Again you are stating that it is not right for me to make others change their speed but that it is OK for them to force me to change their speed.
You are mixing apples and oranges. You are blaming the car behind you going faster in the left lane for making you change your speed, but that is incorrect and inaccurate. It is the car going too slow for you in the right lane that is making you change your speed, because they are forcing you to pass by driving slower than you, and passing requires you to be considerate to traffic both in front and behind you (and aware of it too).
Remember, if it wasn't for the slowest poke on the right you wouldn't be wanting to pass and the guy going 85 MPH wouldn't have an effect on you at all.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Tell me if you go shopping and someone gets to the checkout line first are they being passive aggressive? No they just got there first, you just need to wait until they are through.
No, but if you have 16 items in a 15 item maximum quick check-out line, people should be able to rightfully murder you. :P
Also, there's been a few times where I was buying 1 or 2 items and someone had a whole cart full and they got to the line maybe only a second or two before me, but saw I had a single item or two in my hand, and let me go first. It was courteous, considerate, and appreciated, but I agree, not necessary.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
So what? Again other than you seeing her on the phone was there anything wrong with her driving? If not then this is no big deal.
Would you take the same libertarian stance if it was drunk driving?
For example, should open alcohol containers be allowed while driving, and the driver allowed to drink, as long as they don't drink so much to impair their driving to being any worse than the "average" driver, or to be over the legal limit of .08 BAC in most States?
Some driver's afterall, might be better drivers at .08 than a lot of the "average" drivers out there; should they get special leeway? Should DUI checkpoints be outlawed then, and only stop people who exhibit "drunk driving" characteristics?
When it comes to cell phones and Drinking while driving, I'm actually on the side of enforcement. I am however, against random unsubstantiated, unwarranted checkpoints which basically amount to unjust search and seizure without probable cause.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
That reminds me of a funny and nearly unbelievable story... but maybe not so unbelievable given this thread...
My wife had a couple items and was standing in the checkout line at the grocery store. A woman in business attire with a loaded cart came up to her and said, "Since you only have a couple of things, do you mind if I go ahead of you, I'm in a hurry."
My wife just stared at her, incredulous, thinking, "Huh?!?" Then she checked out.
For example, should open alcohol containers be allowed while driving, and the driver allowed to drink, as long as they don't drink so much to impair their driving to being any worse than the "average" driver, or to be over the legal limit of .08 BAC in most States?
Andres brings up an excellent point.
A person can go into a bar, drink up to just below the .08 limit and get into car or pickup and drive away perfectly legal. But, on a hot summer day, a person leaving his/her placed of work in late afternoon cannot drink just one can of ice cold beer on the way home while driving in their car.
Obviously, lawmakers decided that the negatives of open liquor/beer in a car was very dangerous and outlawed any and all open liquor containers in a vehicle on public roads.
And those same people are very likely to be the ones in that left lane, even if they can't or won't admit it.
Speed differentials exist in much greater proportion in some places than here - and those places don't seem to have any more of a bloodbath on the roads. The slowpoke scaredy cats just become afraid or maybe envious when someone with a pulse zooms by.
Parking lots are like demolition derby courses around here. The newbies who shouldn't have licenses just can't grasp them, combine that with posh CUV driving phone yapping trophies, and you'll be using the horn a lot. I always park in a remote row or alongside a barrier to lessen the chances of damage. I also try not to shop at peak hours.
Some of your nightmare is more reason to require special credentials to drive a tall/wide vehicle, too.
Nobody pays me to drive, to sleep, to eat or watch TV, therefore, these activities don't cost me any money even though they all take time. So driving an extra 1/2 hour per week by keeping my speed down costs me the same as sleeping an extra 1/2 hour per week, watching an extra 1/2 hour TV show per week, or eating dinner a little slower every day taking an extra 1/2 hour per week...and the cost is $0.00.
On the other hand, driving techniques to improve MPG (slowing down and speeding up gradually, keeping at the highway speed limit, and in general not racing around passing folks) will all improve MPG and will save $$$ by using less gas to go the same distance.
If someone believes they're losing $0.50/minute based on $30/hour (or whatever their hourly wage happens to be) for every extra minute they're driving must then also believe their losing $0.50/minute for every minute they sleep, or every minute they're watching TV. I can show someone the money saved by getting better MPG...real money, but somone cannot show me any money earned from speeding...not a cent. Anyone thinking that they're losing money by spending an extra 5 minutes on their commute is an idiot, again, unless they think they're losing money anytime they're not at work.
So as I'm listening to my podcast with the car on cruise control in the right lane on the highway going at or just below the speed limit, just realize that as those speed by me that regardless of what they think, in reality I'm driving smarter, more effeciently, and yes, safer.
So as I'm listening to my podcast with the car on cruise control in the right lane on the highway going at or just below the speed limit, just realize that as those speed by me that regardless of what they think, in reality I'm driving smarter, more effeciently, and yes, safer.
I would say that you are "operating" your transport pod, not "driving"- but if that gives you the warm -and condescending- fuzzies, have at it...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
So driving an extra 1/2 hour per week by keeping my speed down costs me the same as sleeping an extra 1/2 hour per week, watching an extra 1/2 hour TV show per week, or eating dinner a little slower every day taking an extra 1/2 hour per week...and the cost is $0.00.
Anyone thinking that they're losing money by spending an extra 5 minutes on their commute is an idiot, again, unless they think they're losing money anytime they're not at work
No that's not. Many times it's either them slowing down or it's me. One of us has do to it.
Lets say I am in the right lane doing 70 and a half mile ahead of me is someone doing 55 and a half mile behind me is someone doing 85. All three cars will be at the same spot at the same time. If there is only two lanes going in our direction either I have to or the guy behind me has to slow down and not by a slight amount. So i cannot drive as I always been driving, in the right lane, because I will hit the car in front of me.
It's give and take. In that situation, if it's just one speed demon, I'll give. If it's several speed demons lined up, I'll jump out while I can, and probably speed up to 75 instead of 70, so I can complete my pass a few seconds quicker. (20mph speed difference = 7 sec to pass, 15mph difference = 10 sec to pass)
20 seconds seems like a long time to me though; it might be reasonable when passing a double trailered semi-truck, but I think most would be ticked if it took you that long to safely pass a Fiat 500
OK then, what IS a reasonable time to spend passing a slower vehicle on the Interstate?!
Remember, most of the pass is getting out into the passing lane without rear-ending the pass-ee, and getting back to the right without cutting them off.
>And that you didn't check your rear-view mirror beforehand to see if someone was rapidly approaching you prior to entering the left lane.
How close does that entitled overtaking car have to be before noone else is allowed to encroach on their lane. And shouldn't that car be in the right lane anyhow: the left is only to be used while passing, isn't it?
This brings up the attitude of many speeders and that is that they are entitled to only use the left lane while everyone else is supposed to jump into and out of the right hand lane to keep the left hand lane open.
Somehow there's a double standard to the "keep right except to pass" philosoophy in that it applies only to those lowly folks going slower than the speeder in the left hand lane.
This all comes down to the idea of sharing the road and having courtesy while driving. That applies to speeders as well, in fact, moreso because if someone considers themself a superior driver (is there such a thiing) then they should exemplify courtesy and sharing of the road, nicht wahr?
Thinking more about an earlier post about the guy trying to pass the slow car needs to allow about 1000 ft from the car rushing up in the left lane.... that's 50+ car lengths! Nice idea if the freeway has little traffic AND the car in the left lane happens to be that far back when you want to pass, but under more normal conditions cars won't be maintaining anywhere near that much following distance.
The key point is just as you said: share the road, have courtesy while driving. If everyone did that, speeders and slowpokes alike, what a wonderful world it would be on the roadways.
Was at a local shopping center today, that has a really strange set up now for in/out (just redone last year to accommodate a new hospital across the street). In order to make a left, you have to go straight across and make a jug handle to bring you back to the cross street. But at least, when you come off the loop, it is into a new, dedicated lane.
well, I come around, and have to stop. My wife says why are you stopping, as I point to the range rover that decided to blow up the shoulder putting him right only my entrance ramp/lane. All because he was too impatient to wait to get through the upcoming light to get to the right to get into a gas station.
I did have the right of way, and I am sure plenty of people don't even check what is coming there, but if I hadn't my daughter most likely would have had a RR in her lap in the back seat!
I used it as an object lesson for her. Always look, even if nothing is supposed to be there. And of course, all the other drivers on the road are idiots that are out to get you.
Honestly, people should drive cars using the motorcycle philosophy roadburner laid out (being invisible and all that).
