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.
They are throwing a hissy fit because that sort of thing blocks them. It doesn't just inconvenience them, it flat-out blocks them. That is totally unacceptable.
That is it in a nutshell--the attitude that drivers are supposed to be okay with endless inconveniences that often-times are unnecessary and avoidable. When I drive, obviously I don't want to die doing it, or kill someone else, beyond that, I want it convenient and easy, it is EVERYTHING to me. Anything that compromises that and isn't necessary needs to be jettisoned. That includes other things such as funeral processions--I don't pull over for them. I don't cut in, but if I see them coming, I speed up to get the heck away from them. I have no interest in pulling over to "respect" someone whom I didn't even know. If I want to show respect, I'll go to the home of the surviving family members or the funeral service itself and pay my respects there. On the road, I could give two turds less.
The same goes for "rubbernecking" at the scene of an accident--once I see it's not someone I know, I'm out of there. By the same token, I have no interest being trapped behind a "windshield tourist" driving 15 mph below the speed limit on a scenic highway and refusing to pull over when they see a "parade" of cars behind them. Frankly, it would serve them right if someone would SHOVE them out of the way and send them crashing down the side of the mountain. There is a reason why one scenic road I used to navigate periodically had signs saying "slower traffic MUST use pull-off exits." It's because we DON'T CARE that you want to check the scenery out--you're in the way, you're slowing us down, and that's totally unacceptable. Period. Get out, park your car, and HIKE the scenery already.
I can handle heavy machinery just fine, I just need people OUT OF THE WAY so I can do so. If it can't be helped, then so be it, that's on me to be patient, but if it can be, then it must be jettisoned, destroyed even, because it is an enemy and the proper response is one of zero tolerance. So--thick traffic on account of it being in a city of 500,000 and it's 5 p.m., grin and bear it. However, thick traffic from people "rubbernecking" or someone driving slow in the fast lane, or a funeral procession obligating me to pay respect to someone whom I didn't know when I can do that at the funeral home or the surviving family members' homes--destroy it all. I've got things to do, places to be, and if it isn't about that, I could give a rip less, nor SHOULD I (so long as I'm not unsafe in pursuing my route).
In other words, your personal "convenience" trumps all traffic laws and you should be able to drive the way you want to, as fast as you want to, at all times, regardless of anyone else on the road. Like I said, that kind of thinking is infantile and disqualifies anyone from being qualified to be on the public roadways in a vehicle of any kind. Someone with that attitude may be physically able to drive, but they are emotionally incompetent to deal with public roadways.
In other words, your personal "convenience" trumps all traffic laws and you should be able to drive the way you want to, as fast as you want to, at all times, regardless of anyone else on the road. Like I said, that kind of thinking is infantile and disqualifies anyone from being qualified to be on the public roadways in a vehicle of any kind. Someone with that attitude may be physically able to drive, but they are emotionally incompetent to deal with public roadways.
No, what I am getting at is there are too many various and numerous different things that get in the way of a person actually GETTING somewhere, which to me is the reason to have roads and cars etc, and those various obstructions need to be dealt with. Instead, people that drive slow and refuse to move when someone is behind them trying to go faster, such people totally get off scot-free without penalty or redress, when those things ought to be redressed.
If someone is seen driving below the speed limit in the left lane beside another person in the right lane, or if someone is seen driving 10 mph below the speed limit on a scenic road and refusing to pull over when there's a "parade" of people stuck behind them & when numerous pull-off exits exist to allow this "windshield tourist" to get out of everyone else's way, there should be a legal response to all of that. In fact, I think the response to that should be as big or even bigger than the responses to speed limits, DUIs, red-light runners etc. Instead, there is no response to any of that, yet if you drive aggressively to overcome them, people are given a 1-800 number to call for reporting "aggressive driving." How about a 1-800 number to call for reporting people who refuse to move out of the way?
