> In some countries, they put green+yellow means it's about to go red,

We (UK and Germany and most other countries I've been to) have just solid 
amber to mean it's about to go red.  It's illegal to go through on red and 
you will be fined (or photographed then fined!), so the amber is needed to 
give people a chance to stop before it goes red.  Faster roads have longer 
amber phases to avoid you needing to do an emergency stop in fear of running 
a red.

> and red+yellow means it's about to go green. Sounds dangerous to me, 
> doubly-so if it really means you are allowed to go thru on red+yellow.

Technically you are not allowed to go through on red+amber, it means "ok 
green is going to come on in about 1 second so make sure you're in gear and 
ready to go".  Under normal circumstances if you just begin your "pull away" 
sequence when the red+amber comes on you'll cross the line as it turns 
green, so no problems.

Post a reply to this message

> My favorite is when your light turns green
> which means that the other traffic must have been red for 3-4 seconds
> yet cars are still continuing to go through the intersection trying to 
> 'beat' the red.

In the UK at least I see a lot of junctions where the instant one direction 
changes from amber to red, the other changes from red to red+amber.  If you 
have a 3-4 second delay where all directions are on red, then of course 
people are going to be tempted to carry on jumping the red for a few seconds 
after it's switched from green.

> Another is when you are going to make a right turn and almost hit the guy 
> that's been driving on the shoulder for 1/4 mile to make his right turn.

Hehe, I guess you don't need to look out for cyclists while making right 
turns there, here you just get into the habit of *always* looking to the 
right - alongside and behind you - before actually turning.

Post a reply to this message

> Actually no, my *favourite* are the cars where the indicator's don't
> illuminate at all, and instead the reversing lights flash, and the brake
> lights go dim each time it happens! :-D I can't begin to imagine what
> kind of insane wiring fault causes that...
Usually a missing ground connection somewhere in the rear light housing 
(broken, corroded and/or bent).

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> My peeves include "use the steering wheel to turn, and the brakes to 
> slow down. When someone slows in front of you, it's OK for you to slow 
> too, and you don't have to drive into the oncoming traffic to avoid 
> doing so."
> 
> Plus, people, it's rush-hour, not Nascar. See those 3000 people in front 
> of you? They too would all like to squeeze past on the shoulder.

Er, yes.

Ever driven along the A303 past Stonehenge? For some insane reason, the 
road designers thought it would be amusing to make the road alternate 
between single and dual carridgeway every 4 miles or so. Which means 
that every bank holiday, when the entire 60-mile length of that road is 
gridlocked by westbound holiday-makers, as soon as we get to a 
dual-carridgeway section, all the BMWs and Audis dive for the right 
lane, race 4 miles down the road, and then stop at nothing to squeeeeeze 
in front of that caravan...

PEOPLE! The entire road is moving at less than 2 meters per hour. How 
much difference can it possibly make whether you get in before or after 
the caravan?? But no, these morons drive across the crosshatchings, and 
sometimes even down the wrong side of the single-carridgeway in the path 
of angry oncomming traffic, just to get in front of one or two caravans.

I would go as far as to say that if there were no dual-carridgeway 
sections, there wouldn't be such a big traffic jam! (Or if they, you 
know, make the *whole* road dual carridgeway. The problem seems to be 
every time it goes back to single caridgeway, there's a 20-mile tailback 
because a few idiots want to push in.)

> And, if you're going more than 50MPH, there should be enough room 
> between you and the person in front of you that someone could parallel 
> park there.

Hint: Driving 4 cm from somebody's bumper is seriously unlikely to make 
them speed up. Nor is beeping your horn.

(Actually, I'm sometimes tempted to hit the brakes just to destroy their 
car and see the look on their faces when they have to pay to fix two 
cars... I suspect that might not look good in court though.)

>> But seriously, every day when we get home, by dad has to drive round 
>> this green car parked on the corner, partially obstructing my dad's 
>> drive entrance. 
> 
> That's why you carry a valve stem remover with you.  Or, in the immortal 
> words of Bob, "Ha ha, you're out of spare tires. You loose."

My dad tells me that when he wins the lottery, he's going to buy a 
Bigfood and accidentally destroy that car with it.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> Incorrect contraction use in #5. ;-)

What, you never make any mistakes? :-P

There's a difference between one occasional mistake, and people who 
write page after page of horribly incorrect garbage.

Post a reply to this message

> all the BMWs and Audis dive for the right lane, race 4 miles down the 
> road, and then stop at nothing to squeeeeeze in front of that caravan...
>
> PEOPLE! The entire road is moving at less than 2 meters per hour.

Ermm, if the entire road is only moving at 2 m/hr then how come the BMWs and 
Audis can "race" on the dual carriage way sections?  If the dual carriageway 
sections are clear, then why not drive at 70mph?

> How much difference can it possibly make whether you get in before or 
> after the caravan??

Quite a huge amount sometimes, because caravans tend to be driven a lot 
slower than normal vehicles.  If you get stuck behind one for a long stretch 
where they max out at 50mph and drop to 30mph going up hills, you can lose a 
huge amount of time compared to doing a constant 60mph.

> (Actually, I'm sometimes tempted to hit the brakes just to destroy their 
> car and see the look on their faces when they have to pay to fix two 
> cars... I suspect that might not look good in court though.)