Something relatively similar happened to a co-worker once. He was exiting a highway during slow traffic, got into the off ramp lane like a normal person would, and was rear-ended hard by a truck that had been flying up the shoulder. Absolutely demolished his Corolla, must have hit it at 50mph, easy total loss. Luckily nobody was hurt, but the guy who hit him was cited.
Shoulder runners are a pet peeve of mine, especially in the upper class town I work in.
The other day I was stopped at an intersection and I watched a pickup drive on the shoulder past two other cars signaling for a right turn. The pick up was hoping to do a right on red without stopping. As he got past the rear car the light turned green and he almost clobbered the front car as she made her turn. I have seen that same behavior many times at that corner.
I've also seen cars pass a dozen other cars on the shoulder in front of the local police station. :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
On the other hand, driving techniques to improve MPG (slowing down and speeding up gradually, keeping at the highway speed limit, and in general not racing around passing folks) will all improve MPG and will save $$$ by using less gas to go the same distance.
If someone believes they're losing $0.50/minute based on $30/hour (or whatever their hourly wage happens to be) for every extra minute they're driving must then also believe their losing $0.50/minute for every minute they sleep, or every minute they're watching TV. I can show someone the money saved by getting better MPG...real money, but somone cannot show me any money earned from speeding...not a cent.
Nobody is claiming that the extra time spent commuting at a slower pace costs them money. It costs them TIME. It's called opportunity cost.
So when you pitch driving slower as a way to save money, I know it's real money but I'm still going to look at how much time it costs me. One of the examples given in this thread showed an annual savings of $200 in fuel costs by spending an extra 25-29 hours commuting at a slower pace. In essence you are paying yourself $7-8 per hour by choosing to drive more slowly.
The extra time spent driving could be spent on other things. Is the cost savings worth your time?
OK then, what IS a reasonable time to spend passing a slower vehicle on the Interstate?!
In the keep right /passing video we've been referring to a lot lately, I counted about 10 seconds for a well demonstrated safe and secure pass.
I would say anywhere from 5 to 20 seconds is reasonable, depending on the size of the vehicle you are overtaking. Anymore than 20 seconds, and there is something wrong.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
5 seconds seems a bit quick on the freeway. You really don't need to hurry out of the left lane THAT fast. Either you're going way too fast, or the passed vehicle is so slow it shouldn't be on the interstate!
If on the interstate I'm only going 5 mph faster than whoever I want to pass, I'm going to maintain steady speed, do a nice, smooth pass, then move back over. No sense in having to spurt past a slowpoke.
I remember an item from driver's ed (waaaay back when) that stated the best recommended passing speed (assuming 1 lane each direction) was 15 mph faster than the target vehicle. That apparently was the best combination of speed/time/safety.
5 seconds seems a bit quick on the freeway. You really don't need to hurry out of the left lane THAT fast. Either you're going way too fast, or the passed vehicle is so slow it shouldn't be on the interstate!
A bit? If you start moving into the left lane before you're tailgating, and then pass, and then move into the right lane without cutting the other guy off, you've got to make up roughly 200 feet.
90 ft behind + 15 ft of vehicle + 90 ft ahead=195 ft, close enough
To do that in 5 seconds means your speed differential is 40 ft/sec, or between 25 and 30 mph. Ridiculous.
Mind you, this is from when you start your move into the left lane, until you've completely cleared it.
The 15 mph speed differential that is desirable for a pass on a 2-lane has you out there for about 10 seconds. And that's still a bigger difference than we see with most interstate passes.
The extra time spent driving could be spent on other things. Is the cost savings worth your time?
You're right...that's the bottom line. And it is about 1/2 hour per week of extra driving to save about $4 in gas a week. But it's still positive cash flow for an extra 6 minutes of driving per day, and if you really that concerned about time efficiency, there are many other ways of being more efficient and saving time that won't cost you $200 per year.
You can cut out 1/2 an hour of a stupid TV show per week, wake up six minutes earlier every day, etc...and none of these things will cost you money. So if you want to make up that extra six minutes a day spent driving, then you can become more efficient to make up that lost time and still get the $200 per year.
To me, the six minutes extra driving per day is very insignificant. My daily schedule has enough "slush-time" built in that I can easily make it up. And it's not solely for the $200 per year I'll make. There are other benefits. I can finish my podcast on the drive to work. I'm helping reduce our nations overall gas consumption, which is a good thing. I'm emmitting less pollution in the environment. My type of driving (slow starts, gradual slow downs, etc) is better on the car's internal components (transmission, brakes, etc), so that saves money on maintenance. My consistent drving habits (verses a lot of speeding, passing, changing lanes, etc) allows for a more safe driving environment because it's easier for others to drive around/by a driver like myslelf who is driving in a very controlled and consistent manner.
