Road-related pet peeves

[PColumbus73]

Even with cruise control, most cars will slow down a bit going uphill (or speed up slightly going downhill).  But the difference should only be about 3 mph before the cruise kicks in more power and maybe 5 mph by the time the power catches up.  So from 75 drops to 70 instead of 75 dropping to 63.

It really depends on the control logic and the type of actuation.  Older cruise-control systems that relied on vacuum actuation didn't really have a prayer of holding speed on slopes, especially at high altitude, because vacuum is at a minimum when the engine is laboring uphill.  At about 9,000 feet or higher (roughly I-70 over Vail Pass), some of them would just quit completely and not accept further control input (resume speed, set a new speed, etc.) until reset at the master switch.

Somewhat newer systems with electrical actuation typically can hold the set speed to within about 5 MPH up arbitrarily long grades of about 5%.  My 1994 Saturn SL2 has such a system, and I set it to about 65 MPH (the speed limit) while on I-70 westbound, climbing the east flank of Lookout Mountain just west of Denver.  I camped in the left lane because no-one was catching up to me.

Newer systems, particularly with electronically actuated throttles, often have hill-sensing logic and will respond before deviation from the set speed reaches 1 MPH.  The 2005 Toyota Camry I occasionally use for roadtrips has a variation that will also attempt to hold speed going downhill.  When I took it over the Fred Hartman Bridge in Houston with the cruise control set to 60 (again, the speed limit), it held that speed as I passed everyone else on the uphill grade, ending up in the left lane.  Then it did the same on the downhill, as everyone else passed me and I worked my way back to the right lane.

I have a 2007 Corolla and driving through Virginia and West Virginia I found it was easier not to use cruise control. The cruise control takes longer to change gears going uphill and I don't like the engine revving on the long inclines.

[VTGoose]

Yep, and the other thing is that cruise control in newer cars is "smart", using radar to automatically slow down as it reaches the car in front of you. The upshot of this is that one slower car is more apt to cause a chain reaction slowdown than ever before.....because too many people put their cruise control on and then somehow fail to notice that their speed has dropped from 75 to 63.

Adaptive Cruise Control in our Honda Odyssey has made our frequent trips between Virginia and Florida much more bearable -- most of the time. It does a pretty good job of maintaining a steady speed, although there is a lag in getting back to the set speed when it drops off when behind a slower vehicle. For example, when in a line of cars passing a slower vehicle but below the set speed (micro passer at the head of the line) and the lane ahead clears, it sometimes takes a push on the accelerator to get out of the way of the tailgating asshole on my bumper because the cruise control is slow to respond. The other "drawback" isn't really a drawback most of the time but a safety feature -- the "adaptive" part sets the space between you and the car ahead at a relatively safe following distance. If more cars had ACC and drivers used it, tailgating could be reduced (it will never go away, there are too many "Damn! I'm Good!" jerks out there who believe the road is theirs and everyone is in their way).

Two big peeves that come to mind (and there are many): not signaling and.......left lane camping!  Unless you're passing, GTFO of the left lane!!! Wisconsin is horrible with this. For one thing, drivers seem poorly trained up here to begin with. But they also have this smug "do goody" attitude as in "gee, the speed limit is 65 and I'm going to do 64 in the left lane so we all obey."  Self righteous asshollery that is absolutely ignorant of what the lanes are for.

This is why I asked for heat seeking missiles for Christmas. Maybe next year......

Due to road conditions, especially on I-95 in South Carolina, left lane camping is the norm to avoid all the bad pavement in the right lane. Courteous drivers do pay attention to what's behind them and move right well ahead of faster approaching traffic.

[kphoger]

Due to road conditions, especially on I-95 in South Carolina, left lane camping is the norm to avoid all the bad pavement in the right lane. Courteous drivers do pay attention to what's behind them and move right well ahead of faster approaching traffic.

I've seen this, and done this, on Mexican highways whose right lane has been beaten up by too much/heavy truck traffic.  This only works when traffic counts are low enough.

[ran4sh]

There needs to be more research as to whether pavement wears out faster in the slow lane **because** drivers are instructed to use the slow lane except to pass.

Because if it turns out to be true, then I would likely support allowing more even/balanced usage of the lanes so that the wear and tear is more balanced.

[kphoger]

There needs to be more research as to whether pavement wears out faster in the slow lane **because** drivers are instructed to use the slow lane except to pass.

Because if it turns out to be true, then I would likely support allowing more even/balanced usage of the lanes so that the wear and tear is more balanced.

I wouldn't.  It's possible to repave a single lane and not the entire roadway.  I'd rather have (a) more frequent repaving projects that restrict traffic to just the left lane, but that leave the other roadway wide open, than (b) less frequent repaving projects that restrict each direction of travel to one lane because one roadway has to be closed in its entirety.

But of course, the reality is that trucks do WAY more damage to highways than cars—and trucks will generally keep to the right lane no matter what.

[ran4sh]

It might technically be possible but I don't really like when repaving of individual lanes is done, versus the whole roadway.

[epzik8]

People who don't use cruise control on freeways.

To be fair, I don't quite know how to work mine.

[Rothman]

People who don't use cruise control on freeways.

To be fair, I don't quite know how to work mine.

Wut.  Takes two seconds to read the manual and learn.

[kphoger]

People who don't use cruise control on freeways.

To be fair, I don't quite know how to work mine.

Wut.  Takes two seconds to read the manual and learn.

Wut.  He would only do so if he actually wants to use cruise control to begin with.

[Big John]

I have a '06, thus no smart cruise control, I may rear end someone if I use the regular cruise control in traffic.

[J N Winkler]

I use regular cruise control all the time, including in relatively heavy traffic--it's a matter of covering the cancel button or (with really old systems) the brake pedal.  I've never actually driven a car with adaptive cruise, and other forum members' descriptions of such systems in operation have made me wonder how much of an advance they really are.

[Some one]

A couple for me.

More of a Texas thing, but I hate how close some exit and entrance ramps are to the intersection. It sucks having to jump across 3-4 lanes of traffic to turn right or get on the ramp (I'm looking at you Beltway 8).

Also, I refuse to call 59 "I-69". I'll call it 59 or even 59/69 but never 69. I haven't heard anyone irl even refer to it as "69" aside from one time when my dad's friend complained about how confusing the name change was.

Impatient drivers. The people who are tailgating you even when you go 10 over the speed limit, then swerve around you like you're doing them a disservice. Or they're weaving through traffic (even more annoying when they don't use their turn signals) It's always satisfying when you see that they're the first ones at the red light.

Speaking of turn signals, I know it's been mentioned before, but people who don't use their turn signals seriously annoy me. How lazy do you have to be that you can't be bothered to flick a stick?

People who blast their shitty music in their car or rev up their motors are especially annoying.

[kphoger]

People who blast their shitty music in their car

People who spend $4000 on their car's sound system, but who can't be bothered to spend a few cents on two more sheet metal screws to keep their license plate from rattling with the bass.

[Rothman]

People who don't use cruise control on freeways.

To be fair, I don't quite know how to work mine.

Wut.  Takes two seconds to read the manual and learn.

Wut.  He would only do so if he actually wants to use cruise control to begin with.

Wut.  Not wanting to do so is inefficient.

[Rothman]

I have a '06, thus no smart cruise control, I may rear end someone if I use the regular cruise control in traffic.

Why would one use cruise control in traffic?

[vdeane]

Impatient drivers. The people who are tailgating you even when you go 10 over the speed limit, then swerve around you like you're doing them a disservice. Or they're weaving through traffic (even more annoying when they don't use their turn signals) It's always satisfying when you see that they're the first ones at the red light.

Then there's the opposite: being stuck behind a slow driver, only for them to sail through a yellow while you get stuck at a red.  It would be very satisfying to pass them and then sail through the green or yellow only for them to get stuck at the red, but that never seems to happen.

[CtrlAltDel]

Then there's the opposite: being stuck behind a slow driver, only for them to sail through a yellow while you get stuck at a red.  It would be very satisfying to pass them and then sail through the green or yellow only for them to get stuck at the red, but that never seems to happen.

That doesn't bother me so much since then they are no longer a problem.

[vdeane]

Then there's the opposite: being stuck behind a slow driver, only for them to sail through a yellow while you get stuck at a red.  It would be very satisfying to pass them and then sail through the green or yellow only for them to get stuck at the red, but that never seems to happen.

That doesn't bother me so much since then they are no longer a problem.

Unless you catch up to them again.  Plus I can't help but imagine their smug feeling of vindication whenever it happens.

[webny99]

Impatient drivers. The people who are tailgating you even when you go 10 over the speed limit, then swerve around you like you're doing them a disservice. Or they're weaving through traffic (even more annoying when they don't use their turn signals) It's always satisfying when you see that they're the first ones at the red light.

I would think in most cases, they would prefer to be first in line at a red light rather than buried five or ten cars deep. At least then there is open road in front of them (speaking from experience a bit here, not with tailgating but with being the impatient one at times  )

Then there's the opposite: being stuck behind a slow driver, only for them to sail through a yellow while you get stuck at a red.  It would be very satisfying to pass them and then sail through the green or yellow only for them to get stuck at the red, but that never seems to happen.

That doesn't bother me so much since then they are no longer a problem.

Unless you catch up to them again.  Plus I can't help but imagine their smug feeling of vindication whenever it happens.

It does seem that the slowest drivers are somehow synchronized with lights turning yellow. It's annoying if they go through but almost more annoying if they don't because then it's bound to happen again. Not to mention the time wasted sitting at the light.

[zachary_amaryllis]

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

Out Windsor / Severance / Lucerne way, a lot of that, up until relatively recently, was just intersections of some highway, and county-road-whatever.

I drive into Windsor periodically,  and there's all sorts of places that were two lanes, until something got developed, and now it's a major intersection.

It almost could be confusion. Yesterday, on the Bustang, when we were exiting 25 NB to 34 WB, there's a triple-left turn there, and I watched people go all over the place.

Sad, because if everyone followed the rules, a lot more vehicles could turn at the same time.

And someone needs to go remove all the "Centerra" signs. That word, just grates on me. "Centerra Parkway"? We all know you're really CR 5.

[Quillz]

People who don't use cruise control on freeways.

They can't keep a constant speed, and they keep creeping past me, then falling back, sometimes influenced subconsciously by the tension they feel when they get next to another car at 70mph. Many seem to keep their foot in a particular position as they begin to climb a hill, and don't notice that they've slowed down, or race down the other side. Is it even possible to buy a car nowadays that doesn't have cruise control?

Yes. Some cheap cars have cruise control only via options, not standard.

[jlam]

It almost could be confusion. Yesterday, on the Bustang, when we were exiting 25 NB to 34 WB, there's a triple-left turn there, and I watched people go all over the place.

Related to this topic, a common peeve arises: frantic lane-changing before intersections. Many people ignore the road markings and traffic patterns (around me, here and here are problematic spots), so a lot of merging and exiting is occurring at once, causing collisions. That's why diverging diamonds only work in theory. People don't pay attention to what they are supposed to do and make quick, rash decisions.

In many places, quick lane changing is impossible to avoid. Many shopping areas have an entrance/exit onto a main road. People must turn onto said road and quickly lane change into a turn lane, backing up traffic and inducing collisions. That's why I love what places like Fort Collins have implemented: frontage roads. Frontage roads aren't common along surface streets, but in commercial zones, they are crucial. They remove many entrances onto the main road, directing traffic onto side roads that intersect the main road via traffic signals. It has a simple layout and a lower necessity for quick lane changes. This is the way to do it.

[Scott5114]

Then there's the opposite: being stuck behind a slow driver, only for them to sail through a yellow while you get stuck at a red.  It would be very satisfying to pass them and then sail through the green or yellow only for them to get stuck at the red, but that never seems to happen.

That doesn't bother me so much since then they are no longer a problem.

Unless you catch up to them again.  Plus I can't help but imagine their smug feeling of vindication whenever it happens.

On the other hand, I can't help but feel a smug feeling of vindication any time someone drives like a maniac to pass me and then I end up right behind them at the next light.

It almost could be confusion. Yesterday, on the Bustang, when we were exiting 25 NB to 34 WB, there's a triple-left turn there, and I watched people go all over the place.

Related to this topic, a common peeve arises: frantic lane-changing before intersections. Many people ignore the road markings and traffic patterns (around me, here and here are problematic spots), so a lot of merging and exiting is occurring at once, causing collisions. That's why diverging diamonds only work in theory. People don't pay attention to what they are supposed to do and make quick, rash decisions.

Your first example here suffers from bad striping; it's not immediately obvious what is supposed to be a lane and what isn't once the gore widens out. Hatching out the area that's not supposed to be part of the traveled way would probably help to calm the traffic considerably since it would make it more obvious what it is you're even supposed to do there.

Regarding DDIs, I haven't heard of any data that indicates that they don't work in practice. On the contrary, all of the data I've seen discussed shows the contrary—DDIs work so well that they sometimes break other nearby intersections, since the DDI is basically aiming a firehose of traffic at them. I haven't heard of any issues with their safety record, which I would expect would be highly scrutinized because of the apparent risk of wrong-way traffic.

[ran4sh]

That's why diverging diamonds only work in theory.

You're kidding, right?

[ran4sh]

In many places, quick lane changing is impossible to avoid. Many shopping areas have an entrance/exit onto a main road. People must turn onto said road and quickly lane change into a turn lane, backing up traffic and inducing collisions. That's why I love what places like Fort Collins have implemented: frontage roads. Frontage roads aren't common along surface streets, but in commercial zones, they are crucial. They remove many entrances onto the main road, directing traffic onto side roads that intersect the main road via traffic signals. It has a simple layout and a lower necessity for quick lane changes. This is the way to do it.

I agree that frontage roads are a good thing, but another important thing is also necessary to solve the quick-lane-change problem:

The states with laws that specify left turn must turn into the left lane, and/or right turn must turn into the right lane, must change those laws so that a turn can be made into any legal lane, and must make associated safety changes such as, for traffic signals, not giving traffic a green left arrow at the same time as the oncoming direction has a green right arrow.

With those laws eliminated, quick (short-distance) lane changes are minimized or eliminated, since, for example, a car can turn right into the left lane and will already be in the correct lane to make a left turn.