You'd have to define "slow." Does "slow" mean any speed slower than the guy coming up behind you?
Yes, too slow is any slower than the guy coming up behind you. That is an excellent rule of thumb to follow, as it does follow the rule of law abiding citizens, and also follows the definition of THOU SHALL NOT IMPEDE TRAFFIC!
Therefore, the answer to your question and definition is a resounding YES.
And on your other point about not cutting people off, well the guy going 80 might catch up to you if you insist on passing at 65. Therefore, if you notice a car way behind you going that fast, you should pass at 70 and have a 10 MPH differential, thereby not causing you to break the law and impede traffic. For the people way behind you going 70, a +5 MPH pass is the minimum sufficient.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
"their" interstate may be used are left lane dominators.
It's not about domination, when I want to drive slow I don't block the "fast/left lane, and if I find myself using it to pass "super slow" traffic, then I move over to the right and let even faster traffic pass me. When I change lanes I do speed up and pass with some authority so as to not impede traffic, or if I must do so, for a minimum amount of time.
When I want to drive faster, I move over to the left a lane, if I get blocked, I move over again leftward, if I get blocked again, I move over again leftward. The far left lane should be for only passing or the fastest cars on the road, it is really that simple!
I'm not always the fastest or one of the faster cars on the road, but when I am, I expect that LLC's should not impede me. When I'm a slower driver, I stay out of that lane. I don't feel like a lesser driver or person because I let people pass me. I think it is the slow drivers that maybe get too much jealousy that others can drive safely at higher speeds and get away with it (never having an accident, and hopefully, never getting a ticket either).
Speeding does not endanger lives. Speeding too fast for conditions may under some specific set of circumstances lead to danger, but speeding in and of itself poses no threat, no danger, and no one has their life at stake.
An aggressive face helps to get the worst drivers out of the way (the one's that aren't paying attention). How else do you explain an LLC who has 20 Audi's behind him, oblivious to his impeding traffic when there's other lanes to the right for him to drive at his obliviously slow speed.
It is not to initimidate, but to be noticed, so that you don't sleep while they close in on you from behind.
I've noticed R8's tend to get people to move over pretty fast (not including those worst offenders that are zoned out in their driving efforts).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
"Yes, too slow is any slower than the guy coming up behind you" I guess you're being sarcastic
I don't consider it to be "impeding traffic" because a single car going 80mph had to slow down for a few seconds while I was passing someone. If like you suggest I pass at 70mph instead of 65mph, that 5mph difference means that the guy going 80mph will still have have to slow down either way, so if it's a few extra seconds of going slower for the guy behind me going 80mph, I don't consider that inconsiderate as long as I go back to the right lane when it's safe to do so.
Sorry, andres, but you are not helping your argument on this one. You're saying nothing other than that you are, indeed, a left lane dominator. All the other text you write leads you, invariably, to that end.
It is all drivers' responsibility to yield to traffic ahead of them. Period. You make it sounds like "cutting off" applies to any situation in which a driver does not care to yield to traffic ahead of them, when actually that term applies to a situation in which that driver would need to take evasive action to avoid an eminent collision. Someone "coming up behind" at some indeterminate distance back is not being "cut off" if another driver employs the use of the lane to pass another vehicle. They may feel that way due to their unwillingness to yield, but that does not make it so.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
The problem with speed is that you lose reaction time the faster you go. So if something suddenly occurs in front of you when you're driving at 90mph you'll have less time to react than if you're only going 55mph. So if you're adjusting your temperature dials, changing stations on the radio, glancing over your shoulder to pass, and doing all of the other normal things that you do when you're driving, and something suddenly occurs in front of you and you need to react, you're not going to have as much time to react as compared to if you were driving slower.
So in a perfect world (or an empty highway) you're right, speeding isn't unsafe. But in the real world where at any moment something can happen in front of you, then speeding will reduce the time you have to react. And since you never know when those situations will occur, it's safer not to be speeding.
"Speed isn't the problem, inability to handle speed is the problem." You're right...and since we have no way of judging who has or hasn't the ability to handle high speed driving, we have speed limit laws that apply to everyone. Speed wouldn't matter if humans weren't involved in the whole driving process :P
And who would you trust to determine speed limits...anyone who owns an Audi
And actually speed hurts our economy because if you're speeding you're getting worse MPG, meaning you're contributing to our dependence on foreign oil and our trade deficit. Think of how much fuel we'd save if everyone drove within 5mph of speed limits.
We have laws, but how are they determined and why is there no platform for accountability by those who make them? Laws aren't just simply because they exist. And laws apply to everyone? Save for LEOs maybe.
My car gets much worse mpg when hindered by defective traffic controls and asinine traffic jamming revenue-based "enforcement" patterns than it does when zipping along at 80mph.
But in the real world where at any moment something can happen in front of you, then speeding will reduce the time you have to react
Or you can just have larger following distances to make up for the extra speed thereby preserving your reaction time!
All the more reason for people not to CUT INTO or in FRONT OF the cars behind you that need a safe following distance. You are imposing on their safety zone.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
And actually speed hurts our economy because if you're speeding you're getting worse MPG, meaning you're contributing to our dependence on foreign oil and our trade deficit. Think of how much fuel we'd save if everyone drove within 5mph of speed limits.
The fuel saved from driving 65 instead of 75 is negligible, and furthermore, is more than overcompensated for by the wasted fuel from traffic jams, congestions, and increased commute times thanks to LLC's and bad mergerers.
