Searching for News
Contents
Item 1: Driving Issues
Subject:
Re: To S. Jones,
re: driving issues
Date:
22 Jan 1999
19:42:37 GMT
As a "survivor" of a collision caused by someone running a red light I share your curiosity about what possesses folks to be so cavalier with their own lives, let alone the lives of others. While I don't expect these moral giants to give a fig about others, I remain mystified that they would put their own precious skins at risk. Maybe they are quite literally too stupid to live.
The thread isn't about running RED lights, its about stopping unnecessarily and unsafely on Yellow lights. No one is suggesting running reds is legal or safe.
Subject:
Re: To S. Jones,
re: driving issues
Date:
Fri, 22 Jan
1999 14:15:17 -0700
Golly, excuse the heck out of me. Maybe I should have added a few details. I was the second person turning left on a green arrow when this idiot blazed through the intersection on a red light and came within a centimeter of killing us both. This mndidate for the Darwin award claims to have entered the intersection on a yellow light. Maybe that's why I took the time to "contribute" to this frame.
Seems to some folks that if they see the light is yellow from a quarter mile away they assume they can charge through, regardless of safety. And your ire with people stopping/slowing down for yellow lights seems misplaced. If the folks behind them can't stop, it means they were following too closely. No one is required to enter an intersection on a yellow if they don't deem it safe. I'm not going to drive in an unsafe manner just to cater to the impatience of someone behind me.
Subject:
Re: To S. Jones,
re: driving issues
Date:
Fri, 22 Jan
1999 17:29:48 -0500
Thank you Dcallier - it's good to know there's at least one other decent human being on the roads with myself. You remind me of another point - people claiming the light was still yellow on their side. This has to be the worst excuse people can give. Yellow may not be a "stop" sign, but it sure as hell does not signify a good driver if that's his excuse. Just out of curiosity, did you go to court for that incident?? What happened to the guy who "proceeded through his yellow light"??
Hear hear....you go Dcallier!!
Subject:
Re: To S. Jones,
re: driving issues
Date:
23 Jan 1999
04:03:20 GMT
Really? Even if certain injury or death awaits behind you? Sure, they would be legally following too close, and liable it they killed you, but you'd still be dead, and you'd be dead because you chose to stop unnecessarily.
My thoughts1
My view points tend to agree with Dcallier. I would rather stop at a yellow light than go through it if I thought it wasn't safe enough for me to make it across the intersection. I admit there have been a few times when I did run a yellow light where the yellow light turn red just as I was in the middle of the intersection. I knew the red light would come up quickly because I saw the yellow light come on for a couple of seconds. Yet I made the decision to run it, even though I knew that it was going to turn red the next second. It wasn't because I was in a hurry to get somewhere. I just didn't want to wait at the intersection. I've also ran red lights before, but not on purpose. It happen because I wasn't paying attention.
I can see both sides of running
the yellow light. If you run it too late it turns red and you might get into
an accident. However, if you don't run it and stop, the guy behind you might
bang into you. Either way there is a chance that you might get into an
accident. Although to me running a red light seem much riskier.
It was interesting to see two
different points of view come out on this topic, even though the the two main
debaters were survivors of accidents caused by someone running a red light.
One is for running yellow lights and the other against.
Item 2: Do Drivers Know?
Subject:
Do drivers know? (was: My journey to the Dark Side is complete...
Date:
Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:26:25 GMT
Some total prat on a bike decided that the give way bit at the end of Victoria Rd. didn't apply to him and nearly went under my car. To make matters worse he started wild hand gestures as if it were my fault. He's lucky sense prevailed and I didn't get out the car and beat him to death with my crock lock...
This reminds me of a serious question I have which isn't meant as just one more shot in the cyclists-pedestrians-drivers-are-bastards competition.
I was walking south down St Andrew's St (then Regent St) on the Parker's Piece side of the road yesterday. A stride or two before reaching the kerb ofPark Terrace I noticed a driver coming down St Andrew's St who I guessed would be turning into Park Terrace (I don't remember whether he was indicating, but let's give him the BOTD). However, I judged (accurately, asit turned out) that if I continued at the pace I was going [1] I would be crossing Park Terrace (i.e. I'd be in the road) before the driver would getthe front of his car from St Andrew's St onto Park Terrace. So, knowing this gave me right of way, continue I did.
I got halfway across when the driver,who had started to turn and had not slowed down, decided to hit two things at once, viz. his brakes and his horn. Instead of making the usual pedestrianobeisance of skittishly running the rest of the way across the road, I stopped dead there in the middle of the road, turned towards the driver andgave him the most disgusted look I could muster, then turned my attention back to road-crossing and went on my way. Naturally, I was followed by ashouted 'Wanker' or some such friendly greeting (the traffic was too heavy for him to get out and marmalize me).
I often get into situations like this where as pedestrian I claim my right ofway by stepping out to cross the road and am met by a horn-blowing driver who seem to think I shouldn't be there. My question is this. Are thesehorn-blowing drivers:
1 laboring under the misunderstanding that _they_ have right of way? or
2. well aware that I have right of way but warning me that, as they play bydifferent rules (law of the jungle, perhaps), they are prepared to run me down if I, a mere pedestrian, don't shift my arse and just get the hell outof their way and damned quick? or
3 acknowledging they made a mistake (and actually shouting after me not acurse but, 'Thanks for reminding me by your exemplary actions that pedestrians have right of way in situations like that? I'd almost forgotten.')
Let's be really generous with the BOTD and opt for 1. Now I ask, Do driving instructors teach their instructees that they do _not_ have right of way inthese situations? If they do, do examiners test it? If they do, how long does it take for your average driver to forget this rather simple rule? (Bear with me. I have never had a driving lesson or sat a driving test.)
[1] I was walking quite fast, as I usually do, but I don't think this is relevant (I don't think it messed up the driver's judgment, for example, ofwhere I'd be in the time it took him to turn the corner). [Chris ]
n
A language is
a dialect that has an army and a navy. (M. Weinreich)
My Thoughts2
Living in Hawaii, we don't get that much horn blowing, at least in my experience. Also, most drivers are pretty patient about the pedestrians. As for the who's in the right in the cyclist-motorist-pedistrian circle, it depend who you happen to be at the time. If you were the pedestrian, as above, you'd probably think "What a jerk" for blowing his horn at you. And if you were the driver, you'd probably think "What a idiot" for walking across in front of a car.
When something happens, like an
traffic accident, people tend to see themselves as the one with the less
blame. They shift the most of the faults to the other guy.
I think this is what Dr. James
called "attribution biased". I think it is human nature to try to rationalize
our selves. Our thoughts, behaviors, emotions, etc. We tend to have an
explanation for just about everything. And usually those explanations have a
tendency to favor us, meaning the person with the explanation.
Item 3: Aggressive Drivers
Subject: Re: Aggressive Drivers
Date: Tue, 02 Mar
1999 08:57:45 GMT
What is your favorite way of intimidating us conservative drivers?
1. Remain at full throttle until you are within your braking window.
2. Swap lanes,
appear in left then right mirrors, straddle the center
line to get
attention etc.
3. Flash high
beams while you still have 200-400m to go (depends on
speed ifferential)..
4. Brake late
@ threshold.
5. Fall back 2
car lengths and perform torque demonstration. Try to
appear in as many
mirrors as possible.
6. In general,
do not pass on the right unless the case is hopeless
and you have a
very clear shot.
7. Always pass
cars hugging the center line with 5" clearance and
maximum possible
speed differential.
8. If someone
should tap brakes in retaliation --> close gap to 2" off
rear bumper. Make
no further attempt to compensate for brake tapping.
If your front
bumper/spoiler needs repainting anyway (paint chipped
from countless
hrs. of high speed travel), you might just want to givethe front car a heads
up.
How do you actually "read" traffic and know you want hit someone?
Reading traffic is based on experience. Same with reading & feeling the road. The prerequisite is that you pay attention and think. If youcant think, you cant drive. It also helps when you understand how your car communicates -- and hopefully you have a car that communicatesrather well. E.g., the kind of communication that takes place when the front end skips over tar or paint markings. The change in steeringresistance that takes place just prior to deterioration of front end grip or the way the "carving on rails" feel slowly subsides as youdevelop yaw.
I heard that accidents are caused mainly by people who are conservative drivers(I was surprised to hear that).
The conservative people are the ones who go out and practice car control so that when difficult situations arise they are better equipped to deal with them.
Speed of travel has little to do with the degree of safety. Driving within your limits has a lot to do with it. Last but not least, justbecause you cant drive a certain way under certain conditions (e.g. 100+ on snow) does not mean that its unsafe for other (competent)drivers to do so.
Subject: Re:
Aggressive Drivers
Date: Wed,
03 Mar 1999 00:20:09 GMT
Matthew,
I'm glad you admit you're aggressive. I know you can put your car where you want it when you want to, but what about other people?
An assertive driver asserts his way you say. An aggressive driver takes this position he wants on the road you say. Matthew , your drivingstyle is intimidating and forceful. People see you coming and they know they better move so that you can take your position on the road. I knowyoure a good driver, better than most of us and if someone decided not to move out of your way at the last minute you would be able to avoidhitting them very nicely. Maybe with an inch to spare but you wouldn't hit them.
