It's impossible to enjoy driving these days.

[Vikas]

Originally Posted By: jcwit

A few years my wife and I took a monthly trip to visit her mother approx 150 miles 1 way, taking the toll roads and travling 70 miph all the way took approx 1 and half hours. Traveling secoundary side at 55 mph still took appros 1 hour and 15--20 minutes with less mental stress and arriving much more relaxed for us both.


Did jcwit actually say that he completed 150 miles in 1 and half hours? Did he also say that using secondary roads he completed the same journey in 1 hour 15-20 minutes which he considered took longer than the 1 and half hours!

I think his hours have different number of minutes than mine and his minutes are also bigger. No wonder he can travel 150 miles in 1 hour 15-20 minutes at a leasuirly pace!



- Vikas

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: sciphi
I lived in SC for 2 years. I saw a lot of cars that had flattened trees along I-95. Knowing how people drive there, I bet the 70 mph speed limit was too slow for them. Especially on the stretch from I-26 to the Georgia border on I-95, the trees are really close to the road, and the shoulders are very narrow. A second of inattention that could have been recoverable at 65 mph turns into flying (as in car in the air) into a stand of pine at 80 mph. I saw many vehicles that had left the road in this manner.

Yes, you save 2 hours by going 80. But at what higher risk, and what opportunity cost when your high speed turns a controllable problem into a wreck?


OK, I'm sorry, but driving your car into a tree at 65 is only "slightly less fatal" than driving your car into a tree at 80.

Now using this logic, why don't we all just decide to drive at 30 mph on the interstates? Really, if the only meaningful variable is speed, then the slower the better...

Well, given all other driving variables equal, speed is a big factor in safety. Would you rather have your wife have a tire blow at 80 or 65?
Even though sometimes its quite safe to do 80mph, its still substantially riskier than doing 65 in the same conditions.
Personally I've never been on a freeway where all lanes were going 80 mph and doing 65 would cause a bunch of last minute lane changes by unobservant drivers.

 

[jcwit]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Originally Posted By: jcwit

A few years my wife and I took a monthly trip to visit her mother approx 150 miles 1 way, taking the toll roads and travling 70 miph all the way took approx 1 and half hours. Traveling secoundary side at 55 mph still took appros 1 hour and 15--20 minutes with less mental stress and arriving much more relaxed for us both.


Did jcwit actually say that he completed 150 miles in 1 and half hours? Did he also say that using secondary roads he completed the same journey in 1 hour 15-20 minutes which he considered took longer than the 1 and half hours!

I think his hours have different number of minutes than mine and his minutes are also bigger. No wonder he can travel 150 miles in 1 hour 15-20 minutes at a leasuirly pace!



- Vikas


Guess I misphrased that is I'm sure you realized. What was ment it took 15 to 20 minutes LONGER than driving on the toll road at 70.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Glad we were able to clear the huge error up. Thanks again.

 

[HTSS_TR]

If speed kills then all city streets should have speed limit of 25MPH and 10MPH in school zone. Speed limit on Interstate Highway should be 50MPH and 40MPH for state and county HWY.

Kidding aside, if anyone drives slower than traffic then should stay on the rightmost lane, let police enforce traffic law don't drive slow on left lane to be speed enforcer. If any of you do not understand the "Slower Traffics Keep Right" posts on Highways then you should not be driving at all.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: jcwit
The law is written by legislatures and interperted by judges.

Respect the law as its written by the elected officals not by how the judge interpetes said law.

Sorry Autobahn88 I'm not the ones that confused, of course I have no idea how they do it North of the U.S. nor do I care.


No sir, with all due respect, it is you who's confused. Appellate judges MAY interpret the law, but only if there's a conflict between laws or a legitimate ambiguity in the law. If neither of those apply, then even an appellate judge should simply apply the law as written. Trial judges are even more restricted. Now since we are a common law country (ignoring Louisiana...), judges can actually make law, through appellate decisions, but that is only applicable if there is no statutory law, an increasingly rare situation, as our political legislators have written laws covering about everything.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
If speed kills then all city streets should have speed limit of 25MPH and 10MPH in school zone. Speed limit on Interstate Highway should be 50MPH and 40MPH for state and county HWY.

Hey, you know, I was just thinking... If the argument is that speed kills because hitting a wall at 80 mph is fatal...

Being hit by a semi at highway speeds is fatal, too. I think semis kill, and we should ban them.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk

Wait a minute -- I thought you were "Mr. Respect-the-law". . .


When I sat in traffic court I always tried to apply the law with a healthy measure of common sense; a person driving 10 over the limit in a busy school or construction zone constitutes an infinitely greater safety threat than someone driving 20 over on a deserted rural interstate- and I treated each case accordingly.
Having said all that, the fact that jcwit disrespects me is very troubling...

