Is road rage getting worse or what?

[SidS1045]

I think most speed limits on expressways and arterial roads can be repealed. If traffic is going to flow at whatever speed it feels like flowing, let it. Driving much faster than the flow, weaving around cars and other such misbehavior will still be illegal as reckless driving or endangerment. Driving too slow for your lane or otherwise impeding the flow of traffic can be a misdemeanor.

Nice ideas, without so much as a whimper of a hope of being enacted.  Too much money at stake.  Besides, leaving judgments as to what's too fast and too slow in the hands of police equals acquitals in traffic court.  Judges and juries don't like vague or poorly written laws.

[1995hoo]

I think most speed limits on expressways and arterial roads can be repealed. If traffic is going to flow at whatever speed it feels like flowing, let it. Driving much faster than the flow, weaving around cars and other such misbehavior will still be illegal as reckless driving or endangerment. Driving too slow for your lane or otherwise impeding the flow of traffic can be a misdemeanor.

Nice ideas, without so much as a whimper of a hope of being enacted.  Too much money at stake.  Besides, leaving judgments as to what's too fast and too slow in the hands of police equals acquitals in traffic court.  Judges and juries don't like vague or poorly written laws.

The other thing is, frankly, the attitude of telling people at all times what they may and may not do is too deeply ingrained in the American psyche to be abandoned now. I was talking to a well-known Russian individual who lives in this area for nine months each year (he was parked behind me and we were talking about his car) and he commented on how bizarre it is that Americans don't know what to do unless they're told constantly. He has a point. Americans driving in Europe are often struck by the absence of the multitude of regulatory signs we have here and of the different practices regarding things like greater use of "Yield" (or "Give Way") signs where Americans would use a stop sign. I found it to be a breath of fresh air: The European way presumes you know what you are required to do and will do it, whereas the American way presumes you don't know what you are required to do and that even if you do you will fail to do so. Consider things like signs saying "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION," which is a pretty common sign here in Northern Virginia. People should already know that without a sign, but too many people argue they didn't know it wasn't allowed because they weren't told.

In some respects I like the American approach better. Rather than putting up a sign saying you CAN go right or straight such that the motorist is to infer that means you can't go left, we simply put up a "No Left Turn" sign. Seems more straightforward to me. On the other hand, I often think we have an insane number of signs addressing issues that SHOULD be basic stuff.....but I guess that starts to get into the other issue of whether driver education is inadequate and the like.

[jeffandnicole]

I guess so. A few minutes someone created a passing lane out of the left turn lane. It was in a school zone (25 MPH), however no children were present (35 MPH). What was the reason for passing? A TV Show is more important than traffic safety. Traffic Flow was going smoothly too. That driver passed 3 vehicles.

Or it could've been the person's family member had a heart attack.

Or it could be because there's a house fire, and he's a volunteer fire fighter getting to the fire station.

That's why I try not to judge too much.  While the actual reason is probably something closer to what you guessed, you don't want it to be a true emergency.  Sure, the guy is supposed to follow all traffic laws, but I can also bet 911 never had a caller screaming "My husband just had a heart attack. Please drive slowly and carefully following all traffic laws getting here".

...he commented on how bizarre it is that Americans don't know what to do unless they're told constantly.

That is the absolute truth.  I've noted before that news stories constantly talk with people at disasters (fires, explosions, etc) that will say no one was telling them what to do, as if these people needed to be told to get away from the danger.  Floods are another good example.  There's always the people that'll cry no one told them to leave before the flood waters rose.  Nevermind the fact that the weather forecasts included flooding warnings and such, and these people have lived in flood prone areas for decades.

[vdeane]

Nice ideas, without so much as a whimper of a hope of being enacted.  Too much money at stake.

I just had an idea: prohibit traffic fines (or any fees related to traffic court) from being used by the government.  Instead, citizens would pay the fine amount to an organization they don't like.  For example, a smart growth advocate could be forced to give to the National Motorists Association, or a gay rights activist to the Westboro Baptist Church.  The government would have no more interest in the revenue, but the fines would still act as punishment for those caught (even more so than under the current system).

