# Driving PITAs. Which is the worst.



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

My opinion is that aggressive drivers and left lane bandits are the biggest pains.


----------



## Gunny (Feb 21, 2006)

I've got issues with most of these. I voted for the lane changers with no signal since it's downright dangerous.
My biggest gripe is people who continue to make left turns against a traffic light that's already red. Not just the first in line, but the 3 that follow them.
Toronto has red light cameras. I'm not worried about getting a ticket, I'm worried about getting T-boned by some idiot who just can't wait for the next green light and is either bombing through or making a left turn when the light is red. end of my rant.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2007)

A couple of years ago, I saw a paint developed with a nano-tech component... 
It was laced with components that when 'powered' aligned to form a Faraday Cage. The practical application would be in places like say a movie theatre, so that when the movie started the structure would block all cell/pager signals in or out. The first best place to implement this technology is in any and all vehicles so that when the vehicle is in motion such signals are blocked.

Studies have been done (And I don't just mean by goofy tv shows) that indicate that you're better off driving drunk than on you cellphone... Hands-free or not.

Of course the element responsible for the vast majority of vehicle incidents is the one that sits behind the steering wheel.... The sooner we can remove that component, the better.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

What I don't get is the folks driving using iPod's ect. I guess I realize that driving with very loud tunes amounts to the same thing.. But I just don't get that. I know it would make me very distracted. Just changing the stations on sat radio is distracting enough!

Happy Friday!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> A couple of years ago, I saw a paint developed with a nano-tech component...
> It was laced with components that when 'powered' aligned to form a Faraday Cage. The practical application would be in places like say a movie theatre, so that when the movie started the structure would block all cell/pager signals in or out. The first best place to implement this technology is in any and all vehicles so that when the vehicle is in motion such signals are blocked.
> 
> Studies have been done (And I don't just mean by goofy tv shows) that indicate that you're better off driving drunk than on you cellphone... Hands-free or not.
> ...



I find it strange that talking hands free would be anywhere close to as dangerous as hend held.

If you're able to talk to the person in the passenger seat......

You would have to ban all conversations in cars to eliminate that distraction altogether.

I think hands free should be the law.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

jroberts said:


> I don't find it strange. When you're talking to a person in the passenger seat, they are taking in all the same information about the surroundings that you are. Sure, it's possible to get distracted during a in-car conversation, but you actually have two sets of eyes watching what is going on. If you are about to hit something or begin to do something stupid because you are distracted, often the passenger will pick up on that and say something.
> 
> Talking on a cellphone doesn't just lack that second set of eyes - it actually is worse than a single set of eyes. No matter what is going on in front of you, the person on the cel phone can't see it and will keep talking as if there's no issue. Subconsciously, that gives you a false sense of reassurance that your driving is fine, even when it isn't. That applies to hand-on or hands-free.



Ok well I guess that makes sense. I will admit that when I talk on the phone (rarely) while driving I often realize after hanging up that I wasn't fully aware of where I was until I hung up. I mean to say that all of a sudden I realize that I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have been.

Point conceded.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2007)

" If you're able to talk to the person in the passenger seat......"
Also we are trained from very early that when we're "on the phone" we are to pay attention to that to the exclusion of all else. The same is NOT the case for face-to-face (Or even side-by-side) conversations.... So even talking hands-free is WAY more absorbing, and so, distracting and dangerous than taking to a passenger.

The law, when you're driving needs to be, hang up the FKING phone and DRIVE!

"all of a sudden I realize that I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have been"
And that's how people get killed.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> " If you're able to talk to the person in the passenger seat......"
> Also we are trained from very early that when we're "on the phone" we are to pay attention to that to the exclusion of all else. The same is NOT the case for face-to-face (Or even side-by-side) conversations.... So even talking hands-free is WAY more absorbing, and so, distracting and dangerous than taking to a passenger.
> 
> The law, when you're driving needs to be, hang up the FKING phone and DRIVE!
> ...



Easy big fella.


As I said I rarely talk and drive. I never make calls and generally dont take them.
Additionally I would say that I'm less distracted than many people who AREN't on the phone.

I do a lot of driving and although most people would say the same, I'm not a part of the problem. In fact for longer business drives, the guys I travel with prefer it if I drive.


Also, have you ever noticed that MANY people seem unable to talk to the person in the passenger seat without looking at them?

Tell me THAT's not more dangerous than hands free cell phone use. At least I'm looking.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2007)

"I rarely talk and drive"
All it takes is once.... You may as well say "I rarely drive drunk" as justification.

"I do a lot of driving"
Overconfidence is one of the major "Driver Error" factors.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "I rarely talk and drive"
> All it takes is once.... You may as well say "I rarely drive drunk" as justification.
> 
> "I do a lot of driving"
> Overconfidence is one of the major "Driver Error" factors.



Man when you get the bit in your teeth.....


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

We need to add nose pickers to the poll!

What really pisses me off are the ones that talk on the cell phone and pick their nose! Look......no hands!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> We need to add nose pickers to the poll!
> 
> What really pisses me off are the ones that talk on the cell phone and pick their nose! Look......no hands!




LOL, nobody can see me in here!!!


----------



## noobcake (Mar 8, 2006)

People who don't bother to look at a map to figure out where they're going and miss exits and do retarded stuff like going reverse on a highway to catch that exit they missed.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2007)

What's the matter Milkman? Truth hurt?