Its just the
intimidating I dont like. Its kind of like your foot
becomes a
muscle,instead of flexing your arm, you are in a senseflexing your foot when
you ease(or nail) the throttle to clear your
path. I'm not saying youre a bad driver, the opposite, you're anexcellent
driver, but just think how average drivers feel trying to
get a little
piece of road with aggressive, forceful drivers like youwho will just take
what they want.
[ http://www.talkway.com
]
My Thoughts3
I have never really seen what aggressive driving is until I moved to Honolulu. There were some aggressive driving where I used to live, the Big Island, but you rarely see any. Occasionally a vehical would cut into a lane or tailgate. However, since there's not that much traffic in Big Island, there is not that much aggressive driving either.
Honolulu, on the other hand, is
another story. It seems like you really have to be on your guard while you're
driving here. I mean more than your usual. Why's there so much more
aggressive driving in Honolulu compared to Big Island? It seems too simple to
say that the answer is the number of vehicles. Is it the mentality of living
in a big city? I would think it's the combination of the two. The belief
that you have to be aggressive in the city to succeed and that drive for
aggressiveness spills into different aspects of your life, which includes
driving. It doesn't help that the rush hour traffics are hours long.
Item 4: Road Kill
Subject: Re:
Aggressive Drivers
Date: 3 Mar
1999 19:45:08 GMT
I'm not sure
whether to laugh or tremble at the knowledge that some untrained/unthinking
driver could crash head-on into me and *kill*
me because a
friggin' squirrel ran into the road!
I hope that
there is a miscommunication causing most of the confusion
here. I don't
*think* most people will risk a head-on collision to
save a squirrel,
even as cute as they are.
I won't budge an inch. Not the the left and not to the right. We havetoo many bloody squirrels in the area as it is.
I *will* 'swerve' to avoid pretty much anything that runs out in front of my car. What I will not do, is leave my lane.
Agreed.
I realize most people probably cannot swerve without changing lanes, either due to lack of skill, or simply size or condition of vehicle. Our MR2 is about half a lane wide to begin with, so there is quite a bit of room to move around.
It all depends on the vehicle, in my opinion. In the Beretta I'd feelconfident enough to be able to dodge, without crossing into oncoming traffic, any animal that darted into my path.
With the Sunbird, I'd say forget it - I'm going through/over it. If it'sbigger than a large dog, then I'd try to brake, if circumstances allowed it (ie: no one behind me that would be endangered by my braking).
With the Nova, if it's no larger than a doe, I'm not even going to try tostop. However, if I'm in an area where I know there to be a lot of medium-large animals, or if there as signs posted to such effect, I willdrive more slowly as a precaution.
When it comes to children and elderly, all bets are off. The car getssacrificed.
When it comes to stupid adults (not referring to people with medical conditions, but rather *stupid* people) I'll try to avoid them. :)
Call me a bastard, but if the choice is between my '68, and some dumb jockthat *SAW* the car coming, but decided to run in front of it anyways, I'll go to the extent of spending my brakes and rubber, but I won't ditch the car.
Bastardly
everyones,
Dennis
Subject: Re:
Aggressive Drivers/Roadkill
Date: Tue,
02 Mar 1999 15:54:10 -0500
Word Matches: AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS DRIVING ROAD TRAFFIC about small animal on the road, sorry but is better to run over a rabit or dog than kill yourself or kill someone else because you lost the control of the car.
True in every aspect but I always try to make the effort to avoid it. If the situation permits it, I will either slow down or try to avoid it. I won't jam the brakes if I know there is a car following me, I won't try to avoid it if there's any incoming traffic on the other lane, I will speed up thought if I see it's a spider (I hate those). [ Mat ]
My Thoughts4
Would your average Joe be able to not breake and swarve off the road if he saw a animal suddenly appear in front of his car? I don't think so. I know that I wouldn't be able to help myself. Even if I knew that there were cars behind me, I think I would just automatically hit the breakes. It's just instinct, to stop the car. To avoid the animal. You wouldn't have much time to think, if any. Unless you're going really slow like 10 mi/hr, I don't think there's anything else you could do besides breaking and swarving.
As for the choice between the car
and a animal, I would like to say that I would do the unselfish thing and save
the animal, but I won't. I guess I'm a bit selfish that way. I would rather
have my car than save a possum.
Item 5: Speeding...Do the Maths
Subject: Re:
Speeding.. do the maths [my rant]
Date: Mon,
01 Mar 99 01:52:35 GMT
God not this line
of thought again. So what are you saying, we should all
stick to 100km/h
and we'll be "safe"? Hmm, 100km/h is about 28 m/s, sowhat
if something 50
metres up the road jumped in front of you, you'd be rooted
etc. And what
about 60 km/h, that's ~17 m/s, and if something 20 metres up
the road jumps in
front of you... how far do you want to take this? Wecould
set the speed
limit to zero, then no-one will ever have an accident.
Problem
solved!
You're a genius!
Okay, if
you're going to use that line of argument, then I will use
this:
The only way
to have a zero accident rate is to have no driving at all.
This is
impractical. Therefore we must accept some risk by driving on
the roads at any
non-zero speed. Since there will be a risk at no
matter what speed
we drive, then we may as well have no speed limit at
all. After all,
if there is a risk of accident at 20kph, there's also
going to be a
risk at 60kph so why not increase the limit to that. If
there's a risk at
60 kph then why not increase the limit to 100kph...and
so on.
I just cannot
understand the attitude posed by people such as Norbie
above. Clearly
we cannot have open slather on the roads. Also, setting
a ridiculously
low limit is also impractical. Therefore the powers that
be have drawn a
line in the sand at 60/80/100/110kph (depending on the area) as a level of
acceptable risk.
There is a real problem with this line of reasoning. What is the acceptable speed limit? Where is the research clearly demonstrating a relationship (nevermind cause and effect) regarding speed and fatality rates? The fact is, the bottom line is that the only reason to have speed limits really is to reducethe fatality rate. The question is, why is it when speed limits (most particularly open road speed limits) are toyed around with, there is noobservable difference in fatality rates? Some "studies" in Australia (for example, 50km/h speed limits) are notably flawed.
Fact is, they reduce thespeed limit, heavily promote it, advertise that there will be a large police presence, and then attempt to explain results as all being due to the speedlimit. First, there are no statistics drawn up on fatality rates (deaths per hundred million kilometres) or accident rates or whatever. Just blanket"number of accidents". Well, the lower limits. police crackdown etc. would be a disincentive to travel on these roads, so the number of km travelled on them is probably less. There is also the more careful attention to driving due tothe increased police presence and awareness.
Quite frankly, the level of research done in Australia generally in this areais abysmal. Much of the research that I have seen has clearly been done in a way to please the funding body (the Government) who has a vested interestinhaving low speed limits.
On a slightly different note, how are you (assuming that you have done unbiased and very thorough research) going to have an all knowing speed limit?What may be safe of a sunny day with light traffic may well not be safe with cold nights with rain pissing down. But set the limit for the worstconditions, and the limit is not appropriate on sunny days. The fact is, in relation to accidents, the majority of driving that is done anywhere is donenot with regard to speed limits, but with regard to prevailing conditions. (e.g. people going from one suburban street into another do not try tonegotiate right angled bends at the speed limit, despite the limit being say, 60km/h).
In the final analysis, worldwide evidence is that speed limits are irrelevant WRT fatality rates, and to place empahsis on speed limits is simplistic in the extreme. If you simply studied fatality rates in different speed zones, takingNOTHING else into account (i.e. the only data that you have is the prevailing speed limit and the fatality rates-no road types or whatever), you would cometo the conclusion that higher speed limits save lives!! (See fatality rates on freeways and suburban streets). [Dennis ]
Maybe you think that the limit is too low. In that case, lobby your local RAC, RTA, Police, MP, whatever, and try to get it changed. Until then, accept that the posted speed limit is the LAW and if you exceed it and get caught then you've got nobody to blame except yourself. And don't give me that argument about driver skill and the safety of modern cars. How many people on this list know how to handle their car in an emergency situation? I don't mean just "knowing" what you are supposed to do, but have actual real-life repeated experience of handling a car in an out of control situation? Some will, certainly. But the majority don't.
I've done
defensive driving courses, I've done
performance
driving courses, I've spent time on the skid pan and on the
track but I
simply don't have experience of kids or roos unexpectedly
jumping in front
of my car. So I don't know how I'll react when the
pressure is on,
and neither can anyone else who doesn't have that
experience. And
the faster you go over the government mandated level of
risk then the
more danger you put yourself AND OTHER ROAD USERS in.
Frankly, I
couldn't care if you wrap yourself around a tree at high
speed. But I
very much do care if you wrap yourself around my car at
high speed.
This is the
statement I have problems with. You have equated "legal" with
"safe", and vice
versa. This logic simply does not hold water, but that's
the
line the powers
that be are trying to feed us with various ridiculous
advertisements
and whatnot. Joe Average is given the impression that he's
always safe
provided he never exceeds the speed limit. Dangerous thing to
think IMO.
You've missed
the point. Nobody is arguing that 100kph is a "safe"
speed.
Obviously, the only totally safe speed is zero. What we are
saying is that
100kph represents a compromise between safety and
practicality. I
don't care if you agree with that compromise or not,
because at the
moment 100kph is what it is and we all have to live with
it. Shit can
happen no matter what speed you are doing - I nearly hit a pedestrian while
going round an intersection at about 5kph because he
suddenly decided
to cross the road in spite of the "don't walk" light,
in spite of
another car going through ahead of me, in spite of him
looking and
seeing me coming, he still went for it. You can't legislate
against stupidity
and I have to accept that there will be dickheads on
the road when
I venture out (I see 'em every day, without fail) and the
best I can do is
be as prepared as I can for them.
My Thoughts5
To speed or not to speed, that is the question.
I thought this was a good article to
review because it gave both sides of speeding. Most people have speed on
occasions, some more than others. However, what the people above seem to
disagree on is hte speed limit. What is an reasonable speed limit? Is there
a such thing as a reasonable speed limit that would please everyone? I doubt
it. No matter what the speed limit is some people will undoubtly find it too
fast or too slow. Some people have suggested getting rid of speed limit
altogether. I think that's going a bit too extream.
Why do people have the need for
speed? Is it because they are in a hurry to get somewhere or do they just
like the feeling of going really fast? In my opinion, people speed because
they see other people speed. For me, I feel pressured to go fast if I see
other people driving fast. It's peer pressure that's causing people to
speed. People see others going faster than they are and feel the need to
catch up. It's a cycle. Everyone feeds upon everyone else's speed. Society
also plays apart in the speed game. Being fast is associated with being smart
and slow with dumb. Thus, in our world speed is associated with all the good
things in life.
Item 6: Get Out
of My Way!
Subject:
Re: GET OUT OF MY
WAY!
Date:
Fri, 15 Jan
1999 13:58:32 -0500
If you're going to drive your 1972 station wagon at 5 MPH in 1" of snow, get out of the middle of the road! My Jeep eats this stuff for breakfast. Allen '98 XJ
Boy thats a *No Sh*tter*, guy was pissed at me at a light cause he though I was following him too close on a 3 lane highway yesterday in the snow, idiots' doing 15mph in an accura. He opened his door and yelled back to me get off his ass and I yelled back "quit trolling", light changed and he FINALLY pulled over.. and let the other 20 of us go by [all JEEPS BTW and one FJ40].
I've noticed
that ALOT of the commuters that live in pa and commute to NJ drive jeeps, alot
more than a couple of years before.
Subject:
Re: GET OUT OF MY
WAY!
Date:
Fri, 15 Jan
1999 16:06:51 -0600
Get out of the middle of the road! My Jeep eats this stuff for breakfast. Allen '98 XJ
Boy thats a *No Sh*tter*, guy was pissed at me at a light cause he though I was following him too close on a 3 lane highway yesterday in the snow,idiots' doing 15mph in an accura. He opened his door and yelled back to me get off his ass and I yelled back "quit trolling", light changed and he
FINALLY pulled
over.. and let the other 20 of us go by [all JEEPS BTW and one FJ40]. I've
noticed that ALOT of the commuters that live in pa and commute to NJ drive
jeeps, a lot more than a couple of years before.
This whole
damn thread just validates my last post, "killing you yuppies.". If you are
all in such a damn hurry, allow your self more time "on road", for slow
drivers ,leave
early and grow up . peace, or guns!
Subject:
Re: GET OUT OF MY
WAY!
Date:
Fri, 15 Jan
1999 22:43:40 GMT
It is sorta unfair to characterize someone that is doing 30 in a 45 'cause of the snow, and he comes up on sombody that is doing 15. The guy going slowshould yield to the faster vehicles at all times, in all conditions. (Assuming that yielding is not a life threatening choice.)
I travelled one of Calif.'s most dangerous highways (SR-74 - Ortega Highway) for over 6 years, and almost EVERY accident was the result of someonedriving slow and not using the turnouts so faster cars could get by. The faster cars (wrongly) passed in an unsafe manner that resulted in serious injuries ordeath. But the wrecks could easily be avoided by yielding. Admittedly, patience would have helped too.
I could easily drive that route at an average speed of 65 without squeeling the tires or scarring the sh*t out of my passengers. But some drivers would drive at 45 for miles & miles and never allow anyone to pass. When ever I drive my Jeep, I am always aware that I am the slowest car on the road (big tires, low gears, etc.) and I watch for opportunities to get out of the way. Others that are going slow for any reason should get out of the way, too. Nobody died andmade you a traffic cop whos job is to slow the world down.
On the other hand, it you wanna be the fast guy out there, give the slow guys a chance to get out of the way before you begin blasting the horn and flashingthe lights. And NEVER tailgate a slow poke because they might actually stop, and you would be at fault. I was on a 2 lane freeway one night and came upon a guy in the left lane. When the right lane was open, I flashed him to pull over, and he STOPPED HIS CAR AND GOT OUT, IN THE TRAFFIC LANE! I wasamazed at his stupidity, and drove around him on the median. If anybody was behind, it could have gotten real ugly, real fast.
Let's us Jeepers
be more considerate during bad weather and watch for the Traction Challenged
out there, lest they have trouble and need help from us. And,by all means,
just try to get along.
My Thoughts6
I don't agree with what Jeff Strickland said about people driving slow should yield to the faster vehicles at all times, in all condition. I think that's overgeneralizing too much. Why should slow drivers be the one's to yield? Why can't fast drivers be more patient? It seems everyone has a problems with everyone else's driving except their own. You, yourself is going the right speed, it's everyone else that's going too fast or too slow or don't know how to drive. That seem to be the thinking of most drivers in most cases, including myself :)
Peopel will get upset whether or
not you're going too fast or slow. Might as well drive at your own speed and
be comfortable then to drive at someone else's speed and be anxious.
Item 7: Changing
Lanes
Subject:
Re: Changing
lanes ( was Re: Countdown to SUVville )
Date:
Mon, 08 Feb
1999 16:46:09 -0500
Isn't that what a blind spot is all about....if I am going to get into an accident...it won't be because I didn't see the car when I turned to look for it. It would be because i trusted a mirror that is not 100% of the viewable area.
Subject:
Re: Changing
lanes ( was Re: Countdown to SUVville )
Date:
Mon, 8 Feb
1999 16:42:49 -0700
....If you get into an accident it'll because you're lookin' over your shoulder, and just ran into the car that slammed on it's brakes in front of you. [ Karl Fengler ]
Isn't that what a
blind spot is all about....if I am going to get into an accident...it won't
be ibecause I didn't see the car when I turned to look for
it. It
would be
because i trusted a mirror that is not 100% of the viewable area.
Subject:
Re: Changing
lanes ( was Re: Countdown to SUVville )
Date:
Mon, 8 Feb
1999 21:45:53 -0500
You better go back to driver training. Every instructor will tell you to check over your shoulder into your blind spot( the area over your left shoulder) cause your mirror(s) do not cover 100% of your rear veiwing area. If you run into the car that slammed its brakes on ,your following to close. That is one of the problems of todays drivers they trust their mirrors to much.
...If you get
into an accident it'll because you're lookin' over your shoulder,
and just ran into the car that slammed on it's brakes in front of you. ö
[ Karl Fengler
]
Isn't that what a blind spot is all about....if I am going to get intoan accident...it won't be because I didn't see the car when I turned to look for it. It would be because i trusted a mirror that is not 100% of the viewable area.
Subject:
Re: Changing
lanes ( was Re: Countdown to SUVville )
Date:
Tue, 9 Feb
1999 10:57:53 -0700
Hey Kid, did I say I didn't look over my shoulder? If I did so please post it! After 34 years of driving, I've never run into anyone because I changed lanes.... and I've had cars that did have POOR rearward visibility.
My mirrors, in and on the outside of the Bronco are adjusted so that they cover that blind spot that you're talking about. The mirrors are large enough that when I check I can tell if there is a car there or not. If I had to make a quick move into a lane, I would also take a glance over my shoulder no doubt. The problem is with drivers who start their maneuver before checking... or the ones that look over their shoulder just in time to see me getting cut off. That happens a lot.
I would rather monitor my mirrors CONSTANTLY then I'll be aware of the traffic around me. Then if I have to make a sudden lane change for some reason, I'll have more time for that quick glance... [Karl Fengler ]
My Thoughts7
I agree that mirrors on a car don't cover every spot. I also agree that there is some risk involved in taking a quick look over your sholder if you're not careful. What I don't agree on is why this has to be either or decision. Why can't a person do both? Isn't that what you're suppose to do anyway?
People become more inflexible to
change on the net, I think primarily because their opinion is on print.
Whatever they say is right there on their screen for everyone to see. People
believe in what they say or do. So if they say that looking at mirrors is
better than taking a look over your sholder or vice versa, they'll back up
their statement because they believe in it. If you keep changing your
opinion, people won't take you seriously. At least people know you have
conviction if you stand by your word. And I think most people would rather be
taken seriously than as a fickle.
Item 8: 4 Dots/
Now SUV
Subject: Re: 4
Dots/ now SUV
Date: Thu,
04 Mar 1999 23:14:33 GMT
I'm an ardent motorcyclist and live in Minnesota (which has REAL winter) and have these observations about SUVs: Survival on a motorcycle, and I've been riding for 31 years without an accident, involves treating all traffic as if they are homicidal maniacs who are trying to kill you... male drivers of SHTs show more stupid road-rage and dumb aggressive driving behavior than anyone else on the road. ... I've had more close calls with SUVs than with any other kind of vehicle...
I hail from Montana (same winter, worse wind) and drive not only a motorcycle, but also a moped, for God's sake. I might as well be INVISIBLE to -- you guessed it -- drivers of SUV's and Urban Assualt Vehicles. I have ended up inpeople's yards trying to avoid being run down by a twit in a Suburban. The trend I notice here is most obvious on the back dirt roads. If you drive a BigHonkin' Tank, You OWN the road, and will drive RIGHT DOWN THE CENTER of the dirt road, forcing people like me (I drive a Honda Accord) to drive intoditches and fields to avoid getting hit head-on by 6,000 pounds of fast-moving steel with head lights right at my eye level. Granted, MOST drivers arereasonable and courteous, but it's AMAZING how much more dangerous an idiot becomes when they get behind the wheel of a tank.
Sheesh. Think I'll go smoke some 2015 in my Dunhill. THAT will calm me down...
My Thoughts8
I rather drive a SUV than an your average four door car. I think most people would. It is hard not to get a little power trip when you drive a SUV. It's, I don't know if "better" is the word, but alot different from driving, let's say a Toyota Camry. I should know, I've driven both of them. The reason people on SUV's drive more aggressively, I think, is because of their sheer size of the vehicle. It gives an impression of invulnerability. That "bigger is better" type of mentality gives the drivers a sort of an okay sign to drive more aggressively. Because they feel more protected and safe in a big SUV. I also think that drivers of SUVs feel somewhat detached from the traffic because of their height. The drivers are way up there and can see far more than your average driver.
SUV is like a prettier version of a
monster truck. If you've seen monster truck shows on TV, you know what they
can do to your car. SUV has that kind of power, not as much as a monster
truck but more than your average car. So SUVs can be pretty intimidating and
I think the SUV drivers know this and plays upon it and become more aggressive
drivers.
Item 9: Aggressive and Dangerous?
Subject:
Aggressive and Dangerous?
Date: Tue,
02 Mar 1999 16:49:47 GMT
I never said aggressive drivers were dangerous, just scary. I realize aggressive drivers know what they are doing and are in better controlof their vehicles than conservative drivers.When an aggressive driver is a foot off our bumper I am scared even though I know he will not hitus.
I think you respondents are all aggressive drivers and feel guilty about it.I never said it was wrong. I'm only curious about what you guys are thinking as you intimidate people on the road.
We live next to an attorney who represents lots of folks on speeding offenses and he says that its a shame there aren't 2 speed limits, onefor drivers who are superior drivers and one for drivers who want to take it easy. He said alot of guys get tickets for 90 and 95mph butthey are good drivers. These guys are safe drivers. They might appear to be passing in an unsafe manner, but they are in control. These guysare not involved in accidents, or so he says. He gave us the impression that its drivers who are driving within 5 mph of the limit that havelots of accidents.
As far as left foot braking, lots of cops and firemen use this technique in order to stop more quickly. It has now been adopted byhigh speed drivers. Our attorney friend was told by his "aggressive driving" clients that this technique helps them in heavy traffic.
[ http://www.talkway.com
]
My Thoughts9
Being aggressive doesn't nesseccery mean that you know what you're doing. It may seem like aggressive people know what they are doing because they charge into whatever they are doing at the moment, whether be it driving or working. Aggressive drivers can be pretty intimidating. They force their way into your lane or they force you off your lane. To me, aggressive drivers seem to drive more recklessly then they should. Often it doesn't seem like they care about other drivers, only themselves. That's why they want to get ahead of everyone else. In the article above, it is stated that aggressive drivers do know what they are doing and they are not intentionally trying to force you off the road or to intimidate other drivers. However, I disagree. I think that aggressive drivers are trying to intimidate you, consiously or unconsiously, by drving so aggressively. Why else would they drive that way?
Item 10: Abrupt Stopping Cars
Subject: Abrupt
stopping cars
Date: Wed,
3 Mar 1999 14:46:29 -0800
If traffic is highly congested it is not always possible to move right. And if the jerk insists on staying glued to my ass, then go ahead and rear end me. I have an Explorer and would love for them to have to payto get it fixed., besides, they will do more damage to their own car at 20 mph than they could do to mine. If everyone realized that there aretimes when you just can't move, then road rage accidents would probably go down. I do agree, though, that if your able to, move right. I can't stand slow drivers myself.
Subject: Re: Abruptly stopping cars
The CA law says that you must move right!
If you think that you can't safely move right, put on yoursignal and look for an opening. As far as I am concerned you can take asmuch time as you need to make the move safely.
It is much safer for a driver going slightly less fast to mergeinto the second lane (where his speed won't change very much) than for afaster driver to have to contend making _two_ lane changes, one from afaster lane into a slower lane, and then another from a slower laneinto a faster lane. If you don't like the law, go drive someplace else. If you don't want to move out of the left lane when someonewants to pass you, you are a Left Lane Bandit. Move right (or at leastput your signal on), speed up, get a ticket, get blinded by my flash, orget rear ended. The choice is yours.
Wow thanks for that. It has been my point all along. I'm in the same mindset as you. Why should I have to move when I'm doingeverything correctly. If someone thinks they can get ahead (which isimpossible in above situation, IE, everyday on the freeway for me) then letthem go around. [ bryan ]
Subject: Re:
Abruptly stopping cars
Date: Wed,
03 Mar 1999 19:26:38 -0800
Go back and reread my post. We are talking about a situation where itis *not possible* to go any faster and some asswipe pastes him (or her) self to your ass. Are you saying that ANY time anybody tailgates youfor ANY reason in ANY traffic condition you are obligated to move right so that asswipe can pick up *one* car length?? How about addressing the fact that being tailgatedwhen it is *not possible* to speed up is just as obnoxious and dangerous and assinine as not yielding the lane when it *is possible* to do so??? [ Joseph ]
Subject: Re:
Abruptly stopping cars
Date: 4
Mar 1999 03:42:29 GMT
[you
are moving with the traffic when ] someone comes up behind you
and pastes
himself (or herself) to your ass, so close you can't see
the headlights
(unless it's an "SUV", but we won't go into that right
now).
Question- do
you move right?
If I am in my car I do move right as soon as I can. I would rather have such idiots in front of me where I can watch them. The momentary inconvenience of allowing someone else to get past is offset by not having to wait for a tow, exchanging insurance information, and being without my car for the weeks and weeks it takes to get it repaired after I get hit....
You are certainly entitled to do this, but I hope you realize that you are being selfish. If you don't move to the right, you might end upannoyed, but you will spare 500 other motorists ahead of you the same annoyance. If you move right and let the tailgater pass, he then proceeds to annoy, and place at risk, the motorist ahead of you. Thenanother, then another, and so on. Each motorist who lets the tailgater pass is allowing others to be likewise annoyed and put at risk.
I think we good drivers need to watch out for one another, and not let the tailgers get through to where they can increase the risk toeverybody else.
If you had been
on the Titanic and ended up in a lifeboat, would you
have said 'screw
the others' like most of them did, or would you havegone back to save some
fellow humans froma freezing death?
--
"Any idiot can
avoid automobile accidents that are his own fault. It
takes skill to
avoid accidents that are the *other* person's fault."
My Thoughts10
The
majority of the drivers have some point in their driving experience have been
exposed to cars stopping abruptly in front of them, as well as being guilty of
stopping abruptly ourselves, whether be it from not paying attention or
someone stopping too quickly in front of them. It is easy to blame others
instead of blaming ourselves for mistakes. If people are just patient enough
and realize that you can't do anything when you're stuck in traffic, there
would be alot less cars stopping abruptly.
Final Thoughts
It was an interesting experience to going through the different newsgroups. One thing for sure is that people are alot less inhibited on the net. They express their opinion freely and are quick to defend them if neccessary. That was the one thing that I noticed through out the varous newsgroups. People are more inclined to defend their views on the net than in public. They seem to get very defensive if someone posts an opinion that is different or opposite from them. They are quick to "flame" others that disagrees with them as well as people with views they don't like. I think the reason why people get more easily defensive about their views on the net is because it's in print. Seeing your opinions on prints makes it official, and now that your thoughts are out there where the whole world can see them, you have to stick with them.
My advice to future generations
are be careful of what you say on the net because it's going to stay there
forever. Also start really early for this project. This one takes longer
than your generation. Have fun :)
My Generations File |
My Newsgroups File |
My Oral Presentation |
My Report1 |
My Report2
Icons Folder |
My Class Home page |
Dr.Leon James Home Page