Your Driving Habits

[sammich]

After catching up all these posts, I'm apparently guilty of some pretty, unsavoury driving habits. Especially the 'teach them a lesson' stuff, next time I'll just honk at them (sometimes I wish there was a less loud horn, like a secondary horn, I just want to say 'hey, watch it', rather than a precursor to a road rage event).

Slightly unrelated, I was about to cross a pedestrian crossing and this (probably in a bit of a rush) lady drives past without stopping, so as soon as drives past and realises that I'm there, she gives me this look of horror/so so sorry. I'll never forget that face.

You use your iPhone to check your speed!!?!?

Since most speedo indicators are slightly off (due to tire wear, calibration, manufacturer design etc) I want to make sure I'm driving at the legal limit/5 over. Most speedos I've noticed are about 5km/h off at 100km/h, so I drive around 108-110km/h as indicated. I only have to do this once every so often for every car.

 

[quagmire]

After catching up all these posts, I'm apparently guilty of some pretty, unsavoury driving habits. Especially the 'teach them a lesson' stuff, next time I'll just honk at them (sometimes I wish there was a less loud horn, like a secondary horn, I just want to say 'hey, watch it', rather than a precursor to a road rage event).

I agree cars should have two horns.

My polite horn and the, " I thought I told you to get the hell out of my way" horn.

 

[iJohnHenry]

I don't really get road rage and don't ever really get mad while driving, people make mistakes and that's just how it goes. I really like driving too, its very enjoyable for me.

This is me, to a T.

Just this morning, I was thinking to myself that I must run into every moronic driver in my city in the 2-mile stretch to work.

I make a game out of it.

Well, what is this ass-hole going to try to do to me? And some don't try, they do. In this way I drive for everyone else on the road near me. Much safer.

 

[steve2112]

I agree cars should have two horns.

My polite horn and the, " I thought I told you to get the hell out of my way" horn.

I used to work with a guy who had a train horn in his truck. That thing scared the daylights out of me, and I was in the truck and knew he was going to use it!

 

[iJohnHenry]

I used to work with a guy who had a train horn in his truck. That thing scared the daylights out of me, and I was in the truck and knew he was going to use it!

You have to jury-rig an air compressor/tank to put something that effective in a car.

The cops might not like it, but tempting it surely is.

 

[Tomorrow]

I absolutely hate driving. I'm the guy the rest of you road rage about - driving the speed limit, signaling to change lanes, not following closely, etc.

 

[einmusiker]

People Who Drive Slow in the Fast Lane

"I cannot even begin to describe how much i hate these idiotic people. They just enrage me. Anyone who has been doing 85mph+ on the highway and then has to slow down to under 70 knows what I mean.

Today I was doing 90mph+ in the far left lane, for miles everyone moved out of the way for me. Then all the sudden I come up on this minivan with "Baby on Board, "I Love Children," "Being Nice is the #1 Rule," etc. bumper stickers and magnets. The woman was doing under 65mph would not move out of my way (and there was plenty of space). When I tried to push her, flash brights, honk, etc. she decided to brake check me. Now, not moving over is one thing, but trying to teach me a lesson when I tell you that you're in my way and that you can move over, is just asking me to screw you over.

I drove behind her for a few miles, and then when the opportunity stuck, I shot a gap to pass her, made sure she couldn't move over to another lane (besides the service lane) and I slammed off my brakes (I swear I saw a squirrel run across the highway), she had to veer off of the road to avoid hitting me. I guarantee she'll never try to brake check someone or force the speed limit on them again. I seriously hope she or her damn baby got whiplash. (NO LECTURES PLEASE, THEY WILL ALL BE IGNORED)

I seriously wish that .50 cal guns would be options on cars so that I could just blow up people like her."


Seasons Greetings

spoken like a true New Yorker

I usually drive about 160kph (100mph) in the middle lane and always watch out for people cruising by me in the fast lane at 220-240kph (140mph).

I hardly ever see going the recommended speed of 130kph (80mph).

I envy german drivers so much for their liberal speedways.

Personally I drive about 10 mph over the speed limit, until I hit PA or NJ (tickets don't count towards NY points)

 

[steviem]

I envy german drivers so much for their liberal speedways.

Brought to you by...

 

[JoeG4]

I hate people that have to speed all the time. Seriously man, if your state set a 100mph speed limit on the freeway I'm sure you'd go tailgate people trying to do 110 right?

Also special place in hell for people that speed in school zones. I don't care if it's 5 over the limit. It always seems like the worst behaved drivers in school zones are the ones going to pick up their kids. Maybe they should be forced to have their kid standing in the middle of a crosswalk in said school zone.

 

[Gregg2]

I have a habit of forgetting to put my lights on at night. Done it three times now... insane.

You need a new car. These days, the lights come on automatically.

People Who Make Me Slow Down: If I am driving down the road and you pull out in front of me, forcing me to slow down, I consider you to be a horrible driver. I am now allowed to tailgate you.

Some dum bass did that to me once, and not because I pulled out in front of him, instead, I moved into the right lane just after passing a legally parked car. I guess he was p|ssed that he couldn't change lanes before I did and pass me. He was driving a sporty car, I was in a minivan with real chrome bumpers. He was staying inches away from me as we both slowed for a red light. Now going less than 5mph after a steady speed decrease, I slammed on the brake. This caused my back bumper to raise up. It also caused the tailgater to slam on his brake. This caused his front end to lurch downward. I'll let you guess who got the worst deal.

If you do this...
Image
Then I will show you no mercy and leave you in the maintenance/shoulder lane as long as humanly possibly.

Ah, one of those |erks. Driving in Canada once, I saw a sign in a construction zone that said "Fill all lanes". Then when it got to the point pictured, another sign said "Take your turn". Now, think about it. If you do it the way the signs instructed, every available foot of lane capacity is being utilized, meaning the traffic jam is shorter, in length if not also time. If you move over way back and leave the lane (repeat, the lane) that will be (repeat, will be) ending ahead empty, you're wasting all that lane-foot capacity and making the traffic jam longer. But, pffft! You'll show me, eh?

Slightly unrelated, I was about to cross a pedestrian crossing and this (probably in a bit of a rush) lady drives past without stopping, so as soon as drives past and realises that I'm there, she gives me this look of horror/so so sorry. I'll never forget that face.

When walking in a busy downtown district, I've noticed that many drivers do not look to the right (in the U.S.) when they want to make a right turn on red. They look only to the left to watch for oncoming cars. Self-centered idiots! There are pedestrians to your right, and while you're sitting at a red light, they have a WALK signal. As one of those pedestrians, when I get within a couple feet of the car, I YELL "Hey!"quite loudly. This induces a head snapping in my direction from the driver.(especially in mild weather with the windows down) I then smile and proceed to walk in front of his/her car and then back over to the crosswalk as I continue on my way.

When I come to a controlled intersection (when driving), I stop on red behind the crosswalk or wide white line, or stop sign/light post/pole if the pavement is not painted. I then look for pedestrians in both directions and proceed to roll ahead far enough to see past some master landscaper's monument to that "natural look" for shrubbery to the point where I can see oncoming cars.

 

[smithrh]

I absolutely hate driving. I'm the guy the rest of you road rage about - driving the speed limit, signaling to change lanes, not following closely, etc.

Hardly!

I have no issue at all with folks like you. You're entirely within your rights to drive at the speed limit.

I often drive right at the limit in my SUV (4x4 for winter, doncha know) to save gas.

But I'll say this, I do it in the right lane - figuratively and literally!

 

[quagmire]

I hate special people that think they're above speed limit laws for whatever stupid reason they give out.

It's not that we think we are above the law. At least I recognize I am speeding by going 10-15 over and if I get caught, I get caught.

Now we can get into a debate whether speed limits should be raised or not, etc, but I don't think I am above the law.

Now for the jerks that weave in and out of traffic going 90 MPH when everyone else is going 70 MPH, etc. Those people do cause accidents.

But, speed does not kill. It's the difference in speed, the skill( or lack there of) of the driver, the situational awareness of said driver, etc that kills.

 

[JoeG4]

Ok man, that's well and fine - I try as much as possible to stay within 2mph of the speed limit (both ways) because I'd REALLY hate to get a ticket. Budgeting ftw >>

Really though, I think with proper training you may be right to some degree regarding freeway speed limits - they could be raised in a few places. Behavior would need to change (for example, I've seen people doing 70mph in very heavy fog and/or the first rain of the year).

