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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/11/russian-bus-driver-takes-no-mercy-when-punish- ing-those-who-cut-h/
Also no shortage of texters and yappers around, still seems like every 3rd or 4th car has a "driver" holding a phone.
The bus can't rear-end you if you don't block it or force it to slow down.
Once I had room to not cut off the Mini, I passed him on the right, the long way around a long and sweeping left-hand curve. I'd estimate he was all the way down to 55 at this point, so I gave him an extended salute.
Suddenly he was charging back toward my bumper even as I'm at 70 mph. So with him riding my [non-permissible content removed], I acted like I was going on past my exit (incidentally right by the plant that builds his POS) until after the solid white lines part, then darted across to the ramp so he couldn't follow me.
Seriously, though, will you clarify whether you remained in the right lane after passing him? So, he was riding your bumper at 70 in the right lane? What a [non-permissible content removed]. :sick:
I just looked over and smiled...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
The AAA is spot on here.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I really wanted to move over on him and brake-check him, but as slow as he was I thought better of that. So by the time he was riding my bumper, I had long since accelerated away from him in the right lane. I'd guess he was close to 80 to catch back up.
I would think law enforcement would be all over the enforcement of this law, as it would pretty much guarantee more revenue from speeders (which is where the real money is, right?) simply due to providing more opportunity for speeders to speed. :shades:
I have said probably more than once (on this and probably other boards) the system uses the lack of lane discipline to enforce a defacto low speed limit.
One would think LEOs, the insurance cabal, and motorist groups like the AAA would all be in support of the law, as it does nothing but make traffic safer.
Insurance companies like lots of tickets and lots of minor accidents. More excuses to raise our premiums and less to pay out.
AAA is more of an insurance company with each passing day due to the demise of the travel agency as we know it.
When Indiana introduced an anti-LLC law in the late 1990s I think AARP was one of the biggest opponents.
Today's winners were an oblivious LLC in a Corolla doing about 70-72 downhill and 65 or less when climbing or passing, and a Lexus that rode my bumper down the on ramp and then weaved and tailgated his way through everything, and never once used a turn signal.
Note: That rule has nothing to do with the speed limit.
So for example: If I am in front of you in the #1 lane @ the speed limit and you want to continue in the #1 lane to get past or ahead of me, I defacto limit your speed.
Doesn't surprise me that the AAA defended such a reckless dangerous bad driver. The AAA lost all credibility and stopped being a motorists organization when they endorsed and supported Unconstitutional Red-Light camera's which have been shown to INCREASE accidents in studies favoring their insurance division, rather than what they are supposed to be, a motorist club.
Did you watch the video? Or are you relying solely on a bad Yahoo writer's headline?
If you watched the video, then you saw that her ticket had absolutely nothing to do with speed or the speed limit, and everything to do with proper lane discipline and impeding of traffic.
I don't understand why that's so hard for some drivers to understand. Black and white makes sense, it's crystal clear, it's the law, you must obey or suffer the consequences.
Unfortunately, 99% of cops never do their job.
That's the thing, LEO's, insurance companies, and AAA (is an insurance company too) are only interested in one thing, and one thing only, and the hell with anything else.
That one thing is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!! :mad:
Safety be damned. Lives be damned. It's all about the revenue.
This is why the NMA fights for motorists rights not only legislatively, but through the courts. The more people that fight wrongful speeding tickets (the most common traffic citation by far) the less profitable it is for them to continue with the charade.
Suggest you read the State's Highway Patrol manual on radar use. There's plenty of chapters on different types of errors radar has.
Blowing leaves in a tree could read as over 100 MPH.
In both cases you are not to block or impede traffic in the left/passing lane, and they are both equally illegal.
Another reason to drive a sleeper or beater?
I will admit to some LLCing when my wife and i were moving long distance, and we were trying to not get too separated. It did get her pulled in WV but she was let off with a warning... we were hitting 75 down the hills in a 60, but the officer was more concerned about the lane usage. FWIW we would at least clear the passing lane to let faster traffic through, while it was still daylight.
Still can't believe he let her off after she told him we were moving to Kentucky.
Winner today: older woman with big hair in an Envoy, varying her speed from 8 under to about the SL, and not tracking too straight. Why so wobbly? Doing a bad job trying to hold and light a cigarette and "drive" at the same time. Just as bad as a phone yapper.
Well, yes and no. If you mean that speeding is an objective "yes or no" type of offense, I would agree. That said, I suppressed more than a few radar results in my years in traffic court- and for a number of reasons. Most common was a lack of documentary proof of either operator certification or the radar unit calibration records. I once had an officer who couldn't tell me what band his unit transmitted on.
I had one officer who would write "RADAR DETECTOR IN USE" in big letters on citations. I told him that in those cases I would assume that the driver wasn't speeding- because when my Valentine One lit up I slowed down to the speed limit immediately... :P
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
One radar manufacturer used to sell a unit that would randomly show a target speed, even if nothing was moving in within a mile of the unit. The glitch was noted in the operator's manual until defense attorneys/defendants started using it in court. The manufacturer's solution? Leave the unit untouched, but delete the reference to spontaneous target speed readings.
Blowing leaves in a tree could read as over 100 MPH.
The infamous "speeding trees" story is a demonstration of operator "error." Hand-held radar guns are designed to measure relative speed, with the assumption being that the unit is being held stationary. If the gun is panned while a reading is being taken the gun still reads relative speed- the gun is moving but the target is stationary. Some officers call it "panning for gold." A friend of mine runs an on-line radar/lidar detector store and he owns several radar units that he uses to test the detectors that he sells. One day we played with a hand-held gun beside a busy suburban four lane highway. It was virtually impossible to maintain a tracking history; it could be done, but it was by no means an easy task.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
With radar, proof of speed is absolute. Anything else is seemingly seen as too subjective to *easily* prove in court.
And roadburner replied:
Well, yes and no. If you mean that speeding is an objective "yes or no" type of offense, I would agree.
Yes, probably not the ideal word choice there. But that's where I was going... speeding is objective. Either a driver is speeding or they aren't, whereas impeding traffic/LLCing and other unsafe maneuvers are more of a judgement call.
That's a bunch of hooey. They are perfectly enforceable at any speed. Criminal law isn't like contract or civil law. Just because a clause in the contract is illegal, doesn't make the whole contract illegal (often times lawyers will include that as a clause in the contract).
Criminal law doesn't work that way. Saying you were not LLCing because you are doing the maximum speed limit does not excuse the crime. Just because the traffic being impeded may be deemed "illegal" doesn't make the law of lane usages inapplicable.
A lot of officer's are just plain too lazy, too lame, too scared, and/or too corrupt to enforce it.
They make a judgment call on whether to pursue a high speed chase or not.
However, in court, your point is taken, there is a line, and that line is objective (70 MPH in CA). I think all the laws should say if you aren't in the act of passing and your in the left lane, then you are illegal. Now you have to define the "act of passing" Surely, that car a mile up the road I'm gaining on officer!
At one point, I was in the left lane - going faster than the traffic on the right and rapidly approaching two cars in front of me. The first car of the pair being a minivan going 50mph. Behind that minivan was a black SUV. After slowing down for about a minute, I noticed that the right lane had opened up, so I switched lanes and passed the two.
---
And when I looked in my rear-view mirror, I saw that the black SUV was an undercover police vehicle that then flicked on his lights and pulled the 50-mph minivan LLCer over for a ticket.
I am willing to bet that the minivan driver didn't know what they had done wrong... and when the policeman explains it, will reject the notion of 'slower traffic keep right' as a vile evil that prevents the glory that is that driver from being shown to all the world.
Had a fun drive home tonight, I attribute it to first generation North American drivers. First was on a 4 lane 40mph road that branches off in a Y intersection - 2 lanes go left, one goes right and becomes 2 lanes, with no stop sign or immediate speed limit change. White Corolla (of course!) moves right, then hits the brakes and stops. Nobody in front of it. Sorento behind it slams on the brakes, I hit my brakes hard enough to feel ABS while hitting the horn, Corolla then slowly moves forward, then floors it, then slows back down. By then I had passed it.
Not long later get hung out to dry on a red light thanks to a sensor that only lets 3 cars through when a bus is one of them. Great surplus overhead "engineers" the city employs sucking down resources then fleecing us all in retirement. Then a minute later, turn left on to a side street from a main road - or try to, as a driver similar to Corolla is mostly on the wrong side of the road. I squeeze by, keeping an eye on them thinking they are just trying to make a bad left turn - and then turn right :confuse:
Finish it off in the parking garage at home, a Mazda 3 is backing out, gets stuck, then makes a multiple point turn simply to back out of a spot, wouldn't get within a foot of any surrounding cars or poles. A few cars had backed up by then. I was seriously thinking to just get out of my car and offer to help get her car out of the spot. Are licenses this easy to get, or are some buying them?
Is that a vehicle with poor rear visibility? Can't blame the driver as much, but they need to park in a spot where they're less likely to get "boxed" in.
I was test sitting an Optima recently while shopping and that may as well be a box delivery truck for visibility out the rear. Same for the Forte 5-door. The Fusion had the same feel trying to look directly out the back along with the Focus they had in the showroom.
Since I back into my garage, visibility needs to be there, as well as for lane changes for the head turn check as an addition to using only the mirrors.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,