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: sciphi
I lived in SC for 2 years. I saw a lot of cars that had flattened trees along I-95. Knowing how people drive there, I bet the 70 mph speed limit was too slow for them. Especially on the stretch from I-26 to the Georgia border on I-95, the trees are really close to the road, and the shoulders are very narrow. A second of inattention that could have been recoverable at 65 mph turns into flying (as in car in the air) into a stand of pine at 80 mph. I saw many vehicles that had left the road in this manner.

Yes, you save 2 hours by going 80. But at what higher risk, and what opportunity cost when your high speed turns a controllable problem into a wreck?


OK, I'm sorry, but driving your car into a tree at 65 is only "slightly less fatal" than driving your car into a tree at 80.

Now using this logic, why don't we all just decide to drive at 30 mph on the interstates? Really, if the only meaningful variable is speed, then the slower the better...

Well, given all other driving variables equal, speed is a big factor in safety. Would you rather have your wife have a tire blow at 80 or 65?
Even though sometimes its quite safe to do 80mph, its still substantially riskier than doing 65 in the same conditions.
Personally I've never been on a freeway where all lanes were going 80 mph and doing 65 would cause a bunch of last minute lane changes by unobservant drivers.




I have been on one of those freeways. I-80 in New Jersey just outside of NYC, about 5-6 years ago, when I was younger and stupider. We started out doing 65 in a 55, and the pack I was tailing ended up doing between 80-85 in a 65 mph zone. It was kinda weird seeing the light industrial buildings blur past, and knowing that there was very little room for error.

The difference between going into a tree at 65 mph vs. 80 mph is what they can identify. My point was that at higher speeds, it's much harder to correct your course, and requires skill that I think most drivers in most cars lack. So going 65 on a road designed for somewhere around 65 should be safer than doing 80 on the same road. The design features that work well at 65 mph don't work as well at 80 mph.

 

[jcwit]

Live with it!

 

[dhise]

Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: ekpolk

Wait a minute -- I thought you were "Mr. Respect-the-law". . .


When I sat in traffic court I always tried to apply the law with a healthy measure of common sense; a person driving 10 over the limit in a busy school or construction zone constitutes an infinitely greater safety threat than someone driving 20 over on a deserted rural interstate- and I treated each case accordingly.
Having said all that, the fact that jcwit disrespects me is very troubling...

you've let people off doing 20 over the limit?

 

[XS650]

Originally Posted By: MCompact


When I sat in traffic court I always tried to apply the law with a healthy measure of common sense; a person driving 10 over the limit in a busy school or construction zone constitutes an infinitely greater safety threat than someone driving 20 over on a deserted rural interstate- and I treated each case accordingly.
Having said all that, the fact that jcwit disrespects me is very troubling...

I feel your pain.

 

[sciphi]

Probably a good-size ticket still and a stern lecture. Just reduced from astronomical to sky-high.

Knowing what I do now, and how it was acquired painfully and expensively, is why I am coming off like such a conservative about speeding, and following the traffic laws.

 

[jcwit]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: jcwit
The law is written by legislatures and interperted by judges.

Respect the law as its written by the elected officals not by how the judge interpetes said law.

Sorry Autobahn88 I'm not the ones that confused, of course I have no idea how they do it North of the U.S. nor do I care.


No sir, with all due respect, it is you who's confused. Appellate judges MAY interpret the law, but only if there's a conflict between laws or a legitimate ambiguity in the law. If neither of those apply, then even an appellate judge should simply apply the law as written. Trial judges are even more restricted. Now since we are a common law country (ignoring Louisiana...), judges can actually make law, through appellate decisions, but that is only applicable if there is no statutory law, an increasingly rare situation, as our political legislators have written laws covering about everything.


The key word there is the one you use "should".

I may be wrong but confused? Nah, don't think so. You may think I am but that is just your oponion, and having never met me is your lacking of knowledge of me.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
...

The difference between going into a tree at 65 mph vs. 80 mph is what they can identify. My point was that at higher speeds, it's much harder to correct your course, and requires skill that I think most drivers in most cars lack. So going 65 on a road designed for somewhere around 65 should be safer than doing 80 on the same road. The design features that work well at 65 mph don't work as well at 80 mph.



The other thing that I should have mentioned a long time ago is that, at least for me, it's not a matter of always, mindlessly, adding 10-15 to the speed limit. I always (maybe almost always...) apply judgment in light of the circumstances. Live school zone? No slack there, and you might find me under the 20 limit. Dangerous weather, speed down in proportion. And so on.

Repeating (sort of) the concept I've tried to convey here, a driver's good judgment, properly accounting for the circumstances, is THE most important factor in getting home safely. Actual speed certainly counts, but flipping the argument on its head, just obeying the speed limit, in and of itself, is not going to get you home in one piece.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Probably a good-size ticket still and a stern lecture. Just reduced from astronomical to sky-high.


Pretty close; usually I'd amend it to a lesser amount -10 or 15 over- which saved them points and additional fines. Other times I'd send them to traffic school.

 

[Loogie]

"On a freeway with three or more lanes of travel in the
same direction, you may drive in any lane, however, if
driving at or near the minimum speed limit, drivers should
stay in the lane with the slower moving traffic."

"Should we safely assume you'll change your behavior now?"

Apparently my original post raised the ire of many, even resulting in a bit of name-calling.
Per my original post, I am clearly within the criteria outlined in the above paragraph, as I am driving 5mph over the maximum posted speed limit on a 3-lane highway.

So, how am I an "orifice" in choosing the left lane, and remaining clearly within the realm of the law?

My original post did state "either lane," which can logically be interpreted to mean only 2 lanes, but even a 3 lane highway has a right and left lane.
The highways I frequent are almost entirely 3 lanes, and I did not specifically indicate that my behavior was on 2-lane highways...so people jumped upon their high-horses and deemed me guilty.

And I stated this:
"I am always polite, but it annoys me big time when a car flys up on me and tailgates in an attempt to bully me into moving into the right lane so they can pass...and the right lane is completely open! They can simply go around me, but no, they choose to be aggressive."

(Yes, I meant "flies," I was tired)

Note "...and the right lane is completely open! They can simply go around me, but no, they choose to be aggressive."

I am not blocking anyone, nor slowing down traffic. How am I "impolite" and camping in the left lane if I am not impeding anyone?

I even stated this:
"That said, if a person is polite, I usually ease over to let them through."

Seems pretty polite to me.

grampi stated this, which is nearly identical to what I stated (or tried to state clearly):

"Yes, but there's two sides to this. If I'm in the left lane and doing at least the speed limit and I'm passing slower moving traffic, I don't take too kindly to some clown coming up behind me and flashing me his lights just because he/she wants to do 20 MPH over the speed limit. When I'm done passing I'll move right, but I'm not going to go out of my way to facilitate someone else's desire to mega-speed."

I think gampi and I (and many others) are on a similar train of thought, but some were anxious to assume that I was somehow being passive-aggressive.
Ironically, the posting of Michigan law exonerated me.

 

[Autobahn88]

I know here in Ontario it is illegal or even dangerous to pass in the right lane. Also it is illegal to drive in the extreme left lane unless to pass. We have signs posted that state "slower cars drive to the right"

 

[HTSS_TR]

Note "...and the right lane is completely open! They can simply go around me, but no, they choose to be aggressive."

Why are you on the left lane if the right lane is completely open ?

Even if I was passing the slower traffics, as soon as right lane was open such that I can maintain my higher speed and move to right lane for 10-15 seconds, I'll do it. I kept the left lane open for faster drivers.

Regardless how fast I was driving, 20 or 30 MPH or more over limit on an empty stretch of highway, I would stay on right lane if it was empty, I would use left lane for passing only.

 

[Autobahn88]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Note "...and the right lane is completely open! They can simply go around me, but no, they choose to be aggressive."

Why are you on the left lane if the right lane is completely open ?

Even if I was passing the slower traffics, as soon as right I lane was open such that I can maintain my higher speed and move to right lane for 10-15 seconds, I'll do it. I kept the left lane open for faster drivers.

Regardless how fast I was driving, 20 or 30 MPH or more over limit on an empty stretch of highway, I would stay on right lane if it was empty, I would use left lane for passing only.


When I was on the autobahn, the left lane was for anybody driving fast and the slower traffic stayed in the right lanes.
I remember getting flashed by fast moving cars in the left lane when I was brave enough to venture there to pass. This system seems to work well. I found drivers to be courteous and traffic moved well.

 

[Loogie]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Note "...and the right lane is completely open! They can simply go around me, but no, they choose to be aggressive."

Why are you on the left lane if the right lane is completely open ?

Even if I was passing the slower traffics, as soon as right lane was open such that I can maintain my higher speed and move to right lane for 10-15 seconds, I'll do it. I kept the left lane open for faster drivers.

Regardless how fast I was driving, 20 or 30 MPH or more over limit on an empty stretch of highway, I would stay on right lane if it was empty, I would use left lane for passing only.


I am in the left lane because I choose to be in that lane, and MI law supports that choice.

Your position is very logical, and I respect it.

I sometimes choose the middle or right lane as well.
But, I am not required to do so, as evidenced by the quoted law.
I am definitely not that guy doing 65 in the left lane with 25 cars stuck behind!

By the way, I have seen signs posted here in Michigan on some 2 lane highways stating slower vehicles are to stay to the right, and I indeed heed the signage...unless I am feeling lead-footish.