OK, Dio, i’m going to try and make an argument here, not to pile on, but to try and sort out how your thinking on all of this works.
You argue here, and you’ve argued on multiple occasions before, that driving the speed limit does not, by definition, block the lane, even if there are people who want to pass you. Your rationale for this, if i understand you correctly, is that the speed limit is the law, so anyone who wants to pass you when you are traveling at the speed limit is, by definition, breaking the law, and has no right to expect accommodation, and no right to ask that you move over.
Supporting evidence:
Is everything that i’ve said so far correct? If not, let me know, because i’m trying to characterize your arguments fairly here.
Then there’s the other half of that passing equation: the issue of traveling in the left lane when other cars want to get by. You defended this habit, arguing that speeding traffic has no right to overtake, and also arguing that the left lane is not there just for overtaking. When others pointed out to you that Minnesota law requires you to use the right lane unless passing, you argued that, because the law is not enforced, there really is no such requirement. You supported your position by arguing that you, personally, have never seen someone ticketed for driving in the left lane. You also argued that attempting to enforce such a law would seriously impede traffic flow.
Supporting evidence:
Again, am i characterizing your position correctly? Let me know if i’m not.
I’m really quite puzzled about your attitude to legality and driving requirements. For some driving actions (speeding), in your opinion, the very fact that they are forbidden means that doing them is wrong and that people engaging in such actions have no cause for complaint against other road users. But for other driving actions (driving on the left when not passing), the fact that such actions are forbidden is essentially irrelevant because the laws are never enforced and, anyway, if you did enforce them it would impede the flow of traffic.
My first question to you is:
What if we encounter the proverbial irresistible force meets immovable object scenario here? That is, what if Driver A is driving at or below the speed limit but is sitting the the left lane (in violation of the law), and Driver B is using the left lane to pass but is exceeding the speed limit (in violation of the law)? We have two drivers, each violating a different part of the highways code. Furthermore, nowhere in the code itself is there a hierarchy that says “Violation B is more severe than Violation A, so in this situation the person perpetrating Violation A has right of way.”
You’ve argued that someone breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit has “no right” (your term) to expect someone to get out of his way. Do you also believe that someone breaking the law by traveling in the left lane when not passing has no right to expect accommodation from other road users?
Also, on the issue of enforcement, i wonder whether your “It’s not enforced, so…there is no such requirement” argument applies to the issue of speeding itself?
I ask because, in the two and a half years since i moved to southern California, it has become very clear to me that the speed limits posted on the freeways are not enforced. This is not to say that people never get pulled over for speeding, but simply to observe that no-one ever gets pulled over for exceeding the limit by less than 10-15 miles per hour. The signs on the freeways that say 65 are clearly not enforced.
On a typical day on the freeway, i drive at about 75 mph, sometimes 80 if traffic is lighter. Not only am i never the fastest car on the road, but i have never been pulled over, and i have frequently (it happened again just last week) been passed by CHP cruisers who were steaming along at 80 or 85 and were clearly just patrolling the freeway. Hell, about 6 months ago i even started a thread about it, asking exactly what speed you have to go in order to get pulled over in southern California.
So, if they never pull people over for going 75, does that mean that going 75 is, in your opinion, the moral equivalent of driving in the left lane? Does the fact that they never enforce the 65 mph limit mean that it really isn’t a requirement, as you’ve argued regarding the lane issue?
I ask all this, Dio, not because i’m heavily invested in your driving habits, but because i’m trying to work out why you appear so obtuse and intractable on issues where there really is some room for flexibility, where it would cost nothing to admit that there might not be a single, one-size-fits-all answer to the problem, and where it would also cost nothing to acknowledge that other people’s arguments might have some merit even when you don’t agree with them.
A few years ago, whenever i compiled a mental list of the “good guys” on the SDMB, you were always on it. I agree with many of the good things your defenders have said about you in this and other threads. Our politics are very similar on a whole variety of issues, you’re clearly very intelligent, and i even recognize in you some of the “fuck you” belligerence or dismissiveness that i sometimes have to consciously try to curb (with varying levels of success) in my own debating style. In the last year or so, though, it seems that your declarative absolutism has become the central feature of your posting style, and that you have become more concerned with trying to make other people angry than with trying to engage them. This might not be your intention, but that’s how it appears, even to people like me who have always liked you.
There was a time when i looked out for your posts when i was participating in a thread, because i knew you could be relied upon for some good material, and we often came down on the same side in political debates and other arguments. But now, even in cases where we’re both on the same side of an issue, i tend to avoid responding to your posts or backing you up in a debate, because too often you’re causing a trainwreck. Whether it’s football or freeway driving or parenting or whatever, there are now many threads that i find less enjoyable due to your participation, whereas your presence in a thread always used to be something that i looked forward to.
I recognize that you’re not here specifically for my amusement or my benefit, and if you feel that you’re getting what you want from the boards, then by all means ignore me completely. Nor am i asking that you eliminate your straight talk or your willingness to call it like you see it. It just seems to me that a tendency to declarative dismissals of other people’s arguments has more force when it’s employed a little more sparingly, rather than being used as a reflexive response to just about anyone who disagrees with you on even the most mundane issues.
Just MHO.