If motorists would just use the turn signals, like they are supposed to, the cops wouldn't need to pull a lot of them over. It only takes a few seconds to use a turn signal. And it can prevent accidents.
People sometimes forget, often its not that crucial if the traffic is light.
The number of technical traffic violations that are out there are pretty large, not everyone is perfect in their driving, the police just don't have the manpower to pull everyone over so in most jurisdictions they just don't.
People sometimes forget, often its not that crucial if the traffic is light.
The number of technical traffic violations that are out there are pretty large, not everyone is perfect in their driving, the police just don't have the manpower to pull everyone over so in most jurisdictions they just don't.
"Forget," my foot! They are too lazy, plain and simple.
But, actually, here in California, the law says if there are no other cars on the road, there is no need to use turn signals but it's recommended. Since it doesn't take much effort, I use mine; even when in a parking lot. If it's too much effort for some people, maybe they should not be driving?
No, what I am getting at is there are too many various and numerous different things that get in the way of a person actually GETTING somewhere, which to me is the reason to have roads and cars etc, and those various obstructions need to be dealt with. Instead, people that drive slow and refuse to move when someone is behind them trying to go faster, such people totally get off scot-free without penalty or redress, when those things ought to be redressed.
If someone is seen driving below the speed limit in the left lane beside another person in the right lane, or if someone is seen driving 10 mph below the speed limit on a scenic road and refusing to pull over when there's a "parade" of people stuck behind them & when numerous pull-off exits exist to allow this "windshield tourist" to get out of everyone else's way, there should be a legal response to all of that. In fact, I think the response to that should be as big or even bigger than the responses to speed limits, DUIs, red-light runners etc. Instead, there is no response to any of that, yet if you drive aggressively to overcome them, people are given a 1-800 number to call for reporting "aggressive driving." How about a 1-800 number to call for reporting people who refuse to move out of the way?
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that I specified people driving at the speed limit, which does not legally constitute "slow" (it only constitutes that in the mind of the person who thinks their convenience or need for speed overrides all speed limits).
Not talking about someone driving 10 miles below the speed limit in ANY lane, but someone driving at the speed limit (70 in a 70). If someone is upset at that person because they are in their way, rather than acknowledging that it is their desire to break the law that is the problem, then that person fits the description that I gave earlier of someone who does not have the emotional maturity to be competent to drive on public roadways.
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that I specified people driving at the speed limit, which does not legally constitute "slow" (it only constitutes that in the mind of the person who thinks their convenience or need for speed overrides all speed limits).
Then you would disagree with the officer who said that if you signal when no one's around, you're clearly not paying enough attention to your surroundings which suggests you're driving negligently. (I don't agree with that officer, BTW, but there is at least officer who believes it.)
Someone said that?
I said not using your blinker isn't against the law in my state unless another vehicle is affected by your turn (waiting on you, behind you, etc). My personal opinion is, if you get into the habit of always using your blinker, you're probably a great and considerate driver.
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that I specified people driving at the speed limit, which does not legally constitute "slow" (it only constitutes that in the mind of the person who thinks their convenience or need for speed overrides all speed limits).
Not talking about someone driving 10 miles below the speed limit in ANY lane, but someone driving at the speed limit (70 in a 70). If someone is upset at that person because they are in their way, rather than acknowledging that it is their desire to break the law that is the problem, then that person fits the description that I gave earlier of someone who does not have the emotional maturity to be competent to drive on public roadways.
What matters isn't the speed limit, what matters is in the scenario you are describing YOU ARE IN THE WAY. I don't care if the speed limit is 30 and you're going 50 and I want to go 70--you are IN THE WAY and are at least morally, if not legally, required to move over. Maybe I'm going 70 because I just received a call from my wife that someone is trying to break into our home, maybe I am trying to get to a store that is about to close and has a part I need to fix the plumbing else we'll have no water to do anything with. It doesn't matter, even though I'm speeding, that's none of your business and by refusing to move you're interfering and in effect poking your nose into my business. Addressing the speed limits is for the POLICE to do, not you. Move. If you refuse, yes, it should be 100% legal to use physical force to MOVE YOU out of the way. Like my grandfather used to say, and he was a person who didn't have any issues legally nor with having wrecks either--"someone ought to come behind them with a bulldozer going 75 mph and shove them out of the way." Exactly.
