Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition
-
it feels like you are doing 150mph
What he said. Driving heavy equipment at "speed" is downright terrifying.
moved a half dozen Cat 637 scrapers about 20 miles by roading them
I don't like where this is going...
they did not have steering wheels, they had "suggestion wheels"
They steer funny because the "steering" wheels don't turn the way they do in most vehicles, the vehicle articulates in the middle. Also the articulation is hydraulic which decreases feel in a big way. Plus they're massive lumbering beasts, designed to transport bulk fill, not road race.
-
They steer funny because the "steering" wheels don't turn the way they do in most vehicles, the vehicle articulates in the middle. Also the articulation is hydraulic which decreases feel in a big way. Plus they're massive lumbering beasts, designed to transport bulk fill, not road race.
And nothing else in this world moves the way they do. It is almost like being on a rodeo bull. You ever run a double-barrel scraper?
-
And nothing else in this world moves the way they do. It is almost like being on a rodeo bull.
That's a pretty good description of driving any articulation-steer vehicle.
You ever run a double-barrel scraper?
I don't even know what one of them is, but I'll guess "no".
-
You'll have to forgive him. He's from Barcelona.
-
I don't even know what one of them is, but I'll guess "no".
Double-barrel is a twin-engine scraper. One engine for the front wheels, one for the back wheels. Independent throttles be cause if you steer too sharply with the throttle open on the back engine it would jerk to full lock and start pushing the cab sideways.
Oh, and if you forget to cut the back throttle, it is air actuated and takes several seconds to react and de-throttle the engine. Everything you do on them takes a while to respond, which sucks because the rear engine could really get you in trouble.
But man, they were fun machines. I am also pretty sure that they were almost entirely to blame for my having to have spine surgery at age 31.
-
I am also pretty sure that they were almost entirely to blame for my having to have spine surgery at age 31.
For sure. I didn't operate the big stuff very often unless a roller counts, and they can't get you in much trouble because top speed is probably about 10km/h. I'm glad I didn't have to stay in excavations though, it's rough on the body. Pretty even 50/50 split on retire or die early.
-
We've had this discussion before. I remember because I had the same uncertainty you did
Probably. I think for me I just forget what I found out the last time I looked it up. I'll probably forget again because my brain is broken. ;-)
-
You might get annoyed at those large cranes on the road, but I can assure you that to the guy driving it feels like he is driving a rocket ship even though he is only traveling 50mph.
Yes sir. I'll try to be good.
but it really really rankles since highway lanes are like $10M a mile
it rankles because they're in MY way.
-
I get it. Hell, most of the time I am the same way. Just try to keep in mind he is not trying to rankle you. ;-)
-
NY, right turn on red anything is not legal unless a sign explicitly says it is.
TRWTF
-
We've had this discussion before. I remember because I had the same uncertainty you did after moving from CA to WA; it might even have been earlier in this topic.
It's generally legal; CA and NY seem to be the exceptions. CA, right turn on red circle is legal unless a sign says it's not; right turn on red arrow is never legal (at least it wasn't when I learned to drive there). NY, right turn on red anything is not legal unless a sign explicitly says it is.
Any state that adopts the federal MUTCD will prohibit right turn on red arrow. Right turn on red ball, though, is a state-by-state thing.
-
MUTCD
On its face, this seems like a good idea. However, if it suddenly makes illegal something that has long been legal in something like 48 of the 50 states, that provision is not so good. At the least, it needs LOTS of publicity before enforcement starts.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
NY, right turn on red anything is not legal unless a sign explicitly says it is.
TRWTF
Also incorrect. Inside the City of New York right-on-red is default not allowed, but everywhere else it's default allowed.
-
On its face, this seems like a good idea. However, if it suddenly makes illegal something that has long been legal in something like 48 of the 50 states, that provision is not so good. At the least, it needs LOTS of publicity before enforcement starts.
The MUTCD's been around for ages now, and AIUI, turning against a red arrow has been prohibited since the early days of red arrows. Red balls are a different story, of course.
TL;DR: if the traffic engineers wanted you to be able to RTOR, they wouldn't have put a protected right turn lane there.
-
Inside the City of New York
Mostly, that's what people who aren't in the state of NY mean when they use just NY.
-
Any state that adopts the federal MUTCD will prohibit right turn on red arrow. Right turn on red ball, though, is a state-by-state thing.
New York follows the UTC:Traffic, except pedestrians, facing a steady red arrow signal may not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by such arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, then shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or in the event there is no crosswalk at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of the approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/VAT/VII/24/1111#sthash.T7X1cow2.dpuf
-
Mostly, that's what people who aren't in the state of NY mean when they use just NY.
Ten million of us that live hundreds of miles from NYC know that they are all idiots. How hard is it to type NYC when you mean the city?
-
Ten million of us that live hundreds of miles from NYC know that they are all idiots.
Especially when we know it will annoy you guys.
-
Inside the City of New York right-on-red is default not allowed, but everywhere else it's default allowed.
Thank you. I
standsit corrected.
-
How hard is it to type NYC when you mean the city?
If I had meant NYC, I would have typed NYC. I didn't know (or didn't remember) the law only applied to NYC and not all of NY; therefore, although I should have meant NYC, I did mean NY.
-
Here's an example of an intersection near me where a red arrow + right-turn-on-red allowed actually makes sense (intersection is different for drawing simplicity), along with a light configuration that is active for part of the cycle:
The righthand signal has a "right turn signal" sign posted above it; ironically, it does not have a right arrow. Probably this is because it's older and they weren't a thing then.
Right turns can proceed on red, but only if they stop first. This gives pedestrians an actual chance to use the crosswalk without having to deal with cars that feel that ignoring them is a reasonable thing to do. (Presumably blowing a red light and ignoring peds is a greater psychological barrier.) Meanwhile, straight traffic can proceed. (Right turns will get an actual green later in the cycle, after the pedestrian signal changes to "don't walk".)
This intersection is a great example of where a right arrow you can nevertheless turn on would be perfect, because it would eliminate the need for the "right turn signal" sign.
-
The righthand signal has a "right turn signal" sign posted above it; ironically, it does not have a right arrow. Probably this is because it's older and they weren't a thing then.
Right turns can proceed on red, but only if they stop first. This gives pedestrians an actual chance to use the crosswalk without having to deal with cars that feel that ignoring them is a reasonable thing to do. (Presumably blowing a red light and ignoring peds is a greater psychological barrier.) Meanwhile, straight traffic can proceed. (Right turns will get an actual green later in the cycle, after the pedestrian signal changes to "don't walk".)
This intersection is a great example of where a right arrow you can nevertheless turn on would be perfect, because it would eliminate the need for the "right turn signal" sign.
The semantics you are after (turn on red, but only after a complete stop) are those of a flashing red arrow, not a steady one!
-
a flashing red arrow, not a steady one!
i would not be surprised if there are jurisdictions where there is no distinction between those two lights. ;-)
-
That'd be very strange, since the semantics I'm talking about are the MUTCD's...
-
That'd be very strange, since the semantics I'm talking about are the MUTCD's...
no argument here, but then this is 'murica we're talking about. there are some VERY strange places here
-
a flashing red arrow
I had never seen one of these (that wasn't flashing due to a power outage or whatever) until last May.
-
-
Wonderful. Most of the highlights show lane splitting in moving traffic, which is illegal in 50 US states (California only allows it in congested traffic). Also, that's an opinion video. I got bored after 2 minutes of "I'm used to it. Everyone should allow lane splitting," and "Sitting in traffic is boring!" The most substantive claim I saw was citing a study that claimed getting 10% of drivers to switch to using motorcycles then congestion would drop 40% - which has nothing to do with splitting lanes. Ho hum.
If you're going to revive a months old discussion, at least bring up something more than a highly opinionated video.
-
I am a motorcyclist. That's a terrible video. It's pitched at motorcyclists who already lane split so they can nod along and go "yeah, yeah!". It's not informative, it's just three blokes who lane split talking with each other about it and then going out on the bikes and doing it poorly.
-
But most motorcyclists don't split lanes in the first place except in heavy traffic, i.e., where the traffic speed is substantially below the road's design limit because of the number of vehicles. Given that the problematic version is actually pretty rare, it's just covered by general rules (e.g., “You must drive with due care and attention.” which is a giant catch-all for bad driving and is generally common sense anyway.)
Since we're talking motorcycles, the truly crazy ones will go for Darwin award nominations anyway.
-
illegal in 50 US states (California only allows it in congested traffic)
Which laws make it illegal (except in congested traffic in California)? I'm doing a bit of research on it, so I'd be interested to know. By the way, I believe you're thinking of guidelines, not laws: http://lanesplittingislegal.com/assets/docs/CHP-lane-splitting-guidelines-California.pdf
-
Before you condemn this biker, keep in mind that, while the practice
Lane Splitting Biker Crashes on an Open Door
-
From the linked article:
the driver of the Kia should have probably taken a quick look at his mirror before opening the door
Damn skippy that fucknut should have looked, no matter whether a bike was coming. Why the fuck would you open the door in stop-and-go traffic anyway?
-
In Virginia, it's specifically indicated as neither recommended nor legal in the Motorcycle Operator's Manual (page 14). Moreover, this is not just a guideline or regulation, it's the law.
-
Thank you, @TwelveBaud. It was more of a challenge to @abarker's notions about lane-splitting and the legality thereof. But yes, you're right, lane-splitting is implicitly or perhaps explicitly illegal in most of the (nanny) States.
-
@abarker said:
illegal in 50 US states (California only allows it in congested traffic)
Which laws make it illegal (except in congested traffic in California)? I'm doing a bit of research on it, so I'd be interested to know. By the way, I believe you're thinking of guidelines, not laws: http://lanesplittingislegal.com/assets/docs/CHP-lane-splitting-guidelines-California.pdfOh, apparently I'm mistaken. It's not explicitly permitted in California, which means if a cop wanted to, he could probably cite a lane splitting motorcyclist for unsafe operation of a motor vehicle (this is the current practice in several other states). HOwever, there is currently a bill under consideration that would change that: Assembly Bill 51. Assembly bill 51 would only allow lane splitting if the motorcycle is not moving more than 15 MPH faster than surrounding traffic and the motorcyle is not exceeding 50 MPH.
That sound like surface streets or congested conditions to me.
In addition to @TwelveBaud's example, Arizona has this on the books:
[28-903][2]. Operation of motorcycle on laned roadway; exceptions
A. All motorcycles are entitled to the full use of a lane. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection does not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane.
B. The operator of a motorcycle shall not overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken.
C. A person shall not operate a motorcycle between the lanes of traffic or between adjacent rows of vehicles.
D. A person shall not operate a motorcycle more than two abreast in a single lane.
E. Subsections B and C do not apply to peace officers in the performance of their official duties.
Looks pretty explicit to me.
-
lane-splitting is implicitly or perhaps explicitly illegal in most of the (nanny) States.
FTFY
-
My @accalia is showing apparently.
-
-
Assembly bill 51 would only allow lane splitting if the motorcycle is not moving more than 15 MPH faster than surrounding traffic and the motorcyle is not exceeding 50 MPH.
Yep, I saw that one. It looks like the bill's author tabled it, though: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article26620264.html
-
Oh, apparently I'm mistaken. It's not explicitly permitted in California, which means if a cop wanted to, he could probably cite a lane splitting motorcyclist for unsafe operation of a motor vehicle (this is the current practice in several other states).
What I've read indicated that the only state that hasn't explicitly prohibited it is California, which implicitly allows it as long as it is done in a safe and prudent manner. I recall however reading that it is illegal to drive over or upon the solid line between a normal lane and a HOV lane, which applies to all motor vehicles including motorcycles. So it isn't legal in California to split lanes next to the HOV lane. I have no idea how well that's enforced or if it even is at all, though.
Anyone who splits lanes in fast-moving traffic is a fucking idiot with a death wish, though.
-
The only mention of filtering in UK law is the highway code, which basically says "when doing it, be careful"
-
Anyone who splits lanes in fast-moving traffic is a fucking idiot with a death wish, though.
Most of those ones always seem to be on crotch rockets. So, yeah.
-
Damn skippy that fucknut should have looked, no matter whether a bike was coming. Why the fuck would you open the door in stop-and-go traffic anyway?
Because Russian drivers are cray-cray, apparently.
-
-
Because Russian drivers are cray-cray, apparently.
Or drunk on водка. Or both.
Based on my visits to St. Petersburg, I'd say you're both right. Let's just say I never thought I'd see a practical application of the bumper sticker "if you don't like the way I drive, stay off the sidewalk!" (To be fair, the car was actually parked on the sidewalk and not moving at the time.)
-
It's often difficult to tell speed in a video like that, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the motorcyclist's speed was a significant contributor to that collision and the severity of the collision. If he were travelling a little slower and looking ahead he would have had a couple of seconds from the time the door started opening to stop or at least slow down.
He wasn't even covering his brakes! Moron.
Also, like most lane splitters, he forgot (or was never trained on) his buffer zones. All it takes is one vehicle wandering in its lane to knock you off.
-
Why the fuck would you open the door in stop-and-go traffic anyway?
The only reason I can see for that driver to have opened his door at that time would have been to deliberately interfere with the motorcyclist. Parked car — yeah, opening the door carelessly is understandable. Stopped traffic — try to see what's causing the problem, maybe. But that traffic was moving enough that it makes no sense for the driver to be getting out.
-
He wasn't even covering his brakes! Moron.
That lane-splitting video mentioned "covering your brakes" too. What does that mean, for a non-biker?
-
Same as it does for the driver of a car: Have your fingers lightly resting on (foot right over) the brake lever (pedal) whenever things get dicey and you suspect you might need to brake suddenly. It's easier on a motorcycle because if you have a fairly recent bike you only need two fingers for sufficient force to brake to lockup/ABS activation, so you can cover the brake and still operate the accelerator while doing it. In a car without a six-point harness you need to use the same foot to brake and accelerate so it's much more difficult.
It's a basic driving skill that you should have been taught at your driver training. If you don't have this skill you should probably go back and re-do your driver training because either it was insufficient or you've forgotten the basics.
The technique may have another name in some places but I've never heard one.
