Notices
Regional - Pacific Northwest
ID, OR, WA

Washington DOT dots get the boot...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 15, 2006 | 01:44 AM
  #1  
mocascion's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member

SL Member
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,036
From: South Bay, CA & South Sound, WA (Dual Resident)
Default Washington DOT dots get the boot...

Not the most up-to-date on King5's website since they just reported that the program is deemed a failure and they are shutting it down but I thought of those who went through the Nisqually mess this weekend!

I-5 anti-tailgating strategy backfires
08:45 AM PDT on Monday, August 14, 2006

Associated Press

The 2 Dots 2 Safety program is aimed at tailgating drivers.

LACEY, Wash. - An anti-tailgating strategy on Interstate 5 backfired in the form of unexpected traffic jams, state transportation officials have discovered.

Officials from the state Transportation Department and Washington State Patrol planned to meet Monday to reassess the $35,000 Two Dots To Safety pilot program on a two-mile stretch of the freeway north of this Thurston County town. Similar programs are in use in Maryland, Minnesota and Pennsylvania.

Road crews painted dots 80 feet apart and posted signs telling drivers to stay at least two dots -- 160 feet -- from the vehicle ahead, based on the traffic safety principle of being at least two seconds behind another vehicle when going 60 mph.

Long backups developed Saturday, the day after the program began, when drivers slowed down because of heavy traffic and continued to maintain the two-dot separation, although that much distance was not necessary at slower speeds, said Lisa Mordock, a Transportation Department spokeswoman.

Road crews covered the signs later Saturday pending reconsideration of the program, including the wording on the signs, Mordock said.
Old Aug 15, 2006 | 02:17 AM
  #2  
Infamous425's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 397
From: 425
Default

i would rather they be a little more lenient on speeding. WA has some of the slowest (and dumbest) drivers ive encountered compared to CA and FL
Old Aug 15, 2006 | 03:09 AM
  #3  
ratcityrain's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
AlphaSquad
SL Member
Scion Evolution
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,663
From: Sumner, WA
Default

I totally agree with you Infamous... The drivers here in WA are horrible drivers...
Old Aug 15, 2006 | 03:18 AM
  #4  
Tomas's Avatar
Admin Emeritus

10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 14,570
From: University Place, WA
Default

"No comment."
Old Aug 15, 2006 | 04:16 AM
  #5  
zinker's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 834
From: McChord AFB, WA
Default

Being from IL I hate driving here aka the traffic jams because the guy on the other side of the road changing a tire
Old Aug 15, 2006 | 04:45 AM
  #6  
Camie's Avatar
Senior Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 322
From: Hillsboro, OR
Default

Thank god! cause when i come through there this weekend it'll blow to get delays through there again not only that but driving through there this previous weekend sucked big time
Old Aug 15, 2006 | 04:53 AM
  #7  
OldYeller's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
Scion Evolution
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,402
From: Cucamonga, CA RT66
Default

160 feet apart? If they did that on I-5 in LA the traffic would be backed up from Tijuana to Sacramento.

I once drove on business with a guy from Pitsburgh. He would actually stop at any sort of a yellow light. I kept thinking we would get rear ended. I know we would have in LA.
Old Aug 15, 2006 | 08:17 AM
  #8  
DownhillSpec's Avatar
Senior Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,006
From: portland, or
Default

yeah its a lot better through there now... it was murder the first few days... i got stuck in a grid lock at 1130 at night through there... ridiculous.
Old Aug 15, 2006 | 05:57 PM
  #9  
mocascion's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member

SL Member
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,036
From: South Bay, CA & South Sound, WA (Dual Resident)
Default

Apparently they said that people were confused and didn't understand that if one was going under the speed limit they didn't need to worry about the 2 dots but so many people thought that even when going 30 mph that they had to leave the distance.
Old Aug 15, 2006 | 08:28 PM
  #10  
Tomas's Avatar
Admin Emeritus

10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 14,570
From: University Place, WA
Default

Yeah, the fixed dots painted on the roadway really apply to only one speed.

What they were trying to do, of course, was to make it easier for people to apply the "two second rule" to follow at a safe distance. What would help more is to properly train people to understand how to determine and use a safe following distance.

The way I was taught was to every now and then check one's distance by watching the car ahead pass over something identifiable on the road - a pavement patch, a crack, a blemish, even a lane marker, then count out two seconds (one-thousand-one, one-thousand-two, one-thousand-three).

If your car reached that 'mark' before you started on 'one-thousand-three', you were too close.

(The company I worked for for 25 years had a THREE second rule if you were driving a company vehicle - following distance was 'OK' if you were a full three seconds behind the vehicle in front of you...)*

Oddly enough, after nearly 40 years of having that rule pounded in (along with seatbelt use, mirror checking, and speed limits), it is simply habit for me to allow adequate distance - and even to occasionally check myself with a count out.

Now if we could just get more than 5% of the drivers out there to drive sensibly...

Tomas

* The three second rule for the company vehicles was promulgated on the fact that many of the company's vehicles were trucks, sometimes heavily loaded. They needed a little more time to stop, so the rule was set with more space for ALL company vehicles.

T
Old Aug 15, 2006 | 08:49 PM
  #11  
Otsego_Undead's Avatar
Senior Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
Scion Evolution
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 266
From: Wenatchee, WA
Default

Washington has its fair share of bad drivers, but those peeps from B.C., they're the worst.. i swear they have NO IDEA what cruise control is.
Old Aug 15, 2006 | 09:01 PM
  #12  
kkawana's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member


SL Member
Scion Evolution
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,067
From: PNW
Default

thats how i interperted the 2 second rule...same as Tomas....
tho i'll admit i violate that rule if people are goin 40 in 60 (ie I-5 under convention center) for no reason... no 1 infront of them... no 1 tryin to merge over.. they just goin slow
Old Aug 15, 2006 | 09:59 PM
  #13  
DownhillSpec's Avatar
Senior Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,006
From: portland, or
Default

yeah the army teaches the same thing in tactical movements... though the reasoning is that 1 rocket wont get 2 vehicles but none the less... its still the same principle.
Old Aug 15, 2006 | 10:18 PM
  #14  
kkawana's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member


SL Member
Scion Evolution
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,067
From: PNW
Default

depends on what the truck i carrying...lol... if its a truck load of ammo... all bets are off if your within 100 yd radius
Old Aug 16, 2006 | 12:44 AM
  #15  
robbiej's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 5,510
From: SW Washington
Default

geesh, If you leave a car length between you and the person in front of you, two people will try to take the spot, need to start carring a laus(sp) rocket with me.
Old Aug 16, 2006 | 01:55 AM
  #16  
Tomas's Avatar
Admin Emeritus

10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 14,570
From: University Place, WA
Default

Sometimes having a few LAWs would help - an M-72 heat-seeking anti-tank would be about right... especially against the 90-100 MPH ricers threading through traffic... (LAW = Light Anti-armor Weapon)
Old Aug 16, 2006 | 08:51 AM
  #17  
DownhillSpec's Avatar
Senior Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,006
From: portland, or
Default

well if you elders wanna get technical the LAW is no more and has been replaced with the AT-4 84 mm anti armor rocket... just throwin that out there.
Old Aug 16, 2006 | 04:20 PM
  #18  
willlangford's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
Club One
SL Member
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,000
From: Ladera Ranch, CA / Chehalis, WA
Default

yea it sucked i was in that ____ saturday...the dots are annoying hwen driving because they distract the eyes. or maybe its just me. i hope they just get rid of them...
Old Aug 17, 2006 | 12:34 AM
  #19  
saddlesore's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 860
From: Retirement Based in South Dakota
Default

for me it is 3 sec. for legal loads, 5+ if I have a large o/d or super load (150,000 lbs or better)
and btw...3+ sec. to protect the windshield of the toaster...
Old Aug 17, 2006 | 12:48 AM
  #20  
Tomas's Avatar
Admin Emeritus

10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 14,570
From: University Place, WA
Default

I agree, Baldwin, except for the 3 seconds to protect the box windshield...nothing will protect that... The only one I've lost 'on-the-road' was from an ONCOMING truck...and that one shattered both layers of glass.



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:27 PM.