[jbnv]

I think most speed limits on expressways and arterial roads can be repealed. If traffic is going to flow at whatever speed it feels like flowing, let it. Driving much faster than the flow, weaving around cars and other such misbehavior will still be illegal as reckless driving or endangerment. Driving too slow for your lane or otherwise impeding the flow of traffic can be a misdemeanor.

Nice ideas, without so much as a whimper of a hope of being enacted.  Too much money at stake.  Besides, leaving judgments as to what's too fast and too slow in the hands of police equals acquitals in traffic court.  Judges and juries don't like vague or poorly written laws.

Very few people will be cited for improper driving in that situation anyway. More likely that improper driving will be used to determine fault and assess penalties when there is an accident.

The other thing is, frankly, the attitude of telling people at all times what they may and may not do is too deeply ingrained in the American psyche to be abandoned now.

I think that is changing. Americans increasingly don't like being told what they may and may not do.

[KEK Inc.]

My anger regarding driving is when people do intentional or incompetent actions.  I think people should be required to retake driving tests yearly.  In Seattle particularly, people are rubbish at parallel parking in the University District, and in places like Fremont or Ballard, people don't know how to safely turn on a road from a stop sign.  I've almost T-boned people with my truck at 30 MPH due to people freezing in the middle of my lane when they finally see me.  Fortunately, my brakes are decent.  It's hilarious because when I'm fully stopped, they're still frozen there for a few seconds and I have to hand signal them to move out of my fucking way.  Frightening these people have a legal driver's license.

[1995hoo]

My anger regarding driving is when people do intentional or incompetent actions.  I think people should be required to retake driving tests yearly.  In Seattle particularly, people are rubbish at parallel parking in the University District, and in places like Fremont or Ballard, people don't know how to safely turn on a road from a stop sign.  I've almost T-boned people with my truck at 30 MPH due to people freezing in the middle of my lane when they finally see me.  Fortunately, my brakes are decent.  It's hilarious because when I'm fully stopped, they're still frozen there for a few seconds and I have to hand signal them to move out of my fucking way.  Frightening these people have a legal driver's license.

People here in the DC area will pretty much do whatever they think they can get away with. As far as parallel parking goes, Virginia doesn't require it as part of the test to get your driver's license, so there are a heck of a lot of people who have no idea how to do it. There's a guy up the street who has Diplomat plates who has no idea how to parallel park. A few years ago when they were paving our street, we all had to parallel park on a nearby street. Most of us did it correctly and pulled up close so everyone could squeeze in....well, I moved my car at the same time as the guy in front of me and when I came back 20 minutes later, the guy with the Diplomat plate had parked squarely in the MIDDLE of the two spots we vacated. Big gap in front, big gap behind, both too small to fit a car. If this had been New York City, somebody would have keyed his van or slashed his tires.

Erratic driving in the DC area:

People leaving way too much space when they come to a stop, presumably because they're eager to play with their mobile phones:

[KEK Inc.]

So I'm basically watching you with road rage.  lol  Don't use your horn as a weapon.   Many of those intersections seem poorly signed, so I can understand why many people make last minute calls.

What I do sometimes is a blatant slow clap.  I've done it a few times when I had to stop for someone out of right-of-way, and I notice the other driver laughing with a look of guilt while still acknowledging they're in the wrong.  I only use my horn (or at night, I flash my brights since I don't want to piss off residences) when someone isn't paying attention at a light and I'll use my horn if someone is about to hit me. 

[vdeane]

The reason people stop so far back is because they're too lazy to keep their foot on the brakes during the red light and want room to "creep" forward periodically during the light.

[1995hoo]

The reason people stop so far back is because they're too lazy to keep their foot on the brakes during the red light and want room to "creep" forward periodically during the light.

