Hi, recently move to California from Oregon. What things that you don't like about California Roads or Drivingin California?
(I hate California Traffic lights)

For me,
1. No Exit Numbers in most Urban Freeways.
2. Traffic Lights, can see them, there is only 1 at the top and rest of the traffic lights are on the side of the poll.
3. Freeways, if there's a crack in the freeway, Caltran bandage the cracks with tar instead of fixing it.
4. Minimum speed limit is actually 10 mph over the sign on the freeway. If the sign says 55mph, please drive at least 65 mph overwise you'll get a rear-end collision.
5. Island on the main roads that prevent you taking a left turn into a local side streets or the parking lot.

California is one of the last states to number their interstate exits. I believe a lot of is completed, but they may still be working on it in some cities.

BTW, what area are you in?

California in general has a good highway system, atleast when they build there they build for expected capacity, not for current capacity. Oregon and Washington could learn from that.

Despite the perceived "craziness" of California drivers, most are pretty good drivers due to all the experience they have dealing with traffic, long commutes, and complex intersections, interchanges, and of course the occasional gunshot aimed at them if they mess up.

I like the fact that basically it's "Go as fast as you can" especially on the highway.

I really enjoy driving 80-85 mph in a 60 zone as long as I'm going with the flow of traffic. Obviously, it's not safe to be weaving in and out of traffic and I don't do that, but if traffic is going 80+, you bet I'm there!

Here's a riddle: Who/what makes the best 4 wheel drive vehicle?



A rental car!

I remember driving on Southern California freeways in the 80's and seeing the occasional speed-racer going 90-100 mph and weaving around everyone else. Actually quite common. I think CHP started cracking down on this and is less common these days.

I also remember riding as a kid with my Dad in L.A. in the 70's and him telling me to not talk to him because he needed to concentrate on going 70 with cars just a few feet apart. While I was miffed at the time, I now know he had only my best interest in mind!

And Skybill, it may not be PC, but I agree. Go with the flow! It is much more dangerous to drive slower than the flow regardless if you are technically "speeding". California drivers understand this, many in Washington do, and some in Oregon do.

I couldn't agree more with you Reford and Skybill. Get going or get out of my way!

At least they FIX cracks in California. The same can't always be said up here.

I like the larger block sizes in most urban areas.

It's not so friendly for walking. Neither are the isolated little communities behind walls.

You do get from place to place quickly however!

Re: "go with the flow"

I once had a speeding ticket vacated using this exact reasoning. I was doing 60 something on HWY 18, coming back from the beach. Got pulled out of the middle of a fairly large pack of cars.

We had been moving steady, with nobody passing, for a long time. On that particular highway, that's a good thing.

Filed no contest and said as much in the letter.

Posed the question to the judge, given the state of that road and number of headers that happen each year, is strict compliance with the law, worth the safety risk for you and your passengers? I had no problem with the law. The speed posted was good enough. However, the majority of drivers did not agree and that posed a high risk.

Barring some additional remedy, was it reasonable to expect someone to comply with the posted speeds?

I had included the full fine, and asked the court to provide me a statement on these matters.

Got no statement, but they did return my check!

Used to be, going 55 on that road meant somebody was passing every chance they got. I can't tell you how many times I've had to hit the shoulder (what little of it there was in places), slow down, or do some other thing to allow yet another moron to advance one or two places in line!

This was a long time ago. Since then, most of that road is no marked no passing, safety corridor, etc... It's not so bad as most drivers now travel the posted limit more closely.

In cali, this is true on nearly any road, because people will flat out pass! I'll bet this same reasoning applies huge there, thus the permissive atmosphere where speeding goes.

I don't have the link handy, but someobody did a study on drivers. If there are no posted speeds, about 85 percent of them will travel at a safe speed. The remainder will either go more slowly, or exceed that safe average and put others at risk. Prior to conservation, the posted speeds were near this median and were defensible limits. Exceeding them was doing the wrong thing.

We are slowly returning to this, but the posted limits, particularly here in Oregon, are still below what they should be. Since those metrics where established, cars have improved significantly in terms of their performance and fuel consumption at those higher speeds as well.

This all means going with the flow is a totally viable approach to driving, given some attention is given to the distance between cars. Nearly all of us hose this up, and I don't know why this is. We seem perfectly capable of knowing where our safe limit is in other respects. Why we feel good about moving so close to one another is beyond me.

The time it takes to actually consider stopping is far more, on average, than the typical driver distance between cars at 70mph or so! The actual stopping is far worse! If you pay rock solid attention, you can cut this distance to half, or even a third, but that's iffy --real iffy. Get surprised, distracted, etc... and that distance more than doubles!

We've done non-scientific tests in our car. Had the kids call speed change at random times, watch landmarks and measure time. Was fun! The average response time when somebody is waiting for it, is 1-200ms. If one is being talked to, or distracted by something, it can be well into 4-500ms. Do the math and give some space!

Say what you want about drivers in Cali, they are generally doing the right things, but for the gap between cars. IMHO, that problem is universal.

Almost perpertual construction on I5 between Mt. Shasta and Lake Shasta.

And 101 in NoCal, north of the Bay Area to the Oregon border is a mish-mash of freeway and two lane curving highway with no passing lanes. Somewhat surprised that a state the size of CA can't complete this project. Probably due to NoCal environmentalists and an attitude that anything north of S.F. is not worth spending on. But, bottom line, that route takes almost twice as long as I-5. But IT is more scenic, if that floats your boat.

Not probably.
I think that project (upgrade of 101) was all but abandoned like 40 years ago.

Yes, you are probably right. The population doesn't warrant major re-construction there. But I drove it a few years ago and did see sections that were upgraded to freeway status, only to come crashing down to narrow 2-lane roads every 15-20 miles or so. I guess the route to Eureka just isn't a major Caltrans priority! Probably more important to expand the "San Diego" from 12 lanes to 14! The freeway culture continues to live and breathe in the Golden State! Detroit and the oil companies are rejoicing...

I drove 101 last spring and wondered the same.. wtf were they thinking? Five miles of Interstate, 10 miles of 30's era twisty 2-lane, 5 more miles of interstate, back to the twisty.

I suspect that some portions of that upgrade can never be completed without paving over some ancient redwoods, which is no longer acceptable.

Personally one thing I don't like about california driving: say I'm visiting LA, and I know I want to go north on Interstate X. I find Interstate X, but the signs say "I-X City A" and I-X City B". Which one is North? I'm not from LA, how the hell should I know which town I want to go toward, unless it coincidentally happens to be my destination??

They should have one sign with a Star and the other with a Gun on it. Easy to tell which way to go!

Tadc, I'm sad to say I'm an Interstate geek. My understanding is the original Eisenhower Interstate System was set up with certain standards that were required to be followed. The goal was maintain a continuity between states on design, width of roadway, shoulders, onramps, etc.

As for signs, the same standards applied everywhere. Each freeway directional sign told the number and the next principle town to be found along the route. So, today, for example, in Portland you have many Interstate signs that say "I-5 Seattle", and likewise the same in Seattle saying "Portland". But most have N/S/E/W directionals as well.

But, I agree, if you are not familiar with LA freeways it can be confusing. For example you can be driving on the San Diego Freeway, going away from San Diego. You can also take the Slauson cut-off, cut off your slauson and get back on the freeway. (Thanks to Johnny for that one)

A lot of it had to do with the redwood forests, allthough the counter argument was that the freeway takes the trucks off of the scenic route.

Since 101 was not an "interstate" highway, that probably affected funding greatly.

You forgot the stop-n-go sections in Eureka and Crescent City, and a few other towns. Those really slow you down too. The 199 route from Crescent City to Grants Pass it lots of fun at night in the rain.

I believe California looks at 101 in NoCal as a "scenic" highway as opposed to a main transportation corridor. If you have the time, it's not a bad road trip. However, 101 south of say, Santa Rosa, and all the way down through S.F. and the South Bay is considered a main corridor, and meets freeway standards for the most part, (except through S.F., where it is all surface streets.)

Also, interesting to note that well after I-5 was completed through Oregon in the early 60's, Northern California's portion of I-5 wasn't completed for years after. I guess it comes down to priorities...that section of the state was considered the "outback" of California and little attention was paid to it until well into the 1970's. For a state as large as California, it is somewhat surprising there is only one N-S interstate, a somewhat adequate 101, and a Hwy 99 that really only serves Sacramento to Bakersfield.

yeah, it was really surprising one could make a left turn in front of oncoming NB traffic from the SB lane of I-5 in California not too long ago.

I'm going down to Sacramento this week and I'll check to see if they've got that left turn thing cleared up.

How about the California Traffic lights, one a the top, and two on the sides. Not like Oregon, everything at the top

Not sure I understand, E dawg. What do you mean by one at the top, two on the sides?

California traffic lights all look the same. There are at least one at the top & center, and two mounted on the side of the street. Not like Oregon where traffic lights are at the top, not at the side.

Three bucks a gallon is another reason to dislike California roads:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8533441/

Taxes, and a populace that is willing to pay for highway improvements. Doesn't exist in OR & WA. Although, state gas taxes are actually lower than in OR & WA, they have other local taxes and fees that make up for it. Probably more of a supply expense, i.e. traffic, higher real estate taxes for stations, and a general cost of living that trickles down to every business in Cali. Anybody thinking of moving to CA, keep in mind you will need to make 35-40% more money to just stay even.

A lot of why California's gas is always so much more expensive is because their gas has to be refined differently. California's gas has some different stuff in it than any other state, for emissions purposes of course ... and since the demand is only in California, the price is going to be much higher.