Here is an artistic entry called Stoplight Soliloquy.
To stop or not to stop
That is the question
Silently I wait
Stop light glaring ominously red
A luminescent temporary barrier
Between me and my destination
I look right, left, right
If I left it's not right
But is it right to hinder my flight
In the dark of night
With no one in sight
I Ponder the purpose of this crimson specter
Inconvenience? Character building?
Traffic control? AH!, traffic control
As if Divine wisdom guided my thoughts
this flash of brilliance came
Tis irony I think to pause idly on my journey
before this glowing sentry
Guarding me from an unseen danger
To stop or not to stop
Perhaps madness drives me
My thoughts focused on my plight
Perhaps madness, but no more madness
Than the insanity of this impasse
To stop or not to stop
That is the question
... I think not
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Driver Rights
Your rights as a driver are not based on the rights you have as an American and protected by the Constitution. No, your rights as a driver are based on the 'right of way' as defined by the rules of the road. See my other post on 'Slower Traffic Keep Right'
This post isn't so much about right of way, but more of what I'll call Right To Occupy. It's about one's ability to occupy a specific segment of asphalt at any given time. It's the question of why should one driver be allowed to occupy a space over another?
Vehicle selection is a big one. I choose my vehicles with extra performance. Performance generally means you have to sacrifice things like, practicality, cargo and passenger space, ride comfort, etc. Now of course, there are some vehicles like the Porsche Cayenne that bridge the gap, but this is beyond the price range of most people.
I can choose to be impractical because I don't have kids. I don't have to haul people around. I don't have to haul cargo. My car is fast and nimble. Therefore, I can do things with my car that soccer mom cannot do in her Suburban. That's just how it is. My personal slogan is, "Because I can..." and it is based on this very premise. Because I have extra horsepower and handling, I can assertively put slower traffic behind me, using maneuvers that may leave other drivers asking, why did he do that? Because I can...
It is also true, that when it comes to right to occupy, I have more "rights" than soccer mom in her Suburban because I can position myself anywhere on the road quicker. It's all based on individual choices. Soccer mom chose to have kids, so a Suburban it is. Sorry soccer mom. See you in the fast lane (for a moment).
This post isn't so much about right of way, but more of what I'll call Right To Occupy. It's about one's ability to occupy a specific segment of asphalt at any given time. It's the question of why should one driver be allowed to occupy a space over another?
Vehicle selection is a big one. I choose my vehicles with extra performance. Performance generally means you have to sacrifice things like, practicality, cargo and passenger space, ride comfort, etc. Now of course, there are some vehicles like the Porsche Cayenne that bridge the gap, but this is beyond the price range of most people.
I can choose to be impractical because I don't have kids. I don't have to haul people around. I don't have to haul cargo. My car is fast and nimble. Therefore, I can do things with my car that soccer mom cannot do in her Suburban. That's just how it is. My personal slogan is, "Because I can..." and it is based on this very premise. Because I have extra horsepower and handling, I can assertively put slower traffic behind me, using maneuvers that may leave other drivers asking, why did he do that? Because I can...
It is also true, that when it comes to right to occupy, I have more "rights" than soccer mom in her Suburban because I can position myself anywhere on the road quicker. It's all based on individual choices. Soccer mom chose to have kids, so a Suburban it is. Sorry soccer mom. See you in the fast lane (for a moment).
Monday, January 15, 2007
If a tree falls in the forest...
There is a familiar phrase that asks the question - if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? A similar question can be asked about traffic control devices.
What is the purpose of a traffic control device? They are not there just to create a place for us to stop and rest for a moment. In other words, a stop sign is not there to make you stop. It is there to create a process for orderly passage of vehicles through an intersection.
A stop sign has no awareness of the intersection where it resides. It doesn't know the visibility, time of day, amount of traffic. It just stands there, in all its crimson glory, and tells drivers to stop. Stop signs are cheap and easy to deploy, but probably the most inefficient of all traffic controls.
So my question here is, in the absence of traffic, does a stop sign or stop light serve any purpose? No. So if it serves no purpose, we should be able to proceed safely though the intersection without need to obey exactly what the device says. Since the stop sign has no intelligence, I should be able to apply my own in assessing the current conditions, at that location, at that instance. I would love to see a 4-way yield. Some of you will stay up at nights thinking about that one.
Exactly why we need Situational Driving Rules. I do it all the time. I have never been in an accident and never had a ticket for it. Am I pressing my luck? No! Remember the phrase 'in the absence of traffic'. Police are traffic. If you are competently paying attention and intelligently and accurately assessing each and every situation, you will never be in an accident, never get a ticket, and be an absolutely safe driver.
Imagine that. See you in the fast lane!
What is the purpose of a traffic control device? They are not there just to create a place for us to stop and rest for a moment. In other words, a stop sign is not there to make you stop. It is there to create a process for orderly passage of vehicles through an intersection.
A stop sign has no awareness of the intersection where it resides. It doesn't know the visibility, time of day, amount of traffic. It just stands there, in all its crimson glory, and tells drivers to stop. Stop signs are cheap and easy to deploy, but probably the most inefficient of all traffic controls.
So my question here is, in the absence of traffic, does a stop sign or stop light serve any purpose? No. So if it serves no purpose, we should be able to proceed safely though the intersection without need to obey exactly what the device says. Since the stop sign has no intelligence, I should be able to apply my own in assessing the current conditions, at that location, at that instance. I would love to see a 4-way yield. Some of you will stay up at nights thinking about that one.
Exactly why we need Situational Driving Rules. I do it all the time. I have never been in an accident and never had a ticket for it. Am I pressing my luck? No! Remember the phrase 'in the absence of traffic'. Police are traffic. If you are competently paying attention and intelligently and accurately assessing each and every situation, you will never be in an accident, never get a ticket, and be an absolutely safe driver.
Imagine that. See you in the fast lane!
Situational Driving Rules
I would like to propose an optional and supplemental driving standard, which I call, “Situational Driving Rules” or SDR. The following will provide several examples of how SDR works and how SDR can be incorporated into current regulations. I will also discuss the implementation of Situational Driving Rules.
What are laws? Why do we have them? The concept of laws, and the root guidance for most of them, can be traced back to the 10 commandments; do not murder, do not steal, etc. Laws keep people from hurting each other when they are not able to keep from hurting each other without the laws. Applied to driving, laws do the same thing; they keep people from hurting each other on the road. They regulate traffic flow and ensure safety. This is necessary because many people are not able to drive without these laws and keep from hurting other people.
There exists, however, the possibility to navigate the highways of America without hurting anyone and not obey the letter of the law. How can this be? “Laws are there for a reason!”, some might say. To this I would respond, “that is exactly my point”. Traffic laws are not just a bunch of rules to be followed so that one can play the driving game, each exists for a reason. For my own safety I am glad they are there. It is far too easy to get a driver's license. Therefore, laws have to be dumbed down and written to protect us from the lowest common denominator. But if there were a way for me to prove that I could drive in the spirit and purpose of those laws, why couldn’t I be exempted from strict adherence to them?
This concept that common sense supersedes the law is not new. California Vehicle Code Section 22350 states “No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property”. It is commonly know as the Basic Speed Rule. The only way this can be enforced, or put another way, that the State can find me guilty of breaking this law, is if I am given the responsibility to regulate my speed based on my own common sense assessment of driving conditions. If, then, I am given this responsibility and expected to use my common sense applied to the driving conditions, why can that responsibility not be extended to other areas?
Let me give examples as to why common sense should supersede the law. If I am stopped in a left turn only lane, what are my options? The only thing I am allowed to do by law is turn left. The law also states that I must use my left turn signal. Why? The purpose of the turn signal is to let other drivers know what I am about to do. It should be perfectly obvious to all that I am about to turn left from the left turn only lane. The only reason I should need to use my turn signal is if I am going to do something out of the ordinary, like turn right. If I turn right out of a left turn only, I am breaking the law. Therefore, common sense dictates that a left turn signal in a left turn only lane is redundant and unnecessary. The same applies for using signals in the absence of traffic. If I am turning or changing lanes and there are no other cars, for whom am I signaling?
Did you know that you don’t have to signal every turn and lane change you make? California Vehicle Code Division 11 Section 22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement. Here is another case where I am given the responsibility to asses the conditions and apply situational awareness to determine whether or not I need to give an appropriate signal.
Stop signs and traffic signals present a different set of common sense issues. Why do stop signs and signal lights exist? The purpose of stop signs and signals are to regulate traffic at intersections. If the purpose is to regulate traffic and there is no traffic, does the sign or signal still have a purpose? Where I live in the desert, there are intersections where you can see traffic coming in all directions for a quarter mile or more. Why do I need to come to a full and complete stop to look for cross traffic? There isn’t any traffic while I am approaching the intersection and there isn’t going to be any when I get there. I am not suggesting barreling through an intersection. But assessing each intersection and determining a safe procedure through should be sufficient.
Another 4-way stop scenario is this. There are multiple lanes in each direction. A vehicle is already stopped in one of them, the other is clear. As I approach the intersection in the clear lane, I time it so that I get to the intersection at the same time the other car proceeds. If it is safe for the other vehicle to proceed, then it is obviously safe for me to proceed without stopping.
What about traffic signals at busy intersections? Great idea and totally necessary – in the middle of the day. If I am on my way to work at 5 AM and no other cars are in sight, what am I waiting at the light for? I should be able to treat that signal as a 4-way stop and not wait for it to change.
As you will notice, the point of this is proposal is not to place certain drivers outside the law. I do not wish to be made exempt from the law, I just don’t want to be limited by it when conditions make adherence to the law silly. This also does not mean that I suggest a state of lawlessness for those allowed to exercise this common sense approach. As in the case of speed according to driving conditions, enforcement is based on the observations and evaluation of law enforcement officers on patrol. If, they observe a driver doing something that they deem unsafe, citations may be issued.
Two special exceptions will exist to all SDR and those are school zones and construction zones. Both of these present unpredictable hazards and cannot be safely navigated under SDR. All school zones and construction zones will require standard driving laws regardless of a driver’s SDR certification status.
This brings me to the question of implementation. Just as all drivers must pass a written and driving test, SDR drivers will as well. SDR would be another class of license, just like truck drivers who have a class A. Candidates must already be licensed drivers with a perfect driving record for a period of five years. The written test will consist of scenarios like the ones presented in this proposal. The driving test would be a computer simulation that would put the driver in the middle of these scenarios. The driver would have to assess each situation and be able to think through it and drive safely. Recertification must be performed annually.
What about enforcement? A one-strike rule will be in effect. If a SDR driver is cited for anything, their SDR certification is revoked. Since SDR certification requires a clean record for 5 years, and citation will revoke privileges for 5 years. Also, since enforcement of SDR and issuing citation is based on the evaluation of law enforcement officers, SDR drivers will need to lean toward safety in all situations.
What are laws? Why do we have them? The concept of laws, and the root guidance for most of them, can be traced back to the 10 commandments; do not murder, do not steal, etc. Laws keep people from hurting each other when they are not able to keep from hurting each other without the laws. Applied to driving, laws do the same thing; they keep people from hurting each other on the road. They regulate traffic flow and ensure safety. This is necessary because many people are not able to drive without these laws and keep from hurting other people.
There exists, however, the possibility to navigate the highways of America without hurting anyone and not obey the letter of the law. How can this be? “Laws are there for a reason!”, some might say. To this I would respond, “that is exactly my point”. Traffic laws are not just a bunch of rules to be followed so that one can play the driving game, each exists for a reason. For my own safety I am glad they are there. It is far too easy to get a driver's license. Therefore, laws have to be dumbed down and written to protect us from the lowest common denominator. But if there were a way for me to prove that I could drive in the spirit and purpose of those laws, why couldn’t I be exempted from strict adherence to them?
This concept that common sense supersedes the law is not new. California Vehicle Code Section 22350 states “No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property”. It is commonly know as the Basic Speed Rule. The only way this can be enforced, or put another way, that the State can find me guilty of breaking this law, is if I am given the responsibility to regulate my speed based on my own common sense assessment of driving conditions. If, then, I am given this responsibility and expected to use my common sense applied to the driving conditions, why can that responsibility not be extended to other areas?
Let me give examples as to why common sense should supersede the law. If I am stopped in a left turn only lane, what are my options? The only thing I am allowed to do by law is turn left. The law also states that I must use my left turn signal. Why? The purpose of the turn signal is to let other drivers know what I am about to do. It should be perfectly obvious to all that I am about to turn left from the left turn only lane. The only reason I should need to use my turn signal is if I am going to do something out of the ordinary, like turn right. If I turn right out of a left turn only, I am breaking the law. Therefore, common sense dictates that a left turn signal in a left turn only lane is redundant and unnecessary. The same applies for using signals in the absence of traffic. If I am turning or changing lanes and there are no other cars, for whom am I signaling?
Did you know that you don’t have to signal every turn and lane change you make? California Vehicle Code Division 11 Section 22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement. Here is another case where I am given the responsibility to asses the conditions and apply situational awareness to determine whether or not I need to give an appropriate signal.
Stop signs and traffic signals present a different set of common sense issues. Why do stop signs and signal lights exist? The purpose of stop signs and signals are to regulate traffic at intersections. If the purpose is to regulate traffic and there is no traffic, does the sign or signal still have a purpose? Where I live in the desert, there are intersections where you can see traffic coming in all directions for a quarter mile or more. Why do I need to come to a full and complete stop to look for cross traffic? There isn’t any traffic while I am approaching the intersection and there isn’t going to be any when I get there. I am not suggesting barreling through an intersection. But assessing each intersection and determining a safe procedure through should be sufficient.
Another 4-way stop scenario is this. There are multiple lanes in each direction. A vehicle is already stopped in one of them, the other is clear. As I approach the intersection in the clear lane, I time it so that I get to the intersection at the same time the other car proceeds. If it is safe for the other vehicle to proceed, then it is obviously safe for me to proceed without stopping.
What about traffic signals at busy intersections? Great idea and totally necessary – in the middle of the day. If I am on my way to work at 5 AM and no other cars are in sight, what am I waiting at the light for? I should be able to treat that signal as a 4-way stop and not wait for it to change.
As you will notice, the point of this is proposal is not to place certain drivers outside the law. I do not wish to be made exempt from the law, I just don’t want to be limited by it when conditions make adherence to the law silly. This also does not mean that I suggest a state of lawlessness for those allowed to exercise this common sense approach. As in the case of speed according to driving conditions, enforcement is based on the observations and evaluation of law enforcement officers on patrol. If, they observe a driver doing something that they deem unsafe, citations may be issued.
Two special exceptions will exist to all SDR and those are school zones and construction zones. Both of these present unpredictable hazards and cannot be safely navigated under SDR. All school zones and construction zones will require standard driving laws regardless of a driver’s SDR certification status.
This brings me to the question of implementation. Just as all drivers must pass a written and driving test, SDR drivers will as well. SDR would be another class of license, just like truck drivers who have a class A. Candidates must already be licensed drivers with a perfect driving record for a period of five years. The written test will consist of scenarios like the ones presented in this proposal. The driving test would be a computer simulation that would put the driver in the middle of these scenarios. The driver would have to assess each situation and be able to think through it and drive safely. Recertification must be performed annually.
What about enforcement? A one-strike rule will be in effect. If a SDR driver is cited for anything, their SDR certification is revoked. Since SDR certification requires a clean record for 5 years, and citation will revoke privileges for 5 years. Also, since enforcement of SDR and issuing citation is based on the evaluation of law enforcement officers, SDR drivers will need to lean toward safety in all situations.
Do Badges Make Cops Safer?
Have you ever seen a cop speeding? Have you ever seen a cop roll through a stop sign, run a red light without lights and sirens, make erratic and unsignalled lane changes? I would venture everyone has. So the question is, why is he allowed to do that and I am not? We have to rule out that they willfully disregard the law in an unsafe manor. Therefore, it would have to be because the officer is somehow safe in doing that and for some reason I am not. So let's look at some possibilities to explain this difference.
The Vehicle: Maybe he has a way better performing car than me. Cops driver some pretty nice cars, but they are not that special. Most of them are a Ford Crown Victoria with the Police Interceptor package. I can go to my local Ford dealer and order one myself or buy a used police car at auction. If I have the same car, I should be able to do the same "safe" maneuvers.
Training: Maybe officers go through a special driving course that gives them additional skills to be able to drive that way. There are many driving schools available that teach performance driving at extreme levels and conditions. If I go to one of those schools I should be able to drive the same way.
The Badge: Maybe it's the training and experience that comes with the badge. Maybe those guys are a bit smarter than most and can handle the freedom. I have been driving for 35 years, both here and in Germany, in all types of conditions; and I have an above average IQ (tested, not opinion). That would make me pretty smart and experienced (more than most people). Therefore, I should also be able to handle the freedom.
As we said in the introduction, what it cannot be, is that these officers are doing something unsafe. And that's the point. They are able to do these things because they are trusted to use their judgment and common sense to drive in a safe manner without necessarily following the rules.
I should be able to do that as well, and that is the subject of my post entitled Situational Driving Rules. See you in the fast lane!
The Vehicle: Maybe he has a way better performing car than me. Cops driver some pretty nice cars, but they are not that special. Most of them are a Ford Crown Victoria with the Police Interceptor package. I can go to my local Ford dealer and order one myself or buy a used police car at auction. If I have the same car, I should be able to do the same "safe" maneuvers.
Training: Maybe officers go through a special driving course that gives them additional skills to be able to drive that way. There are many driving schools available that teach performance driving at extreme levels and conditions. If I go to one of those schools I should be able to drive the same way.
The Badge: Maybe it's the training and experience that comes with the badge. Maybe those guys are a bit smarter than most and can handle the freedom. I have been driving for 35 years, both here and in Germany, in all types of conditions; and I have an above average IQ (tested, not opinion). That would make me pretty smart and experienced (more than most people). Therefore, I should also be able to handle the freedom.
As we said in the introduction, what it cannot be, is that these officers are doing something unsafe. And that's the point. They are able to do these things because they are trusted to use their judgment and common sense to drive in a safe manner without necessarily following the rules.
I should be able to do that as well, and that is the subject of my post entitled Situational Driving Rules. See you in the fast lane!
Slower Traffic Keep Right
Slower traffic keep right. That's all the sign says. There are no exclusions, no caveats, no waivers. The sign doesn't have a little asterisk on it. I know you would think that asterisk was there just for you. Slower traffic keep right means if I am coming up behind you and you can safely move to the right to get out of my way, you are obligated to do so. You are slower than me, therefore you are slower traffic; KEEP RIGHT!!!
It doesn't matter if you are already going 70 mph and the speed limit is 60 mph. It doesn't matter if you think it's your right to drive wherever you want, because it isn't. It is not up to you to evaluate and enforce the law. No evaluation is needed. It is so simple, a caveman could do it. Slower traffic keep right! It's taken so seriously in Germany that if you are rear ended on the Autobahn, it's your fault.
Perhaps you are spatially challenged and can't determine that I'm gaining on you (which means I'm going faster than you). Hopefully you are not also unable to differentiate size and should see that my car is getting bigger in your mirror. Bigger = closer = gaining = faster. Perhaps you are confused about which side is right. I'll make it easy; it's the side I have to pass you on because you won't get out of the way!
I only wish there were some way to push a button and override the driver. either that or allow fender mounted rocket launchers. I know that's a bit harsh, but people should pay attention, know the rules of the road (and common courtesy), and do it!
It doesn't matter if you are already going 70 mph and the speed limit is 60 mph. It doesn't matter if you think it's your right to drive wherever you want, because it isn't. It is not up to you to evaluate and enforce the law. No evaluation is needed. It is so simple, a caveman could do it. Slower traffic keep right! It's taken so seriously in Germany that if you are rear ended on the Autobahn, it's your fault.
Perhaps you are spatially challenged and can't determine that I'm gaining on you (which means I'm going faster than you). Hopefully you are not also unable to differentiate size and should see that my car is getting bigger in your mirror. Bigger = closer = gaining = faster. Perhaps you are confused about which side is right. I'll make it easy; it's the side I have to pass you on because you won't get out of the way!
I only wish there were some way to push a button and override the driver. either that or allow fender mounted rocket launchers. I know that's a bit harsh, but people should pay attention, know the rules of the road (and common courtesy), and do it!
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Are Speed Limits Safe
The short answer is, statistically, no. If you obey the posted speed limit you are statistically more likely to be in an accident. This has been proven in numerous traffic studies conducted, including an extensive one done by the U.S. Department of Transportation. That study focused on the effect on driver speeds when posted speed limits are raised or lowered. It was intended to prove that lower speed limits would increase safety and that higher speed limits would just cause people to driver faster and faster. The findings proved that none of that is true. What they did find is that posted speeds do little to affect driver speeds; that when posted speed limits are increased drivers do not necessarily increase to the limit; that higher posted speed limits resulted in fewer accidents; and that lower posted speed limits resulted in more accidents.
That seems counter intuitive, doesn't it? Thank all the propaganda for that. The reason that higher speeds are safer and lower speeds are not is that most drivers intuitively know what is safe. They tend to drive at a comfortable safe speed regardless of what is posted. However, many drivers are conscientious about obeying the law and will not exceed the posted limit. Because of these two factors, the lower speed limits result in a higher variation of speeds. It is the variation, and not the speed itself, that makes for hazardous driving. As speed limits are raised, the law abiders are free to speed up to the rest of the flow.
What is truly surprising to the brainwashed masses is that, statistically fastest 10% of drivers are the least likely to be in an accident, and the highest accident risk are the slowest 5% of drivers. Imagine that!
I would venture to guess the reason for this are vehicle types and driver competence; primarily driver competence. However, faster drivers are generally driving higher performance vehicles. Higher performance vehicles (sports cars, sport coupes, etc.) are better equipped for the higher speeds. My SVT Focus is a safer car at any given speed than most cars on the road. That's because it can stop better, turn better, and accelerate fairly well. So any situation that presents itself, I have more maneuvering ability at my disposal, therefore, a safer car. Think about it, isn't a Ferrari safer at 80mph than a F150? But chances are it's the Ferrari with the flashing lights behind it. Explain that if it's really about traffic safety.
Getting back to the safe speed limit issue. The traffic engineers at the DOT will tell you that the safest posted speed limit is the 85th percentile. So if the 85th percentile is the safest speed, why don't we use it? Revenue! Imagine how much money municipalities would lose if suddenly 85% of all the drivers on the road were now legal! They depend on traffic tickets for revenue so the speed limits are set artificially low. And it is all supported by huge lobbying efforts from insurance companies because traffic tickets allow them to raise rates.
That seems counter intuitive, doesn't it? Thank all the propaganda for that. The reason that higher speeds are safer and lower speeds are not is that most drivers intuitively know what is safe. They tend to drive at a comfortable safe speed regardless of what is posted. However, many drivers are conscientious about obeying the law and will not exceed the posted limit. Because of these two factors, the lower speed limits result in a higher variation of speeds. It is the variation, and not the speed itself, that makes for hazardous driving. As speed limits are raised, the law abiders are free to speed up to the rest of the flow.
What is truly surprising to the brainwashed masses is that, statistically fastest 10% of drivers are the least likely to be in an accident, and the highest accident risk are the slowest 5% of drivers. Imagine that!
I would venture to guess the reason for this are vehicle types and driver competence; primarily driver competence. However, faster drivers are generally driving higher performance vehicles. Higher performance vehicles (sports cars, sport coupes, etc.) are better equipped for the higher speeds. My SVT Focus is a safer car at any given speed than most cars on the road. That's because it can stop better, turn better, and accelerate fairly well. So any situation that presents itself, I have more maneuvering ability at my disposal, therefore, a safer car. Think about it, isn't a Ferrari safer at 80mph than a F150? But chances are it's the Ferrari with the flashing lights behind it. Explain that if it's really about traffic safety.
Getting back to the safe speed limit issue. The traffic engineers at the DOT will tell you that the safest posted speed limit is the 85th percentile. So if the 85th percentile is the safest speed, why don't we use it? Revenue! Imagine how much money municipalities would lose if suddenly 85% of all the drivers on the road were now legal! They depend on traffic tickets for revenue so the speed limits are set artificially low. And it is all supported by huge lobbying efforts from insurance companies because traffic tickets allow them to raise rates.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Turn Signals
So I pose the question, do you need to use your turn signal in a left turn only lane? Aside from how annoying it is to set there with the blinker clicking away, it's obvious and redundant. It would surprise me, but could the law really require such stupidity? I had to know so I looked up the California Vehicle Code on the subject.
Division 11 Section 22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.
Wow, there it is! You must signal 'in the event any other vehicle may be affected'. So even under the law you don't have to signal in the left turn only because no one should be affected by your left turn.
I once got a warning because I did not signal a turn coming out of our housing area. There is a light there, only one lane in each direction, and a parking lot on the opposite site. I wish I had known this law because I would have told the officer that I didn't need to signal. If right of way is signal controlled (meaning I have a green light), there is only one lane (meaning cars can only be behind me and must wait until I commit to a right or left turn before they can make a right or left turn), and no oncoming traffic, how could my turning left (or right) possibly have any affect on any other vehicle on the face of the planet?
What's nice about this particular wording of the law is that it should place the burden of proof on the citing officer to show that your movement did affect another vehicle. Webster's dictionary defines affect as, to produce an effect upon; especially : to produce a material influence upon or alteration in. In driving terms 'to produce a material influence upon or alteration in', would mean another vehicle would need to change speed or course because of the movement you made. With that in mind, it is rare that you would be required to signal.
That's not to say I don't. There is also a matter of courtesy, but for the most part, I try to go where I need to go, and do what I need to do, without making anyone else need to change speed or course because of me.
See you in the fast lane (I may signal my entry...)
Division 11 Section 22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.
Wow, there it is! You must signal 'in the event any other vehicle may be affected'. So even under the law you don't have to signal in the left turn only because no one should be affected by your left turn.
I once got a warning because I did not signal a turn coming out of our housing area. There is a light there, only one lane in each direction, and a parking lot on the opposite site. I wish I had known this law because I would have told the officer that I didn't need to signal. If right of way is signal controlled (meaning I have a green light), there is only one lane (meaning cars can only be behind me and must wait until I commit to a right or left turn before they can make a right or left turn), and no oncoming traffic, how could my turning left (or right) possibly have any affect on any other vehicle on the face of the planet?
What's nice about this particular wording of the law is that it should place the burden of proof on the citing officer to show that your movement did affect another vehicle. Webster's dictionary defines affect as, to produce an effect upon; especially : to produce a material influence upon or alteration in
Friday, January 5, 2007
Driver IQ Introduction
The Smart Driver's Blog is all about intelligent driving. Smart drivers are ones who think about what they're doing. Smart drivers ask questions. Smart drivers think outside the box. Smart drivers are also, probably peeved as I am, about driving laws and the driving habits of most people.
So you might ask, what do you mean, smart driving? What kinds of questions should I be asking? Here is an example. When sitting in a left turn only lane, why does everyone use their turn signal? If you have pondered this question, I applaud you! In this blog we will ponder other such things like speed limits, traffic control, and look at what "safe" driving really looks like.
So you might ask, what do you mean, smart driving? What kinds of questions should I be asking? Here is an example. When sitting in a left turn only lane, why does everyone use their turn signal? If you have pondered this question, I applaud you! In this blog we will ponder other such things like speed limits, traffic control, and look at what "safe" driving really looks like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
