Dealing with Road Rage: Coasting Up to Red Lights

[xxChrisxx]

On my way to work I drive down I-95 and get on I-295. What happened to the rest of them? 95 then to 295? There's 200 missing.

Is this a serious question, or was it like a jocular rhetorical question?

 

[mgb_phys]

It's almost logical (at least as close as federal, government and logical get)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Numbering_system

 

[turbo]

Is this a serious question, or was it like a jocular rhetorical question?

Song: 95 is the route you are on. It's not the speed limit sign.

 

[rootX]

I am really interested in knowing how this woman would drive on the road.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8347164.stm

 

[leroyjenkens]

Look, there's nothing wrong with merely doing 5mph over the limit when you're passing other cars. Yes, even if there are cars piled up behind you. (i.e. You are not obliged to speed just because you are in the passing lane.)

If I'm going the speed limit in the passing lane, why do I need to get back over? For people going faster than the speed limit?

And how do you know there's nothing wrong with going 5 over if you want to pass?
What about 10 over? When is the line drawn? Because the speed limit is at a certain set number, so if you're going to have allowances above it, they need to be defined by the law, not by conjecture.

Yet you don't mind breaking the law by going 5 over which is still breaking the law isn't it? Or braking the accepted guidelines (I don't know if it law in the US) that the lane is for OVERTAKING.

I'll go 5 over. That's a small amount. You couldn't even recognize I was speeding unless you have a radar gun.

So basically it can't be that you want to uphold the law by stopping people speeding as you are doing it yourself.

There's a difference between 5 MPH over and 20 MPH over. Hence why there's different fines for different speeds.
But I'm not trying to uphold the law. That's not my job. I just don't feel it necessary to go out of my way to allow people to go any faster than I'm going, which is probably over the limit already.
And I don't expect people to do the same for me. If I'm going 60 in a 55 and I come up on someone going 55 in the left lane, I slow down and don't get on their butt expecting them to accommodate me. They only owe me the limit, no more.

Do you realize how much of a pompous arse you sound. Save me a speeding ticket. How noble and just of you. And you saved me a speeding ticket by ONLY breaking the law yourself by 5mph.

I go 5 over maximum in the left lane. That's so I don't go below the maximum, since I'm in the left lane and that's what they're entitled to.
Going 5 over isn't the same as going 200 over, despite you wanting it to be so it supports your argument.

You do realize that you moving out of an overtaking lane ISNT being an accomplice. You acutally can't be an accomplice to a speeding charge, you aren't assisting them in any way. Doing nothing to stop them is NOT the same as actively helping them.

Moving out of their way IS actively helping them. Moving is an action and the result is them being able to break the law. Me not moving, which is what I do, is not assisting them in any way.

I'd rather you stuck to the rules of the road and got out of an overtaking lane when you are done overtaking.

Show me the rule I'm breaking. I've yet to see it.

You really do sound like a hypocrite and a jerk behind the wheel. Not to mention a moaner.

I sound like all that from breaking non-existant laws? Ignore every other nice thing I do on the road. Those acts are all negated simply by me not moving. I love how it's always one extreme or the other. You're either the best, nicest driver, or you're the worst driver and a huge hypocritical, moaning, jerk who eats babies.

Is this a serious question, or was it like a jocular rhetorical question?

A serious question asked in a jocular way. I honestly don't know the answer, but it's a question I can ask in a funny way because other people may feel the same way.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I'll go 5 over. That's a small amount. You couldn't even recognize I was speeding unless you have a radar gun.

There's a difference between 5 MPH over and 20 MPH over. Hence why there's different fines for different speeds.

The law is black and white and the limit is technically a hard limit. 5mph over or 20mph doesn't matter, speeding is speeding. The fact that the speed over the limit determines the level of punishment makes no odds, even 1mph over is still breaking the law.In the end it really does't matter, as you should drive how you feel comfortable driving and not let anyone bully you into doing something you don't want.

It may or may not be illegal but I believe it's courteous not to block a passing lane when you could easily drive in the centre lanes. Obviously if the centre lane is all blocked up and there is no opportunity to merge back in, then fair enough.

The reason I would be more annoyed about this is that in the UK you can't undertake. So if you've got someone going in the overtaking lane at 70mph they effectively block the motorway even if there are no cars in the centre lane (as although the technical speed limit is 70 everyone goes 80+ when not in the left (slow) lane). Technically not against the law but from a practical point of view its irritating.

A serious question asked in a jocular way. I honestly don't know the answer, but it's a question I can ask in a funny way because other people may feel the same way.

The acutal numbering convention has been posted earlier I think.

It's similar to the system used in the UK. Here we have the main motorways M1, M2, M3 that correspond to areas of the country.

The main motorway near me is the M6 that runs down the west of the country. Motorways that branch off this are then given a designation of M6x.

In the US I think they put the split off before the main interstate. So I-x95 would be a branch off the main I-95.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The law is black and white and the limit is technically a hard limit. 5mph over or 20mph doesn't matter, speeding is speeding. The fact that the speed over the limit determines the level of punishment makes no odds, even 1mph over is still breaking the law.

So 1 MPH is the same as 100 MPH. As far as breaking the law, yeah. But if you go down a small hill while going the limit, you won't gain 100 extra MPH. I know 1 MPH over is still breaking the law. I'll go up to 5 MPH over. The fact that I'm breaking the law also is of no relevance, since I'm not chiding other people for breaking the law (The only people I hate are the ones who drive recklessly, risking other people's lives.) It's just my point of view that it's not my responsibility to allow people to speed by getting out of their way. If they want to speed, they need to find their own opening.
I said it before, but if I wanted to go 5 over and I was stuck behind someone in the left lane who is only going the speed limit, then that's too bad for me and I won't hold it against that person if they stay in the left lane. I'll just either have to find my own opening or I'll just have to suffer the excruciating agony of having to go 5 MPH slower.

The reason I would be more annoyed about this is that in the UK you can't undertake. So if you've got someone going in the overtaking lane at 70mph they effectively block the motorway even if there are no cars in the centre lane (as although the technical speed limit is 70 everyone goes 80+ when not in the left (slow) lane).

So in the UK you can't get in that empty lane and pass him? That's ridiculous. How could you even enforce that? So all the traffic on the road is forced to go as slow as the slowest car in the overtaking lane, simply because "undertaking" him is illegal?

 

[xxChrisxx]

So 1 MPH is the same as 100 MPH. As far as breaking the law, yeah. But if you go down a small hill while going the limit, you won't gain 100 extra MPH. I know 1 MPH over is still breaking the law. I'll go up to 5 MPH over. The fact that I'm breaking the law also is of no relevance, since I'm not chiding other people for breaking the law (The only people I hate are the ones who drive recklessly, risking other people's lives.) It's just my point of view that it's not my responsibility to allow people to speed by getting out of their way. If they want to speed, they need to find their own opening.
I said it before, but if I wanted to go 5 over and I was stuck behind someone in the left lane who is only going the speed limit, then that's too bad for me and I won't hold it against that person if they stay in the left lane. I'll just either have to find my own opening or I'll just have to suffer the excruciating agony of having to go 5 MPH slower.

It's encouraing aggressive driving though. Somone who wants to fly down the motorway will find a way to do it. By leaving a 'fast' lane blocked up they then have to weave through traffic in slower lanes to get back into a faster lane. 'they need to find their own opening'.

The act of changing lanes is probably the most dangerous thing there is to do on a motorway after merging with traffic. Essentially forcing people to do it more often increases risk for everyone concerned. Especially if they want to pedal.

So in the UK you can't get in that empty lane and pass him? That's ridiculous. How could you even enforce that? So all the traffic on the road is forced to go as slow as the slowest car in the overtaking lane, simply because "undertaking" him is illegal?

Pretty much, it's technically not allowed and is technically illegal. It's only designed to stop people weaving about through lanes trying to get up the road a little quicker. If you have a tool driving slowly in the fastest lane the coppers will ignore undertaking.

So although 'by the book' it's agaisnt the law, the police don't bother enforcing it.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's just my point of view that it's not my responsibility to allow people to speed by getting out of their way.

Once again, you need to divorce yourself of the rationalization that this has anything whatsoever to do with speed.

It has absolutely nothing to do with speed. This is a straw man that you keep using to defend your actions. It is invalid.

It has everything to do with passing. It is a passing lane. If you are not in the process of passing a car, you do not belong in the passing lane. Period.

Address that.

 

[leroyjenkens]

It's encouraing aggressive driving though. Somone who wants to fly down the motorway will find a way to do it. By leaving a 'fast' lane blocked up they then have to weave through traffic in slower lanes to get back into a faster lane. 'they need to find their own opening'.

Your argument is that criminals will be criminals regardless of any obstacles in their way, so it's our responsibility to mitigate the consequences of what they do. My argument is that it's not our responsibility.

The act of changing lanes is probably the most dangerous thing there is to do on a motorway after merging with traffic. Essentially forcing people to do it more often increases risk for everyone concerned. Especially if they want to pedal.

But I'm not FORCING them to do it. That's like saying raising taxes is FORCING people to steal. Or if I don't give a robber my money, I'm FORCING him to shoot me. Somehow it becomes my fault that he shot me?

Once again, you need to divorce yourself of the rationalization that this has anything whatsoever to do with speed.

It has absolutely nothing to do with speed. This is a straw man that you keep using to defend your actions. It is invalid.

It has everything to do with passing. It is a passing lane. If you are not in the process of passing a car, you do not belong in the passing lane. Period.

Address that.

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?

The reason I keep bringing up the thing you say is irrelevant is because I was asked why I don't move. That's why.

 

[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?