So to me, yes, the 6 minutes of extra driving per day is worth it for the above reasons. I'd much rather make up those 6 minutes in other ways.
And my point is that driving 65 mph instead of 75 mph isn't going to affect world oil prices - that is being driven by increased demand in China and India.
Driving 65 mph instead of 75 mph isn't going to "keep gas prices down."
Exactly. My art of understatement got in the way. Another Driver's Ed nuggest from the past said something to the effect that after the pass, you shouldn't return to your lane until you can see the passed vehicle's bumpers in your rear view mirror. That would also extend your 'hang time' in the passing lane.
What it all boils down to is don't be a goob and pass at a 1 mph differential.
snakeweasel: While the number of miles driven declined at the onset of the gas shortages in 1973 by the end of 1974 the were well on their way up again. Yet traffic fatalities stayed low.
The fatality rate rose (from its low point earlier in the year) after the 55 mph speed limit was imposed nationwide in March 1974. The lower fatalities in the first part of the year were enough to cause a decline for the entire year. Note, also that even after the fuel shortage ended, the economy remained in a serious recession, which depressed driving from the boom years of 1972-73.
At any rate, fatalities also declined dramatically in 2008 and 2009, in response to the economic collapse and higher gasoline prices. Yet, speed limits remained unchanged, or some states increased them.
The logical inference, looking at all of the data, is that speed limits are simply irrelevant in improving traffic safety on limited access highways.
snakeweasel: Yes and many of the ones that have been done suggest that the odds of a fatal accident increase with speed. The ones that don't almost always seem to be put out by advocates for higher speed limits.
And the ones that you cite are produced by advocates for lower speed limits. If you really believe that the studies supporting your view don't have an agenda, I'd suggest not being so naive in the future.
snakeweasel: Being required to wear seat belts and actually wearing them are two different things. It took years to start getting compliance up. Even after South Dakota enacted its seat belt law national seat belt usage was estimated at 2/3rds. It slowly increased to where its almost 90%. So yes increased seat belt usage has been a factor in decreasing fatalities since the national SL was repealed.
In 1987, national 55 mph speed limit was modified to allow states to increase it to 65 mph. The 65 mph speed limit was repealed completely in late 1995, and over 30 states did raise their limit during 1996. The nation's overall fatality rate fell both times. Did everyone suddenly start wearing safety belts in 1987 and 1996?
"And my point is that driving 65 mph instead of 75 mph isn't going to affect world oil prices - that is being driven by increased demand in China and India. "
So 40% of 20 million = 8 million barrels of oil per day by passenger vehicles. If everyone drove more efficiently and improved MPG by 10-15%, that would save 1 million barrels a day. If people bought cars averaging 40mpg vs 25mpg, that would save 3 million barrels per day. China used 10 million barrels per day, which is significant; however, given supply/demand principles, pulling out 1-3 million barrels per day of oil use though American driving habits and/or vehicle purchases would still be significant.
But like with anything else, while from an individual perspective the savings seem insignificant, when combined with everyone else they can become substantial.
That link doesn't prove that we should drive 65 mph to avoid an increase in the price of gasoline. You are jumping to conclusions.
Note that "driving more efficiently" encompasses much more than driving 65 mph instead of 75 mph on the highway. It includes accelerating more slowly from traffic signals and avoiding variations in speeds while cruising down the highway. You can take those steps and still drive 75 mph on the highway (I do it all the time).
Plus, you are assuming that every car will get 10 percent better mileage at 65 mph than 75 mph. Not necessarily so.
At any rate, the 10 million barrels of oil used daily by China (and let's add the figures for India, while we're at it) easily outweighs the amount saved by "more efficient driving" in this country, which, as I've shown, encompasses a lot more than keeping the speedometer needle pegged at 65 mph on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Also note that your link is out of date - the charts all end at 2005. Meanwhile, gasoline usage in this country has DECLINED 6 percent since its latest peak in 2007.
In 2007, there were 3.39 million barrels of gasoline burned in the United States. By 2011, this figure had dipped to 3.19 million barrels, which is 6 percent below the 2007 figure. All without a change in the speed limit. (Well, except for those states that increased it on certain roads).
If you want to drive 65 mph - fine, just stay in the slow lane. I'll keep enjoying the capabilities of modern cars. But, sorry, driving at slower speeds is literally a drop in the bucket when it comes to global gasoline usage - which, of course, is taking the worldwide view that you advocate.
Virtually every Prius I've seen on the highway has been traveling at 75-80 mph. They certainly aren't being driven by hypermilers, let alone left-lane campers.
Some folks here love to stereotype, but I totally agree with you on that one. The Prius I see don't stand out as going particularly slower or faster than anyone else.
Didn't Al Gore Jr. get pulled over doing 100+ in one?
They've sold 4 million so yes I'm sure some are driven slowly, as with any other best seller.
Actually, once they get moving, most local Prius move with the flow of traffic, too. But some take their sweet time getting up to speed. The economy readouts should be disabled when the accelerator is pressed.
Yes, in 2007, Al Gore, Jr., was pulled over for driving 100 mph in a Prius. No doubt he had been lurking on these forums, and didn't want to be one of those dreaded left-lane campers. Hence, the triple-digit speed.
Why not back in first instead of backing out later?
I second that. Wanted to comment earlier, but was busy, and euphonium pre-empted me. That is how they teach drivers to do in European driver's schools. That may appear counterintuitive (basic physics teaches us that the trajectories are fully reversible), but just try for yourself to see how much easier life becomes.
100% of the time at home and work I back in, and I do it whenever possible in other areas, too. Easier to move forward around obstacles in motion than to reverse, especially in modern cars that offer so little rearward visibility.
Plus the 54 mph Prius hypermilers will more than balance out a few low MPG cruisers.
In the grand scheme of things, hybrids save neither money nor the Planet. Whatever fuel/pollution they save, it was already wasted/produced in the process of their manufacturing. Quantitatively? Well, price is generally the best available proxy to estimate the resource expenditure.
So, like sports cars, like SUVs, the hybrids are just another way of making a statement.
Comments
You are mixing apples and oranges. You are blaming the car behind you going faster in the left lane for making you change your speed, but that is incorrect and inaccurate. It is the car going too slow for you in the right lane that is making you change your speed, because they are forcing you to pass by driving slower than you, and passing requires you to be considerate to traffic both in front and behind you (and aware of it too).
Remember, if it wasn't for the slowest poke on the right you wouldn't be wanting to pass and the guy going 85 MPH wouldn't have an effect on you at all.
No, but if you have 16 items in a 15 item maximum quick check-out line, people should be able to rightfully murder you. :P
Also, there's been a few times where I was buying 1 or 2 items and someone had a whole cart full and they got to the line maybe only a second or two before me, but saw I had a single item or two in my hand, and let me go first. It was courteous, considerate, and appreciated, but I agree, not necessary.
Would you take the same libertarian stance if it was drunk driving?
For example, should open alcohol containers be allowed while driving, and the driver allowed to drink, as long as they don't drink so much to impair their driving to being any worse than the "average" driver, or to be over the legal limit of .08 BAC in most States?
Some driver's afterall, might be better drivers at .08 than a lot of the "average" drivers out there; should they get special leeway? Should DUI checkpoints be outlawed then, and only stop people who exhibit "drunk driving" characteristics?
When it comes to cell phones and Drinking while driving, I'm actually on the side of enforcement. I am however, against random unsubstantiated, unwarranted checkpoints which basically amount to unjust search and seizure without probable cause.
My wife had a couple items and was standing in the checkout line at the grocery store. A woman in business attire with a loaded cart came up to her and said, "Since you only have a couple of things, do you mind if I go ahead of you, I'm in a hurry."
My wife just stared at her, incredulous, thinking, "Huh?!?" Then she checked out.
And we actually have people here that post how having a speed differential on the road is dangerous/hazardous.
Well, considering that the left lane is for passing, it'd have to mean that you just entered into it (because you only enter it to pass).
And that you didn't check your rear-view mirror beforehand to see if someone was rapidly approaching you prior to entering the left lane.
After all, one should pass quickly and safely (as seen here: Passing).
:P
Andres brings up an excellent point.
A person can go into a bar, drink up to just below the .08 limit and get into car or pickup and drive away perfectly legal. But, on a hot summer day, a person leaving his/her placed of work in late afternoon cannot drink just one can of ice cold beer on the way home while driving in their car.
Obviously, lawmakers decided that the negatives of open liquor/beer in a car was very dangerous and outlawed any and all open liquor containers in a vehicle on public roads.
Speed differentials exist in much greater proportion in some places than here - and those places don't seem to have any more of a bloodbath on the roads. The slowpoke scaredy cats just become afraid or maybe envious when someone with a pulse zooms by.
Some of your nightmare is more reason to require special credentials to drive a tall/wide vehicle, too.
On the other hand, driving techniques to improve MPG (slowing down and speeding up gradually, keeping at the highway speed limit, and in general not racing around passing folks) will all improve MPG and will save $$$ by using less gas to go the same distance.
If someone believes they're losing $0.50/minute based on $30/hour (or whatever their hourly wage happens to be) for every extra minute they're driving must then also believe their losing $0.50/minute for every minute they sleep, or every minute they're watching TV. I can show someone the money saved by getting better MPG...real money, but somone cannot show me any money earned from speeding...not a cent. Anyone thinking that they're losing money by spending an extra 5 minutes on their commute is an idiot, again, unless they think they're losing money anytime they're not at work.
So as I'm listening to my podcast with the car on cruise control in the right lane on the highway going at or just below the speed limit, just realize that as those speed by me that regardless of what they think, in reality I'm driving smarter, more effeciently, and yes, safer.
I would say that you are "operating" your transport pod, not "driving"- but if that gives you the warm -and condescending- fuzzies, have at it...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Anyone thinking that they're losing money by spending an extra 5 minutes on their commute is an idiot, again, unless they think they're losing money anytime they're not at work
A thoughtful and excellent post.
Lets say I am in the right lane doing 70 and a half mile ahead of me is someone doing 55 and a half mile behind me is someone doing 85. All three cars will be at the same spot at the same time. If there is only two lanes going in our direction either I have to or the guy behind me has to slow down and not by a slight amount. So i cannot drive as I always been driving, in the right lane, because I will hit the car in front of me.
It's give and take. In that situation, if it's just one speed demon, I'll give. If it's several speed demons lined up, I'll jump out while I can, and probably speed up to 75 instead of 70, so I can complete my pass a few seconds quicker. (20mph speed difference = 7 sec to pass, 15mph difference = 10 sec to pass)
OK then, what IS a reasonable time to spend passing a slower vehicle on the Interstate?!
Remember, most of the pass is getting out into the passing lane without rear-ending the pass-ee, and getting back to the right without cutting them off.
How close does that entitled overtaking car have to be before noone else is allowed to encroach on their lane. And shouldn't that car be in the right lane anyhow: the left is only to be used while passing, isn't it?
This brings up the attitude of many speeders and that is that they are entitled to only use the left lane while everyone else is supposed to jump into and out of the right hand lane to keep the left hand lane open.
Somehow there's a double standard to the "keep right except to pass" philosoophy in that it applies only to those lowly folks going slower than the speeder in the left hand lane.
This all comes down to the idea of sharing the road and having courtesy while driving. That applies to speeders as well, in fact, moreso because if someone considers themself a superior driver (is there such a thiing) then they should exemplify courtesy and sharing of the road, nicht wahr?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Thinking more about an earlier post about the guy trying to pass the slow car needs to allow about 1000 ft from the car rushing up in the left lane.... that's 50+ car lengths! Nice idea if the freeway has little traffic AND the car in the left lane happens to be that far back when you want to pass, but under more normal conditions cars won't be maintaining anywhere near that much following distance.
The key point is just as you said: share the road, have courtesy while driving. If everyone did that, speeders and slowpokes alike, what a wonderful world it would be on the roadways.
No, I'm driving...I can just drive and listen to the radio at the same time. Can't you??? :P
well, I come around, and have to stop. My wife says why are you stopping, as I point to the range rover that decided to blow up the shoulder putting him right only my entrance ramp/lane. All because he was too impatient to wait to get through the upcoming light to get to the right to get into a gas station.
I did have the right of way, and I am sure plenty of people don't even check what is coming there, but if I hadn't my daughter most likely would have had a RR in her lap in the back seat!
I used it as an object lesson for her. Always look, even if nothing is supposed to be there. And of course, all the other drivers on the road are idiots that are out to get you.
Honestly, people should drive cars using the motorcycle philosophy roadburner laid out (being invisible and all that).
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
The other day I was stopped at an intersection and I watched a pickup drive on the shoulder past two other cars signaling for a right turn. The pick up was hoping to do a right on red without stopping. As he got past the rear car the light turned green and he almost clobbered the front car as she made her turn. I have seen that same behavior many times at that corner.
I've also seen cars pass a dozen other cars on the shoulder in front of the local police station. :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
If someone believes they're losing $0.50/minute based on $30/hour (or whatever their hourly wage happens to be) for every extra minute they're driving must then also believe their losing $0.50/minute for every minute they sleep, or every minute they're watching TV. I can show someone the money saved by getting better MPG...real money, but somone cannot show me any money earned from speeding...not a cent.
Nobody is claiming that the extra time spent commuting at a slower pace costs them money. It costs them TIME. It's called opportunity cost.
So when you pitch driving slower as a way to save money, I know it's real money but I'm still going to look at how much time it costs me. One of the examples given in this thread showed an annual savings of $200 in fuel costs by spending an extra 25-29 hours commuting at a slower pace. In essence you are paying yourself $7-8 per hour by choosing to drive more slowly.
The extra time spent driving could be spent on other things. Is the cost savings worth your time?
In the keep right /passing video we've been referring to a lot lately, I counted about 10 seconds for a well demonstrated safe and secure pass.
I would say anywhere from 5 to 20 seconds is reasonable, depending on the size of the vehicle you are overtaking. Anymore than 20 seconds, and there is something wrong.
If on the interstate I'm only going 5 mph faster than whoever I want to pass, I'm going to maintain steady speed, do a nice, smooth pass, then move back over. No sense in having to spurt past a slowpoke.
I remember an item from driver's ed (waaaay back when) that stated the best recommended passing speed (assuming 1 lane each direction) was 15 mph faster than the target vehicle. That apparently was the best combination of speed/time/safety.
A bit? If you start moving into the left lane before you're tailgating, and then pass, and then move into the right lane without cutting the other guy off, you've got to make up roughly 200 feet.
90 ft behind + 15 ft of vehicle + 90 ft ahead=195 ft, close enough
To do that in 5 seconds means your speed differential is 40 ft/sec, or between 25 and 30 mph. Ridiculous.
Mind you, this is from when you start your move into the left lane, until you've completely cleared it.
The 15 mph speed differential that is desirable for a pass on a 2-lane has you out there for about 10 seconds. And that's still a bigger difference than we see with most interstate passes.
You're right...that's the bottom line. And it is about 1/2 hour per week of extra driving to save about $4 in gas a week. But it's still positive cash flow for an extra 6 minutes of driving per day, and if you really that concerned about time efficiency, there are many other ways of being more efficient and saving time that won't cost you $200 per year.
You can cut out 1/2 an hour of a stupid TV show per week, wake up six minutes earlier every day, etc...and none of these things will cost you money. So if you want to make up that extra six minutes a day spent driving, then you can become more efficient to make up that lost time and still get the $200 per year.
To me, the six minutes extra driving per day is very insignificant. My daily schedule has enough "slush-time" built in that I can easily make it up. And it's not solely for the $200 per year I'll make. There are other benefits. I can finish my podcast on the drive to work. I'm helping reduce our nations overall gas consumption, which is a good thing. I'm emmitting less pollution in the environment. My type of driving (slow starts, gradual slow downs, etc) is better on the car's internal components (transmission, brakes, etc), so that saves money on maintenance. My consistent drving habits (verses a lot of speeding, passing, changing lanes, etc) allows for a more safe driving environment because it's easier for others to drive around/by a driver like myslelf who is driving in a very controlled and consistent manner.
So to me, yes, the 6 minutes of extra driving per day is worth it for the above reasons. I'd much rather make up those 6 minutes in other ways.
Driving 65 mph instead of 75 mph isn't going to "keep gas prices down."
Another Driver's Ed nuggest from the past said something to the effect that after the pass, you shouldn't return to your lane until you can see the passed vehicle's bumpers in your rear view mirror. That would also extend your 'hang time' in the passing lane.
What it all boils down to is don't be a goob and pass at a 1 mph differential.
The fatality rate rose (from its low point earlier in the year) after the 55 mph speed limit was imposed nationwide in March 1974. The lower fatalities in the first part of the year were enough to cause a decline for the entire year. Note, also that even after the fuel shortage ended, the economy remained in a serious recession, which depressed driving from the boom years of 1972-73.
At any rate, fatalities also declined dramatically in 2008 and 2009, in response to the economic collapse and higher gasoline prices. Yet, speed limits remained unchanged, or some states increased them.
The logical inference, looking at all of the data, is that speed limits are simply irrelevant in improving traffic safety on limited access highways.
snakeweasel: Yes and many of the ones that have been done suggest that the odds of a fatal accident increase with speed. The ones that don't almost always seem to be put out by advocates for higher speed limits.
And the ones that you cite are produced by advocates for lower speed limits. If you really believe that the studies supporting your view don't have an agenda, I'd suggest not being so naive in the future.
snakeweasel: Being required to wear seat belts and actually wearing them are two different things. It took years to start getting compliance up. Even after South Dakota enacted its seat belt law national seat belt usage was estimated at 2/3rds. It slowly increased to where its almost 90%. So yes increased seat belt usage has been a factor in decreasing fatalities since the national SL was repealed.
In 1987, national 55 mph speed limit was modified to allow states to increase it to 65 mph. The 65 mph speed limit was repealed completely in late 1995, and over 30 states did raise their limit during 1996. The nation's overall fatality rate fell both times. Did everyone suddenly start wearing safety belts in 1987 and 1996?
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp
"Of the 20 million barrels of oil consumed each day, 40 percent is used by passenger vehicles " in the US.
So 40% of 20 million = 8 million barrels of oil per day by passenger vehicles. If everyone drove more efficiently and improved MPG by 10-15%, that would save 1 million barrels a day. If people bought cars averaging 40mpg vs 25mpg, that would save 3 million barrels per day. China used 10 million barrels per day, which is significant; however, given supply/demand principles, pulling out 1-3 million barrels per day of oil use though American driving habits and/or vehicle purchases would still be significant.
But like with anything else, while from an individual perspective the savings seem insignificant, when combined with everyone else they can become substantial.
Note that "driving more efficiently" encompasses much more than driving 65 mph instead of 75 mph on the highway. It includes accelerating more slowly from traffic signals and avoiding variations in speeds while cruising down the highway. You can take those steps and still drive 75 mph on the highway (I do it all the time).
Plus, you are assuming that every car will get 10 percent better mileage at 65 mph than 75 mph. Not necessarily so.
At any rate, the 10 million barrels of oil used daily by China (and let's add the figures for India, while we're at it) easily outweighs the amount saved by "more efficient driving" in this country, which, as I've shown, encompasses a lot more than keeping the speedometer needle pegged at 65 mph on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Also note that your link is out of date - the charts all end at 2005. Meanwhile, gasoline usage in this country has DECLINED 6 percent since its latest peak in 2007.
In 2007, there were 3.39 million barrels of gasoline burned in the United States. By 2011, this figure had dipped to 3.19 million barrels, which is 6 percent below the 2007 figure. All without a change in the speed limit. (Well, except for those states that increased it on certain roads).
If you want to drive 65 mph - fine, just stay in the slow lane. I'll keep enjoying the capabilities of modern cars. But, sorry, driving at slower speeds is literally a drop in the bucket when it comes to global gasoline usage - which, of course, is taking the worldwide view that you advocate.
Didn't Al Gore Jr. get pulled over doing 100+ in one?
They've sold 4 million so yes I'm sure some are driven slowly, as with any other best seller.
Actually, once they get moving, most local Prius move with the flow of traffic, too. But some take their sweet time getting up to speed. The economy readouts should be disabled when the accelerator is pressed.
I think you're applying selective attention yet again. :P
For some odd reason they all seem to get in front of you, and not most other folks.
Also, drivers in this area are simply slower than most. Combine that with the greenie mentality, and...
I don't get out much. :lemon:
7 Springs is a bit better.
Who knows if we bump into each other some day in winter... I almost stopped skiing at Hidden Valley, but am a passholder at 7 Springs.
Too bad :-)
Edit: it is not really much worse than to accept an arbitrary, demeaning and undignified ban on open alcohol containers in the car.
I second that. Wanted to comment earlier, but was busy, and euphonium pre-empted me. That is how they teach drivers to do in European driver's schools. That may appear counterintuitive (basic physics teaches us that the trajectories are fully reversible), but just try for yourself to see how much easier life becomes.
In the grand scheme of things, hybrids save neither money nor the Planet. Whatever fuel/pollution they save, it was already wasted/produced in the process of their manufacturing. Quantitatively? Well, price is generally the best available proxy to estimate the resource expenditure.
So, like sports cars, like SUVs, the hybrids are just another way of making a statement.