Road-related pet peeves

[hbelkins]

I've never driven a vehicle with adaptive cruise control, and hope to never be forced to. Regular cruise control is great. Adaptive cruise sounds like a nightmare.

[D-Dey65]

Use of black-on-yellow plates for road names when they're comounted with warning signs,as though there's some danger associated with that particular road. White on green for that, OK?

Actually, I like when highway departments do that. The same goes for county road shields that have the yellow-on-blue road name signs underneath.

[Rothman]

Use of black-on-yellow plates for road names when they're comounted with warning signs,as though there's some danger associated with that particular road. White on green for that, OK?

Actually, I like when highway departments do that. The same goes for county road shields that have the yellow-on-blue road name signs underneath.

It also seems standard for upcoming crossroad signage.

[zachary_amaryllis]

I've never driven a vehicle with adaptive cruise control, and hope to never be forced to. Regular cruise control is great. Adaptive cruise sounds like a nightmare.

I never have either, but I'm wondering - can one 'override' it, like with a normal one? I.e. step on the gas to pass Slowy McSlowface, and then take your foot off and everything goes back to what it's doing?

[StogieGuy7]

I've never driven a vehicle with adaptive cruise control, and hope to never be forced to. Regular cruise control is great. Adaptive cruise sounds like a nightmare.

I never have either, but I'm wondering - can one 'override' it, like with a normal one? I.e. step on the gas to pass Slowy McSlowface, and then take your foot off and everything goes back to what it's doing?

In my experience, having driven many many rental cars with adaptive cruise control, yes you can do exactly this.  Changing into a lane that's clear does solve the problem if you can do that; but a left lane camper will thwart that idea. Canceling it out and going manual will also do the trick. The thing with adaptive cruise is that it's insidious in that it gently slows you down in a manner such that I think a lot of drivers don't notice.  This can lead to the growth of a rat pack, usually started by one moron in the left lane. 

[kphoger]

Use of black-on-yellow plates for road names when they're comounted with warning signs,as though there's some danger associated with that particular road. White on green for that, OK?

Actually, I like when highway departments do that.

Assuming that it's an intersection warning sign, then yes, there is some danger associated with that particular road.  That's why there's a warning sign to begin with.

It also seems standard for upcoming crossroad signage.

Yes.  In the current edition of the MUTCD, these are covered under "Supplemental Warning Plaques", specifically W16-8P and W16-8aP signs.

Also . . .

§ 2C.57 — Design of Supplemental Warning Plaques

Standard:

01 — A supplemental warning plaque used with a warning sign shall have the same legend, border, and background color as the warning sign with which it is displayed. A supplemental warning plaque used with a regulatory sign shall have a black legend and border on a yellow background.

§ 2C.65 — Advance Street Name Plaques (W16-8P and W16-8aP)

Option:

01 — An Advance Street Name (W16-8P or W16-8aP) plaque (see Figure 2C-16) may be used with any Intersection (W1-10 series, W2 series, W10-2, W10-3, or W10-4) or Advance Traffic Control (W3 series) sign to identify the name of the intersecting street.

[Quillz]

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.

Yes, this is what I noticed. I used it yesterday going to work and it was stop-and-go. I had it set to 65 but most of the time it was moving me along 20-30 mph, and would do full braking and then speed up as necessary. I never thought to use it before but it ended up being nice because again, I could just keep my hands on the wheel and not really have to do much else. I also notice on my car the default length is maybe 1.5 car lengths, which is probably good because otherwise I'd like be too close to most cars.

[Amaury]

Maybe some vehicles are different, but the adaptive cruise control in our vehicles cannot be enabled at speeds of 25 MPH or lower and will automatically turn off if slowed down that much.

[Rothman]

I've never driven a vehicle with adaptive cruise control, and hope to never be forced to. Regular cruise control is great. Adaptive cruise sounds like a nightmare.

I never have either, but I'm wondering - can one 'override' it, like with a normal one? I.e. step on the gas to pass Slowy McSlowface, and then take your foot off and everything goes back to what it's doing?

In my experience, having driven many many rental cars with adaptive cruise control, yes you can do exactly this.  Changing into a lane that's clear does solve the problem if you can do that; but a left lane camper will thwart that idea. Canceling it out and going manual will also do the trick. The thing with adaptive cruise is that it's insidious in that it gently slows you down in a manner such that I think a lot of drivers don't notice.  This can lead to the growth of a rat pack, usually started by one moron in the left lane.

This is one of the reasons why I hate adaptive cruise control.  The car slows down and then you get stuck because everyone else starts passing you.

When I was driving in California recently, I noticed left lane blockers and cars lining up behind them.  The right lane would open and they would stay in the left lane.  I seemed to be one of the few that would pass them on the right.  Wonder if that phenomenon was a result of adaptive cruise control -- people zoning out behind the wheel, which isn't good for anyone.

[Quillz]

Maybe some vehicles are different, but the adaptive cruise control in our vehicles cannot be enabled at speeds of 25 MPH or lower and will automatically turn off if slowed down that much.

Yeah it depends on the make. Mine will go down to a complete stop and even turn off the engine, then start up again.

[webny99]

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.

I've been on both sides of this although probably more often in the spot of the speedster, in which case I'm not particularly bothered by it because traffic lights are more or less random, and all else being equal I would still rather be ahead of a slower driver than behind them. What does annoy me is when I'm stuck behind someone approaching a stale green light and they insist on missing it and making everyone behind them miss it too. I know not everyone on the road is a local, but on local roads the vast majority of drivers should have some situational awareness that you simply can not just casually miss certain lights or you just wasted 2-3 minutes of everyone's time. I often have to remind myself that they're probably not trying to be annoying, but are just completely clued out.

[pderocco]

Maybe some vehicles are different, but the adaptive cruise control in our vehicles cannot be enabled at speeds of 25 MPH or lower and will automatically turn off if slowed down that much.

Mine can be set as low as 20. But even so, if I'm going slower than that because I'm behind slow traffic, it doesn't turn it off. So I just leave it set for the speed I wish I could go if everyone else disappeared.

[GaryV]

When the left turn green arrow comes on, and the guy first in line isn't paying attention, and he makes you miss the arrow. And there's 2 or 3 cars between you, so you don't honk because you don't want to make it look like you think it's their fault.

[webny99]

When the left turn green arrow comes on, and the guy first in line isn't paying attention, and he makes you miss the arrow. And there's 2 or 3 cars between you, so you don't honk because you don't want to make it look like you think it's their fault.

Yeah, that is an awkward situation when the car you want to honk at isn't directly in front of you. I had that experience once with a car two in front of me that would not use the expanded shoulder to turn right on red. When I honked, the guy immediately in front of me turned around and made a hand motion to express that it was not his problem. I just nodded back and hoped he understood that I was not irritated with him.

[wanderer2575]

^  Since you mentioned it, I'll note one of my pet peeves is someone honking at me because I'm not turning right on red.  Well, maybe it's no-turn-on-red and that person doesn't see (or wants me to ignore) the sign, or I don't have a good view, or for whatever other reason I'm not comfortable doing it at that moment.  Honking at me won't change that.

Another peeve:  People who turn left out of a driveway or side street and then drive in the left-turn lane until a spot opens up for them to merge right.  If you're going to pull that number, at least stop in the left-turn lane instead of being a rolling blockade.

[kphoger]

Another peeve:  People who turn left out of a driveway or side street and then drive in the left-turn lane until a spot opens up for them to merge right.  If you're going to pull that number, at least stop in the left-turn lane instead of being a rolling blockade.

1.  "Pulling that number" is one of the explicitly stated purposes of a TWLTL in some states.

2.  Why would you rather a vehicle enter the travel lane at 2 mph instead of the at roughly the flow of traffic?

[PColumbus73]

Another peeve:  People who turn left out of a driveway or side street and then drive in the left-turn lane until a spot opens up for them to merge right.  If you're going to pull that number, at least stop in the left-turn lane instead of being a rolling blockade.

1.  "Pulling that number" is one of the explicitly stated purposes of a TWLTL in some states.

2.  Why would you rather a vehicle enter the travel lane at 2 mph instead of the at roughly the flow of traffic?

You can frequently find people driving several hundred feet before getting into the travel lane. Or, someone turning left onto the main road gets pinched behind someone making a left off the main road (or making an oncoming left turn).

