No Asshat, I'm Not Speeding Up For You

[blowero]

@Pyrrhonist

If your interpretation is correct, it is illegal to inhibit five or more drivers from speeding, or, at least, that’s how I’m interpreting it. —Maybe because driving at the speed limit would prevent cops from catching speeders, thus denying the state some much needed revenue.

No, that’s not the reasoning. In CA law, there is a Basic Speed Law:

Sec. 22350 - No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent…

The idea is that it’s illegal to drive faster than it’s safe - not just because there happens to be a sign with a number printed on it. Now, there are various circumstances in which exceeding the posted speed limit constitutes prima facie (on it’s face) evidence that the Basic Speed Law has been violated. However, it’s conceivably possible to be in compliance with the law even if you are exceeding the posted speed limit. It’s an important legal distinction.

And it cuts both ways. You can be in violation of the Basic Speed Law even if you are below the posted limit, if road or weather conditions warrant a lower speed.

And complimenting that principle is the idea that you, as a motorist, are not the arbiter of whether other drivers are in compliance with the Basic Speed Law. Therefore, you cannot impede other drivers, not even if you judge them to be in violation of the law.

I have to question whither a cop could prove that driving at the speed limit was impeding the “normal” flow of traffic, even with a few dozen cars following. By default, I assume, the speed limit is the normal flow of traffic, unless weather conditions are poor, and then it is less. Unless there are case histories of such incidents being ticketed and upheld in court, I would think such a law would only apply to someone going less than the posted speed.

No, “speed limit” and “flow of traffic” are two entirely different things. The speed limit is just a number set by statute; the flow of traffic is the actual speed that cars are driving. They are not necessarily the same.

However, you guys did vote in Arnold as Governor, so I shouldn’t be much surprised by anything that happens there. Remind me not to drive in California.

I didn’t vote for that clown. And given your misunderstanding of the Vehicle Code, I can’t say I’m disappointed that you won’t be driving in our state.

[mhendo]

@badmana

People who drive like this usually get most of the dangerous road ragers out there to react (including me sometimes).

When you openly admit to being among the group of “dangerous road ragers,” it doesn’t do your credibility a whole lot of good in a thread about driving safety.

Crap on all you like about what sort of distance is a “fairy tale,” but your constant implication that those of us concerned about tailgating are just over-reacting flies in the face of the reality of day-to-day driving.

I’m not talking 300 feet here, or even 40 feet. I’m talking about multiple occasions where the person behind is so close that his car’s front bumper is obscured by the trunk of my car in the rear-view mirror.

It’s instructive that you’ve saved all your vitriol in this thread for the people being tailgated. You haven’t even managed to come out and say that tailgating itself constitutes dangerous driving. Hell, you’ve virtually excused it on more than one occasion.

And what the fuck is this?

@badmana

I base this belief on the fact that tailgating is very common but accidents caused soley by tailgating is rare (only in my experience though, I’ve only seen 2 rear end accidents, one not caused by tailgating).

The “fact”? Let’s get this straight–the evidence for this “fact” is that you, personally, have seen 2 rear end accidents, and one of them was not caused by tailgating?

Firstly, when you’re trying to argue a case like “accidents caused soley by tailgating is rare,” it’s worth remembering that the plural of “anecdote” is not “evidence.”

Secondly, if 1 out of every 2 rear-end accidents is caused by tail-gating (as your own observations imply), exactly how many accidents do you think that might add up to in any given year?

:wally

[mhendo]

@blowero

However, it’s conceivably possible to be in compliance with the law even if you are exceeding the posted speed limit. It’s an important legal distinction.

True, but in the event that you are ticketed and you wish to argue that the nticket was unjust, the burden of proof is on you, the driver, to demonstrate that your rate of travel was safe.

[Skywatcher]

@Necros

Well, the turning into the correct lanes still matters. And while the law says that you can use both lanes on surface street, common sense and safety dictates pulling into the right lane to let the Dodge dude pass on the left.

True, unless Pyrrhonist needed to be in the left lane for whatever reason.

[yosemite]

@badmana

yosemite, I assume when you got nailed from behind you were approaching a green light?

No. The last time I was at a yellow light and I could tell I wasn’t going to make it through, so I stopped. It was yellow. The guy hit me anyway. Not too hard, but he hit me, because he was too close.

The time before when I got rear ended (more like “tapped”) I can’t remember exactly, but I don’t believe I made a sudden stop. It was business as usual, but I got hit anyway.

[blowero]

@mhendo

True, but in the event that you are ticketed and you wish to argue that the nticket was unjust, the burden of proof is on you, the driver, to demonstrate that your rate of travel was safe.

I believe that’s what I said. As I said, if you exceed the posted limit, it’s prima facie evidence against you. That means you would have to provide evidence to the contrary. It wouldn’t be easy, but it could be done.

[DrDeth]

@Pyrrhonist

If your interpretation is correct, it is illegal to inhibit five or more drivers from speeding, or, at least, that’s how I’m interpreting it. —Maybe because driving at the speed limit would prevent cops from catching speeders, thus denying the state some much needed revenue.

I have to question whither a cop could prove that driving at the speed limit was impeding the “normal” flow of traffic, even with a few dozen cars following. By default, I assume, the speed limit is the normal flow of traffic, unless weather conditions are poor, and then it is less. Unless there are case histories of such incidents being ticketed and upheld in court, I would think such a law would only apply to someone going less than the posted speed.

.

Bascily, these two laws are applied to:
1.Dudes who drive in the left lanes slower than the flow of traffic, even if they think they are going the speed limit. If cars are passing you on both sides, swerving around you, then you’re a menace. Generally- on a multilane Freeway- if you drive in the far right lane you’re OK, even if it is below the speed limit a bit. In other words- rarely would anyone get citing for going the speed limit if he was hugging the right lane. But damn right he’ll get a ticket if he’s in one of the left lanes.

I5 and 280 both have a “real” speed limit (in good weather and light traffic) about 10mph over the posted speed limit in the left lanes.

2. Dudes who are driving slower than the speed limit for most traffic (Trucks and vehicles with trailers have a lower speed limit) and are on a two-lane highway without a lot of passing areas. They are expected to use a turnout. In other words- if the speed limit for YOU is 45, and you’re going 45, but there are 5 cars behind you that can legally go 55- you have to get out of their way.

Note that there is a difference in what you’ll likely be cited for and what’s the actual law. But yes, in the above two circumstances you could be going at the speed limit (for you) and will get cited for “impeding traffic”.

This does not excuse the tailgater- even if his vehicle is going the speed limit and the car ahead is going slower- he can still get cited.

And like badmana said- if you slam on your brakes in the middle of the Freeway and cause an accident- you’ll be at fault. You have to have a legal or safety reason to stop- and "the guy behind me is an asshole :rolleyes: " isn’t one.