site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   34847 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 9, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I now interrupt your regularly scheduled WWIII/Nothing Ever Happens to ask a question:

So, the Bike discussion down below generated a lot of angst and heat, so I'd like to poll The Motte on our driving habits a bit (in the CW thread because I do fear we are going to get some strong feelings).

How do we feel about the following:

  1. You should turn on your turn signal every time you switch lanes or otherwise would be expected to use it, even if nobody is around.

  2. Stop signs and red lights need to be fully stopped at, even if nobody is around and you know there isn't a red light camera.

  3. Speed limits should be followed to the letter when possible.

  4. The left lane is for passing only, and also, if you are in that lane and not passing and someone cuts you off or rides your bumper, that is fine.

  5. If someone does not make room for you and you need to come over (and properly signaled) you can cut them off guilt free.

  6. I can break some of these rules (or others) but other drivers should not.

  7. Any other possible driving scissor statements?

If you'd like to be mad at me: Yes, Yes, No, Yes with qualification, Yes, No.

  1. You should turn on your turn signal every time you switch lanes or otherwise would be expected to use it, even if nobody is around.
  • I generally do now since most cars I end up in have some form of lane assist that shouts at you if you drift over a line, even when you're doing so to change lanes on an uninhabited highway at 1AM, unless you throw the blinker on. That being said there's no harm to anyone if you don't, so I don't stress about it. There's no harm in doing so, and it's good to keep the habit of using them, so while it's not necessary I'd still recommend it.

\2. Stop signs and red lights need to be fully stopped at, even if nobody is around and you know there isn't a red light camera.

  • Red lights, absolutely. Stop signs, a slow roll through is fine at a 4-way if you confirm there's no one around - but you need to slow down to do the slow roll anyway.

\3. Speed limits should be followed to the letter when possible.

  • No. All speed limits at least near me have a built-in range where it's acceptable to go over - going 65 on a major highway in the left lane is not acceptable, even if that's the speed limit.

\4. The left lane is for passing only, and also, if you are in that lane and not passing and someone cuts you off or rides your bumper, that is fine.

  • The left lane is for higher-speed travel. If you're blocking traffic in the left lane by going under the speed limit, you should expect to be followed closely.

\5. If someone does not make room for you and you need to come over (and properly signaled) you can cut them off guilt free.

  • You should never cut someone off in an unsafe way. If the other person's being a dick and not letting you in*, it's ok to force your way as long as you do so safely (ie inch your way in slowly, don't just cut right in front of them then slam on your brakes).

* if you've been trying to get in since you saw traffic started. If you're cutting in last-minute, you're the dick and it's unacceptable.

\6. I can break some of these rules (or others) but other drivers should not.

  • I don't claim to be a 100% perfect driver, but I do try to follow my own rules.

I just got off of a road trip on I-40, and mostly want to register my dismay at the state of the semi truckers there, related to 3 and especially #4. It is Culture War, because most of the truckers in question are Indian.

Truckers should all go the same speed in the right lane of a two lane highway! They should not be leapfrogging each other, trapping small vehicles between them, as they pass excruciatingly slowly, often on hills and curves! If they cannot manage this, their trucks should be on autopilot the entire time they're on the interstate! It is both unsafe and extremely annoying, drivers often can't even use adaptive cruise control if available, because the truckers will cut them off in the left lane, then go 10mph slower.

Also a bit related to #5, commercial trucks should not be cutting smaller vehicles off, with or without signaling, ever, and I do have a lot of sympathy for people who speed up into their spaces to avoid having stuff flung into their windshield from a poorly secured truck, even hay is pretty annoying, but the gravel trucks have big signs saying "not responsible for cracked windshields," and indeed it's pretty hard to prove to the police. I once had a crowbar fly off a truck and impale my windshield, nearly killing the front passenger.

Also a bit related to #5, commercial trucks should not be cutting smaller vehicles off, with or without signaling, ever, and I do have a lot of sympathy for people who speed up into their spaces to avoid having stuff flung into their windshield from a poorly secured truck, even hay is pretty annoying, but the gravel trucks have big signs saying "not responsible for cracked windshields," and indeed it's pretty hard to prove to the police. I once had a crowbar fly off a truck and impale my windshield, nearly killing the front passenger.

This is a result of stupid regulation - at least in EU - where truck drivers are subject to constant surveillance where their telemetry is recorded an they have to show it to random inspection at any time. Also they have different speed limits depending on cargo, mostly between 80 to 90 km/h on highways. Additionally they have strict limits when it comes to maximum time they can drive and how much rest they need to have regularly. If you are a truck driver who is stuck behind another truck driving 6 miles per hour slower, in the end this may end up with you not reaching your destination today, meaning being stuck on a highway for extended time and not making it home.

Also I am not the truck driver, but have some respect for them. They make our society work especially in times of Amazon and international trade. I think it distasteful for people to get angry at them, when it is the rules that makes their lives shitty.

Also, a lot of this could be resolved by increasing stupid 70mph speed limit (113km/h) on highways to 80 or 85 as in Europe, so you can catch up if you are inconvenienced for 30 seconds behind a truck or other vehicle.

I'm not sure what the rules are for truck drivers in America, but it was pretty visibly the more established white truck drivers who were hanging out in the right lane, and the new immigrant truck drivers who were passing. If there are laws punishing new drivers who are acting the same as old responsible drivers, then, sure, those are bad laws.

Also, a lot of this could be resolved by increasing stupid 70mph speed limit (113km/h) on highways to 80 or 85 as in Europe, so you can catch up if you are inconvenienced for 30 seconds behind a truck or other vehicle.

This suggests lack of familiarity with American interstates in multiple ways.

  1. Yes, of course the other drivers can go 80 - 85 most of the time, the cops do not enforce 70 - 75 at all. That is largely why they are upset when they are cut off by a vehicle going 75.
  2. Cath up? To whom? It isn't exactly about getting home 10 minutes sooner. It's mostly about not being sandwiched between large trucks.
  3. It's probably 5 minutes inconvenience per vehicle, spread out over a two to eight hour drive, so maybe an hour or two of being in irritating and unsafe conditions over the course of a day of driving.

The alternative is to fly, but in the American West not only is it expensive for a full car's worth of people, you still have to rent a car at the destination, and even rent car seats.

Interesting, my mental model of a trucker is still a fat white guy with a hat.

RE: overtaking, as per google AI summary:

"In Germany, "Elefantenrennen" (elephant racing) refers to the slow overtaking of one truck by another on a highway, often blocking all lanes and causing traffic congestion. It's a common, and often frustrating, phenomenon where trucks with minimal speed differences attempt to pass each other, causing delays. This practice is actually illegal in Germany, according to GermanyinUSA."

Trucks still have legal limit of 45 seconds to overtake each other even in Germany. Which of course can seem like a lifetime for impatient people on the highway.

my mental model of a trucker is still a fat white guy with a hat.

There are still a lot of those, and a smaller number of black and hispanic guys, but they mostly stay in their lane, probably on cruise control, and if they get over it's because someone is stuck on the side of the freeway or something. My guess about the leapfrog guys is that they think of themselves as therefore working harder than the cruise control guys. The aggressive Indian drivers seemed to be an I-40 specific phenomenon (there are new truck stops springing up there, serving Indian food as well), it isn't noticeable on N/S highways, and was less of an issue on I-10, it looked like there were more highway patrol enforcing the laws there.

"Elefantenrennen" (elephant racing)

Haha, that's a good term, I hadn't heard it before.

1 You should turn on your turn signal every time you switch lanes or otherwise would be expected to use it, even if nobody is around.

You don't need to, but it is a good habit to get into. If I were teaching someone to drive I'd tell them to do it even if no one is around.

2 Stop signs and red lights need to be fully stopped at, even if nobody is around and you know there isn't a red light camera.

For stop signs, no. In principle you should be ready to, but if you are moving slowly and can see there is zero traffic, I think it's reasonable to just take a stop sign slowly.

For red lights, yes. You always obey the lights.

3 Speed limits should be followed to the letter when possible.

Not necessarily. In general, you should try to roughly follow them, but as long as you are travelling at a safe speed relative to everyone else on the road, I'm not going to be too stressed if you're two or three km/h over.

4 The left lane is for passing only, and also, if you are in that lane and not passing and someone cuts you off or rides your bumper, that is fine.

(Reversing this due to Commonwealth country.)

No. Yes, there's sort of a convention that the right lane goes faster than the left lane, but it's only a very soft convention. It in no way excuses misbehaviour.

That said, I am now wondering if this is different in America. Adjust as needed if you have different road rules.

5 If someone does not make room for you and you need to come over (and properly signaled) you can cut them off guilt free.

I don't really know or care about guilt here. If somebody is a jerk and doesn't let you in when they ought to, well, they're a jerk, but you should still drive safely and that means you shouldn't try to force your way in. That's just asking for an accident.

6 I can break some of these rules (or others) but other drivers should not.

There is a rule that overrides all other driving rules, and that rule is to ensure your safety, the safety of other occupants of your vehicle, and the safety of other road users. I'm not going to police the exact order of any of those things, but I will say that if you are ever in a circumstance where your choices are to break a road rule or let either injury or property damage occur, break the road rule. The road rules exist to ensure people's safety, so if breaking them is necessary to keep people safe, you should break them without fear or shame.

7 Any other possible driving scissor statements?

I hate GPS devices. Hate them. If I get lost on the way somewhere I usually pull on to a side road, stop, and then refer either to a paper map or bring up a map on my phone or laptop. GPS in the car drives me insane.

my opinions;

  1. no, although i do see the sense in the habit formation arguments others have raised. In my opinion though as long as you always signal when that signal is needed, then nobody cares if you dont signal when wildly changing 4 lanes on an otherwise uninhabited stretch of highway.

  2. generally you have to stop to assess whether you needed to stop so i essentially agree you should always stop.

  3. id ammended to say speed limit + 5MPH up to 45 and limit+10 for over 50, then yes everybody should be going no higher than that range of speeds. maybe speed limit +30 for low density highways.