I have a few habits that I know drive people crazy, for example:

* Coasting up to red lights/stop signs attempting to just drive a constant speed. It averages out the same, I just don't have to stop and floor it every block.

* Doing the same thing in stop-and-go traffic. Having a large buffer zone is almost entertaining. I'm not trying to troll though, it's just.. easier!

* I actually stop at stop signs. I have nightmares where my brakes don't work right and I can't stop, so.. I prefer to stop.

 

[ideal.dreams]

My habits:

-I tend to look right, then left. I don't know why but every time I catch myself I try to correct it.

-I don't stop completely after backing up to put my car in drive

-In the winter, before I shut my car off, I turn the heat all the way up and turn on the defroster so I can remotely start my car in the mornings before school.

-I wait too long to stop at a stop sign/red light. It's a bad habit that I'm definitely trying to break.

-ROAD RAGE. There are some days where I feel like everyone on the road shouldn't be allowed to drive. Just today I was behind some idiot going 10 mph under the speed limit.

-I ALWAYS put my seat belt on. It's on before my car even starts. It feels weird not wearing it now.

That's about all of them. I love driving and will jump at the first opportunity to run anywhere for my parents. Having a nice car makes it even better.

 

[JoeG4]

Nice cars are awesome ^_^

 

[samiwas]

Ah, one of those |erks. Driving in Canada once, I saw a sign in a construction zone that said "Fill all lanes". Then when it got to the point pictured, another sign said "Take your turn". Now, think about it. If you do it the way the signs instructed, every available foot of lane capacity is being utilized, meaning the traffic jam is shorter, in length if not also time. If you move over way back and leave the lane (repeat, the lane) that will be (repeat, will be) ending ahead empty, you're wasting all that lane-foot capacity and making the traffic jam longer. But, pffft! You'll show me, eh?

A good thought in principle, but not so great in execution. If people wait until the last possible second to break in, then others have to stop or seriously slow down to let them in. This has a domino effect which causes major delays. If, instead, people merged earlier, then there would not be nearly as much slowdown, and traffic would continue to move. I would rather be backed up for longer, but moving, than backed up for a shorter distance, but barely moving. All it takes is one car having to stop in heavy traffic and the damage is done. If everyone merged earlier while still moving, stopping would not occur. This comes to a major problem with the I-285/I-20 interchange on the west side of Atlanta. There is only one lane to exit off of I-285 South to get onto I-20 West. But somehow, the two right lanes are completely stopped, and the other two lanes are very stop and go. There is absolutely no reason that a one-lane exit should cause an entire 4-lane interstate to come to a standstill.

Along the same idea is something that used to KILL me at a particular intersection in Atlanta. There were two lanes eastbound. The left lane was a left-turn lane, and the right lane was a straight and right-turn lane. As the left lane was the entrance to the interstate, it was often heavily backed up with cars waiting to turn left. Every single day, numerous assclowns would get all the way up in the right-hand lane, then stop and put on their left-hand blinker, waiting for a chance to move over. This now stopped the straight lane as well from moving. Now, by the logic used above, the traffic backup is shorter. But a lot of the traffic now simply can't move. Is that better?

My list of things that irritate me about how some people drive is nearly endless, and isn't on topic.

I can't think of any particular habits of mine, other than driving about 10% above the speed limit. If someone is going annoyingly slow in the left lane, I will generally pull around them and quickly pull back into the left lane (if I need to keep passing), hopefully signaling them that they are being annoying. But I would never do something like pull in front of them and slam on my brakes. Other than that, I always use my signals, adjust my speed up or down as necessary to merge, and generally go with the flow. I don't weave in and out even if I want to go faster.

 

[Shrink]

Remember, kinetic energy is mass * velocity^2 so the speed is fairly important. If you drive at 75mph, your Ke will be 86% greater than if you were driving at 55mph. That's 86% longer braking distance.

A question: Does increase in Ke translate directly into increase braking distance? How does this take variables such as road conditions, condition of brakes, different brake configurations (e.g. two caliper unvented discs vs four caliper vented discs), tire condition into account.