Yeh, I heard that doesn't wash, claiming "the guy in front did a full 
emergency stop for no reason but to cause an accident" works quite well as a 
defence.  And even if they did get the blame, it's still a major hassle for 
you.  I tend to just slow down gradually, I mean there is an increased risk 
of an accident so you better slow down to compensate :-)

> My dad tells me that when he wins the lottery, he's going to buy a Bigfood 
> and accidentally destroy that car with it.

Just leave a friendly anonymous note on the windscreen, you never know.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> all the BMWs and Audis dive for the right lane, race 4 miles down the 
>> road, and then stop at nothing to squeeeeeze in front of that caravan...
>>
>> PEOPLE! The entire road is moving at less than 2 meters per hour.
> 
> Ermm, if the entire road is only moving at 2 m/hr then how come the BMWs 
> and Audis can "race" on the dual carriage way sections?  If the dual 
> carriageway sections are clear, then why not drive at 70mph?

This is what happens. As soon as the new lane appears, all the sports 
cars dive into it and rush past the left lane. The left lane speeds up 
to about 40 due to the cars leaving it. And then we all slow back down 
to more or less stationary as the lanes merge again, and the arrogant 
sports car drivers are DETERMINED to get in front of as many people as 
possible. Because, you know, it means a really big difference, doesn't it?

>> How much difference can it possibly make whether you get in before or 
>> after the caravan??
> 
> Quite a huge amount sometimes, because caravans tend to be driven a lot 
> slower than normal vehicles.  If you get stuck behind one for a long 
> stretch where they max out at 50mph and drop to 30mph going up hills, 
> you can lose a huge amount of time compared to doing a constant 60mph.

We are talking about a road where people put the brakes on and actually 
turn off their engines because the taffic is so slow. How much 
difference can it possibly make?!

The last time I drove this particular road, it took 2 hours to move 18 
feet forward. Are you seriously telling me getting in front of a caravan 
makes any difference? (I should also probably explain that 40% of the 
vehicles on this road are caravans. So get in front of one and you're 
still behind 200 others.)

>> (Actually, I'm sometimes tempted to hit the brakes just to destroy 
>> their car and see the look on their faces when they have to pay to fix 
>> two cars... I suspect that might not look good in court though.)
> 
> Yeh, I heard that doesn't wash, claiming "the guy in front did a full 
> emergency stop for no reason but to cause an accident" works quite well 
> as a defence.  And even if they did get the blame, it's still a major 
> hassle for you.  I tend to just slow down gradually, I mean there is an 
> increased risk of an accident so you better slow down to compensate :-)

How about just slowing down a little and claiming you saw a rabit? Or a 
plastic bag blew across the road and you *thought* it was a dangerous 
obstruction? >:-)

>> My dad tells me that when he wins the lottery, he's going to buy a 
>> Bigfood and accidentally destroy that car with it.
> 
> Just leave a friendly anonymous note on the windscreen, you never know.

Heh. Doubt it. Not knowing dad's neighbors. (One of the reasons he 
bought a CD of Widor's Toccata was so he didn't have to listen to them 
screaming at each other at the top of their voices through the wall...)

Post a reply to this message

> We are talking about a road where people put the brakes on and actually 
> turn off their engines because the taffic is so slow. How much difference 
> can it possibly make?!

Always greater than zero difference, at least, how much will depend on the 
road situation and what happens at any junctions etc, so impossible to 
predict.  What's to lose by overtaking one more caravan?  You never know, at 
the next section of dual carriageway that caravan might pull out to overtake 
something else, holding up the whole road to around 45mph for a few miles, 
or the caravan might get a red light and 20 more cars go infront of it from 
a side-road, or the road becomes clearer and the cars infront drive off at 
60mph yet this is the slowest driver in existance and you get stuck behind 
at 40mph, or ... or ...

> How about just slowing down a little and claiming you saw a rabit? Or a 
> plastic bag blew across the road and you *thought* it was a dangerous 
> obstruction? >:-)

Yeh, might work, but still is it really worth all the hassle of having to 
wait for your car to be repaired, possibly getting injured yourself, etc 
etc.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> We (UK and Germany and most other countries I've been to) have just 
> solid amber to mean it's about to go red.  It's illegal to go through on 
> red and you will be fined (or photographed then fined!), so the amber is 
> needed to give people a chance to stop before it goes red.  Faster roads 
> have longer amber phases to avoid you needing to do an emergency stop in 
> fear of running a red.

Same here. Our traffic laws are set at the state level, but everywhere 
I've ever been, the technical is "Yellow means stop if it's safe to stop 
and you'll not be in the intersection. If it's red and you're in the 
interesection, you're risking a ticket."

In other words, if you're going slow enough, stop when it turns yellow 
even if you could have made it through on the yellow. It doesn't mean 
"this is your last chance to make it, so slam on the gas."

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:14:37 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Incorrect contraction use in #5. ;-)
> 
> What, you never make any mistakes? :-P
> 
> There's a difference between one occasional mistake, and people who
> write page after page of horribly incorrect garbage.

It just struck me as funny, especially after reading your missive that 
included being annoyed by people who misuse apostrophes.

It's what's known as McKean's Law. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message