Driving habits that annoy you the most (with poll!)

[mightyace]

^^^

My brother does the same as you, corco.

His name for this driver is an "FLC" or Fickle Lane Changer.

Some FLCs will move into another lane even when it's obvious they'll only get 50 feet farther ahead. 

[KEK Inc.]

Where's 'cutting other drivers off without signalling'?

[agentsteel53]

Thirded- it almost becomes a game- "how much can I delay this asshat?" I'll even slow my speed to match a car in the other lane just to keep him from getting around if I'm really not in a hurry

that's just too much effort on my hand.  the quicker I can get them to fuck off, the better, even if I suffer the ignominy of driving slower than them.

[Bryant5493]

It's hard to choose, because all of those annoy me. But if I had to pick the one that annoys me the most, I'd go with left lane hogging.


Be well,

Bryant

[realjd]

Headlights off in the rain/fog. If your lights are off, I can't see you very well.

Hazard lights on in the rain/fog. Hazards, by law, indicate a PARKED car. If you have them on and aren't parked, it's a dangerous situation for everyone involved, especially in blinding fog. I don't know about other places, but the cops in Florida will ticket for it.

[corco]

Hazard lights on in the rain/fog. Hazards, by law, indicate a PARKED car. If you have them on and aren't parked, it's a dangerous situation for everyone involved, especially in blinding fog. I don't know about other places, but the cops in Florida will ticket for it.

It's actually recommended in Wyoming and almost expected to use hazards in a blizzard or duststorm. Rain/fog not so much, but in situations where most of the traffic is driving slow and visibility is limited but the occasional idiot may cruise along at speed limit (who you'll see in the ditch two miles later), pretty much all traffic uses flashers. The Wyoming driver's manual doesn't address it either way, but it does seem to be the local convention.

It's also sometimes required for slow vehicles up steep grades- the high altitudes and steep pitches in Wyoming are an absolute drain on engine performance, so it's frequent to see trucks going 25-30 on the interstate just trying to get up the hill. They'll use their flashers, and I'm pretty sure there's actually signs in some places advising trucks to do so.

[agentsteel53]

Hazard lights on in the rain/fog. Hazards, by law, indicate a PARKED car. If you have them on and aren't parked, it's a dangerous situation for everyone involved, especially in blinding fog. I don't know about other places, but the cops in Florida will ticket for it.

I disagree with this as well.  I have flashed my hazards when braking sharply to let the person behind me know that I'm not just tapping the brakes to come out of cruise control, and he should be prepared (as I am) to take extraordinary evasive measures - either slam hard on the brakes, or swerve into another lane.  

In general, I use the hazard lights to indicate "hazard" in general, which is that something (possibly me) is moving significantly more slowly than initial appearances would indicate.  Fully stopped is just a subset of those conditions.

[jgb191]

Not just an annoyance, but downright infuriating, and that is drunk drivers!  People who do that anger me to no limit!!  And what's worse is that the they are letting these potential killers back on the road after multiple offenses.  And I say this because my life was almost taken away from me by an idiotic driver who chose to drive drunk; if it wasn't for my seat belt, I wouldn't still be here today.  It's scary that there are a lot of people out there who choose not to drink responsibly.

[realjd]

I disagree with this as well.  I have flashed my hazards when braking sharply to let the person behind me know that I'm not just tapping the brakes to come out of cruise control, and he should be prepared (as I am) to take extraordinary evasive measures - either slam hard on the brakes, or swerve into another lane. 

In general, I use the hazard lights to indicate "hazard" in general, which is that something (possibly me) is moving significantly more slowly than initial appearances would indicate.  Fully stopped is just a subset of those conditions.

I'll use them if I'm the last car in a traffic jam to let anyone behind me know that I'm stopped/dangerously slow, but in normal visibility that isn't a problem. The issue is that in blinding rain/fog, it becomes dangerous if there's no way to differentiate truly parked cars from cars not parked.

I guess things may not work this way in other states, but like I said, it's illegal in Florida to have them on if your car is moving, and they will sometimes ticket for that. It seems like all the old people come here and flip them on on the highway even if it's a light drizzle.

[Michael in Philly]

I went with "stopping on entrance ramps" because I do not like gunning my motor to merge, and frankly, if you can't merge in a standard accel lane, you should not be driving on highways. 

Hear, hear on this.  It's called an acceleration lane for a reason, people!

If we'd been permitted to choose more than one, I'd have gone with this and left-lane-hogging.  The other problems seem, to me at least, to come up less often.

[Michael in Philly]

heh I've had someone in a $150,000 Mercedes want to cut me off, while I was driving a $1 Ford Escort (value may be exaggerated) - I rolled down the window and asked him "really, you want to scratch your car just to force your way into line?"

What was his response?  :-)

[Michael in Philly]

Hazard lights on in the rain/fog. Hazards, by law, indicate a PARKED car. If you have them on and aren't parked, it's a dangerous situation for everyone involved, especially in blinding fog. I don't know about other places, but the cops in Florida will ticket for it.

I disagree with this as well.  I have flashed my hazards when braking sharply to let the person behind me know that I'm not just tapping the brakes to come out of cruise control, and he should be prepared (as I am) to take extraordinary evasive measures - either slam hard on the brakes, or swerve into another lane. 

In general, I use the hazard lights to indicate "hazard" in general, which is that something (possibly me) is moving significantly more slowly than initial appearances would indicate.  Fully stopped is just a subset of those conditions.

If I'm being tailgated, I might put on the hazards for a few seconds.  It's less provocative than certain gestures, and if the other driver's problem is that he's zoned out, it might just make him pay attention to what he's doing.
Here's another peeve:  SUVs, 4x4s, whatever they're called, behind me with their high beams on so that their lights shine right into my rearview mirror (and this is liable to happen no matter what lane I'm in so it's not that they're trying to pass).  I sometimes put my hand up in the mirror in a sort of you're-blinding-me gesture (holding my hand up at the same angle I'd use to shade my eyes from bright sunlight, but backwards, as if the rearview mirror were my face).  Usually they get it.

[agentsteel53]

What was his response?  :-)

he stopped inching forward and got in behind me like a normal person.

[Alex]

I guess things may not work this way in other states, but like I said, it's illegal in Florida to have them on if your car is moving, and they will sometimes ticket for that. It seems like all the old people come here and flip them on on the highway even if it's a light drizzle.

In most heavy thunderstorms along a Florida Interstate, I encounter one or several motorists driving with the hazards on. I believe one of the rules of using hazards while in motion (maybe not in FL, but elsewhere perhaps), is that if you are below 40 on the freeway, that using them is pertinent to indicate a major difference in speed. I have seen this where a vehicle has a flat and is rolling toward the next exit (sometimes on the shoulder), or a vehicle overloaded with cargo that should not be going at freeway speeds (nor be on the freeway either!).

[Mr_Northside]

Here in Pittsburgh, people who can't drive as fast in a tunnel than they do outside of the tunnel could top that list... or truckers who don't pay attention to the clearance (or clear snow off in the winter), necessitating stopping traffic so the truck can turn around.

[mightyace]

is that if you are below 40 on the freeway, that using them is pertinent to indicate a major difference in speed. I have seen this where a vehicle has a flat and is rolling toward the next exit (sometimes on the shoulder), or a vehicle overloaded with cargo that should not be going at freeway speeds (nor be on the freeway either!).

Agreed.  I had some trouble with my van on the way back from PA just after new years.  One consequence is that I could not climb hills very well.  I'd put the hazards on if I went below 45 or 50.  If I got much below that, I'd get off at the next exit so as to minimize the hazard I was to others.

As far as rain goes, in Tennessee, it's the law to turn on your headlights when raining.  I've gotten so I do that even if I'm somewhere else and I know it's not the law.  As my Dad said, you turn your lights on then or in fog not to see but to be seen.

[hbelkins]

Cell phone usage while driving are on everybody's list of issues, mine included.

Bzzt. Wrong. That is definitely NOT an issue for me. If Kentucky ever tries to ban cellphone use by drivers, I'll probably be picketing the Capitol in Frankfort.

[mightyace]

^^^

As a side note, would you get in trouble for that?

Not surprisingly, I doubt any state would like to see their employees picketing even if it's not job related.  But, that's not my question.  I may be mistaken, but I thought I've heard about some states passing laws trying to restrict such behavior.  (usually as an addendum to laws/rules not get too involved in the political process.

[agentsteel53]

Bzzt. Wrong. That is definitely NOT an issue for me. If Kentucky ever tries to ban cellphone use by drivers, I'll probably be picketing the Capitol in Frankfort.

cell phone usage, along with drunk driving, goat fornication in a moving vehicle, etc etc... should all be punished in a single manner.  No checkpoints, no preventative enforcement, no nothing.  If you can get away with it, more power to you.

but heaven help you if you fail. 

Sweden does not have any drunk checkpoints.  But if you blow a .02 at a traffic accident - you lose your license forever.

