What the Daily WTF?

tacit acceptance of speeding

...or at least the the speed limit is unreasonable and should be changed.

Jaime

or at least the the speed limit is unreasonable and should be changed

Nearly every speed limit in the country is unreasonable and almost all of them are ignored. We know how to set proper speed limits, but logic seems to be trumped by emotion and politics almost every time.

It will probably never get better. Speed limit setting is in the hands of petty local politicians instead of engineers, so that won't get fixed. Driver education will never improve because this country is set up in such a way that revoking someone's driver's license is a huge barrier to them making a living; so, it's only done in extreme circumstances. Finally, speed enforcement is easy and cheap to do, so it faces constant pressure to be contorted from a safety measure to a revenue generation measure.

dkf

The simplest fix is to make it so that counties and cities set the speed limits and fines, but the fines are actually paid to the feds.

Jaime

You've addressed one problem of three. Local politicians will still bend to "lower the speed limit on my road" petitions from locals in order to get votes and you still will have poor drivers on the road.

Also, you may have created a new problem. Traffic laws are state laws, so the money will never go to the feds - but it's conceivable that it may go to the state. In New York, most traffic enforcement is done by the State Police, not the locals. If the money goes to the state, they are still lining their own pockets. Even if you manage to get the money to go to the federal government, the state governments get so much money from the federal government that it will simply flow back anyways.

dkf

@Jaime said:

Local politicians will still bend to "lower the speed limit on my road" petitions from locals in order to get votes and you still will have poor drivers on the road.

I'm not entirely sure that the first of those can be fixed usefully, though without the financial incentive it will be easier for people to push back. The poor quality driving is a different pickle, and until you start getting serious about banning bad drivers you won't fix it. Yes, it will screw some people's lives over, but there's no real alternative; asking nicely won't work, you need real legal teeth on this.

@Jaime said:

Also, you may have created a new problem.

I know.

Lorne Kates

Also I believe there is a strong corelation between people considering driving only transportation and dangerous drivers.

I believe the opposite. Or at least equal. People who drive "for fun" and who are careless, inconsiderate, self-absorbed assholes. That story I posted before? Turns out Marco MUZZO, 29, of King Township, the murderer in question-- is a spoiled rich kid of some powerful people, who is well known for driving fast and dangerously because it's "fun". Normally he drives a sports car, but decided to get drunk and drive an SUV that day. If he had been in a sports car, maybe he'd be a dead, decapitated, mutilated corpse instead of three kids and their grandfather.

The area I'm in is about a 50/50 mix of completely incompetent shitheads who should never have passed their driving test (but hey, that's what bribes are for), and spoiled, entitled fuckers in fancy cars who believe everyone should get out of their way and laws of physics don't apply to them.

What if that guy lands on you and breaks your spine (along with his, but he chose to do it unlike you)?

I'm going to categorize that as "less likely than 30k deaths per year on the roads", in the category of "I can't find any data on that happening, and I even live within 10km of a skydiving airport where there's been multiple deaths".

Raisin:
https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/book-teh-o-cial-discopaedia-abarker-creator-and-prophet-of-the-discopaedia/3866/753?u=lorne_kates

Offtopic, but I see this everyfuckingwhere and can someone please point me to the origin of that and reason (if any) behind that.

Origin: somewhere. Discosearch my posts if you care.

(Like and subscribe!)

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.

While you may not be responsible for policing speeds, you are responsibly for operating your own vehicle within the law. You cannot use other's bad behaviour to excuse your own.
Similar to 1. "causes aggro", then those people shouldn't be driving. Road rage should be an instant and permanent revocation of license. You can only control your own behavior, you cannot control others. Also: fuck them hard with a dual tailpipe. Do not enable aggressive drivers. Give them no quarter, ever.

