Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / November 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

CRITICAL DRIVING ERRORS

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Scott in SoCal - 23 Nov 2007 18:10 GMT
EVERY DRIVER IN CALIFORNIA should be required to watch these videos -
using the Ludovico technique if necessary:

The "you can't drive too slow" myth: BUSTED!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2VZvmHf42-g

Unsafe lane change? YOU FLUNK!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=r_dEaHmhpvc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bHp6gRsmhQw

The green ball is NOT the same as the green arrow!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mpR0aXP6JLo

The CA DMV has posted 55 of these little gems on YouTube - check 'em
out!! :)
Brent P - 23 Nov 2007 18:56 GMT
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=r_dEaHmhpvc

I've had drivers become enraged because they thought they could just
slide wide in a multiple lane turn.

> The green ball is NOT the same as the green arrow!
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=mpR0aXP6JLo

I met a certain cop who needs to watch this one.
Arif Khokar - 23 Nov 2007 19:41 GMT
> Unsafe lane change? YOU FLUNK!

> http://youtube.com/watch?v=bHp6gRsmhQw

Interesting that they say you signal before checking your mirrors.  You
should only signal *after* you check your mirrors and know that you are
able to change lanes safely.  This is probably the reason that some
drivers think that when they signal, other drivers try to cut off their
lane changes, and in their mind, it's better not to signal at all.

The proper method for changing lanes:

1. Check your mirrors (you shouldn't have blind spots if they're set
properly)
2. If traffic permits a lane change, switch on your signal
3. Move to the other lane (and don't forget to stop signaling after you
complete your lane change)

In short, MSM (Mirror, Signal, Maneuver).
Scott in SoCal - 23 Nov 2007 20:57 GMT
>> Unsafe lane change? YOU FLUNK!
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>drivers think that when they signal, other drivers try to cut off their
>lane changes

The DMV examiner chick says if your mirror/shoulder check reveals that
a vehicle is already occupying the space, you should turn your signal
off and try again later. Seems like a recipe for failure to me - what
if there's a car there the second time you try? And the third?

>The proper method for changing lanes:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>In short, MSM (Mirror, Signal, Maneuver).

And do it *quickly* and *decisively* - don't lollygag for half a block
with your signal blinking. I bet that most of the people who complain
that other drivers "speed up to block their merge" are people who sit
there with their signal blinking forever. This confuses other drivers,
who now begin to wonder if the signal indicates an actual intent to
change lanes or if the driver just forgot to turn their signal off
after some earlier maneuver. Sending mixed messages like this totally
defeats the purpose of signalling.
Steve Sobol - 23 Nov 2007 21:42 GMT
["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.]

> with your signal blinking. I bet that most of the people who complain
> that other drivers "speed up to block their merge" are people who sit
> there with their signal blinking forever.

While I have done this occasionally, it's by accident. 99% of the time I
will turn on my signal and have someone behind me move into my intended
lane within ten seconds.

Signature

Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA     PGP:0xE3AE35ED  www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Scott in SoCal - 24 Nov 2007 02:17 GMT
>["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.]
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>will turn on my signal and have someone behind me move into my intended
>lane within ten seconds.

Why are you lollygagging around for over 10 seconds while performing a
lane change? Mine take more like 2 or 3 seconds.

Another thing people often do when changing lanes is SLOW DOWN while
they figure out what to do. When people behind you see that signal
come on but then nothing else happens for 10 seconds, they might
assume that you're going to start slowing down and they scramble to
avoid being stuck behind you.
Steve Sobol - 24 Nov 2007 04:24 GMT
> Why are you lollygagging around for over 10 seconds while performing a
> lane change? Mine take more like 2 or 3 seconds.

If I look over and catch someone in the other lane who was previously
in my blind spot, I will have to wait. Even if I don't have anyone in
the other lane, I generally like to be 100% sure I'm not going to hit anyone.
10 seconds is an extreme case, but I will often take more than 2-3 seconds.

See, this 2-3 second lane-change is a SoCal phenomenon. I've found that you
DO have to change lanes immediately when you signal, and that's simply not
true everywhere else.

Signature

Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA     PGP:0xE3AE35ED  www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Scott in SoCal - 24 Nov 2007 17:17 GMT
>See, this 2-3 second lane-change is a SoCal phenomenon. I've found that you
>DO have to change lanes immediately when you signal, and that's simply not
>true everywhere else.

I learned to drive in IL, and was doing it there LONG before I came to
SoCal.

Driving on surface streets in Chicagoland is a constant slalom course:
the left lane is often blocked by someone waiting to make a left turn,
whereas the right lane is often blocked by people trying to parallel
park, or slowing to make a right turn, or sometimes the right lane is
used for parking and you are forced to merge within a few feet after
crossing the intersection. If you don't make quick, decisive lane
changes, you're going to spend a LOT of time sitting still while
traffic whizzes past you.
Steve Sobol - 24 Nov 2007 21:08 GMT
>>DO have to change lanes immediately when you signal, and that's simply not
>>true everywhere else.
>
> I learned to drive in IL, and was doing it there LONG before I came to
> SoCal.

I didn't say "it's not true ANYWHERE else." I've driven exactly twice in
Chicago, once visiting and once through on the way to St. Louis, and found
the idiots there to be quite aggressive about lane changes too.

But it's not true EVERYWHERE else.

Signature

Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA     PGP:0xE3AE35ED  www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Scott in SoCal - 25 Nov 2007 00:30 GMT
>>>DO have to change lanes immediately when you signal, and that's simply not
>>>true everywhere else.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>I didn't say "it's not true ANYWHERE else."

In my experience, it's true in more places than it is not.
Steve Sobol - 25 Nov 2007 01:19 GMT
> In my experience, it's true in more places than it is not.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I haven't driven everywhere,
but I've driven through, or to destinations in, about 20 of the 50 states.
I'm sure you've had lots of driving experience in different places too. I
really do not think this is worth arguing about.

Signature

Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA     PGP:0xE3AE35ED  www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. - 23 Nov 2007 22:07 GMT
> > Unsafe lane change? YOU FLUNK!
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> In short, MSM (Mirror, Signal, Maneuver).

Signal
Mirrors
Over The Shoulder Glance
Go When Safe

The mnemonic for that, of course, is SMOG.

The SMOG technique is the textbook driving technique taught for lane
changes.

That's not to say that the above MSM method proposed above is useful on
roads with aggressive drivers, but it isn't actually the proper method.
Arif Khokar - 23 Nov 2007 22:22 GMT
> Signal

Check your mirrors first.  There's no point in signaling if you can't
change lanes yet.

> Mirrors

You should check this first.

> Over The Shoulder Glance

Unnecessary and dangerous because you're turning your head 90 degrees,
which makes many drivers start to steer in that direction.  The over the
shoulder glance is unnecessary if the exterior mirrors are adjusted
properly.  With proper adjustment, your peripheral vision is sufficient
to spot vehicles directly beside you and your mirror is sufficient to
see vehicles behind and beside you.  For vehicles more than one lane
over, it should be easy enough to see them by turning your head no more
than 30 degrees from center.

> Go When Safe

Agreed.

> The mnemonic for that, of course, is SMOG.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> That's not to say that the above MSM method proposed above is useful on
> roads with aggressive drivers, but it isn't actually the proper method.

Why isn't it a "proper method?"
Philip M. White - 23 Nov 2007 23:14 GMT
>> Signal
>
> Check your mirrors first.  There's no point in signaling if you can't
> change lanes yet.

On the contrary, signaling even if you cannot change lanes yet allows the
driver in your blind spot to make room for you by dropping back or by
accelerating.  (One could argue that if you want to change lanes then
it's *your* responsibility to accelerate or drop back, but that's not
always possible.)

This works very well, both when I am trying to change lanes and when I
happen to be in the blind spot of someone who's trying to change lanes.

Signature

PGP key: http://www.qnan.org/~pmw/pgp/public.asc

Brent P - 23 Nov 2007 23:18 GMT
> On the contrary, signaling even if you cannot change lanes yet allows the
> driver in your blind spot to make room for you by dropping back or by
> accelerating.

He has no such obligation. In many areas signaling will result in people
closing the gap you intend to move into. It is best to find a gap, make
sure it is clear then signal, then move. This reduces the opertunity for
people to close the gap.

Signally to get someone to create a gap is poor form.
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 25 Nov 2007 19:44 GMT
>> On the contrary, signaling even if you cannot change lanes yet allows the
>> driver in your blind spot to make room for you by dropping back or by
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Signally to get someone to create a gap is poor form.

Signaling to let someone know your intention is very good form.

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
Scott in SoCal - 25 Nov 2007 22:31 GMT
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:44:19 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
<drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote:

>Signaling to let someone know your intention is very good form.

I don't see anyone here arguing against that statement.
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 25 Nov 2007 23:06 GMT
>On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:44:19 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
>Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>I don't see anyone here arguing against that statement.

Brent seems to be arguing more for "signaling intent if I know that I
can successfully conclude the maneuver" as opposed to merely
"signaling intent."

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
Brent P - 26 Nov 2007 03:12 GMT
>>On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:44:19 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
>>Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> can successfully conclude the maneuver" as opposed to merely
> "signaling intent."

Your signal doesn't require they make way for you. If you don't have the
room, why bother signaling (and attempting the maneuver) unless you expect
someone to make a hole for you?
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 26 Nov 2007 03:24 GMT
>>>On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:44:19 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
>>>Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Your signal doesn't require they make way for you. If you don't have the

Agreed, although I believe a lot of drivers believe that their signal
means other drivers must accommodate them.

>room, why bother signaling (and attempting the maneuver) unless you expect
>someone to make a hole for you?

I'd never expect anyone to make a hole for me; I coordinate my turns
based on distance to turn with respect to traffic density, opting to
make the switch where it will have the least disruption on the traffic
flow. Most drivers I witness wait until the last possible moment to
contemplate their switch (either that, or they do it as soon as
possible; no mid-way between the extremes?) usually causing a major
disruption to traffic as a result, and they need that someone special
to "make a hole for them."

Not implying that would be you in any case, as I know we have greater
diversity among the driver densities (and I use the term in multiple
ways) in our respective locales.

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
Brent P - 26 Nov 2007 03:10 GMT
>>> On the contrary, signaling even if you cannot change lanes yet allows the
>>> driver in your blind spot to make room for you by dropping back or by
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Signaling to let someone know your intention is very good form.

That's why one signals after a place to move into has been indentified :)
Arif Khokar - 23 Nov 2007 23:33 GMT
>> Check your mirrors first.  There's no point in signaling if you can't
>> change lanes yet.

> On the contrary, signaling even if you cannot change lanes yet allows the
> driver in your blind spot to make room for you by dropping back or by
> accelerating.

First of all, even if one has a blind spot because of bad mirror
adjustment, the position of that blind spot will not allow the other
driver to even see your turn signal (unless one has side repeater or
those vanity mirror signals).  Second, as has already been mentioned,
it's up to the driver planning the lane change to adjust their position
such that they can change lanes (e. g., they have to slow down or speed
up to find a gap).

> (One could argue that if you want to change lanes then
> it's *your* responsibility to accelerate or drop back, but that's not
> always possible.)

In my experience, it is possible far more often than not.  In either
case, the one who plans to change lanes takes that risk (whether it be
missing a turn or exit).
Scott in SoCal - 24 Nov 2007 03:12 GMT
>>> Signal
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>it's *your* responsibility to accelerate or drop back, but that's not
>always possible.)

The only scenario I can think of where people should have to flip on
their signal and wait for someone to make a space for them is
bumper-to-bumper stop-and-go traffic on a congested freeway.

Under normal circumstances I'll find a place to go, position myself
appropriately, signal, and move decisively into the space I have
already verified is available. I don't demand that anybody else alter
course or speed to accommodate me.
Peter Lawrence - 23 Nov 2007 23:34 GMT
>> Over The Shoulder Glance
>
> Unnecessary and dangerous because you're turning your head 90 degrees,
> which makes many drivers start to steer in that direction.

Sorry, but if a driver can't look over the shoulder without having
his/her vehicle veer off, then the driver shouldn't be on the road driving.

I and many others have absolutely no difficulty in looking over our
shoulders and keeping the vehicle on its intended course. (And BTW, I
only need to turn my head about 60 (not 90) degrees to see over my
shoulder.)

> The over the
> shoulder glance is unnecessary if the exterior mirrors are adjusted
> properly.

Sorry, but on most vehicles this is not the case.  I've found only a
relatively few vehicles that have large enough and properly positioned
OEM mirrors to eliminate all the blind spots.

I'm pretty fanatical about adjusting my rear-view mirrors of the cars I
drive, including rentals. Even after spending five to ten minutes
adjusting the mirrors, most cars I've driven still have blind spots that
can't be eliminated no matter how I adjust the three rear-view mirrors.

Of course, one can usually buy after-market rear-view mirrors that are
large enough to eliminate the blind spots.

- Peter
Arif Khokar - 24 Nov 2007 01:58 GMT
>>> Over The Shoulder Glance

>> Unnecessary and dangerous because you're turning your head 90 degrees,
>> which makes many drivers start to steer in that direction.

