OT: Pet peeves on the highway

[kibblesnbits]

And on the phone.

I see it every day on Route 2. Not only do they pass me like I'm standing still, the roof is not lit up, and they are on the phone. If I didn't know any better (I probably don't) I'd say they are also playing Tetris or something on their on-board computer.

I was at the DMV in Norwich a few months back and I took a DOT survey on if I'm worried about being pulled over while on the phone. Of course I am not, but only because my SUV has a USB port which allows me to take calls as if I were listening to the radio. In the Other Comments Section I wrote that cops are the biggest offenders and I feel it's a hypocritical way to raise revenue. The survey taker said I was about the 5th person that morning to say something similar.

Few things piss me off more than having a cop blow by me at 85-90+ on the highway without lights on or any other indication they are responding to an emergency. Speed increases risk, but what most increases risk is differences in speed. If everyone is going 55-65 or even 70 (in a 55 zone) that's a pretty stable situation even though some speeding is obviously occurring. I'll admit to being in the +5-10 group (sometimes more and sometimes less depending on the flow of traffic) and generally travelling in the middle lane. However, when someone decides that they are entitled to travel 25-30 mph or more over the speed limit they get on cars ahead of them much faster than expected. It's those surprises that lead to many accidents.

As for tailgating, it is always the tailgater's fault. Just because a driver is angry that the car ahead isn't going as fast as they'd like, doesn't give him/her the right to create such a dangerous situation. It's with good reason that the person who rear ends a car is universally considered to be at fault for insurance purposes.

P.S. By now I would presume that all police cars have tracking devices (for the officer's safety if no other reason), so management must have a very good idea which officers are travelling at excessive speeds. IMHO it reduces respect for the law when those that are charged with enforcement routinely treat it as something to be ignored. As for being on the phone while driving, I know police are exempt from that limitation, but it should only be when the call is necessary to address a legitimate emergency situation.

 

[CL82]

Define "slow." Do you consider going the speed limit "slow?"

Yes, often it is. Quite slow in fact.

 

[RadyLady]

Not an artist, but I was suddenly struck by the thought your avatar could use pointier ears and a bushier tail...
View attachment 6229

I mean, for a music-loving UConn fan...

I suppose that could be an option...thanks. but I really like my avatar....a lot...as it is......

 

[Husky25]

Few things piss me off more than having a cop blow by me at 85-90+ on the highway without lights on or any other indication they are responding to an emergency. Speed increases risk, but what most increases risk is differences in speed. If everyone is going 55-65 or even 70 (in a 55 zone) that's a pretty stable situation even though some speeding is obviously occurring. I'll admit to being in the +5-10 group (sometimes more and sometimes less depending on the flow of traffic) and generally travelling in the middle lane. However, when someone decides that they are entitled to travel 25-30 mph or more over the speed limit they get on cars ahead of them much faster than expected. It's those surprises that lead to many accidents.

As for tailgating, it is always the tailgater's fault. Just because a driver is angry that the car ahead isn't going as fast as they'd like, doesn't give him/her the right to create such a dangerous situation. It's with good reason that the person who rear ends a car is universally considered to be at fault for insurance purposes.

P.S. By now I would presume that all police cars have tracking devices (for the officer's safety if no other reason), so management must have a very good idea which officers are travelling at excessive speeds. IMHO it reduces respect for the law when those that are charged with enforcement routinely treat it as something to be ignored. As for being on the phone while driving, I know police are exempt from that limitation, but it should only be when the call is necessary to address a legitimate emergency situation.

I agree about difference in speed vs. merely increased speed. Few things are more nerve racking when a weaver is going 20 mph more than the faster flow of traffic. Even moreso when the divided Highway is only two lanes, and greater than that is when it is a crotch rocket.

I never said I tailgate or condone it...I said that if a person is not approaching the posted speed limit, and the opportunity presents itself, then I am going to exercise my right according to the rules of the road to safely pass them. It's not an affront, it's a perfectly allowable execution.

 

[kibblesnbits]

I agree about difference in speed vs. merely increased speed. Few things are more nerve racking when a weaver is going 20 mph more than the faster flow of traffic. Even moreso when the divided Highway is only two lanes, and greater than that is when it is a crotch rocket.

I never said I tailgate or condone it...I said that if a person is not approaching the posted speed limit, and the opportunity presents itself, then I am going to exercise my right according to the rules of the road to safely pass them. It's not an affront, it's a perfectly allowable execution.

Actually the tailgating comment wasn't in response to you. I was just too lazy to edit the HTML code to respond to you and then also quote Meyers who said that it was the "tailgatee's" fault if they were being tailgated. Sorry.

 

[JRRRJ]

I suppose that could be an option...thanks. but I really like my avatar....a lot...as it is.

As do I...

Just wanted to see if I could make it look like a Husky.

 

[meyers7]

don't want to start a flame war with one o' my favorite posters, but ..

No war. Except maybe War - Lowrider

Tailgating is illegal. Tailgating is aggressive. Tailgating, along with speeding, may be the leading cause of accidents.

Could be, but not a law I would agree with.

The point of driving is to get from point A to point B safely and quickly - not just as quickly as possible.

Ah see but it's in there. If you don't do it safely, (i.e. wreck or cause a wreck), then you are not doing it quickly or allowing everyone else to do it quickly. If you have to stop for a fender bender, that's not quickly. If you end up dead or in the hospital, then that's not getting from point A to B. Nope you don't have to say safely. It's part of quickly.

Driving right up somebody's @ss is trying to cause an accident -

Have to disagree there.

If it's good enough for Nascar, good enough for me.

 

[meyers7]

As for tailgating, it is always the tailgater's fault.

Well I would completely disagree. It is in almost (never say never) all cases the slow driver's fault. If they can't drive, they should not be on the road. Very simple really.

 

[Jim]

But, I posed this question on Facebook: If you are in the left hand lane, but going the speed limit, why should someone behind you need to pass? Should we move over, just to let them speed, and break the law?

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5804590/why-you-shouldnt-drive-slowly-in-the-left-lane

According to the article, it is against the law in CT.

 

[Husky25]

But, I posed this question on Facebook: If you are in the left hand lane, but going the speed limit, why should someone behind you need to pass? Should we move over, just to let them speed, and break the law?

The libertarian in me says, "Yes. Absolutely. Mind your own business."

 

[winlots]

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5804590/why-you-shouldnt-drive-slowly-in-the-left-lane

According to the article, it is against the law in CT.

JIM: very interesting. I've always thought "Keep to the right except to pass" was a common sense rule of the road if not a law. In my high school driver ed we were certainly inculcated with "keep to the right except to pass."

People who block the left and center lanes, when not passing, seem to have no clue about the chaos and headaches (e.g. traffic jams and unnecessary cutting in and out, etc) and heartaches (someone trying to get their pregnant wife to a hospital, someone eager to get home to family for a celebration, etc) they can cause or contribute to.

 

[boontonbomber]

Anytime I see some wacko tailgating at high speed my first thought is that they must be running drugs up or down the I91 corridor.

 

[Aluminny69]

Just had another pet peeve: drivers who stay in your blind spot on the highway, either left or right side. AND, for me anyway, it's almost always a woman driver, at least 95% of the time. Don't they realize that you can't see them? Drop back, or drive past, but don't stay just behind and to the side of the car in front of you. DUH.

 

[Cheddie]

My pet peeve is when there's a car, an utility truck, or some other obstruction in the road, and two cars approach from equal distances. If you're in the unobstructed lane with a legal right of way, often you need to stop because the oncoming car swerves into your lane, around the obstruction. You either yield or play chicken. It's like - here I come, I don't have the patience or inclination to slow for 30 seconds.​

 

[UConnChapette]

My pet peeve? Driving with Meyers7 behind me!

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I drive between the speed limit and about 5 miles above, rarely exceeding that unless all the traffic is. I stay in the right lane except to pass, and if I am in the left lane (optimistically hoping perhaps to pass) and someone comes up behind me, I will always pull aside.

I don't consider this an appropriate excuse for a driver to come up behind me and try to go through me. I don't consider tailgating appropriate (I have less problem with flashing high beams, I've done that myself).

I think anyone who believes they have more "right of way" than another driver is just wrong. They may have more right to a particular lane, but that's about it.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

Slow drivers in the fast lane and the oblivious ones yapping away on their cell phones.

 

[~*Jen*~]

Hope you drive a tank, otherwise that kid is overexposed to danger. If you get rear-ended they are toast.

That's absolutely not true. She is far safer continuing to rear-face than she would be forward-facing. It's like a pendulum. The initial contact in a rear-end collision (which we were in back in December) would continue to move her head "forward." A rear-facing car seat will keep her head and neck cradled whereas a forward-facing seat will allow hear head to continue moving while keeping her torso in place--leaving her neck to bear the brunt of the force. Besides, being rear-ended only accounts for about 4% of all accidents. Swedish kids generally rear-face until 4 and typically have better outcomes in severe accidents than American kids do. Which is no surprise given our history of prematurely turning kids forward. The old recommendations were based on the capacities of older seats, which generally couldn't hold more than 20lbs. The AAP recommends rear-facing until at least two (or until a convertible seat has been outgrown by height or weight) and the NHTSA recommends rear-facing until at least age four or until a convertible seat has been outgrown by height or weight. Again, I was rear-ended in January. My rear-facing child did better in the accident than her father and I did. There have been documented cases of internal decapitation in forward facing children over the age of 2. I will gladly take my chances with rear-facing.

I'm very involved in the child passenger safety world. Here's some interesting reading.

http://csftl.org/rear-facing-car-seat-myths-busted/
http://csftl.org/why-rear-facing-the-science-junkies-guide/

(The above site is run by certified child passenger safety technicians.)

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/121/3/619.full

One significant change in counseling is now emerging that may greatly improve the safety of infants and young children. A recent analysis of the protection provided in rear-facing compared with forward-facing car safety seats has revealed that children under the age of 2 years are 75% less likely to die or sustain serious injury when they are in a rear-facing seat.2 This finding was true regardless of direction of the crash, even those crashes with side impact, which typically are the most severe.
Although the study could not provide data dividing the ages by individual months, it is notable that rear-facing car safety seats were more effective than forward-facing car safety seats for both infants under 1 year and children aged 12 to 23 months. The odds of severe injury for forward-facing infants under 12 months of age were 1.79 times higher than for rear-facing infants; for children 12 to 23 months old, the odds were 5.32 times higher.
This information is additionally supported by data from Sweden, where children have ridden in rear-facing seats up to 4 years of age for many years, and very low death and injury rates have been documented3.

http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1994

• Excessive stretching or even transection of the spinal cord can result if a child is involved in a head-on crash while in a forward facing car seat

• Rear facing seats are safer than forward facing seats for children under 4 years old

• Parents and guardians should be advised to keep young children in rear facing seats for as long as possible

Evidence is mounting, however, that it is safer for young children to travel in a rear facing seat until 4 years of age.

 

[meyers7]

Anytime I see some wacko tailgating at high speed my first thought is that they must be running drugs up or down the I91 corridor.

And see that would be my last thought. Because it makes no sense for someone running drugs to draw attention to themselves.

However, you are probably more often than not, correct. Drug runners are not the brightest people.

 

[meyers7]

My pet peeve? Driving with Meyers7 behind me!

I won't be back there long.

 

[meyers7]

I think anyone who believes they have more "right of way" than another driver is just wrong. They may have more right to a particular lane, but that's about it.

I agree completely. If people were kinder and more aware of their surroundings and how they could help people, driving on the roads would be much quicker and safer.

 

[TDiNozzo]

Followed a state truck for 5 miles, with a big lit up arrow on the back, pushing all traffic to the right lane, followed by a state cop car.... at the construction... the right lane was the lane closed..... great team work .... I was in the left lane behind the cop and went right through... all the ones who followed the arrow were stuck.

 

[OldAlum]

The inconsistencies in lane closure methods and signage. On a two-lane highway and you see a "right lane closed ahead". Sometimes it is a half mile ahead - sometimes several miles! So if people start merging to the left early and no closure appears, eventually people start zooming up the empty right lane and drivers on the left start getting defensive and traffic slows even more. Now I understand that with things like mowing or paving the work area changes, but with electronic signs, they still could let you know where. And I have seen this inconsistency on the two sides of Rt 9 bridge work!
And then people don't know how to merge. If people could be encouraged to use both lanes as long as possible and then "zipper" - car from right, then car from left etc. everyone would move more quickly!

 

[Biff]

Saw this on Facebook. Thought this to be an appropriate picture for this thread.

 

[RadyLady]

Saw this on Facebook. Thought this to be an appropriate picture for this thread.

View attachment 6281

thank you