@Jaime said:

Speed limit setting is in the hands of petty local politicians instead of engineers, so that won't get fixed

QFT

mott555

If police would actually enforce texting-while-driving laws, probably 70% of the accidents in my city would never have happened. As a motorcyclist, I specifically watch out for drivers who are texting so I can stay away from them, and unfortunately that category includes MOST drivers on the road

Lorne Kates

If police would actually enforce texting-while-driving laws, probably 70% of the accidents in my city would never have happened. As a motorcyclist, I specifically watch out for drivers who are texting so I can stay away from them, and unfortunately that category includes MOST drivers on the road

Agreed.

At least in Ontario they're pretty good at blitzing that. Then again, they did raise the fine to close to $1k, plus 3 demerit points (of 7 before suspension). Or if you endanger others, $2k, 6 points, up to 6 months in jail, and two year suspension.

So there's INCENTIVE to enforce that law. And that's the third time since the law's introduction they've increased the penalties.

Lorne Kates

unfortunately that category includes MOST drivers on the road

Again-- mandatory automatic driving cars. Feel free to text, email, masturbate, anything.

mott555

@Lorne_Kates said:

Again-- mandatory automatic driving cars

Not a fan. Might work in cities, but out on rural county highways where the maps aren't quite correct and there are giant potholes every 15 yards because they only pave it once every five years, dodging deer, coyotes, escaped cattle, and sprayers, and possibly drifted over in winter because the farmer who clears the snow in his spare time was sick that day, I'd be concerned that auto-driving cars would be a massive liability.

(Granted, I don't live that kind of life anymore, but I hope to return to it.)

obeselymorbid

@Lorne_Kates said:

I believe the opposite. Or at least equal. People who drive "for fun" and who are careless, inconsiderate, self-absorbed assholes.

That kind of dangerous, maybe.
I was referring to incompetent drivers who only see driving as hauling they blond ass around and neither know nor care for any rules.

@Lorne_Kates said:

spoiled, entitled fuckers in fancy cars who believe everyone should get out of their way

I don't think many of them consider driving "fun". For those kind of people car in addition to transportation becomes a status thing but rarely fun.

@Lorne_Kates said:

spoiled rich kid of some powerful people, who is well known for driving fast and dangerously because it's "fun"

I'll grant you this group, they can view driving as fun and be dangerous.

And drunk drivers is a separate group altogether.

Jaime

@dkf said:

The poor quality driving is a different pickle, and until you start getting serious about banning bad drivers you won't fix it. Yes, it will screw some people's lives over, but there's no real alternative; asking nicely won't work, you need real legal teeth on this.

You may not be familiar with the landscape of the US outside of the major cities. Most places to work are in office parks or stand-alone buildings that have little access to public transportation and are far from anything resembling affordable housing. They do this because the real estate is cheaper there and because everyone has a car.

Also, a lot of housing isn't near anything. I don't live in the middle of nowhere - my neighborhood has hundreds of people in it. However, the nearest business of any kind is more than two miles away.

So, no license would mean that my housing and employment choices would be severely limited. It's just a fact of life in the US - a car is nearly a necessity.

Jaime

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-2fCuCGh3I&feature=youtu.be

If police would actually enforce texting-while-driving laws, probably 70% of the accidents in my city would never have happened.

Yes, because the data clearly shows a rise in traffic accidents that correlates with the rise of text message traffic.

obeselymorbid

@Lorne_Kates said:

@obeselymorbid said:
What if that guy lands on you and breaks your spine (along with his, but he chose to do it unlike you)?

I'm going to categorize that as "less likely than 30k deaths per year on the roads", in the category of "I can't find any data on that happening, and I even live within 10km of a skydiving airport where there's been multiple deaths".

OK, what about people flying planes?
There have been occasionally accidents that involved fatalities on the ground.

@Lorne_Kates said:

Origin: somewhere. Discosearch my posts if you care.

You linked the wrong post. Paging @OffByOne

@Lorne_Kates said:

1) While you may not be responsible for policing speeds, you are responsibly for operating your own vehicle within the law. You cannot use other's bad behaviour to excuse your own.

Exactly. You cannot drive in the left lane when others are free and excuse it by saying the other guy shouldn't be speeding anyway.

obeselymorbid

That is what I mean with corelation between those who don't enjoy driving and dangerous drivers.
These people see driving only as boring means to get where they are going and need to entertain themselves with fucking phones on the way.

Fuck those people.

loopback0

Red light means stop? Not for this guy.

And no, he didn't go into the wrong lane to go around me when I stopped. He was already in that lane.

Lorne Kates

Not a fan. Might work in cities, but out on rural county highways where the maps aren't quite correct and there are giant potholes every 15 yards because they only pave it once every five years, dodging deer, coyotes, escaped cattle, and sprayers, and possibly drifted over in winter because the farmer who clears the snow in his spare time was sick that day, I'd be concerned that auto-driving cars would be a massive liability.

Above linked murder happened on such a rural road. The shitfucker's lawyer is already pulling the "he was just having fun on a road that he didn't expect other people to be on" card. If anything, auto-driving cars would be better in the country. Easier roads (assuming these cars drive by sight and sense rather than GPS), better visibility than you'll get through the trees, can even use infrared to anticipate oncoming deers, etc. Less other traffic to respond to.

I was referring to incompetent drivers who only see driving as hauling they blond ass around and neither know nor care for any rules.

Them too.

And drunk drivers is a separate group altogether.

yes, they should be in a group at the bottom of a pit being slowly filled with maggots and razor blades.

OK, what about people flying planes?There have been occasionally accidents that involved fatalities on the ground.

Pilots are highly licensed. Most of their accidents just take out them and their passengers. Even then, flight accidents are vanishingly rare****strong text compared to car accidents. I don't even know the stats of being killed on the ground by a plane crash. Everything possible has been done to mitigate those fatalities-- highly trained pilots, rigid control of airspace, extensive navigation and safety equipment in the cockpit, autopilots, etc, etc.

Exactly. You cannot drive in the left lane when others are free and excuse it by saying the other guy shouldn't be speeding anyway.

Actually, I can, according to the laws of the road I drive in. I quoted the Ontario Highway Traffic Act previously. Commercial vehicles are prohibited from the left lane. My point is I have no impetus to leave a lane I am legally allowed to be in-- moving at the proper rate of speed-- because the asshole wants to both speed and not bother to change lanes. If he wants to speed and go around me, then it's up to him to enable his own bad behavior. I am not under any compulsion to move out of his way.

These people see driving only as boring means to get where they are going and need to entertain them with fucking phones on the way.

Fuck those people.

Agreed. It really is simple. "When can I touch my phone while I'm driving?" Never. "But what about..." No. Never. If you want to touch your phone-- don't. It's that simple. It's like a pot full of boiling water. Should you stick your hand in it? No. Period and full stop.

Then again, some people have no impulse control. In which case, again, they shouldn't be manually operating death machines with 100 kilojoules of force.

loopback0

@Lorne_Kates said:

I am not under any compulsion to move out of his way.

But if you can (there's space in the lane to the right*) then you should.

* the left for those of us who drive on the correct side of the road

Lorne Kates

@Lorne_Kates said:
I am not under any compulsion to move out of his way.

But if you can (there's space in the lane to the right*) then you should.

* the left for those of us who drive on the correct side of the road

I may. I must if I'm going below the speed limit. I should if I want to cede the lane to the other driver, in which case it is a courtesy thing, and courtesy goes two ways. Coming up behind me at 50km/h over and flashing your brights at me is not courteous.

In no way should****strong text I move over.

Yamikuronue

Jonathan M. Gitlin / Sep 29, 2015 / Cars

Google’s cars need to drive less like robots and more like humans

It turns out that only robots strictly adhere to the rules of the road.

Google had to change the cars' programming with regard to crossing double yellow lines after discovering the autonomous vehicles would instead just sit permanently behind other vehicles double-parked on the road.

loopback0

@Lorne_Kates said:

Coming up behind me at 50km/h over and flashing your brights at me is not courteous.

Agreed.

@Lorne_Kates said:

In no way should****strong text I move over.

