Passing on Right - Poll

In My Humble Opinion
61

It’s all about generating predictable behavior when confronted with a situation where you’re about to pass someone, or are about to be passed. By having a rule or law that dictates what you and other drivers are supposed to do, you eliminate the guesswork involved. It’s not the people who drive predictably that are the problem, it’s the ones who drive unpredictably.

Slower traffic should always yield to faster traffic. Stay to the right unless you are passing.

If everyone follows those simple guidelines, then I, as a driver, can predict exactly what will happen in any passing situation. If a car behind me is moving faster than I am and I have the opportunity to move to a lane to the right - that’s what I’m supposed to do. Period. I shouldn’t have to worry that the approaching car will suddenly decide to try to pass me on the right. Conversely, the approaching driver shouldn’t have any doubt that I will get over at my earliest opportunity, and therefore attempt to pass me on the right. It’s all very civil and orderly that way.

With that said - I do pass on the right, but only because of the oblivious self-important f*ckers who won’t get the hell over like they’re supposed to. If they’d yield to faster traffic like they’re supposed to, there would never be a need to pass on the right. When nobody follows the rules, it creates unpredictability on the highways, which causes accidents and much aggravation.

62

Hey, Fuel, say you’re cruising along, zoned out, at 1 in the morning on a mostly empty highway (although you yourself have said that the only reason you sit in the left lane is because it’s inconvenient to you to keep moving back to the right lane as you pass someone, which goes to show it’s not desolate).

Anyway, you’re tooling along at 70 mph, in excess of the speed limit. You’re driving through a moderately forested area, and the highway gently curves in a slow arc.

Now, imagine that somewhere behind you, a State Patrol Camaro doing his rounds on a side road gets an emergency call 10 miles down the road from where you are. He enters the highway, spools his car up to 150 mph and proceeds, light flashing.

Do you honestly think that, when the convention and the law is that slower vehicles move right, that he should endanger himself by trying to guess whether you are going to move right or not when his speed is 80 mph faster than yours, and you think you’re entitled to kep to the left?

How about this. I guarantee to you that I am a significantly better driver than you. If you’d like, I can prove it to you. But trust me on this. As a better driver, I am entitled to the left lane. So, any time you see me, move left. The problem of course, is that I have five cars, and I travel a lot. So you’ll never know that it’s me. So, to be safe, just stay right. :wink:

63

You must see that me doing my thing could never ever cause an accident because I don’t move! Hear me out. It’s the people who take too long to move over after overtaking or getting over too soon creating a situation where two cars are too close to each other. The law has created this unpredictable situation and by me staying put, going faster than 95% of the cars on the road, there could never be accident. Period. And I intend to keep it this way. (If I drove 75 like this, I would be causing all kinds of ruckus… the fact I drive 85 makes my plan perfect)

I never want to accidentally switch into the right lane too soon in front of another car and then have to slam on my brakes and the poor guy plows into the back of me. And I also never want to accidentally wait too long to get over and then have me and the guy behind me get over at the same time and cause him to crash. THAT COULD NEVER EVER HAPPEN TO ME, BECAUSE I DON"T MOVE! This is not a hard concept to understand here. If everyone drove like me, then there would never be an accident in this situation. (Keep in mind the law says 6 car lengths. Do you know how many people pass me before I reach 6 car lengths ahead of the overtaken car? Almost everbody. How good does this law sound now?)

Do you know how many times I got into squirrely situations while following this dumb law? Too many. Do you know how many squirrley situations I have been in since I gave it up? None. None in 7 years.

The whole law was based on the assumption that everyone will follow it. Well, word to the wise, that’s not possible, so don’t create a specific law that will cause ambiguity. Rather, make a more generalized law which gives the power of decision to the person operating the vehicle. Enough said. Sorry to break it to you all, but I am right, the law is non-functional and counter-productive. Most people do follow it, but it’s the few who don’t that will make you DIE for following this law.

64

And here we have the essence of Fuel’s driving and debating strategy. “Fuck the rest of the world.”

65

Do you think I am going to cause an accident because of what I do? Do you think it’s possible? I will trade off some pissed drivers, for some safe ones coming up behind me.

I am trying to be a bigger person out there on the dangerous roads. I am playing the big brother out there, making sure everyone I come into contact with is safe. There will be no ambiguity on my watch… stay put, stay safe. It’s simple. I will not be some stupid robot obeying an ambiguous law. If you stopped to think about the topic rather than my slightly cocky delivery, you would realize what I am saying is at least somewhat reasonable on a certain higher level of thinking.

66

Also, I am sitting here trying to figure out the safest way for me and the rest of the world to go home to their families, and you are saying that I don’t care about the world? What kind of logic is that? Even if I’m wrong, I am still thinking more about others’ safety than most people out there. I have been spending hours on here debating driving safety… I think I care.

67

So you’re saying that the current law is dumb because not everybody follows it, which leads to unpredictable situations. Then you say that your rule is better, and there would be no accidents as long as everybody followed your rule.

Unwashed brain had it right: forget the law, it’s about generating predictable behavior.

Your rule forces the fastest and the slowest traffic to mix it up in the right lane. No, actually it forces the people going the fastest to weave in and out of traffic. That’s why I think passing on the right is more dangerous.

68

Well, it sounds like you have your mind made up and aren’t interested in listening to any other opinions. All I can say is I hope you don’t drive in my area (unfortunately, a lot of your soul brothers do).

69

Fuel, i’m curious as to why you started this thread in the first place, given that you had obviously decided from the beginning that nothing that anyone said was going to change your mind or your driving habits.

Why didn’t you just start a Pit thread saying, “This is how i drive, and fuck anyone who doesn’t like it”? At least then your post would have been in a forum where we could treat your obstinacy and self-righteousness with the contempt it deserves.

70

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Get over yourself.

71

Word.

Fuel, you’re forcing the craziest, wackiest drivers of all - the ones who dare to drive faster than you - into lanes that are usually more densely occupied. Thanks a lot for the favor, buddy. I’d much rather see them buzz by me in a straight line than watch them maneuver around me. Those people are crazy driving faster than me! Crazy!

You may think you’re “doing the right thing,” but at highway speeds my driving is highly dependent on the predictability of the drivers around me. Passing to the right and refusing to yield to faster traffic are both behaviors that I don’t expect from other drivers. When I check my rearviews to guage distances and locate other cars, I rely on my knowledge of commonly accepted driving habits to predict where all the “bogeys” will be while my eyes are on the road in front of me. When reality differs from convention, bad things tend to happen.

72

It is true that it forces the fast drivers to weave more often. That is most definately a downfall for my plan. But, what plan is without downfalls with this situation?

It might seem that I am norrow minded at this point, but only because no one has convinced me that what I am doing could directly cause an accident. If someone is driving like an ass, and happens to try to weave around me being in the left lane and then wrecks, well, that’s his friggin’ fault for driving like an ass, right? Maybe, maybe not. That’s a judgement call based on certain legal/ethical precedences of utilitarianism and moral nature. Utilitarianly I am at fault, but morally he is. I tend to side with the moral school of thought. That’s partly why I believe like I do here.

A straight line is the most predictable way to drive. Driving in the correct lane is only as predictable as the probability that the person will obey that law. Do you want to gamble with probability or do you want vehicles that stay still when you pass them? My method, in light of the law, is somewhat unpredictable, but much more safe. Speeding excessively kills people, not driving in a straight line.

In practice, when I see a car soming up on me really fast… like 105+, I definately get in the right lane ASAP. But when someone is inching along behind me going 95 or so, who the heck cares about 10 mph? Is it really that dangerous to pass someone on the right with a relative speed of 5-10mph? Well, that’s the case in 90% of the occurrences I am talking about. I do agree however that it is dangerous to make people going 105+ weave around me. That much I will concede. Further, after this thread I will actually be more careful now that I have thought more about making hooligans weave. But I will continue to force speeders to slow down and go around to preserve my own comfort and in some instances preserve safety by avoiding ambiguous laws.

73

Fuel,

Failing to yield to faster-moving vehicles is safer for you because your car is not involved in a lane change. However, you are creating a situation where the less patient driver may choose to pass you on the right, which, as we all have agreed, is anomalistic driving behavior in the US. If it’s just you and the other driver on the road, you two can cockfight for position until you chafe and I couldn’t care less. If there are other cars nearby, you have an obligation to your fellow motorists to not drive in a manner that compels other drivers to drive unpredictably. As I pointed out earlier, you’re not doing us any favors by pissing off the prick behind you and forcing him into our lanes. As the ostensibly safer driver, we’d rather have you temporarily in our lanes than the faster, furiouser driver behind you.

All the rest of you left-lane loiterers - get the hell outta my way!!!

74

Fuel,

What about Mr. J. Geezer Smith, who believes driving exactly the speed limit in the left lane is cool, and who, by your logic, argues that he could never cause an accident because he never moves? Many of the traffic jams I see are from people in the left lane when they shouldn’t be. The most dangerous drivers I see are the ones who weave in and out because they think everyone else is going too slowly in the left lane.

BTW, could you tell us where you drive? You’re going to wrap yourself around a tree someday, my friend, and I hope you don’t take anyone else with you.

75

Seems that when I lived in FL (where I got my license) there was no mention of this law in the Driver’s Handbook. Then again, I never took a driver’s test because somehow driving one of 5 cars, never with an instructor inside (he was sitting on the bleachers BS’n with the football jock crowd), in my HS driver’s ed. class proved that I could safely handle a motor vehicle. Go figure.

In all seriousness, it seems that how the appropriateness of this law is relative to the particular highway.

4 lane expressway (at grade intersections, breaks in the median, side roads) through rural areas. The outside lane rule wins. It’s better to follow the law as stated when on highways like this.

4 laned city street: Inside lane. I want to aviod things like car doors opening on the side, people pulling out, bicyclists who have to swerve to avoid opening car doors, etc. With the usual speeds on streets of this type, high speed passing is not really an issue.

4 laned freeways, rural areas: I keep to the outside, to allow the law to work as written, with the exception of onramps. If there is an onramp and traffic entering the flow, it’s more polite (customary in the south, apparently not in CA) to move to the inside lane and allow traffic to enter unimpeded.

6+ late freeways, urban areas: This law is archaic and stupid in this case. Why are there 4 lanes moving in the same direction if there’s supposed to be only one lane of active traffic. Is that just in case one guy passes, while being passed by someone else being passed? Gimme a break. If I am on an urban freeway and not leaving any time soon, I will most definately cruise that second to most inside lane, and treat the far inside lane as a passing lane (assuming there’s no stack interchanges that will cause me to exit unwillfully) to avoid blocking lanes to the outside that are shifting as traffic moves to and from their exits*. When I near my exit, I move back to the outside, to whatever lane the signs indicate for my exit.

With the proliferation of 6 lane freeways these days even in rural areas (think I-75/I-95 in FL), the laws need some revision. I’ve always assumed that the center lane is the place to stay when there are three going in the same direction. The right lane is for traffic nearing it’s exit, plus trucks and other vehicles that cannot exceed a certain speed, the middle is for the general traffic flow, and the left is for passing.
But seriously, if the appearance of 8-10 lane freeways has made this law archaic and quaint at best and most likely friggin ridiculous. Are people really supposed to pack into two lanes and leave the other 6-8 open for passing.

  • Also note that in many areas, such as the Silicon Valley for example, the far inside lane has a diamond painted every couple of hundred feet to mark it as a carpool/bus/motorcycle lane. In other words, if you are on a long distance commute, and have a buddy with you, the law ENTITLES you to cruise the inside lane.
    And with that, I’ve exhausted my longwindedness, and will return to my semi-lurking status.
76

As I just said, I yield to cars going too fast. (100+) But how often does that happen? I drive from orlando to ft. lauderdale FL. I see that maybe once a trip. Me going 85, that leaves, like I said before, about 10-12 cars that pass me within a 2.5 hour period. They pass me on the right going on average about 5-10mph faster than me. That’s nothing, no danger whatsoever. And you are people are saying that I am going to wrap my car around a tree? You know what, screw this thread. I have had many succesful threads on this board, and this is not one of them. Forget it. Reason has deserted either me or you guys, and since I have never once came even close to getting into an accident doing this, we’ll just let the results do the talking. Good riddance! It’s not like I am going 70 in the fast lane!

77

So, can we assume that your definition of a successful thread is one in which everyone accepts your position as completely true and correct, and offers absolutely no counter-argument or criticism?

If you want a bunch of lap dogs who do nothing but agree with everything you say and tell you how smart you are, then you’re in the wrong place.

78

So, you are saying that by your breaking the law, you cause accidents and kill the people that do follow the law.

79

Ignoring the proper passing laws is also quite disrespectful to the outer drivers on the road.

That’s because the cars you passed on the right had the dangerous moments, because you did something illegal and unpredictable. They had no idea what you were going to do, and therefore you didn’t have the dangerous situation, the other drivers did.

80

The bolding on the one quote was done by me for emphasis, just so you all know.