AARoads Forum

Which driving habit annoys you the most?  After voting, please discuss.  :sombrero:

I have to pick one??  Okay, let's go with "existing".

I voted for left lane hogging but my biggest pet peeve wasn't listed. It's slow drivers. Especially when you have a vehicle doing 65 in the left lane passing a vehicle doing 60 in the right lane when the speed limit is 70.

Last minute exiting from the far lane best describes mine. Massive cell phone usage is a close second. What I really hate is when somebody is behind you and just before their exit comes up, they quickly move into the left lane and pass you, and then move back in front of you briefly before they go off on the exit ramp. What's the point? How much time do they really save?

I don't know why left lane hogging makes the top of the list.  Yes, it's annoying, but that behavior doesn't directly put your life in danger like the one I voted for tailgating.

When someone is tailgating you and you can't shake them or move over, you have to hope that they won't plow into you when you slow down.

Now, massive cell phone usage and braking for no reason are also direct safety hazards.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 20, 2010, 01:56:41 PM
I have to pick one??

What he said.

Living in south Florida, ALL of the above! :pan:

Quote from: xcellntbuy on August 20, 2010, 03:53:34 PM
Living in south Florida, ALL of the above! :pan:

yeah, if we're going to go with Miami driving behaviors, let's go with "running a stop sign, screeching to a halt in front of me to block my path, getting out of the car to yell obscenities, and then forcing me to back up and go around him" would be on the list.

Slow drivers, definitely.  There's nothing I hate more than being on the Thruway going 65 and having to slow down because some jerk is going 60 while there is a long line of cars in the other lane going 80, except for people who refuse to drive the speed limit on two lane roads so you can't pass them.  I can count on one hand the times I've driven in the Canton, NY area faster than 10 mph below the speed limit; ditto for going on US 11 faster than 5 mph under the limit.  If you can't or won't go the speed limit, you shouldn't be on the road, especially if it's an interstate!

Inconsistent drivers are even worse.  I once had the pleasure of going 10 mph below the speed limit on NY 12 due to an idiot in front of me.  I passed him near NY 26 before NY 12 narrowed back to two lanes; after I passed the guy, he suddenly wanted to do 90 mph!

^^^

What you may have run into with that guy is someone who takes offense at being passed.

On US 11 in northern PA it happens a lot in the three lane sections with alternating passing zones.  Your in the no passing zone and someone is doing 45 in a 55 zone.  The passing zone arrives, you try to pass them, and you have to get to 75 or 80 to do so and hope you can complete it before the passing zone ends.  If you fall back behind them, they drop back to 45 in the no passing zone.

Not many 3 lane former "suicide highways" down in Tennessee, but I have noticed similar behavior.  One night, I was trying to pass someone on I-65 and they kept going faster.  I eventually pushed it and got around them.  But, eventually they passed me back.  Fortunately for me, I had reached my exit and didn't have to put up with this yahoo anymore.

Another type of driver is either consistent or inconsistent depending how you look at it.  This type of driver will go say 40 miles an hour in a 50 zone but when the speed limit drops to 30, they still do 40!  They are consistent in the speed they drive, but inconsistent vis-a-vis the speed limit.  They are basically driving as if the speed limit signs don't exist at all.

In conclusion, unless are wearing a firesuit and have a number on the side of your car or truck, you shouldn't take offense if someone passes you!

Being in the Northeast, left lane hogging doesn't bother me because there are usually two or more additional lanes to pass the bastard.  I went with "stopping on entrance ramps" because I do not like gunning my motor to merge, and frankly, if you can't merge in a standard accel lane, you should not be driving on highways.  Tailgating depends on the degree - leave at least half a car space in front of you please?

Quote from: AlpsROADS on August 20, 2010, 07:00:25 PM
"stopping on entrance ramps"

that's not annoying. that's dangerous. 

throw in there "leaving your car parked, lights off, in the dead of the night in the number one lane on fucking interstate 680".  Yeah, that was a quick swerve followed by an immediate call to 911.

Driving too slow in the fast lane. Heck, people driving too slow in general.

Quote from: deanej on August 20, 2010, 04:44:02 PM
If you can't or won't go the speed limit, you shouldn't be on the road, especially if it's an interstate!

Quoted for truth. I've had the same problems on both the Thruway and US 11 (though, in the latter case, if you know exactly when to go you can do 65 easily...and if you're a local like me, you simply take back roads and avoid that mess). If you're on a two-lane road, going slower than everyone else (regardless of whether or not it's the speed limit), and there's a line of cars behind you trying to pass, pull over and let them pass you!

If you're in the left lane being passed by people in the right lane, you're going too slow!

I'm not bothered by one slow driver as long as I can pass him or her right there and then without delay.  However two or more slow drivers and that's a problem, especially if both drivers are blocking the lanes (side by side), that irritating.

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


One unbelievable incident I saw personally was the one spot on a local freeway where a left-hand entrance ramp and an right-hand exit ramp are side by side along the mainlanes and one driver coming up the left-hand entrance actually stopped on the mainlanes supposedly to make that right-hand exit with traffic enroute.  He was in front of me and I saw him turn a sharp right and stop on the mainlanes, while I continued past him.  I don't know what ensued after I passed, god forbid he collided with an oncoming car doing 70 MPH.

On and this is not on the list, but I'd like to include the officer that pulled me over for doing 73 on a 70 on a six-lane divided highway; no ticket thankfully but she told me (sternly) to "slow it down" as another annoying factor, especially when the road was empty.

Overall it's slow drivers.

I picked "sudden braking for no reason" because I don't want to slow down while I'm on cruise control just because the person in front of me randomly slowed down(and for the record I did stop for a plastic bag once when I had my learners').

If you're in the left (passing) lane and cars are passing you on the right, that should be a signal right there that you need to get over in the right lane. I personally have no problem with drivers slower than me as long as they are doing the speed limit. I generally try to keep my speed withing 5-10 over the limit at most, and when I'm on I-94 from Madison to Milwaukee, I generally get passed by just as many cars as I pass myself. But if I am in the process of passing somebody and another car runs up on my ass, I'm not going to be in any hurry to get over just so they can zoom by me. I'll just keep my speed steady, and once I finish passing, then I'll get over and let them by, but I'm not going to do a tailgater any favors.

I recently saw a motorcycle driver texting as he drove down the highway  :pan:  At least he was going slower than most traffic but when I backed off after passing him to get a pic on my phone he put his phone away, gave me a "Califourny howdy" and sped away.
BTW, I voted for left lane hogs, its just totally inconsiderate! :no: :ded: :angry: And when you get two side by side, @%T$#@@!!^$%$&**)(^$#@@@$$^$%YU^^&*&(^$%#$@##%$^%&*(*&%&%^&%^$%$%^&* :angry: :angry:

Drivers that are in the habit of being Utards

Seriously, though, the left lane hogs are the worst.

Going through the options:

QuoteRoadgeek who can't put the camera down and drive (OK, j/k)   

- I have yet to see another one on the road outside of a roadmeet, so too small of a sample size

QuoteSudden braking for no good reason   

- This is pretty annoying- look at me! I need to slow down .5 MPH on a congested freeway, so better to slam my brakes than take my foot off the gas for a second. In moderate to heavy traffic, I would say this is more annoying than left lane hogs.

QuoteLast minute exiting from the far lane   

- This is annoying, but whatever, he'll kill himself eventually

QuoteTailgating   

- Not annoying. If you're tailgating me and I slam my brakes for no reason causing you to rear end me, that's your fault and I get a new car on your dime.

QuoteMassive cell phone usage   

- Only annoying if the cell phone usage causes them to do one of the other things listed here. Some people are better at multitasking than others, so I'm all for only getting annoyed at the results of their cell phone usage. If they're talking on a phone and driving fine (which seems to happen more often than not), that's not annoying.

QuoteStopping on entrance ramps   

- This is annoying, but whatever,  he'll kill himself eventually

QuoteLeft lane hogging   

- Actively impedes my ability to get to a destination quickly. This makes that annoying. Same with slow drivers if they're not getting out of the way, or on rural two lane roads not driving on the right side of their lane to make it easier to see around and pass them

Quote from: cu2010 on August 20, 2010, 07:32:23 PM
If you're on a two-lane road, going slower than everyone else (regardless of whether or not it's the speed limit), and there's a line of cars behind you trying to pass, pull over and let them pass you!

I will pull over if they're tailgating me and there is a safe place to pull over.

Otherwise, if I'm obeying the law and it's not fast enough for you, too darn bad!  :angry:

Quote from: mightyace on August 21, 2010, 12:08:06 AM

I will pull over if they're tailgating me and there is a safe place to pull over.

Otherwise, if I'm obeying the law and it's not fast enough for you, too darn bad!  :angry:

pulling over when it is reasonable to do so puts you in the upper 99% of drivers.  Most drivers see the sign for the turnout, see the second warning sign for the turnout, see the turnout ... and happily proceed past all of them, utterly oblivious that they are blocking traffic.

that's why I am happy to have done a set of major tourist corridors and hope to never have to do them again.  US-1 to Key West, that kind of thing.

Quote from: mightyace on August 21, 2010, 12:08:06 AM

Quote from: cu2010 on August 20, 2010, 07:32:23 PM
If you're on a two-lane road, going slower than everyone else (regardless of whether or not it's the speed limit), and there's a line of cars behind you trying to pass, pull over and let them pass you!

I will pull over if they're tailgating me and there is a safe place to pull over.

Otherwise, if I'm obeying the law and it's not fast enough for you, too darn bad!  :angry:

This irritiates me to no end in Idaho. In Idaho, it's actually state law to pull over into a slow vehicle turnout (of which there are many) if there are three cars behind you. There are clear, giant signs posted informing people of this law. The number of out-of-staters who completely ignore it drive me nuts.

Howabout 'aggressive weavers', especially when they try to fit though spaces that are half of their cars' lengths?

I actually will take extra pains to deny them those spaces.

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on August 21, 2010, 12:23:42 AM
Howabout 'aggressive weavers', especially when they try to fit though spaces that are half of their cars' lengths?

I actually will take extra pains to deny them those spaces.

Mike

Me too Mike, sometimes I'll look over at them and smile while I do!

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

QuoteHowabout 'aggressive weavers', especially when they try to fit though spaces that are half of their cars' lengths?

I actually will take extra pains to deny them those spaces.

Mike

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

^^^

My brother does the same as you, corco.

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

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

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

Quote from: corco on August 21, 2010, 01:18:55 AM

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

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

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


Be well,

Bryant

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: realjd on August 21, 2010, 11:05:53 AM
Hazard lights on in the rain/fog. Hazards, by law, indicate a PARKED car. If you have them on and aren't parked, it's a dangerous situation for everyone involved, especially in blinding fog. I don't know about other places, but the cops in Florida will ticket for it.

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

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

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

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2010, 02:27:06 PM
I disagree with this as well.  I have flashed my hazards when braking sharply to let the person behind me know that I'm not just tapping the brakes to come out of cruise control, and he should be prepared (as I am) to take extraordinary evasive measures - either slam hard on the brakes, or swerve into another lane. 

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

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

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

Quote from: AlpsROADS on August 20, 2010, 07:00:25 PM
I went with "stopping on entrance ramps" because I do not like gunning my motor to merge, and frankly, if you can't merge in a standard accel lane, you should not be driving on highways. 

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

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

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2010, 12:34:28 AM
heh I've had someone in a $150,000 Mercedes want to cut me off, while I was driving a $1 Ford Escort (value may be exaggerated) - I rolled down the window and asked him "really, you want to scratch your car just to force your way into line?"

What was his response?  :-)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2010, 02:27:06 PM

Quote from: realjd on August 21, 2010, 11:05:53 AM
Hazard lights on in the rain/fog. Hazards, by law, indicate a PARKED car. If you have them on and aren't parked, it's a dangerous situation for everyone involved, especially in blinding fog. I don't know about other places, but the cops in Florida will ticket for it.

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

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

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

Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 22, 2010, 11:22:53 AM

What was his response?  :-)

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

Quote from: realjd on August 22, 2010, 10:58:23 AM

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

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

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

Quote from: AARoads on August 22, 2010, 11:43:37 AM
is that if you are below 40 on the freeway, that using them is pertinent to indicate a major difference in speed. I have seen this where a vehicle has a flat and is rolling toward the next exit (sometimes on the shoulder), or a vehicle overloaded with cargo that should not be going at freeway speeds (nor be on the freeway either!).

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

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

Quote from: jgb191 on August 20, 2010, 09:00:00 PM
Cell phone usage while driving are on everybody's list of issues, mine included.

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

^^^

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

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

Quote from: hbelkins on August 22, 2010, 11:34:25 PM

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

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

but heaven help you if you fail. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So no one thinks lane changing without signalling is bad?  If I become world totalitarian dictator, those people will be the first to get tortured a slow painful death, since people who fail to signal most likely rape others and molest small children.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnsider2.com%2Fforums%2Fpublic%2Fstyle_emoticons%2Fdefault%2Feducate_real_one.gif&hash=4464c375077168f77a09be33e764bbe6326602d7) 

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

It's marginally annoying, but I've never been in a situation where I felt endangered by it, so I'm fairly indifferent.

Quote from: corco on August 23, 2010, 06:03:55 PM

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

It's marginally annoying, but I've never been in a situation where I felt endangered by it, so I'm fairly indifferent.

Left-lane hogging isn't really that dangerous, but it's annoying.  Also, some people cut people off, and in heavy traffic when there's more than 2 lanes, it can be dangerous.

QuoteLeft-lane hogging isn't really that dangerous, but it's annoying.  Also, some people cut people off, and in heavy traffic when there's more than 2 lanes, it can be dangerous.

Good call- I should have added "impeding," which left lane hogging definitely is- somebody who doesn't signal doesn't slow me up at all either, which also makes me indifferent. Left lane hogging is definitely dangerous though, if only because it forces people to pass on the right. It also causes people in the left lane to brake as they approach, which is in no way safe on an urban freeway.

Cutting people off is annoying and dangerous whether they signal or not. I'm not soothed by somebody flashing their blinker once and then cutting me off.

Obviously, I'd rather they signaled, and I'm a religious signaler, but for whatever reason I just don't care that much when somebody doesn't

Even impeding isn't dangerous.  Just annoying... 

Hmmm.  I always cared, and I'm a religious signaler as well.  When I went through the Shasta and Siskyou mountains, I always took the inline curves when the road was empty (it was an overnight drive), but I still signaled.  :P

QuoteWhen I went through the Shasta and Siskyou mountains, I always took the inline curves when the road was empty (it was an overnight drive), but I still signaled.

I used to do that but eventually decided it was pointless. I do still signal religiously at the end of passing lanes when the right lane ends, however, even when there are no other cars.  :sombrero:

Traveling on a rural freeway and encountering a person driving inconsistently.  The person is clearly not using cruise control and doesn't seem to have the ability to drive at a steady rate.  The result is you wind up passing each other 4 or 5 times and you find yourself behind this speed waffler as your both passing slower traffic.

I love using cruise control whenever conditions allow and any event that requires me to switch to manual is always a bummer.

Here's another example.  Things are moving just fine on the highway, everyone's doing a nice reasonable speed, passing well and moving over; everything's cool. Then a state trooper comes into view and suddenly everyone in front of you jams on their brakes forcing you to slow down with them.  This always occurs long after the cop has got his reading and slowing down like that isn't going to change the outcome.  My reasoning is if you think you can get away driving at that speed when you don't see a cop, what makes you think you won't get away with it if you do see 'em?  You're not fooling anyone.  The trooper's not gonna pull you over for doing 70 in a 65 anyway, so keep on trucking people.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 23, 2010, 06:01:55 PM
So no one thinks lane changing without signalling is bad? 

I only signal when it is necessary to prevent people from being surprised.  If I can make the lane change with everyone generally indifferent towards it, I will likely not signal. 

as for taking racing lines - I certainly will not signal then, because if I am switching lanes to hug the curves more efficiently only when there is no other traffic.  In that case, I may very well cross double-yellow every once in a while. 

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 23, 2010, 06:37:00 PM
Then a state trooper comes into view and suddenly everyone in front of you jams on their brakes forcing you to slow down with them.

the problem here is not that people jam on the brakes, but rather, that they tap.  It can be proven with feedback theory that this *will* cause an unstable chain reaction from the people behind them.  Each will be on the brakes fractionally longer than the one before, with good probability. 

brake lights, are subtly imperfect, as they give the same exact reading for a slight tap (to take the car out of cruise control, for example) and an all-out panic stop.  Alas, the solution that would immediately come to mind (light intensity in proportion to how heavily one's foot is on the brake pedal) would require far too much standardization - one car's faint reading would be another car's bright, and then throw in distance and visibility arguments and the math gets awful hairy.

however, there should be enough hysteresis in the brake light circuitry that a short tap, just to take off cruise control, or instinctively to slow less than 1-2mph, should not activate the brake lights and freak out the cars behind. 

Quote from: corco on August 23, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Good call- I should have added "impeding," which left lane hogging definitely is- somebody who doesn't signal doesn't slow me up at all either, which also makes me indifferent. Left lane hogging is definitely dangerous though, if only because it forces people to pass on the right. It also causes people in the left lane to brake as they approach, which is in no way safe on an urban freeway.

It slows you down when you're making a left turn and somebody who is making a right turn onto the same street doesn't signal.

QuoteSudden braking for no good reason

This was my choice because of the daily jaunts I have to take down FL 436 to Orlando International. Between Lee Vista Blvd and Frontage Road (less than a mile), there is quite a bit of this going on in the left lane mostly, with idiots who can't decide whether to visit Cracker Barrel, two overpriced gas stations, Walgreens, Starbucks, or the plethora of pricey hotels. Map out your route before leaving! Not to mention, coming to a screeching halt one night when someone decided to get out of a left turn lane, at the last minute, with a barrage of cars coming (or vice-versa). Seriously!?

QuoteLast minute exiting from the far lane

This is a very close second only because it is part of the 'anything goes' driving mantra down here. What could be added here is people who pass you (when there is enough room behind you, mind you) just to end up turning into a plaza or side street. My personal favorite are people who play chicken with the gore and its exit sign.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 20, 2010, 07:19:17 PM

Quote from: AlpsROADS on August 20, 2010, 07:00:25 PM
"stopping on entrance ramps"

that's not annoying. that's dangerous.  

throw in there "leaving your car parked, lights off, in the dead of the night in the number one lane on fucking interstate 680".  Yeah, that was a quick swerve followed by an immediate call to 911.

I prefer "car flipped on its side, blocking both interstate lanes, late at night, with its underside on fire". That I-10 is a bad road.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 20, 2010, 04:15:45 PM

Quote from: xcellntbuy on August 20, 2010, 03:53:34 PM
Living in south Florida, ALL of the above! :pan:

yeah, if we're going to go with Miami driving behaviors, let's go with "running a stop sign, screeching to a halt in front of me to block my path, getting out of the car to yell obscenities, and then forcing me to back up and go around him" would be on the list.

The drivers seemed so cautious and reserved in the southern suburbs! Maybe it was a charade? And I've heard rumors that the reason there are sometimes 24 signals at one intersection (6 facing each direction) down there is because of the elderly (or that's who they WANT you to think is at fault).

Quote from: florida on August 24, 2010, 02:57:38 AM
I prefer "car flipped on its side, blocking both interstate lanes, late at night, with its underside on fire". That I-10 is a bad road.

hey now, at least that driver was courteous enough to light up a signal flare!

Quote from: corco on August 23, 2010, 05:52:56 PM
I won't be offended in the slightest if somebody important decides to remove this post.

There are important people here? When'd that happen?

---

Nobody's mentioned what I call the "drama queen turn" yet. When people unnecessarily (i.e. not waiting on traffic to clear) come to almost a complete stop before making a turn. It's almost like they're showing off. "HEY! LOOK AT ME! GUESS WHAT I'M DOING! YEAH, I'M TURNING!!! SEE IT? SEE IT??? LOOK, I'M SLOWING DOWN. SLOWING DOWN. WATCHING ME? HUH? HUH? SEE IT? SEE IT? I'M SLOWING DOWN. NOW LOOK. I'M GOING AROUND THE CORNER NOW. YEAH, GOING AROUND THE CORNER. STILL WATCHING? GOOD, I'M STILL GOING AROUND THE CORNER. ALL RIGHT HOW'S *THAT* FOR A TURN???"

Speaking of turn signals, I also hate it when people slow down for a turn and then signal. Turn signals are supposed to be used to tell people what you're about to do, not what you're already doing.

Cell phone usage is the biggie on this one. Left lane hogging is the other, but I rarely use the left lane as I like to drive the limit.

QuoteNobody's mentioned what I call the "drama queen turn" yet. When people unnecessarily (i.e. not waiting on traffic to clear) come to almost a complete stop before making a turn. It's almost like they're showing off. "HEY! LOOK AT ME! GUESS WHAT I'M DOING! YEAH, I'M TURNING!!! SEE IT? SEE IT??? LOOK, I'M SLOWING DOWN. SLOWING DOWN. WATCHING ME? HUH? HUH? SEE IT? SEE IT? I'M SLOWING DOWN. NOW LOOK. I'M GOING AROUND THE CORNER NOW. YEAH, GOING AROUND THE CORNER. STILL WATCHING? GOOD, I'M STILL GOING AROUND THE CORNER. ALL RIGHT HOW'S *THAT* FOR A TURN???"

On that note, I hate the hook turn. That being people who swing out (often coming near opposing traffic), particularly for right turns. Seems to be a Montana phenomenon more than anywhere else I've been. My old boss used to call it a "Montana turn"

You're driving a Geo Metro- you don't need the same berth as an 18-wheeler.

^Those are great.  I always say they must be pulling an invisible trailer. 

For me it's both cell phone usage and people slamming on their brakes or otherwise driving like a granny when they see a cop.

Case in point, back in June I was driving north on MN 101. There was a guy in an SUV getting on northbound from CR 37, coming down the loop. I slowed down to let him in front of me when I noticed a cop sitting up on the bridge embankment far off of the right side of the road. The SUV I let in front of me proceeded to drive about 40 MPH in the 65 zone while he passed the cop, even though he had had loads of time to accelerate. I was pretty irritated watching this happen.

For some stupid ass reason people not only slam on their brakes when they see cops but then proceed to drive 10-15 UNDER while they pass the cop. It's like "you dumbasses know you can still drive 65 here, right?"

I got a new record longest passing attempt ever. Some guy in a hail-damaged Chrysler minivan came up on me at about 1/50th of a mile an hour faster. I had my cruise control on 79, he must have had his at 79.02.

This was on I-90 between Gillette and Moorcroft, Wyoming, which as anybody who has driven there knows has about as few cars as any interstate anywhere.

It took the guy 8 miles to overtake me. It would have been longer had he not been basically parallel to me for about 2 minutes, with his kids staring at me and possibly making faces at me. I started making hand signals to indicate the need to pass, and after a minute or so of me motioning my hand back and forth as if to say "pass me, jerk," he finally gave a tiny bit of gas to overtake. I then watched him do it with another car going substantially the same speed I was about a half mile ahead. That only took 6 miles.

It was so obnoxious- I-90 on that stretch is ridiculously rural- there's plenty of road for everyone to have their own quarter-mile or so of personal space, but this guy just hung out right next to me.

People like that need to die in a fire. On a rural interstate, there is no point in delaying the pass. If you want to pass, twenty seconds is a good cap. If it takes longer than 20 seconds to overtake, you're not doing it fast enough. Even that is pushing it- I try to do it in 10-15. It's not the end of the world to cancel your cruise control for a second to pass a car.

There is real danger involved. What if somebody had an unsecured load and a piece of furniture were sitting on the freeway? What if a deer runs out? If I have both lanes of interstate to myself, I can use them for emergency situations. If some jerk is just chilling in the left lane right next to me, I can't use that space. On a ridiculously rural interstate like I-90 in that part of Wyoming, there's just no reason to do that.

As evidence of the lack of traffic though, in those 8 miles I didn't ever actually NEED the left lane- there was nobody to overtake nor was anybody trying to overtake left-lane asshat.
A lot of people will slow down in that situation to just let him go by, but I don't do that out of stubbornness.

Where do right hooking and dooring fall into this?  :sombrero:

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 23, 2010, 06:37:00 PMThe trooper's not gonna pull you over for doing 70 in a 65 anyway, so keep on trucking people.

Sorry, but I have been pulled over for 69 in a 65.  The other drivers may be strangers to the area and may not know what the tolerance is for speeding locally.  For these reasons I am not going to call anyone irrational for slowing down to the posted limit when they see a trooper.  Instead, I see it as my responsibility to maintain a sufficiently long distance in front of my own vehicle that their slowing down does not force me to make sudden maneuvers.  I also leave myself free to focus on the other traffic, without feeling pressed to respond to the presence of a police vehicle, by not cruising above the speed limit for long periods of time.

One thing I do dislike is people relying on brake-light flash to move into the left lane, just so they can be in position to overtake or avoid disengaging cruise control.  This generally works to my disadvantage since I rarely have access to a car whose cruise-control system has a cancel function.  Since I won't turn the cruise control system completely off just to disengage it without flashing the brake lights, cars following me tend to use my brake lights as their signal to move left, floor it, and cut me off.  This forces me to spend several minutes crawling behind the slower vehicle until they complete their overtaking maneuvers and I can move to the left lane.  About half the time I wind up overtaking them further down the road.  This happens especially frequently on rural freeways which operate at LOS C or better, because  I will speed slightly in order to finish overtaking maneuvers quickly, to keep the left lane clear and avoid delaying following traffic.

Edit:  You could argue that this problem is partly a result of my failing to tell that I am catching up to a car in front in good time to speed up, move to the left lane, and overtake without disengaging cruise control.  However, I tend to leave a wider space cushion in front of my own vehicle than most other drivers on the highway and as a result, it is more difficult for me to see speed differentials.  The people who follow me tend to be following too closely, which puts them in perfect position to (1) see my brake lights when they flash, (2) register a developing speed differential, and (3) simply by changing lane to the left, make it impossible for me to move in front of them without cutting them off.  In accidents these tailgaters pay for their inability to plan strategically when they crash and burn with the rest of the platoon, but in ordinary day-to-day driving their misbehavior gives them an undeserved tactical advantage.

QuoteOne thing I do dislike is people relying on brake-light flash to move into the left lane, just so they can be in position to overtake or avoid disengaging cruise control.  This generally works to my disadvantage since I rarely have access to a car whose cruise-control system has a cancel function.  Since I won't turn the cruise control system completely off just to disengage it without flashing the brake lights, cars following me tend to use my brake lights as their signal to move left, floor it, and cut me off.  This forces me to spend several minutes crawling behind the slower vehicle until they complete their overtaking maneuvers and I can move to the left lane.  About half the time I wind up overtaking them further down the road.  This happens especially frequently on rural freeways which operate at LOS C or better, because  I will speed slightly in order to finish overtaking maneuvers quickly, to keep the left lane clear and avoid delaying following traffic.

Wouldn't the easiest solution to that be to just turn off cruise control? If you cancel it's one button to push to re-engage (or re-acceleration to have it re-engage, something I have never been comfortable having happen), but if you turn it off it's only two buttons, which doesn't seem like that much more effort.

If I see somebody braking on the freeway I assume they are slowing down. I don't mentally associate brake tap with shut off cruise control (as a reflex, I have always just turned cruise control off, even in a car with a cancel button), so if I see somebody braking and I can't figure out why, I assume they are slowing down for whatever reason and proceed to pass them, if only because for every person tapping their brakes to shut off cruise control there are five people who are serial brakers who constantly brake for no reason to slow down one to two miles an hour. I can't distinguish between the two, so I assume all are serial brakers and overtake them as quickly as possible because it's really annoying to be behind the latter.

If you approach a slow vehicle and brake instead of moving left to pass, that's something that's abnormal behavior. If I were behind you and the left lane were clear, I'd assume I could move left because for whatever reason (maybe your exit is coming up, maybe you want to be behind the semi-truck to get better gas mileage, whatever) you have indicated an intent to slow to the speed of the truck. If I'm behind you, I then have two options, because again I can't distinguish between a cruise control off tap and an "I'm actually braking" tap, so I HAVE to assume the latter in the interest of my own safety. Do I brake as well to give you an opportunity to pass? Do I just go ahead and pass you as well? The latter is far easier.

Quote from: corco on August 29, 2010, 10:00:37 AMWouldn't the easiest solution to that be to just turn off cruise control? If you cancel it's one button to push to re-engage (or re-acceleration to have it re-engage, something I have never been comfortable having happen), but if you turn it off it's only two buttons, which doesn't seem like that much more effort.

To an extent it depends on the ergonomics of the specific cruise control system, but in general no.  If I cancel or tap the brakes, I know the cruise control system is still active and still has my set speed, so I don't have to hunt for an on/off switch, check correct setting using a telltale lamp, and reset my previously set speed, all of which take attention I would rather allocate to other driving tasks.  On one car I have driven, the ON/OFF switch for the cruise control system was on the dashboard and I had to lean forward to flip it.  On another car, the ON/OFF switch was a slider mounted on the steering wheel with the telltale right next to it, both of which were hidden from view.

QuoteIf I see somebody braking on the freeway I assume they are slowing down. I don't mentally associate brake tap with shut off cruise control (as a reflex, I have always just turned cruise control off, even in a car with a cancel button), so if I see somebody braking and I can't figure out why, I assume they are slowing down for whatever reason and proceed to pass them, if only because for every person tapping their brakes to shut off cruise control there are five people who are serial brakers who constantly brake for no reason to slow down one to two miles an hour. I can't distinguish between the two, so I assume all are serial brakers and overtake them as quickly as possible because it's really annoying to be behind the latter.

My experience does not match yours at all.  When I am on a relatively uncrowded rural freeway between exits, and I see a sudden flash of brake lights up ahead, nine times out of ten that is someone disengaging cruise control in a car which does not have cancel functionality.  The brake lights tend to illuminate for slightly longer in "caught up with a slower vehicle, underestimated the speed differential" and "exit coming up, slow vehicle ahead, don't want to overtake and then have to swoop back for exit" situations, and there are usually other contextual cues, such as advance guide signing.

QuoteIf you approach a slow vehicle and brake instead of moving left to pass, that's something that's abnormal behavior.

Not necessarily--if I want to check that it is safe to pass without sacrificing my space cushion, and I am already too close to the vehicle in front to hold my speed while I plan and execute a lane changing maneuver, I have no choice but to disengage the cruise control.  What would be abnormal and dangerous would be just to move left without a full mirror and blind-spot check.

QuoteIf I were behind you and the left lane were clear, I'd assume I could move left because for whatever reason (maybe your exit is coming up, maybe you want to be behind the semi-truck to get better gas mileage, whatever) you have indicated an intent to slow to the speed of the truck. If I'm behind you, I then have two options, because again I can't distinguish between a cruise control off tap and an "I'm actually braking" tap, so I HAVE to assume the latter in the interest of my own safety. Do I brake as well to give you an opportunity to pass? Do I just go ahead and pass you as well? The latter is far easier.

The way I see it, I don't really have a right to object if the vehicle that is overtaking me was already catching up to me from behind with a fair speed differential.  What really gets to me is the dozy fool who, for whatever reason (cover from state troopers, perhaps?), catches up to me gradually (at a low speed differential) and then decides he will ride on my tail.  Then, when I see that I am about to overtake the car in front (I will not ride on anyone else's tail if I can possibly avoid it), and tap the brakes to give myself a little working room, the fool changes lanes and cuts me off.  Pure opportunism.