[jgb191]

if you blow a .02 at a traffic accident - you lose your license forever.

It would be nice if we could do that.....one swing and a miss and YOU'RE OUT!  And if you're extremely lucky, you'll only lose your license and nothing more.  But should the inevitable happen, you and possibly another victim will be in my get-well-soon prayers.

[corco]

cell phone usage, along with drunk driving, goat fornication in a moving vehicle, etc etc... should all be punished in a single manner.  No checkpoints, no preventative enforcement, no nothing.  If you can get away with it, more power to you.

I generally dislike results based analysis- better to nip a bad process before the bad results can even happen (especially applicable in baseball, for example), but I'm 100% with you on that one. I can't speak for cell phone usage, but alcohol use definitely effects different people and different people's driving abilities in different ways. Setting an arbitrary enforcement point at .08 is just stupid. Some people are perfectly safe until .12 while others are a danger at .06. Short of determining what BAC every single person can drive at and printing it on their licenses (which would be a giant lawsuit) or a zero tolerance policy (which just doesn't jive with our culture), the results-based with ridiculously harsh penalties solution is the best one. I'll have to go find the link, but I found numbers indicating that the majority of alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities occur at about twice the level of .08, when people are, you know, actually drunk. .08 is just an arbitrary number arrived at in negotiations between insurance lobbyists and alcohol lobbyists with little statistical support.  The way it is now, reasonably safe and good people end up with DUIs  they really don't deserve while crazed alcoholic morons end up back on the road over and over again- it's just stupid.

I'm a college student right now- I don't do it anymore, but I see people who drive drunk on a regular basis. It's 90% personality, it seems like. The majority of drunk drivers act aware they are drunk, slow down, remember to do everything, and sure, their reflexes and ability to see are lessened- in all likelihood, barring checkpoints or overly active enforcement, they'll never ever get a DUI. I'm not advocating their behavior, just saying that maybe they don't deserve to get a felony.  A lot of drunk drivers, however, drive like crazed asshats and go 90 down suburban arterials with no regard for anything- often they have less alcohol in them than the slow, cautious drunk driver! The latter should be going to jail with no license ever, because they really are going to kill somebody. The former, well, certainly they're at risk of being a danger, but they're a lot less dangerous. I would absolutely rather ride with a level-headed drunk who is soberly a good driver and is a bit over the limit than somebody who is just a bad driver but completely sober. That's why it's better to punish the results.

[vdeane]

The problem is, the police are lazy.  That's why the only driving laws they enforce are the speed limits and everything else is done with cameras and checkpoints.

[jgb191]

corco, I completely get what you're saying and almost agree to a small extent that normal, level-heads don't deserve felonies.  But why do they put themselves at risk like that in the first place?  Couldn't they make arrangements to someone else to take them home, maybe a friend or a cab?  Or if they are unable or unwilling to be taken home, then could they not go just a day without drinking?  It's a simple choice, yet people want to learn things the hard way.


Last summer while I was visiting Kansas City, one of my nephews (a Missouri resident) was jailed for drunk driving after a night at the club.  While a friend of his and I were picking him up from jail, I couldn't believe how lenient they were on his second offense:  one night in jail, $900 fine, and banned for less than a month from driving in Kansas (where he was arrested).  But he was lucky he didn't hurt or kill anyone....very lucky.  On the next day, he was back in on the road in his state.  God forbid he ever tries that again.

[corco]

corco, I completely get what you're saying and almost agree to a small extent that normal, level-heads don't deserve felonies.  But why do they put themselves at risk like that in the first place?  Couldn't they make arrangements to someone else to take them home, maybe a friend or a cab?  Or if they are unable or unwilling to be taken home, then could they not go just a day without drinking?  It's a simple choice, yet people want to learn things the hard way.


Last summer while I was visiting Kansas City, one of my nephews (a Missouri resident) was jailed for drunk driving after a night at the club.  While a friend of his and I were picking him up from jail, I couldn't believe how lenient they were on his second offense:  one night in jail, $900 fine, and banned for less than a month from driving in Kansas (where he was arrested).  But he was lucky he didn't hurt or kill anyone....very lucky.  On the next day, he was back in on the road in his state.  God forbid he ever tries that again.