When I read stories about someone shooting a person blocking traffic in that situation, I feel absolutely no pity in the least for the "victim." To me, the guilty party of "road rage" in that situation was the left-lane blocker, at the least they're equally culpable. If they had moved their hippo-sized butt out of the way rather than trying to play God thinking they had the right to block traffic, it never would've come to that. What does it take, 5 seconds, to move? Again, if you can't, or you're passing someone and just not finished yet, then the person behind you is not right to throw a fit. However, I DON'T CARE if you're driving the speed limit, I DO NOT CARE and I never will care--if you are blocking them, you are in the wrong, and if someone shoves you into the ditch or pops a cap in your gas tank, YOU ASKED FOR IT and DESERVE it. Move your hippo butt over, stop the bull and justifying your passive-aggressive act--MOVE or BE MOVED.
What matters isn't the speed limit, what matters is in the scenario you are describing YOU ARE IN THE WAY. I don't care if the speed limit is 30 and you're going 50 and I want to go 70--you are IN THE WAY and are at least morally, if not legally, required to move over. Maybe I'm going 70 because I just received a call from my wife that someone is trying to break into our home, maybe I am trying to get to a store that is about to close and has a part I need to fix the plumbing else we'll have no water to do anything with. It doesn't matter, even though I'm speeding, that's none of your business and by refusing to move you're interfering and in effect poking your nose into my business. Addressing the speed limits is for the POLICE to do, not you. Move. If you refuse, yes, it should be 100% legal to use physical force to MOVE YOU out of the way. Like my grandfather used to say, and he was a person who didn't have any issues legally nor with having wrecks either--"someone ought to come behind them with a bulldozer going 75 mph and shove them out of the way." Exactly.
When I read stories about someone shooting a person blocking traffic in that situation, I feel absolutely no pity in the least for the "victim." To me, the guilty party of "road rage" in that situation was the left-lane blocker, at the least they're equally culpable. If they had moved their hippo-sized butt out of the way rather than trying to play God thinking they had the right to block traffic, it never would've come to that. What does it take, 5 seconds, to move? Again, if you can't, or you're passing someone and just not finished yet, then the person behind you is not right to throw a fit. However, I DON'T CARE if you're driving the speed limit, I DO NOT CARE and I never will care--if you are blocking them, you are in the wrong, and if someone shoves you into the ditch or pops a cap in your gas tank, YOU ASKED FOR IT and DESERVE it. Move your hippo butt over, stop the bull and justifying your passive-aggressive act--MOVE or BE MOVED.
+1000
Good luck getting through to a crazy old hoarder/cat/horse lady...... her and her cats are the most important thing in the universe and SHE knows better...
I have one cat. I have four horses. And I know that the speed limit means exactly what it says - it is the TOP speed at which you can legally drive. I realize that it is all but impossible for some to acknowledge that they are making a deliberate choice to break the law and that that puts them firmly in the wrong, and those people are too immature emotionally to be driving, in my opinion. If, on the other hand, they made that decision, did not blame someone who was obeying the law for their inconvenience but took full responsibility for the consequences of their own actions and didn't put their convenience or need for speed above everything else, and acknowledged that they had made a decision to do something wrong, then speeding (or the various other laws that they inevitably feel do not apply to them) wouldn't be anywhere near as much a problem because they would be more competent to make those kinds of decisions without endangering (or inconveniencing, for that matter) everyone else on the road.
If you can find a statute somewhere that states in clear language that the speed limit does not apply in the left or any lane, or for that matter that it doesn't apply to anyone who is in a hurry and doesn't want to be inconvenienced, please link to the statute.
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.
