Damned drivers...

[Syzygy]

This whole merging thing applies to rotaries as well. If you’re approaching a rotary, and there’s no traffic to yield to, (and yes, you DO have to yield to rotary traffic, dicknose) don’t slow down! Plow on through that mofo, and hopefully, the rest of the assholes entering will yield to you. Yeah, right. I’ve lost count of how many times I’d enter a rotary perfectly, only to have to stop dead when some fuckwit decides he doesn’t have to yield to lil’ old me. Then there are the people who travel through rotaries as if there aren’t any lane markings. They just go straight through, cutting across several lanes of traffic because they can’t be bothered to turn their steering wheels. And pedestrians who think rotaries are gerat places to amble across.

Wow, I could probably explore this particular annoyance in much greater detail, but it’s not my thread, is it? [/hijack] There.

I’ll second all those who think the passing lane is for, well, passing. I call it the fast lane, but even so, if you’re traveling, not passing, stay in the travel (middle or right) lane.

And if you’re going the speed limit, get in the slow lane.

[Syzygy]

P.S. - Substitute “roundabout” for “rotary” as necessary. I had no idea this was a problem until I was a passenger and couldn’t describe a “rotary” until the driver had the Aha! ‘Ohhh, you mean "roundabout!’"

OK, let’s try [/hijack] again. That should do it.

[PosterChild]

Originally posted by **Jonathan Chance **
I hear a lot of ‘conventional wisdom’ and legends here (and not necessarily ones that i disagree with).

But I will go to my grave believing that

A) No one has a right to break the law

B) I have no responsibility to assist someone in breaking the law

C) It is unreasonable of me to expect someone else to assist me in breaking the law

That’s it in a nutshell. Speed all you want, but to expect other people to conform to your expectation of having an ability to break the law with impunity is unreasonable.

Want to go faster? Want that lane reserved for people to break the speed limit? That’s what you have state representatives for, people. Use them. It worked to get the limit up to 65, right?

See what you got me into, Dave? You’ll pay for this.

Well, at least in California, back when I took Driver’s Education. It is the law for slower traffic to keep right. Even if the faster traffic is speeding. In California, the left lane is known as the passing lane.

So if you don’t want to be breaking the law, then unless you are passing the folks in the lane to your right, you should be in that lane to your right. If, of course, you want to be obeying the law. :rolleyes:

[Eternal]

*Originally posted by DaToad *
**
JC, Eternal I don’t argue with your logic, but don’t be surprised if/when you become the victim of road rage. Refusing to yield the right of way, on principle, to someone intent on speeding, (IMHO) is not wise, nor is it good driving technique. **

1. Don’t you threaten me.
2. Stop calling it a “right of way” -it is not.
3. I doubt law enforcement would accept my justification of speeding because I thought there was a possibility that the guy behind me might road rage me to death if the follower had demonstrated no such willingness to do so.

[Jonathan_Chance]

From ol’ AD
Say someone, namely YOU, are going the speed limit in the left lane, whereupon someone crashes into you and kills you. Do you think your obstinance in that situation is gonna be any consolation to your family? I think not. And so what if the guy goes to jail, because you’ll be gone and your family will be without you forever. But you were following the law to the letter. Was it worth it? HELL NO!

I think you’re missing my point, buddy. All I’m saying is that it is unreasonable for anyone to get angry over someone going the speed limit in any lane. I never said that you shouldn’t drive defensively or that speeding is wrong or anything. Just that drivers who wish to speed should realize that they place themselves outside the law by making that decision. Raging against those who keep to the law strikes me as ludicrous.
Wait…wait…I feel my Great Debate instincts kicking in…

From PosterChild
Well, at least in California, back when I took Driver’s Education. It is the law for slower traffic to keep right. Even if the faster traffic is speeding. In California, the left lane is known as the passing lane.

So if you don’t want to be breaking the law, then unless you are passing the folks in the lane to your right, you should be in that lane to your right. If, of course, you want to be obeying the law.

This is from Life in the Fast Lane (God help me) from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT HS 808 670 Feb 1998). It available in PDF format. I found it here: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/adsped.htm

“The posted speed limit is a law that applies to all lanes.(bolding theirs) Thus, technically speaking, there is no fast lane or slow lane. Slower traffic generally is expected to keep right, buy only emergency vehicles are permitted to exceed the posted speed limit and only when their lights and sirens are operating.”

Or this gem (ibid):

“Your speed even when passing should not exceed the posted speed limit.(again, bolding theirs) If you are driving the speed limit, and the vehicle in front of you is driving the speed limit, there is no need to pass.”

So, I would truly doubt your experiences in drivers ed, PosterChild. Do you have any cite for your position?

And just to make it clear again, I speed, I’m pretty certain that Airman Doors speeds (from my knowledge of him) and I’m fairly certain that the vast majority of American drivers speed. I think the speed limits are absurdly low (especially in rural areas like where I live).

But to expect others to break the law (or inconvenience themselves in any way to enable you to break the law) is unreasonable in the extreme.

[rsa]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance *
**

So, I would truly doubt your experiences in drivers ed, PosterChild. Do you have any cite for your position?

<snip>

But to expect others to break the law (or inconvenience themselves in any way to enable you to break the law) is unreasonable in the extreme. **

I am not PosterChild, but I provided a cite previously which you have choosen to ignore. You are right that if someone exceeds the speed limit then they are breaking the law. You are ignoring the fact (which has been pointed out several times) that you are also breaking the law.

You want a cite? About about this?

Code of Virginia
Title 46.2 - MOTOR VEHICLES.
Chapter 8 - Regulation of Traffic
§ 46.2-804. Special regulations applicable on highways laned for traffic. (subdivision 1)

1. Any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions existing, shall be driven in the lane nearest the right edge or right curb of the highway when such lane is available for travel except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn or where right lanes are reserved for slow-moving traffic as permitted in this section;

I live in Texas and our code includes the same language and I know for a fact that you can be ticketed for driving the speed limit in the left lane due to this law.

Jonathan Chance, I find you guilty as charged.

[rsa]

Sorry, I forgot to provide a link. Here it is.

[Bomzaway]

Airman Doors is absolutely right…under one circumstance.

If the car in front of the speeder is going slower, and all other lanes are too clogged for the speeder to safely maneuver around, AND if the road in front of the speeder is open enough for the speeder to actually speed (as opposed to there being a huge clog of traffic ahead, in which case the speeder isn’t going anywhere anyway) then yes, the slow driver should make an attempt at moving out of the way.

HOWEVER, if the “slow” driver is going at a reasonable rate of speed (in some cases that IS the speed limit), and lane just to the right is clear, then it’s the speeders responsiblity to make the move to pass on the right. The slow driver is under absolutely NO obligation to move out of the way. (And don’t give any bullshit about how passing should only be done from the left, you’re speeding anyway.)
On a related note, one should always understand that speeding will only shave a couple of minutes off your drive time. This has been tested over and over again. You might be way ahead of someone on the freeway, but once you get off, traffic lights become the great equalizer.

[Jonathan_Chance]

Again, I think you’re assuming that you have a right to exceed the posted speed limit while passing. Clearly, that’s wrong.

I think you’re interpreting this passage:

Any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic

as meaning more than the speed limit.

I think the ‘normal’ speed of traffic is defined as not exceeding the posted speed limit. By definition, anyone exceeding that limit is not driving at a ‘normal’ speed (ie, that expected by the state and enforcable by the law).

Or try this:

Someone is going the speed limit (the little old lady from Pasadena, say). You pass her going 10 miles over the limit. Cop pulls you over. Question: Would the cop be within his rights to give you a ticket?

If your answer to that is ‘Yes’ then it becomes clear that there is no justification for speeding.

As I said, we all do it. I just don’t like hearing people try to justify it as some sort of ‘right’.

[slowhand53]

i was thinking more of those pesky yield signs…

it says yield not DIE

if there is no one to yield to, then fucking hit the god damn pedal on the right!! you know, the one that makes your piece of shit go forward.

[slowhand53]

*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance *
Again, I think you’re assuming that you have a right to exceed the posted speed limit while passing. Clearly, that’s wrong.

nobody is saying it’s a right, just the way it is

I think the ‘normal’ speed of traffic is defined as not exceeding the posted speed limit. By definition, anyone exceeding that limit is not driving at a ‘normal’ speed (ie, that expected by the state and enforcable by the law).

according to dictionary.com just because it’s state law doesn’t make it normal. adhereing to a pattern is normal. if the pattern is for most people to be going 15mph over the speed limit, then the person doing the speed limit is going slower than the normal speed.

Or try this:

Someone is going the speed limit (the little old lady from Pasadena, say). You pass her going 10 miles over the limit. Cop pulls you over. Question: Would the cop be within his rights to give you a ticket?

If your answer to that is ‘Yes’ then it becomes clear that there is no justification for speeding.

As I said, we all do it. I just don’t like hearing people try to justify it as some sort of ‘right’.

and if I passed her at the normal speed of traffic (see above) I would also be well with my rights to sign a complaint against the little old lady for impedeing traffic (not that i am that familiar with the laws of California, this is going on the assumption that I’m in NJ at the time)

[Jonathan_Chance]

No, I still disagree. Given that we’re dealing (in this instance) with the Virginia Code of Laws here I think it’s a safe assumption that, if they establish a speed limit, that limit is considered the maximum ‘normal’ speed. I think anything else is just self-justifying.

The law shouldn’t magically change because people decide to disregard it. Without getting into theory of law or governance here down that path leads anarchy. If you feel the speed limit is too slow that’s fine, more power to you and may the wind be at your back. But even if the rest of the world agress with you that doesn’t suddenly make it not against the law until the law is changed.

[slowhand53]

my mistake for thinking you meant Pasadena, CA rather than Pasadena, MD.

as far as grandma is concerned, she has to move over according to statute here and here.

and i don’t think it’s a safe assumption that the Commonwealth of Virginia rewrote the definition of “normal” to mean “legal”. please provide cite as i may be wrong but could not find a statute to dispute my position

[Bhudda]

People will initially stop and gawk, but will eventually become desensitized to the sight of the carnage. Once desensitized, people will not not stop and gawk at real accidents anymore. Do this a couple times a year, and you’re all set. I assume that’s what these idiots want to see when they come to a complete stop to ogle a car on the side of the road with a flat tire. Anyway, just my modest proposal. **

You would think this would work, but for some reason the dickheads always want to slow down and see the show. I live in Dallas also and I must say that with the slightest accident everybody wants to stop and see if they can find a spare body part to take home.

[Jonathan_Chance]

*Originally posted by slowhand53 *
**my mistake for thinking you meant Pasadena, CA rather than Pasadena, MD.

as far as grandma is concerned, she has to move over according to statute here and here.

and i don’t think it’s a safe assumption that the Commonwealth of Virginia rewrote the definition of “normal” to mean “legal”. please provide cite as i may be wrong but could not find a statute to dispute my position **

I realize that applying common sense to the law can be a hazardous game but are you really trying to argue that the Virginia Code of Laws would be written in such a way that it would assume that another part of it would be routinely violated? Because that’s my read on what you’re saying.

I think that, by definition, the law assumes that ‘normal’ speed is that determined to be safe and sane. And that is defined at the posted maximum speed limit.

And while I’m not a lawyer, allow me to report something that Bricker (who is a lawyer in Virginia, if I’m not mistaken) said in this very thread a few days ago:

From Bricker

Originally posted by Civil Defense
IIRC (and I can’t cite at the moment, but I’ll look- this is something I was told), in VA at least, it’s the law that if someone is coming up behind you and is going faster than you’re going, even if they’re breaking the speed limit, you are required to allow them to pass. I think this goes along with the let the cops enforce the laws, thing. I’ll try to find a cite, but if not, my memory isn’t as great as I thought.

No, there is no such law in Virginia.

IAAL - a Virginia one, no less.

• Rick

I think that pretty effectively undercuts the argument that so-called ‘normal’ speed is permitted to exceed the posted speed limit.

Any other lawyers want to chime in here?

[slowhand53]

so i guess the fact that i got those cite’s from the virginia statutes means nothing :rolleyes: please.

try backing your own words up rather than hoping someone else will come to your defense

[rsa]

*Originally posted by slowhand53 *
**so i guess the fact that i got those cite’s from the virginia statutes means nothing **

Might as well give it up. He’s just trying to rationalize that two wrongs make a right.

According to the NHTSA:

The enforcement threshold should never be
less than 5 mph above the new posted speed limit.

But of course, he knows better.

[slowhand53]

*Originally posted by rsa *
**

*Originally posted by slowhand53 *
**so i guess the fact that i got those cite’s from the virginia statutes means nothing **

Might as well give it up. He’s just trying to rationalize that two wrongs make a right.

According to the NHTSA:

The enforcement threshold should never be
less than 5 mph above the new posted speed limit.

But of course, he knows better. **

maybe it’s because i didn’t get enough sleep last night, but where exactly are you going with this?

if it’s the grandma needs to get the fuck out of the left lane when someone is flying up her ass thing, i don’t understand where you’re going.

if it’s the let’s define what normal speed is, i still don’t know where the fuck you’re going. using a fed guideline for enforcement still doesn’t equate to normal. what i am asking for is a cite for normal=legal

[Jonathan_Chance]

My oh my, don’t you have great debating skills.

A few points:

You continue to use cites that state that drivers who are driving ‘slower’ must move over and you assume that those slower drivers (Drivers being overtaken) are moving the speed limit.

I, meanwhile, have stated (IN THIS SAME THREAD, F’GOD’S SAKE!) this little tidbit from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

Again, from something I posted yesterday morning.
“The posted speed limit is a law that applies to all lanes.(bolding theirs) Thus, technically speaking, there is no fast lane or slow lane. Slower traffic generally is expected to keep right, buy only emergency vehicles are permitted to exceed the posted speed limit and only when their lights and sirens are operating.”

Or this gem (ibid):

“Your speed even when passing should not exceed the posted speed limit.(again, bolding theirs) If you are driving the speed limit, and the vehicle in front of you is driving the speed limit, there is no need to pass.”

So you are interpreting a state law (erroneously, IMHO) to bolster your argument while I’m citing an explicit statement from a federal agency.

Add to all this that neither of us are lawyers and the one acknowleged lawyer in this thread backs my interpretation and your grounds for argument look weak.

[rsa]

slowhand53, sorry if I wasn’t clear. Yesterday was my birthday, so I’m a bit foggy myself. I think I am in agreement with you. I’ll try to rephrase my post.

Might as well give it up. He’s just trying to rationalize that two wrongs make a right.

I was referring to Jonathan Chance, not you.

But of course, he knows better.

Again, referring to JC, not you.

Does that help?