I can't relate to that one since I usually shift to neutral so that I don't have to keep my foot on the clutch.

[agentsteel53]

I just had an idea: prohibit traffic fines (or any fees related to traffic court) from being used by the government.  Instead, citizens would pay the fine amount to an organization they don't like.  For example, a smart growth advocate could be forced to give to the National Motorists Association, or a gay rights activist to the Westboro Baptist Church.  The government would have no more interest in the revenue, but the fines would still act as punishment for those caught (even more so than under the current system).

oh, Hell no.  people are gonna game that system even worse.  "yes, officer, I swear my fealty to the Nazi party and beg you to please not give money to those wicked homosexuals".  really, all it would do is put the bumper-sticker industry out of business because who wants a bumper sticker of their political opponent at times when they are not getting pulled over.

just plain old prohibit fines.  give people points and take away their driver's licenses.  court costs is horseshit: that's what taxpayer money goes to.

[agentsteel53]

I can't relate to that one since I usually shift to neutral so that I don't have to keep my foot on the clutch.

if I'm anticipating a complete stop or getting into a different gear, I take the car out of gear within a split-second of pushing in the clutch.  then I roll to a halt or slowdown, put it in the new gear when traffic is moving, and off I go.  only in uphill stop-and-go traffic do I just keep it in first and use clutch and gas to modulate forward progress.

I've got my work commute traced down to a sequence of uphills and strategic coasts, and I'm getting 36mpg even though my driving is, ahem, occasionally energetic.

[broadhurst04]

In regards to people driving in the left lane "too long": "Failure to yield" means you waited too long to make a right turn on red at an intersection and you should have allowed the oncoming traffic to pass instead of darting out in front of them. It does not mean "move over to the right lane NOW because I resent the government telling me how fast I am allowed to drive and I know I can drive as fast as I want here because there aren't any law enforcement officers around to ticket me".

What I see every day is: People darting into the oncoming lane because they can't wait a few seconds for the driver in front of them to complete a turn. People who pull into a painted island on the road and sit there with their signal on, treating it as a merge lane and expecting oncoming traffic to let them in. People darting into the oncoming lane and nearly clipping other cars because they want to turn left and don't want to wait in line for the light to turn green so they can move into the turn lane correctly. People driving on the shoulder and nearly clipping other cars because they want to make a right on red instead of waiting in line for the light to turn green.  People who hold up 20 cars behind them in morning rush hour traffic because they want to be nice and let someone out of the gas station parking lot or the school parking lot.

[1995hoo]

So I'm basically watching you with road rage.  lol  Don't use your horn as a weapon.   Many of those intersections seem poorly signed, so I can understand why many people make last minute calls.

....

A "weapon"? Seriously? Wow, I've never heard that before.

[vdeane]

It's fitting that Cracked published this today: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-baffling-driving-behaviors-everyone-encounters

[Brandon]

So I'm basically watching you with road rage.  lol  Don't use your horn as a weapon.   Many of those intersections seem poorly signed, so I can understand why many people make last minute calls.

....

A "weapon"? Seriously? Wow, I've never heard that before.

When the fuck did the horn become a weapon!?!

Times to use the horn:

1. Moron stops at the end of an entrance ramp prior to merging.
2. Moron pulls out in front of you with or without looking (yes, I've had both around Chicago).
3. Moron runs a red light (car, truck, or bike).
4. Moron does not go on green and keeps looking at whatever he/she has in his/her lap.
5. Moron almost runs you off road.
6. Moron pulls into your lane leaving you minimal time to avoid an accident.
7. Moron steps off curb against the signal or jaywalks.
8. Moron starts to back up at a signal instead of going forward (yes, this has happened to me).

[agentsteel53]

It's fitting that Cracked published this today: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-baffling-driving-behaviors-everyone-encounters

that was one of the worst Cracked articles I've ever read. 

even if they knew how to spell "brake", it would remain so.

[SidS1045]

People who hold up 20 cars behind them in morning rush hour traffic because they want to be nice and let someone out of the gas station parking lot or the school parking lot.

This.  Nothing infuriates me more than drivers who don't understand what right-of-way laws are or why they exist.  How they think that holding up 20 cars to let in one car, which didn't have the ROW, is "polite" is beyond me.

Probably the same bunch who don't know what rear-view mirrors are, or who don't clear snow and ice from their rear windows in the winter.

[corco]

It's fitting that Cracked published this today: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-baffling-driving-behaviors-everyone-encounters

that was one of the worst Cracked articles I've ever read. 

even if they knew how to spell "brake", it would remain so.

Yeah, I kind of just lost some faith in humanity, especially when you consider Cracked readers are likely the younger generation of drivers.

[1995hoo]

It's fitting that Cracked published this today: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-baffling-driving-behaviors-everyone-encounters

that was one of the worst Cracked articles I've ever read. 

even if they knew how to spell "brake", it would remain so.

I think of Cracked as a magazine* I read when I was a kid. Mad was probably funnier, in retrospect, but I liked Cracked better because the artists did a better job.



*Or, as they sometimes spelled it on the cover, "mazagine."

[agentsteel53]

the Cracked website tends to be genuinely funny, and one of those places you can get lost in (see also: TV Tropes) but this particular feature was mediocre at best.

[Kacie Jane]

People who hold up 20 cars behind them in morning rush hour traffic because they want to be nice and let someone out of the gas station parking lot or the school parking lot.

This.  Nothing infuriates me more than drivers who don't understand what right-of-way laws are or why they exist.  How they think that holding up 20 cars to let in one car, which didn't have the ROW, is "polite" is beyond me.

I.... really???  I'll try to remind you of that the next time you're the one waiting 5 minutes to get out of a parking lot waiting for a nonexistent gap in traffic.

(To answer your question of how it's polite, letting that one car "cut in line" delays the cars behind a few seconds.  Forcing that one car to wait for legitimate gap in traffic could -- at the extreme -- mean they're waiting the duration of rush hour.)

[J N Winkler]

I was talking to a well-known Russian individual who lives in this area for nine months each year (he was parked behind me and we were talking about his car) and he commented on how bizarre it is that Americans don't know what to do unless they're told constantly. He has a point. Americans driving in Europe are often struck by the absence of the multitude of regulatory signs we have here and of the different practices regarding things like greater use of "Yield" (or "Give Way") signs where Americans would use a stop sign. I found it to be a breath of fresh air: The European way presumes you know what you are required to do and will do it, whereas the American way presumes you don't know what you are required to do and that even if you do you will fail to do so. Consider things like signs saying "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION," which is a pretty common sign here in Northern Virginia. People should already know that without a sign, but too many people argue they didn't know it wasn't allowed because they weren't told.

I don't think "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION" is such a good example since the Europeans do use official traffic signs rather heavily for this purpose--for example, Britain has box junctions (yellow crosshatches across the intersection) which are obligatory in meaning, as well as "KEEP CLEAR" markings which are advisory in character.  These are used quite extensively even though it is a matter of common sense that a junction should never be blocked.

"Stop" versus "Yield"/"Give way" is often a matter of traffic engineering practice.  "Give way" is used extensively in the UK, for example, since stop signs require special authorization, which is granted only if a non-removable sight obstruction can be proved.  In the UK it is actually the "Give way" marking that applies the legal requirement to give way, and the sign tends to be used with it at intersections where one road obviously has priority, where it effectively works the same as an American stop sign since no driver can realistically expect to proceed past it without coming at least to a rolling stop.  It is also not uncommon for UK housing estates to have "Give way" markings without signs at minor intersections, which are equivalent to stop signs within US subdivisions that function essentially as a form of traffic calming.

In my experience these differences are largely a matter of nuance, a key one between the US and the UK being that the US is more likely to use upright signs rather than pavement markings for similar applications, partly because small signs in the US are cheaply built (we still allow bolts right through the signface, which Britain phased out almost 20 years ago) and subject to less stringent illumination requirements.

