Columns Aug 12, 2015 at 4:00 am

Seattle Driving Etiquette Tip

Steven Weissman

Comments

1
Another signature sign that this town has gone to the dogs! Just more people in a big hurry to go nowhere and sit their fat asses down in another location. Maybe he had to take a poo break bad?
2
You can always tell when these stories are bullshit because it is always a "brogrammer" (how did you know his profession) and it is always an out of state tag (seen so clearly as he was "speeding past," of course), since no Seattle resident could ever do something bad, just like every crime must be from out of state agitators.
3
As a lifelong bleeding heart liberal Seattelite, fuck your etiquette.

Take your fucking right of way. It exists to reduce and settle any confusion over whose turn it is to go.

Go the fucking speed limit and fucking keep to the right if you don't intend to pass people. It doesn't matter why they're in a hurry. That's their business, not yours. Get the fuck out of the way.

Use your fucking blinker to signal what you're GOING to do, not what you are doing. It's a communication device not some bullshit technicality you have to check off to avoid getting a ticket.

Learn to coast without tapping your fucking brakes. Brakes are for slowing down. You don't have to alternate between gas and brake. There is in fact a third option you may recall from riding a bike.

Don't fucking give me that "Don't honk your horn." bullshit. The horn is another communication device. If you're being honked at you probably fucked up. You may have cut someone off, wasted a green light with an unnecessarily slow start, tried to give right of way to someone who is supposed to yield causing others to have to slam on their brakes, didn't signal, or are in the left lane doing five under the limit. Whatever the case, you fucked up. Learn from it. Do better next time.

Seriously, quit being such lily-livered, chickenshit pansies. Get the fuck out of the way or take the bus.
4
Anonymous sounds like the typical Seattle douchebag doing 48 on the freeway for no goddamned reason.
5
@3 YES! On all points. I wish everything you said was actually enforced by the police.

@2. You're an idiot. Did you even read the post before bitching about it being fake? You think it would be hard to see someone's license plate after they slam on their brakes in front of you?

@2 and 4. They were stuck in Friday traffic. Not open freeway with no congestion. When was the last time you were able to go over 48 on the freeway on a Friday between the hours of 7am and 7pm?
6
#3. Yes. All of it.
7
Agreed with #3. Also, learn right of way laws. Traffic isn't done by consensus. If everybody stops, the person who goes is to the left of you.

Oh wait, I fucked that up, just like every driver at a 4 way in Seattle.
8
and please don't kill me while I'm on my motorcycle lanesplitting past you. J/K, it's not legal here yet.
10
#3, so right, so very fucking right.

"Seattle etiquette" surely includes things like slowly accelerating to a top speed of 35 mph on a freeway ON-RAMP, continuously tapping the breaks for NO APPARENT REASON on the freeway, as well as camping your Prius in the fast lane while barely doing 55. Fuck Seattle etiquette. This pansified style of driving is actually incredibly dangerous when you're on a freeway and others are moving at fast (read: normal) speeds.
11
@3 and all your fans... you are actually talking about etiquette, and yes, all good points. Sounds like AI was being a good driver. I spend a silly amount of time driving and biking downtown at all times of day and I can't tell you how many times I see drivers honking at someone to get out of the way who can't. The honking in Seattle is out of control - cars honking at cars who have to wait for pedestrians, have no where to go, etc. The honking is rarely a sign that you have fucked up - it's more likely a sign that the self-absorbed asshat behind you has no idea what exists outside his personal car space and doesn't really care and wants everyone to drive by his rules RIGHT NOW! New York passed no honking laws many years ago - maybe it's time for that here. Now, let's talk about how no one in Seattle seems to understand the zipper merge...
12
Horns on cars are for emergency situations, period. They're not to let your kids know you're home or your housekeeper to come get the groceries or that you're dropping off little Impschy at home after school or you're pissed, or someone is in your way or you don't feel like you should have been cut off. No. That is not for what the car horn was designed. Assholes.
14
@13 those are probably transplants. Seattle drives do have problems with right of way, and the Priuses camped out in the fast lane below the speed limit are really fucking annoying, but the worst drivers I've encountered are in the South. Period. Including Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas. Then Arizonans. Why? Running red lights, speeding (and creating unsafe traffic for other motorists while doing it - not just plain ol speeding), speeding up just to cut other people off regardless which lane or how fast they're going, intentionally spraying gravel with their tires at cyclists, etc. They're nightmares on wheels.
15
@13 Maybe Seattle drivers don't need to be honked at - maybe you could wait two seconds. And please don't blame the bike lanes for congestion - the percentage of pavement given over to bike lanes is a miniscule percentage of pavement. If you think congestion is due to bike lanes - then please explain congestion on I-5 and 99. Congestion in this town is too many cars. Period. Take away the bike lanes and you add over 4000 cars to the mix... would that be better for you? Seattle needs to rip off the bandaid - eliminate street parking and add MORE bike lanes or we will never see actual, useful mass transit funded. No one will vote for it until we reach critical mass. That has been born out over and over throughout our history. We are a growing city - the car culture that we have a sad death grip on is unsustainable.
18
@12 for the win
19
Strange how the drivers are the worst you've ever encountered in every city you visit, but once you're there for a while you realize it's the people from out of town who suck.
20
#10 FTW
21
Every city I've ever lived in or visited I've always heard the same refrain -- "The drivers here (being city X) are the worst".
22
@17 - No, It is I who stand corrected, by you. Now I see the (traffic) light... if we all just honk at each other enough and insist on being able to drive drive drive everywhere and anywhere and whenever we want and shut our eyes tightly and wish wish wish, all these new people won't move to Seattle, there will be no need for change and we can all putter along in motorized bliss like it's 1975! You will be able to commute freely from your home with the white picket fence and no bikes will bother you - bikes will just be for little old men and girls on Sundays after church. None of that silly spandex! The oil companies will be happy and the taxpayers will be happy - but that giant wall we will need to build to keep everyone out (120000 expected in the next two years - many with cars of their own... weird, I know... ) might get a little pricey... just sayin'...

What we need are actual solutions to deal with all the CARS on the road that cause congestion. You should thank every cyclist you pass for not driving another CAR that will just be in your way.
23
Seattle needs more honking. If you don't like being honked at then focus up and follow basic traffic laws. I know it makes you feel like king shit to hold up a line of cars while you check facebook but everyone behind you pays the same taxes to use the road so let's get moving.
24
The laws are different by state. Meaning in Ohio, it's perfectly legal to sit in the left lane doing the speed limit with 80 cars behind you, because, dangit, yer doin the speed limit.
25
@3 & @10 I came here to rant and say exactly what you said. Thank you.
26
People really like saying "brogrammer."
27
A few things that might be worth adding here:
- If the car in front of you is turning left, go the fuck around them. I've been living here for over 20 years and still cannot believe how many dipshits will sit there indefinitely in this situation. And yes this is a northwest thing, or at least it is not a thing on the east coast, or in California as far as I can tell.
- Let us not brake for someone who appears that they might like to jaywalk. Seriously, let us not do that.
- A right-hand red arrow does not mean no right turn on red. Look it up if you do not believe me. In Washington state, and probably everywhere else where right on red is allowed, it means the same thing as a normal red light.
28
@ everyone who doesn't know what the speed "limit" is.

It's the maximum you should go, not the recommended speed you should go. Please make a note of that before another rant on how other people don't know the rules of the road.
29
At least you didn't stop for people in a crosswalk. That totally fucks up the flow of traffic.
30
I swear we have the worst drives in the US in Seattle I've been here 25 years and too damn slow, take forever at green light. We need to use the horn more, what a silly hipster.
31
Thank god for @3.

And take your passive aggressive pillow biting bullshit elsewhere OP. The driver sounds like a dick but you make it worse.

