Driving Peeves: SUV's & Turn Signals

[Huckleberry]

I went about a year without driving and then I got a different car. IT did feel awkward for about a month as I adjusted to both. It's kind of like riding a bicycle, once you learn it is a skill that you have. There are cases where people lose confidence in their ability to drive and become unsafe drivers. I have an aunt who has this problem. She has panic attacks when she drives far from the small town she lives in. Very unsafe. I imagine someone who was recently in an accident might be afraid and react poorly to dangerous driving situations.

 

[honestrosewater]

I went about a year without driving and then I got a different car. IT did feel awkward for about a month as I adjusted to both. It's kind of like riding a bicycle, once you learn it is a skill that you have. There are cases where people lose confidence in their ability to drive and become unsafe drivers. I have an aunt who has this problem. She has panic attacks when she drives far from the small town she lives in. Very unsafe. I imagine someone who was recently in an accident might be afraid and react poorly to dangerous driving situations.

Oh, yes, I forgot that adjusting to a new car takes time. So this may be a concern. Anyone have a suggestion? I guess awareness would help. I don't know how well restrictions like having to take a test after not having dirven for extended amounts of time would work...

 

[BicycleTree]

And your other other objection, errands... you left your car at the bus stop and can do errands once you return to your town.

 

[Moonbear]

My main concern about driving is the drivers. Just look at zooby's top 5: speeding, tailgating, driving under the influence, inattention, and yeild violation.

I wonder how many of those are all related to inattention? Maybe not the speeding, but following too close can be due to not paying attention, and not yielding could be not paying attention. DUI is of course clearly a separate issue. At least around here, I'd say there are a LOT of drivers who just plain aren't paying attention to anything going on around them.

This is why I added taxis. With professional drivers, I imagine those accidents would almost certainly drop. If their being professionals doesn't convince you, would you pay for a ride from a safe or unsafe driver/company? Unless price is a huge factor, I think safety would be a major deciding factor for most people, so competition should help improve safety even more.

Once in a city, taxis are a convenience I like having. I certainly think the ready availability of a taxi to get around in a city is an incentive to use public transportation. If I know I can get a ride across town if I catch a bus or train to a station that's not close to where my final destination is, then that's not bad. On the other hand, I don't know if I could vouch for safety or not. Though, it would be hard to get any decent stats on it since there probably are a LOT of taxi accidents just because they are driving in places where there are a lot of cars and accidents are bound to happen even with the safest drivers.

If you need a ride at the last minute, I usually wait less than 20 minutes (and you can usually call a few minutes before you're ready).

Once outside a city, they aren't as convenient. And of course it's double the car travel time if they have to come out to your house to pick you up and then take you where you're going. In a city where they always have a passenger and people share cabs, it's more like carpooling.

When I first moved here, I needed to get a cab because my car was still in another state, and it was pretty expensive, plus the waiting time was really long.

But, they really aren't a solution to congestion or a form of public transportation, because generally, it's just having someone drive you instead of driving yourself, other than giving someone incentive to take public transportation into a city knowing they won't have to walk 15 blocks once there.

 

[BicycleTree]

Walking from a parking garage in the city is no different from walking from a bus stop in the city. Is it?

 

[Evo]

Taxis are almost non existent downtown (I see one maybe once every three months and I drive downtown every day). They do not exist in the suburbs here. I needed a cab once and my only option was renting a limo and I had to wait over two hours.

 

[Danger]

Walking from a parking garage in the city is no different from walking from a bus stop in the city. Is it?

Yes it is, because you can leave your stuff in the car and go back for it.

 

[BicycleTree]

That's right, as opposed to carrying a briefcase you can keep stuff in your car and spend 20 minutes going back for it. I forgot.

Also a parking garage costs $20 for the day.

 

[Moonbear]

Ahem? There are two conditions. They must be able to drive to a bus stop, and they must go to and return from work during rush hour. And the first condition is virtually a given.

Uh, nope, you had more conditions than just that. Remember this part?

if such a stop were feasible for the bus company to create given that people who could use it were willing, in their town or in another town closer in that the bus stops at

I mean 10 people per stop, for each stop the bus makes. I can't find the total commuters to Boston at the moment, but it's in something like a hundred thousand (my mom has seen the figure but doesn't remember exactly). 80 towns, with a stop in each town... using Evo's guess of 5/14, that leaves roughly five hundred in each town who could take the bus. Plenty of possible demand. My figure of 10 people was an absolute minimum; actually, if buses pass through the average town 10 times they could be filled to capacity each time.

What makes you think this doesn't already exist? It seems there is more to the problem than that.

More than three quarters of the 927,000 trips to the City of Boston daily are by private motor vehicle: 30% to downtown neighborhoods and 70% to the rest of Boston. While about half of the downtown trips were by public transit, only 22% of the trips to the rest of Boston were by transit, indicating poor transit connections across neighborhoods. The number of trips is increasing in every mode of travel. This increase is attributed to the growing complexity of people’s lives (only 30% of all trips today are work-related), growing household income, and increasing residential sprawl. The completion of the Central Artery/Tunnel project may reorganize trip patterns in Boston, since new connections have become possible, and recurring delay has been reduced.

