AARoads Forum

You here about it all the time.  You see it everyday on the roads and even some end up deadly when one causes an accident.  The roads are too crowded and unless we can keep up with sprawl, it will continue to happen.  Plus you will always get that young hot rod who wants to show off his car or prove to his ego how cool he is being the fastest driver on the road even if the roads are brought up to date or not.

Do you think it is going to get worse if we do not expand our road systems and come up with more proactive road building?  After seeing this in our local news http://www.clickorlando.com/news/person-of-interest-sought-in-winter-park-day-care-crash-1-child-killed/25398914 it makes me wonder what will be next.

Although we cannot say for sure if road rage played part in this particular incident, we can most likely guess that it is 95 percent sure that it was that.  This time people off the roads, particularly children in preschool in their very own classroom were the victims and not other drivers or passengers.

Quote from: roadman65 on April 10, 2014, 09:24:10 AM
Although we cannot say for sure if road rage played part in this particular incident, we can most likely guess that it is 95 percent sure that it was that. 

no, we really cannot.

you've started with an agenda, decided to spew it on the forum, and then hastily stapled likely-unrelated facts and citations to it in order to attempt to bolster your point.  this is called being emotionally manipulative.  I'd honestly rather encounter road rage than this "think of the children!" breed of horse's assery.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/explore?tag=road-rage
http://consumer.healthday.com/encyclopedia/emotional-health-17/emotional-disorder-news-228/road-rage-when-stress-hits-the-highway-646042.html
http://crime.about.com/od/victims/p/roadrage.htm

Its not just about children.   This is one unfortunate event that could happen among many due to this ongoing problem.  The main purpose of the OP is in the question.  I basically want to know if anyone here thinks if this problem of road rage is getting worse or not?  I was not trying to peddle my political views on anyone using the children and get people on a campaign against road rage.  We have Al Sharpton and a party called the Democrats who do that every day.

BTW are you related to Rush Limbaugh?

you just have absolutely no idea how to put together a cogent argument, do you? 

QuoteI basically want to know if anyone here thinks if this problem of road rage is getting worse or not?

I don't know if that is what you want or not.  why are you asking me?

QuoteWe have Al Sharpton and a party called the Democrats who do that every day.

left field called.  it wants that back.

QuoteBTW are you related to Rush Limbaugh?

probably.  your mother, on the other hand, just legally changed her name to Ad Hominem.

I think you're saying a bunch of things that don't really have anything to do with your original point.

Congestion is part of the reason for road rage. The other bigger part is people's rudeness. This includes driving too slow, talking on the phone, not signaling, ect.

Around here, at least 40% of people don't signal their turns. And the cops so nothing about it.

Did anybody see that video the woman made of the pickup wrecking?
This one pissed me off. The woman recording the video was acting like she was doing nothing wrong when, in fact she was the one who was being rude and started the incident. The stupid bitch was riding in the left lane un-nessesarliy and refused to move to the right to left a faster driver pass.

The guy, while he was a little wrong for trying to speed, had every right to be angry. I kinda feel sorry for him because he had every right to be angry, and the woman deserved his rage.

People are just becoming more rude and self-absorbed everywhere. It's not just on the road. You should see how they behave in stores. They leave carts loose in the lot,  stop in the middle of the entryway to did through their purses so nobody can get past them, they randomly dump merchandise everywhere, leave slimy food remains in carts, clog and overflow toilets, ect.

Quote from: Brian556 on April 10, 2014, 10:56:59 AMPeople are just becoming more rude and self-absorbed everywhere.

This.

Where's my popcorn?

Quote from: Brandon on April 10, 2014, 12:22:49 PM
Where's my popcorn?

Sorry, I forgot to pass it over towards you. Extra butter?

On topic:
Quote from: Brian556 on Today at 09:56:59 AM
People are just becoming more rude and self-absorbed everywhere.

I would also agree with this

And people are so oblivious, they seem to have no clue that they are being rude or unsafe. I don't think the majority of people are doing rude acts on purpose, it's just that they are so absorbed with themselves, they have no clue.

Quote from: Brian556 on April 10, 2014, 04:15:07 PM
And people are so oblivious, they seem to have no clue that they are being rude or unsafe. I don't think the majority of people are doing rude acts on purpose, it's just that they are so absorbed with themselves, they have no clue.

Or so absorbed with their phones, their iPods, their genitalia, etc, etc.

Quote...their genitalia, etc, etc.

This.

(Um, wait, I think I spoke out of turn)

Did somebody say **popcorn**??
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpic60.picturetrail.com%2FVOL1724%2F9497942%2F24536499%2F409200854.jpg&hash=ae15c786499a94748d38a700614858a47e55e003)

IMO, I think in places, road rage/distractions/foolishness have gone up or gotten out of hand.

I think it has to do with the growth of the "me first" society/mentality that technology and social media is creating. People (especially the younger generations) sit behind the safety of a keyboard for most of what they do, not realizing there are real consequences to their actions. They expect instant gratification regardless of the cost to someone else because somehow their time is more valuable than anyone else. This then transfers to when they're behind the wheel. And when something does happen, it's someone else's fault.

My $0.02; now pass the popcorn  :wave:

I think a fundamental question with this as with a lot of things is: are incidents of road rage actually becoming more frequent? Or is it just that smartphones, social media, etc. have us hearing about them more often? There are plenty of assertions out there that the problem is growing worse, but no one seems to have any hard data to support them. It's all just human perception, which is completely unscientific and frequently quite flawed.

Quote from: Duke87 on April 11, 2014, 12:24:51 AM
I think a fundamental question with this as with a lot of things is: are incidents of road rage actually becoming more frequent? Or is it just that smartphones, social media, etc. have us hearing about them more often? There are plenty of assertions out there that the problem is growing worse, but no one seems to have any hard data to support them. It's all just human perception, which is completely unscientific and frequently quite flawed.

That's a good point. There are more drivers/vehicles out on the road than there were years ago. But congestion also isn't getting any better ( = more frustrated/short-fused drivers). Similar to an argument I was reading about the "increase" in the number of tornadoes...people are more spread out, technology is better, and there are far more storm chasers than in the past...are we able to record more events than years ago or are they occurring more often?

Duke, you forgot the 24-hour news networks, which have to fill that time with something. The more sensational it is, the better the ratings.

We all need to step back and realize that because more (fill in the outrageous act) is visible to our senses, there is not necessarily more out there. Information is a good thing, but our overreaction to it is not.

Quote from: DaBigE on April 11, 2014, 12:30:46 AM

Quote from: Duke87 on April 11, 2014, 12:24:51 AM
I think a fundamental question with this as with a lot of things is: are incidents of road rage actually becoming more frequent? Or is it just that smartphones, social media, etc. have us hearing about them more often? There are plenty of assertions out there that the problem is growing worse, but no one seems to have any hard data to support them. It's all just human perception, which is completely unscientific and frequently quite flawed.

That's a good point. There are more drivers/vehicles out on the road than there were years ago. But congestion also isn't getting any better ( = more frustrated/short-fused drivers). Similar to an argument I was reading about the "increase" in the number of tornadoes...people are more spread out, technology is better, and there are far more storm chasers than in the past...are we able to record more events than years ago or are they occurring more often?

Yeah, I don't really think it's getting more frequent, and honestly, I really don't hear about it being the cause of accidents too often.

I remember having to watch a video about road rage in driver's ed where a guy shot and killed another guy with a crossbow. However, I don't see a rise in these kinds of road rage killing events. It's sensational enough that you would hear about every instance if they were happening and on the rise.

Story from the time it happened 20 years ago: http://articles.latimes.com/1994-02-22/news/mn-25882_1_state-police
2013 update where he wanted to be retried (also contains more background on the events of the shooting: http://attleboro.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/highway-crossbow-killer-wants-new-trial

Quote from: Laura on April 12, 2014, 08:19:31 AM

Quote from: DaBigE on April 11, 2014, 12:30:46 AM

Quote from: Duke87 on April 11, 2014, 12:24:51 AM
I think a fundamental question with this as with a lot of things is: are incidents of road rage actually becoming more frequent? Or is it just that smartphones, social media, etc. have us hearing about them more often? There are plenty of assertions out there that the problem is growing worse, but no one seems to have any hard data to support them. It's all just human perception, which is completely unscientific and frequently quite flawed.

That's a good point. There are more drivers/vehicles out on the road than there were years ago. But congestion also isn't getting any better ( = more frustrated/short-fused drivers). Similar to an argument I was reading about the "increase" in the number of tornadoes...people are more spread out, technology is better, and there are far more storm chasers than in the past...are we able to record more events than years ago or are they occurring more often?

Yeah, I don't really think it's getting more frequent, and honestly, I really don't hear about it being the cause of accidents too often.

With your standard car accident, the media doesn't usually report the cause because the police usually are still investigating that and usually don't have that info.  Many times, I don't see the media ever following up on car crashes unless it involves fatalities.  The media usually says "The cause of the crash is under investigation."  Then, we don't hear about it anymore.

I believe most crashes are caused my drivers cutting others off and misjudging space between cars.  I've almost had drivers weaving in & out of traffic almost clip me if I wasn't paying attention. 

With regards to the pick-up truck dude to flipped out on the lady.  I believe she was in the left lane because she was turning left ahead.  I read somewhere it was a divided highway with the left turn bays etc.  If you're that impatient you can't wait for someone to turn left then there's a problem (unless you're one of those that takes foreverrrrrr to turn).

Of course in theory, if the Speed Limit is 65mph.  Drivers in the left lane or any lane aren't supposed to go over it.  So if Person A is doing 65mph theoretically nobody should be tailgaiting them.    However, I've noticed drivers going 10mph BELOW the posted limit. But if I'm doing 85mph in a 65 in the left lane and somebody is tailgating me, why should I move over?  I don't.  You're not supposed to go 85mph anyway.  Now, if I'm doing 65mph in a 65mph then I do.

Enforcing the speed limit isn't up to non-law-enforcement personnel in their own vehicles.  Speed Limit 65 or not, if you're doing 65 in the left lane, the right lane is open, and someone faster is coming behind you, you shouldn't be blocking the left lane!  (The only exception being something with left exits or left turns where one must be in the left lane for their upcoming turn.)  Mile upon mile of speed limit in the left lane, faster traffic be damned, is rude and causes many more problems than it "solves".

Everyone's "busy".  The hour I dread isn't bar closing, it's when people are getting off of work and get into tooo big a hurry.  They're worse by far than the drunks!  I just let the ones who want to go fast get past.  It is funny to see them zoom-zoom by me and then I see they turned off a few miles ahead.  Geez, what will they do with the extra 60 seconds they gained?

That said I do think Oregon speed limits are way too low and I'm native.  All the states surrounding us have higher limits but it's not like millions are getting killed but we sure do have some cops making a killing on their revenue enhancement.  The city of Port Orford is a good example.  Their city budget has $160K expected revenue from tickets.  All those clownshoes do is write tickets.  No patrol means more crime and I hear all about the break-ins and vandalism down there because the law enforcement is centered around TICKETS instead of CRIME.

Road rage doesn't worry me much out here.  Stupidity, distracted drivers, old fogeys with no business being behind the wheel, bad cop/no donut stories, slides, potholes, bandaid solutions to traffic problems, those are what I see the most of by far here on the South Coast.

Rick

and I thought I was the only one that noticed this trend. its especially frustrating when people take every aggressive move possible to get ahead of you only to come to a red light. it has definitely gotten worse over the last ten years or so.

at least for all the Mass-holes here in MA.

