|
Disgruntled Bovine posted:There's nothing inherently wrong with xenons, as long as they're Putting rekeyed HID bulbs in non-HID housings is a bigger problem than unaimed factory-installed HIDs. If his lights look like his highbeams are always on I'm leaning towards this being the issue.
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Kilersquirrel posted:A page late but I'm firmly of the belief that once you're old enough to get social security payments(or the equivalent for non-US drivers) you should have to re-qualify your eyes and ears every 3 years, and a full road test at the 10-year mark. gently caress just targeting the elderly, make everyone take a driver's test with mandatory hearing and sight test every five years and then the boomers can't bitch that they're being singled out for being old. There's enough blatant stupidity on the road from people even in their 20s and 30s to justify it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:And you don't get your eyes checked every couple of years at the DMV? Not if your state allows renewal by mail once you reach retirement age...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
SFH1989 posted:My '11 does too, I think they've had them since at least 2008. They may have been available on select models in '08, but I had a '10 Fusion that didn't have them but the '12 Fusion that replaced it did (company cars replaced every 80,000 miles at my prior job); I'm fairly certain Ford went company-wide with them in 2011.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Red87 posted:My '11 Fusion has the blind spot sensors, but I still don't trust them as gospel. They work well, but it's no excuse not to look before you merge. I was referring to built-in blind spot mirrors, AFAIK the lane sensors are still optional.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Bovril Delight posted:Wonder what MPG that box truck was getting. I'd be willing to bet its more on the order of "how many gallons per mile" it was getting. e:f/b
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
Zamboni Apocalypse posted:Not that it seems to be obeyed or enforced much, though. This is pretty much any traffic law that isn't speeding, DUI or window tint (or being an obvious rear end in a top hat within eyesight of an on-duty traffic cop.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
Or you end up with a cop who doesn't want to stick his neck out and calls it a no-fault accident, which in insurance terms is the same as being at fault.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Toymachine posted:Insurance companies ruled it a 50-50 because New York is a no fault state. Apparently I didn't do enough to avoid the accident. Did they actually tell you this or did you infer it? Because it really wouldn't surprise me if an insurer cited "you didn't avoid the accident sufficiently so you're equally at fault" as a reason to assign blame. Did the police find fault or rule it as a no-fault accident?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
^ Have you checked your insurance policy for rate hikes lately?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:I was just relating a story of where there was an accident of someone totally at fault (the lady who rear-ended me at a red light) ended up having it be a no-fault. Oh, OK - I read it as "lady rear-ended me, it was ruled no-fault but her insurance still ended up paying most of my damages." Bovril Delight posted:It's a legitimate argument List of things the insurance industry doesn't consider legitimate when increasing rates and/or denying claims: I can't really see "we are arbitrarily declaring you didn't do enough to avoid the accident" as anything but "this way we get to avoid covering damages and put at-fault accidents on everyone's record." Geoj fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Dec 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Is blinker fluid really expensive where you guys live or something...?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
What about people you share a parking lot with? Today I was taking my wife to work and my TPMS reported low pressure in my right front tire. I pulled into a Sheetz station to use their free compressor only to find a three car deep line waiting on a couple doing a tech inspection on their motorcycles right in front of the air station, but not using it. I waited about five minutes before giving up and going five blocks up the street to another gas station with a free compressor, to find some old guy slowly filling his tires. He finally finished, only to start washing his windows while still blocking the compressor and was completely oblivious when I pulled as close as possible and stretched the coiled air line to reach my wheel. Imagine how pissed I was when I found I wasted ten minutes on trying to put air in a tire that was actually 2 PSI over-inflated. Oh, and when I passed the first station on the way back to the highway the dickbag motorcyclists were still doing their inspection and the line of waiting cars had increased to five.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
