Traffic sins
-
@Lorne-Kates said in Traffic sins:
@anotherusername said in Traffic sins:
@Lorne-Kates said in Traffic sins:
There is literally nowhere in the world where "faster traffic" is defined as "faster than the speed limit".
"Literally", eh? TIL that California is "literally" nowhere.
21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this section.
So you just posted a quote which proves me right? And people think I'm the
?Arizona does say that complying with the law is a legit reason for impeding traffic:
A. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when either of the following applies:
-
Reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
-
The reasonable flow of traffic exceeds the maximum safe operating speed of the lawfully operated implement of husbandry.
But you still need to GTFO of the way:
C. If a person is driving a vehicle at a speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place on a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe, and if five or more vehicles are formed in a line behind the vehicle, the person shall turn the vehicle off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the director or a local authority, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed.
-
-
-
@masonwheeler said in Traffic sins:
That looks like a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't law. If you go faster, you're breaking the law by speeding. If you don't, you're breaking the law by slowing down traffic.
There's something fundamentally wrong with that.Get the fuck over and let them pass. Problem solved.
But no, apparently if you do that you are no better than the terrorists or something.
-
@anotherusername said in Traffic sins:
Flashing your brights can mean a lot of different things
Including "I want to initiate you into a secret gang!" if you listen to the internet rumors
-
@masonwheeler said in Traffic sins:
@Polygeekery said in Traffic sins:
Uhmmmmm...apparently you are? It says, in lawyer speak, that if you are driving slower than the flow of traffic, even if that speed is faster than the speed limit, you are in violation of the law.
That looks like a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't law. If you go faster, you're breaking the law by speeding. If you don't, you're breaking the law by slowing down traffic.
There's something fundamentally wrong with that.
Hey, traffic cops have a quota to meet.
But in all seriousness, we're talking about situations where you are in multi-lane traffic and you're on the left lane. Obviously, if you're on a road where there's only one lane of travel, you don't have to speed up just because the guy behind you wants to. If you're on the "passing" lane, then that lane should only be used to pass. Period. If you're not passing on the passing lane, regardless of whether you want to be some vigilante that even Batman would call lame, you're breaking the law in states which have those kinds of laws.
-
@izzion said in Traffic sins:
@RaceProUK
No, it really wouldn't help throughput at all.
The choke point (a single lane, for this example) can only put one car through every X seconds, regardless of how they get there.
People zipper-merge (one and one) poorly, so there is some amount of loss, Y seconds per merge, as people figure out whose turn it is, or have to jam on the breaks when that douchenozzle piggy backs the car in front of him to jump the line.
Zipper merging also introduces the possibility of two douchenozzles being side by side at the merge point and getting into an accident that will block the road completely for T seconds, with probability p.
So using all available road space means that it will take you n*(X + Y) + pT seconds (where n is the number of cars in front of you in both lanes). Or everyone could be a civilized human being and line up as soon as they see the construction warnings (often 1000 feet / 300 meters or more before the merge point, aka holding space for more than 50 cars) and get through in n*X seconds, since traffic will flow through the choke point smoothly as all of the merging awkwardness was resolved further back before traffic was slowed and constrained by the choke point.You're wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/why-last-second-lane-mergers-are-good-for-traffic.html?_r=0
A passage of note (emphasis added):
Colorado started to promote the late merge during a highway project more than 10 years ago. …
The result? A 15 percent increase in the volume of cars moving through the work zone and a 50 percent decrease in the length of the line, K.C. Matthews, a traffic specifications and standards engineer at the Colorado Department of Transportation, said in an interview last week.
Of course, there is a qualification:
The approach is effective in slow-moving traffic , and it allows drivers to take advantage of the lane that is about to close. In less-dense, free-flowing traffic, there is less need to rely on the late merge.
-
@heterodox said in Traffic sins:
I kind of get what Lorne is saying though about edging up though once there are more vehicles behind you (less "pinball" risk) and think I do that without really realizing/rationalizing it.
I don't, and I advise against it for a couple reasons. First, if the car in front of you has a manual transmission (rare in the US, but you can never tell) and you are facing uphill, they will likely have some amount of rollback. If the driver is has little experience driving a manual, then they just rolled back into you and the cops I've talked to would place blame on you for stopping too close. Second, if the car in front of you stalls for any reasons before traffic begins to move, being able to see the road behind their tires is a pretty good indication that you could maneuver around them with little difficulty.
