Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition
-
I think it's reasonable to assume you know who has access to your car.
And that person is likely your spouse - whom, under US law, you are not required to testify against.
-
You aren't required to. It's irrelevant who did it. Owner pays is the only feasible way to implement speed cameras.
-
It's a moving violation. The government can't fine an owner for a moving violation without changing the laws.
-
drive aggressively
Yesterday, there was some guy (?) on the freeway driving aggressively, limited by the fact that pretty much all the traffic was flowing at the same speed, so his aggressive driving didn't gain him all that much. What stood out to me, though, is that he was driving like this with a hoodie pulled up and completely obscuring his face, so he had very limited peripheral vision.
-
Just start pulling people over. True, most people may get by
I'm not really sure if it's true, but I've heard of tickets like this being dismissed because of "arbitrary enforcement." If hundreds or thousands of people are committing exactly the same infraction, and only a handful are prosecuted, it's arguably unfair to those handful, and at least some judges are (allegedly) sympathetic to that argument.
-
And that person is likely your spouse - whom, under US law, you are not required to testify against.
That's... Actually a pretty solid argument. I can't really think of a good response to that legally...
-
The government can't fine an owner for a moving violation without changing the laws.
Yes, that's my point. They had to change the laws in my country
with theshortly after1 introduction of speed cameras.Do you have cameras in US? If so, how do they implement fines?
1Initially they didn't change the law and there were smartasses objecting to the fines on the basis it wasn't them, driver wasn't clearly visible, they lent the car to a friend etc.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
"Sure, you can prove you didn't break the spirit of the law, but you broke the letter of the law. And that's more important. Guilty."
Well, if letter of the law states that whoever's license plate is visible (even if it's on a towtruck), then the law is horrible, but judge is correct.
@Lorne_Kates said:
"Sure, you are proving with evidence that you didn't break the letter of the law, but you still broke the spirit of the law. Guilty"
With that one I'd go as high up as I could in the judiciary system until I found a judge that knows letter is more important than the spirit.
-
it's just people feel some need to sit in the middle or outer lanes and get in the way.
I've read that vehicular traffic tends to behave like a compressible fluid. For example, an accident or other obstruction may form a shock wave that persists long after the obstruction itself is removed, and the behavior of the wave (stationary or propagating upstream or downstream, how quickly it dissipates) can be modeled using fluid dynamics. This includes a tendency for the fluid to expand to fill the capacity of the vessel — in this case, not meaning traffic will increase to fill the capacity of the road, which is true but a different phenomenon — rather that the particles will try maintain as much distance (on average) from other particles as possible, and using all available lanes increases the distance between particles.
In practical terms, using all the lanes results in, on average, N/(N+1) cars in the lane in front of you, possibly allowing for better visibility of the road, and (N+1)/N distance between cars, allowing (in the absence of road-rage idiots) (N+1)/N reaction time to avoid hazards.
That said, if there are signs saying "keep right except to pass," I'll tend to stay in the right lane. Most places I've driven, though, the signs tend to say "slower traffic keep right," in which case I'll use whatever lane is moving at the speed I'm comfortable driving at.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
It'd be okay with the 40k fewer deaths on the road. Humans just aren't responsible enough to operate these things safely or responsibly in public.
When they ban human-driven cars, I'll die behind the steering wheel but not before driving in a crowd of people agitating for such ban.
@Lorne_Kates said:
If 90% of children kept running around whipping lawn darts at people, you take away lawn darts from everyone.
You arrest and hang/fry/inject/whatever_is_the_preferred_method_now those who have put their dart where it doesn't belong.
@Lorne_Kates said:
You have to be undeniable, provably responsible and capable of handling these death machines.
Exams could be a bit harder than they're now but generally it's pretty fine as it is.
-
If hundreds or thousands of people are committing exactly the same infraction, and only a handful are prosecuted, it's arguably unfair to those handful
Does that work with looting e.g. during riots?
"There were hundreds of people demolishing shit and stealing. It's not fair to prosecute only me because I'm the only one who got caught."
-
In practical terms, using all the lanes results in, on average, N/(N+1) cars in the lane in front of you, possibly allowing for better visibility of the road, and (N+1)/N distance between cars, allowing (in the absence of road-rage idiots) (N+1)/N reaction time to avoid hazards.
And how do we get rid of the road rage idiots?
-
"They singled me out because I'm black/white/Hispanic/gay/straight/Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/female/male/
$protected_classes[date()]."
-
When they ban human-driven cars, I'll die behind the steering wheel but not before driving in a crowd of people agitating for such ban.
You'll probably be killed in a car accident before then.
You arrest and hang/fry/inject/whatever_is_the_preferred_method_now those who have put their dart where it doesn't belong.
I'd love to reinstate the death penalty for drunk and aggressive drivers. Public, painful execution.
Or we can just accept that it's okay for people to irresponsibly murder four people, three of them children.
Because that shit happens daily.
Fuck you Marco MUZZO, 29, of King Township, Ontario. Rot in hell.
-
Do you have cameras in US? If so, how do they implement fines?
Laws vary by state, so this won't be accurate for everyone in the US.
Around here, the speed camera takes a front-view picture of the car. That picture, and the driver's license photo of the registered owner, are displayed to an operator. If the registered owner is driving, he gets a ticket. If not, it goes to some type of resolution queue. I doubt if those infractions ever get enforced, but it wouldn't be too hard to pull up the licenses of everyone at the same address.
The speed camera craze is losing steam here - mostly because the introduction of cameras almost never improves safety in any measurable way.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
You'll probably be killed in a car accident before then.
That's more than likely
@Lorne_Kates said:
I'd love to reinstate the death penalty
for drunk and aggressive drivers. Public, painful execution.FTFY I really don't understand why society would want to feed and house a person for their entire life. On the other hand I don't even see why said person would want to spend their entire life in prison instead of ending it quickly.
That link seems to be down. I found the story on other site, and it is tragic that drunk drivers kill people but it still isn't the reason to ban driving altogether.
-
That picture, and the driver's license photo of the registered owner, are displayed to an operator. If the registered owner is driving, he gets a ticket. If not, it goes to some type of resolution queue.
Simple
solution. Register your friend's car and let your friend register yours. No fines anymore.
-
-
There aren't enough bullets.
-
people but it still isn't the reason to ban driving altogether.
It's one of 46000 / year reasons. fakeedit: the number seems to be ~30k in US alone, don't feel like getting depressed enough to do global stats.
9/11 NON-SEQUITOR ARGUMENT: if 3k deaths were enough for America to ban sanity, then 30k deaths should be enough to ban driving.
But srsly, humans are shit at driving, either intentionally shit, or just shit due to biology restrictions. The average person shouldn't be driving. Neither should the vast majority of non-average people.
-
Register your friend's car and let your friend register yours.
This sort of shenanigans was part of why we moved to a system with registered keepers being responsible for fines unless they indicate (presumably theoretically under oath) that a specific other individual was driving at the time, or that the vehicle was being driven without permission (stolen, joyriding, etc.)
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
It's one of 46000 / year reasons.
Tragic, but shit happens. There are many dangerous things but we don't ban them.
Drunk drivers that cause crashes should be shot on sight though.@Lorne_Kates said:
NON-SEQUITUR
FTFY At least you know it's non sequitur to compare deliberate killings with an action that has death only as a very rare side effect. Really just divide 30k by a number of cars and a number of trips made in a year. It's a very tiny percentage. Most of the people will drive their entire life without any serious (or even any) accident.
-
Sure, they'll ban driving at some point. But I think there will be about as much time between mass self-driving cars and a ban on driving as there is between the discovery of smoking being bad for your health and the ban on smoking.
And at least over here they haven't banned smoking yet, though they've started discussing whether it should be allowed on private balconies.
-
But I think there will be about as much time between mass self-driving cars and a ban on driving as there is between the discovery of smoking being bad for your health and the ban on smoking.
I find it interesting that the fraction of the population who smoke has dropped hugely in the UK. Some of that seems to be due to vaping, which seems to be a lot less noxious (especially to others) while still delivering a real nicotine hit…
-
specific other individual was driving at the time
Here this doesn't fly if you've voluntarily given your car to that individual. You have to pay the fine. You should only give your vehicle to someone who you can trust anyway.
-
You should only give your vehicle to someone who you can trust anyway.
That's the best advice. Leave vehicle loans to random people to the experts (who have the right insurance).
-
FTFY At least you know it's non sequitur
SPELLING CANOT MELT STEEL BEAMS
Really just divide 30k by a number of cars and a number of trips made in a year. It's a very tiny percentage. Most of the people will drive their entire life without any serious (or even any) accident
I know the stats are low on a per person basis. But it is one of (the?) highest causes of death in the world. And as much as I love stricter licensing tests & regulations, and better enforcements-- the one constant in the equation is the flawed meat CPU being operated outside of its natural capabilities. Humans driving badly is a social problem that can't be fixed with technology, I admit. But completely redefining the problem and removing humans from behind the wheel is a paradigm-shifting solution.
Drunk drivers that cause crashes should be shot on sight though.
Yes.
Sure, they'll ban driving at some point. But I think there will be about as much time between mass self-driving cars and a ban on driving as there is between the discovery of smoking being bad for your health and the ban on smoking.
I know, I probably won't see mandatory self-driving cars in my lifetime. Good analogy, BTW.
And at least over here they haven't banned smoking yet, though they've started discussing whether it should be allowed on private balconies.
I used to live in an apartment complex. There'd be a fire at least once a month. It was ALWAYS from someone smoking on a balcony, throwing a lit cigarette off the balcony, and having it blow back onto someone elses. Where it would start a fire.
Plus they stink just as bad as VW Diesel car. I swear to fuck, one asshole with a tiny death stick can stink up an entire city block. Asshole fuckers.
-
Here this doesn't fly if you've voluntarily given your car to that individual. You have to pay the fine.
That's because your system is designed to extract money from the population as a whole. Ours is designed as a disincentive for speeding.
-
@loopback0 said:
it's just people feel some need to sit in the middle or outer lanes and get in the way.
I've read that vehicular traffic tends to behave like a compressible fluid. For example, an accident or other obstruction may form a shock wave that persists long after the obstruction itself is removed, and the behavior of the wave (stationary or propagating upstream or downstream, how quickly it dissipates) can be modeled using fluid dynamics. This includes a tendency for the fluid to expand to fill the capacity of the vessel — in this case, not meaning traffic will increase to fill the capacity of the road, which is true but a different phenomenon — rather that the particles will try maintain as much distance (on average) from other particles as possible, and using all available lanes increases the distance between particles.
In practical terms, using all the lanes results in, on average, N/(N+1) cars in the lane in front of you, possibly allowing for better visibility of the road, and (N+1)/N distance between cars, allowing (in the absence of road-rage idiots) (N+1)/N reaction time to avoid hazards.
That said, if there are signs saying "keep right except to pass," I'll tend to stay in the right lane. Most places I've driven, though, the signs tend to say "slower traffic keep right," in which case I'll use whatever lane is moving at the speed I'm comfortable driving at.
I now want to see that modeled.......
-
In practical terms, using all the lanes results in, on average, N/(N+1) cars in the lane in front of you, possibly allowing for better visibility of the road, and (N+1)/N distance between cars, allowing (in the absence of road-rage idiots) (N+1)/N reaction time to avoid hazards.
But, "slow traffic right" appeals on such a fundamental level that people will never stop screaming it. It's a magic law that is basically a restatement of "get out of my way".
What bothers me is when I see two cars driving next to each other for a long time. The thing that keeps going through my head is "If these two people are driving exactly the same speed, which of them caught up to the other one?"
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Or we can just accept that it's okay for people to irresponsibly murder four people, three of them children.
That makes me wince... Agreed 100% on that sentiment........
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
But it is one of (the?) highest causes of death in the world.
