|
sleepy.eyes posted:Same here, man. I used to get stressed and mad, but it did gently caress-all to help . I eventually realized this and chilled out, makes driving a lot nicer. Became a safer driver too, because I took a rational look at what I was doing in response to the people around me and saw how anger made me do reckless poo poo. I did the same thing and calmed the gently caress down in traffic, because I realized that being angry wouldn't get me to my destination any faster or any safer, probably the opposite. Now I just silently judge people instead.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
Crosspost from that mechanical thingy thread because I didn't know this thread still existed:
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
nm posted:You know you're probably (And I only say that because I don't know all the facts, but based on what you say) at fault if he hits you, right? Actually, not quite - he was already too far away to make it but tried to gun it anyway to beat the light while I was in the intersection. I had pulled up to make my left while the light was still green, and had plenty of time to make my turn before the light went yellow and he decided to accelerate and be a piece of poo poo. So if he'd hit me mid-turn, he'd get failure to yield AND nailed with speeding and reckless driving, as he rightfully should for being a dumb rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
FYI nm is a traffic attorney or something like that and has a pretty good idea how these things work. Your perception is theoretically correct or possible, but he'd have a lot less trouble proving you turned in front of him than you would proving he "gunned it", and the law (at least in the states I'm aware of, I'm not a traffic attorney but I do pay attention to actual vehicle codes) definitely stipulates that a vehicle entering the intersection on a yellow light would be permitted to proceed through the intersection, and vehicles turning across traffic without a protecting light are definitely required to yield to oncoming traffic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Don't people going straight always have the right of way? If a vehicle is changing lanes, or changing direction, the onus is on the driver to clear that maneuver, not any traffic that might be in his way. And as far as "right of way" goes, it's 1: People continuing straight 2: People turning right 3: People turning left If you're turning left, then you're at the bottom of the totem pole.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Geirskogul posted:Don't people going straight always have the right of way? If a vehicle is changing lanes, or changing direction, the onus is on the driver to clear that maneuver, not any traffic that might be in his way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Geirskogul posted:Don't people going straight always have the right of way? In general you are right, but in rural France, sometimes traffic turning right onto your lane has right of way. It's largely trivia, and harkens to a time of horse and buggy and perpetuates into modern agricultural communities. Drivers are frequently reminded of "priorité a droite" by upside-down yield signs with black Xs in them. I drove in France for a week last fall and I was nervous as hell in the countryside. http://www.vendee-guide.co.uk/priority-a-droite.htm 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Deedle posted:Last night on our drive home from a birthday party in Venray, my girlfriend and I were the unfortunate witnesses to a collision between a bicyclist and an HGV. That sucks. I feel sort of bad for the retarded violent fuckwit in question, too, though. People don't behave rationally when they find out their kid nearly got killed, whether or not it's their own fault. Doesn't excuse what he did, though. Speaking of retards who should get hit by a HGV: they changed a one-way street to a two-way/lane reversal street near me, complete with protected turns and all that cool stuff. Great, right*? Well, not when rear end in a top hat pedestrians decide to cross the street against against the protected turn, loving everything up! Why don't pedestrians have more consideration for other road users? I go out of my way to follow the law and be considerate to drivers when I'm a pedestrian, because it's a nice thing to do and I want to make the world a better place. Why can't other pedestrians offer me the same courtesy when I'm driving? * Not actually great. Stupid and useless, catering to a bunch of commuters instead of people who actually live in the area.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
go3 posted:MY EXIT IS COMING UP IN 3 MILES DONT WANT TO MISS IT I drive an 18 wheeler, and I have been cut off several times by people who just want to pass that big rig and then OH NO EXIT TIME TO SWERVE. I've acquired a sixth sense about it, and lift off the gas before exits in heavy traffic, and it pays off. The problem is that people assume the fast lane will stay fast forever, up to and including where they want to exit. Mais, non. TNO posted:I prefer it too, but more as an alternative to people who pull into my blind spot and hang there for a while before slowly creeping past at [my speed] + 0.001mph CannonFodder fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Geirskogul posted:Don't people going straight always have the right of way? Generally yes, but I will bring up an exception that has signage to enforce it. In Texas* sometimes frontage roads run alongside the Interstate Highways. They come in the 2 lane 1 way version, and the 2 lane 2 way version. And loving 4 lane boulevards but that's Texas for ya. Anyway, for the 2 lane 2 way frontage roads, there are yield signs that signify that traffic that is about to go onto the Interstate has the right of way, because they need to keep their speed to merge. Here's a picture. The blue has the right of way as they merge, the red has to yield.  *and other western states but I drive Texas all the time so that's what I know
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
I wonder how many traffic deaths that genius invention has caused.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Some cars crashed into a restaurant near me today and people are calling it "a freak accident." No it loving isn't, something caused those cars to leave the street and enter the restaurant, and I'll bet dollars to donuts someone was doing something wrong and quite possibly illegal. This kind of attitude, that there are such things as "freak accidents," really helps justify and perpetuate lovely and dangerous driving. It was daytime in good weather, dammit! Someone hosed up big!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
That reminds me of all the old people who drive into buildings out in Buffalo, NY. I searched for a few articles and apparently someone made a custom Google map with dozens of crashes and links to news reports: https://goo.gl/6jfoWx
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I wonder how many traffic deaths that genius invention has caused. It's Texas. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview They have the most highway deaths in the country, and California has more people. Somehow SC dubiously wins by per capita, but Texas highways are deadly. Also that is a pro click
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Sigma posted:That reminds me of all the old people who drive into buildings out in Buffalo, NY. That is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:Do you drive a Charger or Crown Vic? I get cagey around them and I drive a Grand Marquis which is just a Crown Vic with a different badge. I drive a focus. I just seem to easily attract road zombies for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
TNO posted:I drive a focus. I just seem to easily attract road zombies for some reason.  Please get off the list of vehicles with the highest rates of death. (You're at #10.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:It's Texas. Those suicide frontage roads usually get converted to one-way frontage roads when the surrounding area gets populous enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Karma Monkey posted:
Ouch. Is there a rational explanation as to why some vehicles have higher fatality percentage? Having seen the advertisement for Kia, I'm fault certain that it has something to do with the kind of people that buy it. A lowest common denominator, with the least amount of driver training...
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:Ouch. Is there a rational explanation as to why some vehicles have higher fatality percentage? Having seen the advertisement for Kia, I'm fault certain that it has something to do with the kind of people that buy it. A lowest common denominator, with the least amount of driver training... The Camaro stats are hilarious (single vehicle crashes/rollovers versus multi-vehicle): quote:Chevrolet Camaro
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Is it just me or is that a stupid way to report the numbers? Why not just give the raw numbers, what value is added by calculating ratio and giving the deaths per million (I assume) vehicles?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
^^^ Yeah it's just you.  The raw numbers are pointless because they tell you nothing - the car could be dangerous or just owned or driven a shitload more than others. The stats per miles traveled would be much more useful.CharlieWhiskey posted:In general you are right, but in rural France, sometimes traffic turning right onto your lane has right of way. It's largely trivia, and harkens to a time of horse and buggy and perpetuates into modern agricultural communities. Drivers are frequently reminded of "priorité a droite" by upside-down yield signs with black Xs in them. I drove in France for a week last fall and I was nervous as hell in the countryside. It's hardly an obscure redneck trivia thing at least in other places in Europe, there's a whole street near me where it's used at every loving intersection and it pisses me off to no end because in addition to the stupid speed bumps, you have to almost stop every 50m because there's no visibility to the right. The street should clearly have priority, but they obviously wanted everyone to slow waaay down.  It's also the go-to rule if nothing else applies. It wouldn't be so bad if it was consistently understood and followed, but as is, there are too many things to process and account for others, so it's always a huge clustfuck unless it's explicitly marked as here. But even then...
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
CharlieWhiskey posted:In general you are right, but in rural France, sometimes traffic turning right onto your lane has right of way. It's largely trivia, and harkens to a time of horse and buggy and perpetuates into modern agricultural communities. Drivers are frequently reminded of "priorité a droite" by upside-down yield signs with black Xs in them. I drove in France for a week last fall and I was nervous as hell in the countryside. For example if you carry on straight here, you wouldn't have to yield to any traffic, so there is no reason to remind you of priorite-a-droite. Obviously it gets way more complicated once you want to turn left there and a heap of other rules will come into play, most of which will have you yield to other traffic, some of them even make you yield to pedestrians. Despite the fact that pedestrians aren't drivers and therefor cannot have right of way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Karma Monkey posted:
It's due for replacement anyway. I bought it 8 years ago because it was cheap and had a manual transmission. Also lol at the Aveo, Civic, and Versa each being on there twice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:Ouch. Is there a rational explanation as to why some vehicles have higher fatality percentage? Having seen the advertisement for Kia, I'm fault certain that it has something to do with the kind of people that buy it. A lowest common denominator, with the least amount of driver training... I figure part of it is the car itself - maybe it rolls easily, goes out of control easily, or doesn't take a hit well (crushes like a soda can). I figure another factor might be that people who drive a particular type of car drive aggressively or overestimate their driving ability or the performance abilities of the car. Another factor might be that some cars aren't noticed or respected by other drivers. I drive a little black POS and a lot of drivers here seem to just not see it or are like "gently caress you" and try to swat me off the road like a gnat. I've taken to driving with my lights on at all times and I drive verrrrry defensively. I'm pretty sure if I had a solid hit in this car, I'd be smooshed.  This area is road-ragey as gently caress too. I used to love driving. Now I dread it for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:Ouch. Is there a rational explanation as to why some vehicles have higher fatality percentage? Having seen the advertisement for Kia, I'm fault certain that it has something to do with the kind of people that buy it. A lowest common denominator, with the least amount of driver training... From the article: quote:In general, the smallest and lightest vehicles resulted in the highest rates of death, with most of them being entry-level models without advanced safety features. Aside from those, you got cars that people drive like idiots because they think they're invincible (Suburbans, Silverados, etc.) or they overestimate their own driving ability (Camaros). Edit: Speaking of drivers overestimating their ability, I have fond memories of when I was stationed in North Carolina seeing all the kids who, once they started receiving steady paychecks, promptly bought Mustangs that soon found their way into ditches when the roads got wet. TNO fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Was driving home last night to see a dead car with the airbags blown and a sideways front right wheel broken sitting on the inside of a curve. There were skidmarks going the opposite direction going down the street to another car crashed into a driveway, with their front left wheel broken, and dragged down the street. This is a residential neighborhood. People around here are real fuckers. This road is in the middle of the development, but its kinda like a the secret main route between major roads. As much as I hate speedbumps, several of my neighbors have brought up "we need speedbumps" and I agree. I don't even have kids, but it's hard enough just to back out of the driveway without some car appearing out of nowhere. I'm about to just buy a couple of these and leave them out in the middle of the street. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:From PYF, presented without comment: Good riddance. Only problem is he didn't manage to take out the passing lane hogging brake checking fuckwit along with him. Seriously, even following at a safe distance and flicking the passing lights at people, I frequently can't get some idiot to move over for several miles, and they're subconsciously pacing the person next to them because their conscious thought is entirely focused on picking their nose / texting / staring into space / eating breakfast and reading the newspaper / staring deep into their own navel and their brainstem is doing all the driving that is going on. Tailgating is not acceptable, and the guy deserves what he got, but that piece of poo poo in the front needs to eat a dick too. A perfect example is the dipshit in the giant RV who did 65 in the left lane for miles and miles ignoring the flashing lights, horns, etc from the half dozen people stuck behind them, including me. And that's just everyone in between me and them, there were more behind me. They only moved over once a gold minivan and a silver pacifica gave up and blew by them on the right, I assume there were some horns and gestures made or something. Then they pulled out and did the same thing again right in front of the guy in front of me. Last seen: still doing 65 in the left lane when they got out of sight in my rearview. I'd caltrop the motherfucker myself if I could guarantee it wouldn't hit someone behind them too. That kind of inconsiderate rear end in a top hat lane hogging puts everyone else in a bad mood and instigates all kinds of roadragey poo poo, I saw some REALLY sketchy passes before they got out of my sight. Deeters posted:I've gotten to this point recently too. It's like I sense that someone is about to do something stupid, so I back off or give them room, and when they do their stupid thing, I'm already safe. Then I just say "dumbass", and go on with my drive. It's actually really nice to not get super stressed over every time someone drives like poo poo. Happens to me all the time. It's amusing at times... I'll slow down a bit and give someone a wide berth, go "I bet that guy makes a really boneheaded move shortly" to my GF, and seconds later they whip their hooptie across 3 lanes of traffic all going faster than them without even so much as a glance at the mirror and proceed to leave their blinker on for 3 miles. Called it  Geirskogul posted:Don't people going straight always have the right of way? If a vehicle is changing lanes, or changing direction, the onus is on the driver to clear that maneuver, not any traffic that might be in his way. And then there's the wondrous thing known as the Boston Left, which is where there's a red light for your lanes and also oncoming traffic. Both leftmost lanes are "left turn yield on green" signed, with straight-or-left arrows painted on the ground. There's no left green arrow. So what you do is prepare for a racing start, then when the Might not be strictly legal but it's practiced religiously here. We're also fans of the Roman testudo formation - everyone (up to that one idiot with their face in their phone, who gacks it all up for everyone behind them as well) behind the Boston Left-leader follows in tight formation, leaving no way for oncoming traffic to break through. Sometimes five or six cars will get through (each shielded partially by the rear right quarter of the car in front of them) before the line breaks. The funny part is that if no one does this, intersections become a giant snarl of politeness and gridlock, because I'm pretty sure our light sequencing traffic engineers have been phoning it in for the last 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
They call it the Pittsburgh Left, here. Also my wife is amazed every time we're in the car together and I accurately predict what retarded thing someone is about to do seconds before it happens. I have a few hundred thousand miles on the road more than her though, so she hasn't seen it all yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
ShittyPostmakerPro posted:Crosspost from that mechanical thingy thread because I didn't know this thread still existed: there is a third pic in this series - its the one in which the tunnel and Roadrunner are in the process of being painted over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
kastein posted:Good riddance. 2. The car in front flicked its brake lights. Notice how it does not dive, it didn't actually slow to any noticable degree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Maybe the guy in the front doesn't need to be exterminated then. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.PCOS Bill posted:They call it the Pittsburgh Left, here. I know right? I'm approaching 200k miles driven (in my cars alone - not including before '08) and no level of driver stupidity truly surprises me anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
nm posted:1. The car in front is passing the car to the side. PCOS Bill posted:They call it the Pittsburgh Left, here. Dunno if there's a special name for this here but I've done it too, usually at a single intersection near the office where the lights are timed so that the oncoming traffic is just about arriving from the previous light when it goes green. So unless there are some racers there too, you have just enough time with a quick launch. Otherwise if there are cars already lined up, it's a bit too sketchy for my taste as you have no idea how quickly one of them might take off. Overall I haven't driven that much really, but I'm starting to get the pre-crime visions too, it's always fun to spot and guess what the morons are going to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:Ouch. Is there a rational explanation as to why some vehicles have higher fatality percentage? Having seen the advertisement for Kia, I'm fault certain that it has something to do with the kind of people that buy it. A lowest common denominator, with the least amount of driver training... I'd much rather drive a Rio than an Aveo, fwiw. The Rio hatches are surprisingly nice inside and relatively peppy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
a primate posted:I'd much rather drive a Rio than an Aveo, fwiw. The Rio hatches are surprisingly nice inside and relatively peppy. The Aveo has a 30k "inspection" and a 60k timing belt replacement interval, which is just loving insane. Interference engine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Bovril Delight posted:The Aveo has a 30k "inspection" and a 60k timing belt replacement interval, which is just loving insane. Interference engine. 60k is pretty standard for timing belts? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:60k is pretty standard for timing belts?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
The  part of that is they're still using timing belts in TYOOL 2016.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Yeah. It's the 100k ones I wouldn't trust. I got a abused to poo poo Subaru legacy with 260,000 miles on it from a friend (who got it from his "friend"). The last service record was at 100,000 miles. The last oil change was sometime before that. I replaced all the fluids, belts, and suspension and it works fine. How a completely cracked to poo poo T-Belt lasted over 160,000 miles I will never know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
CannonFodder posted:It's Texas. Texas, 725 more Pickup/SUV deaths then CA, but CA catches up in regards to pedestrian and bicycle deaths. A very pro click indeed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:59
|
|