  4. i think i disagree? the left lane is the most sensible place for people who want to go fast and arent planning on changing lanes for a long time. If you are in the left and you dont want to go somewhere fast you are in the wrong place.

  5. this is a tough one because generally needing to merge under duress is caused by a failure to plan your route. "oh crap i should have been in the right lane a quarter mile ago but now i need to dangerously merge immediately" is a bad excuse in the age of freely available GPS on every phone.

  6. in general i think people that are better drivers than me can probably get away with breaking way more of these rules than i do, and people with less experience should probably try to follow much more closely than i. I guess this just boils down to "as long as you dont fuck anybody up with your bad driving then godspeed"

  7. One of these happened to me just the other day. I needed to turn left at a big intersection of a 6 lane road with a 4 lane road, and im coming from the 4 lane. I need to cross 3 lanes of traffic to complete this turn, and the left turning signal is the evil RED ARROW of DO NOT TURN LEFT.

Normall, i respect the authority of the red arrow, its color a warning of the dire consequences of failing to comply with its mandate. But today, both sides of the road i needed to cross, all 3 lanes in each direction, were fully bricked up with stopped cars waiting for their light to turn green. I waited for 30ish seconds as no cars went anywhere and then drove in solitude across the forbidden zone. I imagine at least someone in the waiting traffic saw what i did, and i wonder if they saw me as kindof an awesome defiant paragon of truth, or maybe as some sort of rule breaking dastard who belongs under the jail.

But in reality i was just a guy who didnt want to wait 5 minutes to turn left, and i saw a situation where nobody else would be harmed by breaking the rules, so i took it.

  1. Should. You should be in the habit of doing it and it isn't like doing it has a downside.

  2. Should. Though stopping at a timed red light and then proceeding when you know it is clear is fine in the middle of the night for example. Very little downside compared to a small chance of a very high downside.

  3. No. Speed limits around here are 55-60 but driving less than 70 is actively dangerous due to other drivers.

  4. This one genuinely confuses me and makes no sense. Interstates around here are normally 2 lanes wide, there is always traffic, and there are frequent cloverleafs with on ramps and offramps right next to each other. If people only utilized the left lane for passing traffic would be much worse because of less throughput on the roads and slowdowns due to contention merging on and off the interstate. If anything the opposite would be a better system (the right lane is only for merging on and off the interstate and passing).

     Often I will be in the left lane going 70-75 and matching pace with the car ahead of me. Some moron comes up behind me and instantly tailgates me. I put on my turn signal and try to merge to let him pass, but there generally isn't room in the right hand lane to do so without cutting someone off. They get impatient and then either pass on the left using the shoulder or will change lanes in places were there are barely more than one car gaps and cut you off. They are now basically one more car length ahead of where they are before and stuck behind someone that is doing the same exact speed I was. Bravo, you endangered the lives of a dozen people to move a dozen feet.

 Basically my mental model of anyone that says this is "the left lane is only for me and I have no considerations at all for other people". They don't even agree with their own statement because they exclusively use the left lane.

  5. No and if you think this I seriously doubt your cognitive abilities.

  6. Obviously not.

  7. There is a large line on cars trying to get off at an offramp or merging. Instead of cooperating and getting in line behind them you defect, drive to the last possible merge point and force your way in because "zipper merges are more efficient". (I disagree personally, but if we could solve the coordination problem I would prefer zipper merges. Since we can't you are just being an asshole and negatively effecting everyone else for your own personal gain.)

Basically all of my thoughts are based on the fact that driving is especially dangerous and probably the most dangerous thing people regularly do. People don't give it anywhere the respect they should. It doesn't make any sense to drive aggressively and unsafely to save 30 seconds on your 15 minute+ commute.

Interstates around here are normally 2 lanes wide, there is always traffic, and there are frequent cloverleafs with on ramps and offramps right next to each other. If people only utilized the left lane for passing traffic would be much worse because of less throughput on the roads and slowdowns due to contention merging on and off the interstate.

Clarification: "Passing" includes "going faster than vehicles in the right lane", not just "performing a 'passing maneuver' of moving from the right lane to the left lane, passing a single car or platoon of cars that's in the right lane, and moving back to the right lane". An at-capacity two-lane highway following this rule would be composed of two full lanes with the left lane moving slightly faster than the right lane, not a full right lane and an empty left lane.

My state just has (fairly new) laws that say that if you are going slower than the flow of traffic you have to be in the right-most lane and that if you are in the left lane and someone wants to overtake you that you must move over when it is safe to do so. Our signs are like "Slower traffic keep right". Other states have stricter laws.

Like here is a bit from Texas's handbook "Watch for signs on Texas multi-lane highways that read “Left Lane For Passing Only.” These signs let you know that the left lane on a divided highway is not a “fast” lane. It is a passing lane. After you pass someone, move back into the right lane once you’ve safely cleared the vehicle. Impeding the flow of traffic by continuing to drive in the left lane is punishable by a fine of up to $200."

That seems pretty clear about only using the left hand lane for actively passing someone and to move back immediately and not just you can use the left lane as long as you are going faster. If you are going 65 mph and there are 10 cars ahead of you spaced 10 car lengths apart it prescribes that you are in the right lane, then move to the left lane, pass the first car, move to the right lane, catch up to the next car, move to the left lane, pass the car, move to the right lane... in a bizarre game of leapfrog that is incredibly unsafe.

edit: I remembered that the electric unicycle community actually keeps a record of every single death (doable since there are so few of us). Looking over the list might be illustrative about what's actually liable to cause fatalities since it's possible to actually know the exact ratio of what causes deaths. Excluding the unicycle-specific stuff (cutouts, battery fires) most of these deaths seem to feature traffic going in a single direction and then things getting squirrely and the rider veering off course. The one big exception is the car that went too fast through a stop sign in a rolling stop. As a consequence I'll amend my opinion of rolling stops to specify that to qualify as a rolling stop the vehicle should be moving at a speed that's strictly unlikely to cause a fatality even if a collision actually happens. I've been hit by a car while on my bike at something like 5-10 mph and just walked it off, no biggie, so that's probably the threshold.

You should turn on your turn signal every time you switch lanes or otherwise would be expected to use it, even if nobody is around.

Yes. Trivial effort and keeps you in the habit.

Stop signs and red lights need to be fully stopped at, even if nobody is around and you know there isn't a red light camera.

This should be two different questions because red lights and stoplights are used in significantly different contexts. Red lights tend to be on busier intersections with faster traffic. If you want to go straight, you should always stop and stay stopped even if there is no other traffic around because the consequences of screwing up are very likely to be death. Though it you want to do a right turn (on a road where it's legal to do so) then it's acceptable to do a rolling stop instead of a full stop, due to that being intrinsically safer-- if traffic hits you, it's unlikely to be a head-on colission, and if they were coming from the opposite side (for example because of a left-turn signal) then an accident will happen in lower speeds.

Stop signs are used more in quieter areas with smaller speed limits. rolling stops are acceptable if no one is around.

Speed limits should be followed to the letter when possible.

No, because speed limits are deliberately set too low with the expectation that they will be moderately violated by even law-abiding citizens, so that cops have a pretext to stop people who are driving at the "optimal" speed for a given area but in an unsafe manner. As proof, in my state you don't even receive any penalties for going up to 5 over, so the speed limit is really "speed posted plus up to 5mph" which is much more reasonable. Going faster than that is also acceptable if done temporarily while passing-- reducing how much time you spend in a truck's blindspot is ultimately safer for everyone.

The left lane is for passing only

No for city roads. Yes for highways with some caveats-- if the road quality is much worse on the right side, or if you're going to an exit that's on the left side, or if no one is around anyway, it's okay to be in the left line.

if you are in that lane and not passing and someone cuts you off

Douchebaggy in proportion to the level of aggression and danger in the cutoff, but acceptable in many cases. Ideally they should have found a safer way to merge in but like... I get it.

or rides your bumper, that is fine.

No. Bumper riding is always unsafe and unnecessary. (And also, illegal-- I got written up for following less than two bumper lengths once. Lawyer got it dropped though, always plead to transfer to a nonmoving violation haha.) That's especially the case when it's at night and your headlights might be shining into their rearview, blinding them and preventing them from safely getting out of your way. People with either eventually figure out that they should move to the right, or alternatively if they're being assholes on purpose being an asshole back is just likely to cause an accident.

If someone does not make room for you and you need to come over (and properly signaled) you can cut them off guilt free.

Ideally, you should slow down instead and merge in behind them. But if that's not possible for whatever reason, and your merge won't require them to slam on the brakes, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. (You should probably still be a little guilty though.)

I can break some of these rules (or others) but other drivers should not.

Everyone should be expected to break these rules in a situation where that maximizes the overall safety of driving. And at the same time, everyone should be driving so as to minimize the need for others to break these rules, and not doing so forfeights the right to complain in inverse proportion to how safe other drivers are while violating these rules.

scissors statements

On quieter streets with good visibility, it's okay to U-turn like a motherfucker at any provocation.

Every driving test should include a LIVE segment on understanding and using hand signals. Aside from cyclists, I've seen cars use these when their turn lights are off.

Motorcyclists should be allowed to legally split lanes. (But if they die, they die.)

This is very similar to my opinion, which leads me to believe that at one point or another you drove a lot, possibly even paid to do so.

Naw, I just have the right combination of impatience, paranoia, and astigmatism.

  1. Yes
  2. No, rolling stop is fine in many cases for stop signs or right turn on red
  3. No, a large truck and a sports car do not have the same safe operating speed
  4. No, when there is traffic all lanes should be utilized.
  5. Not if it’s a safety hazard
  6. No
  7. Yes?

(4) No, when there is traffic all lanes should be utilized.

Clarification: "Passing" includes "going faster than vehicles in the right lane", not just "performing a 'passing maneuver' of moving from the right lane to the left lane, passing a single car or platoon of cars that's in the right lane, and moving back to the right lane". An at-capacity two-lane highway following this rule would be composed of two full lanes with the left lane moving slightly faster than the right lane, not a full right lane and an empty left lane.

Well sometimes in traffic the left lane moves slower than the other lanes, even when there is no jam and the cars are just tightly packed.

  1. Indicators? Absolutely, because if you get into the habit of not turning them on, then you won't do it when other vehicles are around. I already see too many drivers not bothering to indicate when they're going to turn, and one day someone will smash into them because the other driver is not a mind reader and had no idea you were going to suddenly turn there.

  2. Stop signs and red lights? Probably, for the same reason - develop good habits. Also, there will come a time when you think 'nobody's around' and run a red light, and the guy coming from the other direction will think the same thing, and bang! smash!

  3. I'm pro-speed limit, because again I've seen too many examples of someone speeding along then suddenly having to slam on the brakes (there's a street just outside where my house is where this is a regular occurrence) and again, the guy behind you or the guy behind him won't be able to stop in time and again bang! smash!

  4. No opinion

  5. People should make room for others to cut in, the ten seconds you save by not doing this will not make a difference over your journey and you'll just end up stuck in a queue or a traffic jam further along. Small courtesies on the road when driving make it a smoother experience for everyone.

  6. Nobody, not even Max Verstappen, is that good a driver on ordinary roads to get away with "I can break the rules safely".

  1. Blinkers: Yes, for habit. Nearly every time. There is almost no effort involved in using blinkers.

  2. Stopping: Yes, for habit with qualifications. Stop signs I may slow California roll. Traffic lights, hard yes.

  3. Speed limit: No, don't be silly. If you're in The Neighborhood you shouldn't speed. If you're on the highway and 90% of traffic is going 70mph in a 55mph zone, no.

  4. Left lane passing only (highway): Yes. Passing lane riding: No, that should be a reminder to move out of the lane at your next opportunity. We live in a society, people!

  5. Merging jerk: I'm sure I have done this before, but it's not a major issue. Since you correctly anticipated the turn you'll find someone else who will allow you to merge, wave at them, and go about your day. If one jerk successfully prevents your merge, then you likely did not correctly anticipate the turn. Lesson learned for next time. I've yet to drive in an American city where aggressive merging that could be described as cutting off (rather than assertive/clear) is a regular requirement to merge, so if no one wants to let you in you've probably messed up.

  6. Breaking rules: No. There seems to be something close to consensus on what qualifies as extra bad behavior with some local variation. For example, almost everyone considers cheating a highway's exit traffic by riding the shoulder as bad behavior.

Highway packs in general are bad, and drivers should do more to avoid/deconstruct them. 12+ cars densely packed at 75mph with two cars in the front driving to some degree and the rest merely following. If we we had better enforcement of slow left laners it'd make high speed driving more enjoyable. Left lane hogs go first against the wall.

No only to 3, it’s safest to flow with traffic and not be a rock in the stream, 5, I can always brake, and 6, I expect the rules I live by to be an agreement with other drivers, not a tool for me policing them.

As for additional driving scissor statements, I prefer to back into a parking spot, or pull through a double spot to be facing out. Some people call it “getaway parking,” others deride it as “ghetto.”

First, because my brain has been fully engaged in estimating my car’s size and position relative to other vehicles and the stationary world for at least five minutes, and I’m less likely to be in an accident in that altered state.

Second, because when I depart that spot, I can see somewhere between 3 and pi radians without obstruction, and can easily see pedestrians, shopping carts, and other vehicles.

pull through a double spot to be facing out. Some people call it “getaway parking,” others deride it as “ghetto.”

Where I'm from, this is a pretty universal practice. I've never heard it criticized. Typically it's called "getting a pull through spot."

I prefer to back into a parking spot, or pull through a double spot to be facing out. Some people call it “getaway parking,” others deride it as “ghetto.”

Lol, whut? People actually complain about that when it's a very sensible thing to do?

I don't do it myself but that's just because I prefer backing out of a parking spot, not backing into it.

Yes, people complain about it. Sometimes it seems like ultra-online blue tribers looking for something to get upset at pickup truck drivers for and sometimes it's people making complaints about holding up the flow of traffic in high-entrance times when head-in parking would be faster. The latter complain much more calmly.

I've also seen 'head in parking only' signs which seem like they exist mostly to make checking parking permits easier.

As for additional driving scissor statements, I prefer to back into a parking spot, or pull through a double spot to be facing out. Some people call it “getaway parking,” others deride it as “ghetto.”

I also do this, I had no idea anyone would deride it.

The only time I have a problem with it is when someone does that in a parking garage. It takes some finagling to back in, and while you do that there tends to be a whole line of cars waiting behind you. I think that's pretty rude and people should just pull in normally in those situations. Otherwise, whatever.

I also do this, I had no idea anyone would deride it.

The problem is backing into a parking spot takes a fairly long time and thus backs other people waiting to get to their spot.

.....Does it? With a rear view camera it should be pretty damn fast.

"Should be" and "is" are different, and many cars don't have rear view cameras. Mine does not, for instance. They were mandated in 2018. In fact, people backing up into a parking spot tend to take several tries at it, blocking traffic the whole time.

You should turn on your turn signal every time you switch lanes or otherwise would be expected to use it, even if nobody is around.

The point of the turn signal is to signal, it's pointless to do when nobody's around so if you're completely certain, there is no need. It's hard to be completely certain however, so lean on doing it all the time to build habit.

Stop signs and red lights need to be fully stopped at, even if nobody is around and you know there isn't a red light camera.

Same here, unless you're truly in the middle of the desert, these exist to regulate traffic and force you to look at potentially dangerous intersections, so lean on stopping unless you have good reason not to.

Speed limits should be followed to the letter when possible.

Speed limits are one of the stupidest conventions we have when it comes to traffic. Everyone seems to agree that it's better and safer to drive at the speed of the traffic, and nobody actually drives at a comfortable margin away from the speed limit so following the letter of the law actually puts you in danger.

Given this arised somewhat naturally out of the speed limit setup, I'm not sure if there's a better way to deal with this than what everyone's doing: driving safely most of the time and trying to abide by the law whenever cops or radars are around.

No limit autobahns and cops that stop you when you're truly being reckless doing 300+ and treating the road like a racetrack would probably be better, but those require a level of trust most non-germans can't afford.

The left lane is for passing only, and also, if you are in that lane and not passing and someone cuts you off or rides your bumper, that is fine.

If you're on the left lane and not passing you're an asshole. But just because people are assholes don't mean you should endanger your life to teach them a lesson. Never pass from the right unless that's the most safe thing you can do in that situation.

If someone does not make room for you and you need to come over (and properly signaled) you can cut them off guilt free.

If you're not in the right lane and you need to cut off people, you're just not driving properly. Don't be an asshole, don't endanger people, wait for the next exit.

I can break some of these rules (or others) but other drivers should not.

Kant is unimpeachably right about traffic laws. All driver ethics must be universalizable insofar as it applies to public roads. I would accept people breaking the laws only in a true emergency (life and death sort of deal), so I would only do so in such.

The point of the turn signal is to signal, it's pointless to do when nobody's around so if you're completely certain, there is no need. It's hard to be completely certain however, so lean on doing it all the time to build habit.

A common story element among those with poor awareness: "I was driving along, then this car comes out of nowhere and..." No, aliens didn't teleport a car next to you. The car drove to that location and you weren't paying enough attention to note blind entry points and/or track their approach. (also, you didn't realize that the story would cast you in a negative light).

Signalling 100% of the time is the way to go, for exactly the reasons you laid out.

Signalling turns more or less all the time is probably good for this reason -- but you should not be changing lanes unless you capital-K Know that there is nobody in your path.

I'd much rather be in the habit of double-checking my 'blind' spots everytime I change lanes than be in the habit of signalling and then pulling right into the car next to me that I didn't check for if he doesn't take evasive action -- which seems like a pretty common freeway habit these days.

Aristotle famously argued that the virtuous man is not merely the man who has reasoned himself into doing what is right, but the man who has made a habit of it, so that the temptation to do what is wrong doesn't enter into his mind.

I think virtue ethics are a generally good guide to craft one's personal conduct. But I still think there is use in reasoning from first principles when dealing with creatures of reason the likes of traffic laws, lest we try to apply tradition to things that have not proven themselves lindy.

Which is a very long winded and fastidious way to say I agree with you.

these exist to regulate traffic and force you to look at potentially dangerous intersections, so lean on stopping unless you have good reason not to.

The thing is that yield sign exists. It is pointless to have both stop and yield in the same logical system. Heavy traffic and yield will force you to stop. With light traffic stop is pointless.

Places with extremely poor visibility are valid reason for stop signs.

I've been in mountainous terrain that's misleading enough to put to bed the necessity of stop signs existing, sometimes a full stop is actually necessary, under penalty of death.

Now as to whether people overuse them because they feel they are safer or something, I guess that depends where you are. Where I come from politicians are very fond of roundabouts because they allow for a plausibly deniable way to fund local construction cartels, so I'm not closed to the idea that traffic signage can be made stupid for whatever reason.

With light enough traffic and decent enough drivers I'd go as far as to say that signage can be almost totally unnecessary. But that's not the environment people have in mind when they lay the signs.

My parents visited China where stop lights are all yields. They were happy to return to Albuquerque driving.

I've been to China plenty. Their driving norms are hard to take. Someone on a scooter making an illegal left hand turn starting from the right side of the road through multiple lanes of traffic. I'm cringing watch him weave through cars going both ways.

City busses don't slow down for or avoid pedestrians. You need to proactively get out of the bus's way. I've seen a few people almost get hit by busses. They don't have our very American understanding of pedestrian right of way.

People driving with no seat belt and pulling it across their body as they approach the seat belt cameras, then letting it go when past the cameras. More effort than just wearing a seat belt.

Taxi drivers aren't the person on the taxi license. One was clearly underaged and smoking.

It sounds like all of Latin America- this is probably pretty standard for developing countries.

Yeah, my coworkers say the same thing about driving in India.