-
@masonwheeler said in Traffic sins:
@Polygeekery Anyone who gets out of their car while traffic is temporarily stopped is guaranteed to be right about to have bigger problems to worry about than the driver in front of them!
I have no idea how to parse that.
Yes, yes, I know, I should parse better.
-
@Polygeekery Pelican was the original. I didn't know until today (links a way upthread) that that's a corruption of PELICON, which is a portmanteau/acronym. I was given to understand up to now that 'pelican' was an assonance for pedestrian. Having named one after a bird we naturally had to do so with the later variants.
Puffin, apparently, is an acronym, though one obviously created to fit the naming theme, and toucan is just word play.
All three are crossings controlled by traffic lights where the pedestrian (or cyclist in the case of a toucan) can press a button to put a 'crossing' phase into the lights.
-
@anotherusername said in Traffic sins:
Also, "flashing your lights to signal to the car ahead that you want to pass" (as someone suggested earlier) isn't a thing in all places. I don't think it is in the US -- at least, not unambiguously. Flashing your brights can mean a lot of different things, and it's up to the other driver to read your mind. And if they don't know what you're trying to signal, it'll just annoy them.
Indeed. In Utah, they tend to flash there lights instead of honking their horn. One of the things I hate about driving their when I visit my brother.
-
@Polygeekery said in Traffic sins:
Don't give up your right of way
when there's no point(fixed)
I hate it when people stop before me, but then motion for me to go
Grrrr. My understanding is that if I go, and then they do ("oh it is my turn") - and hit me, it's still my fault.
-
@Polygeekery said in Traffic sins:
I basically learned how to drive in one of these:
Ooohhhh - A kid's ultimate Tonka Toy.
-
@dcon said in Traffic sins:
@Polygeekery said in Traffic sins:
I basically learned how to drive in one of these:
Ooohhhh - A kid's ultimate Tonka Toy.
Pretty much. I was running heavy machinery before I was in junior high. Good fun, and a hell of a lot better summer/weekend job than McDonald's.
-
-
@Polygeekery said in Traffic sins:
I have no idea how to parse that.
Yes, yes, I know, I should parse better.
In other words, traffic is about to start moving again, and they'll be out of their car when it does, which is a bad situation to be in!
-
@Polygeekery said in Traffic sins:
Yes!! I hate it when people stop before me, but then motion for me to go. All they are doing is slowing down the flow of traffic. In most cases when it happens, they could easily have made it through the entire intersection before I would have stopped and proceeded.
Or they stop, motion you to go, then given your hesitation (since they're wrong), they start going just as you then process and start going, causing both of you to halt again, rinse and repeat with potentially two other drivers also involved, everyone getting very angry.
IF YOU STOPPED FIRST, FUCKING GO. YOU'RE NOT BEING POLITE BY MOTIONING FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO GO. YOU'RE RUINING EVERYTHING.
-
@heterodox said in Traffic sins:
@Polygeekery said in Traffic sins:
Yes!! I hate it when people stop before me, but then motion for me to go. All they are doing is slowing down the flow of traffic. In most cases when it happens, they could easily have made it through the entire intersection before I would have stopped and proceeded.
Or they stop, motion you to go, then given your hesitation (since they're wrong), they start going just as you then process and start going, causing both of you to halt again, rinse and repeat with potentially two other drivers also involved, everyone getting very angry.
IF YOU STOPPED FIRST, FUCKING GO. YOU'RE NOT BEING POLITE BY MOTIONING FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO GO. YOU'RE RUINING EVERYTHING.
You know what else annoys me at 4-way stops? When the person in front of me stops so far forward in to the intersection that my safe stopping place is the proper place to stop.
So now, I have to stop where I should, wait for them to go, pull up another foot or two and stop again. Which most people don't see and then the order gets all messed up.
-
@abarker said in Traffic sins:
I don't, and I advise against it for a couple reasons. First, if the car in front of you has a manual transmission (rare in the US, but you can never tell) and you are facing uphill, they will likely have some amount of rollback. If the driver is has little experience driving a manual, then they just rolled back into you and the cops I've talked to would place blame on you for stopping too close. Second, if the car in front of you stalls for any reasons before traffic begins to move, being able to see the road behind their tires is a pretty good indication that you could maneuver around them with little difficulty.
To the first point, I do account for rollback (after quite a bit of alarm the first time I saw this happen as an early driver); even if I'm edging up, I'm not parking in their trunk. I still leave plenty of room. Fair point to the second, though largely same response.
-
@heterodox said in Traffic sins:
Same and yeah, I don't get it. Is that no longer a pretty universally recognized signal?
Except that's assuming:
- Other drivers are paying attention
- Other drivers can even fathom that the signal is for them, because how could THEY be doing something wrong, unthinkable?
- Other drivers are absolute shithead motherfuckers.
-
@Polygeekery said in Traffic sins:
I think I find it so easy to back in to parking spaces because I use my mirrors. A hell of a lot of people just don't. They turn and look over their shoulders.
They do that because they don't know how to set their mirrors to cover their blind spots, or are uncomfortable doing so (it seems really unnatural if that's not the way you were first taught).
@Lorne-Kates said in Traffic sins:
Except that's assuming:
- Other drivers are paying attention
- Other drivers can even fathom that the signal is for them, because how could THEY be doing something wrong, unthinkable?
- Other drivers are absolute shithead motherfuckers.
One of those things is not like the other. #3 is the explanation for most things, not the assumption.
-
This is the most annoying things other drivers do at the 4-way stop near my office. The number of times I have nearly had a front-end collision while waiting at a 4-way stop because idiots don't know how to turn left is staggering.
-
@Polygeekery said in Traffic sins:
even if that speed is faster than the speed limit, you are in violation of the law.
Reading into it, you can still be pulled over, ticked, and have to appear in court. Then you can try to justify your actions. At the very least, you have to prove absolutely that you were in complete control and were not operating unsafely.
So it isn't a provision to allow you to speed, but a provision that gives you a possible defense in court.
I'm willing to lay money that 99.9999% of those defenses fail for one of two reasons:
- Person is a shithead who just wanted to speed and is trying to justify it
- Person has an absolutely justifiable, airtight reason and can prove he was operating safely. But ticket revenue pays for cops and judges so GUILTY!
-
@anotherusername said in Traffic sins:
That might or might not apply to Canada, but as I said, it's not a thing in all places. Remind me again, how much driving have you done in the US?
No, that's pretty much the definition of "flash to pass" most anywhere.
And I've driven in the states, thank you very much.
Funnily enough, up-state New York drivers, especially on the freeway, are quite considerate and have the "move over to let traffic merge" thing down pat.
-
@boomzilla said in Traffic sins:
@Lorne-Kates said in Traffic sins:
There is literally nowhere in the world where "faster traffic" is defined as "faster than the speed limit".
Virginia Yield
46.2-804(1), 46.2-842.1
Yield left lane to faster traffic on signal. State police say this applies even when faster traffic is speeding.And this is from the same state that put a journalist in jail for having too much fun in a fast car. I'm glad I don't live in such a benighted place. They probably charge property taxes on the value of your car as well!
Never Speed In Virginia: Lessons From My Three Days In Jail
You never really get a good night’s sleep in jail. In the middle of my second night inside, I woke up on the uncomfortable plastic mat in my cell, my neck and back aching. I looked down at my orange jail scrubs and up at the buzzing fluorescent light and thought, “I am here because I drove too fast...
-
@HardwareGeek said in Traffic sins:
@abarker said in Traffic sins:
flash there lights... driving their when I visit
grrr
:P
If you notice, that post was edited, too. Now you'll just have to wonder if I did that on purpose.
-
@anotherusername said in Traffic sins:
Also, "flashing your lights to signal to the car ahead that you want to pass" (as someone suggested earlier) isn't a thing in all places. I don't think it is in the US -- at least, not unambiguously. Flashing your brights can mean a lot of different things, and it's up to the other driver to read your mind. And if they don't know what you're trying to signal, it'll just annoy them.
Flashing your lights in the US means "we have the cash, do you have the president's daughter?"
-
@Jaloopa said in Traffic sins:
@loopback0 said in Traffic sins:
If a car is behind you flashing its lights then there aren't multiple meanings for that
No. It means "I am an arsehole and probably driving a BMW. This road is mine, get out of the way"
BMW's have functional lights? I thought most of them were broken from the factory, especially the turn indicators.
