Road-related pet peeves

[kphoger]

Getting up to speed wasn't my trigger.  It's somebody pulling into the TWLTL right next to me and then matching my speed, thus being a rolling blockade when I want to pull into that lane to make a left turn.  Happened to me twice this week.

Speaking of keeping abreast:  The driver who slows down to make a lane change but keeps abreast of the vehicle already in that lane, thus driving slowly with the blinker on for a half mile.

Also:  Pedestrian signals that show Walk for two seconds, then show flashing Don't Walk and then solid Don't Walk for the remainder of the green light time.  Why even bother installing a pedestrian signal if it's going to be programmed to show Don't Walk all the time?

Inability to merge in general is a pet peeve of mine, and apparently not just mine.  Drivers who zoom up the on-ramp to exactly match my speed, then wonder why they can't easily get into my lane, then either floor it or step on their brakes as the accel space runs out...

[hbelkins]

If I'm in a place with photo enforcement (I'm looking at you, Kingsport, Tenn.) then I make sure I'm positioned behind the stop bar while waiting to make a left turn. I don't want to get caught out in the intersection when the light turns red and the camera goes off.

Is there any concrete evidence of left-turners being ticketed for going on red? That's just SOP for the first car in line in most places; I would be stunned if drivers are actually being ticketed for it if they're already waiting to turn.

I don't know, and I have no intention of finding out.

[pderocco]

Pedestrian signals that show Walk for two seconds, then show flashing Don't Walk and then solid Don't Walk for the remainder of the green light time.  Why even bother installing a pedestrian signal if it's going to be programmed to show Don't Walk all the time?

That's not "all the time", that's technically "all the time" minus two seconds, although people often start across during the countown based on their own ability to know how fast they can walk. The question is whether it does this only when the light is constantly cycling. In the middle of the night, is it normally green on the main drag, and red on the cross street until someone comes along? In that case, during the idle period are all directions showing Don't Walk indefinitely?

I recall that in Portland OR I used to see a lot of traffic lights that, late at night, stayed green with a Walk signal on the main road, until someone came along on the side street. The strange thing was, every minute or so the Walk signal would go into its Don't Walk countdown, and when it got to zero, go right back to Walk.

[vdeane]

People who honk at me when I'm at a "no right turn on red" intersection. No, I'm not going to break the law just because I probably won't get caught.

Generalizing, getting honked at for refusing to break the law period.  I seem to recall someone upthread mentioning honking at someone for not using the shoulder to make a right on red, despite driving on the shoulder like that being illegal.

Yeah, that was me. Technically going 56 mph on a 55 mph freeway is illegal too, doesn't mean no one does it or even that it's necessarily always the wrong thing to do in context with other laws. And yeah, I will admit that there are some locations where, if someone refuses to use the shoulder to turn right on red when it was literally expanded by the DOT (or county, town, or whatever) for that purpose, then I will just go around them if it's safe to do so. For all I know, there's a 50/50 chance it was their hazards on instead of their blinker anyways.

I pass by this sign often enough, to the point where I usually don't notice it.  Not sure why I did today, but this discussion was the first thing I thought of when I did.  Granted, it's not a state install (these are both town roads), but I do find it interesting that right as the shoulder widens out at the intersection there's a sign saying not to drive on it.

[webny99]

I pass by this sign often enough, to the point where I usually don't notice it.  Not sure why I did today, but this discussion was the first thing I thought of when I did.  Granted, it's not a state install (these are both town roads), but I do find it interesting that right as the shoulder widens out at the intersection there's a sign saying not to drive on it.

I'm curious if you have noticed whether it's common for people to drive on it anyways. I feel like in most similar situations (without the sign) those who don't use the shoulder would be the outlier, but maybe not here if the sign has any effect.

[vdeane]

I pass by this sign often enough, to the point where I usually don't notice it.  Not sure why I did today, but this discussion was the first thing I thought of when I did.  Granted, it's not a state install (these are both town roads), but I do find it interesting that right as the shoulder widens out at the intersection there's a sign saying not to drive on it.

I'm curious if you have noticed whether it's common for people to drive on it anyways. I feel like in most similar situations (without the sign) those who don't use the shoulder would be the outlier, but maybe not here if the sign has any effect.

It doesn't.  In fact, I think I see it here more often than elsewhere, probably because this is the highest AADT road I drive regularly where the shoulder widens out at an intersection like that.

Honestly, I feel like my driving behavior isn't very driven by what everyone else does when such contradicts how one is supposed to drive (when a situation is ambiguous is another story).  I pass turning vehicles on the shoulder and drive 5-7 mph over the limit mainly because I was encouraged to do so when I was learning; if left to my own devices, I probably wouldn't do either.  So my driving is a combination of following the law more strictly than others and how my parents drive (getting more like the former and less like the latter over time; I now keep right except to pass instead of sticking to the middle lane by default, and I turn into the rightmost/leftmost lane and do an immediate lane change if I need to unless a turn is too quick to even do that, while my parents would likely turn directly into whatever lane they need in such circumstances).  Honestly, I'd like to even stamp out the remaining behaviors, but that's in large part dependent on that 70 mph speed limit bill passing, as I'm not willing to make my Rochester/Albany drives take substantially longer to do it.

[webny99]

And yeah, I will admit that there are some locations where, if someone refuses to use the shoulder to turn right on red when it was literally expanded by the DOT (or county, town, or whatever) for that purpose, then I will just go around them if it's safe to do so.

I thought of this thread this morning, when I was following an old pickup truck up to a red light. It's a location where RTOR using the shoulder is SOP for most drivers (and is sometimes even possible without using the shoulder if there's just one car waiting and they pull up a bit), so I was fully planning to do so since there was no one in front of the truck. However, the instant I put my right blinker on as the truck came to a stop, he swerved over onto the shoulder to block me from turning right.

I spent about five seconds in total shock that someone could be so deliberately nasty to a total stranger, and first thing in the morning no less. My immediate instinct was to go around on the left - and I absolutely would have if I had known I could make it before the light changed, but unfortunately my visibility of cross traffic from the left was blocked, and I didn't want to be stuck in an awkward position if I couldn't complete the turn right away. I first turned my blinker off and backed up a bit as if to prepare to go around, but my indecision of whether to try it ended up lasting as long as the red signal phase, so I ended up just meekly completing my turn once he proceeded through the intersection.

It struck me as a situation where honking would have done absolutely nothing, or if anything, given him great joy by confirming my irritation. I would have been more apt to follow him to at least trick him into thinking he had blocked me for no reason, but it seemed like inciting needless road rage to extend the encounter, plus I really didn't have the time - and to waste more time going out of the way would have completely disproved that point. Going around on the left was the only appropriately gratifying response, it's just a bummer I couldn't pull it off.

I still can't believe there's people out there that have so little respect for others' time that they would break the law and interfere with other traffic for the sole purpose of wasting their time. He might as well have given me the double bird.

[1995hoo]

How in particular did he break the law?

[VTGoose]

This has probably come up before but it is still annoying . . .

Those drivers who are at, just under, or just above the speed limit, but going slower than you are. You pull out to pass, get about to the driver's door, and they wake up and decide "today is the day that none shall pass." They either speed up or match your speed, leaving you hanging in the left lane with a choice of grossly exceeding the speed limit or braking to slow down to drop back behind them for a later attempt.

A converse to this is the person who roars up to pass but then sits in your blind spot instead of moving on down the road. Again, the choice is to speed up to get clearance or brake so their higher speed gets them past you.

[webny99]

How in particular did he break the law?

By driving on the shoulder.

It wouldn't have been so big a deal if he had remained in the lane and simply not left enough space for me to get past. I would have assumed that he was insistent on being a law-abiding driver and felt obligated to ensure that I was as well. Fine. Annoying, certainly, but forgivable. But now that he specifically pulled onto the shoulder despite intending to go straight, I know that he didn't give a flying f about the law, since he broke the same law I intended to break, and proved his despicability in doing so.

[1995hoo]

How in particular did he break the law?

By driving on the shoulder.

It wouldn't have been so big a deal if he had remained in the lane and simply not left enough space for me to get past. I would have assumed that he was insistent on being a law-abiding driver and felt obligated to ensure that I was as well. Fine. Annoying, sure but forgivable. But now that he specifically pulled onto the shoulder despite intending to go straight, I know that wasn't the case, since he broke the same law I intended to break and forced me to sit there for almost a full minute in doing so.

