Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
People who intentionally block the flow of traffic in the left lane are as bad or worse than speeders.
But to imply that most ("often") drivers who don't tend to speed are LLCs is ridiculous.
Good luck finding a freeway in or near an urban area where you never have to use the brakes... and not because of LLCs. Because of sheer traffic volume in most cities, and because of idiots who swerve between lanes and do other stupid and inconsiderate things other than LLCing.
That could be a interesting analogy. My sister (the one with over 20 accidents in her long driving career) likes to ski. Woe be to her and anyone in her path if she winds up on anything harder than an easy blue.
Then there's Sonny Bono, who was an advanced skier, who died while skiing a well groomed intermediate run.
An experienced boarder my age (a school teacher) died at Bogus one year when I lived in Boise; hit a tree on a popular run, wearing a helmet. He was going fast, but not that fast. Up the road a year or so before that, a 12 year old got hit in a merging trails situation and died.
My wife was skilled but conservative at XC and downhill, telemarking, etc. She's retired after an ACL repair followed by a nasty tib/fib fracture.
There there's Arnold Schwarzenegger who broke his leg at Sun Valley just standing at the top of a run. He was with an instructor at the time.
Skilled, considerate drivers wreck and get hurt too.
Granted, the situation indicated here is not particularly "dangerous," but there is technically a higher chance of a collision/crash/etc. than had the slower vehicle stayed to the right.
The other driver was "simply driving" at 80-85, 15-20 over? That was both illegal and reckless.
Have seen many times when I am just taking it easy in the right lane with "60"ish drivers and see an LLC legally driving maybe 65 in a 65 AND some fool will come up very fast behind the LLC and then slow down to 65 and hang on the LLC bumper trying to intimidate him to move over. Lots of traffic in the right lane, and then the LLC finds a slot in right lane and moves over. The fool will then speed up until someone far ahead holds up the fool again and then more tailgating.
The over-the-top speeders are reckless for going 15-20 over AND for tailgating at 65 maybe with only one car length separation.
After that, got behind a dope in a Camry rental in a left turn lane. Light finally turned green, he made this weird wavy turn that reminded me of someone learning to ride a bike, then drove well under the limit with both right wheels on the turtles dividing the lanes - so nobody dared get beside him. Thankfully I got to turn within 2 blocks.
While on foot saw numerous "drivers" with a phone to their ear, and a few sidewalk/crosswalk crowders, all SUVs.
Reread my post. I have no love for LLCs, but they are a far less danger than those going 15-20 over who try and intimidate the LLCs by tailgating at one car length. They are both wrong, but the intimidator speeder is the far bigger danger.
"Flow" was 60ish in the right lane and 65 plus in the left. So majority, or "flow", was in 60 to high 60's range. The out of the norm, outlier, was the driver coming up much faster 80 in the left lane. He was not the flow. He was above it. He then becomes the intimidator, who will then ride on the bumper of the left lane car so that he can go 15-20 over. He is the dangerous one, the one that wants to go much faster than the "flow".
I think the sheer volume of traffic builds up and gets exponentially worse from LLC's and MLC's. Other drivers get frustrated from the LLCing and then do stupid and inconsiderate things to try and maneuver around the campers.
The chaos builds and builds and builds until you have hardly any movement at all; which all could have been avoided with proper lane guidance, avoidance, courtesy, and discipline.
You got it all backwards. If the speed limit is 55 or 65, then 15-20 is far from reckless. And some courts would argue it isn't "illegal" since it's not a misdemeanor anymore, but an "infraction." At least, thats the argument they use to take away due process and civil liberties granted by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
slow down to 65 and hang on the LLC bumper trying to intimidate him to move over
If someone comes up behind you 15 to 20 MPH faster than your going you have plenty of time to move over and not create a LLC disturbance to the universe. There is no reason your situational awareness should be so poor as to cause the guy coming from behind to slow down. Now your guilty of two things, LLCing, and being unaware of your surroundings and failing to scan the road in all directions around you.
Tailgating cannnot occur without a LLC or MLC, cause and effect. Now, if someone's trying to go 40 over the speed limit, that might require some braking and allowance for tailgating from the fast driver.
P.S. No one should be going the "speed limit" in the left most lane if there are more than 2 lanes in one direction in the first place.
The flow is often incorrectly low and caused by an LLCer for maybe a group of cars (anywhere from 3 to 20 cars can cause a "flow," as you put it; depending on the amount of lanes).
If a driver isn't a lame duck and lemming, he will scan further ahead than everyone else, and be frustrated by the fact that absent these 3 to 20 cars in front of me in a pack of slowpokes side by side blocking every lane, there is a mile of clear road ahead, and the cars a mile ahead are doing 10-15 over the speed limit like they are supposed to. The distance between your pack and the next increases with the amount of time it takes you to navigate through the LLC MLC blockage.
This is the real world scenario in most freeway situations in CA.
The real danger is the LLCer, because forcing cars to pass on the right is far more dangerous than passing on the left. The speed differentials discussed earlier is one reason why. Theoretically, every lane to the left should be going slightly faster than the lane to the right. Why is that so hard for American's to understand and execute?
Also, forcing cars rightward sometimes requires multiple lane changes (MLC's too combine with LLC's), and then you have fast moving traffic merging with the slowest right most traffic.
It is far safer for everyone if all passing occurs on the left, in predictable fashion. The LLCer is basically forcing cars to pass on the right, causing congestion of the rightward lanes, which can lead to far more dangerious scenarios and situations.
1. Skilled, considerate professionals (drivers, skiers) wreck and get hurt too.
2. Running even well-groomed intermediate runs, even at not that fast speed, even conservatively, even wearing a helmet, or even just standing at the top with an instructor, still carries a chance of a wreck, injury, and even death. Even if you are skilled and considerate. (Just imagine if you are not.)
Skiing and driving are risky businesses by their nature. Nobody is immune. Maybe we don't need helmets after all? Too much obsession with safety makes the society a hospital.
Right?
Y'all be careful out there.
1) Skilled, considerate drivers may wreck and get hurt too, but I guarantee you it was while they were driving in an inconsiderate unskilled way. Perhaps the Slurpee from 7-Eleven tipped over, they look down, and BOOM. Maybe they were distracted in some way or by some thing.
Drivers are humans (until robots take over), so yes, human error enters the equation. No one can drive perfectly every time. However, strict discipline can greatly enhance your odds of ever being in an accident of any significance.
And skiing and driving are hardly comparable, in that with driving, you have a metal cage, structure, and bars shielding you from harm (including airbags, seatbelts and such), whereas skiing you have no protection other than what you put directly onto your body.
By default, all drivers must yield to those ahead of them on the roadway. When they don't, collisions result, and it is the fault of the individual who failed to yield to the vehicle ahead. So, if one driver wants to drive twenty over, that's not a problem if conditions permit (including open road ahead). It is also not inconsiderate because it creates no conflict. If another driver wants to drive in the left lane, that also isn't a problem if conditions permit. However, if the person driving in the left lane holds up other traffic, that's inconsiderate. If the person driving 20 over tailgates the LLC rather than going around, that's also inconsiderate.
You asked which behavior was "more dangerous." In my calculation, the inconsiderate behavior is more dangerous because inconsiderate driving behavior, by its very nature, creates conflict. I'm not passing judgement on either driver in this scenario; I'm simply answering the question you posed on a quantitative basis.
That doesn't make sense. How can volume be affected by LLCs and MLCs? Did you mean that congestion can be made worse by LLCs and MLCs? I can agree with that, although there's many many other reasons for congestion on freeways--one being many were simply not designed to handle the volume of traffic they have today.
If LLC and MLC's make that hour long trip take 1.33 hours, then the volume has just increased by 33% for certain stretches of that roadway. There is one more vehicle to deal with and have in the way for 20 more minutes.
Now... you rarely have the road to yourself. The traffic just starts compounding as you add more and more cars taking more and more time to get off the road. The only solution is to get the cars off the road faster; by helping them reach their destination quicker.
Part of the topic/discussion was flow, and going with the flow.
So, when I sometimes will just stay in right lane going 60ish with others, I observe some left laners maybe going upper 60's in left lane. The flow in left going maybe 10 more than the right.
So, when a group of left laners are passing me, it is not uncommon to see in mirror some guy, lets call him a fool, coming up fast in left lane and approaching the last of the left laners.
This fool will then tailgate the last car in the left lane pack, sometimes less than one car length, for quite a distance. Then, the fool uses some gaps in right lane, moves back and forth to advance to hopefully find his clear left lane.
Cars in packs in left lane already going over posted limit AND passing the slower mostly packed right lane are under no obligation to move over for a fool that wants to go 15-20 over. That fool should just follow and be considerate. How many guys going 15-20 over are taking their wives to the hospital that they need to go that fast.
The scenario to which I was replying was stated as, "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?"
In that case, it sounds to me as though the speeder was being perfectly considerate (slowing down behind the LLC, passing, then proceeding back to original speed).
In this revised scenario, I don't see that there is a LLC involved at all. Well, there might be, somewhere on ahead on the road, but it isn't the driver being subjected to the tailgating from "the fool."
Maybe so: fewer drivers (due to injuries/deaths from speeding) would tend to reduce traffic volumes in a given area over time.
Another sunny afternoon here, more slow moving traffic (one stretch in a 40 was moving 25-30 for no apparent reason), but nothing annoying stands out other than a slow moving old woman in a New Beetle covered with lefty political stickers who was crawling and made an insanely slow turn. Also saw the aftermath of a crash between a 90s Galant and a Caliber. I think the Galant failed to yield while making a left turn and got nailed. The older car was much more damaged, total loss without a doubt.
Actually, that's been proven false.
Individuals have a speed that they are accustomed to for each road condition... and they won't go faster than that regardless of speed limit. The problem is that this speed for nearly every driver in America is higher than the current speed limits in most areas.
I think Texas, where the maximum speed limit is 80... might be the exception, where you'll now find people driving at or below it.
When speeds are set so low that one can drive without needing to concentrate, then no one will learn anything, for there isn't the need.
---
Also, as an aside to so many here saying that speed differentials make for unsafe road conditions...
I'd say that speed differentials are safer than when all traffic in all lanes travel at the same rate. For with a speed differential, there will always be a lane (somewhere) with space available that you can slot into if needed.
By keeping everyone lockstep, side-by-side, there is no release valve for drivers in the right lane who would naturally try to move over to the middle lane in order to allow people to merge from on-ramps. Which means that traffic will have to stop/slow down to the speed of the driver merging just to allow them access (or they can just merge into your car, resulting in an accident).
Plus, in a all lanes drive at the same speed situation (ie: no speed differential), you have those drivers that have problems keeping within their own lane... who'll then crash into the neighboring car, as the neighboring car can't pass - for that'd create a speed differential, you know... and that's unsafe.
Below is a great example of what those who argue against seeing speed differentials in traffic will end up with. I find it incredibly unsafe and can't, for the life of me, understand how *ANYONE* would find it safe.
A grandmother in Florida might say that 30mph is normal for an 8-lane highway in clear weather.
And a 35 year old male might say that 70-80mph is normal for the same.
I say a 2-lane state road in the Catskills would be somewhere around 65mph as normal. Maybe slowing to 50mph on the twisty bits.
And you?
End of story.
Do that and you'll never have a problem with a speeder in the left lane.
Exactly. I don't understand why American's have such a hard time understanding the left lane is for passing.
If you aren't passing someone with some authority, move and get out of the way.
I was the one making a right turn, but at this particular intersection, you have to immediately move 2 lanes over to the left to get in the left turn lane only about 100' down the road (very very SHORT short block; not even a partial block really). Therefore, when you make the right turn, you essentially can't stay in your right most lane like your supposed to generally, at least not for long, and you have to make 2 lane changes in 2 seconds basically. Therefore, your basically right turning 2 lanes over on the left to get in the next left turn lane intersection. I get the finger and a honk from the guy turning left from the other side, and I honk back because I think I'm in the right of way, but am I? If he has to yield to straight traffic, makes sense he'd have to yield to right turning traffic as well. This is one situation where you can't really rely on both turning into their appropriate lanes at the same time.
I think the solution here is to perhaps not signal your turning right, and then when you enter the intersection "change your mind" and make the right turn into the left lane. You are legally allowed to change lanes in CA in the intersection itself. The only con to that is somebody behind you might get irked thinking you were going straight and you suddenly go right.
So, she made a LEFT turn? Down a "dead end" road?
Not necessarily so. Maybe for mid-morning, early afternoon, late night early morning and remote areas of interstates. But, many people use interstates during rush hours on business days. The right lane alone cannot handle the volume of traffic. Both left and right have traffic, with the left maybe going 5-10 faster than the right. There are gaps at times in both left and right were fools wanting to go 10-15 faster than the left lane will use those gaps to speed and get on bumper of last car in left lane grouping and do a bumper intimidation.
How can that be right, in any way, shape, or form?
So, where and when I learned to drive, those making left turn on green ("general" green, without a green arrow) were obligated to yield to everyone, both straight traffic and making a right turn. Those making rigt turn on "general" green (you) do not have to yield to anyone except for pedestrians. When you turned right, you can change lanes only if there is no continuous line. Usually, it is supposed to be there if the block is short, because in most places it is forbidden to change lanes in intersections and about 150' before them. (Changing lanes within intersections is a huge barbarity, which is, surprisingly, allowed in some states). If there is a continuous line, you have to proceed straight ahead through the intersection and later find a place where the left turn or U-turn is legal. Not signaling turning right is NOT a solution; your every maneuver, even changing lanes, must be preceded by activating a blinker at least 3 seconds in advance, you are not allowed to change mind in traffic; moreover, somebody behind you might rear-end you, not just get irked. Besides, when you turn right, you must stay in the rightmost lane, and then change lanes when appropriate (if they turn left, they must turn to the leftmost lane, BTW).
That would be my take; if someone has a knowledge of actual CA laws, let him correct me.
No... he said:
The left lane is for passing only, not going the speed limit. So, if you can't pass the car to your right at the speed you are travelling, pull over behind that car or speed up to pass.
In other words, you may drive at the posted speed limit, or any other speed you want. Just drive in the right lane unless you're passing. Drivers who sit in the left lane side-by-side with no attempt to pass or move over are impeding traffic. Speed limit enforcement is the job of the police, not Joe Public.
Yes, if cars in the left lane are passing, they are not obligated to move over. The speed at which they are traveling is the de facto "flow of traffic." But don't get me started on the "queueing" mentality that I've seen most often in Wisconsin and Oregon... where 20 cars can be lined up in the left lane, with a wide open right lane up to a slower vehicle that everyone has "queued" to pass.
As for the guy going 15-20 over because he's taking his wife to the hospital, if it's so urgent that he has to speed and run lights, isn't it urgent enough for an AMBULANCE?!
Comparing skiing and driving, I find that are similar in that your safety is ultimately determined by your skills and attitude.
If the person driving 20 over tailgates the LLC rather than going around, that's also inconsiderate.
I respectfully take issue with these concessions.
1. Everybody must drive in the rightmost available lane. It is the law. You never know when an emergency happens and where. If all right lanes are full, yes, there is no way to leave the left lane, but one must leave it as soon as there is space in the right lane.
2. It is never OK to go around (on the right). THAT is inconsiderate because it is one of the most dangerous maneuvers. Ant that is why LLCs are particularly noxious. I would much rather have someone behind me asking to give way than him passing on the right. We don't usually ask to give way because of our paranoid fear to offend an incompetent.
This brings me to another issue: lack of communication between the drivers on a freeway. We mostly communicate only by the middle finger. In most countries, left turn signal (while in the left lane) means "please let me pass". Briefly activated high beam: "cops around". Longer high beam: "Let me pass, I am saying you again!". Brief honk: "Thanks for letting me pass". Long honk: "I know, you are diehard LLC, and I hate you". We don't typically use these, and that is why we are left with the only (and the worst) options: to tailgate or to go around on the right.
I would also mention another unsafe and irritating behavior, which is (on a paper, at least) one of the worst moving violations: to cut off in a lane, or interfere with the traffic. It is not easy, though, to find a precise meaning of "interference" in driver's manuals, and most drivers interpret it according to the size of their vehicle or of their ego. Or just don't sweat such "small" stuff. In European manuals, though, "interference" is defined precisely: one interfered if his maneuver forced other drivers to change either their speed or direction. When I learned driving, interference was fined ruthlessly.
I hate LLCs too, but I don't believe that people who wish to drive within speed limits should be forced to exceed them only because some drivers want to drive faster than the limits. If you decide to exceed posted limits, that's up to you, but don't expect everyone else to do the same.
Passing should be swift and decisive, not dragged out. Otherwise, you may be even fined sometimes. Either you increase your speed (6 mph over the speed limit is not a violation) and pass safely, or abandon passing and continue 5 mph below the limit (which is perfectly legal).
Another option: tailgate that guy 5 mph below the limit, if you feel that he hinders you
The need for a "swift, decisive" passing maneuver at super-legal speeds is when you are passing on a two-lane road. In that case, some (most/all?) states allow a temporary increase in speed X mph over the limit (I've seen 10 mph in some places). But I don't think that applies to passing on a multi-lane road.
Besides, if someone is going 20 over the limit in the left lane, as in this example, increasing speed to 6 over the limit to pass won't placate them I bet.
I just think there is way too much emphasis about the convenience of people who choose to exceed speed limits, and we forget about those who choose to drive within the limits. Kinda [non-permissible content removed]-backwards, IMO.
You can pass at the speed limit if you wish if the car on the right is going at least 5 under, but don't do it when you INTERFERE (as defined by the European standard earlier) with traffic.
Interfere being defined as altering the direction or speed of other traffic is a great definition. You can pass at the speed limit all you want to, but dont' do it if your going to impede and interfere with traffic, wait for a big enough opening so that you aren't inconsiderate!
Like so many of the limits and enforcement strategies, both.
While jogging today, had a woman apologize for crowding a crosswalk - and only her bumper was over the line, I wouldn't have even noticed if she hadn't said "I'm sorry". Of course, she wasn't in a Range Rover or GL or similar like most crowders, just an older Toyota pickup.
However, on the subject of speed limits, did you guys ever hear the term "Italian Strike"? This term was born in the distant past, in the time of class warfare. During the Italian Strike, all factory workers are at their workplaces, no walkouts, but everybody is observing meticulously all rules and regulations. Naturally, any productive work stops there. Outraged boss runs in, sputtering, "What's going on?" "Well, nothing special, boss, don't worry, we are working." "Show me your work!" "Well, you know, boss, I have to be in compliance with this. And that. And that." My point is that probably trying to adhere religiously to all speed limits and make others to do the same is an equivalent of the Italian Strike in transit, with similar consequences. Just drive according to the circumstances and for God's sake take it easy and stop fretting about everything, whether it is speed, slightest rain, snow, or cops.
Speaking about cops, BTW, in my practice, cops usually don't pull you over for speeding of up to about 80 mph as long as your speed is adequate to the driving conditions.
I just wish LLC would stop their lawbreaking ways.
*sniff*
Think of the children.
Of course, because nobody wants a head-on.
Besides, if someone is going 20 over the limit in the left lane, as in this example, increasing speed to 6 over the limit to pass won't placate them I bet.
I just think there is way too much emphasis about the convenience of people who choose to exceed speed limits, and we forget about those who choose to drive within the limits.
No, it's about give and take. There are plenty of drivers out there who need to learn it, regardless of the speed at which they travel.
Bottom line, and it doesn't matter how fast anyone is going (to a point): If you can move into the right lane, and stay there long enough to let a faster driver pass, without having to slow significantly because you catch the next car, do it. If you'll catch the next car so soon that you have to slow to that guy's speed, the faster guy behind you can suck it because you're passing.
The left lane is for passing.
Then why do the people, who wish to break the law by speeding, stay in the left lane after passing those silly people who regard the speed limit instead of pulling back into those openings in the right hand lanes in between passing operations?
>End of story.
Somehow there's humor in people who want to violate the laws, which are social laws for safety, waving the flag that other people are violating the law by being in "their" leftmost lane. The logic sounds like the logic in some of the political commercials running these days: twisted to try to make a point the wrong way.
If people would just be respectful of all the laws on the road, there wouldn't be this testosterone-driven mentality of trying to dominate someone else on the highways. Just pick a good speed near the speed limit and enjoy the drive instead of trying to have a conquest each time out.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And not to excuse the behavior, but there are stretches of freeway where the road surface is such that the left lane is preferable. A frequent eye to the mirrors and moving over for faster approaching traffic & I'm usually OK.