Looking at commuting trips from home to work, Boston residents drove alone only 40% of the time, the second-lowest rate of any city or town in Massachusetts and far lower than the 64% drive-alone share for Metropolitan Boston and the 74% drive-alone share statewide. Boston residents used public transit for 32% of commuting trips, nearly double the 17% transit share for Metropolitan Boston commuting trips. This high rate of transit use occurs despite the fact that public transit commuters have the longest average commutes of all Massachusetts workers, with average travel times of greater than 60 minutes for commuter rail and ferry riders and 40 minutes for bus and subway riders, compared to 25 minutes for commuters who drive alone.

http://www.tbf.org/indicators2004/transportation/indicators.asp?id=2226

 

[Moonbear]

Walking from a parking garage in the city is no different from walking from a bus stop in the city. Is it?

It depends on where the bus stop is. For example, when I travel from NJ to NY, I take the bus to the Port Authority. My friend's office is not walking distance from there (despite my ignoring his instructions to take a cab thinking it was a nice day for a walk, I had to give up and hail a cab eventually ). He parks in a parking garage a half block from his office. Parking is expensive, but you get a monthly pass, so you're not paying the same rate as if you were just parking for one day. In Cincinnati, most downtown employers have parking garages for employees with assigned spaces, so you know you'll find parking (of course we don't have any real traffic problems either...not that people don't complain, but compared to NY, it's nothing).

 

[honestrosewater]

I wonder how many of those are all related to inattention?

I presume the authors of the stats took that into consideration and didn't overlap, but I don't know.

Though, it would be hard to get any decent stats on it since there probably are a LOT of taxi accidents just because they are driving in places where there are a lot of cars and accidents are bound to happen even with the safest drivers.

Right, I thought of that- and in busy cities the traffic may go much slower due to congestion, pedestrian safety and such, so this would also need to be considered.

Once outside a city, they aren't as convenient. And of course it's double the car travel time if they have to come out to your house to pick you up and then take you where you're going. In a city where they always have a passenger and people share cabs, it's more like carpooling.

When I first moved here, I needed to get a cab because my car was still in another state, and it was pretty expensive, plus the waiting time was really long.

But, they really aren't a solution to congestion or a form of public transportation, because generally, it's just having someone drive you instead of driving yourself, other than giving someone incentive to take public transportation into a city knowing they won't have to walk 15 blocks once there.

Wow, I didn't think of the double-time situation. For regular trips, like to work, you can just keep a running appointment so they know to be there the same time everyday. For one-time trips, you can call and make an appointment (at least, you can here). For last-minute trips, I guess you just have to wait. But I think cost and convenience could improve with larger demand.

 

[BicycleTree]

Uh, nope, you had more conditions than just that. Remember this part?

if such a stop were feasible for the bus company to create given that people who could use it were willing, in their town or in another town closer in that the bus stops at

Now here is another example of how I have unusually good reading comprehension. The astute reader would notice that this conditional I have quoted ("if such a stop were ... bus stops at") causes the condition it modifies, namely:

who could drive to a bus stop,

to be satisfied in more situations than if the conditional "if such a stop were ... bus stops at" had been left out. i.e. the conditional increases, rather than decreases, the number of people falling into the class of people who might take the bus.

Let's draw a comparative example with similar structure for illustrative purposes:
"Fred has property X if he can escape from his prison [/color]if someone gives him a hacksaw and machine gun[/color]."
Now, the phrase in green would tend to cause you to be more likely to think that Fred has property X. See? In fact, the only way that Fred would _not_ have property X would be if someone gave him a hacksaw and machine gun yet he could not escape from his prison. If nobody gives him a hacksaw or machine gun then he automatically has property X.

 

[honestrosewater]

927,000 trips to the City of Boston daily

OMG! ....

 

[BicycleTree]

Yes, public transportation takes longer. But the figures are skewed because public transportation commuters tend to travel longer distances; they are not hopping from town to adjacent town, because public transportation does not exist from that. And the point is that public transportation causes the total congestion to reduce, decreasing transit time for everyone.

And never forget that you can do work while riding public transportation, a thing you cannot do while riding in your car.


If the bus stops too far from work, solution perhaps might be to have the bus go into town. I know this contradicts what I was saying earlier (take the bike) but I suppose wimps need their unnecessary motor vehicle assistance.

 

[Moonbear]

For regular trips, like to work, you can just keep a running appointment so they know to be there the same time everyday. For one-time trips, you can call and make an appointment (at least, you can here). For last-minute trips, I guess you just have to wait. But I think cost and convenience could improve with larger demand.

The only times I've taken a cab around here (meaning from my house rather than downtown) are that one time when I first moved here and I think it took around an hour for them to show up, and then once for a ride to the airport. Otherwise, I've always gotten cabs in cities. In NY, they're everywhere, so just step out to the curb and hail the first one available. In other cities, they're usually at least around the hotels, or there are a few that will frequent the areas where the bars are (the other place I have on occasion required a cab ride home).

If you just need an occassional ride, cabs are a good option. If you need to travel any distance regularly, then it's going to be cheaper to get a decent used car, even when you factor in insurance, tags and fuel. If I lived in the downtown area of a city, I probably wouldn't even own a car, though I'd never want to live downtown in a city. Just too much noise and bright lights. I have enough trouble sleeping.

 

[Moonbear]

Now here is another example of how I have unusually good reading comprehension.

Just a tad full of yourself there?

The astute reader would notice that this conditional I have quoted ("if such a stop were ... bus stops at") causes the condition it modifies, namely:

to be satisfied in more situations than if the conditional "if such a stop were ... bus stops at" had been left out. i.e. the conditional increases, rather than decreases, the number of people falling into the class of people who might take the bus.