"do retarded stuff like going reverse on a highway"
+1!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> What's the matter Milkman? Truth hurt?
> 
> "do retarded stuff like going reverse on a highway"
> +1!


Perhaps you should take a look at yourself. I'm sorry to be the one to point this out to you, but if you're even close to as perfect a human being as one would gather from your constant barage of critical and negative posts, we should all pause and offer a prayer.:bow:


BTW, the link to your site doesn't seem to work.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2007)

Don't pray to me... I'm not about to be responsible for you or your life.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> Don't pray to me... I'm not about to be responsible for you or your life.


Hmm, maybe I overestimated your omnipotence, LOL.


----------



## searchin4signal (Sep 23, 2006)

What really bugs me where I live is no one lets you in when you signal your lane change intentions. As soon as you turn on your signal....the jerk/jerkette in that lane speeds the hell up.
I *ALWAYS* let anyone in ahead of me when they need a lane change....it just makes traffic flow sense. 
It's not a race out there....I drive to get to where I'm going....I don't drive like I need to get there first.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2007)

"your omnipotence"
I don't think I ever claimed to possess any such thing, but I can see how, when compared to some, it could seem like I do.


----------



## noobcake (Mar 8, 2006)

Just give it up Clinton, please..:zzz:


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2007)

You first.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

No kidding. If everyone would pick a lane and stay in it.... Yeah right. What was I thinking?


----------



## Gilliangirl (Feb 26, 2006)

Whew! Tough choice between those 4. Actually, what drives me absolutely insane is when people slow down in the Merge lane. If they come to a complete stop, that's grounds for murder!:wink:


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Hmm.......based on the polls, it seems us guitarists like our speed? :rockon2:


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Drivers, and I use the term loosely, who change lanes without signaling and weave erratically from one lane to another. If those *&^%&% could only hear what comes out of my mouth.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Its funny, people who do any of those 4 are quickly taken off the Autobahn in Europe, while over here, people who do any of those 4 are simply Canadian drivers. Our liecensing system is awesome........:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> Its funny, people who do any of those 4 are quickly taken off the Autobahn in Europe, while over here, people who do any of those 4 are simply Canadian drivers. Our liecensing system is awesome........:smilie_flagge17:


Sadly Ac2, it's not the licensing system but rather the policing system.

Here in Ontario the system works like this. You have little or no policing with cruisers on the major highways. You dispatch them AFTER an accident has happened! Cruisers on the highways cost money.

If too many people start to complain and it might cost you a seat or two next election then you talk about bringing back photo radar. That will MAKE you money! You won't catch any bad drivers but you will nail speeders. People will think that if they get hit as long as the other car wasn't travelling above the limit they'll be all right.

Good friends like DH will tell you "at least it's a start!". It would be, only it would also be a finish. The politicians will never do anything else!

If someone gets hit by a bad driver who was under the limit and he complains about the lack of police on the highways you tell him:"Well, we can't have a cop on EVERY corner!"

This sounds reasonable enough. It should shut him and others like him up quick and proper. Nobody will notice that we don't seem to have cops on ANY corners!

Until and unless enough politicians or their families have enough accidents to change their minds we aren't likely to see any positive change. Thanks to our schools, we no longer seem to have a high enough baseline of critical scientific thinking, especially at election time.

If you can't understand why after 3 consecutive coin tosses of heads the odds on the next toss are still 50:50 then you just can't cast a qualified opinion on these matters. You can have an opinion of course, just not one that could lead to a workable solution. If this were wrong, we already would have solved these problems long ago.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Coustfan'01 (Sep 27, 2006)

I voted for the lanes changers . Unfortunately , it's thougher to arrest these guys than to give 100 000 speding tickets , so I don't see that diminishing anytime soon .

Gotta love cops.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Sadly Ac2, it's not the licensing system but rather the policing system.


All depends on perscpective. I'd rather fix the root of the problem then to allow a problem to happen and then try to police it................


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> All depends on perscpective. I'd rather fix the root of the problem then to allow a problem to happen and then try to police it................


Well, there we are! Back where we started!:smile:

It all depends on what you define as the root of the problem. My position I think is quite clear. Speed doesn't bother me nearly so much as idiots cutting me off, changing lanes without looking and stopping on merge lanes.

When a politician says he will address these points I might support him. Until then, I won't take photo radar as a cheap and sleazy distraction! He'll have do it first before I'll believe him. 

I'm too old to be fooled again with promises...

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

In the BC countryside, the mountain takes care of the bad drivers 

While distracted drivers are annoying and dangerous, my #1 peeve is the left lane bandit. They cause drivers to do real stupid things.

I watched a garbage truck, stuck behind a left lane bandit pulling a homebuilt trailer for 40KM and despite him flashing lights and hanging on his horns, they refused to move over.

So he bumped the trailer to get their attention.

Immediately the other driver woke up and moved over.

As we passed the driver that was bumped, he had an almost trancelike expression, seemingly oblivious to what had happened.

Some people shouldn't be on the road.


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2007)

"the mountain takes care of the bad drivers"

I have no problem with Darwin Awards.... what bugs me is Darwin Awards that take other people with them.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Unfortunately true


----------



## GuitaristZ (Jan 26, 2007)

I dont have a cell phone so that no problem haha


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

I used to drive and talk. I don't anymore, I turn it off.

