Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

xwesx · October 2019

Yesterday morning's road rager. /sigh

Actual event is between 1:55 and 3:10; I included the length I did to provide context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nffVr01J2GU

Below is the text I wrote up in another thread yesterday after the event....

I also had a road rager go off on me this morning. That was fun. Driving in the mid-dawn, no lights, tailgating. He decided that me driving in the left lane on a busy street-level artery at five over the limit was not okay. He swings around me on the right, cuts off car behind and me as well, then swings back to the right lane at the light ahead because there were fewer cars there. Somehow stalls his old Tahoe (late 90s vintage), so the light turns green and everyone goes... guy just sits there. Then, he gets it started, flys along the road again cutting off cars as he weaves back up to my tail, then swings around me in the left turn lane as I am slowing at the next red light, slams on his brakes, skids about 50% in to the intersection only partly back in the left lane (just ahead of me), gets out of his car yelling profanities.... I just smiled and shook my head in pity. Guy is literally having a full-on tantrum.

He finally gets back in his vehicle before the light turns green and peels away. Sadly, he didn't crash and kill himself (or, thankfully, anyone else) that I saw, but he was going insanely fast at that point and was gone in no time. Happily, my daughter was reading in the back and didn't notice any of this going on (Yay for Q7 having excellent sound insulation!).

I'm having a great day though, so I decided to extend a little grace to this doofus and not call him in. Probably should have, but so it goes. I might have his little rant on dash cam though. LOL.

andres3 · November 2019

xwesx said:
Agreed. Pulling into the intersection to wait for traffic to clear for a left turn is the proper way to do it. Of course, those that dally out there to make the turn well after the light change are certainly inconsiderate, they still have right of way because of their position (e.g., traffic in the intersection has right of way).

It's not about "beating the red light." Yes, you are legally in the intersection if the light was yellow upon entering the intersection. I'm talking about deliberately "blocking an intersection." Two different laws.

It's a specific VC in CA, and that makes it illegal. I'm not talking about left turns, because outside of LA in CA, you don't have unprotected left turns for the most part. I'm talking about protected left turns, such as onto a freeway on-ramp. You can see the onramp is backed up, yet they make the turn anyway, blocking 2 or even 3 lanes of straight-through traffic!!!!!

andres3 · November 2019

xwesx said:
Yesterday morning's road rager. /sigh

Actual event is between 1:55 and 3:10; I included the length I did to provide context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nffVr01J2GU

Below is the text I wrote up in another thread yesterday after the event....

I also had a road rager go off on me this morning. That was fun. Driving in the mid-dawn, no lights, tailgating. He decided that me driving in the left lane on a busy street-level artery at five over the limit was not okay. He swings around me on the right, cuts off car behind and me as well, then swings back to the right lane at the light ahead because there were fewer cars there. Somehow stalls his old Tahoe (late 90s vintage), so the light turns green and everyone goes... guy just sits there. Then, he gets it started, flys along the road again cutting off cars as he weaves back up to my tail, then swings around me in the left turn lane as I am slowing at the next red light, slams on his brakes, skids about 50% in to the intersection only partly back in the left lane (just ahead of me), gets out of his car yelling profanities.... I just smiled and shook my head in pity. Guy is literally having a full-on tantrum.

He finally gets back in his vehicle before the light turns green and peels away. Sadly, he didn't crash and kill himself (or, thankfully, anyone else) that I saw, but he was going insanely fast at that point and was gone in no time. Happily, my daughter was reading in the back and didn't notice any of this going on (Yay for Q7 having excellent sound insulation!).

I'm having a great day though, so I decided to extend a little grace to this doofus and not call him in. Probably should have, but so it goes. I might have his little rant on dash cam though. LOL.

The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.

xwesx · November 2019

andres3 said:
It's not about "beating the red light." Yes, you are legally in the intersection if the light was yellow upon entering the intersection. I'm talking about deliberately "blocking an intersection." Two different laws.

It's a specific VC in CA, and that makes it illegal. I'm not talking about left turns, because outside of LA in CA, you don't have unprotected left turns for the most part. I'm talking about protected left turns, such as onto a freeway on-ramp. You can see the onramp is backed up, yet they make the turn anyway, blocking 2 or even 3 lanes of straight-through traffic!!!!!

Oh, yeah, I got you. Yes, they are in the wrong, for sure. And, this is always incredibly inconsiderate regardless of law.

xwesx · November 2019

andres3 said:

The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.

I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.

snakeweasel · November 2019

xwesx said:

andres3 said:

The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.
I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.

I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.

andres3 · November 2019

snakeweasel said:

xwesx said:

andres3 said:

The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.
I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.

Of course I disagree with you! Big surprise.

There was CLEARLY nothing to brake for, and that equals a brake check, regardless of the pressure on the brake.

Maybe the angle of the camera makes the distance seem larger than it is to the stopped traffic ahead, but the release of the brake after 1 second indicates that's not a legitimate excuse for the brake check.

