How about signs on the on ramps saying something like:
"Driving like your grandmother can damage your car's engine with carbon build ups. This is your chance to make your engine last longer. Push hard on the pedal on the right!":D

In truth I realize some people have problems with spacial awareness and simply cannot predict closing speeds. Others have physical limitations which prevent them from doing a check over their shoulder. Still others simply are ffen clueless or don't GAS. They drive among us.
Be careful out there.
Best
Les

well, as someone who has made a living suing a-holes who run into the back of people, injuring them, I can say I have never in 26 years seen a case where the person who ran into the back of someone else was not at fault....there may be a rare exception but it would be very rare

your friends, and my wife, have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The only time I have been rear ended was the first day I had my first car at 16. Ive been lucky

I am also hyper aware of everything around me, probably from years of riding motorcycles.

I dont even use the hands free phone in my car. I wont answer. Wife gets mad but in my opinion, even if using hands free.....if you are conversing with someone on the phone, your mind is not 100% working on the task at hand ---DRIVING

I believe that the vast majority of the time the person that did the rear ending should have been more aware and farther back. That doesn't mean that a driver couldn't unintentionally drive in a way that might make folks more likely to rear end them. For instance a late, hard braker is probably more likely to catch the front end of a person that's not paying adequate attention or is following too closely. So, yes, the rear ender is at fault, but the rear endee could potentially change the way that they drive to make it less likely.

And then I think we've all seen in person or on the 'Net via dashcam video, folks that appear to be trying to get folks to rear end them or were just not thinking. I think we've seen someone pull out in front of someone at the last minute who was going much faster. Or some of those other folks that will pull out and slow down and then brake check in what I have to assume is an effort to get a paycheck.

So I think there are (however rare) cases when the rear endee has all or some accountability in the situation.

Its not an effort to get a paycheck unless you are totally insane. You arent getting any free paycheck in NY unless you prove a "serious injury*" which is defined in the insurance laws here. You dont get paid because your neck is sore. Not saying fraud doesnt happen...it certainly does and we fight it all the time but your average normal person aint trying this stunt because you can get killed doing it

And yea, if a rear endee pulled out negligently in front of someone when they should not have and gets hit, then the rear ender is probably not at fault...in other words, the the fact that the damage is at the rear end of the car is not the only relevant fact



***Section 5104(a) of the New York Insurance law provides that a plaintiff must prove that he or she has either incurred a “basic economic loss” of more than $50,000.00, or has suffered a “Serious Injury” as defined within Section 5102(d), to have a viable personal injury lawsuit arising out of a car accident. Section 5102(d) provides that the following types of injuries qualify as “Serious Injuries”: (i) Death, (ii) dismemberment, (iii) significant disfigurement, (iv) a fracture, (v) loss of a fetus, (vi) the permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system, (vii) a permanent consequential limitation of a body organ or member, (viii) a significant limitation of the use of a body function or system, or (ix) a non-permanent medically-determined injury or impairment that prevents an injured person from performing substantially all of their usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 of the 180 consecutive days immediately following an accident.

It is required by law here in Jersey but never see it enforced.

I see the same thing with no lights when it's still dark. It's pretty much an epidemic around here.

.

It's because the entire dashboard is lit up like a christmas tree in all modern cars. Fords are the worst for driving around with no lights.

They think the lights are on, because the dashboard is lit up, which would normally be dark till you turn on the lights in an older car. I've driven with the lights off in my wife's corolla a couple times till I noticed.

My wife gets mad I don't answer the phone in the car.

"It is a button on the GD steering wheel"

LOL, after reading this entertaining, and very accurate thread about clueless and just awful drivers, I'll add that the MOTHERLOAD of those drivers is right down here in south Florida. Everything all of you have described I see every single time I commute down into the Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, from up in Martin County where I live (not too bad up here). there is NO relaxing when driving down there, not even for a moment.

I'm from the LA/OC area and while the traffic there is horrendous, and has it's fair share of horrible drivers, they pale in comparison to south Florida drivers.

It's all of the old folks that retired from the NE.
https://i.pinimg.com/474x/19/bf/50/1...a14b3b9678.jpg

https://i.imgflip.com/2t96ou.jpg

I can't remember which state it was....but I remember drivers stopping at the point of the merge instead of blending in. I assumed it was their state law? It was many years back. (early 70's)

I wonder if that still happens?
I think there was even a 'Yield to Traffic' sign at the merge point.

When I was in in Florida on the turnpikes, everybody was in the left lane, running 90 MPH in a 70 zone. At one point, my radar detector was going off and I was in the right lane at just 75 MPH as we went past a cop running radar. A string of 6 huge SUVs rolled right past him at 90. He did not flinch. I have to assume the real limit is 90.

Here in Oklahoma on some of the turnpikes the limit is 80, and traffic is moving at 90.

I think "yield to traffic" when you're entering a road from an on-ramp is probably the law everywhere unless there is signage contradicting it. I have seen some on-ramps that have yield signs, but it just means "merge as best as you can". Stopping in those situations is pretty horrible.

Not a state law, that only happens in Houston, they actually put up traffic signal lights on the entrance ramps. Dumbest thing I've ever seen.

Austin drivers are the ones that come to a stop (no lights) because they do not know how to merge.

Yes, we have those. I've seen them somewhere else too, but I can't remember where. Fortunately, those are not active 99% of the time. They only come on in peak traffic times when the traffic is barely moving anyway. I have wondered if they are designed to be a deterrent for folks that use the feeder/frontage as extra lanes when the traffic gets slow. There have been times and places where I've done that, traffic is slow/backed up, so you get off and on the freeway, sometimes for 4-5 exits/entrances in a row and are able to pass dozens of cars and travel at speed for a mile past stopped traffic.

^^^ That very well could have been the place. I remember taking the turn onto the on-ramp and seeing 4 or 5 cars stopped at the merge point. When it was my turn, I just had to wait for a larger opening in traffic than when merging at matching speed.

There are lights on the on-ramps at all freeways in L.A., and I assume other parts of the state to manage flow. However, they are a couple hundred feet before the on-ramp enters the right lane. Many times the RL is extended some to allow for the entering traffic. 99% of the drivers get this.

This is a problem making cars come to a stop and idle for 10 seconds and then accelerate. I would imagine this adds a significant amount of gas consumption and subsequent pollution. A good Pelican would use this opportunity to slam a few gears.

Flyovers are the exception to the lights. Continuous blend. I think it would work out fine w/o these lights. When traffic is heavy, it's heavy. I haven't studied traffic flow. I just think they overthink some of this.

^^^ They also have 2 lanes of traffic waiting at the lights at the entry....correct?
The lights alternate the lanes for merging.

Sometimes, and other times the sign will say both drivers can go, or in a single cue the sign says 2 per light. I'd say the staggering on 2 lane on ramps is more common to prevent drag races. But there are still some that let both cars go at once.

There's the carpool on ramp where one doesn't have to stop at the light if there are two or more in the car. Fly right on through while the person must wait for the light to turn green before they move forward

I've started stopping (okay, maybe slow rolling stop) at a yield sign that's on my usual route home from town. At a T intersection, me driving towards the top of the T main road. Used to be clear visibility along the main road, but not since a local farmer changed to growing hazel nuts. Now the view to my left is blocked by trees as I approach until maybe 10 feet from the main road...so, I stop.