No Idea who Wade is – but he is correct… https://www.facebook.com/wbdax92
It doesn't matter if you're going the speed limit. You may feel like you're doing the right thing by slowing a speeder down, or you may feel it's your RIGHT to drive in any lane you 'darn well please.'
You're not. It's not.
And you ARE breaking the law.
Here's how it is DESIGNED to work:
You're in what you think is just like any other lane except that it's 'fast'. One of us approaches you from behind at 74mph (and you look down to see you're going 67mph and you switch to your smug 'justified' face because the sign says 65). While rather close in proximity, the driver begs you to move over.
Oh, how you should.
But you don't.
The driver tries to be patient and now cars start lining up behind both of you. There's a quick flash of the brights, and if you look up from your phone you either move over, or your ego decides that you'll be stubborn (and in some cases actually slow down ON PURPOSE). In most cases you don't even notice the signal but you just start complaining about the guy riding your bumper.
Now there's four or five vehicles lining up behind you while you have a LOT of distance ahead of you and enough room to move over. Now the sixth vehicle back finally jets across two lanes of traffic to go around not only you and the cars behind you, but but also around the slower cars in the two lanes to your right, only to find that there's no GOOD reason for you to be IN THE WAY.
Note that he used the 'SLOW' lane to do this in.
Move over. You don't have to be stubborn.
It's not your lane. You don't have to be self-righteous.
Please be part of the solution. Don't cause traffic jams and contribute to road rage.
This post has been reshared 3 times on Google+
View this post on Google+
Unless you're in the UK and Japan. 😉
+Anthony Metcalf just reverse line….
or Australia, it used to be the law that you had to keep left unless overtaking, now it's suggested 🙁
The people of Utah desperately need to see this… and learn.
+Jeremy Davies in France too….
Lille-Marseille on the left line, no problem.
So much more right in germany when the car behind you sometimes is coming up doing 120mph and has to hit the breaks really hard because you´re doing only 80 mph. This is unnessesarily dangerous.
here people drive at speed limiter, you're at 90, who will also want to double to 90, maybe 91, and it starts on the left lane, 1 km after his car is at the same level, 2 km after you see her back door. This is madness.
In germany etc autobahn etc.. the issue is clear.. and usually the left turn signal is used to urge people out of the way…
In California.. its every prius and low rider… and in most cases the "fast" passing lane is really confused with the the HOV lane..
Really people in general need to put down phones – and makeup and newspapers.. all I saw this week… and DRIVE or enjoy driving…
A woman was banned in the UK a few years ago for doing numeric crosswords while driving. Newspaper strapped to one leg, and calculator to the other…..
I always assumed this concept was taught in chapter one of the driver's education handbook but the folks I share the road with seem happily oblivious to the idea.
Ok, I don't disagree with the rationale of the original post, but let's be clear about one thing that jumped out at me:
It's really straining credibility to tell other drivers who are doing the correct speed-limit in the wrong lane about their breaking the law when the case is being made that someone doing 74 mph in a 65 mph zone has some expectation that others obey the law even as they disregard it 🙂
It's not a mutually exclusive obligation to obey the law. Yes, people should keep right if they're not passing. As well, people shouldn't be passing if they have to break the speeed-limit law to do so… right?
I'm curious… what about two lane highways? We have I-405 here in WA state and it is constantly jammed up. Both lanes are crammed to capacity. I shudder to think what would happen if everyone stayed in the right lane except to "pass". (pass what? 6 miles of bumper to bumper congestion?)
The point is that somebody who is trying to educate speeding drivers by blocking the left lane with the correct speed is causing a dangerous situation so he is nothing better that the speeding driver.
The point, +Stefanie Heidbrink, doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's a context to the point, and it included an appeal to breaking the law. What I'm saying is that one cannot make a credible case that others should be obligated to obey they law while stipulating that they somehow are immune from the same obligation.
There is no the point. There are many points. That you want to emphasize one over others is more a matter of your own interest and perspective than any compelling assessment of the fuller context of relevance.
Flow of traffic is important… The reason we have most stop and go traffic is because people need to maintain speed and much traffic would go away… This is why autonomous cars are so interesting to help solve traffic issues..
No, nobody says that the speeding driver has the right to do so, nether legally nor morally. The article is just not focussing on him, but on the people who have to deal with reckless drivers.
Flow of traffic is important. So is obeying the speed limit. When they're both given equal weight then the issue will be more fairly depicted. As it is, the imbalance strains the credibility of the argument 🙂
That's my point, +Stefanie Heidbrink. If there are 5 relevant points and someone writes an article addressing one point as if it exists in a vacuum, then to the degree that the other 4 relevant points aren't taken into account is the degree to which the article and it's argument/point-of-view lacks contextual relevance.
Just because someone ignores relevant points doesn't make those ignored points irrelevant. Context is everything, and our willingness to engage in thought to the degree that we recognize when something's missing is a credit to our rationality.
If your primary interest is driving at or below the speed limit, whatever your motivation, the safest place to do it is out of the passing lane.
Some valid, and some invalid comments in here, but the basic point is NOT the idea of a speed limiter in the left lane, it is the EMPOWERMENT issue portrayed by so many, that THEIR desire to get someplace faster than others, that is the real problem. The argument being given in these posts is analogous to someone standing in line at a bank, and the incoming bank robber being pissed off because he can't get to the teller's window fast enough.
In my 20+ years of teaching traffic safety, this comes up all the time…YOU must obey the law so that I can break it. Of course, as seen in these posts, it doesn't seem to work the other way around.
+S.E. Kunkle actually its side roads if you ask me.. 🙂
The issue is courtesy. Share the road and make sure traffic flows.