If he was "slowing down for the intersectiion" he'd be applying a constant unlifted pressure. Also, the van appears to have been going slow, so "slowing down" doesn't appear necessary at that distance. I think the fact they IMMEDIATELY lifted off the brake as they were getting passed PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

What's possible, but not proven is:

1. They wanted to speed up to prevent a pass (by racing the truck).

xwesx · November 2019

You have a lot more confidence in general driving competence than is warranted. Today, I drove to work at a probable average speed of 30 mph because of a few inches of snow, with drivers generally just wandering all over the road wherever there seemed like a clearer spot (making any sort of dual lane use nearly impossible in many places). So, thinking that driving slowly equals no need to tap brakes is not likely a thought passing through that van driver's mind.

At any rate, the manchild chose his own actions that morning. Had he not gone apeshit and tried to turn the morning commute into a slalom event, the mundane-ness of other drivers would have never played into the traffic considerations at all. Whatever triggered him were machinations of his own mind; they had nothing at all to do with reality.

snakeweasel · November 2019

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

xwesx said:

andres3 said:

The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.
I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.
Of course I disagree with you! Big surprise.

There was CLEARLY nothing to brake for, and that equals a brake check, regardless of the pressure on the brake.

Maybe the angle of the camera makes the distance seem larger than it is to the stopped traffic ahead, but the release of the brake after 1 second indicates that's not a legitimate excuse for the brake check.

If he was "slowing down for the intersectiion" he'd be applying a constant unlifted pressure. Also, the van appears to have been going slow, so "slowing down" doesn't appear necessary at that distance. I think the fact they IMMEDIATELY lifted off the brake as they were getting passed PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

What's possible, but not proven is:

1. They wanted to speed up to prevent a pass (by racing the truck).

Unfortunately neither you nor I are able to read minds so we really cant say what he was thinking. They other issue is that the camera doesnt show what exactly the driver of the SUV was seeing when he applied the brakes. So we cannot know why he used his brakes at that particular time. So with any lack of a quick stop and/or nose dipping associated with hard braking I have to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this was not an instance of brake checking.

andres3 · November 2019

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

xwesx said:

andres3 said:

The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.
I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.
Of course I disagree with you! Big surprise.

There was CLEARLY nothing to brake for, and that equals a brake check, regardless of the pressure on the brake.

Maybe the angle of the camera makes the distance seem larger than it is to the stopped traffic ahead, but the release of the brake after 1 second indicates that's not a legitimate excuse for the brake check.

If he was "slowing down for the intersectiion" he'd be applying a constant unlifted pressure. Also, the van appears to have been going slow, so "slowing down" doesn't appear necessary at that distance. I think the fact they IMMEDIATELY lifted off the brake as they were getting passed PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

What's possible, but not proven is:

1. They wanted to speed up to prevent a pass (by racing the truck).

Unfortunately neither you nor I are able to read minds so we really cant say what he was thinking. They other issue is that the camera doesnt show what exactly the driver of the SUV was seeing when he applied the brakes. So we cannot know why he used his brakes at that particular time. So with any lack of a quick stop and/or nose dipping associated with hard braking I have to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this was not an instance of brake checking.

The camera provides many good frames of photography to conclusively show what the driver was seeing before and after the braking lights were activated. It might not be the exact point of view, but it's a pretty darn good angle.

While we don't know exactly what the driver was thinking, at best, these brakes were applied due to a lack of any thinking whatsoever.

andres3 · November 2019

xwesx said:
You have a lot more confidence in general driving competence than is warranted. Today, I drove to work at a probable average speed of 30 mph because of a few inches of snow, with drivers generally just wandering all over the road wherever there seemed like a clearer spot (making any sort of dual lane use nearly impossible in many places). So, thinking that driving slowly equals no need to tap brakes is not likely a thought passing through that van driver's mind.

At any rate, the manchild chose his own actions that morning. Had he not gone apeshit and tried to turn the morning commute into a slalom event, the mundane-ness of other drivers would have never played into the traffic considerations at all. Whatever triggered him were machinations of his own mind; they had nothing at all to do with reality.

No doubt, a lack of thinking is very possible from that van driver.

Still, one would expect more brake tapping in snow than in the weather conditions actively and currently shown in the video. For me, brake tapping is a sign of ineptitude.

xwesx · November 2019

andres3 said:
Still, one would expect more brake tapping in snow than in the weather conditions actively and currently shown in the video. For me, brake tapping is a sign of ineptitude.

Okay, but how does that come anywhere near relating to why the guy triggered on *me*? He was clearly enraged *at me* when he got out of his car. He was literally jumping up and down, swearing the spectrum, and actively attempting to bait me into getting out of my vehicle. It wasn't a long time out of the car, maybe 3-5 seconds, but he must have said 100 words (mostly swearing) in that time, colorful hand gestures, the works. It was truly an amusing and impressive display. Once inside his vehicle, he twisted around to continue his (now silent) tirade for several more seconds before settling in to chirp away from the light.

