Why? Driving observation

[rhagfo]

Well after the commute home, dinner, and while walking the dogs my mind wandered back to the daily commuting grind.

This may or may not apply to your local, I live and drive in the greater Portland area. Yea, this is a bit of a rant, but just my mind wandering while walking the Dogs.

WHY?
Do drivers when turning left from a multi left turn lane, use the inside lane then cut across three lanes to take a right at the next intersection?

WHY?
Is it that when the roads are dry and the weather nice drivers putt along at 5 to 10 mph below the speed limit on local roads (35 to 45mph limits)?

WHY?
When the weather is nasty, rain and wind, wet roads, they drive like Mario Andretti, speeding and cutting in out of traffic.

WHY?
Is it that a driver will run a stop sign to get in front of you and then proceed to do 5 to 10 mph below the speed limit (nice weather)?

WHY?
Will they drive 50 to 55 in a 35 mph arterial in a residential zone, but only do 45 mph on a 55 mph divided state highway?

WHY?
Will they race up to cut in front of you with a another car about two car lengths ahead, doing the limit or a bit better, to take the exit 100 yards up the road. When there was at least a 10 car length space behind you?

Just wondering WHY?

Russ

:B

[myredracer]

atreis wrote:

rhagfo wrote:
WHY?
Do drivers when turning left from a multi left turn lane, use the inside lane then cut across three lanes to take a right at the next intersection?

Probably because they weren't familiar with the intersection or don't go that way often and didn't realize there were two left turn lanes (or forgot) until it was too late.

Another possibility is that they are familiar with the intersection but not their destination and didn't realize the place they wanted to go to was the immediate right turn.

Here in BC something like 90 percent of drivers do that. However, "changing lanes in an intersection" is against our Motor Vehicle Act and if you are in an accident, will get blamed in part or in full. An intersection is defined as the distance 100' (IIRC) away from the intersection. Only commercial trucks are allowed to changed lanes in an intersection. Cops simply never enforce these sorts of infractions here. I don't know if this particular law exists around the US but I always turn into the leftmost lane unless it is impossible (like when towing sometimes).

[atreis]

rhagfo wrote:
Well after the commute home, dinner, and while walking the dogs my mind wandered back to the daily commuting grind.

This may or may not apply to your local, I live and drive in the greater Portland area. Yea, this is a bit of a rant, but just my mind wandering while walking the Dogs.

None of these are unique to Portland.

rhagfo wrote:
WHY?
Do drivers when turning left from a multi left turn lane, use the inside lane then cut across three lanes to take a right at the next intersection?

Probably because they weren't familiar with the intersection or don't go that way often and didn't realize there were two left turn lanes (or forgot) until it was too late.

Another possibility is that they are familiar with the intersection but not their destination and didn't realize the place they wanted to go to was the immediate right turn.

rhagfo wrote:
WHY?
Is it that when the roads are dry and the weather nice drivers putt along at 5 to 10 mph below the speed limit on local roads (35 to 45mph limits)?

They're not in a hurry, and there's nothing wrong with driving 5 or 10 mph below the speed limit (especially 5 mph, which is within the allowable accuracy of speedometers - their car might be telling them they're driving the speed limit).

It is annoying though.

rhagfo wrote:
WHY?
When the weather is nasty, rain and wind, wet roads, they drive like Mario Andretti, speeding and cutting in out of traffic.

The question presupposes it's the same people as above that are doing this. There's a really good chance it's not. Everyone is an individual and every action is an individual action.

rhagfo wrote:
WHY?
Is it that a driver will run a stop sign to get in front of you and then proceed to do 5 to 10 mph below the speed limit (nice weather)?

I'm not quite sure I get the scenario of how they ran the stop sign and that allowed them to get in front of you, where presumably they would have been behind if they hadn't, but possible value reasons for appearing to run the sign would be if they were under the impression that they got to the intersection first or were to your left, and therefore had right of way, which is independent of speed. They might also have been in a hurry and the perceived value of getting ahead of you won out in their head. (This comes up again below.)

It is annoying when people will zip around you (somehow) and then slow down though.

rhagfo wrote:
WHY?
Will they drive 50 to 55 in a 35 mph arterial in a residential zone, but only do 45 mph on a 55 mph divided state highway?

This question again presupposes it's the same person doing both, where it might not be. See above. Sometimes it is the same person though, and in those cases I usually figure they don't know what the speed limit is or where it changed.

rhagfo wrote:
WHY?
Will they race up to cut in front of you with a another car about two car lengths ahead, doing the limit or a bit better, to take the exit 100 yards up the road. When there was at least a 10 car length space behind you?

A few possibilities:
- They just noticed the exit (perhaps not being familiar with the area) and weren't in the right lane, so had to get over. They were already lined up with you to some degree. To get over they had to either get in front of you or behind you by speeding up or slowing down. If they were going faster it could have seemed easier to speed up than to slow down, or they could have been in a hurry and the perceived value of getting ahead of you won out in their head.
- Even if they are familiar with the drive or do it every day, the same thing really applies. They could have been lost in thought or really into what was on the radio and not realized they were coming up on their exit. Then the same as above applies.
- If they had kids, they could have been distracted by something the kids were doing and not realized they were coming up on their exit, then the same as above applies.
- They could have been shaken up by the guy two miles back that cut them off and not realized they were coming up on their exit ...
- They might have looked over and noticed you, found you really super attractive, been distracted by this and not realized they were coming up on their exit, then wanted to be noticed by you. 😄

rhagfo wrote:
Just wondering WHY?

Russ

:B

Just some semi-reasonable possibilities, mostly based on things I myself have done knowing that whoever was around me was cursing me for doing it. 🙂 (Fortunately, not too often I hope.) Apologizing to them in my head while understanding why they would curse me isn't something they can see.

[Tvov]

IHnutz wrote:
Ban cars, trucks and all other motor vehicles! Bring back horses and buggys! :@

I've read in the past that one argument for people driving cars waaaay back in the day (early 1900s) was to help save the environment - all that horse poopy made a mess of roads.

Save the environment! Drive cars!

:C

[IHnutz]

Ban cars, trucks and all other motor vehicles! Bring back horses and buggys! :@

[grant135b]

"Anyone driving slower than me is an idiot, and anyone driving faster than me is a maniac." - George Carlin

[fj12ryder]

stevenicol wrote:
When it comes to driving, we are all idiots. The best solution is to have more traffic patrol officers; this means higher taxes; now, who wants to pay higher taxes?

The main problem with your solution is that the powers-that-be want the traffic patrol officers writing revenue citations, not safety considerations. That's why most of the tickets written are for speeding: easy to prove, easy to prosecute, easy to collect. Doesn't do squat for safety, but brings in the dollars.

Part of the solution is more intensive driver training, not just for teenagers, and tougher license testing. Right now, if you can walk into the DMV, and don't run into any walls, you're pretty much good to go. It's a complete farce.

The other thing is to require cell phones to be shut off while the vehicle is in motion. Want to talk? Stop the car and talk. Want to drive? Shut up and drive.

[stevenicol]

When it comes to driving, we are all idiots. The best solution is to have more traffic patrol officers; this means higher taxes; now, who wants to pay higher taxes?

[pnichols]

The OP's driving rant applies everywhere we've been in the U.S. ... by all means not specific to California.

P.S. At least BruceMc spelled that meaningless word with a "C" instead of as "KALIFORNICATED".

[dannytas]

BruceMc wrote:
Because we have been CALIFORNICATED!

(Edit - sorry... but just couldn't resist using our local vernacular!)

Hey...I resemble that remark....??

[ctilsie242]

BruceMc wrote:
Not long after getting my new Volkswagen Golf Sportwagen, I had an idiot try to pass me in a merge lane on a 2 lane highway. The area is 45mph, and just after the merge, the speed goes to 55.
We were on the main highway and he had been tailgating me anyway. Just as we hit the merge lane, he yanked his into the merge and tried to go around me. I saw what he was doing & engaged the turbo on that little 1.8L to close the gap in front of me, leaving him no where to go. he had to back off & pull back in behind me.
Now it may have been that he thought the highway changed to 2 lanes in our direction, realized his mistake but tried to barrel ahead anyway. If that was the case, he should have simply pulled back in behind me.

Saw the almost same thing in front of me a few weeks ago, except it was a VW Golf sedan, and the VW was accelerating and decelerating to deliberately keep pace with the other vehicle, including slamming on the brakes. The result was a sideswipe when the driver in the lane that was merging who had a bigger vehicle just decided enough was enough.

The ironic thing is that after I stepped up and mentioned what I saw, the police officer didn't write a ticket to the driver (who normally would have gotten an expensive citation for failure to yield.) After I handed out my business cards and the officer told me that I could go, I saw him apparently writing up the VW driver in the rear view.

Sometimes someone can be just ticked enough that they will be more than happy to burn their accident forgiveness perk just to teach someone else a lesson.

[myredracer]

Tvov wrote:

myredracer wrote:
.... Also, instead of fines (if they ever actually do fine anyone) going to the provincial general treasury acct., fines should go to cities and municipalities so they can put the money directly into enforcement. ....

I am in a different area than you, but... you have to be REALLY careful about wanting fines to go directly to the local town / city. That can (and does in some parts) cause the issue of "revenue generation" by ticketing... especially of out of town people / tourists.

I asked a local cop here in Connecticut about traffic fines going to the town budget and/or police dept budget and he said no they don't. Most traffic ticket money goes into the CT state budget - primarily to avoid local towns trying to increase their budgets by simply having cops write more tickets.

I don't disagree at all, but when the fines go straight into state or provincial coffers, it's not helping road safety. There's got to be a better way...

About a dozen years ago a pre-election carrot from the then ruling provincial party was that they would take a portion of the fines. and put it towards improving road safety around the province. Well, a few years went by and I wrote to our local gov't rep. to find out what happened. Turns out the funds were distributed around the province all right, but went to the various individual police forces to give police officers a raise. So how much did that improve road safety?

[Tvov]

myredracer wrote:
.... Also, instead of fines (if they ever actually do fine anyone) going to the provincial general treasury acct., fines should go to cities and municipalities so they can put the money directly into enforcement. ....

I am in a different area than you, but... you have to be REALLY careful about wanting fines to go directly to the local town / city. That can (and does in some parts) cause the issue of "revenue generation" by ticketing... especially of out of town people / tourists.

I asked a local cop here in Connecticut about traffic fines going to the town budget and/or police dept budget and he said no they don't. Most traffic ticket money goes into the CT state budget - primarily to avoid local towns trying to increase their budgets by simply having cops write more tickets.

[free_radical]

rhagfo wrote:
Well after the commute home, dinner, and while walking the dogs my mind wandered back to the daily commuting grind.

This may or may not apply to your local, I live and drive in the greater Portland area. Yea, this is a bit of a rant, but just my mind wandering while walking the Dogs.

WHY?
Do drivers when turning left from a multi left turn lane, use the inside lane then cut across three lanes to take a right at the next intersection?

WHY?
Is it that when the roads are dry and the weather nice drivers putt along at 5 to 10 mph below the speed limit on local roads (35 to 45mph limits)?

WHY?
When the weather is nasty, rain and wind, wet roads, they drive like Mario Andretti, speeding and cutting in out of traffic.

WHY?
Is it that a driver will run a stop sign to get in front of you and then proceed to do 5 to 10 mph below the speed limit (nice weather)?

WHY?
Will they drive 50 to 55 in a 35 mph arterial in a residential zone, but only do 45 mph on a 55 mph divided state highway?

WHY?
Will they race up to cut in front of you with a another car about two car lengths ahead, doing the limit or a bit better, to take the exit 100 yards up the road. When there was at least a 10 car length space behind you?

Just wondering WHY?

Russ

:B

Many drivers are stupid,,,its that simple,,best thing one can do is to stay kewl out there..

[toedtoes]

I suspect that many see the issue with LEOs "ignoring the laws" because they are not privy to the reason for that.

I don't think anyone has a problem with a first responder doing "illegal" moves to get to a crime/accident scene as quick as possible.

When folks get upset is when there is no obvious sign of the first responder actually trying to respond to a scene, but rather appearing to just disregard the law because they are "first responders".

I remember years ago at a traffic school class. One of the attendees was a correctional officer. He refused to acknowledge that he broke the law by speeding - instead blaming his ticket on "they were stopping everyone and I only got the ticket because they couldn't waive mine while ticketing everyone else."

It's those few who think they're exempt from the rules who make everyone look bad. But the truth is most are not bad - they are just doing the best they can like everyone else.