Unpopular Anything Road-Related Opinions

[HighwayStar]

Driving without a seat belt shouldn't be against the law for anyone over the age of majority, because it's a personal choice by the individual that poses almost no risk of harm to anyone else.

If anything, instead, maybe cars should be designed to go into "limp mode" if the driver's seat belt isn't fastened.

(I wear my seat belt.)

I think people who have a record of bad behavior on the road, DUI, reckless driving, etc. should only get to drive one kind of car, a designated "safety car"

It should be small and lightweight, so as not to be a danger to other vehicles. It should have a thick rubber belt line all the way around that sticks out to minimize damage from any fender benders. It should be painted a bright orange like a traffic cone to make it visible to others to avoid. There should be a flashing light on the top, maybe green, to indicate that it is a danger to other motorists. The engine should be a de-tuned 3 cylinder mated to a saggy and ineffective CVT transmission that ensures 0-60 times are over 15 seconds. It should lack modern safety features like seat belts, air bags, and crumple zones, to encourage the driver to be very careful about how they drive.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes, let's endanger others because we don't like their life choices.  I'm sure this wouldn't be contested in any way. 

[kphoger]

I think people who have a record of bad behavior on the road, DUI, reckless driving, etc. should only get to drive one kind of car, a designated "safety car" ... It should lack modern safety features like seat belts, air bags, and crumple zones, to encourage the driver to be very careful about how they drive.

I suspect that the second bolded part would not hold true for the subset of drivers specified in the first bolded part.

[HighwayStar]

I think people who have a record of bad behavior on the road, DUI, reckless driving, etc. should only get to drive one kind of car, a designated "safety car" ... It should lack modern safety features like seat belts, air bags, and crumple zones, to encourage the driver to be very careful about how they drive.

I suspect that the second bolded part would not hold true for the subset of drivers specified in the first bolded part.

Eh maybe, maybe not. I do see a lot of people that drive like that because they have a big vehicle and think they can do whatever they want. If they were in a glorified golf cart they may feel differently.

[vdeane]

Driving without a seat belt shouldn't be against the law for anyone over the age of majority, because it's a personal choice by the individual that poses almost no risk of harm to anyone else.

If anything, instead, maybe cars should be designed to go into "limp mode" if the driver's seat belt isn't fastened.

(I wear my seat belt.)

I think people who have a record of bad behavior on the road, DUI, reckless driving, etc. should only get to drive one kind of car, a designated "safety car"

It should be small and lightweight, so as not to be a danger to other vehicles. It should have a thick rubber belt line all the way around that sticks out to minimize damage from any fender benders. It should be painted a bright orange like a traffic cone to make it visible to others to avoid. There should be a flashing light on the top, maybe green, to indicate that it is a danger to other motorists. The engine should be a de-tuned 3 cylinder mated to a saggy and ineffective CVT transmission that ensures 0-60 times are over 15 seconds. It should lack modern safety features like seat belts, air bags, and crumple zones, to encourage the driver to be very careful about how they drive.

I think people who have a record of bad behavior on the road, DUI, reckless driving, etc. should only get to drive one kind of car, a designated "safety car" ... It should lack modern safety features like seat belts, air bags, and crumple zones, to encourage the driver to be very careful about how they drive.

I suspect that the second bolded part would not hold true for the subset of drivers specified in the first bolded part.

Eh maybe, maybe not. I do see a lot of people that drive like that because they have a big vehicle and think they can do whatever they want. If they were in a glorified golf cart they may feel differently.

That slow acceleration speed would create a safety problem by forcing them to merge onto the freeway well below the speed of traffic.  This can come up on local roads too, where it's hard to find a gap in traffic.  The lack of a crumple zone would also make it do more damage to other cars if it hit them, since it would basically be a tank.

"Bumper car" seems more accurate than "golf cart".

[HighwayStar]

Driving without a seat belt shouldn't be against the law for anyone over the age of majority, because it's a personal choice by the individual that poses almost no risk of harm to anyone else.

If anything, instead, maybe cars should be designed to go into "limp mode" if the driver's seat belt isn't fastened.

(I wear my seat belt.)

