If you want the roads to be safer, lobby your public officials for the implementation of 85th-percentile speed limits.
There is absolutely zero evidence that enforcement of artificially-low highway speed limits makes anyone safer.
(Disclaimer: The site links to a study done in British Columbia, Canada and I'm from British Columbia, Canada :)).
Last night, I was driving with my girlfriend in SF, and we made a left turn onto the leftmost lane of a 3 lane street (19th Ave). Someone from the other side made a right turn onto the same street, but moved from the rightmost lane they were supposed to go in to the leftmost lane. (picture=1000 words: http://i.imgur.com/1cyok.jpg . We were the red arrow, they were the blue/gray arrow)
We came within centimeters of a collision for something really dumb because this guy wasn't paying attention/was a poor driver/etc.
After moving here 2 years ago, I had to study for the driver's license written test and I remember being shocked at reading "when turning at an intersection, if you are in the only turning lane, you may enter into any of the lanes during your turn".
So I'm imagining that if you both had green lights, since you were turning left, he had the right of way (not saying his actions weren't stupid by the way).
> 2. Right turn. Begin and end the turn in the lane nearest the righthand curb. Do not swing wide into another lane of traffic.
Maybe I'm remembering the rules of left turns? As long as there was only one left turning lane (and you had the left turn arrow), you could turn into any of the new lanes (not just the left most lane).
Combine that with people who turn right into other-than-the-right-most-lane, and you've got a recipe for disaster.
Ha, the more you know. I have an out-of-state license, and learned how to drive in Europe, where this would definitely not be legal. Guess I should move my butt to a local DMV and get a local license and learn the local quirks.
I'm not sure about that. In Poland there is definitely no law against turning right into the left lane. On the other hand most intersections where this would be possible have either road markings that prohibit this or traffic lights set up so that left turners and right turners never enter the lane at the same time. This is also the reason why it is forbidden to U-turn when the lights show the green left arrow - you could collide with a right turner.
I'm also about 75% certain there is no such law in Germany but my German is too rusty to dig through their traffic laws :)
I put the answer "when there are no bikes present," which as a bicyclist makes a lot of sense. The correct answer was "within 200 ft of turning right," which is complete and utter bullshit because I got hit by a car less than two weeks prior that entered the bicycle lane to turn right without signaling.
If I could get cars ticketed by taking video of violations I would buy a GoPro camera tomorrow.
That's what I get in Scottsdale. You just have to assume here that every driver feels entitled and doesn't give a fuck. Whatever is the shortest or fastest path is their birthright.
So if you want to go faster lobby for faster speed limits. In the mean slow the F down!
Me: "I'd like to report a drunk driver on the Pike. They are driving in both lanes and nearly ran me off the road"
911: "Do you have a description of the vehicle?"
Me: "Crown Vic with state license plate # 9"
911: "Mmhm, we'll get right on that"
/me drives under posted speed limit the rest of the way home to avoid retribution.
Evidence suggests otherwise (http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=Overvie...).
[0] "Speeding was defined to include crashes in which the driver was issued a traffic citation for speeding or in which driver-related factors coded indicated speed as a factor (driving too fast for conditions, racing, or exceeding the posted speed limit)."
That's indeed a problem with the statistics, as is their conflation of exceeding a posted limit with driving too fast for conditions. These kinds of games are played all the time -- for instance, consider how an "alcohol related accident" is considered by some authorities to be one in which anyone including passengers in any involved vehicle were over the BAC limit.
The resulting biased statistics make it hard to get the straight story on what factors genuinely affect traffic safety and what factors are overhyped for other purposes.
In this case, it's probably worth keeping in mind how profitable insurance surcharges for speeding tickets are for the companies that sponsor the IIHS.
That said, you could get a dashcam and send whatever particularly egregious incidents you run across to the cops by mail, probably.
Agreed, but I'd imagine you could hire people who had that as their primary job, and then make serious bank on the resulting fines.
I can't imagine a single driver who hasn't seen some twit driving like a maniac and thinking "where's a cop when you need one"?
Examples, cars going 65-70 in a 50mph zone. The the San Francisco Bay area Between Oakland across the Bay Bridge all the way to Candlestick park is a 50-55mph zone but lots of cars drive 70 all the way. I don't know how hard it would be to compute their speed relative to mine from the video.
Easier examples, cars turning right from a left lane. Cars tailgating. Cars changing lanes without signaling. Cars changing lanes while crossing an intersection. Cars cutting people off. Cars passing on the right on a 1 lane street, essentially driving as though it's a two lane street.
I'm not trying to be a snitch. I'd just like the roads to be safer. People who break traffic laws are effectively risking your life. That's not cool.