Last post on May 25, 2013 at 3:48 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
#21394 of 21749 Re: . [backy]
Feb 13, 2013 (5:24 pm)
Did you signal well ahead of time to make your left turn so that you don't SURPRISE brake the flow of traffic on them?
People that don't signal should be shot on site, but only after the law is changed to allow you to "stand your ground" against driver's who fail to signal.
#21395 of 21749 Re: Couple of head-scratchers [backy]
Feb 13, 2013 (5:28 pm)
It's suicidal. Or idiocy--take your pick. Doesn't matter how often you've driven on ice. The laws of physics are the same.
I don't know about that. xwesx is still alive, and Dorner isn't. Driving fast in an of itself on snow and ice must not be very suicidal or idiotic.
It doesn't take much traction or friction to maintain a straight path of momentum, so if there are no turns, and no traffic, what is the harm in going any speed whatsoever?
Also, the laws of physics also state that regardless of speed, you have to have 2 objects trying to occupy the same space at the same time in order for a collision to occur. So if you simply avoid other vehicles and objects, your speed becomes irrelevant.
#21396 of 21749 Re: . [backy]
Feb 13, 2013 (5:34 pm)
Cameras are the answer, eh? Ok then. But realize they will also be used to enforce other laws, not just phone use/texting... such as running red lights.
My problem isn't so much with camera's as it is with "automated" camera enforcement, or simply, fast revenue generation enforcement.
As long as the camera is operated by an expert in the use of that camera, and he or she will show up in court to testify as to the allegations set forth because of the camera, I'm OK with it.
My biggest problem is traffic courts would convict without any non-hearsay witness to the video tape evidence.
#21397 of 21749 Re: LLD [imidazol97]
Feb 13, 2013 (5:43 pm)
I was traveling at and above the posted speed limit in an area with no signs for "Slower traffic keep right."
That argument will get you about as far as the "I didn't see the posted speed limit sign back there, and the next one wasn't within my visual distance yet," in court.
Your lucky police officers don't generally enforce laws that promote safety, like left lane camping rules.
The lack of a visible maximum speed sign does not change the speed limit from 65 to whatever I choose, and the same applies with "slower traffic keep right."
Ignorance is not a defense I'm told.
#21398 of 21749 Re: Couple of head-scratchers [fintail]
Feb 13, 2013 (5:45 pm)
Oh, heck no, fin! It was bad enough being in Oregon last month and seeing some of the silliness that was created by these folk interacting with a heavy frost, let alone snow!
I have some close friends who live in Everett now (well, for probably eight years now). They have some fun stories.
#21399 of 21749 Re: LLD [snakeweasel]
Feb 13, 2013 (5:46 pm)
Well if you are on a limited access highway and not passing or about to use an exit on the left (rare but they do exist) then it is keep right except to pass.
That's your best post ever in the history of all you have written on these forums.
Congratulations! You get one vote for the Pulitzer from me.
#21400 of 21749 Re: LLD [andres3]
Feb 13, 2013 (5:56 pm)
Funny that you mention that.
On my way down to Palmer last weekend, I was in a 65 zoned (most of the highway is 65, with the areas around/in towns at 55 or 45) area of the highway that was reconstructed two years ago. This is beautifully smooth blacktop, complete with several passing lanes to help ease traffic congestion and wide areas on either side of the road devoid of vegetation (good visibility for spotting moose approaching the highway).
I was tooling along at probably 68 as I approached the end of this newly rebuilt area and started wondering where it dropped to 55. Now, I know from experience that the SL on this stretch is 65 to 55 to 45 as one approaches the town of Willow, but I don't know from memory exactly where the limit changes are. What's more, this stretch, being new, has a whole bunch of those "adopt a highway" signs, which are exactly the same size/dimensions as speed limit signs, only blue instead of white. (most areas of the highway have lost theirs due to crashes, snow plowing, etc, and the DOT is slow to replace them) The problem this night was that every single sign on the road was illegible due to a recent snow plow going through and covering them all with a blanket of white.
One literally could not tell one sign from the next.
Anyhow, as I approach this end area and started drifting down toward 55, I saw a Trooper vehicle sitting in a pull out, with two illegible signs just ahead of him. I thought, "Hmm... I bet that's the 55 sign."
Sure enough, on the way home I looked (it was warm that day and all the signs had melted clear) and it was, indeed, the 55 SL sign! Talk about a cheap revenue grab!
#21401 of 21749 Re: . [andres3]
Feb 13, 2013 (6:55 pm)
Go back and read my post. I wasn't the one turning left right there. My left turn was a couple of blocks up. And yes, when it came time to turn I signaled well ahead of time.
Watch out about those laws... they might also allow people who get flashed a few times to "stand their ground".
#21402 of 21749 Re: Couple of head-scratchers [andres3]
Feb 13, 2013 (7:41 pm)
They crash *everywhere*, that is, when they don't panic and simply abandon their cars in the middle of the road.
#21403 of 21749 Re: Couple of head-scratchers [xwesx]
Feb 13, 2013 (7:42 pm)
There are some good youtube videos of Seattle and Portland drivers - the latter seems to get more raw ice than Seattle, too.
Lame winter here so far, no ice related incidents come to mind. If it looks even marginally bad, I just stay off the road.