Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would be safer if you did though. Think about it: in driving at highway speed, nowhere are you closer to another car also driving at that speed than when you are side by side with it. In that position only a tiny steering movement is required to cause an accident.
Nothing makes me feel more unsafe than someone trying to pass me at a 1mph differential. Generally I end up speeding up and getting in front of that car if they don't move it, or depending upon situation I might slow down and let it go by.
I watch so many cars going at a given speed, presumably a comfortable speed for them. Then when they come up to a car they are overtaking, they actually slow down. It would be safer to maintain speed and get around the slower car as fast as possible.
One of the worst case scenarios for accidents is when cars are bunched together at highway speeds. Most of that can be prevented if people used some reasoning about it, as opposed to being emotional about it.
Say what? You have got to be kidding. How, exactly, is it more dangerous to drive with the flow of traffic (the speed that traffic that you come up to is going IS the flow of traffic, it's not automatically the fastest driver in the pack that defines that, you know - no, really, it's not) than to speed around it at a speed much greater than the flow of traffic?
After all that hard work people have put in insisting that driving with the flow of traffic is safest, now we're told that if the flow of traffic is slower than we want to drive, that it's safer to drive a different speed (faster) than the flow of traffic?
Can't have it both ways.
(Checking my watch to see if I win my bet with myself as to how soon Drover will show up.)
Say what? You have got to be kidding. How, exactly, is it more dangerous to drive with the flow of traffic (the speed that traffic that you come up to is going IS the flow of traffic, it's not automatically the fastest driver in the pack that defines that, you know - no, really, it's not) than to speed around it at a speed much greater than the flow of traffic?
After all that hard work people have put in insisting that driving with the flow of traffic is safest, now we're told that if the flow of traffic is slower than we want to drive, that it's safer to drive a different speed (faster) than the flow of traffic?
Can't have it both ways.
(Checking my watch to see if I win my bet with myself as to how soon Drover will show up.)
Nobody is saying that the "flow of traffic" all has to be going at exactly the same speed, in all lanes, at the same time. I think you are misunderstanding that term in the case of traffic dynamics.
It's unsafe to drive all bunched up and side-to-side with other cars and I do exactly what Greg42 does - if someone is apparently planning on taking several miles to inch past me, I will either slow down or speed up. I don't like other vehicles too close to me on the freeway when I am driving at normal freeway speeds.
Nobody is saying that the "flow of traffic" all has to be going at exactly the same speed, in all lanes, at the same time. I think you are misunderstanding that term in the case of traffic dynamics.
It's unsafe to drive all bunched up and side-to-side with other cars and I do exactly what Greg42 does - if someone is apparently planning on taking several miles to inch past me, I will either slow down or speed up. I don't like other vehicles too close to me on the freeway when I am driving at normal freeway speeds.
That's a part of defensive driving. Never ride side by side with any vehicle. If you do, and an emergency happens, you have no way (one less way) to avoid whatever it is.
Some thing I thought I'd share. Ever wonder why Toyota Prius' always seem to camp out in the left lane? I always thought they were trying to prevent anyone from speeding- and thus depleting fossil fuel resources and hastening the end of the world. But though that may be a factor, the main reason is that by staying at the same speed, the Prius can stay on electric. Changing speeds means the engine has to kick in, using precious fossil fuel and reducing the green feel-good factor.
How selfish. I need to put one of those bumper stickers on my Land Rover that reads; 'If you're not going to use your carbon credits, I will!'
Say what? You have got to be kidding. How, exactly, is it more dangerous to drive with the flow of traffic (the speed that traffic that you come up to is going IS the flow of traffic, it's not automatically the fastest driver in the pack that defines that, you know - no, really, it's not) than to speed around it at a speed much greater than the flow of traffic?
After all that hard work people have put in insisting that driving with the flow of traffic is safest, now we're told that if the flow of traffic is slower than we want to drive, that it's safer to drive a different speed (faster) than the flow of traffic?
Can't have it both ways.
It's not some all or nothing policy to do with flow of traffic. There are always a variety of factors at play. Again, it's about using logic and not emotion in making decisions.
It really is "both ways" so to speak in this case. Driving continuously at a speed significantly faster or slower than the flow of traffic would indeed be less safe. But in this case what we're talking about is the temporary condition of passing another car. It's the same theory that you would use passing on a 2-lane road in a passing zone. You want to complete the pass as quickly as possible, because driving directly next to another car is more dangerous than if there's not a car directly next to you. (Yes on a 2-lane road you have the added danger that you are passing in a lane that could have cars coming head on. But apart from that the issues are the same.)
There are always going to be less than ideal situations created by people who are not making good decisions. In those scenarios you just have to judge what is best and roll with what is actually possible. But in an ideal passing scenario, where the passing lane in front of you is clear, the worst possible thing to do safety-wise would be to continue to drive only 1 mph faster than the car you are passing. If the speed you want to go is only 1 mph faster than that other car, it would be safest to speed up for a moment to complete the pass, then slow back down to that flow of traffic speed.
Or, to put it another way, "flow of traffic" is about front to back issues. What I'm talking about here is a side to side issue.
That's a part of defensive driving. Never ride side by side with any vehicle. If you do, and an emergency happens, you have no way (one less way) to avoid whatever it is.
Why? There's nothing inherently problematic about switching lanes when most everyone is sticking to the system as you described. A lot of back and forth might be seen as more dangerous when people are being typically unpredictable. But if they're being as predictable as you stated, there's nothing wrong at all.
I think there must be a lot of deep-rooted dislike of switching lanes judging by what I saw on a recent 2000-mile stretch through several states and back. I watched over and over again people merge onto the highway then with an empty road, park it in the leftmost lane at low speed, even when there are three lanes.
And if even someone who understands and appreciates lane discipline would much prefer to park it in one lane and stay there, then this problem is not going to ever go away.
Oh, it has nothing to do with the laws and what is safe. It's my personal preference. I'd rather sit in one lane and everyone get out of my way (I'm not typically holding up traffic and I will move over if I see someone coming up on me). I get tired of having to put my blinker on, check my blind spot, move over...pass.....put my blinker on, check my blind spot, move over. I'd rather just stay in one lane and look forward (to the front, and glance to my rearview mirror to watch behind). Just me being lazy, but efficient.
Some thing I thought I'd share. Ever wonder why Toyota Prius' always seem to camp out in the left lane? I always thought they were trying to prevent anyone from speeding- and thus depleting fossil fuel resources and hastening the end of the world. But though that may be a factor, the main reason is that by staying at the same speed, the Prius can stay on electric. Changing speeds means the engine has to kick in, using precious fossil fuel and reducing the green feel-good factor.
How selfish. I need to put one of those bumper stickers on my Land Rover that reads; 'If you're not going to use your carbon credits, I will!'
I noticed they are either very slow drivers (maybe they are trying to save fossil fuels, hmmm) or they are total arses (usually speeding in and out of traffic, cutting people off).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
