Road Rage or Not? Justified anger?

[Camino LS6]

I don't think anyone here is condoning 130 mph in a 65. OTOH, 80 in a 65 is a everyday occurrence. You can argue all day that 130, 80, 66 in a 65 is a tragedy waiting to happen, but that is a separate issue from hogging the left lane. Properly trained drivers in Germany are doing 130+ as we type.

If you block the left lane, at _any_ speed, you are forcing drivers to pass on the right, disrupting proper traffic flow, and creating a hazard. You are also leaving yourself to be involved in a incident that goes beyond the normal scope of traffic law... being shot at.

The highways were created to transport people and goods safely and _QUICKLY_.

I drive fairly fast... in the 97th percentile. However, I move over quickly when someone is barreling down the left lane. It's not my responsibility to hold them up. I don't know their situation. Are they late for work? A flight? Is a relative dying in the hospital? I don't know if they are just an ass, or a psycho who forgot to take their meds.

If one is so concerned about stopping impatient speeders, you should become a police officer. They are properly trained and armed to deal with the unexpected, and you can pull over assholes all day long.

I have no desire to be a cop, but if I were, every laft lane hog I saw would get a major ticket.

It is such a bad practice in so many ways.

[Robert Hall]

I have no desire to be a cop, but if I were, every laft lane hog I saw would get a major ticket.

It is such a bad practice in so many ways.

I'm glad it's illegal in some areas...

[Croc]

Actually Croc AFAIK ANYTIME there is 3 or more lanes law, even if it's not posted, dictates that if you're going under the speed limit you MUST use the right lane. Also around Philly and on a certain section of I30 in D/FW semi's are not allowed in the left lane. Good law to have to keep traffic flow @ a good pace.

It varies state to state, actually.

[FloydHendershot]

The roads are full of hazards like that, as I call them moving chicanes, but it is HOW you handle the imbeciles around you and carry yourself in those situations that make the difference.

Basic lane rules. Right is slow, middle is for people going nowhere and don't care how long it takes, and left is fast.

, I have little patience for Stupid idiot drivers.

Yeah. It may sound like a little road rage there. May even be the textbook definition.

[CaddyXLR-V]

No again. If they are going over the speed limit already, then you should just back the f@#k off and keep you pants on.

There is no need to be going even faster. If they are already going well over the speed limit you should be content with that. It is not your right to be going as fast as you want on a speed governed road. If there was no speed limit then fine, your argument is valid.

I hate how society feels the need to rush to get to the next red light (literally and metaphorically).

Well the problem is, some people feel like they should regulate traffic. If they are going 75 in a 70, and someone wants to go faster, they think it is ok to block them, which it is not. The safest thing to do is move over, and let them pass, regardless if the other person is right or wrong for the speed they are driving.

Think of the autobahn. If you think 80 is the fastest it is safe to drive, would you drive in that lane going 80 or slower? Are you saving that persons life by doing it? No, your endangering both of your lives.

[Robert Hall]

Think of the autobahn. If you think 80 is the fastest it is safe to drive, would you drive in that lane going 80 or slower? Are you saving that persons life by doing it? No, your endangering both of your lives.

That's the autobahn, though. There are posted speed limits on US roads.

[CaddyXLR-V]

That's the autobahn, though. There are posted speed limits on US roads.

I know, but when people aren't driving those posted speeds, what effect do those posted speeds have? It's still safer to let the person pass. It doesn't matter if I was driving 100 in a 70. If the person behind me were going 130, I would still move out of the way.

[CaddyXLR-V]

And my opinion is that those posted speeds are set at a safe limit for a below average driver, and so they have a way to generate income through tickets. Just because a sign says the speed limit is 50, that doesn't automatically make 75 unsafe. Less safe, maybe, but not unsafe. That depends on the road of course.

[Robert Hall]

And my opinion is that those posted speeds are set at a safe limit for a below average driver, and so they have a way to generate income through tickets. Just because a sign says the speed limit is 50, that doesn't automatically make 75 unsafe. Less safe, maybe, but not unsafe. That depends on the road of course.

True, speeds higher than the posted limit are often safe for a good driver in a well-maintained car in good weather on a good road, but still are illegal. Problem is, 90% or more of drivers are of below-average skill--getting a license in the US is trivially easy---and often don't maintain their tires, etc.

[Camino LS6]

True, speeds higher than the posted limit are often safe for a good driver in a well-maintained car in good weather on a good road, but still are illegal. Problem is, 90% or more of drivers are of below-average skill--getting a license in the US is trivially easy---and often don't maintain their tires, etc.

Absolutely!

Far too heavy a concentration on rules memorization, and too little on skills assessment.

[G. David Felt]

Sadly, traffic is always a problem on 405 here in the seattle area. Regardless of how you all feel, I did check the Washington state driving book and they clearly state two things. Flash you lights is an approved method to indicate to the slower person in front to move to the right. Also, the left lane is reserved for passing, all slower traffic should stay to the right or in the case of 2 or more lanes stay to the right most lane that in moving with traffic. Also ALL SEMI's are to stay to the far right lane and use the middle lane for passing other trucks and then move back to the far right lane.

The heard mentality and the attitidue mentioned by others of how some people feel they should regulate traffic is how it seems to be driving between Kirkland and Bellevue. That 3 mile stretch gets plenty of heard mentality drivers and the regulation asshole who decides to drive below the posted speed in the far left lane holding up traffic. To me they are wrong, the state driving book proves it IMO.

Over all, I am glad I posted this, it has evoked a very interesting debate and insight into how the various C&G members drive.

All stay safe and out of my way! :wink: Else I pick you out of my grill.

Edited April 10, 2009 by dfelt

[ShadowDog]

Disagree, almost entirely.

If speeding is such a problem with over 10,000 accidents in less than 5 years, then I think it is pretty obvious that this stretch of road is poorly designed.

If traffic is able to go that quickly, and it is deemed a problem, then maybe one lane per direction should be converted for truck use, bus use, carpool only, etc. in a way to reduce capacity and increase congestion to a point that people are driving at a safe speed?

Of course, I have no idea what those speeds you listed are, and for all I know 130kph could be no biggie at all, and you're just whining. I have no clue--but if the problem is widespread, the design of the highway is lacking.

The road is (was) quite reasonable. I've never had any problems driving it, but for just the poor drivers (both too fast and too slow). I think everyone just thinks all other drivers should go the speed they're going. How the hell is that going to happen? I tend to think the problem is with the massive population growth of the city that the road can no longer accommodate for. Changes are certainly needed, but many of the people who drive the way they do and defend the speeds and aggressiveness they choose to travel at say nothing should change, that the problem is just with the slow or incompetent drivers. This may very well be the case; however, I think the fact that the road is just too congested is the main issue. Rush hour is bumper-to-bumper, nearly 3 hours long, idling down the road for miles. Who can justify attempting to drive the same speed every time when there's just too many vehicles at any given moment?

So yeah, road design is highly important. Still, the design was great for decades, only over the most recent years becoming a problem due to extremely rapid population growth that planning and construction just cannot accommodate for at the same pace.

[G. David Felt]

One issue that I have seen in the news that Police have brought up is the surge in green card carring people who got a drivers license and cannot read, write or talk in English.

Hello, this just proves that in regards to WA state 56 languages you can take the drivers license test in, it really should only be one. English. Driving is a privlage that you earn, not just assumed you get to have. I ahve seen some very timid non english speaking drivers that do not even have the mental strength to really drive. It scares them and you can tell and they end up causing more problems than it is worth.

Case in point, City of bellevue reported an accident by a person driving 20 under the posted 45 limit which resulted in multiple car accident and the police had to wait almost two hours for an interrpreter to be found. The person was scared they would get pulled over if they drove faster, was not really aware of what the speed limit was and was trying to get back home after going to the grocery store.

End result they got ticketed and the insurance companies have a bunch of claims. Some people should just not be allowed to drive. It is not their thing.

[Robert Hall]

One issue that I have seen in the news that Police have brought up is the surge in green card carring people who got a drivers license and cannot read, write or talk in English.

Hello, this just proves that in regards to WA state 56 languages you can take the drivers license test in, it really should only be one. English. Driving is a privlage that you earn, not just assumed you get to have. I ahve seen some very timid non english speaking drivers that do not even have the mental strength to really drive. It scares them and you can tell and they end up causing more problems than it is worth.

End result they got ticketed and the insurance companies have a bunch of claims. Some people should just not be allowed to drive. It is not their thing.

I'm sure this is a big problem here in AZ with the millions of illegal Spanish speakers...

[G. David Felt]

I'm sure this is a big problem here in AZ with the millions of illegal Spanish speakers...

I would agree, plus then you have that company there that builds and leases out the speed sensor cameras and red light running cameras to cities and states. If that is NOT a facist plan TOTALLY DRIVEN BY THE GREED OF MONEY, i do not know what is. Lynnwood washington recently put them in here at every intersection and they say it is for the walking pedestrians safty. BS this is all about the fact they cannot have cops on the corners 24 /7 and want to get more money and so this allows them to generate plunty of money. The city report shows that the cameras in place from sept to Dec brought in almost $300,000 extra dollars in revenew for the city to spend.

How do these camera's not represent the greed of money?

[Robert Hall]

I would agree, plus then you have that company there that builds and leases out the speed sensor cameras and red light running cameras to cities and states. If that is NOT a facist plan TOTALLY DRIVEN BY THE GREED OF MONEY, i do not know what is. Lynnwood washington recently put them in here at every intersection and they say it is for the walking pedestrians safty. BS this is all about the fact they cannot have cops on the corners 24 /7 and want to get more money and so this allows them to generate plunty of money. The city report shows that the cameras in place from sept to Dec brought in almost $300,000 extra dollars in revenew for the city to spend.

How do these camera's not represent the greed of money?

It's purely a revenue generator..they try and sell the cameras as 'public safety', but it's all about the revenue... pretty controverial here currently.

[G. David Felt]

It's purely a revenue generator..they try and sell the cameras as 'public safety', but it's all about the revenue... pretty controverial here currently.

Here in Washington state it has clearly built two camps. The Tree hugging extreme liberals that want everyone in a Prius or on the bus and moving slow as the pedestrian is king or queen. Then you have the other side with a very strong Conservative group saying this is an invasion of a persons privacy with the cameras.

Personally as a middle of the road Independant, I hate the cameras period as the police should have to be present to ticket you for breaking the law. I want people to be safe and respectful of everyone including those walking but I for sure do not want a free lunch which this is pretty much for the cities.

[Croc]

The road is (was) quite reasonable. I've never had any problems driving it, but for just the poor drivers (both too fast and too slow). I think everyone just thinks all other drivers should go the speed they're going. How the hell is that going to happen? I tend to think the problem is with the massive population growth of the city that the road can no longer accommodate for. Changes are certainly needed, but many of the people who drive the way they do and defend the speeds and aggressiveness they choose to travel at say nothing should change, that the problem is just with the slow or incompetent drivers. This may very well be the case; however, I think the fact that the road is just too congested is the main issue. Rush hour is bumper-to-bumper, nearly 3 hours long, idling down the road for miles. Who can justify attempting to drive the same speed every time when there's just too many vehicles at any given moment?

So yeah, road design is highly important. Still, the design was great for decades, only over the most recent years becoming a problem due to extremely rapid population growth that planning and construction just cannot accommodate for at the same pace.

Any road with 10,000+ accidents in 5 years in a stretch has a design problem. That averages out to 5/day. I don't know how many miles/km you're talking about, so 5/day could either be pretty bad, or ok.

Now you say there's a lot of bumper-bumper...no one is going 80/130 in bumper-bumper traffic. I'm really not feeling you provided an objective assessment of the road, but more of a "too many people are going faster than I'm comfortable going" attitude. The Santa Monica freeway can be very congested in LA, with stops and crawling at 25-30 during large portions of the day...but then you can easily go 80 during even periods of moderate traffic. And a lot of people do. It's posted is 65, which is not unreasonable for its age or design. The only places on it that have a high accident rate are those that are not up to current design standards and feature forced weaving...so totally expected.

[FloydHendershot]

True, speeds higher than the posted limit are often safe for a good driver in a well-maintained car in good weather on a good road, but still are illegal. Problem is, 90% or more of drivers are of below-average skill--getting a license in the US is trivially easy---and often don't maintain their tires, etc.

90% of drivers self categorize them as being in the 15th percentile.

O, and there are limits on the autobahn. It is actually well regulated.

Edited April 10, 2009 by FloydHendershot

[FloydHendershot]

I would agree, plus then you have that company there that builds and leases out the speed sensor cameras and red light running cameras to cities and states. If that is NOT a facist plan TOTALLY DRIVEN BY THE GREED OF MONEY, i do not know what is. Lynnwood washington recently put them in here at every intersection and they say it is for the walking pedestrians safty. BS this is all about the fact they cannot have cops on the corners 24 /7 and want to get more money and so this allows them to generate plunty of money. The city report shows that the cameras in place from sept to Dec brought in almost $300,000 extra dollars in revenew for the city to spend.

How do these camera's not represent the greed of money?

It is about revenue but it is it only wrong when you get caught? Don't go through a red light you won't get a ticket. I've been busted by a camera, did I go through a red light? Yes.

Could I have stopped? Yes. You bet your ass I fought it but at the end of the day I had to pay.

How many times have you had to slam on brakes because someone felt they didn't have to wait at a light and think to yourself--gee where's a cop when you need one?

I'm a believer in the golden rule, especially on the road.

[Camino LS6]

Those cameras are just evil.

[CaddyXLR-V]

It is about revenue but it is it only wrong when you get caught? Don't go through a red light you won't get a ticket. I've been busted by a camera, did I go through a red light? Yes.

Could I have stopped? Yes. You bet your ass I fought it but at the end of the day I had to pay.

How many times have you had to slam on brakes because someone felt they didn't have to wait at a light and think to yourself--gee where's a cop when you need one?

I'm a believer in the golden rule, especially on the road.

This isn't an issue about right or wrong, it is safe or unsafe. There was an incident recently where a football player's father-in-law I believe, was in the hospital dying. He got to a red light, stopped to make sure it was clear, then drove through it. That does not sound unsafe to me, yet he was harrassed outside the hospital by a police officer for breaking the law, and never made it into the hospital until his father-in-law had already passed.

And our speed limits are set low, because they know people will drive at a speed limit they feel safe at, which are usually higher than the posted speed limit, and they can be ticketed.

If you came across an open highway with a speed limit of 10, but you felt it was safe to drive 60, would you still drive 10?

[FloydHendershot]

This isn't an issue about right or wrong, it is safe or unsafe. There was an incident recently where a football player's father-in-law I believe, was in the hospital dying. He got to a red light, stopped to make sure it was clear, then drove through it. That does not sound unsafe to me, yet he was harrassed outside the hospital by a police officer for breaking the law, and never made it into the hospital until his father-in-law had already passed.

And our speed limits are set low, because they know people will drive at a speed limit they feel safe at, which are usually higher than the posted speed limit, and they can be ticketed.

If you came across an open highway with a speed limit of 10, but you felt it was safe to drive 60, would you still drive 10?

If there was a camera there it wouldn't have been an issue at all, would it.

Speed limits also have to do with gas consumption. There has been and is talk about lowering the unregulated stretches of the autobahn, for instance, because the amount of burned petrol increases dramatically with higher speeds.

I can drive 50 down a straight strip of residential real estate because I can but some kid goes out to grab his skateboard that rolled away and it's my fault. I could be going 22 albeit and it would still be my fault but he might have had a chance.

The example I would argue con red light would be people getting rear ended for slamming on their brakes to avoid a ticket.

But how I've smiled when someone driving showing off driving like he's the $h! zips through and I see that flash. Yea-I didn't do it on purpose, I swear.

[Croc]

I'm all for red light cameras. But speed sensing cameras? Insidious.

[Robert Hall]

I'm all for red light cameras. But speed sensing cameras? Insidious.

Agreed..two different problems. Red light running is a much bigger problem...huge issue here in Phoenix, lots of red light cameras here.

[Lamar]

Case in point, City of bellevue reported an accident by a person driving 20 under the posted 45 limit which resulted in multiple car accident and the police had to wait almost two hours for an interrpreter to be found. The person was scared they would get pulled over if they drove faster, was not really aware of what the speed limit was and was trying to get back home after going to the grocery store.

If my math serves me right, 20 under 45 mph means they were then driving about 45 km/h.

I wonder how often that happens with foreign-born drivers...

[Croc]

Agreed..two different problems. Red light running is a much bigger problem...huge issue here in Phoenix, lots of red light cameras here.

Someone just got killed by a red light runner at the edge of USC two weeks ago. Red light runners are common here, and with the massive number of students crossing here daily, at all hours, I want a red light camera. Because of the 3-way signal and diagonal pedestrian crossing cycle, they should even prohibit right turns on red, and camera angle those too. There's a real and pressing safety issue here, and it needs to be addressed.

Speed is more about driver skill. Red light running is stupidity. And before anyone jumps on me for OMG I WAS AT A BROKEN RED LIGHT ONCE TEH HORROR........if you stop for a few seconds, it doesn't flash on you. It only detects and tickets light runners.

[SAmadei]

Speed limits also have to do with gas consumption. There has been and is talk about lowering the unregulated stretches of the autobahn, for instance, because the amount of burned petrol increases dramatically with higher speeds.

Then we should ban airline travel. Put people in buses and boats doing 50 mph. If I'm burning gas I bought, I should determine the consumption rate.

The example I would argue con red light would be people getting rear ended for slamming on their brakes to avoid a ticket.

And thats what the statistics are showing... a huge increase in rear end accidents. However, the pro-red-light-camera side is hiding that statistic, because the accident technically does not happen in the intersection, so intersection accidents are lower. Rear end accidents are statistically calculated differently.

Red light cameras are all about the revenue. That's why the companies controlling the cameras are now asking towns to shorten the yellow duration... to ratchet up more $$$.

Personally, I don't see red light running as a major problem. In NJ, we said no to red light cameras (for now), and people are not running red lights anymore than before. Sure, people stretch the yellow... but the traffic light is timed to allow for that. I haven't seen anyone go through a red light more than 2 seconds after the light went red in a _LONG_ time.

Keep in mind, you can be _in_ the intersection when the light is red... but you need to cross the line before it changes. There is some dude on Youtube with "Red Light Runners". Out of the ten or so people he caught on video, only one actually crossed the line on red.

Get beyond the line on yellow and you have the right of way in the intersection. If you are going slow enough that others get the green while you are in the intersection, they cannot enter the intersection until you clear out. This is one of the two ways you can get a ticket at a green light.

[CaddyXLR-V]

I'm all for red light cameras. But speed sensing cameras? Insidious.

I agree. But even with those there was a problem with some counties setting the timing on the cameras below the legal limit, so you would get ticketed even when you think your driving through a yellow light.

Here is AZ, I think they are only triggered if you drive throught them at speeds higher than 12 miles an hour.

Edited April 11, 2009 by CaddyXLR-V

[ShadowDog]

Any road with 10,000+ accidents in 5 years in a stretch has a design problem. That averages out to 5/day. I don't know how many miles/km you're talking about, so 5/day could either be pretty bad, or ok.

Now you say there's a lot of bumper-bumper...no one is going 80/130 in bumper-bumper traffic. I'm really not feeling you provided an objective assessment of the road, but more of a "too many people are going faster than I'm comfortable going" attitude. The Santa Monica freeway can be very congested in LA, with stops and crawling at 25-30 during large portions of the day...but then you can easily go 80 during even periods of moderate traffic. And a lot of people do. It's posted is 65, which is not unreasonable for its age or design. The only places on it that have a high accident rate are those that are not up to current design standards and feature forced weaving...so totally expected.

It's a 30 mile stretch. Reports and statistics from the Alberta Motor Transportation Association suggest that the majority of collisions resulted due to distracted drivers, cars weaving in and out of traffic and changing lanes without signaling make the thoroughfare most dangerous. One of the greatest causes of concern is when drivers maneuver their vehicles into the space tractor-trailer drivers leave in front of them in order to have adequate room to stop. Too often, drivers fill the space as soon as it's created and do not allow room for a 40,000 kg truck to slow down when required. Aggressive behavior and inconsistent, highly-variable speed rates between vehicles (slower vs speed limits vs speeders) has prompted a safety review of the road to determine what changes would be required to reduce the number of collisions.

In a news report, Caroline Surbey, who drives the Deerfoot twice daily, said traffic has become heavier and rush hours longer. Along with cars constantly changing lanes, she said distracted drivers are a serious concern. "It's nothing to look over and see someone reading the paper," she said.

The bumper-to-bumper reference occurs at even the posted speed limit due to tailgating. This was shown to happen because there are multiple main intersections with a heavy flow of merging traffic on and off Deerfoot Trail. The off-merging traffic creates great openings where people find the need to increase speed. The on-merging traffic then slows these speeds down, but apparently too quickly for those not paying enough attention, or trying to find a quicker lane to weave through the suddenly increasing traffic.

I'm always comfortable on Deerfoot because I have no trouble keeping with the flow in the upper speed regions. If the lane I'm in slows, I'm not quick to jump into another lane if it 'appears' to be moving quicker. Often, someone else will get my attention by doing just what I mentioned without signaling and sometimes forcing their way between vehicles. It's quite uncommon for those lane-weavers to end up more than a few car-lengths ahead of me by the time we reach a 10 mile distance. To me, those are the safety hazards on the road. I'm just fine in my lane, getting where I need to go and not pissing off multiple drivers to save 20 seconds on my trip.

Heck, as Deerfoot leaves Calgary heading north to Edmonton, suddenly it's not uncommon to be blasting along at 140 km/h. That was loads of fun! ...that is, until some middle-aged, blonde woman in a Jetta half-way ahead of me on my right suddenly decided she wanted the left lane. I saw her drifting over the lines as I just passed her rear bumper and I didn't one observe her to even glance in her mirror at my direction. Needless to say, my horn sounded as I was straddling the white line to my left and she darted back into her lane with a snide look... yeah right, my mistake?

Deerfoot has 93 access points on its length! Its flaw is that it was designed for a quarter of the daily volume it now sees; something in the neighborhood of 200,000 vehicles. This, combined with both meek and the aggressive drivers has created the safety hazards observed up to now. So yes, the data suggests the design is poor; however, it's apparent that drivers are unable or unwilling to adjust for that.

Edited April 11, 2009 by ShadowDog

[Robert Hall]

I agree. But even with those there was a problem with some counties setting the timing on the cameras below the legal limit, so you would get ticketed even when you think your driving through a yellow light.

Here is AZ, I think they are only triggered if you drive throught them at speeds higher than 12 miles an hour.

The yellow phase on some lights here, esp. in Phoenix and Scottsdale, seem very short compared to what I'm used to in the Denver area.

My # 1 intersection irritant in Phoenix are the intersections w/ turn lanes but no green arrows.

[SAmadei]

My # 1 intersection irritant in Phoenix are the intersections w/ turn lanes but no green arrows.

I have two traffic gripes, both have to do with traffic engineers.

1. EVERY new traffic light that gets installed in my area has a full complement of 'No Turn On Red' signs... even when a Right Turn on Red would be so safe that grandma Moses could creep through one.

2. Unnecessary merges. I know of several new pieces of highway where two lanes are merged into one, just to split back into two 50 foot further on, and there was plenty of space to just have two lanes the whole way.

[MyerShift]

I consider it justified anger because usually it concerns people I call "left lane parkers" that don't get out of the way for faster traffic like me on the Interstate, people that don't use their blinkers, don't use their mirrors, or pull out in front of you and proceed to go ten under your (legal) speed, and also the people in this God forsaken town I live in to drive ten miles per hour or more UNDER the posted speed limit.

Do you know how frustrating it is two have two people going 25 or 30 mph in both lanes simultaneoulsy in front of you when it's supposed to be 45?!

[pow]

Hm, road rage -- I just try not to take it personally. If there's an obstruction, there's almost always a way to get by, even if it means waiting a few extra seconds. In the scheme of things, there's little time saved driving like your pants are on fire.

[MyerShift]

Fire pants. Hehehe.

I hate it when I have the "whispers" and have to get to the W.C.!

[Croc]

It's a 30 mile stretch. Reports and statistics from the Alberta Motor Transportation Association suggest that the majority of collisions resulted due to distracted drivers, cars weaving in and out of traffic and changing lanes without signaling make the thoroughfare most dangerous. One of the greatest causes of concern is when drivers maneuver their vehicles into the space tractor-trailer drivers leave in front of them in order to have adequate room to stop. Too often, drivers fill the space as soon as it's created and do not allow room for a 40,000 kg truck to slow down when required. Aggressive behavior and inconsistent, highly-variable speed rates between vehicles (slower vs speed limits vs speeders) has prompted a safety review of the road to determine what changes would be required to reduce the number of collisions.

In a news report, Caroline Surbey, who drives the Deerfoot twice daily, said traffic has become heavier and rush hours longer. Along with cars constantly changing lanes, she said distracted drivers are a serious concern. "It's nothing to look over and see someone reading the paper," she said.

The bumper-to-bumper reference occurs at even the posted speed limit due to tailgating. This was shown to happen because there are multiple main intersections with a heavy flow of merging traffic on and off Deerfoot Trail. The off-merging traffic creates great openings where people find the need to increase speed. The on-merging traffic then slows these speeds down, but apparently too quickly for those not paying enough attention, or trying to find a quicker lane to weave through the suddenly increasing traffic.

I'm always comfortable on Deerfoot because I have no trouble keeping with the flow in the upper speed regions. If the lane I'm in slows, I'm not quick to jump into another lane if it 'appears' to be moving quicker. Often, someone else will get my attention by doing just what I mentioned without signaling and sometimes forcing their way between vehicles. It's quite uncommon for those lane-weavers to end up more than a few car-lengths ahead of me by the time we reach a 10 mile distance. To me, those are the safety hazards on the road. I'm just fine in my lane, getting where I need to go and not pissing off multiple drivers to save 20 seconds on my trip.

Heck, as Deerfoot leaves Calgary heading north to Edmonton, suddenly it's not uncommon to be blasting along at 140 km/h. That was loads of fun! ...that is, until some middle-aged, blonde woman in a Jetta half-way ahead of me on my right suddenly decided she wanted the left lane. I saw her drifting over the lines as I just passed her rear bumper and I didn't one observe her to even glance in her mirror at my direction. Needless to say, my horn sounded as I was straddling the white line to my left and she darted back into her lane with a snide look... yeah right, my mistake?

Deerfoot has 93 access points on its length! Its flaw is that it was designed for a quarter of the daily volume it now sees; something in the neighborhood of 200,000 vehicles. This, combined with both meek and the aggressive drivers has created the safety hazards observed up to now. So yes, the data suggests the design is poor; however, it's apparent that drivers are unable or unwilling to adjust for that.

OK, so you just outlined that the drivers are careless and uneducated (don't even use signals?!?), and that there is weaving and 93 access points. So you have bad drivers plus an atrocious road design. Let me guess, the on and off ramps consist of short weave lanes instead of forcing merges and allowing diverges at certain points? If those ramps are closer than 1/2 mile apart, there are some serious design issues. When was this built? If built after the 1960s, then the engineers were either reckless or willfully ignorant. The road design and poor driver education are the problem, not speed.

[Croc]

2. Unnecessary merges. I know of several new pieces of highway where two lanes are merged into one, just to split back into two 50 foot further on, and there was plenty of space to just have two lanes the whole way.

Give me a stretch of road (a couple examples) so I can look them up on Windows Live Maps. This could be to force a merge to cut down on weaving and may actually increase flow. I'd be interested in seeing this.

[FloydHendershot]

Then we should ban airline travel. Put people in buses and boats doing 50 mph. If I'm burning gas I bought, I should determine the consumption rate.

And thats what the statistics are showing... a huge increase in rear end accidents. However, the pro-red-light-camera side is hiding that statistic, because the accident technically does not happen in the intersection, so intersection accidents are lower. Rear end accidents are statistically calculated differently.

Red light cameras are all about the revenue. That's why the companies controlling the cameras are now asking towns to shorten the yellow duration... to ratchet up more $$$.

Personally, I don't see red light running as a major problem. In NJ, we said no to red light cameras (for now), and people are not running red lights anymore than before. Sure, people stretch the yellow... but the traffic light is timed to allow for that. I haven't seen anyone go through a red light more than 2 seconds after the light went red in a _LONG_ time.

Keep in mind, you can be _in_ the intersection when the light is red... but you need to cross the line before it changes. There is some dude on Youtube with "Red Light Runners". Out of the ten or so people he caught on video, only one actually crossed the line on red.

Get beyond the line on yellow and you have the right of way in the intersection. If you are going slow enough that others get the green while you are in the intersection, they cannot enter the intersection until you clear out. This is one of the two ways you can get a ticket at a green light.

Planes don't fly at max speed either. Ever been in one when the pilot says "we'll make up some time in the air"? :AH-HA_wink:

I think that guy in Binghampton last week said he bought a gun and some bullets and he would determine how to use them. I think your argument would set a lot of innocents free.

If you have video no reasonable judge wouldn't throw the ticket away citing faulty equipment.

Yellow lights in NJ are longer than the green lights.

[Camino LS6]

Instead of wasting money on cameras, we should be getting "smart" traffic lights that adjust to traffic volume in real time.

[ShadowDog]

OK, so you just outlined that the drivers are careless and uneducated (don't even use signals?!?), and that there is weaving and 93 access points. So you have bad drivers plus an atrocious road design. Let me guess, the on and off ramps consist of short weave lanes instead of forcing merges and allowing diverges at certain points? If those ramps are closer than 1/2 mile apart, there are some serious design issues. When was this built? If built after the 1960s, then the engineers were either reckless or willfully ignorant. The road design and poor driver education are the problem, not speed.

Long running lanes for on-off ramps. Easy to access the forced-merge on ramp (if you get to traffic flow speeds and find a spot to squeeze in, depending upon how courteous the fellow in the lane is to let you in front of them). Easy to access the exit lanes which tend to even double-up lanes for adjacent directions of travel at the next intersection (my wife's pet peeve is to see some jackhole weaving in the left lanes and expect to find some magical opening that will allow for a California-Lane Change all the way across to the right to exit in less than 200 meters).

Distances vary for all the ramps, depending upon their regular volume and how many lanes they have (one or two). The Calgary section (Deerfoot Trail) of Highway 2 is part of the CANAMEX Trade Corridor that extends north to Alaska and south to the United States and Mexico. I can't find the info, but I know it's been around as a main highway for several decades. There have been ongoing upgrades and newly developed exchanges to ease congestion; however, the study that was developed brought a lot of interesting info to light:

Crash Data Analysis - Between 2005 and 2006 with data from both city and Alberta Transportation:

67% - Rear end collisions

14% - Sideswipes

8% - Right angle (intersections)

4% - Left-turn across path (intersections)

4% - Off road ("OMG I fell off the highway!" - Likely loss of control and skidding off the pavement)

2% - Backing (REALLY stupid people)

1% - Passing Left Turn (Unsure)

Crash Types:

- Rear-end crashes are the most common crash type, comprising 67 percent of the total. Rear-end and sideswipe crashes account for a combined 81 percent of all crashes. This indicates that the majority of crashes occur during higher traffic conditions and involve lane changes and following too closely.

Temporal Distributions:

- Crashes peak in February and September. Day of the week analysis showed that most crashes occurred on Wednesday (19 percent). The most distinct crash peak occurred between 2:00pm and 6:00pm and contributed 35 percent of total crashes. (Worth noting is Calgary often sees its first snowfall in September-October and drivers do not adjust for conditions. It's like a NASCAR event to locals when "The Big One" is expected to happen some time during that first good snowfall) HOWEVER The majority of crashes (73 percent) occurred when pavement surface conditions were dry, and 75 percent of crashes occurred during daylight conditions.

There was also a recommendation for review of traffic cameras at the high profile interchanges where safety concerns involved excessive speed. That's sure to be a sore spot to numerous drivers.

Edited April 11, 2009 by ShadowDog

[Lamar]

Instead of wasting money on cameras, we should be getting "smart" traffic lights that adjust to traffic volume in real time.

If you're getting at what I think you're getting at, some systems actually are smarter than before (i.e. if it's late and you're on a side road and arrive at a red light at a major arterial, the light will change for you instead of sticking to its timed cycle from earlier in the day).

If I'm missing your point, please elaborate.

[FloydHendershot]

Instead of wasting money on cameras, we should be getting "smart" traffic lights that adjust to traffic volume in real time.

Some lights blink yellow after hours. Anything else is asking too much, aside from patience of course. It is a virtue don't you know. :AH-HA_wink:

Edited April 12, 2009 by FloydHendershot

[Croc]

Long running lanes for on-off ramps. Easy to access the forced-merge on ramp (if you get to traffic flow speeds and find a spot to squeeze in, depending upon how courteous the fellow in the lane is to let you in front of them). Easy to access the exit lanes which tend to even double-up lanes for adjacent directions of travel at the next intersection (my wife's pet peeve is to see some jackhole weaving in the left lanes and expect to find some magical opening that will allow for a California-Lane Change all the way across to the right to exit in less than 200 meters).

Distances vary for all the ramps, depending upon their regular volume and how many lanes they have (one or two). The Calgary section (Deerfoot Trail) of Highway 2 is part of the CANAMEX Trade Corridor that extends north to Alaska and south to the United States and Mexico. I can't find the info, but I know it's been around as a main highway for several decades. There have been ongoing upgrades and newly developed exchanges to ease congestion; however, the study that was developed brought a lot of interesting info to light:

Crash Data Analysis - Between 2005 and 2006 with data from both city and Alberta Transportation:

67% - Rear end collisions

14% - Sideswipes

8% - Right angle (intersections)

4% - Left-turn across path (intersections)

4% - Off road ("OMG I fell off the highway!" - Likely loss of control and skidding off the pavement)

2% - Backing (REALLY stupid people)

1% - Passing Left Turn (Unsure)

Crash Types:

- Rear-end crashes are the most common crash type, comprising 67 percent of the total. Rear-end and sideswipe crashes account for a combined 81 percent of all crashes. This indicates that the majority of crashes occur during higher traffic conditions and involve lane changes and following too closely.

Temporal Distributions:

- Crashes peak in February and September. Day of the week analysis showed that most crashes occurred on Wednesday (19 percent). The most distinct crash peak occurred between 2:00pm and 6:00pm and contributed 35 percent of total crashes. (Worth noting is Calgary often sees its first snowfall in September-October and drivers do not adjust for conditions. It's like a NASCAR event to locals when "The Big One" is expected to happen some time during that first good snowfall) HOWEVER The majority of crashes (73 percent) occurred when pavement surface conditions were dry, and 75 percent of crashes occurred during daylight conditions.

There was also a recommendation for review of traffic cameras at the high profile interchanges where safety concerns involved excessive speed. That's sure to be a sore spot to numerous drivers.

Wait--this isn't a grade-separated freeway with full access control? Or is it partial? Basically from everything you posted it sounds like there are a lot of unskilled drivers out there who don't give a $h!--very dangerous.

Edited April 12, 2009 by Croc

[Croc]

Instead of wasting money on cameras, we should be getting "smart" traffic lights that adjust to traffic volume in real time.

They already have that in LA. It's incredible how little you have to wait for a light to change, with only a few exceptions. Plus, you don't waste time at signals if there are only 1 or 2 cars waiting to turn left because the green arrows only show up when 3+ cars are queued--those two can turn on the yellow, and it increases overall flow. Or if you're aware of this, like I am, you stop a car-length or two before the stop line to trip the loop detector and get the preemptive green arrow

[SAmadei]

Instead of wasting money on cameras, we should be getting "smart" traffic lights that adjust to traffic volume in real time.

We already have some fairly smart traffic lights. Some work good, some work, ah, not so good. I don't think you will see too much more intelligence unless all the lights are networked, so that traffic lights can predict approaching traffic.

Of course, I know of some old fashioned timed lights out in the middle of nowhere (oh, yeah, and just about every light in Brooklyn) where you can sit for eternity waiting for a green... so even our "half-smart" lights are a major improvement.

[SAmadei]

Planes don't fly at max speed either. Ever been in one when the pilot says "we'll make up some time in the air"? :AH-HA_wink:

That's not my point. The point being is that, per person, airline travel per mile uses a LOT more gas than driving 20 over the limit.

Yellow lights in NJ are longer than the green lights.

That's somewhat true. Have you seen the lights on the southern end of the Garden State Parkway? I swear the yellow seems a minute long.

When I drive into Pennsy or New York, I have mentally adjust my "yellow" timing. ;-) Oh, and my automatic right turn on red when in NYC. Though I hear the NYPD gives people with NJ plates a pass on that.

[SAmadei]

Give me a stretch of road (a couple examples) so I can look them up on Windows Live Maps. This could be to force a merge to cut down on weaving and may actually increase flow. I'd be interested in seeing this.

There are a bunch of these in Brooklyn, but the one that really miffs me more is one I drive everyday that I'm in South Jersey...

Of course, after three attempts to load this into Live have resulted in Windows core dumps, so I can only describe the location.

On Live, look at Atlantic City, NJ. Just north of AC is Brigantine, NJ, and there is only one way in. If you look at the Atlantic City side of the Brigantine Bridge, headed towards Brigantine, the "Atlantic City Connector" which extends from the Atlantic City Expressway to the Brigantine Bridge becomes two lanes, merges down to one... right in front of Trump Marina... and then becomes two lanes, which split... the right goes under the bridge to Harrah's and the left lane goes up onto the Brigantine Bridge. The problem is that tourists slow down to a crawl to go to Harrah's, whereas the people going to Brigantine (who have done this hundreds of times) are attempting to go faster. IMHO, better signage and keeping two lanes would have allowed traffic to sort itself out without the high speed, downhill bunching up we get now.

Of course, I would argue the AC Connector is a horrible design. It was build around 2000... and granted, it has a tough job to weave through areas with little available real estate, but it could be better. Tourists are totally lost, and eternally in the wrong lane. The speed limit is 35, but half the traffic is doing 55. The merges come up fast, and the left lane ends, but left lane people refuse to yield. I have had more close calls on this short piece of roadway than anywhere else in my driving years. And you are in danger regardless if you blow through like your ass is on fire or if you limp though like grandma. You have to just watch everyone like a hawk and keep your hand on the horn.

[Croc]

Wow, what an..."interesting"-looking stretch of road. I think the overall design of that area with all the loops is highly land-inefficient and likely confusing, but the specific part you dislike doesn't seem too bad to me. Signage could probably be better. As for the drivers, well, it's Jersey.