You know the difference between a New Yorker and a Seattleite? If a NY'er doesn't like someone, he tells them straight up. A Seattleite? They go and tell their friend. Or post an anonymous rant on /reddit.
32
@27, I did not know that fact about the red arrow. Thanks for calling attention to it.

Meanwhile, why is everyone on this thread so angry? Or am I mistaking blithe obscenity for anger?
33
@3 // +1
34
@27, please do not tell people to go around a car waiting to turn left. The rapid pull around it requires is patently unsafe. My entire family was almost killed by an idiot pulling this stunt at the intersection of 85th and Stone Way. I'm pretty sure it is illegal as well, as you rarely if ever have a safe lane changing distance from the car in front of you. There's just too many blindspots and too much that can go wrong for this kind of behavior to be advocated.
35
The bus for Fremont was taking 30 minutes to go from campus to the bus stop 3 intersections away because drivers kept blocking the box.

SPD could have made $1 million in traffic fines that day.
36
Seattle drivers were much better 20 years ago when most of them were from Seattle.
37
I've given up honking, cutting people off, etc. while driving, because I never know when someone is going to whip out a gun and start shooting. Driving in this city, just living in it, is getting too damned scary. The big challenge today in Seattle isn't affordable housing, it's staying alive.
38
@34 Nope, not illegal:

(1) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:

(a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;

(b) Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?…
39
@38, thanks for the link. It does make it illegal at that intersection, though, as there is only one unobstructed lane there. I know this because my SO had to put the car on the sidewalk to avoid being sideswiped. That second unobstructed lane is the potential lifesaver.
40
Most of you on this thread, even if you are right, need to chill the fuck out. You're rage is part of the problem. Don't worry, you'll get there.
41
@me - Oops, 'your'. Now the grammer assholes are going to pile on.
42
@3 Preach it! Amen!
43
FYI-New Yorkers don't honk. Giuliani made it ticket-able except in an emergency.
44
Seattle drivers do suck. They ranked 174th out of 200 last year. That's well below the bottom 25%. Cities with better drivers than Seattle have charming names like Lubbock and Huntsville, Cedar Rapids and Tallahassee. Boise? Spokane? Way, way better than you, Seattle.

So if you thought that Seattle thing where the driver with the right of way stops and, with a prissy little self-satisfied hand wave, lets the one who is supposed to yield go ahead was safer somehow, the answer is no. Hell no! That stupid shit is *not* safer. It leads to more accidents, and insurance claim data backs that up.

Stop driving like that. Obey the rules of the road. Don't get creative. Stop being cute. Drive normal. Dream of crawling up out of the bottom half of the "your-driving-sucks" rankings some day.

And yes, welcome every out of state driver. They can't but improve our averages. Thank every newcomer for preventing wrecks and saving lives, you smug, smug Seattle bastards.
45
I'm just here to high five @3
46
I just start shooting at the cars with out of state plates.

It's not like they are going to stick around for a trial.
47
Driving up I-5 today I noticed this guy by himself cruising in the carpool lane. Totally calm, not trying to use it as a passing lane...California plates. I had to admire his total disregard.

48
@39, overtaking on the right is permitted in condition (a) OR condition (b). If someone is turning left, there needn't be a second lane of travel in that direction, as long as you're not driving off the roadway.

Please tell me you're not the kind of driver that waits behind someone turning left at an intersection instead of moving around them to the right. If you are, you are a cause of slow traffic.
49
@48, I'm not sure you're right on that one. That would permit times when conditions (a) or (b) are explicitly illegal under section (2).

(2) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. Such movement shall not be made by driving off the roadway.

Passing someone turning left on the right with only one spare lane is not safe. Therefore, passing someone turning left must also require more than one spare lane, as it is the only way to meet (2). A full reading of the law seems to make it fairly clear (a) and (b) are both required in this specific instance.

