Think of it as a least evil move. Sure, you might not get shot by the next road rager, but by choosing yorusel fot uphold the speed limit, you will likley not improve safety. Lets think of a typical 85mph outside lane hogger, often in a BMW. Hes in a hurry, as usual, and also likes overtaking etc. Having you block him in will only make his driving worse, as he trys to find a way past, maybe ducking inside and undertaking you, as some people do, often without indicating, and ive missed at leas tone collision because of my experience telling me the eejit was going to change lanes, and I was ready for when he did. So, basically, you try and police it yourself, your going to cause as much trouble as might potentially be caused by them doing 85mph in the fast lane. Try talking to your local traffic policeman about it. See what they say. Here in the Uk, motorways have spectacular crashed, but the acual death and accident rate isnt taht bad, per mile of road, or even I think miles driven. its the winy local roads with dodgy overtaking situations that are dangerous. Hence another reason not to get too worke dup, and just leave them to the fast lane. FAiling all that, wait till you can get hellfires fitted to your car.
Always move over for faster drivers?
- Thread starter zanket
- Start date
If everyone blocked the typical 85mph outside lane hogger, he or she would find being reckless too inconvenient. Blocking is the “least evil move;” getting out of the way makes the problem worse in the long run. I can’t buy into logic along the lines of “allow people to do bad things so they won’t do worse things.” If I want to go 200mph in the fast lane, do you yield to me?
Last edited:
/By self-imposing a speed limit, the effective speed limit which is 70 MPH in my city, I’m betting that I’m maximizing the safety of drivers overall.
I think you're wrong. The safest is when everyone is doing the same speed right? Conversely (and obviously with respect to physics), the biggest danger if from large differences in speed. If someone comes at you doing 150 and you don't move, you greatly increase the risk of an accident.
/I’m not concerned about the stress level of someone who would voluntarily jeopardize that safety.
But that is simply illogical. Maybe their kid is dying and they're rushing them to a hospital. Your judgement:
- Increases the danger of the situation.
- Kills their kid.
Oh but you made sure they went slow by endangering everyone and killing their kid. Nicely done.
/And why assume I smirk?
From the sweet satisfaction of self-imposed justice. You deny it?
/I think I decrease the risk to other drivers in my vicinity.
And as I've said, I think you're flat wrong.
/Let’s check your logic: If I want to go 200 MPH in the fast lane, do you yield to me?
If I want to increase the safety of the situation, damn straight.
/Just let the cops handle it?
As long as I'm safe I don't care what risks the other driver is taking. I'm safest out of his way.
/Do you take the chance that you won’t find a crumpled bloody minivan when you arrive at the next curve?
You take that chance every time you get behind the wheel.
I think you're wrong. The safest is when everyone is doing the same speed right? Conversely (and obviously with respect to physics), the biggest danger if from large differences in speed. If someone comes at you doing 150 and you don't move, you greatly increase the risk of an accident.
/I’m not concerned about the stress level of someone who would voluntarily jeopardize that safety.
But that is simply illogical. Maybe their kid is dying and they're rushing them to a hospital. Your judgement:
- Increases the danger of the situation.
- Kills their kid.
Oh but you made sure they went slow by endangering everyone and killing their kid. Nicely done.
/And why assume I smirk?
From the sweet satisfaction of self-imposed justice. You deny it?
/I think I decrease the risk to other drivers in my vicinity.
And as I've said, I think you're flat wrong.
/Let’s check your logic: If I want to go 200 MPH in the fast lane, do you yield to me?
If I want to increase the safety of the situation, damn straight.
/Just let the cops handle it?
As long as I'm safe I don't care what risks the other driver is taking. I'm safest out of his way.
/Do you take the chance that you won’t find a crumpled bloody minivan when you arrive at the next curve?
You take that chance every time you get behind the wheel.
Originally posted by zanket
If everyone blocked the typical 85mph outside lane hogger, he or she would find being reckless too inconvenient.
Driving over 70mph is not always reckless. I trust some people going 85 more then other people doing 50.
Blocking is the “least evil move;” getting out of the way makes the problem worse in the long run.
No, because you can get right back in the lane if you want.
I can’t buy into logic along the lines of “allow people to do bad things so they won’t do worse things.
Who are you to determine that someone going over 70mph is a bad thing?
If I want to go 200mph in the fast lane, do you yield to me?
Hell yes.
If everyone blocked the typical 85mph outside lane hogger, he or she would find being reckless too inconvenient.
Driving over 70mph is not always reckless. I trust some people going 85 more then other people doing 50.
Blocking is the “least evil move;” getting out of the way makes the problem worse in the long run.
No, because you can get right back in the lane if you want.
I can’t buy into logic along the lines of “allow people to do bad things so they won’t do worse things.
Who are you to determine that someone going over 70mph is a bad thing?
If I want to go 200mph in the fast lane, do you yield to me?
Hell yes.
That’s what I’m doing, enforcing that everyone does the same speed. I prevent them from continuing at a reckless speed. Nobody has slammed into me yet.
There must be a lot of dying kids out there. There is even more reason to slow down such a driver as presumably they aren’t used to high speed. In their emotional state more than just the kid could die. I’ll take a chance on the rare kid dying to save the lives of many others.
When they tailgate me I get satisfaction, especially when I slow down to reduce the risk of injury. After all, they are assholes risking my life and my passengers’. Otherwise this argument is about what’s best overall.
We’re at an impasse on that it seems. To me it is obvious that when people suffer consequences for bad behavior, better behavior results on average.
I do. If I can safely and conveniently lessen those risks I will.
Not as much chance as I do when I yield to the reckless driver.
On salt flats or a racetrack maybe. I’ve not met a person who drives significantly over the effective speed limit who has not also had many accidents. Usually they joke about it. I’ve driven with a guy who tailgated at 90mph thisclose and swore he could stop in time if necessary. It seems delusion increases with speed.
Same here. Neither should have a driver’s license.
Yielding makes the problem worse in the long run because it makes reckless driving convenient. Would you wait in lines if you could just bully your way through them and everyone took it with a smile?
The same person who thinks murder is a bad thing. Both are illegal for good reasons. The law that says I need to yield to the reckless is obviously contradictory.
If I’m already going 200mph, sure. But if I want to? You and others can prevent me by refusing to yield.
So really you're only interested in justifying your position.
I've studied this and related problems formally. The closest thing I can tell you in laymens terms is what I said here:
"A system with individuals controlling the individual elements will never converge on a single speed without some common control. As such, the next best thing is to optimize the experience of the individual, thereby maxmizing possible individual goodness. that means in general, get the hell out of the way."
Which I'm pretty damned sure is correct. Persol what do you think?
I've studied this and related problems formally. The closest thing I can tell you in laymens terms is what I said here:
"A system with individuals controlling the individual elements will never converge on a single speed without some common control. As such, the next best thing is to optimize the experience of the individual, thereby maxmizing possible individual goodness. that means in general, get the hell out of the way."
Which I'm pretty damned sure is correct. Persol what do you think?
That sounds like a quote an engineer might come up with. I’d say the experience of the individual is optimized on average when individuals maximize their take within the law, while preventing others from flouting the law, where the law makes sense. That means going the effective speed limit while thwarting others’ reckless driving. General agreement on that provides the common control.
In a similar vein in Japan there is not an issue with people cutting in lines, because the Japanese do not in general abide by that. Thereby they optimize the individual experience.
In a similar vein in Japan there is not an issue with people cutting in lines, because the Japanese do not in general abide by that. Thereby they optimize the individual experience.
http://www.motorists.org/right/releasefour.html
As my bumper sticker says, "End road rage, slower traffic keep right!"
Last edited:
Traffic signs have to convey a message in just a few words so you have time to read them. Let’s see what the sign means in full:
Seems my driving pattern matches the intent of the law after all. Motorists doing the normal speed of traffic in the left lane are not in serious conflict with the prevailing traffic. The abrupt lane changes, erratic speed changes, and hostility are caused by those flouting the law, not me. No lane is reserved for reckless drivers.
Seems my driving pattern matches the intent of the law after all. Motorists doing the normal speed of traffic in the left lane are not in serious conflict with the prevailing traffic. The abrupt lane changes, erratic speed changes, and hostility are caused by those flouting the law, not me. No lane is reserved for reckless drivers.
Though it is obvious that neither I nor anyone else here will change your mind, the following site says it all about driving as far as I am concerned.
Great article here.
My mother is a retired CHP Dispatcher, and she never tired of ranting against "self appointed speed cops" who repeatedly cause road rage incidents. Her advice was always the same. "If you see someone who is genuinely driving recklessly, get their plate and phone it in." "Let real law enforcement handle it."
To me, the worst offenders are those who are speeding, but won't get out of your way. They are breaking the law by a safe amount, but you are not.
No matter how fast I am going, I pull over for overtaking traffic. Close to 90 MPH on Interstate 5 and someone is overtaking? Right lane as soon as possible.
Law enforcement do not want self appointed speed cops.
Other motorists do not appreciate them.
That leaves only their own massive egos.
Great article here.
My mother is a retired CHP Dispatcher, and she never tired of ranting against "self appointed speed cops" who repeatedly cause road rage incidents. Her advice was always the same. "If you see someone who is genuinely driving recklessly, get their plate and phone it in." "Let real law enforcement handle it."
To me, the worst offenders are those who are speeding, but won't get out of your way. They are breaking the law by a safe amount, but you are not.
No matter how fast I am going, I pull over for overtaking traffic. Close to 90 MPH on Interstate 5 and someone is overtaking? Right lane as soon as possible.
Law enforcement do not want self appointed speed cops.
Other motorists do not appreciate them.
That leaves only their own massive egos.
Originally posted by zanket
On salt flats or a racetrack maybe. I’ve not met a person who drives significantly over the effective speed limit who has not also had many accidents. Usually they joke about it. I’ve driven with a guy who tailgated at 90mph thisclose and swore he could stop in time if necessary. It seems delusion increases with speed.
Funny. I have 3 people sitting in my office (me included) who almost always speed, and have never had an accident. (I've been rear-ended at a stop sign though...) Together we have ~60 years driving experience without accident.
Tailgating however IS a hazard, and you should slow down and move over if someone is doing it. Speeding is not always a hazard, as just about anybody can do 85 on a highway and still be safe... assuming they leave safe distance in front of them.
I find it funny how everytime someone brings up a good reason why you should move to the right, you bring up the dangers of tailgaiting... yet nobody is arguing about tailgaiting here. It is a very nice strawman.
wes:
"A system with individuals controlling the individual elements will never converge on a single speed without some common control. As such, the next best thing is to optimize the experience of the individual, thereby maxmizing possible individual goodness. that means in general, get the hell out of the way."
Sounds about right. (Ethical egoism for drivers?) Nobody can claim to know how good a driver is simply by the speed they are going. As such, it is not your right to impair the other person's goal.
I'd also like to add that 'speed maintaining' (blocking the speeders) is just plain dangerous as it leads even more to the 'pack'. Cars traveling in packs at the speed limit (which is what blocking leads to) is far more dangerous than a speeding car outside a pack. You'll also notice that when law enforcement creates a rolling blockade they do it UNDER the speed limit. They realize that packing is dangerous because people naturally drive too close, and as such they lower the speed.
On salt flats or a racetrack maybe. I’ve not met a person who drives significantly over the effective speed limit who has not also had many accidents. Usually they joke about it. I’ve driven with a guy who tailgated at 90mph thisclose and swore he could stop in time if necessary. It seems delusion increases with speed.
Funny. I have 3 people sitting in my office (me included) who almost always speed, and have never had an accident. (I've been rear-ended at a stop sign though...) Together we have ~60 years driving experience without accident.
Tailgating however IS a hazard, and you should slow down and move over if someone is doing it. Speeding is not always a hazard, as just about anybody can do 85 on a highway and still be safe... assuming they leave safe distance in front of them.
I find it funny how everytime someone brings up a good reason why you should move to the right, you bring up the dangers of tailgaiting... yet nobody is arguing about tailgaiting here. It is a very nice strawman.
wes:
"A system with individuals controlling the individual elements will never converge on a single speed without some common control. As such, the next best thing is to optimize the experience of the individual, thereby maxmizing possible individual goodness. that means in general, get the hell out of the way."
Sounds about right. (Ethical egoism for drivers?) Nobody can claim to know how good a driver is simply by the speed they are going. As such, it is not your right to impair the other person's goal.
I'd also like to add that 'speed maintaining' (blocking the speeders) is just plain dangerous as it leads even more to the 'pack'. Cars traveling in packs at the speed limit (which is what blocking leads to) is far more dangerous than a speeding car outside a pack. You'll also notice that when law enforcement creates a rolling blockade they do it UNDER the speed limit. They realize that packing is dangerous because people naturally drive too close, and as such they lower the speed.
It would be hard indeed to get me to agree that this is a good idea in cities. Having most people going 70 MPH and a few going 90+ MPH is a recipe for death. It also greatly reduces the volume of traffic the lane could otherwise hold. It might work in Germany; they are more skillful drivers as the article points out. I think the curves on the autobahn are banked higher too.
Turns out I’m not one. In my state “slower traffic keep right” means “slower than the rest of traffic keep right.” They should be more specific, but I’ll assume it means the same as it does in California and British Columbia, which is “slower than the normal speed of traffic keep right.”
Burglars don’t appreciate the locks on my doors either. If the burglar consequently becomes enraged and kills my neighbor, that’s not my fault.
Why is it that you fail to understand that attempting to slow them down is only a temoporary and dangerous annoyance that does nothing to prohibit them medium to long term? As a matter of fact it really only puts you and everyone around you at greater risk in the short term (thought not necessarily a LOT greater, depending on the skill of the drivers around you).
I should ask: How do you support the hypothesis that since YOU are annoying the shit out of high-speed drivers, that slows them down?
I've presented a bit of an argument above and add:
If the driver is trying to "make time" they will then increase their speed over their already excessive speed once they find a way around you, thusly not only negating your effort but making you the reason that they are speeding MORE. I can't type more because I have a baby on my lap and she's pressing the keys.
cya.
I speed too, at 65 to 70 MPH, the normal speed of traffic, where the limit is 60 MPH. I’ve also not had an accident except been rear-ended at a stop sign. I’d want to drive with your co-workers. I’ve never driven with someone who drives significantly over the normal speed of traffic who does not also tailgate (keeping in mind that more space is needed at higher speeds).
I can’t agree with rewarding the tailgater by moving over. They can move over for me.
As I’ve said tailgating goes hand-in-hand with speeding like smoking goes hand-in-hand with littering. In my city the way someone indicates for you to move over is by tailgating you. Nobody flashes their lights like they do in Germany.
/I can’t agree with rewarding the tailgater by moving over. They can move over for me.
I think this is indicative of why I percieve a problem with you.
Note the position in which you put yourself.
You miss the forest for a tree that pisses you off and gain satisfaction from reprimanding the tree, though really you've only added negativity to a nuetral situation. Your judgement only serves you - though you convince yourself it serves the greater good.
Then you place your opinion over those that are wiser than you (note the 60 plus years (at least) which contradicts you directly). That wouldn't be bad if it were just opinion, but then on the road you take physical action to contradict that wisdom.
In my opinion, that means one of two things:
You are smarter than everyone else here; or
You are an immature, self-centered judgemental person (at least in regard to this topic).
I think this is indicative of why I percieve a problem with you.
Note the position in which you put yourself.
You miss the forest for a tree that pisses you off and gain satisfaction from reprimanding the tree, though really you've only added negativity to a nuetral situation. Your judgement only serves you - though you convince yourself it serves the greater good.
Then you place your opinion over those that are wiser than you (note the 60 plus years (at least) which contradicts you directly). That wouldn't be bad if it were just opinion, but then on the road you take physical action to contradict that wisdom.
In my opinion, that means one of two things:
You are smarter than everyone else here; or
You are an immature, self-centered judgemental person (at least in regard to this topic).
I do understand that. How people react to me doesn’t concern me. If everyone moved over only when they are going less than the normal speed of traffic, the reckless would have to change their ways in the long term. The reckless behavior will no longer be profitable. Just like burglary would end if all premises were secure.
There is some risk to me that I accept. The reckless driver creates the risk to others and myself; none of the responsibility for the increased risk belongs to me. I don’t keep my doors unlocked to reduce my neighbor’s risk of being killed by an enraged burglar.
None have gone through my car yet; hence I’ve slowed them to my speed (this discussion is about city driving; there isn’t a lot of room to maneuver at high speed). My goal isn’t to annoy or slow per se, it’s to do what’s best on average for everyone in the long run. A lane reserved for the reckless in the city is sub-optimal.
Such a driver is fully responsible for any accident that occurs by their reaction to me. If everyone acquiesced to lawbreakers so they won’t break even more laws, you can expect an explosion of lawbreakers. Acquiescing is not good for society in the long run.
I can relate to that!
I say “they can move over for me” like I say “a burglar can find another house to rob.” It is better for society that I keep my doors locked despite the increased risk that an enraged burglar will kill my neighbor.
Obviously I disagree about whom my judgment serves. Negativity in the short run (enraged burglar) is worth the positive effect in the long run (end of burglary).
Wiser why? Keep in mind that I’ve established that my actions follow the intent of the law. That indicates that the majority agrees with me. The minority of sports car drivers might be very vocal.
So be it.
/Wiser why?
Because I'm a jackass, don't you know? You're right, that's bullshit claim. Seemed right at the time but who is to say who is wiser I suppose.
/Keep in mind that I’ve established that my actions follow the intent of the law.
Well, I think you have to you, yes. I will reread your argument about that later and comment if I have a point.
/That indicates that the majority agrees with me.
That's not true. It indicates that a bunch of representatives of the majority agrees with you. I'd wager the majority agrees with me, but that's just conjecture. I don't know for sure. I do know that you're wrong from a systems perspective and in that you act as a self-appointed judge. I'll give it a litte thought later and see if I can build yet a stronger argument. How is it again that you rationalize ignoring the systems perspective?
/The minority of sports car drivers might be very vocal.
You're just talking trash.
/So be it.
If it is it will be so. Is it true? I don't know.
Because I'm a jackass, don't you know? You're right, that's bullshit claim. Seemed right at the time but who is to say who is wiser I suppose.
/Keep in mind that I’ve established that my actions follow the intent of the law.
Well, I think you have to you, yes. I will reread your argument about that later and comment if I have a point.
/That indicates that the majority agrees with me.
That's not true. It indicates that a bunch of representatives of the majority agrees with you. I'd wager the majority agrees with me, but that's just conjecture. I don't know for sure. I do know that you're wrong from a systems perspective and in that you act as a self-appointed judge. I'll give it a litte thought later and see if I can build yet a stronger argument. How is it again that you rationalize ignoring the systems perspective?
/The minority of sports car drivers might be very vocal.
You're just talking trash.
/So be it.
If it is it will be so. Is it true? I don't know.
(Insert Title Here)
There is such a thing as a Speed Limit. I don't mean to be sarcastic, but you don't even have to exceed the Speed Limit in order to violate Oregon's "Basic Speed Rule."
Technically, "Slower Cars Keep Right," means if you're going 50 in a 55 zone, get the heck over. It does not mean that you should be polite to the guy going 80 miles per hour. That guy is already endangering other people on the road.
Of course, this is coming from someone whose license is under suspension.
Incidentally, my thing was that my father had once taught me that certain parts of the freeway system, designed and implemented before the national "55 to stay alive" program, were designed to carry those old 8-cylinder leviathans safely at 70 mph. My general rule had something to do with how fast I was going in the first place.
However, once upon a time I was flying at 112 mph in a 1992 Toyota Tercel on I-5 somewhere in the spacetime relative to Red Bluff, California (I think) when I saw headlights appear in my rearview mirror. This was odd to me since I was on a straight flat section. They got closer at an alarming rate, so I decided to move as quickly as the balance between gravity, mass, and airflow would let me; I almost didn't make it out of his way. It was a cop, going some ridiculous speed. I generally don't get passed like that at 70, and this was a dumbfounding blur. If I had to estimate, he went by me at around 170, but I don't think even a hopped up SHO 8-cylinder should be able to carry that speed. No emergency lights. No particular reason. No particular place to go. I caught up with him at the next rest stop, less than two minutes later. He was reasonably cool. He didn't say word one to me about my speed. Just as long as I made it out of his jurisdiction alive. Never seen anything like it, though.
Edit: Note for SwedishFish ... I have no idea how I missed your post earlier in the topic. Whoops. Don't mean to apologize for sarcasm on the one hand while ignoring your post which made the point already.
There is such a thing as a Speed Limit. I don't mean to be sarcastic, but you don't even have to exceed the Speed Limit in order to violate Oregon's "Basic Speed Rule."
Technically, "Slower Cars Keep Right," means if you're going 50 in a 55 zone, get the heck over. It does not mean that you should be polite to the guy going 80 miles per hour. That guy is already endangering other people on the road.
Of course, this is coming from someone whose license is under suspension.
Incidentally, my thing was that my father had once taught me that certain parts of the freeway system, designed and implemented before the national "55 to stay alive" program, were designed to carry those old 8-cylinder leviathans safely at 70 mph. My general rule had something to do with how fast I was going in the first place.
However, once upon a time I was flying at 112 mph in a 1992 Toyota Tercel on I-5 somewhere in the spacetime relative to Red Bluff, California (I think) when I saw headlights appear in my rearview mirror. This was odd to me since I was on a straight flat section. They got closer at an alarming rate, so I decided to move as quickly as the balance between gravity, mass, and airflow would let me; I almost didn't make it out of his way. It was a cop, going some ridiculous speed. I generally don't get passed like that at 70, and this was a dumbfounding blur. If I had to estimate, he went by me at around 170, but I don't think even a hopped up SHO 8-cylinder should be able to carry that speed. No emergency lights. No particular reason. No particular place to go. I caught up with him at the next rest stop, less than two minutes later. He was reasonably cool. He didn't say word one to me about my speed. Just as long as I made it out of his jurisdiction alive. Never seen anything like it, though.
Edit: Note for SwedishFish ... I have no idea how I missed your post earlier in the topic. Whoops. Don't mean to apologize for sarcasm on the one hand while ignoring your post which made the point already.
Last edited: