Which driver is "in the right"?

[Cephus]

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

But this poll is about who is right, not who contributes.

 

[radcen]

But this poll is about who is right, not who contributes.

It devolved. But even with that, it isn't right... at least ethically... to cause a wreck just because you want to be self-righteously passive-aggressive.

You refuse to get out of the way... the madman makes an evasive maneuver, totally in the wrong himself, sure... madman loses control and crashes into someone completely uninvolved and kills them... when if you had just moved over the madman would have kept going and nothing would have happened (at least not right there with you involved)... all because you wanted to show 'em who's boss.

Generic "you", of course.

 

[Bodi]

It says slower driver keep right... if a person is going to pass then they are faster and you are slower.

Get your ****ing ass to the right, do not accelerate as so many do when being passed and just let the other driver pass you...

Yeah, I speed a bit.

 

[Cephus]

It devolved. But even with that, it isn't right... at least ethically... to cause a wreck just because you want to be self-righteously passive-aggressive.

You refuse to get out of the way... the madman makes an evasive maneuver, totally in the wrong himself, sure... madman loses control and crashes into someone completely uninvolved and kills them... when if you had just moved over the madman would have kept going and nothing would have happened (at least not right there with you involved)... all because you wanted to show 'em who's boss.

Generic "you", of course.

Ethics are subjective and hence meaningless. The only way of objectively evaluating this is legally. If everyone is just airing their subjective opinions, this whole thing devolves into something between jack and that other thing.

 

[mtm1963]

Is bumping them considered tailgating?

not for nascar drivers.

 

[radcen]

Ethics are subjective and hence meaningless. The only way of objectively evaluating this is legally. If everyone is just airing their subjective opinions, this whole thing devolves into something between jack and that other thing.

If you're suggesting that the law is always right and proper, all I can say is... :lamo

All legal status means is the ability to enforce.

Hoo boy, that was a good one.

 

[_Sal]

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.

both are clearly wrong...that is a fact

vehicle 1 is more irritating and dangerous than vehicle 2

number one makes me want to nudge him from the back

we are clearly told to go with the flow of the traffic so both are once again wrong but gotta say, 1 causes more emotional reactions and is therefore far more dangerous

 

[Paleocon]

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.

Vehicle 1 is wrong, he's disrupting traffic by going slow in the right lane. If he were going the speed limit he'd be in the right.

 

[Cephus]

If you're suggesting that the law is always right and proper, all I can say is... :lamo

All legal status means is the ability to enforce.

Hoo boy, that was a good one.

No, I'm saying the law is always legal.

 

[molten_dragon]

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.

Neither driver is in the right since they're both breaking the law.

 

[Cardinal]

If they want to go at a dangerous speed, they can pass me.

And if they can pass you then frankly it renders the discussion entirely meaningless. I added a car in the right hand lane because that would definitively block such a speeder from driving as he wishes.

 

[Cardinal]

No, I'm saying the law is always legal.

That reminds me of a similar response from an android in the Caves of Steel by Isaac Asimov, in which the android noted that an unjust law is an oxymoron because a law by definition exists within the justice system. What the robot was not able to immediately perceive was how things like extenuating circumstances can change laws from being quite so black and white. Such as, for example, someone speeding because he's rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital. I once had to rush someone to the hospital because he cut himself on the job and was bleeding badly, and I'm happy that I wasn't stuck behind someone who was self confidant at the fact that he could block me because he was legally in the right.

Point is, when someone is speeding, that is evidence only of itself. It's easy enough to assume that the driver is speeding because he's impatient or just likes the feel of moving quickly. But really, you don't know. And acting on such an assumption can result in someone being hurt or even dead.

 

[Cephus]

That reminds me of a similar response from an android in the Caves of Steel by Isaac Asimov, in which the android noted that an unjust law is an oxymoron because a law by definition exists within the justice system. What the robot was not able to immediately perceive was how things like extenuating circumstances can change laws from being quite so black and white. Such as, for example, someone speeding because he's rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital. I once had to rush someone to the hospital because he cut himself on the job and was bleeding badly, and I'm happy that I wasn't stuck behind someone who was self confidant at the fact that he could block me because he was legally in the right.

Point is, when someone is speeding, that is evidence only of itself. It's easy enough to assume that the driver is speeding because he's impatient or just likes the feel of moving quickly. But really, you don't know. And acting on such an assumption can result in someone being hurt or even dead.

And that is fine, when the cop comes along and pulls that person over, they can gauge if the extenuating circumstances warrant setting the law aside in that instance. But let's be honest, the overwhelming majority of people speeding on any given day are not taking their pregnant wives to the hospital. They're just being impatient asshats. So let's not pretend that they have any legitimate excuses for their stupidity, they just want to go faster and I have no problem detaining those people and having them ticketed for violating the law.

 

[Cardinal]

And that is fine, when the cop comes along and pulls that person over, they can gauge if the extenuating circumstances warrant setting the law aside in that instance. But let's be honest, the overwhelming majority of people speeding on any given day are not taking their pregnant wives to the hospital. They're just being impatient asshats. So let's not pretend that they have any legitimate excuses for their stupidity, they just want to go faster and I have no problem detaining those people and having them ticketed for violating the law.

And that logic works right up until you block someone who has a legitimate emergency. As you said, when that cop comes along he will be in a position to determine the legitimacy, if any, for his speeding. I take the guesswork out of the equation by simply letting people pass me. 99.9% of those people may be simple speeders, but I don't want to be the guy who blocks someone who has a pregnant wife or, as in my case, a guy bleeding all over the place.

 

[Cephus]

And that logic works right up until you block someone who has a legitimate emergency. As you said, when that cop comes along he will be in a position to determine the legitimacy, if any, for his speeding. I take the guesswork out of the equation by simply letting people pass me. 99.9% of those people may be simple speeders, but I don't want to be the guy who blocks someone who has a pregnant wife or, as in my case, a guy bleeding all over the place.

But in no case above is anyone blocking anyone, the right lane is clear and the person can go around if they wish. Slow traffic is supposed to be that traffic that is moving slower than the speed limit. Someone moving near or at the speed limit, as in this example, is fine in any lane they care to drive in. It would be one thing if you boxed another car in and wouldn't allow them to move. It's quite another not to get out of the way of someone clearly violating the law.

 

[radcen]

But in no case above is anyone blocking anyone, the right lane is clear and the person can go around if they wish. Slow traffic is supposed to be that traffic that is moving slower than the speed limit. Someone moving near or at the speed limit, as in this example, is fine in any lane they care to drive in. It would be one thing if you boxed another car in and wouldn't allow them to move. It's quite another not to get out of the way of someone clearly violating the law.

In theory, but the law doesn't make that qualification. It just says "slower traffic".

And, well, you said the law is all we have to judge. No time for individual inferences

 

[Absentglare]

But in no case above is anyone blocking anyone, the right lane is clear and the person can go around if they wish. Slow traffic is supposed to be that traffic that is moving slower than the speed limit. Someone moving near or at the speed limit, as in this example, is fine in any lane they care to drive in. It would be one thing if you boxed another car in and wouldn't allow them to move. It's quite another not to get out of the way of someone clearly violating the law.

That's not true.

You see, driving is not nearly so simple as people imagine from only their own view.

The reason you use turn signals is because being predictable by other drivers is vitally important to driving around at 70mph in giant metal death boxes.

In disobeying the convention that people pass on the left, the slow driver in the fast lane unnecessarily congests traffic. Why? Because say 40% of drivers stuck behind this guy won't pass on the right, but 99% of them would pass on the left if given the chance.

Emergency vehicles routinely need to wait for other drivers to get out of the way. It is vitally important that those vehicles arrive as soon as possible. You may not realize it, every second counts! Speed bumps are claimed to kill more people than they save basically because they slow down emergency vehicles.

 

[Cardinal]

But in no case above is anyone blocking anyone, the right lane is clear and the person can go around if they wish. Slow traffic is supposed to be that traffic that is moving slower than the speed limit. Someone moving near or at the speed limit, as in this example, is fine in any lane they care to drive in. It would be one thing if you boxed another car in and wouldn't allow them to move. It's quite another not to get out of the way of someone clearly violating the law.

Frankly, it's baffling that there is even a thread if any of the lanes are open for passing the slower car. That both lanes are occupied by two drivers in non rush hour traffic is literally the only fact that gives this this thread meaning.

 

[Summerwind]

That reminds me of a similar response from an android in the Caves of Steel by Isaac Asimov, in which the android noted that an unjust law is an oxymoron because a law by definition exists within the justice system. What the robot was not able to immediately perceive was how things like extenuating circumstances can change laws from being quite so black and white. Such as, for example, someone speeding because he's rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital. I once had to rush someone to the hospital because he cut himself on the job and was bleeding badly, and I'm happy that I wasn't stuck behind someone who was self confidant at the fact that he could block me because he was legally in the right.

Point is, when someone is speeding, that is evidence only of itself. It's easy enough to assume that the driver is speeding because he's impatient or just likes the feel of moving quickly. But really, you don't know. And acting on such an assumption can result in someone being hurt or even dead.

The bolded statement just pisses me off. If someone is pregnant or bleeding and there is no possibility of getting an ambulance, then one should at least call 911 and inform and request a police escort. If the pregnancy is such that an ambulance isn't needed, then neither is ridiculous speeding. Bleeding perhaps, but an ambulance is equipped both with the lights and sirens that make speeding safer, and...wait for it, the tools and equipment required to hinder bleeding along the way. I guess perhaps if it was from a remote location where even the police would be while to show up, but in that case they should still in on the way to intercept to further escort.

Granted an asshole intentionally blocking would be just a pisser, but the facts remain that traveling at a high rate of speed means anyone else's movement, intentional or otherwise, is more likely to cause you to have a wreck and in the end save no one, really stupid. Emergencies should be handled by the emergency services. If impossible to do so, one should remain within normal speeding 10-15 mph over seems to be the "norm."

 

[radcen]

Frankly, it's baffling that there is even a thread if any of the lanes are open for passing the slower car. That both lanes are occupied by two drivers in non rush hour traffic is literally the only fact that gives this this thread meaning.

Passing on the right is generally considered more dangerous, especially if the slow vehicle is a large truck with limited vision to their right side.

 

[Summerwind]

Passing on the right is generally considered more dangerous, especially if the slow vehicle is a large truck with limited vision to their right side.

I don't know about that. A large truck isn't likely to be one that doesn't veer right in the first place unless they are trying to pass a slower truck. Very rare.

 

[Cardinal]

The bolded statement just pisses me off. If someone is pregnant or bleeding and there is no possibility of getting an ambulance, then one should at least call 911 and inform and request a police escort. If the pregnancy is such that an ambulance isn't needed, then neither is ridiculous speeding. Bleeding perhaps, but an ambulance is equipped both with the lights and sirens that make speeding safer, and...wait for it, the tools and equipment required to hinder bleeding along the way. I guess perhaps if it was from a remote location where even the police would be while to show up, but in that case they should still in on the way to intercept to further escort.

Granted an asshole intentionally blocking would be just a pisser, but the facts remain that traveling at a high rate of speed means anyone else's movement, intentional or otherwise, is more likely to cause you to have a wreck and in the end save no one, really stupid. Emergencies should be handled by the emergency services. If impossible to do so, one should remain within normal speeding 10-15 mph over seems to be the "norm."

A couple salient points:

1) My story is pre-cell phone. Calling an emergency vehicle was not as intuitive and obvious as it is today. Regardless, If you have the wheels and know where to go, and the injured/pregnant person can be driven, I can't see how driving that person is necessarily always a bad idea. Of course it's ideal that emt's handle every situation where possible, but that's not always the case.
2) While I certainly went above the speed limit, I did not do so at a panic. You know how emergency vehicles will go through intersections at the speed of continental drift? That was me.

 

[Cardinal]

Passing on the right is generally considered more dangerous, especially if the slow vehicle is a large truck with limited vision to their right side.

Meh.

......

 

[Absentglare]

I don't know about that. A large truck isn't likely to be one that doesn't veer right in the first place unless they are trying to pass a slower truck. Very rare.

Wrong!!

It is ALWAYS much more safe to obey the rules and conventions of the road. The roads would be dramatically safer if we could accomplish 3 goals:
1) have people stop overestimating their own ability- use the slower lanes
2) have people follow the conventions- change lanes more frequently
3) have people stop being distracted- especially voluntary distractions that can wait

 

[Cephus]

Passing on the right is generally considered more dangerous, especially if the slow vehicle is a large truck with limited vision to their right side.

Which doesn't seem to be the case in this particular example. Generally, driving faster than the flow of surrounding traffic is more dangerous too.