My brother has a handsfree bluetooth thingy and he even gets distracted with it.

Odd, back a couple of decades ago, we yapped on the CB while blasting through the mountains, tweaking the clarifier constantly and there wasn't so much as a close call.

Maybe cells need to have a REAL handheld mic with a volume loud enough to not have to aurially "squint" to hear the other person :wink:


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> All depends on perspective. I'd rather fix the root of the problem then to allow a problem to happen and then try to police it................


I have a class AM (big rig and motorcycle) license. I was professionally
trained for the truck ('91) and 'till that point, I thought I knew how to drive. 
The problem as I see/seen it is the initial licensing process. The testing is too 
lenient IMO. e.g. In the mid '90's, you could acquire your truck license 
using a pick-up truck pulling a long utility trailer. 
And also...this is Canada eh!?. There should be winter tests for all drivers.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...speeding is the number one problem, although i agree that it is merely one aspect of dangerous driving in general.

left lane bandits can be a nusiance, although i am convinced they are primarily a problem for drivers who are in way too much of a hurry. i defy anyone to give even one documented example of a left lane bandit _causing_ a collision.

-dh


----------



## MelD (Jun 22, 2007)

*Driving PITAs*

Well I can't stand someone changing lanes without signalling and as for those multitaskers, it would be more appropriate for them to prove skills at their work place rather than in a vehicle.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Interesting results.

Remember, the topic is "Driving PITAs. Which is the worst", not what causes the most accidents or which is the most dangerous.



I suspect that we all do little things that irritate other drivers. I try hard to be considerate and aware of my surroundings. I drive a lot and have done so for around thirty years. I regularly pass through major cities while travelling on business.

So far I have been fortunate enough to avoid accidents. I hope it continues that way.

I do speed, but tend to stay around 118 kmph on the 400 series highways which is pretty much in the middle of the range of speeds we see on these highways and not fast enough to interest the OPP.

I religiously signal all lane changes and always check my blind spots.

I make every effort to avoid passing on the right unless someone in the left lane simply doesn't get it and fails to take opportunities to move over when it's safe to do so.


I use cruise control A LOT as it takes the emotional element out of your speed. It's facinating to me when someone passes me like I'm standing still and then a few km later I pass _them_.
. I've passed the same car three or four times between Brantford and Detroit. Obviously if my speed is consistant (Cruise control) the other driver is up and down like a wh0res drawers.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I have to believe that the cell phone issue is only a matter of time. They are going to ban the use of them while driving eventually. At the very least it's going to be mandatory to use a hands free device of some kind. Only a matter of time and I can't wait. The amount of fools I encounter on my travels (50 K a year) driving the QEW, 401, 402 and all over Michigan tells me that it has to happen.

I seen one a few weeks back that made me do a double take. Some chick driving down the highway shaving her armpits. Never seen that one before.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I have to believe that the cell phone issue is only a matter of time. They are going to ban the use of them while driving eventually. At the very least it's going to be mandatory to use a hands free device of some kind. Only a matter of time and I can't wait. The amount of fools I encounter on my travels (50 K a year) driving the QEW, 401, 402 and all over Michigan tells me that it has to happen.
> 
> I seen one a few weeks back that made me do a double take. Some chick driving down the highway shaving her armpits. Never seen that one before.


The one that sticks in my mind is an incident I saw while driving to College years back. I saw a car, backing up in the fast lane, with the drivers head out the window. He had dropped his ciggarette out the window. I could see it glowing on the shoulder.

A future Darwin award winner perhaps.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Geek said:


> While distracted drivers are annoying and dangerous, my #1 peeve is the left lane bandit. They cause drivers to do real stupid things.


...i'm sorry, but where is your logic?

no one can "cause" a driver to do really stupid things.

a really stupid driver will do stupid things, completely of his/her own volition.

can anyone tell me how this kind of warped logic and rationale has gained acceptance among those whose self-importance leads to irrational anger when their progress is impeded for a few seconds by a so-called left lane bandit?

and, again, i defy anyone here to give _even one _documented example of a left lane bandit _causing_ a collision.

-dh


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

There are all kinds of fools on the road today. It can be broken down into two types at this stage of the game. Those drivers that came up under "normal" driving conditions. Meaning those that learned how to drive and got their license in the day when driving on the highway was not a hair raising white knuckle experience. The second is the young driver that was born in the fast lane. This driver that got his licence when 120K an hour was considered going the speed limit.

Put these two types of drivers on the same highway and you are looking for trouble. 

Add to this the incredible increase in lack of patience. I have actually sat in front of people in traffic jams and watched the drivers behind me banging their steering wheels and screaming, with nobody else in the car. The lack of patience is unreal. People, especially young drivers need to realize that traffic jams and back-ups are a part of driving and you cannot change the situation with anger and impatience, it just does not make the situation any better, and it is not the fault of the car directly in front of you so don't take it out on him/her.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i'm sorry, but where is your logic?
> 
> no one can "cause" a driver to do really stupid things.
> 
> ...


David,

Just because a Left lane Bandit doesn't cause an accident, doesn't mean he or she isn't an idiot and a PITA.

It's really quite simple. If traffic on your right seems to be moving faster than you, you're in the wrong lane and should move over. It's a basic matter of courtesy.

Even the cops cite Left Lane Bandits as a major PITA. I saw a TV spot on State Troopers last week where they asked them what their pet peeves were regarding driver behaviour and three out of four mentioned LLBs 1st and foremost.

There's a difference between a traffic jam, and one dumb a$$ driving way too slow in the fast lane.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> David,
> Just because a Left lane Bandit doesn't cause an accident, doesn't mean he or she isn't an idiot and a PITA.
> It's really quite simple. If traffic on your right seems to be moving faster than you, you're in the wrong lane and should move over. It's a basic matter of courtesy.
> Even the cops cite Left Lane Bandits as a major PITA. I saw a TV spot on State Troopers last week where they asked them what their pet peeves were regarding driver behaviour and three out of four mentioned LLBs 1st and foremost.
> There's a difference between a traffic jam, and one dumb a$$ driving way too slow in the fast lane.


...no argument here. i was responding to a post from someone who claimed that LLBs "cause" accidents. an oft-repeated claim, incidentally.

but i stand by my assertion that the left lane bandit is largely a myth created by drivers who are in way too much of a hurry.

i drive some 50,000 km per year, and that is not what i am seeing.

what i AM seeing is drivers who come screaming up behind someone who is already driving at 120 kmh in the left lane but, evdently, not passing the other cars fast enough.

but, the bottom line is this: if you come upon an LLB in light traffic, getting around them could not be easier. a minor inconvenience, at worst, on highways full of MAJOR inconveniences. on the other hand, if you come upon an LLB in heavy traffic, you have top ask yourself what makes you any different than anyone else who is stuck in traffic.

by the way, just to head off anyone with poor comprehension skills, i am NOT defending LLBs.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Add to this the incredible increase in lack of patience. I have actually sat in front of people in traffic jams and watched the drivers behind me banging their steering wheels and screaming, with nobody else in the car. The lack of patience is unreal. People, especially young drivers need to realize that traffic jams and back-ups are a part of driving and you cannot change the situation with anger and impatience, it just does not make the situation any better, and it is not the fault of the car directly in front of you so don't take it out on him/her.



...i have yet another theory !!!!

this lack of patience is the result of boredom and not, as popular belief would have it, being in a hurry. these drivers who run red lights and stop signs and drive at excessive speeds are not, in my opinion, late for anything. they are not even in a hurry to get where they are going. they are, quite simply, bored.

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i have yet another theory !!!!
> 
> this lack of patience is the result of boredom and not, as popular belief would have it, being in a hurry. these drivers who run red lights and stop signs and drive at excessive speeds are not, in my opinion, late for anything. they are not even in a hurry to get where they are going. they are, quite simply, bored.
> 
> -dh


Could be, David. I never thought about that point before. We all know certain personality types that would fit in this category. Still, while this illustrates the kind of drivers involved it doesn't change any results.

To add to your point about LLB's not CAUSING accidents, I think we might be having a difference of perspective.

It's true no LLB can MAKE you do something stupid to get around them. The problem is that it's simply human nature to find them frustrating, at least for a large percentage of the drivers on the road. Frustration leads to negative behavior.

So technically yes, the LLB has not caused any problems. In the real world, yes he has, because it's guaranteed that sooner or later the "frustration force" around the LLB will trigger someone to make a bad mistake.

At that point the LLB can simply sniff and say "I never MADE him do that!". Doesn't help the situation any, 'though.

It's like the old saying: "He was right, DEAD right!"

It's exactly the same situation as with those cartoons featuring Moslem religious leaders in Denmark triggering violence and riots. Yes, Denmark has freedom of speech guaranteed in its constitutions. Yes, it can be construed as hypocritical for radicals to riot over cartoons when they place cartoons in many of their schools' teachings that encourage racism and discrimination to non-moslems, particularly Jews.

Yet most other western publications refused to publish the "offending" cartoons because they knew it WOULD trigger violence or worse! After all, the initial publication had already done these things. 

There is a big difference between what is right and what is prudent. LLB's are a prime example. I think there is some kind of a genetic difference in how different drivers think that influences their road behavior.

Me, if I found myself doing something on the highway that although legal was provoking the worst out of surrounding drivers I would STOP DOING IT!

The idea is for all of us to be safe, not merely right.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Could be, David. I never thought about that point before. We all know certain personality types that would fit in this category. Still, while this illustrates the kind of drivers involved it doesn't change any results.
> 
> To add to your point about LLB's not CAUSING accidents, I think we might be having a difference of perspective.
> 
> ...



Well said.

Now if we can just get folks who don't work to avoid banks and post offices during lunch hour......


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...even if all that is true, i see little point in blaming the LLB for stupid drivers doing stupid things. as i mentioned, i drive a lot, and i am always in a hurry. LLBs are a minor inconvenience. at worst, it takes a couple of seconds to get around them. usually, you see them up and ahead and avoid getting into the passing lane in the first place.

i'll take a hundred LLBs over one testosterone tony who thinks he has to pass every driver on the highway to show what a MAN he is.

-dh





Wild Bill said:


> Could be, David. I never thought about that point before. We all know certain personality types that would fit in this category. Still, while this illustrates the kind of drivers involved it doesn't change any results.
> To add to your point about LLB's not CAUSING accidents, I think we might be having a difference of perspective
> It's true no LLB can MAKE you do something stupid to get around them. The problem is that it's simply human nature to find them frustrating, at least for a large percentage of the drivers on the road. Frustration leads to negative behavior.
> So technically yes, the LLB has not caused any problems. In the real world, yes he has, because it's guaranteed that sooner or later the "frustration force" around the LLB will trigger someone to make a bad mistake.
> ...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...even if all that is true, i see little point in blaming the LLB for stupid drivers doing stupid things. as i mentioned, i drive a lot, and i am always in a hurry. LLBs are a minor inconvenience. at worst, it takes a couple of seconds to get around them. usually, you see them up and ahead and avoid getting into the passing lane in the first place.
> 
> i'll take a hundred LLBs over one testosterone tony who thinks he has to pass every driver on the highway to show what a MAN he is.
> 
> -dh



The thing is, we can't possibly know why someone is in a hurry. We can speculate, but that's about it.

The balancing perspective to the "everybody's in too much of a hurry" position might be this.

At the end of your days, would you not gladly take back all the minutes and hours sucked from your life by people who are confused, dull witted or just totally unaware of others around them?

If I'm driving from Ohio, the difference between driving 100 and 120 means an hour of time I can spend with my family or playing guitar or whatever.

An hour!!!

That's precious to me and people who are not in a hurry should simply move over. Their lack of concern for time is similar to second hand smoke (doesn't bother the smoker but it harms others around them).


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2007)

"would you not gladly take back all the minutes and hours sucked from your life... That's precious to me."

Oh the sweet irony... that, being posted on an internet message board.....


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "would you not gladly take back all the minutes and hours sucked from your life... That's precious to me."
> 
> Oh the sweet irony... that, being posted on an internet message board.....


Hey, I HAVE to be at work. Posting on a message board is NOT sucking any time from what I want to do. I enjoy it.


----------



## Robboman (Oct 14, 2006)

Cell Phones: They may be a distraction, but just like everything in life some people have more skill and talent than others. You have to prove you're able to safely drive a car by taking a driving test to get your license. Maybe there's some way to add a cell phone component to the testing? Maybe teenage girls (the worst offenders IMO) would fail the cell-phone part, while skilled, experienced drivers pass and therefore won't be prohibited by law for taking the occasional call behind the wheel. 

LLBs: Highway driving would be great if everyone would go the same speed. It's all the passing and being passed that's a PITA and dangerous. Slowpokes are just as annoying as the speeders. Speed minimums should be law, maybe cruise too? Technology can help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_cruise_control_system

Ipod while driving: Sorry, I'm a big fan of this ! Ear-phones in, highway only. I wouldn't do it in city traffic. But at highway speed there's so much road noise, to even hear music from the speakers you have to crank it, so you don't hear anything else anyway. What a difference, put in those noise isolating ear canal phones and you're driving in a comfortable, quiet environment listening to low-med volume music you can clearly hear all the detail of. It's great!


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2007)

"Ipod while driving"
Last time I checked, wearing headphones while driving was not only stupid and dangerous, it was illegal.

"Autonomous cruise control system"
Hear FN Hear!!! 

So Milkman, what you're saying boils down to "This would be a great life if only everyone was just like me." Well, sorry to tell you but that ain't ever gonna happen.

thank pasta


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "Ipod while driving"
> Last time I checked, wearing headphones while driving was not only stupid and dangerous, it was illegal.
> 
> "Autonomous cruise control system"
> ...



Hey Clinton Hammond.

Welcome to my ignore list.

I know, you're crushed.

Try to get over it.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> The thing is, we can't possibly know why someone is in a hurry. We can speculate, but that's about it.
> The balancing perspective to the "everybody's in too much of a hurry" position might be this.
> At the end of your days, would you not gladly take back all the minutes and hours sucked from your life by people who are confused, dull witted or just totally unaware of others around them?
> If I'm driving from Ohio, the difference between driving 100 and 120 means an hour of time I can spend with my family or playing guitar or whatever.
> ...




....still sounds like a tempest in a teapot, though. i have a feeling the time you lose to drivers who aren't in a hurry amounts to minutes rather than hours. relative to the unbelievable carnage that occurs daily, even hourly, on our highways, it seems somewhat insignificant. not to mention the fact that we are obliged to share the road.

still, this thread is about peeves, i believe, so you certainly have every right to be...er....peeved.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Hey Clinton Hammond.
> Welcome to my ignore list.
> I know, you're crushed.
> Try to get over it.



...clint is our resident "dale carnegie".

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Robboman said:


> Slowpokes are just as annoying as the speeders.


...not to their victims.

-dh


----------



## Robboman (Oct 14, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "Ipod while driving"
> Last time I checked, wearing headphones while driving was not only stupid and dangerous, it was illegal.


 Agreed. Next time I do it I'll crank up some Priest... "Breakin the law, breakin the law... da da da dahhh!"


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ....still sounds like a tempest in a teapot, though. i have a feeling the time you lose to drivers who aren't in a hurry amounts to minutes rather than hours. relative to the unbelievable carnage that occurs daily, even hourly, on our highways, it seems somewhat insignificant. not to mention the fact that we are obliged to share the road.
> 
> still, this thread is about peeves, i believe, so you certainly have every right to be...er....peeved.
> 
> -dh



Well the "hour" I refer to is more a general response to the impact of driving 120 vs 100 and why it DOES make a difference.

Again, the carnage that occurs on our highways can be attributed to varous causal factors. I think distracted drivers, impaired drivers and aggressive drivers have more to do with it than speeders.

Just my opinion of course.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Robboman said:


> Ipod while driving: Sorry, I'm a big fan of this ! Ear-phones in, highway only. I wouldn't do it in city traffic. But at highway speed there's so much road noise, to even hear music from the speakers you have to crank it, so you don't hear anything else anyway. What a difference, put in those noise isolating ear canal phones and you're driving in a comfortable, quiet environment listening to low-med volume music you can clearly hear all the detail of. It's great!



...they also help to block out the annoying sound of the sirens on those pesky emergency vehicles.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Well the "hour" I refer to is more a general response to the impact of driving 120 vs 100 and why it DOES make a difference.
> Again, the carnage that occurs on our highways can be attributed to varous causal factors. I think distracted drivers, impaired drivers and aggressive drivers have more to do with it than speeders.
> Just my opinion of course.



...but ,what do you see when you are driving?

i agree that speeding, like the other factors you mention, are all part of dangerous driving. 

i have seen things on the roads and highways that simply beggar comprehension. 99.9% of the time they involve speed/aggressive driving.

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...but ,what do you see when you are driving?
> 
> i agree that speeding, like the other factors you mention, are all part of dangerous driving.
> 
> ...



Well I think we'll have to agree to disagree. 

What do I see? I am VERY focused while driving. 120 is not that fast. The speed limits in parts of Michigan and Tenessee as well as elsewhere are 70 MPH (4.5 mph less than 120 KMPH).

Remember, the limits were established at a time when cars were much less evolved than they are today.


----------



## Robboman (Oct 14, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...not to their victims.
> 
> -dh


Slowpokes have victims too. When everyone else is cruising at 110 to 120, it's the guy crawling along at 70 that will cause an accident. Everyone else is forced to get into the oncoming lane to pass. If several cars get lined up behind the slowpoke for any length of time because there's no opportunity to pass, it gets even more dangerous because tempers and anxiety flare up.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2007)

"I know, you're crushed."
Ya... crushed... that's exactly what I am. No... really.... can't you hear me bleeding? It hurts so much the guy across the street is crying. No.... really.....



"La la la la la la la la... 
I have no logic, so I'm just gonna poke my fingers in my ears and sing loud. 
La la la la la la la la la... 
This way I don't have to hear things I don't want to. 
La la la la la la la la la"

I'm gonna finish that and call it The Milkman Song.

"When everyone else is cruising at 110 to 120, it's the guy crawling along at 70 that will cause an accident."
Hear hear! +1! 

"when cars were much less evolved"
The problem isn't the car... it's the driver.

"because tempers and anxiety flare up"
Losing ones 'cool' is a lame excuse for any behaviour....


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Robboman said:


> Slowpokes have victims too.


Auch! They are evil!

Not even at down the highway. Do you know that Vedder/Luckakuk in Chilliwack must the *slowest* intersection in BC? The average time from the green left turn arrow until a car starts to move was nearly *5 seconds*!!!

Given the Vancouver average was 1.3 or something like that, that's abysmal


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Today after lunch, I'll drive through Southern Ontario, into Michigan and down into Ohio. The vehicle is tip top (Honda Odyssey).

I'll encounter all of the PITAs discussed in this thread. I'll be sober, focused and alert. 

Tomorrow I'll drive home.


With any luck, I'll survive.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Robboman said:


> Slowpokes have victims too. When everyone else is cruising at 110 to 120, it's the guy crawling along at 70 that will cause an accident. Everyone else is forced to get into the oncoming lane to pass. If several cars get lined up behind the slowpoke for any length of time because there's no opportunity to pass, it gets even more dangerous because tempers and anxiety flare up.


...in the scenario you describe, the slowpoke is _not the cause of the accident._

i'm not defending the slowpoke. they can be extremely annoying. however, the other drivers are _not forced into the incoming lane to pass_. nor is anyone _forcing_ their tempers to flare up.

again, where is your logic?

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "When everyone else is cruising at 110 to 120, it's the guy crawling along at 70 that will cause an accident."
> Hear hear! +1! ....



...once again, where is the logic? 

this is exactly the same kind of warped logic that leads men to believe rape is justified if a woman is dressed provocatively.

this is my biggest beef with those who complain that left lane bandits are the scourge of the highway. when you actually examine their explanation, there is a gap in their logic through which you could navigate the queen mary! blindfolded! 

-dh


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...
> this is exactly the same kind of warped logic that leads men to believe rape is justified if a woman is dressed provocatively.


Not to justify rape in any way shape or form, but I couldn't resist posting this harassment video for you all to watch:

http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=1394


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2007)

"I'll drive through Southern Ontario, into Michigan and down into Ohio."
That stretch of the I-75 is a snap....


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> I'm suprised "Distracted Drivers" isn't way ahead in the poll. The number of distracted drivers who have put me personally in danger far exceed all the others combined.