Relax, I am not any kind of driver. I've never had a license, although I've passed state traffic safety. I am however someone who has almost been killed by someone moving around a left turner to the right without signalling or checking to see if the lane is clear.

I don't drive because of people who would move around someone turning left to their right. They are simply to unsafe to be on the road with. Yet there seem to be a number of people here who support such unsafe behavior.

Slow traffic doesn't kill people. The type of driving you are advocating does.
50
@39 is the kind of ninny that deduces that because they almost got hit by someone performing a particular maneuver without regard as to who they were about to sideswipe, nobody should ever perform that maneuver. It of course goes without saying that if someone is waiting to turn left and you have the choice of sitting there like a dumbass blocking traffic or going around them safely, you should do the latter.

I have a spot where I have to turn left across oncoming traffic regularly, and in this particular intersection, while I'm waiting, if I really scoot to the left and hug the yellow line, all the traffic behind me can safely pass. Since it often takes a while to make my turn, I do this, because I have consideration for the people behind me. Big fucking trucks, hummers, giant SUVs, all cruising by between me and the curb with no trouble at all. And inevitably, some brake-riding neanderfuck in a toyota corolla will slow down and stop, thinking they couldn't possibly fit through that hole that the goddamn Ford Explursionator just fit through before them. But of course, they never tuck in behind me so others can try their luck. They just grind everyone to a halt with their pants-wetting inability to operate a motor vehicle.
51
@49, can you please tell me where you get this crazy assertion: "Passing someone turning left on the right with only one spare lane is not safe." Because that's exactly the situation 46.61.115 (1) is describing: you may pass someone on the right if they are turning left and if the road is wide enough for two cars with no obstructions.
52
@51, the entirety of 46.61.115, both (1) and (2), are describing the situation. This means both (a) and (b) are required, so the maneuver can be performed safely, as per (2). (1) (b) is describing the situation, and mandates at least two clear lanes to the right of the person turning left. The lane the person is turning left in is clearly obstructed, and therefore does not qualify for (b).

@50, I agree if it can be done safely, it should. But as per (b), that again requires two unobstructed lanes (although technically the RCW only mentions safe width, putting two cars in one lane of traffic is illegal in other sections). it is only when there is one single unobstructed lane that it becomes unsafe.

(b) Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle.

This isn't rocket science. It is the RCW.
53
No, you're reading it wrong. Number one, it does not say "lanes" of traffic, it says "lines" of traffic, which is a distinction made due to the fact that it is clarifying a situation where you may travel outside of a lane. Number two, the wording "a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles" refers to the entire roadway, including the turning vehicle. The rule is exactly as common sense would dictate: if a car is turning left and there is room for another car on its right (the roadway in that direction is wide enough for two lines of cars), then it is safe.

You are arguing that the rule is that it's only safe to stick your car through a space that is wide enough to safely stick two cars through, which is fucking silly.
54
1) @3 for the win - yes, yes, and yes
2) passing on the right - if you are turning left, people behind that person - GO around. Keep traffic flowing. If you have a full lane, please do this. If you are in-city, going 15 around the person, you're safe. C'mon, you're killing me here.

55
@53, if there is a vehicle turning left, then that pavement is not unobstructed. A dictionary disagrees with you.

I'm not sure where you get this situation where it permits you to travel outside of a lane. Striping/lane boundaries are covered elsewhere. They wouldn't be in this section of the RCW.

Yes, I am arguing that the rule is it is only safe to stick your car through a space big enough for two cars when passing someone waiting to take a left on their right. I will continue to argue that. That is what the law says. The law says this to avoid situations like the one I was caught in. The extra pavement width is a safety buffer. What you call silly Washington State calls the law. If you don't like it, I suggest a trip to Olympia.
56
The car turning is not an "obstruction" it's part of the traffic under discussion. If we accept your weird assertion that the cars on the roads are obstructions by this definition, then you are by definition one too, and by your logic, you'd need four full car-widths to perform this maneuver (the turning car, you, and two additional unobstructed car-widths).

I humbly suggest your grasp of the rules of the road may be a little off due to your inexperience and apparent fear of everything on the road. Rather than rely on bizarrely over-conservative interpretations of the RCW, you should ask a policeman for clarification before spouting off about how all these other drivers are doing it wrong.
57
And one more attempt: please consider that your interpretation would make it unlawful to pass a left-turning car even if you had your own marked lane (e.g. two lanes traveling in each direction, somebody occupying the left lane going in your direction would prevent you from using the right lane to pass them). It makes absolutely no sense.
58
@47: Was the guy driving a hybrid? In California those are allowed in HOV lanes with a solo driver.
59
Okay fine. The pavement the left turning car takes up is not unobstructed pavement. Are those semantics better for you? Are you really down to arguing semantics as opposed to the actual law?

The vehicle one is in does not cause obstructed pavement ahead of said vehicle. You're... well, I don't know where you are or where you're going. Trying to figure out what you're trying to say is difficult enough.

I have asked officers in the past for clarification regarding the RCW. More specifically in the areas of illegal obstructions and the difference between implied consent and express consent to record telephone calls (Washington being one of the few express consent states). It is why I know (a) and (b) are both required. I have experience translating the RCW.

Do you?
60
@40 - AMEN.
I'm so glad to know that there are so many perfect drivers out there writing comments here... I hope you remember your impatience the next time YOU are the one who just got off work and has all afternoon to poke along at your own pace, or drive through a neighborhood you are unfamiliar with (God forbid SDOT ever sign anything correctly or put street signs where they can actually be seen), or double park or make any kind of mistake at all. If you are the one ranting here and complaining about other drivers - you better be a perfect driver. All these other perfect drivers are waiting to pounce on you. Mostly - Chill out people. This isn't New York for a reason. If you think everyone everywhere else drives better - then go there! We wish you all the best!
61
Yes, it is quite clear that both (a) and (b) are required. I think the previous commenter that said otherwise just misread.
62
So let me get this straight. I'll give you a specific example: Two cars are traveling west on N 50th St and the one in front decides to turn left onto Wallingford Ave N, and stops in the left lane in order to do it. The right lane is clear, but there is only room for one line of traffic in addition to the person turning left. You think it would be illegal to use the right lane to pass?
63
@62, yes. Two lines in addition to the line obstructed by the person turning left are required. Otherwise, you can easily hit someone behind and to the right of you moving at speed (since you most likely have had to drop speed in order to assess the situation). It is a common issue, honestly.
64
@63, please do not ever drive a car.

65
@64, it might shock you to discover I have perfect scores in both TSE and the written state test. I've forgotten more about driving than over 50% of the people on the road have ever known. Basically, I am one of the select few that should be driving a car. I'm one of the few who has taken the time to actually learn the law. Which is why I don't drive. I know how little the other drivers on the road know.
67
@40 @60 Yeah guys, JUST CHILL OUT MAAAAAAN! There's no need for me to have any basic consideration for those around me, so if I want to enter the freeway at 32 or cruise in the left lane at 54 that's just how it goes. You'll get there anyway, regardless of how much congestion I'm causing! Besides, that's my phone, I need to text right this fucking second.

It's not about rage, it's about being aware of your surroundings and having consideration for others. We all make minor screwups, but we all don't sit around and continually ignore everyone else around us.
68
@65 I'm prettttty sure you're dead wrong on this one, but just to be sure, I've emailed WSP to settle it. I'll post back when I get an answer.
69
I knew this comment section would be entertaining!
70
libertine is just an obnoxious know-it-all troll. "I've forgotten more about driving than over 50% of the people on the road have ever known." Made me lol. Keep up the good trolling work libertine.
71
@68 It was already established above that he is, to the contrary, clearly uneducated about the law. It is perfectly legal to go around cars that are turning left and as far as I can tell the northwest (or maybe just Seattle) is the only place in the world where substantial numbers of people are too dippy for this to register. I'm highly skeptical that we are talking about out of state drivers as well. The aforementioned dippiness is clearly endemic to this region. Some transplants might catch it though.
72
@71, you barely managed to correct me on a single point (the fact that if you have two unobstructed lines of traffic, this maneuver is legal) which had no bearing on the example I was giving (as there is only one unobstructed lane at that intersection). If you call that minor error clear evidence of a lack of education, I'm not sure we have enough perspective in common to continue this discussion. I consider your established point to be little more than semantic whinging because you don't like the reality of the situation.
73
"Basically, I am one of the select few that should be driving a car [because I passed the written test and am super confident in my skills despite the fact that I do not actually drive]."

LOL. I repeat, please never drive a car.

Out of curiosity if someone can prove that the maneuver you've been ranting about is perfectly legal, will you fess up to perhaps not being a superior driver, or will you sniff and say, "well, my hypothetical driving skills are still superior in every other way!"

PS: Have you ever read a book about landing a plane? I've never met an actual fighter pilot before.
74
@72 You are not too good with reading comprehension are you? Here is the relevant part of the law:

(1) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:

(a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;

No unobstructed additional lane is required, let alone two unobstructed additional lanes (if the vehicle being overtaken is making a left turn).

By the way, seems kind of incongruous for a libertine to be so punctilious about driving laws and too fearful to get behind the wheel of a car. Maybe a new moniker is in order. Agoraphobe?

75
I see some of the smug, know-it-all wimps I was referring to have chimed in. If horns are only for emergencies then how do I get the attention of a driver whose behavior is causing slow downs or unsafe conditions? Am I just supposed to sit there and patiently wait for them to pull their head of their ass and cross my fingers hoping they won't put my person and property in danger?
76
@74 A lot of our fellow Seattleites seem to view themselves as punks, rebels and intellectuals, but their really just poseurs out to impress. All fluff. No substance.
77
@73, the closest I've come is studying the instrument panels and launch sequences for the Space Shuttle. My apologies for the clear gap in my knowledge.

@74, you are missing two very relevant parts of the law. That would be (b), and (2). They're right there, under (a), and still part of the regulation. But you know this. You even copy/pasted (b) earlier in this argument. Was the omission intentional? Are you attempting revisionist history? Is this a sign of presenile dementia? What's going on in your world that you would intentionally change your tune from yesterday?

Much like @68, I've emailed SPD regarding the law (WSP might be a better choice, but as the example was within Seattle city limits, I am slightly more interested in their take). If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I can live with learning new things. My self esteem is not linked to always being right. Quite the contrary, my self esteem is linked to always learning new things.
78
@77 Like I said you are clearly lacking in reading comprehension. (b) does not limit (a). In both conditions overtaking is permissible. And also (2) pretty much goes without saying. I don't think anyone would imagine that driving on the sidewalk is a legal method of overtaking a vehicle that is making a left hand turn.
79
@78, as I and others have both repeatedly and painfully pointed out, both (a) and (b) are required for a legal maneuver. (b) does not limit (a), no. Both (b) and (a) are required however. There is no both conditions. There is one condition, fully described in (1) through (2), including both (a) and (b).

You can say otherwise all you want, but then I'd have to ask you what experience you have in translating the RCW. Heck, I'll even settle for the WAC, KCC, or SMC. What experience do you have translating law?
80
> I'd have to ask you what experience you have in translating the RCW

You may be surprised to hear that I have forgotten more about interpreting the RCW than 50% of the people who have ever laid eyes on it. I'm basically one of the select few who should ever even attempt it.
81
Ok, I heard back from the WSP. No, you do not need two full lanes of unobstructed space to pass on the right when someone is turning left:
the law is not referring to two or more lanes to the right of the vehicle making a left turn. It refers to lanes beyond the overtaking vehicle. There must be at least two lanes in the direction of travel.


However, you are also not allowed to use the shoulder for this passing maneuver:

Based on the wording you must remain within the white lines that designate where the lane is, unless of course the line is dotted and allows for passing.


82
@75 your handle is appropriate. Of course there are times when it's appropriate to honk and it may be just to get someone's attention. But the honking and road rage-y behavior that has become the norm in Seattle needs to stop. We don't all do the exact thing the exact same way at the exact same time, and that includes driving. Obviously driving 35 on the freeway is not good, but really? how often have you actually seen that happen? What I have seen happen time and again is someone (probably you @75) honking at a car who is stopped for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, and the honking car can't see the pedestrian. Or a car is taking a right turn at a speed the guy behind him doesn't approve of - HONK. Or a car just being on the road in front of another car - HONK. Use your horn politely and stop unnecessary honking. It's a big wide world - don't be such a baby when you don't get everything you want at the exact speed you want exactly when you want it.
83
@82 "We don't all do the exact thing the exact same way at the exact same time, and that includes driving."

You do realize that's what all these driving laws are for, right? It's to remove the "you do you" mentality. We're talking about 2000# vehicles moving at upwards of 70 mph. Removing unpredictability is exactly the point of having these laws. If you can't abide by it or are too afraid to travel at reasonable speeds while observing these rules you need to surrender your license and take public transit.

Did you ever stop to consider that the road rage is directly proportional to the unpredictable, wimpy, overly "polite" driving of many Seattleites? I had an interview in Kirkland yesterday. I used Google's traffic calculator to estimate the travel time, left 25 minutes early and arrived 5 minutes late without passing a single accident along the way to blame for the increased delay. I had drivers try to get into my lane without using their signal. I had drivers try to take my lane, and when I didn't yield space for them (the driver in the lane owns it and those wishing to merge in must yield) they forced their way in anyways. I had drivers driving 10 under the limit after traffic cleared. I had drivers tapping their brakes for no reason whatsoever. Yet you think it's unreasonable that I'm angry about all the times my safety and my car (a moderately priced newer model that I worked my ass off to obtain) were needlessly put in danger and my time wasted because different strokes? This isn't about me not getting what I want. It's about you and other drivers substituting their comfort level and time constraints for that of others as if you know their business. That is the height of smugness and inconsideration. You really shouldn't be so surprised when people boil over with rage in your presence.

Surrender your license. Ride the bus. You're not intellectually or emotionally mature enough to pilot a ton of steel, glass and rubber around other people with places to be and things to do.
84
Nutxaq - (so good) Road rage is ENTIRELY and ALWAYS the fault of the rager. There is no excuse. Ever. Kind of like wife beating. Maybe you should try letting someone merge. It will ease your heart. I'm sure other people let you merge when you need to? Or maybe you line up in Burien to make sure you are in the exit lane in Kirkland and you never have to merge, You are part of the problem. Even the DOT says USE ALL THE LANES and merge at the end. It's called a zipper merge in case you didn't know. But it requires people actually merging, not endangering others by jamming into the car in front of you so that no one can merge. Yes, laws exist to increase safety and reduce unpredictability, to a point. But you can't erase the human factor. Maybe you're just mad because you don't have a job.Good luck on your next interview. If you post here the next time you get in your car I will try to make sure to let all of Seattle know so that we can clear the roadways just for you. Just trying to be polite!
85
@84 You don't logic so good. If you hit someone and they get mad it's your fault. If you put their safety at risk and they get mad it's your fault. If you do something that you damn well know will trigger an emotional reaction that's your fault.

I wasn't talking about merging. I was talking about selfish, oblivious drivers like you thinking that because you want to get in another driver's lane you can regardless of whether or not they have yielded space for you or the conditions are safe. If they don't yield you get in back.

Your comments have revealed an entitled attitude, as if nothing you do could possibly be wrong and any time someone is upset with you it's because they're big meanies and you're a blameless little snowflake. Another person's outrage is always much worse than your oblivious, entitled behavior that caused it. You must be an absolute delight. It's not because I'm in between jobs that I road rage. It's because I've been surrounded by drivers like you my entire life. You need to learn some consideration for other people. I would suggest making the following your mantra: Stay out of the fucking way.
86
I get annoyed by people "being polite" and not taking their goddamn turn at a four-way stop. There's a stop I go through regularly and it flows super smoothly as long as everyone goes when they're supposed to go, but every once in a while some hand-wringer will hesitate instead of going, so everyone grinds to a fucking halt, thinking, "when is this person going to go?" Then they pause longer, and eventually wave someone else through, and now there's confusion -- is everyone else that was going to come after you supposed to go? Are you going to change your mind and go since you had the right of way? If a cop is watching am I going to get a ticket for failing to yield right of way? Meanwhile, everyone sitting at the intersection would have been through it by now if you hadn't decided to be "nice." Thanks, asshole.
87
@86 You're an awful person for having an emotional response to this. You have to learn to respect that not all star children are comfortable with the established order and are therefore free to do as they please. If this inconveniences you or threatens your safety perhaps you should examine why you're such a selfish, hateful, wife beating rapist / Trump supporter and promptly try to live more like gogetemtiger who has mastered the art of consideration for others through complete disregard for their time and well being.
88
@87 sorry, I'll work on it

89
Nutxac, you crazy, unemployed hipster with the wacky name spelling! So cute! You are unable to see the irony here because you are so busy cutting people off, honking at everyone and waving your middle finger around - you are the smug, insufferable, self-centered jackass on the road who won't let anyone merge, insists that little old ladies sprint across the street and can't wait two seconds for someone to GET THE HELL OUT OF YOUR WAY if they are trying to make a right turn or something. If they are in your way, they must be doing something WRONG AND UNSAFE! You want everyone to follow your agenda at all times. And then you scream and cry like a whiny little baby that other drivers are endangering your safety! Oh please! You are the one endangering everyone else! I saw someone honk at a dump truck driver today because his million ton truck didn't accelerate quickly enough when the light changed. Was that you? Anyway, Nutsac, I wish you luck on your next job interview. Maybe it's your self-entitled smug attitude that trips you up - don't confuse that with confidence, employers can usually tell the difference.
90
Looks like I struck a nerve. Straw man much? You can't cite one sentence from my above comments where I said anything about old ladies in crosswalks or what they should do, or that I don't let people merge. To clarify, I didn't say "Get out of MY way." I said "Get out of THE way." In other words be about your business and don't hold up other people trying to handle theirs. This is a universal philosophy that I personally employ because I don't think I'm more important than other people. Try again, snowflake.
91
@90, you have to understand: if somebody is clueless and causes other people inconvenience, calling them out on it often causes them to lash out in a fairly ugly way that attempts to portray you as a self-centered monster who is only annoyed because they're inconveniencing you, as opposed to being annoyed because they're inconveniencing everyone. It's perfectly natural. For assholes.

92
@91, Amen. No accountability whatsoever.
93
God that is weird how libertine stopped responding after the answer from the WSP came back.

94
I don't care about any of this except the fucking horns. Stop fucking honking. Just stop. It doesn't help. It doesn't make people more intelligent. It doesn't disappear cars magically. It doesn't change road conditions. Why honk? If someone is backing out of a parking space into your car, or pulling into oncoming traffic or changing lanes into your car which you cannot move due to a red light, fine, honk. the noise may prevent an accident. Otherwise, knock it off, you're an idiot, like a toddler having a tantrum.

You want people to drive like Californians? Here's a tip. Move to goddamned California. Problem solved.

As for Seattle polite... give me a fucking break. We just drove up and down the west coast.

News flash: Americans can't fucking drive. It was no better in LA, SF, and I have driven in NY and the only reason it seems better there is because nobody ever actually moves!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.