That is why this astute reader called you on it when you later changed it to the less qualified statement. I asked you to define your term, you defined it with a highly qualified statement, to which I told you the likelihood of fitting that category was rather slim, at which point you tried refuting my statement by removing qualifiers from your definition. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

 

[Huckleberry]

If the bus stops too far from work, solution perhaps might be to have the bus go into town. I know this contradicts what I was saying earlier (take the bike) but I suppose wimps need their unnecessary motor vehicle assistance.

Why do people make statements like this? Are elderly people wimps? Are disabled people wimps? Not fair at all.

 

[BicycleTree]

Sorry for you, because you still don't understand. Look, I will symbolize it logically:
1.) who {could drive to a bus stop} = A, if {such a stop were feasible for the bus company to create} = B given that {people who could use it were willing} = C, {in their town or in another town closer in that the bus stops at} [this phrase is part of B], and {who both go to work and return from work during rush hours} = D
This is symbolized thus:
(C --> (B --> A)) & D

So this can only be false under two circumstances:
1. D is false
or 2. (C is true, and B is true), and A is false

As opposed to the phrase without the B and C, which could be false if
1. D is false
or 2. A is false

Now do you see how the astute reader realizes that B and C are not additional conditions imposed on the potential bus-rider?

 

[Danger]

That's right, as opposed to carrying a briefcase you can keep stuff in your car and spend 20 minutes going back for it. I forgot.

Also a parking garage costs $20 for the day.

I don't know what kind of life you lead, but if I'm downtown I have at least 20 kgs of stuff to lug around. I prefer to drop it off in stages instead of aggravating my arthritis unnecessarily by carrying it the average 30 kms that I walk around. And I never stay more than 4 hours.

 

[Moonbear]

Yes, public transportation takes longer. But the figures are skewed because public transportation commuters tend to travel longer distances; they are not hopping from town to adjacent town, because public transportation does not exist from that. And the point is that public transportation causes the total congestion to reduce, decreasing transit time for everyone.

I'll give you that the commuters into Boston are probably commuting further distances than other commuters, but that's part of why a problem exists. Whenever congestion is reduced and travel into a city gets faster, people tend to move further from the city. They can live in a less expensive area in a quieter, possibly more rural, town, and still take just as long to get to work as when the roads were congested. It's this part of human behavior you're not at all factoring into the problem.

And never forget that you can do work while riding public transportation, a thing you cannot do while riding in your car.

And never forget that we already refuted that a few pages back. Sitting on a crowded bus, if you even have a seat, is not conducive to getting work done.

If the bus stops too far from work, solution perhaps might be to have the bus go into town. I know this contradicts what I was saying earlier (take the bike) but I suppose wimps need their unnecessary motor vehicle assistance.

What town? You've lost me now. Is this your argument for suburb to city transport or suburb to suburb transport? I thought the bus was already going from town to town?

In addition, you know, not everyone is able to bike or walk long distances, and that has nothing to do with being a wimp.

 

[BicycleTree]

Well, I still have things to say but my brilliant logical analysis of that phrase will have to close it for the night. I have to get up tomorrow. Briefly, "town" means "city" (it's not an uncommon usage), I didn't really mean to call the old and infirm "wimps," getting work done on public transportation is a matter of sitting down and doing it, and I'll save the other points for later.

 

[Moonbear]

Now do you see how the astute reader realizes that B and C are not additional conditions imposed on the potential bus-rider?

The astute reader knows that you can't make a decent argument to support your point, so you're resorting to insults.

By the way, no, it is not a condition placed on the rider, it is a condition placed on the bus stop. It would be hard for the rider to catch a bus if there aren't any feasible locations for a bus stop.

 

[honestrosewater]

Okay, my experience: I live in the most densely populated county in Florida (pop. 921,482 in 2000, pretty even distribution), the peninsula of Tampa Bay. If I need to take two buses ($1.25 each and daily, weekly & monthly pass discounts), it can easily take an hour (each way). Cabs usually take less than 20 minutes to arrive, rates:

$1.75 for the first 1/5 of a mile
.35 cents each additional 1/5 of a mile
.35 cents for every 70 seconds of waiting time.
- http://www.yellowcaboftampa.com/rates.html

No subway or train- but I think a train is on the way or started recently in Tampa.
The weather is usually fine for me, sometimes too humid during summer, but I'm young (and wouldn't want to walk far in a suit). There are at least a dozen grocery stores within 5 miles of home. (Heck, there are grocery stores directly across the street from each other.) Other errand-running type stuff is just as close and dense. Plenty of businesses- most people I know work in the county. The county is also very small (the second smallest), so servicing commuters to Tampa would be easier. Almost everyone drives. There are traffic jams (one intersection is better known as Malfunction Junction) and several accidents everyday.
So I'm seeing the challenge now.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Public transportation isn't always an option. If you commute North/South west of Chicago between suburbs that are spaced apart, your only choice to get to work is a car. http://metrarail.com/System_map/index.html

No bus is going multiple towns over. Taxis anywhere, including in the city (though not as much) are too expensive.. So all of these commuters must have cars to go to work. The N/S roadways are therefore more conjested. For E/W Roads, you can take the train instead. Which one is faster varies based on your situation. There is still comparable traffic in this direction, because more people are going to/from the city.

Whether you have to take the bus/train or car or bike or pogo stick, you do what is most convenient for you. It depends on your proximity, traffic, commute times, public transportation availability, preferences etc. I can't imagine why you'd want to make other peoples transport decisions for them.

 

[Gale]

I READ EVERYTHING! i deserve a freaking prize or something...

so i came up with this really cool completely fictional idea... and the more i thought about it, the more flaws i realized you guys'd find... so...

i hate almost every biciclists in NH. all our roads are windy, (erm, not like breezey, but lots of turns...) and hilly, and have very small shoulders. however, our roads are very scenic, and biciclists love to ride on them. frankly though, its just too dangerous.

biciclists in the city are so cute with all their nifty hand signals.

i hate busses. everyone uses them at school... i'd rather walk most places. i guess they're practical for longer distances... i'll still take my car.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well, if you're road-hogging in the fast lane you deserve it. You shouldn't be going in the fast lane in a multi-lane road even if you're driving at the speed limit. If you see a faster car coming up behind you, you really should signal and move to the slower lane, that's just common courtesy.

Have you considered that the people who need to get by you are perhaps in a real hurry ? Like maybe they have a medical reason ? In any case, what does it profit you to play dog-in-the-manger ?

A lot of the time, drivers are forced to overtake people like you by using the designated slower lane, but this is dangerous. And in some places in the UK, doing this is actually illegal, so people are forced to endure roadhogging in the fast lane in mute rage.

Tailgating is wrong, and I don't do it or condone it, but if the road-hogging moron in front doesn't "get it" and move over, just how does one drive home the point ? The only unequivocal way to get the message across is with a brief flash of the headlights, but that can be irritating and dazzling to the driver in front. So sometimes considerate people in faster cars *and* in a hurry will just have to suffer in silence behind an inconsiderate driver going slow in the fast lane.

The driving behaviour you claim to practise and endorse in your post is inconsiderate. And dangerous too, because you're greatly increasing the chances of an accident by speeding up to prevent that poor car behind you from merging in front of you.

*You* would be one of my driving pet peeves, if I met you on the road.

You've never met me on the road, as far as I know, so don't jump the gun.
For one I don't drive slowly. Though the jerks going 100mph until they're about to stuff themselves into my trunk might think so. Incase you aren't familiar the speed limit around here is 65mph and most people drive at least 10mph above that. If I'm driving at 80 in the fast lane, where I ought to be at that speed, then it's not my fault if that isn't fast enough for some jerk who feels like getting chummy with my bumper. Secondly most of these people like to do this in traffic. That is to say there's no easy way of getting out of their way because I have cars to all sides of me and even if I did he would just wind up tail gating the person that was a couple car lengths in front of me and I'm now stuck in the slower of the lanes. If I take my foot off the gas and slow down it's as much to annoy him as it is to make sure that I'm as far behind the person in front of me as possible if I have to slam on my brakes and hopefully he won't rearend me, destroy my vehicle, and possibly make me hit the person infront of me, whose damages I would be responsable for by the laws around here. When I speed up I don't gun my car and I don't tailgate the person in front of me I just want the jerk to know that I was going slow for a reason. And if I tap my brakes and it freaks him out GOOD. At least I'm not breaking for real and he's not plowing into the back end of my car which aside from a bit of a jump in heart rate would probably land us both in the hospital. If that jerk wants to risk getting into an accident because he's in a damn hurry he sure as hell better not be risking my neck too.

 

[Curious3141]

You've never met me on the road, as far as I know, so don't jump the gun.

I'm going purely by what you've posted. What else am I to do ?

For one I don't drive slowly. Though the jerks going 100mph until they're about to stuff themselves into my trunk might think so. Incase you aren't familiar the speed limit around here is 65mph and most people drive at least 10mph above that.

That's all well and good. But even if you're above the speed limit, and there's somebody behind you who obviously wants (or needs) to go faster, you should move as long as it's safe for you to do so. If you think you're entitled to the fast lane (when the other lanes are empty) just because you're going "fast enough", in your opinion, you are wrong.

If I'm driving at 80 in the fast lane, where I ought to be at that speed, then it's not my fault if that isn't fast enough for some jerk who feels like getting chummy with my bumper.

As I said, I don't condone tailgating, it is dangerous. At the same time, you are decidedly in the wrong for failing to yield to faster traffic. You are not some vigilante pace car put there to enforce the limit (or your notion of an "acceptable" speed).

Secondly most of these people like to do this in traffic. That is to say there's no easy way of getting out of their way because I have cars to all sides of me and even if I did he would just wind up tail gating the person that was a couple car lengths in front of me and I'm now stuck in the slower of the lanes.

Fine. Here's how I would break it down.

A) There is absolutely nowhere for you to go because there's a solid wall of slow moving traffic in the slow lane.

- In this case, I would not fault you at all for failing to move over, and I would agree that you are the aggrieved party here.

B) There is room for you to move over, yet you decide to stay in the fast lane, rationalising that the "idiot" behind you will just get stuck behind the car in front of you anyway.

- Here, you're wrong. If somebody is driving dangerously, e.g. by tailgating, any sane driver will immediately tell you it is always better to be behind that person than in front of him. At least you can control the situation by driving defensively and adjusting the following distance for your own safety. And so what if you end up in slower traffic for an instant ? You can always move over into the fast lane once a gap opens up, right ? Or is this a private race in your head where you're concerned with your position ?