...i wonder if that's a regional thing.

here in the gta, the moment i enter one of the 400 series highways, i can expect to see a speeding driver raising everyone's stress levels and putting everyone else in danger. i am never, ever disappointed.

the 400 itself appears to be the worst.

these are the *me first, i am more important than anyone else, i am also above the law* drivers. i see them coming up in my rear view mirror. most others don't, because most drivers rarely check that mirror.

they are usually driving a bmw, vw or suv. they are looking for ways to get past literally everyone in front of them. their passing lanes include all paved surfaces, including on and off ramps, run-off lanes, hov lanes and the paved shoulders. 

i view these drivers as far more evil than suicide bombers, who actually believe they are doing a good thing in the eyes of their god. arrogant drivers know well that what they are doing is endangering the lives of others, and still they don't give a f***.

anyone driving 50 or more kmh faster than either the speed limit, or the flow of traffic, needs to have the privlege of driving summarily removed, as well as their vehicle and insurance. i see that ontario has finally proposed this and, predictably, there is already a wave of testosterone tonys, "me first" idiots and "my car is sacred" morons crying foul.

as has been proven a gazillion times, we humans are capable of rationalizing virtually any kind of behavior, no matter how dangerous, cruel, homicidal or what have you.

but this is not what i find astounding. what i find astounding is the lack of public outrage at the incredible and inhuman (not to mention mostly preventable) highway carnage.

especially, the lack of outrage from the families of the victims!!!!!

don't get me started...

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman;62060
i see them coming up in my rear view mirror. most others don't said:


> David,
> 
> The behaviour you describe in the first paragraph is not that of a speeder. It's an agressive and erratic driver.
> 
> ...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> David,
> The behaviour you describe in the first paragraph is not that of a speeder. It's an agressive and erratic driver.
> It's not really the speed that's the problem (until you start to get ridiculous). It's all the other stuff.
> Just my opinion of course.



...i think we're getting into semantics here. aggressive driving usually involves speeding, and vice versa.

as well, in an accident where speed is not the direct cause, but still a factor, it is a factor that usually contributes to the severity, often resulting in an uneccessary fatality or injury.

like most of you, i see a lot of ridiculous stuff - people text messaging while they're driving etc - all of which needs to be addressed.

my contention, however, is that speed is _the big one_.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> What about the less extreme folks who are driving 15 ~ 20 kmph over?


...those drivers are usually being passed on all sides. that is the speed i drive, in fact. most cars whizz by me like i'm standing still.

why? because they can. on the 400 series highways, you stand a greater chance of being abducted by aliens than you do of getting nabbed for speeding.

and, as much as i am in love with the concept photo radar as a cash grab/voluntary tax, real police presence is the ideal way to go.

-dh


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...those drivers are usually being passed on all sides. that is the speed i drive, in fact. most cars whizz by me like i'm standing still.
> 
> why? because they can. on the 400 series highways, you stand a greater chance of being abducted by aliens than you do of getting nabbed for speeding.
> 
> ...


Now you are saying you drive 15-20 over the limit. I think this was the range Milkman was defending the whole time.

I think we can all agree the 50km over the limit guys are dangerous. In fact I'd say anything over 35km would be dangerous.

As for aggressive I don't classify the 15-20km over limit guys in that category. 35km+ speeding yes. Tailgating yes. Swerving in and out of traffic yes. Passing without enough time before an approaching vehicle yes.

IMO, LLB are dangerous, even more so when they are going less than the speed limit. You may pay attention and slow down appropriately and be safe but it doesn't mean the person in front of you approaching them first is as smart. It doesn't take much stupidity in front of you and you are forced into dealing with a much bigger problem.


----------



## Robboman (Oct 14, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...in the scenario you describe, the slowpoke is _not the cause of the accident._
> 
> i'm not defending the slowpoke. they can be extremely annoying. however, the other drivers are _not forced into the incoming lane to pass_. nor is anyone _forcing_ their tempers to flare up.
> 
> ...


OK then, let's refer to the slowpoke as the "inspiration" or maybe the "catalyst" for the accident, not the "cause". But in this scenario, if there was no slowpoke there'd be no accident.


----------



## Robboman (Oct 14, 2006)

> ...i view these drivers as far more evil than suicide bombers





> ...the same kind of warped logic that leads men to believe rape is justified if a woman is dressed provocatively


I saw this topic as around-the-water-cooler, lightweight kinda stuff. We all get annoyed in traffic for various reasons, we're just venting about it for fun. Comparisons to rapists and terrorists? I suppose if I said I find it annoying when I break a guitar string you'd jump in and point out how it's not the string's fault and then compare me to a murderer for killing so many innocent strings.

Lighten up man! Life's too short :food-smiley-004:


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

You guys have nothing to complain about. Come on over to Korea for some real Mad Max fun: the highest traffic accident death rate among OECD countries (which is like 4 times that of Canada).


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> You guys have nothing to complain about. Come on over to Korea for some real Mad Max fun: the highest traffic accident death rate among OECD countries (which is like 4 times that of Canada).


Been there.

I wouldn't drive in Seoul for all the tea in China.


or in Brazil



or in Japan


(it's bad enough in Montreal, LOL)

BTW, I just drove through Southern Ont, Detroit, Toledo and down into Columbus.


Michigan sucks hard. I75S was closed down to one frigging lane for 25 km, not a construction worker in sight except for a stretch about 2km long.

Duhhhhhh


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

hm. i dnot know what category this would be under, but what about the guy who always thinks he's right? y'know, the one who figures "yeah i have enough space to pass" or "i can do 120 in a 90 zone and no one's gonna care", the ones who figure the kid behind them will stop walking when they reverse at the grocery store...

those guys scare me and annoy me. sometimes i'd like to have a nice big truck just to bump the guys off the road, but thats the violent side lol. its the guys who simply think they're right that will cause the accidents - "i thought i could" YA THOUGHT WRONG, IDIOT.

assumptions are what's kicking your asses, folks.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

The graveyards are full of those type


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

Here is a second hand road story for you, and it's clean so I can tell it here.

