Road-related pet peeves

[jeffandnicole]

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.

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.

That rarely occurs because it's already a conflict.

The more common conflict is for left turning traffic to either have a flashing yellow left arrow, or turning on a green ball when no arrow is present.  Right turning traffic either turns right on a green ball or has a turn lane with or without a yield sign.

In order to have no conflict, you need to make either the left turn movement, the right turn movement, or both with protected signals to allow turning traffic can take any lane.  And that would present more problems as traffic would stack, and involve longer overall cycles.

[Amaury]

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.

We have a manual 2020 Corolla and an automatic 2022 Tacoma, both with adaptive cruise control. They're both able to maintain speed going uphill and downhill, for the most part. For the Corolla, at times, such as when going uphill on Blewett Pass in either direction, I do have to downshift from 6th gear to 5th gear to maintain speed. (Even if I weren't using cruise control, I'd still have to do it.) For both vehicles going downhill, as long as it's not a very steep hill, such as Manastash Ridge, which isn't that steep, they're able to hold back and maintain speed. It's almost like they have a jake brake or retarder, even though I know they don't.

Interestingly enough, the Tacoma does better going downhill than the Corolla, which is weird, because you'd think it'd be the other way around. The Tacoma, a truck, is heavier than the Corolla, a car. For example, descending Snoqualmie Pass westbound, Stevens Pass westbound, or Blewett Pass, the Corolla will start gaining speed and going a little faster than what I have my cruise control set to, which I don't really do anything about and just let it be, while the Tacoma will maintain speed. (For example, I usually have the cruise control in either vehicle set to 65 MPH going over Stevens Pass, and the Corolla, when descending the pass westbound, will reach up to about 71 or 72 MPH and then slow back down when the downhill becomes less steep and the cruise control is able to "regain control.") Even going down the steep grade on US Route 95 southbound toward Lewiston, Idaho, the Tacoma maintains its speed. I don't think I've driven that section with the Corolla yet, so I'll have to see how it acts there whenever I do.

[tmoore952]

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.

This also depends on whether there are multiple lanes making turns. We have a two lane left hand turn near me and the only safe way to do it is to have left hand lane turn into left hand lane, and so on.

[pderocco]

My new Forester has adaptive cruise control, and is very accurate about maintaining speed, either uphill or downhill. Uphill, it ups the ratio in the CVT for more power. Downhill, it ups the ratio for engine braking, and if that's not enough, hits the brakes (with brake lights). And of course, it slows down when approaching a slower vehicle in the same lane. It's a fabulous technology, one of the few in the history of automobiles that really changes the way you drive, the first being automatic transmissions, the second being the more primitive kind of cruise control, and the third being backup cameras.

Often, I find myself glad that there is someone else in front of me on a curvy road that requires varying speeds, because I only have to steer: the person in front determines both of our speeds. So I hope that anyone who has a new car with this feature learns how pleasurable it is to use it, instead of disregarding it the way most people seem to disregard the presence of the old-style cruise control.

[vdeane]

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.

Not really.  Or rather, right idea, wrong execution.  Getting between those frontage roads and the main roads (especially the one they follow, but also the cross streets) does NOT look like a fun experience.  Honestly, with nothing like that around here, I couldn't even begin to fathom how that would be done (what does one do here, for instance?  You literally have a stop sign intersection in the middle of a traffic light intersection).  What's really helpful is proper access management, where the parking lots are connected and the driveways can be consolidated, perhaps even avoiding the main road entirely.

[ran4sh]

Here's an example of a frontage road with proper signage/markings/etc

https://maps.app.goo.gl/mUpf7fZEipNtgUKz7

In particular, this one is ok because there is at least 1 car length between the frontage road and the highway, so that where there is a cross road, they are treated as separate intersections.

[ran4sh]

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.

This also depends on whether there are multiple lanes making turns. We have a two lane left hand turn near me and the only safe way to do it is to have left hand lane turn into left hand lane, and so on.

Multi-lane turns are still compatible with the safety aspect of this. If the lanes match, then drivers have to use the matching lane. If instead, it's something like a 2-lane left turn onto 3- or 4-lanes departing the intersection, then the left lane must stay left, but the right lane must get the choice of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc lane. And for 3 lane left turns into 4 lanes, 1st lane goes to 1st lane, 2nd goes to 2nd, but 3rd must get the choice of 3rd or 4th. Etc.

[tmoore952]

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.

This also depends on whether there are multiple lanes making turns. We have a two lane left hand turn near me and the only safe way to do it is to have left hand lane turn into left hand lane, and so on.

Multi-lane turns are still compatible with the safety aspect of this. If the lanes match, then drivers have to use the matching lane. If instead, it's something like a 2-lane left turn onto 3- or 4-lanes departing the intersection, then the left lane must stay left, but the right lane must get the choice of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc lane. And for 3 lane left turns into 4 lanes, 1st lane goes to 1st lane, 2nd goes to 2nd, but 3rd must get the choice of 3rd or 4th. Etc.

My case was 2 lane to 2 lane.

[Quillz]

My new Forester has adaptive cruise control, and is very accurate about maintaining speed, either uphill or downhill. Uphill, it ups the ratio in the CVT for more power. Downhill, it ups the ratio for engine braking, and if that's not enough, hits the brakes (with brake lights). And of course, it slows down when approaching a slower vehicle in the same lane. It's a fabulous technology, one of the few in the history of automobiles that really changes the way you drive, the first being automatic transmissions, the second being the more primitive kind of cruise control, and the third being backup cameras.

Often, I find myself glad that there is someone else in front of me on a curvy road that requires varying speeds, because I only have to steer: the person in front determines both of our speeds. So I hope that anyone who has a new car with this feature learns how pleasurable it is to use it, instead of disregarding it the way most people seem to disregard the presence of the old-style cruise control.

Yup, just got a '24 Crosstrek about a month back and I finally got a chance to play with the adaptive cruise control. It's amazing, compared to what I had before. Drove 70 virtually the entire way from LA to Morro Bay, and indeed when people were in front of me, it would slowly tick down, then back up once I either moved or they moved. It also has lane centering assist which, as long as you keep your hands on the wheel, can almost work as pseudo-auto drive as it can even take minor curves without issue. Very impressed with what this can do.

[Scott5114]

Maybe it was just that the one car I drove with it was too aggressive (even on the lowest setting), but I found I would much rather just take over speed control myself at the times that the adaptive cruise would start adjusting the speed. By the time I would realize that it was engaging, I would get trapped behind a slow car because everyone was dogpiling the left lane to avoid both of us. With normal cruise, I notice that I'm getting closer and closer to the car ahead of me and can normally make the lane change without any hassle.

[jlam]

Let's just say my car has neither lane assist nor a smart cruise control system. Its current cruise control, however, is surprisingly smooth for its age. It perfectly maintains speed going over the hills around me. I don't deem it useful enough to use regularly: I use it most when heading east on SH 14.

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.

I almost got in an accident at this exact interchange today. Someone was exiting from I-25 northbound, and, planning to turn left on CR 5 Fairgrounds Centerra Parkway, cut right in front of me. Granted, there is not a great way to do that movement without cutting across three lanes of traffic. That intersection might benefit from a full or partial diamond interchange at I-25 and Kendall Parkway.

[zachary_amaryllis]

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.

Foco only does the frontage road thing in a couple of places - College around Drake, College around Saturn Drive / 392 / Trilby... and out Mulberry.

Swallow / College is an example of where this has gone horribly wrong, from my POV. On the west side of the street, it's really confusing, and there's always gonna be someone that sits in the frontage road intersection waiting on the light.

Back in the day, one could yeet over onto the frontage road on Mulberry, and not even lift your foot off the gas.

I don't know what to do about S College, other than I just stay off it unless I have to go somewhere on it. Frontage roads made sense on the highway, but not sure about in town. They almost have the right idea, with the lights on E Mulberrry, E of I-25.

Used to live in the trailer park who's entrance got moved because of this.

[Rothman]

Maybe it was just that the one car I drove with it was too aggressive (even on the lowest setting), but I found I would much rather just take over speed control myself at the times that the adaptive cruise would start adjusting the speed. By the time I would realize that it was engaging, I would get trapped behind a slow car because everyone was dogpiling the left lane to avoid both of us. With normal cruise, I notice that I'm getting closer and closer to the car ahead of me and can normally make the lane change without any hassle.

^This.  I've yet to have a positive experience with adaptive cruise control.

[kphoger]

Why would one use cruise control in traffic?

Wut.  Not wanting to do so is inefficient.

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

In some places, there is no "wrong lane", legally speaking.  Texas state law, for example, only requires that a left-turning vehicle enter "a lane lawfully available to traffic".  It's still a pet peeve of mine, but it's technically legal to turn left into the rightmost lane in such places.

[Rothman]

Why would one use cruise control in traffic?

Wut.  Not wanting to do so is inefficient.

Not in traffic, when speeds are volatile and variable.

[kphoger]

Why would one use cruise control in traffic?

Wut.  Not wanting to do so is inefficient.

Not in traffic, when speeds are volatile and variable.

Pffft.  Amateur.

[Rothman]

Why would one use cruise control in traffic?

Wut.  Not wanting to do so is inefficient.

Not in traffic, when speeds are volatile and variable.

Pffft.  Amateur.

Heh.  When all lanes are clogged, take the shoulder.

[J N Winkler]

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

In some places, there is no "wrong lane", legally speaking.  Texas state law, for example, only requires that a left-turning vehicle enter "a lane lawfully available to traffic".  It's still a pet peeve of mine, but it's technically legal to turn left into the rightmost lane in such places.

AIUI, "turn into nearest lane" is the UVC default, but five states--a partial list of which is California, Texas, and Missouri--do not require it.

[vdeane]

Maybe it was just that the one car I drove with it was too aggressive (even on the lowest setting), but I found I would much rather just take over speed control myself at the times that the adaptive cruise would start adjusting the speed. By the time I would realize that it was engaging, I would get trapped behind a slow car because everyone was dogpiling the left lane to avoid both of us. With normal cruise, I notice that I'm getting closer and closer to the car ahead of me and can normally make the lane change without any hassle.

The Priuses NYSDOT uses for fleet cars all have adaptive cruise control and it's annoying for exactly this reason.  The power meter does start to move a couple seconds before the car noticeably slows down most of the time, but using that is dependent on the adjacent lane being clear when it does so I can move over.  Once it slows down, it takes a long time to get back up to speed.  And the default following distance is large enough to fit a truck in (not a pickup truck either, a full tractor trailer).

[kphoger]

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

In some places, there is no "wrong lane", legally speaking.  Texas state law, for example, only requires that a left-turning vehicle enter "a lane lawfully available to traffic".  It's still a pet peeve of mine, but it's technically legal to turn left into the rightmost lane in such places.

AIUI, "turn into nearest lane" is the UVC default, but five states--a partial list of which is California, Texas, and Missouri--do not require it.

At least the first part of that is correct.  The UVC requires turning into "the extreme left lane lawfully available to traffic".

As for the list of states that don't use the UVC as a template, I don't know which or how many there are.  I should also mention that even states that use the UVC as a template modify this or that section, so it's at least possible that there are UVC-guided states that allow left turns into the right lane.

[GaryV]

Lo these many years ago, I was taught in driver's ed to turn into the "first legal lane" unless you had a reason not to do so. It was not explained what those reasons might encompass, but one example was if you were making a left turn and shortly thereafter would make a right turn. So you needed to be in the right lane, and could go there directly without taking up temporary residence in the left lane.

[pderocco]

Why would one use cruise control in traffic?

Wut.  Not wanting to do so is inefficient.

Not in traffic, when speeds are volatile and variable.

I assume you're referring to old-fashioned cruise control. The adaptive kind is most useful in stop-and-go traffic.

In very heavy traffic, old cruise control isn't very useful because it doesn't stay on for very long before you have to tap the brakes and cut it off. But that's only a fraction of freeway driving. If things are moving at full speed, and everyone is able to use their cruise control for at least half the time, I think traffic would flow more efficiently.

[pderocco]

Lo these many years ago, I was taught in driver's ed to turn into the "first legal lane" unless you had a reason not to do so. It was not explained what those reasons might encompass, but one example was if you were making a left turn and shortly thereafter would make a right turn. So you needed to be in the right lane, and could go there directly without taking up temporary residence in the left lane.

I don't know if it's still the case, but Massachusetts had a law when I learned to drive that if you wanted to do that, that was two separate operations: you turned into the nearest lane, then did a separate lane change to get to the furthest lane. In practice, no cop would ever ticket you if you gracefully transitioned from one to the other, signalling first left, then right, without spending a second or two in the closest lane. Nor, if you went directly for the far lane in the middle of the night when no one else was around.

[Rothman]

Why would one use cruise control in traffic?

Wut.  Not wanting to do so is inefficient.

Not in traffic, when speeds are volatile and variable.

I assume you're referring to old-fashioned cruise control. The adaptive kind is most useful in stop-and-go traffic.

There isn't any cruising to control in stop-and-go traffic...

[VTGoose]

Maybe it was just that the one car I drove with it was too aggressive (even on the lowest setting), but I found I would much rather just take over speed control myself at the times that the adaptive cruise would start adjusting the speed. By the time I would realize that it was engaging, I would get trapped behind a slow car because everyone was dogpiling the left lane to avoid both of us. With normal cruise, I notice that I'm getting closer and closer to the car ahead of me and can normally make the lane change without any hassle.

The Priuses NYSDOT uses for fleet cars all have adaptive cruise control and it's annoying for exactly this reason.  The power meter does start to move a couple seconds before the car noticeably slows down most of the time, but using that is dependent on the adjacent lane being clear when it does so I can move over.  Once it slows down, it takes a long time to get back up to speed.  And the default following distance is large enough to fit a truck in (not a pickup truck either, a full tractor trailer).

Using adaptive cruise control does take a little bit of effort and attention to what's ahead and behind (as with any driving situation). Honda ACC has a display that shows when a vehicle is within range of the radar. When that pops up, or just based on watching the road, it is easy enough to move left to pass the slower vehicle before being trapped by approaching traffic. Honda also allows you to set the spacing between you and the vehicle in front, with increasing space for heavier traffic. The shortest following distance is a safety factor that does leave a bit of room ahead of you, but it is easy enough to accelerate to close the space when conditions warrant (such as the ahole who doesn't want to sit in the long line behind the micro-passer and roars up to cut in at the last minute).