If this is a stupid question - forgive me. I didn't do so swell when I took physics in school.

Now for the jerks that weave in and out of traffic going 90 MPH when everyone else is going 70 MPH, etc. Those people do cause accidents.

But, speed does not kill. It's the difference in speed, the skill( or lack there of) of the driver, the situational awareness of said driver, etc that kills.

Absolutely agree ^^^

Holding road conditions, driver skill (everyone is sure that they are above average driver (while they are texting and eating while driving) constant - SPEED DIFFERENTIAL is the key issue for accidents. Going 55 when everyone else is going 75 is just as dangerous as going 85 when others are going 65.

 

[mulo]

I agree cars should have two horns.

My polite horn and the, " I thought I told you to get the hell out of my way" horn.

YouTube: video

that is just awesome!
is it one of these?

 

[sammich]

A question: Does increase in Ke translate directly into increase braking distance? How does this take variables such as road conditions, condition of brakes, different brake configurations (e.g. two caliper unvented discs vs four caliper vented discs), tire condition into account.

If this is a stupid question - forgive me. I didn't do so swell when I took physics in school.

Kinetic energy is the energy an object has because of it's motion. So if you wanted to slow down the object, you would have to remove the energy from that object. Using brakes (or air brakes in some very high end cars) will absorb energy from the rotation of the wheel by turning it into heat (or electricity, as it is with regenerative braking systems) and sound. So if the KE is equal to mass * velocity squared, your stopping distances increases parabolically. Simplistically, if you were going 40, it would take you 4x greater distance to stop than if you were going 20.

The 'stopping ability' of a car is based on two factors: the grip of the tyre/tire to road surface coefficient of friction (and the amount of road contact) and the braking ability of the brakes. The higher the coefficient of friction: the quality of the rubber and the quality of the road surface (ie if wet, greasy, icy, dry). Loose road surfaces are different since the contact area changes.

I'm not as well versed in the next part. Types of friction braking systems are better than others because their ability to apply resistance varies with temperature, I think.

And finally, don't forget driver aids such as ESP, ABS (and any other 3 letter combination you can think of).

(I hope that makes at least *some* sense)

 

[Shrink]

Kinetic energy is the energy an object has because of it's motion. So if you wanted to slow down the object, you would have to remove the energy from that object. Using brakes (or air brakes in some very high end cars) will absorb energy from the rotation of the wheel by turning it into heat (or electricity, as it is with regenerative braking systems) and sound. So if the KE is equal to mass * velocity squared, your stopping distances increases parabolically. Simplistically, if you were going 40, it would take you 4x greater distance to stop than if you were going 20.

The 'stopping ability' of a car is based on two factors: the grip of the tyre/tire to road surface coefficient of friction (and the amount of road contact) and the braking ability of the brakes. The higher the coefficient of friction: the quality of the rubber and the quality of the road surface (ie if wet, greasy, icy, dry). Loose road surfaces are different since the contact area changes.

I'm not as well versed in the next part. Types of friction braking systems are better than others because their ability to apply resistance varies with temperature, I think.

And finally, don't forget driver aids such as ESP, ABS (and any other 3 letter combination you can think of).

(I hope that makes at least *some* sense)

First, thank you for your informative reply, and the time you took to reply to me.

My only point was that the absolute prediction of stopping distance seemed to ignore the the variability of braking efficiency and the variability of coefficient of friction - as you point out.

You point out that at 40 MPH it takes 4x the distance to stop than at 20 MPH. But, for example, wouldn't it be more than 4x longer if you had crappy brakes and driving on wet, gravelly surface. Conversely, if you had highly efficient brakes on a dry surface, would you not be able to stop in less than 4x the distance.

It is the uncontrolled variables that leads me to the question the (seemingly) exact stopping distance presented in the posts.

Once again, thanks, and forgive me if my ignorance is showing blatantly in my response.

 

[robbieduncan]

Conversely, if you had highly efficient brakes on a dry surface, would you not be able to stop in less than 4x the distance

The short answer to this is certainly yes. Evo magazine in the UK frequently publish 100-0 (mph as measured by them) times and distances in their comparative tests. In their latest issue they published this:

Porsche Panamera A: 4.38s 100.05m
BMW M5: 4.29s 95.4m
Mercedes E63 AMG: 4.677s 114.52m
Jaguar XFR: 4.38s 97.58m

If we compare this with an older review of more mundane cars we see the best either managed was 4.8s 104.8512.

