Driving, which law to follow, which to enforce?

[Knife]

Recently, my wife stumbled across an editorial in a southern Utah papar the infuriated her to no end. So she being she, she wrote a blog about it complete with a counter argument and even sent a link to the editorial guy at the paper.

As read here.

Anyway, brings up a good question, that being about driving, who's a good driver and who's a bad driver. Moral righteousness in driving and such. I think you can read all that and trace it all back to shitty low level training most Americans get in driving, let alone licensing and testing.

However, it would seem a lot of the people out there on the roads have taken it upon themselves to choose which law is important to them personally and to take it upon themselves to enforce it. Its always funny when people do this, they alway choose the law that is easy for them to follow and dangerous for them to enforce.

Thought it might be a good subject for discussion. Morally, legally, ethically and well in reality as in a matter of public safety.

[Kanastrous]

There's a principle I've heard described - can't remember what it's called - that states that individual private citizens have neither an obligation nor a right to function in the role of law-enforcement, but that they do have an obligation to act in a manner designed to promote safety while they're driving.

Which suggests to me, that deliberately operating as a rolling roadblock, when you know there is traffic piling up behind you, and realize that those drivers may execute an unsafe maneuver to get around you, places you squarely in the wrong.

It's not up to you, to enforce the speed limit. And, it's acceptable to violate any number of traffic laws, if you are doing so in the immediate interest of avoiding a safety hazard, or avoiding the creation of one.

This sounds like it's all about someone seizing an opportunity to act like a self-righteous asshole because the letter of the law is on their side, and screw any consequences that might arise from a non-peace-officer deciding to play a stay-behind-me-because-I'm-at-the-posted-limit game.

[Knife]

Indeed, it is my position as well. While there is a posted speed limit that people should follow, there is also laws about flow of traffic and laws about yielding to faster traffic. What got my goat is the fucker actually asked a cop, didn't get the answer he wanted and justified himself as being right.

Oh, I responded to the blog, so the comment is my actual opinion on the piece.

[andrewgpaul]

It's not up to you, to enforce the speed limit. And, it's acceptable to violate any number of traffic laws, if you are doing so in the immediate interest of avoiding a safety hazard, or avoiding the creation of one.

I may be speaking from ignorance here, since 'HOV' lanes are a US thing, but he's not enforcing the limit, he's merely obeying it. The other drivers are free to pull out and over take him.*


*unless the HOV lane is the outside lane (the left lane, in the US); in that case, then yes, he should pull into the right lane and let all the speed merchants past. That way, he gets the satisfaction of watching them get caught in speed traps 5 miles down the road.

[Kanastrous]

When you know from looking in your rearview mirror that traffic is piling up behind you, and rather than move aside at the next opportunity to let faster traffic pass your attitude is "let them get around me at the next opportunity; I'm holding everyone behind me to a speed limit, here," I think that makes you the problem.

[andrewgpaul]

What I'm saying is, what's stopping them behind me from overtaking? Is this HOV lane the furthest-left lane on the carriageway? After all, one should expect obeying the laws of the road to be the default condition.

[Knife]

What I'm saying is, what's stopping them behind me from overtaking? Is this HOV lane the furthest-left lane on the carriageway? After all, one should expect obeying the laws of the road to be the default condition.

The HOV lane is basically the new furtherest left lane in heavily congested stretches of highway that legally you can only be in if you have two or more people in the car. That is the only stipulation and it has no claim on yielding or any other law. It's just an 'extra' lane to promote car pooling.

[Kanastrous]

For the most part, in Southern California, the HOV lanes are single lanes with a shoulder to the left and a dual set of double-yellow lines on the right (except where the lines are single-broken to permit exiting/entering the lane).

So if someone is behind you, trying to travel at higher speed, they can't legally or safely pass you until reaching the next merge area, where they will have to change lanes, accelerate to overtake you, then return to the HOV lane, during which time there may be traffic in the #2 lane, and other vehicles may be entering/exiting the HOV lane. And if there are multiple drivers behind you wanting to travel at 70 or 75mph, multiply the hazards.

Whereas - since I'm not deputized or anything, and since in the interest of safety I prefer letting speed freaks go their merry way without playing stupid hazardous right-of-way games - if I am the at-the-limit operator, refusing to temporarily give way to allow traffic behind through, is plain foolish. Only an asshole accepts multiplied risk of accident, in order to feel they are making a point about manners.

[Darth Wong]

Indeed, it is my position as well. While there is a posted speed limit that people should follow, there is also laws about flow of traffic and laws about yielding to faster traffic. What got my goat is the fucker actually asked a cop, didn't get the answer he wanted and justified himself as being right.

Oh, I responded to the blog, so the comment is my actual opinion on the piece.

The problem with people like this is that they aren't deep thinkers. They can't see through to the reason for these laws in the first place, so they can't reason their way through a discussion of which laws are most important. If they understood that it was all about balancing safety and speed for everyone, they would understand that some of their behaviour is actually harmful, even if it follows the rules.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The old codger is puttering along at the speed limit in the HOV lane, and someone races up behind him, slams on the brakes when he won't accelerate right on his ass, and then veers into the lane to the right while simultaneously accelerating. Except he doesn't bother to look in time and slams into someone else coming up in that lane. I've nearly had that happen to me repeatedly, though it's usually sufficiently obvious when it's going to happen that you can slow down to avoid it--but there are less attentive drivers out there who could easily be killed. Or the guy going fast is in an unstable, oversized car which is handled so violently to get ahead of the person coming up in the lane next to the right that he flips it. That could also kill more than a few people.

So this smarmy, self-righteous bastard has just killed several people by not getting into the slow lane. Granted, it's truly the fault of the reckless driver, but it could have been prevented if you weren't driving the speed limit in the far left lane, so you hold more than a little bit of responsibility. I mean, why the hell should he stay in that lane out of principle? It's not like it will get him to his destination any faster, he'd be going the same speed in the slow lane. Apparently people like this feel that adherence to law is preferable to the preservation of human life.

[andrewgpaul]

For the most part, in Southern California, the HOV lanes are single lanes with a shoulder to the left and a dual set of double-yellow lines on the right (except where the lines are single-broken to permit exiting/entering the lane).

So if someone is behind you, trying to travel at higher speed, they can't legally or safely pass you until reaching the next merge area, where they will have to change lanes, accelerate to overtake you, then return to the HOV lane, during which time there may be traffic in the #2 lane, and other vehicles may be entering/exiting the HOV lane. And if there are multiple drivers behind you wanting to travel at 70 or 75mph, multiply the hazards.

Ah, I see. In that case, yes he's being an ass. Mind you, not as much as the people who can't seem to follow a simple instruction.

[Knife]

I mean, why the hell should he stay in that lane out of principle? It's not like it will get him to his destination any faster, he'd be going the same speed in the slow lane. Apparently people like this feel that adherence to law is preferable to the preservation of human life.

I'm sure this attitude is not specific to Utah, but it seems there are quite a few people here who have to be first in line, have to be first at the stop light, and god forbid if someone passes them. I'm not sure how to explain it.

[Darth Wong]

I mean, why the hell should he stay in that lane out of principle? It's not like it will get him to his destination any faster, he'd be going the same speed in the slow lane. Apparently people like this feel that adherence to law is preferable to the preservation of human life.

I'm sure this attitude is not specific to Utah, but it seems there are quite a few people here who have to be first in line, have to be first at the stop light, and god forbid if someone passes them. I'm not sure how to explain it.

Alpha-male wannabes.

When you attempt to change into his lane, you are challenging his shrivelled manhood, so he responds by stepping on the gas and trying to cut off the opening, even if it means he is risking his safety, your safety, and the safety of the driver ahead of him.

This is the kind of asshole who drives slow but gets upset when you try to pass him on the highway and speeds up to cut you off. Of course, if you slow down and drop behind him, he will slow down to his original speed again, and when you try to pass him again the whole cycle will repeat itself.

[Kanastrous]

I enjoy watching cagers do insanely stoopid dangerous shit, just to be first in line at the next red light, then just rolling up to the very head of the line between the lanes.

I think that the thought of someone still being in front of them, even after their foolish competitive shit, really raises their blood pressure.

At least, I hope it does. One good heart attack or stroke, and they're off the road and no longer a threat to public safety.

[Death from the Sea]

he may not be speeding but he is impeding traffic and depending on the situation, more officers hate that than the speeding part.

[Stuart]

This is the kind of asshole who drives slow but gets upset when you try to pass him on the highway and speeds up to cut you off. Of course, if you slow down and drop behind him, he will slow down to his original speed again, and when you try to pass him again the whole cycle will repeat itself.

Another good reason to by cars with phenomenal top speeds. My 'Vette (and her predecessors) accelerates so fast that the annoying person trying that stunt doesn't get a chance to react. I can be past, changed back into the left-hand lane and be gone while he's still processing data.

In this case I echo the comments of the majority. The writer of the editorial is a stupid, self-centered, self-righeous, arrogant PoS and deserves to be sitting in teh County Jail charged with reckless endangerment.

[Darth Wong]

Technically speaking, you don't really need great top speed for that. You just need good acceleration in the 50-80mph range. Most cars are pretty sluggish when they try to accelerate from 50mph. Vettes are particularly good at accelerating while in highway gear because they have truly obscene amounts of low-rpm torque.

[Stuart]

Technically speaking, you don't really need great top speed for that. You just need good acceleration in the 50-80mph range. Most cars are pretty sluggish when they try to accelerate from 50mph.

True, although a very high top speed tends to mean that the performance in the lower speed bands sparkles simply from the excess power available.

Vettes are particularly good at accelerating while in highway gear because they have truly obscene amounts of low-rpm torque.

I know (Smug grin). The low body weight is very helpful as well. You put your finger on the critical bit, its the 50 - 80 mph bracket where acceleration really counts, the 0 - 60 is less significant.

By the way, we were talking about insurance and car performance not long ago; the 'Vette actually costs less to insure than the Camaro did. Reason is that the people who buy 'Vettes tend to be older and better drivers so have a lower accident rate.

[Dominus Atheos]

Maybe I'm just confused by the fact that freeways in my area don't have carpool lanes, but your responses to this guys editorial seem like really bad ideas. When I drive home from work, the highway I drive on has a posted speed limit of 55 mph. I usually stick in the far left lane and drive at least 10 mph over that, usually 15. The people in the middle lane usually drive at the speed limit, or 5 mph over it. Most people in the fast lane are content to go 15 mph over the speed limit, but every so often someone will come up behind me and want to go 25 mph over the speed limit.

I think this is where I'm getting confused. In your areas, the person behind me can just use the carpool lane to pass me. That's less illegal then going 80 mph. But in my area, either I have to speed up to 80 mph through the heart of a sprawling metropolis of 2,000,000 people and risk not only getting a ticket but also my life, or I can let him pass me. This is the part I'm confused about. Apparently forcing him to pass me is a bad idea, as the Duchess explained, so what are your recommendations for someone who lives in a place with only 3 lanes on the highway?

[Knife]

I apologize for the necro, however there has been a poster on my wifes blog that I linked in the OT of this thread that needs addressing.

Firstly, anonymous poster rr.com who linked to my wifes blog from SD.net in Ashland Kentucky. You are a fucktard coward, and ontop of that you are also wrong.

1) you are a fucktard for blatent flame bait on my wife's blog. Fuck you and your ad homiens. My wife is not SD.net but even if she was, your arguments suck donkey balls and you'd be torn to pieces here you fucking coward. For reference:

blog

No. Following the law means you yield to traffic if you are NOT breaking the speed limit.

Incorrect. Both in Utah and Kentucky where your IP is; the LAW says you yield to faster traffic reguardless of speed limit. See Uniform Vehicle Code. For quick reference, Keep right laws. It would seem that in Kentucky where you are at, it is;

A few states permit use of the left lane only for passing or turning left. These have "yes" in the "keep right"

If your HOV lanes have different laws, please put them in this thread.

In Utah, where the article was originated, you asstard, the law is

require drivers to keep right if they are going slower than the normal speed of traffic (regardless of the speed limit; see below). These are listed as "slower"

Let me help you with this, IN UTAH WHERE THE ARTICLE WAS POSTED, IT IS YOUR DUTY TO YIELD TO FASTER TRAFFIC REGUARDLESS OF IF THEY ARE SPEEDING. IF YOU DO NOT, YOU ARE JUST AS GUILTY OF BREAKING THE LAW AS THEY ARE.

Clear enough?

If someone is breaking the speed limit you as a driver have no right, authority, or moral imperative to help them break the law.

You are incorrect in your assessment, both in Utah and Kentucky. In fact you are even more wrong in Kentucky you road raging piece of shit. In Kentucky you are not even supposed to be in the left lane unless you are passing fuck stain.

If an accident occurs, it is because of the person who breaks the law, not for the person who follows the speed limit.

Indeed, however if you do not yield to faster traffic, asshat, you are breaking the law and by your own definition; responsible for the accident.

If you have any other bullshit arguments to bring forth, go ahead and put them here cumbubble. Not my wife's blog, while I appreciate the traffic your flame bait and poorly researched position does not belong there. You are free to bitch if you want, I can post all of the your posts here and let these gents argue the merits of your deluded position if you so wish.

My wife will not tolerate flame bait or long streams of vulgarity. If you have an argument, bring it. Calling my wife a 'cunt' is not one you perma virg asshole.

[Kamakazie Sith]

he may not be speeding but he is impeding traffic and depending on the situation, more officers hate that than the speeding part.

Fuck yeah. Most the time I wish people would just get the hell out of my way. I want you to speed...just a little bit. Mostly I want you to move over and allow me to get to my call.

Anyway, going with the speed of traffic is very common, and considered safe. Does that mean you won't get a ticket for speeding even if you are going with everyone else? Not necessarily.

[Zac Naloen]

This is the part I'm confused about. Apparently forcing him to pass me is a bad idea, as the Duchess explained, so what are your recommendations for someone who lives in a place with only 3 lanes on the highway?

Is traffic so bad that you are unable to change to the middle lane to let him pass at the safest opportunity?

That's how we do it in the UK.