And actually, since my driving saves me about 20 to 30 minutes of commute time a day (since I don't follow the speed limits), I'm actually more productive and beneficial to the economy, my company, and all because that gives me 20 to 30 more minutes to work and be productive (and post on Edmunds :P ) instead of commuting all darn day and wasting precious resources like my time.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I am a proud LLC who gets satisfaction out of blocking speeding idiots who want me to move over for them while they are incapable of passing on the Right. Drive the speed limit & I won't be impeding or blocking you. "It's that simple."
Something unexpected can come from the left, right or in front of you, so just increase following distances won't always help...but you're right in that it safer for speeders NOT to tailgate.
Anybody is capable of passing on the right, as am I, but it creates havoc, chaos, traffic, increased danger, and general mayhem to pass on the right when all logic and traffic engineering experts agree the system in place to pass on the left is preferable to anarchy.
EVERYONE would be a whole lot safer if general rules like lane courtesy guidelines were followed.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Also, how long is your commute. You say you're saving 20-30 minutes of commute time per day? If your commute was 100 miles round trip, then at 65mph it would take you about 1 hour 30 minutes and at 75mph it would take 1 hour 20 minutes, so that's only about a 10 minute savings, unless you have a 300 mile daily commute!
but you're right in that it safer for speeders NOT to tailgate.
The same can be said that it is SAFER for LLC's and Traffic Impeders to SPEED UP and/or get out of the way than to be invade the buffer zone of a NON Tailgating guy in back of you.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
"The same can be said that it is SAFER for LLC's and Traffic Impeders to SPEED UP and/or get out of the way than to be invade the buffer zone of a NON Tailgating guy in back of you"
Just like traffic accidents, it's the fault of the guy in the back to ensure they have a safety buffer, not the guy in the front...ask any insurance guy.
There's a difference between cutting someone off and and gradually having someone getting closer to your rear end due to the difference in speed between the two cars. The first is the fault of the guy in front and the second is the fault of the guy in the rear.
Bottom line is that it's a fact that going 80mph will reduce your MPG as compared to going 65mph. You can research the exact amount, but if everyone got 10% better MPG I'd consider that significant.
It's also a fact that the faster you go, the less time you'll have to react in an emergency situation that could come from anywhere, including your own car.
It's also a fact that speeding is illegal and there's no reason you need to speed, it's a choice you make so you need to take responsibility for your action. If you didn't choose to speed, then you wouldn't be zooming up to a car going the speed limit.
Roads are public domains paid for by tax dollars. If you don't feel like following their rules of the public roads, then feel free not to use them. Nobody is forcing you to enter a highway.
Have a great weekend and I'll look for you in my rearview mirror :P
Just like traffic accidents, it's the fault of the guy in the back to ensure they have a safety buffer, not the guy in the front...ask any insurance guy.
LOL, I'll agree with you that according to insurance companies the guy doing the rear-ending is 100% at fault 100% of the time. Insurance companies like to deal in absolutes. However, beyond determing fault in an accident (which is good to know in case your ever in one), I give Insurance companies zero credibility, integrity, or wisdom. They are all crooks! :sick:
It doesn't really matter how badly you are cut off by someone, they might cut you off so severely, that an accident was 100% UNAVOIDABLE, but it doesn't matter, if you did the rear-ending, you will be found at fault most likely in all circumstances (short of video tape, and even then, tough luck). You are never allowed to rear-end someone, and in some ways, I agree with that philosophy. You shouldn't drive in a manner which makes accidents possible.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
It's also a fact that the faster you go, the less time you'll have to react in an emergency situation that could come from anywhere, including your own car.
but also, the faster you go, the safer you are from being rear-ended by all those so-called "speed demons" on the road! So you are safer when you go faster, statistics back this up. When you go faster, you generally avoid being around danger, bad drivers, and bad situations. If you are in a bad area, you won't be in it for long as your going faster so you spend less time around a knucklehead. If you didn't choose to speed, then you wouldn't be zooming up to a car going the speed limit.
If you didn't choose to drive at or below an arbitrary unjustified speed limit, then no one would zoom up behind you. what about the situation where I'm driving the speed limit but some Knucklehead wants to drive 10 under the SL? I'll zoom up on them even while Obeying the so-called speeding law!
yes, MY tax dollars do contribute to the roads, so please, try and keep up with traffic this weekend! :P
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Now, the big question is what happens after you pass and it's now safe to return to the right lane. At that point, staying in the passing lane is inconsiderate.
The problem with speed is that you lose reaction time the faster you go. So if something suddenly occurs in front of you when you're driving at 90mph you'll have less time to react than if you're only going 55mph.
That can only happen if you are still scanning out the distance necessary for 55 mph reaction times. Obviously, the faster you drive, the farther out you have to look in order to have the time to react.
And that should be the gauge on whether or not your speed is too fast for the road conditions. If you cannot scan out the needed distance, then you must slow down until you can.
So, the typical 'straight-as-an-arrow' interstate will handle 90 mph drivers pretty easily.
And I'm sometimes enough of a dick to pass on the right and suddenly get that LLC religion. Which means I'll get in front of your car (maintaining adequate distance as not to be an immediate jerk) and gradually (never braking, mind you) slow down to a speed even slower than your unsafe speed.
For some reason, every LLC I've done that to ends up speeding and trying to pass. Dang unsafe speedsters, passing at above the speed limit! :P
Which has shown me that the typical LLC is more concerned about being at the 'head of the line'... and all the talk about speed limits and how 'speed kills' are really just rationalizations used to justify the behavior.
", the typical 'straight-as-an-arrow' interstate will handle 90 mph drivers pretty easily."
What about something happening from the right or left suddenly and not from way out in front of you? Again, perfectly straight highways can have unexpected things coming at you from places other than far in front of you.
"And I'm sometimes enough of a dick to pass on the right and suddenly get that LLC religion. Which means I'll get in front of your car (maintaining adequate distance as not to be an immediate jerk) and gradually (never braking, mind you) slow down to a speed even slower than your unsafe speed. "
So to be fair, the next time someone tailgates me when I'm in left lane passing someone, I'll gradually slow down just like you and then very gradually move back over into the right lane...us slowpokes need to be fair too :P
So to be fair, the next time someone tailgates me when I'm in left lane passing someone, I'll gradually slow down just like you and then very gradually move back over into the right lane...us slowpokes need to be fair too
If someone decides to tailgate me as I am passing another vehicle, that's exactly what I'll do. If they think I'm inconveniencing them before, well, now they understand the difference. If they get the hint and back off, I'll quickly "get out of the way" as a courtesy. Most of the time, they don't take the hint. :sick:
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
"I give Insurance companies zero credibility, integrity, or wisdom. They are all crooks! "
Sounds from one who has been canceled for non payment of premium, lost a decision about who was at fault, &/or adopts a simpleton attitude about which he hasn't the ability to understand or figure out. Think Boy Think!
No, I'm admitting to demonstrating how inconsiderate their lane change was,
No you admitted to agressive behavior against someone who you "think" made a poor choice.
I'm not aggressive
Sorry purposely running up behind someone and hitting your breaks at the last minute just to show your displeasure at what they did (right or wrong) is agressive behavor.
If maintaining my speed means running them off the road, then that means that they made an unsafe lane change.
Or that you are driving at an usafe speed.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Sounds from one who has been canceled for non payment of premium, lost a decision about who was at fault
Since I've never been found at-fault in an accident (when all was said and done) never been in an at-fault accident (that I can truthfully testify to), I wouldn't know about losing decisions of fault.
I was however, found to be at fault for an accident I was never contacted about, never gave my side of the story, never confirmed it even occurred, and never talked to. I think the claims adjuster was related to the false claimant in some way and made a payout without any justification. The truth is: 1) The "accident/incident I call it" was her fault 100%. 2) There was no damage to either vehicle (parking lot issue). 3) Her vehicle was old and a clunker, and any damage she claimed was prior existing, and even then, I didn't see any damage upon inspection.
I think she scammed Farmer's for $1,280 or so. Once I got wind of this "decision," I promptly responded to the letter within 30 days of MY notification of the claim's decision (which was given to me like a year later!). My response was to deny the claim and Farmer's analysis of it. I never even made a claim because there was zero damage to either vehicle, but I do admit they touched.
Sounds from one who has been canceled for non payment of premium,
Never been cancelled for that. I have however, cancelled my policy with an insurance company called Bristol West by choice with like 6 months to go on it due to their sheer incompetence, criminality, uselessness, and general worthlessness!!! Untrustworthy comes to mind as well. Bad Faith? They define it!
Had a vehicle in great condition stolen, found by cops damaged 2-1/2 weeks later during a pull over and arrest. Picked up the vehicle. Waited 2 weeks for adjuster to come out and by STD. MO procedure they call everything Prior Existing Damage (despite their insurance agent taking photographs only 2 months earlier showing vehicle was tip top). Had to wait 2 more weeks for supplemental inspection adjuster to go to body shop and correctly identify the damage that was clearly from when the vehicle was stolen, and not prior existing. Work could not begin for 1 month after the vehicle was recovered. Then the body shop proceeded to take another month to fix about $2,000 in repairs, and this "insurance" company recommended and warranted shop did poor repairs, didn't complete 100%, and touched up some paint rather than fixing it right in all spots.
But it doesn't stop there. Incident #2, with the same company.
Hit and Run incident with wife's vehicle. She did well to get license plate of offender, had witnesses, falls under Uninsured/underinsured insurance and I had the property damage covered up to 3,500 dollars in CA by having that selected (without having Collision on the car as it was 10 years old). I verbally told the agents and insurance company on 3 different occasions to add uninsured coverage to my policy in the previous year. They never did it due to incompetence and laziness. Faxed them a written signed demand to add Uninsured coverage to my policy with the $3,500 property coverage effective immediately on 1/6 of I forget what year. Come July of that year the claim is made. Claim denied. They claim that they never received any requests nor any such fax earlier in the year in January or the previous year.
Based on the first claim experience, you think I trusted them? Hell no! I had kept my fax CONFIRMATION of said fax stored and filed safely for just this occassion possibly happening, given they woudn't or couldn't due to incompetence add the coverage I wanted 3 times. This time it was in writing and I had them by the balls. Made a complaint to Dept. of Insurance in CA, they are useless powerless lemmings.
Bristol West came back and said OH yeah, we see a notation of a phone call and fax coming in 1/6/xx, but an "Examiner Error" was made and the coverage doesn't apply for that reason. Sorry for the inconvenience!
Basically, they told me I didn't have the guts to hire a lawyer and sue there butts over about $1,200.00. I threatened them with bad faith lawsuit but they didn't budge and called my bluff. Cancelled them that same day and haven't looked back.
I did squeeze a refund out of them for premiums paid for uninsured coverage I didn't need or want without the property damage part of it that they "forgot" to give me, but that was far less than the claim amount. Basically, since they didn't cover me for a claim that should have been covered, they agreed to refund the premiums paid for the previous 7 months for part of the coverage I was supposed to have. Also, in CA, insurance companies are REQUIRED to provide uninsured coverage to those who want/request it.
What a bunch of scum bags! :mad:
P.S. I'm seriously considering SELF-Insuring by posting a bond in CA.
Only reason I hesitate is due to all the Uninsured out there, plus thieves.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Yeah, sounds fair. Personally as long as 1.) I don't have to hit my brakes or 2.) hit the brakes and take evasive actions and A.) the other car does at least SL or keeps up with traffic ahead (in case of heavy traffic) and B.) maintains a steady speed I am ok with it.
Now if you have the situation where you keep running up behind slower cars passing other cars maybe you are going a bit to fast.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
>Which means I'll get in front of your car (maintaining adequate distance as not to be an immediate jerk) and gradually (never braking, mind you) slow down to a speed even slower than your unsafe speed.
I would infer from that that the other driver determines you are an aggressive and unsafe driver to be around and they are trying to get away from your aggressive tactics.
A normal person would have gone around them and trudged on down the interstate at whatever speed you choose until some other victim is in front of you.
There's something seriously wrong with a person who would act in the manner described by attempting to slow down in front of someone to retaliate because they didn't go as fast as someone would have liked for them to have gone.
I do more good for traffic enforcement on the road flashing my lights and making hand gestures at LLC's than the entire batallion of California Highway Patrol!
I'm a proud speeder who likes to brake check and cut off wallowy old TCs driven by elderly yobs who wouldn't be on the road at all if we'd actually hold the aged to any driving skill standards :P
See, the trolling can go both ways...
I also call in the old gits as suspected drunks...
Yes, too slow is any slower than the guy coming up behind you.
So by definition to on any given segmrnt of road all but one person is going to slow. There is the possibility that the guy coming up behind me is going to fast. I know it happens to me often enough.
and also follows the definition of THOU SHALL NOT IMPEDE TRAFFIC!
In my state it states thou shall not impede the lawful use of the road.
Therefore, if you notice a car way behind you going that fast, you should pass at 70 and have a 10 MPH differential, thereby not causing you to break the law and impede traffic.
Or if you are driving so far above the SL and you notice the car way ahead of going a more reasonable speed you should slow down and allow that car to pass then resume your speed. Why should they break the law in order to get out of your way.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Sounds like something from someone who made an ill gotten little fortune from the insurance business, and lacks the cojones to admit it is indeed a crooked empire, united with our defective law enforcement community for mutual ego and profit.
What gifts will our should be prosecuted and persecuted insurance cabal give LEOs next?
Now if as I'm passing the truck or string of trucks, a car that was way back has now caught up to me while I'm in the left lane because he's going 80mph, I'm not going to speed up to 80mph just because of him. I'll continue passing at my current speed until it's safe to go back into the right lane.
Good post. The heck with the intimidators going 80. Let them wait on your rear bumper until it is safe and prudent for you to get back in right lane.
The problem with speed is that you lose reaction time the faster you go.
Thats not the only problem, as you go faster the energy exerted increases by the square of the speed increase. So by going 90 as opposed to 55 you are going 63.6% faster but are exerting 167.8% more energy. That means that your stopping distance increases by 167.8%.
Not only that but as speed increases it becomes harder to control the vehicle, a turn which could be made at 50 would result in an accident at 90. Same results could be had if a bump was involved. Even taking evasive actions becomes more dangerous as speed increases.
So as speed increases the ability of the car to veer off a straight line decreases dramatically and the greater the chance that a manuever will result in a crash.
So in a perfect world (or an empty highway) you're right, speeding isn't unsafe.
Untrue, see above.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The fuel saved from driving 65 instead of 75 is negligible
While I cannot give an example between 65 and 75, but I could tell you the difference between 60 and 70 in my car. Its about 10% better at 60.
And actually, since my driving saves me about 20 to 30 minutes of commute time a day
In order to save 20 minutes a day in your commute doing 75 instead of 65 your one way commute would have to be 80 miles (plus roads where you cannot do highway speeds).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Sorry the statistics don't back up your statement.
But ets use your logic, speeding gets you to dangerous situations a lot faster than not speeding and not speeding may not even get you there, And while speeding may decrease you chances of being rearended it does increase your odds of rear ending someone, or ending up in a ditch.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Which has shown me that the typical LLC is more concerned about being at the 'head of the line'
Wait, you race around someone then slow down to less than he was doing and you think him wanting to get around you (now going slower than they are) is a sign that they are more concerned about being at the head of the line?
Have you considered that if you weren't being inconsiderate by passing him and then slowing down that they wouldn't try to get infront of you? Maybe if you were more considerate and just kept going faster than them they wouldn't try to get infront of you.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If someone decides to tailgate me as I am passing another vehicle, that's exactly what I'll do. If they think I'm inconveniencing them before, well, now they understand the difference. If they get the hint and back off, I'll quickly "get out of the way" as a courtesy.
Agreed... it's really all about give and take out there, and the ones who think that's a one way street (expect everyone else to give just so they can take) are particularly annoying.
If I'm passing, I'll get it done and make way as soon as I can... just don't tailgate me. Tailgaters get a quick on-and-off of my rain light. Not as easy as when I had the Accord coupe, which didn't have ambers in the back, so I would briefly hold the switch for my 4-ways about halfway. Not a brake check, but something to make the tailgater think about the possibility.
I would infer from that that the other driver determines you are an aggressive and unsafe driver to be around and they are trying to get away from your aggressive tactics.
But, but, but... the speed limit is sancrosanct! You WILL NOT GO FASTER, EVER!
So sayeth the LAW!
(in the mind of an LLC, that is)
So speeding up past the legal limit is violating one of the two most important rules for an LLC - "never speed". Well, to be honest, it's violating the other one, too - "never use any lane but the left one". For in order to pass, they have to get over to the right.
So, my sometimes asinine behavior reduces the LLC to a speed demon. I savor the irony.
:P
Secondly, you must have missed my original post, which said:
Which means I'll get in front of your car (maintaining adequate distance as not to be an immediate jerk) and gradually (never braking, mind you) slow down to a speed even slower than your unsafe speed.
So, how is passing someone, then waiting so there is adequate distance to then re-enter the lane (ie: not cutting someone off) aggressive and unsafe?
Also, by gradually slowing back down, I'm recognizing the legality of the speed limit. The speed limit, I'm sure you know, is the *MAXIMUM* legal speed. So by slowing down to a speed lower than an LLC, I am driving slower than the legal speed limit.
Of course, that means the LLC is now the faster driver who is now rapidly approaching my rear bumper. Should I follow the advice posted by the LLC supporter here and then tap my brake as many have stated they do?
I just want to be the best LLC I can be... to other LLCs, that is.
But at a slower speed you have a greater chance to react to something to avoid it. If you are traveling at 65 MPH an something happens that is so close that you barely miss it you would have hit it if you were going 70.
Now if you are unable to avoid it at a lower speed you still would have less of an impact at the slower speed.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Whether we like it or not, speed limits are part of the law. If a driver chooses to drive at the speed limit, that is their right, and they should not be pressured to drive over the speed limit (e.g. tailgating) by those who wish to ignore speed limits. But those who choose to follow speed limits must realize some drivers won't abide by speed limits, and it's best to stay out of their way by staying out of the left (passing) lane as much as possible and moving back to the right lane after passing as quickly as possible, when it can be done safely.
Absolutely right! Thank you for supporting my efforts. All those nasty LLCs going the speed limit in the passing lane really endanger my efforts to drive 5-under in the passing lane. (that is, 5-under when noticed that I just passed an LLC'er)
Comments
Yes, too slow is any slower than the guy coming up behind you. That is an excellent rule of thumb to follow, as it does follow the rule of law abiding citizens, and also follows the definition of THOU SHALL NOT IMPEDE TRAFFIC!
Therefore, the answer to your question and definition is a resounding YES.
And on your other point about not cutting people off, well the guy going 80 might catch up to you if you insist on passing at 65. Therefore, if you notice a car way behind you going that fast, you should pass at 70 and have a 10 MPH differential, thereby not causing you to break the law and impede traffic. For the people way behind you going 70, a +5 MPH pass is the minimum sufficient.
It's not about domination, when I want to drive slow I don't block the "fast/left lane, and if I find myself using it to pass "super slow" traffic, then I move over to the right and let even faster traffic pass me. When I change lanes I do speed up and pass with some authority so as to not impede traffic, or if I must do so, for a minimum amount of time.
When I want to drive faster, I move over to the left a lane, if I get blocked, I move over again leftward, if I get blocked again, I move over again leftward. The far left lane should be for only passing or the fastest cars on the road, it is really that simple!
I'm not always the fastest or one of the faster cars on the road, but when I am, I expect that LLC's should not impede me. When I'm a slower driver, I stay out of that lane. I don't feel like a lesser driver or person because I let people pass me. I think it is the slow drivers that maybe get too much jealousy that others can drive safely at higher speeds and get away with it (never having an accident, and hopefully, never getting a ticket either).
Speeding does not endanger lives. Speeding too fast for conditions may under some specific set of circumstances lead to danger, but speeding in and of itself poses no threat, no danger, and no one has their life at stake.
An aggressive face helps to get the worst drivers out of the way (the one's that aren't paying attention). How else do you explain an LLC who has 20 Audi's behind him, oblivious to his impeding traffic when there's other lanes to the right for him to drive at his obliviously slow speed.
It is not to initimidate, but to be noticed, so that you don't sleep while they close in on you from behind.
I've noticed R8's tend to get people to move over pretty fast (not including those worst offenders that are zoned out in their driving efforts).
I don't consider it to be "impeding traffic" because a single car going 80mph had to slow down for a few seconds while I was passing someone. If like you suggest I pass at 70mph instead of 65mph, that 5mph difference means that the guy going 80mph will still have have to slow down either way, so if it's a few extra seconds of going slower for the guy behind me going 80mph, I don't consider that inconsiderate as long as I go back to the right lane when it's safe to do so.
You'll complete your pass fast enough that he can just fly through.
It is all drivers' responsibility to yield to traffic ahead of them. Period. You make it sounds like "cutting off" applies to any situation in which a driver does not care to yield to traffic ahead of them, when actually that term applies to a situation in which that driver would need to take evasive action to avoid an eminent collision. Someone "coming up behind" at some indeterminate distance back is not being "cut off" if another driver employs the use of the lane to pass another vehicle. They may feel that way due to their unwillingness to yield, but that does not make it so.
So in a perfect world (or an empty highway) you're right, speeding isn't unsafe. But in the real world where at any moment something can happen in front of you, then speeding will reduce the time you have to react. And since you never know when those situations will occur, it's safer not to be speeding.
Speed isn't the problem, inability to handle speed is the problem.
You're right...and since we have no way of judging who has or hasn't the ability to handle high speed driving, we have speed limit laws that apply to everyone. Speed wouldn't matter if humans weren't involved in the whole driving process :P
And who would you trust to determine speed limits...anyone who owns an Audi
And actually speed hurts our economy because if you're speeding you're getting worse MPG, meaning you're contributing to our dependence on foreign oil and our trade deficit. Think of how much fuel we'd save if everyone drove within 5mph of speed limits.
My car gets much worse mpg when hindered by defective traffic controls and asinine traffic jamming revenue-based "enforcement" patterns than it does when zipping along at 80mph.
Or you can just have larger following distances to make up for the extra speed thereby preserving your reaction time!
All the more reason for people not to CUT INTO or in FRONT OF the cars behind you that need a safe following distance. You are imposing on their safety zone.
The fuel saved from driving 65 instead of 75 is negligible, and furthermore, is more than overcompensated for by the wasted fuel from traffic jams, congestions, and increased commute times thanks to LLC's and bad mergerers.
And actually, since my driving saves me about 20 to 30 minutes of commute time a day (since I don't follow the speed limits), I'm actually more productive and beneficial to the economy, my company, and all because that gives me 20 to 30 more minutes to work and be productive (and post on Edmunds :P ) instead of commuting all darn day and wasting precious resources like my time.
EVERYONE would be a whole lot safer if general rules like lane courtesy guidelines were followed.
This website will show you how speed really affects MPG.
Also, how long is your commute. You say you're saving 20-30 minutes of commute time per day? If your commute was 100 miles round trip, then at 65mph it would take you about 1 hour 30 minutes and at 75mph it would take 1 hour 20 minutes, so that's only about a 10 minute savings, unless you have a 300 mile daily commute!
The same can be said that it is SAFER for LLC's and Traffic Impeders to SPEED UP and/or get out of the way than to be invade the buffer zone of a NON Tailgating guy in back of you.
Just like traffic accidents, it's the fault of the guy in the back to ensure they have a safety buffer, not the guy in the front...ask any insurance guy.
There's a difference between cutting someone off and and gradually having someone getting closer to your rear end due to the difference in speed between the two cars. The first is the fault of the guy in front and the second is the fault of the guy in the rear.
It's also a fact that the faster you go, the less time you'll have to react in an emergency situation that could come from anywhere, including your own car.
It's also a fact that speeding is illegal and there's no reason you need to speed, it's a choice you make so you need to take responsibility for your action. If you didn't choose to speed, then you wouldn't be zooming up to a car going the speed limit.
Roads are public domains paid for by tax dollars. If you don't feel like following their rules of the public roads, then feel free not to use them. Nobody is forcing you to enter a highway.
Have a great weekend and I'll look for you in my rearview mirror :P
LOL, I'll agree with you that according to insurance companies the guy doing the rear-ending is 100% at fault 100% of the time. Insurance companies like to deal in absolutes. However, beyond determing fault in an accident (which is good to know in case your ever in one), I give Insurance companies zero credibility, integrity, or wisdom. They are all crooks! :sick:
It doesn't really matter how badly you are cut off by someone, they might cut you off so severely, that an accident was 100% UNAVOIDABLE, but it doesn't matter, if you did the rear-ending, you will be found at fault most likely in all circumstances (short of video tape, and even then, tough luck). You are never allowed to rear-end someone, and in some ways, I agree with that philosophy. You shouldn't drive in a manner which makes accidents possible.
but also, the faster you go, the safer you are from being rear-ended by all those so-called "speed demons" on the road! So you are safer when you go faster, statistics back this up. When you go faster, you generally avoid being around danger, bad drivers, and bad situations. If you are in a bad area, you won't be in it for long as your going faster so you spend less time around a knucklehead.
If you didn't choose to speed, then you wouldn't be zooming up to a car going the speed limit.
If you didn't choose to drive at or below an arbitrary unjustified speed limit, then no one would zoom up behind you. what about the situation where I'm driving the speed limit but some Knucklehead wants to drive 10 under the SL? I'll zoom up on them even while Obeying the so-called speeding law!
yes, MY tax dollars do contribute to the roads, so please, try and keep up with traffic this weekend! :P
Now, the big question is what happens after you pass and it's now safe to return to the right lane. At that point, staying in the passing lane is inconsiderate.
That can only happen if you are still scanning out the distance necessary for 55 mph reaction times. Obviously, the faster you drive, the farther out you have to look in order to have the time to react.
And that should be the gauge on whether or not your speed is too fast for the road conditions. If you cannot scan out the needed distance, then you must slow down until you can.
So, the typical 'straight-as-an-arrow' interstate will handle 90 mph drivers pretty easily.
For some reason, every LLC I've done that to ends up speeding and trying to pass. Dang unsafe speedsters, passing at above the speed limit!
:P
Which has shown me that the typical LLC is more concerned about being at the 'head of the line'... and all the talk about speed limits and how 'speed kills' are really just rationalizations used to justify the behavior.
What about something happening from the right or left suddenly and not from way out in front of you? Again, perfectly straight highways can have unexpected things coming at you from places other than far in front of you.
So to be fair, the next time someone tailgates me when I'm in left lane passing someone, I'll gradually slow down just like you and then very gradually move back over into the right lane...us slowpokes need to be fair too :P
If someone decides to tailgate me as I am passing another vehicle, that's exactly what I'll do. If they think I'm inconveniencing them before, well, now they understand the difference. If they get the hint and back off, I'll quickly "get out of the way" as a courtesy. Most of the time, they don't take the hint. :sick:
Sounds from one who has been canceled for non payment of premium, lost a decision about who was at fault, &/or adopts a simpleton attitude about which he hasn't the ability to understand or figure out. Think Boy Think!
No you admitted to agressive behavior against someone who you "think" made a poor choice.
I'm not aggressive
Sorry purposely running up behind someone and hitting your breaks at the last minute just to show your displeasure at what they did (right or wrong) is agressive behavor.
If maintaining my speed means running them off the road, then that means that they made an unsafe lane change.
Or that you are driving at an usafe speed.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Since I've never been found at-fault in an accident (when all was said and done) never been in an at-fault accident (that I can truthfully testify to), I wouldn't know about losing decisions of fault.
I was however, found to be at fault for an accident I was never contacted about, never gave my side of the story, never confirmed it even occurred, and never talked to. I think the claims adjuster was related to the false claimant in some way and made a payout without any justification. The truth is:
1) The "accident/incident I call it" was her fault 100%.
2) There was no damage to either vehicle (parking lot issue).
3) Her vehicle was old and a clunker, and any damage she claimed was prior existing, and even then, I didn't see any damage upon inspection.
I think she scammed Farmer's for $1,280 or so. Once I got wind of this "decision," I promptly responded to the letter within 30 days of MY notification of the claim's decision (which was given to me like a year later!). My response was to deny the claim and Farmer's analysis of it. I never even made a claim because there was zero damage to either vehicle, but I do admit they touched.
Sounds from one who has been canceled for non payment of premium,
Never been cancelled for that. I have however, cancelled my policy with an insurance company called Bristol West by choice with like 6 months to go on it due to their sheer incompetence, criminality, uselessness, and general worthlessness!!! Untrustworthy comes to mind as well. Bad Faith? They define it!
Had a vehicle in great condition stolen, found by cops damaged 2-1/2 weeks later during a pull over and arrest. Picked up the vehicle. Waited 2 weeks for adjuster to come out and by STD. MO procedure they call everything Prior Existing Damage (despite their insurance agent taking photographs only 2 months earlier showing vehicle was tip top). Had to wait 2 more weeks for supplemental inspection adjuster to go to body shop and correctly identify the damage that was clearly from when the vehicle was stolen, and not prior existing. Work could not begin for 1 month after the vehicle was recovered. Then the body shop proceeded to take another month to fix about $2,000 in repairs, and this "insurance" company recommended and warranted shop did poor repairs, didn't complete 100%, and touched up some paint rather than fixing it right in all spots.
But it doesn't stop there. Incident #2, with the same company.
Hit and Run incident with wife's vehicle. She did well to get license plate of offender, had witnesses, falls under Uninsured/underinsured insurance and I had the property damage covered up to 3,500 dollars in CA by having that selected (without having Collision on the car as it was 10 years old). I verbally told the agents and insurance company on 3 different occasions to add uninsured coverage to my policy in the previous year. They never did it due to incompetence and laziness. Faxed them a written signed demand to add Uninsured coverage to my policy with the $3,500 property coverage effective immediately on 1/6 of I forget what year. Come July of that year the claim is made. Claim denied. They claim that they never received any requests nor any such fax earlier in the year in January or the previous year.
Based on the first claim experience, you think I trusted them? Hell no! I had kept my fax CONFIRMATION of said fax stored and filed safely for just this occassion possibly happening, given they woudn't or couldn't due to incompetence add the coverage I wanted 3 times. This time it was in writing and I had them by the balls. Made a complaint to Dept. of Insurance in CA, they are useless powerless lemmings.
Bristol West came back and said OH yeah, we see a notation of a phone call and fax coming in 1/6/xx, but an "Examiner Error" was made and the coverage doesn't apply for that reason. Sorry for the inconvenience!
Basically, they told me I didn't have the guts to hire a lawyer and sue there butts over about $1,200.00. I threatened them with bad faith lawsuit but they didn't budge and called my bluff. Cancelled them that same day and haven't looked back.
I did squeeze a refund out of them for premiums paid for uninsured coverage I didn't need or want without the property damage part of it that they "forgot" to give me, but that was far less than the claim amount. Basically, since they didn't cover me for a claim that should have been covered, they agreed to refund the premiums paid for the previous 7 months for part of the coverage I was supposed to have. Also, in CA, insurance companies are REQUIRED to provide uninsured coverage to those who want/request it.
What a bunch of scum bags! :mad:
P.S. I'm seriously considering SELF-Insuring by posting a bond in CA.
Only reason I hesitate is due to all the Uninsured out there, plus thieves.
Yeah, sounds fair. Personally as long as 1.) I don't have to hit my brakes or 2.) hit the brakes and take evasive actions and A.) the other car does at least SL or keeps up with traffic ahead (in case of heavy traffic) and B.) maintains a steady speed I am ok with it.
Now if you have the situation where you keep running up behind slower cars passing other cars maybe you are going a bit to fast.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I would infer from that that the other driver determines you are an aggressive and unsafe driver to be around and they are trying to get away from your aggressive tactics.
A normal person would have gone around them and trudged on down the interstate at whatever speed you choose until some other victim is in front of you.
There's something seriously wrong with a person who would act in the manner described by attempting to slow down in front of someone to retaliate because they didn't go as fast as someone would have liked for them to have gone.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That is dumb and IMMATURE.
See, the trolling can go both ways...
I also call in the old gits as suspected drunks...
So by definition to on any given segmrnt of road all but one person is going to slow. There is the possibility that the guy coming up behind me is going to fast. I know it happens to me often enough.
and also follows the definition of THOU SHALL NOT IMPEDE TRAFFIC!
In my state it states thou shall not impede the lawful use of the road.
Therefore, if you notice a car way behind you going that fast, you should pass at 70 and have a 10 MPH differential, thereby not causing you to break the law and impede traffic.
Or if you are driving so far above the SL and you notice the car way ahead of going a more reasonable speed you should slow down and allow that car to pass then resume your speed. Why should they break the law in order to get out of your way.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Something being legal or not has no bearing to whether or not it is justifiable or simply right...
Let's look at the people who make and enforce these laws, examine how they can do nearly nothing else properly, and then think about it, please.
"and there's no reason you need to speed""
And there's no reason you need to go under the limit, or LLC, and so on...
What gifts will our should be prosecuted and persecuted insurance cabal give LEOs next?
Good post. The heck with the intimidators going 80. Let them wait on your rear bumper until it is safe and prudent for you to get back in right lane.
Thats not the only problem, as you go faster the energy exerted increases by the square of the speed increase. So by going 90 as opposed to 55 you are going 63.6% faster but are exerting 167.8% more energy. That means that your stopping distance increases by 167.8%.
Not only that but as speed increases it becomes harder to control the vehicle, a turn which could be made at 50 would result in an accident at 90. Same results could be had if a bump was involved. Even taking evasive actions becomes more dangerous as speed increases.
So as speed increases the ability of the car to veer off a straight line decreases dramatically and the greater the chance that a manuever will result in a crash.
So in a perfect world (or an empty highway) you're right, speeding isn't unsafe.
Untrue, see above.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
While I cannot give an example between 65 and 75, but I could tell you the difference between 60 and 70 in my car. Its about 10% better at 60.
And actually, since my driving saves me about 20 to 30 minutes of commute time a day
In order to save 20 minutes a day in your commute doing 75 instead of 65 your one way commute would have to be 80 miles (plus roads where you cannot do highway speeds).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You mean general rules like speed limits?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But ets use your logic, speeding gets you to dangerous situations a lot faster than not speeding and not speeding may not even get you there, And while speeding may decrease you chances of being rearended it does increase your odds of rear ending someone, or ending up in a ditch.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Sorry but thats not true, situations can change in very short order. Things do pop up at the last minute.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Wait, you race around someone then slow down to less than he was doing and you think him wanting to get around you (now going slower than they are) is a sign that they are more concerned about being at the head of the line?
Have you considered that if you weren't being inconsiderate by passing him and then slowing down that they wouldn't try to get infront of you? Maybe if you were more considerate and just kept going faster than them they wouldn't try to get infront of you.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Agreed... it's really all about give and take out there, and the ones who think that's a one way street (expect everyone else to give just so they can take) are particularly annoying.
If I'm passing, I'll get it done and make way as soon as I can... just don't tailgate me. Tailgaters get a quick on-and-off of my rain light. Not as easy as when I had the Accord coupe, which didn't have ambers in the back, so I would briefly hold the switch for my 4-ways about halfway. Not a brake check, but something to make the tailgater think about the possibility.
But, but, but... the speed limit is sancrosanct! You WILL NOT GO FASTER, EVER!
So sayeth the LAW!
(in the mind of an LLC, that is)
So speeding up past the legal limit is violating one of the two most important rules for an LLC - "never speed". Well, to be honest, it's violating the other one, too - "never use any lane but the left one". For in order to pass, they have to get over to the right.
So, my sometimes asinine behavior reduces the LLC to a speed demon. I savor the irony.
:P
Secondly, you must have missed my original post, which said:
Which means I'll get in front of your car (maintaining adequate distance as not to be an immediate jerk) and gradually (never braking, mind you) slow down to a speed even slower than your unsafe speed.
So, how is passing someone, then waiting so there is adequate distance to then re-enter the lane (ie: not cutting someone off) aggressive and unsafe?
Also, by gradually slowing back down, I'm recognizing the legality of the speed limit. The speed limit, I'm sure you know, is the *MAXIMUM* legal speed. So by slowing down to a speed lower than an LLC, I am driving slower than the legal speed limit.
Of course, that means the LLC is now the faster driver who is now rapidly approaching my rear bumper. Should I follow the advice posted by the LLC supporter here and then tap my brake as many have stated they do?
I just want to be the best LLC I can be... to other LLCs, that is.
Now if you are unable to avoid it at a lower speed you still would have less of an impact at the slower speed.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It's not that hard, folks.
:P
Then again, at 75 mph, it gets 27-28mpg as well.
So, for my car, 55 mph is worse for my fuel economy.