Most turn lanes don't allow more than a one or two car lengths. Some allow more. Where those are, are in anticipation of several cars or heavy traffic.

I'm sayin' it's nearly impossible to stay one car length behind another car. Insurance companies tell us we must do this to avoid responsibility in chain reaction accident. But it's impossible.


Somebody should say something.

Only ******* stay one car length back. Real men climb right up the car in front of yours ass and give him impatient looks when he checks his rearview mirror.

I didn't know I was supposed to stay a full car length behind.

I was just taught to keep enough distance so that if the car in front of me stalled I could still get around it. All this required was staying far enough back to see the entire back wheels of the car in front of me.

(03-17-2016, 12:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I didn't know I was supposed to stay a full car length behind.

I was just taught to keep enough distance so that if the car in front of me stalled I could still get around it.  All this required was staying far enough back to see the entire back wheels of the car in front of me.

Even if that's the case, it still isn't enough room to clear you from responsibility in a chain reaction accident. If you (driver B) are responsible for hitting the car in front of you (driver C) because the car behind you (driver A) rear ended you, then wouldn't it make sense that the roads accommodate the 'laws'?

As it stands, many turn lanes allow for possibly 3 or 4 cars. Most less than that. How can I be held responsible when I'm expected to cram my car between 6 others and there's only room for two?

Another thing.

Red lights are sequenced in such a way that if you're driving the speed limit on a road with stop lights at each block or two, you will get stopped by most if not all of those lights. It just doesn't make any sense and with gas prices at 4.00 a gallon, you'd think someone woulda brought this up. I actually did, on the old boards when gas was actually between $3/4.

Of course there's logic in sequencing red lights and traffic flow. Unless I'm missing something, it seems there's a re more reasonable and ergonomic way of sequencing.

This thread isn't about irritating driver habits. It's about logic and the way the roads are set up.

(03-17-2016, 11:13 AM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Another thing.

Red lights are sequenced in such a way that if you're driving the speed limit on a road with stop lights at each block or two, you will get stopped by most if not all of those lights. It just doesn't make any sense and with gas prices at 4.00 a gallon, you'd think someone woulda brought this up. I actually did, on the old boards when gas was actually between $3/4.

Of course there's logic in sequencing red lights and traffic flow. Unless I'm missing something, it seems there's a re more reasonable and ergonomic way of sequencing.

This thread isn't about irritating driver habits. It's about logic and the way the roads are set up.

I don't understand.  If you sequence all the lights in one direction you are just screwing with all the roads that intersect with that one.

You can't have traffic flowing constantly flowing in all directions at the same time.  Somebody has to stop at the lights sometime.

Also I don't think you will have any liability if you are sitting still and a car behind you drives you into the car in front of you.

It would be contributory negligence on your part if you were following to closely, but that only applies to when cars are moving. I don't think you can be charged with following to closely when sitting still.

I need to look this up.

(03-17-2016, 12:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I didn't know I was supposed to stay a full car length behind.

I was just taught to keep enough distance so that if the car in front of me stalled I could still get around it. All this required was staying far enough back to see the entire back wheels of the car in front of me.

I remember sitting in the car with the driving instructor and him telling me and the other two kids I was with to keep enough space to squeeze a VW bug in between us and the car in front. Ashamed to say I've ignored that advice since then.

(03-16-2016, 07:33 PM)Beaker Wrote: Only ******* stay one car length back. Real men climb right up the car in front of yours ass and give him impatient looks when he checks his rearview mirror.

Exactly. How else is the dumb sonovabitch gonna learn who's in charge?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I thought that was only for when your vehicle was actually in motion. I was taught to give 1 car length for every 10 mph, but if you're coming into a turning lane (stopping to turn), then this would no longer apply as you are stopped.

That's easy.

Just put your car in reverse and keep your foot on the brake.

That way when you get crammed in the ass you'll back into that S.O.B. instead.

You're welcome.

Now stop flooding our government with frivolous claims of engineering flaws.

Focus.on important issues like not being able to call 911 and complain about only getting 5 nuggets in a 6pc at the drive-thru... or worse yet the wrong dipping sauce.

Why do they make us drive on Parkways and park on Driveways?

(03-17-2016, 11:05 AM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Even if that's the case, it still isn't enough room to clear you from responsibility in a chain reaction accident. If you (driver B) are responsible for hitting the car in front of you (driver C) because the car behind you (driver A) rear ended you, then wouldn't it make sense that the roads accommodate the 'laws'?

As it stands, many turn lanes allow for possibly 3 or 4 cars. Most less than that. How can I be held responsible when I'm expected to cram my car between 6 others and there's only room for two?

That's what I always thought, but it doesn't seem to be the case in Ohio.  i was driving, and traffic suddenly came to a halt.  I slammed on the brakes, and stopped short of the car in front of me.  The car behind me hit me and knocked me into the car in front of me.  He ended up being responsible for both cars. 

But if I may vent, I am tired of all the turn lanes where you can only turn on an arrow.  I can see half a mile down the road, and nobody is coming and I'm sitting there like a moron.  I understand there are some areas where visibility is limited and the arrow only is necessary, but it's getting ridiculous.

(03-23-2016, 09:20 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But if I may vent, I am tired of all the turn lanes where you can only turn on an arrow.  I can see half a mile down the road, and nobody is coming and I'm sitting there like a moron.  I understand there are some areas where visibility is limited and the arrow only is necessary, but it's getting ridiculous.

I hate when you have a busy intersection and there is no turn arrow, so only the first car in the turn lane gets to turn after waiting for the light to go yellow and the oncoming traffic to stop. We had a light like that in front of the Kroger near our house and finally, after repeated kvetching by the citizenry, the city relented and added a turn arrow.

(03-23-2016, 09:20 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But if I may vent, I am tired of all the turn lanes where you can only turn on an arrow.  I can see half a mile down the road, and nobody is coming and I'm sitting there like a moron.  I understand there are some areas where visibility is limited and the arrow only is necessary, but it's getting ridiculous.

Word to this. I hate when I'm sitting waiting for a left turn arrow and know that the light is only there because some asshats got themselves into an accident and ruined it for drivers with at least half a brain.

(03-28-2016, 01:51 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: Word to this. I hate when I'm sitting waiting for a left turn arrow and know that the light is only there because some asshats got themselves into an accident and ruined it for drivers with at least half a brain.

Actually the light is usually there because otherwise when traffic is heavy you would never get a chance to turn left.

But it is frustrating whne you have to sit there and not turn when there is no traffic  seems like they could still have light to make sure people get achance to turn, but also allow people to turn left when there is no traffic.

(03-28-2016, 01:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually the light is usually there because otherwise when traffic is heavy you would never get a chance to turn left.

But it is frustrating whne you have to sit there and not turn when there is no traffic  seems like they could still have light to make sure people get achance to turn, but also allow people to turn left when there is no traffic.

Yeah I don't mind the left turn signal, just the part where you are only allowed to turn at the signal and visibility is fine.

How about turn arrows that never activate? I mean, what's the flippin' point?

(03-28-2016, 01:52 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: How about turn arrows that never activate? I mean, what's the flippin' point?

There's a trun arrow near our neighborhood that only works during certain hours. It never fails that if I'm drving straight that the opposite traffic gets an arrow that delays me, yet if I'm comming from the other direction it's always during the supposed "non-peak" times and I get no arrow. That's how they get ya.

(03-28-2016, 01:52 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: How about turn arrows that never activate? I mean, what's the flippin' point?

Sensor based ones sure are a pain while on a motorcycle.