Skill level of the driving public seems to be on the decline

[corco]

If they both start going at the same time, which appears to be what they are doing in the video (and code would suggest they have the right to do), then the below would apply:

But that's the same for four-way stops too.  If someone starts going through the intersection—no matter from which direction—then you have to yield to that driver.  But that doesn't mean the other driver had the right of way to do so.

Same with a two-way stop.  If someone starts going through the intersection, then you have to yield.  But that doesn't mean the other driver had the right of way to do so.

Left turning traffic always yields to traffic going straight if folks are in the intersection simultaneously - you don't just get to turn left in front of people

When stop signs aren't involved, then I totally agree with you.  However, when an oncoming driver has already stopped at a stop sign, then he is no longer "entering" the intersection.  He's stopped, and therefore any requirement to yield to him does not apply.

For clarity, I'm not necessarily speaking to what happened in the video, but about your assertion that "the rules that apply at four way stops (the vehicle that gets there first goes first) do not apply at two way stops".

When I was a young, new driver, I thought that the left-turning driver always had to yield to oncoming drivers.  Then, one day, I found myself wanting to turn left at a two-way stop.  There was a whole line of cars facing me either going straight or turning right.  I sat there like a fool, letting oncoming car after oncoming car go first.  Eventually, I realized that, if I kept that up, I'd never turn left.

It is an often misunderstood rule, and a lot of folks break it so I'm always careful if I get to an intersection and somebody is waiting to turn left - but I have never ever found a law or official document in any state that says the first person to the intersection gets to go first in any context other than a four way stop or when cars are perpendicular to each other. I can't prove a negative so would volley that over to you.

Barring that, I'm not exactly sure what the legal defense would be - obviously yes, if you were already in the intersection when the person started to go from the stop sign they'd be liable (if you can prove that). I'm not sure what would inherently give you the right to go first though. I don't think any such law exists, and so you'd be fighting an uphill battle with a cop if you got in a crash under these circumstances.

I've been driving under that general rule for 17 years now - my folks for decades beyond that. It's not all that tricky - you can always eventually turn left - or a better practice is to enter the intersection with your signal on, allow the oncoming car to go straight (if they are already in the intersection), and then complete your left turn before the next car at the oncoming stop sign turns. 

[kphoger]

Laws hardly ever specify that a driver gets to go first.  Laws generally only specify when a driver has to yield.

Because the law only states that, if I'm turning left at a two-way stop sign, I must yield to any vehicles already in the intersection or approaching so closely as to be an immediate hazard, then I am free of any obligation to yield to an oncoming driver who is currently stopped–regardless of who got there first.

In fact, as you have noted, the law doesn't require either one of us to wait for the other.

Other states may indeed have clarification on their books.

[corco]

In fact, as you have noted, the law doesn't require either one of us to wait for the other.

Right, but that's exactly the point - if neither of you have explicit priority and then you turn left into somebody, there is actually a law on the books for that - and that's what you'd be cited for. You'd be the one that failed to yield right of way. If a police officer has to respond to this crash and sees that you've turned left into/in front of somebody, I would be willing to be large sums of money you'd be the one found at fault.

[kphoger]

In fact, as you have noted, the law doesn't require either one of us to wait for the other.

Right, but that's exactly the point - if neither of you have explicit priority and then you turn left into somebody, there is actually a law on the books for that - and that's what you'd be cited for. You'd be the one that failed to yield right of way. If a police officer has to respond to this crash and sees that you've turned left into/in front of somebody, I would be willing to be large sums of money you'd be the one found at fault.

But, if I start going first and then the oncoming driver starts to go and we crash, then the other driver would be in violation of the law requiring him to yield to vehicles already in the intersection.  Depends who runs into whose fender.

[kalvado]

If they both start going at the same time, which appears to be what they are doing in the video (and code would suggest they have the right to do), then the below would apply:

But that's the same for four-way stops too.  If someone starts going through the intersection–no matter from which direction–then you have to yield to that driver.  But that doesn't mean the other driver had the right of way to do so.

Same with a two-way stop.  If someone starts going through the intersection, then you have to yield.  But that doesn't mean the other driver had the right of way to do so.