I think people who have a record of bad behavior on the road, DUI, reckless driving, etc. should only get to drive one kind of car, a designated "safety car"

It should be small and lightweight, so as not to be a danger to other vehicles. It should have a thick rubber belt line all the way around that sticks out to minimize damage from any fender benders. It should be painted a bright orange like a traffic cone to make it visible to others to avoid. There should be a flashing light on the top, maybe green, to indicate that it is a danger to other motorists. The engine should be a de-tuned 3 cylinder mated to a saggy and ineffective CVT transmission that ensures 0-60 times are over 15 seconds. It should lack modern safety features like seat belts, air bags, and crumple zones, to encourage the driver to be very careful about how they drive.

I think people who have a record of bad behavior on the road, DUI, reckless driving, etc. should only get to drive one kind of car, a designated "safety car" ... It should lack modern safety features like seat belts, air bags, and crumple zones, to encourage the driver to be very careful about how they drive.

I suspect that the second bolded part would not hold true for the subset of drivers specified in the first bolded part.

Eh maybe, maybe not. I do see a lot of people that drive like that because they have a big vehicle and think they can do whatever they want. If they were in a glorified golf cart they may feel differently.

That slow acceleration speed would create a safety problem by forcing them to merge onto the freeway well below the speed of traffic.  This can come up on local roads too, where it's hard to find a gap in traffic.  The lack of a crumple zone would also make it do more damage to other cars if it hit them, since it would basically be a tank.

"Bumper car" seems more accurate than "golf cart".

0-60 in 15 seconds is actually enough to merge onto a freeway. Most heavy trucks cannot do better than that, and they drive on our roads day in and day out.
For local roads, they might just have to wait for that gap in traffic, oh well.
The lack of a crumple zone does not inherently mean it must do more damage to other vehicles. That would only be true if it was built heavily and rigid. That is not the specification. It should be of flimsy uni-body construction, so it would lack a crumple zone because the entire car would effectively be one. That would actually minimize damage to other vehicles by absorbing the maximum amount of energy in an impact.

[vdeane]

And heavy trucks are already annoying when you're behind them on the ramp or when you're near them.  And there are many places where a large gap in traffic won't happen during daytime hours - here, for example.

[HighwayStar]

And heavy trucks are already annoying when you're behind them on the ramp or when you're near them.  And there are many places where a large gap in traffic won't happen during daytime hours - here, for example.

Much of that is due to their size, not their speed. Plenty of people drive around in vehicles with hundreds of horsepower and never do 0-60 faster than 15 seconds either, because they are snails.
The benefits outweigh the costs on this.
In all the states I have been to or miles driven I have never had a case where I could not get a gap. If you need to go left or straight you might just need to do a Michigan Left. Oh well.

[Max Rockatansky]

Most semis have 0-60 times approaching 30 seconds.

[HighwayStar]

Most semis have 0-60 times approaching 30 seconds.

Yeah I was being obscenely generous with that 15 seconds. Empty flatbed, hot roded Peterbuilt, maybe some Georgia overdrive might hit 60 in 15 seconds, but not general use semis.

I also recall the Toyota motor home I was looking into was 0-60 in 42 seconds, which seemed like it would make for an unpleasant driving experience.

[ran4sh]

They don't necessarily have to use freeways (at least in the east half of the country) - they could be relegated to only using non-freeway routes if the 15-second acceleration becomes a problem for them merging onto freeways

[skluth]

Semis shmemis. I had the same lack of acceleration onto freeways with my college-era 1980 Chevette four speed standard. I got great gas mileage but had no power; I once got it up to 85 mph going downhill. I also had a Scion XD which wasn't much better when I had a passenger. Even today, the Fiat 500 takes almost 15 seconds to get to 62 mph (100 kph). There are plenty of cars with crappy acceleration without bringing semitrucks into the discussion. All these cars also look like bumper cars/golf carts compared to the typical pickup or SUV.

[on_wisconsin]

Over 99% of porcelain/ button copy signs removed in the past decade or two were not historically significant enough to remain in the field.

[algorerhythms]

Semis shmemis. I had the same lack of acceleration onto freeways with my college-era 1980 Chevette four speed standard. I got great gas mileage but had no power; I once got it up to 85 mph going downhill. I also had a Scion XD which wasn't much better when I had a passenger. Even today, the Fiat 500 takes almost 15 seconds to get to 62 mph (100 kph). There are plenty of cars with crappy acceleration without bringing semitrucks into the discussion. All these cars also look like bumper cars/golf carts compared to the typical pickup or SUV.

