"He's not even going the speed limit!" WTF?

[MaximA32]

I brought this back (after I cleaned it up a bit of course) because it's a valid discussion. Any more a$$, it'll go the way of the Dodo(again)

[breadbox]

LOL how long was it locked for? I honestly wrote a big post, then It was locked now it isn't.

Um I don't like how my highway system is 55 but everyone drives like it is 65. Why not bump it up? Come on VDOT.

[PoorManQ45]

LOL how long was it locked for? I honestly wrote a big post, then It was locked now it isn't.

Um I don't like how my highway system is 55 but everyone drives like it is 65. Why not bump it up? Come on VDOT.

I believe the speed limit has something to do with the FDOT funding.

Back on topic, my original thought for this thread was to get information as to why people have a negative view on a person abiding by the law?

[Razi]

Well if that's what you were wondering, ask your friends, you were with them right?
Even without asking them, it should've been painfully obvious that they were frustrated because the person slowing them down.

[IBCoupe]

LOL how long was it locked for? I honestly wrote a big post, then It was locked now it isn't.

Um I don't like how my highway system is 55 but everyone drives like it is 65. Why not bump it up? Come on VDOT.

I believe the speed limit has something to do with the FDOT funding.

Back on topic, my original thought for this thread was to get information as to why people have a negative view on a person abiding by the law?

That's correct. If a state doesn't keep its maximum speed limit below a certain level, it loses the federal highway funding.

People don't have a negative view for a person abiding by the law. They have a negative view of people being in their way. If there's a line of cars behind you, common courtesy, if not public safety, requires that you pull over. You can either make use of the right-hand lane, or you can pull over and stop momentarily.

[Razi]

People don't have a negative view for a person abiding by the law. They have a negative view of people being in their way.

This.

[rc1honda]

LOL how long was it locked for? I honestly wrote a big post, then It was locked now it isn't.

Um I don't like how my highway system is 55 but everyone drives like it is 65. Why not bump it up? Come on VDOT.

I believe the speed limit has something to do with the FDOT funding.

Back on topic, my original thought for this thread was to get information as to why people have a negative view on a person abiding by the law?

I will behave. A funny thing is that this has been a ongoing topic in Sport Rider magazine. I have seen situations where people are trying to pass the slow guy in the left lane and have run motorcycles off the road. People don't seem to see motorcycle when they are distracted or in a rush. Ir i will be riding and cut off or have a close call due to the slow car. People just need to be courteous.

[PoorManQ45]

I understand the being upset thing.

It just seems that the issue goes deeper. Like we, as a society, have a negative view of things.

My comparison to food would be a good example. How many times have you replied with "It wasn't bad" when you are asked how your food was? This implies that you were anticipating a negative outcome. Am I off the reservation on that one too?

[Razi]

It all depends on context wouldn't it?
If you go to a random restaurant that you buy food from because you can't find anywhere else, you could be a little skeptical about the taste of their food.

Just because the word "bad" is there doesn't mean the society that uses those types of terms has a negative view of things.

[PoorManQ45]

It all depends on context wouldn't it?
If you go to a random restaurant that you buy food from because you can't find anywhere else, you could be a little skeptical about the taste of their food.

Just because the word "bad" is there doesn't mean the society that uses those types of terms has a negative view of things.

I guess. I've just heard negative connotations like that so often.

Are you really saying something is good by specifying that it wasn't bad?

[Razi]

If something is good, I'd say it's good.
If something is bad, I'd say it was bad.

If it was pretty "meh", I'd probably say something like "It was alright" or "It wasn't bad"
I'd wouldn't normally go around saying something was good by stating it wasn't bad.
But if I were very skeptical about something and it turned out to be better than expected, I'd probably say "Actually, it wasn't that bad! It was pretty good actually." Or something to that effect.

[krimsonviper]

Drive right + pass left = /discussion

[ADDirishboy]

Edit: wrong thread. Oops.

[krimsonviper]

PSST! Wrong thread y0!

[MinisterofDOOM]

This thread makes me want to murder kittens.

When you throw a rock in a river, what happens?

Traffic is a river. Slow drivers are rocks. GTF over to the right and minimize the impacts of your slowness. For all purposes BUT traffic stops, absolute speed is IRRELEVANT. It is RELATIVE speed that matters. Slow traffic keep right. Slow traffic keep right. Slow traffic keep right. It doesn't put the slow driver out AT ALL, but helps everyone else on the road. It's called courtesy, and being aware of what's going on around you. Part of what makes slow drivers who obstruct traffic so damn irritating is that that behavior is a very clear sign that they don't pay attention to jack s*** while they're driving. They get in their car, stare straight ahead, and go. Anyone who uses their mirrors should become aware that they're in the way and, unless they're a worthless poopyhead scumbag of a piece of dried crap dangling from an a$$, take that as a cue to get over.

So, in summary, there are two types of people who drive slow to the point that they become an obstruction:
Ignorant space-cadets
And ***holes

[PEZi]

see.... i'm not a left lane hog.... i just drive slow... people still get pissed

the highway is a different story tho... i typically go 5 over.... i stay in the right lane.... only getting over to pass... and still people seem to get pissed that i'm in the left lane... I'M f*** PASSING PEOPLE.... I'M GOING OVER THE SPEED LIMIT... DEAL WITH IT!

i'll get back over when i'm done passing you f*** f***

[Red coupe]

I am likely the guy speeding.
I am no street racer... I have never tried to find the top speed of my car... I am not weaving through traffic...

But I use my gas pedal when I can do so safely.

With this in mind, I am not going to talk about the legalities of driving under the speed limit, or the law with regards to passing lanes...

But from all perspectives... If you are holding up traffic... Get the f*** out of the way!
Not because its the law, not because of the technical classifications of each lane... Simply because WHY THE f*** NOT?!
You know its the "fast lane" why are you there if you are not going as fast as traffic? Its not a matter of laws, its a matter of courtesy. If you have the option to avoid it don't get in other peoples way, don't slow down people, don't be an ***hole.

Who cares what the law is? If we can all use the road in a safe and respectful manner, allowing each other to to pick our own comfortable pace with out conflict... Why would we doing anything but that?

Yes I know not all speeders are traveling at a safe speed... But not all are traveling at a dangerous one either. There is a single speed limit, do you really think the safe speed for an M3 is the same as a 1982 chevy van?
And even in the situation of an unsafe driver... Do you really want that driver hanging around you? Even worse do you want to take an unsafe driver and make they anxious and annoyed, then "force" them to try and get around you?

Get the f*** out of the way, not because its the law, or because its what the definition of the lane dictates... do it because its the right thing to do to make EVERYONE'S drive a little bit better.

[MinisterofDOOM]

And even in the situation of an unsafe driver... Do you really want that driver hanging around you? Even worse do you want to take an unsafe driver and make they anxious and annoyed, then "force" them to try and get around you?

Exactly. Absolutely. I don't understand the mindset of brake checking, etc. The only time I'll use my brake lights to alert another driver that they're too close is if I have NOWHERE ELSE TO GO, like in the cramped construction corridor that makes up ~1/3 of my commute right now. But it's entirely possible to illuminate your brake lights without slowing down, much less slowing abruptly.
The solution to d!ck drivers is NOT to become confrontational, competitive, or otherwise aggressive. The solution is to move over and slow down. Let them zoom off ahead of you. There, now they're gone. No more problem.
When I'm in a totally reasonable lane for my speed of travel and someone tailgates me too close, I just let off the gas and slow down until they FINALLY decide to pass me.

[Red coupe]

But it's entirely possible to illuminate your brake lights without slowing down, much less slowing abruptly.

I do the opposite of the abrupt stop.

What works the best is to get on you brake JUST enough to get the light on, while using your other foot to get on the gas hard.
They think your braking and slow down, you pull ahead... Add the two up and you open an nice gap up.

Brake checking is indeed one of the stupidest ideas ever.. The potential danger aside, its basically a sign that you want the tailgater to see how close he can get.

VERY rarely have I ever seen tailgating OR brake checking do much more then provoke the other driver to try and "get back at you".

[Jesda]

The law varies by state. Usually, minimum speed on the interstate is 40-45.

Some states dictate lane usage based on speed, so even if you're doing 70 in a 70, some states still require you to move over if someone wants to pass you at 75. In some states, the person doing 75 would be penalized.

So, it depends.

[Red coupe]

The law varies by state. Usually, minimum speed on the interstate is 40-45.

Some states dictate lane usage based on speed, so even if you're doing 70 in a 70, some states still require you to move over if someone wants to pass you at 75. In some states, the person doing 75 would be penalized.

So, it depends.

But in all states the person holding up traffic for no reason other then "this is my lane" is inconsiderate, and should not expect anything better from the other drivers.

[Jesda]

The law varies by state. Usually, minimum speed on the interstate is 40-45.

Some states dictate lane usage based on speed, so even if you're doing 70 in a 70, some states still require you to move over if someone wants to pass you at 75. In some states, the person doing 75 would be penalized.

So, it depends.

But in all states the person holding up traffic for no reason other then "this is my lane" is inconsiderate, and should not expect anything better from the other drivers.

Indeed. Its rude as f*** and terribly inefficient.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

PMQ does make a good point though (Shocking I know...)
Highway travel pretty much requires you to go above the speed limit in most situations. However that means you risk getting pulled over if you want to keep up with traffic. If you were to get pulled over for impeding the flow of traffic...could you make the case that you were simply obeying the posted speed limit? I know for a fact the opposite does not work...
For the record...I'm all for harder driving tests, increased liscensing fees, and vastly improved driver education. Driver awareness in this country is absurd. Cupholders should be banned, cell-phones and headsets should be outlawed, and any activity OTHER THAN DRIVING should be made illegal. Harsh I know but I'm tired and terrified of sharing the road with morons, partially blind seniors, and John Force Jr.

[Jesda]

If you were to get pulled over for impeding the flow of traffic...could you make the case that you were simply obeying the posted speed limit? I know for a fact the opposite does not work...

The law would only apply if you were doing that in the far left lane (assuming it isnt HOV) or intentionally trying to impede the flow of traffic. If you meet the minimum speed, you're generally okay.

[dre1507]

the road in front of my job has speed limit 45, but people do 30 on it all day because they can't read. However, the cops don't pull them over, instead they pull over the other illiterate idiots doing 60 in that same 45. I thought going too slow was just as dangerous as going too fast.

[krash]

By saying "it wasn't bad" you're NOT saying it was good. You're saying it was not bad. That phrase eventually turned into a hyperbole or colloquialism of sorts. When describing something thats obviously amazing by saying, "not bad", you are using an understatement to bring out the obvious goodness with some humor. Its not rocket science. Stop being so damn skeptical of everthing.

[MinisterofDOOM]

the road in front of my job has speed limit 45, but people do 30 on it all day because they can't read. However, the cops don't pull them over, instead they pull over the other illiterate idiots doing 60 in that same 45. I thought going too slow was just as dangerous as going too fast.

Yeah, the road in front of my apartment is the same way. 40mph, and I'm usually lucky if I hit 30. Don't know what the effing problem is. It's a wide street with a painted median and wide shoulders. The extra-retarded part is that this is part of a 10 mile stretch of road which has a 40mph speed limit along its entire length. But as soon as people hit the bit in front of my apartment, Ultra Retard Mode kicks in and people abruptly stop doing 40. It's completely bizarre. I wish the city would post 6 or 7 successive 40mph signs all within 3 or 4 yards of each other. Maybe use the really super huge highway sized ones that you could build a boat out of.

[C-Kwik]

I'm not opposed to the "slower traffic keep right" "rule", but it is not necessarily the law. It may vary from state to state, but in CA, it is only law when such a sign is posted. Minimum speed laws are not universally existent in all states nor do they exist in the same manner and application. And where minimum speed laws exists in the context that is described in this thread, it would be highly ambiguous. The reason for this is that all speed laws so have one general universal basis. The basic speed law. Speed limits for a particular road are generally an attempt to make the basic speed law enforcable. The methodology typical in CA is to use the 85th percentile to determine the maximum speed. That is, they use the maximum speed (likely rounded off) that 85 % of drivers driver at during the lightest traffic times of the day. The law is written such that exceeding this speed presents a prima facie case for violating the basic speed law. CA does recognize and address the inherent conflict of the basic speed law by writing a subsection that indicates that breaking the maximum speed law can't be convicted if the driver can prove it was safe to go the speed he was actually going.

Going back to a minimum speed law, this would be extremely difficult to enforce as if a driver came up with any valid excuse for going as slow as he was, he's justified. Say for example, its raining hard. What expectation is there to follow a minimum speed if the conditions do not allow for it? And technically, even if a person were to be going like 5 mph on the freeway under light traffic conditions, if all other drivers are actually driving properly (driving the proper speed for conditions, safe following distance, looking far enough ahead, etc), then an accident would not occur. But how it might play out in court is certainly a toss up. As for CA law, IIRC, the only minimum speed law has to do with commercial vehicles and where they can be on a road when they can not meet a specific minimum.

Be careful not to generalize laws too much. Different states write their laws differently. What is the case in one state may not be in another.

As for insurance fraud, for any claim to be constituted as insurance fraud, there has to be intent to commit fraud, which generally requires some kind of material misrepresentation (lying to get coverage where there would be no coverage or payment under the actual events of the accident). Brake checking intentionally is not fraud. Trying to cause an accident intentionally is not fraud (generally, this is excluded in the policy). Where it can become fraud is if one intentionally causes an accident but lies about facts to try and get by the exclusion. Or a widely used example in insurance claims training is that for such an exclusion is a situation where a person is intentionally trying to kill someone with their car but misses and hits a wall. Since the intent was to kill the person, the accident with the wall is not excluded. Its retarded from a common sense perspective, but legal technicalities tend to supercede common sense quite often. And the same is absolutely true of fraud.

[MinisterofDOOM]

And technically, even if a person were to be going like 5 mph on the freeway under light traffic conditions, if all other drivers are actually driving properly (driving the proper speed for conditions, safe following distance, looking far enough ahead, etc), then an accident would not occur.

Rear-end accidents are far from the only potential problem introduced by relatively slow drivers. As I said above, you're sticking a huge rock in the middle of a river. Everyone has to move around them. That creates additional hazards beyond just stopping distance. Passing on the right is less safe than passing on the left due to visibility reasons. It would not be necessary if all slower traffic always kept right. Also, when you have a single slow car causing all other traffic around it to pass on both sides, you introduce a lot of merging back and forth into lanes from multiple directions. This creates a lot of potential for accidents even if people are being legitimately aware. When you've got everyone splitting to go around that car, then merging back in front of it from both sides, that's a lot of unnecessary potential for disaster. ALL of that would be negated if the jerk would just move right.

As others have said, law or not, keeping right when driving slow helps EVERYONE. Even the slow driver. When everyone drives according to the same set of rules, traffic is able to interoperate more efficiently. There's no communication between vehicles (which is moronic if you think about it). But communication isn't really necessary when everyone's working from the same playbook. When you introduce even one car who is too busy being selfish to make even the smallest changes to his driving habit in the interest of everyone on the road, you have a problem. The fact that it isn't necessarily legally enforceable is irrelevant. The problem is still there.

As for the rain comment, you're certainly right to an extent. But people can still use common sense as far as relative speed even in less than ideal weather conditions. I do tend to be much more tolerant of slow drivers in rain or snow because I figure I can't be sure what condition their tires are in, etc. But I still expect them to use common sense and show some common courtesy by being cautious "over there" in the right lane.
I'm often amazed at the random individual drivers I'll encounter during snowstorms around here. We get some nasty snow. But if I and other traffic are shooting past them like they're standing still, that's a good sign they're going TOO slow. If you have to go that slow, do it somewhere other than the freeway. And actually, despite being perhaps more justifiable in poor weather, it's also potentially more dangerous, as lane-change maneuvers on unplowed freeways can be pretty hairy. Once again, the one single selfish inconsiderate driver is creating tons of potential for disaster for the cars around him that simply doesn't need to be.

It all just comes down to being in the way, and the fact that there's no good REASON to be in the way. There's NO harm in driving in the right lane if you're the slowest car on the road. So why not just do it?

[Ajax]

I agree that the statement "He's not even going the speed limit" is a bit of a ridiculous complaint, especially when you ignore the legality of the situation. If I'm understanding the point your trying to make, its that the complaint shouldn't be related to the legal posted limit; it should be related to the speed the speaker believes to be appropirate (started to correct the spelling, but then decided to leave it... Appro-Pirate...)- "He's going way too slow for the traffic on this street" for example.
I'm guessing most, if not all, of us have been in a situation that we believe others are going either too fast or too slow and comment on it. And if we referrence the speed limit, I'm guessing its because we may be regarding the posted speed limit as a suggested/recommended speed that we should be travelling, rather than an absolute limit. So it seems the argument is more an argument on terminology- to which I would generally agree.

As for the other comments I took the time to read (skimmed through almost all, really), the one that really stuck was the improved driver training and driving distractions. My best friend lost his mom to a driver who was painting her nails while driving (just convicted for reckless vehicular homicide, sentencing pending- info in the link in my sig). Driving has become a right to a lot of people rather than a priviledge. And I'm pretty sure everyone here has done something while driving that has devoted a disproportionate amount of attention away from driving. I know I have, and since the crash that took my friend's mom's life (also a good friend to me), I've tried to adjust my habits, but I'm sure I've still made some judgement errors. Its human nature I suppose- something we do every day, we start to take for granted.
I've started blaiming the automatic transmission. Runaway Priuses? wouldn't happen if you were driving manuals (or at least understood how). Running bikes off the road? probably because you're checking improperly adjusted mirrors rather than looking for your blind spot. Skid off the road in snow? too much trust in anti-lock brakes. Rear end someone? too focused on how you look in the mirror than you are on driving to your destination safely. It all starts with auto-trannys...
Solution- stop building Auto transmissions. Build me a 6 speed for my stroked KA. (I know there is one, but I'm not paying $5k for it)
Sorry, got on a bit of a diatribe there.