Left turning traffic always yields to traffic going straight if folks are in the intersection simultaneously - you don't just get to turn left in front of people

When stop signs aren't involved, then I totally agree with you.  However, when an oncoming driver has already stopped at a stop sign, then he is no longer "entering" the intersection.  He's stopped, and therefore any requirement to yield to him does not apply.

For clarity, I'm not necessarily speaking to what happened in the video, but about your assertion that "the rules that apply at four way stops (the vehicle that gets there first goes first) do not apply at two way stops".

When I was a young, new driver, I thought that the left-turning driver always had to yield to oncoming drivers.  Then, one day, I found myself wanting to turn left at a two-way stop.  There was a whole line of cars facing me either going straight or turning right.  I sat there like a fool, letting oncoming car after oncoming car go first.  Eventually, I realized that, if I kept that up, I'd never turn left.

Whatever it is for a 2-way stop, the intersection in question is NOT one of them. This is an all-way stop with 2-way street intersecting one-way street, so only 3 legs having a stop sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.982903,-87.7112823,3a,75y,28.84h,82.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spD2HLWg7Ie0zc8bxWJliFw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
So, first come, first go. It is unclear from the video who was there first.
I suspect insurance would say mutual fault in this case, as stop sign is designed to give all parties time to ensure others are not in their way. Turning left may be an aggregating factor.

[corco]

 

If they both start going at the same time, which appears to be what they are doing in the video (and code would suggest they have the right to do), then the below would apply:

But that's the same for four-way stops too.  If someone starts going through the intersection–no matter from which direction–then you have to yield to that driver.  But that doesn't mean the other driver had the right of way to do so.

Same with a two-way stop.  If someone starts going through the intersection, then you have to yield.  But that doesn't mean the other driver had the right of way to do so.

Left turning traffic always yields to traffic going straight if folks are in the intersection simultaneously - you don't just get to turn left in front of people

When stop signs aren't involved, then I totally agree with you.  However, when an oncoming driver has already stopped at a stop sign, then he is no longer "entering" the intersection.  He's stopped, and therefore any requirement to yield to him does not apply.

For clarity, I'm not necessarily speaking to what happened in the video, but about your assertion that "the rules that apply at four way stops (the vehicle that gets there first goes first) do not apply at two way stops".

When I was a young, new driver, I thought that the left-turning driver always had to yield to oncoming drivers.  Then, one day, I found myself wanting to turn left at a two-way stop.  There was a whole line of cars facing me either going straight or turning right.  I sat there like a fool, letting oncoming car after oncoming car go first.  Eventually, I realized that, if I kept that up, I'd never turn left.

Whatever it is for a 2-way stop, the intersection in question is NOT one of them. This is an all-way stop with 2-way street intersecting one-way street, so only 3 legs having a stop sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.982903,-87.7112823,3a,75y,28.84h,82.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spD2HLWg7Ie0zc8bxWJliFw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
So, first come, first go. It is unclear from the video who was there first.
I suspect insurance would say mutual fault in this case, as stop sign is designed to give all parties time to ensure others are not in their way. Turning left may be an aggregating factor.

Oh hey good call - couldn't see that plaque from the video.

[kphoger]

I suspect insurance would say mutual fault in this case, as stop sign is designed to give all parties time to ensure others are not in their way. Turning left may be an aggregating factor.

Yep.

In fact, bringing up insurance...  For the fender bender I had earlier this year...  Nobody received a ticket, my insurance company got $400 of my $500 repair bill back from the other party's insurance company, yet my rates are still going up by $40 a month this cycle.

[Crash_It]

I stopped watching after the first clip. You passed a guy, on a city street, when there were other cars no more than a block ahead of him.

-It's not illegal to pass on a City street unless it is double striped or designated as a no passing zone... None of which is the case.
- He was going way too much below the posted speed limit with no justifiable reason for doing so.

-it was a huge benefit to pass because he got stopped at the next red light while I made it through. I would not have had I not passed.

You're the kind of guy who tailgates me in the left lane of an interstate while I'm behind a semi going 66 that's passing another semi going 65, and when you get even more impatient you pass me on the right to cut in front of me because the safe distance I'm keeping behind the semi is a big enough space for you to squeeze into.

False, the semi would get the blame in that situation.

[jakeroot]

-It's not illegal to pass on a City street unless it is double striped or designated as a no passing zone... None of which is the case.

But the law is not "you must overtake if X is true". The law permits you to perform the maneuver as you performed it, but that does not mean it was an appropriate maneuver for the area. I see many parked cars and plenty of opportunity for pedestrians to step out.

I have passed on city streets before. Mostly people looking for parking. So I will avoid any double standards. But that clip suggests you are perhaps dangerously impatient.

[Crash_It]

-It's not illegal to pass on a City street unless it is double striped or designated as a no passing zone... None of which is the case.

But the law is not "you must overtake if X is true". The law permits you to perform the maneuver as you performed it, but that does not mean it was an appropriate maneuver for the area. I see many parked cars and plenty of opportunity for pedestrians to step out.

I have passed on city streets before. Mostly people looking for parking. So I will avoid any double standards. But that clip suggests you are perhaps dangerously impatient.

I waited for an appropriate and safe opportunity to pass and I took it. He was driving like that for quite sometime prior. Those who are dangerously impatient will pass even when oncoming traffic is close and for three purpose to exceed the speed limit. I was going only two over when I passed him. That's how slow he was... Who would want to be stuck behind that?

[Max Rockatansky]

-It's not illegal to pass on a City street unless it is double striped or designated as a no passing zone... None of which is the case.

But the law is not "you must overtake if X is true". The law permits you to perform the maneuver as you performed it, but that does not mean it was an appropriate maneuver for the area. I see many parked cars and plenty of opportunity for pedestrians to step out.

I have passed on city streets before. Mostly people looking for parking. So I will avoid any double standards. But that clip suggests you are perhaps dangerously impatient.

I'm convinced the OP considers himself infallible to criticism by the way these questions are getting answered.  Any of us could throw some sort of valid point out about how the OP is driving and it would be rebuffed with a "explanation"  as to why it was okay.  I'm half convinced the point of these threads is a ploy to grow interest in the OP's Youtube channel. 

[jakeroot]

I waited for an appropriate and safe opportunity to pass and I took it. He was driving like that for quite sometime prior. Those who are dangerously impatient will pass even when oncoming traffic is close and for three purpose to exceed the speed limit. I was going only two over when I passed him. That's how slow he was... Who would want to be stuck behind that?

I don't really care how fast you went when you overtook. Here in WA, we are taught to exceed the limit when overtaking (the law permits this), so your behavior is consistent with our practice here anyways. Still, by the time you passed and got behind the car he was behind, you had to slow way down again, back (I'm sure) below the limit. So you were back to what, like, 25 instead of 20? And then he was right behind you anyway. Maybe you'd make the next light but you still look like a massive prat, and you had to perform a rather dangerous maneuver to get to that point. To me, the whole thing was a net loss.

I'm convinced the OP considers himself infallible to criticism by the way these questions are getting answered.  Any of us could throw some sort of valid point out about how the OP is driving and it would be rebuffed with a "explanation"  as to why it was okay.  I'm half convinced the point of these threads is a ploy to grow interest in the OP's Youtube channel. 

It would seem so, yes.

If I had some constructive criticism: he needs to include more context in these clips. In most, he comes off like a massive wanker even if there is a legitimate explanation behind his choices. In the case of the first clip from the OP, all we can see is him overtake someone going with the flow of traffic who is just leaving a slightly bigger gap than everyone else. If the driver is going 10 under, it would seem to be because of all the cars in front of him. If that's not the case, why not include the whole clip? Maybe with him making that light that the Avalon supposedly missed.

[Crash_It]

I waited for an appropriate and safe opportunity to pass and I took it. He was driving like that for quite sometime prior. Those who are dangerously impatient will pass even when oncoming traffic is close and for three purpose to exceed the speed limit. I was going only two over when I passed him. That's how slow he was... Who would want to be stuck behind that?

I don't really care how fast you went when you overtook. Here in WA, we are taught to exceed the limit when overtaking (the law permits this), so your behavior is consistent with our practice here anyways. Still, by the time you passed and got behind the car he was behind, you had to slow way down again, back (I'm sure) below the limit. So you were back to what, like, 25 instead of 20? And then he was right behind you anyway. Maybe you'd make the next light but you still look like a massive prat, and you had to perform a rather dangerous maneuver to get to that point. To me, the whole thing was a net loss.

I'm convinced the OP considers himself infallible to criticism by the way these questions are getting answered.  Any of us could throw some sort of valid point out about how the OP is driving and it would be rebuffed with a "explanation"  as to why it was okay.  I'm half convinced the point of these threads is a ploy to grow interest in the OP's Youtube channel. 

It would seem so, yes.

If I had some constructive criticism: he needs to include more context in these clips. In most, he comes off like a massive wanker even if there is a legitimate explanation behind his choices. In the case of the first clip from the OP, all we can see is him overtake someone going with the flow of traffic who is just leaving a slightly bigger gap than everyone else. If the driver is going 10 under, it would seem to be because of all the cars in front of him. If that's not the case, why not include the whole clip? Maybe with him making that light that the Avalon supposedly missed.

I didn't have to slow down into the 20s, traffic in front was doing the appropriate speed. It appears that way because he got mad that I passed and sped up to honk.

[jakeroot]

I didn't have to slow down into the 20s, traffic in front was doing the appropriate speed. It appears that way because he got mad that I passed and sped up to honk.

So why include the clip? A vital part of the context is completely missing from the video.

Maybe you're not a completely crap driver, but your editing skills need work. Based on your responses to our comments here, we are all misunderstanding your clips. They're not long enough and don't include information that you're later relying on to prove your innocence.

[Max Rockatansky]

I didn't have to slow down into the 20s, traffic in front was doing the appropriate speed. It appears that way because he got mad that I passed and sped up to honk.

So why include the clip? A vital part of the context is completely missing from the video.

Maybe you're not a completely crap driver, but your editing skills need work. Based on your responses to our comments here, we are all misunderstanding your clips. They're not long enough and don't include information that you're later relying on to prove your innocence.

Judging by the comments I'm seeing on the OP's videos his viewership is mostly people looking for something short to complain about that's relatable.  That's all well and good hawking the bottom of the barrel on YouTube but it doesn't carry over to the Road Geek World.  Too many of us know the actual traffic laws and can nitpick the hell out of short edits that don't contextualize the scenario at hand fully. 

[jeffandnicole]

I waited for an appropriate and safe opportunity to pass and I took it. He was driving like that for quite sometime prior. Those who are dangerously impatient will pass even when oncoming traffic is close and for three purpose to exceed the speed limit. I was going only two over when I passed him. That's how slow he was... Who would want to be stuck behind that?

I didn't have to slow down into the 20s, traffic in front was doing the appropriate speed. It appears that way because he got mad that I passed and sped up to honk.

The explanation makes no sense whatsoever. You passed him because he was going too slow. Based on what you said, that would mean about 20 mph. But as you passed him, there were two vehicles in front of him. You said they were going the appropriate speed.  How is it possible those two cars were going 30+ mph yet the car you passed was only going 20 mph, and there was that small of a gap between the vehicles?

[jakeroot]

I didn't have to slow down into the 20s, traffic in front was doing the appropriate speed. It appears that way because he got mad that I passed and sped up to honk.

So why include the clip? A vital part of the context is completely missing from the video.

Maybe you're not a completely crap driver, but your editing skills need work. Based on your responses to our comments here, we are all misunderstanding your clips. They're not long enough and don't include information that you're later relying on to prove your innocence.

Judging by the comments I'm seeing on the OP's videos his viewership is mostly people looking for something short to complain about that's relatable.  That's all well and good hawking the bottom of the barrel on YouTube but it doesn't carry over to the Road Geek World.  Too many of us know the actual traffic laws and can nitpick the hell out of short edits that don't contextualize the scenario at hand fully.

Very true. I find most 'cammers' (as they call themselves) are largely younger drivers with a passion for getting angry, and who use speed, aggression, and intimidation to solve their problems. I mean, I can't say those things aren't legit tactics for dealing with certain drivers under certain situations, but 'cammers' seem to use the same very aggressive tactics for most of their interactions. Even those that are largely minor, like not signaling, driving a little too slow, driving too close or too far back, etc. Things that are just part of driving but which absolutely drive 'cammers' up the wall.

