Ever driven behind a road block?

[JHZR2]

Happens a LOT with trucks on I85 south of Atlanta... two trucks go 60-65 (70 MPH limit) in the two lanes, with the 'passing' truck in he left lane moving up and falling back as if on purpose.

as 70 MPH is a good traveling speed for me and my fuel economy, I dont mind it... I set the cruise at 72 or 73 if i need to expedite a bit. But to be blocked by the trucks going that slow is terrible.

JMH

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wantin150:


The real problem is not with traffic at x-speed. The problem is when you get large variances in the speed of a set of vehicles on the road at a given time. I hear "respect" thrown out there. Why don't some of you respect people's right to drive the limit? Do I owe you something to get out of your way? Nope. Not a thing. What gives you the right to fly up behind me at 90 and then demand that I get out of YOUR way? If you get all ticked off, then you need to address your own personal issues.

I consistantly drive 10-15 mph over the limit so don't jump on me. I do, however, atleast request that the driver in front of me do the LIMIT when I drive on secondary roads. Higher speeds are inherently more dangerous but slower driver can be just as bad. We will never really make everyone happy because the higher we raise our speed limits, the greater the range of speed. Some older folks and newer drivers or just idiots will now be driving 20 mph under the limit and that is a problem. If the limit is 80 and I'm at 90, the last thing I want to do is close on traffic running 60 cause their scared. Oh, has anyone factored in the min limits too? What 45 in most areas? Bad, bad news when your closing speed is 40mph +.

---

good points.

From what Ive seen, the people in the back have to compensate for the people in front. If youre behind me and you hit me, typically youre at fault.

If were driving on a highway that has a 65 limit, and Im driving 45, and youre driving 85, we are both in the wrong. If (conditions permitting) the rest of the traffic is going some amount faster, I am a hazard because changing lanes is inherently more risky than driving in-lane. However, if you are doing 40 mph faster than I, and see that youre closing in fast, you must also take your foot off the gas, coast down and readjust so the passby speed is much smaller in difference.

Both parties are equally in the wrong for different reasons. Even if the bulk of traffic was doing 85, and had to pass a vehicle or vehicles doing 45... they need to reduce speed.

One major problem is that people dont drive with anticipation and care of what is going on ahead of them on the road itself. All they care about is etting themseves somewhere as fast as possible, and privng their superiority if youre in their way.

Ive seen too many accidents where cars were going slow in one lane and rolling along more quickly in the other... a car in the slower lane pulls out to get moving again, and the speed delta of the passing vehicle was large and neither driver anticipated what could happen... POW!

JMH

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wantin150:
If the limit is 80 and I'm at 90, the last thing I want to do is close on traffic running 60 cause their scared.

---

Other countries face this issue and largely solve it with driver education, enforcement of "keep right except to pass" and ensuring the cars are roadworthy. It's not unusual on an unlimited autobahn to be going 70mph and a Porsche flies by at 140mph. Last time I was in Germany I rented the top of the line sports Ford Escort (16V twin cam, etc.) and got it up to 120mph with foot flat to the floor. Many cars overtook me, and of course I passed many. It is quite startling to pass a truck that is going 60mph on an uphill grade. What you won't see is drivers running in the left lane when the right lane is open. The police do enforce "keep right except to pass". The roads are busy too, but the traffic flows along.

Running three wide at the speed limit, no matter if the limit is 45 or 90, is a danger that we just don't need. It's no wonder we are stuck with unrealistically low 65mph speed limits on rural interstates with inconsiderate fools like that on the road.

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by keith:
The roads are busy too, but the traffic flows along.

---

I know someone who lives in Germany, he lives in Munster, owns an ISP, and he has some equipment colocated at a data center in Frankfurt which is 300km away..he said that when traffic is bad it takes him 3 hours to get there.

Consider what they consider "bad traffic" and what we consider normal!

 

[Kestas]

I got a chuckle during one incident on the 401 in Ontario. In light-to-medium traffic one guy was 'sleeping' in the left lane, forcing others to pass on the right. A cop pulled and rode just a few feet behind him. It took a little while, but the guy woke up and moved to the right.

 

[wantin150]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pitzel:
65 is the speed limit, ie: the maximum speed one is legally permitted to operate their vehicles on the road.

Don't be surprised if people drive slower than that -- 65, after all, is the maximum speed permitted by law. Don't expect people to modify their own driving habits in order to permit your own illegal activity.

---

So, it's OK for the barricade folks to violate the law (keep right except to pass) in their own misguided attempt to enforce law???

---

This law (keep right except to pass) does not apply to highways with atleast 3 lanes of traffic, here in SC atleast. Ideally, the left lane is to be used by traffic traveling at the speed limit. The other two lanes are for slower traffic (slower traffic keep right) traveling less than the speed limit and above the minimum.

The minimum speed laws are open to interpretation, based on their wording, by the officer, the courts, and the jury. Although people disagree, the speed limit is the max speed allowed by law. Period. If you travel above that limit, you legally have no right to complain about the person traveling the limit, provided that he or she isn't breaking any laws.

If you are the one who closes quickly on a slower car (say you're doing 70 in a 60) and that car moves over for you. You then become the slower car when someone else closes on you at say 80. Are you required to move out of his way? You're +10, he's +20 and your both speeding. He tailgates you but you're faster traffic and probably passing other vehicles.

Seriously, some of you guys that run +10 everywhere you go are the same ones that gripe and complain when you get stopped. "Well geeze, officer, I was only going 10 over." Duh, 10 over is breaking the speed limit. "Well Officer, I was making my right hand turn and that guy was just flying..." "Well why'd you turn then?" "Well officer, I was just driving along at 15 over the limit, minding my own business, when that jackwad turned left infront of me." I'm sure you're gonna own up then.

In all honestly, more accidents could be contributed to speed (slightly over the limit) if officers had more time to investigate accidents. Speed studies are amazing things, especially when you do time/distance and could prove that if the vehicle (a) had been traveling at the POSTED limit, the vehicle (b) turning left would have had plenty of time to make their left turn and then place atleast some of the blame on the speeding driver.

Once again, I drive about the limit in most cases and am just playing the devil advocate. The debate here could get way out of hand really quickly and I am not trying to flame anyone.

 

[wantin150]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by wantin150:
Having said all this, speed limits are usually determined by the 80% "rule" if you will. If 80% of the traffic flows at 70 mph, say in a 60, then the speed limit may be raised to that higher limit. The problem is that these speed studies aren't really done often enough to update some areas.

---

Very, very few speed limits are actually set by this method. In Washington, for example, the legislature simply said that freeway speed limits will be 60 in the city and 70 in rural areas. No speed study or anything. Those limits just sound good.

Most speed limits are set by what SOUNDS safe, not what IS safe.

I had an interesting observation last winter. I realized that the speed limits in the city of Olympia are absolutely spot on perfect.......if there's 6 inches of snow on the ground!

---

You may be right to a point. According to a Montana DOT Engineer I conversed with, the decision to raise limits is determined by the 80% "rule" and traffic studies. His statement may have applied to Montana, but I hear the 80% rate mentioned more and more.

I will agree that most limits are to low, especially on the highways. Rural areas are a whole other animal as most speed related fatalities happen there, not the highways.

EDIT: The percentile is 85, not 80 and according to a quick search, it appears to be accepted almost nation wide.

 

[brianl703]

How can you ever "prove" that someone had enough time to make a left turn?

You'd kind of have to know when they started making their left turn in order to do that.

I've seen drivers--and I have no idea what, if anything, they were thinking--who stop or hesitate before making a left turn when there's no need to.

Meanwhile, cars off in the distance are that much closer to them because they stopped/hesitated.

I've often been the car in the distance. It's almost like they wait to see my car and decide hey, let's pull out in front of that one!

Or maybe they believe that cars appear out of nowhere and therefore they will never make a left turn until they see cars?

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wantin150:
This law (keep right except to pass) does not apply to highways with atleast 3 lanes of traffic, here in SC atleast.

---

I'm glad you said SC because state laws can vary significantly with regards to the left lane usage.

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by javacontour:
Define heavy?

---

That's hard to do. His definition of "heavy" and mine may not be the same.

 

[wantin150]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianl703:
How can you ever "prove" that someone had enough time to make a left turn?

You'd kind of have to know when they started making their left turn in order to do that.

I've seen drivers--and I have no idea what, if anything, they were thinking--who stop or hesitate before making a left turn when there's no need to.

Meanwhile, cars off in the distance are that much closer to them because they stopped/hesitated.

I've often been the car in the distance. It's almost like they wait to see my car and decide hey, let's pull out in front of that one!

Or maybe they believe that cars appear out of nowhere and therefore they will never make a left turn until they see cars?

---

There are a lot of factors: What if the car didn't accelerate as it should have?, Did the driver hesitate?, and the list can go on. Near misses happen more often than accidents. The "what if's" don't necessarily apply after the accident. The accident is investigated as the situation presented itself. Those "what if's" are for insurance companies and juries.

Car A turns left infront of Car B. If Car B was traveling the speed limit, would the accident still have happened. Car B left X ft of "skid" marks. Solving for perception response time and distance and the distance necessary to slid to a stop, would the driver of Car B been able to stop had he been traveling limit?

If you can prove the accident still would have occurred given the circumstances, then the left turn driver is at fault. If the accident could have been avoided by the driver of car B, then he should possibly bear some responsibility. Once again, there are a ton of variables involved and you can't possibly address them all here. This is just a very simple example.

And I am only saying that if more time could be spent on the investigation, then more details could be learned. You have crush, you have the point of impact, markings left in the roadway, average acceleration factors (or max) of the vehicles, perception response time / distance, reaction times, lots of different variables to study. The process is very time consuming and is not feasible for normal everyday events.

 

[brianl703]

My understanding is that left turn accidents are almost always the fault of the person making the left turn unless they are making a left turn on a green arrow.

The exceptions are:


The driver who was going straight was going well over the speed limit
The driver who was going straight ran through a red light
The driver making the left turn began the turn when it was safe but was unexpectedly forced to stop or slow down – this can be very difficult to prove because a driver is not supposed to make a left turn unless it is safe to do so

As far as skidmarks, do cars with ABS leave skidmarks? I would think not. I've never had the occasion to find out!

 

[acewiza]

What a load of hogwash and what bunch of control freaks - the whole lot of you both ways. What ever happened to common sense and common courtesy?

 

[brianl703]

Tailgaters and left lane blockers. Control freaks, both of them.

 

[wantin150]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianl703:
My understanding is that left turn accidents are almost always the fault of the person making the left turn unless they are making a left turn on a green arrow.

The exceptions are:


The driver who was going straight was going well over the speed limit
The driver who was going straight ran through a red light
The driver making the left turn began the turn when it was safe but was unexpectedly forced to stop or slow down – this can be very difficult to prove because a driver is not supposed to make a left turn unless it is safe to do so

As far as skidmarks, do cars with ABS leave skidmarks? I would think not. I've never had the occasion to find out!

---

Your 1st exception is the point I was trying to prove except on a not so obvious "over the speed limit" level.

Yes, ABS will leave marks. If you think about the system, the computer is controlling the braking at that point. The ABS system kicks on when it senses lock-up. From what I know, inorder for it to sense the lock-up, the wheel must stop turning, if only for the briefest of time. The computer then controls that lock/unlock cycle so fast that the tire never actually slides, hence the pulsing. The marks may be faint, but they are there.

And FYI, the mark you see on asphault is not actually the tire. The heat generated by a sliding tire is so great that the oils in the tar actually make the mark, and form the outline of the tire. Of course some tire is lost but not what you would think. Concrete is different. Those marks don't last as long and are composed of actual tire debris

 

[wantin150]

quote:

---

Originally posted by acewiza:
What a load of hogwash and what bunch of control freaks - the whole lot of you both ways. What ever happened to common sense and common courtesy?

---

Lost in the days of old I'm afraid.

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wantin150:
Your 1st exception is the point I was trying to prove except on a not so obvious "over the speed limit" level.

---

But that is a very rare case, in my observation, unless you believe that 10-15MPH consitutes "well over the speed limit". I'm thinking it's more like 20-30MPH or more over the speed limit.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

But we dont take regular, very deadly actions against other people for other similar numbness... why should it be any different when in vehicles?

---

No ...unless you count "going postal". Again, I don't endorse the reaction ..but I fully understand its origins. You're right there in frustration ..it is only your passive treatment (reaction) of them that doesn't have you turning into a bezerker. Not everyone has such natural inhibitors built into them.

There is no reason to "accept" substandard anything from any body. Period. To do so is asking for more of the same behavior.

This falls along the lines of "you can't fight city hall" resignations. It's a surrender to pathetic performances and behaviors for the sake of continuity. It rewards antisocial behaviors ..making YOU a slave to whatever further degradations that our more antisocial society have to offer.

Now admittedly, this attitude can be a double edged sword. As we can see from our esteemed panel, there are just as many "I'm gonna play cop today" type nuisances as there are those who are "today I'm not even going to realize that I'm going to be a menace to navigation" ..when in reality, they both are. Both are motivated out of delusions of self importance or self centeredness ...and most of them don't even know it.

Neither of them take anyone else into account. Neither is innocuous. Neither has a "live and let live" attitude ..and both risk consequences for their actions ...legal or not ...warranted or not ..proper or not. They are people who, by either desire or ignorance, have put themselves in harms way by being a nuisense to others.

 

[wantin150]

Mr Allan,

"Neither of them take anyone else into account. Neither is innocuous. Neither has a "live and let live" attitude ..and both risk consequences for their actions ...legal or not ...warranted or not ..proper or not. They are people who, by either desire or ignorance, have put themselves in harms way by being a nuisense to others."

This statement is almost poetic! Very good observation.

 

[JavaMan]

Isn't this akin to vigilantism?