-
@Polygeekery said in Traffic sins:
If you hook an OBDII scanner to your car and go for a drive, you will probably see that the computer thinks you are going faster than the speedometer is actually showing. I am not sure which one is more accurate for certain, but I would think that the speed on the CANBUS is and then they modify it a slight bit (speed * .95) before they display it to the mushy bag of goo behind the steering wheel.
Fun fact! My first car (an 89 buick regal that was already ancient when I got it) needed some transmission work. The mechanic fucked something up, and installed the wrong gear or something. So the speedometer was off by a certain fraction. I did eventually work it out, so I knew "If it says 76, I'm actually going 60". But it also meant I couldn't trust the sped. to be accurate.
Which meant I got an amazing feel for how fast I was going, based on visual cues, other traffic, and the general feel of the car. I checked it several times using an external GPS, and I was always within 5km/h of what I thought I was doing.
-
@Lorne-Kates said in Traffic sins:
No, that's pretty much the definition of "flash to pass" most anywhere.
Not at Mardi Gras.
-
@Groaner said in Traffic sins:
And this is from the same state that put a journalist in jail for having too much fun in a fast car.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Yes, going 93 in a 55 is reckless driving and he absolutely should have gone to jail. He says as much.
-
@Polygeekery said in Traffic sins:
I use my mirrors.
Heather got some driving lessons from a friend of the family who was a transport truck driver. She can back up using the rear and side mirrors.
It's always worth a glance over the shoulder just to make sure there isn't someone standing right behind you or anything like that-- or that there isn't a pedestrian/bike coming down the sidewalk. But once you've cleared that, mirrors are the way to go.
Especially since I have those stick-on little round "see the blindspot" mirrors. They're fisheye, so I can see all around. I can even see the ground. Sitting in the driver's seat, I can see exactly where the parkingspot lines are in relation to my tires.
-
@Groaner said in Traffic sins:
And this is from the same state that put a journalist in jail for having too much fun in a fast car. I'm glad I don't live in such a benighted place. They probably charge property taxes on the value of your car as well!
You can speed in Virginia. Just stay under 80mph. My wife once got pulled over doing more than 80mph. We got a lawyer and she got it knocked down from a misdemeanor to speeding or reckless driving or whatever was the worst thing that wasn't considered criminal since she had a good record and all.
-
@abarker said in Traffic sins:
I don't, and I advise against it for a couple reasons. First, if the car in front of you has a manual transmission (rare in the US, but you can never tell) and you are facing uphill, they will likely have some amount of rollback. If the driver is has little experience driving a manual, then they just rolled back into you and the cops I've talked to would place blame on you for stopping too close. Second, if the car in front of you stalls for any reasons before traffic begins to move, being able to see the road behind their tires is a pretty good indication that you could maneuver around them with little difficulty.
I did caveat that with "close the gap, but still leave space". I still like half-to-a-full carlength of space, for exactly those reasons.
Being able to see the other car's tires is not only a good indicator of space-- but it's also an amazing way of predicting other car's behavior.
A stop-sign intersection, as example. If you just looked at the other car, you might not know they're inching forward and are about to run the stop sign. A large multi-colored car against a moving background is hard to judge minute changes.
If you glance at the tires, you can detect even the SLIGHTEST movement of the car. You can see the treads change, the hubcap move.
If you can see another car's tires, you are in a much better position to predict their movements and react to them.
-
@heterodox said in Traffic sins:
You say that like it's a bad thing.
It is. Speed limits are in general outdated and mostly maintained at their current magnitudes as weapons to fleece motorists.
Yes, going 93 in a 55 is reckless driving and he absolutely should have gone to jail. He says as much.
The flow of traffic on a nearby Interstate on the way home is 75-80 mph in a 55 zone. Technically, those people are all guilty of reckless driving. Would you also advocate throwing them in jail?
-
@HardwareGeek said in Traffic sins:
@abarker said in Traffic sins:
flash there lights... driving their when I visit
grrr
Tyre.
-
@Lorne-Kates said in Traffic sins:
Which meant I got an amazing feel for how fast I was going, based on visual cues, other traffic, and the general feel of the car. I checked it several times using an external GPS, and I was always within 5km/h of what I thought I was doing.