I guess I deserved it because I was the one driving the Audi? LOL

snakeweasel · November 2019

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

xwesx said:

andres3 said:

The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.
I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.
Of course I disagree with you! Big surprise.

There was CLEARLY nothing to brake for, and that equals a brake check, regardless of the pressure on the brake.

Maybe the angle of the camera makes the distance seem larger than it is to the stopped traffic ahead, but the release of the brake after 1 second indicates that's not a legitimate excuse for the brake check.

If he was "slowing down for the intersectiion" he'd be applying a constant unlifted pressure. Also, the van appears to have been going slow, so "slowing down" doesn't appear necessary at that distance. I think the fact they IMMEDIATELY lifted off the brake as they were getting passed PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

What's possible, but not proven is:

1. They wanted to speed up to prevent a pass (by racing the truck).

Unfortunately neither you nor I are able to read minds so we really cant say what he was thinking. They other issue is that the camera doesnt show what exactly the driver of the SUV was seeing when he applied the brakes. So we cannot know why he used his brakes at that particular time. So with any lack of a quick stop and/or nose dipping associated with hard braking I have to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this was not an instance of brake checking.
The camera provides many good frames of photography to conclusively show what the driver was seeing before and after the braking lights were activated. It might not be the exact point of view, but it's a pretty darn good angle.

While we don't know exactly what the driver was thinking, at best, these brakes were applied due to a lack of any thinking whatsoever.

Well unless the camera was an X-ray camera and could see through the vehicle in question then we conclusively cannot show what the driver was seeing as their vehicle was blocking part of the cameras view. Especially what was directly in front of and to the drivers right.

andres3 · November 2019

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

xwesx said:

andres3 said:

The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.
I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.
Of course I disagree with you! Big surprise.

There was CLEARLY nothing to brake for, and that equals a brake check, regardless of the pressure on the brake.

Maybe the angle of the camera makes the distance seem larger than it is to the stopped traffic ahead, but the release of the brake after 1 second indicates that's not a legitimate excuse for the brake check.

If he was "slowing down for the intersectiion" he'd be applying a constant unlifted pressure. Also, the van appears to have been going slow, so "slowing down" doesn't appear necessary at that distance. I think the fact they IMMEDIATELY lifted off the brake as they were getting passed PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

What's possible, but not proven is:

1. They wanted to speed up to prevent a pass (by racing the truck).

Unfortunately neither you nor I are able to read minds so we really cant say what he was thinking. They other issue is that the camera doesnt show what exactly the driver of the SUV was seeing when he applied the brakes. So we cannot know why he used his brakes at that particular time. So with any lack of a quick stop and/or nose dipping associated with hard braking I have to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this was not an instance of brake checking.
The camera provides many good frames of photography to conclusively show what the driver was seeing before and after the braking lights were activated. It might not be the exact point of view, but it's a pretty darn good angle.

While we don't know exactly what the driver was thinking, at best, these brakes were applied due to a lack of any thinking whatsoever.
Well unless the camera was an X-ray camera and could see through the vehicle in question then we conclusively cannot show what the driver was seeing as their vehicle was blocking part of the cameras view. Especially what was directly in front of and to the drivers right.

You have examples of things that can use "teleport" technology where they don't appear near or adjacent seconds earlier or after, but might have existed in the middle of the time continuum?

andres3 · November 2019

xwesx said:

andres3 said:
Still, one would expect more brake tapping in snow than in the weather conditions actively and currently shown in the video. For me, brake tapping is a sign of ineptitude.
Okay, but how does that come anywhere near relating to why the guy triggered on *me*? He was clearly enraged *at me* when he got out of his car. He was literally jumping up and down, swearing the spectrum, and actively attempting to bait me into getting out of my vehicle. It wasn't a long time out of the car, maybe 3-5 seconds, but he must have said 100 words (mostly swearing) in that time, colorful hand gestures, the works. It was truly an amusing and impressive display. Once inside his vehicle, he twisted around to continue his (now silent) tirade for several more seconds before settling in to chirp away from the light.

I guess I deserved it because I was the one driving the Audi? LOL

He might be triggered by Audi's, because they are better vehicles than what he was driving. My guess is he was already triggered by someone (or multiple someones) previously in his commute, and he was looking for someone to blame or push him over the ledge he was already leaning off of.

snakeweasel · November 2019

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

xwesx said:

andres3 said:

The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.
I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.
Of course I disagree with you! Big surprise.

There was CLEARLY nothing to brake for, and that equals a brake check, regardless of the pressure on the brake.

Maybe the angle of the camera makes the distance seem larger than it is to the stopped traffic ahead, but the release of the brake after 1 second indicates that's not a legitimate excuse for the brake check.

