Which driver is "in the right"?

[Harry Guerrilla]

Because cops let my speeding go; I've never had a ticket. While there is a line one should not cross and that is what the drives who want to drive 20-30 over the limit are doing. I'm driving at a safe speed that keeps up with the vast majority of traffic. People who go over that much are a danger to the public and should not be accommodated for. If everyone was driving that way I'd see your point, but it's the asshole who want to drive 30 over that is in the minority and is a danger to not only me, but everyone else on the road.

Safe speed is relative.
If you're doing 10 over and everyone else is doing 20-30 over, then you are the one who increases the risk of an accident.

Speed limits are often poorly designed and/or intentionally manipulated by local governments to increase revenue.

 

[joG]

Here we drive the other way round, so I reversed R and L. Like the rest of Europe, passing on the inside is frowned upon. We call it "undertaking" with due cause. We actually have a law against sitting in the middle lane of a three-lane motorway. So both would be wrong (Though our speed limit on the test road would be sixty)

Motorist becomes first convicted of hogging motorway middle lane - Telegraph

People that hog the middle are a danger to others on a par with drunks.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Here we drive the other way round, so I reversed R and L. Like the rest of Europe, passing on the inside is frowned upon. We call it "undertaking" with due cause. We actually have a law against sitting in the middle lane of a three-lane motorway. So both would be wrong (Though our speed limit on the test road would be sixty)

Motorist becomes first convicted of hogging motorway middle lane - Telegraph

Similar laws apply here in Canada where the middle lane on a multi-lane highway is considered the passing lane for heavy transport - if it's clogged up with slow drivers, transport trucks and other heavy vehicles will be tempted to illegally move into the left passing lane to get around two lanes of slow traffic - a recipe for a big accident.

 

[soot]

But if someone wants to ridiculously speed, that's their problem. I travel in the left lane a lot because I drive generally 5-10 over the speed limit, and I pass a lot of slower cars. But if someone wants to go 20-30 MPH over the limit, I'm not going to accommodate them.

I'm much the same with the exception that I will move over if there's heavy traffic and me being in the left most lane is creating a situation where speeders are required to weave in and out of traffic in order to pass.

If my being stubborn is going to contribute to a particularly unsafe situation I'm at much as fault as the ridiculous speeders.

 

[faithful_servant]

i'll add one more thing, never tailgate the driver in front of you to get them to move over!

I have this rule that for every driving speed there is a safe following distance. If you want to follow me at a 20 MPH safe following distance, then I will adjust my speed to your following distance.

 

[Riveroaks]

Two vehicles are traveling down a two-lane highway. Vehicle #1 is in front and is travelling at 53 MPH. They come to a passing lane. There are two signs for the passing lane.

View attachment 67192358 View attachment 67192359

Vehicle #1 stays in the left lane and continues at 53 MPH. The driver of Vehicle #2 wants to travel at 65 MPH, and wants to pass Vehicle #1, but the driver of Vehicle #1 refuses to move to the right lane.

Which driver is "in the right"?

Some points...

- The driver of Vehicle #1 is obeying the posted speed limit.

- The driver of Vehicle #1 is not moving to the right lane as directed by the other sign, and is hence hindering Vehicle #2.

- The driver of Vehicle #2 wants to speed and technically break the law.

Discuss & vote.

Disclaimer: Please note this question is not about how easy it would be for Vehicle #2 to just pass on the right.

The left lane is supposed to be a passing lane not a cruising lane.

 

[Your Star]

Safe speed is relative.
If you're doing 10 over and everyone else is doing 20-30 over, then you are the one who increases the risk of an accident.

Speed limits are often poorly designed and/or intentionally manipulated by local governments to increase revenue.

I agree. I'm not talking about when the flow of traffic is faster than the speed limit, I'm talking about when it's just one asshole who wants to drive like a madman and endanger everyone.

 

[Riveroaks]

driver 2, pass on the right and go around driver 1. problem solved. happens all the time.

Exactly. This is what I would do.

I normally drive at 2 to 3 mph above the posted speed limits when safe.

That's because our local state police won't pull you over until you are going over 5 mph over the posted speed limit.

Even then, cars pass me going really fast.

So I stay in whatever lane the traffic is moving at my speed at.

The furthest left lane should be used exclusively for passing only, not for cruising in.

 

[Riveroaks]

I agree. I'm not talking about when the flow of traffic is faster than the speed limit, I'm talking about when it's just one asshole who wants to drive like a madman and endanger everyone.

It is best to be aware of everyone around you, in front and behind too, and get out of the way of any mad man or mad woman or crazy teenager.

 

[Riveroaks]

I have this rule that for every driving speed there is a safe following distance. If you want to follow me at a 20 MPH safe following distance, then I will adjust my speed to your following distance.

I also brake for tailgaters !!

 

[radcen]

I agree. I'm not talking about when the flow of traffic is faster than the speed limit, I'm talking about when it's just one asshole who wants to drive like a madman and endanger everyone.

If he's driving recklessly, and then he suddenly has to do some kind awkward or evasive action because you are being stubborn, then aren't you actually contributing to his potential for a wreck?

 

[Your Star]

It is best to be aware of everyone around you, in front and behind too, and get out of the way of any mad man or mad woman or crazy teenager.

I am. I'm a very defensive driver, and I've never been in a wreck. I know how to drive. Doesn't mean I can't get mad at the assholes.

 

[Your Star]

If he's driving recklessly, and then he suddenly has to do some kind awkward or evasive action because you are being stubborn, then aren't you actually contributing to his potential for a wreck?

I think what has been lost here is that I generally drive OVER the speed limit. If someone has to make some awkward or evasive action because they have to avoid me driving 60-65 in a 55 then that is on them.

 

[faithful_servant]

I also brake for tailgaters !!

No brakes, just a nice steady slowing down. That way, there's no way they can claim that I "slammed on my brakes". It also gives them the chance to re-think their following distance (usually happens around 40 MPH) before I get to 20 MPH.

 

[justabubba]

I have this rule that for every driving speed there is a safe following distance. If you want to follow me at a 20 MPH safe following distance, then I will adjust my speed to your following distance.

please, not this
hope you are not driving according to the traffic BEHIND you

 

[justabubba]

I also brake for tailgaters !!

then you are a huge part of the problem

 

[justabubba]

If you're in the left lane and there are cars behind you trying to get by, you're a danger to the flow of traffic and have great potential for causing an accident if the drivers behind you have to change lanes in order to get around you. Passing slower traffic at 10 mph over the speed limit is fine, but then get back in the right or middle lane, depending on the size of the highway if there are other cars trying to get around you. Moseying along in the passing lane at 10 mph over the speed limit while others are trying to get past you is no different than going 10 mph below the speed limit in the same situation. You're an impediment to the traffic behind you and it appears you're only doing it out of spite because you can. It's not your role as a user of the highway to police what other drivers are doing - police yourself only. If you follow the rules of the road, what other drivers do wrong shouldn't affect you.

so true
if cars are passing you in the right lane, then you are in the wrong lane!

 

[justabubba]

The answer: Technically, both are "in the wrong". Both are breaking the law.

Someone mentioned how the driver of V1 would be prone to be prideful of what they're doing, and this is true and common. They will often say with sanctimonious pride, "I'm obeying the law/speed limit.", inferring that they're the 'good person' for doing so and the other person is a reprobate for wanting to be a law-breaker. What they generally don't know is that they are also breaking the law by not moving to the right. Most people are unaware that sign colors have legal meaning. White signs with black lettering are regulatory signs and carry the weight of law.

Link: http://www.trafficsign.us/oldmutcd/1978/2b-regulatorysigns.pdf

Here's how it breaks down: Driver 1 is obeying the speed law, but is breaking the law regarding moving to the right for anyone who wants to pass. The speed of the other vehicle is completely irrelevant. Driver 2 wants to obey the passing law, but is breaking the speed law.

The passing law is almost never enforced, btw, but it is still technically the law.

In state where these laws are on the books, obviously, which is most states. Your mileage may vary where you live.

you said driver 2 WANTED to go 65
that driver could not do so
thus (s)he committed no violation as (s)he was traveling behind a vehicle (driven by an asshole) doing 53mph

 

[HonestJoe]

They're clearly both in the wrong. They both think they know better than everyone else and can drive however they want. Who's to say they limit their arrogance to traffic regulations.

 

[radcen]

I think what has been lost here is that I generally drive OVER the speed limit. If someone has to make some awkward or evasive action because they have to avoid me driving 60-65 in a 55 then that is on them.

No, it's not just on them. If you see them coming, and you choose to be stubborn and hinder what would be their natural progress, any resulting wreck is as much on you as it is on them (albeit probably not legally).

You said earlier that you are a defensive driver. If you choose to hinder somebody else, for any reason, regardless how righteous, then you are not a defensive driver, you are a passive-aggressive driver.

 

[Your Star]

No, it's not just on them. If you see them coming, and you choose to be stubborn and hinder what would be their natural progress, any resulting wreck is as much on you as it is on them (albeit probably not legally).

You said earlier that you are a defensive driver. If you choose to hinder somebody else, for any reason, regardless how righteous, then you are not a defensive driver, you are a passive-aggressive driver.

There are two lanes, they can pass me. I'm not going to move over to accommodate their dangerous driving. If I think it threatens me, I will take action, but not so I can make their decision to put people in danger any easier.

 

[Riveroaks]

I am. I'm a very defensive driver, and I've never been in a wreck. I know how to drive. Doesn't mean I can't get mad at the assholes.

There are so many azzholes on the road, male and female, old and young and in between, local and out of state, that the best thing is simply to avoid them without getting too emotional about it.

 

[radcen]

There are two lanes, they can pass me. I'm not going to move over to accommodate their dangerous driving. If I think it threatens me, I will take action, but not so I can make their decision to put people in danger any easier.

Never mind the possibility that your "action" of not taking action may actually put others in danger where none might otherwise exist.

That's not defensive, that's passive-aggressive.

 

[Cephus]

Never mind the possibility that your "action" of not taking action may actually put others in danger where none might otherwise exist.

That's not defensive, that's passive-aggressive.

No, the wrong is always on the part of the person breaking the law. Always. Just because some idiot wants to swing around a running chainsaw on a public sidewalk, that doesn't put the impetus to get out of his way on you, it remains on him not to do it in the first place.

 

[radcen]

No, the wrong is always on the part of the person breaking the law. Always. Just because some idiot wants to swing around a running chainsaw on a public sidewalk, that doesn't put the impetus to get out of his way on you, it remains on him not to do it in the first place.

Legally. Doesn't mean you didn't contribute in the real world.