In some respects I like the American approach better. Rather than putting up a sign saying you CAN go right or straight such that the motorist is to infer that means you can't go left, we simply put up a "No Left Turn" sign.

Not always--case in point:  this mindfuck (13th and Zoo, Wichita) quite near me.  I usually do turn left at this intersection, and have never been penalized for it.

Seems more straightforward to me. On the other hand, I often think we have an insane number of signs addressing issues that SHOULD be basic stuff.....but I guess that starts to get into the other issue of whether driver education is inadequate and the like.

This varies considerably from state to state.  For example, quite a few states post warning signs with "Bridge may be icy in cold weather" or similar messages at every single bridge, while Kansas does not.

In Wichita there was a controversy a while ago when the city posted "WHEN FLOODED TURN AROUND DONT DROWN" [sic] signs in a neighborhood that is subject to frequent street flooding.  These signs are not in the MUTCD, but are covered under a provision that allows agencies to create sui generis word message warning signs.  The eventual Eagle article focused on the city's failure to use proper punctuation (missing apostrophe in "DON'T") to the complete exclusion of other relevant issues, such as (1) why the city didn't re-word the message to avoid the use of a contraction, and (2) whether it is proper to post a sign when motorists should know not to drive into flooded areas to begin with.  (Other states have instead used a flood-gauge arrangement, which is much more effective since it allows motorists to decide for themselves on the basis of vehicle clearance and other factors whether they can ford floodwaters safely.  Flood gauges are now in the MUTCD as of the 2009 edition.)

Similar objections can be raised to every other sign that describes what is essentially a rule of the road ("DO NOT DRIVE ON SHOULDER," "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS," "DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS," "DO NOT PASS SCHOOL BUS STOPPED TO LOAD OR UNLOAD CHILDREN EITHER DIRECTION," etc.).  Pennsylvania is especially bad for nannying with these rules-of-the-road signs, but it is hardly alone in this regard.  On the other hand, it is difficult to avoid some element of educational signing for traffic treatments that are highly regionally specific (e.g., turnouts, signing for which appeared in the MUTCD only in the 2009 edition).

[Brandon]

In my experience these differences are largely a matter of nuance, a key one between the US and the UK being that the US is more likely to use upright signs rather than pavement markings for similar applications, partly because small signs in the US are cheaply built (we still allow bolts right through the signface, which Britain phased out almost 20 years ago) and subject to less stringent illumination requirements.

That, and we do tend to get a lot more snow.  Snow tends to obscure paint markings in some places in the US for a third of the year, and what the snow does not obscure, gets scraped up with the plows.  Note the areas in the US that extensively use paint marking over signs - California, the South, and you'll note that these are also the places that do not get large amounts of snow during the winter.  By contrast, you'll rarely see paint markings in Michigan's UP as the roads are not plowed to pavement during the winter months.  Even in northern Illinois, paint markings are nowhere as near as common as in California as the plows will remove chunks of the paint markings during the winter.

[KEK Inc.]

So I'm basically watching you with road rage.  lol  Don't use your horn as a weapon.   Many of those intersections seem poorly signed, so I can understand why many people make last minute calls.

....

A "weapon"? Seriously? Wow, I've never heard that before.

A horn is used as a weapon if used to just tell other drivers that you're pissed off.  About half of those honks weren't necessary in my opinion, and you were too far from some 'culprit' vehicles to justify its use (confusing drivers directly in front of you).

It might be a regional thing.  I know Californians use their horn more liberally, but I've noticed it's considered malpractice up in the Northwest, particularly with bicyclists sharing the road and heavy pedestrian traffic.  I only use the horn if there's a chance of impact involving the car in front of me (not 2 or 3 cars in front since that will confuse the other drivers between you and the driver you're not happy with) or if the car in front of me has idled at a green light for more than 5 seconds.