Quote from: doofy103 on April 13, 2014, 06:22:48 PMBut if I'm doing 85mph in a 65 in the left lane and somebody is tailgating me, why should I move over?  I don't.  You're not supposed to go 85mph anyway.  Now, if I'm doing 65mph in a 65mph then I do.

Wrong.  Every state has laws against what is usually called "failure to yield," and they are not speed-limit-dependent.  You are required to move to the right, if it's safe to do so, if faster traffic is coming up behind you.

And, as has already been pointed out, if you aren't a cop it's not up to you to enforce your own peculiar brand of "law."  If your hypothetical tailgater isn't supposed to go 85 neither are you.

Quote from: SidS1045 on April 14, 2014, 07:47:29 AM

Quote from: doofy103 on April 13, 2014, 06:22:48 PMBut if I'm doing 85mph in a 65 in the left lane and somebody is tailgating me, why should I move over?  I don't.  You're not supposed to go 85mph anyway.  Now, if I'm doing 65mph in a 65mph then I do.

Wrong.  Every state has laws against what is usually called "failure to yield," and they are not speed-limit-dependent.  You are required to move to the right, if it's safe to do so, if faster traffic is coming up behind you.

And, as has already been pointed out, if you aren't a cop it's not up to you to enforce your own peculiar brand of "law."  If your hypothetical tailgater isn't supposed to go 85 neither are you.

Thank you.   Doofy103 basically defined road roage: "But if I'm doing (something, regardless if it's lawful or not)  and somebody is (doing something else, regardless if it's lawful or not), why should I (do the lawful thing)? I don't. "

At some point along the line, people made the decision that the speed limit is THE law, and all other laws are secondary.  Now, we have gotten to the point where someone's individual comfort speed is THE law; the speed limit law is secondary, and all other laws fall behind that.

I don't know about all states, but usually the speed limit is actually just one of many laws, all independent of each other.

In the above example, the poster believes that because they are going a certain speed above the speed limit, they don't have to obey other laws.  Make that *certain* other laws.  Would the poster say "I'm going 85 in a 65.  Thus, I'm going to drink a beer".  Or "I'm going 85 in a 65.  I'm going to drive on the opposite side of the roadway"?  But yet, the poster writes "I'm going 85 in a 65.  I'm not going to move to the right".

What's the difference? None, other than personal road rage, in which the poster has determined that he will control what speed others will do.

People camped in the left lane is indeed the root of a lot of road rage.  As others have noted, regardless of what speed you're traveling, if faster traffic comes up from behind the courteous and correct thing to do is move to the right. (The exception being an upcoming left exit or left turn one intends on utilizing.)  People really need to not worry about those who want to speed.  The speeder is the one who's willing to risk a speeding ticket.  Just let them go.  Highway traveling isn't a NASCAR race under caution.  It isn't up to civilians in unmarked cars to set the pace of traffic.  If you are in the right lane and another driver still tailgates you, then he/she is being an asshole.  However, slamming on the brakes or letting up on the throttle isn't the correct answer either.  Remember that two wrongs don't make a right. 

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2014, 08:40:33 AM

Quote from: SidS1045 on April 14, 2014, 07:47:29 AM

Quote from: doofy103 on April 13, 2014, 06:22:48 PMBut if I'm doing 85mph in a 65 in the left lane and somebody is tailgating me, why should I move over?  I don't.  You're not supposed to go 85mph anyway.  Now, if I'm doing 65mph in a 65mph then I do.

Wrong.  Every state has laws against what is usually called "failure to yield," and they are not speed-limit-dependent.  You are required to move to the right, if it's safe to do so, if faster traffic is coming up behind you.

And, as has already been pointed out, if you aren't a cop it's not up to you to enforce your own peculiar brand of "law."  If your hypothetical tailgater isn't supposed to go 85 neither are you.

Thank you.   Doofy103 basically defined road roage: "But if I'm doing (something, regardless if it's lawful or not)  and somebody is (doing something else, regardless if it's lawful or not), why should I (do the lawful thing)? I don't. "

At some point along the line, people made the decision that the speed limit is THE law, and all other laws are secondary.  Now, we have gotten to the point where someone's individual comfort speed is THE law; the speed limit law is secondary, and all other laws fall behind that.

I don't know about all states, but usually the speed limit is actually just one of many laws, all independent of each other.

In the above example, the poster believes that because they are going a certain speed above the speed limit, they don't have to obey other laws.  Make that *certain* other laws.  Would the poster say "I'm going 85 in a 65.  Thus, I'm going to drink a beer".  Or "I'm going 85 in a 65.  I'm going to drive on the opposite side of the roadway"?  But yet, the poster writes "I'm going 85 in a 65.  I'm not going to move to the right".

What's the difference? None, other than personal road rage, in which the poster has determined that he will control what speed others will do.

I could care less what others go and I don't try to slow others down but if I'm passing somebody and there's somebody behind me that can't wait the seconds it takes me to pass the other vehicle or vehicles, why should I speed up to complete my pass faster to satisfy them!? 

If I'm doing 70mph in a 55mph passing 6 cars and somebody is tailgating me (who was doing 85mph before they got up to me), why should I only pass 2 cars and get back over to the right lane satisfy THEM?!  I'm going to complete what I intended to do, pass the 6 cars. 

It's like: people that go faster than YOU go to fast but someone going slower than YOU are too slow.  It's part of the "all about me" attitude.  If you don't go what speed I WANT to go, get outta my way. 

Note: I also hate left lane campers, the ones that sit to the back-left of vehicles or the ones doing 50mph in the left lane for miles on end.  Those I agree hamper the flow of traffic.

If you're actively passing cars, you don't need to get over. If you pass two cars, and the next clump are a half mile ahead of you, yeah, you probably need to get over. Absolutely, though, if you're passing cars and somebody comes up and tailgates you wanting to go faster, you have no obligation to get over. If the speed limit is 70, and the cars in the right lane are going 35, you have a right to be in the left lane going 40 but for god's sake get over as soon as you finish passing.

Otherwise, it's kind of arbitrary- who are you to say that 70 MPH is "fast enough"? I almost have more respect for people who left-lane camp at the speed limit, because at least they're using a non-arbitrary number. If you're already speeding, your choice of what is "fast enough" is as arbitrary as everybody else's, so why should your number be the number?*

*This is not to suggest or imply that I think passing lanes have anything to do with speed limits. Speed has absolutely nothing to do with passing lanes, except in the context of A) Am I going faster than the car to the right, and B) If I get over, is the car behind me going fast enough that I can get over and then back over before I hit the next group of cars.

Quote from: doofy103 on April 14, 2014, 09:15:36 PM
...(who was doing 85mph before they got up to me)...

How do you know they were going 85 mph before they got up to you?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2014, 09:34:21 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on April 14, 2014, 09:15:36 PM
...(who was doing 85mph before they got up to me)...

How do you know they were going 85 mph before they got up to you?

That's the one point you get me on in my response?!   

If I'm doing 90mph and the normal speed of traffic is 70mph, you're saying all cars doing less than 90 need to get out of my way?  It would be nice, but we share the road with others.  I'm the one out of line, the one going 90 not the rest of the cars doing 70-80. 

Thank you CORCO for getting what I'm try to say.


It's like getting mad because there are 5 people ahead of you at the fast food restaurant.  Too bad. 

the left lane is not legal for travel, only passing. so you're both breaking the law in that case, regardless of speed. unless of course as you said you are passing a platoon of cars.

I started slowing down a bit when I used to aggressively pass cars in my muscle car and speed only to get off at an off-ramp and sit at a stop light. who pulls up 5 cars behind me? that guy I was in such a rush to pass a mile ago.

just isn't worth the extra 10-15 mph. 

Quote from: DaBigE on April 10, 2014, 11:36:25 PM
I think it has to do with the growth of the "me first" society/mentality that technology and social media is creating. People (especially the younger generations) sit behind the safety of a keyboard for most of what they do, not realizing there are real consequences to their actions. They expect instant gratification regardless of the cost to someone else because somehow their time is more valuable than anyone else. This then transfers to when they're behind the wheel. And when something does happen, it's someone else's fault.

My $0.02; now pass the popcorn  :wave:

This!

I am college-aged and I completely agree with this assessment. My peers are frankly awful. It is probably why I am such a loner, the hypocrisy of people is overwhelming.

Also, I blame it on the tidal wave of quick forgiveness that has swept away this world. There aren't enough consequences for one's actions nowadays. A simple sorry doesn't cut it in the real world. It shouldn't matter who you are or where you are from or your background, you commit a crime or a felony, you pay the piper.

Incidents like this are why I am not a hurry to get my license.

Quote from: mass_citizen on April 15, 2014, 01:27:22 AMonly to get off at an off-ramp and sit at a stop light. who pulls up 5 cars behind me? that guy I was in such a rush to pass a mile ago.

sometimes it is.  somewhere in those 5 cars might be someone who will, on the next 45mph two-laner, decide to go 30mph, braking randomly and maintaining no awareness of the double-yellow, because they have important texts to answer.  I consider it a good thing to be ahead of them.

Quote from the knight of the interstate:

QuoteAlso, I blame it on the tidal wave of quick forgiveness that has swept away this world. There aren't enough consequences for one's actions nowadays

Very well said. To be honest, I'm surprised that there is so little road rage. It's amazing what people will tolerate, and that's part of the problem. There really should be more road rage, and that would, in my opinion, actually help things, because it might get people's attention enough to change their behavior.

I don't tolerate shit like other drivers do. If I come up on somebody driving slow in the left lane, I will flash my lights and blow my horn.
If somebody make a right turn in front of me without a signal, I honk.

A lot of this behavior is prevalent because the police are failing to do their job. If people feared consequences for their behavior, they would behave. It's like those kids you see in stores misbehaving and defying their parents, because they know the parent doesn't have enough balls to lay down the law.

In Louisiana, nobody speeds because they know the speed limit is actually enforced there. You get into FL on I-10, and people are complete jerks. They go 90, and won't allow drivers in the right lane into the left lane to pass a slowpoke like they are supposed to be able to do.

It's ridiculous that the city will get onto people for having their grass too high ,yet they do nothing about drivers without headlights at dusk. These people are nearly invisible, and are a threat to other's lives, and should be dealt with seriously and accordingly.

Kids should need discipline like this, adults should not. Adults should be able to discipline themselves. However, these issues, along with "alcoholism" and obesity (in most cases), prove otherwise. It's a shame that people don't do right, if for nothing else, to maintain a civilized society. As an adult, I figured out that you have to think about both what good for yourself, and the greater good and function as a whole, and act accordingly.

Quote from: mass_citizen on April 14, 2014, 01:44:36 AM
and I thought I was the only one that noticed this trend. its especially frustrating when people take every aggressive move possible to get ahead of you only to come to a red light. it has definitely gotten worse over the last ten years or so.

at least for all the Mass-holes here in MA.

I guess as people learn to drive, their baseline ends up being the prevailing behavior of the time.  They take it from there and run with it, adding their own hurry, panic, and self-absorption.

Someone cut into my right turn lane just as I was about to turn yesterday, forcing his big vehicle into my ROW where the is space only designed for one car.

I leaned on the horn, and he pulled alongside me at the next light not to tell me where to stick it, but almost worse, politely explained that his maneuver was planned out and not malicious. 