> Sorry, but if a driver can't look over the shoulder without having
> his/her vehicle veer off, then the driver shouldn't be on the road driving.

If a driver can't be bothered to adjust their mirrors properly, they
shouldn't be driving.  The fact that people can't adjust their mirrors
such that a vehicle six feet wide and 10 feet long has blind spots is
more than ridiculous.  If I'm stopped behind you at a light, I shouldn't
be able to see your face in your drivers side mirror if it was properly
adjusted.

> I and many others have absolutely no difficulty in looking over our
> shoulders and keeping the vehicle on its intended course. (And BTW, I
> only need to turn my head about 60 (not 90) degrees to see over my
> shoulder.)

I just use my peripheral vision.  I have no need to even turn my head
more than 30 degrees, and that's if there's a car more than one lane
over from me.

>> The over the shoulder glance is unnecessary if the exterior mirrors are
>> adjusted properly.

> Sorry, but on most vehicles this is not the case.

It is the case.  I've driven vehicles ranging from a Honda Prelude to a
Ford Expedition and have been able to adjust my exterior mirrors such
that virtually no blind spots remained.

> I'm pretty fanatical about adjusting my rear-view mirrors of the cars I
> drive, including rentals. Even after spending five to ten minutes
> adjusting the mirrors, most cars I've driven still have blind spots that
> can't be eliminated no matter how I adjust the three rear-view mirrors.

Here's how I do it:
1. Lean against the driver's side window and adjust the driver's side
exterior mirror such that you can barely see the side of the vehicle.

2. Align your head with the rear view mirror and adjust it till you can
barely see the side of the vehicle, or all the way out if it doesn't go
that far.

3. Sit in your normal driving position and adjust one or both exterior
mirrors slightly inward until there is no gap between the field of view
of the rear view mirror and either side mirror (you may have to make a
slight adjustment of the rear view mirror to one side or the other to
eliminate any remaining blind spot.
Brent P - 24 Nov 2007 02:11 GMT
> If a driver can't be bothered to adjust their mirrors properly, they
> shouldn't be driving.  The fact that people can't adjust their mirrors
> such that a vehicle six feet wide and 10 feet long has blind spots is
> more than ridiculous.  If I'm stopped behind you at a light, I shouldn't
> be able to see your face in your drivers side mirror if it was properly
> adjusted.

The torqueless wonder car had a nasty little blind spot. Probably
because it wasn't designed for someone of my height. It's mirrors being
spring loaded to fold I simply put a shim in there to get the adjustment
I needed and no more blind spot. It was just out of the range of
adjustment.  

Other cars I've been able to adjust so there is no blind spot... except
my maverick which doesn't have a passenger side mirror. (guess 3 and
half decades ago people kept right except to pass enough that it wasn't
an issue) I've bought a set of sport mirrors... just haven't put them on.
Garth Almgren - 24 Nov 2007 07:13 GMT
> Other cars I've been able to adjust so there is no blind spot... except
> my maverick which doesn't have a passenger side mirror. (guess 3 and
> half decades ago people kept right except to pass enough that it wasn't
> an issue) I've bought a set of sport mirrors... just haven't put them on.

On my '83 Mustang, the passenger side mirror was optional at the car's
trim level (GL), and the original owner didn't opt for it. I found one
at a Pull-A-Part from some other FOX body, and they charged me a
whopping $6 for it. Money well spent, IMO.

Most cars leave me wishing they had just a couple more degrees of
outward adjustment. It seems I can adjust the side mirrors out as far as
they will go and *just barely* be A) eliminating the center overlap and
B) minimizing the blind spot to my satisfaction.

Signature

~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
                      --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. - 24 Nov 2007 07:23 GMT
> > Other cars I've been able to adjust so there is no blind spot... except
> > my maverick which doesn't have a passenger side mirror. (guess 3 and
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> they will go and *just barely* be A) eliminating the center overlap and
> B) minimizing the blind spot to my satisfaction.

I do have those couple of extra degrees of outward adjustment. But, I have
found that adjusting the mirrors that much outward and eliminating any
center overlap creates a blindspot where one vehicle headlight will be in
the rearview mirror without the other headlight immediately appearing in the
side mirror.

I never want to use an adjustment that far out because while it may not be a
problem for still seeing most cars and trucks, a lane-straddling
motorcyclist can be hidden by that blindspot. Using the proper BGE mirror
adjustment with the minimal center overlap inherent to proper adjustment
will usually not hide a lane-straddling motorcyclist.
Nate Nagel - 26 Nov 2007 01:27 GMT
>> Other cars I've been able to adjust so there is no blind spot...
>> except my maverick which doesn't have a passenger side mirror. (guess
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> they will go and *just barely* be A) eliminating the center overlap and
> B) minimizing the blind spot to my satisfaction.

I'll agree with that although my seating position must be a little
different than yours, because I can usually adjust them the way I want
them, but the mirrors usually (esp. pass. side) are almost all the way
out.  This is on just about every car with the typical remote mirrors
where the mirror glass pivots in a fixed housing.

nate

Signature

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

N8N - 24 Nov 2007 02:11 GMT
> >> Over The Shoulder Glance
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Sorry, but if a driver can't look over the shoulder without having
> his/her vehicle veer off, then the driver shouldn't be on the road driving.

I don't see why that should be a requirement, since there's no need to
look over your shoulder to begin with.  And looking over one's
shoulder is a good way to go off course, whether you want to or no.

> I and many others have absolutely no difficulty in looking over our
> shoulders and keeping the vehicle on its intended course. (And BTW, I
> only need to turn my head about 60 (not 90) degrees to see over my
> shoulder.)

I wouldn't say "many other drivers."  I see examples every day of
people moving around in their lane (and sometimes out of it) because
they're not looking where they're going.  It takes a certain amount of
practice to be able to look one direction and hold a steady course in
another, and most drivers don't seem to be able to manage it.

> > The over the
> > shoulder glance is unnecessary if the exterior mirrors are adjusted
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> relatively few vehicles that have large enough and properly positioned
> OEM mirrors to eliminate all the blind spots.

My experience is the exact opposite.  The only vehicle I've driven
recently where that was my case was my '55 Studebaker (with the
factory-style little round exterior mirrors.)  Now if you're limiting
your vehicle experience to SUVs or vans, I might concede your point,
but for passenger cars - most factory mirrors are perfectly adequate.

> I'm pretty fanatical about adjusting my rear-view mirrors of the cars I
> drive, including rentals. Even after spending five to ten minutes
> adjusting the mirrors, most cars I've driven still have blind spots that
> can't be eliminated no matter how I adjust the three rear-view mirrors.

All I can say is... you must be doing it wrong.  I have no such
problems, and my company vehicle is an '05 Impala (e.g. just the kind
of car you're likely to get from a rental agency.)  In fact, the
inside mirror shows me probably 75% or more of what I need to see,
without any side mirrors at all.  At a guess, I'd say that your side
mirrors are probably adjusted too close to the sides of the vehicle.
If you adjust the mirrors while driving (obviously only possible on a
vehicle with power remote mirrors) so that a vehicle doesn't appear in
the side mirror until it's almost disappeared off the edge of the
inside mirror, you won't have that issue anymore.  You can get close
on a vehicle without power mirrors by setting them so you can just see
the edge of your own vehicle, and then adjusting them straight out
maybe 10-15 degrees or so.

nate
Scott in SoCal - 24 Nov 2007 03:14 GMT
>>> Over The Shoulder Glance
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Sorry, but if a driver can't look over the shoulder without having
>his/her vehicle veer off, then the driver shouldn't be on the road driving.

Similarly, if a driver can't change lanes without other drivers
slowing down to let them in, they shouldn't be on the road.
Peter Lawrence - 23 Nov 2007 22:23 GMT
>>> Unsafe lane change? YOU FLUNK!
>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=bHp6gRsmhQw
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> That's not to say that the above MSM method proposed above is useful on
> roads with aggressive drivers, but it isn't actually the proper method.

I was taught to do it in the following order:

1. Check mirrors
2. Signal
3. Over the shoulder glance
4. Change lanes

So I check my mirrors first, but signal before I look over my shoulder.

I look over my shoulder right before I start my lane change to double
check the space is clear.

- Peter
Scott in SoCal - 24 Nov 2007 03:04 GMT
>> In short, MSM (Mirror, Signal, Maneuver).
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>The SMOG technique is the textbook driving technique taught for lane
>changes.

Figures. It's right up there with JLEDI.

What is the point of putting your signal on BEFORE you know if the
space you want to occupy is free? What possible downside could there
be to MSM?
Harry K - 24 Nov 2007 15:33 GMT
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:07:40 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> space you want to occupy is free? What possible downside could there
> be to MSM?

Well in congested traffic (common for one lane change I need to make
in Spokane, WA) the only hope to move over one lane is for someone to
let you in.  That won't happen unless you show you need to do it,
i.e., signal.

Harry K
Scott in SoCal - 24 Nov 2007 17:40 GMT
>Well in congested traffic (common for one lane change I need to make
>in Spokane, WA) the only hope to move over one lane is for someone to
>let you in.  That won't happen unless you show you need to do it,
>i.e., signal.

I noted that scanario in an earlier post. But outside of that, I just
don't see any reason to lollygag. You have nothing to gain and
everything to lose.

For example, there are people who will post to these newgroups,
complaining about people passing them on the right while they are in
the process of passing another vehicle on the Interstate. INVARIABLY
they create this problem for themselves because they take their own
sweet time returning to the right lane after a pass. They will clear
the front of the vehicle they are passing, continue in the left lane
for 4 or 5 carlengths, THEN turn on their signal and start to think
about returning to the right lane.

The problem with this approach is that drivers behind them have no
idea if this guy is planning to return to the right lane or if he's
just going to be another LLB, so as soon as they can they merge and
pass the guy on the right. If there are multiple cars in the conga
line, it's a safe bet that they will all try to follow suit.

When I pass another vehicle, I turn on my right turn signal when the
front of my vehicle is even with the front of the vehicle I am
passing. This unambiguously lets the driver(s) behind me know what I
intend to do. I also return to the right lane IMMEDIATELY after my
rear bumper clears the front bumper of the vehicle I just passed;
there is no physical opportunity for a driver behind me to slip around
and pass me on the right. This is safest and most efficient for all
concerned.

Now, sometimes when I tell people this, they complain that by
returning to the right lane "too soon" I am depriving the vehicle I
just passed (as well as myself) of a safe following distance. While
technicaly this is true, the risk is actually very well mitigated. In
the first place, recall that I am PASSING the other vehicle, which
means I am moving faster than he is. This means the gap between my
vehicle and his may start off "too small" but it WILL grow rapidly.
Also, since I am passing, I have a clear view of any potential
obstacles in the road ahead, so I can pretty much guarantee that I
will not have to stop suddenly during those few seconds while the
space cushion is "too small." All in all, this is MUCH safer than
having one or more drivers slip past me on the right while I am trying
to complete my pass.

What's really amazing is these same "safe drivers" who refuse to merge
in front of a semi "too early" will happily spend an eternity driving
right next to that same semi, executing a micro-pass. <knock knock
knock> Hell-LO? McFLY? A space cushion is needed for a full 360
degrees around the vehicle, not just in front of it!!
larry_scholnick@yahoo.com - 24 Nov 2007 00:45 GMT
> EVERY DRIVER IN CALIFORNIA should be required to watch these videos -
> using the Ludovico technique if necessary:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> The CA DMV has posted 55 of these little gems on YouTube - check 'em
> out!! :)

I'd love to see a video that includes the NO RIGHT TURN ON RED
intersection that is located one block away from the Inglewood, CA DMV
office.  The penultimate maneuver of most of the routes at that office
is at the 5-point intersection of La Brea Avenue, Hyde Park Blvd, and
Juniper Street, approaching from the west on Hyde Park Blvd.  The
examiner directs the applicant to Turn Right At The Next Traffic
Light.  If the applicant stops at the inevitable red light and then
turns right in violation of the posted signs, the applicant fails.
Scott in SoCal - 24 Nov 2007 03:24 GMT
>I'd love to see a video that includes the NO RIGHT TURN ON RED
>intersection that is located one block away from the Inglewood, CA DMV
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Light.  If the applicant stops at the inevitable red light and then
>turns right in violation of the posted signs, the applicant fails.

That at least would be a justified failure, an actual violation of the
law.

What's scary to me is they might fail you if you don't SMOG (Signal,
Mirrors, Over-the-shoulder, Go) - if you do it right, and check your
mirrors BEFORE turning on your signal, will they fail you? Will they
fail you if you don't JLEDI??
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. - 24 Nov 2007 07:01 GMT
> >I'd love to see a video that includes the NO RIGHT TURN ON RED
> >intersection that is located one block away from the Inglewood, CA DMV
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> mirrors BEFORE turning on your signal, will they fail you? Will they
> fail you if you don't JLEDI??

One should always be checking their mirrors while driving anyway.

Using SMOG for a lane change translates to:

1. Signal before making the lane change.

2. Re-check the mirrors before making the lane change.

3. Over the shoulder glance before making the lane change. (Note: this is
always a good idea in case another vehicle decides to take the gap before
the lane change is complete, for example, changing from the #3 lane to the
#2 lane means that same gap is open for another driver changing from #1 lane
to the #2 lane.)

4. Go when safe. (If the gap still exists and the lane change will not cut
off another vehicle, complete the lane change.)

If there was any opportunity for a possible driving test failure or points
deduction, it would probably be failing to look over the shoulder just
before committing to the lane change. Now, I don't know how the DMV actually
does their test evaluations, but I still always try to at least make a 90
degree
over-the-shoulder glance even when using the BGE mirror adjustment.
Scott in SoCal - 24 Nov 2007 17:02 GMT
>> >I'd love to see a video that includes the NO RIGHT TURN ON RED
>> >intersection that is located one block away from the Inglewood, CA DMV
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>One should always be checking their mirrors while driving anyway.

Actually, one should be *situationally aware* at all times. There's a
difference. :)

One never knows when one will have to swerve suddenly to avoid an
obstacle that suddenly appears in one's path (e.g. a kid's ball
bounces into the street, or one of Carl Troller's semis SHAZAM!
magically appears). It's possible that one will have to decide which
way to steer WITHOUT having time to check one's mirrors or over one's
shoulder.

>Using SMOG for a lane change translates to:
>
>1. Signal before making the lane change.
>
>2. Re-check the mirrors before making the lane change.

If one is situationally aware and executes the maneuver quickly and
decisively, there is no need for the extra mirror check at this point.
In fact, it only gets in the way, making the merge longer and more
difficult by giving other drivers more opportunity to reposition and
block the gap.

>3. Over the shoulder glance before making the lane change. (Note: this is
>always a good idea in case another vehicle decides to take the gap before
>the lane change is complete

If you do it right, they won't have TIME to take your gap.

>for example, changing from the #3 lane to the
>#2 lane means that same gap is open for another driver changing from #1 lane
>to the #2 lane.)

That's a situation which is easily avoided by proper positioning and
timing, For similar reasons, I try never to merge into another
driver's blind spot. In cases like these, I'll wait until my car is
easily visible to the driver before merging. This minimizes the
possibility that another driver will accidentally try to merge into my
target gap.
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 25 Nov 2007 19:50 GMT
>One should always be checking their mirrors while driving anyway.

Cha-ching!

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
necromancer - 24 Nov 2007 05:30 GMT
Scott in SoCal:
> EVERY DRIVER IN CALIFORNIA should be required to watch these videos -
> using the Ludovico technique if necessary:
>
> The "you can't drive too slow" myth: BUSTED!
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=2VZvmHf42-g

Interesting thing to note. On the part about the applicants taking too
long at the stop sign, I noted how they referenced confusing the drivers
comming from the other directions, but made no mention about the car
behind the offending applicant....

> Unsafe lane change? YOU FLUNK!
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=r_dEaHmhpvc
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=bHp6gRsmhQw
>
> The green ball is NOT the same as the green arrow!
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=mpR0aXP6JLo

So, they advocate the Florida Left Turn (pull into the intersection and
wait for the light to turn red and make your turn) out there in CA? ;)

> The CA DMV has posted 55 of these little gems on YouTube - check 'em
> out!! :)

Interesting vids (the ones I have seen. anyway). Makes you think, some
of these driving errors might lend them selves to being clipped together
and set to music ("Yakkity Sax," comes to mind)....

Signature

"Man, I gotta tip my hat to Whitey...
...That Whitey's a baaad mother f.cker!"
                     --Chris Rock

Scott in SoCal - 24 Nov 2007 17:08 GMT
>Interesting thing to note. On the part about the applicants taking too
>long at the stop sign, I noted how they referenced confusing the drivers
>comming from the other directions, but made no mention about the car
>behind the offending applicant....

Perhaps she said it but they edited it out for time?

>> The green ball is NOT the same as the green arrow!
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=mpR0aXP6JLo
>
>So, they advocate the Florida Left Turn (pull into the intersection and
>wait for the light to turn red and make your turn) out there in CA? ;)

What's uniquely "Florida" about that? AFAIK that's standard permissive
left turn behavior. When pinned down by heavy traffic coming from the
other direction, one often has to wait until the light goes red before
completing a left turn.

Or are you saying that Floridians wait until the light turns red to
complete their turns even when there is no oncoming traffic?
necromancer - 24 Nov 2007 18:30 GMT
Scott in SoCal:

> >Interesting thing to note. On the part about the applicants taking too
> >long at the stop sign, I noted how they referenced confusing the drivers
> >comming from the other directions, but made no mention about the car
> >behind the offending applicant....
>
> Perhaps she said it but they edited it out for time?

A rather convienent edit.

> >> The green ball is NOT the same as the green arrow!
> >> http://youtube.com/watch?v=mpR0aXP6JLo
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> What's uniquely "Florida" about that?

Its a regionalism. You wouldn't understand.

> AFAIK that's standard permissive
> left turn behavior. When pinned down by heavy traffic coming from the
> other direction, one often has to wait until the light goes red before
> completing a left turn.

And the cross-traffic that now has the green....

> Or are you saying that Floridians wait until the light turns red to
> complete their turns even when there is no oncoming traffic?

In that state, anything goes....

Signature

Loco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend defends a known *DRUNK DRIVER*:

"Teddy went off a single lane bridge with no guard rail at night.
The real killer was the idiot who built the bridge. Next question."
      --Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/laura bush - VEHICULAR
HOMICIDE
          June 20th, 2006
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/zlnyz
Message ID: qcch92lislem5sqq92qgf7hf9mlm847sgh@4ax.com

Scott in SoCal - 24 Nov 2007 19:25 GMT
> Scott in SoCal:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>A rather convienent edit.

You can't expect these smarmy Claybrookian Kool-Air drinkers to fight
to keep those kinds of comments in the final cut. :)

>> >> The green ball is NOT the same as the green arrow!
>> >> http://youtube.com/watch?v=mpR0aXP6JLo
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Its a regionalism. You wouldn't understand.

Try me.

>> AFAIK that's standard permissive
>> left turn behavior. When pinned down by heavy traffic coming from the
>> other direction, one often has to wait until the light goes red before
>> completing a left turn.
>
>And the cross-traffic that now has the green....

...Which is required by law to yield the right of way to you until you
clear the intersection. Even the JLEDI CA DMV videos acknowledge that.

>> Or are you saying that Floridians wait until the light turns red to
>> complete their turns even when there is no oncoming traffic?
>
>In that state, anything goes....

Yeah, Florida is also home to the "Large Print Edition" highway, where
everything from the font size on the road signs to the width of the
stripes on the pavement was made larger in an effort to help the
doddering old fools stave off the loss of their driver's licenses a
little bit longer.
necromancer - 25 Nov 2007 00:43 GMT
Scott in SoCal:

<< snip >>

> Try me.

I guess the closest thing to compare to would be how some call
Californians, "Californicators." Sort of illustrates how some of us in
GA tend to dislike FL. (Especially in late October - early November).

> >> AFAIK that's standard permissive
> >> left turn behavior. When pinned down by heavy traffic coming from the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> ...Which is required by law to yield the right of way to you until you
> clear the intersection. Even the JLEDI CA DMV videos acknowledge that.

But still has to wait until the person in the intersection clears the
intersection.

> >> Or are you saying that Floridians wait until the light turns red to
> >> complete their turns even when there is no oncoming traffic?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> doddering old fools stave off the loss of their driver's licenses a
> little bit longer.

And the electronic touchscreen voting machines so dumbed down so that
even they can operate the machines.

--
F orever
B enefitting
I slam
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 25 Nov 2007 03:09 GMT
>> Scott in SoCal:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>...Which is required by law to yield the right of way to you until you
>clear the intersection. Even the JLEDI CA DMV videos acknowledge that.

Aren't you required, by law, to refrain from entering the intersection
unless there's room to clear it?

>>> Or are you saying that Floridians wait until the light turns red to
>>> complete their turns even when there is no oncoming traffic?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>doddering old fools stave off the loss of their driver's licenses a
>little bit longer.

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
necromancer - 25 Nov 2007 05:02 GMT
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein):
> Aren't you required, by law, to refrain from entering the intersection
> unless there's room to clear it?

Excellent point.

Signature

"Go f*ck yourself!  You are a useless armchair quarterback, as far as I
am concerned."  --Carl Rogers, 3/9/2007

Ref:  http://snipurl.com/1fzbf
Msg ID: 1173420548.730347.236470@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com

Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 25 Nov 2007 17:02 GMT
> Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein):
>> Aren't you required, by law, to refrain from entering the intersection
>> unless there's room to clear it?
>
>Excellent point.

It is, and invariably a couple of jack a.ses will create a cluster
frak at an intersection I go through, because they can't get this
trivial concept. My immediate response to those MFFYers is to NOT go
into JLEDI mode, and I'll LLB (sometimes at 10 under the limit, if I'm
lucky enough to have an extremely slow pace car) them, at times, up to
five miles as a response. :-)

The best part is you can see they're agitated back there, but they
really can't do anything until traffic starts to split off from the
main thoroughfare. Once I get to the point where I keep 'em behind me,
I floor it, leaving them way behind. :-)

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
Scott in SoCal - 25 Nov 2007 19:08 GMT
> Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein):
>> Aren't you required, by law, to refrain from entering the intersection
>> unless there's room to clear it?
>
>Excellent point.

Irrelevant point.

Read CVC 22526 more carefully, and you'll realize it only applies to
vehicles making a turn who enter the intersection WHEN THE LIGHT IS
YELLOW. If the light is still green I can enter the intersection on
the presumption that the cross street will clear by the time the light
turns red. The law does not require me to have a crystal ball; I am
not required to predict whether the cross street will still be clear
in 60 or 90 seconds when my light goes red.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22526.htm

As I said to hector, I have yet to be stranded in an intersection in
over 25 years of driving.
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 25 Nov 2007 19:20 GMT
>> Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein):
>>> Aren't you required, by law, to refrain from entering the intersection
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>As I said to hector, I have yet to be stranded in an intersection in
>over 25 years of driving.

I call bullshit.

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
Scott in SoCal - 25 Nov 2007 22:33 GMT
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:20:07 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
<drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote:

>>As I said to hector, I have yet to be stranded in an intersection in
>>over 25 years of driving.
>
>I call bullshit.

How do you suggest I prove it to you?
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 25 Nov 2007 23:55 GMT
>On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:20:07 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
>Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>How do you suggest I prove it to you?

Still grasping at straws on that one. :-)

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
Nate Nagel - 26 Nov 2007 01:36 GMT
>>>Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein):
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> I call bullshit.

Yeah, me too.  I don't *deliberately* allow myself to be stranded, but
more than once I've been cut off within the intersection by a vehicle
changing lanes, who then occupied the last car-space within my lane on
the other side and left me hanging out to dry.

nate

Signature

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Scott in SoCal - 26 Nov 2007 01:44 GMT
>>>>Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein):
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>changing lanes, who then occupied the last car-space within my lane on
>the other side and left me hanging out to dry.

While you were turning left?

We were discussing left turns, not cars going straight through an
intersection.
Nate Nagel - 26 Nov 2007 01:54 GMT
>>>>>Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein):
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> We were discussing left turns, not cars going straight through an
> intersection.

Either way.  I've seen all sorts of shenanigans in double turn lanes.
I've learned to hate them just because drivers seem to be completely
incapable of dealing with them correctly.

nate

Signature

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 26 Nov 2007 03:02 GMT
>>>>>>Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein):
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>I've learned to hate them just because drivers seem to be completely
>incapable of dealing with them correctly.

You don't need double turn lanes to foul up an intersection quickly;
just someone to block the flow of instructions in the civil engineer's
program.

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
gpsman - 26 Nov 2007 02:50 GMT
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:02:00 -0500, necromancer
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> YELLOW.
> http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22526.htm

Duh.  Your powers of "realization" need adjustment.

> If the light is still green I can enter the intersection on
> the presumption that the cross street will clear by the time the light
> turns red.

Duh.  No, you can't.

> The law does not require me to have a crystal ball; I am
> not required to predict whether the cross street will still be clear
> in 60 or 90 seconds when my light goes red.

No, the law does not require you to have a crystal ball.  It does
require that you not enter any intersection unless you can clear it,
regardless of *any* signal that you may proceed:

(a) Notwithstanding *any* official traffic control signal indication
to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or
marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of
the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven
without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.

Seems pretty simple and clear to me.

> As I said to hector, I have yet to be stranded in an intersection in
> over 25 years of driving.

If you have practiced your interpretation of this law in SoCal during
periods of heavy traffic, you're simply full of sh.t.

Why would you misinterpret such a simply worded law unless you had?

A: You have, and seek to excuse your blocking an intersection because
you were turning on a yellow light.

"Any" means "ANY", Sparky.
-----

- gpsman
necromancer - 26 Nov 2007 06:03 GMT
Scott in SoCal:
> As I said to hector, I have yet to be stranded in an intersection in
> over 25 years of driving.

On the other hand, I have had to remain stopped at a green light waiting
for some dullard (or two or three or four) making the Florida Left Turn
completes his(their) turn.

Signature

"You can't legislate away people's right to be a.sholes!"
                      --Wesley Snipes as Simon Phoenix
                        in "Demolition Man."

Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 27 Nov 2007 02:39 GMT
> Scott in SoCal:
>> As I said to hector, I have yet to be stranded in an intersection in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>for some dullard (or two or three or four) making the Florida Left Turn
>completes his(their) turn.

That's the thing. I'd rather hold back at a light rather than affect
cross traffic. Regardless of your direction of travel, intersections
are not designed to be parking lots, and failing to verify there is
sufficient room/time to clear one is the quickest way to bring about
gridlock.

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
Tim B - 27 Nov 2007 04:52 GMT
> > Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein):
> >> Aren't you required, by law, to refrain from entering the intersection
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> As I said to hector, I have yet to be stranded in an intersection in
> over 25 years of driving.

I agree in principle, with the condition that if the traffic to the left on
the cross street is stopped (maybe grid-locked further up) and there is
currently no room for me to complete my turn, I won't enter the
intersection.
Scott in SoCal - 27 Nov 2007 15:16 GMT
>> As I said to hector, I have yet to be stranded in an intersection in
>> over 25 years of driving.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>currently no room for me to complete my turn, I won't enter the
>intersection.

It all boils down to common sense and situational awareness. If the
cross street is jammed then it makes sense not to enter. However, if
the cross street is clear, and you enter the intersection on green,
and then somehow the cross street becomes jammed before you can
complete your turn, you cannot be cited for violating the
anti-gridlock law in CA.
gpsman - 27 Nov 2007 18:01 GMT
> >> As I said to hector, I have yet to be stranded in an intersection in
> >> over 25 years of driving.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> complete your turn, you cannot be cited for violating the
> anti-gridlock law in CA.

<spit take>  And how would you propose that the space for your vehicle
"then somehow" might just disappear in the time it takes to traverse
50-100 feet on a green light...?

This ought to be good...

And, of course, you're wrong, again, Sparky.  By what method have you
determined that you "cannot be cited"...?
-----

- gpsman
Michael N. LeVine - 27 Nov 2007 19:40 GMT
In article
<0e983cc9-e08b-48fd-8a27-f1c48e9eac30@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

> > >> As I said to hector, I have yet to be stranded in an intersection in
> > >> over 25 years of driving.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> - gpsman

Someone in the cross street decides to make a
right on red before you can get there
Signature

Michael LeVine -  mlevine@redshift.com
"Thirty days hath September, April, June and November.
All the rest have thirty one except for Gypsy Rose Lee
and every one knew what she had" - Mel Blanc

Scott in SoCal - 25 Nov 2007 18:58 GMT
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:09:04 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
<drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote:

>>>> AFAIK that's standard permissive
>>>> left turn behavior. When pinned down by heavy traffic coming from the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Aren't you required, by law, to refrain from entering the intersection
>unless there's room to clear it?

In a typical left turn situation, where cross traffic on the street
you are turning onto has red lights when you enter the intersection,
what possible scenarios would cause the street going off to your left
to be blocked at the time you complete your left turn? How likely are
these scenarios to occur?

I can honestly say that in over 25 years of driving I have never
encountered such a scenario.
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 25 Nov 2007 19:17 GMT
>On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:09:04 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
>Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>to be blocked at the time you complete your left turn? How likely are
>these scenarios to occur?

This situation happens extremely frequently at an intersection I drive
through daily. It's always so much fun to trap a couple of MFFY'ers
behind me, as I do the LLB/Sloth thing at 10mph below the limit. No
way I'm going to JLEDI!

>I can honestly say that in over 25 years of driving I have never
>encountered such a scenario.

If I leave work during rush hour, I see it daily. But that's ok,
because I enjoy letting those MFFYs watch my rear bumper for 5 miles
or so, all the while banging their steering wheels, waving with one
finger, et al. :-)

The following shows some snaps of my commute out:

http://tinypic.com/8g66fbl

The purple square in the second image represents, roughly, the area
that the first image covers; the same extends to the second and third
images, and the hand-drawn line roughly represents one of the routes I
take, and some tremendous LLBing opportunities when dealing with
MFFYing idiots.

The first photo has an "A" & "B" superimposed on it; as I depart work,
I enter the "A" intersection from the west. The road common to A & B
is one of the two main thoroughfares through town, and considering the
rural nature of my community, there is a great deal of traffic during
shift change. Heading east from intersection B leads towards a lot of
residential zones; heading west from intersection B leads towards a
lot of commercial zones.

During rush hour, idiots moving south east through intersection A
invariable get caught up, as a fair amount of SE traffic wants to turn
left at intersection B, to head north east into the residential zones.
At the same time, a number of individuals approaching intersection B
from the south west want to turn left, onto the main route heading
north west. As idiots there also fail to yield right of way and enter
the intersection without proper clearance, the situation breaks down
into chaos because two intersections are deadlocked, and it usually
takes half a signal cycle for the retards to figure out their way out
of it.

I always use the opportunity to do a right on red, then sneak into the
"open" lane, and shut the morons down. :-)

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 25 Nov 2007 19:19 GMT
>>On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:09:04 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
>>Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
>I always use the opportunity to do a right on red, then sneak into the
>"open" lane, and shut the morons down. :-)

I forgot to add, complicating this traffic issue is that a respectable
amount traffic heading north west, through intersection B, wants to
turn south west at intersection A, but because of dullard MFFYers
blocking their way, the deadlock situation is that much stronger.

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
Scott in SoCal - 25 Nov 2007 22:54 GMT
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:19:52 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
<drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote:

>I forgot to add, complicating this traffic issue is that a respectable
>amount traffic heading north west, through intersection B, wants to
>turn south west at intersection A, but because of dullard MFFYers
>blocking their way, the deadlock situation is that much stronger.

Are there no cops in your town? Seems to me one motorcycle officer
stationed in the area a couple of days per week would solve the
problem. Or course, it could probably also be solved by properly
engineering and coordinating the traffic signals...
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 25 Nov 2007 23:58 GMT
>On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:19:52 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
>Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Are there no cops in your town? Seems to me one motorcycle officer

Yeah, but our cops are too interested in picking off "speeders" than
getting people who do "victimless crimes" like driving the wrong way
on a one way street, blocking intersections, failing to yield right of
way, and stuff like that.

>stationed in the area a couple of days per week would solve the
>problem. Or course, it could probably also be solved by properly
>engineering and coordinating the traffic signals...

In this burg? Yeah, that'll happen.

Actually it wouldn't be a problem if the single digit IQ bearing
cretins didn't block the intersection.

Doesn't work out to be much of a problem for me, now, though, as I've
taken to using the right lane to pass them, then pull in front of
them. Find me a nice right lane pacer, and enjoy a nice, peaceful,
obstruction-free ride for the majority of the trip home. Even seem to
pick up a bit of a convey in the process.. :-)

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
Scott in SoCal - 25 Nov 2007 22:52 GMT
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:17:22 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
<drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote:

>>In a typical left turn situation, where cross traffic on the street
>>you are turning onto has red lights when you enter the intersection,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>This situation happens extremely frequently at an intersection I drive
>through daily.

OK, tell me how.

>It's always so much fun to trap a couple of MFFY'ers
>behind me, as I do the LLB/Sloth thing at 10mph below the limit. No
>way I'm going to JLEDI!

Are we talking about the same thing? How do you trap anyone behind you
when you are making a left turn?

>The following shows some snaps of my commute out:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>take, and some tremendous LLBing opportunities when dealing with
>MFFYing idiots.

OK, but what does any of that have to do with making a left turn?

>During rush hour, idiots moving south east through intersection A
>invariable get caught up, as a fair amount of SE traffic wants to turn
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>takes half a signal cycle for the retards to figure out their way out
>of it.

I'm still not clear on what you're trying to describe. Could you maybe
draw some little cars on a blow-up of the top photo to show what the
people who are turning left do to cause the gridlock?
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 26 Nov 2007 00:11 GMT
>On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:17:22 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
>Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
>OK, but what does any of that have to do with making a left turn?

Simple; two lanes of traffic, each traveling in opposite directions,
wants to turn left across each other's paths. Block one intersection
and you initiate deadlock. Block both, and you secure it.

>>During rush hour, idiots moving south east through intersection A
>>invariable get caught up, as a fair amount of SE traffic wants to turn
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>draw some little cars on a blow-up of the top photo to show what the
>people who are turning left do to cause the gridlock?

http://i10.tinypic.com/80whit3.jpg

Red is traffic flowing in the direction of intersection A to B; blue
is oncoming traffic. Both flows have a reasonable percentage of
drivers who want to turn left across the other flow's path, but have
considerable difficulty doing so when those intersections are blocked.

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
Scott in SoCal - 26 Nov 2007 00:23 GMT
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:11:13 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
<drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote:

>http://i10.tinypic.com/80whit3.jpg

Thanks, I think I get it now. The red traffic stream enters
intersection A without sufficient room to exit, blocking the blue
stream from turning left. Similarly, the blue stream enters
intersection B without sufficient room to exit, blocking the red
stream from turning left. Result: gridlock.

It's a little bit different than what I was talking about, however, as
the blockage is caused by the people who are currently going straight,
not by the people who are currently turning left.
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 26 Nov 2007 00:51 GMT
>On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:11:13 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
>Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>the blockage is caused by the people who are currently going straight,
>not by the people who are currently turning left.

But these types of situations can degrade into the type of situation
discussed above. Saw a whole bunch of stuff like that in Orlando a few
weeks back, even where the blocks are long and the traffic signals are
*probably* timed better. MFFYers just *had* to get through the
intersection, so they wouldn't waste another cycle at the light, and
the result was traffic flow coming from two separate directions was
brought to pandemonium.

If you ask me, 110 a day ain't enough, and the red light cameras can't
get here soon enough.

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
necromancer - 26 Nov 2007 05:57 GMT
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein):
> But these types of situations can degrade into the type of situation
> discussed above. Saw a whole bunch of stuff like that in Orlando a few
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> the result was traffic flow coming from two separate directions was
> brought to pandemonium.

As such, my reference to Florida Left Turns, for the Californian.

Signature

"The greatest thing of trucking, apart from knocking down a biker...
Is swinging up a roundabout and picking up a hiker!
You're chatting up that piece of skirt sitting by your side
When you pop the crucial question, 'A ride for a riiiiide...."
                   --from Not the 9 O'clock News

Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 27 Nov 2007 02:41 GMT
> Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein):
>> But these types of situations can degrade into the type of situation
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>As such, my reference to Florida Left Turns, for the Californian.

I understand.

Have you spent much time in Orlando? If so, ever spent any time around
the intersection of international drive and sand lake road? OMFG!

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
necromancer - 27 Nov 2007 04:52 GMT
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein):
> > Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein):
> >> But these types of situations can degrade into the type of situation
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Have you spent much time in Orlando?

Yep. My brother lives down there.

> If so, ever spent any time around the intersection of international
> drive and sand lake road?

Oh, yeah....

> OMFG!

IAWTP.

Next time you are down there, try FL436. Especially near the
airport.....

Signature

Loco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend foams like a Bartlo
(and spelling or gramatical errors are left as is):

"Hey - necromancer is a criminal coddler. BTW the article
says 4X and then it says the BAC was .187 which doesn't
make much sense.  Not that it matters.  Drunk drivers who
kill should get life wo parole."

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/rqvtg
Message ID:i2k082lf3gv2p6h1sosge2bqma6uvce2ft@4ax.com

Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 30 Nov 2007 03:16 GMT
>Next time you are down there, try FL436. Especially near the
>airport.....

Will do.

--

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
- Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy
necromancer - 30 Nov 2007 12:58 GMT
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein):

> >Next time you are down there, try FL436. Especially near the
> >airport.....
>
> Will do.

I forgot to mention, FL520 is another nice one (starts about 15 miles or
so east of Orlando on FL50 and runs to A1A in Cocoa Beach). IIRC, some
people used to refer to it as, "Bloody 520," and from what I understand,
it was one of Darwin's mre fertile hunting grounds..... ;-P

Signature

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS," supports letting
drunks drive:

"Yup - another scam by the automakers to increase car
prices and thereby profits for themeselves."

--"Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS," 3/27/07
Ref: http://snipurl.com/1dwi4
Message ID:  mKaOh.17057$tD2.15903@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net

Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) - 30 Nov 2007 23:16 GMT
> Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein):
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>people used to refer to it as, "Bloody 520," and from what I understand,
>it was one of Darwin's mre fertile hunting grounds..... ;-P

Yer gonna make me dig through my GPS logs to see if I traveled any of
those routes last year; Cocoa Beach was one of my stops on the way to
Orlando last spring. :-)

Strangely enough, I'm reconsidering a visit to O'ville,