  1. Yes, except if you are in a turn only lane, it should not be necessary.
  2. Stop lights stop, 4 way stops with clearly no one else approaching slow to under 5.
  3. No drive at the speed of traffic the one exception is school zones where you should drive at the slow speed when the lights flash (even if it's summer and someone forgot to flip the switch off). The government broke the trust in the law by mandating an efficiency speed.
  4. The left lane is a commons and you should not squander it. That means both move over as someone approaches you and don't tailgate someone who is going slower than your desired speed. It's not a place for you to expect to never touch your cruise control speed in both directions.
  5. You have no right to anything but the lane you're in. No cutting off because of your poor planning. Go to the next exit or around the block.
  6. The zeroth rule is everyone should operate in the most predictable way to other drivers.
  7. Licensing should be much harder to obtain in the US.
  1. Don't care - personally I tend to always signal except in low-traffic residential streets.
  2. No. 80% of STOP signs in the US should be replaced with yields, and I'm not going to object to rolling stops under those circumstances. Full stops at red lights please.
  3. No in the US. Depends on the reasonableness of the jurisdiction when setting speed limits. If the Germans slap a 120km/h on a section of autobahn I am going to assume they have a good reason and obey it. But most US freeway limits are far too low, as is 70mph on UK motorways. (Where the design speed is closer to 85). I do obey speed limits in residential areas, although given the relative deadliness of housefires and car crashes building a residential street with a 60 design speed just in case a fire truck needs to speed down it and then posting a 25 limit and expecting it to be obeyed is murderous negligence.
  4. Obviously yes. This is the law in most jurisdictions with safe, fast motorways.
  5. No. Don't risk accidents to make a point. If you regularly do this, please put the international symbol of the road hog (four linked circles in a horizontal line) on the back of your car so I know what to expect.
  6. Of course not. (Barring weird emergencies like taking a sick kid in the back of the car)

And the fun part. Some scissors...

  • Mini-roundabouts are better than all-way stops for low-traffic neighbourhood intersections. (Yes - I'm British)
  • Zipper merges are obviously correct. (Yes - I have an IQ above room termperature)
  • You should reverse into driveways and drive out forwards. (Is the law in the UK, but nobody complies. No, in my view)
  • Anything larger than an econobox should require at least $500k liability insurance. Driving uninsured or underinsured should be subject to corporal punishment. (My pet hobby horse - in the UK unlimited liability insurance is effectively compulsory and the system seems to work).

If you regularly do this, please put the international symbol of the road hog (four linked circles in a horizontal line) on the back of your car so I know what to expect.

Huh, I would have thought it was a roundel, quartered azure and argent, within an annulet sable.

Personally, I always thought it was a triskelion argent, symbolizing dominion over land, sea, and the fast lane.

I think they're allied houses, or at least convened to the same ambitions.

You should turn on your turn signal every time you switch lanes or otherwise would be expected to use it, even if nobody is around.

Yes, keep the habit up. The only time I don't indicate is if the lane I'm in can only go one possible way, like a left turn only lane.

Stop signs and red lights need to be fully stopped at, even if nobody is around and you know there isn't a red light camera.

Red lights yes, stop signs I don't always. There's a particular one near me that was meant for a blind corner with a big sight blocking building on the right hand side of the exit... which has since been knocked down and removed. But the sign persists.

Speed limits should be followed to the letter when possible.

Where reasonable. My local council has made the entire main road of my town 20mph for basically no discernible reason. Absolutely nobody follows it and if you do you're going to get honked at.

The left lane is for passing only, and also, if you are in that lane and not passing and someone cuts you off or rides your bumper, that is fine.

Sort of? If I'm on a motorway I'm almost never on the outside-most lane because that leads to me being trapped behind a lorry doing 50mph while a steady unbroken stream of people on my inside refuses to let me out to pass it.

If someone does not make room for you and you need to come over (and properly signaled) you can cut them off guilt free.

If it's cut someone off or miss my turn, I'm cutting someone off. Sorry not sorry.

I can break some of these rules (or others) but other drivers should not.

People should break stupid rules. Stupid speed limits should be routinely ignored.

  1. Yes.
  2. Under 5 for stop signs. Full stop for lights.
  3. Nope. Follow the flow of traffic. 5 over is almost always fine. Reduce heavily on quiet residential, out of respect.
  4. Only real rule is: don’t match pace with someone on your right. Speed up or slow down. Getting over is the best thing to do. Don’t ride anyone’s bumper, because it’s an obvious way to get in an accident and get stuck paying all the bills.
  5. It’s a little more nuanced. When you need to get over, be assertive, but be safe. Don’t play chicken or fuck around with physical law. But you don’t need someone to lay down the red carpet before you move.
  6. Follow the rules.
  7. If you realize you’re in the wrong lane at a light or some such, is it OK to break the flow of traffic to go where you meant to go, or should you continue as designated and course correct later?

FWIW all these questions are, to me, subsidiary to the real rules of driving, which are, in order of importance:

  1. Be in control of your vehicle.
  2. Keep yourself and others safe.
  3. Do not menace others, especially those who are more vulnerable, but also don’t worry people who are at risk of hurting you with your own vulnerability.
  4. Proceed in an orderly and predictable manner, following the customs and laws of the road.
  5. Ensure that everyone can get to where they’re going swiftly and cleanly.

Everything else is just a logical consequence of the above.

Proceed in an orderly and predictable manner

Personally I think this is an underrated component of the whole thing, and part of my issue with Bikes. Being predictable is safe.

Do we think bike lanes may help with predictability by giving them a separated containment zone?

I don't think you should implement bike lanes without stiff penalties for not using them (or for cars, stealing the space).

For now I see bike lanes as a waste of space that bicycles don't use.

I don't think you should implement bike lanes without stiff penalties for not using them (or for cars, stealing the space).

Tentatively down, although faith in western police to do a good job is low.

For now I see bike lanes as a waste of space that bicycles don't use.

It's tricky, adoption in the west is slow but growing. Very slow though, biking as a mode of transportation is climbing YoY in Toronto's core, but it's lower than I'd expect it to be given the massive utility (and traffic).

However, another reason they seem empty is because they are significantly more efficient. Bike lanes have wayyyyy higher throughput than car lanes, so you also don't see as many bikes because they're not stuck in traffic like you are (you're only seeing the same ~12 cars in your proximity), they're already gone.

If you live in the suburbs they probably are underused though. I don't have a dog in the fight of suburban living, if suburban residents want to have 4 lane each way mega roads (and the perpetual trickle of kids and old people being killed crossing them) that is their prerogative.

I live in a suburb. Almost all roads are 1 lane each way. A few major roads are 2 lane each way with 3rd turning lanes at intersections. I have never in my life even second hand known someone who died walking around a suburb. American pedestrian deaths due to cars has exploded in the past few years, it has reached a peak of 0.0000220 likelihood per person per year of dying by being hit by a car while walking.

Our road infrastructure is not that overwhelming. The freeways are 4 lanes each way.

I mean it's def location dependent. If I lived in the Netherlands? That's one thing.

Where I live they function like handicap spots. Do people use them and need them? Sure. Are they nearly always empty unless someone is misusing them? Also sure.

Also tons of delivery/professional bike riders weaving through traffic, going on the side walk in an unsafe way, wrong waying on a lane and so on.

And the menacing component. A cyclist who stays in their lane is no concern, but one who leaps around erratically is seriously worrying to drivers.

Few things scare me more than a bike whizzing out of my blindspot and across (or near) the path of my vehicle

Do we think bike lanes may help with lane interactions by giving them a separated containment zone?

You mean traditional bike lanes, next to the parked cars? Sure, it helps a lot with the standard problems. When I’ve cycled in the past, I prefer routes with bike lanes. Where I live, they’ve extended them such that, at traffic lights, there’s a “bike box” ahead of the stop line that left-turning cyclists can use. So you don’t have to merge with traffic, you just get over when the light is red and mosey ahead in full view of the cars before getting back in your lane. It certainly helps that the vast majority of cyclists are commuters running predictable routes, so you can get away with skipping infrastructure on most streets.

Unfortunately, they’ve also pioneered a new kind of lane that goes behind the parked cars. This is supposed to protect you from getting doored, which I admit is scary. A lady almost managed to get me when I was around 20; turns out my reflexes work just fine. But they introduce two new problems: first, traffic from side streets has to cross over the bike lane in order to merge; second, turning traffic and cyclists are obscured from one another by a screen of parked cars. This is part of what actually stopped my work commutes. The added tension of having to slow at every intersection to figure out what cars were doing was unpleasant enough to make me just give up and find other means.

Can’t imagine it’s fun to be a responsible driver in that part of town either, which is why I avoid going there by car too.

The parked car / bike lane interactions are impossible and stupid. I don't know if I prefer road/bike lane/parked car or road/parked car/bike lane, honestly they both suck.

The real issue is parked cars on major streets. I cannot believe we still allow that. It would be a huge win for traffic too. The fact ~6 people storing their cars at massively subsidized rates on public space can destroy the throughput of a road by creating bottlenecks where it goes from 2 to 1 lane is insane. I think new buildings should have underground paid parking so we can still have ample parking supply, and then we can clear out major streets and increase traffic throughput for all.

You know, I don’t really feel the same way. I commute through the streetcar suburbs, and businesses there deeply need some kind of readily accessible parking for their customers, or they’re going to be forced to decamp for the malls and get replaced by walk-only substitutes like boba shops. That would leave major swaths of these areas unserved by any remotely niche businesses. I’ve seen this happen; I know a guy who lost his in-front parking to a bike lane and is considering moving for it. And I know this street well! Traffic doesn’t really back up around there, and there are extremely regular bus services for commuters.

This idea makes sense for max-density areas, but most of where I am is very old and divided in lots too small for any underground parking, unless you want to undermine small ownership in favor of the ubiquitous big developers. Personally, I like distributed decision making better.

businesses there deeply need some kind of readily accessible parking for their customers

Fairly certain this has been disproven over and over again. The vast majority of customers to downtown (and most streetcar suburbs are "downtown" at this point in major cities) do not arrive to stores by car. In Toronto, it's a tiny fraction vs walk/transit/bike.

Toronto's downtown BIA's are fighting the province who wants to remove bike lanes (they want to keep them). They protested when the bike lanes were put in, have seen the results, and now want to keep them.

Also what I am calling the "Iron law of road scaling" comes into play. Road capacity is fixed, population is going up. Eventually we have to change something, and on street parking is by far the lowest productivity use of road space. Inevitably it will have to go.

unless you want to undermine small ownership in favor of the ubiquitous big developers

You do speak truth here. Streetcar suburb main streets/retail areas are infinitely better than condo podium retail areas. We need more pro-active municipal governments who nudge developers to make better retail spaces. There's no reason we can't have smaller retail units in condo podiums that mimic the way small storefronts on streetcar suburbs are.

More comments

How about we should strictly enforce minimum speed limits?

turn signal

Yes

Stop signs and red lights

Yes, but we don't have retarded four-way stops like in the US

Speed limits

No, they are often badly designed or deliberately set up to extract speeding fines

The left lane

Depends on the traffic. If the road isn't packed, then yes, keep it empty.

make room for you

No

I can break

No

Any other possible driving scissor statements?

Yes

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. +10 on the highway, +5 otherwise

4. Left lane is for faster traffic, but not for passing only except on highways with 3 or more lanes

5. No

6. No

1: Yes

2: Yes

3: No

4: Yes with qualification

5: Yes

6: Yes

  1. Yes for habit, no penalty if not
  2. Yes for cars, Idaho stop should be legal for bikes. A very slow rolling stop in a car is a minor sin though, many places would be fine with yields only.
  3. No, minor speeding is fine as long as safe for conditions - in sense areas traffic calming design is better, on highways limits should typically be higher. I'd prefer saner speed limits that are enforced to the letter in general rather than loosely goosy ones though.
  4. Yes, left lane is for passing (on freeways, streets are different due to turns). Riding a bumper is dangerous, but expected to happen if you're not passing on the left
  5. No, dangerous for everyone. Accept that the other person isn't considerate and merge safely later.
  6. No, despite the fact that some drivers can make better decisions, the rules should be universal for everyone.
  7. Bikes should take the entire lane if it's not safe to pass within the lane with >1m of space.

Yes to turn signals otherwise they don’t become habitual,

No to stop signs because a rolling stop doesn’t necessarily increase safety (I find full-stop people often actually delay braking more),

No to strict speed because not even civil engineers intend them to be literal law, and anyways you sometimes need to speed to pass,

No, many roads aren’t wide enough for half the lane to be purely a passing lane and close trailing is dangerous,

Yes, but mostly because I lived in Miami for a while where all drivers are aggressive,

No; all these norms should be universal,

Until I die I will insist that full (non LED-obscene level) brightness lights should be required on all cars, all times of day, all lighting conditions.

2: Stop signs are periods, not commas.

3: Where do you live where they have letters in the speed limits? All the ones I've seen are made out of numbers!

Stop signs are periods, not commas.

If a driver has slowed to a crawl (walking pace or less) for a stop sign, they have done 99% of the work toward preventing an accident. Assuming they would fully stop if anything else is nearby, then to me, it doesn't matter if they roll the stop sign slowly on a clear intersection.

If you feel differently, I'm curious why

Where do you live where they have letters in the speed limits?

That's what road grades are.

  1. yes, more for the habit, also 0 cost

  2. yes, risk/reward is so bad here (risk: permanently ruin someone's life, reward: save a miniscule fraction of your time)

  3. yes but only if we make speed limits actually reflect the limit (so like 125-130km/h) and then vigorously enforce above that with automated methods. I have always found it deeply ridiculous speed limits are actually speed limit + ~10-20% because now I have to think about what speed above the speed limit is below cop's threshold to do something about it. So stupid.

  4. yes, unless there's tons of traffic. If you are in the left lane slowing people behind you (and there's room in other lanes) you are consenting to being bullied. I just pass these idiots on the right though, not worth the negative vibes of tailgating and high-beaming people.

  5. now that I own a car in Toronto I have become ruthless. I let others in, and if you don't let me in and I need to get in, I am going. I don't aggro cut people off because I'm not risking my car getting smoked, but in busy cites you need to make your space.

  6. I try not to because it's good to have good habits and driving like an asshole is toxic to your vibes. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't.

  1. No. Totally useless and actively harmful like most traffic laws when strictly enforced.
  2. No. Totally useless and actively harmful like most traffic laws when strictly enforced.
  3. No. Totally useless and actively harmful like most traffic laws when strictly enforced.
  4. No(ish). The left lane is a lane. We should utilize all lanes. When traffic is slow it is better to use them all and it would be stupid chaos if people were passing, merging, then being passed in the left lane. But, if you are slow in the left lane while there is open road, you should be tailgated, and all liability for any collisions should attach to you, the slow loser.
  5. This situation does not exist. People don't have time for this shit. Just drive everyone.
  6. I find these rules largely evil and written for the purposes of giving out arbitrary traffic tickets, not improving driving conditions on the road. So lots of people should be allowed to ignore them. HOWEVER, many people who have drivers licenses should not have such driving privileges. The test should obviously be much more vigorous and then we could make traffic laws that are actually reasonable.
  7. A drunk driving test should be part of the licensing process, wherein your BAC is monitored while you execute various driving tasks and are force fed alcohol and you should be personally assigned a legal BAC just like you are issued a personal prescription from your eye doctor for your glasses.

(4) No(ish). The left lane is a lane. We should utilize all lanes. When traffic is slow it is better to use them all and it would be stupid chaos if people were passing, merging, then being passed in the left lane.

Clarification: "Passing" includes "going faster than vehicles in the right lane", not just "performing a 'passing maneuver' of moving from the right lane to the left lane, passing a single car or platoon of cars that's in the right lane, and moving back to the right lane". An at-capacity two-lane highway following this rule would be composed of two full lanes with the left lane moving slightly faster than the right lane, not a full right lane and an empty left lane.

How on earth is always using a turn signal "totally useless and actively harmful"?

It's giving information to the enemy (i.e. other drivers who don't want you in front of them). This can sometimes be used tactically, as when the car you are slightly ahead of in the lane you want to be in has a barely-adequate-to-merge gap in front and behind. Signal, they move forward to block, tap brakes (or just let off acceleration) and slide in before the guy behind him can do anything.

Do you live in LA/surrounding area?

The culture of "we don't let people in, so if you want to change lanes don't signal so you can swerve in an take them by suprise so they don't defend their lane" is one of the most ridiculous cultural own-goals this side of sub-saharan Africa.

Only Americans could design their society around cars and then get mad at each other for having the audacity to... drive cars nearby.

I can see how you might think the hoons are the problem, but it's actually the 'safe sensible' drivers who inspire this behaviour, because they legit get mad if you 'cheat' and get in front of them. For example, in Australia when they're going 20km under the speed limit and you are already only going a max of 110kmh (70mph) on any major highway. So they sit there in the right (left) hand lane doing fucking 90 (55) - but if traffic clears up in the lane next to them and you put your indicator on, they will speed up until there are cars in that lane again. But if you just drop a gear and go for it you can usually pass them before they realise.

Or those pricks who decide to merge as soon as they reach broken lines, instead of going to the end of the lane because that's how it was designed. If you give the appearance of not following suit by not putting your indicator on there, they will decide to teach you a lesson by riding the line between lanes, not giving you enough room to pass. But if you put your indicator on and wait for them to merge enough to let you past, you can flick your indicator off and merge properly.

Driving defensively is cool, but not nearly as cool as driving offensively.

I don't mind the skilled aggro drivers.

I was talking more about the common cultural practice (which I understood to be in LA, but I guess NJ too) of deliberately stopping people from changing lanes if you see them signalling.

It seems less about aggressive/defensive driving, and more about a weird adversarial relationship with other drivers predicated on the belief they'd do the same to you.

Everyone on the road should be allies in keeping the traffic moving. You (I think? I just woke up from a nap) are describing oblivious idiots who are neither ally nor enemy, just in it for themselves. I'm talking about the explicitly adversarial dynamic that seems to exist in those places where everyone just makes everything worse for everyone else on purpose.

Oh you reckon they're just selfish? I assume anyone who doesn't drive like me is my enemy. I was using other examples to show its a bigger problem than just a guy being a dick and not letting you in, I considered them of a kind. But it's true I haven't experienced it in LA or NJ - there are only three states I'm willing to drive in in the US - Idaho, Tennessee and Texas. I would probably drive in Utah too, but that would mean going to Utah.

Texas.

Ah, you enjoy breaking the speed limit while the other drivers pass you constantly.

Personally I find drivers with aggressive agency to be incredibly rare.

I find most people are incredibly unaware of their surroundings. I've started to pay close attention to the delay between the light turning green and people going (or the car in front of them moving and them going), so many people's reaction time is measured in actual seconds.

I'd posit most of the times I'm cut off it's not a deliberate choice to shark me, they just didn't look at their mirrors or blind spot. We also have a ridiculous # of uber drivers from India who I shall politely say drive with less conscientiousness than is perhaps ideal.

I'm Canadian but I was actually just in Texas and I was driving there. It was quite fine, people were normal and orderly.

I hope to never drive in a place where someone signalling to change lanes is an challenge to do everything in you can to prevent them entering though. I really cannot emphasize enough how much of a lose/lose that culture is. Take that shit to the third world.

Only Americans could design their society around cars and then get mad at each other for having the audacity to... drive cars nearby.

New Jersey. We don't get mad, we get even.

Oh wow I didn't realize it was an east coast phenomenon too.

"Get even" for the great offense of... Driving on the same road you too are driving on?

I really don't understand this, it just seems like you're all making each other more unhappy while driving for no other reason than because you're unhappy while driving? It's a prisoners dilemma situation except there's no payoff for defecting, but you all defect anyway.

Parts of Chicago do it as well, despite the acceptable public transport infrastructure and decent city planning.

There is payoff for "defection", and it's not even prisoner's dilemma payoffs. If you're "nice" and let people in front of you who you could have beaten out, they will typically be slow and sluggish drivers who hold you up. If someone aggressively cuts you off, they will typically want to be going fast and won't hold you up (but not always, the asshole who cuts you off and slows down is prevalent, though his natural territory is Pennsylvania)

The common thread between LA and NJ is there's just too damn much traffic.

The common thread between LA and NJ is there's just too damn much traffic.

If only there were other transportation methods that scaled better.

More comments

The clicking is quite annoying and it conveys minimal information even in crowded traffic, let alone open road navigation.

I've always wanted to watch a drunk driving track race. Every pit stop involves pounding a couple shots.

Old and out-of-shape Raikkonen vs "old" and healthy-living Hamilton in Miatas!

You gotta give more details on how using your turn signals is harmful for you

Also what kind of BMW do you drive? My buddy just got an M3 with I think one of the last naturally aspirated (?) engines and it's such a monster.

I drive a japanese branded car likely built in the American South.

But why is using your blinkers a source of harm?

They make a noise. You have to activate then deactivate them.

No one could ever comprehend the struggles of the American life

A drunk driving test should be part of the licensing process, wherein your BAC is monitored while you execute various driving tasks and are force fed alcohol and you should be personally assigned a legal BAC just like you are issued a personal prescription from your eye doctor for your glasses.

Unreasonably fun with incredible bragging rights. Let's go!

  1. Yes, uncritically, and enforcement should get stricter.
  2. Yes
  3. No, they should be taken as recommended speeds.
  4. No to the passing only but yes to people can ride your ass/cut you off if you're in the left lane and they want to go faster than you are. Not speeding in the left lane is wrong without extenuating circumstances.
  5. Not quite guilt free but close to it.
  6. Depends what I'm driving- in my work van I should get a little bit of extra leeway. It's harder to see, turns slower, accelerates slower, and just plain takes up more space than personal vehicles and people should presume that, unlike them, it has to be there at a particular time. I apply the same rule to my own behavior towards eg semitrucks and trucks towing trailers.

  1. Unless the probability of you being within sight of a driver is practically zero, you should use your turn signal. And you should try to maintain the habit, anyway.

  2. How often is cross-street visibility good enough to be sure nobody is coming? A "rolling stop" at a stop sign should be fine, but red lights require full-stops.

  3. No, drive with the flow of traffic, up to the speed you think is the safety limit for the conditions.

  4. This varies by location - in some places, the left lane is officially not reserved for passing, but driving below the speed of surrounding traffic is still a dick move.

  5. Not if cutting them off is dangerous, so probably not - slow down and slot in behind them, if that seems safer.

  6. I'm among the majority of drivers who thinks they're an above average median driver.

  7. What is the probability that you're an above average median driver?

For 7, it's more than 50%- because the worst handful of drivers bring the average down by much more than the best handful bring it up. This is one of those things where the mean, median, and mode are wildly different.

  1. If nobody is around it doesn't matter, though I do anyway out of force of habit. People learning to drive should always do it to develop the habit.

  2. Depends on your definition of a full stop. If you're technically still rolling but practically stopped, I'd say that counts if you're in an area with little to no traffic. To me a "full stop" would be to the point that you feel a slight jolt unless you know how to do a proper chauffeur stop.

  3. I don't have a problem with taking an extra five or ten, but I don't think you have a right to complain if you get stuck behind someone who is doing the limit.

  4. No. The left lane is for passing. It's also for letting people onto the road from a merge or from making a right from a side road. It's okay to ride the left if you're consistently going above the speed of traffic in the right-hand lane, as it's safer than constantly merging back and forth, though if someone wants to go faster than you you should move over and let them by.

  5. It depends on the situation. In urban freeway driving, it's not a 100% guarantee that someone is going to let you in, and you have to be ready to just move. Assuming it's safe to do so, cutting off one person is better than blocking the lane while you wait to be let in.

  6. No, the Categorical Imperative and all that.

  7. Per @gattsuru, you should turn your headlights on earlier than you think you need to, and if you have automatic headlights, set them to their most sensitive setting. I've been pulled over at dusk for not having headlights on when there was more than enough light for good visibility. Keep in mind that it's as much about being seen as it is seeing, and any time headlights would be noticeable above the normal glare of the sun helps with that.

  • 1 turn signals: no. Mirror and shoulder check are required, though.
  • 2 red lights: fucking yes for motor vehicles, no for bicycles. Driving over a traffic light which just turned red (German humor: "kirschgelb"=cherry yellow) can happen, driving a car past a light which had turned red a while ago is a high crime.
  • 3 speed limits: No. Strictly keeping the speed limits is not required. In Germany, going less than 20km/h over the speed limit will typically result in a small fine, but no risk of your driving license.
  • 4 driving left: Changing lanes is a maneuver with a non-zero risk. If I am overtaking one truck and can see that 200m ahead, I will have to overtake another truck, I will typically stay on the left. If I see that a car behind me wants to go faster and it is 300m, I will typically switch lanes. The fact than a driver who changes lanes aggressively and is willing to not keep appropriate distances between cars can overtake me on the right lane does not mean that owe them a similar behavior so that they can overtake me on the left lane. People who react to a car in front of them going slow by not keeping a safe distance to that car clearly lack the emotional maturity required for a driving license.
  • 5 cutting people off who do not let you in: Only if there is no safer option. If your acceleration strip is ending, and your choices are to cut off a car a bit or slam the brakes to let it pass and then end up with a low speed at the end of the acceleration strip, then make them brake a bit, sure. If the situation is that you are quickly approaching a truck and would have to change lanes to overtake it, just brake.
  • 6 braking rules. No. We are already talking about which traffic rules as written are optional.

Any other possible driving scissor statements?

  • Bikes need to be passed with a limited relative speed and enough clearance. If you can not safely pass a bike, keep driving behind it.
  • The motor of an old car losing a bit of oil is ok.
  • Public roads are not race tracks. Drivers should go to the bathroom before they hit the roads to avoid frequently seen racing under pressure.

Bikers should have the right to use the full lane, but also the obligation to let traffic pass whenever practicable

I remember a state where I lived had a law that on a two lane road having more than X cars following you, while travelling below the speed limit required you to pull off the road and let cars pass. That would be a good principle for bike car road sharing.

Example laws in this vein:

NJ Statutes tit. 39 ch. 4 § 97.1

No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

PA Consolidated Statutes tit. 75 ch. 33 § 64

Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law, no person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law, whenever any person drives a vehicle upon a roadway having width for not more than one lane of traffic in each direction at less than the maximum posted speed and at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the driver shall, at the first opportunity when and where it is reasonable and safe to do so and after giving appropriate signal, drive completely off the roadway and onto the berm or shoulder of the highway. The driver may return to the roadway after giving appropriate signal only when the movement can be made in safety and so as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

A pedalcycle may be operated at a safe and reasonable speed appropriate for the pedalcycle. A pedalcycle operator shall use reasonable efforts so as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

IN Code tit. 9 art. 21 ch. 5 § 7

A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law. A person who is driving:

  • on a roadway that has not more than one (1) lane of traffic in each direction; and

  • at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle;

shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.

Yeah that last example is exactly what I meant. I dug up the law from where I grew up:

On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section a slow moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

What I like about it is you have to pull over no matter what speed you were going if you get 5 cars following basically anywhere (I read the law as saying someone going 5 over on a road where everyone goes 10 over sti needs to pull over).

  1. Yes
  2. Yes, although at a stop sign it's acceptable to not fully stop only if visibility is good and there's nobody else. It's still illegal though and don't complain if you get a ticket from a well hidden police officer.
  3. Largely followed but doesn't have to be to the letter. 5 mph over is fine, 10 is iffy, 15+ you shouldn't be on the road.
  4. Yes the left lane is for passing only, no it's not ok if someone cuts you off and rides your bumper. I have no idea why you tied these two together because they are very different.
  5. Absolutely not. Better to miss an exit or get forced into the wrong exit than to do shit liable to cause accidents. Again if someone does this they shouldn't be allowed to drive.
  6. No

Speed limit on many highways is 65. 80 is not unreasonable.

Oh yes it is, when a lot of those people will be doing 65 or less. Nobody has any business going 15 mph over the speed limit.

Many of these people going less cause more of a problem compared to the people going over. The slow people bunch traffic up which causes accidents.

Strongly disagree. Going that fast compared to traffic is way more dangerous than going normal speed (which is anywhere with 5mph of the speed limit in my experience).

Cars routinely go 70-80 mph on the highway. 90 is unusual. In any event i think it’s agree to disagree time.

1 and 2 are generally good to do just for keeping as a habit and muscle memory.

3 depends on context, generally you should go for the speed of traffic but I can't blame anyone staying at speed limit given the cost of a ticket.

4 The left lane should be for passing but with some caveats. If I'm passing a crowded right lane going 10 over and you're wanting to go 20, then you can just wait. Also no excuse for riding someone's ass ever, it is simply endangering them, yourself, and everyone around you for no actual gain. Not to mention all the people who get delayed for hours if you do crash, therefore making you way worse of a road menance.

5 Don't cut off, again it's dangerous to everyone around and causes delays if a crash occurs. Risky angry behavior like this is what makes me have to plan a few extra hours into every road trip just in case some inattentive or aggressive driving asshole can't control themselves enough to drive properly.

6 Probably not, good driving rules should be pretty universal and allowing exceptions to people who think they deserve one inevitably means egotistical people who can't handle it grant themselves a pass too.

Overall safe driving is good driving. If you want to give up your life on risky behavior go jump over the Grand canyon or something, don't make everyone else on the road sit in traffic waiting for a crash to be cleared.

  1. Yes, obviously, and not doing so is antisocial behavior. You don't actually know if nobody is around! Develop good habits and stick with them on autopilot.

  2. Generally yes, with the caveat that a slow roll through an all-way stop at high visibility intersections is basically fine.

  3. No, too many American speed limits are poorly set. I would prefer well-set speed limits that were rigidly enforced to ensure smooth traffic flow, but that does not match the current state of affairs.

  4. Yes, although I don't actually condone tailgating. Certainly understandable behavior with left-lane campers though!

  5. Ambiguous - guilt doesn't enter the equation for me here, only risk.

  6. No, I try to be consistent and ethical in my choices. For example, I am willing to miss my exit and go to the next one rather than cutting someone off. Risk mitigation is critical to me in driving.

  7. Yes - cyclists breaking laws is much more tolerable than motorists doing so and people that want to hold them to the same standard are being ridiculous. Cyclists rolling stop signs is completely fine, for example.

Yes - cyclists breaking laws is much more tolerable than motorists doing so and people that want to hold them to the same standard are being ridiculous. Cyclists rolling stop signs is completely fine, for example.

No thank you. The risk to both parties is similar. There is a great chance of both lives being ruined.

  1. LOL no

  2. Nope. But at least look!

  3. They should be treated as minimums in most conditions.

  4. No, there are other reasons to ride in the left lane and cutting you off or riding your bumper is obnoxious though occasionally acceptable (e.g. if you're forming a rolling roadblock by riding alongside someone in the right lane)

  5. Eh, maybe feel a little guilt

  6. No, what's good for me is good for them

  1. Without the last five words, yes. With them... probably still yes actually, but only because it's a good habit to get into.

  2. We're notorious here for what's known locally as the "Winnipeg Rolling Stop", so... almost yes? Like, a somewhat close approach to this is generally enough as long as you're paying attention. Personally I'm much more rigorous about red lights than stop signs.

  3. No. They're meant for really bad driving conditions, and barring that (or traffic congestion that makes it impossible to reach much less exceed them), it's perfectly safe and reasonable to treat them as polite suggestions. That said, if you're doing 130 klicks in an 80 zone, that's over the top.

  4. Again, yes if you'd only leave out the last few words. But riding someone's bumper is never acceptable behaviour. That's both unsafe and assholish and has absolutely no upside. If you ever do this on purpose, you are a dick.

  5. Yes, as a last resort. That said, needing to do so usually reflects poor planning on your part. Also, sometimes you yourself are the one who should be slowing down to let them by, then falling in behind them, depending on traffic conditions.

  6. Of course not. I'm a very strong believer that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'll pretty much never object to someone breaking any of these in the specific ways I've outlined (except mildly to #5) as long as they're paying enough attention to not pose a danger to me or others.

  7. When the light turns green, move your fucking ass!!! Sitting there for 4-5 seconds is a dick move especially for a protected turn signal that may only last 15 seconds or so.

So, the Bike discussion down below generated a lot of angst and heat

I just want to state the obvious here, that bicycle sheds should be blue.

Don’t be ridiculous, they need to be white or shiny to reflect heat. Otherwise the seats will get uncomfortably hot. Pay attention to the details, people!

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Not in the US, in good weather, at daytime. Expect 10-15% over to be acceptable. Rain, snow, or true nighttime off an interstate, speed limits are more strict to their posted number. Other countries can be more aggressive; Australia going 1 kph over too often can cost you your license (though in turn, their norms for road trains are near-suicidal by US standards).
  4. On the interstate and state roads, yes. Residential roads, I'd consider it rude to get into the left lane for a left turn more than a couple miles ahead of time, but it'd still not be a norm violation and in heavier traffic might be a good idea.
  5. At lower speeds, it's just impolite. Higher speeds (50+ mph), I'd consider it a norm violation unless they've been really stupid (eg matching speed, ignoring or not seeing turn signal for several hundred meters).
  6. No.
  7. a. How long after sunrise or before complete sunset do you need to turn on headlights, and what amount of rain should you? b. What sort of load, if any, in an open truck bed, before you need at least one ratchet strap?

How long after sunrise or before complete sunset do you need to turn on headlights

Meh, my car has auto headlights; whatever it does is close enough. As for the rain, there's no legal requirement so long as I don't turn on my windshield wipers, but I stick to auto there too (tempting as it would be to maliciously comply by wiring it up so turning the wipers on turned the headlights on, even on intermittent, I haven't)

How long after sunrise or before complete sunset do you need to turn on headlights, and what amount of rain should you?

I remain baffled by people that don't just turn on their headlights as soon as they turn the key.

Follow-up question: what do you mean by the road train stuff?

Also re: headlights, lots of people have and use automatics now, do you oppose relying on that?

Australia depends very heavily on bulk road transportation to very long distance deliveries, while not having a surfeit of truckers or the interstate infrastructure present in the US. Their solution is “road trains”, consisting of a semi truck, but instead of having one trailer, usually having three to five.

This on its own is just goofy-looking. But road trains also have additional speed limits often slower than normal vehicles (tbf, a good idea), and a lot of the roads they travel have two lanes, one traveling each direction. That would still be fine.

It is culturally normal to pass in those circumstances, so long as not in a no-passing zone. Even when the roads are pretty sandy on the edges. So you have a delta of 5-10kph, a set of trailers that can be 50m long, and you’re going to be potentially playing chicken with incoming traffic for over a minute while the trailers beside you are jerking around.

((And then you also have to worry about the truck driver spotting a kangaroo or a cow on the road in front of him.))

I have no objection to other people using automatic headlights; the mechanism is pretty fail safe. Don’t like them for my own use, but that’s a taste thing.

road trains

Thank you!

"Road train" is an Australian term for a semi that's pulling more than one trailer. I only know this from my attempts to decipher Midnight Oil lyrics and didn't 100% follow that part of the discussion myself, but that's the basic thing it's about.

Follow-up question: what do you mean by the road train stuff?

Presumably, when one driver is going above the speed limit, a bunch of other drivers will assume a line behind the first and match speed. Safety in numbers, after all - the police can't pull everyone over (unless there's a speed trap set up).

Presumably game theory should keep that from happening. If one assumes that the cop is going to pull over the last person in line, then no one should want to be the last person in line, and the line shouldn't form to begin with. The correct way to do this is to wait until the speeder gets a couple hundred yards ahead. That way, if there's a cop he's just going to pull out as soon as the guy passes him and you'll be safely behind. You still need to keep him within sight though, in case he makes a turn.

I don't understand the laws that say that "left lanes on highways are for passing only." So it is just illegal to be in the left lane (since anyone passing in the left lane would be breaking the speed limit laws)? Why have the left lane at all? If you have a fairly busy highway, is everyone supposed to be crowded into only two lanes? Is the idea that once traffic becomes so congested on the middle lanes that the speed is below the limit, then people can move into the left-lane to "pass" at a higher speed? But then are cars supposed to be weaving back into the middle lane after they overtake a car, then back into the left lane to pass, then back into the middle lane, etc, so they are not "cruising" in the left lane? Or is the whole thing just a way of saying, " yeah we know the speed limit is fake and we don't want slow pokes driving the speed limit in the left lane"?

Speed limits are maximums; in theory if someone is going 60km/h in an 80km/h, you are allowed to pass them.

You can also think of it as a common knowledge problem; if everyone knows that they're supposed to be in the left lane if they're fast, and the right lane if they're slow, it can reduce the number of accidents by simply reducing the number of lane changes (if I know I'm 'slow', I'm going to use the left lane to pass extremely slow traffic, but otherwise stay in the right; if someone knows they're 'fast', they're going to stay in the left lane, and use the right lane occasionally to pass slow traffic).

  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. No, mainly because speed limits are inappropriately low in most cases.
  4. Left lane is for passing only, but cutting drivers off and tailgating are wrong too.
  5. No, it's not okay to break the law. However, see 7.
  6. No, everyone follows the same rules.
  7. There should be a new law on merging: if another vehicle ahead is signaling to change into your lane, you must slow down to let them in. This would encourage drivers to use the whole roadway instead of lining up a mile back to get into a specific lane. In most cases this would lead to more efficient use of road space, and it would make driving a lot less stressful for people who are not assertive. It's painful to ride with a driver who has no guts and can't assertively merge.
  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. To the letter or lower in the city. On country roads, OK to go 5MPH to 10MPH over and up to 85MPH on open highways
  4. No, on highways the left lane should be going 5MPH to 10MPH faster than the lane to the right of it. Riding someone's bumper is never ok. On stroads, the left lane is for through traffic or people who need to make a left turn.
  5. Not sure what you mean by cut off. If you need to get in that lane and can safely do so, then you have to do what you have to do. But you shouldn't play chicken and force them to put on their brakes, better to miss your exit than to hope the other person can avoid a crash.
  6. No.

  1. Yes

  2. Red light yes, stop sign no. Very few people come to full stop at stop signs.

  3. No

  4. Yes, passing only, Cutting off and tail gating not fine.

  5. Depends but I'm more for an aggressive merge than stopping on the on-ramp. A general leave a space or two when approaching an onramp if I can't get over. So many times people don't accelerate into it.

  6. Same standards.

  7. Use the slow vehicle turn out no matter how fast you think you are.

  1. No
  2. Yes on red lights, on stop signs is it depends - the heavier the traffic, the harder the road conditions - the closer to full stop.
  3. No - road conditions determine the safe speed
  4. If you are driving constantly in the left lane you should be doing at least 20km/h above the speed limit.
  5. No (also you are automatically responsible in case of a crash where I live)
  6. No

  1. Yes. This should be automatic.

  2. Yes, mostly. The exception would be rolling at fast walking speed instead of stopping completely at a stop sign if you can see the road is completely empty.

  3. Driving 5-10 km / h above the limit on roads leads to smoother and safer traffic. OTOH on residential streets the speed should often be slower than the limit because of pedestrians, people getting into / out of cars and so on.

  4. Yes, no. Cutting people off or riding a bumper are unsafe and should never be tolerated. Flashing lights or other such signal should be normalized for people who drive unnecessarily slowly on the left lane.

  5. Only if you can do it safely, ie. there is enough space for your car and they start giving you more space when you start entering that lane.

  6. No.

  7. People who drive slower than traffic or overtake slower than the speed limit on the left lane should be ostracized significantly unless there's an obvious mitigating factor. A slowish bus overtaking a tractor is fine. A normal car slowly overtaking a truck that drives 20 km / h below the speed limit is not. If the second driver can't overtake at speed limit, they should just stick to the right lane.

OTOH driving slowly on the right lane is always ok unless it's actually endangering other drivers' safety.

1: Yes. Using your turn signal should be an automatic part of any anticipated lateral movement of your vehicle. You should not assume that no one is around just because you aren't aware of them.

2: Yes. You should not assume that you are aware of everyone around you. Though, I guess I really mean no to the question as written, because I don't care about a slow rolling (<5mph) stop at all under any circumstances. Any speed above 5mph, though, is just running a red light with extra steps. This is why roundabouts are superior, because when no one is there you never have to stop.

3: No. Speed limits are nearly uniformly wrong, and should be followed only inasmuch as they may be enforced. I routinely drive below the speed limit in residential neighborhoods, for fear of hitting pedestrians; I typically drive a little above the speed limit on the highway. But get me an empty rural twisty, I'm not doing 35; get me on an open highway I'm hitting a daily triple.

4: Tailgating is never ok. It is the one driving crime I think should be punished more often. When you get too close to react properly, you risk an accident, people vastly overestimate their reaction times. Nor is it fun or efficient or otherwise rewarding.

5: Yes, mostly, though I think in most cases the reason you need to come over and there isn't space is because you waited until the last minute, in which case I will not let you in and will dare you to hit me. If you know your exit is coming up, you should be in the correct lane at least 1/2 mile and preferably a mile in advance. As soon as you see a "lane ends ahead" sign you should be trying to get over. Don't ride to the very end and then expect to squeeze in.

6: I don't break any of my own rules, but I do break some of other people's rules, so I think we all come out the same.

7:

-- You can tell a lot about someone from assessing their choice of car. Even if you think your car says nothing about you, it does.

-- Cars should abide by the "Gentleman's Agreement" to stick around 300hp, and anything larger than that should be heavily taxed. 300hp is plenty to have a quick mid size sedan, a very fast small car, or a reasonably drivable large SUV/pickup truck. Capping horsepower on most cars would encourage people who want to drive fast sporty cars to buy small cars, and discourage people from driving giant SUVs and pickup trucks they can't handle too fast.

-- I don't really know that I'll ever want or trust a self driving car, but I see 75% of people on the road and I wish they had one. At the same time, if regulators don't make self-driving systems EXTREMELY conservative and predictable in their behavior, we deserve to get paperclipped.

As soon as you see a "lane ends ahead" sign you should be trying to get over. Don't ride to the very end and then expect to squeeze in.

I pity the fool who has never experienced the sublime beauty of the zipper merge.

That only works when cars are neatly spaced at double the safe distance, such that they can just move in without anyone dropping speed. In moderate traffic and above, doing something similar requires progressively greater slowdowns in order to merge successfully, frequently resulting in a jam.

I’m guessing it’s not a coincidence that the video is from Idaho?

In moderate traffic and above, doing something similar requires progressively greater slowdowns in order to merge successfully, frequently resulting in a jam.

Once traffic is too heavy for it to be free flowing with one less lane, you will get a jam and there is no merging technique which will avoid it. The difference between the zipper and merging early in that case is the shorter length of the backup and the impossibility of getting ahead by going down the closing lane.

It does take the majority of the drivers knowing what they're doing, the rest can be soft pressured into it, which is what happened to me the first time I participated in the maneuver. But it does fall apart without a critical mass that's on the same page.

It prevents jams, and OP's "switch lanes ASAP" idea is what causes them.

I’m guessing it’s not a coincidence that the video is from Idaho?

I've seen it done in big European cities, in moderate / moderate-high traffic. In fact, under low traffic you might as well not bother, since whole point is using the road efficiently, which is a lot less important when there's few other cars around.

What speeds were you going, out of curiosity?

Zipper merge works fine at 20mph - lots of lanes in my area do it. That much is an everyday maneuver, especially when everyone is synchronized by a red light. Highway speeds, I’m less convinced.

Oh yeah, I wouldn't do that on a highway. Did jumping into the conversation straight from the comment feed screw me over again?

Maybe it was me that was missing the context. I wouldn’t worry about it either way.

As soon as you see a "lane ends ahead" sign you should be trying to get over. Don't ride to the very end and then expect to squeeze in.

Eh, if the lane ends with a forced merge into the lane beside it, waiting until the end gives a predictable time and place that the merge will occur. In times of heavy traffic, it also maximizes road usage (and if you don't drive until the end, someone else behind you will, so you might as well). If the lane ends with, for example, a forced turn off the highway, then I agree. I especially agree in times of heavy traffic. Don't make the people who actually want to use that turn off the highway wait because you want to squeeze into the heavy traffic later.

discourage people from driving giant SUVs and pickup trucks they can't handle too fast.

There's a local saying that nobody is in as big hurry as the guy driving a company van. It's not uncommon to see such vans passing you at 20 km / h above the limit on a highway. They seem to have around 150 to 200 hp if I'm reading wikipedia right.

You're in Finland, though, where the 4-lane divided highways are signed at 100 km/h or less... and some of the 2-lane undivided ones are signed at 100 km/h too. And unlike the US under the double-nickel, most people obey, company vans notwithstanding.

4-lane divided highways are signed at 100 km/h or less

The normal speed limit on highways is 120 km/h. 100 km/h is only during winter time.

Cars should abide by the "Gentleman's Agreement" to stick around 300hp, and anything larger than that should be heavily taxed. 300hp is plenty to have a quick mid size sedan, a very fast small car, or a reasonably drivable large SUV/pickup truck. Capping horsepower on most cars would encourage people who want to drive fast sporty cars to buy small cars, and discourage people from driving giant SUVs and pickup trucks they can't handle too fast.

This is a great idea. Another idea along these lines is to have a momentum limit so that any individual vehicle is limited in how much damage it can do to another. Lighter vehicles could go faster and heavier vehicles would be limited to a lower speed. Speed limits could be raised in many cases if there was a momentum limit.

Scaling liability with momentum would help too, by increasing insurance premiums for large dangerous vehicles.

I feel like if it was kept constant momentum it would just lead to a dystopia of motorcycles zooming through lumbering cybertrucks.

But if it were just a 20mph difference I'd agree completely. Big trucks and SUVs should stay at a steady 65, but let small cars and motorcycles play at 90.

How do you feel about motorcycle lane-splitting between current cars, and why?

I don't really care because they've got skin in the game in the most literal way possible.

Then would the Cybertrucks be what makes this vision "dystopian?"

Because the Cybertruck speed limit would be 1/10 the speed limit for a Honda goldwing assuming equal momentum limits.

The Goldwing is kind of the Cybertruck of motorcycles, so I don't see a problem with this. What if the rule was "kg x brake kw <= n"? ("n" might be 750,000, based on a semi-arbitrary selection of great sport-sedans, in which case a 2,000 kg truck could have a 350 kw brake power output.)

More comments

I feel like if it was kept constant momentum it would just lead to a dystopia of motorcycles zooming through lumbering cybertrucks.

Ah! Bangkok!

Dystopia?

A world in which everyone commutes in electric powered eggbikes at 90mph is basically ideal.

If you had a lot of dense traffic, and some of it can't legally go faster than 30, while others can go 90, is a nightmare.

Everyone needs to be going about the same speed for traffic flow.

Aren't you the guy who drives at 130mph on the freeway?

Traffic doesn't need to be going at the same speed so long as it isn't in the same place. Not everyone on the Autobahn is going at the same speed, but slow traffic keeps right and everyone goes home at the end of the day.

And you can pack a lot more eggbikes into a lane than cybertrucks, and with a shorter follow distance too.

You can tell a lot about someone from assessing their choice of car. Even if you think your car says nothing about you, it does.

I'd be interested in a car horoscopes reading on the what do you drive thread. I'm a Pleiades. Not a lesbian or an old person, believe it or not.

Manual transmission Subaru Forrester:

Middle income professional, probably "could" have afforded something more expensive but chose the Subaru. Practical, not overly showy, but not overly false-modest either. LL Bean in human form. Probably outdoorsy, but in a modest hiking/biking/canoeing kind of way; rather than an EXTREME making it your whole personality way.

Impressively accurate.

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. I generally think 5-10 over is fine depending on conditions.

4. No. Maybe I am too used to roads with more than two lanes but I generally think traveling in lanes other than the rightmost is fine. Cutting people off or riding their bumper is permissible never, if practicable.

5. Yes, generally.

6. No

Briefly, I'd say my opinion is Yes to 1 and 2, no to the others, though in practice I only consistently do 1. I do think the speed limit should at least be used as a guide and if you are doing more than 15 over you should seriously rethink that. I can see why you would agree with 5, but that sort of thing seems likely to result in accidents more consistently than the other options. Someone being a dick does not give you the right to behave in dangerous ways, and the correct behavior is to slow down and merge behind them instead, and thinking otherwise frankly strikes me as the behavior of a petulant child.

(1) Yes

(2) Yes

(3) No

(4a) Yes, assuming the left side of the road doesn't have a driveway or an exit ahead

(4b1, regarding cutting off) No

(4b2, regarding tailgating) Yes

(5) Yes

(6) No

You should turn on your turn signal every time you switch lanes or otherwise would be expected to use it, even if nobody is around.

You should do it as a habit but not doing so when no one is looking isn't a major infraction. Not doing so when there are other people around that could benefit from the knowledge is shitty behavior.

Stop signs and red lights need to be fully stopped at, even if nobody is around and you know there isn't a red light camera.

Stop every time, if there's literally no one around you can maybe not come to a total complete stop.

Speed limits should be followed to the letter when possible.

Depends heavily on the location. It's fine to speed like 5-10+ on highways. In neighborhoods much less.

The left lane is for passing only, and also, if you are in that lane and not passing and someone cuts you off or rides your bumper, that is fine.

Left lane is for passing but tailgating is also stupid and dangerous.

If someone does not make room for you and you need to come over (and properly signaled) you can cut them off guilt free.

Depends heavily on circumstance, if it's a zipper merge and you're in the right place then you should be going over. If you're trying to skip the line then no.

Any other possible driving scissor statements?

You should go when it's your turn at a stop light and not hesitate to cross as a pedestrian at a crosswalk. The half starts are dumb. If everyone just consistently took their right of way everyone would get where they're going faster.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats