Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

backy

When I was 17, the car I drove, my dad's '66 Coronet with the Slant Six and 3-speed Torqueflite, was way too slow to get me into much trouble. And those were the days of the 55 mph national speed limit.

andres3

You frequently exceed posted limits by a considerable margin, correct?

I wouldn't say frequently and I definitely wouldn't say by a considerable margin. I try to keep it 14 MPH over the limit and under at all times as a general rule, since I hate having to go to court to defend inane citations. I'd say I usually drive 70-75 MPH in 65 MPH zones, and 80 in 70 zones. I try to avoid the courts and officers like the plague, but it seems they find me about once every 2 years without fail (or I go 3 years spot free and then get two tickets in the same year).

I'm probably a driver that drives around the 85th percentile on average, so I'm one of the faster drivers, but far from the fastest.

You are thus on the lookout for speed enforcement, correct? Thus you are driving in an unsafe manner and potentially causing more accidents because you are paying attention to spot cops vs. potential road hazards

I'm on the lookout for any kind of enforcement. Speed has actually only been a real issue in southern CA, which I avoided the first 24 years of my life. As I've argued, enforcement IS a road hazard in and of itself, so you have to keep a lookout at all times.

I'm a good driver so I can handle the multitasking of having one eye out for cops and the other on my driving. I could probably go 300 years without an at-fault accident vs. say 330 years if I didn't pay any attention to cops. Actually, honestly, looking out for cops has a pro-safety effect, as a cop's vehicle is another potential object you could collide with, just like any other vehicle (or as is more usually the case, they rear-end and hit you causing the accident). It's always good to identify all vehicles in your vicinity, including cops.

So why not slow down and focus more on looking out for those potential road hazards?

Because slowing down raises my risk of having an accident, puts me into greater traffic and hazardous scenarios, and my method is working just fine, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. :P

Also, slowing down would not have any effect on my lookout for cops, I've recieved more citations for "made-up" offenses than for speeding. They will make up something or other to make revenue, they have over 40,000 vehicle codes from which to choose from.

Also, your statement re slower speeds on non-freeways not causing reduced accident rates vs. freeways has flawed logic. Speeds are relative to the road, traffic, etc. So 35 mph on a given city street may be unsafe, while 75 mph on a freeway might be perfectly safe.

That point has merit. However, I was just pointing out that "slower" roads in general are not safer than "faster" roads. Most engineers would agree that a good portion of our interstates are designed to have some safe moving 100 MPH traffic in ideal conditions. Making the speed limit lower than it should be does not make the road safer, but more dangerous. There are some people that strictly adhere to the speed limits (very rare), but mainly because they are deathly afraid of being pulled over and cited. The courts and police officers can be very intimidating and scary.

The truth is speed limits are generally rising throughout the nation, and as they do safety will rise as well, and that IS correlated! People will start to naturally drive a bit faster and faster. It's a lot to ask for people used to 70 MPH speed limits to get used to 100 MPH speed limits overnight, but over time, it'll happen, Texas and Utah are closer than most. A lot of the safety benefit of higher speed limits is derived from the reduction of speed variability of traffic. Those who strictly adhere to the speed limit will be driving closer to the average speed of traffic with higher limits.

andres3

I see people tapping their brakes and slowing down on wide open roads as they approach the usually arbitrary limit. Speed kills, show me the money.

They've just surrendered to the "man!" They've probably tried to fight a ticket before and realized a chunk of their life will be wasted even if they are found not guilty or have their case dismissed.

Only people with high principles and integrity will fight multiple traffic cases in their lifetime. It's the reason the NMA pays members' fines if they take a case to court, fight it to the hilt (trial in person with officer present) and lose.

If everyone fought every ticket issued from 8/1/12-12/31/12, the system would crash!

andres3

You are thus on the lookout for speed enforcement,

Another thought, to be honest:

1) I'm on the lookout whether I"m speeding or not, HOWEVER
2) If I'm speeding I'm slightly more ALERT and on the LOOKOUT EVEN MORESO, but only because
3) The faster you go, the further up the road you have to scan for objects and vehicles in order to do so safely, and driving faster safely does take a bit more energy, concentration, and brain power than does driving slowly.

This leads to my other point that if speed limits were suddenly raised to 100 MPH, that would be more effective at reducing TEXTING/Cell Phoning while driving than would any law ever written!

People multitask while driving because they are BORED and going 55 MPH on a freeway designed for 100 MPH traffic doesn't take all of your attention and brain power.

backy

Actually, honestly, looking out for cops has a pro-safety effect, as a cop's vehicle is another potential object you could collide with, just like any other vehicle (or as is more usually the case, they rear-end and hit you causing the accident).

Pro-safety? I thought a few minutes ago you told us that speeding enforcement causes more accidents because drivers can't concentrate on looking out for road hazards. So, you were not being honest with us earlier? :confuse:

Face it: there is no safety justification for your driving 14-whatever mph over the limit on a regular basis. You do it because it's how you choose to drive. No amount of contradictory double-talk can justify it. So my advice is, fess up to it for what it is and live with the consequences, including those very intimidating and scary courts and police officers.

P.S. Another piece of advice: you talk a lot about the speed limits in Utah and Texas. Maybe you should move there, esp. west Texas where those 80 mph limits are, so you can open 'er up.

backy

The faster you go, the further up the road you have to scan for objects and vehicles in order to do so safely, and driving faster safely does take a bit more energy, concentration, and brain power than does driving slowly.

Incorrect. The correct statement is, "The faster you go, the further up the road you should scan for objects and vehicles in order to do so safely.

There is no correlation to speed and how much energy, concentration, and brain power a driver actually uses. Should they pay more attention when driving fast? Sure. Do they? Sometimes. I see plenty of folks sailing away on the freeway at 20+ over the limit yakking on cell phones, weaving in their lanes, not paying enough attention to turn their lights on in rain or dim light, etc. Obviously that extra brain power has not been engaged. Therein lies the danger of speeding. Drivers don't give that extra attention just because you say they do.

This leads to my other point that if speed limits were suddenly raised to 100 MPH, that would be more effective at reducing TEXTING/Cell Phoning while driving than would any law ever written!

See above. However, over time it would correct itself because the drivers going 100+ mph and texting/phoning would be killed off in accidents... along with many others, unfortunately.

The day that speed limits are suddenly raised to 100 mph is the day I avoid freeways.

andres3

Face it: there is no safety justification for your driving 14-whatever mph over the limit on a regular basis. You do it because it's how you choose to drive.

There's a lot of justifications, and I don't regularly do it ON EVERY road and every speed limit. There's lots of arterial highways with appropriately posted speed limits that I adhere to. Sure, they are pretty few and far between, but they exist. I drive at the safest 85th percentile on average, if the limit is underposted, that makes me a speeder, if the limit is logically posted, it makes me a law abider. Freeways in CA is where limits are routinely underposted and hence why I used them of an example where I routinely go 10 to 14 mph over the speed limit; given the 70 MPH maximum (and 65 maximum in most areas).

If your suggesting I automatically speed you are incorrect. I don't pay attention to the limits except to avoid tickets. For saftey purposes I generally try to be just slightly faster than average traffic (85% percentile, not 50%). I've ran into some 35 MPH speed limits that are justifiable for conditions, and I don't drive 50 MPH in those zones.

andres3

Pro-safety? I thought a few minutes ago you told us that speeding enforcement causes more accidents because drivers can't concentrate on looking out for road hazards. So, you were not being honest with us earlier?

My point is I trust a driver that is speeding 10 over looking out for cops and being situationally aware than I do a distracted driver going 10 MPH slower then traffic. Ideally... they wouldn't have to look out for cops and could just divert 100% attention to their driving. But 95% attention is better than 15% attention.

backy

I don't pay attention to the limits except to avoid tickets.

Hmmm... seems like a regular, even "automatic" kind of behavior to me.

I drive at the safest 85th percentile on average, if the limit is underposted, that makes me a speeder, if the limit is logically posted, it makes me a law abider.

So you check what these 85th percentiles are on every road you drive on, every time? Wow. You have a LOT of time on your hands. Have you considered doing some volunteering for various organizations in your community with some of that free time? I know they'd appreciate it.

fintail

I suspect they are just fooled by the rhetoric. There's a contingent of lesser mortals out there who think 55 is more than fast enough for anyone on any road.

I think most also lack the wherewithal to be alert enough to look for traps. I usually drive about 10 over on interstates and 5-10 over on surface streets. Tickets don't find me, because I am hyper-vigilant. Maybe too much so, as it also tunes me in to the actions of fellow so-called "motorists", and that will make me annoyed, hence my frequent stories on this thread.

It would be amusing to see every ticket fought...just like it would be amusing to see every taxpayer refuse to file a return. Sadly, neither will happen.

andres3

Hmmm... seems like a regular, even "automatic" kind of behavior to me.

It only seems "automatic" to you because you think all speed limits are broken by speeders. The truth is only speed limits set too low are broken by most speeders (there are some out there on the fringe that'll break even a reasonably set speed limit, but that's not me.)

My comfortable driving speed is usually always around the 85th percentile. I drive a safe and comfortable speed at all times; as do most people. No matter the roadway, that usually puts me in the 70-85% range. I've never seen a traffic study for any roadway where I've been given a speeding ticket at any time in life that has had a correctly set speed limit. The correlation between corrupt dishonestly low set speed limits and speeding tickets is there for you to see.

I don't need to see the measurements to recognize the average flow of traffic in an area I drive every day for years. I'd of guessed the 85th percentile was 45 or so on the road in question in my case, and it probably is, the measured one of 41 MPH is over 8 years old! The engineers' salaries come from the practice of rubber stamping underposted speed limits and their lame subjective justifications for them, and then stating there is no need for a new study every 5 years. The first extension takes it to 7, the 2nd to 10 years, then they have to take a new study. I don't agree with this policy. The vehicle code says nothing of allowing a city to let studies get older than 5 years. 5 years is a long window for a study. For example, in 2002 an Honda Accord maxed out at 200 HP and in 2007 it maxed out at 244 HP. That 22% gain in power might have an effect on the 85th percentile. To say studies are valid for more than 5 years is ludicrous to me with the rapid advancement of vehicles and safety equipment.

The city has an interest in letting studies extend out to 10 years. The traffic engineers that rubber stamp the studies and give them "extensions" get paid by the city. The paycheck is outweighing their integrity and intelligence every time!

backy

It only seems "automatic" to you because you think all speed limits are broken by speeders.

When someone is driving faster than the posted speed, they are breaking the speed limit thus can be rightly called "speeders". What you believe in your own mind about what to call people who go faster than posted speed limits is immaterial except to you.

Suppose someone owns a super car that can comfortably and safely go 120+ on most US highways. It seems that in your book, it's perfectly acceptable for them to drive that fast, as it is "safe and comfortable" in the mind of that driver.

Thus everyone should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they want, as long as in their minds it is "safe and comfortable" for them. Maybe all the Speed Limit signs should be changed to "Speed Suggestion". :P

fintail

Unless they are in the law enforcement community, or are wealthy...then they are just faster drivers and the signs are indeed suggestions. When the limits are often arbitrary in appearance and unable to be defended by either those who set or enforce said limits, it is hard for a thinking person to take them seriously.

Maybe we need to have graduated licensing and actual vehicle inspection routines that will allow higher speeds to more capable motorists. The Camcords and Sentras can stay in the right lane :shades:

xrunner2

Maybe we need to have graduated licensing and actual vehicle inspection routines that will allow higher speeds to more capable motorists. The Camcords and Sentras can stay in the right lane

How would that work? Say a Porsche and its driver were qualified to go 95 mph on an empty rural interstate. An Accord and its 40 year old male driver 75. A Mercedes with a seasoned citizen woman driver 65. And a 10-year old Suburban and 70 year old driver 55. A 40 mph differential is inviting crashes, accidents. Maybe somehow works in Germany, but not the U.S. Lowest common denominator works best for speed limits. Except for big trucks and buses, same speed limit works best for all.

fintail

It works in first world locations, because of better driver training. Lowest common denominator, the new American norm, really doesn't work best - it is just easier. We like to be penny wise and pound foolish - which has made us fat, in huge debt, and enjoying some ridiculous highway conditions.

xrunner2

It works in first world locations, because of better driver training. Lowest common denominator, the new American norm, really doesn't work best - it is just easier.

And it is fairer also. Kind of an equality thing. An extension of social justice maybe?. Why should a guy in a Porsche, who maybe has done some club racing, is relatively youngish and in good health and probably rich be allowed to go faster on an interstate than I, who might be driving my van on any given day?

He didn't build that road. Somebody else made that happen. That road belongs to all of us. We all built it through our taxes and the Porsche driver should have no special privileges. Why should a rich guy in a Porsche get special treatment?

fintail

Fairness has nothing to do with it. Irrelevant. Driving is serious business, and should be treated as such.

From what I can see, the rich aren't any better drivers than rest of us. A merit based system wouldn't allow anyone to buy their way in.

Social justice in this burgeoning oligarchy? You have to be kidding.

xrunner2

A merit based system wouldn't allow anyone to buy their way in.

I might, might buy into a very complicated system of "different" speed limits for persons based on their physical condition, age, tested driving ability. Would be very costly to implement and run. Disregarding the dangers from vast speed differentials on interstates, government (States, we) could benefit if fees for faster drivers were yearly and had a good margin over cost to implement and maintain. As example, one who has a competent vehicle and passes all other tests would pay a $2,000 yearly fee to drive 80 mph on a rural interstate.

fintail

Yeah you're right...it's a crazy idea simply based on the cost of implementation - not to mention that the majority of drivers are barely capable of driving an automatic Corolla on a straight road. But it's fun to think about, anyway. In many actual first world countries, there are graduated licenses for motorcycles. Almost kind of makes sense for cars too. For the fees, they'd just be absorbed into the black hole of public sector waste. Everyone gets an extra pension.

80 mph on a rural interstate is probably perfectly safe for the alert driver in a modern car today, with no fee.

backy

80 mph on a rural interstate is probably perfectly safe for the alert driver in a modern car today, with no fee.

A lot of assumptions, there.

* No big trucks on the road. They can't maintain 80 mph on upgrades, so they'll just get in the way--in a big way.
* Weather is ideal: good light, no fog, no rain, no snow/ice.
* Drivers (all of them, including those moving more slowly) are in fact alert, paying attention to what they're doing. No drinking/eating (unless it's hands-free, e.g. a camel pack--gotta keep both hands on the wheel at 80 mph). No conversations with passengers (can be very distracting). No phone use, even hands-free (very distracting). No texting of course. No singing along with the stereo either.

Which roads would these be? Maybe some isolated highway in west Texas where a car goes by once every 10-15 minutes. But not on any highway in my area.

All of these complaints about how speed limits are set are just a smoke screen for one fact: some people are too self-important to be slowed down by speed limits that are too low for their taste. So they ignore them... and make up excuses why that's perfectly OK, and why any attempt to enforce said limits are diabolical plots against our Freedoms.

What if all laws were treated as some treat speed limits? Don't like it/agree with it? No problem--ignore it, and come up with some excuse why that's justified. I know that happens now with some laws, e.g. those dealing with taxes. Also with theft ("Heck, those retailers are all rich, they won't miss a few things that I really need!). And many others. So why not speed limits?

xwesx

All of these complaints about how speed limits are set are just a smoke screen

No, I don't think so. I think the expansion of the discussion to involve more posters has also moved it away from the personal preference arena.

Saying that 55/65 is a good speed limit for all highways is like saying that those speed limits are appropriate for residential roads. We all know that such speeds would be far too fast for residential areas, just like 25 is far too low for a highway and that 25 is even far too fast for some residential roads.

Not all roads are equal, nor are all conditions on those roads equal at all times. Take I-90 for example. Yes, the entire length of it. Appropriate speed limits on that road, assuming good weather conditions on the same day across the entire length of it, vary from 45 mph to 90 mph. The last time I drove it, actual posted limits on it varied from 45 mph to 75 mph. Across some stretches of South Dakota and Minnesota, for example, 90 mph would not be an unsafe speed limit. Across stretches of Indiana and Ohio, 75 wouldn't be unsafe.

Regardless of the limit, though, if someone spun out or crashed in fog or icy conditions, they could be cited for driving too fast for conditions regardless of their travel speed. Speed limits aren't intended for the exceptions, they are intended for good conditions. Drivers are still expected to actually think about the conditions around them and drive appropriately. The argument here comes up because in practice, that speed-limit-setting policy is not the case (and that actually irks some people). It's one of those "do what you say and say what you do" circumstances.

backy

Regardless of the limit, though, if someone spun out or crashed in fog or icy conditions, they could be cited for driving too fast for conditions regardless of their travel speed.

The point is, if someone is going 80 mph on, say, I-90 in Minnesnowta and spins out, it won't help to cite them for driving too fast for conditions if they're dead and/or have killed or injured others in the process.

I have no problem with speed limits being set intelligently. But I think some folks don't understand that just because they want to drive at a certain speed, it doesn't make that speed a good speed in general for that road. There's other factors in play besides how fast certain drivers want to drive.

P.S. I can't think of any stretch of I-90 in Minnesota of any significant length that would be a good candidate for 90 mph speed limit. The road surface on much of I-90 is terrible, the weather is bad much of the year, and many vehicles including large trucks cannot maintain 90 mph. So you'll have some drivers going 100+ mph (10 over the limit is pretty common on interstates) and many going 70 or so, especially trucks on hills. That's a dangerous speed disparity.

xwesx

The point is, if someone is going 80 mph on, say, I-90 in Minnesnowta and spins out, it won't help to cite them for driving too fast for conditions if they're dead and/or have killed or injured others in the process.

Certainly possible. More realistically, though, that same person could also be driving 50 mph (15 mph under the current limit, if I recall correctly), spin out in icy conditions, and legitimately be cited for going too fast for conditions.

You make good points, for sure. When reading this portion, "I think some folks don't understand that just because they want to drive at a certain speed, it doesn't make that speed a good speed in general for that road. There's other factors in play besides how fast certain drivers want to drive," I immediately thought about rural state roads in Montana. One major factor to consider when it comes to speed is road familiarity.

The last time I was through there, those rural two-laners had 70 mph limits on them. 70! I did that speed some of the time, but often I was cruising closer to 60 and it still felt zippy. Made worse were the two times when yocals came flying around the bend ahead doing their cut-the-corner move in my lane at 70+ mph. They both casually pulled back to their side, seemingly not concerned about the near-collision (as if they cut corners all the time and that outcome also happens "all the time").

Don't get me wrong, I liked seeing that 70 sign because it basically meant I could drive as fast as I wanted (i.e., I never wanted to go faster than 70. With 70+ degree temps and cloudless skies, it was truly perfect driving weather), but I could have used less crazy to go with it.

andres3

Thus everyone should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they want, as long as in their minds it is "safe and comfortable" for them. Maybe all the Speed Limit signs should be changed to "Speed Suggestion".

That's a great idea and I second your proposal! :P

What I'm saying is that I don't always break all speed limits in all locations. Some speed limits are even slightly higher than my comfortable laidback driving speed on them. As a general rule, I don't think people "automatically" drive 10 over the speed limit; it depends on traffic, road conditions, weather, and other factors. There might be some that say regardless of what the speed limit is, I'll drive 10 over it, but those are few and far between.

hammerhead

Go with the flow, avoid vast speed differentials, and you'll not draw attention to yourself & get there almost as quickly as you would being inconsiderate.

As soon as you get over this 'speed limits are for everyone but me' thing, we'll all be better off.

andres3

A merit based system wouldn't allow anyone to buy their way in.

That is absolutely true. I've seen novice drivers in the Audi Club on track days who would get smoked and probably lapped in a modern R8 supercar by an advanced instructor in a 180 HP over decade old Audi A4.

The driver matters more than the vehicle. You can go your Van's top speed if you want, just make sure you don't rear-end me because your brakes are lousy and the vehicle heavy (physics).

andres3

The speed limits are not for everyone. A lot of them are incorrectly set and therefore invalid. However, they apply to me just the same as everyone else; they just happen to apply to very little percentage of traffic and people.

Maybe a double decker bus fully loaded with 100 passengers during a thunderstorm with 3 baby carriages on the sidewalk would justify the 35MPH speed limit in my particular case.

Speaking of inconsiderate.... no one would have so many posts for this forum if people actually drove correctly and safely. So in a way, a bunch of lousy drivers gives us something to do and write about here online. If everyone drove well, we'd all have to write about how there is never any traffic anymore and you can't ever safely dip below 65 MPH on the interstate anymore since traffic is so light.

andres3

That's why all speed limits, including maximum speed limits should be set by what is widely agreed as the safest most consistent logical and objective way to set them, the 85th percentile method with a traffic and engineering survey.

The 85th percentile should be followed like gospel. I keep finding zones where it is not followed, and it happens to be where I receive tickets (go figure!).

When engineers justify putting speed limits lower than the 85th percentile, it amounts to subjective arguments, which I can counter with subjective and equally valid arguments as to why it should be the higher or the 95% percentile. The objective fair consistent way to do it is by following the same convention everywhere.

Engineers widely agree with the 85th percentile method; why can't we just use that? Why can't we be scientific about it?

andres3

So you'll have some drivers going 100+ mph (10 over the limit is pretty common on interstates) and many going 70 or so, especially trucks on hills. That's a dangerous speed disparity.

People won't routinely go 10 over the speed limit like they do now if it's 90 instead of 65 or 70 like it is now, but even if they did, it's not a dangerous speed disparity provided:

1) Americans learn lane discipline.
2) Americans learn lane courtesy.
3) Americans follow right-of way rules.

backy

If wishes were horses, beggars could ride.

And I don't share your optimism about drivers respecting a 90 mph limit any more than they respect 70 mph limits today. Some people will push the envelope no matter what the limit, ala "Sign says 90, but I am a great driver with a good-handling car, so I can go faster than that."

andres3

And I don't share your optimism about drivers respecting a 90 mph limit any more than they respect 70 mph limits today.

It isn't optimism, it's human nature. It is factual and can be proven. Let's give Utah and Texas' 80 MPH speed limits a few more years, and we'll see if they come out with any traffic and engineering survey updates.

I'll bet the farm on the 85th percentile not changing by nearly as much as the speed limit has.

Setting the speed limit low only makes violators out of the majority of drivers. Setting the speed limits higher will not keep the same majority in the "violator" zone.

backy

That is exactly what I am talking about: human nature. It's human nature to push the envelope no matter the size of the envelope.

I could see that if speed limits were set high enough, few people would exceed them because their vehicles would be incapable of maintaining those speeds (or doing so safely), because gas is pricey and fuel economy drops off significantly over 65-70 mph, or conditions would simply not allow driving above the limit. But at what price in increased accident rates, increased fuel consumption, increased environmental issues such as noise would that come?

Do you really need to go that fast?

roadburner

When the US was saddled with the ridiculous 55 mph speed limit I usually drove 80 mph on the interstate; thanks to a first generation Escort, a CB, and situational awareness I was never cited- or even given a warning, for that matter. One notable exception was a rainy Sunday morning returning from the BMW CCA Oktoberfest in 1984- I crossed Pennsylvania in my 1973 Bavaria at an average speed of 100 mph while my wife dozed in the passenger seat(what can I say, I wanted to get home :P ).

Now that the limited access speed limit is 70 in my home state I usually drive -surprise- 80 mph...

fintail

Some of those assumptions are valid, some are irrelevant.

I just drove home this evening on a fairly empty highway with a 60mph limit. I cruised between 70-80, light traffic, no enforcement, no safety issues. After 10pm so completely dark. No issues. But, I don't live in middle America nor do I drive a fleet grade penalty box, so YMMV.

The only "self important" people I see are either the blind defenders, or the overpaid unfireable policymakers and enforcers who can't put up or shut up when asked to reveal their methodology or reasoning.

Comparing speeding to theft is a gross red herring that should be criminal. You can feel free to dawdle along, just keep that thing to the right.

fintail

I think so many are afraid of anything over 75-80, especially in my area, that even if everything was made into an unrestricted Autobahn, the vast majority wouldn't go past that mark. The "speed kills" mantra has worked for most. Go to Germany and drive around for a few days - it's not scary. It's actually amazing fun.

Regarding some of the other stuff...you could make do in a 800 sq ft house, but you don't. You could have made do with an Accent, but you bought a Sonata.

pat85

One aspect of the old 55 MPH limit was that all speedometers were limited to a maximum of 85MPH., down from the previous 120MPH. The theory was that 55 looked like a higher percentage of the vehicle's maximum capability. I had a motorcycle that had a pin in the speedometer at 85 MPH. I had 6 gears. I would hit the pin shifting into 3rd at max acceleration. By running in 6th at lower than 85, I figured it would do an honest 135 top speed.
I was coming home one night at top speed. I passed a County cop who was just finishing giving a ticket to a car on the side of the road. I figured at over 2 miles a minute, the cop could not see my smali motorcycle tag .I kept up top speed. I passed another motorcycle going about the speed limit of 50 MPH .I saw the cops light bar stop. Sure enough, the cop stopped the one I passed. I wanted to go back and hear that conversation. I put my motorcycle in my garage and didn't ride for about 3 months. I thought just in case the cops figured they stopped the wrong dude and he described me.

imidazol97

>Sure enough, the cop stopped the one I passed. I wanted to go back and hear that conversation. I put my motorcycle in my garage and didn't ride

Knowing cops, the other guy got a ticket despite his protestations.

xrunner2

Go with the flow, avoid vast speed differentials, and you'll not draw attention to yourself & get there almost as quickly as you would being inconsiderate. As soon as you get over this 'speed limits are for everyone but me' thing, we'll all be better off.

Sound advice.

Got to wonder what is the mentality of some who just have to go over the flow. See all the time on the interstates where the limit is say 65 and maybe flow is 65-75. If left lane with handful cars going 75, you can always count on seeing some fool in your mirror coming up fast in the left lane maybe going 80-85.

So, anticipating he will ride on your bumper, you smartly find a slot in the right lane, move over, see him pass and then ride on and intimidate the next left lane driver going 75. That fool will ride as close as one car length until the person in left lane finds a right lane slot and moves over. And, you can watch it repeated again and again with the fool doing more intimidation.

stever

Did six hours today and had the cruise mostly 5 mph over the limit. Didn't get passed too much, nor did I pass too many (there's some passing lanes but most of the drive was 2 lane blacktop). Mostly laid back drivers enjoying the countryside I guess.

Only had to come to one complete stop for a deer and two fawns who crossed right in front of me; was glad I had new pads and rotors put on all four wheels on the Outback last month.

Yesterday was fun too - four bears and a coyote, but no panic stops (these guys were "dumpster" critters).

harrypiels

Wow ! In NY Catskill area, I was driving normal speed (near limit or tad above) and on exiting from route 209, a jerk in a pickup truck nearly rammed my bumper and tried to PASS ME ON THE EXIT on the right side ! This is the second such event in that area in my limited time there. I want to stress that I was not going slow, but was driving normal speed.

There seem to be a large number of people who want to take out their frustrations with life on other innocent drivers. They are the ones who are feet from your bumper and who are not playing emotionally with a full deck. We need more plain envelope police cars and rigorous enforcement to stop these fools from creating accidents. Both these incidents were during daylight hours.

backy

Comparing speeding to theft is a gross red herring that should be criminal.

Kinda like comparing speeding to owning a house?

BTW, the comparison was not about the act, but about the thinking behind the act. In each case, someone is breaking a law because they have justified in their own mind it's ok to do so.

One thing few people consider: those who drive at the limits (and also those who own fuel-efficient cars, but that's off topic as is talking about someone buying Car A vs. Car are subsidizing those who choose to speed, particularly those who drive over 70 mph on the freeway... as you did last night. Huh, you may exclaim? Think about it... by driving in a more fuel-efficient manner, those slower drivers you hate so much (and also those who happen to drive small, fuel-efficient cars with which you also seem to have some problem based on your snide remarks about it) help keep the price of gas down so those who speed and/or own the gas guzzlers can better afford to do so.

backy

That happened to me awhile back--on a congested freeway at rush hour. It was a WTF moment. Could have been as you said, someone not playing with a full deck. Could also have been someone who has simply justified in his/her own mind that some traffic laws don't apply to them.

fintail

All laws are not equal, nor are they just simply because they are law. If the opposite was true, there'd be a union jack waving at your local post office today.

70 in a 60, no harm no foul. Even 80 in a 60 on a wide open fairly well maintained well-lit road on a clear summer night, no harm no foul. Car probably gets around 23-24mpg at those speeds, which is fine with me for something with a degoverned 175+mph capability. I can afford the fuel, so fuel consumption is a non-issue to me. You have to pay to play, right? For some, vehicles are entertainment. For example, if I buy a motorcycle, it won't be for commuting savings. I also burn more gas to put more gas taxes into the system so the slowpokes or cheapskates can enjoy the ability to drive, too. Who is subsidizing who?

It sure was a nice drive last night, no LLCs, listening to the muted drone of the engine at ~2300rpm evolve into a low howl around ~3500rpm when I pushed it a little :shades:

backy

I can afford the fuel, so fuel consumption is a non-issue to me.

Unfortunately, you don't drive in a closed system of One.

And maybe that is the crux of the matter.

For some, vehicles are entertainment.

No doubt. And for some, driving itself is entertainment. For example, the driver of the pickup truck that passed the previous poster on the right, in the exit lane, might have been having a grand old time, enjoying himself immensely. Maybe he got an adrenaline rush out of that. He didn't hit anyone, so "no harm, no foul".

fintail

My fuel consumption also impacts the overall system in zero ways. I am statistically insignificant.

If I had ever pined about passing in exits, that strawman would have a point. Until then....try harder

andres3

When the gun control laws and regulations debate had been stirred up lately by the JOker's actions in Colorado, I cringed when I heard something to the effect of "Everyone seems to break the speeding laws, so why don't we just not have speed limits." Then they proceeded to compare that statement to how Romney's argument that more gun control won't work because people can break a law even if it's written and enacted.

I think perhaps more gun laws would be beneficial, but to compare them to speeding; I'm still cringing!

Just as not having any gun laws would not create more Joker's out of thin air, having no speed limits would not result in chaos on the roads. But the comparison is a bad one, and really thin. I just can't believe the PRO-Gun Control interviewer would bring up speed laws as a reason to enact more gun laws.

andres3

is that they often block the left lane and create congestion and traffic jams. So any fuel saved by them driving slower is more than lost when you have to slow well below the speed limit due to those slow left lane camping drivers.

If I never had to use the brake on the freeway, my fuel mileage would greatly improve; moreso than slowing down 10 MPH.

victor23

Mind you, it was not just a smart thing, to move to the right lane. It was your legal duty to do it, by your State's law. No matter whether anybody is speeding or not. Left lane campers are more dangerous that speed limit violators.

Speaking about "speed differentials", yes, vast speed differentials are unsafe. But even more unsafe is a regrettably and ashamingly typical situation when all lanes are occupied with vehicles running the same speed, side by side, and you are effectively blocked from changing your lane for whatever reason. If you need to take an exit, either you have to cut someone off in the right lane, or almost stop in your lane thus inviting an accident.

victor23

After all, the whole discussion boils down to the fact that there are two types of drivers on the road: those who are able drivers and enjoy the process of driving, and those who are not. Their priority is just transferring from A to B with the minimum hassle, minimum expenses, and highest perceived safety. They would rather not drive if given a chance, opting possibly for reasonably comfortable public transportation. This is legitimate enough, and we have to accommodate both types of folks at the public roads. Both types are quite numerous. Meanwhile, at least some driver education and training before getting a license would help a lot (as of now, we have nothing at all).

Thanks God we have only ski enthusiasts (rather than two types of skiers) at ski slopes.

xrunner2

Left lane campers are more dangerous that speed limit violators.

How so. Of course, most "good" and considerate drivers do not do LLC nor appreciate LLCers. So, how would an LLC going 65 in posted 65 in the left lane be more dangerous than a driver doing 80-85 approaching the LLC, slowing down behind the LLC, passing on the right, then proceeding back to 80-85?