Everyone should have that feel. I once sat through a day of traffic court (had to present a motion and that's where the judge was that day) and it was pretty entertaining. One guy tried the speedometer argument except with at least a ten mile per hour differential, and that's exactly what the judge said: "You may want to reconsider that argument because if you couldn't tell from your surroundings that you were going over 70 mph I should be taking away your license instead of just fining you."
Other gems: "I was just trying to keep up with traffic." "Don't do that. Traffic will try to get you going 120 mph if you let it. But the fact is you're not allowed because it's not safe." and a guy who tried to present some pompous defense based on a Supreme Court decision, had a handout and everything; judge didn't even look at it. It's not a criminal court; he doesn't have to.
-
@heterodox said in Traffic sins:
IF YOU STOPPED FIRST, FUCKING GO. YOU'RE NOT BEING POLITE BY MOTIONING FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO GO. YOU'RE RUINING EVERYTHING.
Yes. Please.
Stop-signs aren't difficult. Car that is there first goes first. Then just go roundabout in turns.
Did the car in front of you just go? Okay, asshole, you sit there until the car to your right, then in front, then to your left goes. Did three cars go yet? If not, YOU JUST SIT THERE MOTHERFUCKER.
Too many people think "Well, I stopped because the car in front of me stopped-- that counts as stopping at a stop sign, right?"
-
@boomzilla said in Traffic sins:
You can speed in Virginia. Just stay under 80mph. My wife once got pulled over doing more than 80mph. We got a lawyer and she got it knocked down from a misdemeanor to speeding or reckless driving or whatever was the worst thing that wasn't considered criminal since she had a good record and all.
In Ontario it's 60km over when The Real Bad Shit kicks in. Many points, suspension, license revokation, car impoundment, $10k+ fines, jail time.
-
@boomzilla said in Traffic sins:
You can speed in Virginia. Just stay under 80mph. My wife once got pulled over doing more than 80mph. We got a lawyer and she got it knocked down from a misdemeanor to speeding or reckless driving or whatever was the worst thing that wasn't considered criminal since she had a good record and all.
Also if you're going to speed, stay below 20mph over; same thing, you can be cited for reckless driving. Though it's not a necessity; my dad's been caught going over 80mph before but he's much more charming than I am and just got cited for speeding (and then he bizarrely got a letter in the mail from the PD saying the section cited was wrong and he was actually cited for failing to obey a highway sign or something which is even better -- no points IIRC, as it's just a locality offense or something).
Lucky cunt.
-
@Lorne-Kates said in Traffic sins:
Did the car in front of you just go? Okay, asshole, you sit there until the car to your right, then in front, then to your left goes. Did three cars go yet? If not, YOU JUST SIT THERE MOTHERFUCKER.
I learned it the other way. You yield to the car on your right. Which means that turns to go would pass to the left.
-
@heterodox said in Traffic sins:
I once sat through a day of traffic court
Same here. I think everyone should spend at least one session in traffic court to observe, just to get an idea of how the system works. There is some dumb shit and obvious fleecing, but on the other hand seeing idiots and their excuses get dismantled by The Actual Law People is educational and entertaining.
I once saw someone try to argue that he shouldn't get a speeding ticket, because it as a Provincial cop who pulled him over on a City street. Tried to claim the cop had no jurisdiction.
Judge: "Putting aside the fact that you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about, let's say you were on a city street and someone was trying to murder you. A provincial cop rolls by. Or even a police from another city. Would you like them to stop and help you, or do you think they'll say 'oh, not my town, moving on'?"
-
@boomzilla said in Traffic sins:
@Groaner said in Traffic sins:
And this is from the same state that put a journalist in jail for having too much fun in a fast car. I'm glad I don't live in such a benighted place. They probably charge property taxes on the value of your car as well!
You can speed in Virginia. Just stay under 80mph. My wife once got pulled over doing more than 80mph. We got a lawyer and she got it knocked down from a misdemeanor to speeding or reckless driving or whatever was the worst thing that wasn't considered criminal since she had a good record and all.
One of my coworkers was in a similar situation and he used the "recalibrate speedometer" defense, along with a few other tricks to get off mostly scot-free. That it has become a game is sad. Although, it seems like one won't have too much trouble as long as one stays north of Fredericksburg. I was on I-95 near Richmond once, and saw a cop on a bike on the shoulder turn around, dismount, and point a radar gun directly at me, ostensibly because of the car I was driving. Fortunately, I was on to his game and was already going the speed limit.
-
@Lorne-Kates said in Traffic sins:
@anotherusername said in Traffic sins:
That might or might not apply to Canada, but as I said, it's not a thing in all places. Remind me again, how much driving have you done in the US?
No, that's pretty much the definition of "flash to pass" most anywhere.
And I've driven in the states, thank you very much.
Funnily enough, up-state New York drivers, especially on the freeway, are quite considerate and have the "move over to let traffic merge" thing down pat.
The vast majority of the time, when someone flashes their high beams, they mean to either:
- tell oncoming traffic to "turn your fucking brights off, douchebag."
- warn oncoming traffic of a hazard that's ahead of them (typically a speed trap, but could be another type of hazard too)
- they have super bright angled headlights and just went over a couple of bumps in the road
So if someone behind me flashes their brights, I'm probably
- already aware that they're back there, because I'm paying attention
- already planning on moving to the right to let them pass... because I'm not that asshole
- not going to think that the flashing was even meant for me
-
@Lorne-Kates said in Traffic sins:
Did the car in front of you just go? Okay, asshole, you sit there until the car to your right, then in front, then to your left goes. Did three cars go yet? If not, YOU JUST SIT THERE MOTHERFUCKER.
I hope you don't program autonomous cars.
-
@abarker said in Traffic sins:
First, if the car in front of you has a manual transmission (rare in the US, but you can never tell) and you are facing uphill, they will likely have some amount of rollback.
Only if they're a dumb and don't use their handbrake.
-
@RaceProUK said in Traffic sins:
Only if they're a dumb and don't use their handbrake.
That's true too. But you have to assume all drivers are dumbs. I can't count how many times I've waited at an intersection because "If that guy's going straight, I'm fine, but if he doesn't know what a blinker is-- is he going to turn? Is he going to turn?-- Yes, of course he's turning."
-
@Lorne-Kates said in Traffic sins:
I once saw someone try to argue that he shouldn't get a speeding ticket, because it as a Provincial cop who pulled him over on a City street. Tried to claim the cop had no jurisdiction.
Judge: "Putting aside the fact that you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about, let's say you were on a city street and someone was trying to murder you. A provincial cop rolls by. Or even a police from another city. Would you like them to stop and help you, or do you think they'll say 'oh, not my town, moving on'?"
"Is the cop legally obligated to stop and help because 'I would like'? Would he face any legal repercussions for deciding to just move on -- even if you could somehow prove that he'd seen what was happening?"
Citizens arrest. I'd like for any law-abiding citizen who happened to be armed to step in and help if he saw that happening. The cop angle's a red herring. He'd merely hold the suspect until cops with jurisdiction arrived, just like anyone making a citizen's arrest would need to do.
The judge might have been right about the cop actually having legal jurisdiction, but his common sense argument for it wasn't valid.
-
This also annoys me, as I encounter it on a daily basis. Roundabouts on dual carriageways, where there are two lanes onto, around, and off the roundabout.
They're supposed to be treated like this:
But a silly amount of people use them like this, which usually means cutting across the car that's correctly in the second lane:
-
@heterodox said in Traffic sins:
But you have to assume all drivers are dumbs.
This is the only way to remain alive while riding a motorcycle. I play "what-if" worst-scenario brainstorming while riding and it's scary how many times they come true. "What if that guy over there does a U-turn over a median without signalling, cuts in front of me, slams on the brakes, puts the car in reverse, gets out to moon me, car turns into a Transformer and tries to step on me, guy comes after me on foot in a road rage because it's all my fault, and then an atomic bomb goes off in the distance? Oh God...it's actually happening....WHYYYY?!?!?!"
-
@loopback0 said in Traffic sins:
This also annoys me, as I encounter it on a daily basis. Roundabouts on dual carriageways, where there are two lanes onto, around, and off the roundabout.
They're supposed to be treated like this:
But a silly amount of people use them like this, which usually means cutting across the car that's correctly in the second lane:
Maybe if they, I don't know, painted friggen lines on the roundabout, there wouldn't be as much of that.