Clearly the BMW M5 is quite amazing considering it's massive weight penalty resulting in much higher amount of Ke to be lost. From the same speed it gives you about a 10% improvement in stopping distance. Now a lot of this can probably be attributed to wider tyres giving more area in contact with the ground resulting in more grip but still it's an impressive result. If we looked at "normal" hathbacks instead of the range-topping hot/warm versions I think the difference would be even starker.

At the end of the day though mass is the real issue here: lighter cars would stop quicker even with smaller tyres and brakes. A Caterham R500 can do 100-0mph in 3.6s.

 

[sammich]

First, thank you for your informative reply, and the time you took to reply to me.

My only point was that the absolute prediction of stopping distance seemed to ignore the the variability of braking efficiency and the variability of coefficient of friction - as you point out.

You point out that at 40 MPH it takes 4x the distance to stop than at 20 MPH. But, for example, wouldn't it be more than 4x longer if you had crappy brakes and driving on wet, gravelly surface. Conversely, if you had highly efficient brakes on a dry surface, would you not be able to stop in less than 4x the distance.

It is the uncontrolled variables that leads me to the question the (seemingly) exact stopping distance presented in the posts.

Once again, thanks, and forgive me if my ignorance is showing blatantly in my response.

No worries, I like to rehash topics to keep my memory sharp(ish)

All the brakes do is absorb energy from the car itself, the actual stopping ability of the car is almost completely reliant on how well the car is connected to the ground. If you had 4 piston, carbon ceramic brakes on a tyre the width of a road bike, it wouldn't help, and the opposite is true, but on new cars it's rarely the case. In essence, the better your grip, the better your brakes need to be to able to absorb energy from the car.

With an apples to apples comparison, car A at 40 stops in X metres. Car A at 80 will stop at >4X metres. On the same surface, any/every car will experience this behavior as long as they have ABS (ABS reduces slipping, which doesn't help you to slow down at all, in fact it increases your stopping distance).

As long as the car in question can lock the wheels on the surface with it's setup, then it's stopping as fast as it can.

 

[Shrink]

The short answer to this is certainly yes. Evo magazine in the UK frequently publish 100-0 (mph as measured by them) times and distances in their comparative tests. In their latest issue they published this:

Porsche Panamera A: 4.38s 100.05m
BMW M5: 4.29s 95.4m
Mercedes E63 AMG: 4.677s 114.52m
Jaguar XFR: 4.38s 97.58m

If we compare this with an older review of more mundane cars we see the best either managed was 4.8s 104.8512.

Clearly the BMW M5 is quite amazing considering it's massive weight penalty resulting in much higher amount of Ke to be lost. From the same speed it gives you about a 10% improvement in stopping distance. Now a lot of this can probably be attributed to wider tyres giving more area in contact with the ground resulting in more grip but still it's an impressive result. If we looked at "normal" hathbacks instead of the range-topping hot/warm versions I think the difference would be even starker.

At the end of the day though mass is the real issue here: lighter cars would stop quicker even with smaller tyres and brakes. A Caterham R500 can do 100-0mph in 3.6s.

Got it!

And many thanks for your informative reply.

Have a Happy Whatever-You-Celebrate.

 

[robbieduncan]

Have a Happy Whatever-You-Celebrate.

Not having to work for a couple of weeks

 

[sammich]

The short answer to this is certainly yes. Evo magazine in the UK frequently publish 100-0 (mph as measured by them) times and distances in their comparative tests. In their latest issue they published this:

Porsche Panamera A: 4.38s 100.05m
BMW M5: 4.29s 95.4m
Mercedes E63 AMG: 4.677s 114.52m
Jaguar XFR: 4.38s 97.58m

If we compare this with an older review of more mundane cars we see the best either managed was 4.8s 104.8512.

I seem to remember a bit from Top Gear where Clarkson jokingly said that people in supercars should be allowed to drive to a different, higher speed limit because they had much better stopping distances