That's what I surmised and it's why I asked. To me, it just kind of rings hollow for someone who wants to drive on the shoulder and who admits it's illegal to complain that someone else is breaking the law by blocking the shoulder (regardless of whether a lot of people drive on the shoulder there). I certainly understand some people's response that if someone wants to enforce the law, he should become a cop, but at the same time, "I couldn't break the law because he broke the law" is just not an argument for which I have much sympathy. Had it been a situation of a guy straddling two lanes, or leaving so much space that someone couldn't access the turn lane, or pulling out too far over the stop bar so as to obstruct turning traffic, that would be different.

[webny99]

"I couldn't break the law because he broke the law" is just not an argument for which I have much sympathy.

While the quoted phrase is certainly true in this context, that's not the argument I was making at all. It was the resolution to intentionally irritate another driver completely unprompted that I take issue with, not the actual act of driving on the shoulder. It was entirely a moral issue, not a legal one at all, and I only mentioned the legal aspect because you asked, and because it reinforced my point that the law was not a factor.

Had it been a situation of a guy straddling two lanes, or leaving so much space that someone couldn't access the turn lane, or pulling out too far over the stop bar so as to obstruct turning traffic, that would be different.

Again, it depends entirely on their intent. If a driver was clued out and did any of these things accidentally, it would be forgivable. We all have lapses in judgment or make mistakes sometimes. But this was different since it was done specifically and unmistakably to antagonize another driver. That's a personal character issue, full stop.

[vdeane]

And yeah, I will admit that there are some locations where, if someone refuses to use the shoulder to turn right on red when it was literally expanded by the DOT (or county, town, or whatever) for that purpose, then I will just go around them if it's safe to do so.

<snip>

I think you mangled the quote here.

[CtrlAltDel]

I [...] backed up a bit

"I couldn't break the law because he broke the law" is just not an argument for which I have much sympathy.

While the quoted phrase is certainly true in this context, that's not the argument I was making at all.

But it is the reason that I and 1995hoo, I believe, don't share your outrage.

I spent about five seconds in total shock that someone could be so deliberately nasty to a total stranger

I might also say that I find the general tenor here to be a bit of the pearl-clutching sort.

[Max Rockatansky]

And yeah, I will admit that there are some locations where, if someone refuses to use the shoulder to turn right on red when it was literally expanded by the DOT (or county, town, or whatever) for that purpose, then I will just go around them if it's safe to do so.

I thought of this thread this morning, when I was following an old pickup truck up to a red light. It's a location where RTOR using the shoulder is SOP for most drivers (and is sometimes even possible without using the shoulder if there's just one car waiting and they pull up a bit), so I was fully planning to do so since there was no one in front of the truck. However, the instant I put my right blinker on as the truck came to a stop, he swerved over onto the shoulder to block me from turning right.

I spent about five seconds in total shock that someone could be so deliberately nasty to a total stranger, and first thing in the morning no less. My immediate instinct was to go around on the left - and I absolutely would have if I had known I could make it before the light changed, but unfortunately my visibility of cross traffic from the left was blocked, and I didn't want to be stuck in an awkward position if I couldn't complete the turn right away. I first turned my blinker off and backed up a bit as if to prepare to go around, but my indecision of whether to try it ended up lasting as long as the red signal phase, so I ended up just meekly completing my turn once he proceeded through the intersection.

It struck me as a situation where honking would have done absolutely nothing, or if anything, given him great joy by confirming my irritation. I would have been more apt to follow him to at least trick him into thinking he had blocked me for no reason, but it seemed like inciting needless road rage to extend the encounter, plus I really didn't have the time - and to waste more time going out of the way would have completely disproved that point. Going around on the left was the only appropriately gratifying response, it's just a bummer I couldn't pull it off.

I still can't believe there's people out there that have so little respect for others' time that they would break the law and interfere with other traffic for the sole purpose of wasting their time. He might as well have given me the double bird.

This was a whole long rant for such a minor slight.  You've been posting stuff like this quite a bit lately, is this now your thing?

[webny99]

This was a whole long rant for such a minor slight.  You've been posting stuff like this quite a bit lately, is this now your thing?

To restate the obvious, I don't feel it was minor at all, and yes, it is my thing to the extent it really helps decompress about it. Who of us haven't overblown/overthought something and gone on a rant about it here and there?

While the quoted phrase is certainly true in this context, that's not the argument I was making at all.

But it is the reason that I and 1995hoo, I believe, don't share your outrage.

I spent about five seconds in total shock that someone could be so deliberately nasty to a total stranger

I might also say that I find the general tenor here to be a bit of the pearl-clutching sort.

I'm over this now but I do want to point out how exceptionally ironic it is that these points are being made in tandem. I'm a scrub for daring to consider breaking an antiquated law that no one follows including law enforcement, in an extremely edge case where the so-called law wasn't even a relevant factor to begin with, yet I'm the one pearl-clutching?

But I guess the descent into irreconcilable irony was inevitable, given the silence to reply #436.

[webny99]

This has probably come up before but it is still annoying . . .

Those drivers who are at, just under, or just above the speed limit, but going slower than you are. You pull out to pass, get about to the driver's door, and they wake up and decide "today is the day that none shall pass." They either speed up or match your speed, leaving you hanging in the left lane with a choice of grossly exceeding the speed limit or braking to slow down to drop back behind them for a later attempt.

A converse to this is the person who roars up to pass but then sits in your blind spot instead of moving on down the road. Again, the choice is to speed up to get clearance or brake so their higher speed gets them past you.

Agreed with both of these, but I think the worst variant are those who speed way up while not passing and slow way down while passing, so that you have to slow down for them every time they pass someone, but can't go fast enough to get past them when it's clear. It's a dreadful yo-yo effect that makes me seriously wonder what they think they're accomplishing besides being frightfully annoying to other drivers.

[Max Rockatansky]

This was a whole long rant for such a minor slight.  You've been posting stuff like this quite a bit lately, is this now your thing?

To restate the obvious, I don't feel it was minor at all, and yes, it is my thing to the extent it really helps decompress about it. Who of us haven't overblown/overthought something and gone on a rant about it here and there?

While the quoted phrase is certainly true in this context, that's not the argument I was making at all.

But it is the reason that I and 1995hoo, I believe, don't share your outrage.

I spent about five seconds in total shock that someone could be so deliberately nasty to a total stranger

I might also say that I find the general tenor here to be a bit of the pearl-clutching sort.

I'm over this now but I do want to point out how exceptionally ironic it is that these points are being made in tandem. I'm a scrub for daring to consider breaking an antiquated law that no one follows including law enforcement, in an extremely edge case where the so-called law wasn't even a relevant factor to begin with, yet I'm the one pearl-clutching?

But I guess the dive into irreconcilable irony was inevitable, given the silence to reply #436.

We are all trying to tell it was minor.  Don't become the next Crash_It, stop now before it gets to that.

[webny99]

We are all trying to tell if it was minor.

I think you forgot a word there.  I'm sorry I didn't do a good enough job of explaining it despite my verbosity. 

[Max Rockatansky]

We are all trying to tell if it was minor.

I think you forgot a word there.  I'm sorry I didn't do a good enough job of explaining it despite my verbosity. 

I think comparing your complaint to something Crash_It would do conveyed the point clear enough. 

[1995hoo]

We are all trying to tell if it was minor.

I think you forgot a word there.  I'm sorry I didn't do a good enough job of explaining it despite my verbosity. 

I think the word he forgot was "you," rather than "if." 

[webny99]

I think comparing your complaint to something Crash_It would do conveyed the point clear enough. 

I think comparing me to Crash_It is ill-advised on many different levels, but I won't take personal offense to it in the interest of preserving this thread. 

I think the word he forgot was "you," rather than "if." 

I strongly suspected that was the case, but couldn't pass up the chance to adjust it to my liking.

[Max Rockatansky]

Don't be one of those guys who blows minor driving infractions out of proportion.  You seen where that tends to eventually lead.

[webny99]

Don't be one of those guys who blows minor driving infractions out of proportion.  You seen where that tends to eventually lead.

OK, OK. Point taken. We've completed a full heel turn from me taking something too seriously to being completely over it at this point. Onward and upward...

[mgk920]

I don't know if this is only  a common thing around here, but when I am out walking and just somewhat *near* a crosswalk and everyone stops for me, even though I am making no motions towards crossing the street.  It is annoying and a traffic delay. ('misplaced courtesy'?)

Mike