# Damned drivers... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 3, 2001, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damned-drivers/91273 "2001-11-03T05:38:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damned-drivers/91273/61 "2001-11-08T17:45:42Z")
Hey **JC** , seriously with all due respect, I just don’t get your position. **I agree with you** that speeding is illegal and being in the fast / left lane does not give one a get out jail free card. OK so far? That does not make it legal for you to violate the “keep right” law just because someone else is breaking the law. By your reasoning, we could shot speeders because they were breaking the law and we would not be in the wrong. As far as **Bricker’s** comment, I don’t recall what type of law he practices. Unless he comes back here and explains why my cites are not applicable, I’m standing by them. Please explain how your cites about speeding being illegal somehow negates failure to keep right from being illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damned-drivers/91273/62 "2001-11-08T18:35:46Z")
No worries. Glad to do it. Let me lay it out socratically (if I remember it right!). 1. The NHTSA states that, with the exception of emergency vehicles, exceeding the speed limit is not permissible under any circumstances. 2. Given that the left lane is the ‘fast’ lane (a point I concede) and taking point ‘1’ into account it becomes clear that drivers travelling at the posted speed limit should be in the left lane. Or at least may reasonable expect the left lane to be travelling at the posted speed limit. 3. There is no reason for a person travelling the speed limit should ever have to move to the right as, of course :D, no one would ever be travelling faster than the posted speed limit. Whether that’s safe or prudent is another question. I’m really only debating whether someone who’s travelling the speed limit in the ‘fast’ lane has a _responsibility_ to move to the right to allow drivers exceeding the posted speed limit to pass. My answer is remains no. I’m reading the site you quoted from the NHTSA. You quoted this: > [@](#): > > _From rsa_ > The enforcement threshold should never be less than 5 mph above the new posted speed limit. Are you aware that this entire document you quoted is really the announcement for a **study** of the effectiveness of ‘rational speed limits’ and not an actual order by the NHTSA? It’s an interesting document but I don’t think it means what you think it means. The full quote is this: > [@](#): > > _From the same thing rsa quoted above_ > The behavior that we want to stop, in this case, is traveling at unsafe, unacceptable speeds over the newly established rational speed limits. Enforcement operations shall take a top-down approach for establishing the enforcement threshold. Speed measurements at the selected road segments shall be used to determine the top 5 percent of speeds. This information will be used to establish the enforcement threshold. The enforcement threshold should never be less than 5 mph above the new posted speed limit. This top-down strategy will not overwhelm the law enforcement officers, the prosecutors, or the courts. This strategy promotes public and court acceptance of enforcement by targeting only the most egregious > violators. The overall goal of the enforcement efforts is motorist compliance, not issuance of citations. By referring to the term ‘egregious violators’ I infer that all others are still violators. So what we have here is a study (with a start date no earlier that 7/24/01) being done to establish whether speed limit obedience can be raised by public education as to the reasons for and punishment of drivers and those who violate the limits. In addition, they throw in this: > [@](#): > > Setting speeds using the 85th percentile as a key guideline regulates against the higher speeds that may be unsafe, but still includes a very large percentage of the driving public. and > [@](#): > > Since the purpose of speed zoning is to facilitate safety by informing drivers of maximum speeds for normal conditions, the posted speed limit should reflect the upper limit of the safest speeds (i.e., those near the 85th percentile). At this point we have them on record as stating that the _maximum_ speed (for normal conditions) is the posted speed limit. Which I believe dovetails well with my argument in point ‘1’ above that, under no circumstances is it permissible to exceed the posted speed limit. Ergo, no one has the responsibility to move out of someone’s way when being approached from behind by someone exceeding the limit. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damned-drivers/91273/63 "2001-11-08T20:55:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance \* > > 1. The NHTSA states that, with the exception of emergency vehicles, exceeding the speed limit is not permissible under any circumstances. The NHTSA does not make state vehicle laws. Some states allow speeds in excess of the speed limit if the speed is “safe”. Your points (2) & (3) are your opinion which are not supported by the facts and in many cases are directly contradicted by state law. > [@](#): > > I’m reading the site you quoted from the NHTSA. > \ > Are you aware that this entire document you quoted is really the announcement for a **study** of the effectiveness of ‘rational speed limits’ and not an actual order by the NHTSA? Yes, I was aware of that. Perhaps the fact that a study is being done to establish “rational” speed limits is a clue that some current speed limits are not rational. Many speed limits are not set at the 85th percentile. > [@](#): > > Which I believe dovetails well with my argument in point ‘1’ above that, under no circumstances is it permissible to exceed the posted speed limit. Ergo, no one has the responsibility to move out of someone’s way when being approached from behind by someone exceeding the limit. Your conclusion does not follow. For example, the California code spells out the Uniform Vehicle Code on this matter in a bit more detail. > [@](#): > > 1. (a) **Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits** , any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a **speed less than the normal speed of traffic** moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, 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. > (b) **If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic** moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, **it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this section**. I’m tired of debating this. Other than your opinion, you have provided no evidence that the **speed limit = normal speed**. ---
**Author:** ![slowhand53](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a698b9/32.png) [@slowhand53](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slowhand53)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damned-drivers/91273/64 "2001-11-08T23:04:41Z")
i hate it when i walk away for 6 hours and someone steals my thunder 🙂 so my pathetic little response is gonna have to be: yeah! what rsa said! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damned-drivers/91273.md?page=3)