Two Dashes, Two Seconds: The Law and Safety on the Road

[leroyjenkens]

Yes, but my breaking the law doesn't give you the right to break it as well, in a self-righteous attempt to police my speeding or not.

The keep right rule isn't even a law everywhere. It varies from place to place. Speed limit doesn't. You're breaking a universal law while I may not be breaking the law at all.

Under your definition, no. Would they have to overtake you on the right hand side or slow to your speed if you weren't driving in the left lane? No.

If I lock my car door, am I FORCING criminals to break my window?

If they're going faster than you they're driving dangerously?

You were the one who said they were driving dangerously. And you blamed it on me to boot.

This is complete nonsense. Is it analogies like this you're thinking of when someone's tailgating you?

Well if they blamed me for them tailgating me, I could use the same argument, but since I can't talk to them when they're in a car behind me, it doesn't cross my mind, no.
You're blaming the victim of tailgating for being tailgated. That's analogous to blaming rape victims for being raped.

I'm incredulous at your asking that. This is really basic stuff. First of all, they wouldn't have to overtake you if you weren't in the left lane.

Why wouldn't they have to overtake me if I wasn't in the left lane? What's stopping them from being in the same lane as I am? If we both happen to be in the same lane, they would have to overtake me if they wanted to speed, no matter what lane it is.
But I like how you're granting them ownership of the left lane. They're allowed to drive in it all the time, since that's what lane you expected them to be in.

Why is that? Well, I suppose to reduce the incidence of two vehicles colliding after overtaking a vehicle on either side of it. Or the vehicle overtaking colliding with the one being overtaken.

Which would be their fault for not looking before changing lanes. All these dangerous things are the faults of the drivers themselves. You keep putting the blame on the wrong person.

What's the difference between obeying the give-way-to-the-right rule and not? Yielding to oncoming traffic when attempting a left turn and not yielding?

It's just a legislated convention. Like driving on the right side of the road is.

That doesn't explain why it's inherently dangerous. You keep expressing how dangerous it is, then when I ask you why it's dangerous, all you can say is that the politicians told us to do it this way.

Yes. It's not your place to police and enforce laws on the road. Some guy going past isn't a bother to you. You are a bother to someone wanting to go faster than you in the left lane.

And it's not your place to police the people who don't keep right. This works both ways.
Some guy risking my life by drastically exceeding the speed limit isn't a bother to me, yet you sympathize with the poor speeders who I'm bothering. They're risking my life, but that's no problem, but if I BOTHER THEM, well that's a dastardly deed indeed.

Why do you presume to know what I was inferring? Yes, I check the mirrors sometimes, when there's nothing conspicuous cooking up ahead for some distance or I'm bored. But mostly only when planning or evaluating whether a lane change would be opportune.

You don't have to look directly at the rear view mirror to see that someone is right behind you. I'll see something come up in my peripheral vision, which could prompt me to look directly at the mirror. You should be able to see things without having to focus your attention on it 100%.

It is not a legal requirement to keep bellow the speed limit while overtaking.

I need proof of this. This would allow people to accelerate up to an unlimited speed just because they're overtaking. If the speed limit law breaks down when you're overtaking somebody, where does it end? If you go fast enough, you'll be constantly overtaking people and subsequently not breaking the law even though you're doing 150 MPH.

Yes, passing is not overtaking. But neither is it within your attributes to enforce the speed limit.

Likewise; not your job to enforce the keep right law. Especially since it's not even a law everywhere.

That's a false argument. Let the speeders be fined, have their licenses confiscated from them, etc. It's not your place to enforce the speed limit. You're only endangering everyone.

It's not a false argument because you've been doing exactly as I stated. Your sympathy is 100% towards the speeder.
Yet again, you say the person who doesn't keep right is endangering everyone. And you further prove the point I just made by putting the blame 100% on the person who doesn't keep right. If that person doesn't keep right, the speeder has to change lanes on the right, yet the only person, as you would have us believe, who is driving dangerously in that situation is the person who didn't keep right. They're driving along at a constant speed, not changing lanes or anything, then the speeder comes along, is FORCED to change lanes, rams into another car and causes an accident and the sole person at fault here is the person who didn't keep right? I don't believe anyone in the world thinks that way, including you. I refuse to believe someone like that exists.

Ok, we've only been arguing over the hypothetical when the loiterer is doing the speed limit. How about when they're driving bellow the limit and, by not keeping to the right, they force other drivers, who only want to do the limit, to overtake on the right?

I'm curious how you would argue them apples.

Those "apples" are easy to refute. It's still impossible to put the blame on the person who didn't keep right. If you change lanes and an accident occurs because of that, it's YOUR FAULT. 100%.

Think of it this way, if there's construction in the left lane and you're forced to change lanes as you come up to the construction, whose fault is it if you cause an accident? The construction people?

 

[Office_Shredder]

The reason you're supposed to pass on the left is because vehicles typically enter/exit the road on the right. You don't want cars accelerating to pass someone in the same lane as cars that are slowing down/not up to speed yet because of an off/on ramp

 

[Danger]

The reason you're supposed to pass on the left is because vehicles typically enter/exit the road on the right. You don't want cars accelerating to pass someone in the same lane as cars that are slowing down/not up to speed yet because of an off/on ramp

In all of my years, that never crossed my mind. Makes sense, though. Hmmm... cool.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Tailgating is what you get for not hauling *** in the passing lanes. If you want to loiter do it near the shoulder. This is also the law.

The 2~3 seconds worth of distance between cars is completely impractical in most any situation, just like the 50~150 yards rule between starting to signal and actually beginning to change lanes.

What is practical and proper is to pay attention to the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of yours so you don't have to react to its driver's reaction. Not leave football fields of chasm to the vehicle in front counting the dashes while inviting cars in adjacent lanes to switch.

And this is why window tint should be outlawed and why land yachts and light trucks are a nuisance.

If most people had any sense & decency there'd hardly be a need for law or enforcement.

Come down to southern California where we have packed freeways with 6-8 lanes each way, the speed limit is 65mph, about 50% of the people on the road are doing 75-80mph, signaling lane changes is thought to be optional, and there are always a few jerkoffs that feel anyone doing less than 90 is obviously someones grandma.

Basically when I am in the fast lane driving at about 80mph (or about 128 kph) and somebody feels the need to ride my bumper (that is, when I look in my rearview the lowest part of their car I see is the grill) I have no sympathy.

 

[SonyAD]

Same here Sony. Please don't drive in DC either. We have enough people here with your attitudes about the rules of the road. I don't screw around in the left lane and I tend to drive above the speed limit on the freeway but, I still get tailgated by people like you no matter where or how I drive. There always seems to be an excuse. I don't have tinted windows though so it must be something else.

Wow. Now you've concluded I tailgate.

There always seems to be some excuse for oafs to be slowing down the left lane as well. Or be driving side by side across all available lanes.

Sony, have you even read your own posts enough to realize that over 99% of what you have written, including your interpretations of traffic rules, is utter ********?

That's ridiculous.

The laws in Canada are universal, and I suspect that they apply to most of the US as well.

Why would they not apply to the US if they were universal?

On a 2-lane road, you obviously have to remain to the right (or left in England, Australia, etc.) except to pass.

This goes for any road, not just 2 lane's per way of traffic.

Although we all do it, it is technically illegal to exceed the speed limit even while passing.

Ok, I seem to remember reading about it not being illegal to exceed the limit in a an overtake manoeuvre. At least round these parts. But I'll concede this is not necessarily the law everywhere. Or anywhere at all.

For instance, on a road with a 100 km/h limit, you cannot go faster than 100 in order to pass someone who is doing 99.

Still, whatever the law, its smart not to stick around on the wrong side of the road any more than you absolutely have to.

I just had an incident today where a moron/douchebag accelerated as I was attempting to overtake him. It's the third time it's happened in a month.

That is usually impractical, but it is the law.

It's a pretty stupid law, then. It should be broken. Stupid laws have been passed & broken before.

Besides, safely pacing that person at 99 will cost you maybe 30 seconds or a minute over the course of your entire drive.

It doesn't work that way. Usually the speed differences are considerable. And so too distance spans.

But I will concede a big part of it is psychological. A male psyche thing. I don't think like a woman. I won't wait a whole day till the road is clear to the horizon to launch or traverse a boulevard. I don't cower in fear behind the wheel. I don't keep 1.5 metres from the curb for fear of touching it. I don't start braking twice or three times the distance I need to stop comfortably or slow to a crawl 30~40 yards from the last car at the light.

I'm not afraid to make the car lean down corners or have the rear end slip out a bit.

Etc.

Is that amount of time worth risking your life, or more importantly the lives of those around you?

Why don't we all travel 30 mph all the time, everywhere?

If a few seconds is that meaningful to you, and you know that time will eventually run out, you'd might as well just commit suicide right now to eliminate future disappointment (and to save the lives of whoever else you might share a road with).

Rude, false argument.

Multi-lane roads are different. The general rule, which is posted on signs in hilly areas and the like, is "keep right except to pass". Although it is a law, it is almost never enforced in regard to traditional passenger vehicles.

It should be enforced. Yielding to pedestrians on the crosswalk should also be brutally enforced.

Did I mention I might have died a dozen times would I not stop before each lane of traffic when crossing the road?

Last winter I, literally, had to jump out from in front of a moron in a Kia yapping on the phone. I stopped to check whether he'd stop for me and I saw him slowing down. When he saw me stopping he took off the brakes and wanted to pass. But I'd started moving again.

I'd love for me to tell me what I did wrong, except wanting to cross the road.

It's there to avoid a situation in which a couple of RV's or such are side-by-side at significantly less than the posted limit, preventing anyone from passing.

What they'd deserve is for me to wait for a chance to pass them and make them rear end me. :) If there's no innocents behind.

I'm no angel in that sort of situation either, but the difference between you and I is that I'm an expert driver and know my vehicles down to the last nut and bolt.

Yet more presumptuous nonsense.

I've done things that most people would consider reckless or stupid, but they were carefully calculated to be safe.

You just haven't had your bout of bad luck yet. You can't always take everything into account.

The RV situation, for example. A 2-lane road with a 100 km/h limit and I was homeward bound overdue for a meal (that was important, because my diabetes was controlled by diet and I was starting to feel the effects of insulin shock). There was a Winnebago doing 80 km/h with 11 cars stuck behind it. My car was the 11th. The others were all "normal" passenger sedans or toy sports cars such as FireChickens or Camaros. The first 2 or 3 could probably have passed the RV, but chose not to. I appreciate that decision on the parts of the drivers; if they didn't feel confident about doing it, then doing it would have been stupid and probably hazardous. I was, however, in a hurry (and, frankly, I like to drive fast), so I took the initiative. I poked my nose out a couple of times to see what was what, and the last time it turned out that the nearest oncoming traffic was almost 2 km away. Okay... downshift to 2nd and balls-to-the-wall. I was doing 240 km/h when I passed the Winnie, and the oncoming traffic was still almost a kilometre away. That part was strictly illegal, but I was hungry enough to not care.

Except for checking whether there was another car already engaged behind you, textbook procedure. But, unbeknownst to you, an over-the-hill geezer in one of the cars in front might also have attempted an overtake as you were passing by or near to. That's why, on the rare occasion I overtake more than one vehicle at high speed, I raise the high beam and keep the horn down. If I have a choice then I'll also leave a free lane between me and the column I'm overtaking.

Once back in my own lane after the pass, however, I immediately dropped down to the legal 100 limit and did not exceed it again. That was 4 seconds of illegality in an otherwise uneventful 2-hour drive. It was a calculated risk, but that calculation indicated a virtual certainty of success.

You left out the geezer that leaps out of the column.

The factors that I weighed in my mind (as I'm sure that Bob, Stingray, and a few others would) would never even occur to someone like you.

Oh, snap. There you go with the ad hominem again.

My tires are not susceptible to blowouts.

What good tires would be? I run Michelins. You think about blow outs when you buy your tires or check the wear and cracks on them every so often. Not when driving.

The wheel studs, bearings and nuts are in good condition and properly torqued, so there was almost no chance of shelling a wheel.

Oh, snap. I think about proper torqueing of the wheel bolts when I have my tires changed and watch some one else do it (including initial loosening and final torqueing with the car on all fours) or wheels balanced. I admit I don't bother rotating the tires.

The bearings are fine. I've changed what ultimately proved to be a perfectly good wheel bearing purely preventatively. The only weak bearings on this car are the axle bearings at the rear. They're needle bearings and not well protected from moisture and grit. Their wear shows up in the camber.

I also check the discs every drive. Because the Textar pads I put on (myself) last time are clearly pants. They took forever to break in and kept bluing my discs. They still squeal when they get hot (when I'm off the brakes). I think the retracting springs are pants design and execution.

I gave Textar the fair shake they don't deserve but next time I'm only using TRW or EBC.

I remained 20 km/h below the speed at which the front tires no longer contact the road, so steering was not an issue.

Were you approaching V₂? :)

If the front U-joint was going to pack it in and pole-vault me over the driveshaft, it would have done so during the 4th-to-2nd downshift at 80 km/h, not during the subsequent 2-3 and 3-4 upshifts.

Wow. You have to think about the cardan shaft joint failing catastrophically while you drive? You either love to worry or your car is a fast POS.

Don't you rev match, btw? Except for the engine sometimes rocking on its tortured, mutilated mounts, you don't feel my shifts. Or downshifts. The mounts failed because two crank pulleys failed consecutively (first one changed under warranty, second one) and killed them the vibration.

Most people I've seen drive jolt on downshifts. Sometimes on upshifts.

2-3 cost me a couple of grams of rubber from the tires, but that's just to be expected when you dump over 600 hp onto the pavement on short notice.

Ok. I get it. Yours is bigger than mine. A lot. :)

Okay, back to the laws. On a road with 2 or more lanes in the same direction, you can pass in any of them. It's not even considered "passing" in the traditional sense. It's just overtaking someone in a different lane. On a straight road with no intersections, the courteous and strictly legal thing to do is stay to the right. It's a whole different thing if you have a left-hand turn pending.

I think you've got your passes and your overtakes mixed up. It's a given you should be on the centre lane for a left-hand turn. That's why it didn't occur to me to raise this.

The bottom line is that I don't consider you fit to possesses a driver's license.

Why? Cause I hit a nerve when I said ppl shouldn't be loitering in the left lanes?

You're the sort of person who will see someone struggling to merge and rush into cut him off.

That is absolute and wholesale ******** and completely contrary to what I practice. That is one thing that irks me to no end about some drivers. OMG, if you had any clue how off the mark you are.

A good driver will slow down and beckon him to join ahead.

I don't think I'll respond to you anymore.

edit: Damned autocensor caught me again. The asterisks in my first sentence somehow replaced my original words which were basically a synonym for "bovine excrement".

The keep right rule isn't even a law everywhere. It varies from place to place. Speed limit doesn't. You're breaking a universal law while I may not be breaking the law at all.

Speed limit doesn't? :) It's ok, I understood what you mean.

In my book, someone inconveniencing other drivers is doing a far greater misdeed than speeding by some reasonable amount.

If I lock my car door, am I FORCING criminals to break my window?

Nope. You're forcing fire people to break your windows to move your car away from the hidrant or pass the firehose through it.

If the analogy isn't lost on you.

You were the one who said they were driving dangerously. And you blamed it on me to boot.

Yes. You've no place loitering in the left lane when you can travel the same speed you're going in a lane more to the right. It is as simple as that. If you're not traveling significantly faster you should step aside for someone who is.

Common courtesy.

You're blaming the victim of tailgating for being tailgated.

I blame oafs who don't think twice of inconveniencing other drivers gratuitously.

That's analogous to blaming rape victims for being raped.

No, it isn't. And your analogy is demeaning to rape victims.

Why wouldn't they have to overtake me if I wasn't in the left lane?

Because they could pass you by, duh.

What's stopping them from being in the same lane as I am? If we both happen to be in the same lane, they would have to overtake me if they wanted to speed, no matter what lane it is.

The free lane on the left. You both wouldn't happen to be in the same lane. They would be on the lane to your left. Or a lane to your left.

But I like how you're granting them ownership of the left lane. They're allowed to drive in it all the time, since that's what lane you expected them to be in.

They should drive in it as long as they're going the fastest or until a lane to the right frees up for any reasonable stretch given their speed.

If there's someone faster behind they should speed up so as not to inconvenience or step aside.

Which would be their fault for not looking before changing lanes. All these dangerous things are the faults of the drivers themselves. You keep putting the blame on the wrong person.

If you can go as fast as you please in a lane to the right, why do you insist it is your right to inconvenience faster traffic?

If by so little you can do your part to promote more efficient and safe travel for everyone, why be so obstinate against it?

That doesn't explain why it's inherently dangerous. You keep expressing how dangerous it is, then when I ask you why it's dangerous, all you can say is that the politicians told us to do it this way.

Huh?

And it's not your place to police the people who don't keep right. This works both ways.

The people who are going faster than me do not inconvenience me. The people who go slower than me while needlessly occupying left lanes do.

Some guy risking my life by drastically exceeding the speed limit isn't a bother to me, yet you sympathize with the poor speeders who I'm bothering.

So you admit you do it to stop people going faster than you think they should be. Do you vote R?

They're risking my life, but that's no problem, but if I BOTHER THEM, well that's a dastardly deed indeed.

Yes, it is. Braking at highway speeds is dangerous. When I pass slow traffic on the highway I pull closer to the divider. If they're any bit as civilised, they keep slightly to the right of their lanes. That way we avoid the air we displace tugging on each other's steering wheel.

You don't have to look directly at the rear view mirror to see that someone is right behind you. I'll see something come up in my peripheral vision, which could prompt me to look directly at the mirror. You should be able to see things without having to focus your attention on it 100%.

Omg. Your peripheral vision spans the side mirrors to the extent of detail you can make stuff out in them approaching from behind. Can you also see through metal pillars?

I need proof of this.

I don't feel like looking. I've already conceded I may be wrong on this being or having been legislated. Anywhere.

This would allow people to accelerate up to an unlimited speed just because they're overtaking.

I've heard 20% over the limit bandied around.

If the speed limit law breaks down when you're overtaking somebody, where does it end? If you go fast enough, you'll be constantly overtaking people and subsequently not breaking the law even though you're doing 150 MPH.

That's silliness. I suspect it also only applies when you have to cross the center line.

Likewise; not your job to enforce the keep right law. Especially since it's not even a law everywhere.

Yeah. But you wouldn't even have me complain.

It's not a false argument because you've been doing exactly as I stated. Your sympathy is 100% towards the speeder.

Yup.

Yet again, you say the person who doesn't keep right is endangering everyone.

They are taking a bad state of fact and making it worse.

And you further prove the point I just made by putting the blame 100% on the person who doesn't keep right.

That's another helping of BS right there:

"Let the speeders be fined, have their licenses confiscated from them, etc."

If that person doesn't keep right, the speeder has to change lanes on the right, yet the only person, as you would have us believe, who is driving dangerously in that situation is the person who didn't keep right.

No, (s)he is increasing the extant danger to a great extent by being an obtuse bovine.

They're driving along at a constant speed, not changing lanes or anything, then the speeder comes along, is FORCED to change lanes, rams into another car and causes an accident and the sole person at fault here is the person who didn't keep right? I don't believe anyone in the world thinks that way, including you. I refuse to believe someone like that exists.

No, they are not. But they certainly contributed in large part to the accident.

Just as morons who park on the sidewalk close to the curb. Near intersections with side streets.

Those "apples" are easy to refute. It's still impossible to put the blame on the person who didn't keep right. If you change lanes and an accident occurs because of that, it's YOUR FAULT. 100%.

Ok. So they contribute to the accident by way of breaking the law. But they have no culpability (not liability) whatsoever. Sure.

Think of it this way, if there's construction in the left lane and you're forced to change lanes as you come up to the construction, whose fault is it if you cause an accident? The construction people?

Your argument has delved into the ridiculous.

 

[Borg]

Wow. Now you've concluded I tailgate.

There always seems to be some excuse for oafs to be slowing down the left lane as well. Or be driving side by side across all available lanes.

Tailgating is what you get for not hauling *** in the passing lanes. If you want to loiter do it near the shoulder. This is also the law.

The 2~3 seconds worth of distance between cars is completely impractical in most any situation...

What is practical and proper is to pay attention to the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of yours so you don't have to react to its driver's reaction. Not leave football fields of chasm to the vehicle in front counting the dashes while inviting cars in adjacent lanes to switch.

How is leaving twice or more the stopping distance to the car in front ever practical?

83 metres is a lot of distance. In the dry I can stop completely inside of 42 metres from 100 km/h.

You are hanging on the few exceptions to dismiss the rule while the 2~3 seconds rule is almost always impractical.

Why? Because I don't loiter in the fast lane? I'm not comfortable tail gating someone at highway speeds either. .

Based on what you've written? Yes. You give example after example of close following distances, multiple excuses for ignoring the 2-3 second rule, how others deserve to be tailgated, etc. You made one statement that you're not comfortable tail gating someone at highway speeds but, that doesn't imply that you don't do it. Or, are you just trolling?

 

[xxChrisxx]

My high-school buddy deliberately set the washer nozzles on his Datsun 510 to fire over the roof rather that onto the windshield for that exact same reason. Filling the reservois with ink instead of washer fluid merely added injury to insult.

What on Earth does he do when he has a dirty windscreen?

EDIT: Also Sony just don't bother arguing with Leroy, it really isn't worth the hassle.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Speed limit doesn't? :) It's ok, I understood what you mean.

Doesn't vary. What's ok? I hope you understood it, since it's pretty easily understandable.

In my book, someone inconveniencing other drivers is doing a far greater misdeed than speeding by some reasonable amount.

And the purse snatcher is inconvenienced when the woman doesn't just let go of the purse.
I like how you sympathize with the criminals, which leads me to believe that you're also a criminal.

Nope. You're forcing fire people to break your windows to move your car away from the hidrant or pass the firehose through it.

If the analogy isn't lost on you.

Again, you're comparing a law that's a law everywhere to a law that's a law only some places. And even if it WAS a law everywhere, it would be like comparing jaywalking to a more serious crime. A crime that almost never gets enforced vs a crime that always gets enforced. That's not a good analogy.

Yes. You've no place loitering in the left lane when you can travel the same speed you're going in a lane more to the right. It is as simple as that. If you're not traveling significantly faster you should step aside for someone who is.

It's not as simple as that. If the speeder causes an accident, it's 100% his fault. I'm done trying to get you admit you're wrong and I'm just going to say you're wrong. You're wrong, period.

Common courtesy.

It's common courtesy not to speed and endanger people's lives. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I blame oafs who don't think twice of inconveniencing other drivers gratuitously.

That has nothing to do with who is at fault in an accident. You're a speeder so you identify with other speeders. Nothing surprising about that, but you're argument is untenable.

No, it isn't. And your analogy is demeaning to rape victims.

Yes it is. And it's not demeaning. Saying it is is tantamount to ad hominem.

Because they could pass you by, duh.

The laws of physics forbid them to be in the right lane?

The free lane on the left. You both wouldn't happen to be in the same lane. They would be on the lane to your left. Or a lane to your left.

You said they wouldn't have to overtake me if I was in the right lane. If they're also in the right lane, then they would have to overtake me.

If there's someone faster behind they should speed up so as not to inconvenience or step aside.

But then they're inconvenienced by having to move over. We can't have that, so that means we have a paradox.
Here's a rule of thumb: If your argument leads to a paradox, it's probably fallacious.

If you can go as fast as you please in a lane to the right, why do you insist it is your right to inconvenience faster traffic?

I can't just go as fast as I please in the right lane. I'm having to go around people who aren't going the speed limit, or having to move over because there's lots of trucks who merge and don't yield.

If by so little you can do your part to promote more efficient and safe travel for everyone, why be so obstinate against it?

If speed racer comes up behind me at a thousand miles per hour, me moving over makes me an accessory to a crime.

Huh?

"It's the law" doesn't explain why something is dangerous. That's the answer you gave.

The people who are going faster than me do not inconvenience me. The people who go slower than me while needlessly occupying left lanes do.

What does this have to do with what I said?

So you admit you do it to stop people going faster than you think they should be. Do you vote R?

What? It seems like you're struggling to comprehend what I'm saying.
Read it again and try to figure out what I was saying.
Do I vote R? I'll just ignore facetious comments.

Yes, it is.

So you just admitted people risking my life is no problem, but me just bothering criminals is a terrible thing to do. I'd say that's proof you're frivolous. I probably shouldn't seriously the rest of what you have to say.

Omg. Your peripheral vision spans the side mirrors to the extent of detail you can make stuff out in them approaching from behind. Can you also see through metal pillars?

I can see behind me out of my one rear view mirror that's stuck to my windshield.
And I still don't know what metal pillars you're talking about. What alien planet are you driving on?

I've heard 20% over the limit bandied around.

It's hogwash. Cops can pull you over for going just one MPH over the speed limit in any lane. You think you could get out of a ticket by citing your sources of information as what you "heard"? Just tell the cop your friends and acquaintances all believe it's 20% over and he'll be forced to let you go.
I've also heard you can go at the maximum 5 MPH over the speed limit and cops won't pull you over. That's also bunk. I've seen it happen.
If it's not in the law books, it's just a rumor which most likely isn't true.

That's silliness.

You're telling me.

I suspect it also only applies when you have to cross the center line.

You really should look up the laws where you live. You might be able to drive drunk on certain days. I "heard" you could, so I assume it's true.

Yeah. But you wouldn't even have me complain.

If I'm complaining, then you're definitely complaining.

Yup.

Which makes your credibility drop dramatically.

They are taking a bad state of fact and making it worse.

Wait a minute, I thought the speeder could do no wrong. Now you're saying it's a bad state of fact? That's inconsistent with your 100% sympathy toward the speeder.

That's another helping of BS right there:

"Let the speeders be fined, have their licenses confiscated from them, etc."

It's not BS. I didn't say you said they wouldn't get in trouble. The law will deal with speeders properly, unlike you would do.
What you were doing is putting the blame of an accident 100% on the person who doesn't keep right. That's what I was talking about.

No, (s)he is increasing the extant danger to a great extent by being an obtuse bovine.

So the speeder is, in fact, creating a danger? You're flip flopping on this issue.

No, they are not. But they certainly contributed in large part to the accident.

If you're in control of your car and you hit something, it's 100% your fault unless you were forced to move the car in a way that hit something. Just because someone is going too slow, doesn't mean you're FORCED to move over. You WANT to move over, you're not FORCED. If you hit something doing something you WANT to do, then it's your fault completely.

Ok. So they contribute to the accident by way of breaking the law. But they have no culpability (not liability) whatsoever. Sure.

Their breaking the law had nothing to do with it. Just because it's breaking the law, doesn't make them part of the accident. They could have weed in their car and they'd be breaking the law, but it has nothing to do with your car hitting somebody else.

Your argument has delved into the ridiculous.

It's showing how ridiculous your claim is. It's perfectly legitimate and that's why you don't want to address it. It's far from ridiculous and you know it.

EDIT: Also Sony just don't bother arguing with Leroy, it really isn't worth the hassle.

So you're siding with him? Want to help him out? He needs it.
It's not worth the hassle to discuss something with me? Why? Because I won't simply concede that you're right? Instead of talking to people, you like them to just immediately say "you're right"?

 

[xxChrisxx]

So you're siding with him? Want to help him out? He needs it.
It's not worth the hassle to discuss something with me? Why? Because I won't simply concede that you're right? Instead of talking to people, you like them to just immediately say "you're right"?

No, I'm not siding with him. No, I don't want to help out. I've told you I'm never getting into a 'debate' with you again, you are really not worth the hassle. That is all.

So danger doesn't miss my post as I acutally care about the answer for that:

My high-school buddy deliberately set the washer nozzles on his Datsun 510 to fire over the roof rather that onto the windshield for that exact same reason. Filling the reservois with ink instead of washer fluid merely added injury to insult.

What on Earth does he do when he has a dirty windscreen?

 

[leroyjenkens]

No, I'm not siding with him. No, I don't want to help out. I've told you I'm never getting into a 'debate' with you again, you are really not worth the hassle. That is all.

Not worth the hassle how? You're sitting there saying something negative about me and not only are you not explaining it, you expect me to not respond to it?

 

[petm1]

This truck slowed down from the fast lane and changed lanes behind the motorcycle even though he had a open lane where he was. I was hard pressed to get this picture from the fast lane after they passed me, because I was is the third land doing the speed limit of 65 when the truck slowed down from about 75 to get behind the bike doing about 70, I finally got this picture while doing 72. I have 2 seconds between me and the car in front of me, in this picture, but the bike does not. At one time the truck was within a yard of this bike at 70mph.

What right does this truck driver have to follow so close and to do it on purpose, which makes this truck driver part of the one percent of the drivers that are out there actively trying to kill motorcyclists. I don't care if you want to pass me or how fast you care to go just do not get any closer to me than 2 seconds. And by all means if you see someone chasing a bike down the road, you can tell because they cut in and out of lanes and stay close behind the bike, become a blocker and split this type of a driver off of his deadly intent.

 

[DaveC426913]

I hate people who tailgate me. It's counter-productive. Do they think I'm going to speed up? I'll go the maximum speed limit, but when they get on my tail like that, it becomes minimum speed limit time.

Oh God no.

Not this again.




I thought this was on the banned topics list.

 

[DaveC426913]

...I was homeward bound overdue for a meal (that was important, because my diabetes was controlled by diet and I was starting to feel the effects of insulin shock)...

While I agree with virtually everything else you say, the above is has no excuse.

You cannot rationalize a risky action because you put yourself in a situation where you are a danger to yourself or others. Diabetics who drive have a responsbility to keep something on-hand such as hard-candies to prevent a sugar crash. (Yes, I said 'responsibility'. Diabetics can be charged under Impairment Laws if their ailment is shown to factor into an accident).

 

[Tobias Funke]

Speaking of bad driving, I was almost hit today by a woman trying to exit a rotary from the inside lane while I was on the outside (actually there are no lane markings but people always from an inner and outer lane). I can't be too mad at her since the road she exited onto is two lanes pretty much from the beginning, but my exit was about 15 feet after hers. I'm in the outer lane because I have to exit too. It's really just a terrible rotary, but I think it's pretty dumb to try what she did.

 

[SonyAD]

And the purse snatcher is inconvenienced when the woman doesn't just let go of the purse.

Why do you feel you are entitled to ownership of your own lane?

I like how you sympathize with the criminals, which leads me to believe that you're also a criminal.

Uh-oh! Judge Dredd is in Da House!

Judge Dredd, I think you've gots your felonies and misdemeanours all jumbled.

Again, you're comparing a law that's a law everywhere to a law that's a law only some places. And even if it WAS a law everywhere, it would be like comparing jaywalking to a more serious crime. A crime that almost never gets enforced vs a crime that always gets enforced. That's not a good analogy.

Weak sauce. Still gots your felonies and misdemeanours mixed up.

It's not as simple as that. If the speeder causes an accident, it's 100% his fault. I'm done trying to get you admit you're wrong and I'm just going to say you're wrong. You're wrong, period.

That doesn't change the fact that facilitating an accident is no prob. with you.

For example, going inordinately slow on a mountain road simply to annoy the people behind you and make it more likely for them to engage in illegal & risky overtaking over turns, with no visibility, is a-ok by you. As long as you are doing the minimum speed limit (if there is one), that is.

It's common courtesy not to speed and endanger people's lives. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Oh, get over yourself.

That has nothing to do with who is at fault in an accident. You're a speeder so you identify with other speeders. Nothing surprising about that, but you're argument is untenable.

Oh, please, fairy god mother. Like you never speed.

I wasn't talking about who is legally liable. In many places, you can deliberately cause an accident and, provided no physical contact between your vehicle and another occurs, you get off scott free. You might even be able to get away with it if there is contact.

For example, you could jerk the wheel sharply to the side as someone is passing you to scare them into swerving into oncoming traffic or off the side of the road. Or you could accelerate to keep someone on the wrong side of the road or brake to close them out.

The trouble with right wingers is they think the law is the be-all, end-all, when it suits them or they think it does - of course. When, as you can clearly see, it is not. There's guilt outside of what the law knows.

Yes it is. And it's not demeaning. Saying it is is tantamount to ad hominem.

Huh?

The laws of physics forbid them to be in the right lane?

Huh?

You said they wouldn't have to overtake me if I was in the right lane. If they're also in the right lane, then they would have to overtake me.

No, they could switch lanes to the left and stay there for some time after they've passed you by. They'd probably already be there before they reached you.

But then they're inconvenienced by having to move over. We can't have that, so that means we have a paradox.

No we don't. The etiquette is perfectly consistent.

1. Keep as far right as reasonably possible until you meet traffic slower than you're willing to travel.

2. Overtake them on the left and return to a lane towards the right

or

3. Stay in the left lane but haul *** and be ready to free it for faster traffic before they have to brake for you.

Here's a rule of thumb: If your argument leads to a paradox, it's probably fallacious.

Maybe it doesn't lead to a paradox.

I can't just go as fast as I please in the right lane. I'm having to go around people who aren't going the speed limit, or having to move over because there's lots of trucks who merge and don't yield.

So slow down and allow the trucks to merge or move to the next lane to the left.

If speed racer comes up behind me at a thousand miles per hour, me moving over makes me an accessory to a crime.

If you jump out of your lane in front of speed racer you're going to get rammed. Maybe face criminal charges. Deal with it.

"It's the law" doesn't explain why something is dangerous. That's the answer you gave.

What does this have to do with what I said?

Huh?

What? It seems like you're struggling to comprehend what I'm saying.
Read it again and try to figure out what I was saying.
Do I vote R? I'll just ignore facetious comments.

I take it I got it right.

So you just admitted people risking my life is no problem, but me just bothering criminals is a terrible thing to do. I'd say that's proof you're frivolous. I probably shouldn't seriously the rest of what you have to say.

Don't planes flying overhead needlessly threaten your existence? I mean, why don't they take a greyhound?

Speeding is a misdemeanour, last time I checked. Do they jail you in that police state of yours for speeding by more than a certain amount?

I can see behind me out of my one rear view mirror that's stuck to my windshield.

And you drive with your eyes glued to it.

And I still don't know what metal pillars you're talking about. What alien planet are you driving on?

The A-pillars, C-pillars that hold up the roof, silly.

It's hogwash. Cops can pull you over for going just one MPH over the speed limit in any lane. You think you could get out of a ticket by citing your sources of information as what you "heard"?

When did this conversation turn to how I would presume to get out of a ticket?

Just tell the cop your friends and acquaintances all believe it's 20% over and he'll be forced to let you go.

I've never fought a rightful ticket. I have fought a ticket for running a red light, which I had not, that I actually got because of speeding since that particular police car didn't have an approved radar.

I've also heard you can go at the maximum 5 MPH over the speed limit and cops won't pull you over. That's also bunk. I've seen it happen.

And I should care because? I don't drive with me eyes on the speedo. In fact, it's broken. Needle's gone limp. Kind of like your argument.

If it's not in the law books, it's just a rumor which most likely isn't true.

You're telling me.

Please. Like you know everything that's on the books.

You really should look up the laws where you live. You might be able to drive drunk on certain days. I "heard" you could, so I assume it's true.

You heard wrong. There is no legal limit on BrAC or BAC. You're caught you've bought it. You may refuse the breathalysers but you'll be taken to the nearest hospital to deposit a blood sample. With or without your consent.

I have better things to do than study to become a jurist. I learned what I need to know.

If I'm complaining, then you're definitely complaining.

Which makes your credibility drop dramatically.[/quote]

Huh?

Wait a minute, I thought the speeder could do no wrong. Now you're saying it's a bad state of fact? That's inconsistent with your 100% sympathy toward the speeder.

Driving recklessly faster than the bulk of traffic is a bad state of fact. Like most things you say, your definition of "recklessly faster" is silly.

It's not BS. I didn't say you said they wouldn't get in trouble. The law will deal with speeders properly, unlike you would do.

Projection. I don't feel the urge or need to police others. I'm content to merely observe the stupidity from afar.

Know this for a fact, though. Most of the driving population are dumb as lamp posts, at least behind the wheel. And as dumb as they are, they are even more pathetic in controlling their vehicle and sensing what it's doing or is going to do, planning ahead, learning from experience, etc.

One banal example:

Turning at an intersection. Instead of going further and turning left or right later so cars have room to naturally stack up one next to each other waiting for the pedestrians or traffic to pass, the cattle they are just pull on the steering wheel right away as they enter the intersection. So only 2, maybe 3, cars manage to complete the turn each each cycle.

What you were doing is putting the blame of an accident 100% on the person who doesn't keep right. That's what I was talking about.

So the speeder is, in fact, creating a danger? You're flip flopping on this issue.

No. You're splitting hairs, putting words beneath my digits and otherwise being a nuisance.

If you're in control of your car and you hit something, it's 100% your fault unless you were forced to move the car in a way that hit something.

What a silly point to make. So somebody runs the red light and I ram them in the side. It's my fault, isn't it?

Nobody forced me to proceed through the intersection on the green.

Just because someone is going too slow, doesn't mean you're FORCED to move over. You WANT to move over, you're not FORCED. If you hit something doing something you WANT to do, then it's your fault completely.

Again with the silly argument.

Their breaking the law had nothing to do with it. Just because it's breaking the law, doesn't make them part of the accident.

How would you feel if I suddenly braked real hard for no good reason in front of you? Trust me, I know how to brake at the limit so the wheels don't lock. There'd be no skid marks except for yours.

They could have weed in their car and they'd be breaking the law, but it has nothing to do with your car hitting somebody else.

Another flavour of complete nonsense from you. What does weed have to with traffic violations and the highway code?

It's showing how ridiculous your claim is. It's perfectly legitimate and that's why you don't want to address it. It's far from ridiculous and you know it.

No, it's showing how weak your sauce is. So you brought in a strawman from down under. How special!

So you're siding with him? Want to help him out? He needs it.
It's not worth the hassle to discuss something with me? Why? Because I won't simply concede that you're right? Instead of talking to people, you like them to just immediately say "you're right"?

Keep at it. You're http://vimeo.com/3945205" .

Everyone knows it but you.

 

[Danger]

So danger doesn't miss my post as I acutally care about the answer for that:

I wasn't ignoring your post, Chris; I just hadn't been back to the thread for long enough to answer it. My pal cleaned his windshield, when necessary, the same way the rest of us did—with a squeegie. In our geographical area, about the only thing that ever got onto our windshields was insect remains. The then-available washers and wipers were useless against that, so we very seldom used them. (This was only slightly after washers were first introduced on vehicles.) I guess that it wasn't obvious, but the "" at the end was intended to indicate that the part about the ink was a joke. I did suggest it to him at the time, but he didn't do it.

While I agree with virtually everything else you say, the above is has no excuse.

You cannot rationalize a risky action because you put yourself in a situation where you are a danger to yourself or others. Diabetics who drive have a responsbility to keep something on-hand such as hard-candies to prevent a sugar crash. (Yes, I said 'responsibility'. Diabetics can be charged under Impairment Laws if their ailment is shown to factor into an accident).

Given the inadequate and incomplete way that I described the incident, your analysis would be correct. It was a bit more complicated than that. It wasn't a risky action that put anyone in jeopardy, any more than anyone simply being on a highway is. It don't expect you to take my word for that, so I'll be glad to explain in person if you care to PM me about it, but I'm not inclined to do so here.

I also simply do not have the energy right now to respond to Sony's "counter-arguments". I concede that I apparently underestimated his mechanical knowledge of his own vehicle, but I can assuredly shoot down the rest of his comments. Maybe later.

 

[Saladsamurai]

SonyAD:

1. The speed limit is the speed limit no matter what lane you are in. The police will agree.

2.You are wrong. You do not own the road either.

The left lane was not created so that you can go as fast as your car allows

 

[DaveC426913]

Given the inadequate and incomplete way that I described the incident, your analysis would be correct. It was a bit more complicated than that.

Sho 'nuff

 

[xxChrisxx]

I wasn't ignoring your post, Chris; I just hadn't been back to the thread for long enough to answer it. My pal cleaned his windshield, when necessary, the same way the rest of us did—with a squeegie. In our geographical area, about the only thing that ever got onto our windshields was insect remains. The then-available washers and wipers were useless against that, so we very seldom used them. (This was only slightly after washers were first introduced on vehicles.) I guess that it wasn't obvious, but the "" at the end was intended to indicate that the part about the ink was a joke. I did suggest it to him at the time, but he didn't do it.

I know you weren't ignoring it bud, I just didn't want the post to get lost in the muck. I just get loads of crud all over my windscreen, I'd be lost without my washers. TBH it is quite funny when they are set wrong and it squirts someone at the side of the road.

 

[cristo]

I've driven quite a bit in the US recently, and I have to say that I have seen some of the worst driving ever over there. Personally, I hate the fact that you can legally undertake, but that's the law, and I just got used to it. However, I have to say it's pretty scary when you're sat in, say, the middle lane of a highway driving a bit above the speed limit. The slow lane is empty (for a few seconds because you've just passed a line of trucks, but see another line a few hundred metres in the distance) and there's someone overtaking you in the fast lane. In your rearview you see someone speeding up behind you, so you indicate to briefly move into the slow lane, but whilst you're doing that he undertakes you, with no signal, and proceeds to cut you up to get out of the way of the trucks that he's fast approaching. It's just irresponsible driving and, while it might happen everywhere, it seemed a lot more prevalent in the US.

Another one of my pet hates is the use (or lack of use) or indicators. There's absolutely no point moving lanes, and flicking your indicator half way through the manoeuvre. They are supposed to tell other drivers what you are about to do, not what you're doing.

And finally, to end my rant, when you can see traffic on the slip road, and you're in the righthand lane, with the other lanes pretty empty, but your lane is full. It doesn't take much to think ahead, and move over to allow the oncoming traffic to get into the lane. It seems like the US attitude is to accelerate up to the slip road, then slam on your brakes as this car on the slip road has nowhere to get on so you let him in, with an angry look on your face.

 

[Borg]

I've driven quite a bit in the US recently, and I have to say that I have seen some of the worst driving ever over there. Personally, I hate the fact that you can legally undertake, but that's the law, and I just got used to it. However, I have to say it's pretty scary when you're sat in, say, the middle lane of a highway driving a bit above the speed limit. The slow lane is empty (for a few seconds because you've just passed a line of trucks, but see another line a few hundred metres in the distance) and there's someone overtaking you in the fast lane. In your rearview you see someone speeding up behind you, so you indicate to briefly move into the slow lane, but whilst you're doing that he undertakes you, with no signal, and proceeds to cut you up to get out of the way of the trucks that he's fast approaching. It's just irresponsible driving and, while it might happen everywhere, it seemed a lot more prevalent in the US.

Another one of my pet hates is the use (or lack of use) or indicators. There's absolutely no point moving lanes, and flicking your indicator half way through the manoeuvre. They are supposed to tell other drivers what you are about to do, not what you're doing.

And finally, to end my rant, when you can see traffic on the slip road, and you're in the righthand lane, with the other lanes pretty empty, but your lane is full. It doesn't take much to think ahead, and move over to allow the oncoming traffic to get into the lane. It seems like the US attitude is to accelerate up to the slip road, then slam on your brakes as this car on the slip road has nowhere to get on so you let him in, with an angry look on your face.

The real fun is when they do all these things while texting.

I am guilty of sometimes not using my signal. Mostly this is because of the last paragraph in your post. I have had a lot of times where I've used my signal and the person in the other lane speeds up to cut me off. I've learned not to signal my intentions too much in order to keep the paint on my car intact. Last week, was a good example - I put on my signal 1/2 mile from an exit ramp and a woman in an SUV immeadiately accelerated to cut me off. She had just done the same maneuver a minute or so before but didn't have the courtesy to let anyone in front of her.

 

[lisab]

I've driven quite a bit in the US recently, and I have to say that I have seen some of the worst driving ever over there. Personally, I hate the fact that you can legally undertake, but that's the law, and I just got used to it. However, I have to say it's pretty scary when you're sat in, say, the middle lane of a highway driving a bit above the speed limit. The slow lane is empty (for a few seconds because you've just passed a line of trucks, but see another line a few hundred metres in the distance) and there's someone overtaking you in the fast lane. In your rearview you see someone speeding up behind you, so you indicate to briefly move into the slow lane, but whilst you're doing that he undertakes you, with no signal, and proceeds to cut you up to get out of the way of the trucks that he's fast approaching. It's just irresponsible driving and, while it might happen everywhere, it seemed a lot more prevalent in the US.

Another one of my pet hates is the use (or lack of use) or indicators. There's absolutely no point moving lanes, and flicking your indicator half way through the manoeuvre. They are supposed to tell other drivers what you are about to do, not what you're doing.

And finally, to end my rant, when you can see traffic on the slip road, and you're in the righthand lane, with the other lanes pretty empty, but your lane is full. It doesn't take much to think ahead, and move over to allow the oncoming traffic to get into the lane. It seems like the US attitude is to accelerate up to the slip road, then slam on your brakes as this car on the slip road has nowhere to get on so you let him in, with an angry look on your face.

I don't think undertaking in inherently unsafe; when drivers do unexpected maneuvers, that's unsafe. So with respect to undertaking, if you expect it and you know to check your right mirror as often as your other mirrors, it's just a matter of what you expect from other drivers.

I totally agree with blinker use, no excuse not to use them. There's a big difference in how often they're used, regionally. Here in the Seattle area drivers use them most of the time. Other regions in the US, not so much. I wonder if blinkers come optional on vehicles in those places .

 

[cristo]

I don't think undertaking in inherently unsafe; when drivers do unexpected maneuvers, that's unsafe. So with respect to undertaking, if you expect it and you know to check your right mirror as often as your other mirrors, it's just a matter of what you expect from other drivers.

Perhaps it's a personal thing, but if I see someone speeding up behind me I would instinctively look to move into the slower lane. It doesn't help much if they then shoot down the slow lane! I guess it just takes some getting used to, especially when trucks take up, say, lane 1 and 3 of the highway, and you have to go down the middle to get past, and thus have the danger of being in two cars' blindspots whilst overtaking.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Why do you feel you are entitled to ownership of your own lane?

No one owns it. So in the event that one person gets to it first, that person has priority.

Uh-oh! Judge Dredd is in Da House!

Judge Dredd, I think you've gots your felonies and misdemeanours all jumbled.

A criminal commits a crime. Speeding is a crime. A crime is doing something that's prohibited by law.
You're not helping your case with your silly, sarcastic remarks.

Weak sauce. Still gots your felonies and misdemeanours mixed up.

Your credibility is pretty much gone now.

That doesn't change the fact that facilitating an accident is no prob. with you.

If I move over and allow him to get up to 100 MPH and he causes a crash down the road, I "facilitated" that by allowing him to gain speed. Your argument that I "facilitated" the accident, therefore I'm somewhat at fault, makes no sense.

For example, going inordinately slow on a mountain road simply to annoy the people behind you and make it more likely for them to engage in illegal & risky overtaking over turns, with no visibility, is a-ok by you. As long as you are doing the minimum speed limit (if there is one), that is.

So no one can go the minimum speed on a mountain road? What if their car only goes the minimum speed? Oh, that's right, you allowed for that by bringing up intent. If a person is intending to piss off people by going the minimum, then he's at fault. I guess that means if he's NOT intending to piss people off, he's suddenly not at fault?
That allows me to drive in the left lane as long as I don't have the intent of pissing people off.

Oh, get over yourself.

I'll just score that one for me.

Oh, please, fairy god mother. Like you never speed.

Oh, I speed. If I'm in the left lane, I'll go up to 5 MPH over the speed limit as a courtesy to the people behind me. I figure I owe them the speed limit. That's how nice I am.
But I'm not going to expect people to accommodate me because I want to go 5 MPH over and they want to go the speed limit.

I wasn't talking about who is legally liable. In many places, you can deliberately cause an accident and, provided no physical contact between your vehicle and another occurs, you get off scott free. You might even be able to get away with it if there is contact.

That's not true at all. Of course, you can get off if it can't be proven you caused the accident, but that goes with any crime.

For example, you could jerk the wheel sharply to the side as someone is passing you to scare them into swerving into oncoming traffic or off the side of the road. Or you could accelerate to keep someone on the wrong side of the road or brake to close them out.

Jerking the wheel and making someone think you're going to hit them will get you in trouble if it can be proven. You're not allowed to just freely do stuff like that.

As for accelerating to keep someone on the wrong side of the road, you can do that all day if you want. They shouldn't be on the wrong side of the road anyway. I used to do that to people who passed me up on the way to work in the morning. Usually they could accelerate too fast for my car to block them. But one time an old pick-up truck tried to do that and he couldn't get past me. We were side by side and a car was coming toward us in his lane. I chickened out, because frankly, I don't want to be involved in a disaster at 4 in the morning. I would have probably gotten hit by something. But the fact that that guy was willing to die right then boggles my mind. People like that shouldn't be free.

The trouble with right wingers is they think the law is the be-all, end-all, when it suits them or they think it does - of course. When, as you can clearly see, it is not. There's guilt outside of what the law knows.

Right winger? Well it's obvious you're trying to turn this into something it's not, since you asked me before if I vote republican. You don't like republicans, I get it, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. I don't like prunes, but I'm not calling you a prune lover. If you disagree with me on this topic, you must love prunes, right?

Huh?

2 points for me.

Huh?

3 points.

No, they could switch lanes to the left and stay there for some time after they've passed you by. They'd probably already be there before they reached you.

Why couldn't they do that if I was in the left lane? And why would they already be there before they reached me? Again, you're giving them ownership of the left lane by assuming that's where they'd be. That's their home.

No we don't. The etiquette is perfectly consistent.

1. Keep as far right as reasonably possible until you meet traffic slower than you're willing to travel.

2. Overtake them on the left and return to a lane towards the right

Since your whole argument is about what's convenient and inconvenient, I'd like to point out that this, also, is inconvenient. If they want to speed in the right lane, then they should be able to without being inconvenienced. That person should just get out of their way, no matter what lane it is.

3. Stay in the left lane but haul *** and be ready to free it for faster traffic before they have to brake for you.

I still don't know why you think braking at high speeds is dangerous. Slamming on your brakes is dangerous, but using your brakes to slow down while traveling a high speed is not dangerous at all. That's how you're supposed to slow down.

So slow down and allow the trucks to merge or move to the next lane to the left.

Or I could wait until I'm passed all the areas where trucks merge.

If you jump out of your lane in front of speed racer you're going to get rammed. Maybe face criminal charges. Deal with it.

Why would I jump in front of him? This isn't relevant to what you quoted.

Huh?

4

I take it I got it right.

No, you didn't get it right, that's why I said you misconstrued what I said.

Don't planes flying overhead needlessly threaten your existence? I mean, why don't they take a greyhound?

Not a crime to fly.

Speeding is a misdemeanour, last time I checked. Do they jail you in that police state of yours for speeding by more than a certain amount?

Inexplicably, the laws aren't the same everywhere in the world.
You can get arrested in some states for speeding and if you go over a certain speed, you can be arrested.
You think you can just go 250 in a school zone and get off with a ticket?

And you drive with your eyes glued to it.

No I don't. I have a working peripheral vision. Apparently you don't.

The A-pillars, C-pillars that hold up the roof, silly.

How many people know what they're called? Apparently everyone else is silly.

And that doesn't obstruct your view directly behind you.

When did this conversation turn to how I would presume to get out of a ticket?

That part was attached to something else that was a direct response to what you said. You're not fooling me by acting like that ticket part was the only thing I said.

I've never fought a rightful ticket. I have fought a ticket for running a red light, which I had not, that I actually got because of speeding since that particular police car didn't have an approved radar.

I've never been pulled over or had a ticket in my life. It's much nicer that way. You don't have to waste money and time and you can actually be the one who's right in a physicsforum discussion.

And I should care because? I don't drive with me eyes on the speedo. In fact, it's broken. Needle's gone limp. Kind of like your argument.

Just because you think you had a nice quip with the speedometer needle comment, doesn't make it true.

Please. Like you know everything that's on the books.

Well if there's exceptions to the speed limit, why don't you post proof? You can't just get away with saying it's there because you don't know it's not there.
I don't know that there isn't a clause that gives you the right to drink and drive on certain days. I'm pretty sure there isn't.

You heard wrong. There is no legal limit on BrAC or BAC. You're caught you've bought it. You may refuse the breathalysers but you'll be taken to the nearest hospital to deposit a blood sample. With or without your consent.

Well I didn't actually hear that, I was giving an exaggerated example of what you did.

Huh?

5

Driving recklessly faster than the bulk of traffic is a bad state of fact. Like most things you say, your definition of "recklessly faster" is silly.

I didn't define recklessly. This is the first time I've even said "recklessly". I've never heard "bad state of fact" either. Is that even a real phrase?

Know this for a fact, though. Most of the driving population are dumb as lamp posts, at least behind the wheel. And as dumb as they are, they are even more pathetic in controlling their vehicle and sensing what it's doing or is going to do, planning ahead, learning from experience, etc.

Oh, I know that as a fact.

Turning at an intersection. Instead of going further and turning left or right later so cars have room to naturally stack up one next to each other waiting for the pedestrians or traffic to pass, the cattle they are just pull on the steering wheel right away as they enter the intersection. So only 2, maybe 3, cars manage to complete the turn each each cycle.

But I can't picture this example your giving. You'll have to provide a diagram. Sometimes people draw pictures of traffic situations in MS Paint.

No. You're splitting hairs, putting words beneath my digits and otherwise being a nuisance.

Sorry for inconveniencing you. Apparently committing cardinal sin #1.

What a silly point to make. So somebody runs the red light and I ram them in the side. It's my fault, isn't it?

Nobody forced me to proceed through the intersection on the green.

They broke the law, so they're at fault. You know what I meant. I can't sit here and ponder every possible exception.

Again with the silly argument.

Not silly. If it's silly, explain why. Just saying something is silly isn't good enough.

How would you feel if I suddenly braked real hard for no good reason in front of you? Trust me, I know how to brake at the limit so the wheels don't lock. There'd be no skid marks except for yours.

That's illegal. You could not only get in trouble for causing an accident, but also maybe insurance fraud. That's CAUSING me to have to swerve out of the way. That's nothing like you WANTING to go around me because you want to go faster than me. How can you even compare that?

Another flavour of complete nonsense from you. What does weed have to with traffic violations and the highway code?

In some states, there's no keep right law, so it also has nothing to do with traffic violations and highway code. Just like the marijuana.

No, it's showing how weak your sauce is.

World of Warcraft slang; that's real respectable.

Keep at it. You're almost there.

Everyone knows it but you.

Didn't bother clicking the link.

 

[DaveC426913]

Guys:

Driving is a cooperative venture. The road is a limited resource that must be shared amongst all drivers.

For this reason, no one owns any piece of road just because they want it.

There are rules to facilitate this but, ultimately, it comes down to people being respectful of other people. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge this, and adheres to the letter at the expense of the spirit, is a detriment to the smooth operation of the roads.

 

[RonL]

I started driving in 1960, in those years male drivers were the most aggressive and disrespectful, but I have observed over the years a trend change that now has female drivers being as much or more aggressive than males.
Driving responsible is a mental disipline that requires practice and application and a respect for others in what they do or need.
I blame television ads for much of this poor attitude we see displayed. The idea that if tires are not SPINNING or SLIDING your not feeling the experience correctly.
The poor habit of waiting until the last minute to go somewhere and having to rush to be on time, leads to fast driving and irresponsible actions.

In general there is a growing lack of respect for driving rights and I put most of the blame on TV ads and fast action video games. Now to add to distractions comes GPS screens, phone conversations and text messages while driving.

I best stop because there is so much more.

 

[DaveC426913]

I blame television ads for much of this poor attitude we see displayed. The idea that if tires are not SPINNING or SLIDING your not feeling the experience correctly.
The poor habit of waiting until the last minute to go somewhere and having to rush to be on time, leads to fast driving and irresponsible actions.

In general there is a growing lack of respect for driving rights and I put most of the blame on TV ads and fast action video games. Now to add to distractions comes GPS screens, phone conversations and text messages while driving.

Don't blame ads or games. Blame the people committng the offenses.

Imagine if one of those young girls or boys wrapped their car around a telephone pole and then used your argument.

"It wasn't my fault. I blame TV ads and video games."

 

[disregardthat]

"It wasn't my fault. I blame TV ads and video games."

It's plausible that TV and video games have a negative effect on the drivers perception of their own skills, but it is of course their own fault for misjudging themselves. I don't agree with that TV and video games deserves any blame, but it's possible that there is a correlation.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's plausible that TV and video games have a negative effect on the drivers perception of their own skills, but it is of course their own fault for misjudging themselves. I don't agree with that TV and video games deserves any blame, but it's possible that there is a correlation.

Oh there's undoubtedly a correlation. My poiint was that correlation does not imply causation. Free will means you can decide whether or not to act like a pinhead.

 

[DaveC426913]

Only if you're a 'tard.

Sony, leroy may be a pain in the butt when he gets an idea in his head, and no one tends to disagree with him more than I (believe you me, he & I have had this exact same discussion about driving on the fast lane), but even I cannot deny that he stays pretty rational in his arguments and on-point (that does not mean he is always right, but it does mean he plays by the rules).

I've looked, but I have yet to find an ad hominem he has made againts in despite all your name-calling. Heck, I don't even think he's complained about your treatment of him.

You can't just degenerate to calling someone a troll or other forms of ad hominem. This is deplorable behaviour. PF just does not roll this way.

leroy wins if for no other reason than his opponent defaults.

Thread reported.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Locked pending moderation.