If there's space to do so, and you're not going so fast you'll fly into the back of traffic in that lane then yes, you should. At least then the idiot flashing his lights behind you can fuck off down the road and annoy someone else.

Lorne Kates

@Yamikuronue said:

Google had to change the cars' programming with regard to crossing double yellow lines after discovering the autonomous vehicles would instead just sit permanently behind other vehicles double-parked on the road.

Yup, that'll be the major challenge, if they want the autonomous cars to drive alongside humans. They need to exhibit SOME human behavior, to adapt to how idiots drive-- and to give off the social signals humans give off instead of using their blinkers.

Lorne Kates

If there's space to do so, and you're not going so fast you'll fly into the back of traffic in that lane then yes, you should. At least then the idiot flashing his lights behind you can fuck off down the road and annoy someone else.

I needed to make a left turn. So not only should I not, but it would have been way worse for me because then I'd have to swing back over two lanes of traffic to do so.

Give no quarter to idiots. Ever.

loopback0

@Lorne_Kates said:

I needed to make a left turn

Alright, fair one. If that was in the previous post, I missed it.

Lorne Kates

Directly from the New York Driving Manual:

Alright, fair one. If that was in the previous post, I missed it.

Discourse.

obeselymorbid

@Lorne_Kates said:

yes, they should be in a group at the bottom of a pit being slowly filled with maggots and razor blades.

See, we can agree at least on some points

@Lorne_Kates said:

Actually, I can, according to the laws of the road I drive in.

Then you might be legally right.
On the road I drive you can use two rightmost lanes as you wish, you cannot use any 3rd or lefter lane unless:

right lanes are full and you are overtaking traffic
you are in a lane for left turn and you intend to turn at the nearest intersection.

Still, even if you are not law wrong, you are an asshole if you drive in a left lane on an empty road.

loopback0

@Lorne_Kates said:

@loopback0 said:
Alright, fair one. If that was in the previous post, I missed it.

Discourse.

FIVE HUNDRED!

antiquarian

@RTapeLoadingError said:

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).

That sounds like an improvement over what we have here. In theory, it should work as you said, but in practice all three lanes are for all three groups of people.

@Lorne_Kates said:

One of them should squelch and slow down for half a second, just so they aren't driving side-by-side anymore.

He'll do that eventually, just before his exit comes up.

Jaime

@RTapeLoadingError said:

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).

You may pass on the right:

When you are on a two-way road that is marked for two or more lanes or is wide enough for two or more lanes, and passing is not prohibited by signs or restricted by parked cars or other obstructions.

Before you pass on the right on multi-lane roads like expressways, make sure you check your mirrors, use the correct signals for the lane change and look over your right shoulder for other vehicles. After you pass, make sure to quickly look over your left shoulder and to signal before you return to the left lane.

Most closed highways around here have exits at least every mile. The rightmost lane is usually used for those who just entered or are soon to leave the highway. If you squeeze through traffic over to the right, it makes entering/exiting difficult.

I also drive on several roads that are three lanes each direction, but the road has hundreds of shopping establishments on it. Pretty much everyone is turning onto/off of the road so you get in the left lane if you're turning left soon and the right lane if you're turning right soon. The roads are so busy that if you aren't in the correct lane before well ahead of your destination, you are going to have a problem changing two lanes in a short distance.

Lorne Kates

Then you might be legally right.On the road I drive you can use two rightmost lanes as you wish, you cannot use any 3rd or lefter lane unless:

right lanes are full and you are overtaking traffic
you are in a lane for left turn and you intend to turn at the nearest intersection.

Still, even if you are not law wrong, you are an asshole if you drive in a left lane on an empty road.

If there's a lane I'm not allowed to drive in (HOV lane, and I don't have enough passengers, for example), I don't. In most cases, I'm well aware enough of my surroundings to switch lanes to keep traffic flowing (moving over to let people merge. Speeding up or slowing down to create gaps for people. Staying out of other's blind spots).

But if driving in a particular lane so a dimfuck can speed makes me**emphasized text the asshole, then I think your definition of "asshole" is off.

On the other hand-- when I am going 10 over, and some dumbfuck starts tailgating, swerving and being a general shithead-- then I'll gladly slow down to the speed limit to fuck with them. And then gradually slow down until we're at the minimum speed limit for the area.

If they're driving that close and that dangerously, then we need to be going slower. At that point, we're at a speed where they can no longer physically stop in time if I have to stop suddenly. I'm protecting us both from their dumb choices
It'll force them to change lanes and go around me. And yes, this is even when I'm in the right lane so fuck this "fast lane" myth bullshit.
99% of the time, if they had just gone around me, they'd be kilometers ahead by now. Instead they had to be a tailgating aggressive asshole. So now a whole bunch of cars in the other lane have gone past. They merge into that lane, and get stuck of the cars ahead. I slowly accelerate, and resume full speed. With JUST enough gradual of acceleration that it gives the cars behind me a chance to catch up at close the gap. This whole group of people passes that asshole-- who then jerks back into my lane, but three cars back. This repeats over and over, until I'm a good dozen car lengths ahead of him (and thus where he'd be if he had just driven nicely and stuck to the speed limit). It's a fun game. So yeah, it's a bit of an asshole move, but it's flavored with karma. =)

FrostCat

There are stupid laws. The best solution is to ignore them.

No, the best solution is to get rid of them, because unenforced laws tend to breed contempt for the law in general.

obeselymorbid

Do you know those US stupid laws compilation occasionally circling on the net?
How come these are still on the books and noone has bothered to get rid of them?

I guess because they are not enforced so noone gives a fuck.

I also guess that overall traffic would be much worse if everyone religiously obeyed every limit.

FrostCat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NEFYCaKakE

A lot of people know that's where they wait, so they'll drive up and get out of the lane just before that curve.

Dallas solved that by putting up Jersey barriers to separate the HOV lanes: you can't get out.

ScholRLEA

another_sam

@another_sam said:
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.

Which sounds a lot like...

@boomzilla said:
tacit acceptance of speeding

...or at least the the speed limit is unreasonable and should be changed.

Only if you're retarded enough to believe that "Don't try to stop an armed robber" is tacit acceptance of armed robbery.

another_sam

@Lorne_Kates said:

1) While you may not be responsible for policing speeds, you are responsibly for operating your own vehicle within the law. You cannot use other's bad behaviour to excuse your own.

What comment are you replying to? Only the first part has anything to do with what I said. I don't think anybody argues with the rest.

@Lorne_Kates said:

2) Similar to 1. "causes aggro", then those people shouldn't be driving.

That's great, but when you're on the road with an "aggro" driver, you can't do anything about it except let them go bother someone else.

@Lorne_Kates said:

Do not enable aggressive drivers. Give them no quarter, ever.

You are part of the problem.

You are not the police. Don't try to be the police. That kind of behaviour would get you dirty looks or maybe stabbed on the street, don't do it on the road.
How the fuck do you know if someone is breaking the law? Your speedo isn't calibrated and isn't worth a pinch of shit. You don't know the situation in the other car, even if they're breaking the law maybe there's good reason. Either way, it's on them, not on you.
If somebody is up your tailpipe because you're Driving Miss Daisy or even sticking to the speed limit (so you think) in the wrong lane, it's you that's breaking the law. Move the fuck over.
Making an angry person more angry when they're equipped with a two-ton guided missile is... pants-on-head retarded.
It's in your best interest to let the angry person go be angry at someone else, not you and your loved ones.

Lorne Kates

What comment are you replying to?

Discourse.

That's great, but when you're on the road with an "aggro" driver, you can't do anything about it except let them go bother someone else.

I think I've shown otherwise.

You are part of the problem.

Sorry, but letting fucktards act like fucktards with no consequences is part of the problem.

1) You are not the police. Don't try to be the police.

Who the fuck is talking about being the police? So if buy a newspaper from one of those old timey newspaper box things, and someone comes along and says "hold it open so I can steal one", and I close the door thingy before they do, am I being the police, or am I not enabling someone to steal? The little manchild can pout all he wants. Fuck him, if he wants to break the law, he can drive around me.

2) How the fuck do you know if someone is breaking the law? Your speedo isn't calibrated and isn't worth a pinch of shit. You don't know the situation in the other car, even if they're breaking the law maybe there's good reason. Either way, it's on them, not on you.

Because I have this amazing ability to determine when an object is moving faster than I am by using my human eyeballs attached to my human meat brain. Fuck you "my spedometer isn't calibrated". I wouldn't trust to to the kmph, but within 5 or even 10, yeah. I know what speed I'm going. (And actually, I have verified it with two different GPSs. My last car actually had a completely fucked spedometer, because when the transmission was rebuilt the mechanic didn't have the right ratio gears for the old spedometer. So once I figured out the conversion rate-- and verified with a GPS-- I got very good at knowing pretty much what speed I'm going at).

And if you don't have the ability to notice when a car is coming up on you doing 120kmph on and goddamn fucking 50kmph street****strong text, then maybe you're not fit to drive.

You don't know the situation in the other car, even if they're breaking the law maybe there's good reason. Either way, it's on them, not on you.

I don't give a shit what the "situation" is in their car. There's no such thing as a "good reason". If if you try to pull that fucktarded "it was an emergency, they're trying to get to a hospital" excuse, I'll point you upthread to where I point out that any cop or judge will ream you for doing that, because you're putting everyone else at risk by driving that way. And if time really was of the essence, then the fucktard wouldn't pull up right behind me, drop 70kmph from his velocity, spend 30+ seconds flashing and swerving, then pull a dickhead maneuver like SWERVING INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC and then SLAMMING ON HIS BREAKS and driving SLOW for another 30+ seconds. Stop trying to defend a beefhead fucktard in a sportscar, you dumbfuck.

Either way, it's on them, not on you.

Fucking wrong. That is the EXACT attitude that's wrong with asshole drivers like you, and the exact reason why auto-driving cars should be MANDATORY the moment they're ready. Driving is not a case of "fuck everyone but me, and get the fuck out of my way". You're on the road with other people in other cars, surrounded by squishy pedestrians and people's property. Fuck you for speeding.

If somebody is up your tailpipe because you're Driving Miss Daisy or even sticking to the speed limit (so you think) in the wrong lane, it's you that's breaking the law. Move the fuck over.

FUCKING WRONG AGAIN! Have you ever even read your highway traffic act? Again, as I pointed out upthread:

There is no "fast lane" law (with the exception of commerical vehicles over a certain size forbidden from left lanes unless turning or doing roadwork)
There is no zero NONE ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBLE LEGAL EXCUSE****strong text for a non-emergency vehicle to exceed the speed limit. Ever. That reason you just thought of? You're 100% dead wrong. There is also NO legal impetus for someone to move over because someone is tailgating or flashing their lights (save for when your vehicle is moving below the speed limit, and there is a legally safe place for you to move over to-- like you're a fucking tractor or broken-ass car). In other words, you are 100% absolutely wrong in every sense of the word-- morally, legally, logically ANY WAY.

And the asshole WAS breaking real actual laws in many ways: speeding. Speeding over 50km/h. Aggressive driving. Following too close. Crossing a solid yellow line. Passing in a non-passing lane. Aggressive breaking-- and yes, that is a provision under the HTA. It falls under the "stunt driving" laws. $10k, car impounded for 30 days, suspension of license.

Move the fuck over.

Fuck you.

Making an angry person more angry when they're equipped with a two-ton guided missile is... pants-on-head retarded.

Fuck you.

Filed under: No seriously, go fuck yourself. I hope you die impaled in steel and glass in a single vehicle car wreck, wrought from your awesome driving habits-- and do it soon before you take anyone else out with you.

It's in your best interest to let the angry person go be angry at someone else, not you and your loved ones.

Fuck you.

another_sam