Road-related pet peeves

[tmoore952]

....

How do I wind up being in front of people like that?

Because you're driving in Maryland.

It's interesting you say that.

No offense intended -- but most of the idiotic driving I see here are people with Virginia plates (but I also understand what I see is a small sample size). I did not see the plate today's driver had, was too concerned about my safety.

I don't necessarily disagree with that in terms of "pure idiotic driving," but the situation you describe smacks of naked aggression, and I think exceptionally aggressive driving is a particular hallmark of Maryland (PG County being the worst, but I see a lot of it on I-270 as well).

The easiest way to avoid aggressive drivers in Maryland is usually to stay in the right lane because everyone else is trying to practice for the British motorways by keeping left except to pass!

I suspect you may know the slip ramp I am talking about (I was going southbound, if that wasn't clear). Like many slip ramps it is a single lane. I was not in a position to easily get out of his way, with my own speed, the jersey barriers, and traffic to my right. The guy this morning seemed to be in a nasty mood, from what I saw.

I have learned that sometimes the best thing to do there, is to stay to the right in the "local lanes" and maybe (or maybe not) get on the "main line" farther down. One of the slip ramps farther south, between Falls Road and Montrose Road, is a nice one in the sense that you don't have to merge if you don't want to -- the slip ramp just becomes the right lane of the "main line" there. I don't know if people realize that, they always move left as if they need to merge (although that's probably habit, to move to the faster lanes).

[kphoger]

People turning left into the wrong lane.

Assuming you're talking about a single left-turn lane onto a multi-lane road...  You do realize that not every state's vehicle code requires left-turning traffic to take the nearside lane, right?

[freebrickproductions]

What was the logic behind MD enforcing work zone speed limits 24/7 as opposed to just when workers are present?

To collect the doubled fine revenue.

Haven't some states been caught doing this in the past, just setting up work zones for months without any actual work, just so doubled traffic fines can be collected?

You mean there are states that have work zone speed limits that aren't 24/7?

As far as I'm aware, unless they have a variable speed limit posted, work zone speed limits are, indeed, 24/7. However, the doubled fines are only when workers are present.

[vdeane]

Trucks that refuse to use climbing lanes, no matter how slow they're going.  Especially common in Maryland, for some reason.

[webny99]

Trucks that refuse to use climbing lanes, no matter how slow they're going.  Especially common in Maryland, for some reason.

Is it common at a specific location? I can't imagine there are many climbing lanes in Maryland except maybe on I-68 or I-70 in the western part of the state.

[jlam]

You do realize that not every state's vehicle code requires left-turning traffic to take the nearside lane, right?

Colorado's does, which is where I do most of my driving:

The left turn shall be made to the left of the center of the intersection so as to leave the intersection or other location in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction as such vehicle on the roadway being entered.

And where in the pet peeve guidebook does it require that said peeve is illegal?

[cockroachking]

Trucks that refuse to use climbing lanes, no matter how slow they're going.  Especially common in Maryland, for some reason.

Is it common at a specific location?

I wouldn't say that this is isolated to Maryland sadly.

I can't imagine there are many climbing lanes in Maryland except maybe on I-68 or I-70 in the western part of the state.

That is pretty accurate, though there is certainly a need for them on some parts of I-83 near Parkton and Hereford and I-270 north of Hyattstown.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

People turning left into the wrong lane. Not sure why since it happens so often around here, but people are so unpredictable with it.

Is Colorado a state that requires you to turn left into the leftmost lane? MN had a court case that ruled you do not have to do that here.

[Big John]

Wisconsin law also requires a left into the leftmost lane.

[GaryV]

Tesla programs their cars to do that. Which makes Michigan Lefts very interesting. I saw a video of someone driving on Big Beaver (or maybe it was M-59) and the car turned into the leftmost lane, and then had to cross 3 lanes to make the right turn.

[kphoger]

You do realize that not every state's vehicle code requires left-turning traffic to take the nearside lane, right?

Colorado's does, which is where I do most of my driving:

The left turn shall be made to the left of the center of the intersection so as to leave the intersection or other location in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction as such vehicle on the roadway being entered.

And that matches the Uniform Vehicle Code, which means a lot of state probably have very similar—if not exactly the same—wording.

One very big and notable counterexample is Texas:

§ 545.101. Turning at Intersection

after entering the intersection, turn left, leaving the intersection so as to arrive in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of the vehicle on the roadway being entered.

Weirdly, though, Texas does require left turns from a one-way street onto another one-way street to be done "as closely as practicable to the left-hand curb or edge".  You'd think it would matter less in that situation, not more, wouldn't you?

And where in the pet peeve guidebook does it require that said peeve is illegal?

It probably doesn't say that.  I've never read the guidebook.

[pderocco]

When I got my license 50+ years ago in Massachusetts, the law, or at least the booklet they give you to study for the license test, was very explicit about matching up multiple turn lanes with multiple target lanes. If there were two left turn lanes, the leftmost had to turn into the leftmost lane, and the second leftmost lane had to turn into the second leftmost lane. Even with only one turn lane, if you needed to be in something other than the closest lane, that would involve a distinct lane change after the turn. Yet it always seemed honored more in the breach than the observance. Just as one can chew gum and walk, one can turn left and move over into an adjacent lane at the same time, especially with a modern car that bristles with mirrors and vehicle detection cameras.

When I got my California license much more recently, I don't recall seeing anything that specific in the California manual.

[kphoger]

When I got my license 50+ years ago in Massachusetts, the law, or at least the booklet they give you to study for the license test, was very explicit about matching up multiple turn lanes with multiple target lanes. If there were two left turn lanes, the leftmost had to turn into the leftmost lane, and the second leftmost lane had to turn into the second leftmost lane. Even with only one turn lane, if you needed to be in something other than the closest lane, that would involve a distinct lane change after the turn. Yet it always seemed honored more in the breach than the observance. Just as one can chew gum and walk, one can turn left and move over into an adjacent lane at the same time, especially with a modern car that bristles with mirrors and vehicle detection cameras.

When I got my California license much more recently, I don't recall seeing anything that specific in the California manual.

This is my first time looking at Massachusetts' traffic laws, but I'm not seeing anything offhand that addresses the issue at all.  In fact, the whole of Chapter 89 seems awfully sparse compared to most states' traffic laws.

California does not require a left-turning vehicle to enter the leftmost lane:

Division 11 — Rules of the Road

Chapter 6 — Turning and Stopping and Turning Signals

22100

Except as provided in Section 22100.5 or 22101, the driver of any vehicle intending to turn upon a highway shall do so as follows:

(b) Left Turns — The approach for a left turn shall be made as close as practicable to the left-hand edge of the extreme left-hand lane or portion of the roadway lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle and, when turning at an intersection, the left turn shall not be made before entering the intersection. After entering the intersection, the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in that direction upon the roadway being entered, except that upon a highway having three marked lanes for traffic moving in one direction that terminates at an intersecting highway accommodating traffic in both directions, the driver of a vehicle in the middle lane may turn left into any lane lawfully available to traffic moving in that direction upon the roadway being entered.

[US 89]

What pisses me off is when people turn right on red when oncoming traffic has a protected left arrow. Even if the destination road has enough lanes to accommodate both of you, in a state that requires both directions to turn into the nearest lane, it's really rude to turn in front of someone with a green arrow - especially if the person turning left needs to go into a driveway on the right relatively quickly.

[kphoger]

What pisses me off is when people turn right on red when oncoming traffic has a protected left arrow. Even if the destination road has enough lanes to accommodate both of you, in a state that requires both directions to turn into the nearest lane, it's really rude to turn in front of someone with a green arrow - especially if the person turning left needs to go into a driveway on the right relatively quickly.

And see, I got used to that at an intersection where opposing left and right arrows are green at the same time:  I-290 @ Harlem, Forest Park, IL.

WB view, all arrows green
EB view, all arrows green
Opposing traffic both turning into the same two lanes, each obeying its green arrow

I don't do what you describe every time, but I do sometimes—especially if the road I'm turning onto has three lanes in that direction, such that there's a buffer lane between our paths.

[hbelkins]

What was the logic behind MD enforcing work zone speed limits 24/7 as opposed to just when workers are present?

To collect the doubled fine revenue.

Haven't some states been caught doing this in the past, just setting up work zones for months without any actual work, just so doubled traffic fines can be collected?

You mean there are states that have work zone speed limits that aren't 24/7?

Yes. West Virginia for one. They place flashing beacons on top of their work zone speed limit signs and the signs say:

Work Zone
-----------
Speed
Limit
NN
------------
When Flashing

Kentucky enforces work zone limits 24/7, but they have fold-up "Double Fine Zone" signs that they can retract when workers are not present.

I've also seen some "Work Zone Speed Limit NN When Workers are Present" signs in other states.

[webny99]

What pisses me off is when people turn right on red when oncoming traffic has a protected left arrow. Even if the destination road has enough lanes to accommodate both of you, in a state that requires both directions to turn into the nearest lane, it's really rude to turn in front of someone with a green arrow - especially if the person turning left needs to go into a driveway on the right relatively quickly.

What about the reverse: double-turning left and right at the same time on a regular green phase when right turning traffic has the right of way? At some locations, this is a necessary evil or left turners could sit for an unlimited number of cycles.

I don't do what you describe every time, but I do sometimes—especially if the road I'm turning onto has three lanes in that direction, such that there's a buffer lane between our paths.

But unless there are markings in the intersection, it's unclear who will choose which lane. You could end up competing for the center lane, or even the right lane.

[kphoger]

I don't do what you describe every time, but I do sometimes—especially if the road I'm turning onto has three lanes in that direction, such that there's a buffer lane between our paths.

But unless there are markings in the intersection, it's unclear who will choose which lane. You could end up competing for the center lane, or even the right lane.

If each person takes the nearest lane, then nobody should be competing for the center lane.

Generally, I've found that drivers are pretty keen to avoid opposing turning traffic, as long as they think the other driver is even hinting at turning at the same time.

[webny99]

If each person takes the nearest lane, then nobody should be competing for the center lane.

Both drivers realizing this is exactly how they end up competing for it. 

[VTGoose]

Aholes who tailgate when one is actively passing with no way to move out of the way -- then take their sweet time moving on once you move out of their way.

Related are jerks who roar up in the left lane so there isn't enough time or space to move left to pass a slower vehicle -- then sit in your blind spot or next to you instead of continuing at their closing speed to complete their pass, blocking you in behind the slower vehicle.

[webny99]

Related are jerks who roar up in the left lane so there isn't enough time or space to move left to pass a slower vehicle -- then sit in your blind spot or next to you instead of continuing at their closing speed to complete their pass, blocking you in behind the slower vehicle.

Obviously, this is a terrible thing to do intentionally, but in my experience, when this occurs it isn't usually intentional. Or if it is intentional, it's to prevent people from passing on the right, which I understand, but also think it's something people tend to get too worked up about.

[Rothman]

Related are jerks who roar up in the left lane so there isn't enough time or space to move left to pass a slower vehicle -- then sit in your blind spot or next to you instead of continuing at their closing speed to complete their pass, blocking you in behind the slower vehicle.

Obviously, this is a terrible thing to do intentionally, but in my experience, when this occurs it isn't usually intentional. Or if it is intentional, it's to prevent people from passing on the right, which I understand, but also think it's something people tend to get too worked up about.

Nah.  If I read the complaint correctly, people hanging out in my blind spot in the left lane while I'm stuck behind a slow car in the right lane -- that is indeed angering.  I've resorted to putting on my blinker and acting like I don't see them to get them out of there.

[webny99]

Related are jerks who roar up in the left lane so there isn't enough time or space to move left to pass a slower vehicle -- then sit in your blind spot or next to you instead of continuing at their closing speed to complete their pass, blocking you in behind the slower vehicle.

Obviously, this is a terrible thing to do intentionally, but in my experience, when this occurs it isn't usually intentional. Or if it is intentional, it's to prevent people from passing on the right, which I understand, but also think it's something people tend to get too worked up about.

Nah.  If I read the compliant correctly, people hanging out in my blind spot in the left lane while I'm stuck behind a slow car in the right lane -- that is indeed angering.  I've resorted to putting on my blinker and acting like I don't see them to get them out of there.

I agree it's angering, certainly it is if they have open road in front of them, but you don't see that too often. Usually it's just due to a pre-existing stack of slow traffic in the left lane, or occasionally to "keep people from cutting in" which is a more nuanced conversation (in that I don't agree with it, but can see both sides).

[Rothman]

Related are jerks who roar up in the left lane so there isn't enough time or space to move left to pass a slower vehicle -- then sit in your blind spot or next to you instead of continuing at their closing speed to complete their pass, blocking you in behind the slower vehicle.

Obviously, this is a terrible thing to do intentionally, but in my experience, when this occurs it isn't usually intentional. Or if it is intentional, it's to prevent people from passing on the right, which I understand, but also think it's something people tend to get too worked up about.

Nah.  If I read the complaint correctly, people hanging out in my blind spot in the left lane while I'm stuck behind a slow car in the right lane -- that is indeed angering.  I've resorted to putting on my blinker and acting like I don't see them to get them out of there.

I agree it's angering, certainly it is if they have open road in front of them, but you don't see that too often. Usually it's just due to a pre-existing stack of slow traffic in the left lane, or occasionally to "keep people from cutting in" which is a more nuanced conversation (in that I don't agree with it, but can see both sides).

I get it if there's a line of cars on the left -- that's fine and just makes me impatient for them to finally get by me.  But someone just poking along in my blind spot, keeping me from going the speed I want to go at?  A circle of Hell awaits their arrival.

[J N Winkler]

I don't particularly care for people hanging in my blind spot for mile after mile, so if that happens, I often reposition myself, typically by dropping my speed and waiting for the logjam up ahead to clear.