In my opinion, if someone can't make a clean left turn within a couple seconds of entering the main road, then it would be better to turn right and make a u-turn.

[CovalenceSTU]

1.  "Pulling that number" is one of the explicitly stated purposes of a TWLTL in some states.

2.  Why would you rather a vehicle enter the travel lane at 2 mph instead of the at roughly the flow of traffic?

I interpreted it as people who turn into TWLTL's and use them as an acceleration lane, when it can be unsafe (and illegal) to travel more then a short distance in them.

Two of my peeves are:

• Signs getting replaced with inferior ones - we have some new ones that got taken out in wrecks, and the replacements are always smaller and sometimes missing information.
• People who only go a few mph faster to pass on three-lane rural highways - it may be allowed, but it sure is annoying when only a handful of people can pass in the entire 1-2 mile zone.

[PColumbus73]

1.  "Pulling that number" is one of the explicitly stated purposes of a TWLTL in some states.

2.  Why would you rather a vehicle enter the travel lane at 2 mph instead of the at roughly the flow of traffic?

I interpreted it as people who turn into TWLTL's and use them as an acceleration lane, when it can be unsafe (and illegal) to travel more then a short distance in them.

Two of my peeves are:

• Signs getting replaced with inferior ones - we have some new ones that got taken out in wrecks, and the replacements are always smaller and sometimes missing information.
• People who only go a few mph faster to pass on three-lane rural highways - it may be allowed, but it sure is annoying when only a handful of people can pass in the entire 1-2 mile zone.

Agree with #1. In my area there were two BGS knock-downs, one was a frequent knock-down victim, and the other was an overhead BGS that was struck by a truck. Both were replaced by smaller, flat LGS's

[J N Winkler]

When I use a TWLTL to stage a left turn, I typically just stop in it (with right blinker on) if I need to wait for an opening in traffic.  Using a TWLTL to get up to speed invites a collision with an oncoming vehicle seeking to make a left turn.



Much has been said immediately upthread about horn-related pet peeves.  For me, as a deaf person, the horn is a pet peeve, full stop.  It is not accessible to deaf drivers, and I believe its capacity to warn even hearing drivers is greatly overstated.  The use of the horn is actually my principal area of disagreement with the Smith system, which advocates sounding it as needed to make other drivers aware of one's presence.  My own view is that any use of the horn is in and of itself evidence of failure to drive defensively and, in practice, much more often an expression of frustration rather than a calculated action to overcome limited visibility.

[Big John]

1.  "Pulling that number" is one of the explicitly stated purposes of a TWLTL in some states.

2.  Why would you rather a vehicle enter the travel lane at 2 mph instead of the at roughly the flow of traffic?

I interpreted it as people who turn into TWLTL's and use them as an acceleration lane, when it can be unsafe (and illegal) to travel more then a short distance in them.

Two of my peeves are:

• Signs getting replaced with inferior ones - we have some new ones that got taken out in wrecks, and the replacements are always smaller and sometimes missing information.
• People who only go a few mph faster to pass on three-lane rural highways - it may be allowed, but it sure is annoying when only a handful of people can pass in the entire 1-2 mile zone.

WisDOT has an official photo of each sign assembly on state-maintained highways that replacement signage must match.  But the official photos predate the I-41 conversion so when any I-41 sign gets knocked down, it gets replaced by a US 41 sign.

[kphoger]

In my opinion, if someone can't make a clean left turn within a couple seconds of entering the main road, then it would be better to turn right and make a u-turn.

The whole point of staging your left turn in the TWLTL is that you might not be able to complete the turn quickly and easily.  Therefore, it should be expected to have to wait more than a couple of seconds before merging in.

You can frequently find people driving several hundred feet before getting into the travel lane.

They need to learn how to merge, then.  Put blinker on, gradually move into the other lane, only abort maneuver if other driver refuses to accommodate.

Or, someone turning left onto the main road gets pinched behind someone making a left off the main road

In which case, why does it bother you?  No sweat off your back.  They're the one who got pinched.

(or making an oncoming left turn)

Does occasionally happen.  Usually pretty easy to figure out between the two drivers, in my experience.  But this is the biggest reason not to spend too much driving distance in the TWLTL.

[pderocco]

When I used to live in Pacific Palisades, CA, I had one very specific pet peeve at one very specific intersection:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/wDhQkLYCaxBn3ky67

Almost every day, I would be coming down this road, and getting in the right turn lane. About 10% of the time, I'd end up behind someone who sees the sign prohibiting right turns on red, but failing to notice the "TO PCH" under it, which limits the restriction to people turning right onto Pacific Coast Highway. Sometimes several cars would line up, and we'd all be honking, to no avail.

[webny99]

^  Since you mentioned it, I'll note one of my pet peeves is someone honking at me because I'm not turning right on red.  Well, maybe it's no-turn-on-red and that person doesn't see (or wants me to ignore) the sign, or I don't have a good view, or for whatever other reason I'm not comfortable doing it at that moment.  Honking at me won't change that.

I accept that. I am guilty of this on occasion, but I would always make sure there's no RTOR sign and that I have a clear view of the intersection first. If you have some other reason for not turning that's not readily apparent, I am not sure what it would be but if it's going to last long enough to disrupt other traffic then use of hazards would be preferable. More often than not when this happens, someone just wasn't paying attention so the honk is more about bringing awareness that those behind them are waiting.

Much has been said immediately upthread about horn-related pet peeves.  For me, as a deaf person, the horn is a pet peeve, full stop.  It is not accessible to deaf drivers, and I believe its capacity to warn even hearing drivers is greatly overstated.  The use of the horn is actually my principal area of disagreement with the Smith system, which advocates sounding it as needed to make other drivers aware of one's presence.  My own view is that any use of the horn is in and of itself evidence of failure to drive defensively and, in practice, much more often an expression of frustration rather than a calculated action to overcome limited visibility.

In other countries - I've heard about it in the Caribbean Islands in particular - the horn actually is an integral part of defensive driving and is used frequently for things like passing on unstriped roadways. I respect that horns are not accessible to deaf drivers but still don't necessarily agree that using it is evidence of failure to drive defensively, especially when it's used proactively rather than reactively - but also recognize that's not normally how it's used in the US.

[vdeane]

1.  "Pulling that number" is one of the explicitly stated purposes of a TWLTL in some states.

2.  Why would you rather a vehicle enter the travel lane at 2 mph instead of the at roughly the flow of traffic?

I interpreted it as people who turn into TWLTL's and use them as an acceleration lane, when it can be unsafe (and illegal) to travel more then a short distance in them.

Same.  I was taught in driver's ed to turn into the TWLT lane, STOP, and then merge in once there's a gap (basically two-staging the left turn to separate the directions where getting a gap in both directions would be impractical).  What I usually see instead is people using the TWLT lane as an acceleration lane, not caring whether there's a gap or not, forcing traffic in the main lanes to slow down to let them in, lest the person flying down the TWLT lane eventually cause a collision.

I also use that maneuver as a "use when needed" thing.  It's not my default.  If a road is questionable on whether I'll get a gap in both directions or not, I'll usually wait a few seconds to feel it out first.  But usually I can tell pretty quick whether I can just turn or whether I have to two-stage it.

^  Since you mentioned it, I'll note one of my pet peeves is someone honking at me because I'm not turning right on red.  Well, maybe it's no-turn-on-red and that person doesn't see (or wants me to ignore) the sign, or I don't have a good view, or for whatever other reason I'm not comfortable doing it at that moment.  Honking at me won't change that.

Another peeve:  People who turn left out of a driveway or side street and then drive in the left-turn lane until a spot opens up for them to merge right.  If you're going to pull that number, at least stop in the left-turn lane instead of being a rolling blockade.

Agreed.  If I can't gauge what traffic is doing, I'm not going to make a right on red.  Someone making a right on red shouldn't be slowing down traffic on the road they're turning onto, so if I can't tell if someone is going to turn or something, I won't.  Likewise, if there's a red light camera (or even if I'm in a jurisdiction that's known to use them and I'm not sure about a given intersection), I'm not going to do a right on red unless I can do it textbook perfect - ie, no going past the stop line to see past cars in the other lane, no rolling stops, etc.  That's assuming I decide to risk a right on red with a camera at all.