Two Dashes, Two Seconds: The Law and Safety on the Road

[Danger]

So danger doesn't miss my post as I acutally care about the answer for that:

I wasn't ignoring your post, Chris; I just hadn't been back to the thread for long enough to answer it. My pal cleaned his windshield, when necessary, the same way the rest of us did—with a squeegie. In our geographical area, about the only thing that ever got onto our windshields was insect remains. The then-available washers and wipers were useless against that, so we very seldom used them. (This was only slightly after washers were first introduced on vehicles.) I guess that it wasn't obvious, but the "" at the end was intended to indicate that the part about the ink was a joke. I did suggest it to him at the time, but he didn't do it.

While I agree with virtually everything else you say, the above is has no excuse.

You cannot rationalize a risky action because you put yourself in a situation where you are a danger to yourself or others. Diabetics who drive have a responsbility to keep something on-hand such as hard-candies to prevent a sugar crash. (Yes, I said 'responsibility'. Diabetics can be charged under Impairment Laws if their ailment is shown to factor into an accident).

Given the inadequate and incomplete way that I described the incident, your analysis would be correct. It was a bit more complicated than that. It wasn't a risky action that put anyone in jeopardy, any more than anyone simply being on a highway is. It don't expect you to take my word for that, so I'll be glad to explain in person if you care to PM me about it, but I'm not inclined to do so here.

I also simply do not have the energy right now to respond to Sony's "counter-arguments". I concede that I apparently underestimated his mechanical knowledge of his own vehicle, but I can assuredly shoot down the rest of his comments. Maybe later.

 

[Saladsamurai]

SonyAD:

1. The speed limit is the speed limit no matter what lane you are in. The police will agree.

2.You are wrong. You do not own the road either.

The left lane was not created so that you can go as fast as your car allows

 

[DaveC426913]

Given the inadequate and incomplete way that I described the incident, your analysis would be correct. It was a bit more complicated than that.

Sho 'nuff

 

[xxChrisxx]

I wasn't ignoring your post, Chris; I just hadn't been back to the thread for long enough to answer it. My pal cleaned his windshield, when necessary, the same way the rest of us did—with a squeegie. In our geographical area, about the only thing that ever got onto our windshields was insect remains. The then-available washers and wipers were useless against that, so we very seldom used them. (This was only slightly after washers were first introduced on vehicles.) I guess that it wasn't obvious, but the "" at the end was intended to indicate that the part about the ink was a joke. I did suggest it to him at the time, but he didn't do it.

I know you weren't ignoring it bud, I just didn't want the post to get lost in the muck. I just get loads of crud all over my windscreen, I'd be lost without my washers. TBH it is quite funny when they are set wrong and it squirts someone at the side of the road.

 

[cristo]

I've driven quite a bit in the US recently, and I have to say that I have seen some of the worst driving ever over there. Personally, I hate the fact that you can legally undertake, but that's the law, and I just got used to it. However, I have to say it's pretty scary when you're sat in, say, the middle lane of a highway driving a bit above the speed limit. The slow lane is empty (for a few seconds because you've just passed a line of trucks, but see another line a few hundred metres in the distance) and there's someone overtaking you in the fast lane. In your rearview you see someone speeding up behind you, so you indicate to briefly move into the slow lane, but whilst you're doing that he undertakes you, with no signal, and proceeds to cut you up to get out of the way of the trucks that he's fast approaching. It's just irresponsible driving and, while it might happen everywhere, it seemed a lot more prevalent in the US.

Another one of my pet hates is the use (or lack of use) or indicators. There's absolutely no point moving lanes, and flicking your indicator half way through the manoeuvre. They are supposed to tell other drivers what you are about to do, not what you're doing.

And finally, to end my rant, when you can see traffic on the slip road, and you're in the righthand lane, with the other lanes pretty empty, but your lane is full. It doesn't take much to think ahead, and move over to allow the oncoming traffic to get into the lane. It seems like the US attitude is to accelerate up to the slip road, then slam on your brakes as this car on the slip road has nowhere to get on so you let him in, with an angry look on your face.

 

[Borg]

I've driven quite a bit in the US recently, and I have to say that I have seen some of the worst driving ever over there. Personally, I hate the fact that you can legally undertake, but that's the law, and I just got used to it. However, I have to say it's pretty scary when you're sat in, say, the middle lane of a highway driving a bit above the speed limit. The slow lane is empty (for a few seconds because you've just passed a line of trucks, but see another line a few hundred metres in the distance) and there's someone overtaking you in the fast lane. In your rearview you see someone speeding up behind you, so you indicate to briefly move into the slow lane, but whilst you're doing that he undertakes you, with no signal, and proceeds to cut you up to get out of the way of the trucks that he's fast approaching. It's just irresponsible driving and, while it might happen everywhere, it seemed a lot more prevalent in the US.

Another one of my pet hates is the use (or lack of use) or indicators. There's absolutely no point moving lanes, and flicking your indicator half way through the manoeuvre. They are supposed to tell other drivers what you are about to do, not what you're doing.

And finally, to end my rant, when you can see traffic on the slip road, and you're in the righthand lane, with the other lanes pretty empty, but your lane is full. It doesn't take much to think ahead, and move over to allow the oncoming traffic to get into the lane. It seems like the US attitude is to accelerate up to the slip road, then slam on your brakes as this car on the slip road has nowhere to get on so you let him in, with an angry look on your face.

The real fun is when they do all these things while texting.

I am guilty of sometimes not using my signal. Mostly this is because of the last paragraph in your post. I have had a lot of times where I've used my signal and the person in the other lane speeds up to cut me off. I've learned not to signal my intentions too much in order to keep the paint on my car intact. Last week, was a good example - I put on my signal 1/2 mile from an exit ramp and a woman in an SUV immeadiately accelerated to cut me off. She had just done the same maneuver a minute or so before but didn't have the courtesy to let anyone in front of her.

 

[lisab]

I've driven quite a bit in the US recently, and I have to say that I have seen some of the worst driving ever over there. Personally, I hate the fact that you can legally undertake, but that's the law, and I just got used to it. However, I have to say it's pretty scary when you're sat in, say, the middle lane of a highway driving a bit above the speed limit. The slow lane is empty (for a few seconds because you've just passed a line of trucks, but see another line a few hundred metres in the distance) and there's someone overtaking you in the fast lane. In your rearview you see someone speeding up behind you, so you indicate to briefly move into the slow lane, but whilst you're doing that he undertakes you, with no signal, and proceeds to cut you up to get out of the way of the trucks that he's fast approaching. It's just irresponsible driving and, while it might happen everywhere, it seemed a lot more prevalent in the US.

Another one of my pet hates is the use (or lack of use) or indicators. There's absolutely no point moving lanes, and flicking your indicator half way through the manoeuvre. They are supposed to tell other drivers what you are about to do, not what you're doing.

And finally, to end my rant, when you can see traffic on the slip road, and you're in the righthand lane, with the other lanes pretty empty, but your lane is full. It doesn't take much to think ahead, and move over to allow the oncoming traffic to get into the lane. It seems like the US attitude is to accelerate up to the slip road, then slam on your brakes as this car on the slip road has nowhere to get on so you let him in, with an angry look on your face.

I don't think undertaking in inherently unsafe; when drivers do unexpected maneuvers, that's unsafe. So with respect to undertaking, if you expect it and you know to check your right mirror as often as your other mirrors, it's just a matter of what you expect from other drivers.

I totally agree with blinker use, no excuse not to use them. There's a big difference in how often they're used, regionally. Here in the Seattle area drivers use them most of the time. Other regions in the US, not so much. I wonder if blinkers come optional on vehicles in those places .

 

[cristo]

I don't think undertaking in inherently unsafe; when drivers do unexpected maneuvers, that's unsafe. So with respect to undertaking, if you expect it and you know to check your right mirror as often as your other mirrors, it's just a matter of what you expect from other drivers.