I like dashcams, and I think they're a great asset for the modern driver. But the 'bad drivers' series on YouTube is about two things: views and collective anger. It's a circle j**k. Period.

[Max Rockatansky]

I didn't have to slow down into the 20s, traffic in front was doing the appropriate speed. It appears that way because he got mad that I passed and sped up to honk.

So why include the clip? A vital part of the context is completely missing from the video.

Maybe you're not a completely crap driver, but your editing skills need work. Based on your responses to our comments here, we are all misunderstanding your clips. They're not long enough and don't include information that you're later relying on to prove your innocence.

Judging by the comments I'm seeing on the OP's videos his viewership is mostly people looking for something short to complain about that's relatable.  That's all well and good hawking the bottom of the barrel on YouTube but it doesn't carry over to the Road Geek World.  Too many of us know the actual traffic laws and can nitpick the hell out of short edits that don't contextualize the scenario at hand fully.

Very true. I find most 'cammers' (as they call themselves) are largely younger drivers with a passion for getting angry, and who use speed, aggression, and intimidation to solve their problems. I mean, I can't say those things aren't legit tactics for dealing with certain drivers under certain situations, but 'cammers' seem to use the same very aggressive tactics for most of their interactions. Even those that are largely minor, like not signaling, driving a little too slow, driving too close or too far back, etc. Things that are just part of driving but which absolutely drive 'cammers' up the wall.

I like dashcams, and I think they're a great asset for the modern driver. But the 'bad drivers' series on YouTube is about two things: views and collective anger. It's a circle j**k. Period.

To that end I'm not sure what the point of all these videos on this forum are?  I'm not really sure how they are a contribution to "Road Geeking" aside from some of the productive commentary which spawned in this thread.   Also, why does it seem like so many of those posters come from Chicagoland?  I'm tempted to ask if these videos somehow involve a Sabb with a diesel engine.

[US 89]

As shown in my most recent video it seems that the general skill level of the driving public is actually declining rather than improving. The Covid-19 pandemic seems to have exacerbated this moreso. I have clips from before and during the pandemic as comparison. You'll see various areas of Chicagoland in this video as well. Thoughts as to any other reasons why this is? I mean, I'm not necessarily bothered by it as it will always provide me with some content to produce once my backlog runs out.

So...I see way worse than this in Atlanta all the time, and I'm not half as bothered by it as you seem to be. And the first clip is just reckless on your part. Sure it's annoying when the guy in front of you is going slower than you'd like, but it's not that hard to just deal with it. Passing on a residential street is never acceptable unless the other car pulls over.

Might be a good idea to lay off a bit on the horn, too. I do not honk at people unless I have to take an unusual evasive action to avoid an accident (or when they don't go at a green light, in which case a light tap is generally sufficient). And I certainly don't hold it out in 5+ second blasts.

[jakeroot]

To that end I'm not sure what the point of all these videos on this forum are?  I'm not really sure how they are a contribution to "Road Geeking" aside from some of the productive commentary which spawned in this thread.   Also, why does it seem like so many of those posters come from Chicagoland?  I'm tempted to ask if these videos somehow involve a Sabb with a diesel engine.

Diesel Saabs?!?! That's not a good sign.

I think they are the latest example of extrapolation based solely on anecdotal evidence. It's pretty bad amongst the 'camming' community since they make a point of crafting entire videos around bad drivers: if drivers were improving, there wouldn't be any content!

And I certainly don't hold it out in 5+ second blasts.

Yeah, but then you won't get any good clips!!! You gotta use that horn to get other cammers to subscribe to you.

[kphoger]

Wow, so many of those clips were such minor infractions, that they're hardly worth mentioning.  The majority of them are definitely not worth honking a horn.  A few were noteworthy, but most of them weren't.

For example...  The Caravan coming to a near-stop while straddling the lane line:  there was still room to go around the van on the right, so who the heck cares?

As for the whole 'passing on a city street' thing...  There was room to pass, and it wasn't reckless behavior to pass the guy.  However:

How is it possible those two cars were going 30+ mph yet the car you passed was only going 20 mph, and there was that small of a gap between the vehicles?

That was my thought exactly.  I seriously doubt your judgment about the other cars' speeds.  If there were actually a clear shot in front of the slowpoke, then the slowpoke should have no right to be upset by being passed.  But there wasn't.  You passed him to no immediate advantage.  You were lucky that the next stoplight was green for you but red for him:  otherwise, you would have gained a whopping one car length but perhaps invited the other driver to get out of the car and bash your window in.  Or, worse yet, attempted to pass you later on in an even riskier maneuver, potentially causing injury.

I'm convinced the OP considers himself infallible to criticism by the way these questions are getting answered.  Any of us could throw some sort of valid point out about how the OP is driving and it would be rebuffed with a "explanation"  as to why it was okay.

This is so totally true.

We watched a video that supposedly points out other people's bad driving.  For quite a number of us–and we are various ages, from various places, with various backgrounds and experiences–it ended up being a video about the OP's bad driving instead.  We identified specific displays of driver aggression on the part of the OP, and we considered such to be at least as bad, if not even worse, than the other drivers' errors that prompted it.  And all the OP has done is defend himself, point by point, to clear his name of any alleged aggressive or dangerous behavior.

[hotdogPi]

I believe Brandon posted a legitimate video of aggressive drivers in his area (Chicagoland, but not Chicago proper) a few years ago. I forget if it was actually Brandon's video or not.

[Crash_It]

As shown in my most recent video it seems that the general skill level of the driving public is actually declining rather than improving. The Covid-19 pandemic seems to have exacerbated this moreso. I have clips from before and during the pandemic as comparison. You'll see various areas of Chicagoland in this video as well. Thoughts as to any other reasons why this is? I mean, I'm not necessarily bothered by it as it will always provide me with some content to produce once my backlog runs out.

So...I see way worse than this in Atlanta all the time, and I'm not half as bothered by it as you seem to be. And the first clip is just reckless on your part. Sure it's annoying when the guy in front of you is going slower than you'd like, but it's not that hard to just deal with it. Passing on a residential street is never acceptable unless the other car pulls over.

Might be a good idea to lay off a bit on the horn, too. I do not honk at people unless I have to take an unusual evasive action to avoid an accident (or when they don't go at a green light, in which case a light tap is generally sufficient). And I certainly don't hold it out in 5+ second blasts.

It's even more unacceptable to go 15 in a 30 Zone. That's also not a residential street otherwise it wouldn't be striped. Plus, many residential streets in Chicago are one way and far too narrow for even such a msneuvei that I performed to be possible.

[Crash_It]

Wow, so many of those clips were such minor infractions, that they're hardly worth mentioning.  The majority of them are definitely not worth honking a horn.  A few were noteworthy, but most of them weren't.

For example...  The Caravan coming to a near-stop while straddling the lane line:  there was still room to go around the van on the right, so who the heck cares?

There was no room to go around the caravan otherwise I wouldn't have honked. Remember,dashcams are wide angle... So they make everything appear further away than they actually are.

And how is a driver running a stop sign out onto a road with oil on it  (was being resurfaced) on a rainy day in a 45 Zone a minor infraction? I certainly would've hit him if I hadn't passed.

How is it possible those two cars were going 30+ mph yet the car you passed was only going 20 mph, and there was that small of a gap between the vehicles?

That was my thought exactly.  I seriously doubt your judgment about the other cars' speeds.  If there were actually a clear shot in front of the slowpoke, then the slowpoke should have no right to be upset by being passed.  But there wasn't.  You passed him to no immediate advantage.  You were lucky that the next stoplight was green for you but red for him:  otherwise, you would have gained a whopping one car length but perhaps invited the other driver to get out of the car and bash your window in.  Or, worse yet, attempted to pass you later on in an even riskier maneuver, potentially causing injury.

You have no idea how many drivers will get angry at you just got being passed and I have other examples on my channel that shows that. There was plenty of room in front of him to complete the pass (at least 3 car lengths). The advantage I gained is that I don't have to be subjected to his slow driving anymore and possibly getting more red lights.
[

[jakeroot]

excuses