Nominations for Worst Drivers in Austin (Howe: insurance, safety, move)

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by brattpowered

Like I said, "If the driver were not going faster than the inconsiderate loiterer, no matter what their rate of speed is [if the person were speeding or not], there would be no reason for that person to move" and adhere to good driving practices. I don't know how you weren't able to extrapolate a "yes" to your question out of that.

I'm glad you acknowledged that drivers should move as a good driving practice as well. This is settled on my end. Are you satisfied too?

In other words, you're not willing to give a straight "yes" or "no" answer to the question: "Is the person who's the primary cause of the problem the person who is going above the speed limit?"

The issue here is not "no matter their rate of speed", but the fact of violating the speed limit and then trying to blame the problem on someone else.

By the way, you do realize that the speed limit means the top, not the bottom, speed that one is supposed to go on a particular roadway, right? Some people seem to be confused about that one, too, based on what they say.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by brattpowered

I didn't mention anything about speed limits, and neither did the manual when dictating this good driving practice. So no, I'm not going to acknowledge something that is irrelevent.

That is absurdly untrue, the manual has lots to say about how illegal it is to speed and to tailgate. There is absolutely no question that these are both criminal behaviors.

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

That is absurdly untrue, the manual has lots to say about how illegal it is to speed and to tailgate. There is absolutely no question that these are both criminal behaviors.

Sorry for not clarifying. On the subject at hand, the manual does not mention speed being a factor in moving over for faster drivers as a good driving practice.

[TexasHorseLady]

Of course not, because those violations have already been addressed elsewhere as being not only good driving practice, but the law.

[brattpowered]

Exactly. So this should go without saying. What I was referring to was that the manual did not say to move over if you deem the driver as going slow enough for your preference, it just says "move over."

[CptnRn]

Don't forget to vote:

Poll: Worst drivers in Austin

[Moekazi]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

In other words, you're not willing to give a straight "yes" or "no" answer to the question: "Is the person who's the primary cause of the problem the person who is going above the speed limit?"

Since you seem to be so hung up on this point, i'll just go ahead and clear it up for you. The answer is, "no".

Let's say a Car A is going along in the left lane slower than the speed limit. Car B comes up behind Car A, but Car A does not move over. Car A is clearly at fault.

Now let's Car A is speeding. Car B is going even faster, but Car A doesn't move over. Car A is at fault again. They are both wrong for speeding, but Car A also didn't move over.

Finally, let's say Car A is doing the speed limit. Car B comes up behind Car A a few miles per hour faster. Car A does not move over. Car A is at fault again for not moving over. Sure, Car B is wrong for speeding, but it doesn't make Car A's actions okay. Both could be ticketed for different reasons.

Now you want to assert in this last situation that the speeder is responsible for creating the situation. After all, if Car B wasn't speeding, Car A having to move would be irrelevant. However, let's look at the reverse. If Car A had moved over, Car B's speeding would be irrelevant. There would also be no conflict.

So how do we decide who's to blame in this situation? Well, i think we need to take a look at the situations as a whole. In case 1, both cars were moving below the speed limit, yet Car A was at fault. In case 2, both cars were moving about the speed limit, Car A was at fault again. Why then when Car A is going the speed limit should they not be at fault again? They should be exonerated for failing to move over? No.

The reason is because the speeding is completely different issue with it's own law. The law to yield to faster moving traffic makes no mention of the speed of the vehicles for good reason. There's nothing more to this law than to move over to allow faster traffic by. Faster traffic could be below or above the speed limit.

So the reason that the person failing to yield is at fault is because they are ignoring this law. You may say that the speeder is creating the situation requiring the yielding by creating the overtaking situation. That is not true. The person failing to move over is causing the condition. After all, you cannot cite the speeder for failing to move over. How are they responsible if you can't even cite them for it?

You may want to argue that the person speeding should yield by slowing down. There are laws that say you shouldn't run into people, or tailgate. There is no law that says you have to slow down for someone in front of you. Only that you should pass on the left. Conversely, this law says you need to get out of the way of people coming behind you. It's the slower traffic's responsibility to make concessions.

The faster moving vehicle needs to be on the left. If they are, they are meeting their lawful requirement. The slower moving vehicle needs to be on the right. If they are not, they are not abiding by the law.

[oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots]

Bullies that get behind the wheel are the problem.

[love roses]

So, if car A is moving a little faster than the speed limit in the left lane, all the while passing the slower traffic in the right lane and waiting for an opportunity to safely be able to move back over and car B comes up behind car A going much faster than is safe that no matter if car A can move into the right lane at that exact second just because car B wants Car A to do so, that Car A is still in the wrong for not running someone in the right lane off into the ditch just so car B can keep going a million miles an hour and Car B....In that scenario...is still in the right, even if Car B is driving assertively, or aggressively, I should say? This happens quite a bit in Austin.

For the record, the above situation you present makes perfect sense as long as Car B is not being rude and pushy to Car A trying to get Car A to move over at light speed. I'm well aware that that is the usual way to drive in the left lane.

Another thing. Even if Car B gets total clearance to go fast in the left lane, the left lane being for passing only, then shouldn't car B also be obligated to move into the right lane once plenty of the slower traffic has been passed? When car B once again comes up on slower traffic in the right lane then they can again move over into the left lane to pass, but then move back into the right lane. There isn't anywhere in the laws anyone posted as far as I could see, that the left lane is to be left empty for people who imagine that they are driving in the Indy 500.

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by love roses

So, if car A is moving a little faster than the speed limit in the left lane, all the while passing the slower traffic in the right lane and waiting for an opportunity to safely be able to move back over and car B comes up behind car A going much faster than is safe that no matter if car A can move into the right lane at that exact second just because car B wants Car A to do so, that Car A is still in the wrong for not running someone in the right lane off into the ditch just so car B can keep going a million miles an hour and Car B....In that scenario...is still in the right, even if Car B is driving assertively, or aggressively, I should say? This happens quite a bit in Austin.

It's a different story if Car A is passing, or there is no place for Car A to move to the right. The rule is very simple, IMO. Always move over if you can to leave the left lane open for traffic (existent or not) which may be moving faster. Don't camp out in the left lane. This rule is not subject to one's judgement about how fast other people are driving. That doesn't mean it isn't rude (and illegal) to tailgate, and the situation you describe has Car B being incredibly rude. But the issue is separate, and as Moekazi described very well -- Car B is NOT the cause of the problem of Car A impeding traffic.

For the record, the above situation you present makes perfect sense as long as Car B is not being rude and pushy to Car A trying to get Car A to move over at light speed. I'm well aware that that is the usual way to drive in the left lane.

I agree Car B in your situation is rude and pushy. However, we get into trouble when people react to things like "rude and pushy" on the road. Then, emotions become in control, and you get things like road rage.

Another thing. Even if Car B gets total clearance to go fast in the left lane, the left lane being for passing only, then shouldn't car B also be obligated to move into the right lane once plenty of the slower traffic has been passed? When car B once again comes up on slower traffic in the right lane then they can again move over into the left lane to pass, but then move back into the right lane. There isn't anywhere in the laws anyone posted as far as I could see, that the left lane is to be left empty for people who imagine that they are driving in the Indy 500.

Yes, they should! That's exactly right, and a very good point. The "move over to the right" when not passing should apply to everyone, and if the right lane is clear the faster car should utilize it until the next time they need to pass. It's the key to the whole traffic flow thing!