Ask the Car People.SM


Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

21823 messages,  Last post on Jun 18, 2013 at 2:29 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum.

What is this discussion about? Car Safety

Messages Page 2128 of 2183

#21265 of 21823 Re: . [fintail] by Stever@Edmunds HOST

Jan 18, 2013 (8:04 pm)

Replying to: fintail (Jan 18, 2013 7:55 pm)
Careful, you'll wind up with a Starbucks latte in your face. Probably a double shot.
 
All the comments about people driving without their lights on makes me think that'll be the next NHTSA requirement. Auto headlights in all cars, including a rain sensor. The auto lights and auto wipers are pretty nice in the in-law's Buick.

#21266 of 21823 Re: . [steve_] by fintail

Jan 18, 2013 (8:42 pm)

Replying to: Stever@Edmunds (Jan 18, 2013 8:04 pm)
With all the paranoid gun nuts out there today, you never know. Maybe it's time to start carrying my old phone on me while jogging.
 
I think the proliferation of LEDs is not 100% for looks, but for future DRL rules. They might even exist in the EU now, and of course in Canada date back 20 years.

#21267 of 21823 Re: . [fintail] by jjackson12

Jan 18, 2013 (8:57 pm)

Replying to: fintail (Jan 18, 2013 7:55 pm)
Driving home tonight: 400 year old woman in a Prius, getting dark out, no lights, going 30-35 in a 40 where everyone goes 45, so every car was zooming by, and she was a pylon.
 
Based on your exaggeration of this woman's age, I have to conclude that the speeds you cite are also exaggerated.

#21268 of 21823 Re: . [fintail] by backy

Jan 18, 2013 (9:18 pm)

Replying to: fintail (Jan 18, 2013 7:55 pm)
It's easy - phone to ear = violation = ticket.
 
You didn't read those articles, did you. First, holding a phone to the ear has to be against the law. In many states, it isn't. (It's not where I live, for example.) Texting is more likely to be outlawed--but how to prove someone was texting? (see first article)
 
Maybe if you and others who feel so strongly about banning use of cell phones while driving would use your time and energy to support 1) enactment of those laws, and 2) funds to beef up enforcement, the roads would be more to your liking, with fewer cell phone users. Yes, it might be difficult, take some real effort on your part and by many others... but all for a good and noble cause, right?
 
And implement wealth based fine scales.
 
You have a thing against "wealth", and you drive... what kind of cars? Be careful what you wish for.

#21270 of 21823 Re: . [backy] by fintail

Jan 18, 2013 (9:51 pm)

Replying to: backy (Jan 18, 2013 9:18 pm)
Give the laws teeth. Took no time for yapping to go from secondary to primary here, so that change shouldn't be hard. And about texting, see what I said before - cameras.
 
No extra funding is needed. The physical and labor resources exist now. It is all about priorities, which law enforcement and the public sector in general don't handle very well.
 
I drive long since paid for cars that are worth less than new bland commuter boxes, and much less than the chariots of the top few driven by those who liars claim use intelligence and logic and discipline to make it, but don't seem to show those traits while driving. Ooh, long sentence.

#21271 of 21823 Re: . [steve_] by imidazol97

Jan 19, 2013 (6:54 am)

Replying to: Stever@Edmunds (Jan 18, 2013 8:04 pm)
>Auto headlights in all cars, including a rain sensor.
 
Both our Buicks have the auto headlights. They are nice. Never forget to turn them on and never forget to turn them off.
 
The auto wipers have to be put in active mode. If the switch is off, the wipers can't turn themselves on. The downside to leaving the wipers in the auto mode is that the headlights are commanded to ON instead of using the DRLs. So you're driving down the interstate with the low beams (or high beams) on full amperage.
 
I've not figured out the popular brands of cars that don't have the auto on headlights. Our Cobalt has automatic headlamps.

#21272 of 21823 Re: . [jjackson12] by imidazol97

Jan 19, 2013 (6:55 am)

Replying to: jjackson12 (Jan 18, 2013 8:57 pm)
>400 year old
 
I think she was only 375 years and Fintail exaggerated.

#21273 of 21823 Re: . [fintail] by imidazol97

Jan 19, 2013 (6:57 am)

Replying to: fintail (Jan 18, 2013 8:42 pm)
>gun nuts out there today, you never know.
 
Naaah, they're gonna take away all the guns from the honest citizens. And it'll be only the criminals who have guns. Oh wait, they're the ones we need to worry about, aren't they? Makes the other look ridiculous.
 
How many times have we read about "crazy driver stole a gun from their mother to go shoot irritating joggers who get in their way"?

#21274 of 21823 Re: . [imidazol97] by fintail

Jan 19, 2013 (8:12 am)

Replying to: imidazol97 (Jan 19, 2013 6:57 am)
She was probably only like 300 years old. But seriously, I'd bet a lot that she was at least 75. Probably got caught out too late and didn't like the rush hour traffic, and maybe forgot the lights. IT happens - but maybe reinforces the need for age based testing.
 
I wouldn't lose sleep over guns being taken. Too many out there. But maybe be leery that a gutted mental health system (we need money to coddle the rich and give to foreign aid parasites, ya know) has given some nuts access.
 
I'm more worried about being ran down than shot. Maybe time to mount a gopro on my head

Messages Page 2128 of 2183

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement