Stupid Driver Stories

Well, you are supposed to. =P That was another part of the driving test that seemed to be important, because the town I took it in has a lot of pedestrian traffic. And considering in most of these intersections the speed is usually ~25MPH or less, I'm not going fast enough to confidently pass through the intersection without potentially hitting the pedestrian. =P I also definitely don't have enough power or responsiveness from my car to pull it off most times.
 
I have no idea what it is about college that makes everyone forget that "look both ways before crossing the street" thing you learn when you are five. Even the professors did it at my old school. I think my favorite day was after almost running over all the college people who stepped in front of the car for the day, I was on my way home and witnessed a couple dogs walk to the corner, look both ways, wait for the light to turn and used the crosswalk. :|
THE DOGS. THE DOGS ARE SMARTER THAN THE COLLEGE PROFESSORS HOW DOES THAT WORK.

I honestly believe students grow a contempt for traffic, at least I think I did. I noticed myself caring less and less about cross traffic in crosswalks around campus for a good part. Oddly enough, almost on graduation, that all went away and I went back to being the safe, kind pedestrian again. Which is aparently passe in NYC.
 
The obliviot du jour:

[video=youtube;7rncGJ-MSX4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rncGJ-MSX4[/video]
 
I honestly believe students grow a contempt for traffic, at least I think I did. I noticed myself caring less and less about cross traffic in crosswalks around campus for a good part. Oddly enough, almost on graduation, that all went away and I went back to being the safe, kind pedestrian again. Which is aparently passe in NYC.
If I had a kid the first thing I would teach them (as pedestrian or driver) is "Assume the other person has the right of way." You have the right away legally? No, the other person is an idiot. Idiots have the right of way. Remember that and you won't die. Most useful info I ever learned for the use of roads.
The obliviot du jour:
1865425-wtf_is_this_shit_piccard.jpg
 
The obliviot du jour:

I did that once :unsure: An intersection on the drive home from work had two sets of lights, one behind the other, because it was essentially a T intersection followed immediately by a four-way.

This is what it looks like (except the rear set of lights is much closer; it's the camera that makes them look so far):

http://img856.imageshack.**/img856/4391/unledurnk.png

This particular day at work had been very taxing, so I put on the autopilot on the drive home, stopped at the first set of lights when both sets were red, then simply lost my mind and thought the far set were my signals, so I ended up blowing the near red light (the far ones change to green first) and nearly sideswiping a van.
 
I did that once :unsure: An intersection on the drive home from work had two sets of lights, one behind the other, because it was essentially a T intersection followed immediately by a four-way.

This is what it looks like (except the rear set of lights is much closer; it's the camera that makes them look so far):
]
This particular day at work had been very taxing, so I put on the autopilot on the drive home, stopped at the first set of lights when both sets were red, then simply lost my mind and thought the far set were my signals, so I ended up blowing the near red light (the far ones change to green first) and nearly sideswiping a van.
The big difference is the person stopped THEN blew through the light in spectre's video (you can see the cars in the row when he pulls up to the light)

I have done what you did before, they added THREE sets of lights that close together randomly on a road I took home from school, since it was a commute I had been doing for like a year when they put them up I would keep forgetting they were there. None of them were placed in areas that actually needed them and it was incredibly obnoxious.
 
The obliviot du jour:

[video=youtube;7rncGJ-MSX4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rncGJ-MSX4[/video]

After watching some of your videos from your head cam....

I think I would be terrified to ride a bike with so many crazy ass people out there.
 
After watching some of your videos from your head cam....

I think I would be terrified to ride a bike with so many crazy ass people out there.

Something that isn't obvious from my videos is that I ride quite a lot for an urban 'commuting' rider. 200 mile days occur with some frequency; I encounter more vehicles and therefore more obliviots than most anyone who doesn't drive for a living. Your typical commuter who makes the usual 30 mile round trip to and from work will take a week to see the number of vehicles let alone idiots I see in just a day.

At that, though, the people in Dublin, Ireland are evidently worse in terms of degree. Here's a vid that was posted to (IIRC) the GenMoto thread of what one scooter rider in Dublin saw over the course of two months; I ride more than he does, but I've never seen so many people running reds. Warning: Music lyrics not safe for work.

 
Last edited:
I think the most scary thing about the driving tests is nothing they teach on them will ever be used again. Once you pass you start over from scratch.
What was on mine iirc: going the speed limit, how many feet before turning to use a blinker, how many seconds to stop at a stop sign, how to "parallel park" (in other words pull over the car and reverse. I still don't know how to parellel park because I never use it and feel too embarrassed practicing.)
I would honestly have to guess on the things that are numbers and am not really qualified to teach my friend how to drive so she can finally get a damn licence.