If people can't tell what's egregious anymore, how do we even conceive of a reasonable standard to shoot for?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 15, 2014, 08:40:05 PM

Quote from: mass_citizen on April 15, 2014, 01:27:22 AMonly to get off at an off-ramp and sit at a stop light. who pulls up 5 cars behind me? that guy I was in such a rush to pass a mile ago.

sometimes it is.  somewhere in those 5 cars might be someone who will, on the next 45mph two-laner, decide to go 30mph, braking randomly and maintaining no awareness of the double-yellow, because they have important texts to answer.  I consider it a good thing to be ahead of them.

Exactly.  People often will make the comparison of being at the next light.  What about 2 lights down?  Or 3?   In football, not every pass is in the endzone.  They gain a few yards, then a few more, and eventually they hope to succeed with a touchdown.

I'm not saying people need to be cutting others off.  But just because someone wants to drive a certain way doesn't mean that everyone needs to be like them.  If I managed to pass someone and now the car ahead of them at the light, I'm still ahead of them.

You know John Tesh once did a radio show on road rage.  He was pointing out that we could be the one's causing others to flare up without even knowing it.  We should keep right except to pass at all times, and if we are unsure of where we are going either pull off the road and consult a map (or gps) or find someone for directions. Being from Orlando I see all these tourists drive at 5 mph on a road that is 55 mph making sudden lane changes or sudden stops because they are lost.  Thus holding up traffic in the meantime stirring up blood pressure in many not so much that they are being held back in driving, but experiencing the wonder of why common sense is not being displayed in the other motorist.

I once saw one guy in the left turn lane on Central Florida Parkway Westbound to International Drive Southbound change his mind and want to go straight instead. He was the third car in line from the stop bar, and many behind him.  The light is timed to allow over 20 cars to turn left by fixed timer and not use the hoops here.  So he had over 11 cars behind him that did not make the light as he stood there waiting for the through signal to turn green so he can proceed with them which took place after the left turn signal ended.  So only 2 cars made the left turn light, while 11 others had to wait for the next left turn signal because this very ignorant driver does not want to accept responsibility of his mistake of being in the wrong lane.  That is an act that could cause road rage there and the one who gets outraged there was provoked by an excusable act.  Common sense should have told the driver he was obstructing traffic as well as the horns being honked at him.

This is one of many things tourists do when visiting the Sunshine State and I imagine elsewhere, so it can contribute to this ongoing problem.

I'm not sure if incidents of road rage are increasing, but clueless, distracted, indifferent driving sure is.

Quote from: Brian556 on April 15, 2014, 10:19:59 PM
A lot of this behavior is prevalent because the police are failing to do their job.

More likely that the police are doing their job dealing with stuff like murders, rapes and thefts. Most jurisdictions don't have the resources to have a cop on every highway just waiting for someone to exceed the speed limit or make an improper lane change.

I think we should consider simplifying the traffic law. You cause an accident, you pay a fine and restitution. Injure or kill someone, go to jail. Impaired or distracted driving? Pay a fine and lose your driving privilege temporarily or permanently. We can talk about the details, but the simple fact is that we can't enforce every jot and tittle of our complex laws.

Another factor: There's a lot of laws out there.  Almost everyone...yes, that means you, the person reading this...is breaking a law out there while driving. You probably don't know it, but you're not following every law that exists.

The police can stop people for various violations, but they're often hearing "Why are you pulling me over?  Everyone else is speeding."  Or "Why are you pulling me over for (this violation).  Other people are doing (other things that are way worse)". 

It's a never-ending battle...everyone thinks they are obeying the law, and when they're not obeying the law, it's not the most outrageous violation to them.

^^ Far too many laws, IMHO.  Personally, I think it is high time we took stock what laws we have and start getting rid of silly ones.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 16, 2014, 09:40:36 AM
Another factor: There's a lot of laws out there.  Almost everyone...yes, that means you, the person reading this...is breaking a law out there while driving. You probably don't know it, but you're not following every law that exists.

The police can stop people for various violations, but they're often hearing "Why are you pulling me over?  Everyone else is speeding."  Or "Why are you pulling me over for (this violation).  Other people are doing (other things that are way worse)". 

It's a never-ending battle...everyone thinks they are obeying the law, and when they're not obeying the law, it's not the most outrageous violation to them.

Murphy's Law: in a row of 20 cars driving over the speed limit, the state police will stop YOU. ;)

You know its funny how ongoing speed traps can still catch many people day to day.  You figure with the word out of their presence, that people would heed the speed limits, yet they do not.

In my subdivision cops are always out daily issuing speeding citations constantly and yet when I do the posted speed limit on this one arterial that is always patrolled, I get a line of cars behind me that were not there when I started.  In fact I have one video I posted on my youtube of me driving down the road that has the daily speed trap enforced on it, where a road raged driver passed me by and was out of the video within seconds of his passing me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6gg2uL8VNE

Quote from: Brian556 on April 15, 2014, 10:19:59 PM
Quote from the knight of the interstate:

QuoteAlso, I blame it on the tidal wave of quick forgiveness that has swept away this world. There aren't enough consequences for one's actions nowadays

Very well said. To be honest, I'm surprised that there is so little road rage. It's amazing what people will tolerate, and that's part of the problem. There really should be more road rage, and that would, in my opinion, actually help things, because it might get people's attention enough to change their behavior.

....

The other thing that I find interesting is the attitude so many people have that certain behaviors are acceptable behind the wheel that they would never attempt anywhere else. For example, at two different intersections near my house the left lane of three becomes left-turn-only. At both of them, it's quite common to see people come driving along in the left lane, right blinker on, and then shoving in at the last second or even just going straight and assuming other people will back down. Essentially, that's cutting the line, right? Do you think those people try that sort of thing at the supermarket checkout line or the restroom at a stadium? Of course they don't. The argument "I was in a hurry" doesn't really work–I'd suggest that many times the people in the stadium toilet line have a more urgent need than the average driver on the road does, but "I really gotta go RIGHT NOW" is not something I've ever heard anyone say in an attempt to cut the toilet line.

I'm sure part of the reason why people feel emboldened behind the wheel is similar to why you get the "Internet tough-guy" persona sometimes: People feel like they're protected when they're sitting behind a keyboard and not dealing with the other person face-to-face, and they feel something similar in the car because the vehicle provides something of a shield. Let's face it, the average driver doesn't want to be in a crash and will usually back down when someone gets super-aggressive if it looks like there will be a crash.

This is my feeling as well, and though it makes me sound 100 years old every time I say it, I feel like the internet is teaching us all that we're each very important.  After all, we're not only all instant experts, but our opinions and feelings (and mundane daily anecdotes) have been published and received by the community.  Our collective ego energy is at an historical peak.

Quote from: Brandon on April 16, 2014, 09:46:14 AM
^^ Far too many laws, IMHO.  Personally, I think it is high time we took stock what laws we have and start getting rid of silly ones.

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.

Quote from: jbnv on April 16, 2014, 02:35:09 PM
...Driving too slow for your lane or otherwise impeding the flow of traffic can be a misdemeanor grounds for the electric chair.

Fixed for you.

Quote from: jbnv on April 16, 2014, 02:35:09 PM

Quote from: Brandon on April 16, 2014, 09:46:14 AM
^^ Far too many laws, IMHO.  Personally, I think it is high time we took stock what laws we have and start getting rid of silly ones.

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.

Misdemeanor?  You're calling for driving too slow for one's lane to be an arrestable offense?

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 16, 2014, 05:15:04 PM

Quote from: jbnv on April 16, 2014, 02:35:09 PM

Quote from: Brandon on April 16, 2014, 09:46:14 AM
^^ Far too many laws, IMHO.  Personally, I think it is high time we took stock what laws we have and start getting rid of silly ones.

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.

Misdemeanor?  You're calling for driving too slow for one's lane to be an arrestable offense?

Probably not in and of itself, but surely should be cause for being pulled over and investigated for some greater violation, like DUI.

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.

Quote from: jbnv on April 16, 2014, 05:38:46 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 16, 2014, 05:15:04 PM

Quote from: jbnv on April 16, 2014, 02:35:09 PM

Quote from: Brandon on April 16, 2014, 09:46:14 AM
^^ Far too many laws, IMHO.  Personally, I think it is high time we took stock what laws we have and start getting rid of silly ones.

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.

Misdemeanor?  You're calling for driving too slow for one's lane to be an arrestable offense?

Probably not in and of itself, but surely should be cause for being pulled over and investigated for some greater violation, like DUI.

This is probably often the case already.  I would bet the chemically and/or electronically distracted tend to stick out more by driving too slow (and erratically, of course) than they do by speeding. 

Of course, I drive a truck that has little interest in anything approaching high speed, but I guess I manage to keep it reasonably in the neighborhood of the limit on all but the steeper hills.

Quote from: jbnv on April 16, 2014, 02:35:09 PM
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.

Quote from: SidS1045 on April 17, 2014, 11:40:32 AM

Quote from: jbnv on April 16, 2014, 02:35:09 PM
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.

Quote
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".

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 17, 2014, 11:55:59 AM
...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.

Quote from: SidS1045 on April 17, 2014, 11:40:32 AM
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).

Quote from: SidS1045 on April 17, 2014, 11:40:32 AM

Quote from: jbnv on April 16, 2014, 02:35:09 PM
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.

Quote from: 1995hoo
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.

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.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 17, 2014, 04:12:09 PM
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:

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. 

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.

Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2014, 06:59:04 PM
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.

Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2014, 01:40:39 PM

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.

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 17, 2014, 08:40:03 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 17, 2014, 04:50:57 PM
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.

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

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 18, 2014, 09:29:42 AM

Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 17, 2014, 04:50:57 PM
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).

Quote from: vdeane on April 18, 2014, 12:16:05 PM
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.

Quote from: broadhurst04 on April 17, 2014, 11:22:22 PMPeople 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.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 18, 2014, 02:15:59 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 18, 2014, 12:16:05 PM
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.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 18, 2014, 02:15:59 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 18, 2014, 12:16:05 PM
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.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg0040.popscreencdn.com%2F116890326_amazoncom-cracked-magazine-178-july-1981-various-books.jpg&hash=f2f2a79e93883aadc59a4319203ed38180a9874d)

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

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.

Quote from: SidS1045 on April 18, 2014, 02:22:27 PM

Quote from: broadhurst04 on April 17, 2014, 11:22:22 PMPeople 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.)

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 17, 2014, 11:55:59 AMI 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.

QuoteIn 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 (https://maps.google.com/maps?vpsrc=6&ie=UTF8&ll=37.70893,-97.394276&spn=0.001156,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.708927,-97.394154&panoid=jCfJhvKtN11lGNUNmGp8og&cbp=12,270.9,,0,4.61) (13th and Zoo, Wichita) quite near me.  I usually do turn left at this intersection, and have never been penalized for it.

QuoteSeems 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 (http://www.kansas.com/2013/08/01/2919157/federal-rules-forbid-proper-punctuation.html) 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).

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 18, 2014, 03:20:04 PM
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.

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 18, 2014, 09:29:42 AM

Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 17, 2014, 04:50:57 PM
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.

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 18, 2014, 09:29:42 AM

Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 17, 2014, 04:50:57 PM
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.

Horns don't kill people...people kill people.

Quote from: SidS1045 on April 18, 2014, 02:22:27 PM

Quote from: broadhurst04 on April 17, 2014, 11:22:22 PMPeople 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.