I worked a short stint with a band called Crimson Jimson after returning to Canada from a stint in the Middle East in the summer of '99. On the drive to or from a gig they related this little driving story:

The band was driving through the night from one gig to the next, they were going through the prairies and the sun was just comming up. There was the driver and a guy in the shotgun seat whoses job it was to keep the driver awake. Everyone else is somewhat asleep in the back.

Off in the distance they spotted another traveler on the road, and since there was not much to look at the driver and the shotgun guy were focused on the minivan ahead of them. Before long they caught up to it.

As they pulled up along side of the van, the shotgun guy noticed that there were two young kids sleeping in the very back seat, as they progressed a little further he told the driver that Mom was passed out in the middle row. They move along a little further and the shotgun guy starts freaking out because Dad is actually asleep at the wheel and the van is rolling down the road at highway speed and there is not a concious person on board.

He gets his driver to start blowing the horn in an effort to wake up someone in the minivan. After a couple of seconds and waking up everyone in the band van, Dad wakes up looks right at the guys that just saved his and his family's lives and gives them the finger before speeding off.

Have a nice day...


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2007)

"The graveyards are full of those type"
The graveyards are full of every type....


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

thats one gimped story, hamm. what a blankety blank.


----------



## dodgechargerfan (Mar 22, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Interesting results.
> 
> Remember, the topic is "Driving PITAs. Which is the worst", not what causes the most accidents or which is the most dangerous.
> 
> ...


That pretty much describes me to a T - except for the cruise control. I find it difficult to use in the traffic I encounter. There is too much of a range of speeds from lane to lane. 



GuitarsCanada said:


> I have to believe that the cell phone issue is only a matter of time. They are going to ban the use of them while driving eventually. At the very least it's going to be mandatory to use a hands free device of some kind. Only a matter of time and I can't wait. The amount of fools I encounter on my travels (50 K a year) driving the QEW, 401, 402 and all over Michigan tells me that it has to happen.
> .


The first group they should target for this is cops. I can't remember the last time I saw one that didn't have a cell phone up to their ear while driving.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Robboman said:


> I saw this topic as around-the-water-cooler, lightweight kinda stuff. We all get annoyed in traffic for various reasons, we're just venting about it for fun. Comparisons to rapists and terrorists? I suppose if I said I find it annoying when I break a guitar string you'd jump in and point out how it's not the string's fault and then compare me to a murderer for killing so many innocent strings.
> Lighten up man! *Life's too short *:food-smiley-004:



...i sure hope the irony is intentional!



your point, as i have mentioned previously, is well taken.

however, i suggest you take a closer look at many of this posts here, as well as the all important _context_. you will see that, for many, this "minor pet peeve" quickly and often translates to "the scourge of the highways", with calls for a crackdown on the so-called left lane bandit, and the dismissal of speed as a non-issue relative to highway carnage.

i just returned from a weekend trip to montreal via the 401. occasionally, very occasionally, we came upon a "left lane bandit". they caused little or no problem for me or, for that matter, most other drivers.

they did, however, manage to vex drivers who were cruising at 130-150 kmh. i suspect those drivers complain loud and long about left lane bandits...

and i did see _dangerous_ drivers, racing along at 40-50 kmh faster than the flow of traffic.

for the most part, however, the drive was tranquil and safe, thanks to a relatively high police presence.

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i sure hope the irony is intentional!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again for the sake of clarity,


Most of us who "dismiss" speed as a major hazard are talking about speeds of 120 kmph or less, NOT 140 or 150 kmph.

We can agree to disagree on the dangers of LLBs.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Again for the sake of clarity,
> Most of us who "dismiss" speed as a major hazard are talking about speeds of 120 kmph or less, NOT 140 or 150 kmph.
> We can agree to disagree on the dangers of LLBs.



...i was not aware that speeds of 120 kmh or less were _ever_ an issue. 

UNLESS you factor in the flow of traffic. if trafiic is flowing at, say, 70-80, and you are trying to pass everyone "legally" at 120, then it is definitely an issue, and a serious one at that.

as for LLBs, there are no documented cases of highway carnage being caused by a left lane bandit that i am aware of. i do agree that LLBs are _annoying_. however, as an example of dangerous driving, i do not believe they deserve serious consideration.

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i was not aware that speeds of 120 kmh or less were _ever_ an issue.
> 
> UNLESS you factor in the flow of traffic. if trafiic is flowing at, say, 70-80, and you are trying to pass everyone "legally" at 120, then it is definitely an issue, and a serious one at that.
> 
> ...



This falls well into the dead horse category. If a LLB causes drivers to have to pass on the right they do indeed constitute a hazard.

It's like the old adage "I've never been in an accident"

(but I've caused many)


As for the speed issue, if you agree that 120 kmph or less is not a danger in most situations then we agree.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> This falls well into the dead horse category. If a LLB causes drivers to have to pass on the right they do indeed constitute a hazard.


...i agree. but my point is that its a hazard that is so far down on the scale as to be practically negligible. otherwise, it would be showing up in accident reports and on stats.

-dh


----------