Perhaps it's a personal thing, but if I see someone speeding up behind me I would instinctively look to move into the slower lane. It doesn't help much if they then shoot down the slow lane! I guess it just takes some getting used to, especially when trucks take up, say, lane 1 and 3 of the highway, and you have to go down the middle to get past, and thus have the danger of being in two cars' blindspots whilst overtaking.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Why do you feel you are entitled to ownership of your own lane?

No one owns it. So in the event that one person gets to it first, that person has priority.

Uh-oh! Judge Dredd is in Da House!

Judge Dredd, I think you've gots your felonies and misdemeanours all jumbled.

A criminal commits a crime. Speeding is a crime. A crime is doing something that's prohibited by law.
You're not helping your case with your silly, sarcastic remarks.

Weak sauce. Still gots your felonies and misdemeanours mixed up.

Your credibility is pretty much gone now.

That doesn't change the fact that facilitating an accident is no prob. with you.

If I move over and allow him to get up to 100 MPH and he causes a crash down the road, I "facilitated" that by allowing him to gain speed. Your argument that I "facilitated" the accident, therefore I'm somewhat at fault, makes no sense.

For example, going inordinately slow on a mountain road simply to annoy the people behind you and make it more likely for them to engage in illegal & risky overtaking over turns, with no visibility, is a-ok by you. As long as you are doing the minimum speed limit (if there is one), that is.

So no one can go the minimum speed on a mountain road? What if their car only goes the minimum speed? Oh, that's right, you allowed for that by bringing up intent. If a person is intending to piss off people by going the minimum, then he's at fault. I guess that means if he's NOT intending to piss people off, he's suddenly not at fault?
That allows me to drive in the left lane as long as I don't have the intent of pissing people off.

Oh, get over yourself.

I'll just score that one for me.

Oh, please, fairy god mother. Like you never speed.

Oh, I speed. If I'm in the left lane, I'll go up to 5 MPH over the speed limit as a courtesy to the people behind me. I figure I owe them the speed limit. That's how nice I am.
But I'm not going to expect people to accommodate me because I want to go 5 MPH over and they want to go the speed limit.

I wasn't talking about who is legally liable. In many places, you can deliberately cause an accident and, provided no physical contact between your vehicle and another occurs, you get off scott free. You might even be able to get away with it if there is contact.

That's not true at all. Of course, you can get off if it can't be proven you caused the accident, but that goes with any crime.

For example, you could jerk the wheel sharply to the side as someone is passing you to scare them into swerving into oncoming traffic or off the side of the road. Or you could accelerate to keep someone on the wrong side of the road or brake to close them out.

Jerking the wheel and making someone think you're going to hit them will get you in trouble if it can be proven. You're not allowed to just freely do stuff like that.

As for accelerating to keep someone on the wrong side of the road, you can do that all day if you want. They shouldn't be on the wrong side of the road anyway. I used to do that to people who passed me up on the way to work in the morning. Usually they could accelerate too fast for my car to block them. But one time an old pick-up truck tried to do that and he couldn't get past me. We were side by side and a car was coming toward us in his lane. I chickened out, because frankly, I don't want to be involved in a disaster at 4 in the morning. I would have probably gotten hit by something. But the fact that that guy was willing to die right then boggles my mind. People like that shouldn't be free.

The trouble with right wingers is they think the law is the be-all, end-all, when it suits them or they think it does - of course. When, as you can clearly see, it is not. There's guilt outside of what the law knows.

Right winger? Well it's obvious you're trying to turn this into something it's not, since you asked me before if I vote republican. You don't like republicans, I get it, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. I don't like prunes, but I'm not calling you a prune lover. If you disagree with me on this topic, you must love prunes, right?

Huh?

2 points for me.

Huh?

3 points.

No, they could switch lanes to the left and stay there for some time after they've passed you by. They'd probably already be there before they reached you.

Why couldn't they do that if I was in the left lane? And why would they already be there before they reached me? Again, you're giving them ownership of the left lane by assuming that's where they'd be. That's their home.

No we don't. The etiquette is perfectly consistent.

