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
I wish that were the case. If it were true they would get behind not alongside since that won't protect them from radar. The only protection is to drop behind where my brake lights are visible and they have enough distance to slow down in time.
I hate it when you are in the left going up a hill blowing by all of the slow pokes in the right lane and some idiot wants stay in the left and slow you momentum down, and another is on a two lane road when there is no passing they want to go 50-60 then when passing is allowed or passing lane they speed up, well i get rid of them cuz i hate when people play games out there, my slogans is drive or get out of the way, dont get me wrong i am no super speeder, try to keep it under 10 over, but when i see these kinds i speed to 100 if i have to passs the jerks once and for all, i am sure some of you out ther have had this happen to you, i stay in the left if there is lots of semis but if i am in the left and see somebody gaining on me i get behind the semi to let them pass, or if i am behind a semi and want the left i will speed up to not impede on the flow of traffic.
well thats my opinion some may disaggree but its an opinion.
All I am saying is that you can eliminate the majority of inconsiderate driving and "road rage" by instituting and enforcing keep right except to pass.
In addition you will save a considerable number of lives.
This will also take care of much of the problem driving having to do with talking on phones applying makeup etc. The reason being that the majority of times I see it as a problem the driver is in the LEFT lane weaving. If we institute keep right except to pass we can safely blow by these idiots when we think it is safe to do so rather than having them hang out next to us.
As for those of you concerned about being stuck in the right lane going too slowly. I can assure you that if the faster drivers are allowed to get by, without being roadblocked in the passing lane, you will not have a buildup of cars that will take 5 minutes to go by in close proximity to each other.
In addition whenever I have seen the situation described in the previous paragraph, the right lane is basically doing the speed limit. Your real complaint is that the speed limits are too low and you want to hang out in the left lane at a higher speed but don't want to be courteous and pullover to allow others to pass.
I don't really mind when people use me to screen for cops... as long as they follow at a considerable distance. Nowadays I don't really drive fast enough to attract speed leeches. Nine times out of ten, a faster car comes within minutes and pulls the leech off me.
Btw, Mond, can you please mark your text somehow when you are quoting someone, using something like > or " or italics? Sometime I think you have multiple personalites or something. Thanks!
Usually I tolerate a safe following distance behind me but if they tend to stay closer I pass someone and pull over in front of them and let the tail hang. Usually they'll pass and go on. Women seem to expecially like to follow me at 3-4 over the limit that I often drive.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I wouldalmost totally agree with this. This is probably one of the most subliminal issues that drives LLCing behaviors. Another is perhaps folks are offended at a deep level by the signs "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS" or Slow Traffic Keep Right. They do not want others and themselves to be perceived as SLOW!! i.e., mentally, physical coordination or INEPT or RETARDED. Almost 80% of the time that I look, out on a 4 lane freeway, the MAJORITY of the traffic is moving in the #1 and the #2 lanes. #'s 3 and 4 lane have way less cars or a few scofflaws that are actually "going the speed limit" or "SLOW". It is pretty near a defacto case for the speed limiting being too low.
The bottom line is that not all vehicles that have a faster vehicle come up behind are LLCers
you:
Why would you think I would disagree with this?
I dunno. Why would you think I would think you would disagree with this? (tag, you're it)
YOU assert that I wrote it...
Um, no, actually, I didn't.
...if one is following the 2-3 second follow distance this still can be bunching.
I think "bunching" is a pretty loose term that isn't very helpful here. The notion that, if there's any bunching behind you, then you are a LLC is also not reasonable.
If 2 or three drivers come up behind doing 80-85 and I am doing 75 in a 65 and I will be impeded if I move right over, I will not and that is perfectly reasonable. If a gap comes (on the right) and I still don't move over, then that is unreasonable. IMO.
The concept is pretty easy: more space is better.
Not always, it's a compromise. Too much room may allow a slower driver to move in (inappropriately) from the right in some cases.
Curious what the driver and the passenger were thinking... may be they would present a different story on these forums.
LOL. Good insight on both drivers and participants here
To say that one should always move over to let anyone, not matter what the situation, pass, is a gross oversimplification.
you:
No it isn't. The fact is it is practiced by knowledgeable drivers all over the world.
Oh, ok. In all circumstances, one should move over. Sure, if you say so. Let's turn our brains off.
Oooooo, the colors are so nice.
You just want to be the inconsiderate driver that sits in the left lane and causes the US death rate...
That's Mr Cause, to you, bud.
You are already beating a dead horse. One easy example is on all the lanes there is rush hour traffic. Your "exceptions" are not useful at all. There are always exceptions to the rule, some folks even think THEY are the exceptions to the rule! We have become more of the attitude the EXCEPTIONS are the rule.
Your example of speeds is almost moot in light of the fact that it is about lane discipline and secondarily speed. The fact of the matter is ANYONE can go 45 mph in a 65 mph in the passing lane!!! So now your 75 in a 65 mph is now the same as you ascribed to the ones coming up behind you at 80-85 mph.
The whole point of: keep right except to pass, slower traffic keep right is to 1 leave a lane open 2 leave a lane for an upcoming car/s to overtake.
Is it absolutely true, 100% of the time? To look at the way you posit, you would ascribe that others think so. NOT EVEN CLOSE!
So to deal with this obvious real world situation: pass on left, pass on right, pass in the middle.
Obviously, although others here seem to not to get this.
Your "exceptions" are not useful at all.
No less useful than calling "bunching" a certain indication of LLCing.
I agree, let's let the horse recover.
Your example of speeds is almost moot in light of the fact that it is about lane discipline and secondarily speed.
Huh? "Lane discipline" is another sound bite that seems to have little meaning. Seems you mean no more than "always move over". If you don't, then you must recognize that relative speeds as well as recognition of the speed limit are major factors in when to move over and when not.
ANYONE can go 45 mph in a 65 mph in the passing lane!!!
Well, those would be LLCers, wouldn't they. Are you starting all over here?
So your 75 in a 65 mph is now the same as you ascribed to the ones coming up behind you at 80-85 mph.
Huh? That 75 is 10 over. 45 is 20 under. How is that the same?
In light of prior post YOU REALLY need to think about this.
The whole point of: keep right except to pass, slower traffic keep right is to 1 leave a lane open 2 leave a lane for an upcoming car/s to overtake.
Duh. However, when to do it and when not is still a judgement call.
Is it absolutely true, 100% of the time? To look at the way you posit, you would ascribe that others think so. NOT EVEN CLOSE!
You must be skipping some posts. Some here actually think exactly that.
...pass on left, pass on right, pass in the middle.
Pass in the middle? That's called a collision
No thanks. I'll leave that to you.
DUH DUH. When has it ever NOT been a judgement call?
No thanks. I'll leave that to you.
Works for me, the pior post stands! The only one seemingly that does not understand it, is YOU.
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
To say that one should always move over to let anyone, not matter what the situation, pass, is a gross oversimplification.
you:
No it isn't. The fact is it is practiced by knowledgeable drivers all over the world.
Oh, ok. In all circumstances, one should move over. Sure, if you say so. Let's turn our brains off.
> Hey li sailor you' apparently have already accomplished that brain turn off thing. The fact is that in Germany and other nations in Europe, if you see someone coming up behind you in the left lane and flashing their lights you pull over into the adjacent lane. You also do it li sailor. You do it if you see a police car coming up behind you flashing their lights. It is your inconsiderate attitude that prevents you from pulling over when any car is gaining on you.
If you are in the left lane and there is a string of cars that wants to get through, but you have a car in front of you, if you don't attempt to have that driver move over by such things as flashing your lights or you don't move over so another car can attempt to get the left lane hog to pull over ... you are causing bunching!
1. creates a "break" or empty space (safety)
2. hopefully at some time down the road others will start the move over!! This down the road will give me a clear path to pass when it is safe!!??
3. because given the laws, rules, etc. situationally, it is the correct thing to do!!??
Where I live, by law you must let a police with lights/siren through. It's not a matter of courtesy. I don't know about where you live though, it may be a courtesy to let emergency vehicles with lights/siren through.
In addition, the left lane is not the wild west. Driving in a cooperative manner is for everybody. If you speed you are not driving cooperatively. I love it when people say, I can choose the laws I want to break and then get angry when they are ticketed. But I digress.
The left lane is not the wild west, where the one who dares to go the fastest forces the others off the road. I'm not advocated LLC, but someone who's going clearly faster than the left lane traffic needs to slow down and allow the passing maneuver to finish in a reasonable amount of time.
Letting an emergency vehicle with lights and sirens operating by is also in the vehicle code book, along with slower traffic keep right and keep right except to pass. Pardon me for stating the obvious, but most folks probably move out of the way for a police car for he is the only one that can give you a ticket. Again along with the majority of LLCers,the overwhelming majority of folks who so call "impede" the emergency vehicle are NOT cited. Even in the wild west, there is no wild west....
Actually an interesting one I have seen was in the LA area on the road south from Santa Barbara, to Los Angeles, CA. A Los Angeles County Bomb Disposal truck was hot footing it to a probable incident. Full code going on in the #1 lane in "Sunday go to meeting" traffic. I saw this puppy far in my rear view mirror and pulled over, when he neared my position, to let him by. (I was going 80 mph) So I am guess he was 85-100 mph. From the time he floated by it took me 24 cars to go back into the number one lane!!!!! When I became the 25th car iI remember thinking it almost felt like being in a PARADE.
>Absolutely correct and the proof is they pull over for the police car even if the lights aren't flashing. I intentionally said flashing lights because it's the international sign for "Please allow me through" and because I knew an inconsiderate driver would use the flashing lights on the police car as an "emergency" excuse to justify hogging the left lane against all other vehicles. The fact is no one knows it isn't an emergency when any vehicle pulls up behind them in the left lane flashing lights. However what we do see is that an inconsiderate driver will use any excuse not to pull over unless they would get a ticket. Which is why I am advocating enforcing "keep right except to pass" to eliminate the majority of problems created by inconsiderate drivers.
Well, that's the standard mode of operation for LLCs, and those who always drive the speed limit because they believe speed kills.
I had to depart my usual suburban highway driving today and take about a 20 mile round trip jaunt on I-5 a ways north of Seattle. It was horrible. Not so many LLCs, but absolutely horrendous merging, and ridiculous exiting and lane changing skills. I saw a vapid young woman in an old style Jeep Cherokee (with Tennessee plates...) jerk from the right lane to the exit, cutting across 3 lanes and in front of a big old Bronco, as she realized she was missing her exit. I hoped the Bronco would have clipped her, sending her end over end. When she awoke from her concussion in a few days, maybe she'd realize how stupid and worthless she acted. A pox on stupid people.
I also got to merge on to the highway behind a smoky old Trooper going about 30 when it hit the highway, tons of fun. Lots of old timers out in minivans and SUVs cruising in the left lane at well under the limit, too. But hey, they were where they belong.
Suddenly, the light turned yellow, just in front of him. He did the right thing, stopping at the crosswalk, even though he could have beaten the red light by accelerating through the intersection. The tailgating woman hit the roof, and the horn, screaming in frustration as she missed her chance to get through the intersection with him.
As she was still in mid-rant, she heard a tap on her window and looked up into the face of a very serious police officer. The officer ordered her to exit her car with her hands up. He took her to the police station where she was searched, fingerprinted, photographed, and placed in a cell.
After a couple of hours, a policeman approached the cell and opened the door. She was escorted back to the booking desk where the arresting officer was waiting with her personal effects. He said, "I'm very sorry for this mistake. You see, I pulled up behind your car while you were blowing your horn, flipping the guy off in front of you, and cussing a blue streak at him. I noticed the 'Choose Life' license plate holder, the 'What Would Jesus Do" bumper sticker, the 'Follow Me to Sunday School' bumper sticker, and the chrome-plated Christian fish emblem on the trunk.
Naturally, I assumed you had stolen the car."
Now those are some of the same bumper stickers I've seen on LLD's after they've bullied their way through traffic already going at 7 mph over the limit rather than staying within a reasonable amount of the speed of the rest of the traffic and going with the flow.
The other ornament common is the FOP and FOP associates medal taped to their license plate!!!
The problem attitude of the LLD types that I see driving in my home state is exemplified in the unbending, thinly-veiled insults to others approache here.
The multilane roads are built for all to use. Traffic flows at the highest number of cars per hour when all 3 or 4 lanes are used and when all drivers follow the laws-not just the ones they feel they should have to follow while telling everyone else which ones they have to follow.
This discussion has become boring. I can see channel computers switching to other discussions like a TV when a politician starts talking.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Imidazol, if 7 over the limit is unreasonable, then what, in your opinion, is "reasonable"?
If "flow" simply defined by the majority, then what if the majority of the cars are going 10 over the limit?
I know this quite isn't the point of the last post, but I've seen cops pull over "the flow". So when I'm going with "the flow" I don't assume I will not get a ticket.
But I seriously doubt that the cops will bother with a flow rolling at 10 mph over.
They also know their mere uniformed presence can at times precipitate unsafe actions and even accidents! So they really probably don't want to disturb good flow, even if it can be over the speed limit. Other times like in a pedestrian crosswalk, less than the speed limit can be deadly and might need to be dealt as harshly as possible with.
> Obviously true.
Traffic flows at the highest number of cars per hour when all 3 or 4 lanes are used
> Obviously true
and when all drivers follow the laws-not just the ones they feel they should have to follow while telling everyone else which ones they have to follow.
>Obviously a non sequitur. What does following the law have to do with the traffic flow of the highest number of cars? Nothing! It is obvious that the poster knew this, which is why they tied it to a true statement in the same sentence ... so let's be honest. As for which laws should be followed, the answer is those that save lives while allowing the most expedient rate of travel must take priority. Nations such as Germany have proven that speed on open highways has nothing to do with safety since their death rate is lower or similar(depending on the year) to the US highway death rate even though they have no speed limit on the autobahn. What they do have is enforced lane discipline of keep right except to pass. And they have the consideration to pull over when a faster car is approaching in the left lane. This also reduces the bunching of cars, which is caused by vehicles traveling at approximately the same speed, which allows a freer flow of traffic and it allows people to travel at the speed they are most comfortable.
>
Please don't try to twist the point with silly sophmoric logic. Over and out. None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
or...like
On the way home today 4 lanes of traffic, I was in the #4 lane doing 80-85 mph. I didn't even GET in the way of a motorcycle (killer Kawasaki) highway patrolman ROCKECTING past me in the #1 lane. In less than a minute, he was easily 1-1.5 miles up the road (actually out of sight)!
Like I have said, Keep Right Except to Pass, Slower Traffic Keep Right!
(which I was, shooting for that 51 mpg! )
Works for me!
Untrue, European fatalities in general are much worse than the US. We are talking one highway only, comparing it against the entire US. That's about as apples to bananas as you can get. In addition, I'm interested in the severity level per accident. My bet is any fender bender at 140 is much more severe than a fender bender at 50. So my guess would be for the accident victim the Autobahn is more dangerous given the speed, thus lending creedence to the argument speed is a factor.
I'd like to compare apples to apples against the NY Thruway for example. I believe one would find similiar fatality rates.
>Yes, in some nations where there are speed limits but not on the autobahn where there are no speed limits. So again speed limits do not reduce death rates. Thank you for further evidence.
If for example, 95 percents of accidents on the Autobahn result in severe, life threatening injuries, while only 35 of accidents on the NY Thruway resulted in the severe, life threatening injuries. I think one can make a case for speed kills or at least plays a part. Common sense says that it is the case.
I do not believe speed alone kills and one can certainly be lucky to be (barely) alive after getting into an accident at 155+, but since one does not drive alone on the road - going at these speeds leaves little room for error of your fellow drivers or mechanical failure of any type on the car.
So again, speed limits by and large do reduce death rates and overall severity rates.
Any numbers for that statement? What constitutes "European"? Does this include places like Spain or Italy, where drivers are often riskier, and the high speed road networks aren't all up to spec yet? Or places in the old eastern bloc, where infrastructure and driving experience isn't fully established yet?
"So again, speed limits by and large do reduce death rates and overall severity rates."
Any numbers? I thought casualty and fatality rates in Germany and here were very similar.
Of course, it isn't the most valid comparison, as in Germany, common courtesy, driver training/good judgement, and vehicle condition are also on average a lot higher too. That can balance out the higher speeds. I'd rather do 120 on a German road with German drivers around me than do it here.
If it was all about safety, we wouldn't have the limits we do, and we'd have more justifiable enforcement tactics. But far be it from the enforcers to justify their actions.
I see you have ignored the NHTSA data when they pressed forth dire warnings of massive increased CARNAGE and severity of it when the discussion was raising the national speed limits from 55 mph to 65 mph.
In fact given a few years of data, not only did the carnage RATE DECREASE, but the agency itself (ate crow) has said 2003 has been one of the safest years on record.
This is interesting in light of the facts; there was:
1. increase of the speed limit from 55 to 65 mph 2. Some areas have increased to 70-75 mph speed limits
3. increase population of drivers
4. increase passenger vehicle population
5. increase miles driven
6. increased trips taken
7. massive increase in the % of the passenger fleet of "KILLER " Suv's (12-15% of the vehicle fleet
8 I probably left a whole litany out, but given your conclusion,
why does it really matter?
Maybe it's better training, better/safer cars.
But on the whole with the exception of one data point, one can see more CARNAGE and fatalities on the roads as the speed limit was increased.
2003 - 38,252
2002 - 38,491
2001 - 37,862
2000 - 37,526
Interesting info re autobahn
Yes and yes. There are less accidents on the Autobahn, but the few there are, are crashes worthy of Hollywood. I think it would work well here. The intelligent people who don't have to travel will hide for the first months while the stupid drivers kill each other, leaving it safe for us to come back to roads with no limit and all the stupid drivers dead.
****************************
I don't have any stats, but from what I saw when I was in Germany, the fatality rates for accidents on the Autobahn were appaling. The debris from a single accident could stretch for 3/4 of a kilometer. If you saw a relatively fresh accident, what was left couldn't be identified as an automobile. Germany requires private driver training which includes physics and other essentials that indoctrinate good driving habits. Driving tests are more frequent. Imagine unlimited speed limits in a country where drivers don't even turn their heads to see if there's another car right next to them.
Let alone one coming at them at 100+mph faster than they're going.
Not that I wouldn't mind unlimited speeds if I was the only one on the road. Or everyone on the road was SCCA certified.
***************************
http://grantsautorants.blogs.com/blog/2004/12/autobahn.html
This last link infers maintenance of the autobahn is $900K/mile. How many highways can we afford to maintain for a cost of one million dollars per mile? In addition, as both blog entries point out is the severity of an accident at autobahn speeds. Why are they so severe? Speed kills. It's a trade-off, less accidents with more severity vs. more accidents with less severity.
But as indicated in other posts, the aggregate number is a USA "fiction" in that on a practical level, one really needs to be concern with his own state. European rates are also a "fiction" This will get him in the right "church". Next one can look for his specific "pew". So if one only drives in Germany for example, he is not going to expose himself in Eastern Europe. Just as I will probably not be a drunk driving fatality in Georgia if I do not drive there.
2003 - 38,252
2002 - 38,491
2001 - 37,862
2000 - 37,526
So as in the above figures,are the above figures less severely dead than say the like amount in Europe?
That's the best conclusion an intelligent debater like yourself can muster? Part of the "cost" of the automotive society goes beyond the fatalities. You see it in your insurance rates. The assumption that accidents are much more severe at those speeds must be taken into consideration and not blithely dismissed. Or ignored because the normalized accident rate is lower than some correspondence generic overall US rate.
Don't look now, but it seemed that YOU were coming to that conclusion! I merely asked the question!?? And it seems this has deep roots in your position!?
Given the rates, etc. etc., it is truly safer in the USA with higher real or defacto speed limit rates. This is NOT to say there are NO problem areas!!!!! But ultimately if you personally as a driver want to go say 45 mph when everybody else is going say 80-85-90 mph, I truly have no problem with that. I even do it myself!! As the discussion has been going, JUST keep right except to pass and remember; slower traffic keep right.
Insofar as the "cost" if you look at the state by state estimate some states with safe or low rates have very high costs (raw, unadjusted). Some states that have very "high" rates of fatalities have LOW dollar costs (raw, unadjusted) In days past, insurance rates were reflective of different factors. (and a lot of them are still at work) Seems the current dominate factor is one's past performance and or behavior's ie: less risk issues=less premiums.
So while this might be counter intuitive, a car I have that has the capability of 175 mph is THE cheapest to insure. (across all seven or so categories)
Is the speed limit 45 or is the speed limit 65?
So while this might be counter intuitive, a car I have that has the capability of 175 mph
The top speed of the vehicle has only a minor effect on the insurance rates. My 155 mph vehicle was very cheap to insure.
Although I would push for insurance reform for additional premiums for vehicles that are capable of going beyond 130. Can someone explain why a F150 SVT needs to go 150? There is no need for any vehicle in the US to go faster than 130.
Insofar as the "cost"...
Yes a lot has to do with insurance fraud.
I would agree! with this speed has a MINOR role in the overall higher cost.
..."Although I would push for insurance reform for additional premiums for vehicles that are capable of going beyond 130. "...
Nobody would have any objection to you increasing your own individual rates. The insurance companies will indeed get more profit than they already do!!?? All YOU have to do is double or triple your coverage. !!?? Want it higher? You don't even have to cause a fatality or injury to someone else.
I am sure glad you do not have a majority on this policy issue and are not in charge!
..."The top speed of the vehicle has only a minor effect on the insurance rates. My 155 mph vehicle was very cheap to insure."...
So you see no nexus(..."minor effect"...) here?????
Given your anti higher speed limit stance, what would even possess you to even own a 155 mph capable vehicle??
What does it matter? The fact is you can go 45 mph in the #1 or passing lane and still be legal.??