The Midniter posted:Do these people not understand that they are taking their very lives into their hands? It astounds me. Clearly the risk of death is worth the extra 1 or 2 MPG they get from drafting in the truck's slipstream!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Dear driver in Dodge Charger with Michigan plates on I-77: instead of flying along at 90 in a 65 and slowing down as you pass every interchange, exit, rest stop, overpass and turn-around (or any other place law enforcement might set up a speed trap) you might find it easier to cruise at a more reasonable speed that won't turn you into ticket bait. Your brakes and fuel economy, and more importantly other drivers you are routinely almost rear-ending as you weave through traffic will thank you.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Yeah, you can put "failure to clean snow off of car" right up there with other seldom-enforced traffic laws like "improper lane change," "following at an unsafe distance" and "unsafe vehicle modifications." Like all of these, unless not cleaning the snow off of your car leads to an accident it won't get enforced much/at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:I'm not sure what the radar/lidar technology is these days but I didn't know they could tag two oncoming vehicles within a second or two. Laser is line of sight, only limitation is how quickly the officer can put the pip on your car and pull the trigger. Everything else operates at the speed of light.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
xzzy posted:edit - after googling it a bit they're just radar systems Was going to say this - many cruisers today are equipped with both. In high traffic situations where there's too many cars to tag all of them with the laser they will use the radar to identify the fastest speeder the system can see, and then use the laser to confirm their visual estimation of who is going the fastest. In the days before laser was widespread, in anything other than one car visible situations the officer would use the radar system to get speed and then have to visually identify who was going X MPH, which could (and often did) result in the wrong car being pulled over, and gave people fighting the ticket a viable defense. Which is why laser is so widespread today, and also why when laser was first rolling out the auto insurance industry donated laser systems to police departments in the name of safety (actually because more tickets means higher insurance rates  )content:  Watched this guy park his bro truck (he ran his front/driver wheel across the island and still managed to park like that), and then he and his girlfriend were bitching on their way into the store about how "some people don't know how to park" after she had trouble getting out of the passenger side.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:That's a Brotruck? It had a lift kit and the guy was definitely a bro so...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
^ Let me guess - you're one of those people who starts slowing waaaay down/brake checking anyone who's following closer than a quarter mile behind you? Also, the "1 car length per 10 MPH of speed" adage is from a bygone era when there weren't as many cars on the road and brake pad/shoe compound made the ability to stop even in ideal conditions questionable at best. I'll agree that following at 40' at highway speed is probably way too close for your average texting while putting on makeup and turning around to yell at a minivan full of kids soccer mom, or way too absorbed in his sales/conference call businessman but if you're paying attention it's plenty of time to react. It's not like the car ahead of you is going to go from 70 to 0 in an instant. Geoj fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:It is if they aren't looking up at the dead-stopped traffic in front of them. Which, if you're paying attention, you shouldn't have any trouble seeing well before you encounter it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I just ease off briefly to reestablish my gap. So you've never driven in heavy traffic before? If you're just going to endlessly "ease off to reestablish [a] gap" then you might as well just stop on the shoulder and put your hazards on until traffic clears. PainterofCrap posted:I'd love a perfect word where we can all follow the 2-second rule for spacing. That world may exist somewhere in space & time. But but *hypothetical situation where following at 2 seconds is suicide.*
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
goobernoodles posted:In hindsight I shouldn't have said a word for the kid's sake but something tells me that kid is already used to that sort of bullshit. Nah, don't feel bad. She's probably the kind of person who would nearly cause an accident and chase the other person down and berate them about how she has children in her car! and they are a horrible person for daring to exist in her universe. Such people should be called out for their shitbag behavior, and are far more of a negative influence on their child(ren)'s life than you ever could.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Deedle posted:Even on a 7000 euro driving appliance the cost of a phototransistor isn't going to break the bank. Yeah, but the manufacturers would rather sell you the phototransistor at a 15000% markup and call it an option.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
nsaP posted:Yeah, I had an Aerio that I got pulled over 3 or 4 times in for that. You leave the gas station or some other bright place at night and and you forget. The only indication that the lights weren't on was that the radio and hvac lights were off. I actually wired a DRL cut off switch at one point after I got nabbed for it. I have to admit I'm guilty of this too, I was picking up dinner a little over a week ago (when it was -10 outside) and left my engine running while I ran inside. I turned my usually automatic headlights off while I was away as the city I was in has a no idling unattended vehicles ordnance (figuring headlights would be a dead giveaway.) I got back in and didn't really notice anything was amiss - I drive a Chevrolet Captiva, which is a rebadged last-gen Saturn Vue which has automatic headlights and an always lit cluster - as the area is well-lit until a passing cruiser flashed his side spotlight at me. It really is easy to do when you're in the habit of not having to turn your lights on.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
superdylan posted:Say I'm on an empty 3-lane highway...do I have to switch 2 lanes to go around, and 2 more to get back to the right lane, or do I stay in full-on keep right except to pass mode? If I was in that situation I would probably just pass on the right, the odds of getting pulled over and cited on a deserted highway are pretty slim. If I was in such a situation I would probably just cruise in the middle lane though...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Kill-9 posted:So there are times where not pulling over immediately are acceptable to the cops. I'd qualify that one with YMMV. I once got a written warning from an Ohio state highway patrolman (the OSHP has a reputation for not giving out warnings to save their own lives, if you get pulled over you can pretty much assume you're getting cited) after going an extra quarter mile to pull off into a rest stop. OTOH I also had a local cop make a bunch of empty threats when I proceeded less that a city block to pull off of a busy 35 MPH two-lane road when he put his lights on - highlights were "I have you on reckless driving and willfully fleeing an officer," both of which are written in state code as "officer shall arrest;" if he actually had me doing those he legally wasn't allowed to let me off with a verbal warning.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
FogHelmut posted:In NJ at least, its legal for the cops to do it. There's some bullshit reasoning about the cops having advanced driving training. I know a lot of states with no texting and driving laws have a law enforcement exemption on the grounds that they might need to use their MDTs while driving, and they use the law as a loophole to get away with texting on their personal phones.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Uthor posted:Me too. I try not to cut people off, but if it's between following a group of cars all bunched up and passing them to get to some empty pavement, I'll go for the pass. It's not about getting somewhere sooner and I'll even go the speed limit* after that point, I just would rather not be around other cars. Pretty much this, not to mention if you're one of these people who crawls at 5 MPH for the next 250 yards to the intersection or has the "well I'm going to stop eventually so why not stop where I am?" mentality gently caress off, I'm going to pass you.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Colonel Sanders posted:I'm pretty sure I never saw that working the correct way when I was in LA, and the pattern was far too short. Can I really trust a stop light instead of actually looking over into the lane for an open spot? It just seems like a bad idea in my opinion. I'm in the Bay Area for work right now, yesterday I tried taking 101 to the office from my hotel (big mistake  ) and there was a similar light at the onramp that was working in a similar fashion. It was cycling from red to green and back so rapidly that by the time I stopped at the line it was green, and by the time I started accelerating when it turned green it was already red by the time I drove through it. Seems like a stop/yield sign would have the same effect.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Group of 8 motorcyclists turning onto CA-1 just north of Santa Cruz today: way to be the very embodiment of the "I can do whatever I please and my safety is everybody else's problem" stereotype. Failing to yield to a string of traffic doing ~60 in a 55 zone probably isn't the best way to stay alive, and you're drat lucky you didn't get run over or cause a five car pileup (not that I would really expect you to care or hang around in the latter case.) Also honorable mention goes to the guy who took his Toyota Sequoia onto Skyline Boulevard today, and couldn't keep it in one lane even at speeds lower than 20 MPH (in a marked 45 MPH zone.) I would suggest you A) buy a more capable vehicle B) learn how to drive in tight turns C) a mix of A & B or D) find a more pedestrian route for your SUV.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Das Volk posted:if you stay on top of the police it won't end well for him YMMV on this one. In my experience calling 911 on road-ragers and other dangerous drivers they don't really seem to care unless there's been an accident. I once had a guy flash a gun at me on the highway because I tried to pass him in a totally normal fashion, and the 911 dispatcher couldn't have given less of a gently caress. I was trying to read her the license plate number and she just cut me off with "we'll advise [police department in the next city on the highway] of the situation *click.*"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
The Midniter posted:Does it vary state by state, or are police officers the only ones who are allowed to direct/stop traffic? You could try contacting the street department of the city this is in for clarification. While I'm sure there are laws against setting up your own private roadblock I doubt you'll get much traction fighting the school on something like this, but based on my limited knowledge of such things if the school was doing this correctly they'd need to hire (or otherwise arrange) for an off-duty officer to show up to direct traffic. I've seen private businesses doing this around where I live - a couple of Wendy's on busy roads hire an off-duty officer or sheriff's deputy during lunch to direct traffic so people can get out of their parking lots, and there's a bakery with a loading dock that lets out onto a busy street that has an off duty officer on premises pretty much 24/7 to stop traffic when they're moving trailers in or out of the dock. You're probably up poo poo creek though, unless you can get a critical mass of other pissed off motorists to drown out the parents who are likely to bitch if their ability to exit the loop whenever they please is taken away.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
The Midniter posted:But it has absolutely nothing to do with the kids - it was solely a measure to allow their parents to bypass rush hour traffic and exit the school. gently caress that, I say. Of course it has nothing to do with the saftey of the children, but that's never stopped parents from using "BUT CHILD SAFETY!!!" as an excuse for their pet project(s.) Its just like how if you don't agree with MADD that anyone who is even suspected of having .00000000000000000000000000000001 BAC while behind the wheel should be dragged out of their car and shot in the street then you're automatically in the "I support drunk drivers running over schoolchildren" camp. Krakkles posted:The argument you'll run into is "well if we can't get parents out of there faster, the kids in cars behind will get out in traffic". This is literally what I did in highschool. I lived in the rear end end of the city (between distance, lights and morning traffic it was a 20+ minute drive from my parents' house to the highschool) and if I wanted to ride the bus in the morning I had to be at the stop by 6 AM so my parents drove me in every morning. The traffic getting into the school was horrendous and it would take another 10-15 minutes to wait in line from the nearest traffic light to the school's entrance, about two blocks. My dad instead would drop me off on the street right across from the entrance (bypassing the turning lane into the school parking lot entirely) and I would cross the street and walk the remaining 50 yards into the building.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Didn't they find having most or all cars permanently lit had a negative effect on the visibility of other road users like motorcyclists? Or was that just someone with an axe to grind making stuff up? I'd take anything a motorcyclist says about cars being a hazard to them with a grain of salt, as they could probably find a reason why a car sitting on jackstands with its drivetrain removed in a garage somewhere is really just a motorcycle murdering machine waiting to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
nsaP posted:If you want people on your side a sure way to go about it is attacking children because you have to slow down for a bit. If you missed it earlier they're stopping traffic so parents don't have to wait for traffic while exiting the school's parking lot, and causing major traffic snarls in the process.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
PT6A posted:How it ever got planning permission is beyond me. Saying no to anything child related tends to be a political kiss of death.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
I don't walk my dogs down my (residential, no sidewalks, marked 25 MPH) street because 1) pretty much everyone who drives on it uses it as a shortcut and doesn't live in the area 2) its about two miles between a traffic light and where it dead-ends into another street without stop signs and 3) the local police department can't be bothered to set up a speed trap with any regularity to reign people in a bit. As a result you can stand in my front yard for 20 minutes and count the number of cars doing under 45 MPH on one hand. I've had more than one road-raging rear end in a top hat try to follow me into my driveway because I hugely inconvenienced them by going 30 MPH for the ~4 blocks from the nearest intersection to my driveway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Geoj: That sounds like a massive failure of city / neighborhood planning. If it's that bad, time to lobby for some serious reconstruction. There was a road in my neighborhood growing up that was a typical small residential street, except that it went in a ruler-straight line for half a mile and only had a gentle S-curve in the last 1/4 mile... and went past a high school. So it was a common thing to have kids flying down that road at 45-50 to avoid the majority of the traffic on the main road that the school was also on. Enough lobbying to the city got them to cut the road in half with a giant landscaped section - pedestrians and bikes can get through on the sidewalks, but nothing bigger. Still useful to the people who actually live on it, but no longer viable as a shortcut. Unfortunately there are homes along the entire length of the road so it would be a massive inconvenience to people living at the far end - the near end (to me) links up with a US route that eventually turns into an interstate and is the main artery to the nearest grocery store, etc. I think it largely comes down to a massive failure on the part of local law enforcement - running a speed trap would be like shooting fish in a barrel - and the street department to a point, I'm sure putting a few stop signs in at cross streets would make a noticeable improvement.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
VideoTapir posted:My last year or two of high school they added a bunch of stops to my bus route, because parents requested it so that their little darling wouldn't have to walk an extra 200 feet. edit: It was usually the ones whose house was right on the main road. I was the 2nd to last stop getting off, and the 2nd stop getting on. It took almost an hour to get to school (about 4 miles) during that period. I really got to hating those kids' parents. This was me in highschool. I was the second stop on the route and had to be waiting for the bus at 6 AM (usually came between 6:00 and 6:10,) however on the flip side I was the second stop to get off the bus - except when the driver decided to run the return route in reverse, which happened about twice a week. After two years of doing this my parents just started driving me to school so I didn't have to get up every day at 5:30. My dad would either drop me off somewhat near the school and I would walk the remaining four blocks in or if he was heading in the right direction on a given morning (he worked as a field tech) right across the street from the main entrance.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 18:28
|
|