1. Keep as far right as reasonably possible until you meet traffic slower than you're willing to travel.

2. Overtake them on the left and return to a lane towards the right

Since your whole argument is about what's convenient and inconvenient, I'd like to point out that this, also, is inconvenient. If they want to speed in the right lane, then they should be able to without being inconvenienced. That person should just get out of their way, no matter what lane it is.

3. Stay in the left lane but haul *** and be ready to free it for faster traffic before they have to brake for you.

I still don't know why you think braking at high speeds is dangerous. Slamming on your brakes is dangerous, but using your brakes to slow down while traveling a high speed is not dangerous at all. That's how you're supposed to slow down.

So slow down and allow the trucks to merge or move to the next lane to the left.

Or I could wait until I'm passed all the areas where trucks merge.

If you jump out of your lane in front of speed racer you're going to get rammed. Maybe face criminal charges. Deal with it.

Why would I jump in front of him? This isn't relevant to what you quoted.

Huh?

4

I take it I got it right.

No, you didn't get it right, that's why I said you misconstrued what I said.

Don't planes flying overhead needlessly threaten your existence? I mean, why don't they take a greyhound?

Not a crime to fly.

Speeding is a misdemeanour, last time I checked. Do they jail you in that police state of yours for speeding by more than a certain amount?

Inexplicably, the laws aren't the same everywhere in the world.
You can get arrested in some states for speeding and if you go over a certain speed, you can be arrested.
You think you can just go 250 in a school zone and get off with a ticket?

And you drive with your eyes glued to it.

No I don't. I have a working peripheral vision. Apparently you don't.

The A-pillars, C-pillars that hold up the roof, silly.

How many people know what they're called? Apparently everyone else is silly.

And that doesn't obstruct your view directly behind you.

When did this conversation turn to how I would presume to get out of a ticket?

That part was attached to something else that was a direct response to what you said. You're not fooling me by acting like that ticket part was the only thing I said.

I've never fought a rightful ticket. I have fought a ticket for running a red light, which I had not, that I actually got because of speeding since that particular police car didn't have an approved radar.

I've never been pulled over or had a ticket in my life. It's much nicer that way. You don't have to waste money and time and you can actually be the one who's right in a physicsforum discussion.

And I should care because? I don't drive with me eyes on the speedo. In fact, it's broken. Needle's gone limp. Kind of like your argument.

Just because you think you had a nice quip with the speedometer needle comment, doesn't make it true.

Please. Like you know everything that's on the books.

Well if there's exceptions to the speed limit, why don't you post proof? You can't just get away with saying it's there because you don't know it's not there.
I don't know that there isn't a clause that gives you the right to drink and drive on certain days. I'm pretty sure there isn't.

You heard wrong. There is no legal limit on BrAC or BAC. You're caught you've bought it. You may refuse the breathalysers but you'll be taken to the nearest hospital to deposit a blood sample. With or without your consent.

Well I didn't actually hear that, I was giving an exaggerated example of what you did.

Huh?

5

Driving recklessly faster than the bulk of traffic is a bad state of fact. Like most things you say, your definition of "recklessly faster" is silly.

I didn't define recklessly. This is the first time I've even said "recklessly". I've never heard "bad state of fact" either. Is that even a real phrase?

Know this for a fact, though. Most of the driving population are dumb as lamp posts, at least behind the wheel. And as dumb as they are, they are even more pathetic in controlling their vehicle and sensing what it's doing or is going to do, planning ahead, learning from experience, etc.

Oh, I know that as a fact.

Turning at an intersection. Instead of going further and turning left or right later so cars have room to naturally stack up one next to each other waiting for the pedestrians or traffic to pass, the cattle they are just pull on the steering wheel right away as they enter the intersection. So only 2, maybe 3, cars manage to complete the turn each each cycle.

But I can't picture this example your giving. You'll have to provide a diagram. Sometimes people draw pictures of traffic situations in MS Paint.

No. You're splitting hairs, putting words beneath my digits and otherwise being a nuisance.

Sorry for inconveniencing you. Apparently committing cardinal sin #1.

What a silly point to make. So somebody runs the red light and I ram them in the side. It's my fault, isn't it?

Nobody forced me to proceed through the intersection on the green.

They broke the law, so they're at fault. You know what I meant. I can't sit here and ponder every possible exception.

Again with the silly argument.

Not silly. If it's silly, explain why. Just saying something is silly isn't good enough.

How would you feel if I suddenly braked real hard for no good reason in front of you? Trust me, I know how to brake at the limit so the wheels don't lock. There'd be no skid marks except for yours.

That's illegal. You could not only get in trouble for causing an accident, but also maybe insurance fraud. That's CAUSING me to have to swerve out of the way. That's nothing like you WANTING to go around me because you want to go faster than me. How can you even compare that?

Another flavour of complete nonsense from you. What does weed have to with traffic violations and the highway code?

In some states, there's no keep right law, so it also has nothing to do with traffic violations and highway code. Just like the marijuana.

No, it's showing how weak your sauce is.

World of Warcraft slang; that's real respectable.

Keep at it. You're almost there.

Everyone knows it but you.

Didn't bother clicking the link.

 

[DaveC426913]

Guys:

Driving is a cooperative venture. The road is a limited resource that must be shared amongst all drivers.

For this reason, no one owns any piece of road just because they want it.

There are rules to facilitate this but, ultimately, it comes down to people being respectful of other people. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge this, and adheres to the letter at the expense of the spirit, is a detriment to the smooth operation of the roads.

 

[RonL]

I started driving in 1960, in those years male drivers were the most aggressive and disrespectful, but I have observed over the years a trend change that now has female drivers being as much or more aggressive than males.
Driving responsible is a mental disipline that requires practice and application and a respect for others in what they do or need.
I blame television ads for much of this poor attitude we see displayed. The idea that if tires are not SPINNING or SLIDING your not feeling the experience correctly.
The poor habit of waiting until the last minute to go somewhere and having to rush to be on time, leads to fast driving and irresponsible actions.

In general there is a growing lack of respect for driving rights and I put most of the blame on TV ads and fast action video games. Now to add to distractions comes GPS screens, phone conversations and text messages while driving.

I best stop because there is so much more.

 

[DaveC426913]

I blame television ads for much of this poor attitude we see displayed. The idea that if tires are not SPINNING or SLIDING your not feeling the experience correctly.
The poor habit of waiting until the last minute to go somewhere and having to rush to be on time, leads to fast driving and irresponsible actions.

In general there is a growing lack of respect for driving rights and I put most of the blame on TV ads and fast action video games. Now to add to distractions comes GPS screens, phone conversations and text messages while driving.

Don't blame ads or games. Blame the people committng the offenses.

Imagine if one of those young girls or boys wrapped their car around a telephone pole and then used your argument.

"It wasn't my fault. I blame TV ads and video games."

 

[disregardthat]

"It wasn't my fault. I blame TV ads and video games."

It's plausible that TV and video games have a negative effect on the drivers perception of their own skills, but it is of course their own fault for misjudging themselves. I don't agree with that TV and video games deserves any blame, but it's possible that there is a correlation.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's plausible that TV and video games have a negative effect on the drivers perception of their own skills, but it is of course their own fault for misjudging themselves. I don't agree with that TV and video games deserves any blame, but it's possible that there is a correlation.

Oh there's undoubtedly a correlation. My poiint was that correlation does not imply causation. Free will means you can decide whether or not to act like a pinhead.

 

[DaveC426913]

Only if you're a 'tard.

Sony, leroy may be a pain in the butt when he gets an idea in his head, and no one tends to disagree with him more than I (believe you me, he & I have had this exact same discussion about driving on the fast lane), but even I cannot deny that he stays pretty rational in his arguments and on-point (that does not mean he is always right, but it does mean he plays by the rules).

I've looked, but I have yet to find an ad hominem he has made againts in despite all your name-calling. Heck, I don't even think he's complained about your treatment of him.

You can't just degenerate to calling someone a troll or other forms of ad hominem. This is deplorable behaviour. PF just does not roll this way.

leroy wins if for no other reason than his opponent defaults.

Thread reported.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Locked pending moderation.