There's something going through parliament in Victoria apparently to make driving tests compulsory every 10 years. This seems pretty good, makes sure people don't forget the things they learn. The problem though is that how you drive on a driving test and actual driving are two very different things.

As it stands, the current driving test is probably too focused on stupid things and not actually determining if someone can drive. They'd probably be less concerned about you driving around 20km/h below the speed limit all the time than if you didn't scan your mirrors every 5 seconds. Also, the examiner chooses whether you do a 3 point turn or a reverse parallel park. Obviously one of these things requires much more skill and effort, but they are considered equal for the purposes of a test.
 
There's something going through parliament in Victoria apparently to make driving tests compulsory every 10 years. This seems pretty good, makes sure people don't forget the things they learn. The problem though is that how you drive on a driving test and actual driving are two very different things.

As it stands, the current driving test is probably too focused on stupid things and not actually determining if someone can drive. They'd probably be less concerned about you driving around 20km/h below the speed limit all the time than if you didn't scan your mirrors every 5 seconds. Also, the examiner chooses whether you do a 3 point turn or a reverse parallel park. Obviously one of these things requires much more skill and effort, but they are considered equal for the purposes of a test.

California, at the time I went for my motorcycle license, had an even worse test-to-reality relationship. You wobbled around a bunch of cones on a preset course in the parking lot of the examining office and if you didn't mow down too many cones, you passed.

This had little to nothing to do with how well or poorly you could operate a motorcycle on the road as you could screw up quite a lot and still pass - but the tests weren't really all that difficult unless you had an abnormally large or ill-handling machine. You weren't tested on signals use while moving or anything.

Edit: Wrong link pasted initially. The first link I gave was for a test that was far more comprehensive and a better skills assessment. Relinked the first one, here's the link to a description of a better test: http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcycle-training/motorcycle-test/
 
Last edited:
without potentially hitting the pedestrian. =P
You say it like its a bad thing :p

Best ped story I have is from recent, coming back from a friend's birthday party around 1am or so (I don't drink so no drunk driving involved). Street with fairly short blocks, not really any cars to speak of. Some obliviots are crossing on a red (for them), in dark clothes (NYC duh) at night, I honk they don't even react, like I said I don't stop :) Adjusted my path slightly and flew past them, fiancee was not amused.
California, at the time I went for my motorcycle license, had an even worse test-to-reality relationship. You wobbled around a bunch of cones on a preset course in the parking lot of the examining office and if you didn't mow down too many cones, you passed.

This had little to nothing to do with how well or poorly you could operate a motorcycle on the road as you could screw up quite a lot and still pass - but the tests weren't really all that difficult unless you had an abnormally large or ill-handling machine. You weren't tested on signals use while moving or anything.
Thats sounds like a very rigorous and thorough test compared to NY's.

If you have a D class license this is how you get an M.
1) Go to DMV with enough forms of ID to satisfy the points (usually license and SS card is enough)
2) Fill out a form
3) Receive a permit
4) Find a participating school and take a two day basic course, all gear and bike provided.
5) Receive certification of completion
6) You are now a motorcycle rider....
 
If you have a D class license this is how you get an M.
1) Go to DMV with enough forms of ID to satisfy the points (usually license and SS card is enough)
2) Fill out a form
3) Receive a permit
4) Find a participating school and take a two day basic course, all gear and bike provided.
5) Receive certification of completion
6) You are now a motorcycle rider....
What should be done instead of this? The two day riders course can be very informative. Does it completely prepare you? No. But any person getting a motorcycle licence should know the rules of the road anyways.
 
What should be done instead of this? The two day riders course can be very informative. Does it completely prepare you? No. But any person getting a motorcycle licence should know the rules of the road anyways.
Idk maybe a test?
 
At the time, you didn't need an existing automobile license to get a motorcycle license, nor did you need to take any training. You could literally (in theory) take the written test in the morning then wobble around the cones in the afternoon and have your license by evening.

Also, don't discount the two day MSF course - believe it or not, it is considered to provide the equivalent training of about five years on the street without the course.
 
Last edited:
At the time, you didn't need an existing automobile license to get a motorcycle license, nor did you need to take any training. You could literally (in theory) take the written test in the morning then wobble around the cones in the afternoon and have your license by evening.

Also, don't discount the two day MSF course - believe it or not, it is considered to provide the equivalent training of about five years on the street without the course.
You don't need a D license here either but then you have to go through a test.

Good to know, while I more or less gave up on owning a motorcycle (I will kill myself within the first week, cuz I'm dumb) I do want to get a license.
 
You say it like its a bad thing :p

In front of a police offer, that might be a bad thing? Maaaaaaybe.


(Also, I wish I could learn how to ride a bike of some sort. Nothing all fancy or anything, something beginner-ish. I would definitely pay for one of those courses for Motorcycle operation I think if I did. The only problem is that none of my relatives think using a motorcycle is a good idea at all. My Dad has always wanted a motorcycle, but he's not "allowed".)
 
In front of a police offer, that might be a bad thing? Maaaaaaybe.


(Also, I wish I could learn how to ride a bike of some sort. Nothing all fancy or anything, something beginner-ish. I would definitely pay for one of those courses for Motorcycle operation I think if I did. The only problem is that none of my relatives think using a motorcycle is a good idea at all. My Dad has always wanted a motorcycle, but he's not "allowed".)

I'd encourage you to at least take the RiderCourse to find out if it's something you really want to do.

As for the opinions of others... I guess you have to decide what's important to you.
 
Oh yes I understand. I think it would be an interesting change from operating a car all the time (especially mine). I'm pretty good about knowing my surroundings, as I am quite a defensive driver normally (can usually tell when someone California rolls through a stop. ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS DID THAT TO ME at that dumb wide intersection near my house the other day).

Most of the issue with relatives is the issue of being hit by other drivers not paying attention and me or my Dad not being able to avoid the accident in time (even though neither of us have had issues avoiding accidents in cars), but I understand motorcycles are different beasts.

(Goes to research)
 
Sadly, nobody's done a comprehensive study for bikes since the Hurt (yes, the author's name was Harry Hurt) Report back in 1981. Many of the conclusions from that report still appear to be valid today, such as the majority of car-bike accident interactions are the car operator's fault, usually the car turning left in front of the bike.

Also, keep in mind that recently motorcycle accident and fatality rates have been on the rise due to what some term Un-Frozen Cavemen and idiots like all the cruiser riders running around wearing a beanie helmet that doesn't protect anything, clad in clothing that makes them look like a reject from a pirate-themed B-movie. If you discard the idiots (no helmet, no gear) from the stats, due to the improvement in gear and mandatory training the crash stats are getting better as time goes on - but many studies do not break that out properly.

Since the Un-Frozen Caveman is a very common stupid rider type, I'll reproduce the original article that kicked off that meme, from city-bike.com:

By Gabe Ets-Hokin

I just quit working as a motorcycle salesman, so now I can bitch about these guys to you. I call them ?un-frozen cavemen,? in honor of the hilarious character invented by Phil Hartman on ?Saturday Night Live.?

On the show, Hartman plays a 20,000-year-old caveman who was frozen in a glacier and then is thawed out in modern times. Our modern ways ?frighten and confuse? him. My un-frozen cave men (UCM?s) sheepishly wander into dealerships all over the USA daily. They have just thawed themselves out from 15 to 40 years of motorcycle-less hibernation and are looking at motorcycles again for the first time since Nixon bombed Cambodia.

They usually describe pretty limited motorcycle experience, and aren?t even sure of the model of bike they owned. (?Oh, it was a Honda. I?m pretty sure it was a Honda. Anyway, it was my brother-in-law?s. Man, was I crazy!?) Today I met the man who just 15 years ago had a BMW R75S, the only one ever known to have existed. He must have had a good relationship with BMW, for them to make a unique one-off bike like that for him.

The UCM?s gave it up because they bought a house, or they had a kid, or simply because the wife asked them to.

Frequently, they have an inflated image of their past selves. Sometimes they were the fastest guy on Mt. Tam. Other times they were the top motocrosser in the state. The common thread is that they had to abandon such craziness before they got their fool selves killed.

Running through my salesman?s list of steps to move the customer towards a sale (or maybe just to weed out the timewasters, which is what 75% of these guys are), I?ve now determined their riding experience, and now I want to find out what they want out of a motorcycle.

?Well, I just want to have something to putz around on.? is what a huge number of them say.

Putz around. ?Putz? is Yiddish slang for the male reproductive organ, and is more commonly used to describe an oafish or stupid man. Yeah. Judging from the rare UCM who actually buys a motorcycle, ?putzing? involves wearing a Hawaiian shirt, shorts and boat shoes while wobbling down the street on a motorcycle with under 1000 miles on it. A man can do a lot of putzing (or putting) on a 50cc scooter, but they don?t want that. A 250 Virago or Ninja won?t do it either. I?ve seen a lot of putzes on scooters, especially in San Francisco, so it would seem an ideal putzing tool, but apparently not. I?ve never sold a small scooter or a small displacement bike to a UCM. ?Putzing?, as an activity, needs to be done on a motorcycle with far, far, far more capability than the putzer could ever possibly use. It?s wacky, huh? Sort of like using a Porsche to pick up dry cleaning. Actually, they do that a lot, too. At least in Marin, which is probably the only place outside of Stuttgart where you can see actual traffic jams of Porsche 911?s.

Once I figure out what kind of riding style they?re interested in, I show the UCM a model or two. And it?s here the fun begins, as I have to explain every single technological advancement in motorcycle technology since 1968, starting with disc brakes. By the time I work my way up to liquid cooling, I?m ready to fake an epileptic seizure so I can stop talking to this guy.

?Liquid cooling? I don?t need that! I?ll just be putzing around on this thing. I won?t be racing or anything like that.?

I can just imagine a frustrated salesman talking to some prospect in 1910. ?Rubber tires? With inner tubes? I?ve been riding on steel rims and wooden spokes since 1885. I don?t need any of that fancy crap! It?s not like I want to be riding around at 20 miles per hour or anything like that!?

Seriously, re-entry riders really need to be mature and intelligent about their re-entry purchase. Sure, a 30 horsepower Bonneville with drum brakes and barely-functioning suspension was OK back in the ?70s, when the Bay Area?s population was a third of what it was now, and the roads were smooth and well-maintained, and most drivers were insured and driving well-maintained and relatively slow cars. But now the roads are heavily trafficked with SUV?s and monster trucks driven by inattentive sociopaths at breakneck speeds.

Introduce a putz on a modern motorcycle, a motorcycle with a power-to-weight ratio far better than anything available in the 1970s into the soup and it?s a recipe for lots of crashing. Especially when you consider that these guys never get any kind of advanced motorcycle training, much less a license.

The UCM is unable to comprehend the technological advances of the last three decades, so he just goes by what he knows about. This usually fits in with what I call the ?I?m a pretty big guy? syndrome.

PBGS is a condition where the UCM?s creeping weight gain has convinced him that he needs a huge amount of horsepower to propel his expanding ass at a sufficient speed. The manifestations of PBGS are disregard for any motorcycle smaller than 750cc and a preference for ?comfortable? seating positions. This means the UCM usually rejects any handlebar lower than nipple height as being ?one of them Ninja-bikes.?

?I?d probably kill myself on one of those things.?

The UCM will usually tell the salesman that he had a 750 or a 900 back in the day, so he needs something at least that big. The salesman will try to explain that even the slowest, cheapest 600 today makes more horsepower and weighs far less than the most extreme, exotic, high powered liter bike 30 years ago, but the UCM?s primitive higher brain functions cannot comprehend such a concept. Big guys get big bikes. Manly men get the most powerful bike they can afford. A 750 is more powerful than a 600, and the 1400cc Harley must be the baddest, most fearsome bike at all.

It?s not like he?s buying a Kawasaki Z1 or anything like that! I remember I rode one of those things once, and I could barely control it, it went so fast!

Anyway, a pretty big guy needs at least a 750 for putzing around on. That?s just a basic safety issue. And I?m just being sarcastic. If these were real concerns I had, then the average age of motorcycle crash fatalities would be rising steadily over the last decade as more and more UCM?s re-discover the joys of ?70s style unregulated, untrained motorcycling with the help of no formal training.
 
Haha, I definitely wouldn't insist on having as much power as possible. As like cars, when learning to operate a vehicle you should definitely have adequate (which doesn't take much for a motorcycle), but not too much power. Since I'm such a tiny, yet tall (5' 10" ~120lbs), person, I think I would stick with something manageable and probably older if I would start out. I would definitely always wear proper safety gear too... I would like to keep the brains that I do have. :lol: Also, I figured that motorcycles wouldn't really be as dangerous as they insist, I've never thought that which is why I've always thought it would be great to learn how to ride a motorcycle in the first place. As it is, I pretty much carry everything in my pockets or my backpacks (not much).

I see there are a few driving schools in the area (apparently there is a "Motorcycle Training Institute" about 50 miles away in a town I drive through sometimes, website says $250 over 21, but not much other information), I think that calling them would probably yield the answers that I would want to know. It's a start!
 
Top