2.9% of all causes. 17th place if I'm counting right.
1.8% in USA.At this point I'm willing to bet most of us are going to die from some sort of cancer or heart disease.
Also, everything fun is dangerous. Are you suggesting we should ban drinking, smoking, rollercoasters, all outdoor sports?
@Lorne_Kates said:
I swear to fuck, one asshole with a tiny death stick can stink up an entire city block.
I've never smoked in my entire life but I love the tobacco smell. Am I weird?
-
That's because your system is designed to extract money from the population as a whole.
Nope, well I mean yes, fines are primarily to extract money, but speed cameras specifically have signs posted before them, so only pathological morons will be caught.
Ours is designed as a disincentive for speeding.
Neighbouring country goes even further - they have signs before the stationary cameras and they have a shitload of them but not every one of them is working at any particular moment - they have some amount of cameras and vastly greater amount of posts and they move cameras between those posts. Still effective as fuck because traffic does slow down as you won't find out if there really was a camera until you get a ticket after a couple of weeks later.
-
@boomzilla said:
Just start pulling people over. True, most people may get by
I'm not really sure if it's true, but I've heard of tickets like this being dismissed because of "arbitrary enforcement." If hundreds or thousands of people are committing exactly the same infraction, and only a handful are prosecuted, it's arguably unfair to those handful, and at least some judges are (allegedly) sympathetic to that argument.
If the guy is out there continually pulling people over, I think he has a good argument against arbitrary enforcement. But then a judge could do whatever the heck he wanted, so, who knows?
In any case, that would take a while, and people would probably start catching on that speeding there is a high risk activity.
-
FTFY I really don't understand why society would want to feed and house a person for their entire life.
Because we've made the decision that we're better off doing that than having them out doing whatever they do.
-
:)
Well, there was an implied "instead of putting the fucker out of his misery" at the end of that statement. But I think you know that.
-
Re Not staying left unless overtaking
At least in NSW left lanes have a tendency to randomly end and force you to merge into the right lane. Whoever figured that forcing the slow lane to merge into the fast lane was a buffoon.
Yes, there's the "left lane must exit" situation on the highway and parked cars occupying one lane in suburbia but generally people don't drive in the correct lane.
@RTapeLoadingError said:
It doesn't stop situations where all 3 lanes of the highway are occupied by cars doing exactly the same speed, usually on or just below the limit.
Are you suggesting that three lanes full of cars should merge into the rightmost lane? I hope you realize that they won't all fit. If you're talking about three lanes that are so far from capacity that they would fit into one lane, then there should be plenty of space to get around people.
"Stay left except to pass" only works on roads with few cars. Once it is at or near capacity, every lane is full and lane changing is more difficult.
I get that when all lanes are busy that there's nowhere for people to go. The situation I'm referring to is why there are gaps in the "slow" lanes (to avoid left vs right confusion) but people just sit on the speed limit. There's often open road ahead of the car in the fastest lane and a queue of people wanting to get past.
It seems to be a well understood system whereby lane 1 is for stuff that can't keep to the speed limit, middle lane is for people who don't want to speed, and lane 3 is for people who want to go over the speed limit (generally the 10% believers although a few people fly down it).
If there's room then this system tends to work pretty well. I don't generally speed so I normally use the slow or middle lane
-
What bothers me is when I see two cars driving next to each other for a long time. The thing that keeps going through my head is "If these two people are driving exactly the same speed, which of them caught up to the other one?"
Or one merged and accelerate, while the other person approached at speed, until beautiful Calculus happened and they drove side by side.
And they're both fucking idiots. One of them should squelch and slow down for half a second, just so they aren't driving side-by-side anymore. Driving right next to someone means you have one less escape route from something coming at you-- and you increase your risk of getting sideswiped when the other idiot changes lanes without looking.
2.9% of all causes. 17th place if I'm counting right.1.8% in USA.
Hmm. Okay, my math was off somewhere. Good stats.
Also, everything fun is dangerous
Driving may be fun, but that isn't it's primary purpose. It's transportation.
Are you suggesting we should ban drinking, smoking, rollercoasters, all outdoor sports?
No (though see my sentiments about drunk drivers). Yes (because second hand smoke fuck them). No and no.
All the things you listed are dangerous to you, and you chose to engage in them. Fine, whatever. Liver failure? On you. Stuck parachute? That's what liability release forms are for.
But allowing someone else to dangerously operate a deadly machine in public, where they are putting the lives of OTHERS at risk through carelessness? No. Not acceptable. And again, I'm not saying an outright ban. Licensed, qualified, and highly trained people can operate those machines, just like all other deadly machines operated in public Everyone else who needs personal transportation gets auto-driving cars.
-
I get that when all lanes are busy that there's nowhere for people to go. The situation I'm referring to is why there are gaps in the "slow" lanes (to avoid left vs right confusion) but people just sit on the speed limit. There's often open road ahead of the car in the fastest lane and a queue of people wanting to get past.
But, when the middle lane is going a reasonable speed and the car in the left, in front of you, is going a bit faster than them - you leave him with a choice: pass the cars in the middle at his own pace, or pull in with them and go slower than he wants to go. In other words, you're relying on him choosing "you" when you gave him a "him or you" choice. If the guy behind you wants to go faster than you, then you are also obligated to pull in the the guys you were passing to let him by. Reducto Ad Absurdum: everyone has to pull over for the fastest guy. Ain't gonna happen.
-
But, when the middle lane is going a reasonable speed and the car in the left, in front of you, is going a bit faster than them - you leave him with a choice: pass the cars in the middle at his own pace, or pull in with them and go slower than he wants to go
That's not the situation I was describing. I'm referring to people going the same speed as the car in the adjacent lane. If they're overtaking, even slowly, then it's fine. If they're not then they should get in the same lane as the car they want to drive the same speed as (be it ahead of or behind) and drive at the same speed.
-
-
HufPo? Are you trying****strong text to induce road rage?
-
I'm referring to people going the same speed as the car in the adjacent lane.
The road's probably right at capacity, and the traffic is flowing like a liquid instead of a gas. Suck it up, at least it isn't flowing like a crystal…
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
And they're both fucking idiots. One of them should
squelch and slow downgun it for half a second and merge before the other car (braking afterwards optional), just so they aren't driving side-by-side anymore.FTFY
@Lorne_Kates said:
Driving may be fun, but that isn't it's primary purpose. It's transportation.
I'm totally for revoking licenses of those for whom driving isn't fun even as a secondary or tertiary purpose.
Also I believe there is a strong corelation between people considering driving only transportation and dangerous drivers. There are other dangerous drivers of course, but those two sets have ahuge overlap.@Lorne_Kates said:
Stuck parachute? That's what liability release forms are for.
What if that guy lands on you and breaks your spine (along with his, but he chose to do it unlike you)?
@Lorne_Kates said:
Everyone else who needs personal transportation gets auto-driving cars.
That is fine.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
trying****strong text
Offtopic, but I see this everyfuckingwhere and can someone please point me to the origin of that and reason (if any) behind that.
I can guess it's (deserved) mocking of Markdown but I still feel like I'm missing something funny.
-
Do you use keyboard shortcuts to bold text while typing? like, **this?**strong text?
This is actually not a canonical occurrence - because my finger slipped, and I look at the screen rather than my hands so I don't actually get tripped by this shit - so this was synthetic. There may be In The Wild accidental occurrences? And many, many intentional.
-
Oh, I see.
I usually type the word and then do CtrlShift followed by Ctrl
so I wasn't ever caught by this.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
I was doing speed limit on nearly empty road.
http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o730/ratsclacker/KeepLeft_zps9480c1ef.jpg
It makes sense in a lot of ways, but it comes across as a tacit acceptance of speeding, which just smells wrong here.
It's acceptance that traffic moves better if everybody tries to get along; you're not responsible for policing speed and doing so only causes more aggro.
-
-
List of causes of death by rate - Wikipedia