If he was "slowing down for the intersectiion" he'd be applying a constant unlifted pressure. Also, the van appears to have been going slow, so "slowing down" doesn't appear necessary at that distance. I think the fact they IMMEDIATELY lifted off the brake as they were getting passed PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

What's possible, but not proven is:

1. They wanted to speed up to prevent a pass (by racing the truck).

Unfortunately neither you nor I are able to read minds so we really cant say what he was thinking. They other issue is that the camera doesnt show what exactly the driver of the SUV was seeing when he applied the brakes. So we cannot know why he used his brakes at that particular time. So with any lack of a quick stop and/or nose dipping associated with hard braking I have to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this was not an instance of brake checking.
The camera provides many good frames of photography to conclusively show what the driver was seeing before and after the braking lights were activated. It might not be the exact point of view, but it's a pretty darn good angle.

While we don't know exactly what the driver was thinking, at best, these brakes were applied due to a lack of any thinking whatsoever.
Well unless the camera was an X-ray camera and could see through the vehicle in question then we conclusively cannot show what the driver was seeing as their vehicle was blocking part of the cameras view. Especially what was directly in front of and to the drivers right.
You have examples of things that can use "teleport" technology where they don't appear near or adjacent seconds earlier or after, but might have existed in the middle of the time continuum?

What does that have to do with the fact that the camera is at a different viewing angle and distance than the driver and that the drivers vehicle blocks a decent portion of the cameras view?

andres3 · November 2019

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

xwesx said:

andres3 said:

The van that brake checks them at 2:09- 2:10 was the worst driver of them all. What the hell was that?

I'd of called them in, LOL. That probably made their tantrum 100X worse.
I don't think that was a brake check. At least, it didn't feel that way to me at the time. The wide angle of the camera doesn't really do justice to the closeness of everything (e.g., distance is exaggerated here). If I recall correctly, that driver moved into the right turn lane at the intersection there, and that lane was coming up quickly at that point. Either way, traffic at the intersection was stopped ahead, so we were all slowing down about that time... except Mr. Tantrum. He put a LOT of faith in that old rig's brakes that morning.
I have to agree with you that it wasn't a brake check. While hard to tell it does look like a gradual application of the brakes with no real nose dipping you would associate with a brake check.
Of course I disagree with you! Big surprise.

There was CLEARLY nothing to brake for, and that equals a brake check, regardless of the pressure on the brake.

Maybe the angle of the camera makes the distance seem larger than it is to the stopped traffic ahead, but the release of the brake after 1 second indicates that's not a legitimate excuse for the brake check.

If he was "slowing down for the intersectiion" he'd be applying a constant unlifted pressure. Also, the van appears to have been going slow, so "slowing down" doesn't appear necessary at that distance. I think the fact they IMMEDIATELY lifted off the brake as they were getting passed PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

What's possible, but not proven is:

1. They wanted to speed up to prevent a pass (by racing the truck).

Unfortunately neither you nor I are able to read minds so we really cant say what he was thinking. They other issue is that the camera doesnt show what exactly the driver of the SUV was seeing when he applied the brakes. So we cannot know why he used his brakes at that particular time. So with any lack of a quick stop and/or nose dipping associated with hard braking I have to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this was not an instance of brake checking.
The camera provides many good frames of photography to conclusively show what the driver was seeing before and after the braking lights were activated. It might not be the exact point of view, but it's a pretty darn good angle.

While we don't know exactly what the driver was thinking, at best, these brakes were applied due to a lack of any thinking whatsoever.
Well unless the camera was an X-ray camera and could see through the vehicle in question then we conclusively cannot show what the driver was seeing as their vehicle was blocking part of the cameras view. Especially what was directly in front of and to the drivers right.
You have examples of things that can use "teleport" technology where they don't appear near or adjacent seconds earlier or after, but might have existed in the middle of the time continuum?
What does that have to do with the fact that the camera is at a different viewing angle and distance than the driver and that the drivers vehicle blocks a decent portion of the cameras view?

My position is you can see the obstructed view either before or after (or both) the obstruction. Since it is a moving object, the obstructed view changes and moves.

Objects don't just appear out of "nowhere."

stickguy · November 2019

my son texted this evening that he came within inches of of T-boning a black minivan with no lights that decided to run a red light in front of him. Light had changed, but the minivan guy did not seem to care.

xwesx · November 2019

stickguy said:
my son texted this evening that he came within inches of of T-boning a black minivan with no lights that decided to run a red light in front of him. Light had changed, but the minivan guy did not seem to care.

I've seen a few vehicles in the last couple of days that were driving along in the darkness with no lights at all. In fresh, blowing snow (and nearly invisible to anyone else on the road). Some sort of insanity out there.

andres3 · December 2019

A garbage truck decided to rearend someone and catch fire on the 52East and create a log jam just at rush hour of course, Monday afternoon. Doubled my commute time!

In other news, there might be an opening for a Garbage truck driver next week.

snakeweasel · December 2019

andres3 said:
A garbage truck decided to rearend someone and catch fire on the 52East and create a log jam just at rush hour of course, Monday afternoon. Doubled my commute time!

In other news, there might be an opening for a Garbage truck driver next week.

Well then good luck on your job interview.

ronsteve · December 2019

As we have been near maximum evening/prevening darkness the last couple weeks, I have noticed way too many people driving with unnecessary high beams. It's frikkin blinding!

xwesx · December 2019

ronsteve said:
As we have been near maximum evening/prevening darkness the last couple weeks, I have noticed way too many people driving with unnecessary high beams. It's frikkin blinding!

A never-ending annoyance. It is amazing how many clueless are out there.

imidazol97 · December 2019

Some of those headlights that spray extra bright white light everywhere are the Sylvania Silverstar Ultras, I think. They keep advertising here to get people to replace their headlights. Besides the extra bright beams from the HID headlamps, they at least cut off at normal oncoming angles. The silverstars just blast extra bright light everywhere--high or low. They show up in vehicles that are several years old, so I know they're not HID or newer headlamps.

xwesx · December 2019

HID show up in very unlikely models, and they are definitely the worst offenders. It's more an issue of the owners cheaping out and, frankly, just not caring about the impact on other drivers, than anything wrong with the HID kits themselves. They do require proper installation to operate in a fashion compatible with other road users.

Silverstars are terrible in terms of longevity. I used them for a while in my old Escort, and they were very much better than the "OEM" dim yellow bulbs, but they tended to burn out every three months or so. I ended up putting in new light housings and Wagner TruView bulbs, and this was a far superior solution. Better lighting, much better longevity.

imidazol97 · December 2019

I left out a category of people who retrofit HID or Halogen bulbs into their vehicle without using a proper housing that is engineered to control the light better than the original, lower-wattage lamp housings.

This is especially popular here with Jeep owners. Many of whom have the required 3 foot long LED light bar on top of the cab in case they want to really blind everyone.

andres3 · December 2019

A Prius decided to try and side swipe me as I was passing them on the right to get into a right lane that was right-turn only at the upcoming intersection. Not only was their lane change an illegal "unsafe lane change" violation, that forced me to brake HARD and slightly swerve right to avoid them hitting me, but they didn't signal their lane change!!! They appear to be that simultaneous multi-action signaler, meaning the signaling is too late and pointless as they've already started their lane change at the same time. A second violation.

The third violation is that they were in a Prius, as I mentioned.

The fourth violation, their rear license plate frame said "Powered by Tesla!"

That's reckless driving! 4 simultaneous violations (ask any Highway Patrol Officer to define reckless driving; usually it only takes 3 consecutive violations).

xwesx · December 2019

All minor infractions... except for the Prius. That's jail time right there.

snakeweasel · December 2019

xwesx said:
All minor infractions... except for the Prius. That's jail time right there.

A while back I got a Prius driver mad at me. I was in a parking lot that had close spaces reserved for fuel efficient vehicles and parked my motorcycle in the last available such spot. The driver of a Prius that was behind me told me I couldn't park there because it was for fuel efficient vehicles only. My response was that I average 65 MPG then I asked what her gas guzzler gets.

xwesx · December 2019

snakeweasel said:

xwesx said:
All minor infractions... except for the Prius. That's jail time right there.
A while back I got a Prius driver mad at me. I was in a parking lot that had close spaces reserved for fuel efficient vehicles and parked my motorcycle in the last available such spot. The driver of a Prius that was behind me told me I couldn't park there because it was for fuel efficient vehicles only. My response was that I average 65 MPG then I asked what her gas guzzler gets.

Oh, to put the pompous in their places. Kudos!

andres3 · December 2019

Got rammed in a parking lot by a Camry driver (young guy) backing out of a parking space. I was getting ready to back into the open parking space next to them. His Camry had dents and scrapes on every corner ('05 model I believe).

Since I did everything right (back into open space from right-of way) I had the right of way, being in the roadway of the parking lot, so that makes him 100% at fault. Since I wasn't yet backing up, and he was, that makes him 200% at fault.

Funny thing is, if I'd of gone into the space going forward, I'd of shaved several seconds off my A to B trip, and that would have reduced my time exposure to bad drivers, and in this case, reduced my collision total by 1 last Friday. And some of the people on Edmunds scoff at my "time exposure" theories. Scoff in idiocy I say. However, by doing things "right" I may get into more collisions (very likely and pretty certainly), but I will be at-fault in less of them!

'15 Audi A4 with rear sensors, back bumper cracked/gouged at the seam that joins the lower trim diffuser plastic piece. Means new bumper, and new diffuser/trim piece, means $2,300. While he wanted to "keep insurance out of it" he had no clue that minor damage adds up fast in CA. I think he had $500 in his mind (or less). As such, he said go ahead and make the claim.

snakeweasel · December 2019

We dont scoff in idiocy we scoff with a firm understanding of physics, and math too. How can someone be 200% at fault?

stickguy · December 2019

I almost got taken out by a new pilot today. Still on temp tags. Store parking lot. I was in the 2 way, 1 lane each way, access road/main aisle. Pilot comes to T with a stop sign. Stops (at least by jersey roll standards) then just heads on out, turning left. Right even with me, into my lane. I hit brakes and give I nice hand gesture. They just kept going. Thankfully they pulled into the opposite traffic lane (closer to them) and no one was coming toward us.

