Dealing with Road Rage: Coasting Up to Red Lights

[Sorry!]

I'm just making the generalization that drivers who take risks and drive recklessly cause accidents. I think that's fair.

I have already stated anyways that it is people who drive as YOU are the main cause of a lot of accidents. On the highway in the city everywhere.

The way you're coming off to me right now is quite arrogant and selfish.

You're one person and you're saying that you're not going to accommodate everyone else on the road because of a few accidents you saw on a T.V. show (which you don't even know if it was from a car accident you pressume so based on the injuries?)

It's the rest of the drivers on the road that are forced to accommodate you whether they are driving around you or slowing down behind you they are still forced to accommodate your rediculous driving habit.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Uh. Right. That too. So, three ways you've made a non sequitur between your premise and your conclusion.

Why is my premise automatically stuck on people who simply don't slow down up to a red light? We've been talking about all kinds of traffic related problems we have throughout the entire thread, yet you're holding me to one specific thing that none of my other posts can slightly divert from.
But regardless, the original post was about a guy who cut me off really fast. I guess you don't see that as dangerous.

I have already stated anyways that it is people who drive as YOU are the main cause of a lot of accidents. On the highway in the city everywhere.

That's great. You can state you're the president of the united states, that doesn't make it true.
The main cause of accidents are careful drivers and not drunk or reckless drivers. Ok buddy, whatever you say.

The way you're coming off to me right now is quite arrogant and selfish.

You're one person and you're saying that you're not going to accommodate everyone else on the road because of a few accidents you saw on a T.V. show (which you don't even know if it was from a car accident you pressume so based on the injuries?)

It's the rest of the drivers on the road that are forced to accommodate you whether they are driving around you or slowing down behind you they are still forced to accommodate your rediculous driving habit.

I'm coming off arrogant and selfish because I won't accommodate what I deem as reckless driving, yet those other people aren't arrogant and selfish for not accomodating anyone else? It amazes me that you don't see how that should go both ways.
So how fast you should be going is now dictated by how fast the guy behind you wants to go?
You tell me what I should do. Should I just floor it up to the red light so I can appease the impatiant guy behind me, since me going 5-10 MPH slower on the way up to a red light is apparently the end of the world? That's what it sounds like.
I'm arrogant and selfish because I don't want to speed up to a red light, which forces people behind me not to speed up to a red light? That doesn't even come close to making sense. That's just a complete miss.

I have a ridiculous driving habit? That just seems like a baseless cheapshot. You didn't even bother to elaborate what's ridiculous about it. Saving money is ridiculous? That's brilliant logic right there.
Why are you getting hostile? I can only conclude you're the type of driver that we're all complaining about, since you're suddenly getting so defensive about it.
Sorry I think people should be more careful than they are driving a giant metal weapon.

 

[Sorry!]

That's great. You can state you're the president of the united states, that doesn't make it true.
The main cause of accidents are careful drivers and not drunk or reckless drivers. Ok buddy, whatever you say.

I'm coming off arrogant and selfish because I won't accommodate what I deem as reckless driving, yet those other people aren't arrogant and selfish for not accomodating anyone else? It amazes me that you don't see how that should go both ways.
So how fast you should be going is now dictated by how fast the guy behind you wants to go?
You tell me what I should do. Should I just floor it up to the red light so I can appease the impatiant guy behind me, since me going 5-10 MPH slower on the way up to a red light is apparently the end of the world? That's what it sounds like.
I'm arrogant and selfish because I don't want to speed up to a red light, which forces people behind me not to speed up to a red light? That doesn't even come close to making sense. That's just a complete miss.

I have a ridiculous driving habit? That just seems like a baseless cheapshot. You didn't even bother to elaborate what's ridiculous about it. Saving money is ridiculous? That's brilliant logic right there.
Why are you getting hostile? I can only conclude you're the type of driver that we're all complaining about, since you're suddenly getting so defensive about it.
Sorry I think people should be more careful than they are driving a giant metal weapon.

Who is drunk and how is driving PROPERLY reckless? Driving IMPROPERlY is reckless, everyone on the road expects you to drive properly so they can anticipate what you will do. If you're randomly coasting to a stop from way out no, your not driving properly. It doesn't matter if you're saving money protecting the forest or the bears; it's all about safe-driving.

Where are you from I might add because if you drive slowly as you've been saying you will get pulled over and given a ticket where I'm from (around Toronto).
You may not believe it, or want to poke fun at it by trying to make it look like I'm lying but that's the facts.

As well no I wouldn't consider myself a reckless driver as I don't even drive. Nice try on the 'your only defensive because you do it.' As well I can speak my opinion here since I have friends who are currently in police foundations, friends who have already graduated police foundations, and friends who are part of the police force. As well this exact topic (people driving slowly) came up in one of my law class debates.

 

[TurtleMeister]

I've never seen minimum speed limits posted for streets with red lights. I think that aggressive driving is far more of a safety issue than is driving too slow (on these types of roads).

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/aggressdrivers/aggenforce/define.html

Some behaviors typically associated with aggressive driving include: exceeding the posted speed limit, following too closely, erratic or unsafe lane changes, improperly signaling lane changes, failure to obey traffic control devices (stop signs, yield signs, traffic signals, railroad grade cross signals, etc.).

It's very annoying when I encounter drivers who zigzag in and out of lanes just to gain a few car lengths. Really, how much difference will it make in the time it takes for them to reach their destination? However, it is also annoying when I encounter drivers who are driving too slow. But this is not unsafe, unless I make it unsafe by doing the things listed in the above quote.

 

[Sorry!]

I've never seen minimum speed limits posted for streets with red lights. I think that aggressive driving is far more of a safety issue than is driving too slow (on these types of roads).

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/aggressdrivers/aggenforce/define.htmlIt's very annoying when I encounter drivers who zigzag in and out of lanes just to gain a few car lengths. Really, how much difference will it make in the time it takes for them to reach their destination? However, it is also annoying when I encounter drivers who are driving too slow. But this is not unsafe, unless I make it unsafe by doing the things listed in the above quote.

I'm pretty sure it's called impeding traffic. If you cause yourself to become an obstacle to other cares and impede the flow of traffic you can get a ticket.

I've looked it up not only is it something that the OPP/regional ontario police forces enforces it is also found all over the states mostly for the highways but it doesn't mean the law isn't there for in cities/towns it only means that the police of these areas are less likely to enforce it.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Yes, I can agree that if you make yourself an obstacle for no reason then that is a problem. You just have to use some common sense. A guy slowing down or drifting to a red light is not impeding traffic. Look at it this way, if you rear end the guy who do you think will get the ticket? If you race to get around him and cause an accident, who do you think will get the ticket? I don't think making the claim that the other guy was impeding traffic will work as your defense.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm coming off arrogant and selfish because I won't accommodate what I deem as reckless driving... ?

Driving properly requires that you "accommodate" poor drivers. That does not mean that you ought to drive improperly yourself of course, there are other ways of preventing issues. If you have people continually champing at the bit and swerving around you at high speeds when you are coasting at below the speed limit then maybe you should speed up a bit. I coast up to red lights as well but I normally drive at or just above the speed limit and my car stays at about the speed limit as I coast to the light. It may start dropping off more when I am nearly at the light. Personally my car does not like to accelerate from a slow coast so I always try to make sure that I am either at a complete stop or still at a decent clip before the light changes. I do not generally have people swerving to get around me except the crazies driving 90+ on the freeways.

Its the responsibility of everyone on the road to prevent accidents not just to drive as they see fit, including those who see fit simply to drive by the rules. If you say to yourself "well I'm driving properly and they are not so if they get in an accident it will be their fault" then you are not thinking properly. Yeah, if they plow into your car or side swipe you while driving stupid then it is their fault. But you will still have a wrecked car in the shop and possibly injuries. Is being able to say you were driving properly and its all their fault going to erase that? So if you can reasonably (<---before you choose to respond to this please remember this word) change your driving habits to accommodate these people and so reduce the likelihood of an accident would that not be better than being in a hospital and being able to say that it was supposedly all their fault?

Some behaviors typically associated with aggressive driving include: exceeding the posted speed limit, following too closely, erratic or unsafe lane changes, improperly signaling lane changes, failure to obey traffic control devices (stop signs, yield signs, traffic signals, railroad grade cross signals, etc.).

When you are driving the speed limit and the person in front of you is driving bellow the speed limit you are likely to wind up rather close to their bumper before you are able to adjust your speed properly for a safe following distance unless of course you just slam on your brakes and come quickly to a slower speed which is at least as unsafe as following closely behind someone. And if this person is going to slow for your taste and you decide to get around them your now slower speed due to being behind someone driving under the speed limit makes your lane change into a lane with traffic going at the speed limit (probably also with the people approaching behind you changes lanes to not be behind the slow person) inherently less unsafe.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Who is drunk and how is driving PROPERLY reckless?

You said people who drive like me are the main cause of a lot of accidents. Do you have any stats to back that up, or do you just say stuff like that for effect?

Driving IMPROPERlY is reckless, everyone on the road expects you to drive properly so they can anticipate what you will do. If you're randomly coasting to a stop from way out no, your not driving properly. It doesn't matter if you're saving money protecting the forest or the bears; it's all about safe-driving.

If I take my foot off the gas at a stop light, it's not random, is it? Yes, "randomly" taking my foot off the gas and coasting would be improper. But since I don't do that, I'm not driving improperly.

Where are you from I might add because if you drive slowly as you've been saying you will get pulled over and given a ticket where I'm from (around Toronto).

Florida.
I never said I drive slow. Where are you pulling that from? And even if I did drive slow, if I'm not driving under the minimum, there's no reason I would get a ticket.
But if I go to Toronto, I'll remember not to drive slow. As ambiguous a statement as that is, I appreciate it.

You may not believe it, or want to poke fun at it by trying to make it look like I'm lying but that's the facts.

Well I believe you, there's minimum speed limits. But what exactly would the cop be pulling you over for if you're not going below the minimum? Is there a minimum speed limit in Toronto, or do you not know what the minimum is until you get a ticket for it?

As well no I wouldn't consider myself a reckless driver as I don't even drive. Nice try on the 'your only defensive because you do it.'

I'm not trying to insult you, but you seemed to get defensive and really adamant about it. And saying my driving style is ridiculous, without even giving me a reason why.

As well I can speak my opinion here since I have friends who are currently in police foundations, friends who have already graduated police foundations, and friends who are part of the police force. As well this exact topic (people driving slowly) came up in one of my law class debates.

You can speak your opinion regardless of all that. I welcome anyone's opinion. But it seemed rather irrational to say my driving style is ridiculous when I believe it's completely logical. Could you explain why you think it's ridiculous?
Ridiculous is a strong word. By saying it's ridiculous, that's implying my driving style is completely backwards and needs an overhaul to rectify it. Or were you just saying that for effect?

I'm pretty sure it's called impeding traffic. If you cause yourself to become an obstacle to other cares and impede the flow of traffic you can get a ticket.

If you going the minimum impedes traffic, then they need to increase the minimum. It's as simple as that. It's the burden of the city to fix that problem, not you.

Driving properly requires that you "accommodate" poor drivers. That does not mean that you ought to drive improperly yourself of course, there are other ways of preventing issues. If you have people continually champing at the bit and swerving around you at high speeds when you are coasting at below the speed limit then maybe you should speed up a bit.

I don't go much below the speed limit when coasting up to the red light. I know some of you are picturing me poking along at 10 MPH. If the speed limit is 45, I don't even get down to 30 before hitting the light. That's not slow enough to warrant some of the behavior I've seen.

But why is it my responsibility to speed up when someone wants to speed around me recklessly? I could speed up and people would still be doing it.

I coast up to red lights as well but I normally drive at or just above the speed limit and my car stays at about the speed limit as I coast to the light.

I do too. It's just that I know the timing of the lights on my way home from work, so if I'm 100 yards from this specific light, I know I can take my foot off the gas and about the time I reach it, it'll be turning green. I don't get down too slow, but normally people go about 10-15 MPH above the speed limit, so of course that's too slow for them.

Its the responsibility of everyone on the road to prevent accidents not just to drive as they see fit, including those who see fit simply to drive by the rules. If you say to yourself "well I'm driving properly and they are not so if they get in an accident it will be their fault" then you are not thinking properly. Yeah, if they plow into your car or side swipe you while driving stupid then it is their fault. But you will still have a wrecked car in the shop and possibly injuries. Is being able to say you were driving properly and its all their fault going to erase that? So if you can reasonably (<---before you choose to respond to this please remember this word) change your driving habits to accommodate these people and so reduce the likelihood of an accident would that not be better than being in a hospital and being able to say that it was supposedly all their fault?

You're completely right. And I do a lot of things that prevent accidents. Like if I'm about to change lanes and I see in my rear view mirror some maniac coming up behind me about 100 MPH and changing lanes, I'll just stay in my lane and let that guy pass. Legally I could just let him hit me or cause a huge accident with someone else and it wouldn't be my fault, but I don't want to deal with that. I'd rather just honk my horn and call him some names.
I've also been forced to run red lights because as I'm coming up to the light, a guy is like 2 inches from my bumper. If I stopped, he would hit me. They intimidate me into running it, which of course, they do too. I could have stopped and caused an accident, but again, I don't want to deal with that.
That's one reason cops need to crack down on tailgaters. Speeding is looked at as like the number one thing cops will give you a ticket for, but sometimes speeding isn't really that big of a deal. If you've got an open road and you go like 60 in a 45, that's not NEARLY as dangerous as tailgaters and those people who change lanes 2 inches from your bumper while speeding up behind you.

When you are driving the speed limit and the person in front of you is driving bellow the speed limit you are likely to wind up rather close to their bumper before you are able to adjust your speed properly for a safe following distance unless of course you just slam on your brakes and come quickly to a slower speed which is at least as unsafe as following closely behind someone. And if this person is going to slow for your taste and you decide to get around them your now slower speed due to being behind someone driving under the speed limit makes your lane change into a lane with traffic going at the speed limit (probably also with the people approaching behind you changes lanes to not be behind the slow person) inherently less unsafe.

You can see when you're coming up on someone who is going slower than you. It's not like you can only recognize their speed when you get 10 inches from their bumper.
That's what I hate, people come speeding up behind me going over the speed limit, then slow down really quickly right before they smack into me. They saw my car there, but to me it looks like they tried to intimidate me into going faster, or to make me change lanes.
But that's the thing, some people will speed up behind you and right before they hit you, they change lanes. How do I know who is and who isn't going to do that? So if I change lanes for this guy speeding up behind me, he may change lanes too, thinking I'm going to stay in that other lane.
People, inexplicably, don't realize that other drivers don't know their intentions. For instance, sometimes I'll be merging onto a highway and someone will give me like 2 inches to get in. I don't know his intentions, so I'm wary of getting over until he sits there for a few seconds indicating he's not trying to speed past me.
I'm a courteous driver, so I give people like 10 feet to get in, so they know my intentions.

 

[BobG]

everyone on the road expects you to drive properly so they can anticipate what you will do.

The communication part of driving is the key. It's the reason for a lot of our traffic laws. Everyone knows who gets to go first, and who has to yield, etc. Just remember that the intent of the laws are more important than the laws themselves.

If you're driving the speed limit in the left lane of the interstate, it's you that's doing something that other drivers don't anticipate. If you stop at a yellow light in Monday morning rush hour traffic, expect to hear cars skidding behind you as all 20 cars behind you are in total shock at what you just did.

There's two parts to learning how to drive: learn the laws; learn the local driving rythyms. They don't always coincide and obnoxiously taking the position that every other driver is wrong for failing to anticipate that there might be one driver that adheres religiously to the law is driving improperly.

That has little to do with the original post, since typing what a person does at stoplights isn't sufficient to give a good picture. Passing at a stop light could be a reasonable action or an unreasonable action. There isn't enough info to tell.

None the less, the frequency of problems a driver has is an indication of whether he's driving 'properly'. Infrequent problems are due to jerks that fail to fit into the local traffic environment. Frequent problems are an indication that you might be the jerk.

 

[leroyjenkens]

If you're driving the speed limit in the left lane of the interstate, it's you that's doing something that other drivers don't anticipate.

And convenient store robbers don't anticipate the clerk to fight back, that doesn't mean the clerk is wrong. People who are speeding are breaking the law, not the person going the speed limit. Heck, the guy going the speed limit is close to breaking the law himself. Any faster and he's breaking the rules.
The speed limit isn't a suggestion. Because people so often go faster than the speed limit, everyone tends to disregard it. People have even created the myth that you're "allowed" to go 5 over. That's just simply not true. You can technically be pulled over for going 1 MPH over.

They don't always coincide and obnoxiously taking the position that every other driver is wrong for failing to anticipate that there might be one driver that adheres religiously to the law is driving improperly.

Think about what you're saying. You're saying I'm supposed to anticipate that everyone else won't anticipate what I'm going to do. 100% of the anticipation is suddenly on me. No one else is held responsible for not anticipating something?

None the less, the frequency of problems a driver has is an indication of whether he's driving 'properly'. Infrequent problems are due to jerks that fail to fit into the local traffic environment. Frequent problems are an indication that you might be the jerk.

That's not necessarily true. It's not that simple. A lot of other people may have just as many problems, they're just not as vocal about it as I am. I have a friend who doesn't do the coasting up to red lights thing, but he complains about traffic more than I do.

The only way to tell who is at fault is to analyze each specific incident. If each one indicates that the other people are at fault, then the sheer quantity of problems doesn't change that fact.
There isn't a giant grey area with traffic laws, where you're allowed (or expected) to bend certain laws and break others.
It's pretty bad when someone who follows the rules is deemed a jerk.

 

[Sorry!]

While the speed limit is the 'limit' your suppsoed to go on these roads you're actually supposed to go with the flow of traffic. Did you ever go through driving school? This is one of the most important things they teach you and it's always repeated again and again; do not disturb the flow of traffic.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Kind of off topic, but wouldn't it be nice if bike riders stopped at red lights like they're supposed to? I don't know why they get mad at me for walking in front of them when they should be stopped.

 

[DaveC426913]

Kind of off topic, but wouldn't it be nice if bike riders stopped at red lights like they're supposed to?

AHAHAHA! While we're at it, wouldn't it be nice if the Moon were made of gold?

 

[BobG]

Kind of off topic, but wouldn't it be nice if bike riders stopped at red lights like they're supposed to? I don't know why they get mad at me for walking in front of them when they should be stopped.

Communication! Communication! Communication!

A broomstick through the front spokes will communicate your feelings a little more effectively than getting run over will.

And the best part is that bicycle riders rarely carry guns. Of course, the worst part is that you just armed them with a broomstick and he's probably in a lot better shape than you. He's going to catch you eventually and do really bad things to you with that broomstick.

 

[leroyjenkens]

While the speed limit is the 'limit' your suppsoed to go on these roads you're actually supposed to go with the flow of traffic. Did you ever go through driving school? This is one of the most important things they teach you and it's always repeated again and again; do not disturb the flow of traffic.

This contradicts what the police enforce. They have speed traps where they pull people over one by one. There's a road on the way to my gym and the flow of traffic is always above the speed limit. They'll have cops hiding in one of the side streets with a radar detector and they'll pull tons of people over one by one. I'm never speeding, or at least not as much as the other people, and I never get pulled over.
When's the last time you've heard of someone getting a ticket for disturbing the flow of traffic?

 

[turbo]

When's the last time you've heard of someone getting a ticket for disturbing the flow of traffic?

Want to test this? Try driving 45 mph on an interstate highway. 20mph under is a whole lot more disruptive than 20 mph over because people don't expect it, and they'll close on you very quickly.

 

[Monique]

Want to test this? Try driving 45 mph on an interstate highway. 20mph under is a whole lot more disruptive than 20 mph over because people don't expect it, and they'll close on you very quickly.

Legal minimum speed is 40 mph on interstate highways right? It may be disruptive (mainly because people are driving faster than the max speed), but it doesn't break a law.

 

[turbo]

Legal minimum speed is 40 mph on interstate highways right? It may be disruptive (mainly because people are driving faster than the max speed), but it doesn't break a law.

At least in Maine, I believe the legal minimum on I-95 is 45 mph, except in severe weather conditions. You can and will be ticketed for that kind of violation. "Driving to Endanger" is a pretty broad offense with a wide range of penalties (at the discretion of the judge and with the input of the officer) and it doesn't require you to drive at excessive speeds to earn the fine.

Drive that slow on the Mass Pike, the NJ throughway, etc, and the troopers will get quite creative about issuing citations. If you are not driving at least 5-10 mph over the posted limit, they will see you as an obstruction to the orderly flow of traffic. It's perverse, but speed limits are not enforced consistently from state to state.

 

[leroyjenkens]

At least in Maine, I believe the legal minimum on I-95 is 45 mph, except in severe weather conditions. You can and will be ticketed for that kind of violation. "Driving to Endanger" is a pretty broad offense with a wide range of penalties (at the discretion of the judge and with the input of the officer) and it doesn't require you to drive at excessive speeds to earn the fine.

Drive that slow on the Mass Pike, the NJ throughway, etc, and the troopers will get quite creative about issuing citations. If you are not driving at least 5-10 mph over the posted limit, they will see you as an obstruction to the orderly flow of traffic. It's perverse, but speed limits are not enforced consistently from state to state.

That's entrapment.
If they don't want people going 45, it's THEIR responsibilty to raise the minimum speed limit. Them telling you that you can go 45, then ticketing you because you do so is criminal.
Honestly, I'd have to see proof of this before I believe it. You can't expect people to break the law to avoid breaking a different law.
And just because everybody is going that fast, doesn't mean a cop won't single you out.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Drive that slow on the Mass Pike, the NJ throughway, etc, and the troopers will get quite creative about issuing citations. If you are not driving at least 5-10 mph over the posted limit, they will see you as an obstruction to the orderly flow of traffic.

NJ Turnpike? I don't recall seeing a posted minimum anywhere in NJ, but there are portions of the state I haven't been to yet. A few years back they increased the upper limit on I-295 from 55 to 65, but not on all portions of the highway. You need to keep your eyes open for the changes and that seems to me more dangerous than it needs to be. When they upped the limit, there was a stern warning from the governor that going even 1 mile over the new limit would result in a ticket. That never occurred (except for that profiling thing) and it is rare to see anyone doing less than 70. Many do 75.

 

[BobG]

And convenient store robbers don't anticipate the clerk to fight back, that doesn't mean the clerk is wrong.

Actually, a convenience store clerk that fights back is wrong.

If the store has reasonable practices to make sure large sums of cash don't accumulate anywhere accessible to either the store robber or the clerk, then the store can't lose enough money to make it worthwhile to risk a store clerk's life. In fact, it's common for stores to make resisting a robbery an offense that can be punished by firing them.

Risk of employee injury and the potential liability of the store's insurance company tend to skyrocket when employees resist robberies. In fact, a single incident of workplace violence can wind up costing $250,000 - much more than the robber is likely to make off with in cash. (Interestingly, the risk of employee injury is higher when the robber has no gun than it is when the robber has a gun - that's probably directly related to the employee's willingness to resist a robbery in either situation). http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e0407972.pdf

Obviously, no law is broken by an employee resisting a robbery. The employee has only violated his company's norms.

Off topic, but I employ a similar logic with my Jeep. I never lock my doors. I don't keep valuable objects in my Jeep, so the potential cost of having a thief slash my $800 soft top to gain access to my Jeep is a lot more worrisome than having my gloves, sunglasses, etc strewn about the interior of my Jeep. (Although the lack of valuables still doesn't alleviate the sense of violation that finding your stuff strewn about causes you.)

 

[leroyjenkens]

Actually, a convenience store clerk that fights back is wrong.

If the store has reasonable practices to make sure large sums of cash don't accumulate anywhere accessible to either the store robber or the clerk, then the store can't lose enough money to make it worthwhile to risk a store clerk's life. In fact, it's common for stores to make resisting a robbery an offense that can be punished by firing them.

Risk of employee injury and the potential liability of the store's insurance company tend to skyrocket when employees resist robberies. In fact, a single incident of workplace violence can wind up costing $250,000 - much more than the robber is likely to make off with in cash. (Interestingly, the risk of employee injury is higher when the robber has no gun than it is when the robber has a gun - that's probably directly related to the employee's willingness to resist a robbery in either situation). http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/...s/e0407972.pdf

Obviously, no law is broken by an employee resisting a robbery. The employee has only violated his company's norms.

From what I've seen, clerks who fight back and drive the robbers off are hailed as heroes and featured on the news.

But that's really beside the point. The point was that if someone breaks the law, they're the ones who are responsible for the consequences. It's not everyone elses responsibility to go out of their way to accommodate people who may be breaking the law.
They know the speed limit, just as I do. So if they're speeding along and encounter someone going the speed limit, it's 100% their fault if they slam into them.
That's like blaming somebody for going just as soon as the light turns green if someone runs the red light and slams into them. The person running the red light didn't anticipate them to go immediately, so they thought they could make it. They were wrong, and they're 100% at fault.

 

[BobG]

From what I've seen, clerks who fight back and drive the robbers off are hailed as heroes and featured on the news.

A person that turns their test in late and slides it into the middle of the pile, knowing the class is too big for the professor to know the student's name would be seen as clever (although I imagine he wouldn't want to be featured on the news and blow his anonymity). A Robin Hood that steals from the rich and gives to the poor would be seen as a hero.

There's a difference between what the public considers heroic and/or acceptable and what a company would consider acceptable. The company is concerned about how many dollars come in and how many dollars go out; not about fairness or heroism. The public likes heroes and couldn't care less whether Seven-Eleven makes a profit or loss this quarter.

And keep in the mind, the public that is supporting the store clerk's resistance is the same public that finds driving 5 mph over the speed limit and the first 3 cars running a red light as acceptable.

 

[DaveC426913]

The public likes heroes and couldn't care less whether Seven-Eleven makes a profit or loss this quarter.

Well... it's still not about the profit or loss, there is an employee that gets injured.

 

[Pythagorean]

I applaud your efforts in not wasting unnecessarily, but if this is happening a lot, then maybe you are coasting a bit too slow

but I mean... it's a stop sign. I do the same thing. If anything, more often than not, I get through the light FASTER because I still have momentum by the time it turns green, and I pass the cars that are waiting at the light.

When people get all pissy and pull around me and zoom up to stop at the red light, they get even more pissed when I pass them in this casual manner.

 

[mgb_phys]

Just today I had some guy speed up around me a thousand MPH and cut in front of my really fast as if to say "take that for going slow"

I think you misunderstood.
Almost all accidents at junctions happen to the first car pulling into the junction.
This guy was obviously so pleased at your environmentally considerate behavior that he was bravely 'throwing himself on the grenade' as it were - to protect you from the danger of another amber light jumper.

 

[Evo]

Here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States#Minimum_speed_limits

 

[Moonbear]

NJ Turnpike? I don't recall seeing a posted minimum anywhere in NJ, but there are portions of the state I haven't been to yet. A few years back they increased the upper limit on I-295 from 55 to 65, but not on all portions of the highway. You need to keep your eyes open for the changes and that seems to me more dangerous than it needs to be. When they upped the limit, there was a stern warning from the governor that going even 1 mile over the new limit would result in a ticket. That never occurred (except for that profiling thing) and it is rare to see anyone doing less than 70. Many do 75.

There's no posted minimum on the NJTpke. YEARS ago, I did know someone who was given a warning (not a ticket) for driving too slow when he was driving the speed limit. The norm was to drive 10 mph over, and him driving the speed limit was obstructing traffic.

Nowadays, when I head that way, it seems people stick pretty close to the posted 65 mph limit. Drives me bonkers...the speed limit out here is 70 mph and everyone drives 75-80, so I'm not used to driving so slow unless I'm sitting in traffic (then again, there's a lot of that in NJ too...still love the thrill ride of bumper-to-bumper traffic going 45 mph ).

Though, with this thread in mind, I decided to pay more careful attention to how quickly my car slows down when I take my foot off the gas when I see a yellow or red light over the past two days on my drive to work and home. My conclusion is that leroyjenkens needs to check if his emergency brake is released when he's driving. Seriously, I was NEVER able to just coast to a light without braking, even when I took my foot off the gas as soon as I saw the light turn yellow. I never got down more than 5-10 mph under the speed limit before getting to a point where the brakes HAD to be applied to stop in time. (Edit: And I was playing fair...I started with driving the speed limit, not over...I only go faster on the interstates, not the local roads.) There was one exception. One light is at the top of a steep hill. On that one, I needed to step back on the gas again to get the rest of the way up the hill. Definitely no coasting there. So, if you're somehow managing to coast much under the limit, you're likely driving the people behind you crazy with them having to apply the brakes much longer and than they normally would need to do so.

The best rule of the road I can offer is...go with the flow.

 

[JasonRox]

That's why I love public transportation.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You can see when you're coming up on someone who is going slower than you. It's not like you can only recognize their speed when you get 10 inches from their bumper.
That's what I hate, people come speeding up behind me going over the speed limit, then slow down really quickly right before they smack into me. They saw my car there, but to me it looks like they tried to intimidate me into going faster, or to make me change lanes.
But that's the thing, some people will speed up behind you and right before they hit you, they change lanes. How do I know who is and who isn't going to do that? So if I change lanes for this guy speeding up behind me, he may change lanes too, thinking I'm going to stay in that other lane.

I was responding to Turtle here in response to the argument that people going slower than the speed limit are not the ones causing problems. So if you are going the speed limit I would not suggest speeding up much in order to accommodate someone behind you. I have done it occasionally knowing that the person behind me was going to change lanes and needed me to move ahead so that he could get around the car next to me. And no you should never change lanes to get out of the way of a speeding driver.
As for coming up on a slow moving vehicle it happens to me all the time. I don't get 10 inches from the bumper but often less than a car length which I am not very comfortable with. When I am driving 65-70 mph and suddenly see a car coming up I take my foot off the gas, usually with several car lengths between us. If I am still closing fast I will tap my brake. Quite often I find myself only a couple meters behind the car before I have matched speed and sometimes I find that THEY'RE SLOWING DOWN! so not only were they driving about 50mph in a 65 but as I am trying to match their speed they are coming down to about 45-40mph. Drives me freakin nuts. I sit there having to continually tap my brake to slow down more and more.

I hate tailgaters though. When someone tail gates me I brake check them or I take my foot off the gas and let my speed drop until they get pissed off and change lanes to go around me.

While the speed limit is the 'limit' your suppsoed to go on these roads you're actually supposed to go with the flow of traffic. Did you ever go through driving school? This is one of the most important things they teach you and it's always repeated again and again; do not disturb the flow of traffic.

Though the police may enforce the laws differently in different places this "drive with the flow of traffic" is a myth. I heard this all my life. Then I took my written test for my license and had this as a question. I answered "drive with the flow of traffic" and got it wrong. Technically, legally, the maximum speed limit is the maximum and you are not supposed to go over it regardless of the flow of traffic.

Of course here in Southern California most drivers go about 5-15 mph over the limit on the freeway and the police never pull them over. You have to be going about 85-90mph minimum to actually get pulled over.

 

[DaveC426913]

I hate tailgaters though. When someone tail gates me I brake check them or I take my foot off the gas and let my speed drop until they get pissed off and change lanes to go around me.

I'm going to go ahead and speculate that you are in the passing lane when this happens.

You have no business cruising in the passing lane.

 

[leroyjenkens]

There's a difference between what the public considers heroic and/or acceptable and what a company would consider acceptable. The company is concerned about how many dollars come in and how many dollars go out; not about fairness or heroism. The public likes heroes and couldn't care less whether Seven-Eleven makes a profit or loss this quarter.

And keep in the mind, the public that is supporting the store clerk's resistance is the same public that finds driving 5 mph over the speed limit and the first 3 cars running a red light as acceptable.

You're absolutely right, but you said it was wrong for the clerk to fight back, but that's only from the company's perspective (Certain companies. Others may applaud the employee for saving the cash.). Which perspective is the one that makes the act altogether wrong? The perspective of the company, or the perspective of everyone else? I don't think you can decide.

There's no posted minimum on the NJTpke. YEARS ago, I did know someone who was given a warning (not a ticket) for driving too slow when he was driving the speed limit. The norm was to drive 10 mph over, and him driving the speed limit was obstructing traffic.

I think that officer acted beyond his power. Maybe that's why he didn't give him a ticket; because he legally couldn't. If they don't want people going too slow, they need to put up a minimum speed limit sign. The burden is on them to fix the problem.
It makes no sense to have laws if you're going to have arbitrary exceptions that you don't know about until you get punished for it.

Though, with this thread in mind, I decided to pay more careful attention to how quickly my car slows down when I take my foot off the gas when I see a yellow or red light over the past two days on my drive to work and home. My conclusion is that leroyjenkens needs to check if his emergency brake is released when he's driving. Seriously, I was NEVER able to just coast to a light without braking, even when I took my foot off the gas as soon as I saw the light turn yellow. I never got down more than 5-10 mph under the speed limit before getting to a point where the brakes HAD to be applied to stop in time. (Edit: And I was playing fair...I started with driving the speed limit, not over...I only go faster on the interstates, not the local roads.) There was one exception. One light is at the top of a steep hill. On that one, I needed to step back on the gas again to get the rest of the way up the hill. Definitely no coasting there. So, if you're somehow managing to coast much under the limit, you're likely driving the people behind you crazy with them having to apply the brakes much longer and than they normally would need to do so.

Depends on how far away I see the light turn yellow. Usually I'll have to hit the brake when I get to the light. I just don't use extra gas to get to a stop light faster. It just isn't logical.

I'm going to go ahead and speculate that you are in the passing lane when this happens.

You have no business cruising in the passing lane.

It doesn't matter what lane you're in, someone will tailgate you. I'm sure most people don't even care what lane it is, all they know is they see a car going too slow and they're going to try to intimidate them to either move or go faster.

But really, what law forbids you to cruise in the "passing lane"? If you're going the speed limit, why are you expected to allow someone to go above the speed limit? How can you have a rule that accommodates the law breakers?
I "cruise" in the "passing lane" almost my entire ride home from work. I'll give the people behind me the maximum speed limit, maybe up to 5 MPH more, but that's all I owe them.
Honestly, if everyone just stuck to the right lane and only used the left lane to pass, there would be a huge line of cars in the right lane and no one would be able to merge onto the highway because you'd have a line of cars blocking them from getting in.

 

[DaveC426913]

It doesn't matter what lane you're in, someone will tailgate you. I'm sure most people don't even care what lane it is, all they know is they see a car going too slow and they're going to try to intimidate them to either move or go faster.

Irrelevant. You are responsible for your own proper driving - what other drivers might do does not give you carte blanche to aggravate others. Especially since we're in a thread that is all about accusing others of bad driving habits.

But really, what law forbids you to cruise in the "passing lane"?

The one in your handbook that says "stay to the right unless passing".

If you're going the speed limit, why are you expected to allow someone to go above the speed limit? How can you have a rule that accommodates the law breakers?

Not your problem. You just obey the law and everything will work out.

I "cruise" in the "passing lane" almost my entire ride home from work. I'll give the people behind me the maximum speed limit, maybe up to 5 MPH more, but that's all I owe them.

No, you owe them the courtesy of driving properly yourself before calling the kettle black.

Honestly, if everyone just stuck to the right lane and only used the left lane to pass, there would be a huge line of cars in the right lane and no one would be able to merge onto the highway because you'd have a line of cars blocking them from getting in.

Again, not your problem. It is not for you to decide how to run the country's roads. There are people who get paid to do a lot more study of it than you.

Unless you are actually in the process of overtaking a vehicle on your right, you have no business in the left lane.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm going to go ahead and speculate that you are in the passing lane when this happens.

You have no business cruising in the passing lane.

Here we have mostly major freeways with up to 5-6 lanes on each side. I've only driven on two (or four depending on how your counting) lane highways while on road trips and am quite willing to move aside for faster cars when I'm in the passing lane.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here we have mostly major freeways with up to 5-6 lanes on each side. I've only driven on two (or four depending on how your counting) lane highways while on road trips and am quite willing to move aside for faster cars when I'm in the passing lane.

No. You should not be in the passing lane unless you are overtaking.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here is the Provision in Ontario's HTA:

Any vehicle traveling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway.

Exception

(a) vehicle while overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s147s1


I suppose I could look at each province & state, but let it be known here that, at least in one place, it is a law.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No. You should not be in the passing lane unless you are overtaking.

I usually do. But I am usually driving faster than all of the rigs I am passing so I just stay in that lane until there is no one left to pass or someone comes on driving faster than I am.
If I were to ever drive eastward I would probably be more careful about driving over the limit but as I noted earlier you have to be going pretty damn fast in Cali to get pulled over.

 

[BobG]

Here we have mostly major freeways with up to 5-6 lanes on each side. I've only driven on two (or four depending on how your counting) lane highways while on road trips and am quite willing to move aside for faster cars when I'm in the passing lane.

No. You should not be in the passing lane unless you are overtaking.

Or some reasonable facsimile. In heavy traffic between CSprings and Denver, you pretty much count on slow traffic in the right lane (maybe as slow as 50 to 60 mph with a 75 mph speed limit) and fast traffic in the left lane (80 to 85 mph). There's a lot of cars around 75 mph that spend a lot of time overtaking the slow guys, dropping into the right lane themselves when there's a decent enough gap and allowing the faster traffic to get by before moving back into the left lane to overtake the next bunch of slow traffic.

Since the real speeds can be anywhere between 50 to 85, the amount of time spent in the right lane or the left lane will vary, but I can see what TSA means. A lot of times, doing exactly what Dave says winds up turning into brief stays in the right lane.

Assuming we're talking about somewhat short road trips on heavily trafficked sections of interstate - something I could see being fairly common on the East Coast or in California. Obviously, there's no reason to be spending much time cruising along in the left lane if you're driving near the Colorado-Nebraska border. There ain't nothing out there but tumbleweeds.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Irrelevant. You are responsible for your own proper driving - what other drivers might do does not give you carte blanche to aggravate others. Especially since we're in a thread that is all about accusing others of bad driving habits.

It's not irrelevant. You said you speculate that he was in the passing lane because someone was tailgating him. I responded by saying people tailgate regardless of what lane you're in.

The one in your handbook that says "stay to the right unless passing".

Is that a law?

Not your problem. You just obey the law and everything will work out.

True, it's not my responsibility to enforce the law, but why do I have to change my way of driving for people who break the law, if I'm not breaking the law myself?

No, you owe them the courtesy of driving properly yourself before calling the kettle black.

Doesn't that work both ways?

Again, not your problem. It is not for you to decide how to run the country's roads. There are people who get paid to do a lot more study of it than you.

You're right. But these examples are reasons why I'm skeptical of what's actually a law and what isn't.

Unless you are actually in the process of overtaking a vehicle on your right, you have no business in the left lane.

I have no business in the left lane, meaning I should be nice and get over? Or I have no business in the left lane, meaning I'm breaking the law? There's a difference.
By law, I don't have to get over when a semi is trying to merge. He's the one who's supposed to yield. But I do anyway. Mostly out of courtesy, but partly because I don't trust that semi driver to not kill me.

I suppose I could look at each province & state, but let it be known here that, at least in one place, it is a law.

That doesn't disallow cruising in the left lane. And what defines normal speed of traffic? I could say the speed limit defines it. It didn't specify. Just because one nutcase wants to go mach 1, doesn't mean by law I have to get over and let him. At least not by the one you quoted.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm going to go ahead and speculate that you are in the passing lane when this happens.

You have no business cruising in the passing lane.

I hate tailgaters too and you can speculate all you want as to the reason. In my mind I am splattering mud on the windshield to blind the idiot, or perhaps doing a Crazy Ivan. In actuality, I just slow down and hope they get the message which they never do. The weird part is wondering what goes on in their mind. On the one hand, they must think I'm an awful driver. If so, then they are right. But they are tailgating a terrible driver. What does that make them?

 

[BobG]

I hate tailgaters too and you can speculate all you want as to the reason. In my mind I am splattering mud on the windshield to blind the idiot, or perhaps doing a Crazy Ivan. In actuality, I just slow down and hope they get the message which they never do. The weird part is wondering what goes on in their mind. On the one hand, they must think I'm an awful driver. If so, then they are right. But they are tailgating a terrible driver. What does that make them?

I hate tailgating. One of the most frustrating experiences is following a safe distance behind in the left lane when someone from the right lane moves ahead of me. Now I have to slow down just a bit until I have a safe distance behind him and a second car cuts in, etc. Eventually, everyone in the left lane is cussing me out as they pass me on the right.

There's times when you have to tailgate or poke along very slowly in the right lane. The fact that you're tailgating a driver you know nothing about is a very pertinent fact. It's definitely something to consider when deciding how long that tailgating chain should be. It drives me nuts when my daughter is driving in a tailgating chain 7 or 8 cars long. You just don't know who's in that chain. My limit is about 3 or 4 before I start thinking it's better to slow down and look for a better group to tailgate with.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

True, it's not my responsibility to enforce the law, but why do I have to change my way of driving for people who break the law, if I'm not breaking the law myself?

A friend of mine always loved to drive like a maniac. I would constantly tell him to be more careful and he would tell me that he was a good driver and as a friend I should trust him. I always told him that it did not matter how well he could drive it was the other idiots on the road that were the real worry. And that's the issue right there. No matter how well you drive, even if you don't try to drive like Mario Andretti like my friend, its the other people on the road that are most likely going to get you into an accident. So you need to be careful of them and give them a wide berth if you want to stay out of an accident. It is primarily your own responsibility to stay safe on the road. You should never have to do anything illegal or dangerous but what ever is reasonably within your power to stay safe on the road including 'catering to' or accommodating dangerous drivers.

Similarly, its not right for someone to rob you while you're walking down the street but if you're wearing Armani and a Rolex with a wad of cash in your pocket while taking a stroll in Compton you're pretty stupid.

It drives me nuts when my daughter is driving in a tailgating chain 7 or 8 cars long.

Both my mother and sister love to tail gate. It drives me nuts too. I don't even care how many people are in the "chain" it just makes me uncomfortable.

 

[BobG]

as a friend I should trust him.

What?! What does that have to do with anything?!

It amazes me how many people think this is actually a valid reason to believe they have some special super power. "I can leap that gorge in my Yugo! As a friend you should believe me!" "Seriously, I can pull that tooth out for you! As a friend, you should believe me!" (I might believe him if he pulls one of his teeth out first. Or I might seriously become frightened at who I'm selecting for friends.)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What?! What does that have to do with anything?!

Tell me about it. He was a manipulative SoB. I think it was one of the reasons he liked having me as a friend; I wouldn't go in for his BS and he had trouble respecting anyone who did.

 

[DaveC426913]

Is that a law?

Yes.

True, it's not my responsibility to enforce the law, but why do I have to change my way of driving for people who break the law, if I'm not breaking the law myself?

You are.

At the very least, you need to lose the self-righteous "I won't change because other people are breaking the law" attitude.

That doesn't disallow cruising in the left lane. And what defines normal speed of traffic? I could say the speed limit defines it. It didn't specify.

Yes it did. If the speed limit were the defining factor, it would say "the speed limit". What it says is: the normal speed of traffic at that time in that place.

OK, fair enough, if there are only two cars including yourself on the entire road, then it is ambiguous what the normal speed is. But if there are multiple cars, then you have no business blocking them.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Both my mother and sister love to tail gate. It drives me nuts too. I don't even care how many people are in the "chain" it just makes me uncomfortable.

I don't know why anyone would want to drive like that. It means you have to put 100% effort in making sure you don't rearend this guy. You can't look away because you're 2 inches from smacking into him, and when you look away for half a second, that's when the guy suddenly puts on the brakes for whatever reason and bam.
You ever see a car so close behind another that you think the one in front is towing the other one?

Yes.

I haven't seen a law yet that says so.

At the very least, you need to lose the self-righteous "I won't change because other people are breaking the law" attitude.

I see nothing wrong with that attitude. Explain why I should lose it.

Yes it did. If the speed limit were the defining factor, it would say "the speed limit". What it says is: the normal speed of traffic at that time in that place.

Normal speed is what? The average speed of every car on the road? The speed of the fastest car on the road?

OK, fair enough, if there are only two cars including yourself on the entire road, then it is ambiguous what the normal speed is. But if there are multiple cars, then you have no business blocking them.

Again, it doesn't say "no blocking". It just says if you're going below the normal speed (whatever that means), then you should stay on the right. I take that as minimum on right, maximum on left.

According to what you quoted, as long as I'm going the "normal speed", I can stay in the left lane, regardless of who I'm blocking.

 

[DaveC426913]

I haven't seen a law yet that says so.

I see nothing wrong with that attitude. Explain why I should lose it.

OK, so you're refuting that the law I posted applies to you?

Normal speed is what? The average speed of every car on the road? The speed of the fastest car on the road?

You are being obtuse; you are "lawyering". You are deliberately trying to misinterpret the law so as to pretend it doesn't apply to you. You are not accepting the spirit of the law.

That's fine. But you lose the "why should I have to" privilege and you just become one more person on the road who is completely selfish and disruptive to other drivers, i.e. one of the very people you complain about. You are no better than a speeder.

In fact, you are worse; no speeder in his right mind would try to defend his self-serving actions as righteous.

Again, it doesn't say "no blocking". It just says if you're going below the normal speed (whatever that means), then you should stay on the right. I take that as minimum on right, maximum on left.

Correct. So you do understand.

 

[leroyjenkens]

You are being obtuse; you are "lawyering". You are deliberately trying to misinterpret the law so as to pretend it doesn't apply to you. You are not accepting the spirit of the law.

No I'm not. How is asking for a clearer definition deliberately trying to misinterpret?
Do you know what "normal speed" is exactly defined as? And why is your interpretation of it more valid than mine?

In fact, you are worse; no speeder in his right mind would try to defend his self-serving actions as righteous.

And I could argue that no one in their right mind speeds.

Correct. So you do understand.

We're going in circles. The understanding that you just said was correct is contrary to what you've been saying this whole time.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Are there no 'keep left unless overtaking' signs (or right in this instance) in the US?

 

[DaveC426913]

No I'm not. How is asking for a clearer definition deliberately trying to misinterpret?

Feel free to ask the government for a clearer definition; they wrote the law. Because you find it unclear does not mean you get to ignore it.

And I could argue that no one in their right mind speeds.

Regardless, they are not being hypocritical. By your doing so (preaching one thing and practicing another) you are arguing in bad faith. And that erodes your credibility.