board with that.

    The discussion here centered around the safety aspect of stopping vs. not stopping and, by extension, the level of acceptable risk associated therein.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729

    andres3 said:


    I think a large percentage of Stop signs could be safely changed to more appropriately used "Yield" signs. I'll stop short of saying the majority, but it could be true for the majority. It is probably pretty close to 50/50; yet I see 100 stop signs for every yield sign.

    Actually you would be wrong, changing most of those stops signs to yield would not make it safer, but not for the reasons you are thinking of. Most stop signs are on roads that are not major thoroughfares and while reducing the number of stop signs would make traveling through residential and industrial areas faster they are there for a reason. City planners and traffic engineers use them as a tool to discourage people from cutting trough residential and industrial areas to avoid traffic and traffic signals. Keeping traffic from cutting through a residential area reduces traffic in that area which makes it safer for traffic that originates or terminates in that area and for pedestrians and others who are there.

    This is also a reason why roads in residential areas twist and turn and sometimes en with no reason and why you have no right turn between certain hours signs on heavily traveled roads.
    So in other words they add stop signs not for safety reasons but to cause traffic and congestion by slowing cars down. Thanks for making my point. I love it when your arguments backfire.

    Reducing traffic might be the intent, but the results show these dumb ideas from ill-informed so-called "traffic city planners" often backfire, resulting in additional congestion, traffic, and hazards. The aim of traffic measures shouldn't be to slow people down and cause congestion, it should be for maximum safety and minimum travel times.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729

    backy said:

    Stopping at a red light has nothing to do with safety?

    Does that mean stops at all Stop signs and Stop signals should be "at driver's discretion"? Oh, what a wonderful world THAT would be. NOT. :@

    Do you drive in urban traffic very often? Not the suburban roads of outer San Diego, but real urban-style roads? I doubt it, based on your disregard for basic traffic laws.

    I am going to weigh in on this, stopping at a red light prior to turning right is a matter of safety. I know of stop lights where you can see cross traffic for a considerable distance before you come to the intersection and where there is not much going on at the intersection, but those are in the minority. Most intersections with traffic lights are in congested areas where there is limited sight lines and a lot of things going on at an intersection. In those cases it is nearly impossible (if not outright impossible) to properly assess the situation in the short time that a rolling stop provides.

    It takes more than a split second to properly assess the speed of traffic, your brain is going to take longer to register a motorcycle than a car and even longer to register a bicycle. Not to mention what pedestrians are doing around that intersection. Or say you approach the intersection, look for cross traffic and just roll through not realizing that oncoming traffic now has a green light?

    it's just that at the majority of intersections with traffic lights there is just to much going on to make those judgements quickly.
    Some people's brains operate at a faster CPU clock speed than others. Some work with a Pentium, some have an I-Core 7. Some are stuck with a 486. If you are working with a 486 then you may need to stop to fully assess a situation at a typical intersection. :laughing:
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729

    Going back to the discussion of right turn on red- I talked to my cousin who is a police officer and this is what he said. He said you can only do a right turn on red AFTER you have come to a complete stop. After you have come to a complete stop and no one is coming then you can go. Otherwise if you don't stop then he said that you can be stopped. So for those of you that still want to argue the point of just slowing down and not stopping before turning on red, I wud highly recommend that you COME TO A COMPLETE STOP unless you want a ticket.

    No one is arguing the law as written. Yes, you will get a ticket, serves my point that it's solely a money-maker and has nothing to do with safety. Why don't you ask your cousin how many accidents have been directly attributed to someone that ran a red light for a right turn at under 5 MPH. If he answers anything other than it is extremely rare ask him to prove it with the police reports of said accidents.

    Whenever I've pulled a traffic & engineering survey on a highly overly enforced section of road (hence why I had to pull a survey because I had a ticket), it turns out that the road is 6 to 8 times safer than a typical roadway. Sure doesn't give the Police Officer's much credibility when they say they've had "issues and accidents" by people doing what your doing yet the statistics don't back it.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    andres3 said:


    So in other words they add stop signs not for safety reasons but to cause traffic and congestion by slowing cars down. Thanks for making my point. I love it when your arguments backfire.

    Logic doesn't seem to be your strong suit, how can "It's for safety reasons" be in other words "not for safety reasons"? It's for safety reasons as it discourages people from cutting through residential areas
    andres3 said:

    Reducing traffic might be the intent, but the results show these dumb ideas from ill-informed so-called "traffic city planners" often backfire, resulting in additional congestion, traffic, and hazards. The aim of traffic measures shouldn't be to slow people down and cause congestion, it should be for maximum safety and minimum travel times.

    You must not have read what I posted, it's not to reduce traffic but to keep it on the main thoroughfares where it belongs. It increases safety in these residential areas by keeping the roads in those areas clear of excessive traffic by keeping it where it belongs. Or do you like having an endless string of cars racing past your house all morning?

    those you call ill informed so called "traffic city planners" are not ill informed, but I do strongly suspect you might be. This does greatly increase safety in residential areas and adds very little in the way of congestion on the main thoroughfares that are designed to handle the large volumes of traffic.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    andres3 said:

    backy said:

    Stopping at a red light has nothing to do with safety?

    Does that mean stops at all Stop signs and Stop signals should be "at driver's discretion"? Oh, what a wonderful world THAT would be. NOT. :@

    Do you drive in urban traffic very often? Not the suburban roads of outer San Diego, but real urban-style roads? I doubt it, based on your disregard for basic traffic laws.

    I am going to weigh in on this, stopping at a red light prior to turning right is a matter of safety. I know of stop lights where you can see cross traffic for a considerable distance before you come to the intersection and where there is not much going on at the intersection, but those are in the minority. Most intersections with traffic lights are in congested areas where there is limited sight lines and a lot of things going on at an intersection. In those cases it is nearly impossible (if not outright impossible) to properly assess the situation in the short time that a rolling stop provides.

    It takes more than a split second to properly assess the speed of traffic, your brain is going to take longer to register a motorcycle than a car and even longer to register a bicycle. Not to mention what pedestrians are doing around that intersection. Or say you approach the intersection, look for cross traffic and just roll through not realizing that oncoming traffic now has a green light?

    it's just that at the majority of intersections with traffic lights there is just to much going on to make those judgements quickly.
    Some people's brains operate at a faster CPU clock speed than others. Some work with a Pentium, some have an I-Core 7. Some are stuck with a 486. If you are working with a 486 then you may need to stop to fully assess a situation at a typical intersection. :laughing:
    Actually unless the person is suffering from age and/or a decease that affects the brains functions everyones brains operate at approximately the same "clock speed". So I state again it is almost, if not outright impossible to assess the information that is at a busy intersection in a crowded urban setting. The only safe option is to stop.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729

    andres3 said:

    backy said:

    Stopping at a red light has nothing to do with safety?

    Does that mean stops at all Stop signs and Stop signals should be "at driver's discretion"? Oh, what a wonderful world THAT would be. NOT. :@

    Do you drive in urban traffic very often? Not the suburban roads of outer San Diego, but real urban-style roads? I doubt it, based on your disregard for basic traffic laws.

    I am going to weigh in on this, stopping at a red light prior to turning right is a matter of safety. I know of stop lights where you can see cross traffic for a considerable distance before you come to the intersection and where there is not much going on at the intersection, but those are in the minority. Most intersections with traffic lights are in congested areas where there is limited sight lines and a lot of things going on at an intersection. In those cases it is nearly impossible (if not outright impossible) to properly assess the situation in the short time that a rolling stop provides.

    It takes more than a split second to properly assess the speed of traffic, your brain is going to take longer to register a motorcycle than a car and even longer to register a bicycle. Not to mention what pedestrians are doing around that intersection. Or say you approach the intersection, look for cross traffic and just roll through not realizing that oncoming traffic now has a green light?

    it's just that at the majority of intersections with traffic lights there is just to much going on to make those judgements quickly.
    Some people's brains operate at a faster CPU clock speed than others. Some work with a Pentium, some have an I-Core 7. Some are stuck with a 486. If you are working with a 486 then you may need to stop to fully assess a situation at a typical intersection. :laughing:
    Actually unless the person is suffering from age and/or a decease that affects the brains functions everyones brains operate at approximately the same "clock speed". So I state again it is almost, if not outright impossible to assess the information that is at a busy intersection in a crowded urban setting. The only safe option is to stop.
    So what explain's intelligence, IQ, and fast reflexes? Why are some athlete's quicker and faster-reacting than others? Some race car driver's are superior to others. Is it just practice and experience? Seems you are eliminating natural talent as a factor. Works for most sports for that matter.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729

    andres3 said:


    So in other words they add stop signs not for safety reasons but to cause traffic and congestion by slowing cars down. Thanks for making my point. I love it when your arguments backfire.

    Logic doesn't seem to be your strong suit, how can "It's for safety reasons" be in other words "not for safety reasons"? It's for safety reasons as it discourages people from cutting through residential areas

    Cutting through residential areas doesn't inherently increase safety. It might reduce the number of accidents, but not the number of accidents per mile travelled. You are simply making one street less active while making another more active ; I would NOT use the word "safety", or more or less safe in this manner or matter.
    andres3 said:

    Reducing traffic might be the intent, but the results show these dumb ideas from ill-informed so-called "traffic city planners" often backfire, resulting in additional congestion, traffic, and hazards. The aim of traffic measures shouldn't be to slow people down and cause congestion, it should be for maximum safety and minimum travel times.

    You must not have read what I posted, it's not to reduce traffic but to keep it on the main thoroughfares where it belongs. It increases safety in these residential areas by keeping the roads in those areas clear of excessive traffic by keeping it where it belongs. Or do you like having an endless string of cars racing past your house all morning?

    those you call ill informed so called "traffic city planners" are not ill informed, but I do strongly suspect you might be. This does greatly increase safety in residential areas and adds very little in the way of congestion on the main thoroughfares that are designed to handle the large volumes of traffic.
    You are merely moving one hazard to another area. Yes, high speed highways are generally "safer" than low speed streets. However, the stop signs do not increase safety. They do however, increase congestion which you have called a hazard, increase smog & pollution, increase engine and brake wear, and increase fuel consumption.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    The purpose of a Stop sign should be related to safety reasons, not for the purpose of slowing cars down, or deterring travel on a road my taxes have already paid for the installation of, including paving.

    No one wants an endless line of cars in front of there house OR on the freeways. My suggestion is don't buy that house in the first place!
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Sign In or Register to comment.