Dealing with Road Rage: Coasting Up to Red Lights

[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.

 

[lisab]

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

There are, but they're very rare. Usually, you see them up steep grades (and the usual wording is "Slower Traffic Keep Right").

One big difference between US and European driving: in the US it's common practice to pass on the right or left, whichever suits your fancy at the time.

I don't remember seeing that in any of the European countries I've visited.

 

[turbo]

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

The entire Maine turnpike and I-95 and its feeders are all signed "keep right unless passing", and yes, people do get ticketed for staying in the left lane. It's an attempt to keep traffic flow unobstructed.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

There are, but they're very rare. Usually, you see them up steep grades (and the usual wording is "Slower Traffic Keep Right").

One big difference between US and European driving: in the US it's common practice to pass on the right or left, whichever suits your fancy at the time.

I don't remember seeing that in any of the European countries I've visited.

Passing on the left or the right is very different to the UK, where undertaking, to my understanding, is considered almost unthinkably bad.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

The entire Maine turnpike and I-95 and its feeders are all signed "keep right unless passing", and yes, people do get ticketed for staying in the left lane. It's an attempt to keep traffic flow unobstructed.

Good to know. I guess it is hard to enforce when there is heavy traffic in both or all lanes, but otherwise helpful.

 

[BobG]

There are, but they're very rare. Usually, you see them up steep grades (and the usual wording is "Slower Traffic Keep Right").

One big difference between US and European driving: in the US it's common practice to pass on the right or left, whichever suits your fancy at the time.

I don't remember seeing that in any of the European countries I've visited.

If you're talking just about freeways, you're not supposed to pass on the right. That would be a silly thing to do in any event since everyone knows the slower traffic will be in the right lanes anyway.

Actually, the main deviation from slow in the right and fast in the left comes with six lane highways. Through traffic likes the middle with the right lane used for traffic about to exit or having just entered. A particularly slow driver in the middle lane is like a rock in the river and people go both right and left to avoid the slow driver. Once by the obstruction, traffic usually seems to run the way you'd expect, with passing occurring only on the left.