[QUOTE=CanvasShoes]
Slight Hijack, (not directed at you Ruken, I’ve seen this more and more lately and this particular thread it just really seemed out of place).
Bearflag’s an Asshole? Really? Has the definition of the word asshole changed drastically lately? I thought it meant someone who is purposefully nasty, cruel, selfish, and malicious in thought, deed, and the spoken word and someone who enjoys being that way.
Bearflag’s turn signal belief is incorrect (technically per laws of the road), maybe kind of lazy, and silly but he’s an asshole?
end hijack…
[/QUOTE]
I’d say the way he’s generally handled the situation - sticking it out, trying to explain himself, listening to the point of being open to change… distinctly contradict that he’s an asshole.
[QUOTE=Frylock]
I doubt anyone here advocates obstructionist driving. Can you point me to the statute?
-FrL-
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think anyone here was advocating obstructionist driving - MrSquishy was saying that making room was a nice thing to do, and I was adding to that - it is also the legal thing to do.
[QUOTE=featherlou]
I don’t think anyone here was advocating obstructionist driving - MrSquishy was saying that making room was a nice thing to do, and I was adding to that - it is also the legal thing to do.
[/QUOTE]
You mean that if there are two lanes of traffic, no merge, highly congested, and a person in lane A signals to get into lane B, the person in lane B is legally required to let him in?
Let me say I have my doubts about it - I’ve never seen it in any of the driver books in the five states where I’ve had licenses.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
You mean that if there are two lanes of traffic, no merge, highly congested, and a person in lane A signals to get into lane B, the person in lane B is legally required to let him in?
Let me say I have my doubts about it - I’ve never seen it in any of the driver books in the five states where I’ve had licenses.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is the kind of intuition I was trying to voice in my previous post as well.
I’m sure that everyone here recognizes that Czarcasm was completely inappropriate when he moved the thread so obviously. Just so you know, I truly doubt anyone puts much stock in that thread,Cz. Your moving it was out of the blue and calling someone an asshole kind of spelled it out.,
[QUOTE=Voyager]
You mean that if there are two lanes of traffic, no merge, highly congested, and a person in lane A signals to get into lane B, the person in lane B is legally required to let him in? <snip>
[/QUOTE]
No, not quite - the person in lane B is legally required to NOT do things that intentionally prevent person A from getting in. This law as I know it here is for merge situations, where both drivers have equal rights to the lanes. I’m not sure about simple lane changes, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you weren’t allowed to obstruct that, either. Obstructionist driving causes accidents and road rage.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
I’m sure that everyone here recognizes that Czarcasm was completely inappropriate when he moved the thread so obviously. Just so you know, I truly doubt anyone puts much stock in that thread,Cz. Your moving it was out of the blue and calling someone an asshole kind of spelled it out.,
[/QUOTE]
Yup.
When I first responded to this thread, it was in IMHO. If the OP had opened the thread in the Pit, then I probably would have refrained from responding at all because I would have known in advance the OP sought a bitch session instead of a poll or a desire for gaining a better understanding of human behavior. In hindsight, as soon as the thread was moved to the Pit, I should have abandoned it instead of getting sucked into defending against ad homenim attacks and strawmen.
No more traffic threads for me, regardless of the forum, unless I don’t engage in offending driving practice that is the subject of the thread. If the thread is started as a valid pursuit of knowledge in some other forum, I can just wait; surely it will end up in the Pit where I can just sit on my perch and throw stones at anyone who admitted engaging in the offending behavior.
I guess fighting ignorance sometimes must yield to a mod’s desire to berate a poster for doing something IRL the mod doesn’t like.
[QUOTE=Punoqllads]
Quite the contrary, here in California you’re required to turn into the furthest right-hand lane when making a right-hand turn. It’s left turns where you’re not required to turn into the left-most lane. Unless otherwise marked, of course. Cite.
What really freaked me out when I came here was people making right-on-red turns when in a right-turn lane that is not the rightmost lane, which apparently is legal: http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/localnews/ci_8638309
[/QUOTE]
I am extremely tired, partially drunk and on dial up so I didn’t click on your cites. However, I cannot imagine that they apply to two lanes turning right onto multi-lane streets, which is what I was talking about.
Or, maybe they don’t have those up there - I haven’t driven in San Francisco all that often.
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
I was clarifying the position taken by others in this thread, not my own position.
To specifically address your speeding question, I’m not walking into that buzzsaw. Rather, perhaps I should just say that, now that I have corrected my turn signal thing through therapy and sorting out some issues with Mother, I’m an absolute angel behind the wheel and I never do anything wrong or in violation of the law, ever. I am extremely morally outraged at anyone who does anything less than perfect at any time and I am always sure to throw my righteous indignation their way at every opportunity. I realize that people cannot rely on their own senses and good judgment, ever, and near certain death lurks around every corner when driving. People generally suck and driving is so inherently dangerous and fraught with peril and imminent harm to all that it’s a wonder why they let anyone but me and the handful of other Good Citizens in this thread drive at all.
[/QUOTE]
Heh, OK I just couldn’t imagine anyone under 100 years of age who didn’t speed in Sac…
[QUOTE=MrSquishy]
Damn right. The attitude of “it’s my lane, and I’ll let you enter it if I feel like it” is wrong. We all share the road. If I need to get over, I’ll put on my signal, and I expect you to make room for me. Because that’s what a nice person does.
[/QUOTE]
What a “nice person does” may apply to places where there isn’t much traffic, but in areas like Southern Cal, if you are not going near the speed that the lane you want is, then you jolly get to that speed before moving over. You as an individual are not as important as the other 724,084 people on that freeway and if your lane change causes the cars behind you to have to slow down, you are creating a chain reaction that will slow the whole freeway down, maybe for miles, maybe for hours. It has nothing to do with “my lane” and everything to do with the definition of “merge”.
Besides, saying that we all share the road and then expecting me to get out of your way don’t really go together…
[QUOTE=curlcoat]
I am extremely tired, partially drunk and on dial up so I didn’t click on your cites. However, I cannot imagine that they apply to two lanes turning right onto multi-lane streets, which is what I was talking about.
Or, maybe they don’t have those up there - I haven’t driven in San Francisco all that often.
Kathy
[/QUOTE]
Oops, looks like I misread my cite. You can legally turn into any lane for either right turns or left turns in California, unless otherwise marked.
[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
Since these two things are so prevalent in this thread, for the sake of efficiency, I recommend we consolidate the terms in to one of the following:
adhomestrawmen
strawmehomenim
[/QUOTE]
Adhomestrawmen Strawmehomenim – isn’t that the new ruler of Iran?
[QUOTE=Punoqllads]
Oops, looks like I misread my cite. You can legally turn into any lane for either right turns or left turns in California, unless otherwise marked.
[/QUOTE]
Yep, it looks pretty clear that for a right turn you have to begin in the rightmost lane, and the turn has to be “as close as practicable”, but the lane you wind up in doesn’t have to be the rightmost.
[QUOTE=Punoqllads]
Yep, it looks pretty clear that for a right turn you have to begin in the rightmost lane, and the turn has to be “as close as practicable”, but the lane you wind up in doesn’t have to be the rightmost.
[/QUOTE]
How does one turn from the rightmost lane, stay as close as practicable to the curb through the turn, and end up anywhere else but the rightmost lane upon completion of the turn?
I just couldn’t imagine anyone under 100 years of age who didn’t speed in Sac…