I was about to post just this, except that, being me, I was going to make some stupid jokes and implausible threats of revenge. Instead I’ll just add that I wish everyone was as savvy as you.
I’d like evidence for any of those three assertions, given that I live in a continent where slow/middle/fast lanes are both normal behaviour and also generally legally enforced, and where this behaviour doesn’t seem to cause any of those problems.
Yes, you’re wrong about every damn statement in this post. This has nothing to do with what I do when I’m driving. You’re taking this personally for absolutely no reason, and that’s probably the root of your problem, not other drivers.
Let me put it this way, acsenray: If what you’re arguing makes great sense, and is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, why do 5 states have laws explicitly prohibiting it? It takes a lot of consensus to pass a law.
He’s taking it personally because you’re defending a driving practice that single-handedly causes traffic jams, road rage, tailgating, and the very risk and congestion that you ridiculously claim lane changes create. It’s also a practice with a very neat, easy solution with no downside whatsoever. Yet it happens every single day, thanks to people like you (or at least the hypothetical ones you’re defending.)
Just stay the hell out of the way unless you’re passing people to your right. Either way, somebody must change lanes to get around. Why make the faster car do it, or force him to wait? Staying left slows people down and pisses them off. Staying right…has absolutely no detriment at all.
This is a fairly weak appeal to authority. If what you’re saying makes so much sense, why do the statutory laws of 45 states not explicitly endorse it?
While I can accept from a fluid dynamics standpoint that the various lanes should move at varying speeds, like the water at different depths in a river, I would like to see some proof that it’s the slower drivers that cause all the accidents. It seems counterintuitive, something like Random Maniac would say: “I would be a flawless driver except for all those idiots who got in my way.” When I see somebody plowing along the freeway at 115 mph, I don’t think to myself what a fantastic driver, I should keep out of his way, I think he’s gonna kill somebody.
For the record, I do obey this law. I keep right unless I’m passing (although there are certain stretches of road where the farthest right lane is impractical; too much merging traffic and “exit only” lanes). I would have an easier time with it if it didn’t seem so contradictory: “if you’re speeding, we can arrest you; if you’re not speeding, we can also arrest you.”
Here’s another thing about the self-appointed speed-limit monitors who drive at exactly the speed limit in the left lane- you may not be going the speed limit. Many speedometers are off, and when off they are err to show a faster speed than actual. So you may think you are going exactly 65, but you may really be driving 62.
How many of those states have laws explicitly requiring drivers to stay with the flow of traffic, and make it illegal to obstruct it? I’ll bet we could make a list with 50 names on it.
You still haven’t explained why you feel it’s acceptable to “cruise” in the left lane, aside from an immensely weak claim that you’re entitled to the resource (:rolleyes:) and that lane changing is dangerous. (:rolleyes::rolleyes:)
Highway traffic (at least at high enough rates) acts a lot like a fluid, although admittedly a non-newtownian one. I seem to recall somewhere seeing a table that set out the effective viscosity of a traffic fluid at various flow rates, measured in vehicles per hour. The viscosity increases dramatically above a certain rate which varies regionally.
It’s just common sense. You don’t crash your car or hit someone else by driving straight in a lane. People that drive slower than what the flow dictates causes an interruption that’s going to cause everyone to have to switch lanes and pass, which I’d be willing to bet (but haven’t looked up any stats to back it up) is where or how most crashes occur. Now, those accidents could happen from people not checking their blindspots and whatnot, but the fact remains that it wouldn’t have happened if the slowpoke wasn’t impeding traffic in the first place.
God knows how many times I’ve almost gotten into accidents from idiots going way too slow on the highway. In general, I don’t care how fast other people go unless it starts to impact my safety. I remember becoming particularly frustrated once when trying to enter a highway behind an old woman driver, who seemed to think a speed of 35mph on an entrance ramp was sufficient. You know, the ramp where you’re supposed to accelerate to highway speeds in order to merge safely? She eventually got a taste of my horn for a good continuous 5-6 seconds.
I also was involved in an accident on the highway once due to people in front of me stopping on the highway for some reason. In the middle name. I know technically speaking it was my fault just because it’s always the fault of the person who does the rear-ending, but seriously, who the hell expects people to make a complete stop on the highway when there is no traffic or reason to stop?
I haven’t once “defended” the obstruction of traffic.
The sole downside I am seeing here is that some people get unreasonably annoyed at having to slown down a little bit while a car in front of them changes lanes to get out of the way. The fact that there are five states that explicitly ban cruising in the left lane and people from those states still think that this kind of behavior is bringing down civilization means that this behavior isn’t going go go away very soon and the simplest solution is for people to just get used to it, the same way that most people have gotten used to routine speeding.
I love this sort of Catch-22 situation. Posted speed limit is (say) 65. Traffic flow is 75. I move into the left lane to pass someone doing 70. I get a ticket for speeding 75 in a 65.
You can’t win.
I said proof, please.
Why is that a catch-22? If you stay in the right lane and do not pass the vehicle doing 70, you will not get a ticket.
So, umm, you crashed into somebody while driving straight in a lane, then?
Sure it makes sense to travel in the left lane…depending on the circumstances. If there’s nobody behind me and I am going faster than everyone else that’s in the right lane, why would I continually dart back and forth between the lanes just to ensure that I was “travelling in the right lane”? That would be far less safe than just continuing to drive in the left lane, and moving over when someone else is going faster than I am. Pretty simple to me.
Of course, YMMV quite literally depending on a variety of factors, not the least of which is volume of traffic and the number of lanes on the road. If it’s rush hour and all the lanes are packed, just use whatever lane you wish and don’t dart in and out of traffic in a misguided attempt to “get ahead”.
Sure you can. You can drive 70 in the right hand lane. I’ve never seen a cop give someone a ticket for driving the same speed as the rest of the slowest lane of traffic.
As to Cisco assertion that one should never “travel in the left lane”, you’ve obviously never driven on the Eisenhower during rush hour. If you plan to get off at Harlem or Austin, you pretty much have to be in the left lane, and if you want to avoid the crunch of everyone heading onto the Ryan or Kennedy at the Circle, you pretty much have to be in the left lane.
The rules that apply for I-80 through rural Nebraska are not the rules that apply for the Kennedy Expressway through Hubbard’s Cave.
I already answered that question in post #27. Now answer my question please.
In this scenario you are actively overtaking right-lane traffic and I have no problem with you being in the left lane.