Let me take a stab at this- what follows is obviously opinion and there's tons of possible and reasonable viewpoints with no provable correct answer, and I'll try to walk that fine line between reasonable discourse and a pointless/annoying conversation nobody wants to have about things nobody knows the answer to- if I go over it I won't be offended in the slightest if somebody important decides to remove this post. These are just my thoughts on the philosophy of why depending on human behavior to follow DUI laws may not be effective. I'm not saying I'm right, nor that anybody else is wrong- just presenting another way to look at it.

It goes to legislating morality. I'm a firm believer that people rarely follow the law because "it's the law," they follow it because it's generally what they perceive to be the "right" thing to do. Laws are simply a set of standards that validate the beliefs of the majority. As a result, morality legislation, whether it's DUI laws, drug laws, murder laws, or a whole host of things we really don't want to start talking about, is completely ineffective. I'm not saying that murder should be legalized- but that the law itself is ineffective. I highly doubt anybody who murders does it while worrying about the legal implications- that would be ridiculous. Human instinct prevents us from murdering. If a murder law had never existed (if it were repealed today the behavioral implications would be entirely different), I highly doubt there would be many, if any more murders. Not murdering is raw human instinct- it goes to the survival of our species. I strongly believe that's why people don't run around killing each other- not because there's a law prohibiting it. There's a very clear answer there, so that law works (HOW to punish murder is still up for debate, but that's another animal).

Laws that have grey area tend to fail. I'll cite marijuana as an example- we don't have an internal instinct that says "drugs are bad." As a result, some are firmly of the belief that drugs should be legalized, while others are firmly of the belief that it's no big deal and if they smoke a joint, who cares?  Regardless of one's opinion on the validity of the drug law, it's pretty obvious that it's not all that effective. That's why- to a substantial part of the population it seems completely pointless. When laws don't jive with fundamental beliefs, people tend to err on the side of their beliefs- whether or not those beliefs are correct. If that lands them in jail, so be it. People who smoke pot don't sit around scared of the effects of pot on their body- the only thing they worry about with regards to the pot is getting caught smoking pot. This just doesn't stop people from carrying out the activity.

This directly applies to DUI laws. While it is definitely proven that driving drunk is more dangerous than driving sober (and I don't think you'll find anybody who disagrees with that), the effects just aren't obvious to the average drunk driver. The majority of people who drive drunk won't get in an accident and won't kill anybody. Most drunk drivers who get behind the wheel aren't scared of their ability not to kill somebody- they're scared of getting a DUI. There just aren't enough drunk driving casualties to develop an internal instinct that says "crap, I shouldn't do that." Those who have had family killed by drunk drivers or been injured directly by drunk drivers probably have that instinct. They will likely never drive drunk. For those that do choose to drive drunk, however, drunk driving is something that they say is bad on TV and then you get thrown in a jail cell for. They don't have that instinct, and the law to them is an arbitrary device that's just annoying. There's no internal correlation for a lot of people between getting in the car intoxicated and killing somebody. The other issue to consider is intent- when somebody goes to murder, they go to take a life. When somebody goes to drive drunk, they usually don't do it with the intent of taking a life- they intend to get wherever they're going. That doesn't help the development of the "drunk driving=killing people" correlation.

Then it becomes an opportunity cost thing. "Sure," the average drunk driver may say, "there's a small chance I'll get thrown in a jail cell tonight, but if I get in the car and drive, there's a 100% chance I'll get to go to a cool party/get laid/not have to hassle with finding my car in the morning/not get yelled at by my parents for spending the night somewhere because I was drinking underage." Those things can be worth the perceived risk, which is probably much lower than the actual risk. That doesn't make these people bad people, it just means they lack common sense and internally find the law pointless (possibly without merit, and most would never admit that) . Their experiences with driving drunk don't jive at all with the law, so they err on the side of their experience.

Because society doesn't have an inherent instinct preventing drunk driving, direct DUI laws will never work as a means of preventing the action. There's basically no way to legislate preventative action- I firmly believe that.  It just lands a bunch of people who are good people but lack a small piece of common sense in jail.  That's just not fair. There's really two options, one to cure drunk driving. If we want to make drunk driving go away, I strongly believe the only way to do it is to somehow have a drunk driver kill everyone's brother every five years for the next hundred so that the entire society develops an instinct that drunk driving kills that drives close to home for each and every person. The other option is to punish a la Sweden, based on results. If you're drunk and get in an accident or injure somebody, you should lose your license forever and be punished harshly. That sort of punishment goes to human instinct.

[KEK Inc.]

So no one thinks lane changing without signalling is bad?  If I become world totalitarian dictator, those people will be the first to get tortured a slow painful death, since people who fail to signal most likely rape others and molest small children.