If the tailgater now gets stuck behind traffic (the car that was originally in front of you) that refuses to yield to him, then it's just too bad, and you can have a jolly good time laughing about it. But in this case, your safety will be in your hands because now the danger is in front of you rather than directly behind you.

I have the suspicion that you would refuse to give way solely because of some misplaced pride or sense of entitlement to your "place" in traffic. This is wrong.

If I take my foot off the gas and slow down it's as much to annoy him as it is to make sure that I'm as far behind the person in front of me as possible if I have to slam on my brakes and hopefully he won't rearend me, destroy my vehicle, and possibly make me hit the person infront of me, whose damages I would be responsable for by the laws around here. When I speed up I don't gun my car and I don't tailgate the person in front of me I just want the jerk to know that I was going slow for a reason. And if I tap my brakes and it freaks him out GOOD. At least I'm not breaking for real and he's not plowing into the back end of my car which aside from a bit of a jump in heart rate would probably land us both in the hospital. If that jerk wants to risk getting into an accident because he's in a damn hurry he sure as hell better not be risking my neck too.

I have no problems with a gentle brake check (when you have nowhere else to go to escape the situation). I myself have used this when the slow lane has no gaps for me to escape to, and usually, the tailgater "gets it". But when a gap opens up, I always signal and move over. I worry that you will not be so careful.

BTW, I was not addressing the brake-check issue in my post. I was saying that speeding to prevent the guy from undertaking you (which you claimed you would do) is wrong and dangerous. This essentially amounts to playing chicken with him in traffic. In any case, either of two things is true. a) If there's enough of a gap between you and the car in front of you to permit you to speed to prevent him from merging, either you were going too slowly in the fast lane to begin with, or b) by speeding out of spite, you've now closed the gap to the "innocent" car in front of you to a dangerous level, congratulations. Ironically, you're now tailgating that car in front of you.

 

[Danger]

I can't figure out how much is because some of you people are crazy, and how much is because your laws might be. Here, the posted limit is maximum allowable speed under any circumstances. The slow lane is for people who chose not to use that maximum. It isn't even legal to exceed the limit while passing, although we all do it. Tailgating and use of highbeams within a certain range of another vehicle is also illegal. If you are driving at or even somewhat below the limit under adverse conditions, you can be charged with dangerous driving, or driving without due care and attention, both of which are criminal rather than traffic offenses. You are really screwed if an accident ensues from it.
I must admit that I have one advantage not available to some, but I've only used it when I was in a serious hurry. If there's a blockage that looks like it's going to last forever, I just hit the ditch and go around it.

edit: Also, there are specific speed limits applicable to places where there isn't one posted.

 

[Moonbear]

You've never met me on the road, as far as I know, so don't jump the gun.
For one I don't drive slowly. Though the jerks going 100mph until they're about to stuff themselves into my trunk might think so. Incase you aren't familiar the speed limit around here is 65mph and most people drive at least 10mph above that. If I'm driving at 80 in the fast lane, where I ought to be at that speed, then it's not my fault if that isn't fast enough for some jerk who feels like getting chummy with my bumper. Secondly most of these people like to do this in traffic. That is to say there's no easy way of getting out of their way because I have cars to all sides of me and even if I did he would just wind up tail gating the person that was a couple car lengths in front of me and I'm now stuck in the slower of the lanes. If I take my foot off the gas and slow down it's as much to annoy him as it is to make sure that I'm as far behind the person in front of me as possible if I have to slam on my brakes and hopefully he won't rearend me, destroy my vehicle, and possibly make me hit the person infront of me, whose damages I would be responsable for by the laws around here. When I speed up I don't gun my car and I don't tailgate the person in front of me I just want the jerk to know that I was going slow for a reason. And if I tap my brakes and it freaks him out GOOD. At least I'm not breaking for real and he's not plowing into the back end of my car which aside from a bit of a jump in heart rate would probably land us both in the hospital. If that jerk wants to risk getting into an accident because he's in a damn hurry he sure as hell better not be risking my neck too.

To begin with, that "fast" lane is really a "passing" lane. That means you shouldn't be driving in it unless you're passing someone. If someone else overtakes you in that lane, you should pull back into the lane next to you and allow them to pass. You've already admitted you're speeding too.

Tapping on the brakes or going even slower when someone is tailgating is just plain stupid. All it does is result in TWO bad drivers on the road instead of just one. Instead of just that moron behind you, you're also contributing to the likelihood of an accident happening. Of course, had you been paying attention to your surroundings while driving, you'd have already seen that car approaching and gotten out of the way BEFORE they were on your rear bumper. Your job isn't to teach other drivers a lesson, it's to be the safest driver YOU can be and try to avoid accidents, even those that might be mainly caused by another driver. That's just common sense to get out of the way of someone driving badly. You can put the tailgater on your list of pet peeves, I do too, but it doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to reduce the risk of the situation if you can foresee a way to do that, such as moving to the right and letting them pass. If you can drive 80 mph on the highway, there's not so much traffic you can't move to another lane (even if...gasp...you have to slow down to the legal speed limit). If there is so much traffic that you can't change lanes, then you too should not be speeding in a lane where you have no place to go (indeed, if the road is that congested, driving the speed limit may be too fast given the conditions). The roads might not be so congested if everyone didn't think they could set their own personal speed limit independent of everyone else on the road. One person wants to drive 80, another 45, another is driving 62, you've got that real nut driving 97, and the person who keeps changing speed and driving with one tire on the line because they're talking on the cell phone and oblivious that everyone is afraid to pass them as they keep weaving toward the second lane.

 

[Curious3141]

To begin with, that "fast" lane is really a "passing" lane. That means you shouldn't be driving in it unless you're passing someone. If someone else overtakes you in that lane, you should pull back into the lane next to you and allow them to pass. You've already admitted you're speeding too.

Tapping on the brakes or going even slower when someone is tailgating is just plain stupid. All it does is result in TWO bad drivers on the road instead of just one. Instead of just that moron behind you, you're also contributing to the likelihood of an accident happening. Of course, had you been paying attention to your surroundings while driving, you'd have already seen that car approaching and gotten out of the way BEFORE they were on your rear bumper. Your job isn't to teach other drivers a lesson, it's to be the safest driver YOU can be and try to avoid accidents, even those that might be mainly caused by another driver. That's just common sense to get out of the way of someone driving badly. You can put the tailgater on your list of pet peeves, I do too, but it doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to reduce the risk of the situation if you can foresee a way to do that, such as moving to the right and letting them pass. If you can drive 80 mph on the highway, there's not so much traffic you can't move to another lane (even if...gasp...you have to slow down to the legal speed limit). If there is so much traffic that you can't change lanes, then you too should not be speeding in a lane where you have no place to go (indeed, if the road is that congested, driving the speed limit may be too fast given the conditions). The roads might not be so congested if everyone didn't think they could set their own personal speed limit independent of everyone else on the road. One person wants to drive 80, another 45, another is driving 62, you've got that real nut driving 97, and the person who keeps changing speed and driving with one tire on the line because they're talking on the cell phone and oblivious that everyone is afraid to pass them as they keep weaving toward the second lane.

Very well said. I agree completely.

 

[Moonbear]

I can't figure out how much is because some of you people are crazy, and how much is because your laws might be. Here, the posted limit is maximum allowable speed under any circumstances. The slow lane is for people who chose not to use that maximum. It isn't even legal to exceed the limit while passing, although we all do it. Tailgating and use of highbeams within a certain range of another vehicle is also illegal. If you are driving at or even somewhat below the limit under adverse conditions, you can be charged with dangerous driving, or driving without due care and attention, both of which are criminal rather than traffic offenses. You are really screwed if an accident ensues from it.

All those laws exist in the US as well, people just don't follow them, or decide to interpre them "creatively." I admit that I speed, but only on wide-open roads (I didn't grow up in a place where there were ever wide open roads, so it was quite a novelty when I moved away from the coast; though it doubly frustrates me to be stuck behind slow people when there's no congestion to cause them to be slow...I can tolerate sitting in bumper to bumper traffic more easily, but I'm getting better at it, realizing it just seems to be too common to keep getting agitated about around here). As soon as it's congested or a populated area, I slow down to the proper speed limit, or slower if the conditions require. Oh, that's another pet peeve...there are a number of fairly busy roads that pass by schools and are marked with lower speed limits and additional markings for even slower speed limits right in front of the schools, and people still speed right past. I was happy to see a string of cars all pulled over in front of one of them recently (the cops decided to show up en masse and enforce the limit), but there's another school that has the same problem, and nobody enforces it, so even with the flashing lights warning that it's school dismissal time, people fly past at 40 mph!

I must admit that I have one advantage not available to some, but I've only used it when I was in a serious hurry. If there's a blockage that looks like it's going to last forever, I just hit the ditch and go around it.

Rut roh, Danger, you just made it onto my pet peeves list! When I'm stuck in traffic, and people start passing in the shoulder, that drives me nuts, not to mention that sort of standstill traffic around here usually means there's a serious accident that has closed one or more lanes ahead, and often the emergency vehicles need to use the shoulder to get around the traffic and get to the scene of the accident to treat victims and clear vehicles, so besides being rude, and driving illegally on the shoulder, they are also impeding emergency vehicles from clearing the scene sooner. (I don't mind so much if the exit is within site 300 ft away and someone uses the shoulder for a short distance just to get to the exit lane, but often, you just run into them again merging back in further ahead). Technically, they could be ticketed for this, but usually the emergency vehicles are more worried about getting to the scene than handing out tickets. Though, when I lived in NJ, they did enforce that. If you were in traffic on the Parkway and tried passing on the shoulder, you were bound to run headlong into a motorcycle cop sitting near the shoulder waiting for you. That's the antidote to road rage, to see one of those hotshots pulled over and then I stop being irritated and get to laugh and laugh! I also used to laugh when those nitwits in their SUVs would go flying past me on snow-covered roads and then I'd pass them stuck in a ditch a few miles ahead.

 

[Danger]

Rut roh, Danger, you just made it onto my pet peeves list! When I'm stuck in traffic, and people start passing in the shoulder, that drives me nuts

You misunderstand, my dear. Driving on the shoulder here, whether to pass or not, is illegal unless your vehicle is incapable of reasonable speed and I would never do it. I mean that I literally hit the ditch, or an adjacent field. My car is full-time 4x4 with off-road tires and a 455 motor. I can go through or over just about anything, including climbing a 60º slope if necessary. There is no law against off-road passing, unless someone wants to file trespassing charges.

 

[BicycleTree]

The astute reader knows that you can't make a decent argument to support your point, so you're resorting to insults.

Now let's get this straight: you are insulting me in the same sentence you claim I am insulting you. Well done. By the way, could you quote me an instance where I actually insult you? All I do is refer to an "astute reader." If you consider yourself not part of that category, that's your business. You, on the other hand, unambiguously insult me here. I believe I have been insulted a good deal more than I have insulted anyone in this thread.

Furthermore, you don't consider formal logic to be a decent argument? Run that by me again? Do you reject modus ponens? Hum? Or are you a logical intuitionist? Because I can't think of any other reason that might cause you not to understand the argument presented.

[/quote]By the way, no, it is not a condition placed on the rider, it is a condition placed on the bus stop. It would be hard for the rider to catch a bus if there aren't any feasible locations for a bus stop.[/QUOTE]
This point is more important than you might think. It is an example of unambiguous error on your part and a refusal to admit, and it reflects on your general fitness for discussion. If you are unable to admit that statements B and C do not limit, but in fact rather increase, the number of people falling into the category of "people who could ride the bus without much trouble," and that you were in error in originally claiming they limit it, then you are not ethically prepared for discussion. I do not consider the above quote as sufficient evidence that you have admitted your error in this regard, particularly since you precede it by insulting the same argument that would produce your admission.

I can explain it a third way, and will do so, if it might help (as if the formal logic treatment were not enough). First I will quote, just to put this entire situation in one place:

1.) [people who could ride the bus without much trouble are people] who could drive to a bus stop, if such a stop were feasible for the bus company to create given that people who could use it were willing, in their town or in another town closer in that the bus stops at, and who both go to work and return from work during rush hours (more people than this could do it "without much trouble" but let's cut things clean)

Well, with the long series of conditions required for (1), I'd say slim to none.

And later on you claim that "if such a stop were feasible for the bus company to create given that people who could use it were willing, in their town or in another town closer in that the bus stops at" are some of the
"series of conditions" required for 1.

Now look, here is the quote without those statements. Call the quote with the statements quote X, and the following quote (without the conditions) Y.
1.) [people who could ride the bus without much trouble are people] who could drive to a bus stop, and who both go to work and return from work during rush hours

Now, consider a hypothetical commuter, Fred. Fred cannot drive to a bus stop for work because none exists anywhere near him. However, one might be set up in his town, and many people would use that stop, including Fred, if the stop were set up, so setting up the stop would be economically reasonable. Now, by X, Fred would fall into the class of people who could ride the bus without much trouble. By Y, Fred would not fall into that class, because at present he could not drive to a bus stop for work. And there are no entities which fit Y and do not fit X. Therefore Y is more, not less, general than X; and the additional statements in Y that are not in X do not detract from (as you originally claimed), but rather increase, the number of people falling into the class in question.


I know you're not dumb, and I'm pretty sure you already understand the passage by now. It's whether or not you are able to admit something like this that concerns me. I am also not greatly concerned over this point by itself; it is only your code of discussion ethics which concerns me.

 

[brewnog]

Hold on one second...

In the US, they have different road traffic laws in different states?!

That's absolutely ridiculous!

 

[Moonbear]

Furthermore, you don't consider formal logic to be a decent argument?

All you were doing is breaking down your own statement. That's not an argument, that's reiterating in a way that is simply for the purpose of showing off because you failed to clearly make your point the first time.

This point is more important than you might think. It is an example of unambiguous error on your part and a refusal to admit, and it reflects on your general fitness for discussion. If you are unable to admit that statements B and C do not limit, but in fact rather increase, the number of people falling into the category of "people who could ride the bus without much trouble," and that you were in error in originally claiming they limit it, then you are not ethically prepared for discussion.

It was your claim, not mine. You set up a set of assumptions and then changed your assumptions. Nobody can discuss anything with you if you keep changing the conditions of the discussion. In one post, you're talking about suburb to city driving, then suddenly you're following with suburb-to-suburb driving after saying you don't want to discuss suburb-to-suburb driving.

I do not consider the above quote as sufficient evidence that you have admitted your error in this regard, particularly since you precede it by insulting the same argument that would produce your admission.

Now look, here is the quote without those statements. Call the quote with the statements quote X, and the following quote (without the conditions) Y.
1.) [people who could ride the bus without much trouble are people] who could drive to a bus stop, and who both go to work and return from work during rush hours

But you didn't say it without those statements. You qualified it. You wanted a number based on your hypothetical. When based on your hypothetical we told you the number would be very low, you continued to argue the number is higher, even though both Evo and I have presented ACTUAL numbers when you're still just pulling them out of thin air. We've refuted your estimate of 60%. You've done nothing but argue grammar in attempting to refute our estimates of <5%.

Now, consider a hypothetical commuter, Fred. Fred cannot drive to a bus stop for work because none exists anywhere near him. However, one might be set up in his town, and many people would use that stop, including Fred, if the stop were set up, so setting up the stop would be economically reasonable. Now, by X, Fred would fall into the class of people who could ride the bus without much trouble. By Y, Fred would not fall into that class, because at present he could not drive to a bus stop for work. And there are no entities which fit Y and do not fit X. Therefore Y is more, not less, general than X; and the additional statements in Y that are not in X do not detract from (as you originally claimed), but rather increase, the number of people falling into the class in question.

That's not the way you originally constructed your statement of assumptions. And it's still all entirely hypothetical. Back up your argument with some evidence that people actually exist who fit that category.

Furthermore, I don't particularly care if you could, in some hypothetical world, put a bus stop on every corner that would get people to every other corner within a 30 mile radius. It's still not feasible in the real world and is not a practical solution. You're arguing hypotheticals and the rest of us are presenting you with real world examples that say your hypotheticals are unrealistic.

I am also not greatly concerned over this point by itself; it is only your code of discussion ethics which concerns me.

I will assure you it's not my ethics that are an issue, and frankly, I don't care if it concerns you or not.

 

[Moonbear]

Hold on one second...

In the US, they have different road traffic laws in different states?!

That's absolutely ridiculous!

They don't vary a lot, but yes, they do differ, and our Constitution allows them to differ as much as they want. The Federal government tries to offer some incentive to enforce certain laws by making Federal highway funding conditional on having certain laws, but some states have been known to simply refuse the Federal highway funding and stick to their own laws (I can't recall which one it was that was brought to my attention some time ago).

 

[Huckleberry]

Yes, each state has somewhat different traffic laws. A bit confusing if one does much interstate driving.

This is part of the reason why I rarely go over the speed limit. I have been pulled over for going 5mph over the speed limit. I was the only person on the road for miles and I guess the police officer had nothing better to do.

If I'm not in a hurry I go less than 5 mph over the speed limit. I cruise by in the slow lane and take my time. Of course if all the traffic is going faster I'm not going to slow everyone down. I'll speed up to whatever the slow lane is doing.

This way I don't have to be on the lookout for police officers sitting in ambush. I can concentrate on my driving and enjoy my ride. But several years ago I did cross the state of Virginia from west to east in under 4 hours.

 

[FredGarvin]

Yeah. Speed limit is probably the most widely ranging thing out there. For me, the tough part is crossing over the Michigan-Ohio border. Michigan is 70 (suggested speed limit) and Ohio goes right down to 55 or 60. Plus, the Ohio State Troopers know this and just wait to pounce.

Moonbear mentioned NYC. That was a big change for me not being able to make rights on red. Got me caught a couple of times but no tickets. I applaud the "don't block the box" fines too. The funniest part for me was listening to the traffic and the parking sides of the street allowed for the day.

 

[BicycleTree]

Well, Moonbear, that was a fairly incoherent string of off-topic and unrelated statements, in which the one thing you were morally obligated to say, you did not say. This concludes my discussion with you.

 

[Evo]

Well, Moonbear, that was a fairly incoherent string of off-topic and unrelated statements, in which the one thing you were morally obligated to say, you did not say. This concludes my discussion with you.

I think that was her intention.

 

[KingNothing]

Wow, so much fighting on a board full of intellectuals. I would not have thunk it!

Anyway, the one thing that angers me the most is people who do not signal. As far as our (MN) law is concerned, if you do not signal, you do not have the right to turn. Furthermore, if you have your signal on, you are only legally able to turn that way.

I wish I was a police officer sometimes. I would give everyone tickets for this. Knowing who is going where is essential to the safest driving experience. Even when safety is not at stake, it is still hindering to other people's driving.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

...but some states have been known to simply refuse the Federal highway funding and stick to their own laws (I can't recall which one it was that was brought to my attention some time ago).

You might be thinking of Montana who during the energy crisis of the 70's when the national 55 mph speed limit was impose didn't want to implement it. To this the federal government threatened to yank the highway funds so Montana instated the 55 mph limit but only made speeding a five dollar fine, and here is the kicker it was a "wasting of natural resources ticket" didn't count as a moving violation or show up on your record. Got to love creative law writing.

 

[Gale]

i just decided today that i really hate tourists. i was driving around the last few days... and tourists are everywhere for some reason. i don't even get it. maybe cause its graduation season? family's visiting maybe? or its summer so people come back north? but I'm driving around behind all these stupid people who're driving so slow on every road, and pointing and slowing down everytime there's something somewhat scenic. i hate that. I'm like "hey, want to see something? watch this friendly native flip you the bird and honk her horn as she passes you because you're doing 20 in a 40!" but then i feel bad, cause us new hampshirites are s'posed to be friendly, small town folk...

 

[zoobyshoe]

...

My Latin's rusty. Is that "Silver Wolf"?

 

[dextercioby]

Zoobie,you got to be kidding right...?

Daniel.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zoobie,you got to be kidding right...?

Daniel.

Not kidding at all. I haven't opened a Latin text in 40 years.

Edit: Just recalled that "wolf" would be "lupus". "Vulpus" = what, "fox"?

 

[dextercioby]

HINT:"Homo homini LUPUS" (Plautus,Roman drama writer).


Daniel.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Not kidding at all. I haven't opened a Latin text in 40 years.

Edit: Just recalled that "wolf" would be "lupus". "Vulpus" = what, "fox"?

Ding ding ding ding ding...

We have a winner, yes my name is the latan form of "Silver fox"

 

[zoobyshoe]

but then i feel bad, cause us new hampshirites are s'posed to be friendly, small town folk...

Hehehehe. Not in my sordid little home town. We used to give those "summah people" the old, New England Stephen King treatment.

 

[Moonbear]

You might be thinking of Montana who during the energy crisis of the 70's when the national 55 mph speed limit was impose didn't want to implement it. To this the federal government threatened to yank the highway funds so Montana instated the 55 mph limit but only made speeding a five dollar fine, and here is the kicker it was a "wasting of natural resources ticket" didn't count as a moving violation or show up on your record. Got to love creative law writing.

Oh, yes yes yes yes! That was it! Thanks! Very clever of them.