My Chevy Spark's 0-60 time is "relax, it'll get there" .

[sprjus4]

They don't necessarily have to use freeways (at least in the east half of the country) - they could be relegated to only using non-freeway routes if the 15-second acceleration becomes a problem for them merging onto freeways

Trucks or this "safety car"  that HighwayStar proposes? Either way, banning them freeway is just going to contribute to congestion and decrease safety significantly.

[ran4sh]

I definitely don't mean trucks.

[HighwayStar]

They don't necessarily have to use freeways (at least in the east half of the country) - they could be relegated to only using non-freeway routes if the 15-second acceleration becomes a problem for them merging onto freeways

Trucks or this "safety car"  that HighwayStar proposes? Either way, banning them freeway is just going to contribute to congestion and decrease safety significantly.

Right, trucks should be allowed on the freeway, and if needed left lane bans can be used to improve flow of passenger traffic.
Those driving penalty cars should be obligated to follow truck signage so they would be banned from the left lane(s) as well.

[CapeCodder]

Massachusetts' signage for side streets. The place the cross street sign blade, but don't put the sign blade of the road you're on. It's confusing, especially because up in this area main roads often change names on a whim it seems.

[CtrlAltDel]

My general rule for trucks on freeways would be that they are not allowed in the two leftmost lanes except that they can always use the two rightmost lanes. So, they would be allowed on both lanes of a two-lane freeway, all but the leftmost lane on a three-lane freeway, and so on.

[sprjus4]

My general rule for trucks on freeways would be that they are not allowed in the two leftmost lanes except that they can always use the two rightmost lanes. So, they would be allowed on both lanes of a two-lane freeway, all but the leftmost lane on a three-lane freeway, and so on.

I agree, but in any case, they must be actively passing another vehicle to be in anything other than the right lane. Or for an emergency, lane closure, merging vehicles, etc.

One of my pet peeves is on 6 or more lane freeways, where trucks will just sit in the middle lane without passing any trucks. If a trucker from behind wishes to pass, they must jump into the further left lane, now blocking the entire highway. Stay right completely unless you're actively passing!

[thenetwork]

I would love it if the powers that be completely overhaul the use of speed-reduced school zones.

In my travels, I have driven past schools with no reduced speed limits on the road(s) that border(s) them; driven thru reduced-speed areas.where the school is actually several blocks off the "zoned" road; driven thru "school zones" that spanned 25 feet either side of the school's driveway;  ridiculously looong school zones; zones in the same state/jurisdiction with different speeds around the different schools, etc...

Another reason for a re-evaluation for many of these zones is if the majority of the kids would walk home from school years/decades ago that are now mostly bussed or picked up by parents.  Do the zones need to be the same today as 20-30 years ago?


And then there are the various types of zones:  "Speed Limit xx When Flashing" (what they should all be IMHO), "....Between x:xx and x:xx" and the vaguer "...On School Days" (no flashing lights) or "...When Children Are Present".

[Big John]

^^ MUTCD recommends 200 feet from the school property line, bit I never see that used

[Some one]

I know this is a road forum but it does irk me when people on this forum assume those who are against new freeways/expansions are "new-urbanist" freaks and aren't just people who simply don't want to live next to one or deal with the headache surrounding it.

[Rothman]

I know this is a road forum but it does irk me when people on this forum assume those who are against new freeways/expansions are "new-urbanist" freaks and aren't just people who simply don't want to live next to one or deal with the headache surrounding it.

"I'd rather be a NIMBY than New Urbanist."

[formulanone]

Another reason for a re-evaluation for many of these zones is if the majority of the kids would walk home from school years/decades ago that are now mostly bussed or picked up by parents.  Do the zones need to be the same today as 20-30 years ago?

Some school zones are more prone to stopped/slow traffic than others, but there's no guarantee that one school which has more parked or waiting cars than its drop-off lot can handle is the same trouble at another school.

But yes, the number of students actually crossing the road is much more limited in suburban areas as the years go on.