Some people should not be allowed out to drive.

andres3 · December 2019

snakeweasel said:
We dont scoff in idiocy we scoff with a firm understanding of physics, and math too. How can someone be 200% at fault?

You never heard the sports expression from a coach "give me 110%!"?

Chalk another collision up to me going too slow (0 MPH in this case). I wonder when those physics of "speed killing" will come into play? It seems all the collisions happen when you are going slow to me. And the data tells us it doesn't seem that way, it is that way.

A 100 MPH fastball is simply harder to hit than a 50 MPH fastball, whether it be a baseball, or a moving car.

snakeweasel · December 2019

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:
We dont scoff in idiocy we scoff with a firm understanding of physics, and math too. How can someone be 200% at fault?
You never heard the sports expression from a coach "give me 110%!"?

Chalk another collision up to me going too slow (0 MPH in this case). I wonder when those physics of "speed killing" will come into play? It seems all the collisions happen when you are going slow to me. And the data tells us it doesn't seem that way, it is that way.

A 100 MPH fastball is simply harder to hit than a 50 MPH fastball, whether it be a baseball, or a moving car.

Yes I heard of that sports expression, try it at the bank, try to get 110 one dollar bills with a hundred dollar bill. Yes coaches are bad at math.

as for the fastball, which would you rather get hit by, a 50 MPH baseball or a 100 MPH baseball. Here is a hint the 100 MPH ball will hit you with 4 times the force of the 50 MPH ball.

snakeweasel · December 2019

OK I'm in a parking lot, come around the corner and I see a car backing into a spot and I notice that the car two spots further is about to leave. As the first car finishes backing into the spot the other car backs out of their space and leaves. Now having patiently waiting I move forward to occupy the recently vacated space. As I start to pass the car that just backed into their spot the driver decides to pull out and leave almost hitting me in the process.

andres3 · December 2019

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:
We dont scoff in idiocy we scoff with a firm understanding of physics, and math too. How can someone be 200% at fault?
You never heard the sports expression from a coach "give me 110%!"?

Chalk another collision up to me going too slow (0 MPH in this case). I wonder when those physics of "speed killing" will come into play? It seems all the collisions happen when you are going slow to me. And the data tells us it doesn't seem that way, it is that way.

A 100 MPH fastball is simply harder to hit than a 50 MPH fastball, whether it be a baseball, or a moving car.
Yes I heard of that sports expression, try it at the bank, try to get 110 one dollar bills with a hundred dollar bill. Yes coaches are bad at math.

as for the fastball, which would you rather get hit by, a 50 MPH baseball or a 100 MPH baseball. Here is a hint the 100 MPH ball will hit you with 4 times the force of the 50 MPH ball.

The point is it's a lot harder to even hit the 100 MPH fastball.

No one is denying that plane crashes can be catastrophic, it's just that on a per mile basis, they maintain superior safety records to vehicles, despite air speeds over 500 MPH.

Take any bone headed equation offered up from the "speed kills" crowd, and insert 500 MPH and the idiocy becomes apparent. I've seen some reports state that every extra 5 MPH results in X% more chance of a fatality. Does that mean that every air passenger is already dead?

snakeweasel · December 2019

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:
We dont scoff in idiocy we scoff with a firm understanding of physics, and math too. How can someone be 200% at fault?
You never heard the sports expression from a coach "give me 110%!"?

Chalk another collision up to me going too slow (0 MPH in this case). I wonder when those physics of "speed killing" will come into play? It seems all the collisions happen when you are going slow to me. And the data tells us it doesn't seem that way, it is that way.

A 100 MPH fastball is simply harder to hit than a 50 MPH fastball, whether it be a baseball, or a moving car.
Yes I heard of that sports expression, try it at the bank, try to get 110 one dollar bills with a hundred dollar bill. Yes coaches are bad at math.

as for the fastball, which would you rather get hit by, a 50 MPH baseball or a 100 MPH baseball. Here is a hint the 100 MPH ball will hit you with 4 times the force of the 50 MPH ball.
The point is it's a lot harder to even hit the 100 MPH fastball.

So you would rather be hit by the 100 MPH fast ball.

andres3 said:
No one is denying that plane crashes can be catastrophic, it's just that on a per mile basis, they maintain superior safety records to vehicles, despite air speeds over 500 MPH.

Take any bone headed equation offered up from the "speed kills" crowd, and insert 500 MPH and the idiocy becomes apparent. I've seen some reports state that every extra 5 MPH results in X% more chance of a fatality. Does that mean that every air passenger is already dead?

Your comparison would work if you had a half dozen mechanics going over your car daily and any one of them can prevent your car from leaving the garage. And it takes 1,500 hours of training to get your license that costs $10k and after getting that license you spend at least 2 years as a copilot before having control over your car. And you are totally controlled in speed and direction by highly trained professionals who know where every other. car is at and what they are doing at all times and if you dont follow their instructions you can no longer drive. And you have at least a half mile between cars.

If our roads had the same safety measures as aviation most of the cars out there would be scrapped, most drivers would lose their license and the roads would appear almost empty even when filled to capacity.

andres3 · December 2019

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:
We dont scoff in idiocy we scoff with a firm understanding of physics, and math too. How can someone be 200% at fault?
You never heard the sports expression from a coach "give me 110%!"?

Chalk another collision up to me going too slow (0 MPH in this case). I wonder when those physics of "speed killing" will come into play? It seems all the collisions happen when you are going slow to me. And the data tells us it doesn't seem that way, it is that way.

A 100 MPH fastball is simply harder to hit than a 50 MPH fastball, whether it be a baseball, or a moving car.
Yes I heard of that sports expression, try it at the bank, try to get 110 one dollar bills with a hundred dollar bill. Yes coaches are bad at math.

as for the fastball, which would you rather get hit by, a 50 MPH baseball or a 100 MPH baseball. Here is a hint the 100 MPH ball will hit you with 4 times the force of the 50 MPH ball.
The point is it's a lot harder to even hit the 100 MPH fastball.
So you would rather be hit by the 100 MPH fast ball.
andres3 said:
No one is denying that plane crashes can be catastrophic, it's just that on a per mile basis, they maintain superior safety records to vehicles, despite air speeds over 500 MPH.

Take any bone headed equation offered up from the "speed kills" crowd, and insert 500 MPH and the idiocy becomes apparent. I've seen some reports state that every extra 5 MPH results in X% more chance of a fatality. Does that mean that every air passenger is already dead?
Your comparison would work if you had a half dozen mechanics going over your car daily and any one of them can prevent your car from leaving the garage. And it takes 1,500 hours of training to get your license that costs $10k and after getting that license you spend at least 2 years as a copilot before having control over your car. And you are totally controlled in speed and direction by highly trained professionals who know where every other. car is at and what they are doing at all times and if you dont follow their instructions you can no longer drive. And you have at least a half mile between cars.

If our roads had the same safety measures as aviation most of the cars out there would be scrapped, most drivers would lose their license and the roads would appear almost empty even when filled to capacity.

I'd rather be hit by a 100 MPH fastball one time than a 50 MPH fastball 100 times.

Your argument about aviation would hold more water if people were discussing 550 MPH speed limits for the roadway. That's not what anyone is proposing for ground speeds. Even on the limitless Autobahn (60% according to modern day sources I found), 99.99% of all cars keep it under 200 MPH.

Also, I think you could stipulate that a driver with 1,500 hours experience of "on the job training" without killing themselves, has achieved what the "training" as a copilot or simulator would simulate.

Also, not every Country has equipment and regulatory standards as rigid as the USA for flying. Some of those Countries might not be allowed to land in the USA though.

snakeweasel · December 2019

my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.

snakeweasel · December 2019

I saw an Audi A4 ruin their suspension last Sunday. I was driving in an area that's not exactly rural but wasn't exactly suburban either, it was an area of transition between the two. I was on a two lane road, 55 MPH SL and I was going 60 give or take. All of a sudden I saw this Audi fly up behind me and just sit there on my rear end. He must have been pushing 90 coming up on me.

Now shortly after this we come to a railroad crossing and I slow way down. Evidently this joker didn't like that and since there was no oncoming traffic he moved into the oncoming lane gunned it and flew pass me.

Now two things I must say, first is that it is illegal to pass at a railroad crossing and secondly when someone slows down for a railroad crossing there usually is a very good reason. This particular crossing needs some major work done on it to bring it up to be a rough crossing. You should have seen that car bounce when it hit those tracks, the guy almost lost control.

And yes there was a sign declaring it a rough crossing.

andres3 · December 2019

snakeweasel said:
I saw an Audi A4 ruin their suspension last Sunday. I was driving in an area that's not exactly rural but wasn't exactly suburban either, it was an area of transition between the two. I was on a two lane road, 55 MPH SL and I was going 60 give or take. All of a sudden I saw this Audi fly up behind me and just sit there on my rear end. He must have been pushing 90 coming up on me.

Now shortly after this we come to a railroad crossing and I slow way down. Evidently this joker didn't like that and since there was no oncoming traffic he moved into the oncoming lane gunned it and flew pass me.

Now two things I must say, first is that it is illegal to pass at a railroad crossing and secondly when someone slows down for a railroad crossing there usually is a very good reason. This particular crossing needs some major work done on it to bring it up to be a rough crossing. You should have seen that car bounce when it hit those tracks, the guy almost lost control.

And yes there was a sign declaring it a rough crossing.

Wasn't me

andres3 · December 2019

snakeweasel said:
my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.

Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.

It is merely a demonstration that speed does not equal death and destruction.

The concept is simple. The sudden deceleration is what kills you.

andres3 · December 2019

So today... I'm in the fast/passing lane of the 2-lane "fast track/commuter/HOV" lanes on I15 North in San Diego.

I'm in the passing lane because I was about to pass another slower vehicle. The truck in the right lane far behind this vehicle decides to get over early and right behind me (tailgating with his lane change). He happened to start his lane change just as my radar detector went off, so I had quickly pressed the brakes to knock off 10 MPH.

This is my instant reaction, and no one was supposed to be behind me, but he was about 50% complete with his unsafe lane change, and being right behind me (tailgating), he overreacted and nearly lost control of his truck (which he was going too fast for conditions being in a big pickup vs. my TTS being safe at higher than legal speeds.)

He might have thought I was brake checking him, but I was just reacting to Ka band radar (the bad kind that CHP uses). LOL! So I let him pass me and he looked at my like "WTF" as he passed me. I just pointed to my radar detector.

tjc78 · January 2020

I have had something similar happen to me when I've spotted a Cop in the median. I just pointed ahead to the cop.

snakeweasel · January 2020

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:
my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.
Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.

Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.

andres3 · January 2020

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:
my argument about aviation is valid. There is a reason for its safety record and those reasons do not exist on the roads.
Still, no one is arguing for flight speeds on the road, so there is no reason to implement the same safety procedures used for those much higher speeds.
Looks like you're setting up a strawman argument. You are arguing that either speed has no affect on safety or that going faster is safer. You then pointed to the safety issue of the airline industry to support your argument. However what affects safety is multifaceted and includes many different things, many of these things are implemented heavily in the airline industry. For example airplanes are required to maintain vast distances between themselves. scaling those distances down to highway speeds would mean that you need to follow at least a mile behind the car in front of you and pass them with at least 100 feet between you two when you are next to each other.

One other condition that determines safety is congestion. The more vehicles in an area the less safe it is to drive in those areas. Airplanes create a much safer environment by keeping them apart by vast distances, this mitigates the other factors that can make the activity more dangerous. Because of this your argument that speed is not a factor in safety is false.

Speed is safe where it is appropriate.

There are many and varied reasons why higher speeds are safer than slower speed roadways, because people generally drive faster where it is safe to do so. Where is it safe to go fast?

Mainly, Freeways/Interstates.

Why? I'll give a few of the many reasons:

Divided by a median barrier wall so no head on collisions.
Everyone going the same direction at similar relative speeds.
Limited access for cross traffic and any other traffic to gain access from the sides or anywhere else to invade your path of travel. This is not just for cars, but all other objects, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, kids, toys, and whatever else.
Ideally, observed lane discipline to both minimize speed differentials and keep orderly progress instead of mayhem and chaos.

If any of these conditions is lacking it does warrant a lesser speed than you'd other wise travel.

Going down a residential street with a 35 MPH 85th percentile speed at 100 MPH is a recipe for disaster.

xwesx · January 2020

snakeweasel said:
I saw an Audi A4 ruin their suspension last Sunday. I was driving in an area that's not exactly rural but wasn't exactly suburban either, it was an area of transition between the two. I was on a two lane road, 55 MPH SL and I was going 60 give or take. All of a sudden I saw this Audi fly up behind me and just sit there on my rear end. He must have been pushing 90 coming up on me.

Now shortly after this we come to a railroad crossing and I slow way down. Evidently this joker didn't like that and since there was no oncoming traffic he moved into the oncoming lane gunned it and flew pass me.

Now two things I must say, first is that it is illegal to pass at a railroad crossing and secondly when someone slows down for a railroad crossing there usually is a very good reason. This particular crossing needs some major work done on it to bring it up to be a rough crossing. You should have seen that car bounce when it hit those tracks, the guy almost lost control.

And yes there was a sign declaring it a rough crossing.

Hahahaha. Sometimes that is the best justice achievable. I fondly recall a similar instance when driving on Chena Hot Springs Road, about ten years ago, and the road surface was just crumbling apart. There were numerous small and large pot holes in the road, some of which extended all the way across the lane (or further). I was driving a 1998 Dodge Grand Caravan, and behind me was a small red sedan (a Neon, if memory serves). The driver was just riding up my rear end, for miles and miles. Traffic was not heavy, but at least regular enough that passing was difficult.

After a time, I approached a pot hole that was around 6' round. I straddled it with my van, and moved only very casually to do so, and the driver behind me was completely unaware of it approaching. BOOM! That guy went into the hole at 60 mph, dust went everywhere, and he quickly pulled to the side of the road. Tailgating problem solved!

xwesx · January 2020

This morning, a school bus blew through a four-way stop going ~30mph. I was at the intersection, stopped, and started to pull out when I did a double-take in the direction of the bus. Something told me that the guy was coming in too hot, so I just waited a moment longer. Sure enough, he slams on the brakes for a moment, realized there was no possible way the icy conditions would allow for a stop, then just drove right on through. Thankfully, he was the only one at the intersection who was not paying attention.

xwesx · January 2020

Here is the dashcam footage of the bus; it happens near the beginning. Due to the intersecting angle, you only see the bus passing in front of me at a fast clip....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvVEOXZvZYE

Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles