Dealing with Road Rage: Coasting Up to Red Lights

[russ_watters]

It's encouraing aggressive driving though.

It is a little worse than that: It is passive aggressive driving. He's being intentionally provokative.

 

[russ_watters]

I have addressed that. Just because the passing lane is for passing, doesn't mean you can't cruise in it. Why is it mutually exclusive?

Because the law says it is!

Dave posted the law that says precisely the opposite of what you are claiming: 'Stay to the right unless passing'.

 

[xxChrisxx]

ok time to put a rest to this.

I had to google where you were using the I-95 as a reference.

please read.#

The 2009 Florida Statutes

Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES

Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL

View Entire Chapter

316.081 Driving on right side of roadway; exceptions.--

(1) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:

(a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement;

(b) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway; provided any person so doing shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;

(c) Upon a roadway divided into three marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable thereon; or

(d) Upon a roadway designated and signposted for one-way traffic.

(2) Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall 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 except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) Upon any roadway having four or more lanes for moving traffic and providing for two-way movement of traffic, no vehicle shall be driven to the left of the centerline of the roadway, except when authorized by official traffic control devices designating certain lanes to the left side of the center of the roadway for use by traffic not otherwise permitted to use such lanes, or except as permitted under paragraph (1)(b). However, this subsection shall not be construed as prohibiting the crossing of the centerline in making a left turn into or from an alley, private road, or driveway.

(4) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.

No arguing against that.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes.../SEC081.HTM&Title=->2001->Ch0316->Section 081

The Uniform Vehicle Code states:

Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic ...

Note that this law refers to the "normal" speed of traffic, not the "legal" speed of traffic. The 60 MPH driver in a 55 MPH zone where everybody else is going 65 MPH must move right

/ thread tbh.

 

[leroyjenkens]

It is a little worse than that: It is passive aggressive driving. He's being intentionally provokative.

And you can prove my intent how?

Dave posted the law that says precisely the opposite of what you are claiming: 'Stay to the right unless passing'.

But it didn't say that.

Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic ...

Note that this law refers to the "normal" speed of traffic, not the "legal" speed of traffic. The 60 MPH driver in a 55 MPH zone where everybody else is going 65 MPH must move right

"Normal" is ambiguous. I already argued that through my interpretation, that law is working under the assumption that people aren't speeding.

 

[DaveC426913]

And you can prove my intent how?

1] You have admitted it freely.

2] The presumption is that you are an honest person, arguing in good faith. Of course you could lie, but if you want to crack that door open, the implication is that we could begin assuming that, at any time you are lying, and assign all sorts of nefarious motives to you. You sure you want to open that door?

 

[xxChrisxx]

And you can prove my intent how?

But it didn't say that.

"Normal" is ambiguous. I already argued that through my interpretation, that law is working under the assumption that people aren't speeding.

The above exhert IS the law. Keep to the right most lane you can for driving.
'Norma' speed is defined. Read the damn post. It's the speed the traffic if going regardless of speed limit.
i've just realize it's not quoted, hold on i'll alter that. read the bit in bold.

You are now arguing against something that has been proven and demonstated to show YOU are in the wrong.

 

[DaveC426913]

I already argued that through my interpretation, that law is working under the assumption that people aren't speeding.

It is not assuming that. If it were, it would say so. They have chosen the words carefully.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The above exhert IS the law. Keep to the right most lane you can for driving.
'Norma' speed is defined. Read the damn post. It's the speed the traffic if going regardless of speed limit.
i've just realize it's not quoted, hold on i'll alter that. read the bit in bold.

You are now arguing against something that has been proven and demonstated to show YOU are in the wrong.

Oh, I thought those were your words. Where does it say that on the link? I can't find it.

1] You have admitted it freely.

2] The presumption is that you are an honest person, arguing in good faith. Of course you could lie, but if you want to crack that door open, the implication is that we could begin assuming that, at any time you are lying, and assign all sorts of nefarious motives to you. You sure you want to open that door?

That wouldn't make much sense.
If you can quote where I said I'm intentionally provoking people by doing that, then go ahead.
But assigning an intent to my actions without any basis would get you no where.

It is not assuming that. If it were, it would say so. They have chosen the words carefully.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I have no reason to assume the state or government makes perfect laws.

 

[xxChrisxx]

It's on a different link, stating all the traffic laws of different states. Its a university site which I've now closed and can't seem to fid again! give us a sec.

I'm tying to find an original link to the uniform vehicle code. and its precedents for interpretation.http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

That has the summary and the precedents referenced.

I'm not sure how precedents work in the US though, with state laws and federal etc,etc. What you can be spanked for in 1 palce is perfectly legal everywhere else. You'd have to find a specific precednt for where you lived.

 

[leroyjenkens]

On that link, for Florida, it says "Governor Bush vetoed 2005 SB732, which would have reserved the left lane for passing, saying that drivers blocking the left lane are 'cautious and careful.'"

 

[xxChrisxx]

On that link, for Florida, it says "Governor Bush vetoed 2005 SB732, which would have reserved the left lane for passing, saying that drivers blocking the left lane are 'cautious and careful.'"

Well there you go. Like I said precedents are odd in the US. As far as that goes you are fine doing what you are doing legally. Well done.

However legal it is, the method in which you are driving IS more dangerous by forcing people who want to go quicker to weave through traffic. This is the reason for most undartaking and keep right laws. It'd be interesting to complile accident staticstics involving overtaking on a keep right enforced state compared to one that doesnt. I'm searching for reliable data.

I think the thread should end here.

Conclusions:

The majority of states in the US actively encourage the keep right, pass left rule.
Precendent would have it in Florida you are fine to cruise in the left lane.

 

[leroyjenkens]

However legal it is, the method in which you are driving IS more dangerous by forcing people who want to go quicker to weave through traffic. This is the reason for most undartaking and keep right laws.

Is it? Seems to me that the keep right law would just cause more lane changing, hence it would be more dangerous.

How is this law enforced? Does a cop see someone force a speeding car to pass on the right and he decides to not go after the speeding car, but to go after the person who blocked him?

 

[xxChrisxx]

Is it? Seems to me that the keep right law would just cause more lane changing, hence it would be more dangerous.

How is this law enforced? Does a cop see someone force a speeding car to pass on the right and he decides to not go after the speeding car, but to go after the person who blocked him?

I believe you are being deliberately obtuse now.

Are you honestly saying that someone pulling over and merging to the lane to the right at a similar speed after an overtaking maneuver has been completed is MORE dangerous than someone aggressively weaving through traffic.

If you in an overtaking lane, its safe to assume that your lane is moving faster than the lane to the right of you.

YOU are forcing someone with a larger speed differential (as they would be closing on you) to the lane to the right of them to move over to attempt to pass. OR to brake to reduce speed differential, only to then accelerate in the lane to the right in attempt to pass. Either way, large speed differentals is bad, as it allows less reaction time.

If you are honestly saying you moving over to the right, merging and sitting in a lane where traffic is moving to a similar speed to you is more dangerous that forcing faster cars to pass in a slower lane, you are either deliberately lying or have questionable judgement.It may be the ideal for evenyone to simply travel the speed limit. That is a pipe dream. The best we can do as driver is take a sensible pill and just do what we can to mitigate the risk to everyone. Fast drivers will wantto drive fst, they will find a way to do it.

By being stubborn YOU are forcing these people to take more dangerous and risky moneouvers, by proxy YOU are drving an a dangerous manner. End of.

 

[DaveC426913]

I believe you are being deliberately obtuse now.

By being stubborn YOU are forcing these people to take more dangerous and risky moneouvers, by proxy YOU are drving an a dangerous manner. End of.

I have to grant leroy his due here. The above is a flawed argument. It is (loosely) analagous to saying that, by locking my doors, I am forcing burglars to break into my house through the windows, which is inherently more dangerous.

No, the only valid argument is whether leroy is obliged to stay out of the passing lane regardless of how other drivers behave.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I believe you are being deliberately obtuse now.

Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone obtuse.

Are you honestly saying that someone pulling over and merging to the lane to the right at a similar speed after an overtaking maneuver has been completed is MORE dangerous than someone aggressively weaving through traffic.

No, but that's a strawman. I never said anything about anyone aggressively weaving through traffic. Why do you conclude that passing on the right automatically equates to "aggressively weaving through traffic"?

YOU are forcing someone with a larger speed differential (as they would be closing on you) to the lane to the right of them to move over to attempt to pass. OR to brake to reduce speed differential, only to then accelerate in the lane to the right in attempt to pass. Either way, large speed differentals is bad, as it allows less reaction time.

Again with "forcing". How am I forcing this to happen? They have no control over their vehicle?

Braking and accelerating happen when you want to pass on the left too. Why is passing in one lane by braking and accelerating more dangerous than the same thing happening in the other lane?

If you are honestly saying you moving over to the right, merging and sitting in a lane where traffic is moving to a similar speed to you is more dangerous that forcing faster cars to pass in a slower lane, you are either deliberately lying or have questionable judgement.

I said it increases the amount of lane changing, that's what makes it more dangerous.

It may be the ideal for evenyone to simply travel the speed limit. That is a pipe dream. The best we can do as driver is take a sensible pill and just do what we can to mitigate the risk to everyone. Fast drivers will wantto drive fst, they will find a way to do it.

And instead of blaming them, you blame me. That's unbelievable.

By being stubborn YOU are forcing these people to take more dangerous and risky moneouvers, by proxy YOU are drving an a dangerous manner. End of.

That's the typical American attitude; blame everyone and everything you can, just as long you don't blame the one directly responsible.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I have to grant leroy his due here. The above is a flawed argument. It is (loosely) analagous to saying that, by locking my doors, I am forcing burglars to break into my house through the windows, which is inherently more dangerous.

No, the only valid argument is whether leroy is obliged to stay out of the passing lane regardless of how other drivers behave.

The above isn't an arguement, it's fact.

Large speed differentials on a motorway are the dangerous thing about maneuvers. Forcing someone with a large speed differential to make the maneuver when you have a much simpler and less dangerous one is stupid.And to your responce, your analogy isn't great but it's close enough to be tweaked. In your case you have something to lose by leaving your door open, it would cost you more simply to allow the robbers in.

A better analogy would be a similar case about if someone should lock their car or not.
https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-329673.html
It was agreed that if was a shed, you may as well leave it open. The cost of a window would be more than the contents.

This case is more like that thread. Leroy had nothing to lose by moving over,as he is going the speed he wants. Ultimately that lower speed idfferential maneuver is less dangerous that aloing a faster car to 'go the long way round'.. No loss of progress and increase in safety. Net gain.

 

[xxChrisxx]

That's the typical American attitude; blame everyone and everything you can, just as long you don't blame the one directly responsible.

I'm English... and don't have your 'it's not my problem' attitude.

It's not about blame. It's about safety.

The safest course of action is for the following driver not to speed.
The next safest course of action is for you with the lower speed differention to make the maneuver.
The least safe option is to do your own thing and force the other driver to make the more dangerous maneuver.

It's a judgement call, if you feel the guy behind REALLY wants to get past you, and is driving stupidly by getting up your arse. Just move... it's safer for all. Not doing so leads to frustration on the part of the other driver, frustration behind the wheel can lead to road rage and a collapse of judgement.I am not blaming you, I am blaming the speeder. I am accusing you of aggrivating the problem.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The safest course of action is for the following driver not to speed.
The next safest course of action is for you with the lower speed differention to make the maneuver.
The least safe option is to do your own thing and force the other driver to make the more dangerous maneuver.

It's a judgement call, if you feel the guy behind REALLY wants to get past you, and is driving stupidly by getting up your arse. Just move... it's safer for all. Not doing so leads to frustration on the part of the other driver, frustration behind the wheel can lead to road rage and a collapse of judgement.

I've found the safest way is to let them find an opening and pass me in the other lane. I've had many times where I was about to get over, even with my blinker on, and they speed up from behind me into the other lane and pass me, forcing me to go back into the lane I was just in. Same thing happens when someone speeds up behind me. I don't know if they're going to slow down, or drift over into the other lane about 2 inches from me as they pass me. If I get over, they'll hit me, if I stay, they can at least avoid me.
I never know what these nutcases are going to do, so I just stay where I am.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I've found the safest way is to let them find an opening and pass me in the other lane. I've had many times where I was about to get over, even with my blinker on, and they speed up from behind me into the other lane and pass me, forcing me to go back into the lane I was just in. Same thing happens when someone speeds up behind me. I don't know if they're going to slow down, or drift over into the other lane about 2 inches from me as they pass me. If I get over, they'll hit me, if I stay, they can at least avoid me.
I never know what these nutcases are going to do, so I just stay where I am.

If that works for you, then fair play.

 

[DaveC426913]

Forcing someone with a large speed differential to make the maneuver when you have a much simpler and less dangerous one is stupid.

And to your responce, your analogy isn't great but it's close enough to be tweaked.

While it could be tweaked to more closely mirror the driving issue, that would be pointless and would result in a red herring argument. The way it is gets the point across just as effectively

Leroy is not forcing another driver to act dangerously. The causitive agent that results in the other driver acting dangerously is his speeding.

Locking my doors does not lead to risk of harm to person or property. The burgar's attmept to brask into my house is the causitive agent.

That's really all that's necessary to refute the forcing argument.

 

[xxChrisxx]

While it could be tweaked to more closely mirror the driving issue, that would be pointless and would result in a red herring argument. The way it is gets the point across just as effectively

Leroy is not forcing another driver to act dangerously. The causitive agent that results in the other driver acting dangerously is his speeding.

Locking my doors does not lead to risk of harm to person or property. The burgar's attmept to brask into my house is the causitive agent.

That's really all that's necessary to refute the forcing argument.

You do realize that pointing our random logical fallacies is utterly pointless. As I wasn't using the analogy as an argument, I stated this. And it was you that used an analogy in the first place that did not accurately depict the scenario, ths being guilty of both strawman and red herring st the same time.

Fact - higher speed differentials are dangerous. Best solution = don't speed. next best = safest maneuover.It's all sorted now though. I didnt buy the other justifications (speed etc). But Leroy's latest response that he does what he does becuase in those cases he feels more comfortable letting the overtaking driver make the maneuver is fine by me.

Noone should ever be bullied into doing something uncomfortable behind the wheel. It may not be the most ideal solution but if it work, it works.

 

[Moonbear]

I never know what these nutcases are going to do, so I just stay where I am.

In that case, I strongly suggest you take a defensive driving course. It will help you learn the best way to adjust your driving to be safest in the presence of other drivers.

And, yes, if someone has parked themself in the passing lane, people desiring to go past them will take any opportunity presented to get around them, even if that means you've forced them to take the unsafe option of passing on the right instead of on the left. If people have room to pass you on the right, there is no reason for you to sit in the left lane, because it implies that the right lane is moving sufficiently faster and has enough space between cars that you could have moved over without having to slow down.

It's the same rules applied to bicycles and pedestrians sharing a path. If a bicycle has to weave around pedestrians all over the place, there's more chance that someone is going to get hurt. If instead the pedestrians, who are moving slower, stay to the right, the bicycle rider always knows they can safely go to the left. When people just maintaining a speed stay in the left lane when they belong in the right, it adds a lot more guessing instead of always having the same direction be the path that's open to maneuver out of the way. If someone else in the right lane is moving slower than you, then that is the time when you can move to the left, overtake them, then move back to the right. Once in a while, that does mean someone who wants to fly ends up on the bumper of someone who is just passing someone incredibly slow but not flying, but a quick check in the mirror before pulling out will usually prevent that...just let the faster vehicle overtake both of you and then pull out behind them, overtake the slower vehicle, and return to the right lane again.

If you are going the same speed or slower than someone in the right lane, there is no reason you can't pull back in behind them in the right lane and let someone who wants to pass get around. Safe driving includes awareness of everything around you, not tunnel vision straight ahead. Every driver's manual I've ever read (and I've lived in several states and have read the driver's manuals in each of them to learn any variations in the laws) tells you that if someone is tailgating you (interpret as driving too close for comfort), the best thing to do is move to the right and let them pass.

Sure, you can blame them and collect the damages from them if you get in an accident from them rear-ending you, but the whole point of driving safely is to avoid those accidents in the first place, not figure out who to assign blame to after the fact. If someone else around you is driving unsafely, rather than being stubborn about not changing a thing and blaming them for the accident, it's much better to just get out of the way and avoid the accident entirely.

 

[Chi Meson]

I've found the safest way is to let them find an opening and pass me in the other lane. I've had many times where I was about to get over, even with my blinker on, and they speed up from behind me into the other lane and pass me, forcing me to go back into the lane I was just in. Same thing happens when someone speeds up behind me. I don't know if they're going to slow down, or drift over into the other lane about 2 inches from me as they pass me. If I get over, they'll hit me, if I stay, they can at least avoid me.
I never know what these nutcases are going to do, so I just stay where I am.

If someone is speeding up your tail and you are in the "passing lane" and there is plenty of room in the other lane, and that guy is barrelling up unpredictably, then I can give you the benefit of the doubt that you are taking the uncertainty of the situation into account and will decide to wait until the other guy has passed.

However, if one has been traveling in the passing lane for an extended period of time, and is causing car after car to pass you on the right (or left if you are in Britain), then that guy is in the wrong lane.

It is a case of what you generally do, not what happens once or twice a year. It is wrong to regularly and continuously travel in the passing lane and force people to pass you in the traveling lane. Do we all agree on that?