Even worse...when there's a line of 20 cars going by.  I'm looking, and see the gap after the last car.  I'm waiting for the last car to proceed past.  Instead, the last car stops to let me out.  So, I'm sitting there waiting and expecting that car to go, and that car's driver is trying to waive me into the roadway.  Then again, I don't know, because it's 10pm and it's pitch black in the car, so I can't fricken see them waiving!!!

Quote from: Kacie Jane on April 18, 2014, 03:02:14 PM

Quote from: SidS1045 on April 18, 2014, 02:22:27 PM

Quote from: broadhurst04 on April 17, 2014, 11:22:22 PMPeople 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.)

And in that few seconds the light changes from green back to red, forcing those 20 cars to wait 3 or 4 minutes for the light to change back to green.

Sorry. I don't have time to be nice in the morning. Find another time to buy your gas and put your kids on the bus. With the kind of job I have, If I'm late I run the risk of being disciplined if a customer complains because I wasn't sitting at my desk at 30 seconds past 8 waiting on them to show up.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 18, 2014, 08:13:19 PMEven worse...when there's a line of 20 cars going by.  I'm looking, and see the gap after the last car.  I'm waiting for the last car to proceed past.  Instead, the last car stops to let me out.  So, I'm sitting there waiting and expecting that car to go, and that car's driver is trying to waive me into the roadway.  Then again, I don't know, because it's 10pm and it's pitch black in the car, so I can't fricken see them waiving!!!

Well, yeah, that makes sense.  If there's a gap right behind them, that's not polite, that's just silly.  I kinda figure we're mainly talking about the worst of rush hour traffic, where being let in is the only way they're getting out of the parking lot.

Quote from: broadhurst04 on April 18, 2014, 08:14:09 PMAnd in that few seconds the light changes from green back to red, forcing those 20 cars to wait 3 or 4 minutes for the light to change back to green.

Sorry. I don't have time to be nice in the morning. Find another time to buy your gas and put your kids on the bus. With the kind of job I have, If I'm late I run the risk of being disciplined if a customer complains because I wasn't sitting at my desk at 30 seconds past 8 waiting on them to show up.

Then leave earlier so missing one light cycle doesn't make you late for work!  Also, the soccer mom doesn't have much choice of when to drop her kids off for school.

Let's change the scenario slightly.  Instead of someone turning onto a road from a parking lot, what if it's someone turning left off the road?  (Say it's a two-lane road, no center turn lane, minimal passing room on the shoulder.)  So now, if you don't let them cross in front of you, not only are you delaying them, you're delaying everyone on the road behind them.  Alright, fine, you don't have time to be polite, so you're not going to lose those couple of seconds by letting them pass.  But your opinion changes if you're one of the cars stuck behind the turning vehicle, doesn't it?

The amount of delay in each scenario doesn't even compare to each other - it's different by a factor of 80!

Care to clarify?  I'm not sure which scenarios you're referring to, or where the factor of 80 would come from.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on April 18, 2014, 08:57:19 PM

Then leave earlier so missing one light cycle doesn't make you late for work!  Also, the soccer mom doesn't have much choice of when to drop her kids off for school.

I've tried leaving home 10-15 minutes earlier. I still run into the same problem. To avoid the problem altogether I would have to get up an hour earlier, and I'm not willing to do that. Like I said earlier, buy your gas at a different time of day. And soccer mom can put her kids on the bus.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 18, 2014, 03:58:34 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 18, 2014, 09:29:42 AM

Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 17, 2014, 04:50:57 PM
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.

Horn use for all manner of expression of contempt is the rule here and not exceptional.  I do it, lots of others do it, and it's overall pretty juvenile of all of us.  But we're all pretty juvenile, I guess.  Welcome to 2014.

I do catch myself having to tone it down when in quieter areas, nighttime in residential neighborhoods, etc.  City life tends sometimes to require more noise to be noticed; everywhere else this can quickly become overkill.

I do try to train myself to flash my lights as a warning rather than honk when it's not truly dangerous, with mixed results, and tap the horn very lightly to nudge folks who miss light changes for more than three seconds. 

Horn use is like pretty much all driving habits — almost nothing you do will change anyone else's habits, but lots of what you can do can make the situation much worse. 

Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2014, 06:59:04 PM
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.

This is so annoying to me. I hate when people constantly creep up while waiting at a red light. If I'm stopped at a red light, I want to be stopped, not inching every ten seconds. And no, this is not because I'm busy playing with my phone. I leave a reasonable gap between me and the car in front of me so I can change lanes if necessary. I'm not interested in squishing up like sardines only to find that the person in front of me wants to make an illegal stop in the right lane or illegal turn in the left lane (both common in the city)


iPhone

I have read (don't know from what source) that it is actually more efficient to not inch forward, because when the light turns green, the space between cars can be used to accelerate, rather than having to wait for the car ahead of you to go and then start accelerating.

Quote from: Laura on April 19, 2014, 06:24:50 AM

Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2014, 06:59:04 PM
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.

This is so annoying to me. I hate when people constantly creep up while waiting at a red light. If I'm stopped at a red light, I want to be stopped, not inching every ten seconds. And no, this is not because I'm busy playing with my phone. I leave a reasonable gap between me and the car in front of me so I can change lanes if necessary. I'm not interested in squishing up like sardines only to find that the person in front of me wants to make an illegal stop in the right lane or illegal turn in the left lane (both common in the city)

This just reminds me of how folks cannot seem to handle the concept of leaving stopping room ahead of one's vehicle.  If traffic is any kind of heavy, it becomes impossible to leave safe stopping room because some opportunist needs to jump in there.  Worse, it can get folks behind to start aggressively tailgating — the STUPIDEST thing one can do on a highway — because if you're leaving that room obviously you're a slowpoke menace.

Rosd rage is one thing, but endangering me and others to show us how annoyed you are is grounds for arrest, in my opinion.

Quote from: Laura on April 19, 2014, 06:24:50 AM

Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2014, 06:59:04 PM
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.

This is so annoying to me. I hate when people constantly creep up while waiting at a red light. If I'm stopped at a red light, I want to be stopped, not inching every ten seconds. And no, this is not because I'm busy playing with my phone. I leave a reasonable gap between me and the car in front of me so I can change lanes if necessary. I'm not interested in squishing up like sardines only to find that the person in front of me wants to make an illegal stop in the right lane or illegal turn in the left lane (both common in the city)

What annoys me is the person who inches forward repeatedly when it's red, seemingly because he's anxious for it to turn green or thinks he's in a hurry or whatever, but then just sits there when it turns green! Why were you inching forward so much if you're not going to move?

I try to watch the light on the other street to see when it goes yellow. I then shift into first gear so I'm ready to go when the green comes on–or, leaving my neighborhood, I often start rolling just before the green comes on because the stop bar is set fairly far back and I know the light cycle (including the fact that's there's a brief delay between the other street going red and my getting the green arrow). Of course watching the yellow doesn't work everywhere due to things like turn arrows or varied light cycles, but generally it works pretty well for me.

---

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 19, 2014, 07:59:44 AM
....

This just reminds me of how folks cannot seem to handle the concept of leaving stopping room ahead of one's vehicle.  If traffic is any kind of heavy, it becomes impossible to leave safe stopping room because some opportunist needs to jump in there.  Worse, it can get folks behind to start aggressively tailgating — the STUPIDEST thing one can do on a highway — because if you're leaving that room obviously you're a slowpoke menace.

....

I've often wondered how well radar-based cruise control actually works, and the reason is due to precisely the issue you note. I presume that sort of cruise control is programmed to maintain the proper following distance. But if someone cuts into the gap, won't the system then adjust your speed and push you further back, creating another big gap into which someone else will cut? I find it hard to visualize how that sort of system can be effective except out on a largely empty road.

(I think when I took behind the wheel 25 years ago they said to leave a two-second gap below 40 mph and a four-second gap above. Have you ever tried to leave a four-second gap? It's HUGE! You'd never be able to do that in an urban area. Here in the DC area anything over a one-second gap will certainly be filled by someone else. Even a one-second gap doesn't mean someone won't cut in, of course.)

Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2014, 01:40:39 PM
I just had an idea: prohibit traffic fines (or any fees related to traffic court) from being used by the government. 

Exactly.   Because all traffic enforcement is illigitimate.  It is a random tax.  They really don't want you to obey these "laws".  Doing so would not only bring the flow of traffic to a crawl, it would deprive these jurisdictions of their money, and force those enforcing the laws to interact with actual criminals, rather than extort ordinary people by the side of the road at the point of a gun. 

Contrasting speed limits and such with legitimate laws is foolish.

Quote from: SP Cook on April 19, 2014, 10:15:19 AM

Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2014, 01:40:39 PM
I just had an idea: prohibit traffic fines (or any fees related to traffic court) from being used by the government. 

Exactly.   Because all traffic enforcement is illigitimate.  It is a random tax.  They really don't want you to obey these "laws".  Doing so would not only bring the flow of traffic to a crawl, it would deprive these jurisdictions of their money, and force those enforcing the laws to interact with actual criminals, rather than extort ordinary people by the side of the road at the point of a gun. 

Contrasting speed limits and such with legitimate laws is foolish.

I disagree with you on nearly everything, and I agree with you on this, so it must be a good idea.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on April 18, 2014, 09:34:29 PM
Care to clarify?  I'm not sure which scenarios you're referring to, or where the factor of 80 would come from.

If I read you right, you were comparing waiting 3-4 more minutes because a car in the protected left turn lane wanted to go straight instead to waiting 2 seconds for a pedestrian to cross.

Quote from: vdeane on April 19, 2014, 11:52:57 AM

Quote from: Kacie Jane on April 18, 2014, 09:34:29 PM
Care to clarify?  I'm not sure which scenarios you're referring to, or where the factor of 80 would come from.

If I read you right, you were comparing waiting 3-4 more minutes because a car in the protected left turn lane wanted to go straight instead to waiting 2 seconds for a pedestrian to cross.

Nope, sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm arguing with broadhurst over allowing someone to turn out of a parking lot in front of you. My alternate scenario involves allowing someone to turn into that parking lot in front of you. No pedestrians or protected lefts involved. In fact, the point is that it's not a protected left, so if no one lets that car turn left, it's not just the turning vehicle that's stuck there, bit all the thru traffic behind them as well.

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 19, 2014, 10:01:51 AM
I try to watch the light on the other street to see when it goes yellow. I then shift into first gear so I'm ready to go when the green comes on—or, leaving my neighborhood, I often start rolling just before the green comes on because the stop bar is set fairly far back and I know the light cycle (including the fact that's there's a brief delay between the other street going red and my getting the green arrow). Of course watching the yellow doesn't work everywhere due to things like turn arrows or varied light cycles, but generally it works pretty well for me.

I do this too.  During the day, tunnel visors on traffic signals really annoy me for this reason.  At night it isn't much of an issue, because even with tunnel visors, you can see what color the cross street signal is.  While it doesn't always work because of leading protected left turns or split phasing, those scenarios can usually be picked out even if one is unfamiliar with the intersection.  Protected lefts are easy enough for anyone to pick out, and those are usually actuated. (If no opposing car is stopped in the left turn bay, it won't turn green.)  Split phasing could be done a number of ways.  I like the ones that have two green sections side-by-side.  Occasionally dog houses are used.  While it's true that even if you know split phasing is used at the intersection, it might not be obvious which direction gets the green first.  Some jurisdictions will use a "Delayed Green" sign, or something to that effect.  But in my experience, most don't.  Worst case scenario though is that the driver held down the clutch unnecessarily.  I won't wait with the clutch depressed.  I'll just shift back into neutral and wait for the green.

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 19, 2014, 10:01:51 AM
I've often wondered how well radar-based cruise control actually works, and the reason is due to precisely the issue you note. I presume that sort of cruise control is programmed to maintain the proper following distance. But if someone cuts into the gap, won't the system then adjust your speed and push you further back, creating another big gap into which someone else will cut? I find it hard to visualize how that sort of system can be effective except out on a largely empty road.

(I think when I took behind the wheel 25 years ago they said to leave a two-second gap below 40 mph and a four-second gap above. Have you ever tried to leave a four-second gap? It's HUGE! You'd never be able to do that in an urban area. Here in the DC area anything over a one-second gap will certainly be filled by someone else. Even a one-second gap doesn't mean someone won't cut in, of course.)

I've also wondered how the radar based cruise control adjust works. I agree that it would not work well at all in any built up area (assuming it's designed to keep a safe following distance).  Many drivers would fill the rather large gap that had been left.

I do have experience with Mercedes Benz auto braking on the S class.  When it first came out, many buyers were unaware of it or how it worked.  I had a great time jamming the brakes when one was tailgating me and then watching the driver in the rearview mirror kiss the windshield.

From the "all about me" file:

2-cars backing out of a driveway as I'm driving up.  One car a male driver, the other a female driver.  One car waits for the other to back out.  Both cars are now ahead of me on neighborhood streets. 
On 3 occasions, the stop and each take turns being the lead car.  Of course as they do this, they're making me come to a complete stop. 

I honk my horn and then they speed up.

Next, at the stoplight, the male driver turns right on red (you're allowed) and the female driver plans on doing the same as she has her right turn signal on.  Light is red and she sits there fiddling on her phone.  No other cars were at the intersection.  Then gets on highway cutting people off.

These two based on their actions only cared about themselves.  I see more and more of this.

Not road rage related, just weird:

Yesterday my wife was heading to the grocery store late in the afternoon. I warned her to watch out because a woman across the street was getting in her car as well. The lady across the street was faster and backed out first.....damndest thing, she put on her left turn blinker before putting it in reverse and left it in as she backed out of her driveway, at which point she turned the back of the car to the right and the blinker shut off.....so she then turned on the left blinker again and drove off (it shut off as she left). Yes, in the end she did "go left" in relation to her driveway.

NEVER seen anyone signal merely backing out of their own driveway before! I guess we all lament people who don't signal, and I guess it wasn't harming anyone, but darn was that strange to watch!

(I think she's just overly timid and cautious. I don't think she's been driving for very long–the people in that house are immigrants from Baghdad and I assume this lady never drove at all until coming here pretty recently and so she's one of those people who take everything in the DMV driving manual super-seriously.  In principle that's not bad, though in practice there is such a thing as being TOO timid.)

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 20, 2014, 08:15:29 AMYesterday my wife was heading to the grocery store late in the afternoon. I warned her to watch out because a woman across the street was getting in her car as well. The lady across the street was faster and backed out first.....damndest thing, she put on her left turn blinker before putting it in reverse and left it in as she backed out of her driveway, at which point she turned the back of the car to the right and the blinker shut off.....so she then turned on the left blinker again and drove off (it shut off as she left). Yes, in the end she did "go left" in relation to her driveway.

NEVER seen anyone signal merely backing out of their own driveway before! I guess we all lament people who don't signal, and I guess it wasn't harming anyone, but darn was that strange to watch!

I always signal when backing out of a driveway or parking stall, and while I agree it is unusual, I am hardly the only person I know who does it.  However, I don't signal in precisely the same way this woman did.  I signal for the backing maneuver only, and do not additionally signal for the straightening-out, since I normally try to reverse through the full angle I need to get the car in the straight-ahead position with the wheels pointed straight ahead (this minimizes the risk of flat-spotting the tires).

Edit:  I'd also contend the woman was signalling in the wrong direction.  She was signalling to the left because she planned to set out left in relation to her driveway.  But signalling when backing up is of benefit primarily to pedestrians on the sidewalk and cars on the street or parking aisle that are imminently about to move past the reversing car, so the signal has to be in the direction the rear of the car goes when it is backing out--in this case, the right.  This woman's left signal would likely not even have been visible to a car or pedestrian approaching from the right (and thus at greater risk of a collision) since it would have been on the wrong side of the car.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 20, 2014, 10:48:06 AM
....

Edit:  I'd also contend the woman was signalling in the wrong direction.  She was signalling to the left because she planned to set out left in relation to her driveway.  But signalling when backing up is of benefit primarily to pedestrians on the sidewalk and cars on the street or parking aisle that are imminently about to move past the reversing car, so the signal has to be in the direction the rear of the car goes when it is backing out--in this case, the right.  This woman's left signal would likely not even have been visible to a car or pedestrian approaching from the right (and thus at greater risk of a collision) since it would have been on the wrong side of the car.

I thought the same. I understood her thought process, but it struck me as a well-intentioned but misguided effort.

I'm sure one reason nobody on our street signals when backing out of our driveway is that there isn't really much reason to do so because the street doesn't go anywhere. It's not a dead end or cul-de-sac as it does connect to another street at the far end, but that street (which is a cul-de-sac on the far end) merely connects back to the same place the other end of ours does.

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 20, 2014, 08:15:29 AM
Yesterday my wife was heading to the grocery store late in the afternoon. I warned her to watch out because a woman across the street was getting in her car as well. The lady across the street was faster and backed out first.....damndest thing, she put on her left turn blinker before putting it in reverse and left it in as she backed out of her driveway, at which point she turned the back of the car to the right and the blinker shut off.....so she then turned on the left blinker again and drove off (it shut off as she left). Yes, in the end she did "go left" in relation to her driveway.

NEVER seen anyone signal merely backing out of their own driveway before! I guess we all lament people who don't signal, and I guess it wasn't harming anyone, but darn was that strange to watch!

I can honestly say that in 17 years of driving I've never seen anyone signal to back out of a driveway or parking spot.  I have seen folks with a turn signal on while waiting to pull out of a driveway on occasion.  Although, even that is quite rare.

I admit that I don't signal when no other cars or pedestrians are around.  I figure, "who am I telling my intended maneuvers to?"  There's no need to put the additional wear on the turn signal switch or the light bulbs.  I also won't signal lane changes in urban aggressive driving prone areas.  More than once have I seen a driver go to signal a lane change; only to have another selfish driver sit next to them to block their lane change.  My arguement in those circumstances is if they don't know my intended move, they can't block me.  Once I'm in front of them, then it's too late.

One of my carpool guys signals when he backs out of parking spots.  No one else around.  Even if they were close enough, then maybe the guy shouldn't be backing out until they pass.

He'll also signal when we go around a car parked on a shoulder. Usually, there's plenty of room to get around.  Worse yet: Those nearby may think he's preparing to turn left at the next intersection.  Sometimes, it's probably better off not signaling.

Quote from: signalman on April 20, 2014, 12:02:05 PMI admit that I don't signal when no other cars or pedestrians are around.  I figure, "who am I telling my intended maneuvers to?"

You are telling the other people (whether in car or on foot) whom you cannot see but who can see your signals.

The only situations in which I either signal late or not at all are generally ones in which signalling strictly in accordance with the law would mislead other road users into making unsafe maneuvers.

This consideration comes into play every time I drive through these two intersections:

Central Ave. past Mount Carmel St. and Zoo Blvd. (https://maps.google.com/maps?vpsrc=6&ie=UTF8&ll=37.6949,-97.379138&spn=0.001157,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.694848,-97.379021&panoid=aTVd73cJ0FM8HKpXyGFTrQ&cbp=12,316.58,,0,12.02)

In Kansas drivers are required to signal at least 100 feet in advance of a planned maneuver within an urban area.  Mount Carmel is less than 75 feet from the slip ramp that leads to Zoo Boulevard northwestward, so if I signalled strictly in accordance with the law, I would risk fooling a car waiting at the stop sign on Mount Carmel into thinking I was going to turn onto his street rather than Zoo, and tip him into driving into my path.  This is why I usually wait to turn on the blinker until I am crossing Mount Carmel.

QuoteI also won't signal lane changes in urban aggressive driving prone areas.  More than once have I seen a driver go to signal a lane change, only to have another selfish driver sit next to them to block their lane change.

The antidote to unsportsmanlike driving is not more of the same.  I generally seek to maintain an adequate following distance and to get into the correct lane for planned maneuvers well in advance.  This normally allows me to avoid getting cut off and cutting others off without having to obfuscate my intentions.

Quote from: J N Winkler link=topic=12076.msg29383973
The antidote to unsportsmanlike driving is not more of the same.  I generally seek to maintain an adequate following distance and to get into the correct lane for planned maneuvers well in advance.  This normally allows me to avoid getting cut off and cutting others off without having to obfuscate my intentions.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, nor is it my intention to argue with you.  However, driving in a state as densely populated as New Jersey with heavy traffic quite often requires one to drive more aggressively than is optimum.  In nearly 20 years of driving, I have no at fault accidents.  I was rear ended while stopped at a red light 5 years ago.

Quote from: signalman on April 20, 2014, 04:00:57 PMI don't disagree with what you are saying, nor is it my intention to argue with you.  However, driving in a state as densely populated as New Jersey with heavy traffic quite often requires one to drive more aggressively than is optimum.  In nearly 20 years of driving, I have no at fault accidents.  I was rear ended while stopped at a red light 5 years ago.

I understand what you mean--there have been times when I have been forced to change lanes in front of someone who is also changing lanes in order to avoid being "blocked out" of the lane I need for an imminently upcoming turn.  I try to keep those situations to a minimum since aggressive drivers are generally easier to handle in front (where I can see what they are doing) than when they are riding my tail.

In regard to driving history, I have been licensed for 22 years, have maintained a clean record for the past 18, and have been fortunate enough to avoid colliding with anyone else on a public road, though I have had several parking-lot collisions (causing damage below the reporting threshold) and a couple of single-vehicle accidents.

Quote from: signalman on April 20, 2014, 12:02:05 PM
I admit that I don't signal when no other cars or pedestrians are around.  I figure, "who am I telling my intended maneuvers to?" 

I think it's a good thing to have in muscle memory.

Quote from: jbnv on April 20, 2014, 10:00:38 PM

Quote from: signalman on April 20, 2014, 12:02:05 PM
I admit that I don't signal when no other cars or pedestrians are around.  I figure, "who am I telling my intended maneuvers to?" 

I think it's a good thing to have in muscle memory.

Agreed. You want to be signaling when you don't think anyone is around, just in case somebody unseen is there. I always signal lane changes, and I was really glad once on the Ohio Turnpike. I failed to see a car in the left lane. It was either in my blind spot or I just got a little distracted and didn't see it. The other motorist had to swerve to avoid me and got enough warning because she saw my signal.

If you don't always signal, you might forget to do so, just when it's needed most.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on April 18, 2014, 03:02:14 PM

Quote from: SidS1045 on April 18, 2014, 02:22:27 PM

Quote from: broadhurst04 on April 17, 2014, 11:22:22 PMPeople 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.)

For real, the angst about that in this thread is truly baffling to me.

Quote from: broadhurst04 on April 18, 2014, 10:28:16 PM
Like I said earlier, buy your gas at a different time of day. And soccer mom can put her kids on the bus.

This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this site.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on April 18, 2014, 03:02:14 PM
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.

I'll gladly wait.  I practice what I preach.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on April 18, 2014, 03:02:14 PM
(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.)

I have no problem with a driver, who is waiting in a queue behind a red traffic signal, leaving a space to let someone in.  That delays no one who wasn't already stopped.  But we have enough stop-and-go driving in rush hours without someone, pretending to be polite, who interrupts the free flow of traffic and effectively gives up the ROW of everyone behind him/her.

Quote from: SidS1045 on April 22, 2014, 10:54:18 PM

Quote from: Kacie Jane on April 18, 2014, 03:02:14 PM
(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.)

I have no problem with a driver, who is waiting in a queue behind a red traffic signal, leaving a space to let someone in.  That delays no one who wasn't already stopped.  But we have enough stop-and-go driving in rush hours without someone, pretending to be polite, who interrupts the free flow of traffic and effectively gives up the ROW of everyone behind him/her.

Using the information available to me as a driver of a separate vehicle, what information can I use to distinguish between drivers being polite and those pretending to be polite?  I just hate it when people pretend to be nice.

Quote from: SidS1045 on April 22, 2014, 10:54:18 PM
... without someone, pretending to be polite, who interrupts the free flow of traffic and effectively gives up the ROW of everyone behind him/her.

This is the issue. The person who thinks he is being polite to one person is being rude to everyone behind him.

oversignaling is a form of aggression as well.  let's say you're in the #2 lane, with your left blinker on.  you've effectively blocked the #1 lane.  if you don't get over in an expedient fashion (say, within 2 seconds of turning on that signal) then you're just as bad as someone driving directly down the middle of the lane stripe.

also, on arterials, signals can be pretty ambiguous.  let's say I'm waiting to take a right turn out of a driveway.  if someone is coming from my left and has their right signal on, I will never pull out in front of them.  are they signaling for a driveway upstream of me?  downstream of me?  the next cross road?  they've had their turn signal on since Burbank for health reasons?  who knows.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 24, 2014, 10:30:57 AM
oversignaling is a form of aggression as well.  let's say you're in the #2 lane, with your left blinker on.  you've effectively blocked the #1 lane.  if you don't get over in an expedient fashion (say, within 2 seconds of turning on that signal) then you're just as bad as someone driving directly down the middle of the lane stripe.

You have blocked the left lane using a signal?  Around here, Chicagoland, no one pays a signal any heed.  They'll just fly past him as if he didn't have his signal on.

What do you mean by "#1 lane" and "#2 lane"? I've never heard anyone use those expressions–with the exception of Brits, everyone I've ever known just says "right lane," "left lane," "second lane from the right," or the like. I've heard Brits say "inside lane" and "outside lane," although I gather they seem to use those terms in the reverse of what I would picture them as meaning (I would envision the "outside lane" as the "slow lane," the one closest to the edge of the road, and the "inside lane" as the "passing lane," the one closest to the median, the reason being in both cases that the median is "inside" the rest of the road).

Quote from: Brandon on April 24, 2014, 11:23:53 AM

You have blocked the left lane using a signal?  Around here, Chicagoland, no one pays a signal any heed.  They'll just fly past him as if he didn't have his signal on.

around here, the blocker will move over, traffic present or not.  stupid and aggressive at the same time: not a winning combination.

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 24, 2014, 11:47:48 AM
What do you mean by "#1 lane" and "#2 lane"? I've never heard anyone use those expressions–with the exception of Brits, everyone I've ever known just says "right lane," "left lane," "second lane from the right," or the like. I've heard Brits say "inside lane" and "outside lane," although I gather they seem to use those terms in the reverse of what I would picture them as meaning (I would envision the "outside lane" as the "slow lane," the one closest to the edge of the road, and the "inside lane" as the "passing lane," the one closest to the median, the reason being in both cases that the median is "inside" the rest of the road).

must be a California thing.  #1 lane is the closest to the median (in our case, leftmost).  #2 is one to the right, etc.

there should be a VMS message to occasionally rotate in with the nannies: "#2 traffic: stay out of the #1 lane."

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 24, 2014, 12:13:16 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 24, 2014, 11:47:48 AM
What do you mean by "#1 lane" and "#2 lane"? I've never heard anyone use those expressions–with the exception of Brits, everyone I've ever known just says "right lane," "left lane," "second lane from the right," or the like. I've heard Brits say "inside lane" and "outside lane," although I gather they seem to use those terms in the reverse of what I would picture them as meaning (I would envision the "outside lane" as the "slow lane," the one closest to the edge of the road, and the "inside lane" as the "passing lane," the one closest to the median, the reason being in both cases that the median is "inside" the rest of the road).

must be a California thing.  #1 lane is the closest to the median (in our case, leftmost).  #2 is one to the right, etc.

there should be a VMS message to occasionally rotate in with the nannies: "#2 traffic: stay out of the #1 lane."

OK, thanks. I wasn't sure how it would work because, of course, we normally read from left to right, so numbering the lanes from left to right jibes with that, but on the other hand if you view the right lane(s) as the primary travel lane(s) it would also make sense to view the right-most lane as "#1" even if it meant "counting backwards."

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 24, 2014, 11:47:48 AMWhat do you mean by "#1 lane" and "#2 lane"? I've never heard anyone use those expressions–with the exception of Brits, everyone I've ever known just says "right lane," "left lane," "second lane from the right," or the like.

California and Britain have an identical lane counting system that runs from left to right regardless of circulation rule.  So, in California, the #1 lane is next to the median, while in Britain, the number of the lane immediately adjacent to the central reservation is the same as the total number of lanes in that direction on that section.

QuoteI've heard Brits say "inside lane" and "outside lane," although I gather they seem to use those terms in the reverse of what I would picture them as meaning (I would envision the "outside lane" as the "slow lane," the one closest to the edge of the road, and the "inside lane" as the "passing lane," the one closest to the median, the reason being in both cases that the median is "inside" the rest of the road).

This is correct.  There is also a distinction between nearside and offside, the nearside lane being closer to the kerb or shoulder at the outer edge of the road while the offside lane is closer to the road center (or central reservation) and is reserved for overtaking maneuvers.

Unlike lane counting systems, the nearside/offside distinction has the advantage of easy transposition to an opposite-hand circulation rule:  nearside is left in Britain but right in the US and other right-driving countries.  In spite of that, I hardly use these terms on this board since I don't feel they are well understood (unlike, say, "carriageway," another British import that is more widely understood and is arguably more fit for purpose than the made-up term interlane, bodging roadway to mean half of a divided road, or bodging lane to mean a half of a divided road that may have multiple traffic lanes plus shoulders).

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 24, 2014, 01:04:59 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 24, 2014, 11:47:48 AMWhat do you mean by "#1 lane" and "#2 lane"? I've never heard anyone use those expressions–with the exception of Brits, everyone I've ever known just says "right lane," "left lane," "second lane from the right," or the like.

California and Britain have an identical lane counting system that runs from left to right regardless of circulation rule.  So, in California, the #1 lane is next to the median, while in Britain, the number of the lane immediately adjacent to the central reservation is the same as the total number of lanes in that direction on that section.

I feel like someone on this forum mentioned that Mass. had a British style rule (i.e., in the US, it means counting from right to left).  when I lived there, I had never heard of it, but I didn't do all that much driving.

Quotethe made-up term interlane

who made that one up?  "carriageway" is, while not intuitively obvious, at least isn't intuitively wrong - if I were faced with the term "interlane", I would equate it to "median".

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 24, 2014, 01:55:38 PMI feel like someone on this forum mentioned that Mass. had a British style rule (i.e., in the US, it means counting from right to left).  when I lived there, I had never heard of it, but I didn't do all that much driving.

I don't think I have heard of it either.  If it exists, I suspect it is a minority standard, like the Dvorak keyboard.  Massachusetts has a population of about 6 million while California and Britain have populations of 35 million and 60 million respectively.

Quote

Quotethe made-up term interlane

who made that one up?  "carriageway" is, while not intuitively obvious, at least isn't intuitively wrong - if I were faced with the term "interlane", I would equate it to "median".

I think I first saw it in a late 1940's/early 1950's forerunner to the present AASHTO Green Book:  you know, the kind of book that spells alignment "alinement" because it is more logical.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 24, 2014, 01:55:38 PM
I feel like someone on this forum mentioned that Mass. had a British style rule (i.e., in the US, it means counting from right to left).  when I lived there, I had never heard of it, but I didn't do all that much driving.

Massachusetts does designate freeway lanes in ascending order from right to left (rightmost lane is # 1, etc.).  However, at present, only the State Police and the DOT's highway operations center use this nomenclature in internal communications only.  Lanes are never referenced by number by either the general public or the traffic reporters.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 24, 2014, 12:13:16 PM
there should be a VMS message to occasionally rotate in with the nannies: "#2 traffic: stay out of the #1 lane."

But, I usually have more urgency with #2 than with #1. Oh wait, you mean something else. :D

You know, I feel like people with their turn signal on who aren't changing lanes may be an annoying occurrence, but it is hardly frequent enough for me to get too upset about it.

In fact, I would say that being able to handle regular minor nuisances like this is pretty critical to being able to keep your sanity while driving and *not* dive into road rage.  Around here, anyway.  At a certain point, you kind of have to let a lot of it go.

quote from jbnv:

QuoteBut, I usually have more urgency with #2 than with #1. Oh wait, you mean something else.

With NE2 being MIA, we needed a little bowel humor.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 24, 2014, 11:04:02 PM
You know, I feel like people with their turn signal on who aren't changing lanes may be an annoying occurrence, but it is hardly frequent enough for me to get too upset about it.

In fact, I would say that being able to handle regular minor nuisances like this is pretty critical to being able to keep your sanity while driving and *not* dive into road rage.  Around here, anyway.  At a certain point, you kind of have to let a lot of it go.

On a 3 lane highway, when trucks are prohibited from using the left lane, I'll watch some people stay back in the left lane if a trucker accidently still has his left turn signal on while in the center lane.  Either he's not going to get in the left lane because he doesn't belong there, or he can get aggravated that no one's letting him in the left lane...because he doesn't belong there.  Either way, stop holding up the left lane, and just pass the trucker!

This holds true also for roads with two or more lanes continuing straight.  If a driver is getting aggravated because they have their turn signal on and get merge over, so be it.  Both lanes are going straight.  They can wait for a gap.  I'm not letting them in just because they don't like the lane they're in.

In fact, the above just occurred yesterday...we were in the typical rush hour congestion and moving slowly. Some lady was literally stopped in the center lane with her turn signal on because she wanted to get to the left lane.  Instead of continuing forward, she allowed a 10 car gap to grow in front of her, because she wanted to get to the left lane.  When I passed her, you could see how pissed off she was that no one was letting her in.  Finally, she got in a car or two behind me.  About 2 miles later, she got back to the center lane (again, I could watch her, and it took a bit of time, even with her turn signal).  Since the highway was congested, she never saved any time, and moving to the left lane was clearly pointless.

Quote from: jbnv on April 24, 2014, 10:08:20 AM

Quote from: SidS1045 on April 22, 2014, 10:54:18 PM
... without someone, pretending to be polite, who interrupts the free flow of traffic and effectively gives up the ROW of everyone behind him/her.

This is the issue. The person who thinks he is being polite to one person is being rude to everyone behind him.

No, the issue is that people are so selfish and ego-centric that they can't fathom five seconds of their time being worth it to spare someone else having to wait five minutes for an opening.

Quote from: wphiii on April 25, 2014, 10:18:00 AM

Quote from: jbnv on April 24, 2014, 10:08:20 AM

Quote from: SidS1045 on April 22, 2014, 10:54:18 PM
... without someone, pretending to be polite, who interrupts the free flow of traffic and effectively gives up the ROW of everyone behind him/her.

This is the issue. The person who thinks he is being polite to one person is being rude to everyone behind him.

No, the issue is that people are so selfish and ego-centric that they can't fathom five seconds of their time being worth it to spare someone else having to wait five minutes for an opening.

I think we are zeroing in on the very essence of the cause of road rage: people who value everyone's time and right of way either more or less than whoever is talking about it.

Quote from: wphiii on April 25, 2014, 10:18:00 AM

Quote from: jbnv on April 24, 2014, 10:08:20 AM

Quote from: SidS1045 on April 22, 2014, 10:54:18 PM
... without someone, pretending to be polite, who interrupts the free flow of traffic and effectively gives up the ROW of everyone behind him/her.

This is the issue. The person who thinks he is being polite to one person is being rude to everyone behind him.

No, the issue is that people are so selfish and ego-centric that they can't fathom five seconds of their time being worth it to spare someone else having to wait five minutes for an opening.

What gives you the right to make that sort of assessment on the behalf of other people? To decide for yourself that they can be inconvenienced (further than they already are being in traffic) on behalf of someone else?

Quote from: jbnv on April 25, 2014, 11:45:58 AM

Quote from: wphiii on April 25, 2014, 10:18:00 AM

Quote from: jbnv on April 24, 2014, 10:08:20 AM

Quote from: SidS1045 on April 22, 2014, 10:54:18 PM
... without someone, pretending to be polite, who interrupts the free flow of traffic and effectively gives up the ROW of everyone behind him/her.

This is the issue. The person who thinks he is being polite to one person is being rude to everyone behind him.

No, the issue is that people are so selfish and ego-centric that they can't fathom five seconds of their time being worth it to spare someone else having to wait five minutes for an opening.

What gives you the right to make that sort of assessment on the behalf of other people? To decide for yourself that they can be inconvenienced (further than they already are being in traffic) on behalf of someone else?

Like it or not, a driver's license comes with myriad discretionary powers.  You use them in some ways, others do so in others.  Everyone is not always going to agree.

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 24, 2014, 12:28:19 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 24, 2014, 12:13:16 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 24, 2014, 11:47:48 AM
What do you mean by "#1 lane" and "#2 lane"? I've never heard anyone use those expressions–with the exception of Brits, everyone I've ever known just says "right lane," "left lane," "second lane from the right," or the like. I've heard Brits say "inside lane" and "outside lane," although I gather they seem to use those terms in the reverse of what I would picture them as meaning (I would envision the "outside lane" as the "slow lane," the one closest to the edge of the road, and the "inside lane" as the "passing lane," the one closest to the median, the reason being in both cases that the median is "inside" the rest of the road).

must be a California thing.  #1 lane is the closest to the median (in our case, leftmost).  #2 is one to the right, etc.

there should be a VMS message to occasionally rotate in with the nannies: "#2 traffic: stay out of the #1 lane."

OK, thanks. I wasn't sure how it would work because, of course, we normally read from left to right, so numbering the lanes from left to right jibes with that, but on the other hand if you view the right lane(s) as the primary travel lane(s) it would also make sense to view the right-most lane as "#1" even if it meant "counting backwards."

It help myself to think in terms of the lane count increasing from the median or centerline and going to the right. 

One question I have about CA lane counting system is how to account for car pool lane.  I  like to call the leftmost "regular" lane the #1 lane, so I call the carpool lane the #0 lane



iPhone

My issue is also YIELD, people tend to think YIELD means just go no matter what.
Case in point:  there are some highway on-ramps with no merge time.  There are YIELD signs at the end of the ramps and time and time again, I see people blow right through the yield when there is traffic on the main-line right lane.
 
In fact, It's happened to me and I've seen it happen to others, the car getting on the highway from the on-ramp just merges on without looking making the car in the right lane of the mainline slam on his breaks or swerving to the left lane to avoid being hit. 

Here's the map:

https://goo.gl/maps/S8shB

Quote from: doofy103 on April 25, 2014, 08:44:52 PM
My issue is also YIELD, people tend to think YIELD means just go no matter what.
Case in point:  there are some highway on-ramps with no merge time.  There are YIELD signs at the end of the ramps and time and time again, I see people blow right through the yield when there is traffic on the main-line right lane.
 
In fact, It's happened to me and I've seen it happen to others, the car getting on the highway from the on-ramp just merges on without looking making the car in the right lane of the mainline slam on his breaks or swerving to the left lane to avoid being hit. 

Here's the map:

https://goo.gl/maps/S8shB

You see, there's this thing called an accelerator pedal on the car.  It moves the car forward, and the harder it is pressed, the faster the acceleration.  One should use this pedal to accelerate the car up to freeway speed prior to merging so one does not have to worry about yield signs or fitting into the freeway.

Quote from: Brandon on April 28, 2014, 01:30:32 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on April 25, 2014, 08:44:52 PM
My issue is also YIELD, people tend to think YIELD means just go no matter what.
Case in point:  there are some highway on-ramps with no merge time.  There are YIELD signs at the end of the ramps and time and time again, I see people blow right through the yield when there is traffic on the main-line right lane.
 
In fact, It's happened to me and I've seen it happen to others, the car getting on the highway from the on-ramp just merges on without looking making the car in the right lane of the mainline slam on his breaks or swerving to the left lane to avoid being hit. 

Here's the map:

https://goo.gl/maps/S8shB

You see, there's this thing called an accelerator pedal on the car.  It moves the car forward, and the harder it is pressed, the faster the acceleration.  One should use this pedal to accelerate the car up to freeway speed prior to merging so one does not have to worry about yield signs or fitting into the freeway.

You do know that a Yield sign means slow down and stop if necessary, not speed up and try to get into the slimmest of gaps, right?

Speeding up and merging in is true if there's an acceleration lane.  But when there's no merge room, what you are describing is extremely dangerous.  Flying thru a yield sign like that is exactly why we see more stop signs instead of yield signs around.  In fact, even if there was no traffic nearby, one is supposed to slow at a yield sign then merge in.  Since this type condition doesn't usually exist on a high-speed roadway, it's usually not that hard to properly reduce speed, confirm no traffic is coming, and then entering the highway.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 24, 2014, 05:01:20 PMthe kind of book that spells alignment "alinement" because it is more logical.

didn't know CC Slater was writing books in the 1940s!

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 24, 2014, 05:01:20 PM
... you know, the kind of book that spells alignment "alinement" because it is more logical.

Blame the French.

Quote from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/align
1685—95;  < French aligner,  equivalent to a- a-5  + ligner  < Latin līneāre,  derivative of līnea line1

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 28, 2014, 01:39:50 PM

Quote from: Brandon on April 28, 2014, 01:30:32 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on April 25, 2014, 08:44:52 PM
My issue is also YIELD, people tend to think YIELD means just go no matter what.
Case in point:  there are some highway on-ramps with no merge time.  There are YIELD signs at the end of the ramps and time and time again, I see people blow right through the yield when there is traffic on the main-line right lane.
 
In fact, It's happened to me and I've seen it happen to others, the car getting on the highway from the on-ramp just merges on without looking making the car in the right lane of the mainline slam on his breaks or swerving to the left lane to avoid being hit. 

Here's the map:

https://goo.gl/maps/S8shB

You see, there's this thing called an accelerator pedal on the car.  It moves the car forward, and the harder it is pressed, the faster the acceleration.  One should use this pedal to accelerate the car up to freeway speed prior to merging so one does not have to worry about yield signs or fitting into the freeway.

You do know that a Yield sign means slow down and stop if necessary, not speed up and try to get into the slimmest of gaps, right?

Speeding up and merging in is true if there's an acceleration lane.  But when there's no merge room, what you are describing is extremely dangerous.  Flying thru a yield sign like that is exactly why we see more stop signs instead of yield signs around.  In fact, even if there was no traffic nearby, one is supposed to slow at a yield sign then merge in.  Since this type condition doesn't usually exist on a high-speed roadway, it's usually not that hard to properly reduce speed, confirm no traffic is coming, and then entering the highway.

but you do not slow down and disrupt the traffic - match speed and merge.

Quote from: SSOWorld on April 30, 2014, 06:36:08 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 28, 2014, 01:39:50 PM

Quote from: Brandon on April 28, 2014, 01:30:32 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on April 25, 2014, 08:44:52 PM
My issue is also YIELD, people tend to think YIELD means just go no matter what.
Case in point:  there are some highway on-ramps with no merge time.  There are YIELD signs at the end of the ramps and time and time again, I see people blow right through the yield when there is traffic on the main-line right lane.
 
In fact, It's happened to me and I've seen it happen to others, the car getting on the highway from the on-ramp just merges on without looking making the car in the right lane of the mainline slam on his breaks or swerving to the left lane to avoid being hit. 

Here's the map:

https://goo.gl/maps/S8shB

You see, there's this thing called an accelerator pedal on the car.  It moves the car forward, and the harder it is pressed, the faster the acceleration.  One should use this pedal to accelerate the car up to freeway speed prior to merging so one does not have to worry about yield signs or fitting into the freeway.

You do know that a Yield sign means slow down and stop if necessary, not speed up and try to get into the slimmest of gaps, right?

Speeding up and merging in is true if there's an acceleration lane.  But when there's no merge room, what you are describing is extremely dangerous.  Flying thru a yield sign like that is exactly why we see more stop signs instead of yield signs around.  In fact, even if there was no traffic nearby, one is supposed to slow at a yield sign then merge in.  Since this type condition doesn't usually exist on a high-speed roadway, it's usually not that hard to properly reduce speed, confirm no traffic is coming, and then entering the highway.

but you do not slow down and disrupt the traffic - match speed and merge.

Again - that's hard to do when there's no acceleration lane and generally a curve - sometimes a sharp curve - before the yield sign. 

Quote from: SSOWorld on April 30, 2014, 06:36:08 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 28, 2014, 01:39:50 PM

Quote from: Brandon on April 28, 2014, 01:30:32 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on April 25, 2014, 08:44:52 PM
My issue is also YIELD, people tend to think YIELD means just go no matter what.
Case in point:  there are some highway on-ramps with no merge time.  There are YIELD signs at the end of the ramps and time and time again, I see people blow right through the yield when there is traffic on the main-line right lane.
 
In fact, It's happened to me and I've seen it happen to others, the car getting on the highway from the on-ramp just merges on without looking making the car in the right lane of the mainline slam on his breaks or swerving to the left lane to avoid being hit. 

Here's the map:

https://goo.gl/maps/S8shB

You see, there's this thing called an accelerator pedal on the car.  It moves the car forward, and the harder it is pressed, the faster the acceleration.  One should use this pedal to accelerate the car up to freeway speed prior to merging so one does not have to worry about yield signs or fitting into the freeway.

You do know that a Yield sign means slow down and stop if necessary, not speed up and try to get into the slimmest of gaps, right?

Speeding up and merging in is true if there's an acceleration lane.  But when there's no merge room, what you are describing is extremely dangerous.  Flying thru a yield sign like that is exactly why we see more stop signs instead of yield signs around.  In fact, even if there was no traffic nearby, one is supposed to slow at a yield sign then merge in.  Since this type condition doesn't usually exist on a high-speed roadway, it's usually not that hard to properly reduce speed, confirm no traffic is coming, and then entering the highway.

but you do not slow down and disrupt the traffic - match speed and merge.

There shouldn't be a yield sign posted if that's actually possible- there should only be a yield sign if a normal car can't get up to speed in time, and that's really the only place I've seen yield signs on freeways, at least in my experience.

Yield means yield.

Quote from: SSOWorld on April 30, 2014, 06:36:08 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 28, 2014, 01:39:50 PM

Quote from: Brandon on April 28, 2014, 01:30:32 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on April 25, 2014, 08:44:52 PM
My issue is also YIELD, people tend to think YIELD means just go no matter what.
Case in point:  there are some highway on-ramps with no merge time.  There are YIELD signs at the end of the ramps and time and time again, I see people blow right through the yield when there is traffic on the main-line right lane.
 
In fact, It's happened to me and I've seen it happen to others, the car getting on the highway from the on-ramp just merges on without looking making the car in the right lane of the mainline slam on his breaks or swerving to the left lane to avoid being hit. 

Here's the map:

https://goo.gl/maps/S8shB

You see, there's this thing called an accelerator pedal on the car.  It moves the car forward, and the harder it is pressed, the faster the acceleration.  One should use this pedal to accelerate the car up to freeway speed prior to merging so one does not have to worry about yield signs or fitting into the freeway.

You do know that a Yield sign means slow down and stop if necessary, not speed up and try to get into the slimmest of gaps, right?

Speeding up and merging in is true if there's an acceleration lane.  But when there's no merge room, what you are describing is extremely dangerous.  Flying thru a yield sign like that is exactly why we see more stop signs instead of yield signs around.  In fact, even if there was no traffic nearby, one is supposed to slow at a yield sign then merge in.  Since this type condition doesn't usually exist on a high-speed roadway, it's usually not that hard to properly reduce speed, confirm no traffic is coming, and then entering the highway.

but you do not slow down and disrupt the traffic - match speed and merge.

These are clearly the conversations of folks with peppy automobiles, not sluggish trucks with a genuine distaste for acceleration.  We have a mile-long steep incline here on Mass. 2 that, if I merge onto at the bottom, makes for a long, slow trip up.  What amazes me is that with four generally underutilized lanes there, people still manage to hang around my bumper in the right lane and huff and puff that I'm not going fast enough.

Quote from: corco on April 30, 2014, 09:33:18 PM

Quotebut you do not slow down and disrupt the traffic - match speed and merge.

There shouldn't be a yield sign posted if that's actually possible- there should only be a yield sign if a normal car can't get up to speed in time, and that's really the only place I've seen yield signs on freeways, at least in my experience.

Yield means yield.

It doesn't work that way in Kansas--every on-ramp gets a Yield sign even if the acceleration lane is adequate for a full-speed merge.  This example is fairly typical for easy merges:

I-235/25th Street northbound on-ramp, Wichita (https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wichita,+Sedgwick+County,+Kansas&ll=37.732529,-97.378532&spn=0.002312,0.004823&t=m&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=37.732584,-97.378484&panoid=OcrBXs92EJ-YUj4_KbNFQA&cbp=12,56.02,,0,0)

I suspect there is some state-to-state variation on this issue, since there are basically two philosophies of using Yield signs that have held sway at various times.  One is that Yield is "strong control" and can substitute for Stop signs in all applications where a motorist can reasonably expect to have to stop to cede priority, except multi-way stops and intersections where an obligatory stop is necessary owing to restricted visibility (essentially the same basis on which Give Way is used in Britain).  The other is that Yield is "weak control" and should be used only at locations where traffic can routinely roll through at a fairly high speed (I think 15 or 20 MPH has been quoted as an indicative minimum) except when there is a need to cede priority which the driver can see in good time to stop or slow down just shy of the conflict point.

I think it was either the Millennium or 2003 edition of the MUTCD that endorsed the "weak control" interpretation of Yield.  This is the interpretation that supports Yield signs on every on-ramp even if the speed change facilities provided are more than adequate.  These Yield signs are not allowed under the "strong control" interpretation, for much the same reason Stop signs wouldn't be used at such ramps.  Some states may additionally omit on-ramp Yield signs on the basis that ceding priority to mainline traffic when merging is a rule of the road and, as such, does not require signing.

Quote from: SSOWorld on April 30, 2014, 06:36:08 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 28, 2014, 01:39:50 PM

Quote from: Brandon on April 28, 2014, 01:30:32 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on April 25, 2014, 08:44:52 PM
My issue is also YIELD, people tend to think YIELD means just go no matter what.
Case in point:  there are some highway on-ramps with no merge time.  There are YIELD signs at the end of the ramps and time and time again, I see people blow right through the yield when there is traffic on the main-line right lane.
 
In fact, It's happened to me and I've seen it happen to others, the car getting on the highway from the on-ramp just merges on without looking making the car in the right lane of the mainline slam on his breaks or swerving to the left lane to avoid being hit. 

Here's the map:

https://goo.gl/maps/S8shB

You see, there's this thing called an accelerator pedal on the car.  It moves the car forward, and the harder it is pressed, the faster the acceleration.  One should use this pedal to accelerate the car up to freeway speed prior to merging so one does not have to worry about yield signs or fitting into the freeway.

You do know that a Yield sign means slow down and stop if necessary, not speed up and try to get into the slimmest of gaps, right?

Speeding up and merging in is true if there's an acceleration lane.  But when there's no merge room, what you are describing is extremely dangerous.  Flying thru a yield sign like that is exactly why we see more stop signs instead of yield signs around.  In fact, even if there was no traffic nearby, one is supposed to slow at a yield sign then merge in.  Since this type condition doesn't usually exist on a high-speed roadway, it's usually not that hard to properly reduce speed, confirm no traffic is coming, and then entering the highway.

but you do not slow down and disrupt the traffic - match speed and merge.

That's the problem....What if there is a car there as you blow the YIELD sign at highway speed!?!  Do you slam on your brakes!?  No, instead you make the cars on the mainline slam on theirs. 

Problem is people speeding down the ramp and blowing through the YIELD sign where there are cars on the mainline.  Because you do that, it makes cars on the mainline slam on their brakes or swerve.  You on the ramp have to look out for cars on the mainline and YIELD to them if they are there.  If you hit someone the person on the ramp is usually at fault. 

Quote from: doofy103 on May 01, 2014, 02:31:41 PM

Quote from: SSOWorld on April 30, 2014, 06:36:08 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 28, 2014, 01:39:50 PM

Quote from: Brandon on April 28, 2014, 01:30:32 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on April 25, 2014, 08:44:52 PM
My issue is also YIELD, people tend to think YIELD means just go no matter what.
Case in point:  there are some highway on-ramps with no merge time.  There are YIELD signs at the end of the ramps and time and time again, I see people blow right through the yield when there is traffic on the main-line right lane.
 
In fact, It's happened to me and I've seen it happen to others, the car getting on the highway from the on-ramp just merges on without looking making the car in the right lane of the mainline slam on his breaks or swerving to the left lane to avoid being hit. 

Here's the map:

https://goo.gl/maps/S8shB

You see, there's this thing called an accelerator pedal on the car.  It moves the car forward, and the harder it is pressed, the faster the acceleration.  One should use this pedal to accelerate the car up to freeway speed prior to merging so one does not have to worry about yield signs or fitting into the freeway.

You do know that a Yield sign means slow down and stop if necessary, not speed up and try to get into the slimmest of gaps, right?

Speeding up and merging in is true if there's an acceleration lane.  But when there's no merge room, what you are describing is extremely dangerous.  Flying thru a yield sign like that is exactly why we see more stop signs instead of yield signs around.  In fact, even if there was no traffic nearby, one is supposed to slow at a yield sign then merge in.  Since this type condition doesn't usually exist on a high-speed roadway, it's usually not that hard to properly reduce speed, confirm no traffic is coming, and then entering the highway.

but you do not slow down and disrupt the traffic - match speed and merge.

That's the problem....What if there is a car there as you blow the YIELD sign at highway speed!?!  Do you slam on your brakes!?  No, instead you make the cars on the mainline slam on theirs. 

Problem is people speeding down the ramp and blowing through the YIELD sign where there are cars on the mainline.  Because you do that, it makes cars on the mainline slam on their brakes or swerve.  You on the ramp have to look out for cars on the mainline and YIELD to them if they are there.  If you hit someone the person on the ramp is usually at fault. 

If you're going close to the speed of traffic as you are merging, then finding the gap should be easy.  You should have already chosen your gap well before you actually merge into traffic.  The yield is unnecessary when you zipper properly.

And if you can't see the traffic due to a curve or trees etc.?  Most of the time this is for places that have NO acceleration lane.  This ramp provides a good example, even though it's a stop sign instead of a yield sign (and goes into a weave): http://goo.gl/maps/iMlrJ

EDIT: No sign, but you get the gist of what I'm trying to illustrate: http://goo.gl/maps/ykXAl

NJ drivers are by far the worst. Some people say they are worse than NY drivers. PA drivers are no picnic, as like anywhere else. No one seems to follow driving etiquette anymore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_etiquette

Quote from: kendancy66 on April 25, 2014, 01:21:17 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 24, 2014, 12:28:19 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 24, 2014, 12:13:16 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 24, 2014, 11:47:48 AM
What do you mean by "#1 lane" and "#2 lane"? I've never heard anyone use those expressions–with the exception of Brits, everyone I've ever known just says "right lane," "left lane," "second lane from the right," or the like. I've heard Brits say "inside lane" and "outside lane," although I gather they seem to use those terms in the reverse of what I would picture them as meaning (I would envision the "outside lane" as the "slow lane," the one closest to the edge of the road, and the "inside lane" as the "passing lane," the one closest to the median, the reason being in both cases that the median is "inside" the rest of the road).

must be a California thing.  #1 lane is the closest to the median (in our case, leftmost).  #2 is one to the right, etc.

there should be a VMS message to occasionally rotate in with the nannies: "#2 traffic: stay out of the #1 lane."

OK, thanks. I wasn't sure how it would work because, of course, we normally read from left to right, so numbering the lanes from left to right jibes with that, but on the other hand if you view the right lane(s) as the primary travel lane(s) it would also make sense to view the right-most lane as "#1" even if it meant "counting backwards."

It help myself to think in terms of the lane count increasing from the median or centerline and going to the right. 

One question I have about CA lane counting system is how to account for car pool lane.  I  like to call the leftmost "regular" lane the #1 lane, so I call the carpool lane the #0 lane



iPhone

Having grown up in California, I refer to the lanes by number regularly.  I wish that this can be incorporated into the forum as it is a very precise way to refer to what is happening on the freeway.

The use of the numbering system is used primarily by radio traffic announcers, who also for the most part still refer to the freeways by name "Hollywood Freeway", "Santa Monica Freeway" etc.  When the radio
announcers mention an incident, the #1 lane is the leftmost general lane, not the HOV lane.

I think that the lane numbering system is so extensive in CA because for a long time our freeways were a lot wider than other areas.  If you have freeways with three lanes: left, middle, right.  But where your freeways are typically 5 or 6 lanes in each direction, numbering is the only way to go.